Someone123454321 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This is a single-purpose account who, by their own admission, is "biased" against "feminism in Korea in general".[1]. They only ever edit in feminism related topics as seen in their contributions, and periodically do it over time since June 2025. They always think they are right despite disagreements from practically every user they interacted with, me included. Their usual reaction is demanding explanations to every little single thing they did wrong, saying "I'm sorry" and then go back to their editing without changing.

See the previous ANI report for them constantly disrupting process. One glaring example is them digging up baseless personal attacks against me from other WikiProject so that they can lie I have "something going on in the past".[2][3] See User talk:Someone123454321#Discussion where they refuse to acknowledge they're being disruptive, rehash the same arguments repeatedly, and make excuses to deflect advices. It's not a policy but rather a recommendation. If it does not make a significant difference and is reasonable, then I can go ahead and make the edit.[4] See User talk:Someone123454321#Editing the article again, LOUT socking where they sock a TA (~2025-39998-12 (talk · contribs)) to edit the same articles and drag their opponent back to arguments. See User talk:Someone123454321#February 2026 where this week, I gave them the last warning they have CIR issues, and they say I am the problem.

This is a textbook example of WP:IDHT, pretending to hear but not actually following community input. They're here to waste everyone's time and pick fights. I suggest applying TBAN to them for affected topics so that this can be wrapped up.

Paging @Grapesurgeon, who interacted with this person. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 12:07, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support TBAN there are times when I agree with this user, but the way they go about all this is so disruptive, exhausting, and combative, it just makes everything harder. We've had to deal with them for nearly a year now and it's made even light edits to these pages nearly impossible, because they battleground nearly every edit with long essays. grapesurgeon (talk) 16:22, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The LOUTSOCKing issue is emblematic of their behavior (see thread linked above). At first they tried to lie about it being intentional, then they stopped trying to take that route. They had kept up the LOUTSOCKing for weeks and revised their own edits, it's really unlikely they didn't know they were LOUTSOCKing. It was clearly gaming the system, and that the articles they did it on are WP:CTOPs. This is the kind of underhanded combative behavior we've been dealing with for nearly a year now. It really just needs to end.

Again, I actually disagree with Emiya more often than I do with this Someone user. But Emiya doesn't do these underhanded combative behaviors; I'm able to have a good working relationship with Emiya. The Someone user is too combative on a CTOP to be productive. grapesurgeon (talk) 18:10, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

About the bias thing, that was when I first started editing on Wikipedia and did not have enough experiences. I listened to the criticisms I faced and did not edit the Megalia article for a while after that. About what this user said about "something going on in the past", I mentioned that because this user tried to shut down all of my arguments with a single fact that I have been criticized by other people, and wanted to show that everyone faces criticisms at one point. I even apologized if it felt aggressive.[5]

About the LOUDSOCKETING, I had a problem editing on my laptop with this account, so I used the logged off version. However, I never used two accounts at once to make an argument or editing, and did not know that LOUDSOCKING applied even if I did not do that. But once I was informed, I also added that I was the ip user too.[6] Someone123454321 (talk) 00:39, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I listened to the criticisms I faced and did not edit the Megalia article for a while after that. You've been pretty consistently editing these feminism articles the entire time, and imo your conduct and familiarity with Wikipedia has not significantly improved. You're still similarly just as aggressive, and you'll apologize for bad behavior and then mostly continue to do the exact same thing. Another apology is meaningless given that you've not really improved until now.

I had a problem editing on my laptop with this account, so I used the logged off version. this is just nonsense and yet another lie. Shoot forgot to log in sorry You said this on your talk page, so which is it, did you forget or did you log and edit intentionally? Just admit that you logged out because you were going back on your word of holding off of editing.

To others reading, I'm being firm because this has been going on for nearly a year now. Weak apologies, excuses, and even blatant lying to dodge responsibility for bad behavior. grapesurgeon (talk) 00:49, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

To add on, the warning came after I had reverted the edit from Emiya, as they overwrote what was already agreed upon the talk page, such as Megalia being mentioned in the lead of the article and changed it so that Megalia only seemed to be related to GS25. They were arguing the change to be made in this way throughout the talk, but that was not how it was agreed on. When I accused them of this and went back to revert the changes that were already talked about or the ones that I had sources to back up from and wrote the reasonings(I did not revert the entire change this time as some of those were okay and reverting the entire thing may be seen as disruptive), they they started this in ANI. Someone123454321 (talk) 00:59, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

People around tell you to stop making a mess and move on. You keep doing it. Read Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a social club on why this is bad. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 12:12, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I was not planning on doing anything with the recent edit, but you were the one who went against the already agreed edit and changed it to your likings. I don't really want to spend too much time on this matter either. Someone123454321 (talk) 01:20, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There was no consensus. Everyone took a break since things got heated up. You are still holding onto something that can be easily understood if you pay attention. You adhere to this edit, for example, because you just read the abstract and jump to conclusion, when it's a phrase that appears in the journal itself. This is a recurring pattern in your behaviors. Please stop making people explain to you the same thing dozens of times over something trivial. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 12:41, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Would really prefer an admin step in. This Someone user is going to keep aggressively lying and stonewalling grapesurgeon (talk) 14:35, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There was no consensus for you to make that change in the first place.[7] I did not want to be doing these either. I simply reverted the changes that you made that was already agreed upon, and I also left a talk page in the article so that we could discuss about it too. Specially this part[8] was already agreed to stay that way, and the other edits were already made before. Someone123454321 (talk) 00:49, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's not possible to have discussion when you're unable to do something as basic as admitting you're being disruptive. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 12:14, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I decided to take a rest from this in the first place unless there was new changes, which you just made. I felt frustrated a lot during our arguments too since you were making the same points over and over again that the sources didn't even support while dismissing all of mine. You act as if I am banned, but that is not the case. I am still allowed to contribute to the article, and you will just say that it is disruptive for just about whatever I do. Someone123454321 (talk) 22:15, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also, in this case, the abstract should have been more than enough to make the edit. Abstract gives the summary of the general idea, and it directly quoted "Although this view drew opposition from progressive sources." I don't see why there is a need to add the phrase "and moderate" into the article. But we can talk about it on the topic's talk page, not here. Someone123454321 (talk) 09:33, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If you read off abstract and thought you understand the journal, you shouldn't edit in Wikipedia. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 14:04, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As I have said, abstract gives the summary of the general idea, and it only said progressive. There was no mention of any moderate or whatsoever. That means that the word moderate is just simply unnecessary there. The article's pay walled, so can you quote directly where you got the phrase from? Also, argue this in the article's talk page. Someone123454321 (talk) 18:58, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thrilled at the prospect of more functionally pointless bickering in 2026. It's all so worth it; you've really shown the world how evil South Korean feminism is by writing essays about minor wording changes grapesurgeon (talk) 19:44, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That's not even the point here, and most of these were already talked about in the past. Emiya brought it up again for some reason. Someone123454321 (talk) 23:42, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

My point is a general one. Another year of this, thank you for doing this to me. grapesurgeon (talk) 00:06, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That you only read off abstract means you don't actually know what's written in journals. This is a running theme in your behaviour issues. You turn a blind eye to the most obvious things so that you can continue time-wasting filibusters. Also, argue this in the article's talk page. Behavior issues belong to ANI. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 10:40, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This argument is clearly about the article, and as I have said, the abstract gives you the important general ideas about the article, and it only mentioned progressive instead of moderate sources. It means that adding the "and moderate" is not even important. Someone123454321 (talk) 19:52, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

the abstract gives you the important general ideas Wrong. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 12:10, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Abstract literally means a consise summary of the topic. Also, can we talk about this in the article's talk page? This is getting off topic. Someone123454321 (talk) 17:08, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Emiya is right to discuss this here in this case; this discussion is about your editing behavior. Specifics of how the behavior affects the article can be discussed on article talk page, but this is about conduct and how you don't really understand how to edit Wikipedia, yet insist on dragging on discussions. grapesurgeon (talk) 17:05, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This part of the discussion started because Emiya pointed out that I read the abstract and jumped to the conclusions. The change I made was deleting the "and moderate sources" from the article. The abstract of the source had directly quoted "Although this view drew opposition from progressive sources" and I could not see how adding the "and moderate" part was necessary. It seems clearly not important. I also asked them where they got the quotation but did not get the answer back, since the article was paywalled. Someone123454321 (talk) 00:24, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• To get this discussion back on track, I support a TBAN from feminism in Korea. It's clear that they are incapable of editing neutrally in this topic area, and their incessant bludgeoning and sealioning in this discussion has only further proved this. --Tulzscha (talk) 15:05, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Could you tell me which part exactly? Someone123454321 (talk) 17:01, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Could you tell me which part exactly? Well, that comment right there fits both sealioning and bludgeoning perfectly. Either you have a very subtle and very meta sense of humor, or that post is some sort of oblique auto-da-fé attempt. In either case, it's neither helpful in building an encyclopedia, nor evidence of willingness to cooperatively collaborate. Hiobazard (talk/contribs) 17:47, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  No seriously. I'd like to know which part from this discussion showed my incapability so that I can change it. Someone123454321 (talk) 00:06, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Someone, you've had nearing a year to improve based on feedback. As I've said before, you apologize, then go back to doing more or less the same stuff while making even more different kinds of missteps, like when you delved into LOUTSOCKing. Enough. grapesurgeon (talk) 00:12, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  You can start with acknowledging you're being disruptive. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 10:43, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oh: support TBAN. Hiobazard (talk/contribs) 17:47, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support Constant bludgeoning and sealoining everywhere has clogged up discussions, including this one. ThatTrainGuy1945 (talk) 15:34, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion was getting repetitive with the arguments being the same from the both side. My argument was that 'and moderate' part in the text did not need to be added as the abstract of the sources directly quotes 'progressive media' instead of moderate. I did not get too deep into this, because if we were to start discussing that here, it should be in the article's talk page. Also, please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think asking for the direct quotation of where they got 'moderate' from the paywalled source is sealoining. Someone123454321 (talk) 05:09, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. Quote by quote only from this thread.

"I'd like to know which part from this discussion showed my incapability..."

"Could you tell me which part exactly?"

"so can you quote directly where you got the phrase from?"

But you've also been just a tad rude over tiny changes and details. ThatTrainGuy1945 (talk) 12:57, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I was just genuinely asking those questions and I have some things to say, but I feel that they are not going to make this better. Thank you for replying. Someone123454321 (talk) 09:40, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

For years Ilamxan has been engaging in source misuse, whether in the form of WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. Despite being told countless times about it, they have continued. There is no doubt many more diffs than "just" these.

1. March 2022 created Kurds in Afghanistan, redirected in March 2022 for WP:VER, WP:RS, WP:SYNTH issues and more [9]
2. In April 2022, another article of theirs got deleted [10], one of the reasons being sources not supporting added info
3. In May 2022, another article was deleted for info not supported by cited sources [11]
4. June 2024 More WP:SYNTH
5. 5 February 2025 Created the WP:OR Azaris. All the article does it talk about their language and region (which exist in other articles), which makes sense since these people are far from notable, no WP:RS about them as a people exists
6. In 2025 (can't find the exact date) they created Feyli people, where they combined several ethnic groups together, despite the very citation they had used being against that. Exposed and deleted in October 2025 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Feyli people.
7. March 2025, another WP:OR article deleted [12]
8. 5 June 2025 5 June added info not supported by citation at Kurds in Iraq -> exposed and removed in January 2026 [13]
9. 5 June 2025 added info not supported by citation at Kurds in Iraq -> exposed and removed in January 2026 [14]
10. 8 June 2025 created this WP:OR/WP:SYNTH WP:POVFORK article, where they have recently imported the same material of their aforementioned deleted WP:OR/WP:SYNTH Feyli people
11. 6 October 2025 Distortion of what source said (Simko Shikak)
12. 6 October 2025 Distortion of what source said, also on purpose omitting context (Simko Shikak)
13. 9 October 2025 Distortion of source (Simko Shikak)
14. 10 October 2025 Distortion of what source said, also on purpose omitting context (Simko Shikak)
15. 27 November 2025 adding info not supported by citations at Little Lorestan
16. 7 January 2026 More WP:SYNTH, the cited source did not talk ethnic unrest at all. But because two cleric leaders were of another ethnicity, Ilamxan automatically assumed it must have had been an ethnic unrest and presented it as such (1979 Iranian ethnic unrest)
17. 8 January 2026 Distortion of source (1979 Iranian ethnic unrest)
18. 7 February 2026 Distortion of source at Feyli Lurs, repeat of the same distortion back on 27 November 2025
19. 11 February 2026 Distortion of source (Little Lorestan)

On their talk page they were recently confronted for doing this [15]. However, they ignored it, and when it was brought up recently on 6 February at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kurdish-Luri identity dispute, they even quitely removed it shortly afterwards [16]. It is really difficult to have WP:GF at this point.

They have had years to correct their act. And when directly confronted with it, they ignore it. What else is there to do? Their edits do more bad than good. A big issue is Ilamxans source misuse is usually exposed by users who are experienced with these topics and/or has the time and energy to look into it. In other words, a lot of disruptive edits easily go under the radar, and falsely appear as constructive. --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:38, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

bumping so it doesn't get archived Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 21:10, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yea that AFD is where I remember this name from. I couldnt figure out the angle there. Have there been any formal warnings? These are two CTOP areas, so some sort of restriction may be on the table, but I like to see a stern final warning is given first and one last chance to shape up. ← Metallurgist (talk) 02:04, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, Ilamxan has already been informed of this many times throughout several years. Why would this make any difference? They don't seem to care. And as we speak, Ilamxan just made another WP:SYNTH edit [17] (The cited source does not deny that Ali al-Sistani is of Sistani Persian origin (which is itself a possible WP:OR article, but that's another topic), despite Ilamxan including that. The source simply says that Ali al-Sistani is a sayyid and thus an ethnic Arab (which is arguably an misinterpretation/exaggeration of what a sayyid is per other WP:RS, but that's also another topic). HistoryofIran (talk) 22:12, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ilamxan, please respond to this thread rather than continuing to edit in related topic areas. In particular, I would hope to see a response regarding the October 2025-February 2026 diffs and respond to the assertion that these edits were not using sources appropriately. On top of the alleged SYNTH/OR issues, there also appears to be more edit warring than appropriate, with most of these interchanges following the pattern of "a) Ilamxan adds text b) HoI removes text c) Ilamxan re-adds text, or adds a subset of it d) HoI removes it again"--rather than proceeding to step c), Ilamxan should be opening discussions on the talk page to address concerns and seek consensus. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:04, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

First off I apologize for the late response and the edits from October to February are mostly focused on one topic which is Kurdish and Lur identity, specifically in the Lak and Feyli communities. I belong to that community and people always fight over whether we are Kurds or Lurs so I wrote about all viewpoints in our community. The first few times he reverted me he actually told me the issues (citing too much page numbers, using certain sources) but when I started properly citing page numbers and only the "reliable" sources thats when the accusations shifted to "OR, SYNTH, POV", etc. Anyone can closely review my edits, all I wanted to clarify was the viewpoints of the communities. The Laks are divided between those who identify with Kurds, with Lurs, or as just Laks, or as intermediary. Feyli was a term applied to all tribes, Kurdish or Luri, who were subjects of a Luri ruling family known as Feyli. These are two basic facts that can save alot of people headaches. Of course this would mean the Feyli tribes share alot of context and were intertwined despite being two distinct ethnicities. I never made a claim that wasn't supported by sources, anyone can go check. Now I just completely stopped caring about the topic and whatever happens to the articles because its not worth losing my editing privileges by going back and forth to prove a basic fact. ✹Ilamxan⛰︎ (talk) 19:08, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't bring up the part where you cited citations with WP:VER issues (citing multiple pages, making it hard to verify, especially problematic when you misuse citations) since your source misuse is a major issue on its own. But since you're bringing it up yourself, here is one of the first times I called you out for WP:VER 6 October 2025 and here's the latest 7 February 2026. Combing this with the diffs up above, you have been engaging in both WP:VER and source misuse since the beginning.

Your claim that "I never made a claim that wasn't supported by sources" is plain wrong, you've been called out for by others as well for that matter [18], the evidence is up there. HistoryofIran (talk) 02:35, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ilamxan, HistoryofIran has specifically identified claims that they assert are not supported by the sources in question. They contest that sources identified here do not mention Gariveh, that sources here do not mention ethnic unrest, that various named sources here do not support their attached text, and that sources here do not mention Feyli Kurds. It falls to you to prove HoI wrong by providing direct quotes to relevant cited sources that address HoI's claims. Finally, here the issue is slightly different, HoI is arguing that the source and content that you added are not actually about the topic of ethnic unrest and that you have not demonstrated that this content is WP:DUE for inclusion. Having read through the source, HoI is correct that it does not use the phrase unrest or ethnic unrest in 1979 (it does use it to describe events of the 40s). It would fall to you to make the case for why it is WP:DUE to use this source for the article to add this content. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 03:42, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I don't want you to write a long and elaborate explanation, and no content decisions will be made here. I do want you to provide quotes that back up the contested information in the first 4 diffs I identified, and to provide a short one or two sentence explanation outlining whether you think the last diff is still WP:DUE, and if so what the general basis of your justification would be, so that I and other admins can assess whether your arguments are within the realm of good faith, policy-based discussion (that should then be continued on the relevant article talk page). And I'm fully aware that all of this involves consulting nearly a dozen sources that you possibly haven't looked at in over a month, so you can feel free to take some time to answer this (although I wouldn't recommend editing much until this has been resolved, especially not in Middle Eastern ethnic history topics). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 04:14, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Rosguill, again I apologize for the late response, I finally had some time to look through them, and wanted to thank you for your kindness throughout this. Here are my justifications:

Number 1 (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1324504193): "Gariveh is not mentioned in any of those sources (citation 10 and 11), unless it has a different transliteration. Nothing came up when searching "Ger" or "Gar". Citation 12 does not support its info either. This means the rest of the info possibly has similar issues, and I don't think it's fair that i have to verify and correct your sources for you like last time, I'm thus restoring the original revision. If you want to restore it, please verify it first in the talk page."

Citation 10 was about the Safavids appointing the Vali dynasty in place of the Khorshidis, it had nothing to do with Bala Gariva nor did I cite it to claim it did. Citation 11 was "Luristan: Pish-i-Kuh and Bala Gariveh, C. J. Edmonds, The Geographical Journal, Vol. 59, No. 5 (May, 1922), pp. 335, http://www.jstor.org/stable/1780610". When you first open the page it quite literally says "Today the Lesser Lur, or Luristan, is divided by the Lurs into three parts: first, Pusht-i-Kuh between the 'Iraq frontier and the Saimarreh; second, Pish-i-Kuh between the Saimarreh on the south-west and the Kashgan and Khurramabad rivers on the south-east; third, Bala Gariveh eastwards of Pish-i-Kuh to the Diz. The term Pish-i-Kuh is seldom used by the Lurs, who generally refer to the district as Luristan as opposed to Pusht-i-Kuh or Bala Gariveh." It was clearly about Bala Gariva. Citation 12 was "Faylis, Kurds and Lurs: Ambiguity on the frontier of Iran and Iraq: An overview of the literature, Martin van Bruinessen, pp. 5-6, 10", where page 5 says "There is more than a little hint here that what made the Fayli distinctive, and yet similar to the Kurds, was the fact of their having long lived under an autonomous chieftain of their own, the Vali of Pusht-i Kuh. This is an aspect that we shall find recurring when we get to the earlier historical sources. In its earliest usage, the name Fayli appears to be associated with this dynasty of Valis, who in the seventeenth and eighteenth century ruled all of Lesser Luristan, which was also referred to as 'Luristan-i Fayli. ' In the nineteenth-century, when the Wali's government was reduced to Pusht-i Küh, the tribes of this region appear to be considered as the Fayli proper, although the name Fayli is more loosely applied to the tribes of other parts of Luristan (Pish-i Kuh and Bala Gavira) too." Page 10 was about how the term Feyli shrunk under the Qajars, but we are talking about Bala Gariva here.

Number 2 (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1331732149): "rv, this has nothing to do with "1979 Iranian ethnic conflicts", which seems to be a made up Wiki term".

How does it have nothing to do with it? There was clearly an ethnic character to the conflict between Shariatmadari and Khomeini as seen by Shariatmadari supporters campaigning for Azeri cultural and language rights and explicitly calling for solidarity between Iranian minorities. The 1979 Iranian ethnic unrest is not made up, its well known that after the revolution there was a wave of rebellion by various minorities. I would agree that it is "made up" if it were a case of coincidental revolts, but there actually was coordination between Iranian minority rebel groups and this is well documented, this is what made me write the article to begin with. All of this was included in the sources I cited.

Number 3 (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Feyli_Lurs&oldid=1337103892): "rv, confusing mess which now barely talks about the Feyli Lurs, which the article is about. Also at least some of the more usual source misuse by Ilamxan, eg some of the info is not supported by citation 13, and Gariveh/Gariva does not appear in citations 17 and 18, exact same source misuse Ilamxan did back in November in Little Lorestan"

How is it a "confusing mess"? It actually clears confusion by giving context and stating the distinctions between them and the Feyli Kurds. Citation 13 was "Ehlers, Eckart (2021). "Khorramabad". In Yarshater, Ehsan (ed.). Encyclopædia Iranica(Online ed.). Encyclopædia Iranica Foundation." When you first open it, it says "Historically, Lorestān used to be divided into Lor-e Bozorg (Great Lorestān), more or less identical with Baḵtiāri (q.v.) territory and parts of Ḵuzestān, and Lor-e Kuček (Little Lorestān), which since the 16th century is more or less synonymous with the present Lorestān province." I cited it to prove my claim that "At the same time, the Safavids reintroduced the term Luristan to only refer to Lur-e-Kuchak and not Lur-e-Bozorg." Again, it is well documented that it was the Safavids who renamed Lur-e-Kuchak to Lorestan when they installed the Vali dynasty. Plenty of sources say this and I'm certain that HistoryofIran knows it too. Citation 17 was Bruinessen which I already proved included Bala Gariva. Citation 18 was "https://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/feyli--2/" which was I cited to prove the claim that Feyli used to include all tribes of Luristan but later only Posht-e-Kuh. I didn't even cite it to include Bala Gariva, thats what Citation 17 was for.

Number 4 (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1337728427). You said that this "did not mention Feyli Kurds". But when did I even say it mentioned Feyli Kurds? I cited "Minorsky EoI vol 5 p.829" which says "At the present day, the term Luristan usually means Pish-kuh, while Pusht-i kuh means the Fayli country." to prove that "In the 19th century, Pish-e-Kuh was taken by the Iranian government and became Lorestan province, while the Vali dynasty was reduced to only Posht-e-Kuh, which became the Feyli region." This had nothing to do with Feyli Kurds its just important context.

Number 5 (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1331844102): "This has nothing to do with "ethnic unrest", this is specifically about the nomadic/non-sedentary Qashqai khans and their attempt at reclaiming family estates lost under the Pahlavis. Just more source misuse."

I thought the ethnic character was evident by Naser Khan attempting to unite different tribes of different ethnicities and how the Qashqai leaders initially had optimism in 1979 but that it died out, that they could not achieve autonomy, and that they were shocked by the force used against the Kurds. Two things can be true at once and I don't see how the revolt being mainly aimed at recapturing lost assets fully invalidates the ethnic character of it.✹Ilamxan⛰︎ (talk) 17:16, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

1) Citation 11 was not Edmonds (who I'm not going to find and verify right now), but Oberling, Iranica [19]. You did cite Edmonds (a +100 year old source) to Bala Gariva, but that was elsewhere [20], not the info that I am talking about [21]

2) That is WP:SYNTH, not mentioned in the cited citation as mentioned by me and Rosguill.

3) My bad, I meant that you misused citation number 3, not 13. But, you're right, citation 17 (Bruinessen) does actually mention Bala Gariva (unusually spelled as Bala Gavira, that explains) on one (page 5) out of the 4 pages you had cited. If citation 18 was not meant to cover the Gariva part, then it should not have covered that info, especially when the previous source already has multiple pages for such small bit of info, making it very difficult to verify, as you've been told in the past (WP:VER).

4) You are linking a different diff. This is the diff that is being talked about [22]. You added the Feyli Kurds although the cited citations did not support it, along with possible more (I didn't check further).

5) That is WP:SYNTH. HistoryofIran (talk) 19:20, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

1) I addressed the Oberling one (the Feyli article on Iranica), I used it as a citation for the shrinkage of the term Feyli under the Qajars. I meant to use the Edmonds one for Bala Gariva thats why I assumed you were talking about it. I never meant to cite Oberling for Bala Gariva.

2) Okay I should take more time to fully understand SYNTH.

3) Citation 3 was the iranica article for the Anazzids (at least thats what it links to). It was just context about before the rise of the Vali dynasty. I also added it because it said that Lur-e-Kuchak was populated by Kurds and Lurs.

4) I think its glitching because thats the one it linked to. Either way, Lur-e-Kuchak/Lorestan was inhabited by Kurds and Lurs. Pish-e-Kuh and Bala Gariva were mostly Lur/Lak but Posht-e-Kuh/Ilam had always been majority Kurdish and the home of the Feyli Kurds.

5) You're right I understand now. ✹Ilamxan⛰︎ (talk) 04:08, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yepitsthatguyagain (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), pretty much all of their edits are adding (and reverting the removal of) questionable images to Mutapa Empire which they uploaded.

I removed a few images from the article a couple weeks ago (28 Jan) as part of an ongoing rewrite [23]. They re-add them 10 Feb, after a couple reverts we discuss it on my talk page, feel like I was pretty reasonable (they said some silly things). Then 11 Feb they delete 20,000 bytes by restoring a revision before I'd edited it with the edit summary Undid revisions by User:Kowal2701 reason: under suspicion of griefing (I'd already made them aware of EW and BRD). I ping them to the talk page to explain, not expecting much. Few hours later their edit gets reverted by Kwesi Yema, they revert that with no edit summary, then comment Have your language model read it for you. I dont know what legitimacy you think you have but deleting valuable information then having a chat model write a bunch of fodder in its place well its called griefing.

Basically, they don’t care about the article or topic, just whether 'their' images are in the article. I think they're not here to build an encyclopedia. Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 18:43, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I really do not know what would be a better sanction because I dont know if Southern Africa is a contentious topic. shane (talk to me if you want!) 19:39, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If you don’t know something, it’s fine to have an unexpressed thought about it and say nothing. • a frantic turtle 🐢 19:56, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have a small suspiction tbh, due to the username it is probably a sockpuppet, because everynon sockpuppet account would have a nonsuspicious sounding name. shane (talk to me if you want!) 19:59, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really think that this is a sockpuppet, just that the person seems to be incompetent. From the sheer amount of typos and childish reasoning, I believe, although this claim is pretty unsubstantiated, that the account is run by a child. A temporary block seems to be in order, since it would inform them that they are, in fact, wrong, but there is no need for a permanent ban. Of course, if this happened again, a ban would be in the question, but this seems to be a first offense caused by someone not knowing what we are here for, or rather, what we are not here for. ZImperator (talk) (contrib) 14:33, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is primarily a content dispute. Augmented Seventh (talk) 20:09, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Good one Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 20:18, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Would it be possible to have an admin look at this? If it's not sanction-worthy, what should I've done differently/do now? I've explained myself, tried to compromise, in response to which they blanked weeks' worth of sourced content and restored an OR-ridden version, with no stated reason other than accusing me of "griefing" and using LLMs. The only thing I think I could've done differently was not treat 'my' version as the long-standing one, but as I understand it 2 weeks old is a grey area Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 20:43, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  And again [24] Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 06:28, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It is a content dispute, but it's turned into an edit war. As a thoroughly uninvolved editor who doesn't care about the outcome of the content dispute and was alerted to its existence only due to repeated notifications of new links to an article I'd created (years ago), I'm chiming in to request something be done about the edit war. (Or to volunteer to take this to the edit warring noticeboard, if that's what needs to happen instead.) -- Avocado (talk) 12:12, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

How is it a content dispute? They're not disputing any of the 20,000 bytes of prose, it's just pettiness/vindictive because I removed some of 'their' images. Along with the SPA background and ridiculous aspersions, they've been reverted by three separate editors (incl. myself). How on earth is that not unconstructive behaviour worthy of sanctions? This is absurd Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 12:27, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yepitsthatguyagain claims the 20,000 bytes of data is AI content but they fail to provide evidence or further explaination. I believe the administrators should intervene because Yepitsthatguyagain needs to provide actual evidence to justify such removal. Kwesi Yema (talk) 12:36, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Given the repeated, clearly retaliatory blanking of content and personal attacks in edit summaries (accusations of "griefing" are the same thing as calling it vandalism), I've indefinitely pblocked Yepitsthatguyagain from Mutapa Empire until they can explain their conduct and pledge to edit within policy - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:44, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It is a good idea to connect them on their talk page as well. Since you are an admin, they may listen to you better. ZImperator (talk) (contrib) 12:58, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Electricmemory (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been warned several times on their talk page about their responsibility per WP:BURDEN to provide sources [25][26][27] - their response has been to start personal attacks [28][29] and start stalking my talk page, replying to two discussions they had no involvement in to leave WP:POINTY messages [30].

Going by their talk page, this isn’t the first encounter they’ve had on this noticeboard, and they seem to have caused a number of problems with other editors, but I have no knowledge of what they are so that’s by the by. It’s pretty obvious though that this editor needs reminding that Wikipedia has PAGs which aren’t optional. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 19:11, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

For context - these are the two edits that appear to have triggered this - [31][32]. Otherwise minor really - any other editor I’d simply leave a notice on their talk page, but here left a hand written message as Electricmemory had requested not to be templated (fair enough). Danners430 _{tweaks made} 19:18, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The policy you're citing says that once unsourced content is removed, it can only come back with an inline citation. I don't understand why you're citing it for someone who adds potentially unsourced content one time and don't revert it back in. I say "potentially unsourced" because it's in a table that has several citations already, and I don't feel like reading websites dedicated to a topic I find boring. Yes, the burden to find citations is on the person who wants to add the content, but someone verbally refusing to acknowledge this is low on my things to block someone over. If the content is already sourced, as Electricmemory says, this could probably be made more obvious, such as using named references (like "Fact 1.<ref name=source/> Fact 2.<ref name=source/>). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:01, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I’m confused here - quoting WP:BURDEN: The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material - in this case they’re adding/altering, not restoring material - yes it also covers the removal and return of unsourced content, but the addition in the first place of unsourced content is part of that section. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 20:09, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am fairly certain it has been explained to you before that the addition of unsourced content and the addition of unverifiable content are not the same. An editor is permitted to add unsourced but verifiable content to an article. They are not permitted to add unsourced and unverifiable information to the article. Katzrockso (talk) 15:38, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

However, if unsourced material is challenged it is the responsibility of the editor adding/restoring/altering the material to verify content by providing citations. Unsourced content may be removed at any time. I’m well aware of what WP:V says. This particular editor however seems to refute its existence (BURDEN being a subsection of V). Danners430 _{tweaks made} 16:00, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You just stated that this case they’re adding/altering, not restoring material. If they are merely adding unsourced material, that is permissible behavior. Unless they are readding material after it has been challenged (i.e. by a reversion), then what is the misconduct here that required bringing this to ANI? Katzrockso (talk) 00:55, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Persistently adding unsourced material even after warnings is misconduct very regularly brought to ANI. A quick look through the archives will tell you that. If you don’t like that that goes on, I suggest you raise that as a point to note - however it is something that gets brought here, and regularly ends in sanctions for the editors who refuse to provide sources for their edits. And I have a feeling you didn’t read or ignored the rest of the report I made. We shall wait and see what administrators actually have to say here. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 07:19, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

So is repeatedly removing verifiable material instead of attempting to fix it. You have made zero attempt to actually fix any of the issues you have found on Wikipedia. Electricmemory (talk) 18:02, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Typically it is not merely adding unsourced material without any further misconduct that begets sanctions at ANI. Katzrockso (talk) 00:27, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a read of the original complaint there are other issues. But as I’ve already said, I’m not necessarily wanting sanctions per se, just a reminder to EM about our policies. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 06:57, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You yourself continue to ignore the existence of WP:PRESERVE and WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM, both of which are of equal or greater importance than WP:BURDEN Electricmemory (talk) 18:01, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Danners430 Earlier today you edited Thai Airways International fleet to revert another editors to corrected the number of Boeing 777-200ER to 3. The cited source clearly says 3, which demonstrates that you did not check the source before reverting and instead immediately assumed bad faith on the part of the editor. This is ignorant vandalism. Care to explain that one? Electricmemory (talk) 18:13, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh… are we really dragging content disputes which should be discussed on the article talk page to ANI… if you insist… this is the cited source in the row you are changing. Perhaps you could explain where exactly it says that there are three 777-200ERs in Thai’s fleet? Because the table quite clearly states 1… Danners430 _{tweaks made} 18:24, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless - I’m more concerned with the fact they’re adding unsourced content, and when challenged resort to personal attacks. I’m not asking for a block - more that they’re reminded that sources aren’t optional, and of WP:CIVIL Danners430 _{tweaks made} 20:11, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

And where are these personal attacks? That never happened. If you believe me citing WP:PRESERVE and the like is a "personal attack" to you, that's a problem with you, not me. Electricmemory (talk) 17:54, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Following their threat to drag myself to ANI (which I've saved them doing), they appear to have developed a case of ANI flu, and have been offline ever since, so keeping this open to give them a chance to respond (real life happens, I get it) Danners430 _{tweaks made} 12:53, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

My telling you I will bring you is somehow a "threat" yet you telling me the very same thing isn't? Hypocrisy much? Electricmemory (talk) 17:59, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You seem every adamant to try and report perfectly permissible behavior. Replying to talk page discussions you were not already involved in is not disallowed. You also still continue to flat out ignore WP:PRESERVE and WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM, despite those both being of equal and arguably greater importance than WP:BURDEN. Why? Continuing to refusing to acknowledge this will only serve to turn this into a WP:BOOMERANG towards you. Electricmemory (talk) 17:58, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You word this to sound like multiple editors have come at me over this, when infact it has only been you. Electricmemory (talk) 18:03, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

They have returned, as is obvious by there being suddenly 6 different replies in the space of 10 minutes, a level 4 warning on my walk page, and the restoration of unsourced content on Thai Airways International fleet [33] (I read the cited source, and it doesn’t state 3…)

Electricmemory, I’m a recent changes patroller and have been for numerous years. I spend most of my time when I’m online on my watchlist, where the vast majority of edits being made are absolutely fine. Occasionally an edit appears on my watchlist where an editor is adding unsourced content or otherwise making an edit which is unconstructive (in good or bad faith - the term unconstructive doesn’t necessarily mean either). In these cases I either revert them or engage in dialogue.

In your case, there have been a few examples where you added content that wasn’t sourced, so I reverted them. As you prefer not to have warning templates left on your talk page, I notified you with a message instead. Yet even after being notified you repeated it, hence a second message. However instead of agreeing to provide sources, you’re instead going on the offensive and accusing others of breaching WP:PRESERVE and WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM by not correcting the problems you are introducing.

My friend, as I have tried to tell you numerous times - it is your responsibility, not mine, to find sources for your edits. That is what WP:BURDEN says - The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing one inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. I’ve tried explaining this to you numerous times. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 18:20, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

They've again not been online since the above spate of replies, so keeping this open to let them return. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 09:13, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Again, keeping this open so they can respond (real life happens and we’re not all perpetually logged in :) ) Danners430 _{tweaks made} 10:25, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the ongoing situation at ITN/C continues less than collaborative, despite the recent CBAN of an editor threatening to recall any admin posting a blurb on a deadly North American storm.

In my support of a blurb for actor Robert Duvall, I noted “The anti-American commenters here are way out of line. Repeat: way out of line. One such who recently threatened to recall any posting administrator over a deadly North American storm was taken to AN/I and WP:CBANed. It’s time to consider warnings and escalating blocks, I feel, for disruptive anti-American statements which feed hate and discourage collaborative editing. [Other editors] all make excellent points in rebuttal to the “old man dies” crap. Those arguments carry no weight, as I see it, and are, again, disruptive, and worthy of sanction discussion. Enough.”

This statement was reworded by User:5225C to this, (my italics) "Editors should be sanctioned if they oppose my preferred ITN entries" is a very, very interesting approach.

Note their wording in quotes, to imply the statement was mine. I of course said no such thing. I asked for consideration of warnings and escalating blocks. 5225C is twisting my words, which I strongly object to.

My observation that the rewording was dishonest and offensive, and my suggestion that the rewording be struck, was rejected. I feel I have no alternative but to file a request for administrator intervention. Thanks. Jusdafax (talk) 03:44, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Correct, you stated quite specifically that you thought warnings and blocks were a suitable response to editors who make arguments you disagree with at ITN. This does not seem to be in dispute. My summary of your comments, absent further clarification, appears to be accurate. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 03:56, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

At the top of this page it states "This page is for urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems."

This isn't it. TarnishedPath^talk 03:56, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict) Tarnished Path: you may disagree with me that rewording my statement (which continues by 5225C just above) is not an urgent incident, but I feel dishonest rewording in quotes, purporting to be my statement, should be struck. I stated originally warnings and sanctions should be discussed. 5225C dishonestly rewords my statement and places it in quotes. And “my preferred ITN entries” … really? Quoting me as saying that? It should be struck, in my view. Jusdafax (talk) 04:13, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that 5225 shouldn't have used quotation marks when they were paraphrasing; however this still isn't it. TarnishedPath^talk 05:15, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Having been present in the thread when the initial comments were made, what 5225C said seemed to be a reasonable paraphrasing of Jusdafax's comment. Jusdafax's civility was wearing thin on their initial comment at ITN/C, and I think their bringing a fairly benign disagreement here is a massive and pointless escalation, and does give them impression that they're just trying to punish those who disagree with them.–DMartin (talk) 04:02, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • I asked that the dishonest purported quote be struck, 5225C refused. “Reasonable rephrasing?” We disagree on the definition of reasonable. Jusdafax (talk) 04:23, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just so we're perfectly clear, do you consider your suggestion to consider blocking people who disagree with you at ITN reasonable or not? 5225_C (talk • contributions) 04:27, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree. If anyone's comment was inappropriate, it was Jusdafax's, who was making threats to ban other users merely for presenting arguments that Jusdafax disagreed with - and don't appear in that nomination anyway. I would not have used the specific paraphrasing that 5225C did, but it's not wildly inaccurate either. If Jusdafax disagreed with it, they should have clarified their intended meaning, not filed an ANI report. Modest Genius ^talk 11:33, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• (involved at ITN discussion) I agree with TarnishedPath that there is nothing that needs admin attention here. In addition, I find Judasfax's original comments problematic, as they seem to suggest that we should "consider" blocking others for opposing views (anti-Americanism). Ironically, I consider their words consider warnings and escalating blocks just as problematic as the CBANned user. ITN/C has been a divisive place recently but everyone can have their own views and arguments on whether we should post "American topics" or not. Natg 19 (talk) 04:16, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comparing my request for consideration of sanctions “just as problematic” as a now-CBAned user who threatened to recall posting admins is an astonishing statement. Wow. I came here to ask a dishonest and offensive quote be struck. Jusdafax (talk) 04:30, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • Joseph2302 threatened to recall administrators who posted entries he did not want posted. You said we should consider blocks for editors who oppose entries you support. The two situations are quite similar. You also have not explained what element of my comment was dishonest. I suggest this is because it was, and remains, an accurate summary of your position. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 04:35, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • When you file a report at ANI, your conduct is just as open to scrutiny as that of the editor you're reporting. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:05, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Involved, but as I commented at the ITNC thread, I think Jusdafax is misinterpreting comments being "anti-American" that are actually addressing concerns on media bias that American actors get compared to any other actor of other nationalities, or of any other type of profession, which is part of the consideration we have whether to feature an RD blurb, rather than an attack phrase towards American people. In fact, there's only two comments prior to the one placed by Jusdafax that mention "America" (Humbledaisy and Harizotoh9) and I read both of those as addressing the systematic bias of media concern, not attacking Duvall or Americans in general. Masem (t) 04:56, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Barely anyone at the discussion, then and now, made any comment regarding the US. For Jusdafax to then make spontaneous and baseless allegations of "anti-Americanism" is what I find more troubling. They did threaten that anyone engaging in this, again no one did, be sanctioned and then acted upon it by bringing it to ANI; so the paraphrase/read of their comments by 5225C's is entirely valid. To then tack on an entirely unrelated block here is also baffling. A classic WP:BOOMERANG case where Jusdafax needs to reflect back on whatever they have alleged of 5225C on themselves. That this is from someone who has been here for almost two decades is all the more shocking. Gotitbro (talk) 06:20, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Seconded. If anyone's comment warranted ANI attention, it was Jusdafax's. Calling for sanctions to be placed upon other users for vague, non-existent 'anti-Americanism' is unacceptable and a plain violation of WP:CIV. Loytra^✨ 08:19, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree that Jusdafax's behaviour is more concerning and should be subject to scrutiny primarily because of the following two reasons. Firstly, labelling editors as 'anti-American commenters' and using words such as 'crap' isn't acceptable in a collaborative volunteer environment. I fully get that they were in disagreement with the opinions of some editors, but there are many ways to express it in a polite way (note that WP:ITNCDONT states Oppose an item just because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. We post a lot of such content, so these comments are generally unproductive., which Jusdafax could have referred to if they felt it was breached). Secondly, this escalation is a warning sign that Jusdafax has little tolerance and may not be ready to accept other opinions. What 5225C did is common on Wikipedia and, if this is the way to deal with every quoted rephrasing of someone else's comment, admins would have no other things to do (this is not even close to the language used in most academic debates). Jusdafax needs to understand that they cannot get offended by any interaction where someone summarises their point and recalls on previous unrelated sanctioned cases to demand similar sanctions. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:29, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• The odd thing here is that Jusdafax is saying that It’s time to consider warnings and escalating blocks, I feel, for disruptive anti-American statements which feed hate but on the discussion about Duvall there are only two Oppose !votes that even reference his nationality (this one, which I don't see any problem with at all, and this one, which is frankly a terrible rationale whether you include the nationality or not). Given that, where is this alleged anti-American xenophobia that needs people to be sanctioned? Black Kite (talk) 10:15, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Jusdafax, you'd just summarised others' comments as the “old man dies” crap, putting "old man dies" in quotes in just the way that you now complain of.[34] Nobody had said "old man dies". You dislike 5225c's representation of your argument; that's your opportunity to step back and consider whether you yourself represented others' arguments fairly and collaboratively. Instead you come here complaining of dishonest and offensive rewording. Will warning you be sufficient or do we need you to be pblocked? NebY (talk) 10:37, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Asking someone to strike a statement is a reasonable thing to do, but it's a request and if honored a courtesy. Coming here to complain when someone doesn't is wild. Broader question: how can we lower the temperature at INTC? Mackensen (talk) 19:01, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  In my opinion, the biggest problem with ITN is that it is basically a subjective "vote". Nowhere else in Wikipedia do we do things based on pure voting, except at ITN. There are guidelines to what should get posted, but they are vague and not clear as to how we decide what should be posted. One of the criteria is Wikipedia:ITNSIGNIF, which is basically circular reasoning: if a topic gains consensus, it can be posted. In practice, there are some topics that we do not typically post (e.g. celebrity news, economic news, shootings in the US), but none of that is clearly defined. The current issue being discussed (that Judasfax is unhappy about) is defined at WP:ITNRDBLURB, which states that "death of major figures" can get posted in the main box, but there is once again no clear definition of what makes someone a "major figure". Some consider any famous person a major figure while others say that they should be on the level of Mandela or Thatcher. Unfortunately, there have been several proposed reforms and even a few RfCs recently but they did not succeed in any actionable changes. Natg 19 (talk) 20:57, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  This encyclopedia would be far better off if all the editors who get all emotional and vehement and confrontational about ITN and other fleeting temporary content on the main page would take 90% of that energy, and devote it to writing and improving actual encyclopedia articles that will stand the test of time. Cullen328 (talk) 21:07, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Sure, you can ask, but you can't expect someone to withdraw criticism of something you've said, not least when you refuse to clarify or withdraw your (quite outrageous) position. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 00:21, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

How can we lower the temperature at ITNC? My answer would be TBANs for the most egregiously timewasting regular contributors. GenevieveDEon (talk) 00:32, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, another jump to bans! So my question to you is, what distinguishes a most egregiously timewasting regular contributor from a very passionate regular? Natg 19 (talk) 00:37, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment it's ironic that Jusdafax cites the recent CBAN of Joseph2302 for weaponising conducts forums for trying to get their way at ITN, yet here they are (and arguably also GenevieveDEon, based on the comment above) trying to get others banned from ITN for having different opinions from them on what is notable enough to post, in quite a similar fashion. Suggest a WP:BOOMERANG of some sort is in order here for making chilling posts such as this one; at the very least a warning and pblocks/TBANs if they do something like this again. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 08:38, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree with Amakuru that threats of "warnings and escalating blocks" for posting at ITN could be intended as a permanent in-house Wikipedia WP:CHILLING EFFECT. To take the theme further, it may be that the community needs to act firmly as a preventative action to insure the perpetrator is promptly neutralized, because this will also send a message that this type of bullying will bring swift consequences.^([35]) After all, serious damage has been done here so I can only feel community patience with this form of thuggery needs to end,^([36]) if only because, after all, this type of blanket threat will quickly turn Wikipedia into a jungle.^([37] Amakuru suggests some form of WP:BOOMERANG; it may be that the community will consider him to have made a strong case for prevention of any further disruption.^([38]) Cheers, —Fortuna, imperatrix 12:42, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Superbly done. — Loytra^✨ 17:15, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I couldn't have put it better myself. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 04:00, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I find the fact Jusdafax brought this here to ANI frankly astonishing. I wasn't involved in the discussion but having read it, the most concerning comments are from Jusdafax, who is treating ITN as a nationalistic battleground. Baselessly acusing editors of being "anti-American" and attempting to silence editors by threats of "warnings and escalating blocks", is strikingly similar to the unacceptable behaviour of Joseph2302. Jusdafax invokes Joseph2302's unacceptable behaviour namely using threats to try and change consensus (which is fundamentally disruptive) and then engages in exactly that same behaviour, of threatening editors with sanctions for expressing views Jusdafax disagrees with. Fundamentally, this post is in bad faith. Looking at the discussion it is very hard to see how any of the comments at ITN/C can be characterised as disruptive anti-American statements which feed hate. Jusdafax says we need to "consider warnings and escalating blocks" for editors who engage in disruptive conduct at ITN/C. The most disruptive comment at this ITN/C discussion is from Jusdafax. AusLondonder (talk) 14:24, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Tempest in a teapot I understand how Jusdafax interpreted 5225C's post as a direct and fabricated quote, which would violate WP:TPNO. However, I also interpret 5225C's post as Scare quotes, which are a run-of-the-mill rhetorical device. Jusdafax's statement regarding bans was framed as "I feel like there should be bans", not "I will get people who disagree banned." It has the same level of threat as a level 4 warning for incivility; if you've done nothing wrong, you can ignore it. I suggest we chalk this up to a miscommunication and move on. EducatedRedneck (talk) 15:38, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I really really really do not want to ever take figure skating-related matters here, especially during the height of its publicity. However, the long-term behavior of Bgsu98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) in this topic is becoming a severe hindrance to others' ability to contribute to this topic and, if another solution is not found here, I think a topic ban from skating will be warranted. I am stopping short of explicitly proposing that to give an opportunity for de-escalation here.

Let me address my own interactions with them first. In the past month or so I have had three disputes with Bgsu98. Let me start by saying that I am not fully without fault here. My attempts to use WP:BRD here have been more like BRRD or BRRRD, and I probably should not have not done a follow-up GA review to Figure skating at the 2022 Winter Olympics – Team event. I am willing to abide by a 1RR restriction in this field if needed.

In all three disputes, however, Bgsu98 has often been abrasive and uncivil.

• At the GA review he called the review "bullshit", and was nothing but dismissive towards all GA review concerns raised even as they admitted some were valid.
• At Talk:Figure skating at the 2026 Winter Olympics – Team event they charged me with removing a reference needed for a statement falsely, and when I issued them {{uw-3rr}} for their reverts there, they dropped an F-bomb. This really reeked of WP:AXE-grinding; they WP:POINTY'ly inserted twice a bad-faith CN tag that was wholly unneeded, given that it is allowed that citations do not necessarily have to go immediately next to every statement.
• At Figure skating at the 2026 Winter Olympics – Women's singles they again inserted a bad-faith CN tag just because they were refuted by a source I brought to the talk page. They dropped another F-bomb after I gave them another edit warring warning. Overall, the fact that they chose to revert me again, knowing that our previous interaction was sour, is what crosses the line for me. I am not going to stop editing skating articles just because one editor is not going to regulate their emotions and not act like they WP:OWN the article.

Now, this in isolation would probably suggest an IBAN between me and him. However, digging further:

• This pattern of edit warring and stonewalling is not new. They have a history of being reported to AN3 with blocks for at least two instances.
• Incivility and axe-grinding was also brought up in this ANI thread over a disruptive mass-nomination of AFD's
• In this earlier thread, while their other behavior was less problematic, they called a good-faith editor's intentions "embarassing": "Jesus Christ, nobody “redirected Skate America”. I redirected the non-notable, pre-1995 (before they became part of the Grand Prix Series) individual competitions that lacked full results, scores, citations, and sometimes all of the above. You want that trash “restored quickly”? That’s embarrassing."
• Warned in March to not call other editors' edits "trash" or "junk".

The common denominator of all these events is this editor in figure skating articles. If they cannot exercise emotional restraint, then we will need to do it for them and not allow them to contribute to skating articles. Jasper Deng (talk) 08:01, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Bgsu98 has continued this behavior by engaging in another edit war with WP:OWN behavior, over table formatting: [39]. This was followed by a premature, likely bad faith AN3 report (permalink). Once again, the pattern is one of failure to exercise emotional restraint. I have an opinion on that edit war but will stay out of it while this proceeding is in progress. I am increasingly seeing an editor who will need a wikibreak, or as a last resort, editing restrictions of some sort. A strict 1RR might be a less-harsh alternative to a topic ban but would not solve the incivility issue.--Jasper Deng (talk) 10:56, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@ToBeFree: has now blocked them for 48 hours. Hopefully nothing else is needed, but it's a long term pattern so I wouldn't rule it out. Jasper Deng (talk) 18:57, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

So, has GiantSnowman apologised to the editor for the incorrect warnings and the wrong (and WP:INVOLVED) block they gave them? Has he amended the block log with a 0-second block explaining that the previous one was in error? Has he checked his previous 12 years of believing that a project essay was enforceable policy, and done the same rectifications for all other editors he may have incorrectly treated for the same reasons? How many more times will this continuous poor admin behaviour be tolerated?

Wikipedia:Editing restrictions: "GiantSnowman is prohibited from blocking an editor who has not been recently warned for the conduct in question. For the purposes of this restriction, "recently" is assumed to be within 7 days." His most recent non-socking block is for User:Bbt400, 3 months for unsourced additions. Was he warned within the week before the block? Yes, by GiantSnowman, for this edit (which is sourced to Soccerway[72]). After that warning, all Bbt400 did was this (seems sourced and legit) and this (where he just cleaned up information already present in the article, no new information was added). Fram (talk) 09:22, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like this issue needs looking at as a whole, it's strange that a number of different editors all accused @Hew Mun Weng of vandalism or distruptive editing where there is no evidence of that at all. And although HMW chooses not to communicate so we can't tell if they have been affected by this or not, they have had accurate edits reverted instead of citations added and so one of the most high profile current English footballers (Marcus Rashford) has had incorrect career statistics on their page for 9 months now. This is detrimental to the project. Orange sticker (talk) 15:48, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Alexplayer1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Alexplayer1 has been disruptively editing articles since September 2025, mostly by adding unsourced recording years to song articles, and when this information is removed, they proceed to edit war (see Tear Down These Walls). Furthermore, their edit summaries hardly correlate to what they did on the page. For example, they reverted a change they claimed I had made on Don't Worry, Be Happy, but I have never edited that page. Notably, they usually mention OAbot, even on pages that the bot have never edited (see Crush (Bon Jovi album) and Shippū! Iron Leaguer). Additionally, an IP address used this same excuse on Get Outta My Dreams, Get into My Car, which, again, the bot has never edited, proving Alexplayer1 has been editing while logged out. They were recently blocked for this behavior, but once the block ended, it was right back to square one. I think it's clear from all this that Alexplayer1 is only here to be disruptive and has no intention of building an encyclopedia. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 12:24, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Unforgvn20 (talk · contribs) is a single purpose account, with a clear undisclosed conflict of interest with articles related to the Gülen movement. It is heavily pushing promotional edits related to this organization, making 250+ edits on the article Gülen movement in the past 3 months, and and additional 125 edits on the page Fethullah Gülen during the same time period. It is possible that it is being paid by this organization to edit their pages on Wikipedia and has not disclosed it. In addition to the COI, there is the edit warring problems. I request an administrator check into this.

Troubling edits include the repeated removal Gülen movement's terrorist organization designation from the infobox of that page, the addition of promotional images to several articles linked to Gulen movement, added with the following descriptions:

• Poster of a movie

Exodus, an award winning movie focusing on the stories of a group of people forced to flee Turkey to seek asylum in Europe post 2016 coup attempt.

• A non-informative selfie of a person who allegedly died in prison, described as:

Gökhan Açıkkollu, a teacher from a Gülen-affiliated school died in police custody after being imprisoned and tortured for 13 days post 2016 coup attempt.

• A non-informative image of a NBA player, who has been a declared member of the movement for years with the description:

Enes Kanter Freedom openly expressed his support for the Gülen movement

There is also the usage of first party sources owned by movement, such as the "stockholmcf.org". There is the removal of sources that criticise the movement.[80], [81], [82]. Around 99% of the edits made by "unforgvn20 are dedicated to promoting the Gulen Movement, I have warned the user on this issue but it refuses to stop, I believe it will continue to promote this organization non-stop across multiple articles due to the COI unless an administrative action is taken.

Note: I have previously posted this on Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring but no administrative input was made, user LordCollaboration suggested this might be the correct noticeboard. I haven't dealt with a COI user before, but reading both WP:PROMO and WP:COI, it seems clear to me that user "unforgvn20"'s edits are severely violating multiple Wikipedia policies. Ecrusized (talk) 15:22, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

TBAN from all pages related to terrorist, political, or violent movements It is clear that INDEF would just be too harsh, I think that a TBAN from all pages related to political, violent, or terrorist movements is a better sanction, also indef pblock from Gulen movement, Enes Kanter, Exodus, and all other pages related to the Gulen movement. shane (talk to me if you want!) 15:36, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure about a tban. [83] this edit warring case really doesn't cover Ecrusized in glory. I'd demure from calling this forum shopping as Ecrusized was advised that this might be an appropriate venue but I'd suggest that this appears to be an edit conflict over the Gülen movement page that has got too escalated and nothing more. Suggest trout and maybe some form of dispute resolution. Simonm223 (talk) 15:43, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I was not aware that this was already on a COI noticeboard. I was tagged only on the edit warring noticeboard and it seemed off topic since the edit warring behavior problem seemed to be mostly the opposite way (Ecrusized openly refused to discuss the content with Unforgvn[84]). LordCollaboration (talk) 15:54, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any evidence of a CoI by WP definitions. Apparently Unforgivn20 has been hitting a lot of edit filters for AI assisted edits, which I personally find distasteful, but unless they're spamming AI glurge into article talk that doesn't necessarily rise to the level of disruptive. I'd suggest a helpful admin close this discussion and that Ecrusized get a trout for trying to win an edit war at AN/I with a warning that further forum shopping over this conflict might catch a boomerang and then call it a day. Simonm223 (talk) 15:59, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I used chatgpt to find potential references but I wrote all the content

I will remove the query string at the end of the urls going forward unforgvn20 (talk) 23:55, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I wasnt talking about Ecrusized, I was talking about Unforgivn20 shane (talk to me if you want!) 16:32, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understood that. I'm saying that there is not grounds to topic ban Unforgivn20 although there are grounds to caution Ecrusized about edit warring. Simonm223 (talk) 17:09, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Simonm223: Do you have any comments about the COI concerns? Both in this notice and the previous ones I've opened, the discussion about COI problems went unnoticed with editors instead focusing on the edit warring. I didn't open this notice about the edit warring but COI regarding what user "Unforgvn20"'s editing history is composed of, and the editing pattern that glorifies the movement. I've said this elsewhere, because some editors have mistaken the Gulen movement coi and Turkey coi, almost entirety of BLP's and organizations edited by "Unforgvn20" are related to Gulen movement.

Some articles edited by Unforgvn20: Gülen movement affiliated banks Bank Asya, affiliated media outlets Zaman (newspaper), Aksiyon, Sızıntı, Samanyolu Haber TV, affiliated journalists Sevinç Özarslan, Ekrem Dumanlı, Hidayet Karaca, Abdullah Aymaz, Abdülhamit Bilici, affiliated educational institutes, Ala-Too International University, Yahya Kemal College, International School of Bucharest, International Hope School Bangladesh, Paragon International University, Suleyman Demirel University, Tishk International University, Salahaldin International School, . Ecrusized (talk) 17:43, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do have a comment about the COI concern. I think it's very bold to make such a claim absent evidence and it's one reason I think you should be cautioned about your comportment. Such a concern requires evidence beyond the person being somewhat of an SPA. Some people have specialized interests. That's not the same as a conflict of interest. Do you have any evidence of a conflict of interest beyond a specificity of interest? Simonm223 (talk) 17:46, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"Do you have any evidence of a conflict of interest beyond a specificity of interest?"

As I've listed above, the edits are highly promotional, removing critical content, adding NPOV images etc. Suggests that there is some kind of real life connection, COI or admiration of the movement. @EditorShane3456: seems to agree, and I don't this is a bold and unusual speculation to make. Ecrusized (talk) 17:51, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, I'm sure that there's no reason why anyone might have a pro-dissident POV regarding Türkiye other than them being paid to have it. [85] Simonm223 (talk) 19:44, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Are you even discussing COI here or not? "pro-dissident POV" ≠ making an account dedicated to promoting a single organization. Ecrusized (talk) 21:15, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see this broad distribution of pages as necessarily representing evidence of a COI so much as a specificity of interest. You have not, in my eyes, made a successful case for a COI. Simonm223 (talk) 13:52, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about most users, but I believe I'd like to be referred to as "they" rather than "it". Just a thought of mine. ThatTrainGuy1945 (talk) 15:45, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Wyatt2006Wyatt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This is a new user that has created a bunch of machine-generated drafts, in an unrealistically short timeframe:

• Draft:Robtop (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Draft:Life Leisure (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Draft:Playgendary (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Draft:NickNight (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Draft:Geode (mod) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Draft:Geode (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs): was created as Template:Geode (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Draft:Globed (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Draft:More Difficulties (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

They have also created a bunch of navboxes and templates:

• Template:Greater Manchester organisations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Template:Mass media companies based in Greater Manchester (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Template:Mass media companies based in Japan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Draft:Playgendary navbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Template:Paramount (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

But minutes before doing any of that, the user started out by inserting WP:OAICITE and hijacking a redirect: Diff/1339199533. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 17:36, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oof. You left eight final warnings in a row and a dozen warnings overall in 30 minutes? You also accused this person of hijacking a page when they merely expanded an article from a redirect. But yes, LLM-written pages are a problem. How about we give this editor a chance to read and react to the dozen warnings you gave them before we take action, though? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:24, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Gurkubondinn, in the future, please don't do ... whatever the hell this is supposed to accomplish. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:25, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

New user who has exlusively made tendentious/disruptive edits in the WP:CT/EE topic space, particularly relating to a recent enwiki controversy . The latest one includes usage of the slur "tankie" at an RfC ([86]). When told to strike it, they instead chose to double down on it ([87]).

Not to forget the LLM usage as well ([88], [89]).

PS: It would also be pertinent to decide on an ECP restriction for EE topics, or at least those that relate to this controversy (RfCs et. al.) considering the amount of new accounts being created solely to weigh in there (not least due to offwiki coverage/campaigns to affect this space). Gotitbro (talk) 18:41, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please note I am absolutely involved, so should not be considered a neutral observer, but BerzinsJanis is one of the editors making discussion almost impossible as nearly everything they say assumes bad faith and constantly bludgeons every part of the discussion. BerzinsJanis appears to be on English Wikipedia solely to advocate for overturning the RFC.

I am too close to the situation to say if BerzinsJanis needs some sort of warning or other sanction, but after multiple RFCs, multiple malformed RFCs over multiple months, in multiple locations with the head of Wikimedia Estonia and an EU-sponsored task force both encouraging canvassing, this area is becoming an absolute trainwreck and something needs to be done to de-escalate the situation. Any assistance that very experienced admins/editors, especially those with no side in this ongoing Infobox dispute, can provide in figuring out how to keep this from spiralling further lest we have a dreaded Infobox case at ArbCom, would be greatly appreciated. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 19:05, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well then i will throw my two cents here.

This editor have been harassing multiple other editors about mystical LLM and nationalist propoganda, unfortunetly I dont know how to make this all nice and shiney links to all the places he has done so. Bu the same rfc is a great start for it. This user have been warned to not collapse edits that are in his point of view LLM, but have continiously harrased editors about it. This editor have made multiple attacks on other editor accounts about there age and interested topics. This Editor activly makes every attempt to find any compromise on issue, I have stated multiple times, that there is compromise to be made.

As for "tankie", I did not call any editor a "tankie". I made comperason to his nationalist propoganda claims as you can see in history and context.

Currently due to december rfc on baltic state infoboxes (again I do not know hoe to find it, withouth link at hand) Baltic states, as far as I know, are only ones in entire wikipedia that are forced to use old solviet names in infoboxes for persons born (1939 to 1991), no other option such as Latvia, Latvia SSR, Solviet Union, Latvia (then Latvia SSR), Latvia SSR (now Latvia) and all other variations are allowed as per that RFC. Right now in wikipedia for some ood reason Baltic states are treated quite differently to rest of europe, where infoboxes can show what is appropiate, not mandated by single rfc. Im failry shure it breaks multiple policies such as NPOV, undue weight, common names(i have seen rfc refering to it out of it s context) modern names and probably bunch other. When in fact in 2022 last rfc (RfC on the birthplace of individuals born within occupied and illegally annexed territory) about the same topic was rejected as there was no consensus. Im to new here to be able to write request for arbitration, but goosh I wish I could. In Baltics it is hightly offensive to force us to use only solviet names and it realy unfair to be forced to use them.

As for @CoffeeCrumbs comment I do agree, I can be combative, I also ask for realy experianced administrator to get involved here. I do try to explain why changes needs to be made, and i am willing to compromise. In fact multiple time @CoffeeCrumbs have made bad fait comments in response to my comments like "You made up the stuff about how this is only related to the Baltic countries."When pointing out that baltic states are only ones forced to use only solviet names in comment above, and this for example"

There's no specific RFC because we haven't had a problem with nationalist brigading in those other cases that forced us into more formally establishing a specific consensus. This is absolutely normal Wikipedia behavior.

We also don't have a rule that every poisonous substance must have a footnote that says DO NOT EAT OR DRINK THIS, but if we had constant edit wars of people adding this and removing it, you can be quite sure there would be a discussion where a consensus is established on how to treat articles about poisonous substances.

"

Esentialy saying its Baltic states own fault for current situation, better have shuted up and agreed to use of only solviet names in edit wars. All with in RFC Talk:Kaja Kallas

Im sorry for copy pasting text, I hope its ok.

I will agree to what admins decide. It is quite disturbing to se, how with few quit decisions you ended up being born in solviet union and not in solviet occupied Latvia. I really hope I wont have my own page here, if this is how it will stay. BerzinsJanis (talk) 19:22, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

One thing I will say is that the post above does not appear to have been executed by an LLM. This seems a very human text-wall. However I'd say that it seems rather an indication of a problem with an editor's comportment when they complain we use historically appropriate names of nation to describe their situation in historically bound periods. Going in a bit of an opposite direction, it would be odd to put "People's Republic of China" into an infobox field about the Tang dynasty. So, yes, for describing the Latvian SSR during the period in which it was the Latvian SSR, its naming should be contemporaneous rather than anachronistic. Anachronisms would seem to suggest, at the very least, an unconscious nationalism that seeks to erase that the situation vis a vis Baltic nationhood was ever different to begin with. That would be non-neutral.

Beyond that, I'll give the same advice I always do whenever an infobox dispute arises here: delete the infobox. They are over-summarized hot garbage that mostly exist to make the gods of SEO happy with us and we should get rid of them. Simonm223 (talk) 19:39, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, but it assumes you can only choose one of options. I would like it weary much, but that's not how things work. So why not use both? now/then or some explenations? Like for example Andrzej Badeński: Warsaw, German-occupied Poland? China example is a bit of streach since Tang dinasty isnt occupied territory by third state, and widely internationaly recognised as illegal occupation. See State continuity of the Baltic states

Sorry if this is an off topic for current issue. BerzinsJanis (talk) 20:01, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I mean by the time you start calling people Tankies for wanting infoboxes to avoid anachronisms pretty much everything is "off topic". I'm half-tempted to propose a topic ban as a solution. Simonm223 (talk) 20:20, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I am somewhat involved and thus won't be taking admin action, but based on the totality of their 71 edits thus far, I would be hard pressed to say that BerzinsJanis is anything other than WP:NOTHERE. Every single comment and edit to date has been focused on righting great wrongs vis-a-vis Baltic birthplaces, and they've generally failed to make constructive, policy-based arguments at any point. While I could understand wanting to give some leeway and an understanding welcome at first, over 1 month later, they're still making comments like this. I think the time has come to show them the door. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:50, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please take these kinds of complaints to AE. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:38, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It shouldn't require an AE complaint to tell an editor that using slurs at Talk pages is not OK. Gotitbro (talk) 20:00, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I will do so. BerzinsJanis, do not use slurs like "tankie" in discussions with your fellow editors. Do not use LLMs to write robotic talk page arguments or to write article content. Write with civility toward editors you disagree with, and in your own words. Can you agree to that? Cullen328 (talk) 20:21, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Its two edits that are accused for LLM from probably mid 50s i have made in discussions. I agree to not use LLM and not use slurs like "tankie" in discussions. I will try to remain civil, unfortunetly this is disturbing topic for me, as it hits way to close to home, but I will try. Thought I would appriciate that im not called nationalist propoganda by that editor. BerzinsJanis (talk) 20:33, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No one has been, please carefully re-read those comments (WP:COMPETENCEISREQUIRED). Gotitbro (talk) 20:36, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What comments? Your dozen more about accusing editor of LLM and throwing nationalist propoganda acusions left and right? Or mine comparing them to that word (insert harry potter references)? Or is it about my poor spelling skills? Or have I wrote something that I think is totally different meaning from you? I genually do not understand your comment and meaning of it. I do however have great historical knowlage of Baltic states, there history and solviet occupation. Having lived during it, some aspects come easy. If you ask about my competence about Baltic state topics. BerzinsJanis (talk) 20:50, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If you have great knowledge about the Baltic states the you must know that between World War II and the collapse of the Soviet Union they were illegally occupied by, and ruled as part of, the USSR. We are simply recognising that fact. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:11, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Illegality of it, or occupation fact is hardly recognised in infoboxes. Nor is modern names. Nor common names. I believe infoboxes were to show info when and what appropriate, not to force using only solviet names to only Baltic states infoboxes 1939 to 1991. BerzinsJanis (talk) 21:29, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, it's "Soviet". Secondly, adressing your complaint that "infoboxes were to show info when and what appropriate, not to force using only solviet names to only Baltic states infoboxes", look at Zelenskyy's page. Look at the above mentioned Andrzej Badeński. Look at other pages of people born in occupied Poland or France (I believe). The SSR stuff is real, and that was the situation on the ground. ThatTrainGuy1945 (talk) 22:08, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Now that you've pointed it out, what's up with that "Solviet" misspelling? After reading your comment and then reading some of their other messages, they seem to misspell it consistently like that[90]? Nakonana (talk) 22:49, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In the interest of fairness, I'd be shocked if English were BerzinsJanis's native language, and the word wouldn't be close in Estonian, so I think this is just a word they don't know the correct English spelling of. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 01:38, 20 February 2026 (UTC)õ[reply]

It looks like the Esti word for Soviet would be "noukogude", so you are right on that one, however, Russian is spoken as a native language by 25-50% of Estonians and the English word Soviet is just a phonetic imitation of the Russian word совет, which doesn't have anything even closely sounding like an L, so I'm wondering. (Plus there's autocorrect or spell checkers. Their English doesn't look too bad spelling-wise, as far as I as non-native speaker myself can tell.) Nakonana (talk) 11:24, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think when it comes down to it, I'm more inclined to good faith on the spelling, simply because there's no obvious double meaning to "solviet" unless there's one I'm missing. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 11:30, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ouh that's quite simple, to me it sounds like there is l in it. And since I never bothered to learn russian I write it as i hear it. BerzinsJanis (talk) 11:49, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That is living in Latvia. BerzinsJanis (talk) 11:50, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. As I mentioned, I initially didn't even notice the misspelling. Now you'll know that there's no L in the English word "Soviet" :). Nakonana (talk) 12:43, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This might be splitting hairs and I offer no defense of the use of the term "tankies" (since it is a clear NPA violation), but I contest that "tankie" is a slur in any meaningful sense. Philosophers and linguists have developed a growing academic literature on what constitutes a slur, and for every conceptualization merely pejorative usage does not transform a word into a slur. Katzrockso (talk) 13:37, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the proof of LLM usage? These links don't decisively prove anything. In addition, this isn't the first time you've accused others you disagree with of using LLMs (on the same talkpage, mind you).- Neptuunium (talk) 10:15, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

While they're not really the issue here, and the editor has stopped using LLMs since then, those two DIFFs contain writing that quite obviously were not produced by this editor. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 11:17, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

ECP should indeed be adopted, for the topic area-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 14:26, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sensitive to Roseguill's comments; and their response to people pushing back on being called Tankies was less than ideal. I'm balancing that against wanting to avoid WP:BITE with a very new editor. As such this proposal should be taken as WP:ROPE. This editor clearly cannot constructively edit articles about this part of the world. They should probably stop. I would like to extend them the grace to see if they can become a productive editor on other topics. Of course, as proposer I Support the topic ban. Simonm223 (talk) 20:56, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - this is the most transparent case of WP:RGW without remediating qualities I’ve seen in a while. Hell, even User:3 Löwi at least sometimes tried to make genuine contributions to articles. If this were WP:PIA, they would already have been blocked indefinitely weeks ago. Hopefully they can turn a new leaf and prove us wrong. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:20, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't oppose voorts or another uninvolved admin (I think they're uninvolved?) just blocking here as an action within their discretion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:51, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Support This editor's most recent defensive and combative remarks show quite clearly that they are way too emotionally invested in the topic area of the Baltic states, and so they should be given an extended break from editing in that area. Wikipedia is not a place to right great wrongs. Perhaps they can contribute in other areas, and learn how to edit in compliance with the Neutral point of view. Hope springs eternal. Cullen328 (talk) 21:31, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, I hope that Cullen328's hope is realised, but I rather doubt it. Anyway, there's no chance without trying a topic ban. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:42, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose on principle. TBANs should be reserved for editors who have actually been here a while. This is an editor with 73 edits, none of which are to mainspace. Just block them and get it over with. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:47, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Support But a general block is likely the way to go here per voorts. It should be pointed out that the user does not really have any remorse about using the slur (their latest comment has cheeky references to it: "Or mine comparing them to that word (insert harry potter references)?") which brought them here in the first place. Gotitbro (talk) 02:07, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Promising to not use slurs, and having remorse for them are two different things. As involved party, you should not make any vote here. Thought that probably wont change decision anyways. Thought it seams you want to have final word in it anyways. BerzinsJanis (talk) 06:44, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  First of all, Gotitbro is allowed to vote. Anyone could. Second of all, you should probably have remorse about using a slur even if you have already promised to stop using it. ThatTrainGuy1945 (talk) 14:51, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Conditonally oppose, provided Berzins tones down their rhetoric and apologizes. Oppose as per LordCollaboration. It might also be a good idea to take a break from the topic. Anyhow, where's the policy that you can't be a single-topic editor? New users are not allowed to focus on talk pages (btw, Kaja Kallas' page is locked)? If a new editors finds issue with a specific topic, why shouldn't they be allowed to focus on contributing relevant discussions, especially as the issue here is of major interest to many people. Since it has become apparent that many experienced Wikipedia editors lack in-depth knowledge on the topic (as evidenced most notably by the fringe-view RFC), we shouldn't silence people who want to bring those details to the attention of other editors.

That being said, combative remarks should be kept to a minimum by all parties and Berzins clearly needs be more respectful. Although it's weird that "tankie" gets highlighted like this, whilst "nationalist" is readily allowed to be flung at everyone who don't agree with the current RFC with no reprecussions.- Neptuunium (talk) 10:10, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I appriciate support, tought i probably will leave wikipedia regardless of result of this. You can give what ever data, what ever proof, ansver is the same its history, deal with it and shut up. Even for proposals where both modern and solviet names are used for baltics. Even thought using now/then seams to be quite common solution used in wikipedia. There can be no discussion when all replies are its history, it de-facto, no other wariants than approved specialy for baltics are allowed! even thouth 2022 rfc about it was clear there is no consensus about infoboxes. I have yet seen policy based arguments, why Baltics states cannot use both names (that would be in lines with npov and unde weight and bunch other policies), and why only baltic states are forced like this. An single botched rfc and its history are not nowhere near strong arguments. BerzinsJanis (talk) 11:29, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Reading the "tankie" comment and background, it seems pretty clear they were responding to multiple claims about a "nationalist" campaign (a large nationalist campaign in the Baltic states wants to overturn how we state basic geo info on enwiki infoboxes, nationalist brigading, etc.). They said, Instead of nationalist propoganda and other baseless claims you make??? I can claim the same things for tankie propoganda. They did not call anyone a "tankie" and did not even say that there was any "tankie" propaganda here (indeed, they were comparing it to other claims they call baseless, which would suggest this was also baseless). And they have since agreed not to use the word. That said, some of their other comments were combative (sick dreams of failed totalitarian empire, etc.). A formal warning for battleground behavior would be satisfactory. LordCollaboration (talk) 13:17, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Support tban or a block. As even their replies in this section show a battle ground mentality. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:55, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - It's best to separate BerzinsJanis from the topic-in-question, IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 14:16, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Seems a clear case of WP:RGW and wp:BATTLEGROUND so a sepertation from the topic is necessarry to prevent disruption. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 17:01, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• It strikes me that some editors (in particular some who don't have English as a first language) may not know how bad a slur "tankie" is. Our article on the word seems to explain it pretty well. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:17, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  For what it's worth, I'm not particularly hung up on use of tankie. It is technically a political slur, but it lacks the historical animus of extensive persecution that makes many slurs highly offensive (while communists have been politically persecuted in various contexts past and present, I'm not aware of any systematic use of the word "tankie" in that context, which largely emerged as a term used in disputes within the left itself). It's bad form to use it, but if the only issue with BJ was that they called someone a tankie this could be resolved with a warning and/or apology. The bigger sticking point IMO is the up-front WP:RGW attitude and total lack of constructive contributions that would even begin to offset that; even if we were to take the position that BJ is right on all of the underlying historical questions behind the content disputes, their method of engaging with English Wikipedia to date has been completely unhelpful. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:20, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I can certainly think of some even more offensive terms, but I still take offence at it being implied that I am a "tankie". I lived in Poland under communism for a few years (1978-1981), during which time I don't recall anyone making an ideological defence of the then government, and had to leave the country in a hurry because it was rumoured that the Soviets were about to invade (in the end they didn't but martial law was declared). Maybe that experience has left me over-sensitive to being called a tankie. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:53, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  That is fair, I had not realized the specific context of them accusing you of being a tankie, nor the personal circumstances that would make that particularly insulting to you specifically. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:04, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I have never called you by that name nor implied that any editor by that name! Please provide proof of me calling you by that name.

  Cant login from phone, not using password manager on it. BerzinsJanis. ~2026-11537-62 (talk) 00:15, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh great. More sealioning. You didn't call anyone a tankie specifcally, but you implied editors were spreading "nationalist propoganda and other baseless claims". ThatTrainGuy1945 (talk) 02:00, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  No, they did not imply anyone was spreading nationalist propaganda, almost the opposite is the case. They were objecting to other editors making claims about nationalist propaganda*, and BerzinsJanis was calling those claims baseless. (Although the actual words from other users were "large nationalist campaign" and "nationalist brigading", not propaganda, from what I saw.) LordCollaboration (talk) 02:24, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I did say nationalist brigading, and given the specific calls to actions by the chair of Wikimedia Estonia, the EUvsDisinfo stuff, and a prominent Estonian politician, also affiliated with Wikimedia Estonia, continually talking about Estonian-specific points of view (and some pretty nasty charges that I could describe in a way worse manner), I do think we have a problem with this. And I'm someone who would normally support this kind of Estonian nationalism in a non-Wikipedia context; I certainly have no love for the Soviet Union, given that I'm 1/4 Polish and 1/4 Ukrainian and had relatives on both of these sides that were killed by that regime. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 16:04, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  To clarify, I don't have much of a problem with the "nationalist brigading", etc. comments; I'm not sure I agree, though I have come closer to that view, particularly after another instance of off-wiki campaigning for the Eerik-Niiles Kross page. I was just explaining what BerzinsJanis was responding to. LordCollaboration (talk) 16:36, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I really just saw that as a logical place to explain why I made that comment. While I think the brigading comment reflected a reasonable description of the atmosphere (which one can obviously disagree with), it probably was less helpful and more snippy than I try to be. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 17:54, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per those above, particularly per GothicGolem29. A topic ban will give the editor an opportunity to try their hand at matters that do not invoke the conduct complained of. BD2412 T 00:56, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. That "tankie" comment is silly, but not a personal attack. Silly accusations have been thrown around on both sides of the Baltic birth places debate, including by Gotitbro. BerzinsJanis should start contributing to articles, preferably on other subjects as well. But blocking or even banning a new account for such relatively minor transgressions would we wrong. — Chrisahn (talk) 11:07, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose This is a very new editor and proposals for blocks and topic bans seem premature. I've noticed a tendency to come down very hard on new editors for uncivil behaviour that would attract little backlash from more experienced editors. The "tankie" comment was stupid and wrong, this should serve as a clear warning. Anything else seems motivated by a desire to punish rather than prevent further problems and I support the current consensus regarding Baltic infoboxes. We should be careful not to turn ANI into something reminiscent of the Spanish inquisition. AusLondonder (talk) 11:25, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Based on their whole body of editing, not just the tankies comment. However I would be more in favor of something narrower, such as a topic ban from the Soviet Union (1941-1994) or perhaps from countries in infoboxes. Would this be sufficient for the supports? Light enough for the opposes? It directly addresses the only, very narrow area they've demonstrated is problematic, yet give a very easy-to-follow, very limited restriction for an editor if they wish to be a constructive editor on English Wikipedia. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:56, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I would be mildly concerned that framing a topic ban with reference to the Soviet Union in this case would invite sealioning based on WP:POINT-y misunderstandings of when/where the Soviet Union (legally/illegally/legitimately/literally/etc.) existed, and also note that the tendentiousness around the Soviet period seems to also flow pretty seamlessly into accusations of post-Soviet period Russian chauvinism (and perhaps also pre-Soviet?) A topic ban scoped to focus on infoboxes and birthplaces, on the other hand, may be adequate, although I don't know if that meets your own criterion of "very easy-to-follow". _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:06, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I would definitely support that. Since I appear to have been one of the editors that antagonized BerzinsJanis (though I stand behind things I've said), I do feel a responsibility to try and find good faith mitigating factors that would make their future at English Wikipedia easier, should they want to have one. Baltic states, nations, and people, while better than no sanction, is a pretty wide sanction, after all. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 17:48, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am requesting an indefinite block for User:KGxHeretic due to a persistent pattern of disruptive editing, POV-pushing, and refusal to follow sourcing policies despite multiple blocks and warnings.

Block history:

• 8 April 2022: 31 hours (edit warring)
• 16 April 2022: Indefinite (disruptive editing), later unblocked on appeal with agreement to avoid edit warring
• 6 October 2025: 72 hours (disruptive editing at Turning Point UK)

Pattern of behaviour:

The user's editing is narrowly focused on UK political articles, particularly those related to right-wing and far-right parties and figures. Their edits consistently:

• Add unsourced or poorly sourced claims of increased membership numbers, electoral performance, or significance of these groups
• Use primary sources from involved parties as citations; e.g., citing as evidence for Restore Britain's claimed 70,000 membership a social media post on X by party leader Rupert Lowe, a membership figure not verified by any reliable secondary source supplied by the user, and under scrutiny by other groups; hence the need for reliable secondary sourcing. This has been done on numerous edits, and examples can be seen in these two diffs where both sources for membership number claims is the party leader's social media posts: Special:Diff/1339052493, Special:Diff/1338910278.
• Constitute original research when adding statistics without sourcing, such as recent edits to Warwickshire_County_Council in this diff Special:Diff/1339232160 where the user edited the seats in the council to increase Restore Britain's seat share with only source for this claim being a link to the party leader's social media in the edit summary which is the definition of a primary source and for which no source was added in-article.
• Push a clear point of view by systematically making these groups appear more significant or successful than reliable sources support.
• Out of their last 50 edits, 10 have been reverted directly, and many more either have been removed manually subsequently or are poorly/ not sourced and should be removed.

Talk page warnings:

• After a warning the previous day after which the user continued their pattern of editing, I issued a final warning on 19 February 2026 (User_talk:KGxHeretic#February_2026) explaining that social media posts by party leaders are primary sources and do not meet WP:RS requirements.
• I believe you will see my comments were civil and constructive, in my final warning I even explained in a cooperative way that they should "Feel free to continue contributing [but] your edits must be properly sourced and cite reliable, secondary sources".
• The user responded dismissively, claiming I was "harassing" and "stalking" them and arguing that other articles use similar sourcing (in reference to the party leader's social media posts), ignoring that those articles such as the Restore Britain article, are flagged with Template:Third-party clean up banners for exactly this reason.
• They expressed no desire to change their behaviour, and instead claimed I am 'threatening' them for adding what they describe as 'factual' information to pages.
• However, as I civilly described in my previous responses (where I said nothing that could in anyway be construed as threatening) I have no issue with them editing, but they must follow Wikipedia's agreed guidelines for sourcing which exist for very valid reasons and if they have an issue with these policies they should go down the appropriate avenues rather than just blatantly flouting them.

This user has been editing Wikipedia since at least 2022 with a single apparent purpose: promoting UK right-wing political organisations through poorly sourced or unsourced content. They have been blocked three times, including one indefinite block. Their 2024 unblock included conditions to "voluntarily refrain from adding or changing nationalities in leads and avoid edit warring" - whilst they have kept my revisions and have not yet engaged in edit warring again their behaviour does clearly constitute disruptive editing, even after a subsequent temporary block after their indefinite block was appealed.

Their response to policy-based feedback is to dismiss it as harassment rather than engage with the substance. This, combined with their block history and unchanged behaviour, suggests they are not here to build an encyclopedia but rather to use Wikipedia as a platform for political promotion.

In our final exchange, I praised the user for constructive editing on Susan Hall and encouraged the user to continue making correctly sourced edits, the user instead doubled down in their response and ignored my feedback and then instead continued making unsourced/ poorly sourced edits as seen in: Special:Diff/1339266871 and Special:Diff/1339264122 where they again re-added unsourced information which I think could also constitute edit-warring. I have not reverted either as I am mindful of Wikipedia:3RR. I think this proves they have been provided numerous chances and yet continue to add disruptive edits.

I am requesting an indefinite block per WP:NOTHERE, WP:TENDENTIOUS, and WP:POVPUSH.

Kieraaaa (talk) 20:08, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

All edits have been made in good faith with the currently available information, like on Restore Britain's article etc. KGxHeretic (talk) 20:13, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I make no comment on the other claims, but the one at Warwickshire County Council claim seems to be an entirely reasonable use of primary sources -- a party leader saying "these people have just joined my party", just as one might say "this is my party's candidate" would seem to be an alright use of a primary source, and in any case the claim is correct. It took me no effort at all to immediately verify this claim through a source as august as the BBC, which may have been a better course of action here instead of simply reverting. LivelyRatification (talk) 20:17, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The final point is a valid point and yeah I should've, apologies. On the Warwickshire County Council claim I mention in this topic though, I should note that the edit I link to is not one where a primary source is used but is instead one where no source at all was added, and in my communications with the editor I have always maintained that should they properly source their claims there would be no need to revert.

I would push back on "these people have just joined my party" being an alright use of a primary source, as I think there would be something to gain from a party leader being seen to have more seats and electoral success. Kieraaaa (talk) 20:26, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As another follow up, despite the repeated warnings, and acknowledgement of creation of this thread, the editor had continued making unsourced edits for contentious issues, such as Special:Diff/1339280663, where the user attributes an assault to "leftists" without any supporting source for this claim. Currently cited articles have investigators saying the circumstances must [still] be determined. Kieraaaa (talk) 21:01, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I rectified it, citing them being suspected leftists KGxHeretic (talk) 21:20, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The user has also just done this edit Special:Diff/1339287802, descrbing her as an "Egyptian-born Muslim" in the context of her criticism of Restore Britain.

This directly parallels the behaviour that led to their original indefinite block, with unblock conditions specifically requiring them to "refrain from adding or changing nationalities in leads." While technically not in a lead, it is the same pattern of inserting nationality/religion information in a way that appears designed to frame criticism of a party the user has consistently promoted. The ethnicity and religion of someone criticising a political party is not relevant to the article content. Kieraaaa (talk) 21:34, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The edit has a CITATION and I believed to be relevant in relation to her accusing others of being "Neo-Nazis". I believe it is perfectly relevant given the wider context on the topic of immigration etc. and it is not in the lead. KGxHeretic (talk) 22:12, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You have explained exactly why this is problematic. Adding someone's ethnicity and religion because you believe it contextualises their criticism of an anti-immigration party is using biographical details to frame the criticism. Whether the edit has a citation or is in the lead is beside the point. My criticism was not that it was poorly sourced, nor did I claim it was in the lead, my issue with that edit was that I believe it fails WP:NPOV and WP:POVPUSH. Kieraaaa (talk) 22:17, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is literally nothing wrong with noting someone's origins, position etc. especially in regards to political topics like immigration etc. Its not unfair, its not unreasonable its something that should be included. KGxHeretic (talk) 22:21, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there is. It's WP:SYNTH. Making a comment along the lines of "they have stated X. This is contextualized by the fact they are Y", in the absence of reliable third-party sources explicitly making that connection, is textbook synthesis and thus WP:OR. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:46, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm struggling to see how the religion or birth country is relevant to their criticism? Is there something about Egyptians or Muslims that we need to know about here that merits inclusion? ~2026-11303-32 (talk) 22:23, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

User is still making poorly sourced edits (Special:Diff/1339284921) failing WP:ABOUTSELF and which I think quite clearly constitute WP:POVPUSH, saying "which would make it one of the largest UK political parties in terms of membership" is in my opinion very obvious WP:PEACOCK, and is using a poorly sourced claim about membership numbers and then editorialising on top of that.

I also think their continual additions of new membership number updates such as in (Special:Diff/1339441405), could constitute WP:RECENTISM which of course on it's own is not necessarily negative, but I think contextualised with their broader pattern of editing is probably intended to give the impression that the party is growing quickly - which is WP:OR and not reflected in any reliable, secondary source.

Kieraaaa (talk) 18:23, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

looking at the contribs, they're rarely using edit summaries, which is a bit concerning. and I do see where they're not using sources and are over-using the minor edit flag. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 21:04, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I wasnt aware that would be considered a problem, I can use it in the future KGxHeretic (talk) 21:14, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I don't think that pointing out Laila Cunningham's ethnicity or religion is a red flag. It is context for somebody who has been the victim of racism. For relevant context for people outside the UK, please read this [91]. "Yet her selection as candidate has elicited the ire of the blue tick, far-Right mob on X. [...] They call Cunningham everything from an Islamist to a Mossad agent. Multiple accounts call for her to be deported, even though she was born in Paddington". Mainstream media does this all the time to give us context, viz: [92] "Jade Forbes, who is black, said the workplace bigotry she experienced had affected her mental health", [93] "Harding, who is Jewish, said he did not believe the BBC was “institutionally antisemitic”, as some have claimed after a series of rows over its handling of Gaza coverage". Unknown Temptation (talk) 00:31, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  On it's own I would agree it is not a red flag, but looking at the rest of the user's edit history it seems fairly obvious to me that their intention was to frame it as "She claims Restore is neo-nazi but her opinion is not justifiable here because she is an Egyptian-Muslim and Restore is anti-immigration". Kieraaaa (talk) 00:36, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment A tweet about membership of a UK party is not actually as unreliable as it sounds. There is no central register of UK political party members, nor even a set definition of what a party member is and what they must contribute. Apart from when there is a leadership election and a set number of ballots have to be set out, there is no way of verifying anything apart from what parties say. This is why there was a news story about Labour's allegedly lower real membership number. [94] This would never happen in a US state where registered voters choose a party affiliation. Unknown Temptation (talk) 00:31, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  But, all the other UK major political party's membership numbers are sourced from reliable secondary sources, Labour's number was reported in the Times with their source I believe to be Labour's votes at their annual conference. On the particular issue of Restore's membership, I have seen disputes from some sources which claim the membership to be overstated - I have no idea if it is, however, it is the kind of thing that a party leader would be incentivised to do, hence the need for a good source. I agree that "there is no way of verifying anything apart from what parties say" (except for of course leadership votes and simialr where the number would actually be published), but I think it is fairly obvious to say that an annual report from a party (such as the one cited for the Worker's Party GB's number) is a far more reliable source than just a social media post, if Ed Davey posted that the lib dems had 600,000 members as a typo - this would not be treated as a reliable secondary source and would require more scrutiny. As a new party, there is no previous benchmark for Restore Britain and thus I think especially for an initial membership number it is important for us to set a good benchmark using a reliable, secondary source. Kieraaaa (talk) 00:42, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  The original source from The Times does not mention a conference (I can't send the archived link). Independent of whether the Times is a WP:RS about Labour, it's a rather vague source, almost saying "We've seen something Labour doesn't want you to see". The BBC mentions it only as a claim by the Times, and also only mentions Reform's membership as a claim, while saying "There is no legal obligation for political parties to publish their membership figures, which are not verified by outside bodies". [95] Reform is a good example of this issue because the third-party sources for Reform's membership have nothing to go on but Reform's "ticker", which has been doubted. [96] I appreciate that we should always try to get a third-party source but this is a matter where they often can only say what they have been told by the subject. This is similar to when an actor claims to be younger than he actually is, and the claim is circulated by third parties because there is nothing else to go on. Unknown Temptation (talk) 20:55, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • (edit conflict) This would be a WP:ABOUTSELF case. If the person in question tweeted about joining/being a member of a party, it would be acceptable to use the tweet as a source (assuming the party membership at all was WP:DUE, of course). Another person tweeting "so-and-so has joined my party" is not a case where it would be acceptable to use the tweet as a source; see ABOUTSELF #2, as that would, indeed, be about third parties. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:44, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

User:MightyRanger has been on a draftification spree for over a month and is accusing editors of undisclosed paid editing without furnishing any evidence. Some of the affected editors are fairly experienced and WP:BITE is probably the reason Ithakapocalypso (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is no longer editing. They created a few articles about notable women executives such as Colette Kress, Artie Starrs. Artie Starrs was reviewed ([97]) by WP:NPP @Mariamnei: so they are blaming our most experienced editor of UPE? This doesn't stop here. MightyRanger not only draftified their notable articles and moved them to draft space ([98]), but also submitted them without their consent ([99], [100]) and then rejected them themselves ([101], [102]). This appears to be an abuse of WP:AFC or related privileges, and there may be multiple such instances if their edit history is reviewed. More eyes are needed on this user's draftifications.

Additionally, they have tagged dozens of articles with UPE tags without providing any evidence on the talk pages. Most of these tags appear to be WP:DRIVEBY, as it is incumbent upon MightyRanger to share evidence in the form of diffs on the talk page, but none has been provided so far. Therefore, I suggest a mass revert of such tags under WP:AGF. ~2026-11263-77 (talk) 21:17, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I was not accusing the page patroller of paid editing, I was accusing the page creators. The patroller, I'm sure did the best she could and made a reasonable judgement, the fact that I disagree isn't an indictment of her. Outside of that, I'm willing to defend any actions that I've taken to make sure that paid editing is disclosed and goes through AfC. MightyRanger (talk) 22:44, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also, what do you mean by this statement Artie Starrs was reviewed by Mariamnei: so they are blaming our most experienced editor of UPE? In what way is that your "most experienced editor"? MightyRanger (talk) 23:57, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

yeah, this is concerning. at least one location where he put in a paid tag, there was a COI, but it wasn't actual paid editing. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 22:56, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, that page was edited by Pauleccles84 who self-identifies as an employee of the parent company. Technically, that's considered paid editing even if it's not their main job function. They're clearly trying to follow the guidelines so I listed them as a connected contributor on the talk page and tagged the page as having white-hat paid contributions (not UPE!). MightyRanger (talk) 22:44, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, that's considered paid editing even if it's not their main job function. as articulated, this is false: a burger-flipper at McDonald’s who edits the article about McDonald’s is definitely not a paid editor. (No comment about any more specific conditions that might apply here.) ~2026-86111-3 (talk) 12:25, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Pauleccles84 is using a paid contributor disclosure on his userpage, and has been very gracious about learning how to edit Wikipedia on their behalf. This seems like a non-issue, as he is happy to edit according to WP:PAID and hasn't complained. MightyRanger (talk) 15:28, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Anyone working on draftification should, of course, be careful and follow guidelines, in particular with accusing editors of unpaid editing. And I recommend that in the future, if User:MightyRanger moves an article to draft they allow a different editor to decide whether or not the article should be accepted or declined. However, I also want to add some context to these allegations against MightyRanger. Four days ago an anonymous editor brought up a number of unsubstantiated allegations against MightyRanger on this noticeboard, with the complaint closed as not actionable because it "relies almost entirely on private evidence, it is unsubstantiated and runs afoul of our policy against personal attacks." This new complaint likewise contains several similar unproven allegations from an anonymous editor. When I went through MightyRanger's edits several days ago as part of the previous noticeboard incident, I saw evidence of an editor who is working hard to improve the quality of articles on Wikipedia. My opinion on that hasn't changed. --SouthernNights (talk) 15:41, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

and it looks like both temp users that made ani reports.. their only contribs are reporting of Mighty Ranger. I hadn't noticed that when i commented. it's odd to say the least. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 18:06, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Very odd. SouthernNights (talk) 18:22, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

i do have some concerns about MightyRanger accusing users of paid editing, but I don't think they're acting in bad faith. they've been correct at least a couple times. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 20:06, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I try to act in good faith with other users and expect the same. The signs of paid editing (poor sourcing, promotional wording, single-purpose accounts) can also be signs of inexperienced editors who don't know how Wikipedia is supposed to work. Either way, they stand to benefit from being reminded of policies and undergoing review. The fact this user is resorting to unfounded accusations makes me doubt that they're acting in good faith or that they're entirely new to Wikipedia. MightyRanger (talk) 22:44, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

i think you're just too quick to call UPE in many cases is all. Your draftifications are correct under notability, i don't see any problems with that, but unless you have good evidence of paid editing, it's best not to accuse. It's entirely possible i missed something, im not all that familiar with UPE hunting, however. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 13:59, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point of view and will try to be very careful about making accusations, I always try to refrain from describing something as possible UPE unless there are multiple clear signs. With the page you pointed out, I tagged it as having paid contributions after I noticed the last contributor had a paid editing disclosure on his user page which listed that page's parent company. I also draftified the parent company page he created, because paid editors should submit new pages for their employer through AfC. He didn't know that, although he seemed thankful for the advice. MightyRanger (talk) 15:34, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I saw this board on the talk page of MightyRanger and decided to comment. He draftified my page yesterday, just a few minutes after I submitted it. He also accused me of being a sockpuppet of the account that created a draft about the same topic under the wrong name, which was poorly edited and poorly sourced. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Julien Casey#Julien Casey

I find hilarious because that account made two pages, one about some YouTube meme. Somewhere in the edit summary, he also mentioned UPE, to which I replied. I wish the chief board member of Twitter, Facebook, Google, and OpenAI was my buddy and called me today to make a page for his company.

I signed up for the review of biographies and afd recently, improved a dozen articles and am looking forward for more. I think draftification should not be misused by MightyRanger.

Regardless, these two articles you shared Colette Kress, Artie Starrs - do not meet notability rules. CFO of Nvidia seems important, but when I looked into it, it had no sources. It is mostly press releases and the content itself is not encyclopedia worthy at all. I made some edits on Draft:Colette Kress, but this article is not going to go anywhere in this condition. The other article from this complaint does not look more promising either. It is bold for you to say that these two people are notable. I googled them and did not find any better sources. I will review some other pages moved to draft space by MightyRanger. Mainecoon1111 (talk) 10:35, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's very unusual to see an account a few days old immediately nominating articles for AfD, and then to create a very detailed page for a company that was just rejected in AfC within the past few days. That's the main reason your behavior seemed odd to me, and (I assume) it's why the SPI case was endorsed and is proceeding. I asked if you have a COI and you replied, although I have to tell you that it's really not unbelievable to think that major companies pay Wikipedia editors because it happens all the time. MightyRanger (talk) 15:28, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I don't have any personal problem with you and I appreciate you looking over those drafts and giving your thoughts on them. It can be hard to distinguish between a sock and an old editor who's returning with a new account, so if I made an error, I apologize. MightyRanger (talk) 16:14, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

For further documentation, I have reviewed pages from the complaints, as well as additional recent edits made by MightyRanger. I personally enjoy editing biographies, so here is my summary.

On average, I can see that most of the draftified pages would not have passed creation, and the main cause would be poor sourcing and blatant promotion.

1-2.Two drafts from this complaint are poorly sourced, promotional, and I do not see evidence of notability. Draft:Artie Starrs & Draft:Artie Starrs. I understand the person might be upset, but they need better sources.

3.Draft:Dart (project management) an article about a startup was moved to draft and tagged UPE/COI. It is pending at AfC, but will likely be rejected. I removed 15 press releases from the page, and it was left with 3 sources, none of which are suitable.

4.Draft:Bluetail, Inc, an article about a software company was tagged UPE/COI. It reads as promotional. I made edits to it. It is aviation software, so it is hard to say if it is notable. Coverage is very local. I am not sure if we can find three sources to meet notability. I would say this article could be considered problematic.

5. Draft:Raisin (company) is a German technology company. It seems to be edited well and has a filled out infobox. It was tagged UPE/COI. The article was promotional, but I do not think promotion alone is a reason for draftification. There are maintenance templates that could be used. The article seems to be sourced fairly well. The company raised a lot of capital, which means it is operating on a large scale. It cannot be compared to some early startups that barely exist on paper while exploiting a PR machine. Could there be COI/UPE? Probably. But it also does not mean someone could not create this page because they are familiar with the company. Better sources could be added, but I think it is suitable for the mainspace. Draftification of this page might have been problematic. The creator of the page describes himself as a startup fan in Berlin. User:StartupFanBerlin To be fair, he seems to have submitted another page for review now, for another startup. The page looks promotional too, in the same style, but it is edited well compared to other articles about companies. Draft:Wefox Promotion could be removed.

6.Draft:Fluance is a Canadian company about audio equipment. I think draftification is justified here. The article does not have the best sourcing. Nothing in global media, just some small news sites. I understand that audio equipment is a niche, but there is likely no notability for this company. Again, COI/UPE are possible, but that is rather speculation.

7.Draft:Israel Ellis is a page about a person who seems to be an activist. Sourcing is poor. I removed some promotional content, but it is still not suitable for Wikipedia. Most sources are articles he wrote himself. The article would be rejected via AfC, so I do not think draftification is a problem.

8.YOPE is a mobile app. The page is well written and properly sourced. The infobox is also complete. There was some general promotion, and I removed some, but it does not affect notability. The article was accepted via AfC and is now in the mainspace. I think draftification was not justified here. The article was tagged for COI/UPE. Again, there could be UPE/COI, but that is speculation. The editor seems to make a few edits here and there. User talk:Prion Gorbas

9.Draft:Cooper Phillip is an article about a music artist, tagged for COI/UPE. I see no notability. The person has 500 monthly listeners on Spotify, and that speaks for itself https://open.spotify.com/artist/7H0ovPvT9huVeoQOpO1gRZ. There are no reliable sources in this article, and she is described as a music diva superstar selling music coaching classes. Draftification is definitely justified. She does not meet subject based notability.

10.Tariq Chauhan is a CEO in Dubai. I think draftification was justified. The page is extremely promotional, and I removed a lot of information from it. There is some notability, probably, if sources are combined. There were also a few AfDs on this article, from what I understand. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tariq Chauhan (2nd nomination) Is it UPE/COI? I do not know. We can only speculate. But it does not change the notability of the subject.

11-12. Articles from another complaint: The most problematic pages would be Abhinav Gupta and Deepak Pathak. The COI/UPE tag was justified and was confirmed. It looks like the editor is blocked, so there is no speculation about it. I did not make any immediate edits and do not see much promotional material.

I think what caused the most problems is - 3 AfDs as none of them show any votes to delete. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deepak Pathak & Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abhinav Gupta. There was an overwhelming consensus to keep.

13. There was also a third page made by the same editor about the startup founded by people mentioned above. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skild AI Notability wise, the company is likely notable, and it seems there are many sources available. I think the article should have been draftified after AfD and not deleted. Draftification and the consequent nomination were, I think, the most problematic actions out of this whole list, that caused the conflict.

The question is whether editors with COI/UPE are allowed to create a page in the mainspace. There is no way to fully control that. It happens that someone with UPE/COI makes an article about a subject that is notable. It could be poorly written, but sources could support notability. Should draftification be applied in such cases then, or should those articles be left in the mainspace, in case they meet notability, even if include a lot of promotional material?

As a summary, out of the 13 draftifications made by MightyRanger, only 5 articles, YOPE, Abhinav Gupta, Deepak Pathak, Draft:Raisin (company), and Skild AI, seem to be in better condition and ready for the mainspace, with better sourcing and claims of notability.

All 13 articles likely have possible COI/UPE, even if not disclosed. All were made by fairly new users with no edits on other topics. So we cannot certainly say that draftification was wrong and must be reverted. Mistakes happen, yes. Mistaken AfDs happen, yes. But a mass revert would bring 10 plus articles in the worst possible shape, about topics with zero notability, into Wikipedia mainspace.

I also do not understand why the complaints are anonymous if it is absolutely fine to discuss a problem with full transparency, and it is okay to disagree with the draftification and someone's edits. Whoever made the complain, feel free to share your article on my talk and I will look into it and help make edits. Nobody would approve your two articles from this complaint in their current state. Mainecoon1111 (talk) 20:26, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I do not seek a sanction. Would somebody close Talk:Lewis's trilemma#Does this Simplify Lewis argument? And tell the TA to come back when they have concrete edits, based upon WP:RS. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:43, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you just stop talking to them? They haven't made any article edits. ~2026-11347-37 (talk) 14:33, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Max Lugavere (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
• Tioaeu8943 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Max Lugavere is a low carb diet influencer that promotes fringe views about nutrition including the false idea that seeds oils are the cause of all modern chronic diseases. He is involved with Paul Saladino and promoting the Make America Healthy Again campaign. He wrote a book advocating a paleo diet but it hardly got any notice from the scientific community. Lugavere is also known as an anti-vegan activist because he spends most of his time on podcasts attacking vegans and vegetarians as "scammers".

A few weeks ago Lugavere complained about his Wikipedia article and was interviewed by his friend Ashley Rindsberg owner of the NPOV substack. Both Lugavere and Rinsberg have been campaigning on x.com, Facebook, Instagram and podcasts to remove "anti-vegan activist" and any criticisms from his Wikipedia lead [103], [104], [105] . Rindsberg has also promoted a bizarre conspiracy theory that myself, Jonathan Jarry and Joseph Schwarcz of Office for Science and Society, User:Sgerbic User:Robincantin and the Guerilla Skepticism on Wikipedia team are somehow linked together in trying to destroy Lugavere's reputation. None of this has any basis in fact and is purely fiction to drum up click bait.

I had no idea who Ashley Rindsberg was until today but it turns out as he likes to invent Wikipedia controversies for attention. Recently a newish Wikipedia account Tioaeu8943 has been whitewashing critical commentary from the Max Lugavere article and removing exactly the same sources that Rindsberg wanted removed from the article lead. This user claims they came to edit the Wikipedia article after reading Rindsberg Substack article [106]. The user also denies that any of Max Lugavere's views are "fringe".

The problem is that this really is off-wiki harassment that is now being pasted on to the talk-page of the Wikipedia article in an attempt to blacklist my username. For example, Tioaeu8943 is copying chunks of Rindsberg attack against me [107], the same user has also baited me into responding to Rinsberg [108]. I shouldn't be forced to. I do not need to waste my time responding to Rindsberg's attack piece and misinformation.

I appreciate if an admin could have a word with Tioaeu8943 to not keep pasting in personal attacks from Rindsberg's blog. As for the claims about canvassing, yes I do think that is happening here as Rindsberg has said he wants to remove anything from the Office for Science and Society from the lead of the article and that is exactly what Tioaeu8943 was doing to the article. Carrot juice (talk) 01:44, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a fair or accurate assessment of my editing on the article. I did not whitewash anything. I did not remove any sourced criticism. Everything that was claimed by the Office for Science and Society remains there, and I have no intention of removing it because it is reliably sourced. In fact, I added some criticism. I have no stance on whether Lugavere's positions are fringe; my objection was that the sources cited to say they are fringe are two movie review sites about which there has been no RS discussion, and they also do not say they that Lugavere's positions are fringe. This fails the requirement for high-quality, reliable sources stated in WP:BLP. Rindsberg's remarks were not personal attacks. I quoted them because Rindsberg reported that CJ has established a pattern of spuriously framing Lugavere's views as fringe and escalating discussions with accusations of bad faith, and when I edited the article, CJ spuriously framed Lugavere's views as fringe and escalated discussion with an accusation of bad faith. CJ also accused me of COI editing, which I deny, and which I don't believe was an appropriate accusation. Some of the material in the lead was not supported in the body per WP:LFB even before I began editing. By the time I produced what I thought was a neutral article, another item struck me as WP:UNDUE and I removed that as well. I have no objection to critical material in the lead, but the article to which CJ reverted has claims that violate MOS:BLPLEAD.

By all means, I invite an admin or anyone else to compare the version I edited to the version to which CJ reverted. I believe that the former better follows BLP and NPOV, and I am open to feedback if I am mistaken about that. I invite a review of any edit I made from here to here in terms of policy I misunderstood or inclusions I should not have made. As it is, I believe that the version to which CJ reverted has urgent BLP violations and is not neutral, and blanked material for which there was no good reason to remove. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 03:53, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest we don't really give a damn what Rindsberg or any else says about Wikipedia in their personal blog and editors should not be quoting such off site attacks lest they get site banned. If editor see something of merit in what has been said, they should be able to explain in their own words and using diffs and reliable secondary sources what the problem is without needing to quote some off-site attacker. Nil Einne (talk) 03:58, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I will refrain from doing so going forward. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 04:11, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, "version to which CJ reverted" is not a diff making it quite difficult to see what you're talking about. But in any case, we don't deal with content issues here. BLP violations sure but you will need to be more specific as the only example you gave of alleged BLP problems in the article are the movie review thing. Nil Einne (talk) 04:03, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, here's a diff. Please let me know if you're looking for something else or additional. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 04:17, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Rindsberg's remarks were not accurate and have no place in being copy and pasted onto Wikipedia talk-pages with an agenda to harass. They are definitely personal attacks and are being written in a sensationalist way to make money through Substack. Most of his statements about my Wikipedia account were not sourced but Tioaeu8943 cites his content without any fact checking. I have never been accused on Wikipedia by any experienced editors of bad faith, canvassing, meat-puppetry or sock-puppetry or for a confrontational, prosecutorial tone. In the space of 7 years I was accused by one user of harassment. This was a misunderstanding in which I later apologized. That same user later joined the WP:VAV WikiProject which I created and we have since co-worked on around ten articles together.

There is no mention by Rindsberg that I have created over 400 Wikipedia articles, uploaded 1000s of historical photographs (from subscriptions to rare newspaper archives out of my own cost by the way) and improved around 3000 articles on veganism and vegetarian history as well as 100s on MEDRS related and nutrition articles. Rindsberg had to scan through over 60,000 of my edits to try and find any piece of dirt on me six years ago to try and make it stick. The user claims I have a vegan-POV, this isn't supported by any edits. Being interested in improving vegan and vegetarian history does not make me POV-warrior on vegan health related topics. Users involved in MEDRS topics are well aware that I oppose all sorts of dietary fads and nonsense. I wrote the John A. McDougall article who promoted plant-based pseudoscience. It doesn't matter what fad diet someone is following if there is sourcing critical of it, then it should be cited.

Tioaeu8943 claims they have not removed any sources. This isn't the case, the user has removed sourcing from the lead which is what Rindsberg told his followers to do. You can see their version of the article here [109] compared to the recent [110]. Most of the lead has been deliberately removed. The motive in this is very clear. Rindsberg has complained that the the critical comments from the Office for Science and Society in the lead show up on Google infobox (knowledge panel) for Lugavere so he was requesting for users to remove it. And that is exactly what Tioaeu8943 has been doing.

Lastly, Rindsberg and Tioaeu8943 are parroting this idea that it is me and only me who is describing Max Lugavere's dietary views as WP:Fringe. This is beyond ridiculous as anyone can read his Wikipedia article and check out all of the sourcing to see that this guy promotes pseudoscientific views on nutrition (seed oils are bad etc). The idea that breakfast cereal is detrimental to health or that plant-based diets increase dementia risk is beyond comedy. There is no clinical evidence for this. Per NPOV we shouldn't be framing this guys ideas as evidence-based, this is definitely fringe and is damaging to a Wikipedia biography if we try and pass this off as anything else. Carrot juice (talk) 04:57, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:LEAD says The lead should identify the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight. I removed the claim in the lead that Lugavere's views about supplements to "supercharge" the brain are not supported by scientific evidence because does it not correlate to any material in the body. Obviously that claim could be included in the body and summarized in the lead, but that's not going on in the reverted version. The other claim, that Lugavere is an "anti-vegan activist," struck me as undue as I already explained above.

I never asserted that CJ and only CJ is is describing Max Lugavere's dietary views as WP:Fringe. I'm saying that the source in the article for calling them fringe is a movie critic on a site with no established reliability, and this does not satisfy BLP. Fringe is CJ's characterization of the views in question, and BLP would seem to require its attribution to someone.

CJ has moved on from objecting to my quoting claims by Rindsberg, which I already said I would not do again, to objecting to claims by Rindsberg that I didn't quote, and facts that CJ feels he should have offered but didn't. I can't comment on the latter except that it didn't figure into how I edited the article. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 05:32, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In the present version of the article, I see "fringe" used in two instances: first in the infobox, and a second in the prose describing the subject's film. The infobox descriptor is supported by the two McGill/OSS sources mentioned above, which certainly pass muster as WP:RS and generally seem to support the descriptor; although it must be granted that neither uses the precise word "fringe", they frame Lugavere as a non-expert attempting to grapple with complex research and falling back on impressionistic reasoning out of some combination of 1) being out of his depth with regard to the empirical method and the highly complex neurophysiological topics he attempts to grapple with, and 2) being engaged with the self-promotion culture of social media influencers inside the alternative health/MAHA space.

Now, as those two sources go, you might be able to make a case that using the label "fringe" is a bridge too far under WP:SYNTH. But the likely result of that will be to lead to the content of those articles being described at greater length in the article, with attribution, so I'd be prepared to accept that outcome if you decide to push for the removal of the fringe descriptor. You might prevail on that point, only to open the door to a much more fulsome description of Lugavere's dubious positions on various issues. Of course, if we take your claims of not having a COI here and just wishing to create a stricter relationship between source and article content at face value (and as one uninvolved respondent, I am happy to do so), then you may have no qualms about that outcome. But its worth noting, I think, that the more detail is distilled from those sources, the more woo-oriented Lugavere is likely to appear in the resulting article.

Now as regards the use of the movie review, I am a little confused by your argument, because actually, that review also does not contain the descriptor "fringe", so I would expect your objection to be based on the absence of that specific terminology (again, arguing that WP:SYNTH cannot be used to fill that gap). However, the use of the review in the article otherwise completely conforms to WP:RS requirements, since the reviewer's position/observations about what they see happening in the documentary are fully attributed and faithfully quoted, and the reader can make their own decisions about the reviewer's analysis. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 09:51, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, if we take your claims of not having a COI here and just wishing to create a stricter relationship between source and article content at face value (and as one uninvolved respondent, I am happy to do so), then you may have no qualms about that outcome. Indeed you may, and you are correct that I would have no qualms about that outcome. I've already pointed out in talk[111] that the fringe characterization is SYNTH. I would rather see that corrected at greater length and according to policy than summarized in the present manner, which looks like WP:POVPUSHing and which the sourcing doesn't support.

I also already brought up the issue in talk[112] that the film reviewers likewise don't characterize Lugavere's positions as "fringe," and yes, that is also an issue of SYNTH as well as not being of adequate quality for BLP. Of course, the reviewers' attributed opinions of the documentary belong in the article. I never sought to remove them, and I added another from the New York Times that was of mixed judgment about the film, which Carrot juice blanked. I completely agree that the reader can make their own decisions about the reviewer's analysis and that the article should be written to allow him or her to do so.

Pace CJ's accusation that I tried to whitewash this article, I suppressed no material with intentions of making the subject look better than he should. CJ appears to be doing the converse, though, suppressing attempts to revise the article with more neutral language and expansive sourcing to make the subject look worse than he should. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 11:53, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"Fringe" is WP internal jargon, it's better to use synonymous language used by sources when relevant. ~2026-92659-0 (talk) 12:52, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is an important point, thank you. Fringe has a conventional meaning; WP:FRINGE has policy implications. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 13:19, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

User:Nyxaros was previously reported on Feb 14 for 3RR disruptive editing on the Marty Supreme page. They received a warning, however came right back again to the page 2 days later on Feb 16 to revert the same edits. Their edits have been reverted by several editors in the last few days yet they keep warring and reverting back to their preferred edits. This editor’s argument is MOS:ACCLAIM however a few other editors including myself have made it clear to them that there are numerous reputable sources in the article that justify “universal acclaim” for the movie including metacritic and several reputable publications already quoted in the article, yet they have ignored all this and continue to revert claiming “no high-quality sources”. I refuse to keep warring with this editor that has chosen to continuously act in bad faith, It is only right that we all adhere good conduct policies that make editing spaces conducive and harmonious for everyone. It is also clear that the one warning did nothing to deter them, perhaps a stronger disciplinary measure would be more suiting. Soe743edits (talk) 13:09, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like a content dispute that should be discussed on the article talk page and I don't see any evidence of that being attempted. Fwiw I'd agree that using "critical acclaim" in wikivoice in the lead does contravene MOS:ACCLAIM. Orange sticker (talk) 14:05, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Correct me if I’m reading this wrong but in what way does including ‘critical acclaim’ contravene the description for MOS:ACCLAIM?

“ Describing a film with superlatives such as "critically acclaimed" or "box-office bomb" is loaded language and an exceptional claim that must be attributed to multiple high-quality sources. Be wary of news headlines, which are not reliable sources, that may contain exaggerated or sensationalized claims not supported by the body of the source.”

I would assume that this is implying critical acclaim is a ‘loaded language that should only be used when attributed to high quality sources.’ Marty Supreme is sitting at 89 and “universal acclaim” on metacritic a reputable source for critics. Not to mention publications like Guardian and Hollywood reporter quoted in the article rating it extremely highly. These are not ‘unreliable news headlines’ but reviews from major critics. Critical acclaim for the movie is an established undisputed fact backed by several reputable sources.

It is also not unheard of that movies with universal acclaim add this phrase in lead. examples from 2025 being one battle after another, sinners, sentimental value; movies that all currently have critical acclaim or widespread acclaim mentioned in lead.

So again I ask, could you possibly clarify how mentioning critical acclaim in lead contravenes MOS:ACCLAIM? Soe743edits (talk) 14:32, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's unattributed. The second use, putting "universal acclaim" in quote marks is fine. But this is the discussion we should be having on the article talk page, it's about content. Orange sticker (talk) 14:39, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I can concede to discussing this on the article talk page if other editors disagreed, however right now it’s just this one editor reverting the phrase. They were clearly given a warning and yet not even 2 days later, went back on the page to revert the same phrase. Shouldn’t there be some kind of disciplinary measure for acting in bad faith and not adhering to wiki rules. Also if you don’t mind me asking, how is it unattributed if the reliable sources for universal acclaim are clearly quoted in the article? universal acclaim from critics is critical acclaim. Soe743edits (talk) 15:01, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Can you link to the previous report? Orange sticker (talk) 15:07, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1215#h-Disruptive editing on the Marty Supreme page-20260214051900 Soe743edits (talk) 15:10, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I see they were warned on their talk page for edit warring. The advice in that warning, and on linked to on this page in WP:DISPUTE is to use the article talk page, which I think is the best way forward here. Orange sticker (talk) 15:21, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Considering how much I was scrutinized for the report, it’s really no surprise the editor went back on the page to revert again. despite the warning Soe743edits (talk) 15:19, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Another report? I guess some people never learn from their mistakes even after an admin and another editor points out their faults in a previous report. You were rightfully scrutinized, and the page should have been reverted back to status quo anyway, you know, before you added your synthesis and the loaded language. Please do not ping me to continue unproductive discussions; these matters could easily be avoided by you reviewing and following MOS, learning more about Wikipedia. ภץאคгöร 22:09, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @The Bushranger: and @Ravenswing: as they've seen Soe743edits's exaggerations and unfounded accusations in the previous topic. The user is making stuff up again: ignoring MOS:ACCLAIM, claiming that other unknown references state "critical acclaim", and explicitly lying about my actions ("Their edits have been reverted by several editors in the last few days yet they keep warring and reverting back to their preferred edits."...) The user is simply WP:NOTHERE. ภץאคгöร 22:15, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You were warned though, and told to use the article talk page seeing as you don't have consensus on your changes. This could have been avoided. Orange sticker (talk) 22:35, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, in the previous discussion which has been already discussed and which was actually about revert counts. This does not override the fact that the user is problematic and so is the edit on the page (which even you admitted). They are reporting me for no reason and trying to justify their edits. ภץאคгöร 23:37, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this could clearly not been avoided through an article talk page discussion. Despite repeated explanations from multiple editors, including you here just above, the user continues to insist on the same course of action and reverted his edit back. I've not seen many cases in the last 15 years or so where an editor was violating MOS:ACCLAIM and WP:SYNTH, and the other party who removed these violations had to obtain consensus... ภץאคгöร 23:45, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You would think “15 years” as an editor would have familiarized you with guidelines and best practice, instead you repeatedly break rules like 3RR, while also failing to understand the same MOS:ACCLAIM you keep throwing around. These editors may have scrutinized my choice of words i.e “vandalism”, but ultimately still saw fit to issue you a warning meaning you were wrong. Also relegating metacritic, the most reputable source for critics to “unknown references” honestly speaks more to how disingenuous you have been. I have not lied nor accused you of anything you didn’t do, Several editors reverted your edits in the last week which was how you broke the three revert rule in the first place. I have no desire to continue to indulge you and your whims, however it should be clear that MOS:ACCLAIM states that loaded words like critical acclaim can be justified if attributed to multiple high quality sources. Sources that, in this case, have already been quoted in the article i.e reliable publications like Guardian and the Hollywood Reporter giving it full scores among others. Metacritic is also a reputable source that shouldn’t be disregarded just to suit your misguided agenda. Soe743edits (talk) 01:04, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

⛏⛑ Digging time: On January 24th, an IP user changed "received positive reviews" to "widespread universal acclaim" where it get cut to "widespread acclaim" by Esrever. (Diff/1334639184, Diff/1334685756) The wording gets moved around, but is stable until February 12th where Nyxaros changes "The film received widespread acclaim" to "The film was praised by critics" while citing MOS:ACCLAIM. (Diff/1337902402) U75-S81 reverts without explanation half a day later, to which Nyxaros reverts back as the last edit for the day. (Diff/1338013335, Diff/1338051940) For the 13th, Soe743edits reverts, Nyxaros reverts back, Jjj1238 reverts, Nyxaros reverts back, U75-S81 reverts without explanation, and Nyxaros reverts back just before the day ends. (Diff/1338107488, Diff/1338136357, Diff/1338141989, Diff/1338180037, Diff/1338192257, Diff/1338230622) As we roll to the 14th, Soe743edits reverts Nyxaros (and Kokaynegeesus by mistake(?)) while warning Nyxaros in the edit summary about further reverts, then takes Nyxaros to ANI 20 minutes later. (Diff/1338276651, ANI discussion) Nyxaros received a warning on their talk page while Soe743edits was cautioned(?) for their comments. (Cautioned might be too light of a word, but Soe743edits didn't get a user talk page warning. See the ANI link for what was specifically said, but it involved WP:NOTVAND plus WP:WIKILAWYERING, an implication of WP:BOOMERANG, and that the issue should have been posted to WP:ANEW.)

Now that we are past the first ANI thread, after a day of the wording staying as "The film received critical acclaim", Nyxaros removes the wording on the 16th with the edit summary the editor who complained and made a mess on ANI did not provide any "multiple high quality" sources for this claim. also critic's choice is not a major award. (Diff/1338718817) Independently of this, TropicAces changes the release date to the 19th, which Youknowmyname657 restores back to the 25th and TropicAces swaps back to the 19th. (Long story short, there was/is a disagreement here on if the first theater date or the widely distributed date should be used; Diff/1338676389, Diff/1338715639, Diff/1338716255) This matters as on the 17th, U75-S81 again makes reverts without an edit summary, with this time being reverts to both the date and the acclaim wording along with some other changes. (Diff/1338841660) Nyxaros and TropicAces separately revert on the 18th. (Diff/1338987003, Diff/1339105447) U75-S81 returns with another no edit summary revert on the 19th, their fourth overall to the article that I know of, but only changes the dates back to the 25th. (Diff/1339242775) Finally, on the 20th, Soe743edits starts this thread and then returns to the article with a revert to Nyxaros along with a number of changes in the same edit with the edit summary, MOS:ACCLAIM metacritic and several other reputable publications are quoted in the article for “universal acclaim”, kindly refrain from disrupting the page. critics choice is also considered a major acting awards’ precursor and should be highlighted. (Diff/1339423258) --Super Goku V (talk) 11:50, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

With all the diffs posted above, I do want to say a few things. First, the last comment dated on the talk page in from January 31st. There is a lot of reverting, but no talk page discussion going on. The next thing is that while most users are using edit summaries, there is at least one user who is not, which isn't helping matters. Finally, this isn't the only editing issue going on. As noted in the diffs comment above, there has been more than one change to the release date. But that isn't the only thing going on. The film's first sentence has gone from "2025 American sports comedy-drama film" to "2025 American sports crime thriller film" and back a few times this week. Also going back and forth this week is a sentence in the plot going to and from saying "a farmer" and "an antisemitic farmer" in the fourth paragraph. If asked, I am willing to get diffs of those, but it is getting silly that there are four separate parts of the article that have gone back and forth in the edits. --Super Goku V (talk) 11:57, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 • FYI, since this has been an unnecessarily long discussion and another editor already pointed out Soe743edits's WP:NOTVAND, WP:WIKILAWYERING, and WP:BOOMERANG issues in addition to their false statements and WP:NOTHERE behavior above, I'll also do a summary specifically on this topic: the editor is continuing to repeat the same arguments while making the same statements about both the sources and my edits.

For the record, obviously I am familiar with the relevant guidelines, including MOS:ACCLAIM, and my contributions reflect that. The issue here is that the editor is rejecting the plain meaning of MOS:ACCLAIM, relying on Metacritic's classification as a justification, and then asserting that THR and Guardian explicitly state "critical acclaim" when they do not ("giving full scores among others"... of course this is not Guardian and THR links reporting "critical acclaim"). They have also continued to mischaracterize my actions in the discussion.

This is part of a broader pattern of disruptive editing. The editor appears to be fixated on the page, has not made constructive changes in line with policy, and is instead attempting to force non-constructive content into the article while making accusations against me.

The page history and source statements are clear. The disputed additions are based on synthesis and are always regularly reverted/removed for that reason. As Super Goku V pointed out, this includes changes made by other editors on the article page on topics outside of this discussion. I am requesting administrative attention to the issue, the repeated misrepresentation of sources and Soe743edits's problematic actions and replies. ภץאคгöร 12:22, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

15 years of editing yet you break rules as you see fit and throw around false accusations all the while being immensely condescending. Clearly experience has not favored you in any way. Also funny how you quote WP:NOTHERE behavior, meanwhile most guidelines under there, YOU have vehemently broken and then conveniently absolved yourself of wrong to push the blame onto others. Anyone reading through the edit history of the Marty Supreme page can see your pattern of reverting and warring. As the editor above mentioned, there have also been reverts going on with the film genre in lead that you're also conveniently part of. You have bounced around from critical acclaim reverts to genre reverts among others as you see fit, ignoring clear quoted sources from reputable publications because they don’t meet your agenda, Yet you say I’m the problematic one. Disciplinary measure and administrative attention against editors like you is beyond necessary. Do note that if this is unresolved, i will proceed with yet another report until all your actions are brought to light. Soe743edits (talk) 13:14, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

More of the same nonsense, well then WP:BOOMERANG is coming your way. ภץאคгöร 19:02, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Do note that if this is unresolved, i will proceed with yet another report until all your actions are brought to light. No, you won't, because that's a declaration that you intend to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point Instead you'll drop the stick. Neither of you has covered yourselves in glory here. I'd suggest both of you take a deep breath, step back, and edit other pages. Soe743edits, please note that accusations such as you break rules as you see fit and throw around false accusations without evidence in the form of diffs is a personal attack and continuing to make such comments without providing evidence will result in sanctions. Nyxaros, regardless of the validity of any other comments here, they are correct that you did break 3RR on Marty Supreme at one point - by ~30 minutes, which is why you were only warned, but please be more careful in the future. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:46, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

I'm reporting this editor for their persistent tendentious and disruptive editing as a number of editors have recommended. This editor is clearly WP:NOTHERE. Their contributions on this platform consist almost entirely of unilaterally adding or replacing one language with another for native names in settlement articles (both in the lede and infobox), despite having been told by other editors not to per the guidelines at MOS:FOREIGNEQUIV and Template:Infobox settlement.
Most recently, after unilaterally deleting the Arabic name on Nador and replacing it with Berber, they restored their change after I reverted it, labeling my revert "obvious vandalism" and then posting on my talk page to threaten an ANI report and tell me "don't touch" it.[113] This follows warnings/concerns raised by roughly half a dozen editors.[114][115][116][117][118][119] They've also been engaging in WP:HOUNDING lately.[120][121] Skitash (talk) 02:34, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

most of the users who talked about getting me blocked were users with a history of deleting Tifinagh and who got upset when I added Tamazight etymologys on moroccan cities despite well sourced.

No my contributions are not unilaterally. for example I added both the Tamazight as well as the arabic etymology of tindouf.

No I am not replacing native names, I add native names. Actually you are the one replacing them. When you removed the amazigh name of rabat, you claimed you did that because it would not be the dominant language cause most inhabitants speak arabic not Tamazight. so I applied your own rule Nador, where most people have Tamazight as a native language but this made you upset for some reason.

I told you multiple times that MOS:FOREIGNEQUIV is about the lead not the infobox. Despite this you kept deleting native amazigh names in the infobox cause you claimed they would not dominant. I explained multiple times to you that language dominance [[[Language dominance]] is defined as a language with institutional support, which include official languages. however you and r3yboi believe that this is semantics for some reason and does not apply [[[Talk:Tangier-Tétouan-Al Hoceima]]. you also apparently don't believe that amazighs are not native to Morocco despite I explained multiple times to you that they are on the list for native people of North Africa.

Yes your deletion of Tifinagh was obvious vandalism. You dislike that I applied your own made up rules to an article where it would increase the visibility of amazigh. So you did not only deleted the Tifinagh but also well sourced other things I added, like under notable persons an olympic silver medalist for the obvious reason that I was the one adding it and you have some kind of weird vendetta against me.

those warnings are all by users with a history of deleting Tifinagh. Bananakingler (talk) 12:18, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What you're doing now is making baseless accusations of coordination and accusing everyone who disagrees with you of just having "a history of deleting Tifinagh [...] who got upset when I added Tamazight." Both of the editors you've pinged barely engage with Moroccan city articles, and the fact that you admitted "I cannot say yes with certainty" shows you're casting baseless WP:ASPERSIONS. I won't get into the content dispute stuff as this isn't the venue for it, but Template:Infobox settlement is clear as day in outlining what a "dominant local language" is, and attempting to extend that to what you call "institutional support" based on a disambiguation article is the exact kind of semantics you're accusing others of. Furthermore, labeling someone's edit "obvious vandalism" (and I suggest you read what WP:VANDAL is) for restoring the status quo after your unilateral and completely unwarranted edit, and then following up with threats, crosses into WP:BATTLEGROUND. Skitash (talk) 14:36, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah of course they engage in discussions about the addition Tifinagh. I have commented multiple edits by that users where they delete Tifinagh. Why do you defend your friends?

Yeah I cannot say with certainty where and how you guys communicate but this disruptive behavior by your group is happening much to obvious that it is basically impossible to assume that you are not in any way coordinated.

Yeah you never engaged in my arguments about the addition in the infobox. You use stonewalling arguments and don't answer when you get counter arguments. then you revert edits and give out warnings to create an edit war. I am not accusing others of "semantics". it is uncivil to LIE here. So please show me and everyone else where I accused anyone of "semantics".

Yes your edit was obvious vandalism because you just wanted to take revenge on me. Why else would you delete not just the tiffinagh but 3 more edits, including the simple addition of an olympian medalist on the notable person section? Bananakingler (talk) 15:53, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your reply continues to spew unsubstantiated allegations of coordination and bad faith WP:ASPERSIONS such as calling my revert "revenge" and "lying," both of which are uncivil personal attacks. As for stonewalling, I have repeatedly explained my reverts with references to guidelines; in contrast you've repeatedly demanded answers despite those explanations, e.g. "I'm asking you again" and "Please stop ignoring my question and answer it so we can continue," and hairsplitting over semantics and going as far as using AI-generated responses and uncivil threats which are the actual WP:BLUDGEONING. The persistent WP:SPA focus and WP:NOTHERE behavior as well as the warnings from multiple editors are the actual issues here, and you can't just dismiss them all as "people who don't like Tifinagh" when there's several recurring issues. Skitash (talk) 02:01, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• I have merged this report as a subsection of an earlier report on the same topic. ~2026-86111-3 (talk) 12:14, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Skitash (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has been disturbing for a long time. Actually he is coordinating himself with other user like M.Bitton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and R3YBOl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

It started for me with a discussion about the Tifinagh Name on [[oriental (Morocco)]. He tried to force an edit war by despite achieving an Consens on the talk page about the addition of Tifinagh, his friends tried to delete it. When other users stepped in and called them out Skitash tried the next best possibility to erase Tifinagh: He deletes it and hides it in a comment instead. [122].

I tried multiple to find a middle ground, for example by adding the Tifinagh only to the Infobox or hide booth names in The comment but he did not want to engage in any kind discussion and just wanted his POV to be in the article.

But there are hundreds of examples of how he stonewalled arguments on his contributions by deleting Tifinagh. In older arguments he claimed that there would not be any kind of reliable source but most of the time he just claimed that i edit war cause I disagreed with him [123]

He has also been engaging in WP:Hounding for a long time. When I add anything he disagrees with like Tifinagh on Oriental Morocco [124] he does not only revert it [125] but goes through other edits of me on unrelated pages to revert them too, obvously in order to provoke. [126] [127], [128] [129] (This one despite me reverting additions of an user disruptive and blocked user who faked sources DNASeer, and after that giving me an obvious punitive threat on my talk page [130])

When I took a break of wikipedia for a few days, he tried to use this windows to get me blocked by accusing of me sockpuppeting [131] which I was proved to be innocent of.

The craziest thing happened when I added the etymology of tindouf https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tindouf&oldid=1332621144

He started to discuss on his talk page how to get me blocked [132] [133] which coincides whits lots of warnings of him and his friends on my talking page [134] [135] [136] [137] [138]