Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive378

Unblock request by Chandel itihasam zy

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Chandel itihasam zy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Chandel itihasam zy (talk · contribs) is appealing their indefinite partial block from article space, which has been implemented as an editor restriction associated with the South Asia contentious topic (WP:CT/SA) per the result of the arbitration enforcement request at Special:Permalink/1336971073 § Chandel itihasam zy.

Per WP:CTOPAPPEALS, Chandel itihasam zy requested that the following text be posted:

Please copy my appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard or administrators' noticeboard. } just edited and fixed information and You blocked me?? see the previous part of the edited page by me puranmal Singh Chandel of gidhaur. A giy clearly used the news article as source (2 years ago), yet you let them use it on Wikipedia. And when I fixed that That too from a source that's already on the website. Will you block me for that? What military edit did I make there? Even in the Vidyadhar section, I had only included the full information of the Sorres side, not separately. So kidnly unblock me. If you want me to stay aware from History pages then tell me directly please, I will stay away from that Chandel itihasam zy (talk) 01:58, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

After I responded with a clarification of the extended confirmed restriction (ECR) and asked Chandel itihasam zy to confirm their unblock request, they responded:

I acknowledge that my edits violated the ecr, and I take responsibility for not adhering to it despite prior warning. I was thinking admins might that if I edit correctly with the source then there will be no problem, Because on the page where I edited the article of Puranmal, the source of the news was given there. So I thought if he can edit the page with news as a source, then why not I can with the authentic source. And about Vidyadharvarman's Wikipedia. victory was hidden by showing half side of historeans! as if he had lost. I just corrected that with the source from the same book cited. Still you are saying so, fine it was totally my fault. And I'm sorry.

Going forward, I will fully comply with ecr by using article talk pages and formal edit requests only in military area or fully leave that topic till 500 edits, and I will not edit restricted articles directly untill eligible. I respectfully request reconsideration of the current block and the opportunity to demonstrate compliance with Wikipedia's policies. Chandel itihasam zy (talk) 17:54, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Their appeal is presented here for community consideration. Chandel itihasam zy is not blocked from editing this noticeboard, so they are able to respond here. — Newslinger talk 18:26, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose unless the partial block is replaced with a topic ban from WP:CT/SA - this editor didn't stumble into a violation, but has had the contentious topics rules spelled out to them on myriad occasions, to no avail. As of about 12 hours ago, they still claimed they thought making a sourced edit was an exception, showing no meaningful comprehension of months of countless warnings, an AE filing, and three blocks. I do not know whether the inability to adjust behavior is them being unable or unwilling to do so, but I do know that I don't think their user rights should go back to the pre-AE status quo, when that status quo was completely ineffective at preventing inappropriate editing. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 20:59, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Replace with topic ban from WP:CT/SA - You might take a different topic, but please use talk pages of articles covered under highly contentious topics at WP:CTOPS. Otherwise, take a step back from ENWP and give a different Wikimedia wiki a try. Ahri Boy (talk) 01:56, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I will stay away from history pages completely until I reach eligibility criteria. Chandel itihasam zy (talk) 03:49, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Please understand that if your partial block from article space is replaced with a WP:CT/SA topic ban, while you would no longer be restricted from editing most of the rest of Wikipedia, you would not be able to edit anything in the WP:CT/SA topic area (including after getting extended confirmed rights and no edit requests) until an administrator or the community feels comfortable with lifting that topic ban. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 08:21, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Wouldn't the only option of reversing the TBAN be the community? Since a TBAN here would be created from consensus, an admin wouldn't have the leeway to remove it. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 09:30, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Yep, a TBAN is imposed by community consensus (or by ArbCom, in which case it should be appealed to them). Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 09:49, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Good catch, that's a bit of sloppiness at my part, which I try to avoid but did not here. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:01, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

so what should I do? I'm confused Chandel itihasam zy (talk) 16:28, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

If you have something constructive to add, you can participate, but otherwise, there's nothing you need to do; what happens will depend on what the consensus in the discussion turns out to be. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 16:50, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

@Pppery The reason I'm in favor of a topic ban if the partial unblock is lifted because I think that "Don't edit on this topic, period" will be much easier for this editor to understand than "Don't directly edit on this topic, but instead make an edit request with the conditions that they are in X-->Y format and are uncontroversial, the last word being defined by this detailed list on another page." I don't want an editor to be unblocked with conditions they are unlikely to meaningfully comprehend, and then just end up right back here again. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 22:14, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose unblocking. A topic ban from WP:CT/SA is a nullity; as a non-extendedconfirmed user they are already topic banned from South Asia. We've ended up with a block here because they've proven they can't be trusted to abide by socially-enforced restrictions so we had to resort to techncically-enforced ones. I see no evidence that trust has been regained. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:02, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

  @Pppery: while I don't think this will make any difference to your response just a note that being non EC just means they're almost topic banned from Indian military history and South Asian social groups, and any subtopic in the SA CT that admins may extend ECR to. I say almost since at noted above, ECR means they're still allowed to make non disruptive edit requests but a topic ban won't. Nil Einne (talk) 07:12, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose unblock and support implementation of a topic ban from WP:CT/SA if not shift to sitewide Nothing here shows they understand any of the underlying issues, nor that they will comply. since a topic ban won't stop them from making the edits they don't understand they're not allowed to make and violations will result in blocks, it may be simpler to block now, unfortunately. Star Mississippi 17:07, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose unblock, no other actions. The block was to encourage the user to make edit requests on talk pages, which is what they should have been doing in the first place. They have made exactly 0 edit requests. Just do some of those! Once there's a decent enough history of accepted edit requests, I think an unblock would be a very easy call. Tessaract2^Hi! 18:05, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose until we have some accepted edit requests. I really want to support an unblock but we've got multiple violations of ECR after so many warnings, two previous blocks, copyvio & multiple reversions in their edit history.

Several editors explained things very simply and clearly, so it's worrying that they didn't follow any of it and are on their third block for the same issue in as many months. What's different now to the previous blocks & warnings? They've said before that they understand the restriction but we can see now that they didn't. I don't know how much clearer we could have been, especially in this November post.

I really want to see some accepted edit requests to demonstrate understanding of both ECR and Wikipedia policies in general before considering an unblock.

I hope that they can become a great editor if they can just show us that they both understand and can adhere to our policies via edit requests first. If they can do this, I'd be happy to support a future appeal. Blue Sonnet (talk) 01:30, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Unblock me this time and give me one last chance, I will always follow the policy and will not edit any history topic until I get my eligibility. Chandel itihasam zy (talk) 04:23, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

You keep saying you won't edit about history, except that's not what the restriction is about - have you read through it yet?

That's why I'm suggesting that you start with edit requests first, to show you understand what the restriction is and can work within that restriction. Blue Sonnet (talk) 04:35, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

• Upgrade to community siteban - The history here and the responce above leads to one conclusion, and issuing a South Asia topic-ban of any length or condition is just going to see them going back to AE or here and getting summarily (1yr+)indef-blocked. There's no point debating whether or not to lift the partial block; the debate should only be on whether or not to escalate it to a sitewide one. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 08:04, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

  Support full siteban - After I realized that unblocking would reoccur the risks of repeating the same mistake. Ahri Boy (talk) 08:44, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Oppose unblock user as not made a compelling unblock request. They have not even demonstrated a clear understanding of why they were blocked Czarking0 (talk) 06:47, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposed additions to plot summary

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There has been an issue with user @Revirvlkodlaku and me regarding the Naanum Rowdy Thaan plot summary. I have polished the details I added down below.

"At this juncture, Mansoor armed with a knife finds Killi about to kill Pandi with a glass and they end up stabbing each other to death when Pandi inadvertently steps in front. After being acknowledged by a dying Killi that he is the real rowdy as he managed to escape getting stabbed and that he can do whatever he wants for the girl's sake. Despite Kadhu still wanting him to be a rowdy."

I believe these details are crucial because it reflects how Pandi stepping in front of Killivallavan and Mansoor reflects how Pandi inadvertently caused their deaths and Killivallavan's last words to Pandi highlights how despite Pandi not killing anyone phyisically, he has finally earned the recognition of being a rowdy just because he was able to escape getting stabbed. I think the detail about Kadhambari wanting Pandi to continuing being a rowdy highlights how Pandi despite his potential to become an even bigger don than Killivallavan chooses to let go of it rather than embrace it like he wanted to in the beginning of the movie.

At first user @Revirvlkodlaku and me got into an argument and the user kept removing these details and I kept adding them back, then we discussed with each other and agreed that details should be added back, but when I added it back, I also added more details on the roles of each characters listed in the cast list and I asked @Revirvlkodlaku whether we can keep it or remove it but the user then removed the entire details I added including the plot details I listed above. I apologized to the user and asked the if I can just add the details I was originally going to add, but the user just rudely told me that I lack English proficiency and kept removing the details I was going to add, without listening to me even @Kailash29792 agreed that these details should be added, but the user @Revirvlkodlaku is not listening to either of us. SlayerRoyce (talk) 02:44, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

I gave SlayerRoyce freedom to add whatever he wanted to the plot as long as it was essential to the story (not trivial), and not exceeding the 700-word limit per WP:FILMPLOT. I also said he could correct potential mistakes, that's it. Kailash29792 (talk) 02:50, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

@Kailash29792, it did not exceed the 700-world limit per count, it was around 675-699 word limit, and I only added the crucial parts of the story. This is what I was going to add "At this juncture, Mansoor armed with a knife finds Killi about to kill Pandi with a glass and they end up stabbing each other to death when Pandi inadvertently steps in front. After being acknowledged by a dying Killi that he is the real rowdy as he managed to escape getting stabbed and that he can do whatever he wants for the girl's sake. Despite Kadhu still wanting him to be a rowdy." SlayerRoyce (talk) 02:52, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Maybe mentioning that Killi acknowledges Pandi as a rowdy (or thug, or whatever the formal English word is IDK), that alone is worth mentioning. But I felt it is pointless as Pandi gives up the thug life shortly thereafter. Also you wrote, "Killi grabs him as they had planned" is that what happened? Or the other way round? Having seen the film 10 years ago I can't exactly recall. Kailash29792 (talk) 02:56, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

That does occur in the movie after Pandi reveals to Killi why he and Kadhu are trying to kill him. SlayerRoyce (talk) 03:15, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

@Kailash29792, Killi eventually manages to overpower Pandi after Kadhu tells Pandi to let go of Killi claming that someone else will kill him for wrong deeds as she is unable to kill him and Kadhu leaves both Pandi and Killi behind after she tells Pandi this. After she leaves them both, Killi manages to overpower Pandi and throws him to the nearby bathtub and grabs the glass Kadhu tried to kill Killi with and is about to kill Pandi with the same glass only for Mansoor to arrive at the spot with a knife. SlayerRoyce (talk) 03:19, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

@Kailash29792 I meant Pandi grabbed Killi. SlayerRoyce (talk) 03:23, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

@Kailash29792, what can I do now? SlayerRoyce (talk) 04:12, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

@Kailash29792 "Killi grabs him" I did not add this part, I think this part was added by an another user, I checked view history. SlayerRoyce (talk) 04:19, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Wait for an admin's response here. I've said my part. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:47, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

@Kailash29792, Okay. SlayerRoyce (talk) 05:53, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

According to Who Wrote That, the "Killi grabs him as they had planned" portion is your wording, Kailash. You added it back in May with the edit summary "I'll get it reduced through the GOCE". --Super Goku V (talk) 06:42, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

@Super Goku V, Am I allowed to add back my edits? SlayerRoyce (talk) 07:14, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

(Shrug) I pretty much only looked into who wrote that sentence. --Super Goku V (talk) 08:04, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

@Super Goku V, okay. SlayerRoyce (talk) 08:07, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Oh, and as a heads up, I have subscribed to this thread. You don't have to worry about pinging me now. (Though I am not an admin, so there isn't probably much else for me to discuss.) --Super Goku V (talk) 08:06, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

@Super Goku V, when will we know whether I can add my back edits or not? SlayerRoyce (talk) 08:09, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

@Super Goku V, when will we know whether I can add back my edits or not? SlayerRoyce (talk) 08:09, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Well, this sounds like a content dispute that the three of you will eventually end up needing to figure out. For now, your complaint here seems to be that Revirvlkodlaku is apparently ignoring both of you, so that likely should be resolved first.

Though, DonIago mentioned below that you haven't given a notification to Revirvlkodlaku about this discussion, so you should do that. --Super Goku V (talk) 08:14, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

@Super Goku V, I think he already knows about this, I did notify him about the administrators' noticeboard SlayerRoyce (talk) 08:20, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

According to the edit history, you have not notified him. Where is your notification? --Super Goku V (talk) 08:24, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

@Super Goku V, I have notified him in the Naanum Rowdy Thaan talk page, I will add you to the talk page. SlayerRoyce (talk) 08:25, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

I don't know what exactly you mean by "add you to the talk page," but I do know where you are talking about when you say an article's talk page.

However, that isn't the notification that is being talked about. There is a red box at the top of this page that says: "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough." (Emphasis reduced) That is the notice we are talking about. --Super Goku V (talk) 08:32, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

@Super Goku V, what am I supposed to do now/ SlayerRoyce (talk) 08:33, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

I have taken care of it, but did you find the red box above that I was talking about? That was the notice that needed to be posted on the user's talk page. --Super Goku V (talk) 08:42, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

@Super Goku V I did not find the red box above. SlayerRoyce (talk) 08:43, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Gotcha. Feel free not to worry about it too much as I decided to take care of the notification. Though, am I correct in assuming that the only action you want is for your edit to be partly or fully restored? --Super Goku V (talk) 08:49, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

@Super Goku V, I want my edits to be fully restored, can I please add it back? SlayerRoyce (talk) 08:51, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

That can be discussed at the talk page. But for here, if you are not asking for any action to be taken, then I don't see much of a point for posting here. Is it okay if you withdraw this discussion? (Assuming that Kailash29792 or Revirvlkodlaku do not intend to continue this for any admin actions.) --Super Goku V (talk) 09:04, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

@Super Goku V, can I still add back my edits? SlayerRoyce (talk) 09:09, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

We are working on that at Talk:Naanum Rowdy Dhaan. I just felt that if you didn't need admin actions, then this could be closed and the discussion continued at that talk page. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:12, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

@Super Goku V, I added what you told me to add. SlayerRoyce (talk) 09:18, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

@Super Goku V, this is the part I was going to add: At this juncture, Mansoor armed with a knife finds Killi about to kill Pandi with a glass, and they end up stabbing each other to death. Pandi falsely takes credit for their deaths to impress Kadhu after being acknowledged by the dying Killi that he is the real rowdy and can do whatever he wants for the girl's sake. despite Kadhu still wanting him to be a rowdy. SlayerRoyce (talk) 09:26, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Yep, I just replied at the talk page. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:40, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

@Super Goku V, thank you so much for your help. SlayerRoyce (talk) 10:02, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Firstly, I think you may have intended this for WP:ANI rather than here. Secondly, was there any effort to discuss this at the article's Talk page or pursue other forms of dispute resolution (your opening statement is somewhat lacking in detail and bereft of diffs)? If this was your first step, it seems like a pretty steep escalation. Lastly, you did not notify Revirvlkodlaku of this discussion as you are required to do per the instructions at the top of this page. DonIago (talk) 07:46, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

@Revirvlkodlaku, @Kailash29792 and I did discuss this with Revirvlkodlaku, but he kept removing my edits and my edits did not exceed the 700 word limit. SlayerRoyce (talk) 07:58, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

@Kailash29792 and I did discuss this with Revirvlkodlaku, but @Revirvlkodlaku kept removing my edits and my edits did not exceed the 700 word limit. SlayerRoyce (talk) 07:58, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Super Goku V, I don't care that much now. Let SlayerRoyce add whatever he wants as long as the plot remains within 700 words and has only essential details. I also believe the movie is still fresh in his mind that he can recall plot details correctly. Revirvlkodlaku, the article is still at GOCE, they'll decide what to keep/delete during copyediting. Thank you for your comments, with that I'm off now. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:21, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

@Kailash29792, thank you so much sir, can you please let @Revirvlkodlakuknow about this as well. SlayerRoyce (talk) 08:23, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

@SlayerRoyce, for the love of whatever god(s) you believe in, stop tag-bombing me!!! I've received ten notifications within the span of five minutes, all from you, with multiple instances in a single comment! Your behaviour is grossly inappropriate and disrespectful, and I reiterate what I said earlier: I have no intention of dealing with someone with your level of immaturity. If you tag me once more, I will report you for abusive behaviour! Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 09:05, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

That would not remove your need to specifically notify Revirvlkodlaku of this discussion on their Talk page as per the instructions at the top of this page, unless you're saying you did do so and they deleted the notification. However, as they've now contributed to this conversation, they're clearly aware of it. DonIago (talk) 13:58, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Is there any reason why this is being (extensively!) discussed at AN? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:15, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

This issue is almost solved, I will delete this page once the issue is solved. SlayerRoyce (talk) 10:17, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

You don't have to delete this discussion. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:24, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

okay SlayerRoyce (talk) 10:26, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

The quick answer without diffs? Revirvlkodlaku got annoyed with SlayerRoyce more than once on the article talk page and threatened to take SlayerRoyce to AN. Somehow, SlayerRoyce thought it was a good idea to instead take Revirvlkodlaku here, but apparently doesn't want any action other than their edits restored to Naanum Rowdy Dhaan. (It doesn't seem like SlayerRoyce understood my suggestion to withdraw this earlier, despite not wanting any admin action.) --Super Goku V (talk) 10:29, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Revirvlkodlaku was adamant on not adding my edits, the user said that they would later report me to the admin, thats why I brought the user here SlayerRoyce (talk) 10:37, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Userpage containing a link to alleged war crimes

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I came across a userpage of an editor recently, and noticed a link to a YouTube video by a Ukrainian brigade. Note the title of the link on WP was misleading. The video contains about a dozen war crimes by the brigade, as neutralizing a soldier trying to surrender is indeed a war crime. I believe this is strongly unacceptable to have on a userpage and should be removed. As per WP:UPNOT, "you should avoid substantial content on your user page that is unrelated to Wikipedia". Furthermore, "advocacy or support of grossly improper behaviors with no project benefit" also highlights this. I'm not comfortable naming the person yet, but will if needed. I'm curious, is this a violation of WP:UP? Alexeyevitch^(talk) 00:57, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

No one can tell you if a thing that you haven't presented any actual evidence about is appropriate or not. I suggest starting with Wikipedia:User_pages#On_others'_user_pages. ~2026-92659-0 (talk) 12:39, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

It seems that Alexeyevitch has taken my advice: User_talk:TylerBurden#Problem_with_your_userpage. ~2026-92659-0 (talk) 21:21, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Ping User:TylerBurden as it's your userpage being discussed here. Claims of war crimes appear to be hyperbole. It's a link to a video compilation of stills of Russian soldiers taken by FPV drones just before impact, so definitely provocative and likely disruptive, especially as it could be alarming and upsetting to view considering the link text of "All is going according to plan" gives no context. I suspect WP:UPNOT applies. "In addition, there is broad agreement that you may not include in your user space material that is likely to bring the project into disrepute, or which is likely to give widespread offense (e.g. racist ideology). Whether serious or trolling, "Wikipedia is not a soapbox" is usually interpreted as applying to user space as well as the encyclopedia itself, and "Wikipedia is not censored" relates to article pages and images; in other namespaces there are restrictions aimed at ensuring relevance, value, and non-disruption to the community. You do have more latitude in user space than elsewhere, but don't be inconsiderate. Extremely offensive material may be removed on sight by any editor." Fences&Windows 01:23, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Personally I think this should have been closed two days ago without action. ~2026-92659-0 (talk) 02:39, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

I watched the video a day or two ago; the link doesn't give you any idea of what you're going to be shown, so it was unexpected.

The video consists of stills as you've mentioned - soldiers who are either about to die, are dying/severely wounded or dead.

The worst parts are blurred/pixelated so it's not overly gory, but faces visibly show distress and the video appears to be celebrating the outcome. You can definitely tell what's happening.

At minimum, I'd have preferred the link to include some sort of warning or explanation so you know what to expect. I don't know about whether it contravenes policy, this is just my perspective as someone who watched the video a couple of days ago. Blue Sonnet (talk) 13:06, 14 February 2026 (UTC) (amended at 13:42)

Not just hyperbole, it's entirely false. There is no war crime here. Indeed, the only offensive thing here was the false accusations of war crimes. LordCollaboration (talk) 13:13, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

• I'm not sure there's any evidence of a "war crime" and so starting this post with such an allegation is unacceptable and unhelpful. The video isn't overly graphic but does depict the moments leading to death which some may find confronting. I'm not sure either of the policy statements cited in this initial post are directly relevant, as a single link to a YouTube video is not "substantial content" nor is there evidence of "advocacy or support" for "grossly improper behaviours". AusLondonder (talk) 13:28, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

  I agree. Since Alexeyevitch has followed my advice to take this up directly with TB and then seems not interested in pursuing it here, I suggest again that this should be closed. ~2026-92659-0 (talk) 15:33, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Issue with the requests-for-unblock page?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I've noticed this before, but I'm noticing again that User:Cyberbot I/Requests for unblock report is not showing all of the active requests for unblock. For instance, User talk:RakowskiC has an active unblock request, but it isn't on there; in fact it was previously on there, but "fell off" at some point. I wondered in the past if somehow other people editing it was making that happen, but it seems to have happened all on its own instead. Also User talk:Tech Bytez also has an active unblock request, but it "fell off" even earlier, without having been edited for days. Given this can clearly lead to unblock requests going unaddressed for the simple reason of nobody knowing they still exist, this seems to be a problem. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:11, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

RakowskiC and Tech Bytez have a colon before {{unblock}}. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:33, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

@The Bushranger, they're both too late in the alphabet. The bot only reports a certain number. Use CAT:RFU to see all of the open requests. -- asilvering (talk) 02:39, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Ahhhh, suddenly that makes sense and I feel slightly silly. Thank you! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:00, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Anonymy365248

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Anonymy365248 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Removes discussions in violation of WP:TALKO. Already warned many many times before for disruptive editing. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 02:55, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Because I want to leave Wikipedia. I want my name to be removed from this platform. Also I haven't removed any closed discussions. The ones I removed aren't closed. Anonymy365248 (talk) 03:06, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

...then why not just ask? --Super Goku V (talk) 03:09, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

see Help:Delete account, its not possible to delete an account or its contribution, and even if you did remove a discussion, anyone could see it in the history.

However, see Wikipedia:Courtesy_vanishing, its probably what you want. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 03:09, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Is there an alternative? Because I cannot request global vanishing, due to being on the deny list. Anonymy365248 (talk) 03:18, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

You do not appear to be on a "deny list" (what is the "deny list"?). You are in good standing on all Wikimedia projects. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:29, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Oh, I see now. meta:Talk:Steward requests/Username changes#What's With the Rejection of Numbered Usernames. User wanted "2012.366.248.911" as their new username and was denied. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:36, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

That's what I meant, but they kept rejecting it all because it looked like an IP address, even if it's not. There are other users with those usernames and were able to reply comments on talk pages in Wikipedia. So, I have a feeling that this is hypocrisy. Anonymy365248 (talk) 03:42, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Could be legacy accounts or something, but that is besides the point. Why not just change it so that all the numbers are spelled out instead? "Twenty-TwelveDotThreeSixSixDotTwoHundredFourtyEight" or so. It wouldn't look like an ip address and it would be all numbers still. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:47, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

I've decided to leave Wikipedia, so I want to know if there's an alternative to vanish from Wikipedia. Anonymy365248 (talk) 03:52, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

WP:VANISH is the best path, but it isn't going to be simple when you have deleted the talk page comments of other users. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:00, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Read the Alternatives to vanishing portion before doing so in case there is a better option. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:02, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Where can I read them? Anonymy365248 (talk) 11:58, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

When I say deny list, I was blocked from requesting a rename. I kept requesting my name to be changed to any username with no letters for 8 times, most of which were numbers and periods, and all of them were rejected, due to it resembling IP adresses, even if they're not. The reason why I rename myself with s is because I saw some users with the same usernames with only numbers and periods. However, the global rename demanded them to at least 1 letter and so I did add them. I even add two to for the username to be accepted, but still rejected, for some reason. Anonymy365248 (talk) 03:38, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Anonymy365248 is indeed blocked from requesting renames: https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Global_rename_blacklist&diff=prev&oldid=30059525 * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:02, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

I have INDEFFed Anonymy365248 for DE. This is unproductive, at best and a thorough waste of time. Star Mississippi 17:42, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

User is now notified. (An aside, but this might be better at ANI if we want to move there.) --Super Goku V (talk) 03:07, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Non-admin closure?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2026_February_3#Category:Stores_converted_to_Marshall_Fields was non-admin closed by @GoldRomean: as "delete", but the category has yet to actually be deleted. I just don't want this to slip through the cracks. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:20, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

The request to implement the deletion gets listed at Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Working. Since CfD is very short-staffed right now things tend to languish there for much longer than they should. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:40, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Appreciate you keeping an eye out—however, from WP:NACD: Certain venues have made an exception to this rule [...] per the implementation process at WT:CFD/W – [non-admins] may close Wikipedia:Categories for discussion discussions as delete. As Pppery said, the bus factor (both for admins and closers) at CfD is really low, so it might take a bit before something is moved from WT:CFDW (where non-admins list closes) to the fully protected WP:CFDW for bot implementation. You can check that I've listed the discussion, under Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Working § Non-admin closure requests (12 February 2026). That said, I ever do forget to list something in the future or if there are any other concerns about my closes, do reach out—I'm always open to feedback! Best, GoldRomean (talk) 18:04, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

@GoldRomean: Thanks, I wasn't aware of WT:CFDW until just now, so I appreciate you showing me you did your due diligence here to ensure the category gets deleted. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:08, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Now listed for the bot to process. But I did it in a giant batch of work, so it will take several hours before it gets around to it. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:58, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

You should consider running for admin. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:33, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Moneytrees

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Moneytrees, I am sorry I pasted Copyrighted stuff in my article, I hope you read this Page I made, And if possible, Can you unblock me? Garv Patel (talk) 17:40, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

If you wish to be unblocked please use {{unblock}} on your talk page. But this comment is incoherent and doesn't amount to a reason for unblock. See User:Moneytrees/Copyright blocks#Appealing a block for what you need to do. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:41, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Recent changes attention needed

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

found someone creating a user "(User creation log) Luna.t5 is banned". Thanks! ~2026-97570-4 (talk) 01:27, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

User:Luna.t5 is banned. I notified them of the ANI discussion as that is required to be done, and was not something you did. – LuniZunie_(talk) 01:31, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Anyways, seems like a block evasion (Luna.t5), or a troll; either way, block seems necessary. – LuniZunie_(talk) 01:32, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Usually we prefer to wait until an account edits before doing anything, if for no other reason than to avoid extra work. It is also a poor idea to draw attention to usernames intended for disruption by mentioning them on high-profile noticeboards; reports should go to WP:UAA instead. Quietly blocking sleeper socks can have value, but the quiet part is key. ~2025-41540-19 (talk) 01:49, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Evading block?

User:Harold Foppele is partially blocked from “Creating new pages and uploading new files with an expiration time of indefinite” Meanwhile at the Margaret Murnane the user has added a covert link to Henry Kapteijn an article that they created over there, this appears to be evading the block and gaming the system? Further discussion at The Teahouse here Theroadislong (talk) 16:52, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

I deny that I have broken the rules. I am permitted to make edits within Wikipedia. If there is a policy prohibiting cross-Wiki edits, please let me know. Furthermore, it would be polite if this were discussed normally, rather than through excessive comments. Harold Foppele (talk) 18:29, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

@Harold Foppele Only Wiktionary and Wikisource should be linked in the body of an article, not Wikiversity. See WP:MOSSIS. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 21:50, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

@Ahecht, unfortunately my reading of WP:MOSSIS is that it is not specific on this. While I agree that the link is inappropriate, there is a little wiggle room. I have made a proposal at Wikipedia talk:Wikimedia sister projects#Wikipedia talk:Wikimedia sister projects to close the loophole. (I may need to bounce it to WP:VPP as I think the sister projects talk page has few eyes.) Ldm1954 (talk) 03:24, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

@Ahecht,@Theroadislong,@Ldm1954 Indeed WP:MOSSIS is not the correct item here. Since [[Wikiversity: equals to [[v: v:Quantum/Henry C. Kapteyn are both legitimate shortcuts. I fail to see what my crime was here. There are literally millions of crosslinks like ([[W:) so as there are many v.v. links. I just wonder if it was not me who created the link, what would have happpend. Thoughts? Harold Foppele (talk) 09:42, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

@Harold Foppele It doesn't matter whether you use wikiversity:Quantum/ or v:Quantum/, neither is wiktionary: or wikisource:. Any other sister project, other than images from commons, should not be used in-line in article text per the manual of style and per WP:EL (which applies to "links to web pages outside Wikipedia", not just pages outside Wikimedia), and should be in the "External links" section or in an infobox. Are you trying to infer that this is an interlanguage link, not a sister-project link? Because "wikiversity" is not a language. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 18:30, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

in my opinion, it is grossly inappropriate that it should be possible to create a link to what amounts to a fake article on Wikiversity (a clearly unreliable source, for multiple entirely obvious reasons). This is far too likely to deceive a reader into thinking they are reading a Wikipedia article, and if policy doesn't forbid it, policy needs changing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:51, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump You avoid my question by accusing me. There was absolutely no bad intention other then to link Margaret Murnane who I deeply admire to Henry C. Kapteyn as they are both well notable. Yet i point to my above comment. Harold Foppele (talk) 10:06, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

I am under no obligation to answer questions from you (not that it is at all clear where you even asked me one). As for 'bad intentions', you created an article on Wikiversity which is identical in terms of styling and layout to a Wikipedia biography - the only visible difference being a Wikiversity logo replacing the Wikipedia one, something a reader might not be aware the significance of. You posted a link to it in an article in a manner that obscured the fact that it wasn't the internal Wikipedia link that a reader might be expecting. If this wasn't done with the intention to deceive it certainly looks that way. And your attempted rule-mongering above suggests to me that you were intentionally deceptive, in a manner intended to evade your block. This isn't a court of law, and we aren't conducting a criminal trial. Instead, what is being discussed here is whether your behaviour, in light of a block imposed for the good of the project, was appropriate, and if it wasn't, what action needs to be taken. We don't have rules about everything, and nor do we need them when making such decisions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:06, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

This is obviously clear WP:GAMING of your page creation block. Please do not do this again, or you may be blocked from all namespaces. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 12:54, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

I like to point to :v:Template:Opentask and v:Template:Wikiversity Thanks Harold Foppele (talk) 19:14, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Which says "Create links from Wikipedia pages to high-quality Wikiversity pages" your article was very definitely NOT "high-quality". Theroadislong (talk) 19:42, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Also it points out a template that is clearly for pages directly about the topic of the corresponding Wikipedia page. Sesquilinear (talk) 19:56, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

@Sesquilinear Do you contest that the item discussed was on topic? Harold Foppele (talk) 22:01, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

You are doing yourself no favours whatsoever by attempting to justify what was clearly an attempt to get around your block through gaming the system. It doesn't matter the slightest whether there are specific rules about how you did it, the intent was clear and you can be blocked accordingly. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:26, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

I mean that the purpose there is external links from a Wikipedia page on, say, spherical harmonics, to the Wikiversity page on spherical harmonics. Linking to a subpage about a biographical subject's spouse isn't the intent there. Sesquilinear (talk) 23:01, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

• Oh, good grief. This was blatantly an attempt at gaming the pblock. Now, if when this was observed, Harold Foppele had gone "oh, I didn't realise it would be seen that way", we'd be fine. Heck, if they'd gone "oops, you caught me! I won't do it again", we'd be fine with a {{trout}}ing and moving on. Instead they've chosen to continually Wikilawyer about it, which indicates they are entirely aware of what they did, they have no remorse for it, and would in fact do it again. This is entirely unacceptable. I'm tempted to simply indef, but I'm feeling charitable and have blocked for a week in hopes of the message getting across. If it doesn't, the next block won't be as charitable. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:25, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

As a footnote, the user has since emailed me three times (a) claiming to have some sort of "records going back to 2014" about something they want to talk to Arbcom about, and (b) apparently firmly believing that their block means they can't edit their talk page. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:26, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Disruptive conduct by User:Deiasfei

The user in question started making non-constructive edits to the Pirate Party of Greece article, inserting his own conjecture as fact and even adding personal attacks against me in his explanation for some edits. User:PhilKnight ended up having to place the article under full protection until February 26. Two days ago, he escalated to a personal attack on the article's Talk page. As additional context, He has been indefinitely blocked from the Greek-language Wikipedia for his disruptive behavior. I request assistance. Odysseus Giacosa (talk) 16:51, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

I am thinking of partially blocking both users from the Pirate Party of Greece article instead of another full protection. Input from uninvolved editors and admins would be welcome. PhilKnight (talk) 17:21, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

With all due respect, I am surprised at this proposal. As you can see, I make edits that rely exclusively on verifiable, reliable sources and explain what I'm doing - regardless of which article I'm editing. Furthermore, I haven't resorted to personal attacks. At any rate, I came here for assistance. Of course, it's not up to me to decide what will be done. I'm leaving it up to admins and will not involve myself anymore in this discussion. Odysseus Giacosa (talk) 01:20, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

It's a few weeks old and didn't continue, but you did participate fully in a small edit war in your 1/20-1/26 edits on this page, and escalated the situation by mischaracterizing disputed content as WP:VANDALISM in your edit summary. The bar for vandalism is much higher than simply making poor edits or unsourced edits. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 08:20, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

I'll admit to the mischaracterization - after all, I'm not a particularly experienced editor and perhaps my understanding of what constitutes vandalism is not as good. While my account is relatively old, my editing history has been sporadic, with long periods of inactivity. As to the edit war, you described it correctly as small; seeing that the situation was on the verge of getting close to becoming a full-scale edit war, I stopped and asked for guidance. Furthermore, what about the edits that inserted personal assessments? Or the personal attacks? Odysseus Giacosa (talk) 10:10, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

At any rate, I apologize for any part of my conduct that was unhelpful in any way. I simply want to contribute, as best I can, by improving articles within my areas of knowledge and interest. Odysseus Giacosa (talk) 13:54, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, this was pretty small potatoes. My intent is just to clarify what the issue was since you seemed to be uncertain about it. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 04:04, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

I should add that I won't partially block the editors unless there is an edit war again. If the editors have learned not to edit war, then my intervention won't be needed. PhilKnight (talk) 15:10, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, everyone. Odysseus Giacosa (talk) 20:08, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Disruptive editing from multiple TAs

Two TAs are engaging in disruptive behaviour.

~2026-10102-36 is repeatedly adding content to Baltimore Catholic League that is unsourced. When I warn them, they asked me to stay off the page as I didn't know anything about the article's subject. I told them that their edits need to verifiable, regardless of the number of sources the article currently has. Afterwards, another TA (~2026-48508-5), who also appears to be them based on what they commented, added a personal attack to my talk page, which was reverted, which they added back. TheTechie^[she/they] | talk? 04:01, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Did I hurt your feelings? ~2026-48508-5 (talk) 04:08, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

TA 508-5 blocked 31 hours for personal attacks, including Special:Permalink/1338434706#Baltimore Catholic League. I have no position regarding the original issue, and this does not preclude further discussion and action regarding that. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 06:56, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

More eyes needed

I think some more eyes would be useful at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Concerns_regarding_an_AFD_source_analysis, which I think is getting missed as it's so far up the page at ANI, and was re-opened after it was closed (by an admin - that wasn't the issue) but then a TBAN discussion was started which I suspect many of the original commenters won't have been aware of. Black Kite (talk) 14:49, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

I closed this yesterday. Hadn't seen your post here and wasn't aware of an earlier close, but I hope this one sticks. Toadspike [Talk] 02:22, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Motions to cleaning up old remedies and automatically sunset contentious topics

The Arbitration Committee is considering a series of motions which would remove remedies which are no longer necessary.

In addition, a motion which would automatically sunset unused contentious topics is under consideration.

Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions § Community discussion (Cleanup of old remedies).

For the Arbitration Committee, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:22, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Motions to cleaning up old remedies and automatically sunset contentious topics

Asking for second opinion on my admin action

On February 10, I full protected Feeding Our Future (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) due to edit warring. A temporary account immediately came to my user talk page and asked that I remove the content being edit warred over. A registered user followed suit. They cite BLP, lack of consensus, and UNDUE. Here's the content in question.

In my assessment, the content is fine (even if I think it needs some revision). The content itself is not a BLP violation and is factually accurate. Further, it adheres to WP:LEAD and is stated in a neutral tone. The content was added December 6 and remained unchallenged until the TA who visited my user talk page removed it on January 28 for the first time. That same day ToBeFree semi-protected the article. It was then edit warred over the following 14 days.

I'm requesting a consensus reality assessment: am I off base? EvergreenFir (talk) 04:30, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Even including the corresponding body content, the living people mentioned are just Bock and Trump, and it would seem such controversy as there is only relates to the latter.

Lack of consensus and UNDUE are not generally reasons to edit through full-protection. WP:BLP may be, but I don't see that here. The key is that it applies to information that is unsourced or poorly sourced. However, the sources used include The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal, not sources normally considered poor. ~2026-32437-2 characterized them as biased opinion pieces, and of course they can try to make that case at RSN for either those articles specifically or the sources as a whole, but until that happens the existing consensus as to general reliability holds.

As a procedural matter restoring a status quo version can be controversial, but what's done is done, and editing through full-protection after the fact tends to make things worse. What needs to happen now is a talk page discussion to decide what exactly should be in or out of the article; possibly an RfC if things deadlock. ~2025-41540-19 (talk) 05:02, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

It's good to remember that every full protection is invariably at The Wrong Version. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:22, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

I don't think there's a BLP problem but I'd disagree only Bock and Trump are affected. Other living people are clearly affected by what the text says and number of them are even named in our article. Nil Einne (talk) 13:14, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

None are named directly in any of the text in question. ~2025-41540-19 (talk) 15:24, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

But that doesn't mean the text can't be a BLP violation. For example if instead of saying what it says, the text said something like "As most perpetrators, excluding B, were S-A rapists and murderers, the scandal resulted in increased political attention on the community, including from the...." this would be a clear and major BLP violation in the absence of impeccable sourcing and it's nonsense to suggest otherwise. Frankly anyone who think it isn't shouldn't be editing BLPs point blank. But this variant just changes what was said about the people unnamed in that text but named in our article. Amply demonstrating the point that just because they are not directly named doesn't mean there is no BLP risk when they are readily identifiable (in this case even named in our article). Nil Einne (talk) 10:06, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Note in such an extreme case most doesn't matter IMO. But you're free to substitute with all if it would help clear things in your mind, since your claim above was because they're not directly named in the text it cannot be a BLP violation and you did not raise anything about most vs all until below. 10:12, 14 February 2026 (UTC) Nil Einne (talk) 10:12, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

If you review you'll see what I've expressed is that these are extremely complicated and fact specific. Bringing in extreme case hypotheticals does not help in their resolution the same way it does when philosophically discussing the application of absolute hard-and-fast rules which we generally do not have for that among other reasons. If you want to digress to discussing hypotheticals preferably on one of our user talk pages you won't have to go that far; a simple change to all here would have very different implications as to BLP applicability. ~2025-41540-19 (talk) 16:00, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. Ethiopian Epic is currently discussing their edit warring block on their talk page, currently only with me, arguing that their repeated removal was covered by WP:3RRNO's BLP exception. If there's a consensus here that it doesn't apply in this case, that would be useful for the (un)block discussion as well. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:03, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

I don't think it is covered by 3RRNO's BLP exception, but it is not a massive stretch for someone to believe it was (though they should have made it clear). Black Kite (talk) 15:29, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

There are dozens of defendants listed by name on the page, so it's a BLP matter because it says "as most perpetrators". The problem though is that it's a sanewashing or targeting of people, via the "increased political attention on the community" part which is vague and euphemistic. It's a dog whistle that associates ethnicity and crime and gives undue attention to a false narrative Republicans have used. Racist people also attempted to promote stereotypes. While it seems like a simple statement this sanewashing affects the defendants on the page and normalizes sanewashing against other people of the same ethnicity too. It should be removed until there's a consensus which is required. ~2026-32437-2 (talk) 01:27, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

In fact it's actually quite complicated. Stating demographic facts about say India or even Tuvalu will not implicate BLP. However, demographic facts about a municipality with population of one and a number of such places exist will. Even pushing that to two or three will normally implicate BLP. Lots of room between those two extrema. For similar reasons content that is stated to apply to all members of a group is more likely to implicate BLP than content that is stated to apply to some. That can be worked-out at WP:BLPN if anyone cares to start a discussion.

However for the purpose of this discussion it is not necessary to examine that too closely since both WP:NYT and WP:WSJ have repeatedly been determined to be high-quality sources by community consensus and so satisfy the BLP requirement. The Star Tribune has been less discussed, but to the extent it has is considered a standard WP:NEWSORG. You have expressed that you do not consider, either those articles specifically, or perhaps the NYT/WSJ/TMST in general, to be reliable. You can make the case for that at RSN, but until that happens the existing consensus stands.

I understand you believe the article is non-neutral, but that is not a reason to edit through full-protection. Don't get me wrong, just because a fact is in even the highest-quality RS does not mandate inclusion, and there are many good-reasons to exclude them. The specifics are always subject to page consensus. And it is likely a review of a very large number of RS to fairly represent all views in DUE proportion to their prominence will be needed here.

I have not looked closely, but I suspect there is probably enough existing discussion to be in line with RFCBEFORE, so go ahead and start an RfC to get a binding consensus one way or the other. ~2025-41540-19 (talk) 03:51, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

This is not WP:BLPGROUP when it is referencing "perpetrators" who are named on the page. My reliability comment wasn't about NYT or WSJ, and verifiability does not guarantee inclusion as you say. Regardless of content arguments, this is a BLP matter, and as such consensus is required first when objected to. ~2026-32437-2 (talk) 06:41, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

That is still not quite right. The content in question makes no direct mentions so is a BLPGROUP. Perhaps other content on the page elsewhere is an issue, but that isn't what the community was asked to review here. Furthermore, as I've stated I do not think it matters much because the inclusion of material regarding Bock and Trump means there are clearly at least some BLP implications. However, because BLP is satisfied by the use of high-quality sources and those are indeed present no concern arises from that direction.

And it is not at all simple, because material that has been repaired to address concerns is judged on a cas-by-case basis. It would seem per your own admission above then, that your reliability concerns related to some earlier sources, but that has now been repaired by adding sources you appear to have no objection to, and so there is no cause to edit through full protection.

Start an RfC to obtain definitive resolution and leave it at that. ~2025-41540-19 (talk) 06:58, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

A direct mention is not required. It says "the perpetrators" and the perpetrators are named on the page. Also BLPGROUP says "a harmful statement about a small group or organization comes closer to being a BLP problem than a large one" so this is still a WP:BLP problem. My reliability comment was about different material, but that's a moot point because BLP isn't about deciding content. It's the procedure for handling disputes over certain classes of content.

Someone can start a RfC, yes, but that's aside from the point. WP:BLP is about procedure and the procedure is that, when objected to, challenged BLP material be removed until the resolution. ~2026-32437-2 (talk) 07:14, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Except it does not say it applies to all of them only most which admittedly is still more likely to raise BLP concerns than some lots of discussion about this sort of thing over time; and the group referred to is just shy of 100 in number, so unless 40+ are named it's not clearly applying to any of them. Again I do not believe this is that important, but if you do then start a discussion about it at BLPN. If, as you believe is the case, it is obvious then it will snow that way promptly.

That is not what BLP says about the procedure, the exclusion is only an tentative initial basis, but once repaired it's a case-by-case assessment.

Your initial objections on EvergrrenFir's user talk page regarding the material in question both included concerns about source quality. But now you're saying they were not about the material discussed there but something else. Now I get it, things can get confused every so often, but we're not mind readers so the way you phrase your concerns is going to be what people go off of.

Again feel free to start a VP discussion about this in the abstract that requires one specific version to be protected either generally or for BLPs only and see what feedback you get. ~2025-41540-19 (talk) 07:36, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

As noted above, I do not consider most vs all particularly important, but by my count include Bock the table lists 55 people, so it's even more highly questionable to claim none of them are implicated by what our article says. It's entirely reasonable the vast majority of readers are going to think at least some of the 54 people out of 77 are part of the "most". As also noted above, I do not consider what is said a BLP violation, but them not being named in the text of concern is not significant especially considering we have a table with 55 names. And even most vs all is only a minor issue. Nil Einne (talk) 10:37, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes that's part of what I was getting at earlier, there clearly are at least some BLP concerns here because two names are indisputably provided without even dissecting the BLPGROUP stuff which is always a mess anytime the numbers are between about 10 and 1000, but that concern is met because high-quality sources are used. ~2025-41540-19 (talk) 16:04, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Let's make this simple: It's well cited by sources that have, by community consensus, been determined to be reliable. The page is fully protected. The answer to it should be removed is "no". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:39, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

This is against the plain text of both WP:VNOT and WP:BLP which says that a consensus is required for inclusion. ~2026-32437-2 (talk) 06:47, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

No in fact not. For BLP often initially, sort-of anyway. Though even that is complicated and relies on good-faith assertions the material is not BLP compliant, usually due to being unsourced or poorly sourced, but once repaired it's assessed on a case-by-case basis.

VNOT says nothing about consensus being required for inclusion, but does note consensus can exclude verifiable information.

You may be thinking of WP:ONUS, but the consensus around who can claim ONUS and when is so muddled that it's not going to be a reason to edit though full-protection. I would venture that in around half of all cases the fully-protected version ends up being the one with disputed content included; them's the breaks.

Feel free to start an RFCBEFORE at VP suggesting that when full-protection is applied to pages as a result of some content being alternately edit-warred in and out of a page that the page be set to the version excluding the content, and see what feedback you get. ~2025-41540-19 (talk) 07:10, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Ignoring ONUS is probably okay. Ignoring BLP is not. ~2026-32437-2 (talk) 07:49, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

No one has suggested ignoring it. Only that BLP requires high-quality sources and the present consensus is that WP:NYT and WP:WSJ are. ~2025-41540-19 (talk) 16:05, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

See WP:VNOT. All BLP material is subject to the affirmative consensus requirement if objected to. Your source argument is one for a RfC but it doesn't suspend the process for contested BLP content which is consensus first. ~2026-32437-2 (talk) 16:41, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

I encourage you to reread my remarks above at 07:10, and the material at VNOT itself but that isn't what it says. ONUS is closer, but you seemed to express we needn't concern ourselves with it above.

The process for content believed to be BLP violating is default removal upon a good-faith concern that it does not comply with some aspect of BLP. However, following repair it is a case-by-case judgement. For other than BLP objections, e.g. on the basis of VNOT, it does not apply at all. ~2025-41540-19 (talk) 17:02, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

This might not stand-out in the text, so if anyone wants background on why vague euphemisms could be perceived to cause harm to the subjects: ~2026-32437-2 (talk) 07:47, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

I would add that in addition to the NYTimes and WSJ, other highly reliable sources have also explicitly described that most of the defendants in the FoF case are Somali American, and the related political attention from the Trump administration. Two examples: the AP (link) and Reuters (link). This is not a WP:BLP violation or even WP:SYNTH - it's just a summary of what reliable sources have said. —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:22, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

That's a content argument. BLP is not about content it's about process. If it concerns living people and has been objected to (WP:VNOT) it requires a consensus. ~2026-32437-2 (talk) 16:34, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

The exemption to WP:3RR isn't as wide as all of BLP policy. Editing waring, as in this case, just because the details concern a BLP will likely result in a block. The other issue with that exemption is that as the policy says "What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption." Just because editors think that it should fall under the exemption doesn't mean it does. So EvergreenFir's actions were correct, discussion on the content should continue on the talk page. I'm not sure where you getting "requires an affirmative consensus" from, but remember that the first way of getting consensus is through editing. If that fails then you should discuss it on the talk page. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:53, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

For reference VNOT says that not all verifiable information has to be present in an article, it doesn't say anything about living people. You may have mixed up your shortcuts. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:57, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

It's not under dispute that the content involves living people ("the perpetrators"), so it's a BLP matter. And if it's a BLP matter it requires consensus to include when challenged. Being verifiable does not change that (VNOT), it could be determined that there is harm through the dog whistle phrasing, it isn't due, etc. Restoring the material prior to consensus was not the correct action according to the plain text of the policy. ~2026-32437-2 (talk) 17:26, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

"And if it's a BLP matter it requires consensus to include when challenged" can you point to which policy you're getting that from? Specifically that BLP content has this requirement.
VNOT is not a reason to remove content or exclude content, is say at that the argument that content is verifiable and so it must be included isn't valid.
I think you mean WP:ONUS, that if you want to include challenged content then you're responsible for finding consensus. But even that doesn't mean it must be discussed and agreed upon first, as I said the first type of consensus is through editing. Secondly consensus doesn't require unanimity, that not all editors agree doesn't mean consensus hasn't been reached. Repeating the same point doesn't mean that consensus hasn't been reached in a way that you don't like. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:51, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

And if it's a BLP matter it requires consensus to include when challenged. Please quote the exact text you are basing this assertion on or drop the stick. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:41, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

In fairness to 32437-2, in isolation, and without much experience in day-to-day practice, some material at WP:BLP#Restoration may seem to indicate that, and they are not the first to misread it that way. Because it is easy to miss the part that indicates any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies hence restoration with high-quality RS is fine. And Material that has been repaired to address concerns should be judged on a case-by-case basis. So whether the default is in or out for material otherwise in compliance with the sections on writng style, reliable sources, etc. is usually not going to be clear cut one way or another.

There may also be some off-wiki advice that is just wrong going around because every so often when doing RCP you'll see a new account that was blanking reliably sourced, but unflattering material, go ballistic because we aren't following our own policies requiring the material be left out until there is an agreement, usually accompanied by accusations that we are biased against them for some reason or another, and I'm reasonably confident it's not all just people from one UPE org.

Coming back to the topic a bit, I think part of the problem was that the question on EvergreenFir's talk page was at the very least mal posée, and may not have been the question they intended to ask at all, which couldn't help but confuse things here.

None of that matters now because the full-protection has expired and so the specific issue is moot. If anyone cares to discuss the larger question in a stylized abstract way, VPP is open. ~2025-41540-19 (talk) 01:52, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

There does seem to have been an uptick in users apparently getting editing advice from Reddit, based on a few recent cases on ANI, so you may be on to something there. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:01, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Just a note that it's well accepted at BLPN that WP:BLPUNDEL means that if content has been challenged on good faith BLP grounds, then the challenging editor is entitled to demand explicit consensus to restore it. The bit about repairing just means that any editor can make an effort to reword or address the problem without needing to get explicit consensus. And if they make a good effort they should not be automatically sanctioned over it, perhaps even if their effort doesn't sufficiently address the concerns and maybe consensus even establishes it is a BLP violation. And any other editors should consider carefully whether the edits/repair sufficiently allay their concerns to no longer require the application of BLPUNDEL. However if there is continued objection on good faith BLP grounds even after repair attempts or if the content is being restored without modification, then yes the editor making this objection is entitled to demand consensus is demonstrated before it is restored. It obviously make absolutely no sense whatsoever to suggest that if an editor A objects to some content on good faith BLP grounds this cannot be restored without consensus. But if an editor B then changes it in a way that the editor A does not feel addresses their concerns, editor A cannot continue to object on good faith BLP grounds and demand consensus before restoration. Again anyone not aware of this probably shouldn't be editing BLPs. I'll ping User:Morbidthoughts who's been particularly active in enforcing BLPUNDEL recently. Nil Einne (talk) 09:49, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'd add that IMO regardless of ONUS etc and whether the is need for consensus generally all parties to a dispute should explain their view without waiting for someone else. This is especially the case with BLP where often the concerns can be complicated. So even in a BLPUNDEL situation, a lot of the time I'd expect the editor making the objecting to appear on the talk page explaining why they feel the material needs to stay out until there's consensus rather than waiting for someone else to initiate the discussion. And this is especially if they need to revert because someone restored it (without or without modification). Nil Einne (talk) 10:25, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Except that is neither the plain language of the policy, nor day to day practice. should be judged on a case-by-case basis is right there and if memory serves was added precisely because of situations like this. The objection must be on grounds listed within the BLP policy i.e. does not comply with BLPRS not does not comply with ONUS, or does not comply with VNOT.

I'll admit I have not been around much for better than a decade now, but the practice really does not seem to have shifted here, if people blank content that is neutrally written and supported by high-quality sources just because they don't like it, we restore after a quick check and when they persist they often get blocked or the page gets protected, sometimes both. ~2025-41540-19 (talk) 14:56, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Whether it complies or not is to be determined through consensus and that consensus is done before the restoration, not after. I agree with Nil Einne. ~2026-32437-2 (talk) 10:52, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

And the first form of consensus is through editing. That a couple of editors tried to edit war content out against the consensus of multiple other editors is against WP:CONSENSUS. Consensus doesn't mean that editors have to have a talk page discussion, or that all editors have to agree. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:28, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Reading them both, there's no contradiction with WP:BLP and WP:CONSENSUS. WP:BLP refers to explicit consensus through 'If it is to be restored'. ~2026-32437-2 (talk) 04:47, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

You're correct that there is no contradiction between the two policies, it's just your reading of them that is faulty. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:54, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

That would be you given that you've mistaken something apparent even from a cursory read. ~2026-32437-2 (talk) 21:25, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

WP:1AM and you're the one. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:06, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first. ~2026-32437-2 (talk) 10:19, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

That was already discussed above, it has to read on in the context of what comes before and after. You firstly need a BLP reason like BLPRS to object and not merely VNOT, and secondly with repair it becomes a case-by-case assessment potentially to be discussed at BLPN. ~2025-41540-19 (talk) 15:07, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Your interpretation doesn't change the plain text of the policy above. And WP:BLP cites NPOV (undue, etc) as well as 'the possibility of harm to living subjects', so those are valid reasons for instance, among others. ~2026-32437-2 (talk) 16:02, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Your interpretation doesn't change the plain text of the policy above; see how facile that is? You are correct that there are other grounds other than BLPRS that can be invoked like say BLPCOI, but merely combining non-neutral with BLP in an edit summary does not force an exclusion. Often the case-by-case discussion on BLPN will lead to one, but sometimes it won't.

The possibility of harm to living subjects is largely about privacy; it has never been interpreted to mean anything someone thinks might potentially cause someone to come to harm which loosely could be applied to just about anything. Don't get me wrong I've seen whitewashers try to use it to say we can't mention outright neo-nazis, noted as such such by impeccable RS, are just that, but that's not how this works.

Fact is, merely citing BLP in an edit summary does not entitle someone to blank material cited to high-quality RS and demand anyone restoring it be blocked. Indeed the purpose of BLPRESTORE is set out in its incipit To ensure that material about living people is written neutrally to a high standard, and based on high-quality reliable sources.

Now you'll say that maybe obvious driveby removals of RS sourced content by new accounts can be reverted by RCP, but for someone who's clearly HERE that things are different, but no actually. The purpose here applies to everyone.

But I'll make things dirt simple, and give you an idea of the kind of things RCP has to deal with on a daily basis. Is this edit restoring content objected to on BLP grounds a policy violation? Yes or no will do; I think you already have my answer. ~2025-41540-19 (talk) 16:40, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

You aren't the policy. It's even more simple: If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first. Whether BLP applies or not is based on if the material is within the class of material defined as 'information about living persons'. If it turns out that the arguments for inclusion are strong and/or the basis for the objection was weak, it will quickly be restored as the outcome of a discussion. But it shouldn't be restored prior to the discussion if there already wasn't a previous one. For Richard Spencer, there is probably already a previous consensus on how to refer to him, which could be used to skip the discussion requirement. If there isn't, it would quickly conclude to support that description. ~2026-32437-2 (talk) 04:39, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

At it's core the project is a collaborative venture, so no one person has sole power of interpretation, but that includes you. That there are multiple users in this thread who oppose your view should be some indication it is not as reflective of our practice as you think it is.

You want something longer, here's a fairly standard interpretation in day-to-day practice. And note BLPRESTORE was invoked in the edit summary too. That view, much like those I have expressed, is perhaps on the broad side of things. Many people will tell you that being a policy it should be interpreted entirely in terms of wikispeak, where deletion refers solely to material hidden from public view through either page or revision deletion, see e.g. Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 42#Disputed content.

And for what its worth there was no explicit prior consensus in favor of the exact material diffed earlier, though I agree a discussion would not have taken long.

Even if we lean a bit your way, it still falls flat in this case, because the last sentence in that paragraph shifts things to a case-by-case anyway.

Now being clear I understand you intended to leave a message objecting on VNOT grounds, but got confused. But whatever your intentions, the action you actually took was challenging the reliability of the sources; grounds which you subsequently doubled down on. Most people seeing such an objection to content supported by both NYT and WSJ would be less charitable than EvergreenFir in the situation. Since it was obvious the objection was repaired, or rather never needed repair in the first place, the categorization of this as a case-by-case circumstance was fully warranted even accepting a much broader view than is normal.

And at the risk of digressing, when most patrollers see an edit removing content multiply sourced to extensively discussed RS, which claims the sources are junk, they will revert it without second thought, BLP or no. It's actually classic UPE airbrushing behavior. Those who repeatedly blank such content wind up blocked. I would even venture that an XRV discussion wouldn't condemn a rollback in that circumstance.

An edit summary invoking VNOT however is going to set a very different tone unfortunately even the middling socks and UPEs are aware of that, and then some.

Again I get that was not the tone you intended to set, but it was the tone you did set.

Finally if you had simply started a BLPN discussion for the case-by-case assessment at the same time as this thread, it would have resolved by now, so everyone could rest easy on what the interim looks like. If the answer is as obvious as you seem to believe it is, it might have been done before this was even much progressed. But to paraphrase an old apothegm, the best time may have been then, but the second best time is now. ~2025-41540-19 (talk) 05:44, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure what part of 'If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first' isn't clear to you. Editors above agree with this as well, and Nil Einne says 'this is well accepted at BLPN'. ~2026-32437-2 (talk) 13:37, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

None of it. None of the editors above agreed, and if anything I'd venture the majority view though ironically not my view is that it is entirely N/A, since that section covers only actual deletion. Adopting the legalist position as you have no chosen to do entirely undermines your case. But since you have decided to make that your cynosure, I suppose I have an obligation to explain why even though it is not mine.

Somewhat surprised no one has actually laid out the legalist case here and offered really firm pushback, perhaps they enjoy the irony. And on reflection my sympathies toward some of your positions may have led me to be less firm than was perhaps best, and however well-intended ultimately lead to simply more wasted time for everyone. ~2025-41540-19 (talk) 15:50, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

. ~2026-32437-2 (talk) 17:59, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Not actually an agreement, with you anyway. In fact it, possibly inadvertently, endorses my position. Indeed for it to be true case-by-case discussions must have happened at BLPN. That the outcomes there ultimately tended one way or the other is irrelevant.

I suppose I do now find myself in the absurd position of needing to lay out the legalist position so you can understand precisely why your adoption of it is self-defeating, just give me five minutes to type it up. For anyone who may have avoided commenting here in the hopes I would be forced to do this, you are about to get your wish. ~2025-41540-19 (talk) 18:30, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

BLP is in fact mostly about content, with the core concern being to ensure that content is neutrally written to a high-standard based on high-quality RS; the rest is just expansion on how best to ensure that outcome is achieved. ~2025-41540-19 (talk) 17:15, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

It's a process doc ~2026-32437-2 (talk) 18:08, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

As matter of internal wikispeak it's a bog-standard policy, and not even a procedural one; process pages are categorized here. As a matter of typical descriptive English usage by the unintitiated, it's a collection of best practices for collaborative online-encyclopedia writing about currently living people. ~2025-41540-19 (talk) 18:26, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Correct action. BLP is about protecting article subjects. There's no harm to these article subjects caused by the well-referenced, factual statement that most of the perpetrators (i.e. those found guilty) are Somali American and that this has been politically weaponised. The potential harms to Somali Americans and Minneapolis society in general are not under the remit of BLP, per BLPGROUP. You don't get a BLP exemption for edit warring over this. We might wish race and ethnicity didn't come into it, but reliable sources discuss this and so we must too per NOTCENSORED and DUE. Fences&Windows 12:01, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

This is a content opinion. We are not discussing content we are discussing BLP procedure. The policy is If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first hence it was not the correct action. Also this isn't about Somali Americans in general, it is about 'the perpetrators' who are mentioned on the page by name, so BLPGROUP does not apply. ~2026-32437-2 (talk) 13:28, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

It is gradually becoming apparent you haven't much experience in the BLP area then nothing wrong with that mind you, we were all there once and I think your knowledge of wikispeak is a bit weak too; for one thing BLP is fundamentally a content policy and not a procedure as you aver. This comment is self-defeating because when there is unclarity as to something e.g. whether or not BLPGGROUP applies, a page is never ripe for editing through full-protection. But as it turns out the BLPGGROUP question is a red-herring anyway, anyway and a legalist position leads to the exact opposite outcome of the one you have advocated. ~2025-41540-19 (talk) 16:01, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

The merits of why something should be included ("it's a fact!") is a content opinion that is not under discussion here. We're discussing the procedural matter of if material disputed on BLP grounds should be restored prior to any consensus in either direction. ~2026-32437-2 (talk) 18:31, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

This legalist posisiton is self-defeating, see below. ~2025-41540-19 (talk) 18:42, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

I fail to understand what it is you think the perpetrators need protecting from under BLP policy. Unless you can articulate that, you're simply wikilawyering. Fences&Windows 21:35, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

This is one of the complaints and I would add that I agree about the euphemistic language. It's vague and a form of dehumanization. ~2026-32437-2 (talk) 01:29, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

I did try to expand this to make it more specific for readers and address the concern of vagueness, but my changes were immediately reverted (link). —Ganesha811 (talk) 02:05, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Arbitrary break of sorts

@EvergreenFir, The Bushranger, Nil Einne, ToBeFree, Black Kite, ~2026-32437-2, Ganesha811, ActivelyDisinterested, and Fences and windows: pinging everyone because this might be important, and I would be remiss if a lack of care led to anyone being misled here. Because it's occurred to me that through poor assumptions regarding shared presuppositions I may have inadvertently led to a less than complete picture being painted above.

If you've been in the know this whole time chuckling because the metaphoric shoe is on the other foot, you can stop reading now, but for the record I've been aware of the irony the whole time and for the horde of LTAs wishing me an ironic hell, know that this was surreal rather than unpleasant.

I am not and probably never will be a strict Wikipedia legalist, but to be 100% clear, as a matter of strict legalism BLPRESTORE only ever applies to content that has actually been hidden from public view using the deletion feature and there really isn't even any ambiguity.

To fully understand why, we need to discuss a bit of history. And while there's far more to unpack than I have time for and even literal decades later I'm not sure I really want to unpack any of the Danial Brandt stuff, the key is that WHEEL was becoming a bright red line at the same time BLP was growing legs. As you might infer, that had the potential to create an incredibly tense situation when an article summarily deleted on BLP grounds was subsequently summarily restored and yes for those unfamiliar with mid-00s sysop behavior, stuff like that literally happened. It was in that context the earliest version of BLPRESTORE was written precisely to prevent that, and that specifically, from happening. We didn't even have revdel then, and the dark art needed to hide revisions individually involved deleting the whole page first.

Now BLP has evolved overtime, but one thing has remained constant, BLPRESTORE has remained in a section pertaining specifically to deletions as such. Remember all PAGs are written in wikispeak. When they say notable they mean something different and more specific than it's normal English meaning, likewise for oversight different from both normal meanings or indeed delete. For those who wish to dismiss this as a historical curiosity, know that attempts to move the content out of a section pertaining to deletions specifically, or to change deleted to something else in deleted on good-faith BLP objections have been repeatedly rejected precisely to avoid broadening usage.

While the legalist case may be open and shut, I still like to thing we can run on practice, judgement, and common-sense, at least to some extent. As such I do not believe that just because content does not quite cross the line into RD2 territory does not mean we should treat it the same as we would well-sourced neutrally written prose, or that we should adopt a narrow strictly legalist position, and such material should nonetheless by default stay out pending discussion. And while BLPRESTORE may not have originally been written to address that specific situation, it is a fairly good set of principles we can use to guide our decisions in those circumstances. Furthermore I believe that day-to-day practice does follow something approaching this, even if the exact norm has never been precisely codified. Even so, and accepting such fuzziness around these as there is, when content is paraphrasing the material found in multiple high-quality RS, the purpose of BLP isn't being served by treating it the same as RD2'd material, and doing so runs into conflict with other principles embodied in their own policies.

I've probably written my fair share and then some as this ultimately leaned more contentious than collaborative, even accounting for the charge to be extra involved in threads where other unregistered users are major participants to avoid perceptions of unfairness. I probably have at least a few hours before I need to set myself on a wikibreak so prompt requests for expansion on my user talk page may be answered there. Otherwise I'll probably limit myself to brief responses, and perhaps one separate and entirely clear statement of confidence. ~2025-41540-19 (talk) 18:42, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

BLPRESTORE only ever applies to content that has actually been hidden from public view – no. Such content may not be "restored without significant change" anyway as it would just qualify for revision deletion again. That makes no sense. The word "deleted" in WP:BLPRESTORE refers to the simple removal of text any user can perform.
What you refer to is in the revision deletion policy itself, limiting revision undeletion to clear, wider consensus in Wikipedia:Revision deletion § Appeal and discussion of actions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:21, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

I don't like disagreeing with you, but see and . And before you say anything about that being one random person, check the responses of the others in that discussion and remember SlimVirgin basically wrote the policy. Full discussion at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 42#Disputed content. ~2025-41540-19 (talk) 19:30, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

The wording was added by Rumiton in 2010 with the explicit intention of removing the admin-only aspect from this. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:42, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

And subsequently moved to a sysop specific subsection with an edit summary characterizing it as covering a sysop-specifc action; it remains there to this day. Also if we're playing the diff game, 2018 is much later than 2010 and as you can see SlimVirgin was extensively involved throughout.

I can't help but note the irony here, that while your knowledge of events easily exceeds mine by a country mile for anything post 2014ish, with the reverse being true pre-2012, that I started out with a 2018 diff, and you with a 2010 one.

~2025-41540-19 (talk) 19:53, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

True. :) I had to look that one up using WikiBlame's revision history search.
"Subsequently" being about 5 years later. This is leading nowhere; you may be right about the history. What I currently see is a section full of aspects that make no sense if interpreted in this way, including the implication that an administrator might have revision-deleted the content with bad-faith BLP objections (as opposed to the good-faith action the policy protects).
Revision deletion and undeletion are restricted by WP:RD. For article content, we have WP:ONUS and WP:BURDEN, and for biographical content about living persons additionally WP:3RRNO #7 and restrictions from the BLP policy such as contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion in bold text and explicitly extending upon the default verifiability requirements. If material should be removed without (or before) discussion and may be re-removed even if it requires edit warring, that implies that it may not be restored without discussion. Whether WP:BLPRESTORE or the rest of the policy create that restriction is practically irrelevant. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:13, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

What I see is a page structure that makes no sense if interpreted otherwise; feel free to examine it. The section header is Role of administrators, the subsections are Page protection, Contentious topics, and Deletion. So in a section referring specifically to sysops with subtitles covering specifically sysop actions, is anyone going to insist that one subsubsection was intended to refer to something else? You see it makes no sense. And yes, if SlimVirgin were still around I'd ping here so she could tell you herself.

If you can't believe that pages were ever summarily deleted by sysops acting in bad-faith, then I have got some stories to tell you but not this go around, or even probably with this TA.

The section you quote is much narrower than that present further down. Note the explicit unsourced or poorly sourced, which would have entirely prevented this discussion from happening if present below.

I agree policies are often written in a messy way, I have probably even supported some additions that made things messier at one time or another because I didn't think them through. But that is no reason to go about reading policies in a strained way when the organization is so clearly laid out. ~2025-41540-19 (talk) 20:29, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

So if I replace "deleted" by "revision deleted" in that policy section, the only reason why that would be undone is because it would exclude page deletion? Something in me wants to try this. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:33, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Well of course when BLP was written revdel wasn't a thing, but actually the whole page deletion still has relevance. The very first subsection Summary deletion, creation prevention, and courtesy blanking still covers that. Though today that is almost always going to be handled through normal CSD tagging.

Even so it is far from useless. Sysops do sometimes still reverse speedies without discussion for being obviously wrong, much rarer now than in the past but it does happen, and if they alleged say a G3 or G10 wasn't applicable when they did so, that section would be quoted to them. ~2025-41540-19 (talk) 20:47, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're right.

I have enforced a misinterpretation of WP:BLPRESTORE for years.

I'd prefer it not to happen to someone else, so perhaps helps. I'm left in a mix of remnants of internal disbelief/denial and shame. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:17, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Surely this discussion needs to be had at VPP with advertising at BLP/N, and other relevant places. You don't get to decide policy interpretation here. Fences&Windows 21:41, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

There's a discussion section at WT:BLP § WP:BLPRESTORE is about administrative deletions everyone is welcome to join, but either "administratively" is correct or "deleted" could be replaced by "removed", which was explicitly rejected by a 2018 discussion at the same place. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:45, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

@ToBeFree Did you see the consensus in this 2015 discussion? ~2026-32437-2 (talk) 21:54, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

see below ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:00, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Using the search, there's ample evidence post-2018. ~2026-32437-2 (talk) 22:13, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

I guess we do need an RfC? Perhaps in the WT:BLP section. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:29, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

People saying potentially falls under, or even falls under without specifying what that means doesn't amount to much. Even more clear cases said in a discussion primarily about something else carry far less weight than ones in cases where the meaning of the text is being directly assessed.

I am not aware of any focused discussions postdating the 2018 one, though admittedly I'm not around much.

RFCBEFORE may be useful don't have time to participate, but would be unlikely to offer much beyond historical background anyway, but if we're to the point of no one knowing what a policy means, then continuing to try to rake a sysop over the coals for possibly having gotten something wrong is ridiculous. ~2025-41540-19 (talk) 22:33, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

I don't think this is true. In the 2010 diff "administrator" was deleted from the section. In the 2015 diff that changed the structure to add the "Role of Administrators" section, the BLPRESTORE section wasn't targeted in particular. 5 sections were moved, and BLPRESTORE probably was too because it partially concerns administrators.

The reason it says 'material' and not article is because it refers material in general. This is also why it says 'retain, restore, or undelete' rather than just 'undelete', and why the lead sentence says '"Biographical material about a living individual that is not compliant with this policy should be improved and rectified; if this is not possible, then it should be removed". See this 2015 discussion. ~2026-32437-2 (talk) 21:52, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

(edit conflict) One user proposed a restructure, a sock agreed, and it was never done. 2018 postdates 2015 anyway. ~2025-41540-19 (talk) 21:55, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

The restructure isn't relevant because that interpretation was based on the current text. ~2026-32437-2 (talk) 22:12, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

To clarify, one user providing an interpretation while brainstorming ideas has very little weight, a sock essentially none at all. Multiple users in a focused consensus forming discussion as the 2018 one turned into, considerably more. ~2025-41540-19 (talk) 22:18, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

The 2018 discussion was not closed and it was just 3 users voting for the status quo. Their justifications aside, it isn't common or supported by the text to interpret it that way as shown by 4 much more recent examples.~2026-32437-2 (talk) 22:40, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Many formal discussions, including RfCs, require no closure. The habit of closing everything in sight on noticeboards is a modern phenomena.

Since we're breaking down the 2015 thread, a sock made a proposal, someone objected, and three users brainstormed some restructuring; not much there and also a red-herring.

Four users bolded opposes in 2018 another bolded a no, though the bolding is not that important, two others agreed in part, and one in full; there's clearly no consensus to change the interpretation there, and formal closure isn't needed and would be a waste of time. ~2025-41540-19 (talk) 22:54, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

They didn't brainstorm they agreed that the policy as is already applies to material in general. This trend has held post-2018 as well. ~2026-32437-2 (talk) 23:07, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm not inclined to quibble over the adjective; nothing came of the discussion and still a red-herring. I discussed the merits of one or two off comments in discussions about something else already above and am disinclined to repeat it. ~2025-41540-19 (talk) 23:11, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Massively overdue. But to make my position on the original topic perfectly clear, whether I or anyone would have acted in the same way as EvergreenFir, the actions were well within the left and right limits governing the situation, and EvergreenFir retains my fullest confidence as a sysop. ~2025-41540-19 (talk) 23:13, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

No one disputes that. In a more general sense we've just been discussing how to treat honest BLP objections that have no consensus. Some people disagree as well but it doesn't seem to be a common view. The direct reading of the policy and many users support removal pending consensus. ~2026-32437-2 (talk) 23:56, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

If that's really your position then you should have just started a BLPN discussion. The extent to which AN should even influence policy is controversial, see remark by Fences and Windows above. Personally I accept it just happens sometimes, if changes thought to be uncontroversial to a policy page are opposed, they can always be widely advertised and discussed in the correct places. ~2025-41540-19 (talk) 00:18, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I politely asked EvergreenFir to self-revert because I wasn't sure why they would restore something disputed on BLP grounds. I'm not alleging anything and I assume they aren't aware or it wasn't communicated.

@EvergreenFir Hi EvergreenFir, this edit restored material that is currently disputed on BLP grounds. Can you self-revert given ? If not, why not? If you believe the sourcing is good then surely the discussion will be quick but the order shouldn't be flipped (discussion is first) and the BLP concerns shouldn't be dismissed as there are other BLP considerations such as weight and phrasing. I've never seen an article about a case that has nothing to do with race, open with "most of the defendants are white, therefore this politician criticized them", even though that's most cases and some sources do note white people being responsible for certain classes of crime. If someone did that and someone else disputed it on BLP grounds they would be entitled to a discussion.~2026-32437-2 (talk) 01:24, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

There is now an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons § WP:BLPRESTORE: removal vs. administrative deletions about whether the word "deleted" in WP:BLPRESTORE should refer to the removal of text or admin actions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:14, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Topic ban appeal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I would like to appeal the topic ban to which I am subject: . I always try to stay out of trouble, and, as my block log shows, I have never received any sanction other than the topic ban, apart from one IBAN ten years ago. Furthermore, my account contribution list shows a long and continuing record of constructive contributions to Wikipedia. I feel that my topic ban can now be lifted.TH1980 (talk) 00:41, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

The scope of the topic ban is "any edit, or editing any page, related to the topic area of Japan.", and was imposed in July 2020 appealable after six months. It was formally imposed by Swarm. The entry at WP:EDRC#TH1980 notes it as the reinstatement of a ban originally placed in 2016:

• Original TBAN, July 2016
• Appeal declined, January 2017
• Appeal granted, May 2020
• Ban reinstated, July 2020

The closer of the May 2020 discussion and filer of the July 2020 discussion Girth Summit wrote at the latter First, the request for an unban was not, it appears, entirely accurate. TH1980 said in their appeal "I always try to stay out of trouble, and, as my block log shows, I have never received any sanction other than this topic ban, which was related to only a single article". That is not true: the findings of fact in this arbcom case included that TH1980 has in the past both edit warred and hounded another editor, and it ended up with an indefinite IBan with Hijiri88 - that is a sanction. The assertion that the concerns were about a single article is also not correct - the discussion that led to their topic ban actually concerned edit warring on two articles, Korean influence on Japanese culture and History of Japan. There is no claim in this request about a single article, but the rest looks rather similar.

I am explicitly not expressing an opinion either way on this appeal (although I may do in the future). It's worth noting that I was one of the arbitrators active on the Catflatp08 and Hijiri88 arbitration case referenced above, but I didn't even remember that TH1980 was involved with that case before reading Girth Summit's comment, let alone any details of how they were involved or what findings were made regarding them. Thryduulf (talk) 01:40, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any warnings & over 1500 edits since the reinstated TBAN which is good.

That said, immediately returning to problematic behaviour straight after having the ban lifted is a little concerning. That was a gap of four years (banned 2016 & lifted 2020), not so far off the current five year gap.

@TH1980 could you please explain a little more about why you want to return to editing this specific topic, and what happened in 2020? Blue Sonnet (talk) 03:35, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

It's a speciality field of mine, and I have much knowledge and expertise in the field. My clean block log shows that I could make constructive contributions in this area without stepping on any toes, because I have learned how to cooperate with other users.TH1980 (talk) 02:55, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

@TH1980, in the "Ban reinstated" discussion, as Thryduulf quotes, Girth Summit pointed out that you had in fact had a sanction other than the topic ban. Why did you repeat that inaccurate claim in this appeal statement? Schazjmd (talk) 20:01, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

It's because they just cut and pasted their 2020 appeal, deleting one sentence about the "single article". Their 2016 appeal is also closely paraphrased.

I've probably spent more time writing this post than they spent writing their appeal.

December 2016: As can be seen in my block log, I have never been blocked from editing Wikipedia before, and I have a long and continuing record of constructive contributions to Wikipedia, so I feel that now my topic ban should be lifted.

May 2020: I always try to stay out of trouble, and, as my block log shows, I have never received any sanction other than this topic ban, which was related to only a single article. Furthermore, my account contribution list shows a long and continuing record of constructive contributions to Wikipedia. I feel that my topic ban can now be lifted.

Current: I always try to stay out of trouble, and, as my block log shows, I have never received any sanction other than the topic ban. Furthermore, my account contribution list shows a long and continuing record of constructive contributions to Wikipedia. I feel that my topic ban can now be lifted. Blue Sonnet (talk) 20:46, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Because I am literally not allowed to talk about that on Wikipedia. As far as I know, editing restrictions do apply to the administrator's noticeboard as well. There's a reason why I have a clean block log. I don't feel inclined to mention things that I will be blocked for mentioning. I would be willing to re-write and re-submit my appeal, but if it concerns an unrelated editing restriction, then I guess we would have to talk by e-mail, not on Wikipedia. TH1980 (talk) 21:47, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Mentioning the existence of a ban or otherwise discussing it as part of a ban appeal is allowed per WP:BANEX. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:27, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

I am not appealing it. It is unrelated to this thread.TH1980 (talk) 22:39, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

I have never received any sanction other than this topic ban is untrue, and you were made aware of that the last time that you appealed. You chose to repeat it rather than to word your appeal in a more honest fashion. That, on top of an appeal that doesn't offer the community any acknowledgement of the conduct that resulted in the topic ban and its reinstatement doesn't inspire confidence that it won't be repeated. Schazjmd (talk) 23:03, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The problem is that you explicitly claimed that you've never had any other sanction as an argument for lifting your topic ban - even after it was pointed out previously that this was not true. Then you did it again here.

There's a difference between not mentioning something and acting as though it doesn't exist. Blue Sonnet (talk) 23:05, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

I apologize for that, but I was just concerned about it, because normally being told to violate an editing restriction isn't a legitimate reason to violate it. Yes, it's true that ten years ago I received a two-way IBAN. My understanding of the matter was basically the same as what Rosguill said, that I can only mention it in a thread related to it, but not in an unrelated thread like this one. I see that there's some disagreement between the admins over what is and is not a violation of editing restrictions, but I never tried to deceive. Anyway, my own conduct is proof of my good will. Actions to me are more important than words. I've never complained about this sanction or attempted to circumvent it, and I learn new things all the time about how to edit constructively in cooperation with others. This appeal is intended to show the community that I want to move on from the past and edit articles about Japan in the same way I have edited in other fields for the last six years. TH1980 (talk) 00:57, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

I don't think you fully understand here. You concealed the existence of prior sanctions from your appeal apparently because you believed mentioning those sanctions would violate them. What is wanted is an accurate appeal, not a misleading one. --Super Goku V (talk) 01:44, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

I had been told before that I was not allowed to do this, but I guess I misunderstood. I have amended my appeal accordingly. TH1980 (talk) 03:20, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Huh, that is interesting. Do you recall who said that and where? --Super Goku V (talk) 03:26, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

I am still not certain that the administrator's noticeboard is entirely exempt from IBAN restrictions, so I do not want to go into details, but as you can see right above, "Mentioning the existence of a ban as part of a ban appeal is allowed", but since this is not an appeal of the ban, I am not allowed. Anyway, I am sure this is a matter where you are unlikely to find two admins who agree, but it is irrelevant since I have already amended my appeal, so I hope we can now put this controversy aside. TH1980 (talk) 18:54, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

For your future reference, none of the rules related to bans are stupid enough to require you to lie or tell only a partial truth. There is no prohibition on mentioning the existence of a ban, especially when it is relevant to the context - and that absolutely includes appeals of other bans.

If you did not think the IBAN was relevant to your appeal you could just have not mentioned it, but without stating it does not exist. However the better choice would have been to say something like "I also have an interaction ban with Hijiri88, but I am not appealing that." That would not be a violation of anything (pinging them would be though), would be useful context for reviewers and would show you have learned from your last appeal.

What ban appeal reviewers are looking for is, broadly, evidence of four things:

• That you understand why the ban was placed
• That you have learned from the mistakes you made that resulted in the ban
• That you have learned from any feedback given, especially including in any unsuccessful appeals
• That the ban is no longer needed

By repeating a statement that was explicitly highlighted as false in your previous appeal, you are effectively saying that you are not listening and that you have not learned from that previous appeal. That is pretty much guaranteed to result in this appeal being unsuccessful. Thryduulf (talk) 21:27, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose not because of the isssues around the IBan discussed above, but because there's no indication TH1980 has learned from the prior declined appeals. Simply repeating the same request is not productive. TH1980 should show what has changed rendering the t-ban moot. Not seeing that in this appeal nor in their edits. Star Mississippi 19:11, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Arbitration motion regarding Iskandar323

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

The motion entitled Iskandar323 further POV pushing is rescinded.

For the Arbitration Committee, DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 09:47, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Arbitration motion regarding Iskandar323

Unblock Request

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I'm reticent to post it here, but would it be possible for someone to review an unblock request I've had sitting open on my account for over a week now? Given how quickly I tend to see them looked at, it feels like it's fallen through the cracks of the system or something. Rambling Rambler (talk) 20:48, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

@ToBeFree: Looks good to me, but I'm easy. What say ye? -- the former admin Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:05, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

I neither see the urgency nor anything to win with an unblock. I certainly wouldn't actively encourage one side of the edit war to assess the consensus at Talk:Highguard themselves in their favor by removing the block that currently prevents them from doing so. I'd just let the block expire. Rambling Rambler announced 50 minutes ago that their intention is informally concluding to remove the disputed content (permanent link) and they can wait the rest of their block duration (2 days) to see if there are objections. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:54, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

@ToBeFree I announced that "50 minutes ago" after it had been dormant for 9 days, where the other party in the dispute had announced their withdrawal of their issue.

At this point, given that blocks are meant to be preventative and not punitive, it seems unreasonable to just leave it in place for another two days when it could be lifted today. Rambling Rambler (talk) 22:00, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Asking you to wait for 2 more days after announcing your intention to unilaterally (admittedly explicitly informally, but still) close a discussion with an outcome in your favor is not asking too much. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:02, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

@ToBeFree I'm going to disagree with that. If I had simply the moment the other person withdrew gone "well I'm saying it's fine" then I'd understand, but it's been more than a week before I've simply put a message on there to say that "I presume there's no other objections".

There are also other areas I would like to edit on the article that are not related to the disputed content anyway so if you really think that can be left two days then I will agree to leave that aspect of it for two days longer if that satisfies you. Rambling Rambler (talk) 22:04, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Okay, the block preventing unrelated contributions is a good argument. And the longer I think about that discussion on the article's talk page, the less I see a reason to prevent you from doing as proposed. The main disputed content had already been removed before the page's full protection, and wasn't restored by anyone since. The position of Solaire the knight does appear to have been unique among the discussion's participants and if Solaire disengaged, there's actually no reason to keep the block. It's removed now, with a summary of The block lost its purpose and is now preventing unrelated contributions and a link pointing to our discussion here. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:12, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

@ToBeFree Thank you for considering this. Also I hope there are no hard feelings about referring to you as "the admin" in the ANI item that resulted outside of the block. Hadn't intended to be rude but felt that if I had named you it would be seen as a "drive by" complaint about yourself and suggest I was raising said "block" as a matter of focus when it was ancillary to the then matter. Rambling Rambler (talk) 22:16, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Oh, that. Nah that's fine. I was annoyed by the quarrels between you and Solaire the knight, not whether I had been notified or mentioned in a discussion continuing them. I mostly wrote Special:Diff/1336981588 to inform people that I don't need a notification to become aware of the discussion anymore, and to prevent unnecessary questions about my opinion on the dispute. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:22, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

The conflict was primarily a one-on-one "duel," but over a week ago, I refused to engage with the user due to our hot contradictions and even removed the article from my watchlist. So if their block was intended to stop the content dispute between us over this article, then regardless of any future edits they make, I have no objections to unblocking them. Solaire the knight (talk) 22:19, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

This is a very helpful clarification. Thank you very much! Rambling Rambler, please disregard my "2 more days" objection above. I think you can go ahead and do as proposed. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:25, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Solaire the knight, I just had a look again and noticed yours is from the entire article namespace and also expires in 2 days. I see no reason to keep it up so I've removed it now too. Thank you very much especially for disengaging in a situation where it would have been fine to remain in disagreement and discussion; I think your approach, even if it happened out of frustration, is worth encouraging. There are so many articles on Wikipedia and disengaging from a conflict to edit something else is almost always quite a good solution, just hard to implement. It requires some strength to go away from a dispute and you have shown that strength. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:35, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

False information

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The Cathy O'Brien page calls her a conspiracy theorist, but she has had her case go through the United States Government, because it involved high level officials it was not allowed to be public for reasons of National Security. regardless of that it is acknowledged and very much real and a crime, covering up this evidence is criminal. Canada has a very famous case against the CIA involving the University of Montreal as well.

"Survivors Allied Against Government Abuse (SAAGA), as the group calls itself, includes both victims and family members of people who were unwitting participants in brainwashing experiments conducted under the supervision of Dr. Ewen Cameron, director of the psychiatric hospital between 1943 and 1964. Cameron, co-founder of the World Psychiatric Association and president of various other psychiatric associations over his career, ran "depatterning" and "psychic driving" experiments that attempted to erase a patient's memories and reprogram them with new thoughts."

"He tested experimental drugs like LSD and PCP, medically induced sleep for extended periods, and oversaw extreme forms of electroshock therapy and sensory deprivation. Many of his patient's brains were then left damaged. CBC article. Survivors Allied Against Government Abuse (SAAGA), as the group calls itself, includes both victims and family members of people who were unwitting participants in brainwashing experiments conducted under the supervision of Dr. Ewen Cameron, director of the psychiatric hospital between 1943 and 1964. Cameron, co-founder of the World Psychiatric Association and president of various other psychiatric associations over his career, ran "depatterning" and "psychic driving" experiments that attempted to erase a patient's memories and reprogram them with new thoughts. He tested experimental drugs like LSD and PCP, medically induced sleep for extended periods, and oversaw extreme forms of electroshock therapy and sensory deprivation. Many of his patient's brains were then left damaged."

Please edited this page to remove labeling Cathy O'Brien as a conspiracy theorist she is a real victim like possibly millions around the world. ~2026-11092-49 (talk) 20:01, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Courtesy link since there is a disambiguation page for Cathy O'Brien: Cathy O'Brien (conspiracy theorist) Simonm223 (talk) 20:06, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

This is not the place to discuss content matters. Please post a shorter version of this to Talk:Cathy O'Brien (conspiracy theorist). • a frantic turtle 🐢 20:07, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Or, better yet, engage in the discussion(s) regarding the topic already present on that talk page.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:09, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Aggression from BrazilianDude70

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gabriel_Menino&oldid=prev&diff=1338174017 is the summary in question. Previously, I left a message to the user about their addition of unsourced content on the article Gabriel Menino. It was not a formal warning template, it was just a message about the addition of unsourced content. They took this as an attack, I believe, and had this to say in response:

"you want sources Phlogiston Enthusiast? There you have it. Next time, take a look at the page BEFORE my edits and look if I didn't add references enough, and be WP:BOLD and search for it yourself instead of giving pointless warnings."

That is all.

pHLOGISTON eNTHUSIAST (tALK pAGE) 18:21, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Given that you and I have a history, I don't say this lightly but... you've blundered into another situation with a fellow editor where you've gone all-in with them over something minor without the benefit of seeing a bigger picture. Can I ask you again to slow down, and when you think you see edits that are not straight-up vandalism but don't know whether they're good or not, pause before leaping in boldly? BrazilianDude70 was unsurprisingly pissed off to be lectured by you, which then caused their intemperate edit summary. Such an event is unsurprising since we're trying to collaboratively edit an encyclopedia with other human beings, not playing a game of get-the-most-internet-points. In peace and friendship: • a frantic turtle 🐢 18:34, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello! I appreciate this comment, but I disagree with the reasoning here. I never claimed the user was a vandal, or committing vandalism, only that they had made multiple unsourced edits. Second, there was no lecture, but rather two sentences, which were a polite request against unsourced editing. Third, reasonably angry and outright agression are two different things, and should be treated as such. I am not attempting to 'score internet points'. pHLOGISTON eNTHUSIAST (tALK pAGE) 18:43, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Other aggressive diffs from this user: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Esporte_Clube_Vit%C3%B3ria&diff=prev&oldid=1337617742, %20https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alisson_(footballer,_born_1993)&diff=prev&oldid=1336991211,%20 and %20https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Associa%C3%A7%C3%A3o_Atl%C3%A9tica_Ponte_Preta&diff=prev&oldid=1336612167 pHLOGISTON eNTHUSIAST (tALK pAGE) 18:40, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

I mean to say:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Esporte_Clube_Vit%C3%B3ria&diff=prev&oldid=1337617742

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alisson_(footballer,_born_1993)&diff=prev&oldid=1336991211

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Associa%C3%A7%C3%A3o_Atl%C3%A9tica_Ponte_Preta&diff=prev&oldid=1336612167 pHLOGISTON eNTHUSIAST (tALK pAGE) 18:40, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

@Phlogiston Enthusiast: dude, chill out. You are here for three months and it seems like I'm not the first one who thinks your approach is completely overboard. Did you take a look at the aforementioned article before my edits? No, you didn't. Again, instead of giving these types of warnings, take a look at the full situation. Furthermore, you had the opportunity to go after sources yourself, but it seems easier to give warnings to other users, right? Cheers, BRDude⁷⁰ (talk) 22:32, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Furthermore, after reading what @A Frantic Turtle just posted, it does seem like a pattern from you in this short period you're here, @Phlogiston Enthusiast. You annoy an user out of the blue, it comes back to haunt you, and you go "oh look at them, they are being rude to me". Did you ever reflect on your initial behaviour? Because I was minding my own business and trying to contribute here in a very pacific way. From my point of view, you had a lot of ways to approach this, you chose a bad one and now you're coming here to complain about the consequences of your actions.

I may have stepped out of line, sure, and I apologize, but you do need to work on a few things yourself if you want to continue helping to build this encyclopedia. "Aggression" is not a personal attack, and I stand by what I said: you had every opportunity to be WP:BOLD and add those sources - which I wasted two minutes gathering yesterday (because by the time I added the information there was none of it) or simply could come to me and ask for help instead of trying to lecture an experienced user. Cheers, BRDude⁷⁰ (talk) 06:02, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

For the record, it was not rude. It was a politely-worded request. There were a hundred ways you could have responded politely to that. You could have even ignored it. You could have replied that you weren't. You could have done a thousand things. I wasn't lecturing you by giving you literally a one-sentence request. pHLOGISTON eNTHUSIAST (tALK pAGE) 14:05, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Also, would you care to address the diffs of previous aggressive behavior? You don't have to, but it would be appreciated. pHLOGISTON eNTHUSIAST (tALK pAGE) 14:06, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Exactly, I don't have to. You did bother to go after my edits but didn't bother to take a look at all incorrect edits which actually undone my previous edits without a single explanation or source to back it up. Aside from your links being broken (I had to copy one of them manually to see what you're talking about), Alisson's edit was clear WP:VAND (no official sources were provided), and Vitória's one go against WP:RED, which I already explained to the very same guy through an edit summary when reverting him previously, but I guess this one you didn't take a look...

Next time I'd recommend you to take a look at the full scenario instead of going after the wrong people. Thank you. BRDude⁷⁰ (talk) 15:37, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

And complementing: where did I say your message was rude? I explicitly said that you go after some people, and then you complain that people are being rude to you. I also said that your way of initially handling this was bad, and I stand by what this.

You said that I could act in a lot of different manners, but picture this in a real-world scenario: somebody is working, let's say cleaning a window, you appear out of the blue complaining about his work (which he did to help because the previous work was extremely poor - the window was dirty in a way you could barely see the other side) because of a very small smudge. What would you think the reaction would be? 9 out of 10 replies would be offensive or rude. If the person complaining was actually helping, the response would be completely different. Cheers, BRDude⁷⁰ (talk) 15:47, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Quote:

"You annoy an user out of the blue, it comes back to haunt you, and you go "oh look at them, they are being rude to me". Did you ever reflect on your initial behaviour? Because I was minding my own business and trying to contribute here in a very pacific way. From my point of view, you had a lot of ways to approach this, you chose a bad one and now you're coming here to complain about the consequences of your actions." and Quote: "I explicitly said that you go after some people" I was, again, acting in good faith and you acted with extreme aggression. Even if an edit is vandalism, you still should not be rude in edit summaries. Again, if someone is obviously trying to be helpful, you can respond without aggression. This is what I did. I replied with a simple and polite request. You are being aggressive. Have a nice day. pHLOGISTON eNTHUSIAST (tALK pAGE) 16:33, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Quote:

"You annoy an user out of the blue, it comes back to haunt you, and you go "oh look at them, they are being rude to me". Did you ever reflect on your initial behaviour? Because I was minding my own business and trying to contribute here in a very pacific way. From my point of view, you had a lot of ways to approach this, you chose a bad one and now you're coming here to complain about the consequences of your actions." and Quote: "I explicitly said that you go after some people" I was, again, acting in good faith and you acted with extreme aggression. Even if an edit is vandalism, you still should not be rude in edit summaries. It is not about the content of the edits, but rather the response to them being unmannerly. Again, if someone is obviously trying to be helpful, you can respond without aggression. This is what I did. I replied with a simple and polite request. You are being aggressive. Have a nice day. pHLOGISTON eNTHUSIAST (tALK pAGE) 16:44, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm not the first one asking to see the bigger picture instead of picking a side and going full throttle after this side you picked, and it seems I won't be the last. No point of continuing to discuss this. Have a nice day yourself. BRDude⁷⁰ (talk) 16:46, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm not doing either. You're failing to address the issues here and I feel as if neither of us will be satiated here because there will probably be no change from this discussion. Goodbye. pHLOGISTON eNTHUSIAST (tALK pAGE) 16:49, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

I won't be changing my editing style because you didn't like that I added two sentences without a reference, sorry mate. I'd recommend you to stick with what you're saying in your own talk page ("I frequently browse the recent changes tab in an attempt to combat vandalism.") instead of harassing and hounding people because you didn't like the replies you received. Cheers, BRDude⁷⁰ (talk) 16:51, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

I didn't harass or hound. I wasn't requesting you to change your editing style, either, It's the aggressive language in the summaries. Cheers. I'm not going to be changing my editing style either. pHLOGISTON eNTHUSIAST (tALK pAGE) 17:40, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

You came to me talking about Gabriel Menino. So you're saying that all other edits you brought up here is not hounding? I don't buy it BRDude⁷⁰ (talk) 17:43, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Bringing up diffs of percieved poor behavior as evidence in a dispute is not hounding. It's just presenting diffs that serve to assist the main point, which is aggressive Edit summaries. pHLOGISTON eNTHUSIAST (tALK pAGE) 17:45, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

I also don't understand if you just don't see the way it sounds aggressive or don't care, but for example, 'I don't buy it' is generally seen as a pretty aggressive phrase. pHLOGISTON eNTHUSIAST (tALK pAGE) 17:48, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

"Generally seen" by who? It's your common sense, dude. I'm seeing you bothering too much about a bunch of words when they aren't the exact way you want them. My guess is that you're young and have plenty of time to worry about these things...

Anyway, I guess you can say that I don't care indeed how it sounds, as long as my message is clear. So far, it has worked the way I need it to work. My main focus is to improve/create/expand articles here and not to nitpick on these kinds of stuff. Happy editing, BRDude⁷⁰ (talk) 18:22, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm not going to mince words with you about the meaning of common expressions or phrases. It's generally not great to admit you don't care how your tone sounds. pHLOGISTON eNTHUSIAST (tALK pAGE) 18:44, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

I did also look at the edits. It was not about the content of the edits or if they may have been vandalism. It is about the impolite and/or rude edit summaries. Your assumption that I 'didn't bother to look..' is incorrect and presumptuous. pHLOGISTON eNTHUSIAST (tALK pAGE) 16:47, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Whoa, look at this! Replying in an aggressive manner is not allowed, but calling other "presumptuous" (which can be considered a personal attack) is? Again, chill out, dude. It's only three months, and it's a long way to go... I recommend you (again) to stop worrying about teeny tiny stuff and focus on improving things in the bigger picture, as other users already pointed out to ya. Cheers, BRDude⁷⁰ (talk) 18:26, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Presumptious is not a personal attack if you are presuming something. You are presuming that I didn't read the thing. Which I did. That is a presumtion. It is presumptuous. That's the definition of the word. pHLOGISTON eNTHUSIAST (tALK pAGE) 18:42, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Also, bringing up account age instead of addressing the argument in question strikes me as strange. pHLOGISTON eNTHUSIAST (tALK pAGE) 18:45, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Sure, mate, sure. But don't you have a less aggressive way of saying that? Can create a thread named "Aggression from pHLOGISTON eNTHUSIAST" now too? :)

See how this is minor and irrelevant to the encyclopedia as a whole? You're not focusing on the content, you're focusing on the creator. You asked for references, I added them. You complained about my tone, I already apologised before. What more do you want? A medal for civility? Here, there you go:

		The Civility Barnstar
For @Phlogiston Enthusiast, a civil user who's always civil no matter what! :)

To be honest, I'm 100% sure that this discussion will lead both of us to nothing. So, you can complain about the amount of ironies I've written in this last message as much as you want, I'll unsubscribe from the conversation and move on. Ah, and about the age issues, is because I used to bother with these small stuff when I was younger, but as I grew old, I realised I had to focus on more important things than this to live happier. Happy editing and happy week, BRDude⁷⁰ (talk) 18:50, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'd agree that we should agree to disagree and just drop the whole thing. I always forget how you close these things. Could someone assist? pHLOGISTON eNTHUSIAST (tALK pAGE) 17:45, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The issue of Baltic birthplace names

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I apologize for not being familiar with the rules and processes of Wikipedia as a non-editor, but I want to bring up this issue since the RFC and previous discussions seem to be closed and I was referred here, to WP:AN.

I have noticed that the birth place of many Estonians has been mass edited from "Estonia" to "Estonian SSR, Soviet Union". One of the perpetrators seems to be Glebushko0703, having also made similar changes pages of people from other Baltic states. I do not understand why these changes have not been reverted, even though Glebushko0703 has since been banned for repeated hostilities towards Estonians/Estonia and therefore almost certainly having made these changes in bad faith.

Attempts to undo these changes have been promptly reverted, for example by @45dogs and @LordCollaboration: Ott Sepp: Revision history, Ivo Ukkivi: Revision history. The latest changes by the user @~2026-11103-94 were made by me (before I made an account) and while I do sincerely apologize for the emotional comments, I hope the following paragraphs will sufficiently explain why the articles must not be left in their current state.

Stating "Estonian SSR, Soviet Union" or similar - without any qualification - is biased and not historically accurate. It validates the Soviet annexation, that was deemed illegal and unrecognized by the majority of Western democracies (including the US, UK, and EU predecessors - see the Welles Declaration for example). A neutral solution might be to recognize the location as Estonia, while acknowledging the condition of the territory (occupation by Soviet Union) - such as "Estonia (then occupied by the Soviet Union)". However, by forcing "Soviet Union" exclusively as the birth place, Wikipedia is effectively taking a side against the de jure continuity of the Republic of Estonia.

Furthermore, this is ignoring the context of the present day geopolitical situation: we are currently witnessing the largest land war in Europe since WWII, launched by the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Russia employs historical revisionism as a weapon of war. The concept of the Russian world (русский мир/russkiy mir) relies on the narrative that the Soviet Union was a legitimate state structure for these nations, rather than an occupying power - this is a view that many Russians hold and is used to support the invasion of Ukraine. Unlike post-WWII Germany, which underwent denazification and reformed its education system to acknowledge its crimes, the Soviet Union did not undergo a similar process, and modern Russia actively engages in imperialism similarly to the Soviet Union.

Using "___ SSR, Soviet Union" as the primary identifier inadvertently aligns with modern Russian state disinformation campaigns that seek to erase the independent existence of the Baltic states to justify current and future aggression. I understand this might seem paranoid or overblown to people living in countries that are not direct neighbors of Russia, but this very issue has been identified by NATO and I strongly urge you to please consider the consequences this historical revisionism and shift in public perception might have for the sovereignty of the Baltic states and their peoples.

Finally, I have a concern regarding how "consensus" is being gauged in this dispute. There is a massive demographic imbalance here: Russia has a population that is over 20 times larger than the combined populations of the Baltic states. If the "correct" version of history is decided simply by who has more manpower, the Baltic peoples' perspective will be erased by default. I find it extremely alarming that even in Wikipedia the history of small nations might be rewritten by their assailants and occupiers, just because they have more people available to push for politically motivated changes and vote to pass them. It's not just about manpower to make changes or press undo: these changes now seem to be systematically upheld by other Wikipedia users, referring to - what I would consider to be - an invalid consensus. The facts regarding the legal continuity and the illegal occupation of the Baltic states are matters of international law, not a popularity contest. Murelik (talk) 19:07, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

This is not a satisfactory close challenge--the main reason to challenge a closure is to assert that there was something procedurally flawed about the closure and that it is thus invalid. Here you're simply relitigating the content questions that were taken up in the discussion, which aren't a basis to reopen discussion. Also, noting that all 5 of your edits to date have been focused on attempting to challenge the outcome of said RfC: how did you learn about the RfC? _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:30, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Why is the "consensus" being determined by a popularity contest not a "procedural flaw", given the political context and historical revisionism of the changes? The consensus states nothing about the validity of the arguments, literally stating "Option A was most popular".

Of course my edits are related. I looked up Ott Sepp. I saw it said he was born in "Tallinn, Estonian SSR, Soviet Union". I saw from the Revision history that this change was made by Glebushko0703, who has since been banned. I figured this was an oversight in reverting this change, so I edited the page. LordCollaboration reverted my changes and referred me to the RFC. Murelik (talk) 19:43, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Please also see my more detailed reply to ActivelyDisinterested, where I focused on what I believe to be the issues with the RFC specifically. Murelik (talk) 20:44, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Given that admins have no more say in content disputes that any other contributor, and given that you have presented no evidence whatsoever. that any specific Wikipedia contributor has violated any policies, there is no point in posting this here. Admins are given certain powers by the community, in order to ensure the proper functioning of the project. That is all that distinguishes them from any other contributor. They cannot determine article content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:34, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

I do not understand why I am expected to be an expert in Wikipedia policies to have a discussion about an issue I see, with arguments in plain English. If this is the wrong place to have that discussion, then what should I do? Can I open another RFC about the same issue? Would you agree with me if I pointed out how the concerns might map to Wikipedia policies, that other people have mentioned in the responses to the RFC? For example, the consensus being based on a majority vote completely ignores valid arguments such as the ones made by Mindaur, in preference of poorly motivated votes for "A":

• B (i.e. "City/town, Estonia/Latvia/Lithuania"). I would like to present the key arguments for such usage:
  • It is consistent with the WP:MODERNPLACENAME recommendation (unless "appropriate historical contexts"). MOS:BIRTHPLACE and WP:PLACE policies do not contradict or prevent such use. Template:Infobox_person recommendation is "For modern subjects, the country should generally be a sovereign state".
  • There are many WP:RS that use Estonia/Latvia/Lithuania. Practically all publishers or media in the Baltic states specify the sovereign country (not the USSR or SSR) when publishing the biographies. The non-Baltic WP:RS vary, but some examples: The Independent on Dalia Grybauskaitė – Born in March 1956 in Vilnius, Lithuania ; TVP World on Kaja Kallas – Kallas was born in the Estonian capital of Tallinn on June 18, 1977 ; IMDB – Born June 18, 1977 · Tallinn, Estonia ; some NHL fans are used to the player birthplaces specified as "USSR", but this is not universal in sport portals, e.g. EuroBasket on Arvydas Sabonis: born on December 19 1964 in Kaunas (Lithuania). Ultimately, non-Baltic WP:RS vary and it should be noted that many (if not the most), just write the city/town without the state, e.g. "born in Tallinn".
  • FWIW, it is consistent with the government policies in the Baltic states as these countries asserted that the annexation was illegal (therefore, USSR did not have the sovereignty), maintained diplomatic missions in exile and claimed legal continuity (see State continuity of the Baltic states). The Baltic states are distinct and different from all other SSRs in this regard. Implications:
    • Passports, ID cards and other documents issued by these countries do not use "USSR" as the birth place. It is also the policy in the EU, UK, USA and other countries (e.g. for driving licenses, residence or other documents issued by these countries). The biographies and other records published by the government institutions, including information on their websites, also use the sovereign country names. Although WP:PRIMARY, all these published records and biographies can be considered as sources.
    • Simply specifying "USSR" may create a misleading impression that the USSR had some legitimacy over these states (WP:UNDUE). Perhaps some bracket variation (e.g. Riga, Latvia (under Soviet occupation)) could address that.

  --Mindaur (talk) 18:52, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Murelik (talk) 19:54, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_democracy Murelik (talk) 19:55, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

These changes were made as a result of an RFC, and shouldn't be changed back unless there is a new consensus. That an editor was banned for uncivil behaviour doesn't change it's outcome. The RFC can be reviewed in you can show that the closer made a mistake in there judgement of concensus, but not just because of a dislike of the result. This is a content matter and admins have no special say over content. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:35, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

In response to the point that the RFC closure be challenged if there was a "mistake in judgment" - I do believe this to be the case.

A consensus is supposed to be based on the strength of arguments and sources, not votes: WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. If you look at the discussion, the supporters of Option B (Estonia/Latvia/Lithuania) provided examples of modern usage in reliable media (The Independent), cited international legal frameworks (state continuity), and noted that Western democracies never recognized the annexation. In contrast, the supporters of Option A (Soviet Union) seem to rely mostly on the basic arguments of "it was on the map at the time" or "it was administratively part of the USSR."

The closer made a mistake by treating the arguments for A and B as equal. The closure states that Option A was "most popular." That is an admission that this was treated as a vote, rather than a debate on accuracy.

Additionally, because the RFC was treated as a vote, this guaranteed that the option "D. or propose another variation" would never win, since the alternative would not be prominently displayed at the top of the RFC. This excluded proposed options like "Soviet-occupied Lithuania" and I find it strange that something along the lines of "Panevėžys, Lithuania (occupied by the Soviet Union)" was not offered as an option in the RFC. So even if a vote, ignoring the strength of the arguments, is actually a valid way to determine consensus on Wikipedia, then the vote was manipulated towards a certain outcome by excluding alternative options.

I can find other users expressing similar concerns about the validity of the RFC at the time:

This RfC should be closed. It's a mess. The initial wording wasn't neutral, and it's apparently since been changed several times, so it's unclear which version each comment is talking about. Glebushko0703/Gigman is too emotionally involved, doesn't listen to others, and casts aspersions. Such an editor should not start RFCs and instead simply stay away from the whole subject area for a while and cool down. — Chrisahn (talk) 10:30, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

It also appears that the banned user Glebushko0703 was in fact the one who initiated the RFC, under the alias of Gigman. This is perhaps minor compared to the above, and the ban happened after the fact, but I think it certainly implies that the environment of the debate might have been poisoned by a bad-faith actor pushing a specific political agenda. How can a consensus formed under the pressure of a user who was later found to be attacking other users and the very nationality in question be considered valid or neutral? Murelik (talk) 20:35, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi Murelik. I appreciate you discussing this instead of reverting. Regarding the legitimacy of the RFC, practically everyone who "voted" was an established editor, certainly not propagandists (there was one participant who was a sockpuppet, but they actually took the "Estonia" position). LordCollaboration (talk) 19:59, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi LordCollaboration, I did not mean to imply that I believe the majority voters to be propagandists. I wrote a more detailed reply to ActivelyDisinterested above, with a focus on what I believe to be the issues with the RFC specifically. Murelik (talk) 20:42, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

• This is getting extremely tiresome. What you can do is to accept the result of the RFC. Consensus was against your viewpoint, as it has been against mine sometimes. I am not Russian, and nobody has ever described me as a Russian or Soviet stooge. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:47, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

  I never got to "vote" in the RFC, since I was not aware of its existence - why would I "accept" such a result? Murelik (talk) 21:00, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

  We would not be able to get any consensus on anything if we required every editor to participate (let alone people who don't even have an account yet). FWIW, I "voted" the opposite way in the RFC and mostly agree with you on the underlying issue, but there was a consensus and there also seems to be a consensus to stop litigating this for a while. I agree with Phil's advice to accept that consensus. I would add that you seem knowledgeable on this topic and capable of being a very good editor, and hope you will stick around. Perhaps the issue will come up again someday, or you can contribute to other related issues, but we could definitely use you. LordCollaboration (talk) 21:16, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

• IMHO, there's no problems with the RFC-in-question or its closure. It's best to move on, when such things don't go one's way. GoodDay (talk) 20:50, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

  So regular/established Wikipedia editors just get to determine what is correct or not? I only saw the issue with the page after the page was changed (meaning: the discussion was closed), so I am now not allowed to participate in the discussion? Murelik (talk) 21:07, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

  A lot of RFC results (which I took no part in) aren't to my liking. For me to complain about them or call'em invalid? would lead me to nowhere. GoodDay (talk) 21:33, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Rice paper edits by user:Chickenpox4dinner

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Rice paper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Chickenpox4dinner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

“Initially, the articles on washi, Korean paper, Japanese tissue, and lokta paper did not include the term ‘rice paper’ in their titles, as they were not commonly confused with rice paper. The subsequent edits to multiple articles adding this term, and incorporating them into the ‘rice paper’ article, may have increased confusion rather than improved clarity. I question whether these edits constitute a constructive contribution. ~2026-11377-32 (talk) 11:25, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

This is a content issue that you should address in discussion on article talk-pages. However, do not use LLMs or other similar software to write or edit your comments in such discussions (as you’ve done here). ~2026-86111-3 (talk) 11:46, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

It is also mandatory to notify anyone you bring here (see the big red box near the top of the page); you have not done that. ~2026-86111-3 (talk) 11:53, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

These noticeboards are for conduct not content. "May have increased confusion rather than improved clarity," hardly describes any specific conduct issue. If you think changes to articles like these would improve articles, then WP:BRD and WP:DR explain the common workflow to constructively making edits on Wikipedia. Even if this were a conduct issue, the last edits made by Chickenpox4dinner on this topic were six months ago, so there's certainly no ongoing dispute involving them.

On the content issue (which can't be settled at AN), none of these pages have "rice paper" in their titles. They do mention the misnomer "rice paper" as sometimes being used for these things somewhere in the articles, but they're also sourced. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 12:50, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Panel?) Closes needed for Archive.today and Olympedia RfCs

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Archive.is RFC 5 is the month's start's high-impact security matter that made it to Ars Technica.

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RFC: Olympedia has been for three months and involves sports notability acrimony.

These have both been listed at WP:CR for a while without discussion developing now. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:26, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Note the Archive.is RFC has only been open 10 days and doesn't strike me as being ripe for closure yet (although I am involved). Thryduulf (talk) 23:35, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

It'd still be good to find folks who are willing to do the close, and let them get started reading. It's at 2.2 tomats already. (Alternatively, people who don't want to get stuck with closing that might consider it advisable to go express an opinion, so they're exempt.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:15, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

There are new developments on the archive.today RfC that make it inappropriate to close until we've had time for the community to react to them. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:31, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

I agree. The argument has significantly changed. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:38, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

The RFC was closed by @Voorts to "immediately deprecate" that website. What to do next:

• Folks who want to help (or who might be answering questions from people who trip the filter) may want to read Wikipedia:Archive.today DDoS attacks. This is still being written, and the instructions may not be 100% in line with the result of the RFC (please update it).
• Folks who understand regex and the edit filter are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested/Archive_21#Archive.is Warning on addition.
• Folks who care about citation templates should look in on Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 101#archive.today deprecation.
• On the off chance that it's relevant, WP:CLOSECHALLENGE specifies that contested summaries of RFCs are discussed right here at WP:AN.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:17, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

We've got a list of the highest traffic articles containing these links! Please pick one and see if you can replace the archive links (and/or the sources themselves, if something better is available, of course). WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:16, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for following up on the RfC. Would you move these comments to Wikipedia talk:Archive.today guidance? I started this section to request closing two overdue RfCs, and I fear these comments may distract from the request to close the other one (Olympedia). Aaron Liu (talk) 21:52, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

User:Khogennn

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:Khogennn recently joined Wikipedia it is an vandlalism edit again and again editing on Toxic and start edit war. Rajbir Dhaliwal (talk) 14:24, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

@Rajbir Dhaliwal: Looks like not vandalism but a content dispute. Looks like you are both beyond WP:3RR. Recommend cease reverting and discuss on talk. You've received a warning about edit warring on your talk page. You have not followed the instructions at the top of the page to notify the other editor. Looks like your are admin shopping on User talk:Favonian. Thanks -- the former admin Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:23, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Dear Deepfriedokra, Hope you doing well. I am just notify the administrator not any specific user. Moreover, i mentioned to user in the edit box not on user' s talk page because user don't joined on that time. I am a new user.May be understandable. Warm Regards, Rajbir Dhaliwal (talk) 15:51, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

You are required to notify another user who you have reported here. I've done that - and blocked both Khogennn and Rajbir Dhaliwal 24 hours for 3RR violations. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:10, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

OKA: problematic paid translation and lead rewrites via LLMs across thousands of articles.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Context

• OKA is a Swiss non-profit that provides monthly stipends to full-time contributors and translators and leverage AI (Large Language Models) to automate most of the work. OKA editors are required to make a PAID declaration.
• OKA’s metawiki Instructions for editors describe extensive machine/LLM-based translation workflows including to Leverage Grok as a starting point. They're explicitly encouraging use of general-purpose LLMs for translation.
• Their public Google Sheet tracker includes a tab Simplify lead with instructions directing editors to Instructions: pick an article, copy the lead section into Gemini or chatGPT, then review if some of the suggestions are an improvement to readability. Make edits to the Wiki articles only if the suggestions are an improvement and don't change the meaning of the lead. Do not change the content unless you have checked that what Gemini says is correct!

Existing discussions/reports

• October 2022 at WP:VPM: OKA Founder User:7804j announces the formation of the non-profit. Early responses showed machine-translation errors, poor English competency, duplicate articles, overproducing low-quality pages that volunteers then had to clean up.
  • many of the results are very problematic, with a large number of WP:CFORKs, editors who clearly have very poor English, don't read through their work (or are incapable of seeing problems) and don't add links and so on. As the OKA instructions linked above make clear, these are machine translations, with all the problems that brings. link
  • the translations include duplicates of topics we already have link
  • My understanding is that professional translation usually requires natives of the target language for the best result and so the OKA might be going against the natural flow. Apart from command of the language, there are also social factors to consider. The English language Wikipedia is rife with conflict and even native English speakers are often discouraged or driven off. link
• November 2022 at WP:VPI: Suggested tighten controls on translations with flagging of low-quality translations by OKA editors with inadequate quality control and translator English proficiency.
  • In recent months I'm seeing a number of translations, from Spanish and Portuguese, of long and important articles on art history that might or not be machine translations (probably they are) but are certainly not checked by anyone competent in English link
• November 2023 at WP:COIN: OKA editors producing new articles containing lavish tangential detail that might function as subtle promotion, with machine-translation artefacts.
  • The church article is a way too faithful translation of the German one, without a look at that English church articles should look different ... I would not know where to start to bring the product in line with the English Wikipedia ... articles like that add work to reviewers, perhaps more than they provide facts to readers. link
  • The trouble is, they are machine translations by people often with a really poor level of English. They are not adding new content, just translating the whole of the German or whatever article they've chosen. If they bother to do any checking through, which mostly they don't seem to, their English is too poor to spot even glaring and basic mistakes. The linking is always terrible. link
• May 2024 at OKA Founder User:7804j: OKA editors not following COI or PAID disclosures.
  • I have looked through some of the editors from this, and they are not following the conflict of interest or paid editing requirements.
• May 2024 at WP:Intertranswiki: OKA Founder User:7804j queried why OKA editors had to go via AfC to create new articles.
  • OKA creates several thousand new articles per year (99% of which are translations), so I have concerns that if all of these were to go through AFC, it would completely clog the process and makes us unable to operate. We will test it but, given the circumstances, there is a real risk we may need to shut down OKA entirely on EN WP and re-assign our ~15 full-time translators to other Wikipedia languages with less stringent paid editing policies link
• June 2024 at WP:VPP: A discussion on if OKA editors should go through AfC. Cited recurring problems like minimally edited machine-translation prose, awkward titles, poor linking/categorization, no aftercare, and content forks/duplication with AfC justified to protect enwiki from extra cleanup burden.
  • Our core principle is that our translators are free to work on anything that interests them. We provide them with a monthly stipend, some training on how Wikipedia works, but we then see them as volunteer contributors on whom we impose some process to ensure they do not abuse the grant and provide overall value (eg, quality checks, quantity checks). To help them find articles to translate, we curate an optional backlog ... Articles of this tracker primarily consist of "Featured" and "Good" quality articles from other Wikis, as well as red links from these articles
  • We're not paying per quantity, but per hour of work and instructing that people should focus on quality. Our translators are also paid when they work on improvements of existing articles.
  • They have caused a lot of work; mostly these are machine translations by people whose English is rather poor.
  • I've seen no evidence that OKA translators are creating unedited machine translations.
  • 7804j has never denied that these are machine translations, and they normally appear on en:wp in a single edit, & are not edited further except for a couple of tidies. There is no evidence that they are edited machine translations when OKA bow out, and they should be treated as "unedited machine translations"
• September 24 at Talk:Lycée Molière (Paris): An article translated into English by an OKA editor using LLM, with quality issues.
  • The school's significance gets lost among the minutiae of historical enrolment numbers, timetables, uniforms, and report cards – details that might just be acceptable in an institutional history published by and for the school, but have no place in an encyclopaedia which is supposed to summarise sources, not reproduce trivia from the school's newsletter archive.
• 01 January 2026 at WP:ANI: An OKA editor repeatedly broke infoboxes, large translation overwrites that introduced MOS issues, and failure to communicate. Temporarily blocked, then unblocked and resolved after editor promised to be more careful.
  • I have also twice reverted their edits with a summary explaining that communication is required and that they are breaking the page
  • article edits all appear to be expansions by overlaying all or most of the article with a translation
• 02 January 2026 at WP:AINB: Unreviewed / poorly reviewed AI translations by an OKA editor. Unresolved.
  • it is clear that the rich in preserve a rich and varied folklore from Acadian folklore isn't in the original frwiki text (and neither is the *relevailles* markdown). Not looking good
• 07 January 2026 at WP:AINB: Unreviewed / poorly reviewed AI translations with synthesis and promo-language by an OKA editor. Unresolved.
  • There is AI text that does not have any counterpart in it, most of which are synthesis tacked on to paragraphs

The ongoing VPP thread which prompted me to create this AN report

• January 2026 at WP:VPP: The thread starts with OKA Founder User:7804j asking whether the new WP:NEWLLM policy also effectively bans LLM-assisted translations that are, which would disrupt the OKA model. Also includes an example of a OKA translated article containing info not verified by the source.
  • AI translations do not tend to be faithful to the original, and the text that deviates tends to contain the usual problems with standard AI-generated text. In practice the level of review being done is far short of that. For example, this "translation" inserted an entire chunk of text under "River transport" when the corresponding section in the French article was completely empty.
  • The level of human review to AI additions is, quite often, very insufficient
  • However, looking at the provided page number, 147, it doesn't talk about the La Bourdonnaye family at all – instead, the families listed on that page range from Cadelac to Cado.The actual mention of Bourdonnaye, on page 114, does not talk at all about them originating from a lordship in Trégomar, Côtes-d'Armor. I am worried that you might not have actually checked the sources that you have been adding, and I would be happy to see evidence of the contrary.

Main concerns

• Edit quality: OKA editors are making large-scale changes that introduce errors and LLM artefacts.
• Overwrites: repeated overwrites of existing articles during LLM-assisted translation which breaks templates/infoboxes, and makes it hard to review because they're not incremental changes.
• Coordinated mass-editing: OKA trackers indicate various planned campaigns for mass changes (e.g. the Simplify lead campaign) affecting large numbers of pages without on-wiki discussion or consensus.
• QA: from the outside, it’s not clear what OKA’s actual QA looks like (vetting, onboarding, supervision), given the above outcomes.

Suggested remedies

• Edit quality & Overwrites: OKA editors using LLMs to translate must check for quality and accuracy (also pending an LLM translation policy RFC). OKA editors performing translation expansions on existing articles must use incremental edits rather than text overwrites.
• Coordinated mass-editing: Editing campaigns should either have 1) on-Wiki consensus on the affected articles before edits go ahead or 2) required to submit their proposed changes via Edit Requests on the article Talk page.
• QA: OKA to provide documentation regarding their hiring, onboarding, and supervision processes. How do they assess English competency? How they check that LLM output hasn’t added unsupported content? etc

_{Courtesy ping: @7804j as OKA Founder.} qcne (talk) 14:54, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

This is a long-running and serious problem (some of the ye olde quotes above are by me) & while the suggested remedies would be fine if they were made to work, it has long been clear that 7804j is only intermittently interested in engaging with the community, and puts very little effort at all into quality control over the people he pays. He is not himself an en:wp editor with any real experience, and simply does not understand many of the issues. One key issue is identifying OKA-paid material. There used to be a speadsheet that did this, but I don't know if this is still accessible. Most, but I think not all, the editors he pays identify themselves on their user or talk pages, but the articles they create are very often not given any sort of tag. Many of them have pretty poor English, so must use machine-translation of articles from other WPs, or I suppose now freshly-brewed AI texts. A remedy like "OKA editors using LLMs to translate must check for quality and accuracy" just won't fly with the existing set-up - the editors just won't know how to do this. I haven't noticed that the situation common in the early days persists, where an OKA editor set up a FORK for a major article evidently without checking whether en:wp already had one (normally we did, with a rather more idiomatic title). He was warned about that, & it may have stopped - the solution was just to redirect the OKA title to the existing one, so his money was wasted. Johnbod (talk) 15:26, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

To me this comment "[...] we may need to shut down OKA entirely on EN WP and re-assign our ~15 full-time translators to other Wikipedia languages [...]" shows that they are indeed using machine translation. I don't see how a translator could translate competently into English, and then just switch at the drop of a hat to translating into Finnish or Farsi instead.

I have accepted a few of these at AfC, and they seemed quite okay to me, although I admit I didn't specifically look for possible MT problems. I also feel, rightly or wrongly, like investigating the translation quality or provenance would be beyond the scope of AfC's (or for that matter, NPP's) remit. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:55, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

If he meant any random language, sure. But a lot of translators can do bi-directional translation, so if you're doing es→en, it might be easy to take assignments that go en→es. Many translators know multiple languages, too. (For that matter, my plumber speaks seven languages. In some parts of the world, being multilingual isn't remarkable.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:56, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Fluency is also a spectrum. I know enough French to watch movies and read books, which is useful when there's an annoying lack of English sources for something. But my French conversational skills are severely lacking and my writing is iffy on a grammatical level. There's a reason I don't hang out on fr.wiki even if I read their articles sometimes. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 21:11, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes; similar for me. And sometimes the limited fluency leads to one-way translation: I'm confident translating from French to English, but less so from English to French. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 23:09, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

A significant concern that occurred during the NEWLLM discussion was this edit, where an obviously llm-generated text with fabricated sources was restoreddetagged by 7804j. While it was later removed, I do note checking that a fabricated source added elsewhere in the article was not removed. I have removed it now, but clearly the issue extended beyond just that additional portion and I doubt anyone has actually checked the other sources to see if they were fabricated. I don't know if we need an OKA specific remedy, but hopefully OKA participants are made aware of the potential issues they might run into on en.wiki. CMD (talk) 17:13, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

I appreciate the community bringing these concerns forward. I recognize that as OKA grows, our activity becomes more visible. I want to address the specific points raised and clarify how we manage quality.

Regarding OKA’s output, it is essential to look at the data in context. With over 13,000 articles created globally (including 4,800 on English Wikipedia) by more than 80 OKA editors, a small number of errors are statistically inevitable in any high-volume project, whether volunteer or funded. While we treat every report of a problematic edit as an opportunity to refine our internal guidance, these instances remain outliers. They do not represent the vast majority of our work, which provides a significant net benefit by filling content gaps and expanding articles. Our goal is not to "clog the process" but to continue optimizing our internal checks so that our positive impact remains high while minimizing the burden on other editors.

LLM usage and accuracy

The concerns regarding fabricated sources (hallucinations) are the most serious.

• Source verification: We are reinforcing to all grant recipients that LLMs are tools for phrasing and translation, not for facts. Any editor found adding unsupported content or fabricated citations receives a formal warning.
• Policy alignment: I initiated the recent discussion that led to the current RFC because I want OKA to work within the community’s consensus on WP:NEWLLM. We are also finalizing a study on AI effectiveness to share with the community.

Process and vetting

• Overwrites: I fully agree with the feedback here. Overwriting existing content is not ok, unless that content is poor. This is clearly reflected in our instructions. Any editor who ignores this receives a formal warning; two warnings result in the immediate suspension of their OKA grant.
• English proficiency: Our process already requires editors to demonstrate their ability to produce idiomatic, high-quality English that meets WP:MOS before they are eligible for a stipend. We aren't "hiring" staff, but rather providing grants to independent contributors who meet these standards.
• Transparency: Our tracker is public at oka.wiki/tracker (and on-wiki). Every article we work on is tagged as such in the talk page too. We are open to suggestions on how to make OKA-funded edits more easily identifiable (e.g., specific edit summaries) to assist reviewers.

Clarifications on specific comments

• On my experience: Johnbod mentioned I am not myself "an en:wp editor with any real experience". This is not true -- I have been a Wikipedia editor for over 10 years. Like many long-term contributors, my focus has been primarily on the content side rather than policy discussions or noticeboards, so it is true I have less experience on these aspects. I am engaging here to ensure the community has the facts about our workflow.
• On "switching languages": To clarify: our editors only work in languages they are fluent in. My previous comment about "re-assigning to other languages" referred to moving our funding focus to different language editions of Wikipedia, not asking individual translators to work in languages they don't know.
• The "fabricated source" incident: To be clear, I did not "restore" fabricated text. I removed a maintenance tag based on a misunderstanding of whether the section was a translation or an expansion. Once it became clear the editor hadn't verified the sources properly, we took action. I'll take responsibility for the mistake in that specific review, but it was an isolated error.

Moving forward

We don't want OKA editors to be held to a "different" standard, but we recognize that as a funded organization, we have a responsibility to ensure we aren't creating extra work for the community. We believe the current model provides a substantial net gain for Wikipedia. 7804j (talk) 19:41, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Cmon man, the training guide instructs translators to create multiple email accounts to get around LLM usage caps… ExtantRotations (talk) 20:12, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

...yes, and? 7804j (talk) 20:16, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Did you write this with the usage of an LLM, @7804j? Three AI detectors suggest it's AI generated. qcne (talk) 21:08, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Whether or not I used an LLM, spell-checking tool, or the help of someone to review and provide feedback on my response is irrelevant. I would like us to focus on the substance of this discussion.

Also keep in mind that tools that "detect LLMs" look for signs such as the presence of bullet points, headers, bolding, etc. which are also best practices for communication. Structuring arguments as lists and highlighting core ideas is always how I communicate when needing to convey complex ideas to a large audience, when I can spend sufficient time to copyedit and review my response. For example, the message I am currently writing is less structured (no bullets or headers), mostly because I am writing while I am on the go, thus having less time to iterate on it. 7804j (talk) 08:55, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

The tools used while editing Wikipedia are directly relevant to this discussion. They are the very topic of this discussion. Being deliberately evasive on very simple questions is not a helpful way to develop trust. CMD (talk) 10:06, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

@7804j It is absolutely relevant, and this response is disappointing. qcne (talk) 11:00, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

We have ended up here at AN largely because of some OKA editors' careless use of LLMs, so yes, whether the founder and main driver of the project uses LLMs to communicate with us is very relevant. And having spent months working alongside Qcne at AFC, I am confident that he understands the nuances amd pitfalls of AI detection and isn't making this accusation lightly. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 09:14, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I use LLMs to help me draft and structure my thoughts, especially for long responses where I want to be clear and address multiple points. I don’t believe there is anything inherently wrong with using modern tools to improve the quality and readability of a discussion, provided the person posting takes full responsibility for the content.

I’m sorry if my previous response seemed evasive; that wasn’t my intent. My point was that the substance of the arguments should matter more than the software used to assist in writing them. To me, using an LLM to refine a post is a matter of personal preference and productivity, similar to using a sophisticated spell-checker or a translation tool.

Trust is a two-way street. Being questioned on the mechanics of how I write feels like a distraction from the actual policy issues we are here to solve. Many professional environments now encourage the use of these tools specifically because they can improve the clarity of communication.

The core issue here is whether OKA's output on Wikipedia is accurate and valuable. I am here to take responsibility for that output and to work on the process improvements I mentioned above. I would prefer we focus on those specific quality controls rather than the tools I use to draft my replies. 7804j (talk) 11:14, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

I mean technically you aren’t taking responsibility for the output though; you have made it clear that all errors are the fault of your (quite low paid) employees, and that they will receive all the punishment. Nowhere in your list of changes do you discuss introducing additional training or help for translators. ExtantRotations (talk) 12:20, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

I want to be clear about what I mean by responsibility. As the founder, I am responsible for the system and instructions our editors follow. If there is a pattern of errors, it means our training or oversight needs adjustment, and that is on me.

When I say editors are responsible for their output, I’m simply stating the Wikipedia rule: every person is accountable for the edits they make. However, we don't just "wait for mistakes to punish." Our responsibility is in the support we provide:

• Training: We don't just hand out money; we provide onboarding and direct mentorship from experienced editors.
• Systemic Fixes: When the community flags an issue—like overwriting or infobox errors—we don't just blame an individual. We update our global guidelines and hold group sessions to ensure every OKA editor understands the fix.
• Quality Control: The "warning" system is a safeguard for Wikipedia. It’s there to ensure that if someone consistently fails to meet community standards despite our training, they stop receiving funding.

I am not "passing the buck." I am here to ensure that OKA as a whole is a net positive, which means I am constantly iterating on our training to prevent these issues from happening in the first place. 7804j (talk) 12:43, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

We don't just hand out money; we provide onboarding

Are the editors compensated/paid for their time during onboarding?

As a personal request; if you reply to me, can you please use only your own words? I do not like talking to someone through a computer-generated layer, it actually feels disrespectful to me. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 12:57, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes, they are compensated during onboarding regardless of the outcome of the trial period 7804j (talk) 16:06, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! I presume that this refers to a broader program than the initial 40 hour trial, as, regarding the latter, the job posting template states that:

Note that payment for the trial requires that you publish at least 5 articles successfully without quality issues and share your progress daily within the established trial period.

If you do refer to a longer paid onboarding, I would be happy to hear details about how it is being managed by the senior editors, and what oversight is present regarding this process. This could really help convince the editing community that your translators receive appropriate supervision and training. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:18, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

This sounds like a contraction to compensated during onboarding regardless of the outcome of the trial period. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 16:25, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

The difference is that the job posting refers to the payment as requiring articles without quality issues, which isn't the same as regardless of the outcome, which is why I believe they must be referring to different processes. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:38, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

My reading of regardless of the outcome was that they would be paid even if they did not meet the publish at least 5 articles successfully requirement. But it's not entirely clear to me, maybe there's another process like you said. I just don't like the idea that someone could spend their time on this and not even get paid for it, because this seems a little bit exploitative to me. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 16:46, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes, that's what confused me too – reading the job posting, it seemed like they wouldn't be paid for it, which is more worrying. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:24, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

I understand the confusion. The job posting does indeed say 5 articles (which is a mistake, actually it should be saying 2), but this is more a "protection" against abuse of ill-intentioned actors, not something that we really have to enforce in practice except from really egregious cases. What we want to avoid is someone signing up, not doing any work at all, and asking for money. If the person has actually tried to onboard but just didn't succeed, and there is evidence of this (e.g., conversations, drafts, etc.) then we've always paid the entirety of the 40h. 7804j (talk) 18:48, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Setting asides concerns that this comment was LLM-written or generated in some part, I don't see how holding OKA editors to basic standards of competence and verifiability is holding them to a different standard. The raw volume of errors found and possibly introduced but not yet found is of great concern. We cannot, as a community, keep up with an organized and fast flow of misinformation. This is exacerbated by the pattern of avoiding communication; I was in the 1/1 thread, and it took an outright block to enforce basic communication.

Also, the general rule in translation is to translate from a foreign language into your native language, with which you are hopefully more familiar. I don't see any indication that this is the case. Iseult ^Δx talk to me 03:10, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

@7804j, I'd appreciate seeing more details about the onboarding process.

1. Do you have an example of a position description or call for expressions of interest from potential new translators? Where do you advertise?
2. How are new translators selected and what are the selection criteria?
3. What training is provided to new translators, especially around the different policies snd guidelines of the different language Wikipedias? Links to training materials would be especially helpful for this discussion.
4. When English Wikipedia editors bring up quality control issues with you, what specific steps do you take to address these with the translator? e.g. do you show them the relevant noticeboard/talk page discussion, do you identify the specific parts of the text that have problems, do you read and discuss the relevant policy together?
5. Is anyone other than yourself involved in the selection, training, or supervision of translators?

ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 03:49, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Translators are selected by other, more senior, translators. I do not personally get involved in the process. This happens through a mix of personal referrals, and postings on Linkedin. We have tested different platforms, and found that it was the most suitable to get a high-volume of diverse profiles without cost. One of our goals is to onboard non-Wikipedians to Wikipedia, so that we grow the total pool of editors, so we intentionally do not recruit directly within Wikipedia. Of course, this comes at the cost of more complex onboarding and more mistakes being done in the beginning, but we see it as part of the value of OKA to train people on the use of Wikipedia. You can find the post template here.

All our onboarding materials are published on-wiki, such this quick-start guide and the main instructions. We have these additional instructions for non-en Wikipedias. Senior editors conduct the initial resume screening, interview, and also have several video sessions with new editors to walk them through it and answer their questions. During the trial period, their contributions are reviewed in detail by more senior editors, and the degree of review decreases over time as they gain experience. We continue to monitor things such as: spot-checking of articles, AfC rejections, issue tags, mentions of translators into any Wikipedia discussions. We also organize monthly optional round-tables, and have several internal chats where editors can ask questions or share best practices.

Our core guidelines is that each OKA editor is responsible for directly interacting with the community, and responding to and resolving issues. It's hard to always be aware of every mention of an OKA translator, but whenever this happens we look into it and try to establish the root cause and solutions. This typically results in a mix of changes to our processes or guidelines, reminders to the broader group, and if the translator was at fault, a formal warning (or dismissal for very significant issues or deliberate violations). A second warning typically leads to the termination of the grant. We aim to be as specific as possible, pointing to the specific text or edit, and to the relevant Wikipedia and OKA guidelines or policies.

Most of these processes are "self-managed and decentralized" to the grant-recipients, where senior editors take on these review and management activities. We then have three volunteers (myself and two other people) overseeing the effort, doing an additional degree of spot-checking, designing and building the tools and processes, and acting as escalation layer.

Generally speaking, we try to be as transparent as possible with the community about the inner workings of OKA, and have been actively seeking suggestions for process improvements. As long as it remains within the spirit of OKA's mission, I welcome any proposed changes to our processes. 7804j (talk) 07:01, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

In the interest of transparency, would you be willing to identify who else (besides you) has a supervisory or oversight role? At the moment, I am only aware of you as founder, and the lists of translators supported by OKA, which do not indicate who else is involved in supervision and quality control. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 09:22, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Additionally, it would be helpful to clarify the responsibilities of the senior translators, regarding selection, management and review of their junior colleagues. As this isn't outlined in the job posting, is there a different position/contract involving these aspects, or is it an expected part of the duties that all translators sign up for? It could be helpful to make this information available on-wiki, especially regarding who is responsible for whom. That way, we know who to ask for help if there is an issue with a newer translator, and OKA's internal review process can work jointly with Wikipedia's. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 09:48, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

From what I understand – although please correct me if I am wrong – OKA editors are independent contractors, with a very low salary of 397 USD per month for a 40 hour week, which I believe corresponds to 2.29 USD hourly. Given this precarious status, I am worried that more uncertainty in the translator duties may lead to an overloading of responsibilities, which is worrying as independent contractors do not necessarily have the same protections as paid employees. Having more clarity regarding their exact responsibilities and the internal structure through which they work may be necessary to reassure some of us in that regards. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 10:07, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

There are three of us at the core organization level: myself, @Nickoka (based in Winterthur, Switzerland), and a software developer. Nick handles our internal operations and finances, while the developer is building an open-source stats platform to improve our tracking. Neither are active on-wiki editors, which is why I am the primary point of contact for the community.

I have updated our list of editors to list the three currently active OKA senior editors who assist with peer-review and onboarding.

The relationship between senior and junior editors is one of mentorship rather than a strict hierarchy. We don't have rigid "roles descriptions" for them; instead, senior editors are long-term grant recipients who have demonstrated a high level of proficiency. They are tasked with:

• Onboarding new grant recipients.
• Conducting peer-reviews during trial periods.
• Coaching on OKA, Wikipedia and local project policies. They are given significant freedom to manage their "mentee" groups as they see fit, provided the output meets Wikipedia's quality standards.

To clarify the stipend amounts: the $397 USD figure is for the initial trial period. For regular editors, this increases up to $452 USD, and for those taking on mentoring/management roles, it ranges between $525 and $634 USD. While these amounts are modest, we ensure they are above the minimum wage in the countries where the editors reside.

Many of our recipients edit part-time or use the stipend to support their existing volunteer work. Our goal is to enable people to contribute who otherwise wouldn't have the financial flexibility to do so. We are very sensitive to the "precariousness" mentioned—which is why we don't treat this as a traditional job with "overloading responsibilities," but as a grant to support independent encyclopedic work. There are also no set working hours—people are free to work whenever they want to, and leave at any time without any notice.

I am happy to share more details on our internal workflows if it helps. However, our internal documentation includes sensitive payment details, so I need to be careful about where it is shared. I'm open to providing any additional details that the community feels that would help bridge the trust gap. 7804j (talk) 12:40, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

@7804j While these amounts are modest, we ensure they are above the minimum wage in the countries where the editors reside.

I have changed my mind. This is disgustingly exploitative. You're a Swiss-based non-profit exploiting residents of the global south to add AI slop to the project and expecting volunteers to clean this up. Take a long, critical, look at yourself and your operations.

At this juncture I want OKA editors to be prohibited from directly editing articles entirely, at the minimum. qcne (talk) 16:18, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

+1 --Gurkubondinn (talk) 16:26, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

While I don't know in which canton of Switzerland you are based, the lowest minimum wage (in Ticino) is 19.5 CHF, or 24.7 USD. In comparison, the minimum hourly wage for your freelancers is 2.29 USD. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:37, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

I find the characterization of our work as "AI slop" and the personal attacks regarding "exploitation" to be both disrespectful and inaccurate. I ask that we remain focused on the substance of Wikipedia policy.

Regarding the stipend levels: OKA is a non-profit providing grants, not a corporation hiring employees. We provide financial support to editors in regions where the cost of living is lower, specifically so they have the freedom to contribute to Wikipedia full-time—something that would otherwise be impossible for them. Comparing Swiss minimum wages to the local economies of our editors is not a helpful metric for a global project. Our goal is to empower contributors from the Global South and under-represented communities by removing the financial barriers to their participation.

Whether a stipend is "reasonable" is a subjective labor discussion that is outside the scope of this noticeboard. The community’s role here is to evaluate the edits, not our internal financial structure.

As for the content, labeling thousands of reviewed translations as "slop" ignores the thousands of hours of human work and the value these articles provide to readers.

I am happy to discuss quality controls, but I will not engage further with personal attacks or hyperbole about our mission. 7804j (talk) 17:05, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

99% chance AI Generated. We are highly confident this text was AI generated

It is disrespectful to continue to talk to us via a chatbot, despite already being asked not to. This is now disruptive. I would hat and hide your comment if I was not involved. qcne (talk) 17:35, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

I have been open about using tools to help structure my thoughts and ensure my responses are clear and professional. There is no policy that mandates a specific drafting style, and I find it counterproductive to derail a serious discussion about OKA's operations into a debate over my personal writing process. 7804j (talk) 18:00, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Your own use of LLMs, as the founder of the nonprofit in question, to communicate with editors here on Wikipedia, which your nonprofit relies on, is absolutely relevant. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 18:03, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Your website indicates that your translators bill you for their time worked; is that because having them act as independent contractors is less legally regulated than if you just granted them the money? I mean, you keep calling them grants anyways… ExtantRotations (talk) 18:06, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

It's a mix of reasons, but the primary one is process simplicity. We don't need to actively keep track of who's working and who's not working: we wait for the editors to send us the list of what they've worked on, we review it, and pay. Given that we're running this as only 3 volunteers, it's important to keep processes as lean as possible for the volunteers. But this also means when an editor decides to no longer work with OKA, or if they want to reduce their activity rate or not work for a few weeks, they don't even need to let us know, they can just stop submitting their "bills". 7804j (talk) 18:51, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Apologies but you are the one who created a nonprofit that is financially dependent on Wikipedia. I think it is extremely prudent to ask things like how much the charity raises per year or how much you earn in comparison to your employees. I don’t know about Switzerland but in Canada this info is publicly available for nonprofits. ExtantRotations (talk) 17:40, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

According to this article from 2025 -- the organization linked to the news article so I assume this is ok to post -- half the budget (80,000 Swiss francs) is from the founder's personal income and half is from "donations and fundraising." 10,000 Swiss francs last year came from a Wikimedia grant to evaluate AI-assisted translations on the encyclopedia (something all of us are currently doing for free, by the way). I don't know whether that 10,000 is part of the "donations and fundraising" or separate. Gnomingstuff (talk) 18:15, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Actually we have just published the results of this research project here. 7804j (talk) 19:10, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

From your website (bolding mine):

To maximize the impact of our limited funds, we primarily award grants to translators based in countries with low costs of living. These countries also tend to be underrepresented among Wikipedia editors, which also helps us decrease Wikipedia’s systematic bias. ExtantRotations (talk) 17:50, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Can you point to an on-wiki discussion where you proposed the translation project to the English Wikipedia community before creating your non-profit association and taking on translators? ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 21:59, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

@7804j: I'd really appreciate a response to this question because as it stands, it looks as if you initiated this translation project without considering the wishes of the broader community or asking for feedback beforehand. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 21:48, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

As Qcne wrote in the timeline, no, I did not inform the community before starting the project, but many discussions took place shortly after, and at that point I took many steps to act on the community's feedback and be even more transparent and proactively communicating (e.g., formally associating OKA to Wikipedia:WikiProject Intertranswiki). Since then, the community has been overall supportive of our OKA, with the exception of isolated incidents (and this discussion so far, which I believe does not reflect the community's balanced opinion but rather the opinion of a self-selected subset of the community).

Why did I not inform the community before the project? Simply because at the time, I didn't realize it was expected, as I had very little experience with such types of projects, or even with interacting with the Wikipedia community in general (I was just a regular editor). Also, at the time I wasn't even sure I would be able to make it work, and the concept was still very experimental, thus not having very clear boundaries like it has today 7804j (talk) 07:05, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Can you point to an on-wiki discussion where you proposed the translation [..] before [..]?
— User:ClaudineChionh

So the answer to her question is a "no" then?

P.S.: please use your own words if you choose to reply to me. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 13:15, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes the answer is no, which I felt was pretty clear in my previous reply (which, by the way, was not LLM-generated). 7804j (talk) 13:47, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Apologies, I didn't notice that you had given a clear answer. That's my bad, I wouldn't have written that reply otherwise. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 15:46, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your response yesterday (which was a long day at work for me). For what it's worth, I disagree with your interpretation that this discussion is not representative of the community's overall sentiments towards your initiative. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 22:09, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

This discussion involves a dozen of editors that saw it through the admin noticeboard. Over the past few years, hundreds of people have been exposed to OKA's work, and I have personally received many messages of encouragement from a variety of editors and admins. Many editors have also thanked our editors directly for their contributions through barnstars, words of appreciation, etc. Several of our editors are active in Wikipedia projects, some participate in local Wikimedia chapter events, etc. So I don't know what's the overall community's view, but I know for sure that this thread doesn't represent it well 7804j (talk) 06:26, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

I second that. People don't come to AN to heap praise and give pats on the back, this is the place for grilling and hard knocks :P _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:28, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

This is ridiculous OKA did not come up with outsourcing and the fact that labor has different cost in different places. We live in the real world. WP has a massive lack of representation from the global south. Many in the global south do not have the luxury to spend their unpaid time on the internet. OKA is not forcing them to edit wikipedia. Some of these editors may well see this as a great opportunity for them to contribute to a project. It may be a much better opportunity for making money than other available to them. If they want to argue OKA is doing unfair labor practices then let's hear them say it, but it not for you to decide for them. Czarking0 (talk) 04:07, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

At this juncture I want OKA editors to be prohibited from directly editing articles entirely, at the minimum. I agree in full. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 19:03, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Firmly agree. There are numerous issues here - practical issues, labor issues, and community interaction issues - of which the most significant is that users are being told to add translations that they are not able to check for errors and copyedit. 7804j's responses here have made it clear they cleared this nonprofit without considering what the community would want, and have no intention of addressing the numerous major concerns. This effort needs to be shut down, and not allowed to simply skip over to harming a different project. I would prefer if someone else can formally propose the prohibition - I don't have any experience in doing so - but I will be it myself if need be. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:23, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

I could not agree more, the responses here by 7804j are concerning, almost all are AI generated and they seem to not respect the community's wishes at all. – LuniZunie_(talk) 23:21, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

I beg to differ. We don't know what community wishes are, except in the broad context of building an encyclopedia, and 7804j and his project have been certainly doing just that. As for the use of AI to streamline replies, there's a difference between having an AI reply, and having an AI rewrite/copyedit one's thoughts, and my understanding is that they've been doing the latter, not the former. While we are seeing a norm clash, with some folks considering the latter lazy, I think it's a sign of things to come, and overall an improvement, given low quality of online discourse; in either way, while I also support banning "using AI to talk", I have no problem with "using AI to help one refine one's response", and per WP:AGF I see no reason to believe this is not the case here. Lastly, I am also open to the consideration that AI may help some folks suffering from forms of disability (dyslexia, etc.) and I find criticism of folks that may benefit from such tool unwarranted and arguably, distasteful. Would you criticize a blind person for using a gadget to edit Wikipedia? In the end, it doesn't matter what tool one uses to write a response and communicate, as long as we are still talking to them (and not a bot). Ban the bots, let real people do what they want - it's not our place to force our thoughts on which tools they should be using. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:25, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

@Piotrus I absolutely agree with your point on the disabilities as I have dysgraphia and dyslexia, and I do use AI to help with spelling and reading (because I can't read for the life of me). However, what I am trying to say is, if an issue is brough up with you, and you use a bot to respond, that's a problem; you aren't responding or acknowledging the issue at all by doing that.

As per the community's wishes, that is true that we only know the broad context, but what I meant by that is that the responses here, and the subsequent responses by 7804j, are showing there is a pretty large mismatch in what is wanted. In a perfect world, we would tell 7804j that everything needs to be properly checked, but this isn't a perfect world and that just won't happen and I am not given confidence by the responses here to prove otherwise.

I of course, agree that minimal AI usage should be fine, I mean, it's the future whether we like it or not, and failing to adapt to the times will be this project's demise. But I just don't think this is the way to do it. – LuniZunie_(talk) 12:25, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Well, I have read chunks of the discussion here, maybe I missed something. It's clear some OKA translators got lazy and used AI without double checking for common errors. I expect OKA (=7804j) to introduce safeguards to prevent this from happening, and discipline repeated offenders (because as everyone knows, if we have to do it here, it won't be pretty). I expect OKA will agree - it's not their first rodeo, and in the past, AFAIK, they have been ammenable to improve their standards and ensure the content they deliver is acceptable. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:51, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

I am a bit confused as to what gives the impression that OKA isn't willing to adapt. As Piotr mentioned, we are more than happy to make any changes to our processes that the community finds beneficial.

Also, as Piotr mentioned, I only used AI to organize my thoughts, I did not use AI to generate messages from scratch. It is therefore fully within the community's own guidelines. Also I have been extremely detailed and transparent in my responses.

LuniZuni, is there a concrete ask that you feel OKA should commit to but where you feel there is a fundamental mismatch between what you would want, and I would be willing to agree to? 7804j (talk) 13:39, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

LuniZuni is my doppelgänger :p

is there a concrete ask that you feel OKA should commit to but where you feel there is a fundamental mismatch between what you would want, and I would be willing to agree to?
I'm not asking about what I want, what I want is a website where AI is allowed in moderation, but not in content generation. What I am asking is that these things be communicated onwiki before they occur, not in discussions that take place after the fact, they should be done before. This is a major thing being done by your non-profit, that needs to involve the community. Right now, it seems like the community is involved, but only after the fact, which is not very helpful. – LuniZunie_(talk) 13:47, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

In all honesty, I (and others) complain elsewhere about how WMF does stuff without consulting community. Of course, we seem to be unable to change WMF behemoth; here, we have much more leverage, but I also think - again, based on past experience - we are much more likely to see OKA change what they do than WMF, sigh. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:51, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

While I of course agree, I don't think that just because WMF does it means the rest of us should also do it. – LuniZunie_(talk) 14:53, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

I think the WMF comparison is very salient here. OKA clearly has money and wants to support the project. Their vision is not 100% aligned with all the community members. Neither is WMF's. However the community may be able to play OKA and WMF off against each other for our own gain. Though I doubt we have the skill to do it. Czarking0 (talk) 04:11, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Well I don't agree but their is no point in just saying you agree or not. Czarking0 (talk) 04:08, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

I am concerned about the accusation of exploitation made here; this is serious and I worry it was not fully considered in the heat of the moment. 7804j has said OKA work is not meant to be full-time, but fine, let's say people do it full-time anyways. 7804j says workers are paid more than minimum wage, but that doesn't mean much; even in Switzerland, most of the country has no minimum wage, so he could be paying one Rappen an hour and that would still be true. But he has given us numbers here that we can check against the statistics. Let's look at two countries in the global south with vast numbers of native English speakers: Nigeria and India. The World Bank says average annual income in Nigeria was 1663 USD in 2021 , which comes out to 139 USD per month. For India it gives 1907 USD per year, or $159 per month. The same list gives $115 monthly for Senegal, a (somewhat) Francophone country, and $427 monthly for Colombia, a Spanish-speaking country. (Many OKA articles are translated from Spanish or French. These are the first countries that came to mind for each language – if I were to cherry-pick the data, I could list, say, Chad and Bolivia instead.) For comparison, the minimum OKA stipend listed above was $397. Now, I don't know if the World Bank data truly represent a living wage in those countries, something that is very difficult to measure, and I don't know where OKA editors are (maybe they're in countries with far higher cost-of-living?). But this is a reasonable estimate, and it would seem to contradict the accusations of exploitation made above. Toadspike [Talk] 04:22, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for looking into this, I was also rather shocked by the language used. No good deed, you know. Here, someone is paying out of their own pocket (or at least partially, and in either case not counting time spend managing this) to get volunteers (nobody is forcing anyone to do anything) to contribute to Wikipedia - and he is being accused of exploitation. I am at a loss of words, really, because I don't think anything I could say would be particularly nice. Sigh. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:33, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Agreed, I left a different comment with the same idea above Czarking0 (talk) 04:12, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

@7804j: This sub-thread got somewhat derailed. I want to return to the issue of OKA's labour force. Set aside dollar/euro/franc amounts for a moment. To state my bias upfront, as an Asian immigrant to Australia I am very sensitive to "representation" being used as a fig leaf for exploiting workers in the global south, and "independent contractor" arrangements used to absolve your responsibility to your workers. Because that's what they are, your workers, and treating their half- or full-time employment as gig work is abhorrent to me. You have imposed a mass article creation program on the English Wikipedia without prior community discussion, which means the existence of this program and your workers' livelihoods is dependent on the community's goodwill. A noticeable number of your workers were given inadequate training or oversight which meant that they came to the community's attention as "problem" editors, though it's now becoming clearer to me that these problems are due to systemic issues within OKA itself. You are squandering any remaining goodwill with your evasive answers here. Like qcne I have become disgusted with this whole situation, but am also sensitive to the needs of the OKA workers who presumably have no form of protection from the consequences of their boss's behaviour. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 04:35, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

And I look at it from exactly the other side. The boss is trying to help, both the workers and the community, and should not be held responsible for the fact that some of his workers are lazy and cut corners. The boss is volunteering and using their own money, not making a dime of profit. The workers are the ones who are making profit - and nobody is forcing them, they are free to choose other gigs. I can't understand how come we are criticizing a volunteer who invested immense amount of time, and their own financial resources, to help our community, instead of the paid editors, some of whom are obviously abusing the system. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:54, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Who else's problem but the boss' can it be if the translators are not adequately trained and their work is not adequately reviewed? It's massively irresponsible to sic a cadre of unsupervised 'translators' on Wikipedia with the specific instruction to use general-purpose LLMs to translate massive swathes of text and not implement any kind of oversight or verification. OKA can't then wash their hands of that and say "well, some people are just lazy and don't review their work". Of course they are, that's why you have to plan for that in your operational model! For instance, they could have one or two more highly paid staff whose sole job is to internally review the translations made by the 'grunt' translators before they go live. Or they could at least implement some kind of peer-check system between the translators themselves. Either way, if you just leave them to their devices, obviously you're going to end up with one or two of them just shovelling slop into the encyclopedia with no second thought. Athanelar (talk) 10:58, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Although I disagree with your assessment of OKA, which I think is quite responsible, I do think there is merit in the idea that they should hire some folks to do quality check, even if this would reduce the total output due to reducing the translator's total number a bit. It would, hopefully, prevent the issues we are seeing (as marginal as they are, IMHO). @7804j - this idea is worth considering seriously. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:18, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

I agree that having peer reviewers could make sense, and I've started to think about it in the last couple of days. However, it's not easy to put in place operationally and there are several different options to consider, so it will require some further thinking and fleshing out.

What I can do is draft a process and start a pilot internally with a few editors and focused on EN WP. If this works well, we can then scale it to the rest of OKA and other Wikipedias. This might take a bit of time, though I expect we can already get some results and feedback within a few weeks.

-----

As a side note, I really dislike the "boss" analogy. Would we require that every Wikipedia editor has a boss and an assigned reviewer? The whole point of OKA is to provide grants so that people can become regular editors. The more process we put on them, the more they lose the freedom that makes Wikipedia great in the first place.

OKA doesn't strictly require that grant recipients translate using LLMs, nor that they translate in fact. These are mere recommendations based on what we have found to be an easy way for people with dual language proficiency to have significant impact on Wikipedia. We do actually encourage editors to explore any other tools or types of Wikipedia contributions, but relatively few do, simply because they agree that LLM translations are a good way to have positive impact.

One of OKA's goal is actually to bring new editors to Wikipedia, which is why we don't advertise on Wikipedia. If someone promotes Wikipedia at their university or workplace, and as a result some mix of editors start editing, some being good and some being less so, is the editor who promoted Wikipedia in the first place going to be held accountable for having promoted it to the wrong people?

That being said, I acknowledge that due to the scale and organized nature of OKA, additional safeguards are useful, even if they restrict a little bit the freedom of OKA editors, hence my willingness to try the peer reviewer approach. 7804j (talk) 14:38, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Your goal is understandable and admirable, but you of course have to be aware that paying people for their contributions is going to change the way they contribute. Similarly, of course someone who tells their friends "hey, editing Wikipedia is fun, you should try it" isn't liable for what those people do, but that's not what you're doing. You're specifically selecting, enrolling and supporting paid editors. You are responsible for the people on your payroll, there's no getting around that, because the mere fact that you are paying them is an explicit endorsement of their editing activities.

The "one or two bad apples" argument only works if you're making an active effort to catch the bad apples. It's very good that you take action when it's reported to you, but it's concerning that somebody is able to go on for so long without it ever being caught internally. You need to have some kind of internal review process, otherwise you can't be surprised when people blame you for the actions of people you're literally paying to edit. Athanelar (talk) 14:49, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

I don't agree with this perspective. If a university gives a full scholarship to a student (tuition and costs of living), it doesn't automatically become liable to all the activities and publications of that student, even if the university encourages its students to write and publish. E.g., if the student publishes a flawed and questionable paper on their own blog, the university may decide to cancel the scholarship, but shouldn't be held liable for having granted that scholarship in the first place. 7804j (talk) 16:22, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Sure, but if one of the students accepted for said scholarship demonstrated that they lacked the qualifications one would expect for a recipient of that scholarship, it would raise questions as to how thoroughly the university is vetting its applicants. Athanelar (talk) 16:50, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

I disagree with this as well. I know many universities or systems where scholarships are funded without particular vetting of the applicant's competence, other than on the basis of a CV.

In either case, nobody would say that such universities are the boss of the scholarship recipients, even if such scholarships are tied to certain outcomes (e.g., successfully meeting course criteria). This is the model we're trying to replicate with OKA 7804j (talk) 19:28, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

@7804j, a brief comment on the "boss" wording: I didn't use it in relation to the editing workflow, but to draw out the economic and power dynamics in OKA's structure, regardless of whatever legal or taxation arrangement is used. @Athanelar has picked up on that aspect with paying people for their contributions is going to change the way they contribute. On reflection I think my critique of your gig work arrangement is a tangent from this specific discussion of quality control, but I am still extremely concerned (indeed, still disgusted) by this arrangement and may seek a better venue to continue that discussion. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 00:11, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Do keep in mind WP:BOOMERANG. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:22, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Apologies for barging in, I'm mostly a lurker, but reading that amount of money the organization offers as "payment" is decently less than minimum wage in about half of latam, this is straight up exploitation.

Adding my two cents, OKA should straight up be banned from wiki; AIslop without signs of actually wanting to improve the jank it spits out, and, exploitation of people in need, worse of all, a Swiss non-profit, straight up a neo-colonialist scheme.

/rant, this kinda things make me angry ~2026-43687-3 (talk) 19:53, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

And comments like above make me angry (so what?). Misrepresenting things (there's plenty of evidence OKA is trying to improve), and calling online gig that nobody is forcing anyone to take "exploitation", sigh. You think OKA is offering too little? Offer more, yourself. They are at least trying. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:26, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

There's also the Grok angle: that is the worst LLM one could possibly be using from an "oh this will be bad bad if it gets out" perspective, given that the three things the average person associates Grok with nowadays are Elon Musk, revenge porn, and Grokipedia.

I don't buy the "Grok knows wikitext" angle, all modern LLMs have a rudimentary-enough knowledge of wikitext to match the rudimentary level of the translations. Gnomingstuff (talk) 17:45, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia was mostly written by volunteers. But sometimes they need a bit of help helpful, indeed. qcne (talk) 17:52, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

We have actually just published the results of a study we have done on LLM quality for Wikipedia translation. Based on these results, we have proceeded to switch over from Grok to Claude and ChatGPT as the recommended tools, but there are certain use cases where Grok still performs better.

We had done a similar (though a lot less detailed) analysis in the past, and so far Grok was always outperforming the other models for this specific task. So we haven't picked Grok because we like Elon Musk or Grokipedia (in fact, I don't), but just based on data. 7804j (talk) 19:15, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

The mere willingness to test using the revenge-porn generator, the one that declared itself "MechaHitler", for this purpose is indicative of poor judgment. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 19:05, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

And CSAM generator. The level of doublethink needed to convince oneself of acting for the public good while wanting to be anywhere near that is breathtaking.  — Hex • talk 13:35, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

I find this response and the one above extremely concerning. Are you suggesting that because Grok is a very controversial tool that sometimes produces very problematic results when prompted to do so, that even the idea that I would want to test the effectiveness of Grok as a translation tool is a proof that we have poor judgement or poor intents?

Keep in mind that translation is a very mechanical task. Grok isn't going to suddenly add Hitler references or generate child porn when asked to translate a sentence about the History of France... I'm really not a fan of Elon Musk, but come on, there's really no need for extra sensationalism here... 7804j (talk) 13:43, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that because Grok is a very controversial tool that sometimes produces very problematic results when prompted to do so, that even the idea that I would want to test the effectiveness of Grok as a translation tool is a proof that we have poor judgement or poor intents? yes. qcne (talk) 13:49, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. 25 years ago I could have said the internet is a disgusting tool for sharing CSAM and you want to test using it to distribute an encyclopedia!? Czarking0 (talk) 04:22, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

If you knew a human who created CSAM, would you still work with them and trust them? – LuniZunie_(talk) 13:51, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

And now for argumentum ad hitlerum... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:52, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Unless I am misunderstanding something, I don't see how that applies. – LuniZunie_(talk) 14:55, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Keep in mind that translation is a very mechanical task.

I believe that this shows a rather poor understanding of what goes into localisation and translation (and the unwarranted editorialising that LLMs perform whenever they're asked to merely translate something). --Gurkubondinn (talk) 08:17, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

I am not saying it is "mechanical" in absolute terms, but compared to other prompts you might give an LLM like "Tell me what you think of Nazis" 7804j (talk) 11:38, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Ah, so you meant "mechanical task" in the context of LLM inputs/prompts? --Gurkubondinn (talk) 11:51, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes 7804j (talk) 11:56, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Aside. Iseult Δx talk to me 01:33, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Also, fun fact. Wikipedia was created by one Jimbo Wales. From his bio: he also founded (earlier) "a web portal featuring... softcore pornography". How does it make you feel? :P Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:54, 22 January 2026 (UTC) Well, I think CSAM and softcore pornography are a bit different... – LuniZunie(talk) 14:57, 22 January 2026 (UTC) Sure, just as Grok and CSAM are a bit different... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:04, 22 January 2026 (UTC) Never said Grok was CSAM, I said it generated it, my entire argument was how it generated it. If an AI doesn't have enough checks and has training data that allows it to generated CSAM, yeah, I don't trust it. – LuniZunie(talk) 15:10, 22 January 2026 (UTC) I would rather fear too much censorship per WP:NOTCENSORED. YMMV. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:15, 22 January 2026 (UTC) I'm sorry, I am incredibly confused by this. Are you arguing you would rather the AI generate CSAM a few times than be censored enough to not generate porn? Or are you arguing something else? – LuniZunie(talk) 15:17, 22 January 2026 (UTC) Also, due to insufficient safeguards, I think most LLM models have been known to generate CSAM in the past. By that logic, all of them are not worth trusting. Now, when we consider CSAM has been created long before AIs, by the beings known as humans, why would we trust anything humans made? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:17, 22 January 2026 (UTC) I haven't seen anything that says other AIs generate CSAM, and if they do, then yeah I would not trust that AI. And the argument Now, when we consider CSAM has been created long before AIs, by the beings known as humans, why would we trust anything humans made? is ridiculous, most humans don't consume, generate, or even think about CSAM, why would you discard everything made by most humans? You can't claim all humans are something just because a few are that. – LuniZunie(talk) 15:19, 22 January 2026 (UTC) I'm not fond of views in which humans are automatically, permanently irredeemable if they do something, so let's talk about your black-and-white worldview for a moment. About one in 15 underage males admits to having created and distributed naked sexual photos of themselves. That's officially considered CSAM material in most of the world, even when it's fully consensual. Shall we kick out one in 15 males out of society for the rest of their lives, because they engaged in illegal sexting? We get about three-quarters of a million registered editors here each year. It's mostly males. A quick back-of-the-envelope calculation suggests that something on the order of 5,000(!) of the Wikipedia editors who made any edit during the last year has also sexted at least one naked photo to at least one romantic partner before the age of 18. So I ask you your own question: Now that you know that thousands of Wikipedia editors technically created and distributed CSAM material, would you still work with them? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:58, 23 January 2026 (UTC) ? really weird comparison. qcne (talk) 15:00, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

With all due respect, I think that the point the above users are trying to make is not that Grok is likely to do any of these things while translating Wikipedia articles, but rather, that using a model that is particularly notorious for its poor oversight was a lapse in judgement. While use of Grok in this context is not necessarily an endorsement of its creator or its controversies, even in the absence of your explicit dis-endorsement above, it's not unreasonable that people aware of the many controversies of Grok would be concerned about its use in this context. It's obvious that using Grok for translation purposes is not likely to produce questionable or illegal image content, or that OKA editors would be foolish enough to put such content on Wikipedia, however, Grok's biases are well documented, and its tendency to gas up or disparage particular concepts and individuals based on the politically-motivated instructions provided by its creators is relevant in the context of translating encyclopedic text. If paired with poor oversight, it's reasonable to be concerned that text that is unencyclopedic or outright biased may be more likely to slip through when using Grok as opposed to other models with less toxic reputations. It's good to know that you've switched over to primarily relying on Claude and ChatGPT (despite having their own problems, I think most users would consider them far less likely to produce biased outputs), but I hope you can understand why so many users are concerned and consider the use of Grok to have been a poor decision, even though I'm sure it was done with good intentions. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 02:51, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

I understand, and I have definitely taken these concerns into account. However my own extensive experience of using Grok was that it's only showing these biases or issues when either (a) prompted to do so, (b) on extremely rare occasions (that I never personally observed other than news report) where prompted about specific topics that are very close to Elon Musk. As you mentioned, for translations that would never happen due to the mechanical nature of the task.

So I am not surprised that some people in this thread would think that it's a sign of poor judgement, but the reality is that it isn't. It was carefully considered, and at the time, Grok indeed had a much better performance than other models, so the pros significantly outweighed the cons back then. Fortunately we can now switch to models that don't have this reputation since the data proves they now also perform better 7804j (talk) 06:36, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Someone should hat this nonsense part of the thread. ~2026-47637-7 (talk) 16:41, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

To clarify, my argument was one of optics. After Grokipedia, after the massive controversy just recently, the already bad headline "An organization is paying people to flood Wikipedia with AI content" becomes the even worse "An organization is paying people to flood Wikipedia with Grok content." It's just an unforced PR error. Gnomingstuff (talk) 02:01, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

And that would be just fake news and should be ignored. AI translations that are vastly accurate (reported problems account for only a small minority of generated content) is not a "flood of AI content". _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:07, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

OK, but what about unreported problems? No one's gone and systematically checked all of them; the above dataset seems to mostly look for spelling error-type issues, whereas the issues AI Cleanup has found are far deeper. Most of everything the project has found, really, was undetected for months or years. Gnomingstuff (talk) 08:46, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

If they are unreported, we cannot even be sure they are real. Maybe there are no problems to find. All that we have is a proverbial storm in a teacup - one OKA translator was lazy and did not check the AI output. "Big deal". IF there were more translators like that - I haven't seen the diffs or usernames. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:35, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

To be clear, given we had over 50 translators that each published dozens or hundreds of articles, I am quite sure we will find more examples if we really look for them. The question for me isn't "do problems happen", but "how often do these problems happen, do we believe we can mitigate them, and if not are they so large that they offset all the great outcomes where no problems were found" 7804j (talk) 11:42, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Indeed. To answer the first and third questions, we need data I am not sure we can easily get (and without the data, it's all pretty much subjective ILIKEIT/IDONTLIKEIT, sigh). To answer the second - well, that's something you can do (and perhaps have done already here?). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:51, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes, the second point is something that we've tried to do as much as we could, but where we're fully open to any suggestions for doing things differently 7804j (talk) 11:57, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

From what I've seen in the past, OKA delivers good quality content, although as with any large project, it will occasionally fail and produce a dud. I was not aware OKA has adapted LLM, but it makes sense - these are popular and efficient tools (and, of course, imprefect). The only realistic suggestion I've is that all OKA content output should be checked with tools like ChatZero, and that the translators are required to ensure that LLMs didn't add hallucinations, or lazily skipped over content. Other than that - good job, kudos to volunteers engaged in it, and move on. (And, sigh, it amazes me how much complains and scorn is heaped upon volunteers who go an extra mile and try to something ambitious). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:11, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

@7804j, I'm not an admin but I've got a few questions:

1. I'm wondering how general editors would know to approach you if there were any concerns over an editor? The user-page disclaimers go to your website, but the Contact page of your website seems to be down and there's no indication of who we should contact on Wikipedia. Are you expecting general editors to report them using our normal escalation process then admins have to contact you in turn?
2. Do you perform regular quality checks (e.g. checking Talk pages for warnings) to ensure that quality is maintained, considering they're being paid? From what I've read above, it looks like they're only checked during probation then left to continue on their own (with self-reporting) but I may well have missed something.
3. What happens if an editor has passed probation but their work falls below the expected standard? Has this happened yet?
4. I'm also wondering how you accommodate for different projects having different guidelines/policies (e.g Wikipedia:Notability), considering you're essentially transplanting articles from one Wikipedia into a completely different one. I see there's a preset list of articles, but you also advise editors that they're free to create their own.

Apologies if some of these have been answered, but this is a long thread! Blue Sonnet (talk) 04:53, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

1. The OKA.wiki contact page is a redirect to mailto:info@oka.wiki so it seems to work for me. Regarding how to contact us: every OKA editor has a link in their talk page to our meta Wiki profile. There, people can find the username of senior editors and of myself, the website of OKA, and other information. People have used various channels to contact us, including tagging me, writing in my talk page, writing in one of the OKA's talk pages (which are monitored), or emailing us, etc. We don't have a particular preference or expectation on how people reach us -- we expect that most issues get resolved directly by communicating with each editor, and that if people want to escalate an issue, they get in touch with me or with OKA through one of these channels. If you feel this could help, we could for example try to make it more prominent on the Meta page what's the process to escalate issues?
2. Yes -- we have a script that lists all the maintenance tags of all pages ever created by an OKA editor (based on the OKA template added in the talk page). The senior editors regularly go through the list to ensure these issues are resolved, so even if a page gets tagged after 1-2 year, we still go back to it to fix the issues.
3. Yes this has happened, including for several of the issues listed in this thread. This was discussed in some of the above comments, but we then try to look into what happened, identify if these were process issues or individual issues, and if it's something that can be "resolved" or a fundamental skill or attitude problem with the editor. Typically, if this is the first time, it leads to a formal warning, but has led on several occasions to a suspension of the grant to the editor when the issue occurred again. In such cases, we then task the senior editors to review all the work of that editor to see if some "clean up" is required to fix any potential issues introduced
4. Generally we tell people to follow the English Wikipedia as minimum standard, even when translating to other Wikipedias. But we do have some language-specific guidelines as well to complement these. Editors are indeed free to create their own articles, but in my experience this almost never happened, because people prefer to translate, which feels safer or more familiar for most as it's their profession.

7804j (talk) 20:04, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

@7804j Sorry to ask yet another question, but is there a list somewhere of the targeted donations, and/or of which articles fall under them? I couldn't find it, although I believe it probably must be available somewhere. It could be reassuring to make it prominently visible so admins don't worry about issues of paid editing disclosure. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:46, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Currently not, because so far we haven't received any targeted donations. This statement on OKA's website is more about keeping that option open for the future. If we ever do, yes, I would list them publicly somewhere, with the details of the rules/requirements and affected articles (note that the affected articles could be vaguely defined, e.g., "Any article that is related to Switzerland" if the donation was from the Swiss government). 7804j (talk) 07:37, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, that is indeed very reassuring to know! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 07:47, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification - I'm on mobile so perhaps something went wrong there? It would be nice to have a link to the meta page on the disclaimer, I'd find that really helpful for those who aren't familiar with the project & want to find out more on-wiki. Blue Sonnet (talk) 07:44, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

I think that we've gotten a little sidetracked above with discourse about specific LLMs and LLMCOMM. My concerns, as expressed earlier, remain unaddressed. The last three discussions originally linked by qcne are troubling. The fact that obvious indicators of synthesis (at best) or hallucination are in translations is unacceptable and has always been so on this project. Less obvious/more insidious errors require more-or-less fully bilingual editors to identify and redress. That more errors haven't been found in the array of huge edits () made as a pattern from OKA-affiliated editors is almost certainly a question of volunteer scale and capability. AINB is already dealing with a lot. I do not want this community to be in a position where ten unpaid volunteers will have to verify the output of thirty paid editors while hamstrung. Iseult ^Δx talk to me 08:27, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

I am not convinced. Until someone finds more errors, it's pretty much fearmongering/ABF, particularly given the tremendous positive contributions made by OKA (hundreds of translated articles, if not thousands, with only a fraction ever being a problem). We should focus on real, not imagined, problems. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:40, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks you. You've made your position abundantly clear in many comments above: AI translations good, no sanctions needed, close this thread. What this amounts to is throwing the burden of verifying the translation on other people and dismissing their concerns. You and 7804 have still not addressed the concerns and diffs originally raised in this thread. You have not provided proof that the translations and expansions are actually good.

I spent an hour trying to verify four sources here a few weeks ago. It turns out that AI has a really high rate of making things up. I assumed good faith, just as I am here, and got burned. Why don't you go verify everything in this edit, for example? Or, if some error crops up in an OKA editor's contributions, will the blame be attributed solely to that editor and not systemically? It turns out that verification isn't easy!

Making things up is manifestly forbidden! Why is it that I have never seen an AI proponent involved with AINB or patrolling NPP for AI spam? Iseult ^Δx talk to me 18:16, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Why is it that I have never seen an AI proponent involved with AINB or patrolling NPP for AI spam? That would involve work, and the point of AI is to offload work and not care about the results. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 18:52, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

I am an AI proponent that patrols NPP and AfC. Though last month I quit the NPP backlog drive over insufficient use of bots in the queue maintenance. The answer to your question is you have confirmation bias and you do not look to disprove yourself. Czarking0 (talk) 04:26, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Noting that, after previous issues were brought up, I decided to check the (at the time) latest OKA draft by that same editor, and found that the very first source I could verify was hallucinated. Of course, every find can be dismissed as "only a fraction" given the amount of text OKA publishes, but when this is the case for every translation that gets closely reviewed, statistically, this doesn't bode well. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:00, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

It would help to have a full list of articles to audit rather than finding them piecemeal. Gnomingstuff (talk) 21:25, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

A proposal

Alright. I don't think we're going to get anywhere particularly helpful out of the forgoing discussion. I would like to remind everyone that we have two core ideals to inform ourselves of what to do here, namely WP:V and "anyone can edit". That is, we care very deeply about whether things are verifiable, but we also care very deeply about how this is an encyclopedia written by amateurs working together; that is, mistakes are part of the process, and we can expect new editors in particular to make a lot of them. I agree that OKA probably has something like "the WikiEdu problem", namely that people mostly only notice when it's going wrong, not when things are working, which happens far more often. And it also seems to me that OKA editors are being treated as a monolith, so we end up with "OKA screwed up again" not "editor x screwed up again". Neither of these are fair. But the problems are real. So let's set some rules for OKA translators:

1. everything an OKA translator adds to en-wiki must be verified by the translator; that is, if they haven't checked the information against the provided source, it should not be added.
2. OKA translators who have received, within six months, four (correctly applied) warnings about content that fails verification will be blocked without further warning if another example is found. (clarification added asilvering (talk) 04:43, 24 January 2026 (UTC))
3. content added by an OKA translator who is subsequently blocked for failing verification may be presumptively deleted as WP:V failures unless an editor in good standing is willing to take responsibility for it.
4. effective henceforth; that is, no blocks/pdels for content written before this proposal passes (if it does).

The "within six months" clause is there to prevent a scenario whereby a new OKA editor messes up three times and has the sword of Damocles hanging over their head for the rest of their wiki-career. The intent is not to prevent action being taken against an editor who is messing up at high speed and high volume - we'd just have to do that the usual way, at ANI. -- asilvering (talk) 20:53, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

I would support this, but the direct encouragement of LLM usage - Grok especially - still really worries me, and I do feel like @7804j inherently doesn't see the moral issue with using LLMs on Wikipedia. The outcome of Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Seeking_clarification_on_WP:NEWLLM_regarding_human-reviewed_translations will have a direct bearing on a OKA proposal going forward, since the LLM usage is integral to the OKA workflow. qcne (talk) 20:59, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes, and that would require a different kind of discussion, as you note. the moral issue with using LLMs on Wikipedia is not something we are going to reach consensus about in time to usefully deal with the issues raised here about unverifiable content being added to Wikipedia, possibly at scale, by a team of editors. And we can solve that one the way we've always solved it - with blocks - and authorize presumptive deletions to make that less of a burden. -- asilvering (talk) 21:10, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Nor does he need to. There is no consensus that there is a moral issue with using LLMs on WP Czarking0 (talk) 04:29, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

I think this is a really useful proposal. I do think rule 1 might be slightly too harsh; this effectively blocks translation of any content referenced to offline sources. It seems to me that there are two qualities I want from OKA translator content: (a) translated content is cited to the same source as is used in the source article or a new source verified by the editor, (b) if cited to an offline source, the cited source "seems reasonable" (e.g. sufficient bibliographic metadata to find the source in principle, title seems related, etc.). But I think your proposal has the significant advantages of concision and clarity. Cheers, Suriname0 (talk) 21:23, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

@Suriname0, it is my position that, since there are significant concerns about hallucinations and AI use with the OKA translators as a group, we've lost the ability to assume accuracy when it comes to offline sources. I wouldn't say it effectively blocks translation - someone with access to the offline source via a library, WP:LIB, WP:RX, or other methods could still translate those parts. And these days that does include quite a lot of sources that have previously been "offline only". -- asilvering (talk) 21:43, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes, true! I was counting WP:LIB + shadow libraries as functionally online these days, but especially with resource requests it's probably quite reasonable. It would probably be straightforward to generate a resource request for offline sources before translation begins on an article: "I want to translate the French article fr:So-and-So, which refers to Some Encyclopédie, pages 54 & 65, and I'd like to verify the content before I include it on English Wikipedia, thanks!". Suriname0 (talk) 22:11, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

I disagree that it's harsh. Every editor is responsible for complying with WP:V and should verify all content they add to the encyclopedia. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:26, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I agree except rule 1 needs tweaking. The point is to control for AI hallucinations, not to add extra burden on translators, one that even WP:AFC does not. Let me quote from WP:AFCSTANDARDS: "Avoid declining an article because it correctly uses general references to support some or all of the material. The content and sourcing policies require inline citations for only four specific types of material, most commonly direct quotations and contentious material about living persons." It does not make sense to require translators in general, or even OKA in particular, to be required to meet higher standards than what we expect from an average new editor. In other words, we accept, through AfC, articles that are undeerreferenced (which I am not very happy about, but that's how the rules are written). Now, AfC rules don't seem to be updated to AI era, and we are indeed dealing with a different issue here - lazy translators not checking for AI hallucinations. So yes, OKA translators (and translators in general) need to check for them, and if they fail to do so, blocks are in order (just like for any editor who adds AI hallucinations to Wikiepdia). But no, requirement to check all sources, which effectively means checking even offline publications, is way above and beyond what is required from anyone outside FA and some GA level content. It would be an extremely unfair burden, and one that could be gamed easily by using AfC system, meeting their minimum standards, and just stripping article from most references - hardly an outcome we want. PS. Yes, I think we should tighten AFCSTANDARDS, but that's a different discussion. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:02, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

But no, requirement to check all sources, which effectively means checking even offline publications, is way above and beyond what is required from anyone outside FA and some GA level content. Would a compromise such as that proposed by Suriname0 above be acceptable? My worry is, for example, if an AI model adds spurious citations to offline sources (which it couldn't have accessed). Requiring to check sources for citations that you add (that weren't there in the original) should presumably be a baseline. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 04:30, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

This is all a good best practice, but it is not something we can reasonably require, and again, it would be more than we require from AfCs (or from a regular translator). What we need is a requirement to check for AI hallucinations - that I fully support. But any requirement that a translator should verify content from another Wikipedia is beyond what we have ever required, and it would make translating much more burdensome than writing an article from scratch. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:36, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Checking sources that you add yourself (whether directly or through an AI model) that weren't in the original text is absolutely something we can reasonably require. When you publish an edit, you take responsibility for the content you add. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 04:42, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

@Chaotic Enby I agree with that, as long as "sources you add yourself" does not involve copying within Wikipedia (including cross project). We do have WP:AGF and when few weeks ago I for example split the List of lost literary works from the main lost literary work I can assure you I did not check a single source, nor do I feel I should've had; nor did I check the refs in the List of Fading Suns books I likewise split a few days ago. Such splits, just like translations, are, IMHO, mechanical actions, not proper content creation that requires the creator to take responsibility for what's in the text body (as long as they do their work correctly - and being lazy and adding AI hallucinations is certainly not something we should condone, that's below acceptable levels of quality, as it makes new content worse, whereas proper translation or split should produce content that's identical to what already has been accepted by the community, and thus falls within AGF). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:27, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

@Piotrus, we're talking about editors who have repeatedly come to the attention of patrollers for creating articles that contain hallucinations. It is time to add "extra burden" to these translators. We are not talking about AFC broadly or translation broadly, but this specific subset of editors. -- asilvering (talk) 04:39, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

@Asilvering Fair. What we need is a list of problematic editors, an understanding of the percentage they make of OKA editors, how that percentage compares to equivalent projects in good and bad standing (i.e. what percentage is a red line?), and then we can figure out what extra burden to add to them (and to be clear, I fully support a requirement for any and all translators - not just OKA ones - to check for and remove any AI hallucination, and to block repeated offenders). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:58, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

so we end up with "OKA screwed up again" not "editor x screwed up again".

As it should be. This is a structural and process problem, not a problem of a few bad actors. It's hard to blame Editor X for using AI when they were specifically told to use AI. Gnomingstuff (talk) 21:30, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

This seems promising. Is there, though, a specific reason why you chose a four-strike rule as opposed to three strikes? Also, it would be useful to have a table or something along those lines of OKA editors and the articles that they make so that tracking/auditing is made easier, as per GnomingStuff. Then there’s also the LLM translation RfC, which covers OKA. If the RfC passes, would this proposal be made redundant or would the measures here be taken as precedent? Iseult ^Δx talk to me 21:35, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

This sheet and Category:Articles translated by an OKA editor should be helpful for that purpose. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:37, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

@Iseult, I went with four strikes since our normal set of escalating warning templates have four levels. -- asilvering (talk) 21:38, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

While I strongly support this as a baseline from which we can start, and I believe the question of "moral issues" of LLMs is ultimately a red herring, there are a few more things I would like to see addressed. For example, the original remedies suggested transparency in the OKA process: the targeted donations program is an aspect of this, and our paid-editing policy would require these to be disclosed. Additionally, large-scale editing campaigns (such as lead format changes in many articles at once) should require explicit on-wiki consensus rather than OKA-specific consensus. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:36, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

+1 Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 01:19, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Struck the part about targeted donations which has been clarified. I'm already much more reassured about the situation. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 07:48, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Support. This is a narrowly tailored solution to the problem. Technically #2 should be a 5-strike rule since strike 4 is the final warning. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:31, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks @Voorts, point taken. I'll clarify that. -- asilvering (talk) 04:41, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Weak support as bare-minimum. This is a WP:CIR issue: every editor, regardless of what motivates them to edit and what tools they use, is responsible for verifying the information they put on Wikipedia. If an editor is utilising a tool that has a higher likelihood of making mistakes (hallucinating references or substantially changing the meaning of translated text), they should be extra vigilant in verifying both references and the integrity of the text. This is the absolute minimum level of competency we should expect of all editors, volunteer or paid.
Realistically, this is not an issue that can be fully addressed with onwiki sanctions alone - what's really needed is improvements to internal oversight and procedure at OKA, which is obviously out of our hands here, but I hope this thread has given 7804j food for thought about where improvements can be made. Currently, issues identified with OKA editors' work internally and onwiki seem to exist in separate streams: issues identified internally are, presumably, dealt with internally, and issues identified onwiki may be addressed onwiki or internally. I think we need better transparency here, so both OKA editors and the wider community can be on the same page when issues arise to allow both groups to better identify ongoing issues. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 01:16, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

I think we also need further clarification, transparency, and community consensus on the paid editing aspect of OKA. Chaotic Enby's suggestions above regarding appropriate disclosure of targeted editing and onwiki consensus for large-scale changes are a good start, but I have a few other things I think are worth discussing further.

• OKA's translation taskforce page states Since OKA translators are paid editors, according to WP:FCOI, all their contributions to English Wikipedia are considered to have a conflict of interest. As a result, they are not allowed to create new articles here directly, but must use the articles for creation (AfC) process - this is good, but the targeted donations add an extra wrinkle - I think a distinction should be made between edits directly related to and not directly related to these donations when declaring COI. As a starting point, if not being done already (I don't think it is, but apologies if I am incorrect!), I think specific disclosures ("I was paid to edit this article on [topic A] as part of my paid editing work funded by a donation from [donor associated with topic A], see [insert link to OKA targeted donations page]") would be much better than the standard COI disclosure. A list of edits made at the direction of donors would also be helpful, if it doesn't exist already.
• OKA's Meta page states that Individuals who donate over CHF 5,000 per year are eligible to join OKA as formal members with voting right in the annual assembly: @User:7804j, can you give us a bit of background on what this entails? What influence do donors who become formal members have, and what kind of matters would they vote on at these assemblies? Is there a public list of these members and their affiliations (ie. primarily editor/translator vs primarily donor)? This system appears quite opaque to those of us outside OKA, which naturally raises suspicion given that this involves paid editing, so I think transparency is in all of our best interests.

Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 02:44, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

We so far never received any targeted donation, which is why we haven't disclosed any yet. This statement was more to keep the door open for any such situation in the future. If we ever do, we would make the list of such donations, their scope and requirements, public and clear. However, I would be against requiring it in the edit summary, primarily because it makes it extremely complex operationally for us to manage. Also in practice, I expect (and will require) that such targeted donations be sufficiently broad to avoid undue influence. For example, a donation could be for "any article related to Switzerland", so I wouldn't want people to think that because a translator worked on an article for a Swiss company, that this is because that particular company paid for it, when in fact it was just because they were asked to work on articles about Switzerland.

Regarding the donation of 5,000 CHF and above: this is linked to our legal status as an association, which requires a mechanism for adhesion. We would vet such members, so not everyone who donates 5000 will automatically be able to join as a member. We can disclose these members if the community is interested, but so far they only consist of myself and people I am close with who donated such amounts (none of them are active on Wikipedia). 7804j (talk) 07:50, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Moral support. This is a sensible proposal, grounded in existing English Wikipedia policy. I'm not certain it is necessary, nor am I certain it will fix what it aims to fix, but it's better than the pitchfork mob approach above.

Necessary? In my experience, 7804j has been very receptive to specific, actionable feedback, including rapidly firing an OKA editor who was falsifying sources (link to discussion). In that case, it took only one warning for action from OKA itself, far fewer than the four warnings proposed here. It is alarming that it seems nobody went to 7804j's talk page to raise concerns about the LLM rewrites of existing articles before bringing the issue to this noticeboard, which would have been a far more efficient way of resolving this.

Sufficient? The challenge with detecting issues in OKA drafts is that they tend to be very long and largely unproblematic. In the case I linked above, @MCE89 detected serious issues, but those same issues had been missed by several other reviewers – it's not in the purview of an AfC/NPP reviewer to meticulously check source–text integrity, esp. for OKA drafts which are usually fine (source: my own AfC reviews of OKA content, which often include spot-checks, and also CE's analysis below), when there is so much actual crap that needs their attention. This proposal theoretically makes it easier to block OKA editors, but will we actually do that? Will we actually check any more than we currently do? I doubt it. Toadspike [Talk] 02:58, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Weakest possible support per my concerns here, I do not want OKA workers punished as a consequence of poor management. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 04:40, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Mostly supportive. As others mentioned, this proposal imposes stricter criteria on OKA editors than on regular editors, but I can nonetheless support it as the requirements and process listed is very sensible, and already consistent with our own guidelines.

The only part I disagree with, however, is to require that the content of every offline source is checked. As others have pointed out, it is often very difficult or impossible to check the content of a book, especially when these aren't digitized or extremely expensive. I agree that translators should be required to check the content of any new offline source they add to ensure it isn't hallucinated, and of any online source, but in the context of a translation of offline references, I think it should be sufficient to ensure that the reference was correctly placed and translated and thus not hallucinated. As others mentioned, this is the same standard that we would hold non-OKA translators to.

Without this exception, I expect that we would need to throw out so many articles or paragraphs that translation would become effectively impossible 7804j (talk) 07:29, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Moral oppose - I'll just say it: I don't think we should be encouraging people, let alone paying people, to add AI content to Wikipedia at all. I'm not sure why that's being framed as an extreme stance; I suspect if we asked readers whether they think people should be paid to add AI content to Wikipedia, the median response would be closer to "no, what the fuck?". Scapegoating a handful of editors for doing exactly what they were told to do is closer to a "pitchfork mob" stance, imo.

This isn't analogous to WikiEdu because WikiEdu doesn't tell students to use AI -- they discourage it in their training guide, and they've been receptive to feedback on the specifics. Obviously some students are going to do it anyway, but that's entirely on them, it's not part of their instructions. Gnomingstuff (talk) 09:26, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

I suspect if we asked readers whether they think people should be paid to add AI content to Wikipedia, the median response would be closer to "no, what the fuck?" Are you referring to the same readers (i.e., consumers of information online) who are slowly shifting to using LLMs in lieu of search engines and coming to trust LLMs more and more? This opposition to LLM use within the community does not map onto the real world. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:42, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

If it didn't map onto the real world, then Wikimedia wouldn't be running an enormous fundraising campaign about how Wikipedia is "human-created". Generally speaking, people don't do ad campaigns about unpopular opinions. Gnomingstuff (talk) 23:29, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Yeah its like they play both sides and it doesn't matter what advertising they do. Voorts is right here. ~2025-38536-45 (talk) 17:06, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

I think there are plenty of opinions that would entail both using LLMs as a source of information and also strongly opposing it for Wikipedia editing. Including the fact that it's one of the main inputs for LLMs, and you might not want such a thing to be filled with LLM output. Sesquilinear (talk) 03:24, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

I don't think we should be encouraging people, let alone paying people, to add AI content to Wikipedia at all. This. This. A thousand times this. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 19:56, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Support I will support essentially any plausibly actionable accountability mechanism for machine-assisted translations. This will add accountability from day 1. It will also allow for enforcement without having to file a complex LLM/machine translation case at ANI, which is sufficiently unpleasant that it deters reporting. NicheSports (talk) 15:28, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Support - If they can't verify a source due to not having the original book/document, perhaps they could tag it so someone else can check?

Since AI is prone to embellishments, I'm rather wary of just leaving those alone without any human verification.

Otherwise, my gut feeling is that it's reasonable to expect that an editor who is being paid (even a little) and has access to additional training & support when compared to the standard volunteer editor, should be held to a higher standard - especially when relying heavily on a tool that's broadly untested (this project was/is part of the test), constantly evolving and is well known to produce errors when it's not used correctly.

We may loosen the reins as time goes on, but I feel that the project needs extra guardrails until we have enough data and long-term experience of the project to make that determination.

BTW I was a bit surprised to see that the three Senior editors/Managers have around 5k, 3k and 2k edits respectfully, which isn't egregiously low but isn't as high as I was expecting to see for that position. That's not to say they're not competent as some of them clearly are, I was just expecting more experience (perhaps incorrectly). Blue Sonnet (talk) 15:54, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

To clarify regarding the senior editors: it's not based solely on the quantity of edits, but to a larger degree on factors such as the quality of their contributions, their ability to coach others and to improve our existing processes. Typically, once they receive that role, their edit counts tend to decrease as they spend more time on coaching. Also, note that OKA edits include more bytes on average than the typical edit, since they are often focused on very large articles. 7804j (talk) 16:08, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Noted, thank you! It wasn't a major issue so I made sure to put it in small font - it's good to know how that works. Blue Sonnet (talk) 16:17, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Are your workers compensated based on time, or based on how many words/bytes they produce? Apologies if you have already answered that elsewhere in this discussion. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 23:25, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

7804j, I have not seen this addressed somewhere (but this discussion is very long so I may have missed it). Could you clarify this for me? --Gurkubondinn (talk) 12:21, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

They are compensated solely based on the time they report, in order to encourage people to focus on quality over quantity. Though if a translator has an extremely very low output compared to others, we would discuss with them to understand what's going on (and also to catch fraud, as we've had instances of people reporting "fake" hours). 7804j (talk) 12:28, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

7804j -- great, thank you! I was hoping that they were paid based on time (not based on word count), so that is good to hear. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 12:57, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

@Blue-Sonnet, edit count for someone doing high-quality translations is going to be very low. Of all my edits, the ones that took the most time and effort - hours for each - were my translations. For someone exclusively focused on content work 5k edits is quite high indeed and represents a lot of work. -- asilvering (talk) 21:51, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, that makes a lot of sense - quality is definitely preferable to quantity. Blue Sonnet (talk) 23:59, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose OKA should be barred from Wikipedia by any and all means possible until they forsake the use and even implicit encouragement of Grok, the flagship product of a deepfake porn site. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 19:48, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

  They did say above that they've stopped using Grok and switched to other LLM's. Blue Sonnet (talk) 01:32, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

  Not according to their own documentation, which endorses it in multiple places. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 03:49, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

  It's not endorsed; in fact, the second of the three mentions clearly says that it's inferior to Claude and ChatGPT. The third mention might warrant rewording/clarification that Grok is not recommended. @7804j That said, there are plenty of other tools, and it's hard to keep recommendations of best tools up-to-date - I don't know if we even have any on wiki? (And saying 'don't use LLM' is increasingly pointless, although this all reminds me of the early days of Wikipedia, when teachers in schools were telling students don't use Wikipedia - how things have changed since, eh?).

  Anyway, having read that page I think the general prompt could benefit from clear instructions about not adding anything that's not in the source text, and not omitting anything (being lazy) - the most common errors we see. Oh, and in the alread-present warning "Ensure there are no AI hallucinations! In rare cases, LLMs may completely invent content that's not in the original text. If you introduce AI hallucinations, your Wikipedia risks being suspended", isn't there a word missing after "your Wikipedia"? Account? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:13, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

  Thanks for the suggestions! I have added them.

  (by the way, feel free to directly edit our instructions if you feel like it -- as long as there are no controversial changes, I don't mind having others making edits) 7804j (talk) 20:48, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

  Anything other than a full-throated rejection is an endorsement. That's how instruction manuals work: point people at a tool, and they will use it. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 21:43, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

  In either case, there is no reason to disallow use of Grok as a translation tool; it seems to preform reasonably where from what anyone can see - unless you are familiar with any reliable data that says otherwise? I doubt it is going to insert Musk POV or such into most tasks (and if its hallucinations are Musk-flavord, that doesn't make them any worse or better other AI hallucinations, which we want zero of here, regardless of which LLM model produces them). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:43, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

  I think the objection is more specifically endorsing Grok. But if they're not doing that anymore, that's a step in the right direction. (As far as "introducing Musk POV," there have been some, uh, not great and hasty changes to Grok's system prompt, so that's actually a decent possibility.) Gnomingstuff (talk) 15:40, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

  The very first mention of Grok in the linked documentation page is, Even for technical articles, LLMs such as Claude, ChatGPT and Grok correctly translate >90% of text and handles most formatting. That's not just permission to use Grok; it's actively saying that Grok is a good thing. The third of the three is a plain instruction: Go to https://claude.ai/ or chatgpt (or https://grok.com/). In between the two is Grok used our preferred tool, and some editors prefer it because it tends to respond better to instructions and has a higher daily cap; however, it's writing style is poorer, so it's not recommended. A mild disinclination to recommend because of writing style and not the fact of its being a propaganda machine from a revenge-porn company is... insufficient. Wikipedia is willing to deprecate sources; organizations that seek to contribute to Wikipedia should be willing to deprecate tools. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 23:20, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

  And we still need more than IDONTLIKEMUSK to declare Grok bad for translation. In fact, I trust OKA (which provides a lot of data) more than POVed views here. Which LLMs to use should be based on data about their efficiency/error-rate or such, not on irrelevant anecdotes about how a given AI is used to create porn or whatever. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:40, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

  I don’t see why your first sentence is true: many people obviously would be happy with such a straightforward declaration. Maybe you mean that you personally object to it? But that’s obvious, you’ve been saying so at great length. ~2025-31850-11 (talk) 11:12, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

  I'm not arguing it's bad for translation, I'm arguing that it's bad for optics. Gnomingstuff (talk) 00:50, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

  I am afraid I don't understand either what you or the IP mean. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:30, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

  It has a non-trivial chance of being a PR nightmare for Wikipedia. Gnomingstuff (talk) 21:22, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

  If you mean, our treatment of volunteers who want to help, and how we criticize them for doing so, and demand impossible standards, then I can agree. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:14, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

  Are you deliberately trying to be obtuse? Gnomingstuff (talk) 04:15, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

  Yes, of course -- but really what is the point of this side-discussion anyhow, the establishment or not of consensus certainly doesn't depend on one of you convincing the other one. ~2026-92659-0 (talk) 21:22, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

• Support if necessary A tool is only as good as the user. Hold the users accountable for their edits. I see no problem with openly disclosed paid editing with reasonable actors. I too question whether it is necessary. Buffs (talk) 04:44, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
• Moral oppose - I am perturbed by the attitude taken by OKA representatives and their defenders throughout this discussion, which seems to be an entirely backwards way to go about getting an initiative like this off the ground and essentially fait accompli, followed by wikilawyering. Frankly, if I'd seen the back-and-forth from January 20 occur as it was happening, I probably would have blocked 7804j on the spot for a combination of CIR, NOTHERE, and generally disrespecting our community's time, effort and ethos. I am left without confidence that they will do the right thing going forward. I also share concerns about exploiting international income differentials for the project, and the community dynamics of then expecting volunteer editors to police the exploited workers and effectively decide whether or not they get to continue their jobs. That having been said, I don't want to get in the way of potentially effective regulation if we can't get consensus for asking OKA to go back to the drawing board and start with a proposal to the community and/or WMF. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:34, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
• Moral oppose; I do not think these measures are sufficient, but something is better than nothing. I furthermore note that even community oversight of these edits will functionally be close to none, given the scale of editing. Every editor is responsible for the content of their edits. If they use tools known to misrepresent sources even outside of translation or to insert fabulist sources, the appropriate level of scrutiny is more, not less. At minimum I would like a three-strikes-and-out system wherein each instance (not just diff) of misrepresentation is a strike. Iseult ^Δx talk to me 23:48, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
• Support 2-4, oppose 1. I don't think I voted yet (and ummm it seems we are voting now? Shrug). My oppose of 1 is due to ambigious wording as discussed above, and I might support it if it's clear than that the requirement to check related to checking for a) added AI errors/halluciantions and b) ommissions (AI being lazy and not translating stuff), although b) is much less a problem. But the current wording is unclear enough it can be understood as a requirement for the translator to verify whether sources in the original article (even offline or likewise hard to access) support the original article, and that's excessive burden. In addition, I'd also add a prohibition to translate content that's LLM-generated, and a requirement to check if an article is LLM generated (at minimum, by looking at tags, but perhaps also by doing something else, like using ZeroGPT or looking at edit history? This would be a productive venue to discuss that I haven't really seen taken up by anyone here or elsewhere). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:39, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
• Support Probably not enough, but a decent start. We need to do something, after some years of just worrying. Johnbod (talk) 22:56, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
• Support 1 as a general principle for all translations, not just OKA. Less sure about 2, individual admins can have their own discretion. Support 3, somewhat addresses the reviewer time imbalance. No problem with 4, saves wikilawyering. CMD (talk) 05:06, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
• QUESTION: Is there no way for Wikipedia to obtain translations of texts, other than by reliance on LLMs (Large Language Models), with their shortcomings that have been discussed above? I am human, and over many years the accuracy of my translations for Wikipedia has practically never been questioned. There must surely be other bilingual human translators who are already satisfactorily participating in the Wikipedia project or who could be recruited to it. Nihil novi (talk) 07:02, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

  @Nihil novi It's worth noting, first, that OKA was not using LLM until recently (when? good question), but shifted to using it - which I find unsurprising, as everyone and their dog is using LLMs for translations these days. I am not sure if going back to pre-LLM days is feasible - or doable. To me, asking someone to stop using LLMs tools in translation (responsibly, of course) is akin to asking them to stop using a word processor and go back to typewriter (or hand writing). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:30, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

  Agreed, an LLM can be a useful tool. Ultimately, a sentient human must be responsible for a translation. The question always comes back to the qualifications of the bilingual translator. Nihil novi (talk) 09:29, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

  @Nihil novi That it does, no disagreement here. What puzzles me is that some folks seem to think the translator should also verify whether content in the original article is correct (supported by references cited there), which IMHO goes way beyond what one can reasonably expect the translator to do. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:00, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

  I agree. The translator's job is to translate a text. Investigation of the reliability of the text that is being translated is a responsibility of the article's authors. It is not a house painter's responsibility to investigate the structural stability of the house. Nihil novi (talk) 19:19, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

  @Nihil novi, I disagree quite strongly on this point, since I believe it is each contributor's responsibility to do basic due diligence so that they aren't spreading misinformation. That doesn't mean that all translators should scrupulously verify each and every claim personally, but they should at a bare minimum have done enough cross-checking to make sure that what they're publishing is not substantially false. -- asilvering (talk) 04:32, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

• OPPOSE. In general, the reliability of a text that a translator is rendering into the target language should already have been vetted prior to the text being translated. The only case when the translator can be held responsible for vetting the source-language text's reliability is if the text has been introduced into the article by the translator himself. Nihil novi (talk) 05:52, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Spot checks

I've decided to spot-check the first few articles in Category:Articles translated by an OKA editor translated from French (as that is my native language and I would be able to verify them more easily).

• 16 May 1877 crisis: In #Initial hesitations between republic and monarchy, some offline sources were swapped without a given explanation, such as Duclert 2021, p. 122-132. being replaced with Houte 2014, p. 27. (another source that was being used somewhere else). Since both sources are offline and would be hard to access, the change being made without explanation is surprising, and I'm not especially confident about text-source integrity here. Besides this one small issue, the rest of the article is a very good translation, adapting the French Wikipedia article to the English Wikipedia's writing style while staying accurate to the original (which was a featured article).
• 20,000 Colombian peso note: Very accurate, couldn't find any concerning divergences between the two versions (original in French was a good article).
• 1824 Saint-Louis coal mine disaster: A few word swaps here and there, but again, great translation all things considered.
• 1879 French Senate election: Now this is a very different case. While the entire article is marked as translated, and was added in a single edit, only half of it actually comes from the French original. The first two sections are fully new, with several new sources being cited, the main two being Providential Men: History of a French Fascination and Dictionary of Ministers (1789–1989). The latter is cited in pages 45–46 for the one/two-round electoral system. The relevant pages talk about completely unrelated personalities (Étienne Clavière, Charles Cochon de Lapparent, Jean-Baptiste Collin de Sussy and Emmanuel Crétet), all dead long before the relevant senate election, or even the Third Republic itself! I couldn't find an online version of the former, but it appears to be a series of biographies of "great men", which doesn't seem especially consistent with it being used to source the organization of a senate election.
• 1914 French mobilization: Despite the source being again a featured article, there are unsourced paragraphs, which were ported (and expanded!) in the translated version. Unsourced sentences like A small cadre of volunteer career officers and NCOs would be supplemented by millions of reservists, who had received training through their mandatory two-year-service at age 20 and periodic refresher trainings. appear from virtually nowhere (and is contradicted a few paragraphs below, where it is stated that the duration of military service varied as different laws were passed). Besides that, a few minor issues (the territorial army and its reserve being confused, état de siège being half-translated as state de siège, broken piped links like "including Algeria"), but nothing too dramatic.

Conclusion? The average OKA translation is certainly good, but errors are still present, especially when the source article has unsourced paragraphs or empty sections, with text-source integrity being one of the main worries. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:47, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

@Chaotic Enby It's good to have some data. What you missed is identifying the specific translators responsible for the work. The one problematic article you found, 1879 one, is work of @Leeanah, and per WP:DUCK, I am concluding this particular translator (whose substandard work is what started this entire issue AFAIK) has been using LLM without checking for AI hallucinations. I would recommend pulling all her content from mainspace or at least tagging them with LLM warnings, and I would also ban that editor from any new submissions until they fix their past messes. Now, all the other articles were penned by different translators - which is a good sign, as it indicates most OKA translators are proofreading their work more carefully. So, really, all the evidence we have points to a single "bad egg" (although, of course, this is still just a sample, and it's possible more problems could be found - laziness is hardly a rare vice). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:11, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

This is just not accurate - did you click through and read any of the discussions qcne linked in his original post? The linked discussions involve multiple editors, as well as 7804j themself being forthright about the fact that a small number of OKA editors were not doing the right thing in certain cases. There are some problems with a small portion of OKA editors, and denying that problems exist does not fix them. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 04:33, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Someone should make a table, and clearly indicate what percentage of OKA editors have been found to be fall significantly below our standards, what action was taken by OKA and the community, and how that percentage compares to other projects such s Wiki Edu and so on. Otherwise we are talking apples, oranges, ILIKEITs and IDONLIKEITs. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:18, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

I agree that it seems like two editors here (Leeanah and Luizadnts) seem to have been the cause of quite a few of the issues raised throughout the thread. They had already received a formal warning, and it seems the articles here predate that warning. I've raised these specific points to them, and told them to no longer create any new articles until they have reviewed in depth all of the articles they have previously created. I have also asked them to keep a detailed internal tracker of their progress. It has been communicated to them that their ability to continue receiving OKA grants will be contingent on them being able to correctly review and fix all of their previously published content. 7804j (talk) 15:25, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Checked the first short article in the W's, Walecznych Street (note I do not speak Polish). Noticeably AI. Promotional in tone, but besides the AI compulsion to turn "has" into "features," the original seems to have been somewhat promotional too. Some content has been removed, but mostly unsourced and/or trivial stuff, so that's fine. However, there are some meaning changes:

Google Translate mentions 11 Walecznych Street having a "glass staircase" whereas the translated article says "glazed staircase," which are two different things ("glazed" implies ceramic, wood, etc). I don't know which is more accurate -- "glass" does seem suspect, admittedly.

The translation changes "designed by Helena and Szymon Syrkus" to built by them, which seems likely to be factually wrong, especially since the same word is repeatedly translated as "designed" elsewhere.

The translation claims that 12 Walecznych Street is "similar to the Kiltynowicz villa," but the Polish article seems to only claim that the clinker slabs are, not the whole house.

The translation changes "window openings" for 37 Walecznych Street (per Google Translate again) to "rounded windows" out of nowhere. These don't look rounded to me (assuming this is the right house -- another angle seems to show a "37" marker on the wood house and it's the only wood-looking one, so I'm guessing it is -- and there aren't different windows out back or something)

Gnomingstuff (talk) 10:10, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

@Gnomingstuff Since I am rather fluent in Polish: 1) glass > glazed, it's a staircase with, hmmmm, that actually gave me a pause. Big windows? Walls made of mostly glass? It's not made from glass, obviously. Literary translation would be "glassy", which obviously is not correct, it's late at night and I am blanking on the right terminology. Anyway, glazed is an error. 2) Yes, designed. 3) The use of these slabs on the ground floor, to be exact (as in, it's the use that's called similar, not the slabs - nor the whole house). 4) 36A not 37 - which is a good reminder that human beings like you and me are perfectly capable of making errors too. Anyway, the original text was indeed wrong ("It features rounded windows, a curved corner, and a garden-facing terrace"). The correct translation would be : "Its characteristic features include windows*, a curved corner, and a garden-facing terrace". *-> Polish text says, literary, "window openings", which is unclear in Polish and seems to me (again, late night, and I am not an architecture expert or fan) to be just a pointlessly long ways of saying window. Anyway, yes, that translation had some minor problems, but whether there are LLM errors or human errors, I am not sure, and in either case, they are minor errors, not something I'd reprimand someone over. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:13, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

@Nihil novi How would you translate a "przeszklona klatka schodowa"? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:16, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm at a disadvantage, as i don't know what "OKA" is, and I don't have access to the context in which "przeszklona klatka schodowa" appears. Among perhaps other possibilities, it might be a "glass-enclosed staircase" or "glassed-in staircase". Is there a link to the Polish text? Nihil novi (talk) 01:41, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Another possibility: a "staircase with a skylight at the top". Nihil novi (talk) 02:01, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

The article is Walecznych Street, specifically we are talking about a building at Walecznych 11 which features, according to text, a "przeszklona klatka schodowa". Unfortunately I have yet to locate a picture :( _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:05, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

The house is visible on Google Street View (link blocked by Wikipedia). While it's not obvious what the stairs themselves are like, the centre of the building, as seen from the street, is all window from ground floor lintel to top floor ceiling. Assuming the stairs are inside those windows, I'd call it a "glazed stairwell". Daveosaurus (talk) 07:18, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Hah, then I stand corrected - seems glazed is correct English. Live and learn, and also, it goes to show that what some calls an error is not always one. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:18, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

FWIW I'm not sure I agree with daveosaurus. 'Glazed' typically implies a layer of some kind of lacquer applied onto another surface. I would not usually use it for something 'encased in glass' or 'surrounded by windows' or the like, nor would I use it for something made of glass; that would be 'glassy' or simply 'glass' Athanelar (talk) 11:57, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

See Glazing (window), which perhaps should be linked from "glazed". Glaze itself is a DAB with no primary topic. Donald Albury 15:36, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

@Nihil novi For the full context, see the top of this very thread, then the spot check of an article translated from Polish. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 04:06, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. Nihil novi (talk) 08:02, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

@Oliwiasocz Could you take a look at the above, and make changes where needed? As highlighted, it seems like several of the issues are from the source article, so I'd recommend fixing both the source and the translation 7804j (talk) 15:16, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Why did this thread devolve (in my opinion) to just pointing out a few editors mistakes and cleaning them up? Or is it just yhis subsection? ~2026-51814-4 (talk) 15:51, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

This is a spot check, to see what the proportion of errors is on a random sample of articles. Of course, we can't physically check every single translation, so checking a sample of 5 or so allows us to see how frequent/rare errors are. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:59, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

thank you. that spot check is a redlink though maybe the article you are thinking of is under a different name. ~2026-54906-2 (talk) 16:17, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Yep, surprised we don't have an encyclopedia article on it. Wikipedia:Spot checking sources is one of our project pages on how we apply that practice. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:17, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi, concerning the mentioned issues:

1. I used "glazed" because in wiktionary it was described as "(architecture, construction) Having glass in the windows". Maybe using "stairwell with windows" would be better here? The word in the Polish article seems to be correct as well, since the Polish version of wiktionary also describes it as "one that has a large amount of glass surfaces".
2. Yes, it was supposed to be "...built between 1935 and 1937 and designed by...".
3. The original translation may have sounded confusing, so I think it could be reworded to "...slightly recessed ground floor clad in clinker tiles (similarly to the Kiltynowicz villa at 26 Katowicka Street)..."?
4. Yes, I have made a mistake with using "rounded windows". This phrase could be translated as "window openings" in a more technical way, but leaving just "windows" is completely fine. I also changed the phrase in the Polish article.

Oliwiasocz (talk) 00:28, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarifications on the Polish wording (and on the address as well, my mistake there) -- my gut sense was also that the original article was maybe leaning a bit much into architectural trivia.

Not sure, though, how pointing out factual inaccuracies in an article so they can be fixed and the article can be improved, though, is "devolving" -- it's literally the whole point of a wiki. Really not sure why you thought I was reprimanding anyone; if I wanted to reprimand someone I would just do that, there's a reason I didn't single out the editor. Gnomingstuff (talk) 23:44, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Improving articles is all good. And I'll note that Oliwiasocz, who has translated many articles form pl wiki over the years, is, IMHO, a good example of positive value OKA has brought to the project. She has translated, among others, several of my articles, some of which were GA on pl wiki, and, after minor c/e, were recognized as GA here too. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:08, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

This discussion is too concentrated on Grok, and as such is damning by association. There is no proof that Grok is the biggest source of deepfake pics, and their existence is irrelevant. The question is how does Grok compare to the Content translation tool (semi protected I think in en, but available elsewhere) and google babblefish. I suspect that It's better than both. But it's a very low bar ,, Wakelamp (talk) d[@-@]b 21:54, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

People that could be contacted

Should any of the following be contacted

• WMF grants Ch who gave the grant to OKA
• WMF US donation Stewardahip who received the Zimmerman grant.. Open knowledge association also has a similar name to the international Open Knowledge Foundation (opendata.ch).which also has links to Wikimedia,.
• WMF google as Zimmerman seems to work for google (Potential COI as google matched giving also gives money to WMF, and this money may have come from Google Ch matched giving
• WMF legal to contact the Swiss non profit regulator for similar information to the IRS 990 form.. Wakelamp (talk) d[@-@]b 13:34, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

@Wakelamp, I'm not sure what you're asking here. Contacted why, and about what? -- asilvering (talk) 01:48, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

@asilvering - Apologies for lack of clarity. @User:Gnomingstuff mentioned PR concerns, but I don't think the above discussion has addressed potential WMF governance and oversight responsibilities enough. Two Wikimedia entities are involved granting and receiving similar amounts in different countries, it is unclear whether this is linked to the Google (a partner) donation matching system, and there may be legal restrictions involving a grant recipient paying money into a third country. WMF should be informed Wakelamp (talk) d[@-@]b 11:50, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

I assume that if they gave a grant to the organization they are aware of the legal side already, and at any rate I'm not sure what this would be intended to accomplish. Gnomingstuff (talk) 13:44, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Not sure whether they are aware.

• the donation and the grants are looked after by separate departments, and this case also in two different organisations and involve the CEO of OKA and OKA,
• the application form has no option does not mention donations with matching grants. This is called round tripping or circular funding, and can cause concerns with |donor matching schemes and reallocation of tied funds
• The CH grant application form states that "Projects that replace volunteer action by directly funding someone to create content (e.g. editing articles, uploading photos)" are not eligible for funding, but OKA were funded.

Wakelamp (talk) d[@-@]b 12:58, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

1. Should the WMF policy be changed on paid edits to exclude entities like OKA?

OKA are not breaking any WMF policies. Although a WMF posted in 2025 called |Should I pay for a Wikipedia article?stated "The Wikimedia Foundation does not offer Wikipedia editing services of any kind in exchange for fees, although it does seek charitable donations to keep Wikipedia running.". but WMF grants are effectively subsidising paid editinh

2. Grant funding of paid editor amd paid project manager's who edit

The CH grant application form states that "Projects that replace volunteer action by directly funding someone to create content (e.g. editing articles, uploading photos)" ot eligible for funding, but OKA were funded

3. Do they wish to discuss with OKA about statements on their website and their process

• "Hundreds of thousands of high-quality articles are not translated.", the articles they are translating are not high quality in terms of article class"
• High Quality - their instructions " "Don't always translate the whole article. You are not required to replicate a source article's entire structure." sp wikipedia:disrupt
• They are mis-leading in their statements "Science, technology, engineering, and Finance are lacking compared to topics such as History, Geography, and Humanities. "
• They wish to create articles in "Content from non-anglophone countries that is underrepresented.', but from PT, DE, FR, and ES

4. OKA statistics

• "So far, we have created 2,200+ new articles on Wikipedia, which generate 8m views per year."

Current figure is 4896 - they point to their annual report for the 8 million views

• They have 12,000 articles planned

5. WMF statistics

• OAK statistics are , but outreach statistics are very different 13.5K Articles Created, 47.1K Articles Edited, 124K Total Edits

53 Editors, 74.8M Words Added, 738K References Added, 2.34B Article Views. 2740 Commons Uploads

• There is a mismatch between the editors listed on meta and the editors on the outreach dashboard
• The statistics from paid editing are counting towards the totals for the outreach program

6. Voting

• Some of these editors are eligible to vote.

7. AI

The WMF AI strategy document specifies that AI must be open weight. They are not using the mostly paid open weight models, and there is no record of which one was used Wakelamp (talk) d[@-@]b 14:03, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Move this discussion as a wikipedia space page

Long discussions become confusing quickly, as points are repeated or questioned. Could we create this as a page and then use our editing skills to create a summary, then get consensus on that? Wakelamp (talk) d[@-@]b 13:06, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

• SUPPORT. Nihil novi (talk) 03:01, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Makes sense. Should be considered for being standard practice even for such long discussions ~2026-10381-58 (talk) 19:25, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

I am going to use a number of AIs - the irony - to create a starting point article for the community to look at and QA

• based on @Qcne original concerns, and suggested remedies, a few additional ones
• Then use AI to create a table showing references to short codes and points
• then use AI to create a collapsed fishbone diagram Wakelamp (talk) d[@-@]b 13:20, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

If you do this, please identify the exact models, model versions, and prompts you use to generate these. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 03:53, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Use Grok. Popcorn's on me. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:06, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Double dare accepted :-) Version 1. It's on meta because I am not certain what happens now if I mention grok on a sandbox page,

Section B,C are giving some inaccurate result.

Prompt

Create the following

Please check for AI hallucinations, and double check links .

A..Headings : summary of discussion

Create a collapsable sortable mediwiki markdown table suitable for posting to en Wikipedia format of the following discussions

OKA discussion on the English Wikipedia Administrators' noticeboard thread titled approximately "OKA: problematic paid translation and lead rewrites via LLMs across thousands of articles" (January–February 2026).

This is not a replacement for editor discussion — Wikipedia's strength lies in multi-editor consensus-building. The table is purely a structured, neutral aid to help participants see the main lines of argument, who said what, and where consensus may be emerging or still lacking.

Use exactly these columns:

No. | Section / Category | Point / Concern | Editor(s) who raised it | 7804j Response / Clarification (if any) | Relevant Short Code(s) / Link(s)| |

Numbering rules:

- Start with 0.00 for the first section ("Overview / Background")

- High-level sections increment by 10 (10.00, 20.00, 30.00, …)

- Sub-points under each section increment by 10 (e.g., 0.10, 0.20, 0.30, …)

- Add 1–2 placeholder rows per section saying "[Additional point can be inserted here]" to allow expansion

B..Editors Involved

Create a collapsable sortable table listing editors involved

• Editor type

  Previous Admin

• Number of edits in en Wikipedia
• First edit year
• Number of edits
• Member of which Wikipedia projects

" COI flags on user page

• Possible single purpose editor.
• Possible sock puppet
• Links to other editors on the list
• Percentage of edits on articles that have been semi protected
• Aura as an editor

C. Create a fishbone diagram drilling down from the discussion points each main section should be collapsible

D. Prompt generation details

Create a collapsable section with details of the prompt Wakelamp (talk) d[@-@]b 16:20, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you :-) I'll look at the results in detail in a moment. A couple of nitpicks first: What was "aura as an editor" supposed to indicate? It doesn't seem to appear in the final output. And are you aware that Wikitext (MediaWiki syntax, as used on Wikipedia) and Markdown are two distinct forms of lightweight markup language? Markdown has become a kind of de facto standard in tech these days, and a clear sign of copy-and-paste from a chatbot, as you can see yourself in the Markdown-style links in the tables. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 23:45, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

This exercise has really demonstrated how important it is to identify the LLM and prompt because it can make a huge difference. I thought that Grok's analysis didn't go very deep and its identification of editors was incomplete – it didn't even identify Qcne who started this whole discussion, missed various editors including myself who made multiple comments, and identified another at least one editor who didn't participate here at all. I also wanted to try a more qualitative and open-ended approach, so I gave Claude Opus 4.6 (via Kagi) these prompts:

1. Summarise the arguments in the discussion thread at <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#OKA:_problematic_paid_translation_and_lead_rewrites_via_LLMs_across_thousands_of_articles.>, and determine whether there is any clear consensus or call to action.
2. Identify the editors who have contributed to this discussion, and summarise their positions.

Resulting chat thread. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 00:24, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

AIV backlog

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello, there is a backlog on AIV of nearly 15 user-reports, some of which include some rather urgent blocks required. If an admin could check this out, that would be appreciated. – LuniZunie_(talk) 23:38, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

+1 some LTAs on there that need blocks ASAP. enbi [they/them] • [talk] 00:32, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Looking at it, thanks! (courtesy link to WP:AIV for lazy admins such as myself) Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 00:35, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

BillyTheConqueror gaming the system for Extended Confirmed privileges

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

BillyTheConqueror admitted to attempting to gain the system (WP:PGAME) by making edits for the purpose of gaining extended confirmed account status and permissions to edit protected pages (WP:EXTENDED).

This diff shows the user stating: "I'm really trying to get extended confirmed protection so I can edit articles about Nazis. Getting close..."

I notified the user on their talk page of the policies/guidelines regarding gaming the system . Instead of responding, the user blanked their page with the edit summary "removed random irrelevant comments" (marked as minor edit), which demonstrates that they are disregarding the notice rather than acknowledging it.

MossOnALog^Talk 18:42, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

The irony of their statement there is that the topic of nazis is not just not under WP:ECR, but it's not under any WP:CT at all, except for WP:CT/EE imposing ECR on edits and pages related to the history of Jews and antisemitism in Poland during World War II (1933–45), including the Holocaust in Poland, broadly construed (and "reliable source required" restrictions on WW2 in Lithuania and Poland). That said, there is in fact nothing wrong with wanting, or with trying, to gain WP:XC; expressing that desire isn't, itself, evidence of PGAMING, and looking at BillyTheConqueror's edit history I don't see any evidence there of explict PGAMING either. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:58, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

@MossOnALog, thanks for this note. What's probably not clear is that the "gaming" thing we're worried about is like someone making 500 edits to their sandbox in a day, 499 of which are reverting their previous edit. Making 500 useful edits over the space of several months isn't a significant concern.

Also, when people blank their talk pages, we take that as undeniable proof that they read the comments. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:42, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lakana (3rd nomination)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lakana (3rd nomination) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

if folks have some time, some eyes on this AfD would be helpful. I was the closer of the 2nd AfD in late 2024 but am unfamiliar with the history between the two editors that seems to be taking up a lot of the discussion. Thanks Star Mississippi 13:50, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm trying to think of a reason not to pblock Obsidian Soul from the AfD page, and having a hard time coming up with one; the only non-walls of text I can see are unhelpful sniping and unnecessarily confrontational shots. Is it just me? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:35, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Star Mississippi recommended that I copy the following here:
"I don't know if you are still following this saga, but the ranting, unsubstantiated comments about me have turned the deletion discussion into something which is probably unreadable for a new arrival at the subject. (e.g. ). We also have deletion of referenced material elsewhere. I fully understand Obsidian's ethnic pride, but I only criticise the overenthusiastic application of it to Wikipedia content when it overstates the quite significant achievements of Austronesians. That criticism only exists as Wikipedia edits and talk page comments that are supported by WP:RS, plus the odd plea to stop putting words into my mouth and then getting angry about what I haven't said.
For completeness (1) I am coming round to the view that Lakana should not be deleted, but it needs a substantial audit for accuracy, with particular emphasis on the miscaptioning of the first illustration; (2) I have unwittingly initiated a deletion request over at Commons (which is irritating, as the image is useful and the publisher is clearly unconcerned)."
To expand on this copy and paste, I have notes of some past interactions, and within my edit history of Austronesian peoples I think I can demonstrate my edits consisting of noting failed verifications, sources that do not fit the criteria of WP:RS and making the article text fit what the sources say. I would hope not to have to go into this past history unless necessary. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 15:39, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

On consideration, I feel that I should make clear that there is some Wikipedia content that has not been properly addressed/updated due to the nature of the response that we could expect from such edits. For instance, the very last words of Talk:Austronesian peoples/Archive 2 address whether appropriate balance has been used in Austronesian peoples#Ships and sailing, with a new source being discussed at Talk:Austronesian peoples#Ships and sailing. This has not been actioned because of the risk of the response it would cause. Similarly, Talk:Crab claw sail#Disputed remains unactioned. The sort of protests that we see on the AfD page are having a paralysing effect on article content (Crab claw sail is mentioned in the off-topic material in the AfD discussion). Fine if some of the ideas I come up with do not have merit, but the inability to discuss these points is not helpful. This additional comment is meant to explain the breadth of the problem. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 17:11, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Kallas article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I believe this discussion at Kaja Kallas, is going nowhere. Maybe it should be closed down. GoodDay (talk) 19:22, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Kallas (II)

Yet another discussion at Kallas, appears to be going nowhere. Recommend it be closed down. GoodDay (talk) 23:12, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Kallas (III)

Requesting that an administrator monitor this RFC, which might be going partially off-topic. GoodDay (talk) 16:49, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

On the latter, it appears emotions are getting high. We definitely need an administrator to step in. GoodDay (talk) 14:06, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Creation of title-blocked morse code pages

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I would like to create these redirects for morse code of punctuation (they contain 6 non-letter characters):

• ..--.. --> Question mark
• -.-.-- --> Exclamation mark
• .-.-.- --> Full stop
• --..-- --> Comma
• -.-.-. --> Semicolon
• ---... --> Colon (punctuation)
• -....- --> Hyphen

KyleSirTalksAlot (talk) 17:58, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

This seems better-suited to Wiktionary than here, and indeed, they already exist there in better form (example: wikt:..--). There aren't any existing redirects from morse code - or, to my knowledge, any similar encoding - except for ...---...→SOS (where it's mentioned) and the ones you created today. —Cryptic 18:29, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

I think it would be unlikely that these would be kept if nominated at RfD as there is no special affinity between these punctuation marks and Morse Code, and indeed I'm of half a mind to nominate the others you've created today for the same reason. Thryduulf (talk) 20:23, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm not super tied to them, so if you would rather them deleted, that's okay. However, I would like to mention that some disambiguations (such as --, -.-, ._., and Three dots) included the morse code letter as a listing, suggesting it is a plausible alternative representation of the letters/punctuation. KyleSirTalksAlot (talk) 20:41, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

I have created the pages emptily to allow KyleSirTalksAlot to create them if they like to, as that seems to be a good-faith action and the title blacklist entry is not meant to prevent it. I won't judge if the pages are actually needed and this noticeboard is unlikely to be a good place for having that discussion. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:56, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Emptily? Looks like stuff I manage to write on my iPad too often! Doug Weller talk 12:27, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request to create page "Womontown (Kansas City, Missouri)"

Hello, I've used Wikipedia since its inception but this is the first article I'm creating from scratch. Draft page name is "Draft:Womontown (Kansas City, Missouri)." Right after creating the draft, i received the following alert message:

Creation of this page (Draft:Womontown (Kansas City, Missouri)) is currently restricted to administrators, page movers, and template editors because the page title matches an entry .*woo?mo.* <autoconfirmed> #attack pages created by LTA on the local or global blacklists.

Womontown was a significant historic lesbian/queer neighborhood in Kansas City, MO in the 1980s and 1990s. I'm not from Kansas City but first heard it mentioned recently -- it's gotten more press in the past few years (see this NPR article and this PBS documentary). While conversations and language in queer and lesbian spaces have shifted since the '80s and '90s, communities such as these still stand as important examples of intentional community and gayborhoods, and I believe this urban Midwestern lesbian example merits its own Wikipedia page.

I can't totally tell why the title matched the blacklist, but please let me know if there's more I can do to help move the draft through. Thanks!

Mooccze (talk) 15:02, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Welcome, @Mooccze. The disambiguation ("(Kansas City, Missouri)") isn't necessary since there is no other article title Womontown. There was a previous draft article that was deleted when no edits had been made for six months. You can request that Draft:Womontown be restored at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion/Abandoned pages and perhaps some of the previous text/sources can be of use to you. Schazjmd (talk) 15:56, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Gotcha, thank you! That explains why nothing came up when I searched drafts. I'll request it be restored. Mooccze (talk) 16:17, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Politely reverting Schazjmd's close because the underlying issue hasn't been fixed here. This is a common issue that arises with regex-matching, where it doesn't occur to people that anything followed by a question-mark (or in other cases asterisk) quantifier can be ignored, leading to unintentionally short (and thus overbroad) regexen. Both .*woo?mo.* and .*moo?wo.* should be removed from the blacklist. These are common enough substrings that 138 existing articles or redirects match them. Their inclusion in the blacklist fails to say which LTA prompted them, which would be useful information to know if these still serve any benefit at all, but this was added almost a decade ago. Even affecting only non-(auto)confirmed users, it makes you wonder how many userspace and draftspace drafts we've lost to people running into the same issue as Mooccze and not figuring out where to complain. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 14:42, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

I've run the extremely cursed meta-regex ^\.\*\s*(\w((\w|\(\w*?\))[?*])?){1,4}\s*\.\*\s*$ against the title blacklist and found seven regexen that match strings of four word-characters or fewer. (This may be an undercount due to how I wrote the meta-regex). Four are reasonable: the case-sensitive .*COCK.* , .*CUM.* , .*DICK.* , and .*WHUT.* . Two are the ones mentioned above. The seventh probably also should be removed: .*koli.*. It only applies to pagemoves, so it's not as big a deal as the other two, but it's still extremely broad (applies to 684 existing articles and redirects) and it hasn't done anything to deter the sockmaster in question (see also WP:NOSALT § Title blacklisting; full disclosure, own essay). -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 14:57, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

I don't understand this at all. Have we implemented regex to restrict the creation of articles with unnecessarily disambiguated titles? If so, that seems extremely reckless; if not, the comment about it seems irrelevant. Nyttend (talk) 16:01, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

No, the disambiguation thing is unrelated to the technical issue here. It just happens that, because it turned out a previous undisambiguated title existed, OP didn't need to get the title-blacklist error resolved, since it was resolved by undeletion instead, which caused the underlying blacklist issue to not get resolved. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 16:28, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

I have removed the "woomo" rules from the blacklist. From some spelunking, the intended target appears to have been Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/The Suix which has seen no cases in a decade. I'm not convinced the koli rule should be removed. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:36, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Obpedant: these match more existing titles than that, in particular everything at Special:Prefixindex/Koli; your searches are case-sensitive, and the blacklist titles (mostly) aren't. —Cryptic 19:08, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Please, everybody, remember that not everyone understands regex. And people who don't should be able to take part in discussion. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:20, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, to clarify, the question mark after the o in those two regexen means "match this zero or one times". In other words, it means the regexen match not just anything containing "woomo" or "moowo", but also anything containing "womo" or "mowo", which are considerably more common substrings. (The dots and stars on the sides mean "if it appears anywhere in the title".) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 16:32, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, Tamzin. I was wondering why this title was caught by .*woo?mo.* but now I see. I guess a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. The regexes should certainly be more targeted. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:00, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Pinging Oshwah, who added the regex in question. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:25, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Pppery has removed .*woo?mo.* and .*moo?wo.*. I'd support removing .*koli.* as well, since Koli itself is ambiguous. (.*koli.* is related to an active LTA, Thakor Sumant Sinhji Jhala (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki), who advances a nationalist narrative about the Koli people. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:00, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, if blacklisting .*koli.* had succeeded in stopping TSSJ (as does sometimes happen when you blacklist an LTA's favorite word), I'd probably support keeping it blacklisted as the lesser of two evils. But given that they continue to disrupt, just using other words, it's preventing valid pagemoves without stopping the disruptive ones. A better approach would be a filter to silently flag pagemoves to titles matching that regex. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 12:30, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Has TSSJ continued to do pagemove-hijacking in the way they were before the blacklisting? Page moves by socks are more of a pain to revert than normal sock edits, so I would say the rule is working if it stopped the moves even if non-move sockpuppetry is still continuing. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:55, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

@Pppery: Here's the move log from the latest reported sock. Whether there was hijacking involved is easier for you to check than for me, since any edits would have been deleted when the moves were reversed. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 19:40, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm not seeing moves of the sort that originally caused me to add that blacklist rule there; the moves that triggered the blacklist rule are discussed at User_talk:Abecedare/Archive_26#Undiscussed_page_moves_and_hijacking_attempts_by_TSJ/Bensebgli/Anujror_sockfarms. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:45, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Sorry that I'm late to this discussion. It looks like the regex term that I added is catching false positives now, and it since has been removed. For the record (I'm just responding as if it wasn't removed yet), if that regex term I added is catching false positives, by all means - remove it! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:56, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

WP:Categories for discussion needs more closers

It now has a backlog of 250 discussions, dating back to November. I've been closing a lot of discussions myself, but am approaching burnout without making a significant dent in the backlog and would really appreciate others helping out more. Instructions for admins at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Administrator instructions, see also User:Qwerfjkl/How to close CfD discussions. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 07:44, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

It seems that a decent portion of these are by a few editors that tie heavily to sports categories. Of the 43 discussions still open from 2025, 28 of them are sports sub-categories with 23 of those discussions by just one user. --Super Goku V (talk) 12:44, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Yep. I was worried about this. I've asked @Johnpacklambert several times to bundle and consolidate the nominations he writes. He's not responded/acknowledged my requests on this: User talk:Johnpacklambert/Archives/2026/January#Please consolidate your merge nominations. Other users have tried to help: User talk:Johnpacklambert/Archives/2026/January#Friendly CFD Cleanup, like @RevelationDirect And other users (@Super Dromaeosaurus) have raised concerns about the consequences of his nominations User talk:Johnpacklambert/Archives/2026/January#Categories with a less than satisfactory response. ^SMason_Garrison 17:20, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Johnpacklambert is under a suspended topic ban from CfD, which means any admin could reimpose it as an AE action. After having read through those talk page comments I'm seriously tempted to do so (which is unusual for me since I almost never involve myself as an admin in conduct matters). * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:16, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Support reinstatement this is just a different flavor of the same disruption that led to the bans. Clearly nothing has changed. Star Mississippi 19:37, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

I too support temporary reinstatement Johnpacklambert has a habit of not responding to relevant talk pages or working collaboratively with others. In his last 5000 edits, only 55 have been to talk pages. When he responds, he seems genuine, sincere, and logical. He is not aloof about it nor does he fail to have a logic, but he's also making sweeping changes that could use a bit more consensus. Buffs (talk) 19:05, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Back in December, I encouraged Johnpacklambert to hold off on further college sports nominations because they didn't seem headed anywhere but "no consensus". I haven't checked everywhere, but I'm pretty sure he took my advice, which eliminated the largest group of nominations but the backlog remains. RevelationDirect (talk) 22:22, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

If memory serves, I believe the last sports related discussion was December 28th. I believe most of the January batch of discussions are about people born or living in countries. --Super Goku V (talk) 23:16, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Pppery, thanks again for all your hard work. I'll see if I can clear out some non-controversial ones with non-admin closures. RevelationDirect (talk) 22:25, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

• When I was asked to wait on nominating more categories related to sports until the existing ones were closed I stopped nominating more categories related for sports. I have tried to seek consensus. I have tried to respond to advice. I have not nominated one sports Category since he made that request. I am teying to be collaborative with others. I am trying to discuss the issues involved in building categories. I am trying to work through the issues of making it so categories. The issue with sports nominations was brought up. I responded by not making any others. I have tried to be cooperative. I have not made even one more sports nomination since then.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:41, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
• I did listen to requests about making larger nominations. I made a nomination with 108 categories related to Category:Generals by nationality. I also made a nomination related to all the categories under Category:Slaves by nationality. I am sorry if my actions have caused disruption. I have been trying to follow the general guidelines of categorization. I have been trying to seek consensus. I will try to do this more in the future.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:56, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

  I know that you're trying. I'm glad to hear that your changing your behavior, even if you're not articulating that on your talk page. But, like, it's a lot of comments and nominations, and just sheer volume of text. Remember that other people have to read the full conversation in order to process the nomination. Perhaps the 2nd choice remedy of limiting to 3 per day could be implemented instead? Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct_in_deletion-related_editing#Motion:_Johnpacklambert_topic_ban_amended_(limited_categories_exception) ^SMason_Garrison 22:34, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

  I am sorry. I am trying to make sure I clearly explain my position. I will seek to be more concise in presenting my position. I will also seek to where possible bundle nominations in larger groups. I appreciate all the work you and others do to improve Wikipedia and hope that we can find ways to do so more in the future. I will try to be more concise in my statement in the future.John Pack Lambert (talk) 11:46, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

  I appriciate your efforts. I really do. I wonder if there's a way to help you calibrate the volume. What if you limited yourself to 3 nominations per day and had a max word count? I think that would help a lot by encouraging you to think thru the arguments and prioritize the important ones. ^SMason_Garrison 13:59, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

  I will consider this.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:07, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

  I'm really struggling with what to do about User talk:Johnpacklambert/Archives/2026/January#Category:Generals by nationality because the challenge is also here the sheer volume of changes you made related to a bundled category nomination that wasn't going your way. @FromCzech can probably summarize the nuances better.^SMason_Garrison 21:28, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

  I have apologized for rhat. I am very sorry. I have tried to correct my mistakes. I was trying to adapt to the advice of others and apply it. I was trying to heed the advice ilof some editors that both the country served for and nationality are defining. I am sorry that I jumped the gunin trying to implement it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:17, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

  I know that you've apologized. But like, this is illustrative of the challenge that I don't think you really appreciate. Now there are 37 subcats of Category:Generals by country to clean up with nearly 1000 people (according to petscan https://petscan.wmcloud.org/?psid=42588159), and that's already after you emptied 13 of those categories. Practically, the only thing I did today was try to add all the missing parent categories of FOOian generals in the vain hope of restoring the category tree to the status quo. ^SMason_Garrison 04:55, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

  I am trying to correct this error. I am very sorry about this.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:25, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

  I have tried to restore all categories and articles back. Most of what is left is in the French and Spanish categories that may take a little longer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:27, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

  I know that you've apologized. It's not just this specific case, it's that you make an overwhelming number of changes, and a sizable number of them are inconsistent with the consensus about nationality versus country. I feel like I ask you to do the same handful of maintenience things over and over again that are consistent with how most people think about nationality.. it's one of the reasons I don't feel like I have the bandwidth to help with closing CFDs. ^SMason_Garrison 05:40, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

  There is a similar mess to slavery categories. There seems to be a total local of understanding about what categories are for and for convention by Lambert Kingbird1 (talk) 08:43, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

  You nailed it. ^SMason_Garrison 13:23, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

• Question Is there any potential appetite for unbundling access to WP:CFD/W as a stand-alone permission that non-admins could request? - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:06, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

  The previous few times that has been proposed it hasn't gone anywhere (For example Wikipedia_talk:Categories_for_discussion/Working/Archive_2#Protection_of_WP:CFD/W,_take_3). Despite having written an exasperated edit summary in the protection log for the page I'm not actually completely against it.

  But I don't think it would solve the issue here - the backlog at WT:CFDW has not been that huge lately, although again that may only be because I've been handling it. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:23, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

  I do think that giving more people permission would be helpful. We can have a vetting process like NPP does. (I've still not got the hang of closings myself, so finding ways to make it easier for folks to learn the process might be helpful regardless).^SMason_Garrison 13:55, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

  @Smasongarrison, a much, much better idea would be to encourage the people who are interested in closing these discussions to run for adminship. -- asilvering (talk) 12:15, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

  We tried that twice already with no success. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:27, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

  As I have said in the past, I think giving access to Template editors could be a way forward for this. We trust them with pretty disruptive templates. Plus if one starts posting "delete" results, I think that'd be noticed rather quickly. Please ping me if someone starts a discussion on this. - jc37 03:31, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

  Please no. The template editor right is already heavily overloaded. Competence in closing deletion discussions has very little to do with competence in editing high-risk templates (or DYK queues, which I also think was done wrong). If we want to unbundle access to CFDW then do it right and create a separate "CFDW editor" user group. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:49, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

• It is a difficult trade-off. When bundled, participants in the discussion may complain that it should be unbundled, and vice versa. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:21, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

  Marcocapelle is absolutely correct here. Plus, there is the problem, that "bundled" group noms can end up a train wreck, due to many moving parts. And even the most well-researched nominator can be surprised by the direction a discussion may go. - jc37 03:31, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

  There is the added issue that broad complex nominations have the potential to drag on as people bring up specific issues about individual cases. A single Category nomination has less potential to drag a long time. While I understand why there is a view we should nominate whole sets of categories, it would seem that if the issue is only about the parent category it should be able to be nominated on its own. This is what has been done with Category:Physicians although that is somewhat unique in that there is a fully matching article. Lots of occupational categories there is an article on the field but not on the profession itself.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:21, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

  Which is why you really need to slow down. Do the core category first. Wait for it to close, and then do follow up nominations AFTER it is closed. ^SMason_Garrison 13:22, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

• Just to broaden this out to the general issue of CfD closures, is there any sort of tool that reduces straightforward closes to a few clicks, as there is for closing requested moves? BD2412 T 22:40, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

  WP:XFDC. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:44, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

  The problem is that XFDC doesn't know how to add content to WP:CFDW. User:Qwerfjkl/scripts/CFDlister is the only tool that comes close, but that right now only helps non-admins (or admins who want to cosplay as non-admins). No tool knows how to add content to CFDW itself.

  Aside from all that, CFD tends to use a much less rigid format than other deletion discussion venues so there are many nominations that no tool can parse. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:17, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

  BD2412 was asking for tools in a broader context than CfD. And XFDC can at least make closing the CfD discussion easier. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:30, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

  Yes, to be clear there is a difference between closing the discussion and implementing the close. BD2412 T 02:24, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

• Trying to help out while also dealing with FfD and copyright cleanup's low bus factors. So many of these closes have nightmarish, time consuming implementations that I personally don't feel comfortable doing even though I'm confident in my closes. Is there any way we can at least ping participants to help implement closes/a place we can centralize that better? These mass noms are also really difficult to work through at times, since half the time they descend into split proposals that also get very messy to close. XFDC is throwing the Talk:Edit error more than it does FfD. I'm tempted to just start no-consensusing the ones that have devolved into arguing with no clear BARTENDER-worthy results after a relist or two, even though that doesn't seem to be a very popular outcome. Sennecaster (Chat) 20:13, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

  Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working/Manual is kind of the place you are looking for ... * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:26, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

How did you manage to bring it down to just 250 – was it like that for long? On Commons (c:Commons:Categories for discussion), it's 6300. (I plan to make a chart of the count using archived versions of the category.) Prototyperspective (talk) 23:44, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Enwiki CfD has never been anywhere close to as backlogged as Commons CfD. It's not clear why, but I suspect the reason is just that we happen to have (just barely) enough people to keep the backlog from exploding. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 06:16, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

on commons, 5% of admins are sane enough to not close discussions, another 5% are insane enough to close discussions (badly), and the remaining 90% are inactive. ltbdl (love) 08:18, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Because Commons has way less admins than needed to handle all the stuff. Ymblanter (talk) 12:24, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Birthday mode RfC

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Can we close and implement the birthday mode RfC promptly please? Yet another case of a time-sensitive RfC not being compatible with a project that has no deadlines...this was supposed to get implemented a week ago, and there is overwhelming consensus for option 1 imo. I'd close it...but I voted in it. I'm not sure some of the sub-aspects have to get closed? But please, somebody, anybody, lets close this, ping the WMF, and get the necessary phab tickets/interface work done to make it happen. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:26, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Or failing that, just say there is consensus for the winning option and I'll make enough of a fuss that the rest happens ;) CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:29, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Regarding the "Sub-poll: Logo to use", I was specifically told it would be helpful for that to be individually closed so that those making interface changes have something directly to point to. CMD (talk) 07:39, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

The switch is flipped per outcome of the RfC at Special:Diff/1340022021. One can disable the Birthday mode through the Appearance menu. – robertsky (talk) 14:40, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Is it supposed to be enabled by default? It is disabled by default for me. LightNightLights (talk • contribs) 18:13, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Wot does the Baby Globe™ do? I can't see it anywhere. —Fortuna, imperatrix 14:49, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

From what I can tell, Baby Globe is only a visual addition. Multiple versions of them are scattered around a small amount of articles as easter eggs; one is at Music. LightNightLights (talk • contribs) 18:11, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User talk:~2026-88498-9

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• ~2026-88498-9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Can someone revoke talk page access for this user? Thanks. Sugar Tax (talk) 10:22, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

I'll grant you 3 months of TAIV so you can keep an eye on whether they carry through on their threats. Cabayi (talk) 11:08, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Cabayi, according to WP:TAIVGRANT, the Wikimedia Foundation does not allow us to assign the TAIV permission unless the editor requests it. On the other hand, I believe Sugar Tax can be entrusted with the permission if they do request the permission and agree to follow the WMF policy. Sugar Tax, would you like to request the TAIV permission? — Newslinger talk 12:17, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for steering me right Newslinger. Sugar Tax, you know you'll be pushing on an open door if you do apply. Cabayi (talk) 12:31, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Mass spam from user ~2026-12108-64

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• ~2026-12108-64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

they are spamming edits removing content, and already are at 259+ edits, can someone indef ban him? (sorry if this is not the right place, but this is urgent) ~2026-12204-49 (talk) 08:01, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Activity curtailed. Indef block applied. Nthep (talk) 08:12, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

thanks!! ~2026-12204-49 (talk) 08:15, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

BLP

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

At Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Asim Munir, concerning whether a proposed para constitutes BLPVIO, I believe there is consensus from varied uninvolved editors (including an uninvolved admin) for inclusion, but lone dissent by the original disputant editor remains.

Would appreciate third opinions regarding: if this reading of the consensus for inclusion is correct and if it should be implemented.

Thanks Gotitbro (talk) 21:02, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Motions to clean up old remedies

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

Remedies 1 and 2 of Israel-Lebanon ("Use of blogs" and "Editors cautioned", respectively) are rescinded.

Remedy 3.1 and special enforcement provision 1 of Israel-Lebanon are also rescinded. Any restrictions issued under remedy 3.1 remain in force, and are governed by and may be enforced via the contentious topic designation for the Arab–Israeli conflict.

— Motion regarding Israel-Lebanon

Remedy 1 of Johnski ("Dominion of Melchizedek semi-protected") is rescinded. Johnski (talk · contribs) may appeal their block using the regular block appeals process.

— Motion regarding Johnski

Remedies 1 and 4 and enforcement provisions 1 and 3 of Lyndon LaRouche are rescinded. Actions previously taken in accordance with the remedy or enforcement provisions remain in force.

The post-decision motion passed from Lyndon LaRouche 2 is rescinded. Any blocks issued under that provision remain in force, and remain governed by the applicable appeals process as if this motion did not pass.

— Motion regarding Lyndon LaRouche

Following a long-running trial, remedies 1 and 2 of Midnight Syndicate are fully rescinded. All topic bans issued in accordance with remedy 2 are also rescinded. Additionally, the two bespoke enforcement provisions are rescinded.

— Motion regarding Midnight Syndicate

Special enforcement 3 of the Race and intelligence case ("Review of topic-bans") is rescinded. Bans from the Committee may be appealed in the usual way at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment.

— Motion regarding Race and intelligence

Remedy 1 of Regarding The Bogdanov Affair ("Ban on editing Bogdanov Affair") is amended to read:

1) CatherineV (talk · contribs), EE Guy (talk · contribs), Laurence67 (talk · contribs), Luis A. (talk · contribs), ProfesseurYIN (talk · contribs), XAL (talk · contribs), and YBM (talk · contribs) are prohibited from editing Bogdanov affair (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and its talk page.

Remedy 2 and enforcement provision 2 ("Notice" and "Additional combatants") are rescinded. Bans issued in accordance with enforcement provision 2 are also rescinded.

— Motion regarding Regarding The Bogdanov Affair

Remedies 2 and 3 of Sathya Sai Baba ("Removal of poorly sourced negative information" and "Removal of poorly sourced information", respectively) are rescinded.

Remedy 4 of Sathya Sai Baba 2 ("Prior remedies clarified") is also rescinded.

— Motion regarding Sathya Sai Baba

Remedies 5.1 and 8 of Scientology ("Single purpose accounts with agendas" and "Editors instructed", respectively) are rescinded.

Remedy 3 ("Scope of Scientology topic ban") is amended to read:

3) Editors topic banned by remedies in this proceeding are prohibited (i) from editing articles related to Scientology or Scientologists, broadly defined, as well as the respective article talk pages and (ii) from participating in any Wikipedia process relating to those articles, including as examples but not limited to, articles for deletion, reliable sources noticeboard, administrators' noticeboard and so forth. Appeals will be considered no earlier than six months after the close of this case, and additional reviews will be done no more frequently than every six months thereafter.

Remedy 6 ("Account limitation") is amended to read:

6) Any editor who is subject to remedies in this proceeding is restricted to a single current or future account to edit Scientology-related topics and may not contribute to the topic from a temporary account. They are to inform the Committee of the account they have selected, and must obtain the Committee's approval if they wish to begin using a different account.

Special enforcement provision 2 ("Uninvolved administrators") is rescinded. The normal rules of WP:INVOLVED continue to apply to administrators in the topic area.

Any sanctions issued in accordance with the rescinded remedies remain in effect until appealed. Time-bounded sanctions still expire as if this motion never carried.

— Motion regarding Scientology

Remedies 1, 2, 3, and 5 of Hunger ("Material from The Hunger Project itself", "Negative material", "Current editors", and "Continuing jurisdiction"; respectively) are rescinded. Note that the arbitration policy states The Committee retains jurisdiction over all matters heard by it, including associated enforcement processes, and may, at its sole discretion, revisit any proceeding at any time.

— Motion regarding Hunger

Remedy 2 of User:PolishPoliticians is rescinded.

— Motion regarding User:PolishPoliticians

Remedy 1 of Yoshiaki Omura ("Ban for disruption") is amended to read:

1) Richardmalter is indefinitely banned from editing Yoshiaki Omura or its talk page.

Enforcement provision 1 ("Enforcement by block") is amended to read:

1) Richardmalter may be blocked for up to a year if they edit Yoshiaki Omura or its talk page.

Enforcement provision 3 ("Enforcement by reversion") is rescinded. The policy on reverting banned editors continues to apply to Richardmalter's edits to Yoshiaki Omura–related pages.

All enforcement actions taken in accordance with the rescinded remedy and enforcement provisions remain in force and are to be appealed as if this motion did not pass.

— Motion regarding Yoshiaki Omura

Remedies 1 and 2.1 ("IP editing prohibited" and "Administrators instructed", respectively) are rescinded. The regular sockpuppetry policy and norms around moving pages apply.

— Motion regarding Abortion

Remedy 1.2 of the Climate change case ("Climate change: contentious topic designation") is rescinded. Any actions previously taken in accordance with the contentious topic designation remain in force and are governed by the contentious topics procedure.

Remedy 2 of Climate change ("Climate change sanctions noticeboard superseded") is amended to read:

2) Effective when this case closes, the community sanctions noticeboard for global warming issues should no longer be used for future sanctions discussions. Enforcement of restrictions issued in Climate change or under the contentious topic designation for climate change may be enforced at the standard location, Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement (AE).

— Motions regarding Climate change

Remedy 2 of the Gun control case ("Contentious topic designation") is rescinded. Any actions previously taken in accordance with the contentious topic designation remain in force and are governed by the contentious topics procedure.

— Motion regarding Gun control

Remedy 6 of The Troubles case ("One-revert rule") is rescinded.

Enforcement provision 2 of The Troubles case ("Terms of probation") is rescinded.

— Motions regarding The Troubles

For the Arbitration Committee, GoldRomean (talk) 20:38, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Motions to clean up old remedies

User:Peachy1621

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Peachy1621 (Vasily1926), soon after being unblocked by @Asilvering for using multiple accounts, again added "Abkhaz nationalism" and "Armenian nationalism" on Bagramyan Battalion with a source that doesn't mention either. Peachy1621 also nominated First Zeitun Resistance for deletion for being a "hoax"; it is a stub but still has citations that prove it's obviously not a hoax. I informed Peachy1621/Vasily1926 about restricted topics before they faced a block for sockpuppeting. Vanezi (talk) 21:29, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

@Vanezi Astghik, you've made no apparent attempts to communicate with Peachy about this, and even reverted that edit to Bagramyan Battalion without any comment at all. -- asilvering (talk) 22:38, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

it is important to note that on the talk page of Vasily1926, Vanezi did revert an edit i made on the May Uprising page and did actually inform me about restricted topics here. because that article was about an Armenian communist uprising internal to the First Republic of Armenia and had no relation to Azerbaijan, i genuinely believed it (and the Bagramyan Battalion actions in Abkhazia) fell outside the scope of the Armenia-Azerbaijan sanctions. does "broadly construed" apply even to these internal or semi-related histories? if so, i am fully willing to pause editing in these areas entirely, pending admin discretion. Peachy1621 (talk) 23:10, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Asilvering I did explain to them the restrictions in these topics before. The reason I didn't leave a summary is that I had already done so prior when reverting. And the reason I came here is that they're not just editing without WP:XC, they're also engaging in disruptions as I explained.

Even the "hoax" nomination, now it's shifted to disputing scholarly sources with a newspaper and WP:SYN, even though it's pointless to explain there as the user shouldn't really comment in these discussions or make them. But my main concern is resumed disruption shortly after being unbanned, that's why I'm here. Vanezi (talk) 23:26, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

regarding the WP:SYN claim: bringing light to a 22,000-man discrepancy between two prominent sources (Asbarez, a 117-year-old publication, and Louise Nalbandian) is not synthesis; it is a demonstration that the figures in the article are currently unverifiable as objective fact per WP:V. furthermore, i am not only relying on a newspaper; as i noted in the AfD, modern academic work like Stebbins (2011) acknowledges the event and mentions that "a smaller Armenian force held off a much larger Ottoman force" but notably omits the massive casualty and strength figures found in the current stub. my intent is to bring the article in line with WP:EXCEPTIONAL, which requires high-quality, consistent sourcing for such lopsided military claims. Peachy1621 (talk) 23:36, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

hi Vanezi and admins. regarding the mention of my previous account: i am not attempting to hide my history and have been open about my past edits. i have a collective edit count well above 500 across accounts. note that i am unable to edit pages that have the extended confirmed (EC) lock icon, and i deliberately avoided those (can't edit them anyway, i am not extended confirmed on this account). because the pages i edited were not restricted and did not refer to the Armenian genocide or Azerbaijan, i did not believe they fell under the "broadly construed" sanctions. depending on the result of this discussion being created, i'll be fully willing to pause editing in these areas entirely pending admin discretion.

i have been trying to contribute productively since being unblocked. regarding the Bagramyan Battalion edit, you didn't say anything about why it was reverted (or put anything at all, really, in the revert summary). note that the Bagramyan Battalion has no relation to Azerbaijan; its actions took place in Abkhazia—as part of the Georgia–Abkhazia conflict—rather than the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. furthermore, the Financial source provided explicitly classifies the group under "nationalist-separatist groups" and cites research by James A. Piazza. my addition of "nationalism" was a direct reflection of the source's categorization, not an attempt at original research or POV-pushing.

as for the First Zeitun Resistance nomination (which is not about the Armenian genocide—i am aware the restrictions are "broadly construed", but i assumed a page that refers to an event in the Ottoman Empire, half a century before the genocide, and before Azerbaijan even existed as a state, would be okay to edit), i concede that "hoax" was an imprecise term. my initial check of the citations showed one referred to the 1895 rebellion rather than the 1862 conflict, which triggered my concern (that is a mistake on my part for not looking through the other citations). that was another issue with the article, however, my main concern and reason for the nomination is based on WP:V and WP:EXCEPTIONAL. the 22,000-man discrepancy between sources like Asbarez (18k) and Nalbandian (40k) makes the current article's figures unverifiable as objective facts. i am not trying to disrupt restricted topics, and i will be more careful with terminology and communication moving forward. Peachy1621 (talk) 23:20, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

WP:GS/AA reads Politics, ethnic relations, and conflicts involving Armenia, Azerbaijan, or both—broadly construed and explicitly including the Armenian genocide—are placed under an extended confirmed restriction; it doesn't include any restrictions on age. an armed conflict between the Armenians of Zeitun... is most certainly a 'conflict involving Armenia'. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:57, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

i appreciate the clarification. i see where my mistake was: i had interpreted 'politics, ethnic relations, and conflicts involving Armenia, Azerbaijan, or both' as referring to the modern and historical disputes between the two nations (and the Genocide), rather than a blanket restriction on all Armenian-related historical topics regardless of the era or adversary. i see now that 'broadly construed' covers the ethnic identity itself in a historical context. i will step away from these areas entirely until i meet the XC requirement, then. thank you for the guidance. Peachy1621 (talk) 02:35, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User talk:Bim pepple

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Can someone revoke talk page access for this user? Thanks. Sugar Tax (talk) 10:35, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Noting that they subsequently submitted an actual unblock request, which I have now declined. I don't think TPA yoinking is needed unless another outburst occurs; I'm keeping an eye on things. Toadspike [Talk] 12:12, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Confusing history of Barron Trump and Trump, Barron

• Barron Trump (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Trump, Barron (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Not sure if this is the best place to post this, but would someone who is expert at page histories and merges take a look at the talk pages of Barron Trump and Trump, Barron? I raised this at at WT:GA but I think the right person to look at it is an admin with the appropriate experience. As far as I can tell, what should have happened is that the newer page should have been constructed from a move of the older page, but in fact Trump, Barron is a redirect, yet its talk page has all the article history up to the new article's creation -- e.g. GA1 is listed at Talk:Trump, Barron, but GA2 at Talk:Barron Trump. I think they should be merged but I'm really not sure. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:53, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

I've consulted with @Sennecaster, whose conclusion is basically that 1. the two talk pages are for completely different versions of the article, with some intervening deletion(s) and recreation(s), and 2. there are parallel page histories, both of which mean a history merge is not necessary. Thanks Senne! Toadspike [Talk] 23:24, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

OK, thanks. It's weird from a human perspective, as they're functionally the same article, but I can see that if the page histories don't intersect a merge is not needed. Thank you (and Sennecaster) for looking into it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:38, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

@Mike Christie; I'll clarify on the Barron Trump talk page when I get back on Sennecaster. I can see how it would look weird to someone that doesn't regularly look at chaotic page histories involving repeated ATDs. Pennecaster (Chat with Senne) 00:10, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

In a nutshell, the history now at Trump, Barron is a years-long back-and-forth conflict over whether Barron Trump should be a redirect or whatever content an editor happened to put on the page for a time. It was not until a draft was created in draftspace and worked on for some time (while the mainspace conflict continued) that there was content deemed sufficient to support a freestanding article. BD2412 T 00:56, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

deemed sufficient to support a freestanding article is a bit generous since the current thing only squeaked by as "No consensus" at AfD. (Not that there's anything wrong with the actual point you're making.) ~2026-92659-0 (talk) 00:45, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, we totally failed to follow proper process there. But that's water under the bridge now. At this point I would suggest history merging Trump, Barron to Barron Trump. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:20, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

What proper process would make the result of a no consensus AfD result in deletion? That is explicitly against all precedent and existing policies and guidelines. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Administrator instructions#No consensus and Wikipedia:Deletion process#Common outcomes are crystal clear that specific actions are not taken by the closing administrator in the event of a no consensus AfD result. Katzrockso (talk) 02:04, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Admin use of user Frietjes

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User with huge admin rights - Frietjes has marked template I have created. Assistfs for deletion. I think it is part of wider activity of this use. I will start with the fact that Frietjes was behind deletion of wiki page "Futsal's 2nd Division" So Frietjes is somebody who tries to make Wiki scientific and fight against marketing and sport misuse ? But what are assistance statistics in sport ?
Generally, people making sport pages from major events (Futsal Euro 2026), (OFC Futsal Nations Cup 2025) use public data to create such pages. They do not see GOALS personally and they use online newspapers and sport association data to publish it. But because online news servers and sport association do not collect assist data , wiki creators ignores it. In some cases, like ice hockey, news publishers and sport association (NHL for example) publish assistance and ASSISTS ARE THEN ON WIKI. IN some cases, assists are published by association (NBA), but not often mentioned by Wiki. So what I did is , that I MADE MY OWN CONTRIBUTION. I HAVE ANALYSE VIDEO OF GAMES TO COLLECT ASSIST DATA. I DID OWN WORK. WHICH should be done by Wiki creator, not just be paid, or junior staff making Wiki data as time spending.
So I think I am HOLDER OF WIKI PHILOSOPHY and Frietjes is (in the case of template:AssistFs) supporting Media and PR teams.
Kind Regards
Vaclav Vaclav data (talk) 09:31, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

This seems to be related to Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2026 February 25 § Template:Assistfs. Consensus on that topic will be determined there.—Bagumba (talk) 09:42, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Frietjes is not an admin. Sugar Tax (talk) 09:44, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

"I HAVE ANALYSE VIDEO OF GAMES TO COLLECT ASSIST DATA" that sounds a lot like WP:Original research, which isn't allowed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:25, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

@Vaclav data, the work you have done is not what wikipedia editors do. Wikipedia editors summarize what the sources say. They don't do their own research.

For what it's worth, all editors here are volunteers, just like you. No one here is paid by Wikipedia, and Wikipedia does not have any staff. Valereee (talk) 12:18, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

This would be VaclavHumanAI (talk · contribs) from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1203#User:VaclavHumanAI. Had to do a little digging to figure it out, but it's kind of obvious once you see it. Blocked and tagged. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:34, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Report regarding content removal by User:Arjayay on Joymoti Konwari article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello,

I would like to request administrator attention regarding an edit made by User:Arjayay on the article Joymoti Konwari. The user removed approximately 467 bytes of content without providing a clear explanation in the edit summary.

As the removed material appears to relate to historically sourced information, I kindly request a review to ensure that the edit complies with Wikipedia’s content and sourcing guidelines. The edit can be located in the article’s revision history dated 10 January 2026.

Thank you for your time and assistance. . Ser kham gogoi (talk) 13:07, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

• This is a content dispute and thus the wrong venue, but the 467 bytes removed by Arjayay on 10 January were exactly the same 467 bytes that you removed on 5 December, so it seems odd that you are disputing it (not to mention that in between those two edits the material was replaced by a sockpuppet, which is what Arjayay was reverting). Meanwhile, you made another addition to the article today which was completely unsourced and so it was removed by another editor. Please ensure all of your edits have reliable sources so they are verifiable. Black Kite (talk) 14:08, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

  Hello,

  I would like to clarify the reason for my earlier removal of the content that was later restored by [[User:Arjayay]].

  My concern relates to the historical interpretation of Joymoti Konwari being described using the title "Sati". Several historians have discussed that the Ahom–Tai socio-cultural tradition originally differed from later Hindu interpretations, and that the portrayal of Joymoti as a "Sati" became prominent only in the early twentieth century, particularly after the publication of Jaymati Kahini (1918) by Kumudeswar Barthakur.

  Some academic studies suggest that during the colonial period, Assamese history began to be reinterpreted within broader Indian and Hindu cultural frameworks. In this context, Joymoti came to be represented as an idealised Hindu woman devoted to her husband and dharma, which may reflect later cultural reinterpretation rather than original Ahom tradition.

  The restored text added by [[User:Parlyu c]] cites Sharma (2011, page 227), and I believe this topic requires careful contextualisation so that later literary or cultural representations are clearly distinguished from earlier Ahom historical traditions.

  My intention was not to disrupt editing but to ensure historical neutrality and accurate representation based on reliable academic sources. I welcome further discussion and improvement of the article with additional scholarly references and PDF sources if necessary.

  Thank you. Ser kham gogoi (talk) 15:02, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

• OK. As mentioned above, that discussion should take place on the talk page of the article. Black Kite (talk) 15:04, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• Black Kite, Ser kham gogoi is now edit-warring using sockpuppets and using LLMs to communicate. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:18, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Note Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ser kham gogoi.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:59, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Review requests for comment closure

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There was a closure of RfC of the discussion of https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=1340384050#RfC:_Relationship_with_Jeffrey_Epstein with a decision that I disagree and I would like to challenge. The closing editor argues that "There is consensus to include the information, with those who discuss the amount of content mostcommonly specifying minimal". This is incorrect as the question was: Should this article discuss Junkermann's relationship with Jeffrey Epstein? (example version ). The question was to include a whole paragraph with separate title not minimal mention. The vote was on this separate paragraph. 8ZeitundZeit8 (talk) 13:42, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

@8ZeitundZeit8, a couple of things. 1) Per WP:CLOSECHALLENGE you are required to discuss closes with the closer in their talk prior to bringing a dispute here. 2) An RFC close should be informed by the discussion, not by just the question. We don't grant a first movers advantage in formal disussions. TarnishedPath^talk 14:06, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

The closing editor has been notified and argues that doesn't see consensus. An administrator will have to give an opinion and then move on accordingly. 8ZeitundZeit8 (talk) 18:12, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

The closer is an administrator. Just saying.

And TarnishedPath's points are valid. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:16, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

OK. A second admin will have to give an opinion here and if he/she agrees with the first decision then I will create a separate RfC for what to include. 8ZeitundZeit8 (talk) 18:25, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

@8ZeitundZeit8, you also haven't notified the closer of this discussion. See the red box near the top of this page please. I'll notify them for you now. TarnishedPath^talk 23:37, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

I thought this is a review about a closure not about the editor. Nevertheless I have inform her. 8ZeitundZeit8 (talk) 11:16, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

You're requesting a review of their closure, therefore it's about them. Some general advice, anytime you start a discussion on a noticeboard that is about another editor or their actions, you probably need to notify them (there are some exceptions such as WP:SPI). TarnishedPath^talk 11:20, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Ps, if you are thinking of a new RFC, I suggest you workshop the question first. If you start a new RFC which essentially asks the same question, right after the last one was closed, it may end up getting closed as being disruptive. TarnishedPath^talk 23:42, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

As a separate point, would anyone with more knowledge of the subject like to look at the OPs editing of Xinjiang internment camps? Black Kite (talk) 18:22, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Black Kite I had been following that page as 8ZeitundZeit8 was editing it yesterday and inspected some of the edits as I found some of the edit summaries concerning, but upon investigation the specific edits I examined looked constructive. Changes appeared to follow sources, and did not appear to consistently adhere to a one-sided POV. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:31, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Rosguill Thanks. It was the edit-summaries that made me wonder about the quality of the edits as well. Black Kite (talk) 18:34, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

It seems they have been reverted; time will tell I suppose, it was a lot of different changes in a row. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:42, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

The nazi-coded username doesn't bug anyone else? -- asilvering (talk) 11:32, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

It bugs me...I am still not determined if and how to act on it, though. Lectonar (talk) 11:44, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

You should be ashamed for making this kind of false accusations. It never even crossed my mind that the username has anything to do with Nazis. 8ZeitundZeit8 (talk) 12:11, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

With all due respect 8ZeitundZeit8, your username could easily be read as referring to both 88 and a Heidegger reference, and in German to boot. I do think that you should assume good faith of other editors' reactions and provide an explanation of your username. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:47, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

It’s pretty clear that I’m not welcome here, and it has nothing to do with my username. My username is ZeitundZeit, not Sein und Zeit. It literally just means time and time. And even if it were Sein und Zeit, what would that have to do with the Nazis? The 8 is simply a symmetrical number, nothing more. It is also obvious that information about Junkermann’s connections with Epstein and intelligence agencies tends to disappear. 8ZeitundZeit8 (talk) 17:27, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Regarding Sein und Zeit, Martin Heidegger and Nazism. The degree to which you are welcome here is based on the degree to which you engage with others in good faith--making backhanded comments like It is also obvious that information about Junkermann’s connections with Epstein and intelligence agencies tends to disappear. will not help your case, as they will be taken as WP:ASPERSIONS in the absence of clearly supporting evidence. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:46, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Just to be clear, my username is 8ZeitundZeit8, not 8SeinundZeit8. It is not a misspelling. It literally means time and time and the 8 is there because it’s a symmetrical number. Today is the first time in my life that I have ever heard about Sein und Zeit or the number 88 being associated with the Nazis. Connecting my username to Nazism is beyond comprehension, and it is extremely concerning that this accusation is coming from senior admins, including members of the arbitration committee.

The Wikipedia article Martin Heidegger and Nazism states: “According to Karl Löwith, several Nazis themselves seemed not to believe in Heidegger's anti-Semitism: The petty-bourgeois orthodoxy of the party was suspicious of Heidegger's National Socialism insofar as Jewish and racial considerations played no role. [His book] Sein und Zeit [Being and Time] was dedicated to the Jew Husserl.”

This means that even the supposed connection involving Sein und Zeit does not hold up under scrutiny. I am disgusted by these accusations. 8ZeitundZeit8 (talk) 19:36, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure why a person would be extremely concerned that senior admins, including members of the arbitration committee are able to spot nazi-coded usernames. Since you are now aware that your name does read this way to at least some people, if you find that connection disturbing, WP:RENAME is available to you. -- asilvering (talk) 20:37, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm not convinced 8ZeitundZeit8 is trying to be a Nazi, but the defensiveness and lawyering, rather than just recognizing that these are well-known dogwhistles and seeking a rename, does not leave me with the impression that they are able to collaborate effectively on Wikipedia. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:50, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Participants of a RFC aren't limited by the initial question. Given two options they can come to a consensus for a third option. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:24, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

I didn't (and upon rereading, still don't) read the discussion as focussing on the diff the RfC opener had linked to as the primary question. They even marked it as (example version) in the question. The example version included a longish subheaded section plus mention in the lead. Multiple participants supported 'minimal' or said things like '"how much" was still an open question' or used the term 'mention'. There was no clear stated support for the example diff given, and I'm thinking @8ZeitundZeit8 may just not be experienced enough to understand that others in the discussion did not make the assumption that that specific example version was what they were commenting on. Valereee (talk) 11:22, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm happy with any decision that a 2nd admin makes. I thought this is a simple review process that includes a single admin. 8ZeitundZeit8 (talk) 11:40, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

An admin isn't needed for a close or a close review. The vast majority of closes can be made by any uninvolved editor. And in a close review the points of view of all commenters, admin or not, are assessed by their discussion of policy, with no consideration given to the permissions they hold. Valereee (talk) 11:56, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm happy with anyone making the closure. 8ZeitundZeit8 (talk) 12:37, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Just not me lol? Valereee (talk) 12:57, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Anyone who agrees with them, Val. You missed that bit. -- asilvering (talk) 18:22, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

@8ZeitundZeit8, you called for an uninvolved closer at WP:CR and Valereee picked up your request and did what you asked. TarnishedPath^talk 15:03, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm getting the very strong impression this should be a WP:BOOMERANG as not compatible with a collaborative encyclopedia. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:16, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

I have INDEFfed 8ZeitundZeit8 as Not Here, but a host of reasons are applicable. Star Mississippi 01:47, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Feedback on user talkpage incident

I'm putting this here and not on the incidents noticeboard because I'm not looking to report another user but I would like feedback from more experienced editors on how I handled a situation on my talk page (see the most recent section). It started a couple days ago when I reverted an edit made by a TA on an article that I subsequently reported to WP:RPP for falling under WP:PIA while I was patrolling recent changes. When I logged in earlier today I found the thing from a new user claiming to be the TA on my talk page. Anyway, its been eating at me for a few hours and I thought I would ask for input from other editors to see if there's something I missed.
(putting this back up after it accidentally got reverted) ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 15:04, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

I mean, yeah, temporary accounts and new editors aren't supposed to be editing in I/P articles and their comments look like a WP:RGW situation which... yeah... not ideal. I don't think you did anything wrong here from just that conversation. Simonm223 (talk) 15:47, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

You in fact did things entirely correctly; the user in question has received a warning for personal attacks on your talk page. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:12, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you both for the reassurance! ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 15:54, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Clarent

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Clarent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Clarent was formerly an article about a sword used by King Arthur - after an AfD, it was redirected to Excalibur § Arthur's other weapons. However, it was recently overwritten with an article about a singer-songwriter, leaving several incorrect links because it's included in the navbox {{Notable swords}}. The article probably needs a history split so that the history of the sword article stays with a restored redirect, separately from the singer article. Obsidian the Fox 17:21, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

I have done the history split, moving the article about the singer to Clarent (singer) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:18, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! Obsidian the Fox 19:52, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Backlog at WP:RFPP

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

As per the section heading. Would a free sysop be willing to take a look? Iseult ^Δx talk to me 20:01, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Frequent unconstructive edits with alleged use of AI by User:2026-10263-07, request for removal of editing privileges

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

See User talk:~2026-10263-07#March 2026, the discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject AI Cleanup/Noticeboard#Probable LLM usage by User:2026-10263-07, and his attempted removal of the discussion.

Please also tell me how I could have speeded up the process because it has been a week since I first reported this and it should have been done much faster. Thank you! BillyTheConqueror (talk) 19:07, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Blocked. WP:ANI (not WP:AN here) is, in general, the best place for reports about a user's conduct. The AI cleanup noticeboard is unlikely to be similarly fine in attracting administrative attention for a block. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:43, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

To note, there is also {{@AINBA}} to ping admins on an AINB thread, in case these situations pop out in the future. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:15, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

thank you someone please archive this now BillyTheConqueror (talk) 23:41, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

New Page Reviewer PERM backlog

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The WP:JANFEB26 backlog drive is over, but there's quite a few applications pending at WP:PERM/NPR if an administrator would like to help evaluate who is suitable for keeping that backlog in check. ScalarFactor (talk) 19:11, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

PERM in general has 32 open requests, with 21 at PERM/NPR alone. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 19:38, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Abusive User

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I would like to request administrator attention to user EasternShah, who has shown directed abuse towards users. Evidence: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Wiki_Loves_Ramadan_2026 Edward Tivrusky IV (talk) 23:05, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

User has apologized. Withdrawing complaint.

You must notify any user you bring up here. 331dot (talk) 23:08, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

It says I'm blocked on his page. I don't know how to proceed. Edward Tivrusky IV (talk) 23:12, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

I misread that. Disregard. Edward Tivrusky IV (talk) 23:13, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

I'd suggest you read WP:BOOMERANG. If you still wish to proceed with this grievance, please detail what exactly is abusive. 331dot (talk) 23:10, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

"I know that America has had budget cuts on education in order to fund wars, destabilize regimes, and oppress its own people but this amount of illiteracy is very concerning."

Direct quote. Edward Tivrusky IV (talk) 23:11, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

What is abusive about someone giving their views on American education? You gave your views about efforts to encourage Muslims to edit Wikipedia during Ramadan. 331dot (talk) 23:15, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

My views emphasize neutrality. I was led to believe that is very important here. Edward Tivrusky IV (talk) 23:16, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

WP:NPOV does not meam what you seem to think it means- but I am not now arguing about your specific views, you are free to disagree with efforts to encourage various groups to edit Wikipedia, and you've expressed that. They can give their views on American education and budget priorities, amd as an American, I'm not sure they're wrong, especially when the government pays out money to those who tried to overthrow it. 331dot (talk) 23:20, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

The front page literally reads "Wiki Loves Ramadan". Where is the neutrality in that statement? Edward Tivrusky IV (talk) 23:22, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

As I said, neutral doesn't mean what you seem to think it means- that Wikipedia isn't permitted to encourage groups to participate here(which actually would contribute to neutrality by having broader perspectives). 331dot (talk) 23:25, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Encouraging constructive edits is great. The framing of "Wiki Loves Ramadan" is the problem. Edward Tivrusky IV (talk) 23:26, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

This is more of a discussion for the talk page itself than for AN (which should stay focused on the behavioral issue), although I will point you towards Wikipedia:Countering systemic bias. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:27, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

The patriarchy will be the death of us. I understand that clearly. "Wiki Loves Ramadan" does nothing to fight that. Edward Tivrusky IV (talk) 23:29, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

So you'd feel the same if instead of Ramadan it mentioned Christmas or atheists? 331dot (talk) 23:29, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

"Wiki Loves Christmas" is not ok. "Wiki Loves Atheists" is not ok. "Wiki Loves Neutrality" is ok. Edward Tivrusky IV (talk) 23:31, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

How do you propose to counter systemic bias(the typical Wikipedia editor is a white male) if we can't mention underrepresented groups? It's more neutral to do so, not less. But I guess I digress. I think any merit to your complaint about the behavior is minimal. They struck their comment. 331dot (talk) 23:33, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Understood. I'm learning that there is apparently weight behind striking those words. Thank you for the clarification. Edward Tivrusky IV (talk) 23:36, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

As for systemic bias, I believe encouraging edits from a-religious observers would be preferred when a theologically-based occurance is the topic. Edward Tivrusky IV (talk) 23:39, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

User has apologized. I withdraw my initial complaint.

Thank you for your time. Edward Tivrusky IV (talk) 23:41, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

this amount of illiteracy is very concerning certainly reads as a personal attack, but I will note that EasternShah struck that part of the comment before this thread was opened. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:18, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

So I can be as rude as I want as long as I strike it? That doesn't seem right. Edward Tivrusky IV (talk) 23:20, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

I do think that the illiteracy part was offensive, I should not have said that. My other comments were also inappropriate to have on the talk page because they weren't related to the topic of WLR. I do not think that I would have normally said any of the things in the thread, sorry. Sahib-e-Qiran, EasternShah 23:34, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

That's darn decent of you. I withdraw my complaint. Edward Tivrusky IV (talk) 23:40, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Next time, I'd suggest working this out with the other user instead of running here. This is a last ditch forum when all other avenues of resolution have failed. 331dot (talk) 23:45, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

I apologize. I indeed was getting confused when trying to figure out how to deal with this.

Thank you so much for your patience. Edward Tivrusky IV (talk) 23:48, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Alexplayer1 is still WP:NOTHERE

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents § Alexplayer1 is still WP:NOTHERE

 – The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:09, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

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

Nobody responded the first time I reported this user, so here we go again.

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.

I am getting tired of Alexplayer1 miscrediting me, because it is pretty obvious that they do not care, and based on recent edits, I think they've found their new scapegoat. I want something done about this. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 11:21, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Seems like you want WP:ANI. ~2026-13567-93 (talk) 16:25, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

TurboSuperA+ not listening and misusing the guidelines

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I had second thoughts about filing this but then looked for TurboSuperA+ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) in the ANI archives, which led to Helpful Cat's 2025 report being the most recent result. In that report, Helpful Cat mentioned Turbo's "refusal to get the point", which was also to be the subject of my report. The instances I remember:

• On Denis Kapustin (militant), there was a discussion titled "Nazi views are not proved", which contained an exchange regarding the neo-Nazi label in the article lede.
• In a month from then, Turbo creates a new topic and tells the user involved in that discussion that the change of the label to "far-right" was "without any kind of discussion".

In fairness, Turbo may have missed the original discussion despite its relevant title, but the instances below involve Turbo's engagement.

• Me and Helpful Cat telling Turbo that MANDY is merely an essay. I quote from the WP definition of self-published sources and explain that reliable sources like Al Jazeera don't count as self-published. Turbo replies to that.
• Turbo refers to MANDY again just days later and also misuses a self-published sources guideline in the context of PBS News.

• Turbo was told by Helpful Cat that "Kapustin claims that he is not neo-Nazi". Turbo indicated having read the comment by replying "As I said, whitewashing".
• Turbo removes the part on Kapustin denying being a neo-Nazi and white supremacist, says "He never denied being a nazi, that's more WP:OR" in the edit summary.

• On the same talk page, Turbo says Azov should be described as "far right" and immediately suggests creating an RFC. Helpful Cat mentions an RFC on the same topic previously launched by Turbo and that the conclusion was not to describe Azov as far-right. Turbo launches a new RFC about the same subject but in a different article. As before, the RFC's conclusion was not to describe Azov as far-right.

Other instances of Turbo misusing or going against the guidelines:

• Turbo misusing WP:PROMO to dismiss a quote sourced to PBS rather than anything associated with Kapustin.

• Turbo says "I don't think attribution is necessary" after I've linked the full guideline and explicitly pointed out that WP:CONTENTIOUS instructs to use in-text attribution. Since Turbo's comment, they have edited the article to re-introduce the contentious label without attribution, which by my count was their third edit or revert to that effect despite there being no agreement on Talk and NPOVN (edit 1, edit 2).

Other issues related to the subject:

• Turbo being uncivil by replying to a user's argument with "Oh fuck off".
• Turbo telling the same user "You're not fooling me. I know what you are doing."

Daisy Blue (talk) 16:14, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

As this comment shows, there are 14 sources that call Kapustin a "neo-nazi", including this: Researcher of far-right movements Robert Claus described Kapustin as a key figure among right-wing extremists in Europe and one of the continent’s most dangerous neo-Nazis. On the other hand there is 1 source calling him an "extremist", 1 calling him "extreme right-wing", 2 calling him "far right" and 1 calling him a "nationalist". Daisy Blue wishes to add the {{POV statement}} template without providing any evidence that the "neo-nazi" label is disputed in RS. Yes, Kapustin denies being a neo-nazi, but he would, wouldn't he? WP:CONTENTIOUS also states that these sorts of labels "may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject". As I have shown, the label is widely used to describe Kapustin. The guy was also banned from all of EU/Schengen area for being a neo-nazi. So yes, I do consider removing the "neo-nazi" label or inserting tags to suggest the label is non-neutral as whitewashing of neo-nazis. I would also like to note that regarding Kapustin's denial of antisemitism I wrote "Other editors agree with you, so it should be included. I'm not going to object or revert any more." So I am more than happy to recognise consensus and admit when it is against me. Those who wish to show that the "neo-nazi" label is disputed are welcome to provide RS that dispute it, which they haven't done. The label is used as recently as 2 January 2026 by Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty, for example. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 16:45, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

When you quote WP:CONTENTIOUS, whether on NPOVN or here just now, you omit the last part saying "in which case use in-text attribution", and it seems that no amount of emphasis by others, whether by me or by Helpful Cat, changes your mind. Giving in after a lot of pushback, as with the RFCs or regarding Kapustin's comments on antisemitism, does not take away from how burdensome the process becomes for the community. Daisy Blue (talk) 17:34, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

"in which case use in-text attribution"

So why didn't you? All you did was add a {{POV statement}} tag to the label. Another editor changed the label to "far right". These are attempts to remove/change the label, not attribute it. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 18:11, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

WP:BURDEN says it's on the editor introducing content to back it. In fact, it goes even further and says "Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living people or existing groups". Besides, my writing in the main space is hit or miss, being very dependent on the mood. I probably do more copy editing, sourcing and cleanup tasks than I do writing. Lastly, the way WP:CONTENTIOUS is written is that it's an either/or type instruction: avoid the label or attribute it in-text if widely sourced. Daisy Blue (talk) 18:33, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

WP:BURDEN says it's on the editor introducing content to back it.

I didn't introduce the content. The label has been there since it was created on 23 May 2023. So it is you who wishes to change long-standing content. You also moved the goalpost from "the label should be attributed" to "you need to defend the label". So which is it?

or attribute it in-text if widely sourced.

You made no attempts to do so. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 18:42, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Turbo being uncivil by replying to a user's argument with "Oh fuck off".

Why didn't you say what the user's argument was? The user asked whether Kapustin should be described as a neo-nazi or antifascist. After my "oh fuck off" comment, the user then doubled down and said that Kapustin is a "de facto antifascist". I find the idea of labeling a neo-nazi an "antifascist" absolutely abhorrent.

Turbo telling the same user "You're not fooling me. I know what you are doing."

This is true, the editor is not fooling me and I do know what they are doing. The same user removed the "far right" label from Stepan Bandera article lede, btw. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 16:52, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Then I wonder what "you are doing" when you selectively use guidelines depending on what the situation is and what content it concerns. You accused me of being a WP:TENDENTIOUS editor, so you know what this entails, can you see how perhaps the way you conduct yourself make people see some of those signs in you, or is it just everyone else is wrong or whitewashing Nazis?

For example, foreign personnel being recruited into the Russian military, you took massive issue with this on the Russian Armed Forces, with arguments to keep this information out of the article ranging from WP:OR about them being "mercenaries" or "private military" rather than actually enlisted, despite the sources provided clearly stating they were directly going into the Russian military, to falsely claiming said sources contradict each other when it comes to the nature of how Russia goes about obtaining such recruits.

This is not the only time either, since you removed content regarding Russian efforts to conceal North Korean military presence under the explanation "removed allegation that has no evidence", despite the evidence being named in the sources.

That's two blatant examples I can think of, I think it's clear that TurboSuperA+ is more than capable of editing productively if they wish, but there is a clear issue in WP:CT/EE, specifically when it comes to Russia and Ukraine. TylerBurden (talk) 18:22, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

"removed allegation that has no evidence",

At the time it didn't really. It was a contentious issue. I also recall that after seeing evidence of it, I agreed that the North Korean soldiers were in Kursk, and even told an editor who wished to remove it that it should stay. So you're saying disagreeing and then changing my mind is bad? TurboSuperA+_[talk] 18:46, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Fair, but what about the first example? TylerBurden (talk) 17:30, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

• I think this is mostly a content dispute, and it should be resolved at article talk page or NPOVNB. I am not en expert, but simply checked most recent news sources and believe that Turbo was wrong , . My very best wishes (talk) 02:12, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: The conversation was closed before I could say anything, but in response to a comment I made on the last ANI, they responded by quoting the first line of my comment and saying There it is, folks: "Nazis were bad, but..." I don't particularly like the insinuation that I'm a Nazi defender (I do think think the Nazis were cartoonishly evil in the worst way, I believe the full text of my comment illustrates that), and it seems TurboSuperA+ is really fast to frame editors as such. I was going to drop it, and don't want any sanctions against them, but do think a trout is appropriate and that they should cool down the rhetoric a bit.GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:37, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
• There is more to this than a normal content dispute. I suspect that the actual issue is that one side wants to use language that supports a Russian perspective (Kapustin is just another Ukrainian Nazi) while the other wants to present Kapustin as a hero (which, from Ukraine's point of view, he is). Johnuniq (talk) 02:45, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

No one denied that the subject has a reputation as a Russian neo-Nazi or far-right, which is basically the same. The discussion was about wording, and it could be easily resolved on the article talk page. Perhaps it is already resolved. Can the subject still be viewed as a hero by some people because he fights against the aggressors? Yes, sure. Should he be defined as a "hero" in the lead? No, of course not, and no one suggested it. My very best wishes (talk) 13:59, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

No neo-Nazi and far-right are not the same. All neo-Nazis are far-right, but not all far-right are neo-Nazis. TarnishedPath^talk 21:42, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

OK, your point is taken. All neo-Nazi are far-right. Some RS call the subject far-right, others call him neo-Nazi. OK. Then, thinking logically, "far-right" would cover the entire spectrum of opinions in the RS and would be the way to go in his BLP article. That is what I suggested, especially when other people are arguing to infinity about his political views .My very best wishes (talk) 23:02, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

If there is serious contention about them not being a neo-Nazi, then yes "far-right" may be the way to go. It would really depend though on how many call them a neo-Nazi and if there is sourcing that state that they aren't.

For example, an article I brought to GA Thomas Sewell (neo-Nazi), sources usually use neo-Nazi and sometimes far-right; however, I've not seen anything credible which contends that they aren't a neo-Nazi and there is video footage of him reading from Mein Kampf, so clearly there is no problem with stating that they are a neo-Nazi in wikivoice. TarnishedPath^talk 23:45, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

This is an excellent example. No doubts, you handled the page about Thomas Sewell correctly. He was well-known specifically for organizing the neo-Nazi movement. The story of Kapustin was different. Few people knew he existed before the beginning of the Russian invasion in 2022. Then, be became well known as a commander of his military unit fighting on the Ukrainian side. This is reflected in the first version of his page created only in 2023 when he became notable. Sure, his right-wing activities before this time were also covered in sources, some of them published earlier. Not only he is a controversial figure, but he was made such on purpose by the Ukrainian intelligence and personally Kyrylo Budanov to embarrass Russians ("The whole enterprise is a pet project of Kyrylo Budanov, the head of HUR." https://www.politico.eu/article/the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly-of-the-ukraine-war/]). Which has been criticized as helping Russian propaganda (same source). Budanov himself is a hugely controversial figure, but I would leave this for another thread. My very best wishes (talk) 03:24, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

[Thomas Sewell] was well-known specifically for organizing the neo-Nazi movement. The story of Kapustin was different.

@TarnishedPath This is simply not true and no matter how many times MVBW repeats it it will not make it true. Here is an article from Der Spiegel from 2019: White Rex founder Nikitin has made a significant contribution to professionalizing the neo-Nazi martial arts scene, according to the North Rhine-Westphalian Ministry of the Interior. He was banned in 2019 from the EU for his neo-nazi activities: According to the German authorities, Moscow-born Kapustin was banned because of his efforts against the liberal democratic constitution. The 34-year-old neo-Nazi, who grew up... There is an Al Jazeera article from 2020: ...Ukraine-based Russian neo-Nazi Denis Kapustin, a longtime organiser of far-right combat sports events,... Here is an article from 2017: Denis Nikitin, a supporter of the extreme right from Moscow and the founder of the Neo-Nazi martial arts brand White Rex., Nikitin is both neo-Nazi and businessman. He is also discussed in two articles in 2018, ProPublica The Guardian. There is an article from 2021 that discusses him, his brand and his activities at length and in depth: Kapustin has also played a substantial role in the formation of a transnational white nationalist identity... The Guardian, Der Spiegel, Al Jazeera, these are all mainstream news sources.

@My very best wishes So to say that "Few people knew he existed before the beginning of the Russian invasion in 2022" is simply not true and I don't know why you keep repeating it when these links are all in the source table, which you first ignored by saying Sorry, I do not have time, but then you later edited the article's the lede to say that Kapustin is a "former neo-nazi". Then you said I have provided some input and leaving this to you guys. And now you're back arguijng the same thing. It seems when you wish to ignore something you "don't have time", but then suddenly find time when it comes to making unsupported changes to the article and repeating yourself in order to push a change you want. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 06:38, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes, there were publications about him. That is what I said ("some of them published earlier"). But was he notable before the war by WP standards? No one trying to create a page about him is an indication that he was not. Was he mentioned on any other pages before the war? Would an article about him survive an AfD if it were created before the war? I doubt, but do we not know really. More importantly, I commented only on the content here and elsewhere, while you replied by commenting on multiple contributors and distorting what they say and do in the process. For example, no, I did not make unsupported changes in the article. The change was supported by the reference you found, and it was explained at the talk . Same with your recent filings of poorly substantiated complaints on AE and ANI. My very best wishes (talk) 13:23, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

And yes, Sewell and Kapustin are two different people, and they are described differently in RS. I can refer to the same article in Politico as above . It is entitled: "Ukraine embraces far-right Russian ‘bad guy’ to take the battle to Putin". This is not about the wording ("far-right" or "neo-Nazi"). More importantly, the source says what Kapustin is known for. Briefly, he is known for being a far-right Russian ‘bad guy’ embraced by Uikrine "to take the battle to Putin", as this RS and almost all other RS say. This is why I suggested some changes in the lead. My very best wishes (talk) 05:13, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

• I agree. Not to promote a false balance, but if we have sources for both of these perspectives then we can and should include both, and any others that exist, using neutral language that clearly indicates the opinions are of the sources. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:50, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

  I don't know about people's motives, but the article has never hinted at presenting Kapustin as a hero. Turbo framed it that way on NPOVN ("It'd be nice to have some more eyes on the article, lest on Wikipedia he becomes a progressive fighter for equality and human rights") and by saying "whitewashing" on Talk, but at the time of Turbo's edit re-introducing the neo-Nazi label, the article already had the following parts, at least one of them introduced by me in the month between Turbo's edits:

  • Radicalized by his involvement in German hooliganism, he participated in hooligan fights and attacks on minority groups
  • Kapustin launched his own clothing brand, White Rex, which featured violent, white nationalist, and xenophobic elements. He wanted the brand to be a National Socialist complete outfitter.
  • In Switzerland, Kapustin provided combat training to members of the far-right Swiss Nationalist Party (PNOS). He also gave training to members of National Action, a British neo-Nazi group banned by the U.K. government
  • Germany also issued him an entry ban into the Schengen Area for "efforts against the liberal democratic constitution" and organising neo-Nazi martial arts events.
  • The interior ministry of Herbert Reul in North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany, called Kapustin "one of the most influential neo-Nazi activists" in Germany, and noted that he professionalized the fighting subculture in the country.

  Looking at the article today, it's even less charitable to Kapustin, but that's largely from Helpful Cat asking if there are sources that cover Kapustin's beliefs, me providing a link to PBS, and Helpful Cat significantly expanding based on that source and Politico. Daisy Blue (talk) 03:26, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

  I suspect that the actual issue is that one side wants to use language that supports a Russian perspective (Kapustin is just another Ukrainian Nazi)

  Kapustin is actually Russian. Also, do you think outlets like RFE/RL, Reuters and Politico are pushing the "Russian narrative"? TurboSuperA+_[talk] 04:44, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

  Furthermore, Germany banned Kapustin from the whole of EU for neo-nazi activism. Is that the work of Russians as well? TurboSuperA+_[talk] 04:48, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

  I am not commenting about the merits of the arguments. I have just outlined what I think is the core issue. Johnuniq (talk) 08:11, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

  I have just outlined what I think is the core issue.

  And I am saying that your outline is inaccurate. You incorrectly call Kapustin a Ukrainian, when he is in fact a Russian national. MVBW makes the same mistake: I think the issues about the alleged Ukrainian neo-Nazi fighting against Russia should be presented very carefully in WP. This makes me think that you haven't looked closely at the facts of the dispute. Another fact is that the "neo-nazi" label has been in the lede since the article was created on 23 May 2023, so the WP:ONUS is on those wishing to change long-standing content to present sources to back their claims up. Thirdly, no WP:RS actually denies Kapustin is a neo-nazi, they only relate and attribute his own denial, i.e. Kapustin admitted he was right-wing but disputed the "neo-Nazi" label. Since when does a BLP subject's own denial trump tens of secondary, reliable sources? Not only that, but he was caught in a lie, in his denial he continues "you will never find me raising my hand in a Hitler sign." (ibid.) But the PBS article on him says Yet, at this White Rex MMA event from 2013, we see Denis in the white T-shirt cheering "Russians, go forward," with the crowd, some of whom are throwing Nazi salutes, which he then appears to mirror back. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 08:39, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

  I agree with Daisy Blue; the article has never portrayed Kapustin as a hero. This is also a longstanding behavioural issue that has affected many WP:RUSUKR articles beyond this one. Helpful Cat {talk} 11:15, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Regarding MANDY, they acknowledged and responded to that in your second link: Just because WP:MANDY is an essay that doesn't make what it says any less correct. I don't think there's any issue with referring to an essay even if it's not policy, they were not saying it must be followed.

Regarding the RFC, Turbo felt it was different (the last RfC was about the current status of Azov, while this discussion is about how we should refer to them for the period when Kapustin was associated with them.) and Helpful Cat responded Feel free to start a new RFC if you feel that that is necessary and constructive. Nothing wrong with starting a new RFC after that exchange.

In my own experience, I have had probably six or seven interactions with Turbo. I think we initially disagreed on all but a couple, but I don't think they have failed to "get the point", and indeed, in at least one instance I recall, they changed their mind (as also noted above on a couple different issues).

I do think Turbo can come off as hostile sometimes; that is what I felt on my first engagement with them months ago, and the oh **** off, There it is, folks: "Nazis were bad, but...", etc. mentioned above are not helpful. But I agree with GeogSage that it's not sanction-worthy at this point. LordCollaboration (talk) 15:16, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

To clarify, I was against TSA+ opening the second Azov RFC because I did not feel it was meaningfully different from the first one, and indeed, their actual arguments in the second RFC were not specific to 2017-2019 but were mostly about relitigating the description of Azov in general. I said Feel free to start a new RFC if you feel that that is necessary and constructive because they obviously wouldn't agree with me that the RFC was unnecessary, and I can't stop them or any user from doing anything no matter how unconstructive I think it is, not because I was endorsing the RFC. Helpful Cat {talk} 18:04, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I concur that TurboSuperA+ has a pattern of disruptive, WP:TENDENTIOUS behaviour and POV-pushing long before this latest issue, particularly in the WP:RUSUKR topic area. I want to be clear that my post has nothing to do with the current dispute about the lead of the Kapustin article, nor any attempt to whitewash Kapustin, which TSA+ is obviously deeply concerned about. I have not objected to the neo-Nazi label, and only raised a question about whether MOS:CONTENTIOUS requires attribution in the lead (as I've now said on the article's talk page, I'm fine with including it in the lead and attributing it in the body). I have also added extensive material that any reasonable person would agree is negative. Apologies for the long post, where I've compiled evidence across months.

• Misrepresentation and failure to read. TSA+ often fails to read properly before responding, and misrepresents material - diffs they are presenting as evidence; sources they are interpreting; comments of users they are responding to. While everyone misreads things sometimes, TSA+ does it so often and so conveniently that it unfortunately strains the limits of WP:AGF. Here are some examples:
  • Misrepresentation of diffs: multiple examples in their AE case against TylerBurden; see LordCollaboration's and caeciliusinhorto's statements. For example, TSA+ objected to TylerBurden rightly correcting a blatant error (using source text about the French Foreign Legion to describe the Ukrainian International Legion).
    • I pointed out in my statement that TSA+ had misrepresented this diff: TSA+ wrongly said that TylerBurden had removed sourced content...because it was seemingly critical of Ukraine, and changed his mind because another editor explain[ed] how it is actually debunking Russia's claims. Actually, TylerBurden clearly argued both in his edit summary and the talk page that disinformation only notable for being debunked is not WP:DUE, and changed his mind because another user pointed out that the disinformation had been covered beyond being debunked.
      • When I pointed this out, TSA+ asked for an extension just to respond, but misrepresented the diff again (see the whole "Regarding Helpful Cat's first point" section), this time wrongly saying that TylerBurden had said EUvsDisinfo was Russian state propaganda, and changed his mind because he realised it wasn't.
      • When I pointed this out again, TSA+ posted another diff where they objected to TylerBurden citing WP:TASS to remove material cited to...TASS. They did remove this last diff after I pointed this out, but it is alarming that they fail so badly to read the evidence they are presenting that they make three false statements about the same article in a row. Frankly, misrepresenting so much evidence in an attempt to sanction another user is something I would consider WP:BOOMERANG-worthy.
    • Here Black Kite points out TSA+'s misrepresentation of a diff in their ANI report against My very best wishes.
    • Here's another example where they rushed to condemn TylerBurden before reading their own evidence, causing LordCollaboration to rightly point out And you should stop making false accusations against Tyler, please read the diffs first. While TSA+ also retracted this when it was pointed out, this is just textbook WP:NOTENOUGH#What it looks like: - doing the same harmful thing over and over, and apologising when caught each time.
  • Misrepresentation of sources - and here, I want to note that TSA+ is capable of reading sources and doing excellent detailed analysis when they want to. They simply choose not to when it doesn't favour their POV, which is very unfortunate. (Update 11:10, 12 February 2026 (UTC): Daisy Blue has pointed out that TSA+'s analysis included some non-RSes, which TSA+ has now removed. Daisy Blue also pointed out that some parts of the analysis are WP:HEADLINES, and I'm unsure if those have been removed. Although there were issues in the analysis, this comprehensive table still shows that TSA+ is able to read and engage with the wording of sources in a way that they didn't apply in the examples in this section.)
    • Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 118#Russian usage of mobile crematoriums in Ukraine - TSA+ wrongly says France24 identified that "fake images" were used by the media to push that conspiracy theory. But the France24 videos they cited never said the allegations were proven false or a "conspiracy theory", only that the footage presented was unrelated and did not prove the allegations. TSA+ then suggests removing Ukraine from the title.
    • Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 122#Dispute at Russian Armed Forces - I post numerous sources with quotes showing coercion of foreigners to join the Russian military; TSA+ replies None of the paragraphs you quoted suggest coercion. Deception, yes, but not coercion. I post more sources, and TSA+ decides they just don't believe the sources (more on this below under "bad-faith WP:GAME behaviour in discussions"). This is WP:BFN: An editor withholds agreement to a change unless additional, more satisfactory sources are provided, but declares all the new sourcing to be unsatisfactory despite the citation work clearly fulfilling the core content policies.
    • Talk:Denis Kapustin (militant)#Kapustin's thoughts on antisemitism - in a PBS interview, Kapustin said: I spoke a lot with the guys who seem to share the same ideology as I do from United States, and they have some sort of a complete obsession with Jews, like Jews control everything. I don't understand that thing. I have -- I don't have a problem with actually any ethnicity. I included this (along with numerous clearly negative details) as He has said he does not understand the focus on antisemitism of his American counterparts who "seem to share" his ideology.
      • TSA+ removes it and goes into a bout of WP:SEALIONING and WP:GASLIGHTING (prevaricating about the obvious meaning of a claim) to deny that when Kapustin says he doesn't understand why American extremists are obsessed with Jews and think they control everything, he is saying he doesn't understand their focus on antisemitism. They even say it is WP:OR to equate "obsessively thinking Jews control everything" with antisemitism! Note: the interviewer responded to Kapustin's statement with Whether antisemitic or not, he has a longstanding hostility towards migrants, particularly Muslims, so clearly the source itself immediately links Kapustin's statement to antisemitism (no WP:SYNTH).
      • Since TSA+ insists that the distinction between extremists' focus on antisemitism and on Jews is relevant, I then suggest alternate wording: He has said he does not understand why his American counterparts who "seem to share" his ideology have an "obsession" with Jews and believe "Jews control everything". TSA+ wrongly claims that the PBS interview is self-published, and removes my alternate wording with the edit summary Just as irrelevant now as it was yesterday. It's only when multiple editors jump in to agree that Kapustin's stated views on antisemitism are relevant that TSA+ has no choice but to give in. But as Daisy Blue pointed out, TSA+ dragging the community through repetitive, pointless discussions is still disruptive even if they are ultimately forced to relent.
  • Misrepresentation of other users' comments: unfortunately, TSA+ often puts words in people's mouths and rebuts points nobody was making.
    • First Azov RFC - I am clear in all my comments that my stance is not to describe the Azov Brigade as currently far-right in wikivoice because RSes disagree on whether it is, making it a seriously contested assertion that should not be presented as fact per WP:VOICE (and this was also explained in the closing statement). TSA+ creates a strawman that I am trying to claim in wikivoice that it is not far-right: While there is a brigade that does the fighting and a movement that does the PR, to claim that they are completely separate ideologically or that there is no coordination between the two would require consensus among WP:RS that this is the case. When I point out that I am not claiming this, TSA+ just doesn't hear it (The onus is on those making the claim that there was a break.), and misrepresents me again: You are however against mentioning the movement in the first paragraph and against labeling the brigade as far-right, which pretty much amounts to the same thing - I wanted to mention the far-right accusations in the second paragraph of the lead; how is that at all the same as saying the brigade is not far-right in wikivoice?
    • ANI thread after the first Azov RFC - Chicdat also points out this tendency of TSA+ here: TurboSuperA+ commented almost 30 times, continually bludgeoning while misrepresenting other editors' words. FOARP was even driven to using bold, italic, underlined, asterisked text to emphasize their viewpoint after this. - that seems to refer to this comment. This is also an example of TSA+ misunderstanding other editors in ways that strain credibility: FOARP clarifies their stance by saying I said absolute nothing of the kind. I have consistently oppose the inclusion of "supporters" in any form: I do not want *ANY* country listed as a supporter in the infobox. Is that clear enough for you?, and TSA+ replies Why is it your decision? WP:OWN. edit: wrong policy, it is more like WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT.
    • NPOV/N thread about foreign personnel in the Russian Armed Forces - TSA+ creates a strawman that I am saying the Russian military is in India: The sources do not say it is the Russian military in India who are coercing people to go. and The Russian militaty doesn't have its own recruiters in India actively forcing them to go to Russia. Nothing about the text that I proposed (Media has reported that to increase manpower amid casualties in the Russo-Ukrainian war, the Russian Armed Forces has increasingly turned to foreign recruits...) required that, nor did I ever suggest it. This is also a disingenuous way to move the goalposts by claiming that in order for Russia to recruit foreign personnel, the Russian military must physically go to that country and conscript people.
• WP:IDHT behaviour in discussions. It happens often that TSA+ raises an objection, someone addresses it, and TSA+ simply repeats the same point or asks the same question over and over rather than actually responding to the rebuttal. This is also WP:GAME (pretending your question has not already been answered), and WP:SEALION (ignoring the substance of previous replies in order to raise yet another question, and prevent the discussion from reaching a reasonable conclusion).
  • Examples in the second Azov RFC:
    • TSA+ argues that their second Azov RFC is different from their first one because the new one is about whether the Azov Brigade was far-right in 2017-2019, when Kapustin was associated with it. I explicitly address this in my comment, saying that the conclusion from the first RFC (that we cannot call the Azov Brigade far-right in wikivoice because RSes disagree) also applies to 2017-2019, as there are multiple RSes arguing that the unit's deradicalisation had started by 2017. TSA+ then simply repeats themselves: And lastly, we are talking about the time period when Kapustin ran the fight club for Azov, the period before the war, 2018-2019. So if Azov is not far-right now (doubtful) doesn't mean that it wasn't back in 2018-2019.
    • I suggest changing the wording from "Battalion" to "movement" because sources don't describe him joining the Azov military unit, but do describe him doing political activities such as attending conferences and working with the National Corps. I explicitly point out that the Journal for Illiberalism Studies source that was cited at the time to support the "Battalion" wording is dependent on this RFE/RL article it cites, which describes his political activities, but not military ones. TSA+ responds by citing the Journal for Illiberalism Studies article again.
    • The first Azov RFC established that we could not call the Azov Brigade far-right in wikivoice because RSes disagree. The relationship between the brigade and the movement is a key part of that disagreement, as described in Azov Brigade#Azov movement and Azov Brigade#Neo-Nazi origins and allegations of ongoing far-right associations, which explore RSes on both sides of the issue in detail. I point this out multiple times. TSA+ ignores this and continues making arguments premised on their personal opinion that the brigade and the movement are one and the same, never addressing existing consensus that we cannot state this in wikivoice. (They eventually start nitpicking capitalisation)
  • Another example on Talk:Denis Kapustin (militant): I had just significantly expanded the "political views" section with this addition, which includes many of Kapustin's own statements, and is clearly unflattering to Kapustin. I explained why the "political views" section should include Kapustin's own statements as well as secondary sources (as every "political views" section or article does!), because Kapustin's statements provide detail on his specific views. I added that if TSA+ finds secondary sources evaluating his views that are currently missing, they should add them to the article. Two hours later, TSA+ asks Why should so much space be given to his own descriptions of himself?
• Bad-faith WP:GAME behaviour in discussions: Denying that you posted what you did; bad-faith negotiation
  • Many of the examples of TSA+ doing this are covered under my other points, but the WP:NPOV/N discussion on foreign personnel in the Russian military is particularly egregious. I suggested wording (well-supported by sources) describing a spectrum of cases, saying that some foreign fighters for Russia agreed to join the military but thought they would be in non-combat roles, while others say they were promised civilian employment (or were tourists or students), but were forced to join the military after arriving in Russia. TSA+ agrees to that wording.
    • But just 14 hours later, they suddenly change their mind and insist that there was no coercion at all, despite extensive sourcing and the fact that TSA+ had already agreed that at least some soldiers were coerced. (By the way, their WP:OR argument for why they don't believe all the RSes saying there was coercion is apparently that if human trafficking victims receive any healthcare or manage to contact the press, they are no longer human trafficking victims)
  • They also strangely dispute that recruiters getting people into the Russian military are connected to the Russian military (Nothing suggesting these recruiters are part of the Russian military.), and then claim three hours later that they never disputed Russian involvement: "It's good that you have at least stopped disputing Russian involvement." I have never disputed it. Someone who does two U-turns in one discussion just to continue arguing, and who attempts to WP:GASLIGHT people about what they said three hours ago, clearly does not intend to engage in good-faith discussion.
• Bludgeoning of RFCs and other discussions - they frequently reply to users who disagree with them, not with any actually relevant rebuttals or responses, but simply to restate their own stance ad nauseam. LordCollaboration points this out here: You have also now responded six separate times in this section, not including your own !vote. I think you've made your position clear. Slatersteven also pointed this out in the first Azov RFC: So this WILL be my last word, I have explained my thoughts and you need to let others have their say without you correcting them.
  • Here, I suggested writing that Kapustin worked with the Azov movement rather than the "Battalion". TSA+ replied: In 2020, Christopher Miller called the leader of Azov Movement a "neo-nazi". (emphasis mine) and Furthermore, links between Kapustin and his Russian Volunteer Corps (RDK) do not end in 2019 (who ever said Kapustin left the RDK? What does that have to do with this RFC, which is apparently about the description of Azov from 2017 to 2019? In fact, he founded the Russian Volunteer Corps in 2022, so how could he have left it in 2019?) Here, TSA+ was so intent on bludgeoning that they said things that made no sense, simply to have the last word.
• WP:RGW and WP:ASPERSIONS. They have been so fixated on not whitewashing Kapustin that they accuse anyone of whitewashing who doesn't write exactly what they would have written in the article. Here they suggested that I was whitewashing Kapustin for this clearly negative diff because I didn't go out of my way to repeat the word "neo-Nazi", which was already used multiple times in the article, or because I didn't add every single piece of information that exists out there in one go. Notice that I later added a source that described Kapustin's specific neo-Nazi views in more detail when I found it. Rather than finding sources themselves and constructively adding anything they think is missing, they found ways to keep complaining about what I wrote by selectively quoting the source - when I pointed out the misinterpretation, they complained again that that sentence is "whitewashing" even though I never even tried to include that sentence in the article.
• Advancing WP:FRINGE theories. Here they claim that a subject matter expert's statement that the 2024 Russian presidential election was fraudulent and significantly exaggerated Russians' true support for Putin (with that expert's estimate of their true level of support), and that the Russian government is a repressive authoritarian regime - statements very well-documented by RSes across all our relevant articles - is somehow an WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim.
• WP:FORUMSHOPPING by starting two RFCs about almost exactly the same topic within 7 months, first on the Azov Brigade article itself - where there was consensus not to call the Azov Brigade far-right in wikivoice - and then on the article of someone associated with Azov, to include the "far-right" label in wikivoice there instead. There was again consensus not to do this, and the closing statement explicitly noted that As has been pointed out, there is no benefit in independently relitigating the descriptor for the Azov Brigade, Battalion or movement in the article of every person affiliated therewith. When I made that same point, pointed out the existence of the previous RFC and argued that we should follow its consensus, TSA+ said: You constantly trying to imply impropriety is not helpful nor constructive. Note that even though TSA+ said the second RFC was different because it was specifically about 2017-2019, none of their arguments were specifically about that time period, and were instead focused on relitigating the description of Azov on a tangentially related article.
• Personal attacks and incivility. As GeogSage pointed out, TSA+ suggested on ANI that a user unrelated to the dispute was a Nazi sympathiser for making the very reasonable point that we can recognise Soviet atrocities without taking away from Nazi ones.
• The pattern of baseless accusations and incivility is unfortunately old. In the first Azov RFC, TSA+ made false accusations that I and another user who !voted against their stance had been canvassed to the discussion (this was the subject of my first ANI report). They claimed to have secret evidence, forcing ArbCom to get involved and clarify that there was no credible evidence that any specific editors were canvassed. TSA+ apologised, but then essentially walked back their apology by misrepresenting ArbCom and falsely saying as ArbCom saw, the accusation was not baseless. They then continued that behaviour within the ANI thread itself by questioning how other editors had found the ANI discussion. Many people commenting agreed that TSA+ should at least receive a formal warning, while others proposed a topic ban or even an indef because of their history of other problematic behaviour (which was already well-known then!), but the thread was archived without action, allowing them to continue their disruption to this day. I don't mean to reopen this old incident, which is resolved as far as I'm concerned, but merely to point out that this is a pattern of behaviour that hasn't been stopped.

TSA+'s behaviour exhibits many signs of WP:GAME - WP:BFN, WP:GASLIGHT - as well as WP:CPUSH (although I would disagree that it's always civil POV-pushing) - When unable to refute discussion on the talk page against their point of view, they will say the discussion is original research; Using the talk page for soapboxing, and/or to re-raise the same issues that have already been discussed numerous times; Misrepresenting other editors or discussions in an attempt to incriminate or belittle others' opinions - and WP:SEALION. When I encounter TSA+ in a discussion, I do not know if this is a day when they will be reasonable (which they can be when they are willing - see here for example, where although their initial report included WP:FRINGE theories as I described above, they were open to discussion and made and engaged with suggestions, enabling us to reach consensus). I find myself writing endless disclaimers to avoid being misrepresented, and resigning myself to the fact that that no matter how much I try to engage in good faith, write nuanced comments, and make constructive suggestions, it may go to waste because they choose to misrepresent my words, repeat themselves meaninglessly, and refuse to read and engage with anything they don't like.

Sanctions against TSA+ have been repeatedly proposed, most recently here, but TSA+ has always escaped even a formal warning so far (AFAIK) because discussions happened to be archived or closed before anyone could take action. Unfortunately, I think it is time to finally address this pattern and stop the disruption. TSA+ once said Is that the kind of place we want the CTOP to be? You decide. - I agree, and hope they will take these issues to heart. Helpful Cat {talk} 17:52, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

On the point of misrepresentation of comments, there was a recent exchange in the context of labels in the lede where Turbo presented my position on analyzing sources as "we must only look at the introductory labels in an article" (emphasis mine), even though my sources summary rework draft introduced a planned Other description(s) column, I suggested prioritizing introductory labels depending on what other editors think, and relied on four parts of a source article to argue it's improper to distill those to just one label of choice. It's very difficult to engage in discussion when your own arguments get re-framed like this. Daisy Blue (talk) 21:18, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

You said (in the diff you linked): if we exclude headlines and go by the introductory labels of those same sources(emphasis mine). I understood "go by" to mean "only look at", because you then discounted all the sources where he wasn't called a neo-nazi in the "introductory label". I don't think that is an unreasonable interpretation of "go by", especially when your argument was: To me, the introductory labels are more important because the context of this discussion is the lead section. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 06:54, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

This looks like a content dispute. Take it to DRN or an RFC if the parties feel that strongly about it. TarnishedPath^talk 21:44, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Helpful Cat outlines a lot that's beyond a content dispute. Given the amount of wall of text here I don't begrudge anyone for not wading into the swamp. Also, shouldn't this have been posted at WP:ANI? Nemov (talk) 22:35, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Probably to WP:AE, as I was told after posting, but there were already replies from other users by then, so the administrator suggested leaving it here. Daisy Blue (talk) 23:19, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Given the ridiculous size of @Helpful Cat's comment above (please be more concise!) and the large number of replies by various users, I think the word limits and separate sections of the AE structure could be very helpful here. Toadspike [Talk] 02:28, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Agreed. I read it, but it wasn't easy, and I may have missed some bits. The word counter shows there are over 3000 words, while AE suggests 500 before extensions. Would you advise that Helpful Cat takes this to AE? I could include a few new diffs to build on some of the raised points as well. Daisy Blue (talk) 03:37, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

@Toadspike the "various users" are all editors with whom I am currently engaged in content disputes. Please see here: Talk:Denis Kapustin (militant)#He's a neo-nazi. The topic was started by Daisy Blue who wishes to either remove the "neo-nazi" label from the first sentence or attribute it in the lede. I have pointed Daisy Blue to WP:DR and even suggested they can start an RFC to gain consensus, but in all this time they haven't done so, but keep (frankly) bludgeoning the discussion. This AN report is nothing more than an attempt to bypass the need to build a consensus for their change. I have compiled a source review table here: Talk:Denis Kapustin (militant)/Source review. There are literally dozens of sources (including academic ones) where in no uncertain terms they call Denis Kapustin a neo-nazi and outline his neo-nazi activities, for which he was banned from the EU. This topic is titled "misusing policy", but it is Daisy Blue who is ignoring policy and coming up with arguments such as we must look at the "introductory label" in a source and ignore labels the source uses later in the text. This dispute has been going on for weeks. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 08:22, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Sorry,  Self-trout for the wall of text. I've submitted this to WP:AE. Helpful Cat {talk} 13:31, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

noting that the AE request has been closed to avoid duplicating the proceedings here at AN; if this thread is archived, or closed with a consensus to refer to AE or with no consensus, the AE request can be refiled. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:31, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron Would you advise presenting the additional evidence I had for AE here, or would it being presented here make it less appropriate to present it again on AE? One problem with doing it here is that it's clear at least some users and an admin appear overwhelmed by Helpful Cat's extensive report, so I'm worried my additional comments would just get lost in the pile. Daisy Blue (talk) 01:11, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Hey, Daisy Blue! I don't think presenting more evidence here would disqualify it for presentation at AE unless the community were to resolve it, in which case you have your answer anyway. This thread is pretty long already, though, which is probably why the AE request was opened in the first place. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 01:57, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

There are deeper issues here than a content dispute, though I'm not sure if this is the correct venue rather than ANI or ARB. TylerBurden (talk) 17:32, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Comment: There really should be a limit on the length of replies. The walls of text here are ridiculously and unnecessarily long. Some of us have lives to live. Carlstak (talk) 18:13, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

It's also on AN/I already right now. I'll say here what I said there: there is a subset of editors who are very active in the Ukraine / Russia conflict contentious topic area who are more concerned with countering what they see as contemporary Russian propaganda than with producing neutral article content. The complicated truth is that, in the post-soviet bloc a lot of nationalism has deep ties to far-right politics including Naziism. This is the case both of Russia and of Ukraine. A neutral article about a neo-nazi nationalist would call him a neo-nazi even if that complexifies the moral landscape of his nationalism in relation to the unjust invasion of Ukraine by Russia. I honestly think TurboSuperA+ has taken on a very unenviable role of attempting to single-handedly rein in these non-neutral impulses and they've suffered for their attempt. I would have walked away long ago in the face of such a consistent failure of Wikipedia's neutrality principle. With that being said, I'd advise trout all around and close this down so that everybody involved can have a good hard think about whether Wikipedia is a neutral encyclopedia or an active participant in the propaganda arm of a war. Simonm223 (talk) 19:20, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

there is a subset of editors who are very active in the Ukraine / Russia conflict contentious topic area who are more concerned with countering what they see as contemporary Russian propaganda than with producing neutral article content Who are you talking about? I don't think it's fair to say many of our active editors are like this. Everyone has biases, but I think the vast majority of our established editors in the space are able to put that aside and edit neutrally.

a consistent failure of Wikipedia's neutrality principle I see this just as often accused the opposite way (particularly with the recent Baltic RFC). If you think there is a neutrality issue on any particular article, then post on the talk page.

I'd advise trout all around This I concur with. We've had like a dozen threads over the past couple months (here, on ANI, on AE) for active participants in this topic area, almost all over incredibly minor issues. It has become exhausting. I don't think there's anything intractable here requiring sanctions for any of the involved users at this point, but we should all chill and try to work together better (not signaling anyone out specifically here, and I myself have been guilty of needing to chill in the past). LordCollaboration (talk) 21:50, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

After looking at mainspace edits by Daisy Blue and Helpful Cat, they clearly improve the content and do a lot of good work in the project. I do not think their edits are biased or "pro-Ukrainian". By the same token, I wound not say that TurboSuperA+ is so much "pro-Russian". There is an issue, but I think it is completely different. There is a clear WP:BATTLE by TurboSuperA+: without even trying to discuss anything at talk pages (and I mostly, although not completely agree with him on the issues), he just filed a second extremely offensive and a poorly substantiated complaint about me at the ANI, which is practically the same as his first ANI report, just a few days ago. My very best wishes (talk) 13:33, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

In Turbo's overview of sources, now also used by Turbo in their ANI report against My very best wishes, at least some are misrepresented, while the whole overview appears driven by confirmation bias (e.g. searching for "Denis Kapustin" to then search the articles specifically for desired labels like "neo-Nazi", as suggested by the difference from my review of most of the same sources). For example, for Illiberalism, Turbo's summary is that Kapustin is labeled a "white nationalist", even though the label is not applied to him directly. ProPublica included multiple labels and descriptions, but Turbo picked only "neo-Nazi" from an adjective. Some others were based on headlines and an image caption. Me pointing this out more than once, and My very best wishes raising a very similar issue has not resulted in changes. At a minimum, I would ask that Turbo's review is moved to their user space so it does not look like an "official" review of sources compiled by multiple users. I could edit it, but I don't want to be in an edit war type dispute over a subpage of a Talk page. Daisy Blue (talk) 02:30, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Turbo said Additions and corrections welcome when they posted it and then pinged you.

I think this better belongs on the talk page than here, as this doesn't seem to be a conduct issue. The issues you named are all likely mistakes (like the headline one, which they plausibly didn't even know was a rule) or reasonable different points of view (my understanding was that the point of the table was whether to include the label, not whether to put it in the first sentence, which I agree your table helps more with). LordCollaboration (talk) 13:55, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of sources was among Helpful Cat's points in the report here. Considering Turbo has referenced the same table on NPOVN and ANI, even the issue of how Turbo handles these particular sources goes beyond Kapustin.

In addition to the table itself, one of Turbo's comments on ANI contained another oversimplification, which is simply misleading, considering people tend to trust other people rather than verify every statement. Turbo said Kapustin "has been seen doing the Nazi salute", but the linked article (and its accurate rephrasing for the WP article by Helpful Cat) says "[Kapustin] then appears to mirror [the salute] back". Why is the word "appears" absent from Turbo's presentation? Details of that nature may not matter in casual conversations, but Wikipedia is about accurately summarizing reliable sources, not consistently cutting corners as if trying to convince others someone is a neo-Nazi just for its sake. It's very similar to Turbo saying "How about him being a fucking neo-nazi. lmao" in response to Helpful Cat asking for sources regarding antisemitic remarks.

To your other point, if you are right, then it just goes to Turbo not listening, given that I brought up the issues across multiple short and thus easily readable comments, to which Turbo replied. See from here down. The aforementioned NPOVN thread also contains my comment regarding headlines.

As a bonus, here is Turbo's edit involving improper synthesis, which also speaks to how Turbo handles sources. Daisy Blue (talk) 14:52, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

These are mostly different issues than what I replied to. Regarding the headlines, you did not specify which ones; they removed three other sources that you specifically named issues with reliability on in that thread, so they were clearly receptive to your feedback and were actively trying to improve the table based on that feedback.

I do agree that your critiques of the table are relevant to the other thread on MVBW. LordCollaboration (talk) 15:40, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

I think we're nearing circularity, and though the answer would be evident to those who would follow the discussion links, I'll clarify in case you're simply not seeing every aspect due to the volume of information across the talks and not being as involved as the other participants of that discussion.

At least in one instance, Turbo's own table said "Direct label only in title", so Turbo knew, and I only needed to inform of the guideline (not to mention my presented version of the table was as concrete as it gets as far as what I would change). The problem is the same as in the salute example: if the reader will scrutinize, they'll get to the full picture, but most people are just going to trust Turbo's summary labels, like you did when you counted the number of times the label appears on the list without discounting such labels.

I also specified Radio Liberty and ProPublica in the adjacent context (while MVBW separately specified Novaya Gazeta). In both instances, Turbo's response was to not touch the table and to go on the offensive: to misrepresent my position and to make a wild comment on MVBW saying they prefer Western sources over Russian to catch them in a perceived inconsistency. From where I stand, that's not collaborative at all. Daisy Blue (talk) 17:00, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

At least in one instance, Turbo's own table said "Direct label only in title" But in the cases where they note that, they don't seem to use it in the main label column. For NYT and Meduza, both directly say neo-Nazi in the title, but attribute in the article; Turbo correctly uses "attributed". For SRF, they say "attributed", while the headline is direct (although I'm not sure where they are getting even attributed from, doesn't seem to be mentioned at all in the source). And for Declassified UK, the title says neo-Nazi, the article says "violent racist"; Turbo correctly uses the latter. These are all the ones Turbo notes directly use it in the title but not the body, and they seem to correctly labeled in three out of four, and in the fourth they did not go off the title with their mistake. I don't see this as purposely ignoring the rule, or not listening.

I did do a spot check when I used his count (and corrected one minor issue), although yes, I am not nearly as involved nor did I do nearly as thorough a check as you did. LordCollaboration (talk) 17:39, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

I think this is a POV-ish way of working with sources. Instead of collecting and summarizing various labels about a living person, one should simply read the most recent and most reliable sources about him and summarize them in a neutral and a BLP-consistent manner. That is what I tried to do. For example, can one find reliable sources making a direct analogy between a political leader and well-know fascists or even labeling him as such? Yes, sure. But should this politician be described as such in the first phrase of his BLP page? No, that would be probably against our BLP policy. Why? Probably because he is not known primarily for being a fascist right now. Or at least this is my understanding. My very best wishes (talk) 02:19, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Instead of collecting and summarizing various labels about a living person, one should simply read the most recent — that does not remove a person's past. If they had one political stance in the past and then changed to a different one in the present, the article should still reflect that. Nakonana (talk) 13:09, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes, sure, nothing removes the past. That's why all recent sources tell about the past of the person. However, they put his past into proper perspective. If he is mostly known today for something else, they say it. My very best wishes (talk) 23:26, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

An RFC on the disputed content, should've been the next step. GoodDay (talk) 17:37, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

I think an RfC is probably long over-due here. The question, in my mind, is one of framing and location. This dispute has played out across multiple pages. Do we narrowly focus on Kasputin or should this also cover related disputes like whether the Azov Brigade should be trusted with WP:ABOUTSELF statements that they're not Nazis anymore? Simonm223 (talk) 17:45, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

What RfC? Looking at the latest discussion , I am not sure what they disagree about if anything. I would only change the order of phrases and expand the lead (along the lines in the German or Ukrainian versions of the page), but no one objected to this. This is much ado about nothing, in terms of content disagreements. My very best wishes (talk) 23:18, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

We have had two recent RFCs on Azov. Neither concluded that we should trust their own statements. We do not need another RFC on Azov. LordCollaboration (talk) 04:51, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Voluntary break

• These last few weeks have been draining and I feel mentally exhausted. I am going to step away from the topic area because I feel sucked into it and like I'm spending way too much time on it, rather than editing in areas that actually give me joy. I am also taking a wiki-break. My commmitment is as follows: I am not going to edit in the RUSUKR topic area for at least 6 months from my first edit after the wikibreak.

I hope my sincerity is not in doubt and that the community trusts me that I can keep my word, as I have so far abided by everything I've said I'd do and I don't think I have given a reason for you not to trust me.

I would like to reserve the right/exception to participate in any RfC regarding the "neo-nazi" label and lede of Denis Kapustin (militant), if one happens. I spent time collecting sources on it and I might like to give my opinion regarding that issue if it comes up. That is the only exception.

In case there is something that requires my response, you can ping me and I will get a notification by email.

I hope that this puts an end to this matter to everyone's satisfaction. Happy editing! TurboSuperA+_[talk] 01:15, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

I have logged this as a voluntary editing restriction. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:18, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

TSA+ previously "retiring" from Wikipedia last year, only to come back less than 48 hours later might be of interest here, not saying this isn't genuine, but this kind of rhetoric isn't new and didn't work out last time. Then again actions speak louder than words. TylerBurden (talk) 17:08, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

I agree with @TylerBurden here and think this should be an imposed topic ban otherwise we're going to be right back here when Turbo decides they're ready. Star Mississippi 18:06, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Topic bans are enforceable whether they're voluntary or not, although the community may want to impose a different topic ban than the one TSA+ has self-imposed here. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:43, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

(If we need to do a vote type thing, please move my comment below to a separate subsection)

As with many editors, I'm sure Turbo has made helpful contributions to the project, but based on the evidence presented here and my own experience, as partially documented here, the good seems to be heavily outweighed by the disruptive.

As documented, substantively, the issues go beyond one topic and show a pattern of behavior related to editing, handling sources, and communication. Just before the announced break and Turbo's ANI request where some of the same issues can be seen, Turbo replied to my comment on Kapustin by repeating a point already addressed by that comment and digging up an article I worked on mostly in 2014 (long before I knew of WP:CONTENTIOUS), as if to catch me in a contradiction, as opposed to focusing on the comment's substance and trying to work together. It's striking how much my own experience with Turbo matches the other instances from Helpful Cat's report or how Turbo has interacted with My very best wishes, even though I know these editors only from Kapustin - I can't say I'm active in RUSUKR in general.

Though any relevant sanction could help, and though I'm unlikely to run into Turbo outside Kapustin, the problems go far beyond my experience, and I would not wish it on others to have to face the same. I'm not sure there is a sanction that's not a full block that would address the issues, though I don't know if those are normally applied progressively here as to see if the affected editor learns. Daisy Blue (talk) 05:34, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

I have a history of discussion with TurboSuperA+ on RUSUKR pages so I can't close anything here, but I would also support a TBAN on this given their history of extremely tendentious arguing, POVpushing, and refusing to get the point. However I'm willing to accept the voluntary 6-month TBAN, noting that this 6 months runs from the end of their present Wikibreak which apparently began on 19 February 2026 (and so should run until 19 August 2026). If they suddenly return to editing in the RUSUKR field before 19 August, we can re-open this discussion. In any future discussion where sanctions are considered, this should be logged as a previous sanction and treated as the equivalent of a previous community-imposed TBAN. FOARP (talk) 14:07, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

tendentious arguing, POVpushing, and refusing to get the point

That is not true, and I have diffs to prove it. While I may have stepped away from Wikipedia, I will not stand for baseless accusations.

• Here is somebody accusing me of working for the Ukrainian government.
• Here is me saying we can't change an infobox to "Russian victory".
• Here I added a video of Ukrainian soldiers shooting down a Russian jet.
• Here is me adding information about women in the Ukrainian armed forces.

And so on. I can provide more examples if needed. If one side says I'm pro-RU and another side says I'm pro-UA, that's neutral editing.

Re:refusing to get the point. On many occasions I have changed my mind:

• Despite starting an RfC on inclusion of NATO countries in the infobox as supported by Ukraine, after the consensus was against it I dropped the issue. Here I told an editor that their RfC on inclusion shouldn't happen and outlined other ways they can pursue the change. I could have jumped on the opportunity to again argue for the change I want, but I didn't, I followed consensus.
• Here I recognised the consensus was against me when other editors gave their opinion, and I dropped the issue.
• Here, after being reverted and disagreed with, the next day Ukraine's MOD published a statement, I accepted the disputed status and said I won't make changes to the result in the infobox (and I haven't since).

So the history I have is one of changing my mind, accepting consensus, admitting when I am wrong. Apparently these are undesirable qualities because no matter how much I change my behaviour, how much I try to follow consensus and the Wikipedia way, editors will just repeat things about me that aren't true. This is a good time to remind everyone that I was accused of pro-RU POV pushing because I started an RfC on including the "far right" label in the Azov brigade article. I guess original sin exists on Wikipedia.

this should be logged as a previous sanction and treated as the equivalent of a previous community-imposed TBAN.

I took a self-imposed editing restriction only to save the community time and get this over with. If you want to impose a community sanction, then a vote could have been done a long time ago. But after two weeks nobody started one. This is another example of me trying to be less combative. Apparently this is seen as a weakness. No wonder editors fight tooth and nail and argue until the bitter end. Because damned if you do, damned if you don't. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 17:19, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

All I can see here is that when you come back your refusal to get the actual point being made (which is not, necessarily anyway, being a pro-Russian troll) is going to cause further problems unless you geneuinely reflect on what's been going wrong with your editing. For what it's worth I also get accusations of being pro-Russian and pro-Ukrainian, because nearly everyone who edits in this field gets those accusations, because so much of the editing in this field is based on WP:RGW. You may remember the change of title saw lots of people accusing me of being pro-Russian because...? Actually I don't know why they accused me of this, but that's just what happens when people convince themselves that things have to be a certain way and then don't change their minds at all afterwards.

There's plentiful examples of your refusal to get the point, POVpushing, and incivility cited above. You wouldn't be stepping away from this topic area if you didn't already know that was the case. Take what you can get and move on here. FOARP (talk) 09:48, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

UPDATE: after reading the below screed, I now support a community TBan. FOARP (talk) 09:57, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Has your bloodlust not been satisfied yet?

I took a self-imposed editing restriction. What more do you want? A pound of flesh? All this time nobody has even said anything about Daisy Blue's POV pushing and MVBW's blatant IDHT behaviour.

MVBW

• MVBW removed Denis Kapustin's (formerly Nikitin's) name from Template:Neo-Nazism in Russia saying in the edit summary: That guy does not appear anywhere on the page Neo-Nazism in Russia; he is mostly known as a military commander. He might be a neo-Nazi, but not famous as Russian neo-Nazi. (emphasis mine) Both of the statements in italics have been disproved for them, over and over and over again. They also could have convinced themself, had they bothered to look at the source review, instead of saying I do not have time,
• MVBW continues to push the narrative that "he isn't known as a (Russian) neo-nazi", when some 34 sources (found so far) call him a neo-nazi, while others use epithets such as "white nationalist" and "violent racist". Kapustin himself has said that he kept a framed photograph of Joseph Goebbels in his bedroom and has been seen "apparently" doing the Nazi salute.
• This is a person for whom MVBW said for many people who support Ukraine this guy is a hero and said he is de facto an antifascist.
• MVBW also continued to insist The description of a person can also change. without providing any sources for it. What is Kapustin fighting for? In his own words: "creating a Russian nation-state focused on the well-being of so-called ethnic Russians.” (emphasis mine) So this guy is fighting for a fascist ethnostate and is part of a global, white supremacist movement.
• An editor even told MVBW: The fact that you are citing an article with the subheadline "Germany describes Denis Kapustin as a top neo-Nazi" which repeatedly discusses Kapustin's neo-Nazi politics in support of your position that he is not known as a neo-Nazi is not exactly a great show of judgement at this point.
• After which MVBW continued by saying I think this is a POV-ish way of working with sources. Apparently following WP:RS, including ones as recent as January 2026 which call Kapustin a neo-nazi is "POV-ish".

Daisy Blue

Other than this frivolous report that went on for nearly three weeks without action, Daisy Blue has actually misused policy to push for a change to the lede of Kapustin:

• They say that we should look at "introductory labels" in articles To me, the introductory labels are more important because the context of this discussion is the lead section. (diff)
• In this very thread they've told me that I must argue for inclusion of the "neo-nazi" label, despite the label being in the article from the very first version. It is them who wishes to change long-standing content.
• An editor has recently said that there should be an RfC on the lede, something I said 10 days ago, but Daisy Blue refuses to start an RfC, instead choosing to take me to AN and AE. Is it perhaps because sources overwhelmingly support the label and any RfC would come to that consensus?

Indefinite wikibreak

I cannot stand this bullying any more. I am accused of "misusing guidelines", "POV pushing", while the editors levying these accusations against me are the ones misusing guidelines, POV pushing and engaging in IDHT behaviour, literally in this very thread. Most editors are turning a blind eye to it. I am done with being bullied and harassed. Why would I choose to edit Wikipedia and be part of this community after being treated like this?

And this AN report was made because I followed reliable sources that overwhelmingly call Denis Kapustin a neo-nazi. lol TurboSuperA+_[talk] 17:19, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

• I believe you made some if not all of the same points about MVBW on ANI just days ago. Likewise, it's your third time making the same point about me in this thread. Once here, then here (aspersions), then in the comment I'm replying to. I doubt repeating it is going to help the admins determine whether I was going against any policy in or around that diff. The RfC part is just an aspersion again. I invite every interested editor and admin to review the entirety of the talk page discussions to see if there is any evidence of what is claimed. Daisy Blue (talk) 18:13, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
• If you want to count the numbers, then all recent RS described him as a military commander, and in this sense he is primarily described as a military commander. No one ever denied that he was also defined as a neo-Nazi in many, although not all RS. But my point was different: one should not count the labels about living people, whatever these labels might be. Instead, one should read the best RS and neutrally summarize that they say. That is what I usually do. As about the "bloodlust", what are you talking about? It was you who just filed two nearly identical ANI complaints. Moreover, you continue commenting "on contributors" right here. My very best wishes (talk) 18:26, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Even the title of the page is Denis Kapustin (militant). Militant [during the war]. Yes, this is how he is primarily described in RS. Yes, he also conducted certain Neo-Nazi activities, leading to his expulsion from Germany, which should be said in the lead. My very best wishes (talk) 00:05, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

This is just to summarize what I think. No one does any "tendentious edits". There is no any serious content disagreement, at least with me. I did not revert other contributors recently and ready to self-revert if asked. Turbo does make reverts per WP:BRD, which is fine. The actual issue is different: it is the way Turbo interacts with other contributors and misrepresents their views and comments. Is it related to RUSUKR? Based on the comments and the focus by Turbo just above, the answer is "yes". My very best wishes (talk) 13:50, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Proposal: topic ban

• Support community imposed topic ban, and this has nothing to do with a pound of flesh. Turbo means well, but their wikibreak lasted six days. They do not have the self control to support their planned breaks and this cycle needs to end before it ends in a full block for Turbo. It's time for a community one. If there are issues with Daisy and MVBW's edits, someone else can handle them. Star Mississippi 18:04, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

  I don't think that's exactly fair as Turbo was put in a rather rough catch-22 here. They've been accused of an absolute laundry list of different things & despite no uninvolved editors having actually evaluated or engaged with said accusations, sanctions have been proposed against them.

  When in response they said they'd take a wikibreak you (among others) continued to threaten sanctions against them, justifying it by doubting they'd commit to the wikibreak.

  You essentially left them with the options of either keeping their word by committing to their wikibreak & being sanctioned in absentia or for them to stop their wikibreak prematurely to try & defend their conduct, only to be sanctioned for not committing to said wikibreak.

  This entire dispute has been a complete mess of accusations being flung back & forth, but if sanctions are to be divvied out, they should be given on the merits of the case. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 21:25, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

  @Butterscotch Beluga this is unfortunately how conduct issues with Turbo go. They leave, and then come back and nothing changes overall. That's why I think it's time for a more full resolution, rather than kicking it down the road. There either needs to be a t-ban, or none. Not one that ties into their nebulous timeline. Star Mississippi 21:45, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

  There are other options other than "TBAN for a single user or none at all". I concur with BB. He's not the only one to blame here. He is in a catch-22. Buffs (talk) 20:41, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

  @Star Mississippi: to clarify, this is an indefinite topic ban from RUSUKR with no exceptions? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:11, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

  @Theleekycauldron, @Buffs the reason I think we need clear cut is more or less what @FOARP noted. With a time limited sanction we're going to be right back here. It's time to end the cycle, whether it comes in good faith or not. With respect to Daisy/MVBW, a topic ban against Turbo does not preclude actions against them if all three need to be removed from the topic area. Star Mississippi 01:45, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

  That's within the realm of possibility, but we should start with that first. Sometimes people cooling their heels helps the situation stabilize. Buffs (talk) 16:55, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

  I'm ok with a ban for all 3, if that's what the community wants...but I think I'm in the minority. Buffs (talk) 16:56, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

• Support Tban from RUSUKR - I supported just moving on after TurboSuperA+ said they'd take a voluntary TBAN, but if you take a break, if you say you're going to have a self-imposed TBan, you've got to stick to it, and they clearly have not stuck to it even for the minimum amount of time. Instead they've flown off the handle with repeated incivility ("bloodlust... pound of flesh..."). All this shows is that a voluntary restriction is not enough - let's make it official. FOARP (talk) 09:55, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

  Is participating in an ANI report that was filed against them being counted as a violation of the self-imposed RUSUKR-TBan here, or have they edited the topic outside this ANI thread after declaring their self-imposed TBan? Nakonana (talk) 10:56, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

  They took a wikibreak and proposed the topic ban while the ANI was already in progress. And then they doubled back. Star Mississippi 13:20, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

  Basically this. Saying you're agreeing to a TBan and a Wikibreak should mean end-of-discussion. If I had been able to close this discussion at that point I would have closed it as "they're going on a break, everyone just move along" just as I said in my comment above. But then they had to go and post this "pound of flesh" stuff.

  The ANI report is closed - was closed because they agreed to a Wikibreak/Tban - so they are not "participating in an ANI report" here. Even if this was ANI, the above rant is clearly just carrying on the same RUSUKR article-content dispute on this page in an uncivil fashion, which is something they already said they would desist from. FOARP (talk) 13:53, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

  PS - I said this above but for the avoidance of doubt, whilst I don't recall any actual dispute per se, and was not active in the Denis Kapustin discussion (indeed, have no idea who Denis Kapustin even is) TSA+ is certainly someone I've discussed things with in the RUSUKR field. Otherwise I would have just closed this discussion myself. FOARP (talk) 13:21, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

• Reluctant support TBAN per Star Mississippi and FOARP. I've been observing these threads for a little while, and regardless of any content concerns I'm not convinced Turbo has the self-control to stay away from this topic area, nor the civility needed to keep content disputes from turning nasty/personal - the above "pound of flesh"/"harassed and bullied" comments are emblematic of that. The Kip ^(contribs) 18:44, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
• Support TBAN and indefinite block - Although after that "bloodlust" rant I'm not sure I'm optimistic that this person has the temperament for the project. Update: I've updated my vote to indefinite block after Uhoj's comment below. The most disturbing thing to me is the biting of a newcomer. As a newcomer, Turbo made a load of poor closes, never really admitted they were poor, and was banned from making future closes. It seems like someone with that kind of record would be more welcoming to new editors. A year ago I was willing to give the benefit of the doubt, but this is a pattern of behavior now that needs to be addressed by the editor. - Nemov (talk) 20:25, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
• Support TBAN if Turbo's wherewithal to abide by a self-imposed topic ban lasts less than a week and ends with 8k bytes of complaining, I hope they'll forgive me not trusting their word. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:55, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose TBAN, but support a 30-day block I guess I'll be the contrarian here. I don't think this is a problem just related to the topic at hand. What I'm seeing is a behavioral issue by Turbo and Daisy/MVBW. On the content, Turbo makes some good points that I think should be incorporated. He also correctly points out that he's been part of previous contentious discussions in the past where consensus didn't go his way and he abided by them. That sort of behavior should be lauded and noted. Just because you are a contrarian and present opinions that are not in line with popular consensus doesn't mean you are not welcome for that alone. So, the block is for a refusal to get the point, the bludgeoning responses, and the curt/unwarranted hostility. To be succinct: it's the behavior. Daisy/MVBW are not without blame here. They are heaping gas on the flames and it would do well for them to refrain from further responses/antagonism. You both made your points long ago. Let others weigh in. When you (Turbo) return from your block, I would request that you spend some time simply engaging in respectful collegial discussion before you make such edits. Buffs (talk) 20:35, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

  Can't speak for the others here, but the reason why I thought a TBAN was a good idea - and thought so whilst I was OK with just doing a voluntary TBAN - is the bad behaviour seems to be linked to their feelings about the RUSUKR area. A TBAN from there would give them the opportunity to get some perspective on that and edit in other fields. I'm not convinced a time-limited block would do anything but just result in us having the same discussion some months down the road, also it looks like a punishment for bad behaviour rather than a remedy. It would, however, be better than nothing I suppose. FOARP (talk) 20:52, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

• Comment The problems aren't limited to WP:RUSUKR. Looking through recent edits I also see biting a newcomer and an RfC !vote that appears to be based entirely on personal political POV. TurboSuperA+ was banned from closing discussions. The discussions involved had nothing to do with WP:RUSUKR. TurboSuperA+ then accused the admin who imposed the sanction of acting in bad faith. The grandstanding a few months back isn't promising, nor is the way they went on wikibreak in the middle of this discussion. I get the general sense that TurboSuperA+ continues to believe that they're right ... about everything. --Uhoj (talk) 05:40, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

  This pattern of behaviour can only really be addressed in two ways - an indefinite block or a TBan. The indef block seems excessive. I'm favouring the TBan as a chance to turn in the right direction. A 30-day block would be better than nothing but if it was going to be done should have been done immediately when they posted the above screed (I suspect the reason this didn't happen is no admin who doesn't already have a history with Turbo even saw it), and anyway is likely to be just a way-point on the road to an indef ban. FOARP (talk) 08:49, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

  That interaction at Talk:Ideonomy is not good. There was no reason to accuse Gunkelfan of WP:BADGERing and certainly not of being WP:NOTHERE, and TSA+ must have later realised that Gunkelfan was right, because they quietly withdrew the AfD nomination, but never apologised for the unnecessary hostility. This is typical of TSA+'s conduct: lashing out in response to pushback; groundless accusations; and assuming the worst of other editors.

  Other disruption outside RUSUKR: they vandalised and were warned, and responded: No need to be so hostile, it was a single edit., I guess it came across stronger than you intended it. I didn't have the intention of making more than one such edit. :). They are frequently hostile and uncivil to others, but can't take even basic pushback. I would suggest it is TSA+ who is WP:NOTHERE and WP:NOTCOMPATIBLE. Helpful Cat {talk} 11:21, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

• Support TBAN because continuing to emphasize your own neutrality because you once added content about Ukrainians shooting down a Russian jet and an account with 6 edits calling you a Ukrainian government employee don't outweigh repeated WP:TENDENTIOUS behavior in the topic, which incidentally always seems to concern Russia and things the Russian government want to downplay, for example involvement of foreign soldiers in its military, seems more like doubling down on your habits than recognizing issues with your editing. You're not being bullied, you edited disruptively and are now facing the consequences that you do not mind other people receiving, there appears to be a victim mentality here rather than signs of improvement so I fully support a T-BAN on RUSUKR. --TylerBurden (talk) 16:55, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

  (Disclosure per Kowal2701: I've had RUSUKR content disputes with TSA+ before, but have not been involved in the recent Denis Kapustin (militant) one.) TylerBurden (talk) 20:00, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

• Support TBAN As a full formalized community-imposed topic ban, without any caveats, carve-outs, or restrictions. Either it'll solve the issue or it'll demonstrate it's unsolvable, either way it's necessary. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:27, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
• Support TBAN per above, though people who have interacted with Turbo a lot in the topic area should probably note that they're involved per WP:CBAN Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 00:14, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
• Support TBAN at minimum, also fine with block. Per above, TSA+ has behaved disruptively and tendentiously within RUSUKR in particular, and a TBAN is necessary to stop the disruption. (Sure, they were occasionally reasonable, but that's not enough) I also echo Nemov above that TSA+ might just be WP:NOTCOMPATIBLE, as others have also suggested. The "bloodlust / pound of flesh / original sin" rant epitomises this: they think they are being persecuted and lash out with groundless accusations in response to criticism, and this has happened over and over almost since the very start of their editing. Therefore, I wouldn't oppose a site block (time-limited or otherwise) on top of the TBAN, especially since they have also behaved poorly outside of RUSUKR per Uhoj. (Here's vandalism outside RUSUKR and their response to it.)
  (Disclosure per Kowal2701: I've had RUSUKR content disputes with TSA+ before, but not currently, as I don't object to the neo-Nazi label for Denis Kapustin (militant).) Helpful Cat {talk} 12:02, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
• Comment: I've posted this at WP:CR to request closure, since discussion seems to have died down. Helpful Cat {talk} 10:47, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Administrators' newsletter – March 2026

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2026).

Administrator changes

• Brendanconway
• Calmer Waters
• Hut 8.5
• Joe Roe
• VersedFenrir

CheckUser changes

Ks0stm

Oversight changes

Ks0stm

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RfC, the web archival service archive.today has been deprecated; links to the site should be removed.
• A request for comment is open to discuss retiring CSD criterion R3 in favour of handling such redirects through RfD.

Arbitration

• Following a motion, remedy 9.1 of the Conduct in deletion-related editing case has been amended to limit TenPoundHammer to one XfD nomination or PROD per 24-hour period.
• Following a motion, the Iskandar323 further POV pushing motion has been rescinded.
• The Arbitration Committee has passed a housekeeping motion rescinding a number of outdated remedies and enforcement provisions across multiple legacy cases. In most instances, existing sanctions remain in force and continue to be appealable through the usual processes, while some case-specific remedies were amended or clarified.

Miscellaneous

• Following the 2026 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: A09, AmandaNP, Barras, Count Count, M7, SHB2000, Teles and VIGNERON.
• An Unreferenced articles backlog drive is taking place in March 2026 to reduce the backlog of articles tagged with {{Unreferenced}}. You can help reduce the backlog by adding citations to these articles. Sign up to participate!

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:37, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Indian military history

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

Remedy 3 of Indian military history ("GSCASTE extended-confirmed restriction") is retitled Caste-related topics in South Asia extended-confirmed restriction and amended to read:

3) Caste-related topics in South Asia, broadly construed, are placed under the extended-confirmed restriction.

Remedy 5 ("Preemptive protection GSCASTE") is retitled Preemptive protection for caste-related topics in South Asia and amended to read:

5) Administrators are permitted to preemptively protect mainspace articles covered by the extended-confirmed restriction for caste-related topics in South Asia when there is a reasonable belief that they will be the target of disruption.

For the Arbitration Committee, EggRoll97 ^(talk) 22:42, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Arbitration motion regarding Indian military history

Category talk:German dialects#Low German dialects

I've published this post on the talk page for the German dialects category. Can an administrator answer it, please? Karamellpudding1999 (talk) 23:56, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

This appears to be a content dispute. What are you looking for from an admin? Star Mississippi 00:13, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

I don't see anyone on the other side of the "content dispute", which means it isn't really a dispute. This reads to me more as a request for technical assistance, like "how do I remove these subcategories from this parent category?". @Karamellpudding1999, I think the answer is that you'd have to remove the category from each subcategory page, either by editing the source wikitext or using a tool like HotCat. Toadspike [Talk] 02:51, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

apologies for misreading it @Karamellpudding1999 @Toadspike Star Mississippi 16:53, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Toadspike @Karamellpudding1999! There is a script, called Cat-a-lot, that allows you to do this in bulk without having to go through each page individually! I figure it might help in this situation. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:10, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Cyberbot I issue

It appears that Cyberbot I has stopped archiving WP:RFPP - there's a massive backlog of actioned requests, with multiple "archive immediately" tags on some, and the bot has done nothing on RFPP since 18:43 despite continuing to operate otherwise. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:27, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

New articles related to recent military operations against Iran

I've come across a couple of new articles created about the recent military conflict between the US, Israel, and Iran. I'm wondering whether such articles should be subject to special restrictions like WP:AELOG/2026#IRP and WP:AELOG/2026#PIA and need some more eyes on them. The articles are List of Iranian officials killed during the 2026 Israeli–United States strikes on Iran, Mohammad Baseri, Hossein Jabal Amelian, and Gholamreza Rezaian. The biographies, in particular, each have section titled "Assassination", which may or may not be true depending on one's POV and which sources one is reading. I'm wondering whether there's any admins or arbcom members hanging out at AN at the moment who are familiar with how WP:CT works, and how they apply to articles subject to them. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:43, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

They all absolutely fall under IRP. Those that directly relate to the current conflict do fall under PIA (this is actually at ARCA at the moment and the majority of arbs appear to agree). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:40, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you The Bushranger for taking a look at these. Should something be added to their respective talk pages to let those editing/reading the article that 1RR applies? -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:45, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

They probably should have {{Contentious topics/talk notice|a-i}} added, yes. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:41, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

I've added the aforementioned template to each article's talk page. Is there anything else that needs to be done? Does an administrator need to do anything to the articles to implement the now restrictions mentioned on their talk pages? -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:37, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

High database server lag

Hey, there. I discovered there was a high database server lag when I tried editing. Can someone please look into this and how often does it happen? Thanks, sjones23 (talk - contributions) 10:05, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Phabricator ticket here – appears to have been a database issue that's now resolved. nil ^nz 10:31, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Updating the AfC templates

Hey folks! We seem to have reached a consensus to implement @Qcne's proposed rewrites for the AfC templates, but their code is currently template-protected. I'd love to help, but it is nearly 3am here and the code is complicated enough that I don't want to mess up and potentially break thousands of drafts. Is anyone willing to take on the task? Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 01:47, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

The changes that need to be made are listed here: User:Qcne/AfC template rewrites. Ca ^{talk to me!} 01:51, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

I've implemented some of the changes at Template:AfC submission/comments/sandbox (which can be previewed on the testpage), if that makes implementing them easier (/less time consuming) for any passing admins / template editors.

I've not added the new decline comments yet (small steps), nor updated the CV ones (as those have three different sets of conditional wording that will need re-running past WT:AFC first). nil ^nz 00:18, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Disruptive behavior from User:MisterFandomIFC99

MisterFandomIFC99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user's edit history appears to be comprised of deleting any mentions of Filipino television networks. Here are a few examples:

• On December 20th 2025, They removed mentions of GMA and TV5 from the article about ABC. The summary randomly refers to the movies Killer Bean Forever and Cats & Dogs.

• On the same date, they removed mentions of GMA and ABS-CBN from an article on a Malaysian television network. Same summary.

• On January 21st 2026, they reverted my revert on the ABC article, claiming I was a vandal.

• About an hour ago, they messaged an anonymous user with the title "YOU ARE PHILIPPINE!!!". This seems to imply this behavior may stem from some form of anti-Filipino racism?

Now, I don't wanna jump into conclusions, but there definitely appears to be a pattern. I attempted to ask them about why they were doing this, but they just removed my message. -Gamerappa (talk) 04:32, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Call @RandomMe98, @Khairul hazim, @Fandi89, @ViperSnake151, @Hotwiki, @WayKurat, @PJ Santos and @Pratama26 for discussing further information regarding these issues. ~2026-13689-61 (talk) 05:15, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Don't ask me or ping me; I know nothing and don't care about this. Sorry. Khairul hazim (talk) 07:06, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

i'm sorry but i don't think doing this is a good idea -Gamerappa (talk) 09:33, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Also summon @Scoophole2021 for tell any information regarding the MisterFandomIFC99 cases. ~2026-13689-61 (talk) 05:17, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Leave me out of this Scoophole2021 (talk). 11:49, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Well, the edit he reverted calling you a vandal (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=American_Broadcasting_Company&diff=prev&oldid=1334057541) had no edit summary. Put some down and it'll happen less. Was also citation less.

But all caps edit summaries often are annoying to read. And they should at least make sense. 🚂ThatTrainGuy1945 ^{Peep peep!} 04:10, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

if you look in the history you can tell he was specifically reverting my revert:

• him removing the text
• me reverting it
• him reverting it therefore removing the text

-Gamerappa (talk) 15:00, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

TA requesting unblock using semi-protected edit template

Could someone have a look at User talk:~2026-13988-07? They put up an unblock request for their IP using the semi-protected edit template. I'm marking the template as handled to remove it from the semi-protected edit request backlog. ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 15:04, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

A, that's an LLM unblock request, and B, they don't actually say what their account is, so we couldn't unblock it anyway. (The edit-protected was from transcluding the edit request template instead of linking it - that's been fixed.) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:17, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

They are asking for the IP block to be removed on 154.84.0.0/16 which was placed for a year from 25 June 2025 by Materialscientist. I presume temporary accounts are treated the same as IPs for anon. only blocks so I have added the {{anonblock}} template so they have the standard instructions. KylieTastic (talk) 15:49, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Closure review for Talk:The Golden Girls

I would like to request the review of a non-admin closure of a discussion at the subject talk page here: Talk:The Golden Girls#Merge Proposal. It appears to me the positions taken were closer to even rather than showing an obvious consensus, with a "Strongly oppose" not properly bolded. I would like an uninvolved administrator to review the chosen outcome. Thanks. Stefen 𝕋ower ^{Huddle • Handiwerk} 23:22, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

The close seems fine, the supports carry more weight in policy and guidelines. The opposes say the post-merge article would be too long, but it's about 10,000 words. Even if the character descriptions are expanded using sources, the solution would be to spin out a list of characters article and not recreate character articles. Fences&Windows 01:54, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your consideration. It does seem surprising, though, that there wouldn't be many sources to back up individual articles for these widely discussed (and beloved) characters over 40 years. Stefen 𝕋ower ^{Huddle • Handiwerk} 02:03, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Per WP:NOPAGE, “at times it is better to cover a notable topic as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context.” ~2026-86111-3 (talk) 02:45, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Of course but it ultimately depends on what the reliable coverage looks like. If it is as expansive I as believe it to be, individual articles would be within reason, and there is plenty of precedent. Also, it's best in wiki discussions to not use a guideline as a hammer for one side of a point, as if we cannot read the rest or have ample experience in understanding how Wikipedia works. Stefen 𝕋ower ^{Huddle • Handiwerk} 02:55, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Please stop; two administrators have already given you what you asked for. Reiterating your personal displeasure with the outcome and arguing with everyone are not “requesting review by an uninvolved administrator”. ~2026-86111-3 (talk) 11:49, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

I "stopped" yesterday evening. Your reply here is wholly inappropriate and against WP:AGF, so It is understandable that you are using a temporary account to say it. This discussion space is exactly for the purpose I utilized it for. Stefen 𝕋ower ^{Huddle • Handiwerk} 19:42, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

If you think that there is enough encyclopedic material about the characters to justify seperate articles then write them. That would demonstrate that the close was wrong. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:10, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

I've been here since 2004. I know the drill. :) I was simply making a comment about my astonishment of the current state of affairs. Stefen 𝕋ower ^{Huddle • Handiwerk} 20:18, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

As a note, marking a !vote as "strong" doesn't mean anything except to the !voter. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:13, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

OK, but my point I stressed was that it wasn't bolded, and possibly therefore missed by the closer. Stefen 𝕋ower ^{Huddle • Handiwerk} 03:19, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

I don't think that happened, because the closer directly referred to that !vote, "I have also set aside the TA !vote". Phil Bridger (talk) 21:08, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Inappropriately, since that !vote was just as PAG-based (which isn't very much) as some of the merge !votes. Katzrockso (talk) 23:08, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

I have a different concern about this close, in that the close was in favor of a merge, but the vast majority of content has not been merged, making this a de facto deletion of articles carried out without going through the proper protocol for deletion. BD2412 T 20:39, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

I note that some of the supporters of merging volunteered to help. Maybe we should hold them to that? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:56, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

In fact none of those articles were deleted, de facto or otherwise. If no content has yet been merged it's functionally a WP:BLAR, and note explicitly said there is the article has not been deleted. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:48, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

If the content has ceased to be findable to the reader of the encyclopedia looking at that or any other title, then it certainly has been deleted from the reader's perspective, which is the one that matters most. BD2412 T 18:53, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Deletion is mostly a matter of editors though, it means the article and is content is functional gone from Wikipedia for us plebs and needs to go through a process to be recovered. No one can ever guarantee any particular content will stay on any Wikipedia article. The question of which content should stay is decided by discussion on the appropriate article talk page and if necessary an RfC. Any editor in good standing etc is free to add the content removed, giving an appropriate notice of the edit summary of where it came from. Similar to the way they could if an editor massively removes content from an article, any editor is free to revert them and argue to keep it. When there is dispute, this can be resolved on the article talk page. This is not possible when deletion happened. Even if an editor saved the content or finds it somewhere else, it's not acceptable to just add it back since it's copyvio. While technically this can be resolved without undeletion by including a list of contributors somewhere, this isn't the way we handle internal copyright attribution unless it's necessary for some other reason. Nil Einne (talk) 23:40, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

To put it a different way, let's say I'm lazy and just made subsections on the Golden Girls article for each character and dump the entirety of each article into such subsections with appropriate notice in the article talk page. Effectively the "merge" was carried out. Someone feels I've messed up the article & added way too much detail and removes everything I added. Does this means we suddenly need an AFD for each article? No, it means any editor who feels there's justification for some or all of the content in the Golden Girls article needs to argue for keeping, perhaps editing it to make it fit better. Perhaps consensus is reach to resuscitate some or all of the articles. As noted above, someone is also free right now to reverse the redirect and expand or otherwise improve the articles. (Just reversing without changing would likely be disruptive as editing against consensus.) If editors feel this is still insufficient they can discuss and come to a new consensus. The key thing is all of this is possible without needing anyone's explicit permission or any admin involvement, which isn't possible when there was an actual deletion. It's simply ordinary editing. Nil Einne (talk) 23:53, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Speedy deletion request for template caused included pages to be listed for speedy as well

Don't know why this happened, but two templates had requests for speedy deletion: Template:Rulers of medieval England and Template:Rulers of medieval Wales. These templates were transcluded in about 350 articles, and when I looked at the list of articles for speedy deletion, these 350+/- articles were all listed! It took me a while to figure out that it was caused by the template, as the articles, while they had a speedy request, did not have any edits inserting the speedy request. I deleted the two templates in order to stop having the CSD request included in the articles.

Two questions: 1) is there a way to stop this from happening again? It seems to create an opportunity for erroneous deletion of articles, which is why I quickly deleted the two templates before figuring out how to address the second issue ->. 2) How do I clean up the mess of the red links to the templates remaining in those hundreds of articles after the templates were deleted? — rsjaffe 🗣️ 04:07, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) The templates have been undeleted by @Izno. Chess enjoyer (talk) 04:20, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

I have restored the pages and removed the G7 to minimize page disruption for the moment. Procedurally a G7 looks fair for both, but there are some issues I think are thorny.

1. Putting the G7 tag in <noinclude>...</noinclude> would resolve the issue of transclusion of the G7 tag.
2. But, if someone misses that the template is still transcluded widely, it won't fix the resulting red links.
3. If you want to process a G7 for templates, cleaning up transclusions is something either you have to do or request at WP:TFDH or WP:BOTR or similar. (Maybe someone who patrols the queues for G7 will have seen a widely-transcluded template there, but I can't recall having the issue when a G7 needs performing after a TFD has started for a widely-used template.)
4. Both templates are also at WP:TFD with a handful of keeps there.
5. So I probably would have declined the G7 on those grounds.

Regarding the first question, I expect admins to review the pages they delete, where they would have found the tag as displayed at the bottom of the page and in no regard in the source, so they probably would have said "nope, this tag needs to go away for a bit" and done at least item 1 (and fallen into the trap of item 2). But there is no systematic prevention of the tagging. Izno (talk) 04:26, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Nominating templates for deletion causes a "this template has been nominated for deletion" message to appear on the pages that transclude them. Presumably this is so that editors viewing those pages are alerted that the template may be about to go poof, but unfortunately this means the backend system sees a deletion tag on the page itself. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:26, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia in read-only mode?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I'm not quite sure where to post this but also I'm not quite sure this will post. It seems that Wikipedia is not presently taking edits and is in read-only mode. Anyone know what's going on? Simonm223 (talk) 17:07, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Wait, nevermind, it is working now. Very odd. Simonm223 (talk) 17:08, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Meta-Wiki appears to have been compromised. Seems it's all cleaned up now. Cutlass^Ciera 17:08, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Wikis are (evidently) back to being editable but site and user JS has been disabled temporarily. I've added a watchlist notice which any admin is welcome to work with. Giraffer (talk) 17:21, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

@Giraffer: Could you maybe add a link in the watchlist notice to this thread or another place where this is being discussed? It took me way too long to find this thread, and I'm sure other editors will be looking for a place to discuss what's going on. Zeibgeist (talk) 20:42, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) is the correct venue for this topic (specifically this thread). -- Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:53, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

@Ponyo: Thanks. Could you update the banner to link to that discussion? I was not aware of it until now, and I'm sure others are in the same boat. Zeibgeist (talk) 20:55, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Not entirely sure how to go about doing that. Perhaps you can make a request in that Village Pump thread?-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:02, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

I wrote a note in Russian Wikinews about this. tl;dr: one of the Wikimedia developers has loaded a bulk of user personal scripts and occasionally has added malicious code, by which some independent wikis in Russian were vandalized in Febraury 2023. Таёжный лес (talk) 17:29, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC closure review request at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC on HOPE not hate

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (RfC closure in question) (Discussion with closer)

Closer: Thryduulf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User requesting review: Wikieditor662 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) at 02:57, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Notified: User talk:Thryduulf#AN

Reasoning: In the closure, the user claimed an overwhelming majority in favor of listing hope not hate (HnH) as GREL, and that every counter-argument has been strongly refuted and/or shown not to be relevant. On the other side, some (but not all) examples of these concerns included Guy Macon's statement that HnH did not have sufficient evidence of corrections or retractions, Alaexis worries about HnH's editorial policy, my statement that they were investigated by an official UK commission due to deep concerns about their behavior (and despite the commission letting them off the hook, they still noted significant problems with HnH, such as not cooperating earlier despite being aware of the situation), and others who opposed the RfC in general.

I am not arguing about what side I personally support; my point is that dismissing all of these reasonable arguments and acting like there was an overwhelming majority for GREL sounds more like a WP:SUPERVOTE than a fair conclusion of the consensus.

I reached out to the closer, and brought up some of these concerns. The conversation got a little off topic when I confused around a part about reliability, and asked some questions for clarification. Eventually, they responded by shutting the conversation down, and said Move on. I may not respond further if you do not. even though the supervote essay states closers, administrator or non-administrator, are subject to the administrators' accountability policy, and must explain all closes when questioned. Wikieditor662 (talk) 02:57, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Closer (Thryduulf)

I believe I explained fully on my talk page why my close was not a supervote. My final comment was regarding being repeatedly asked the same question in different ways regarding adding an (imo unnecessary) comment regarding attribution to the closing statement, I assumed that my first response had been sufficient regarding other matters as they were not brought up again. Note that I am just off to bed and will have at best very limited time for Wikipedia until circa late morning/early afternoon Wednesday (UK time). Thryduulf (talk) 03:17, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Non-participants (HOPE not Hate)

Endorse. Doing a simple vote count:

• 18 editors supported Option 1 (generally reliable);
• Eight supported Option 2 (no consensus / additional considerations)
• Five supported either Option 3 (generally unreliable) or Option 4 (deprecate).

That's not a particularly close !vote, and there was a clear consensus from participants for Option 1. The concerns raised by a minority of editors were either refuted, or deemed irrelevant (with regards to reliability) by the majority of participants !voting against Options 3 & 4.

Reading the discussion on Thryduulf's Talk, you argued the issue with the close was that it didn't reflect that The opposing side wasn't arguing that it should never be used, but that it should be attributed to. As Thryduulf points out, that was clearly addressed in the close comment, and was acknowledged by supporters of Option 1 who noted that reliable ≠ non-biased. I don't see how this is a WP:SUPERVOTE. nil ^nz 04:25, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Isn't it a a violation of WP:NOTAVOTE to be counting the number of !votes to determine how strong the consensus is (and even if it wasn't, 18 vs 13 is not an overwhelming decision, and you forgot to include the number of people who opposed the RfC in general)?

And the opposing side wasn't only discussing that, but rather many people preferred it be MREL or GUNREL or something else. Wikieditor662 (talk) 04:47, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes, that's why I referred to it as a simple vote count. And no one has said there's an overwhelming decision, but it clearly wasn't a close one either. It's still not clear what policy or guideline you believe wasn't met by the closer to warrant a review. nil ^nz 05:08, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Endorse the close seems totally reasonable and in line with the discussion. ~2026-86111-3 (talk) 11:51, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Endorse It's not a vote, but the generally reliable crowd had the strongest policy-based arguments, and while I think you could justify a no consensus result, a "generally reliable" close was absolutely reasonable from the discussion, certainly nowhere the threshold for an overturn. Bias and reliability are not the same thing, and we could be doing a better job at getting that across *coughTelegraphUK close* than we frequently do. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 18:04, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

• Endorse - I agree with other assessments of the analysis involved in the close, and note that the arguments against it here, flitting as they do from WP:SUPERVOTE to WP:NOTAVOTE, and seemingly attempting to wield any WP:ALPHABETSOUP that comes their way in the interim, come off as extremely weak WP:WIKILAWYERing _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:15, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
• Endorse. Perhaps a different closer could have made a case for no consensus here, but the close which was actually made is a clearly reasonable reading of the discussion. When a clear majority are making policy-based arguments, including explicitly addressing some of the arguments made by the other side, the minority needs to make a very convincing case to win the day. I don't see that here. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:04, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
• Endorse the close is in line with what was said and our policies. The "deprecate" !votes didn't have a leg to stand on, and since "bias is not a bar to reliability" (as the closer rightly said), then I don't see how else they could have closed it. M.Bitton (talk) 15:50, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

• Endorse This is an inherently political/advocacy organization, not a news organization. It no better or worse than any other and its claims should be treated accordingly, but that is covered sufficiently by existing policies. Accordingly, all that is left is the RfC's outcome. While I think that the assessment that dissent from Option 1 was weak is a overblown and support of Option 1 was weaker than others said, I have to concede that consensus was not in the opposition's favor. Accordingly, it was the correct outcome based on our policies regardless of one's feelings on the subject. Buffs (talk) 22:50, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

  Addendum: The closer stated that bias isn't a barrier to reliability. Indeed, our policies state that rather clearly. But we should note the context in which such sources are used. "The sky is green" is not the same as "John Doe stated at Organization X's rally that 'the sky has always been green, not blue!'". In the first instance, we are stating a fact. The second is stating a fact as well, but the fact being stated is that someone uttered a controversial statement. There is a difference and we would all would do well to note that difference. Buffs (talk) 22:58, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

  This is correct. Simonm223 (talk) 23:05, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

• Endorse having read through the RfC it seems a reasonable interpretation of the consensus that emerged. Simonm223 (talk) 23:04, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Participants (HOPE not Hate)

• Endorse Well, I don't know how else you'd close this. Especially as (a) most of the "Option 4" comments seemed to be based upon WP:IDONTLIKEIT as a source, rather than how reliable it actually is, and (b) to downgrade a source I'd expect to see multiple clear examples of its unreliability, yet I can see very little here at all. Black Kite (talk) 10:24, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

  IDONTLIKEIT is not a policy that is applicable here (it pertains to deletion discussions). Multiple markers of unreliability were enumerated (no evidence of fact-checking, timely corrections, retractions or any editorial policy at all). A USEDBYOTHERS-only approach would quickly turn the NYP and the Daily Mail into the greenest of green sources. ~2026-13631-30 (talk) 11:00, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

  IDONTLIKEIT isn't a policy at all. It's part of an essay that happens to be about deletion discussions, but is just as relevant to any discussion on Wikipedia. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:43, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

• Overturn, obviously. It is hard to take a closure seriously when half of its summary is just "Trusted by X" (certified GUNREL MBFC in this case), and the other half is a blatant misrepresentation of the discussion overall. ~2026-13631-30 (talk) 11:00, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

  IDONTLIKEIT isn't even a policy at all, which is why is was even weirder that HNH's opponents seemed to use it as a reason to deprecate - i.e. this is just a rant about how terrible the organisation is and provides zero evidence of reliability/unreliability. Black Kite (talk) 11:36, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

• Endorse I don't see how this could have been closed any other way. Comments calling for deprecation couldn't be taken seriously, this isn't a source that behaves in an underhand manner in the way it publishes or some other exceptionally bad behaviour that would require such a serious step. After that a large amount of the comments for saying the source was unreliable where based on it being biased or having a political position, but sources are not required to be neutral (WP:RSBIAS). What was left is correctly summarised by the close. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:42, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
• Endorse. It didn't go the way I wanted it to, and I still think that there is no evidence of corrections or retractions, no evidence of editorial oversight, and that they typically just write something as if it was an established fact without providing any sources or evidence for it. That being said, my arguments clearly failed to persuade enough editors and the consensus was not with me this time. Good close. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:51, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
• Endorse per above. The Kip ^(contribs) 18:56, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
• Endorse - Also think it's worth noting that some of those who weren't immediately GENREL were like myself who simply thought it should be with attribution, rather than a judgement on its actual reliability as a publication. Rambling Rambler (talk) 19:18, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Discussion (HOPE not Hate)

Did anyone in the discussion give any example of this organisation publishing a falsehood? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:01, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

I believe so, although it was more about contested accusations rather than universally accepted facts. Wikieditor662 (talk) 20:02, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

• DeFacto gave two articles as examples of Hope Not Hate "promoting and encouraging hate" and/or "brand[ing] [someone] as a fascist so you have an excuse to hate". Neither alleged that falsehoods were published.
• Wikieditor662 listed 5 things they saw as issues. Points 3 and 5 allege that they have been accused by others of posting falsehoods.

However none of these points were accepted as reliable evidence of anything relevant by anybody else in the discussion (including by others arguing for options 3 or 4) and some were shown to be incorrect. There was no basis on which to treat the comments by DeFacto or Wikieditor662 as more in accordance with policies and guidelines than the response to them (if anything it was actually the opposite). Thryduulf (talk) 12:09, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Extended confirmed protecting Ethnicity in Afghanistan

• Ethnicity in Afghanistan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Dear admins, after the months-long quarrel on the content of the afforementioned article and the subsequent ban of the disruptive user, it still seems as if the article won't come to rest. Especially newly created and not extended-confirmed users such as @Afghanistan Mottahid and @ArashArianpour888 showed actions of disruptive editing in the recent past:

1) Afghanistan Mottahid.

- Removing sourced and agreed-upon texts:

- Adding hoax texts (as also noted by @Alaexis with falsely used sources:

- Adding unsourced claims:

- Re-reverting, provoking edit-wars: . On that note, it seems as if this user especially isn't ready to talk either, since I asked him to stop disruptively editing on a different, but similar topic about ethnicity in the Kabul Province which he chose to ignore.

2) ArashArianpour888.

- Adding unsourced claims: ,

- Removing sources and agreed-upon texts:

I don't want to play bodyguard for this article all the time, so I think moving this semi-protected page to extended confirmed protection is long overdue. SdHb (talk) 14:27, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

The reason i removed is because there is no valid and reliable document .

Can you please provide a reliable and authoritative source that the Pashtuns are the largest ethnic group in Afghanistan? Do you confirm that a census was conducted and you added this information? The source provided by the government, many writers and politicians disagree that the Tajiks are the largest and some others say the Pashtuns. So in this regard, I think it is right to refrain from using the term “large ethnic group” until you provide credible documents. There are many unofficial sources that are not accepted by many and are supported by Pashtun politicians. Or the US CIA has announced that there are no accurate and official figures as to which ethnic group is the largest, but there are language figures and it can be said that more than 77 to 80 percent of Afghans speak Persian and 45 percent speak Pashto. This is where it can be said that if there is a majority in Afghanistan, it is a linguistic majority, not a tribal or ethnic one! ArashArianpour888 (talk) 09:12, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

This is not the place to discuss this. If you‘re interested how the content was agreed-upon in a 4 months long process, read the Talk page entries entirely. Thank you. SdHb (talk) 10:09, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

• I've protected it. I'm considering a NOTHERE block on User:Afghanistan Mottahid for edit warring and hoaxing. Do you have a defence for your battleground behaviour and misuse of sources? Fences&Windows 12:21, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

ArashArianpour888 is repeatedly adding incorrect information and making unexplained changes to data. See for example this and this. They are still continuing to do this despite this report. I think we need a WP:NOTHERE block and a rollback of their changes. Mellk (talk) 10:03, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Kobie Brown removal of page protection lock

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Kobie Brown (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I think this protection should be removed since not a lot of users are editing this and he has very little projects which makes editing conflicts less relevant. So maybe this could be removed? Miamiwin (talk) 15:57, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Changes in page protection are discussed at WP:RFPP. 331dot (talk) 15:59, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A request

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello. I’m currently preparing for my final exams and I find myself spending too much time editing in Wikipedia instead of studying. Could an administrator please place a voluntary block on my account until 28 March 2026? Thank you.

I want the block to not allow me to even edit my talk page, userpage ,etc. till 28 March 2026. So, that I won't be able to bypass the block. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 04:55, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) TheGreatEditor024, have you considered WP:BREAKENF instead? Iseult ^Δx talk to me 06:01, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Well, I want to continue editing after my exams. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 06:11, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

You are able to end the break at a specific time:

Paste the code on your user JavaScript page, and then change the lines starting with var date and var time to reflect the time you want your break to end (local time). The var date line defines the date your break will end, while the var time defines the time on that day that your break will end. For example, for a break ending at 8:22 pm on 6 February 2019, one would enter the settings

Katzrockso (talk) 06:12, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Well, I am a bit scared , What if I mess up. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 06:13, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

You can contact an WP:interface admin off-wiki. Ca ^{talk to me!} 12:02, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Or disabling JavaScript in your browser will work too nil ^nz 12:05, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Done. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:36, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

AIV

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Can someone please take a look at the AIV noticeboard? I've reported an lta but no one's seen the report yet and they've been vandalizing Wikipedia for over 40 minutes now. Cicada1010 (talk) 16:42, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disruptive behavior by User:Crampcomes

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The user Crampcomes refuses to engage on Talk:Mojtaba Khamenei and continues making disruptive edits on the article Mojtaba Khamenei. Please either ban for a while or ban them for editing the article of Mojtaba Khamenei. talk) 01:12, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

This single-purpose account has been created 17 days ago to promote and legitimize the Iranian regime. See thisCrampcomes (talk) 01:14, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

It's better to defend yourself instead of making baseless accusations. You refuse to engage in a civil discussion and continuously make biased edits against the Iranian government. And no, I am not a supporter of the Iranian government. talk) 01:20, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Comment both users involved here have been engaging in an edit war at Mojtaba Khamenei. I have reported both at WP:AN3. estar8806 (talk) ★ 01:31, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Both Crampcomes and Stanik Afghani blocked 24 hours for violating WP:3RR. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:49, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

As a sidenote, is my browser doing something weird or does Stanik Afghani have no actual name in their signature? Sesquilinear (talk) 08:09, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

The latter. Their signature is just a talk page link. estar8806 (talk) ★ 14:57, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

I've left a message on their Talk page. Blue Sonnet (talk) 14:26, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WP:AIV backlog

There has a pretty long backlog at AIV for about an hour. Some accounts on there are currently active as of now and need blocks ASAP: I would really appreciate it if an admin would check through it. enbi [they/them] • [talk] 21:15, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

 Done Mfield (Oi!) 21:47, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Roshni

Hi admin(s). I am coming here with a very heavy heart, only after multiple failed attempts in seeking proper guidance over my concerns and what I have presented in defense.

I wrote an article on the subject, and nominated it for DYK. During the review process, disagreements occured between few users over WP:RSNOI and WP:ABOUTSELF. Another thread started here, but saw no outcome. I took queries to multiple other forums as well, , but still no response.

Finally, a forced DYKTIMEOUT was established and my queries and defense still remains unaswered. I re-opened another thread, and after three more days of no response, I am here.

(Update: stale and archived, I am now willing for a WP:PR. M. Billoo 14:43, 12 March 2026 (UTC))

What I understand the other respected editors' concerns were, that I have used unbylined press-release style references disguised as news publications, and that this is a contentious topic. And my point was, that I have tried to keep the article tone neutral only establish the fact that the album exists, and tried highlighting notability of the recreated songs and of few of the artists involved in credits. No one highlighted if there was any problem in the article. Only one comment was to try GAN, and only one was to run AfD.

I hope for a better outcome and that I can enjoy being on Wikipedia rather than being stuck. I understand that some sock editors have created a hard time for the reputable editors in Pakistan, and that some publications out here are of low quality. It definitely does not mean to strike everything out, so scrutiny is requested.

Please, thank you! M. Billoo 23:42, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) FYI Admins can't help with content disputes (they usually deal with behavioural issues), can you clarify what outcome you are seeking from admins as I'm not sure from your post what you are asking them to do? Blue Sonnet (talk) 10:18, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

I cannot call a specific outcome. But I am seeking an independent scrutiny whether the article meets notability and can qualify for DYK, or not, despite a forced DYKTIMEOUT. I may agree that this was only a content dispute, but all concerns were and are still yet to be addressed. M. Billoo 10:54, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Moving help

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi, I tried to move the page User:Shashidharkumar to Draft:Shashi Dhar Kumar. When doing this, I unintentionally moved the user talk page as well. Afterwards, I tried to move it back to User talk:Shashidharkumar, but unintentionally moved it to User talk:Shashi Dhar Kumar. Now, I tried to move it to the correct location, but it says that A redirect already exists at User talk:Shashidharkumar, and it cannot be deleted automatically.

Apologies for the mishap, could this please be moved? Thanks! TheTechie^[she/they] | talk? 14:56, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Done. DrKay (talk) 15:00, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disruptive behavior by User:Wahreit

Per this discussion on the Three Alls policy article, I determined @User:Wahreit appears to have added content to the article not supported by the source they cited. I am extremely concerned Wahreit is attempting to build a false historical consensus by writing whatever they wish and citing non-English sources that readers and contributors are unlikely to verify (i.e fictious reference). I have tried to avoid Wahreit and articles they contribute to as I have had many issues with them in the past, but as their false information was pertinent to the discussion on a related article,[1] I ultimately went ahead and corrected it. After I made my correction, Wahreit immediately followed up with WP:Hounding, wasting no time in following me to the related article and acting belligerent.[2] In spite of working with others in the talkpage to reach a consensus and that my contributions to the article used reputable secondary sources, Wahreit began nitpicking over WP:Coatrack issues[3] and rather than work to correct the alleged issues, nor await the input of other contributors, has engaged in WP:Edit_Warring by completely reverting my contributions three times in a row now.[Diff1][Diff2[Diff3]

Around this time, the user also went and altered the Defense of Sihang Warehouse article, which in the past I had heavily contributed to and had past issues with this same user on. Nearly two years ago, it was determined through extensive discussion and a laundry list of sources on the talk page that the Imperial Japanese Army's 3rd Division was not a participating force, even though some Western sources claimed the contary.[4] Since this was determined nearly two years ago, no other editors have since taken issue with the participating Japanese forces listed. In spite of this, Wahreit has arbitrarily readded the incorrect claim of the 3rd Division's participation, despite it already being explained to them years ago.[5] Even Stephen Robinson, who Wahreit relies on heavily as a source for this claim, has personally corresponded with me and agreed their inclusion of the 3rd Divison's involvement at Sihang Warehouse in their writing was incorrect. I am happy to send a copy of this correspondence to an administrator if necessary.

While good faith should be assumed, just a month ago Wahreit went through a very arduous effort of collecting all of my negative interactions with them to try and have me banned, although it was ultimately unsuccessful.[6] It would not be a stretch to say this user holds some kind of grudge against me and is engaged in deliberate harassment through their disruptive editing. Adachi1939 (talk) 23:36, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

This is now the third time @Adachi1939 is trying to get me banned for content disputes (the first two being unsuccessful).

I joined that discussion because:

- adachi badmouthed me unprovoked

- adachi was pushing "an actual number of victims" for the Nanjing Massacre (lower than page consensus) and repeatedly calling a documented genocide "so-called" and "alleged" (which constitutes Denial). Editor @RelmC has taken issue with this too, but adachi has continued to revert their contributions without consensus

Rather than seek consensus per Bold-Revert-Discuss, adachi has reverted everyone's edits to the page repeatedly and now escalated to WP:ANI for the third time.

I now insist on a block for @Adachi1939 because:

- adachi explicitly hounding me (by offering opposition to me, not content, across different pages) despite prior warnings from admins to stop

- adachi's repeated visits to my talk page to insult me

- adachi's repeated attempts to get me banned without discussion, and edit warring

- adachi's continued reliance on personal attacks (despite prior warnings and blocks from admins)

It is getting tiresome coming back to this page over and over again to defend myself because adachi won't resolve content disagreements. adachi has never been of any interest, I only edit wikipedia for the readers. Wahreit (talk) 01:00, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

also, adachi seems to "gain satisfaction" from making people angry and upset, per his own admission. Just some food for thought. Wahreit (talk) 01:00, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

>>adachi badmouthed me unprovoked

Referencing the Chinese version of Wikipedia article, Wahreit wrote a completely different statement in English while citing the same Chinese source, as already explained above.[1] This is not unprovoked "badmouthing", they have engaged in academic dishonesty and it was directly relevant to the discussion. The fact Wahreit has not only engaged in such academic dishonesty, but still refuses to acknowledge it nor take responsibility, should be more than enough reason to have their editing rights revoked.

>>adachi was pushing "an actual number of victims" for the Nanjing Massacre (lower than page consensus)

This is rather disingenuous. I wrote:

Modern scholarship on the Nanjing Massacre, such as Wakabayashi's The Nanking Atrocity, 1937-1938 estimates the actual number of victims to range from 100,000–200,000 POWs and civilians killed

The actual Nanjing Massacre article states "newer estimates adhere to a death toll between 100,000 and 200,000" citing the same source.[2]

>>repeatedly calling a documented genocide "so-called" and "alleged"

Again this is disingenuous, I have not denied a genocide. I called the term "Three Alls policy" "alleged" and "so-called" as it does not exist in Japanese documents, the very sources cited in the article on it state it was a term created by the Chinese Communist Party to criticize Japan's brutal annihilation/pacification operations.[3] I have never denied the Japanese military flagrantly committed atrocities during these campaigns, only questioned the terminology and who was actually responsible.

>>adachi has continued to revert their [RelmC's] contributions without consensus

RelmC expressed doubts with my contributions adhering to the academic consensus, largely due to confusion stemming from Wahreit writing a fictious claim on the Three Alls policy article as already mentioned above. After clarifying this,[4] I readded the changes and have not received further input from RelmC. I don't know why Wahreit thinks they are entitled to speak on behalf of this editor who has so far expressed no further concerns.

>>adachi explicitly hounding me (by offering opposition to me, not content, across different pages) despite prior warnings from admins to stop

While the hounding is true, the allegation I was already warned to not do so is false. Wahreit's cited example occurred on Jan 16 2026. I was warned on Jan 19 2026 to stop.[5] I have since stopped, however as seen above Wahreit has not.

>>adachi's repeated visits to my talk page to insult me

All of these are old examples which have already been discussed on the Administrator's noticeboard before and are missing the context that in said noticeboard discussions, they were found to be guilty of the same behavior. An administrator noted about Wahreit:

I am extremely unimpressed with your behavior. You seem to be arranging inappropriate offwiki coordination with another editor against "a certain guy". It's hardly harassment for that "guy" to then show up to the conversation.

Another user wrote of Wahreit:[6]

does @Wahreit think talk pages are exempt of WP:CIVIL? The only embarrassing behavior I see is from you [Wahreit].

>>adachi's repeated attempts to get me banned

Nowhere in these examples did I explicitly ask for Wahreit to be banned. I was requesting admin intervention for measures to be taken against their disruptive behavior. Perhaps Wahreit is unaware that an alternative to being banned is simply not engaging in prolonged disruptive behavior.

>>adachi's continued reliance on personal attacks

As already discussed above, pointing out someone's poor conduct doesn't necessarily mean it's a personal attack. In the numerous examples Wahreit has cited, they have take responsibility for their misconduct in zero of them.

>>also, adachi seems to "gain satisfaction" from making people angry and upset, per his own admission

The full context here is that I was gaining satisfaction from the anger someone suffered as a consequence of their own stupidity. For that I am guilty as charged. Adachi1939 (talk) 02:09, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

>>>The full context here is that I was gaining satisfaction from the anger someone suffered as a consequence of their own stupidity. For that I am guilty as charged.

@Adachi1939 admits the truth on how he interacts with and treats newcomers. Just appalling.

>>>While the hounding is true, the allegation I was already warned to not do so is false

adachi admits to hounding me. And he was warned previously by an admin here to not to hound me: Then he was warned again recently He still has refused to stop.

>>>Nowhere in these examples did I explicitly ask for Wahreit to be banned. I was requesting admin intervention for measures to be taken against their disruptive behavior.

No. He did. Here:

So adachi has just admitted to hounding me and has not stopped despite two previous warnings. He has been blocked already for edit-warring twice too (see his block log). He gains satisfaction from "the anger from other people's stupidity" as he calls it.

I really do believe the wiki community would benefit from a long block on adachi. Wahreit (talk) 02:33, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

hey just popping in here. What happened?? It doesn't look like any of you are in the right judging by what I see, it's better if we get someone here now Raizief (talk) 02:58, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

@Adachi1939 has escalated to WP:ANI for the third time over a content issue, seeking to get me banned. He didn't try getting a consensus on a talk page or discuss substantially.

Adachi's also been hounding me across Wikipedia despite previous warnings from admins. I am bored of having to come here every time adachi disagrees with me. I'll let the diffs speak the truth. Wahreit (talk) 03:19, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

>>No. He did. Here:

My apologies if I missed them, but looking over these two examples I don't see any examples where I explicitly called for Wahreit to be banned.

At this point I am fairly certain they lack the ability to engage in a constructive manner with me but that doesn't necessarily mean they need a sitewide ban, just blocking their editing privileges on a few articles could probably help. Adachi1939 (talk) 03:10, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

If you two want someone to assist a good first step would be to stop going back and forth with each other. ~2026-13567-93 (talk) 16:26, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

I support an interaction ban between these two editors. Both of them continually increase the temperature of discussions I have witnessed and seemingly have no ability to stop insulting each other or personalizing the dispute.

See throwing juvenile tantrums and begging desperately (and unsuccessfully) for the admins to ban me

and This is perhaps the most disingenuous statement I've ever witnessed from an editor on this site.

for recent examples. Katzrockso (talk) 02:20, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Comment: These two have been edit warring at Defense of Sihang Warehouse for two years now. Wahreit canvassed me three times on my talk page for my input but I've ignored it until now with the exception of some deletions of unsourced content back in May 2024. Their main contention seems to be that Wahreit mainly uses secondary or tertiary sources that have a Chinese bias while Adachi favors primary Japanese sources that have a Japanese bias. It wasn't until today that I noticed that Adachi is deleting pieces of the article based on the false premise of failed verification, which they then reverted with an explanation to see talk page. There is obviously no consensus on the talk page since Wahreit and Adachi are still fighting each other, and I don't much any mention of the source involved (Harmsen), so I'm not sure what looking at talk page is supposed to do. I suggest a topic ban for both Wahreit and Adachi from WW2 articles, particularly Adachi for the Second Sino-Japanese War, since this has been ongoing for years now. Looking at Adachi's history, they have been edit warring with multiple users since 2023. Qiushufang (talk) 05:24, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Response: Sorry if my reasoning in the edits was not clear, all of these passages in some way did fail verification, please see my explanation on the talk page.

The issue with Wahreit is not that they use sources biased towards China, it is that they are using objectively bad sources, including ones that have either copied or outright plagiarized Wikipedia to assert completely false notions like an entire extra Japanese division being involved.

If it was just Wahreit's poor sources being the problem, it would not be so much of an issue. They have been distorting sources for years.

Ex. 1 Source says "The Chinese officers ordered their men to fire. Five Japanese soldiers went down" Wahreit writes "Five Japanese soldiers were killed instantly by gunfire"

Did these Japanese soldiers die? Likely, but it is not explicitly stated in the original text.

Ex. 2 Source says Japanese "brought forward tankettes", Wahreit changes it to "five Type 94 Te-Ke tankettes, who Yang Ruifu observed advancing down the road." Cited source made no reference to the number of tankettes nor Yang Ruifu observing them (he's not mentioned in the source article at all).

Ex. 3 Source only lists one Japanese serviceman as fatally wounded near Sihang Warehouse, Wahreit adds false claim to article that it said "two" died.

If the issues with these poor sources and Wahreit adding false/misleading/embellished information unsupported by their sources could have been handled years ago when it started, none of this would have ever escalated to this mess. Yes I do edit the Sihang Warehouse article a lot because the article sucks and needs a lot of work, especially due to disruptive editors like Wahreit and people that keep reverting problematic content back into it. Adachi1939 (talk) 05:57, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Other people seem to disagree with your interpretation of bad sources or plagiarism per explanation by Katzrockso (talk · contribs). Qiushufang (talk) 06:10, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

I appreciate all the input Katzrockso has given me, but their judgement is off on this one. Also that's only a single opinion.

Not even getting into the misinformation of this article, the signs of plagiarism are damning. This type of content has no place on the Web let alone Wikipedia. Just look at the comparisons:

07:17, 9 August 2007 revision of the Defense of Sihang Warehouse Article:

The Japanese 3rd Division (one of the most elite IJA divisions at the time)..." "...enjoyed air and naval superiority, as well as access to armoured vehicles, likely Type 94 Te-Ke tankettes, and also Type 89 mortars."

Niderost, Dec 2007:

"The Sihang defenders faced the Japanese 3rd Division, considered one of the best of the Imperial Japanese Army. They also had mortar teams, artillery, and armor—probably Type 94 Te-Ke tankettes."

No web results other than the Wiki when searching "mint godown" before:2007-12-31:

07:17, 9 August 2007 revision of the Defense of Sihang Warehouse Article:

"known also as the Chinese Mint Godown by those from the concessions"

Niderost, Dec 2007:

"Westerners knew the place as the Chinese Mint Godown."

Strange small detail for both to include:

07:17, 9 August 2007 revision of the Defense of Sihang Warehouse Article:

"the defenders did not have a flag pole in the warehouse. Therefore, the flag was hoisted on a makeshift pole made of two bamboo culms tied together."

Niderost, Dec 2007:

"Because there was no flagpole, two bamboo poles were lashed together for the purpose."

These two paragraphs are nearly identical in their content:

07:17, 9 August 2007 revision of the Defense of Sihang Warehouse Article:

"Attacking from all directions with cannon fire and tankettes, they pushed the 3rd Company out of their defensive line at the base of the warehouse and forced the 3rd into the warehouse itself. The west side of the warehouse originally lacked windows (as can be seen from the photos above), but the Japanese attacks conveniently opened up firing holes for the defenders. A group of Japanese soldiers tried to scale the walls to the second floor with ladders, and Xie just happened to be at the window they appeared from. He grabbed the first Japanese soldier's rifle, choked him with the other hand, pushed him off, and finally shot another Japanese soldier on the ladder before pushing the ladder off.

Niderost, Dec 2007:

"The west side of the building lacked windows, but Japanese shell hits had punched enough gaps into the wall to provide the defenders with loopholes. The Japanese, acting in concert with infantry, then brought forward tankettes. The fighting grew so heavy the Chinese Third Company was pushed back from its position and forced into the warehouse. Japanese infantry came forward with scaling ladders, a curious throwback in an age of mechanized war. The Chinese simply pushed the ladders off or peppered the advancing enemy with rifle and machine-gun fire. Xie personally lent a hand, fighting alongside his men.

If we break down the Wiki article's sentences it's essentially the following: [Concept 1 - Japanese attack with tankettes → push back Chinese 3rd Company] → [Concept 2 - West side attacked by Japanese → loopholes made for Chinese Defenders], → [Concept 3 - Japanese try to scale walls with ladders → Chinese resist → Xie personally stops them]

Looking at Niderost's paragraph, we can see the same content just paraphrased and rearranged, his is just constructed as [Concept 2] → [Concept 1] → [Concept 3].

Adachi1939 (talk) 06:20, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

I now support a topic ban for blatant WP:BLP violations despite previous warnings. Katzrockso (talk) 17:52, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Definition of plagariasm as per Chabot College where the author in question is a faculty member

The term "plagiarism" includes, but is not limited to, the use, by paraphrase or direct quotation, of the published or unpublished work or another person without full and clear acknowledgement

Plagiarism includes the deliberate misrepresentation of someone else's works and ideas, as one's own, as well as paraphrasing without footnoting the source.

Per both Wikipedia's definition and Chabot College's definition no violation of WP:BLP has occcured. On the contrary, attempting to surpress these very real issues with academic misconduct is saddening to see. Adachi1939 (talk) 21:00, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

I concur. Look at Adachi's edit history at Yasuji Okamura where they repeatedly edit warred with RelmC (talk · contribs) and Wahreit (talk · contribs) over the course of three months. I also just noticed Katzrockso's involvement at the talk page there, so they should know the extent of the issue better than I do. A logged out edit just coincidentally reverted me after I warned Adachi of edit warring. Qiushufang (talk) 12:30, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Wow this goes back even further than I thought. Note that even before Katz had advized Adachi to edit the Three Alls article, they had already done that back in December 2025, eventually involving Wahreit as well as RelmC. Qiushufang (talk) 12:40, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Wow I had forgotten that I was involved in this two years ago at Battle of Shanghai. See my comments on the issue here and here. I even predicted that none of the issues would be fixed because the users involved keep on using non-English primary sources that hardly anyone can verify. Defense of Sihang Warehouse has not improved to this day. The article is still ridden with primary sources, broken sources, and incomplete sources, all issues that had been templated for improvement. Adachi's most recent edit even broke a bunch of sources. Qiushufang (talk) 13:28, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your work fixing the Defense of Sihang page after my edits. I am going to go through soon and fix as well as better organize all of the citations. Adachi1939 (talk) 20:32, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Self-requested block

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I recently received a brain surgery near the frontal lobe, and as a result, the performing surgeon did inform me that the surgery will cause temporary behavioral changes, alongside some episodes of dissociation.

They did say that my brain will return to normal in 20 days, but in good faith, I have some concerns that these episodes can cause me to impulsively/unpredictably vandalize here or send insults to people, as noted by a previous disorder that I had.

Until then, it would be greatly appreciated that I be blocked within that recovery duration. Thank you. n.h.huit, 化けの花 04:14, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

You may also wish to look into this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_User_scripts/Scripts/WikiBreak_Enforcer User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 04:19, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"User:Henrydat" and "199.7.158.234"

Globally locked LTA. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:54, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 199.7.158.234 This appears to be another persona of user:Henrydat. This account has been used to defame others and even make false reports claiming someone is C, DDC or Nguyentrongphu, Trieu Thuan Son... (JeanFousrou52 (talk) 18:26, 13 March 2026 (UTC)) Proof: "Bố thằng điên lảm nhảm lắm thế 199.7.158.234 (talk) 09:20, 28 September 2025 (UTC)" | From Vietnameses: F* you! Why do you babble so much? (JeanFousrou52 (talk) 18:26, 13 March 2026 (UTC)) 199.7.158.234 last edited in September of last year. That IP posting "That crazy guy's dad is rambling too much."[per Google Translate] on User talk:Worvandae is so far from being proof of anything as to be hard to understand what word you actually meant. What are you hoping administrators will do at this point? • a frantic turtle 🐢 18:43, 13 March 2026 (UTC) In any case, that account and user:Henrydat needs to have its IP address blocked and all further activity banned. Now, if I accuse you of being some kind of puppet and hurl insults at you, would you laugh? JeanFousrou52 (talk) 20:52, 13 March 2026 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.