User talk:Orlando Davis

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	I'm sure there is more work to be done but I wanted to thank you and Arminden for your great work on improving Klatt Bureau (spy network). Moritoriko (talk) 23:23, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Moritoriko, and thank you Orlando Davis! Arminden (talk) 04:23, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you as well! Orlando Davis (talk) 05:05, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. NicheSports (talk) 22:59, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Star Mississippi 00:48, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Michael Katz (chef). Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 10:30, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following is intended as context regarding the CBAN proposal. The information I provide contains verifiable evidence.

The information I provide is not due to a personal dispute or any assumptions I make. It is only a summary of observable actions.

1. Michael Katz (CHEF) Afd/ WP ASPERSIONS

After posting a vote on the Michael Katz (chef) AFD, Polygnotus asked me if I had a conflict of interest. While it's not against Wikipedia policy to inquire about COI, there is no evidence for that.

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Katz (chef)

2. Removed Tag without a valid reason

After I added a neutrality tag to the Police Abolition article, Polygnotus removed it without justification. The tag was warranted since there are neutrality issues in the article.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Police_abolition&action=history

3. Antisemitism / Holocaust–Related Pages

A pattern of behavior is evidenced by a history of deleting and removing content.

• Removal of Antisemitism content:
  • https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Antisemitism&diff=prev&oldid=10396644
  • https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Antisemitism&diff=prev&oldid=10396596
  • https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Antisemitism&diff=prev&oldid=10396614
• Removal of Holocaust Trivialization content:
  • https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Holocaust_trivialization&diff=prev&oldid=10391793
  • https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Holocaust_trivialization&diff=prev&oldid=10391793
• Removal of Holocaust Denial Content:
  • 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 8

4. Additional Evidence of Polygnotus's Long Term Pattern of a Behavior that is not compatible with Wikipedia

I add more diffs below:

• Evidence of lack of civility:
  • Talk:Antisemitism on Wikipedia: Also, you are making it harder and harder to assume good faith. If you are of good faith, and you fucked up, then why act like this? Why not simply say "oh I am sorry" and stop wasting my time? Polygnotus (talk) 22:47, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
  • https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/False_accusations_of_antisemitism#c-Polygnotus-20250707172400-Rhododendrites-20250707133600You said you were gonna upload insect photos instead of being counterproductive here. Why do you ask these questions that you would already know the answers to if you had read the links provided? Can you please go upload insect pictures like you promised? There are over 900.000 known insect species. If you delete your comments here I might even come help you when this is done. Thank you. Polygnotus (talk) 17:24, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
• Evidence of edit wars: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8
• Evidence of canvassing: 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 and here.

5. Evidence / Documentation

I have not made comments about Polygnotus's intent or motivation. The information above provides observable behavior.

6. Conclusion / Context for Consideration

Polygnotus's actions demonstrate a long term history of behavior that diminishes the quality of the Wikipedia encyclopedia and goes against its core value of collaboration. I am submitting this in order to provide context in regard to the CBAN proposal.

Additional Evidence

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Coordinating_Committee/Cases/2025/Systematic_failure_to_enforce_UCoC_on_Simple_wiki

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Coordinating_Committee/Cases/2025/Polygnotus

Orlando Davis (talk) 11:19, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reviewing the information I have added. I do want to add that information to the ANI. Additionally, I am still working on more information that I would like added. I just added another topic on the MasterCooks. Orlando Davis (talk) 11:08, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Orlando_Davis_response

Someone may copy it all, I do not have the on wiki time this week to do so. Star Mississippi 13:25, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a response to Niche's comment: "In the meantime, they repeatedly reintroduced promotional content to Mastercooks of Belgium - see 149"

There appears to be some questionable edits by Polygnotus and TheRoadIsLong. This is not comprehensive since I did not want to make the page unreadable.

Involved Editors:

• Polygnotus -  Over many edits, he re-added content that had previously been removed without justification. Making non-encyclopedic, subjective commentary in his Wikipedia notes.
• TheRoadIsLong - He used promotional language as a justification for his edit notes when the content was already neutral.

Examples (Polygnotus):

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mastercooks_of_Belgium&diff=prev&oldid=1324688329=He repeatedly added content without making substantial changes, using a non justifiable summary.
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mastercooks_of_Belgium&diff=prev&oldid=1324688445Did tweaks that do not have any substantial relevance (on content he re-added previously) without a justifable summary.
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mastercooks_of_Belgium&diff=prev&oldid=1324688566He removed neutral wording with a non encyclopedic justification (Polygnatus said fancruft).
4. 03:00–03:01, 29 Nov 2025 – Here, he removes neutral content, adding subjective non-encyclopedic summaries. Hereand here.

Examples (TheRoadIsLong):

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mastercooks_of_Belgium&diff=prev&oldid=1324755168He reverted my minor paragraph structure changes that I documented correctly and misrepresented what he did in the notes, calling it removing Promotional content.
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mastercooks_of_Belgium&diff=prev&oldid=1324758616What he did was make a minor change and misrepresented what he did in the notes, calling it Promotional content.
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mastercooks_of_Belgium&diff=prev&oldid=1324764255 Took out content on Deer Industry New Zealand that was relevant and sourced. The source is acceptable for information related to the company.

Conclusion:

We see questionable edits. Further investigation is needed for a complete picture of what happened. Orlando Davis (talk) 11:08, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

With this edit [1] I correctly removed puffery “The association works towards developing talent through various initiatives.”

With this edit [2] I correctly removed puffery “multiple accolades”

With this edit [3] I removed primary sourced promotion of a non notable cooperation.

There is absolutely nothing questionable about these edits. Theroadislong (talk) 18:59, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1) The sentence is a summary that gives context for the next few sentences. Given that it's factual and well sourced, it's not promotional. “The association works towards developing talent through various initiatives.”

WP:V: –  It is verifiable since it's sourced.

WP:NPOV (Neutral Point of View) –The sentence describes how talent is developed. There is no evaluation. That is not puffery.

WP:NOTPROMO – Wikipedia: We don't want to write adverts, but it's ok to write verifiable facts.

2) Multiple accolades are supported by the references provided. Not promotional. “multiple accolades.”

1. WP:V: The statements I wrote is verifiable by the sources. So I can use it.
2. WP:NPOV (Neutral Point of View): Since multiple accolades (synonym of award) is true, then that's neutral. I'm "giving those details that actually are factual."
3. WP:NOTPROMO: We don't want to write an advert, but it's fine as long as the statement is verifiable.

3) Deer Industry was properly sourced and is important to the paragraph about collaboration on the Mastercooks of Belgium. It doesn't matter if a company is or isn't notable unless we are writing an article about them.

• WP:V: — What I wrote was verifiable.
• WP:Reliable Sources: We can use a company's site for non controversial facts.
• As long as what we are saying is not controversial, we can use a company's site.
• Wikipedia:Neutral point of view WP:NPOV — We are being neutral. We are simply stating a fact. Facts are neutral.
• Wikipedia:Notability: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability  We can use a company that hasn't had a Wikipedia written about them yet.  See: "Often, understanding is best achieved by presenting the topic on a dedicated standalone page, but it is not required that we do so; at times it is better to cover a notable topic as part of a larger page about a broader topic",

Orlando Davis (talk) 20:47, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The first point I'd like to make is that I completely agree with Star Mississippi's ruling that my AI use was incidental. I do promise to never again use AI, neither in an article or a talk page. And since the conversation is no longer about AI, I want to focus on an analysis of the diffs presented by fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four.

I think that my interactions on the first week of being on Wikipedia can be excused simply for a complete lack of knowledge of policy. It should also be noted that I have not been a regular editor, more like a binge editor.

Having gone through all the diffs that fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four has presented as evidence of my behavior, I see how I can be defensive and assertive. However, I don't see a case that I am a person incompatible with the encyclopedia. In debates, I have defended my positions with passion and policy-based reasoning. That is not considered to be edit warring, and if there were any exceptions early on, it was mainly because I was still learning what the rules were, so I believe that leniency on my early AFD's for example, make sense.

I have no issue explaining my reasoning for why, as a whole, most if not all of those diffs are either not severe or not a problem at all. I don't have a problem if someone disagrees; I am glad to discuss each and every point. Orlando Davis (talk) 12:53, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Valereee,

Can I call you Val?

Could you cite a policy justification for removing 28 sources from the (deleted) Michael Katz article?

I was searching hard. I need access to see the history.

Thanks Orlando Davis (talk) 03:07, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've answered this over at simple and pinged you, as I'm a bit worried you're going to lose talk page access if we get into this here. Valereee (talk) 11:19, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to disengage from you Val. Please respect that. Orlando Davis (talk) 14:45, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps voters should take a look at Wikipedia:Blocking policy when they vote.

It says that when considering the duration of a block, the "severity" of the behavior should be considered.

So given that the LLM use was incidental, we should focus on my behavior only. I have never in my time in Wikipedia engaged in behavior even close to being severe enough to warrant being blocked. It would be a critical misjudgment to vote that way. Orlando Davis (talk) 04:51, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at Wikipedia:Blocking policy (WP:BLOCK), “Blocks should not be used" on Wikipedia "to retaliate."

Given Polygnotus's long-term pattern of edit warring, canvassing, and bludgeoning (as initially referenced in my first C-BAN response), doesn’t the community recognize that Polygnotus's current one year C-BAN proposal could be seen as a potential continuation of that pattern? Orlando Davis (talk) 16:46, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Banning policy: This says that a ban should only be used as a last resort:

“Editors are site-banned or topic-banned only as a last resort, usually for extreme or very persistent problems that have not been resolved by lesser sanctions…”

The community has not given the one week block a chance to see if it is a sufficient deterrent. It looks like this guideline has not yet been looked at by voters. Orlando Davis (talk) 17:11, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you sufficiently demonstrate the problems with your conduct and how you plan to avoid it going forward then there'll be no need for a block of any kind. It's very odd for you to suggest that we should see "if" a one week block will be a sufficient deterrent -- you tell us whether it'd be enough! Athanelar (talk) 18:11, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See below for the actions that I plan on taking. Orlando Davis (talk) 18:55, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the actions that I plan on taking:

• I will avoid using AI in either articles or talk pages

• I will refrain from being excessively argumentative and work on giving concise responses

• I will value and seek more input from other editors

• I will take a step back in heated conversations

I am committed to making the necessary changes to never be in an ANI again.

Orlando Davis (talk) 19:02, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If I get banned, then I will have to accept that. Even though I disagree. In the end, there are other places on the internet for me. But Polygnotus is informed that I wish to disengage from him now, and forever. Just so you don't think I'm making this stuff up. And I was advised to send this up to ANI, and I didn't. I now regret that. See here:

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Coordinating_Committee/Cases/2025/Polygnotus

Orlando Davis (talk) 20:31, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) OD, I think it is fair for you to ask Polygnotus to no longer post on your talk page, but you are the one who has repeatedly created battleground-type posts here about Polygnotus' conduct. Most of these posts have featured conduct that is entirely unrelated to his interactions with you. And much of it is also misrepresented - for example your claim that he had removed a bunch of content about anti-semitism when the edit summaries in the provided diffs showed that he had moved it to a different page. Same thing with the link above - this case request was declined. If this continues, you are going to lose talk page access which will make it harder to appeal any CBAN. Please, stop posting about Polygnotus. NicheSports (talk) 20:43, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just anti-semitism. It's a history of canvassing, bludgeoning, edit warring, and personal attacks. And I have also added evidence that he has been edit warring against me in Response to the CBAN Proposal, and Further Response to CBAN (MasterCooks of Belgium). And not only that, his canvassing issues continue as he has recently been warned.

See here: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive361#Polygnotus

And I have been careful about following procedure. I have stuck to observable facts. Orlando Davis (talk) 20:55, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Even though Polygnotus has avoided a ban, I do see a pattern of behavior. And none of the diffs presented against my behavior indicate any wrongdoing. The only thing I was found guilty of is incidental AI use. Orlando Davis (talk) 21:11, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see why it was thrown out. The person filing was on the right track but made mistakes.

Not edit warring? See here: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Orlando Davis (talk) 21:33, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"entirely unrelated to his interactions with you"? You didn't read my post above? And it doesn't matter to me at all how the case was ruled, nor does it to millions of people.

1. Michael Katz (CHEF) Afd/ WP ASPERSIONS

After posting a vote on the Michael Katz (chef) AFD, Polygnotus asked me if I had a conflict of interest. While it's not against Wikipedia policy to inquire about COI, there is no evidence for that.

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Katz (chef)

2. Removed Tag without a valid reason

After I added a neutrality tag to the Police Abolition article, Polygnotus removed it without justification. The tag was warranted since there are neutrality issues in the article.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Police_abolition&action=history
• Polygnotus -  Over many edits, he re-added content that had previously been removed without justification. Making non-encyclopedic, subjective commentary in his Wikipedia notes.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mastercooks_of_Belgium&diff=prev&oldid=1324688329=He repeatedly added content without making substantial changes, using a non justifiable summary.
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mastercooks_of_Belgium&diff=prev&oldid=1324688445Did tweaks that do not have any substantial relevance (on content he re-added previously) without a justifable summary.
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mastercooks_of_Belgium&diff=prev&oldid=1324688566He removed neutral wording with a non encyclopedic justification (Polygnatus said fancruft).
4. 03:00–03:01, 29 Nov 2025 – Here, he removes neutral content, adding subjective non-encyclopedic summaries. Hereand here.

Orlando Davis (talk) 22:33, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) x 2. I've changed this comment because I edit conflicted with NicheSports, who made my main point. Why link to a case that was declined several weeks ago? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:58, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why is he on those pages so much?

This isn't enough?

• Evidence of canvassing: 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 and here.

Or this:

Talk:Antisemitism on Wikipedia: Also, you are making it harder and harder to assume good faith. If you are of good faith, and you fucked up, then why act like this? Why not simply say "oh I am sorry" and stop wasting my time? Polygnotus (talk) 22:47, 6 July 2025 (UTC) Orlando Davis (talk) 21:18, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He removes sourced information regarding the number of deaths in the holocaust:

"where at least 6,000,000 Jews (67% of pre-war European Jews) were murdered systematically."

The numbers cited are ones that are widely accepted by mainstream sources. He does not provide a summary with a necessary explanation for such a controversial edit.

https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Antisemitic_stereotypes&diff=prev&oldid=10649286

This "yeah that is what they believe, not necessarily the objective truth" is not an encyclopedic summary. And see his edit:

Zionism is a movement for creating and developing a Jewish homeland in the Land of Israel, or Palestine,^[1] based on self-determination.^[1][1] Any search on the topic would reveal the words self determination in the definition of Zionism.

https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zionism&diff=prev&oldid=10382965

His summary is (spam)? He removed this sourced quote:

"In the light of history, the argument that anti-Zionism is different from antisemitism is not very convincing. No one disputes that in the late Stalinist period anti-Zionism was merely a synonym for antisemitism. [...] in the Muslim [...] Arab world, the fine distinctions between Jews and Zionists hardly ever existed."

https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Antisemitism_in_East_Germany&diff=prev&oldid=10560957

Here, Polygnotus removes this sentence "In September 1984, former KKK member Tom Metzger donated $100 to Farrakhan's NOI after being impressed by his antisemitic rhetoric at a Los Angeles event." It took me seconds to verify that the sentence removed is accurate.

https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nation_of_Islam&diff=prev&oldid=10409953

Provides no summary. He deleted information sourced from The Journal of Holocaust Research about the false equivalence and false innocence narratives. Since that is a reliable academic source, we must respect that on Wikipedia.

https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nazism&diff=prev&oldid=10392081

He adds a non-encyclopedic summary (smear). Removes the entire denial section. While the section did need work in some parts to meet neutrality, that did not justify a complete removal.

ihttps://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cambodian_genocide&diff=prev&oldid=10380374

He removes this source: "Working Definition Of Antisemitism". World Jewish Congress. The World Jewish Congess is accepted as a source on Wikipedia. The information deleted is critical on the Secondary antisemitism articles' explanation of secondary anti-semitism such as holocaust denial trivialization, false accusations of Jews being equally responsible for their own genocide, and false accusations that the holocaust is used to serve Israel. He provides no summary for his removal.

https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Secondary_antisemitism&diff=prev&oldid=10387815

He removes this quote: "The left-wing tradition of antizionism [...] in a broad alliance with antisemitic movements that do not find the distinction between hostility to Israel and hostility to Jews to be of much significance [. ...] Antizionism does not allow Jews [...] to define their own identities. It defines their Zionism [...] as racism [. ...] alien to any decent community of human beings." The quote was properly sourced from the Journal of Contemporary Antisemitism, which is a reliable source for Wikipedia. Polygnotus's summary is his opinion. He does not state a Wikipedia policy based reason for the removal of the quote.

https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Antisemitism_in_the_Soviet_Union&diff=prev&oldid=10381324

Orlando Davis (talk) 05:19, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

None of this is relevant to your block and it all happened on Simple Wikipedia, take it up there, not here. Theroadislong (talk) 14:31, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because of your continuing a dispute while blocked with evidence that doesn't even come from en.wikipedia, I have removed your access to your talkpage for the remaining duration of your block. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:06, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Orlando Davis. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:The Miniature Engineering Craftsmanship Museum's Craftsman of the Year award, a page you created, has not been edited in at least five months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 07:07, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

By the consensus of the Wikipedia community, your block hsas been extended to indefinite; as this is a community-imposed indefinite block, it is considered to be a community ban. Appealing this ban can be done by following the procedures at WP:UNBAN; I have restored your talk page access, but be advised that a resumption of the behavior that led to it being revoked previously will result in it being removed again in short order. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:10, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my response below. Thank you. Orlando Davis (talk) 23:02, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Polygnotus canvassed wbm1058: "Admins appear to have taken the day off so I'll just ping the most recently active one. @Wbm1058: Would you be so kind to implement the community consensus above? Thanks," And I don't know who else he canvassed. And wbm1058 didn't see a problem. He rightfully pointed out that he saw votes, not votes followed by reasons backed by evidence. Back to the canvassing. That's why canvassing is wrong. An attempt to quickly close a vote before it turns around?

And who are these 3 voters? It is suspicious that all 3 randomly show up to vote with so few edits. It appears to be canvassing and vote stacking.

Poppip10; 13 Edits

~2025-31733-18: 28 edits

2025-38852-98: 1 edit

And here is more on Polygnatus: Since the evidence before was not counted for not being part of this Wikipedia. I included only evidence From this English Wikipedia this time. And if these aren't grave examples of policy breaking, then my supposed infractions are nothing.

"Polygnotus, how could you read that statement and respond like this? Can you just table policy points for a moment in this debate and react like a human being? I have no idea how this discussion will close, and I haven't read through it all, but our editors are our strongest resource here at Wikipedia and civility is a pillar of the project. AGF and all. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:48, 1 December 2024 (UTC)"[reply]

Hey there, so uh… I'm basically a total newbie to Wikipedia. I just found the ANI board and wanted to see if i could help the community by voting for the indef of someone I thought clearly deserved it. I never expected to get thrown into accusations of canvassing and vote stacking just because I've made few edits. If Polygnotus did do any of this then I can confirm that I was never notified of this vote by anyone and found it all on my own. Poppip10 (talk) 02:20, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mega_Society_(2nd_nomination)

Talia Lavin

An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes or manually reverses other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. (emphasis mine)

[70] [71] [72] [73] Polygnotus (talk) 21:35, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours by @Canterbury Tail: Polygnotus (talk) 21:54, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive498#Angrysct0tsman12_suspected_edit_warring_via_IPs_(Result:_declined_/_page_protected)

Disruptive and incorrect editing by Polygnotus on Vegan Camp Out

Disruptive and incorrect editing by Polygnotus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This article contains a lot of half truths or total mistruths. I have tried offering advice to make the page better and more informative but user keeps disrupting the editing. User also admits they don't care either way if the page is accurate or inaccurate which goes against the mission statement of Wikipedia -- unsigned

• This is a retaliatory post for a thread opened recently elsewhere on this page. Archiving. EEng 15:31, 19 March 2025 (UTC)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1182#Disruptive_and_incorrect_editing_by_Polygnotus_on_Vegan_Camp_Out[reply]

@Polygnotus you’ve been editwarring this and other high-IQ articles for months, deleting sources and content without consensus. Do you have a COI to disclose? Were you rejected by one or more of these groups? Robin (talk) 15:23, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2024_November_24

Stop acting dumb. I and others !voted to get the article title changed from Killing of David Maland to Zizians. I argued for using the article title Zizians here and here quote: So I think it would be best to rename this article to "Zizians" and then shift its focus. and here. Polygnotus (talk) 23:23, 27 February 2025 (UTC)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1181#Blocking_the_user_Aryan_Bagkar_for_edit_war_and_adding_content_without_citations[reply]

User Polygnotus - Disruptive Editing and Strange Edit History

This user has been WP:edit warring on the Landmark Worldwide (27 edits) and Werner Erhard (33 edits) articles and posting extensively on the associated talk pages (66 and 41 edits respectively), amounting to a clear attempt to assert ownership over these articles. [286] [287] [288] [289] talk:Landmark Worldwide Talk:Landmark_Worldwide/Archive_32 [290] [291] [292] talk:Werner Erhard

Whenever an editor attempts to discuss matters with them, they respond with WP:aspersions and WP:personal attacks, both on the article talk pages, and on the editor's own talk page. [293] [294] [295]

The Landmark Worldwide article was the subject of an Arbitration case in 2014 [Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Landmark Worldwide - Wikipedia ], where the findings of the Arbitrators included the following:

Wikipedia is a reference work, not a battlefield. Each and every user is expected to interact with others civilly, calmly, and in a spirit of cooperation. Open discussion is encouraged in every area of the encyclopedia as it is only by discussion that cooperation is possible. However, certain types of discourse – in particular, personal attacks – are not only discouraged but forbidden because they create a toxic atmosphere and thwart the building of consensus. For this reason, editors are expected to comment on the edits, not on the editor. and Edit warring is not an acceptable editing practice, whether the three-revert rule is broken or not. Editors are expected to engage in calm discussion and if necessary dispute resolution rather than making repeated reverts of disputed content.

Clearly Polygnotus is failing to abide by these findings.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1144#User_Polygnotus_-_Disruptive_Editing_and_Strange_Edit_History

Here is another one:

"I am baffled by the aggression shown towards me by polygnotus. If posting a COI template on my talk page is not "accusing" me of having one, what is it? Also, on another point, it is inaccurate to say that "Last time the wider community took a look at these articles a bunch of Landmark sock- and meatpuppets got banned." In fact, the last time the wider community looked at this article, no one was banned: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Landmark_Worldwide/Proposed_decision#Proposed_findings_of_factCoalcity58 (talk) 18:56, 17 September 2024 (UTC)"[reply]

More:

"And here we go again. Polygnotus has claimed I’m posting false accusations, while in the very act of accusing me of creating a false narrative. So, a double accusation. And still, a ringing silence regarding his (or hers as the case may be) demonstrably false statement that “Landmark sock- and meatpuppets got banned.’ Why does he ignore a simple statement of fact refuting his falsehood? On another note, I’m relatively new to Wikipedia, still learning about it. I also have little time to edit due to work commitments, and now I’m suddenly having to waste all that limited time defending myself against a spurious accusation in response to my reversing an edit made without consensus. I have to wonder what’s really going on here. Is there an agenda I don’t know about? Does Polygnotus ever provide a straight answer to questions? The history of this article would seem to indicate not.Coalcity58 (talk) 21:45, 19 September 2024 (UTC)"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1167#Disruptive_editing,_edit_warring_across_multiple_pages_by_2a02:6b67:d965:700:8053:c17a:29c3:abd3[reply]

In case you didn't read these one before:

• Talk:Antisemitism on Wikipedia: Also, you are making it harder and harder to assume good faith. If you are of good faith, and you fucked up, then why act like this? Why not simply say "oh I am sorry" and stop wasting my time? Polygnotus (talk) 22:47, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/False_accusations_of_antisemitism#c-Polygnotus-20250707172400-Rhododendrites-20250707133600You said you were gonna upload insect photos instead of being counterproductive here. Why do you ask these questions that you would already know the answers to if you had read the links provided? Can you please go upload insect pictures like you promised? There are over 900.000 known insect species. If you delete your comments here I might even come help you when this is done. Thank you. Polygnotus (talk) 17:24, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

More:

I would like to report @Polygnotus for harassment as well as unjustified allegations and aggressive behavior towards me ("I believe" or "So my advice would be to find another job"). I asked him, politely and in good faith, to tell me what was bothering him and provide me with constructive feedback but he's lashing out at me without giving me the slightest justification or explanation. It's making me really uncomfortable and unnecessarily exhausted. Hajer-12 (talk) 15:28, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1161

"@Polygnotus Again, stop with the intimidation and threats. This is now your second warning. I deleted your post to my page as it was a continuation of your harassment on this page. I have no COI to disclose. What a shame that Wikipedia has devolved to this. It's so sad. Robin (talk) 08:45, 30 November 2024 (UTC)" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mega_Society_(2nd_nomination) Orlando Davis (talk) 22:59, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid it is too late to stop what will happen next, but if you want to appeal in the future, read WP:NOTTHEM (and the rest of that page too).​ fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 23:07, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@The Bushranger as they are continuing with their disruption, could you please remove their TPA? ~2025-30597-01 (talk) 23:55, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Using the good faith restoration of your talk page access to post this black helicopter-scented codswoddle is absolutely shocking. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 00:08, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? I got banned for nothing. I'm the one who should be shocked. And get off my page. Orlando Davis (talk) 00:21, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing! CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 00:21, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In a yeoman's effort to assume good faith, this is a complete misrepresentation of what wbm said. Wbm explicitly said that only one single diff was reviewed and that the whole case wasn't looked into any deeper at that time, and in any case, a consensus does not need to be unanimous. In addition, even if those temporary editors are removed, the consensus in favor of the community ban was very strong. The more you do things like this, the more confident you're going to make the community that removing you was absolutely the right thing to do. You've basically imposed this community ban on yourself with your continued inappropriate actions, and if you're unable to accept the community's judgment and drop your vendettas, you're going find yourself in a de facto permanent ban. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 00:21, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

incredibly, @CoffeeCrumbs, it took 17 minutes after being revoked TPA for them to get blocked on simple english wiki ~2025-30597-01 (talk) 02:09, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's...kinda impressive? CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 02:30, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked because an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

(block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the Unblock Ticket Request System that have been declined leading to the posting of this notice.

 The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:25, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You were told that a resumption of the behavior that led to [talk page access] being revoked previously will result in it being removed again in short order. And the first thing you do is go back to exactly the same behavior and then some. Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked. Bear in mind that if you continue down this path with any appeals via WP:UTRS you will likely lose that venue of appeal as well. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:27, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS appeal #108889 has been declined. JBW (talk) 22:40, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]