Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Schrocat has an issue with civility and disputes. I made an edit to Elizabeth Lyon (criminal) over the wording of a single sentence, Schrocat reverted so I tried different wording based on his revert, he reverted that, so I tried a third wording and opened a talk page section, only to be met with incivility and other behavioural issues at the talk page.

[[23]] his initial response at the talk page I have only minor disagreement with and is mostly from a conduct point. His later responses include [simple your wrong type comment] and when asked to expand on why he disagrees with my reasoning he responded with [and referring to my edit as dross], I asked him to respond without snark and was met with [[24]] Don't even try to take some form of moral higher ground ["horseshit"] and ["Dross and nonsense"] You've managed to take the article backwards, even it is only a small step. Excellent work etc. Lavalizard101 (talk) 17:59, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It also seems slighlty WP:OWNERSHIP-y as he was the one behind the original wording. Lavalizard101 (talk) 18:02, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it that whenever someone is disruptive and ignores STATUS QUO and the standing consensus, and tries to force something on an article which is disagreed with, they soon start throwing out accusations of ownership? See WP:STEWARDSHIP and don't throw around uncivil and unfounded accusations in future. - SchroCat (talk) 18:09, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

OP, you need to capitalize the "C" in SchroCat within the template at the start of this thread. "Schrocat" has zero edits. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:05, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry forgot the userlinks template is case sensitive. Lavalizard101 (talk) 18:07, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

His response to the ANI notification was to call it ["tiresome"]. Lavalizard101 (talk) 18:07, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Just use the talk page if anything is reverted. Don't re-revert, which is edit-warring. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:22, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• (ec) Honestly, dropping that one just seems petty. Most editors will feel that edit wars and ANI are tiresome. That's not a statement about you; that's a statement about the process. While I cannot endorse the vulgar language, I'm not seeing this as reaching the personal attack level. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 18:24, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the diffs are from the talk page. I'm trying to discuss but SchroCat is refusing to discuss beyond handwaving to a consensus by silence and snark. Lavalizard101 (talk) 18:26, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:CAREFUL (not commenting on anything else) Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 18:33, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how that has to do with anything, the reverting of my edits is not a problem Schrocat's behaviour at the talk page is. Lavalizard101 (talk) 18:36, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Lavalizard101:: I tried a third wording and opened a talk page section. Ah; so edit-warred your preferred version in breach of WP:FAOWN (a policy, you know), and then opened the talk page discussion you shoud have opened after you were reverted the first time (per WP:ONUS, also policy)? Cheers! —Fortuna, imperatrix 18:36, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Attempted rewording upon an initial objection is allowed. Lavalizard101 (talk) 18:41, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's a fair recollection of the events:

Going by timestamps, we have:

• 2026-03-07T15:06:56 LavaLizard makes an edit, complete with edit summary, changing one word
• 2026-03-07T15:09:18 Schrocat reverts, with an edit summary
• 2026-03-07T15:57:39 LavaLizard makes a completely different edit, with an edit summary, trying to address both their concerns and Schrocat's
• 2026-03-07T16:04:46 Schrocatreverts, instructing LavaLizard to discuss their edits on the talkpage
• 2026-03-07T16:30:50 LavaLizard starts the talkpage discussion, saying they found thw wording ambigious
• And, a few minutes later, 2026-03-07T16:32:08 comes up with yet a third wording, still trying to address both editor's concerns.
• 2026-03-07T16:38:11 Schrocat reverts LavaLizard's edit yet again, saying Per BRD and STATUSQUO, stop edit warring and let the discussion run its course
• Then, a few minutes later (2026-03-07T16:40:34), goes to the talkpage and opens with FFS, will you stop edit warring on this

I detailed the futher conversation in a lower post; it doesn't get any better. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 18:54, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

TO prevent the appearance of bludgeoning, I will only respond here if people have any questions or want a response to anything. Lavalizard101 (talk) 18:41, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm unimpressed by the edit warring, it takes two people to edit war - if I tried to discuss something on a talkpage, only to be met with a much more senior editor saying things like:

Your logic is flawed and the change you made even worse

You've now introduced OR into a featured article. Bravo. Feeling good about yourself?

It's a second-rate approach and second rate behaviour

This has been through two review processes which did a far better job than your second rate nonsense

You've managed to take the article backwards, even it is only a small step. Excellent work

Well, I can see why this was escalgted to AN/I - with respect to @Phil Bridger and @Crisco 1492, this is absolutely a conduct issue at this point.

Looking more broadly:

Utter horseshit. This has been through two review processes which did a far better job than your second rate nonsense

Is this really a proportionate response to somebody saying, calmly on the talkpage, that they found the wording "in the years following her death" ambiguous or misleading? This is very clearly WP:OWN-ership behaviour, something Scrhocat which Scrocat has an issue with. During their most recent edit warring block - while also calling another editor second rate[25] and defending both their edit warring and the personal attacks by claiming that they were just following... WP:FAOWN.

I'm also struck by the fact that Schrocat is calling the accusation of OWNERSHIP behaviour uncivil, while maintaining that they have a right to call other editors and their contributions second rate. I hope AN/I doesn't lose sight of that. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 18:43, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

CC @ScottishFinnishRadish, who specifically warned Schrocat the other month about calling other editors second rate.[26] GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 18:45, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Try reading my comments please: I have not called anyone second rate. I have described wording, approach etc as second rate, but have not called him second rate. Let's not let the desire to get someone blocked veer into 'misreading' what I have said. - SchroCat (talk) 18:57, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Attempting to defend your behavior as being acceptable and content-focused while simultaneously assigning motive to someone else's behavior is digging deeper not climbing up. DMacks (talk) 19:08, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I have not claimed anything of the sort. I was correcting a misrepresentation of what I did say. - SchroCat (talk) 19:13, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

And how else do you think the desire to get someone blocked ought to be interpreted? ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 04:10, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Schrocat, I understand this is a bit stressful (and I certainly don't want to see you blocked), and that doesn't always help with parsing text, but how do you describe saying:

As long as you or for the first revert against second-rate shitty edits going for you!) Sometimes I wonder what the point is of producing quality work when second rate editors can game the system and admins back up such shitty approaches. Once upon a time Admins had an eye on the quality of content, not a mindless focus kn second rate dross from second-rate editors who have no clue on how to discuss their third rate suggestions

as anything but calling other editors second-rate? And I note the "I didn't call you stupid! I said your behaviour was stupid!" defense hadn't yet materialized when you were contemporaneously called out for that; you said[27]

Even when they are playing games, being disruptive and acting in a second-rate manner on content the community has already deemed at an appropriate standard? Have you actually looked into how they wish to downgrade community-graded material? How would you wish me to refer to such editors that are not of sufficient standard? I can replace “second rate” with several other terms, if you want to whitewash people of insufficient ability, but I’m struggling to think of what wording you may think appropriate

GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 19:23, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I certainly don't want to see you blocked is dissonant to pinging an admin who specifically warned Schrocat the other month.

Still, at least you've avoided accusing editors of being "summoned from an external website" to this discussion—and being warned against doing so—albeit with a simlar degree of good faith. Sigh. —Fortuna, imperatrix 20:32, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Fortuna imperatrix mundi If you'd like to discuss my editing on a completely separate issue, my talkpage is open - or you can start a separate thread? Just to clarify, the reason I pinged SFR is because I was relying on words he said - I can't promise I'm perfect at this, but, when relying on the words of others, I do like to touch base with them to make sure I've interpreted them correctly. That's polite, no? I certainly don't expect him to block - my notification to him, I think, precludes that as a possible outcome, even taking into account that I don't think he's edited much this year.

Again, I don't want to see Schrocat blocked; I want their behavior to stop. Ideally, they'll do that themselves. That's what I want. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 20:45, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, your editing in this thread is not editing on a completely separate issue. But thanks for clarifying that you want to knock a wall down even as you build it up. Best, —Fortuna, imperatrix 20:51, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No, but my editing in a previous AN/I thread or elsewhere on the site, is.

I know you've had opinions on admins blocking Schrocat, an editor you have collaborated across a wide variety of areas with extensively in the past[28] - again, during the most recent block, said that For the record, WP:FAOWN is as much policy as WP:3RR,[29] while pinging the blocking admin, whilst ending discussion about the actual issue on the article talkpage. [30]. So, given that, and given that I think this conversation is veering towards distracting, I don't have much more to say on the matter but this: have you considered taking a step back and letting some fresh eyes have a look at the underlying behavioral issue? I think that might be beneficial for all parties. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 21:03, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Calling the citing of a policy page "utter horseshit" when the quoting is to rebut perceived selective quoting of it[31] is something I cannot overlook. DMacks (talk) 18:53, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If blocks are said to be preventive and not punitive, and civility is the fourth pillar of Wikipedia, how does the community deal with an editor who has not learned from 11 short blocks for edit-warring and incivility? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:53, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Trout Two competent and active editors with completely different collaborative styles become random assigned to the same loosely-defined work group. Hilarity ensues. Augmented Seventh (talk) 19:09, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think this problem is confined to this dispute; for example, after the discussion was started, Schrocat has begun to edit war on a completely different article with a completely different editor, while in the same breath accusing the other editor of edit warring - two reverts in an hour, [32], with the second revert's edit summary[33] being, not an actual summary of Schrocat's edits or reasoning, as you might expect an edit summary to me PLease don't edit war. If you want to use the talk page to discuss the matter, I think that would be a better course of action. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 19:31, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Good point; the editor in question alternates between poorly-thought out brash comments, and lengthy precise encyclopæd'ing. Here's remembering the fallen and the lost collaborators, absent through similar circumstances. Augmented Seventh (talk) 20:04, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for pinging me, GreenLipstickLesbian. I rarely comment on ANI, and hesitated commenting here because I don't believe I've ever interacted with SchroCat before, at least not negatively. It's purely coincidental that I made a minor copyedit to Noel Coward while this thread was open, but, as you note, SchroCat's response is concerning, especially if it does represent an ongoing pattern. SchroCat's first reversion of my copyedit with their edit summary "Unsure why that was deleted" seemed fair enough. So I put it back with an detailed explanation in my edit summary. That's when things took a turn. SchroCat then accused me in their summary of edit-warring, which is both a serious and ridiculous accusation, and they requested a talk page discussion, which is a reasonable request if made in good faith. So I started a discussion and was ghosted by SchroCat for 3 days, during which time they were active. I leave it to others to determine if this is a pattern, and, if so, what a solution might be. Station1 (talk) 01:55, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FAOWN says the following: Explaining civilly why sources and policies support a particular version of a featured article does not necessarily constitute ownership (emphasis added). This is a polite way of acknowledging that Featured Articles do have owners (contra WP:OWN) and don't become and remain FAs without one. That said, I don't see that WP:FAOWN is a license to abuse other editors. It's well-attested that SchroCat is often rude to other editors. That there are editors he is not rude to makes it worse, frankly: he's capable of working collaboratively when it suits him. Nothing's changed in years. I understand why some folks think SchroCat shouldn't face consequences for treating others badly and I don't agree with them and I've said so before. Mackensen (talk) 00:48, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Mackensen wrote: I understand why some folks think SchroCat shouldn't face consequences for treating others badly and I don't agree with them and I've said so before.. There is an essay, written in 2011, with a title that is descriptive but not accurate, Unblockables. The title is not accurate because it is about editors who are repeatedly blocked, but the blocks either are short or are undone shortly. They are blocked, but they don't stay blocked. As the essay explains, these editors have fan clubs, including administrators who will unblock them. SchroCat is one of these editors who has a fan club. One consequence of the policy that blocks are preventive rather than punitive is that it makes it nearly impossible to deal with editors who are habitually uncivil but have fan clubs. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:26, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah this seems remarkably similar to my runins with SC last year described in my comments at the end of the last ANI thread about them, though the thread as a whole is rather WP:TLDR. Graham87 (talk) 04:13, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, the talk page comments quoted earlier sound like performance art of someone satirizing an uncivil editor on Wikipedia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:43, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• So where do we go from here? It seems pretty clear their behavior is unacceptable and past sanctions have, clearly, done nothing to help them improve as an editor. Would a permanent 1RR and something along the lines of quit personalizing disputes be worth while? PackMecEng (talk) 23:42, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd support a 1RR restriction at this point. This has been a recurring behavioral problem for a long time and SchroCat will not change his behavior on his own. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:41, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I would also support a 1RR. I don't think "quit personalizing disputes" is useful; you've have endless arguments about whether something was a personal attack or fair comment. 1RR is clearer and has less scope for good-faith disagreement. Mackensen (talk) 11:55, 13 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think 1RR is the answer, because when disputes arise, it is usually because SchroCat has spent a long time working on an article, while another user comes along and makes changes that make the article worse (or at least do from SchroCat's POV) and he's fed up of having to explain the issues to newcomers again and again, so gives up with an incivil remark. So the reverting itself is in good faith, and not the actual issue. Instead, I think we need to look at some sort of civility probation. As a starting point, consider Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility in infobox discussions#Infobox probation (II) - although the dispute here is not to do with infoboxes. So I would suggest something like:

• SchroCat is placed on probation. He may be blocked from any page (including, but not restricted to, articles and talk pages) for any length of time by any uninvolved administrator if his conduct is considered disruptive or incivil. These blocks may not be overturned without consensus of the community.

As an aside, I would probably never take such action myself, as I have worked closely with SchroCat on several articles and hence consider myself WP:INVOLVED with regards to taking action. I'm simply suggesting this as a starting point to get the thread closed out successfully. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:46, 13 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno, there is plenty of editwarring that this would not address. Plus I think Mackensen makes a good point about what is incivility and how do we enforce it. I dont think saying this time we are serious and just stating existing policy will make a difference. From what I can tell the only difference between existing policy that everyone has to conform to and this restriction is how it can be overturned. PackMecEng (talk) 14:17, 13 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I share these concerns, but there's not going to be a perfect remedy. For the purposes of actually finding consensus to do something this time, I support both Ritchie's proposal and a 1RR, while acknowledging that if a new editor had engaged in the same behavior SchroCat has been reported for goodness-knows-how-many times already they would've been blocked long ago. Toadspike [Talk] 00:15, 16 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You make a great point and I shouldn't let perfect be the enemy of good. Anything is a step in the right direction and either works for me as well. PackMecEng (talk) 13:44, 16 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If the probation idea takes hold, "for any length of time" should be "for up to 48 hours"—it's a procedure to resolve an issue, not punishment. The aim is to encourage SchroCat to take a break before commenting when heated. The aim should not be to discourage SchroCat from developing featured articles. Johnuniq (talk) 04:41, 17 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose 1RR - This simply kicks the can down the road. Either the community accepts that SchroCat is a valuable contributor who nevertheless has persistent civility issues, or it does not. A 1RR feels like cutting the baby in half. We all know it will not meaningfully change anything, so why pretend? Nemov (talk) 14:22, 16 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  What would be the right solution in your eyes? PackMecEng (talk) 14:50, 16 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  SchroCat needs a minder (call it a mentor if you like). I would take that role if needed. It's a strange world where we welcome diversity and tolerate complete nonsense from time-wasters but find it difficult to accept that people like SchroCat have a different thermostat setting from most. Someone SchroCat accepts as independent needs to step in when these flare-ups occur and patiently suggest what alternative wording SC should have used. Johnuniq (talk) 04:41, 17 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Support both 1RR and Ritchie's proposal. I mean, this guy again? I've been obliquely observant of ANI, etc, for only a short time, and it was apparent at the start that this editor is a burr under the WP saddle, and has been for a very long time. Also, no limitation should be applied to block length as proposed; a long block may actually be very useful in placing the burden of proof on SchroCat, instead of the much more junior editors who he insults and demeans constantly, to convince the community that his production of content offsets his abominable and interminable behavior problems. Hiobazard (talk/contribs) 17:04, 17 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

Andrew is a long-time contributor at WP:ITN/C. Like many editors on this project, he has issues with the quantity of items and balance of topics that ITN promotes to the Main Page. But rather than working collaboratively for effective improvement, Andrew insists upon engaging in WP:DEADHORSE arguments on matters of settled consensus such as the relevance of pageviews [34], disrupting routine nominations with lengthy tangents [35], clogging the page with duplicative [36][37] and SNOWBALL nominations [38], and offering vague criticisms with full knowledge of the efforts and challenges inherent to addressing them[39]. Many editors have attempted to address this with him directly to no avail. We are spending far too much time responding to the same arguments from him, and it is becoming a distraction for the project. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:19, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Also see Wikipedia talk:In the news/Archive 123#Andrew and ITN from a couple or three months ago. —Fortuna, imperatrix 13:33, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • This nomination of a contract dispute to ITN, complete with sarcastic comments about another editor's unsuccessful good faith nomination and piping the United States Department of Defense to the US Department of War was quite disruptive. Half of the rationale for this nomination (SNOW-closed) featured strange polemical comments about how "ironic" it is for France, Spain and the Netherlands to have the same goals and interests as Britain. Whether any of this is sanction-worthy, I don't know. AusLondonder (talk) 13:48, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This thread is long overdue, and I thank GreatCeasarsGhost for going ahead and starting this discussion.

One of Andrew's most common talking points, and one that he has been scolded for before, is Pageviews. The previous ANI thread had the sticking point of whether or not the Pageviews argument actually had merit. I have, however, done some thinking and come up with a few reasons why this isn't valid. Firstly, Pageviews reflect only what pages our readers are going to, not how important things are in the grand scene of the world. As an example, ChatGPT consistently features in the top-read pages, but that doesn't mean we should be posting an item about ChatGPT each week. Next, the Pageviews argument leaves out the fact that our ITN criteria does not work based on popularity, but impact and significance. Many elections in WP:ITN/R do not receive massive amount of page views but nonetheless are significant enough to post. Thirdly, WP:ITNPURPOSE states that one of ITN's purposes is to "point readers to subjects they might not have been looking for but nonetheless may interest them." Pageviews only indicates what's making waves at the moment, and what is popular. This does not indicate significance.

Some of Andrew's most problematic nominations were of Twitter revealing locations ("X marks the spot") and, more recently, the aforementioned Claude nom ("Claude or clawed?"). The first nomination, POINTiness aside, aspersed that editors at ITN had a "geopolitical agenda". He also made vague threats adjacent to WP:OUTING, suggesting that "Perhaps we should use flag icons to show where we're coming from...". It is worth noting that this nomination was WP:SNOW-closed in just 11 minutes. The Anthropic nom is just as concerning. Andrew piped "US Department of War" out of United States Department of Defense, using the Trump administration's new unofficial "renaming" of the DOD that was done for political reasons. Aside from this, no-one with his tenure at ITN would think that a mere contract dispute, as AusLondoner said above, caused by a Trump temper tantrum, would be worth posting.

I do however believe that Andrew is acting mostly in good faith, and that he is a valuable contributor to the project. Unfortunately, his behaviour at ITN has gone on to such lengths that it is becoming disruptive and wasting valuable time. Therefore, I support no more than a 1 year TBAN from ITN-related pages. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 16:40, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

He's an active issue-causer at ITN, from what I can see. I'm not someone who uses ITN though. (Talk) PHLOGISTON ENTHUSIAST 18:36, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who does use ITN frequently, yes, the vast majority of interactions I have with him are non-productive. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 20:34, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, dissent is not disloyalty. If anything, challenging the arbitrary and dysfunctional "rules" in the ITN walled garden makes him one of the few valuable editors there. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:36, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Challenging consensus is encouraged, but perpetuating disputes by sticking to a viewpoint long after community consensus has decided that moving on would be more productive is not. GreatCaesarsGhost 03:06, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Then perhaps ITN should actually get "community consensus" for anything it does. The most recent sitewide RfC on the matter found there was no consensus on whether ITN should even exist. I'd sooner support WP:OWN sanctions on many of the editors active there, including a few of the admins. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:40, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Worth also mentioning that Andrew Davidson is still topic-banned from deletion activities, and has been since 2021. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:44, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

So, that's something from 5 years ago, right? Why is that especially worth mentioning? Note that it was the 20th anniversary of my start on Wikipedia recently. Perhaps that 20 years of service may be worth mentioning too? In that time, there has been much water under the bridge and some of it may have been troubled but I am not alone in that respect, eh? Andrew🐉(talk) 23:53, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Of note that the generally held opinion on the site seems to be WP:NOELDERS. (Talk) PHLOGISTON ENTHUSIAST 17:43, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm more familiar with WP:NVC but it's the same idea. But you should try experiencing how it works at ITN where the "regulars" say things like

It should be reiterated that one reason why ITN is mostly just the regulars is because our unreadable tome of unwritten rules causes newcomers to decide they don't want to come back here when they have to deal with the unpleasant experience of being rejected even when, at least from their perspective, they did everything right.
But we regulars don't know "the ins and outs of what is appropriate" either because our idea of what is and isn't appropriate is always changing and is never consistent. This idea that a select few really know how it works is illustrative of one of the worst aspects of ITN...

Andrew🐉(talk) 19:15, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• TBAN? I don't know. A warning certainly so. An editor here for more than 20 years should get the hint and know when they are being disruptive at any topic area on enwiki. Dissent is fine, disruption is not. Treating ITN as a soapbox for its reformation by making pointy nominations every now and then certainly not as well. Gotitbro (talk) 00:13, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  @Gotitbro You'd think the several prior times this has been brought to ANI + his TBAN from deletion-related discussions would be enough of a warning to change the way he does things, and yet we're still here. Most of the behaviors that got him TBANned from deletion discussions just migrated over to ITN. The Kip ^(contribs) 05:59, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Not familiar with the AfD ban, so cannot comment. Perhaps a WP:ROPE can be extended here with the condition that Andrew limits the disruption at ITN (i.e. pointy noms, rambling rants against ITN working etc.), barring which sanctions may follow. Though if it is still refusal to acknowledge the problematic behaviour even now, a rope would also be pointless. Gotitbro (talk) 06:13, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Support 1-year TBAN from ITN and all related areas as proposed by Chorchapu. My observation is that Andrew treats ITN as a game he is trying to win. The snarky misleading headlines, the attacks on other users, and the use of recognition credits to keep score all point to this. The AfD ban is relevant because there, Andrew was obssessively using Google hits as a metric of notability, against repeated advice that to do so was misleading and not part of policy. It's a very close parallel to his focus on page impressions as a measure of whether a page is in the news. I do not believe that our own page impression statistics are a fit source for anything beyond themselves. Here [40] is another recent ITN nomination in which Andrew's conduct was a big distraction - neither the film nor the novel Wuthering Heights have anything to do with the 2026 Berlin International Film Festival. It was pure whataboutery. And when another user correctly folded the tangential discussion up, Andrew came back and unfolded it. It just looks like attention-seeking, to be honest. Wikipedia is not a game we can win; it is a service we provide. The writer should not become the story, and for a long time now, Andrew has acting like someone who is determined to be the story. I do not need contribution credits, or barnstars, or anything like that, for my participation here or anywhere on Wikipedia, and I am tired of everyone's time being wasted by Andrew's idiosyncratic personal quest. GenevieveDEon (talk) 09:44, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose sanctions. Posting unpopular but good faith nominations should not merit sanctions. I'd reconsider if there was evidence of actual incivility, personal attacks, etc. Jessintime (talk) 12:44, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Many of his nominations appear not to have been in good faith. See the Twitter and Claude noms in my comment - POINTiness abounds. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 13:01, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  The Claude story was running for days and I listed many sources (Al Jazeera, BBC, The Conversation, DW, FT, NYT, Politico, Reuters, Telegraph, Time, Times of India). The Twitter/X story was perhaps more fleeting but the sources seemed quite respectable at the time (ABC, BBC, CNN, France 24, Guardian). Andrew🐉(talk) 13:40, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  What was the crack about Kerala at the end of the Claude story about? Sesquilinear (talk) 23:58, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  A little bit prior, someone made a nomination for the Indian state of Kerala renaming to Keralam. Here is a link to the nomination. Even though it was WP:SNOW-closed, it was importantly nominated sincerely and without the out-of-pocket jabs found in the Claude nom. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 00:09, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Honestly, I kind of want Andrew himself to explain that one in his own words. Sesquilinear (talk) 04:14, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  They were two adjacent nominations and so it seemed natural to compare them. My contribution to the Kerala(m) nomination was to point to some previous nominations as precedents, such as the renaming of Denali/Mount McKinley. I didn't post a !vote because the consensus already seemed clear; the Kerala nomination didn't get a single support. So my focus there was to be informative rather than opinionated.

  I nominated the following item about Claude because this seemed to be a comparatively big deal. The key issue was that Anthropic were trying to maintain red lines in the use of AI, preventing its use to control lethal autonomous weapons. To understand why this is important, see coverage such as this, the question is whether the next killer app from AI vendors will be lethal autonomous weapons systems. This seems significant to me as I'm familiar with the issue, having written the article Slaughterbots years ago. That was set in the near-future and now that future is happening with drone-dominated battlefields in the Ukraine war and AI use in the operations in Venezuela and Iran.

  So, my contributions were entirely good faith and I still think that such AI stories are significant. If people don't like the way I put it then they should understand that putting a nomination together requires some boldness in the choice of words -- you have to pull together the sources and our corresponding article(s), compose a suitably pithy blurb to summarise them and then make some introductory comments as to why this should be posted. When you start such a discussion about a novel topic, you often can't tell how it will go and naturally some nominations go better or worse than others. The point of the discussion is to find out what will fly.

  Andrew🐉(talk) 08:33, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  "boldness in choice of words" is a rather large generosity regarding piping the US DOD to the Trump-branded Dept. of War or writing an remarkably POV blurb (even very left-leaning outlets like Vox did not phrase it so bluntly). Chorchapu (talk | edits) 12:20, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Such blurbs are first draft suggestions off the top of my head. The ITN process provides for alternate blurbs and so people can and do suggest better alternatives. The admins that then post the blurbs make changes too and they continue to tweak the wording after it reaches the main page. There's then a further stage of oversight at WP:ERRORS so there are plenty of safeguards. See the recent paralympics, for an extensive discussion, for example. This demonstrates the difficulty of getting things right first time. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:55, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  This case is more than just an alternate but suboptimal proposal; it's getting well into the realm of POINTiness. Making a remotely postable blurb is the very bare minimum for "getting things right the first time". If the world was ending and a blurb was proposed like that it would never be acceptable, significant or not. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 13:00, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Weak support 1-year topic ban from ITN, oppose indef topic ban from ITN They have been acting in good faith, but ITN got to them and now they have done WP:POINTy edits. ~2026-68406-1 (talk) 13:39, 11 March 2026 (UTC)~2026-68406-1 (talk) 15:00, 11 March 2026 (UTC)^{Sockstrike, see edsum. —Fortuna, imperatrix 17:53, 11 March 2026 (UTC)}[reply]
• Oppose any sanction. Frankly, I suspect that much of the time WP:ITNC gets the contributors it deserves (which, occasionally, mea maxma culpa, includes me). As WP:ITN itself notes, ITN's own methodology is both controversial and subjective, so although it attempts to have a synthesized set of ground rules, they're not really worth the paper they're printed on: when push comes to shove, at ITN/C when a "controversial" nomination is made, its only treatment is "subjective"—per the project's own description—and that is almost guaranteed to cause friction. The suggestion that their nominations are somewhow low grade is untenable; the requirements for inclusion at ITN are so low that only a minority of candidates are dismissed out of hand. So disputes such as this are not merely endemic, they're systematic, baked into the process. It would be nice if it wasn't like this; it would be nice if that could change. But that's something for the ITN regulars to sort out (unless they can't, then at some point I guess the wider community will have to do it instead). Davidson's views might be consistentlty upopular but they're not counter to policy or guideline, rather, they meet with WP:IDONTLIKEIT. This response is sometimes described as effectvely just custom and practice. But by its nature custom and practice can change. It's when one decides one doesn't want custom and practice to change that one codifies it. The lack of codification suggests, after all, that this is the process ITN really wants. Evicting Davidson from this area will only give the walled garden that is ITN an even higher wall. —Fortuna, imperatrix 14:04, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't seem to be a ITN-specific problem. I found 10 similar threads over the past 10 years:

• WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive286#Andrew Davidson and RfA - Topic ban proposal
• WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive295#Andrew Davidson and RFAs: time for a topic ban?
• WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive299#Andrew Davidson disruptive editing in AfD
• WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive364#Andrew Davidson's behavior at DYK
• WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1047#Bad faith editing by User:Andrew Davidson
• WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1082#Andrew Davidson's conduct at VPR – topic ban?
• WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1083#ARS Proposal #3: Topic ban or other restrictions for Andrew Davidson
• WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1184#Andrew Davidson and ITNC
• WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive972#Andrew Davidson and RFAs: time for a topic ban?
• WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive995#Proposal: Require Andrew Davidson to provide a rationale with each de-PROD

As noted above, he's already got a TBAN from deletions. People are also complaining about his behavior at VPR, RFA, and DYK (that one was me). How many times does somebody need to get dragged to the drama boards before we say they've had enough warnings and WP:ROPE (as suggested above) and we admit somebody is more trouble than they're worth? As people have noted, his complaints are not without merit, but he seems to be unable to express them in a way which is constructive and WP:Being right isn't enough. RoySmith (talk) 15:45, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I had to look at several of these threads to recall what they were about. And even now I don't really understand issues like the VPR complaint, for example, where I have no particular agenda or regular habits and just treat each case on its merits when it shows up somewhere like WP:CENT. Most of these issues were dismissed without action because they were a misunderstanding or over-reaction. I generally get on fine with places like DYK, RFA and VPR now and this shows that the outcomes in those cases was the right one. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:33, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't sure what WP:VPR was so I checked that out – it turned out to be Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). The complaint was that I always oppose the proposals. It was not sustained because it seemed that most people generally agreed with my views on those proposals. Looking at the history since, it didn't take me long to find a counter-example in which I supported the proposal: Bot to make list-defined references editable with the VisualEditor. That's a technical issue which has just about nothing to with ITN and my position was vindicated.

So why is this irrelevant issue from four years ago being dragged in here? Obviously this is mud-slinging, because as Piotrus explains well: mud sticks! ...the longer somebody has been with the project, the more he has contributed, the easier he is to attack, by dragging his past mistakes. Worse, one does not need to have done real mistakes to be a victim here. Often, what is framed as his past mistakes might have not been declared as such by a consensus: it's enough that one editor has called his action a mistake... Andrew🐉(talk) 18:49, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

ITN is mainly a discussion forum – nominations and proposals are made and they are then discussed in an adversarial fashion with Oppose and Support !votes. This tends to encourage conflict rather than collaboration but I try to stay high on Graham's hierarchy of disagreement – focussing on the content, helping to improve it, providing detailed evidence and avoiding personal attacks. To see this in action, please see my most recent initiatives, before this blew up today.

• Most recent nomination. I browsed the New York Times this morning and noticed a report of a big fireball from a meteorite which hit Germany. This sounded interesting so I found the new article about it and nominated it. The aspects which especially interested me were that the European Space Agency has a planetary defence unit which took a close interest in this. And that the US armed forces in the region were initially concerned that this might be a missile strike. The fact that some fragments crashed through someone's roof also seemed unusual. The nomination was opposed but it doesn't seem to be my behaviour which is at fault in this case.

Note that this nomination was the only news item nominated for that date of 9 March. (There were a couple of recent deaths too but they are more routine). So, it seems that ITN has few nominations and that's a major reason that it is often stale. Punishing such bold nominations therefore seems unhelpful as it will have a chilling effect.

• Most recent ITN talk It was International Women's Day two days ago and I noticed that most main page sections were acknowledging this in some way. ITN was the only exception and so I started a discussion about this at its talk page. The discussion seemed reasonably civil as it explored the issue and some small progress was made as more RD nominations for women were made.

So, the OP wants "working collaboratively for effective improvement" and that's what I endeavour to do in such ways. The full range of activity should be considered rather than a few cherry-picked arguments. For example, here's a list of recent ITN credits from my talk page. These arise after successful completion of a nomination and so represent productive activity. This would be lost if I were to be banned from ITN.

1. ITN recognition for Fauja Singh
2. ITN recognition for Connie Francis
3. ITN recognition for Biddy Baxter
4. ITN recognition for 2025 Ryder Cup
5. ITN recognition for George Smoot
6. ITN recognition for Sarah Mullally
7. ITN recognition for Diane Keaton
8. ITN recognition for Yang Chen-Ning
9. ITN recognition for Prunella Scales
10. ITN recognition for James Watson
11. ITN recognition for Horst Panic
12. ITN recognition for Tom Stoppard
13. ITN recognition for Rob Reiner
14. ITN recognition for Brigitte Bardot
15. ITN recognition for Khaleda Zia
16. ITN recognition for Greenland crisis
17. ITN recognition for World Health Organization
18. ITN recognition for Epstein files
19. ITN recognition for Jesse Jackson
20. ITN recognition for Robert Duvall
21. ITN recognition for 2026 Iranian Supreme Leader election

For comparison and to put this in context, note that the equivalent number of ITN credits awarded to the OP in the same period appears to be zero as they have not received one since 2023. Andrew🐉(talk) 00:44, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew🐉(talk) 23:46, 10 March 2026 (UTC) (edit conflict)[reply]

• I think if you polled all the editors who have objected to your disruptive behavior, they would acknowledge a belief that you are contributing in good faith. But a huge part of the problem is you think that your intent justifies acting however you want and ignoring all requests to rein it in. Attacking me as the OP (for the apparent crime of not soliciting recognition ribbons?!) is just more deflection. GreatCaesarsGhost 02:56, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  And the reason you have so much recognition is because you add yourself as an updater [41] when all you have contributed is a single citation [42]. The documentation clearly says that is for those who "significantly updated the article in plain text". GreatCaesarsGhost 12:39, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  That's Country Joe McDonald who is not in the list above. He's still a work-in-progress and I was planning to do more but now have been distracted by this discussion. But it wasn't the only edit. That edit took care of the only {{citation needed}} tag in the prose of the article at the time. I also made a copy-editing pass. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:46, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  (NAC) I think that's a little unfair to say that those articles wouldn't have made it onto ITN (or been "lost") had it not been for you Andrew. For example, I would have taken up Prunella Scales had you not beaten me to the nomination. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 19:28, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Country Joe McDonald has now been posted at ITN by the veteran ITN admin Spencer who commented Referencing issues resolved, nice work. Spencer kindly awarded ITN credits to myself and others, especially Carlstak who did much of the heavy lifting. I helped out in various ways by editing the article and its talk page, updating the ITN nomination and discussion and by engaging in friendly conversation with Carlstak and others at their talk page. This is the sort of congenial and constructive collaboration that we should encourage. We need more carrot and less stick. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:14, 13 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Would it be kosher under WP:CANVASSING for me to post a neutrally-worded note on WT:ITN informing those who may be interested of this thread? Chorchapu (talk | edits) 00:09, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, Stephen 22:50, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Support indef TBAN from ITN, or at minimum a year if an indef isn't supported. Color me absolutely shocked that Andrew's response here is fundamentally based in "There's nothing wrong with my editing" and includes a silly personal attack/"I'm better than you" statement towards GreatCaesarsGhost because... Andrew has more ITN credits? Really?
  I don't have much else to add that hasn't already been stated (the pageviews stuff in particular is significantly disruptive), though I do still have some points to make:
  1. I was going to bring up the existing TBAN from deletion discussions, but I see that's already been noted. What I will bring up, however, is that reading through the original thread there makes me realize that on a fundamental level, the exact same behavior from deletion discussions has continued at ITN: the WP:POINTy actions, snarky and sarcastic comments, apparent belief in his opinions' inherent superiority over other users', and complete disregard of existing precedents/consensus in favor of his own personal standards.
  2. Regarding POINTiness at ITN, there's historically been a wide consensus at ITN that conflict-related blurbs are usually covered by an ongoing item or existing blurb; for instance, we've declined most blurb nominations about the events of the wars in Ukraine and Gaza as covered by their current or former ongoing items. With that in mind, Andrew, a veteran of ITN who knows this, has nominated three separate stories that most users rightfully pointed out were covered by the existing blurb for the war in Iran. At each of these noms, Andrew's behavior consisted varyingly of sarcasm, triviality, complaining about ITN being "stale" and that posting standards should simply be disregarded to keep it "fresh" (remember that ITN is not a news ticker), and in general, a complete disregard/ignorance of others' comments on these nominations/his behavior.
• There's also a variety of other instances of the apparent self-superiority in instances such as wildly misinterpreting WP:EASTEREGG regarding Ian Huntley, seemingly ignoring WP:ITNQUALITY to protest the posting of an item, and so on. I really encourage people to read through the Cyprus naval defense nom, specifically his interactions with AusLondoner, for a good idea of how he just... utterly refuses to consider anyone else's perspective but his own.
  While I can acknowledge he's contributing in good faith to some degree (i.e. not intentionally vandalizing things, he thinks he's helping the encyclopedia), the utter lack of introspection and attitude of superiority remind me considerably of Dicklyon's behavior that ultimately led to that siteban. He's worn out the time and patience of ITN contributors enough by this point. The Kip ^(contribs) 05:56, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• The first topic in The Kip's list of complaints is 2026 Strait of Hormuz crisis. I nominated that because it's a significant topic, it's in the news and we have a substantial article about it. Now I'm pointing that out because I notice that someone else has just made a fresh nomination for the same topic. This demonstrates that I'm not marching to the beat of a different drummer – just following the news and nominating the topics which I find there. It's only by making such nominations and having the discussion that you can find out what the consensus is for each particular topic. This is not disruption; it's the normal process. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:37, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  just following the news and nominating the topics which I find there

  That is an extreme simplification of your behavior at ITN, and another example of the complete failure to acknowledge any disruptive/POINTy/etc behavior. The Kip ^(contribs) 07:58, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  It's really that simple. I go to a good news source like the NYT or BBC and see that they are reporting U.S. Says It Hit Iranian Mine-Laying Vessels Near Vital Oil Passage or US says 16 Iranian mine-laying ships 'eliminated'. If I then nominate such a topic, I back it up with a list of such reputable sources, listing them in the nomination. Sometimes the article might need some work but the process allows for that. I also make some effort to identify and list the editors who have been updating the article(s) in question. This is not pointy behaviour; it seems to be exactly the sort of good faith, collaborative action which is wanted.

  The natural differences of opinion which then arise seem to be exacerbated by personal friction and unwritten "rules" at ITN about how such stories should be handled. My view is that ITN is quite hidebound and so its output tends to be too slow and stale. Naturally, I then suggest process improvements and this is constructive collaboration too. If such activity is not allowed then the alternative is a chilly silence in which no-one dare speak out for fear of being pilloried.

  Andrew🐉(talk) 08:20, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that many of the arguments against sanctions here seemingly rely on the notion of “but ITN bad” and/or “he’s just a dissenting voice” rather than a genuine assessment of Andrew’s behavior does not fill me with confidence that people are actually reading the evidence.

ITN is flawed for sure, but there’s ample evidence Andrew’s behavior rises above and beyond into the realm of WP:IDHT-laden disruption and has become a time-sink for virtually every other contributor to ITN. The Kip ^(contribs) 14:10, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As somewhat expected, this is going nowhere and getting directed off-topic. See you all again in a few months when Andrew's continued to be a disruptive time-sink and this gets brought up again, only to be shot down on vague assertions of "ITN bad" or "if you ignore all the disruption he's actually quite a good editor." The Kip ^(contribs) 07:53, 13 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, this claiming of ITN credits absolving all sins and the reference to TRM reminded me of another user who wound up getting (IIRC) Community Ban, whose username escapes me at the moment.

Their issue was more close paraphrasing and straight up misinterpreting sources in the GAs that he wrote (I think he was also responsible for an excretable article on Preparation of all things, complete with a photo of him “preparing” to write a GA used in said article, plus just badly out of place turns of phrase written in that article itself).

However, when called on their issues, they retreated behind their numerous GA credits and asking why people didn’t have an issue when during his GARs, eventually exhausting the community’s patience with his repeated IDHT about any and all complaints regarding his poor sourcing. And when he did wind up CBANned when his actions were brought up here at ANI, TRM showed up at his Talk Page lamenting the removal of what he considered an “extraordinarily prolific editor” for what he also considered rather minor faults blown out of proportion and grudges against the user, never mind the poor interpretation of sources.

I’m not saying that Andrew has reached that point, but among the ITN regulars, there seems to be a consensus that he’s reaching that point, given the discussion on WT:ITN before the opening of this report here. There was a decent amount of reluctance to actually bring this to ANI on WT:ITN when it was discussed, mostly from people who didn’t feel comfortable bringing things like this to the drama boards without more experience interacting here. But since repeated discussions in ITNC and WT:ITN were getting nowhere with Andrew and his repeated IDHT and POINT-y noms, many felt we had little choice but to bring this issue here. GhostStalker (Got a present for ya! / Mission Log) 04:02, 13 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Doug Coldwell, that was it! CBANned back in 2023, man how time flies. Seriously, you have the see the whole preparation AFD saga here as an entry point into what went down with the kind of articles Doug wrote (and got some into GA).

Again, not implying that Andrew is anywhere near as bad as Doug, since he doesn’t tend to respond with walls of text (too much or to the extent Doug did) to any criticism, although some of the snarkiness of his replies reach towards that level, and hasn’t committed widespread copyvio and misrepresentation of sources like Doug did.

But seeing TRM brought up reminded me that Doug still had a number of supporters after the CBAN who thought he wrote very good GAs despite the copyvio problems (or ignoring them because they didn’t find any in the GA reviews they did for articles he wrote). And whenever he was criticized, Doug would hide behind his large number of GA and DYK credits, even if they were flawed because of copyvio or source misrepresentation issues, like Andrew was hiding behind his number of ITN credits above, and talking about how the person who started this ANI doesn’t have many compared to him, again mirroring a favorite tactic of Doug of disparaging his critics whenever issues were brought up with his content. Very much in the IDHT mold that was a contributing factor to Doug’s CBAN and even before that his rejected unblock requests descending into WALLOFTEXT.

I would very much like to head this off at the pass before it gets worse, as Andrew does mostly operate in Good Faith on ITN, it’s just the POINT-y noms and the constant harping on pageviews as a reason why a particular story should get a blurb that is disrupting the rest of ITN IMO. GhostStalker (Got a present for ya! / Mission Log) 04:25, 13 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Here's where I stand on this. The reason I brought up the AfD topic ban, is that I still see the same behavioural issues as were present five years ago. Also, the AfD ban is still active; had Andrew successfully appealed it, it would be indeed wrong for me to bring it up.

I mostly agree with what Andrew says and does; indeed I've met him in real life on a number of occasions and had productive conversations, and he clearly has the encyclopedia's best interest at heart. The problem comes from when he disagrees with others, and the language he uses comes across as stubborn and intransigent. I don't even think Andrew means to act like this, which is why I see his conduct here, and in previous disputes, with an overall air of not understanding why there's any issue at all, and coming to the logical conclusion that other people are just out to get him. It frustrates me doubly because a lot of the time (such as wanting to keep / improve an article or put something on the main page) I find the "other side" carrying favour because they don't come across as disruptive.

Unfortunately I don't have a good answer to any of this, and I feel resigning myself to seeing another topic ban as being an inevitable outcome, sadly. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:30, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've had the same impression, tried to help here. This has been sizzling away at ITN for a while, before I joined AFAIK. Idk, but it seems Andrew editing is informed by the old battleground of inclusionists vs deletionists, and because the inclusionists (or rather WP:ARS) 'lost', he has grievances w the community in general (which is understandable), as shown by the 'blank paper protest' on his userpage? It isn't helped by people personalising his noms, though one could argue he does that himself. He could be really constructive if he listened to people and treated them like teammates, though people have long been fed up Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 11:38, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've commented before that thus situation is running close tobthebsame reason The Rambling Man was blocked from ITN, though there, incivility was a major contributing factor. Andrew has rubbed against but not surpassed civility expectations.

But more so, its the lack of acknowledgment that the ideas they push for are not being accepted, and failure to drop the stick, making their edits tenacious. They are nominating a fair number of good candidates but we also need to look to those that are bad if not pointy nominations. The continued push on page views as a reason to post is very tiring, and they constantly bringbuo other other language wiki's do things and consider end.wiki lacking even though the purpose if the main page and of the equivalent of ITN on these other pages is very different and is comparing apples to oranges (though we are looking at how de.wiki does do more expansive RD coverage..it is fair to bring ideas in but will still need to adhere to what end.wiki main page serves) Masem (t) 13:01, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose sanctions – I don't edit at ITN, but I watch the page near daily, and, truthfully, hold contempt for some of the regulars at that venue. Considering that another editor wrote I'd sooner support WP:OWN sanctions on many of the editors active there, including a few of the admins, I appear to not be alone in that regard. This thread is principally demonstrative of an inability to tolerate dissenting views. The frontmost example in the OP is an exemplar of the problem of immaturity in that venue. Andrew values pageviews as a metric for what reader's are interested in; many other editors do not. Ok... and? We are not the borg, assimilation is not required. There is no policy violation and thus nothing for this board to be concerned with.

The other raised issue, that Andrew's nominations often do not fare well, is in part a symptom of ITN's own failures. ITN's principal outputs are: famous death; significant political event; sports ball results; major awards ceremony results; significant disaster occurrence; armed conflict (these are also usually the only thing that is ever in ongoing). If your nomination isn't in those categories, you are fighting an uphill battle. ITN has a system whereby the results of a cricket championship are deemed more significant than the eradication of leprosy from an entire nation. There is a failure there to present medical and scientific news. They are rarely nominated as it is (and Andrew is someone I've seen make multiple attempts to get news from those fields posted), and they receive any support yet more rarely than that. Look at last month's posting archive. Which ones don't fit into any of the six categories listed?

I'm getting annoyed as I pen this and consider the processes and state of ITN, so I will cut myself off here. Mr rnddude (talk) 19:21, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Most editors at ITN have viewpoints that differ from the consensus on one issue or another, but for the benefit of the project we are obligated to promote these viewpoints in productive ways. His preference for pageviews for example, has been rejected by the community. So for him to constantly bring it up as a rationale in individual discussion does not serve the purpose of building consensus. It disrupts that process as we must stop the real work and deal with him. GreatCaesarsGhost 20:48, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No, pageviews have not been "rejected by the community" as there's no rule of that sort at ITN. There was an attempt to create one in 2024 but it did not have consensus as five editors opposed it. The noisy editors who still say things like "we absolutely care naught about reader counts" are in denial, rather than stating an actual policy. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:16, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read my comment above, stating policy-based reasons why Pageviews are not a valuable tool for determining post-ability? [43] Chorchapu (talk | edits) 22:43, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but your reasons there don't seem based on the relevant guidelines. The ITN guidelines include WP:ITNSIGNIF and WP:ITNATA which include It is highly subjective whether an event is considered significant enough, and ultimately each event should be discussed on its own merits.; Any user may, of course, support or oppose a candidate for any reason Note how that says "any reason". That would include pageviews. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:28, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Policies and the like I think would trump vague wording in what does not even seem to be an official guideline. The phrase "for any reason" leaves room for valuable sharing of opinions but disruption using justifications that go against site-wide policies are a very, very lenient interpretation of ITNATA. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 23:47, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What site-wide policy does talking about pageviews violate? Katzrockso (talk) 23:21, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Read my reply above. From it:

One of Andrew's most common talking points, and one that he has been scolded for before, is Pageviews. The previous ANI thread had the sticking point of whether or not the Pageviews argument actually had merit. I have, however, done some thinking and come up with a few reasons why this isn't valid. Firstly, Pageviews reflect only what pages our readers are going to, not how important things are in the grand scene of the world. As an example, ChatGPT consistently features in the top-read pages, but that doesn't mean we should be posting an item about ChatGPT each week. Next, the Pageviews argument leaves out the fact that our ITN criteria does not work based on popularity, but impact and significance. Many elections in WP:ITN/R do not receive massive amount of page views but nonetheless are significant enough to post. Thirdly, WP:ITNPURPOSE states that one of ITN's purposes is to "point readers to subjects they might not have been looking for but nonetheless may interest them." Pageviews only indicates what's making waves at the moment, and what is popular. This does not indicate significance.

What it boils down to - impact, significance, and post-ability does not equal popularity and virality. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 00:11, 13 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Those are not sitewide policies, they are your interpretation of ITN guidelines. A reasonable editor is more than welcome to disagree with your interpretation, as I am sure Andrew does. Katzrockso (talk) 00:16, 13 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You can disagree but local consensus is that his Pageviews argument is disruptive. There is no site-wide consensus and so local consensus triumphs. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 00:24, 13 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

“Local consensus” means you had a discussion about this somewhere that reached that consensus, right? Could you link to it? ~2026-15806-98 (talk) 02:43, 13 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to bed now, but tomorrow I could link to the dozens of times Andrew has been scolded over this. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 02:58, 13 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Scolding is not discussion. ~2026-15806-98 (talk) 03:21, 13 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed – such scolding tends to be uncivil personal attacks and you'll find that no policy or guideline is cited in such cases. And that's because there isn't one. For an actual discussion, see Page views and significance which proposed that page views be added to the local guideline WP:ITNDONT. There was no consensus to do this and so ITNDONT is still silent on the matter. Besides myself and others, the proposal was opposed by the veteran ITN admin The ed17 who can perhaps confirm my understanding that there is no prohibition of pageviews. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:45, 13 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I opened up the most recent archive, Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates/February_2026. Here I can find several instances of Andrew being told off for bringing up Pageviews disruptively. First by GenevieveDEon and second Dmartin969, after which the thread was hatted for Andrew's disruption. Third by QuicoleJR and fourth by The Kip. We now go to Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates/January_2026. Fifth by Masem, sixth by The Kip, seventh by Ghost Stalker, and eighth by myself. Ninth by GreatCaesarsGhost (the editor who started this ANI discussion). We go back to Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates/December_2025 where we find a tenth by Masem. How many more times but we put up with this? Chorchapu (talk | edits) 12:18, 13 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

These were not policy-based and so were violations of WP:THREATEN and WP:INTIMIDATE which states

On Wikipedia, personal attacks are not tolerated. In particular, it is unacceptable to threaten another with some form of action that cannot or will not likely be taken. When editors make threats like these, and the environment becomes hostile, the victims, especially those who are new are scared away from Wikipedia altogether.

ITN exemplifies such a hostile environment in which aggressive editors seek to drive off other editors who have views that they don't agree with. The comments from other uninvolved editors here confirm this chilling effect. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:11, 13 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

How were those threats? They were calling you out how you were being disruptive. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 14:16, 13 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I was not being disruptive; I was just giving my view on the matter under discussion. ITN's guideline explicitly allows editors to support or oppose a candidate for any reason and so an open discussion is expected. WP:ITNDONT also explains that

Please do not add simple "support!" or "oppose!" votes without including your reasons. Similarly, curt replies such as "who?", "meh", or "duh!" are not helpful. A vote without reasoning means little for us, please elaborate yourself.

So, editors are expected to provide some detailed reasoning and so that's what I do. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:33, 13 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The 'disruption' in the first example is wholly of d'Eon and DMartin's making. The rationale to oppose because '[t]he article is too stubby and has zero prose about the film's critical and commercial reception' is perfectly inline with WP:ITNQUALITY and is the exact basis in Spencer's !vote immediately below which I have seen countless times. There was there-in no justification to attack Andrew or hat the !vote.

That there was also a digression about another article employed both as a qualitative and relative interest comparative isn't fundamentally germane and does not merit the responses provided. The responses appear to be borne entirely from a deep-seated allergy to any mention of pageviews (even indirectly), irrespective of context. Both editors could (and should) have simply scrolled on.

I am far less impressed with any of d'Eon, DMartin, or the hatter's actions than I am concerned with Andrew's !vote on that nomination. If anything, it is demonstrative of the precise immaturity and intolerance to which I am referring. I've read literally every post under my own !vote, which has gained far more attention (praise and contention) than any other I have posted to AN/I, and yet have been perfectly able to exercise restraint to not rebut or argue or complain about every response that I have some disagreement with. I expect other editors to be capable of that everywhere on Wikipedia. Yet there are two venues that I have visited that are remarkably incapable of that: RfA and ITN. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:37, 13 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wow this is getting really thin and contained (Talk) PHLOGISTON ENTHUSIAST 17:38, 13 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I’m looking for the discussion where this supposed local consensus was established. There was a discussion first, right? You didn’t skip straight to the scolding, did you? ~2026-16107-68 (talk) 18:50, 13 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Chorchapu, that isn't a policy basis for post-ability because there is no policy basis for "post-ability". It's a concept entirely made up within ITN that has no community backing. And if someone proposed sanctioning everyone who enforces that "policy", I'd hear the proposal out. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:02, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There’s at least a local consensus that page views are unimportant when it comes to considering an ITN nomination, no other site wide consensus outweighs that. Whenever Andrew brings up consideration of page views, the response is 95% of the time negative amongst many of the ITN regulars, which demonstrates to me at least a local consensus. Yet, he persists in the IDHT of bringing it up again in the next discussion.

Andrew needs to at least acknowledge that many seem to have an issue of how he handles this like his recently POINT-y noms and acting like no other opinion on page views matters. GhostStalker (Got a present for ya! / Mission Log) 18:37, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No, a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS does not and cannot overide any sitewide consensus. In any case, te way this discussion's going, it looks like there's an emerging consensus that WP:ITN/C is a toxic environment, and needs to at least acknowledge that. Cheers, —Serial Number 54129 ^{(wake up Fortuna)} 18:49, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What sitewide consensus are you suggesting the local consensus is attempting to override? Because if there isn't one, then local concensus should prevail. GreatCaesarsGhost 19:12, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Fortuna imperatrix mundi I think there's a misunderstanding here - GhostStalker is saying that there is no sitewide consensus on pageviews, hence ITN's local consensus acts as the guideline. They're not suggesting that local consensus can override sitewide consensus. The Kip ^(contribs) 20:46, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Then to prevent further "misunderstandings" I suggest parties express themselves with greater precision. Cheers, —Serial Number 54129 ^{(wake up Fortuna)} 22:19, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I was, Kip certainly got my meaning.

Maybe I shouldn’t have dashed out that reply during my lunch break after starting it last night at dinner and then promptly falling asleep shortly after getting distracted by other Wiki stuff. Bad habit of mine. GhostStalker (Got a present for ya! / Mission Log) 01:52, 13 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Noms against the usual have never an issue at ITN (whether they be rejected is a different matter altogether), the problem arises in making noms and comments frequently as a soapbox for one's views or just to make a point. Gotitbro (talk) 04:06, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Endorsed This post should be incorporated into ITNC's standing orders (if they had them, of course). —Serial Number 54129 ^{(wake up Fortuna)} 12:37, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the issue with diversity if topics is a coupling of lack of news coverage of underrepresented topics, lack of nominations for under represented topics, and lack of quality updates to articles when they exist. Too many of the nominations are so focused on breaking news of late that it doesn't seem ITN covers anything but that, but we absolutely can, we can only do so much to promote those.

But at the sane time these underrepresented stories need to still pass expected thresholds for significance. For example, Andrew was trying to promote coverage of the Anthropic/DoD case as a precursor of Skynet. ITN (much less wp in general) doesnt do well with speculative stories, which typically post at the opposite side of a concrete event where significance and impact can be better judged. That said I introduced an idea about amonth ago that maybe we do need to strip news significance from the ITN criteria as to focus on quality articles updated due to recent coverage. This would improve throughput at ITN. But thus is all an aside to the issues with Andrew's behavior at ITN. Masem (t) 13:24, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose sanctions as well. Sorry for being lazy, but there's so much overlap of my own impressions with those described by Fortuna imperatrix mundi and Mr rnddude, plus I couldn't have put it even nearly as well. There's plenty of repetitive posting of arguments deemed invalid at WP:ITN, including completely non-metric, non-verifiable subjective reasons for opposing. I guess there is a problem when so many people react so allergically to his contributions, but I don't think this kind of reaction is warranted at all (silence is one possible reaction to what one would prefer to ignore). ---Sluzzelin talk 20:37, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• One of issues w ITN is that it becomes a place for internet punditry on geopolitics, and everything less important than war and death gets opposed by people not interested in anything else Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 20:55, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  "internet punditry on geopolitics"

  The problem being that Andrew is a frequent violater of this in the form of off-topic ramblings (entirely to score a point at/against ITN) entirely unrelated to the project. And from what I can see, he would still not like to desist. Gotitbro (talk) 03:59, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  @Gotitbro I’ve brought it up in my vote and in the discussion at WT:ITNC, but the absolute refusal to consider that there’s any issues with his editing/that anyone’s complaints here or at ITN are valid bears substantial similarity to the behavior of Dicklyon before and during WP:ARBATC2. He was subsequently sitebanned at that case.

  Not that Andrew deserves a siteban nor has he been quite as bad as Dick was - Dick’s editing had crossed far into mass-scale disruption to the project and underhanded tactics to win disputes, rather than just constant WP:IDHT behavior. That said, the overall attitude towards other editors is not helpful to the project. The Kip ^(contribs) 05:36, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• I strongly agree that ITN needs a major overhaul, but Andrew does not "work within the system" that currently exists. A lot of his arguments are WP:IDHT-related and he tends to beat a dead horse. I personally think that we need to codify many of these "community norms", because he is correct to say that our current guidelines don't address things like pageviews.Natg 19 (talk) 23:58, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose any sanctions the ITN project is an utter mess, and the regulars who consistently water down any attempts at meaningful reform shouldn't get to outlaw someone who's a bit more messy than they like. Build a functional project with guidelines that actually function, and then we can talk about disregarding them. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:20, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I also Endorsed Mr rnddude's comment. As an irregular to ITNC but very well-versed in reading policies and procedures, I am baffled by the unwritten rules especially when I tried to nominate a new aircraft's first flight 12 years ago (which of course gets piled-on oppose) yet we continue to post cricket and darts championships year after year. So I become another one of those contributors who basically stopped commenting at ITNC because the process is broken and nobody bothered to tell us of the unwritten rules. Dissenting voices are important in the process. We're not looking for hivemind or a harmonious community as a justification to ban someone. So I oppose sanctions. Andrew's behaviour has not risen to The Rambling Man's incivility or Kurt Webers's "prima facie evidence of power-hunger" blanket oppose at self-nom RfAs. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 13:45, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  The suggestion that ITN is a hivemind is absolutely laughable. Take a look at our talk page: we cannot reach harmony on the tiniest of changes. And I don't know how people who do not contribute to the project can say its a mess and then deny the unified voice of those trying to clean it up. This is probably the most I've seen ITN unified on anything. GreatCaesarsGhost 19:24, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I do work on articles that end up being on ITN.[44] Plus this is ANI and not the ITN/C walled garden so I am in a qualified position to comment on what I observed. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 21:27, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I would really love for someone to explain how this "walled garden" concept applies to one of the most visible and easily accessible projects on WP that is absolutely filled with IP editors. GreatCaesarsGhost 11:39, 16 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I myself am a relative newcomer to ITN having started contributing there a little over a year ago. I experienced none of the supposed hostility others are mentioning. In fact I recall it felt rather welcoming. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 12:58, 16 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  The “walled garden” is that place where you discuss what arguments should or should not be allowed at ITN and reach a “settled consensus”. Maybe “smoke-filled room” is a better description, as it seems no one can give us a link to it. ~2026-15806-98 (talk) 15:40, 16 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  The walled garden impression arises from the "regulars" who typically refuse to accept any external evidence. When any of the following are suggested, they are typically opposed:

  1. The readership or number of views as evidence of significance, even if it's in the millions
  2. The project assessments of importance and quality which are usually recorded on article talk pages
  3. The level of coverage found in the news media such as on newspaper front pages
  4. The assessments of the WP:Vital articles project
  5. The activity and assessments of other pages which cover the news and trending pages such as Portal:Current events and the WP:Top 25 Report
  6. The activity and assessments seen on the main pages of other language Wikipedias such German. These are usually quicker to post than the English ITN.

  The "regulars" tend to indicate that they and only they should be deciding what appears at ITN. But they often don't agree amongst themselves and so ITN then doesn't post anything new for days or even weeks at a stretch.

  This "law unto themselves" attitude does not seem quite so common elsewhere. For example, the DYK project likes page views as it uses them as a measure of the performance of its postings. See WP:Did you know/Statistics which lists various tables showing how DYK articles attracted lots of views or went on to become featured articles.

  Andrew🐉(talk) 16:16, 16 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  How can you claim that Andrew is “engaging in WP:DEADHORSE arguments on matters of settled consensus” when discussions on the talk page fail to settle any consensus? ~2026-15806-98 (talk) 22:32, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. I can see no cleanup attempts, just efforts to pretend that different rules should apply to ITN than the rest of Wikipedia. Outsiders know that sanctions are handed out to those who contravene definite WP:PAGs, not ITN's mess of norms; perhaps the "unified voice" could get that simple point? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:07, 13 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I was pinged above. I do think Andrew could stand to dial it back 15–20%. Some of his talk page and ITNC proposals have, especially recently, felt rather pointy. But at the same time, if ITN regulars don't want people to use pageviews as a metric, they should come up with and codify different guidelines that contain objective milestones. Right now, their own inadaquate guidelines leave the door open to pretty much any argument.

"It is highly subjective whether an event is considered significant enough," ITN's guidelines say, "and ultimately each event should be discussed on its own merits." To pageviews, the opening line says that it's to "direct readers to articles" about "current events of wide interest" (my italics), plus a couple other criteria. Their arguments to avoid say nothing about pageviews. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 14:57, 13 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose sanctions. I hang out at ITN much less than I used to- partly due to my other admin/COIVRT stuff, but also because as time went on it has become more toxic. I'm sure there is consensus that ITN is broken but that breaks down when deciding what to do about it. I have come to believe that there should be less room to oppose proposed nominations based on subjective measures of importance and that much more of what is nominated should be posted. We shouldn't fear bringing attention to a topic that has a good article about it, it shouldn't need to be top level news that is only about death, disaster, destruction, and elections. I digress. I do think much of Andrew's postings are pointy, he must know by now that the pageview argument will be shot down but makes it anyway; if he wants ITN to be pageview ticker instead, he should propose that instead of beating the horse, but we can hardly punish him for disruption when there is no specific rule against that. I agree with Ed that Andrew needs to dial it back, though. 331dot (talk) 15:14, 13 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for commenting. I hoped you would say something as I already gathered that you were a disaffected ITN regular. I'm happy to take the advice about dialing it back. The recent flurry of nominations were either related to the major news about Iran and related topics or they were just happenstance, like the meteorite. There are plenty of other things to do on Wikipedia and variety is the spice of life. And this discussion may help inform further community attempts to improve ITN so that it works more smoothly in future. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:32, 13 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose sanctions: this is not to endorse any of the actions or comments mentioned above, but largely per AirshipJungleman29: given the amount of work clearly needed on culture, norms and clarity at ITN as a whole, singling out an individual editor for not fitting in with those norms or that culture is not the way to go. However, I agree with the editors above who suggest that the WP:POINTy approach taken by Andrew in some of these discussions has not helped matters. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 20:33, 13 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, this is all anyone is asking for. Just an acknowledgement that the pointy stuff is getting out of hand recently and to tone it down. GreatCaesarsGhost 11:39, 16 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Right. I've said what I think the maximum sanction should be, but I should make myself clearer: what I actually want is for Andrew, who is in many respects an excellent and diligent contributor who does a lot more for the site than I do, to maange his contributions at ITN in such a way as to be less disruptive to the overall functioning of ITN. I am sympathetic to the general idea of his repeated attempts to get ITN working better through proposals at its talk page and elsewhere, even if we haven't yet hit on one that both addresses the issues well enough and gains enough popular support. But making ITNC harder to use and navigate runs counter to all that good stuff, and in fact contributes to the 'walled garden' effect discussed elsewhere. So all I really want is for Andrew to stop the IDHT tendencies and the grandstanding. If we get that, both in word and deed, then I don't think we need sanctions. GenevieveDEon (talk) 12:10, 16 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Separate from the discussion of Andrew and ITN: I have noticed that there are at least two temp accounts posting in this section whose only contributions are to this section. It seems highly unlikely to me that this would be anyone's first edit, so are established users employing temp accounts to participate anonymously in an admittedly contentious area? GenevieveDEon (talk) 08:10, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Tricky question since ANI is a high-traffic "drama board" & certain subjects/pages attract more attention than others.

  You could be right, but TA's expire periodically so it could also be a long-term anon editor who hasn't created an account for whatever reason, there have also been cases where banned editors/LTA's have popped up here using TA's.

  TA's are anonymous to comply with various international laws, so they can't really be investigated without good reason.

  If you have evidence that a TA is being used abusively, please submit an SPI report. Blue Sonnet (talk) 08:34, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Obligatory IP/TA editors are humans too reminder. Ironic that the comment came from someone who's userpage wrote "I have a been long-timer lurker and unregistered editor". OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 04:03, 15 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I made the ill-fated Kerala(m) nomination that sparked Andrew's snarky comment in his subsequent nomination re Anthropic mentioned at the top of this thread. While I have enough of a thick skin to ignore that and go on participating on ITN, I can't help but wonder how an infrequent or first-time contributor to ITN might react if their first, unsuccessful nomination is referred to snarkily by other users. Such comments (and the pointy fights Andrew sometimes revels in) are what creates a less than welcoming atmosphere - which leads to less new people joining in on the ITN project, and the impression of ITN being run by a "clique". I've agreed with Andrew on many occasions in the past and I have also frequently disagreed with him. I have less of a problem with his hobby-horses (such as pageviews) than other contributors but find it difficult to support him here given his lack of acknowledgment that he's truly being disruptive sometimes and his unwillingness to collaborate in a way that makes ITN more welcoming to non-project veterans. Khuft (talk) 18:16, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  The importance of particular topics is routinely denigrated at ITN as it's a fundamental part of its process to be judgemental in establishing what is and isn't significant. So, other editors are quick to disrespect topics that I and others nominate. For example, see the recent Sea level nomination. This was a science story about a systematic error in the measurement of sea level. This is one of the major effects of climate change which threatens millions of people including entire low-lying countries. But many !voters dismissed this as "trivia" or "trivial". I pointed out that this one-word dismissal was contrary to WP:ITNDONT while another editor observed that these !votes straddle a line between absurd and in poor taste. But, as usual, nothing was done. So, per WP:SAUCE, my comment was not especially exceptional for ITN which is generally a bruising experience for nominators.

  And please note that my comment was not, in any way, personal as I hadn't even noticed who had nominated the Kerala story. Khuft today made another nomination of Jürgen Habermas and I was quite willing to endorse that. I don't have a strong opinion about that philosopher myself but am content to accept the verdict of project WP:VITAL which has assessed him as a major figure in his field. Masem rushed to disagree, of course, but so it goes.

  Andrew🐉(talk) 19:00, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  In what way is Andrew being disruptive? Katzrockso (talk) 06:22, 15 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend re-reading the above thread, and the evidence provided. GenevieveDEon (talk) 12:10, 16 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I did (this is my third time reading this thread) and I failed to find any evidence of disruption, just mere claims that his behavior constituted disruption. Katzrockso (talk) 16:28, 16 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose sanctions. Some of his more WP:POINTY editing has been over the top, but a sanction would itself be pointy and likely backdoor/bootstrap rule changes for ITN. Jahaza (talk) 16:49, 16 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Not to pick on you but I'm not understanding such references to WP:POINT. The point of WP:POINT is that When you have a point to make, use direct discussion only. It is mainly concerned with disruption to articles as a way of proving a point. For example, if you think that an article is poorly sourced, it might be disruptive to tag bomb it or remove all the uncited text.

  But, while I may engage in vigorous discussion, I am more cautious when it comes to the actual articles. For example, at the recent case of Jürgen Habermas, there was a problem with some paragraphs of uncited philosophy that were difficult to cite because of their complexity and technical language. I contemplated removing them to resolve the cleanup tags but, before doing so, I engaged in discussion at the article's talk page and pinged other editors who had relevant experience. This then resolved the issue without needing draconian action. So, such behaviour is what WP:POINT recommends and that's what I endeavour to do.

  My impression that people use "pointy" to mean something else such as being too bold or a gadfly. More clarity on this point might be helpful in clearing the air.

  Andrew🐉(talk) 17:09, 16 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  The fact that Andrew, in the above reply, still can't seem to even remotely comprehend how other users find his editing problematic should be enough proof that his editing is, in fact, problematic. The Kip ^(contribs) 17:37, 16 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think that's what he's saying. I think he is saying that citing WP:POINT does not imply what this person thinks it implies. (Talk) PHLOGISTON ENTHUSIAST 17:41, 16 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Exactly. If people still think WP:POINT is relevant, they should please quote the relevant text and cite examples. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:53, 16 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  @Phlogiston Enthusiast I wish I could share your optimism, but this sort of nitpicky "that's not technically what the policy/guideline says/means" is a recurring trait in his editing at ITN. The Kip ^(contribs) 17:59, 16 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  It's correct, though, isn't it? (Talk) PHLOGISTON ENTHUSIAST 18:00, 16 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  It's differing interpretations of policy in tandem with the letter of the policies. As stated above, the problem has consistently been that Andrew believes his interpretations to be superior to those of other editors, as well as the letter of the policy itself, and fails to see how that can raise any issues.

  This discussion isn't going anywhere, though, so I suppose I'll see everyone back here in a few months when the exact same issues have continued without resolve. The Kip ^(contribs) 18:15, 16 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Oppose any sanctions, fundamentally Andrew Davidson (talk · contribs)'s behavior is a direct consequence of ITN's general dysfunction. Irrespective of my opinions on his proposals, I won't support the chilling effect this will have on any substantive and meaningful ITN reform. Not a fan of the precedent of running people enthusiastic about reform off the project by ITN regularls when said regulars have basically provided fertile ground for people like him to sprout. — Knightoftheswords 16:17, 17 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Haziran11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Haziran11 was warned about LLM-generated content in December and again in February. The article Attacks on Iranian schools during the 2026 war, which they created on March 9, has now been endorsed for WP:G15 speedy deletion by several editors at AfD. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:46, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A number of their other recent edits have what are either LLM issues or not understanding the sources issues (reverted here and here . Its also been three days and they have not commented on the AFD despite being active elsewhere.©Geni (talk) 19:07, 13 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reminder. I understand that the article is deleted, I respect the result of the discussion. I planned to write an article that includes credible sources about the topic and finish it later, but I see that the article in its current form did not meet Wikipedia’s standards.

I take the reminders about the text created by LLMs very seriously. From now on, I'll be more careful to make sure my edits are clearly supported by reliable sources and accurately reflect them.

I appreciate everyone for their feedback and will be more careful about the source in my future edits. Haziran11 (talk) 07:47, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Haziran11 did you use an AI/LLM/chatbot to generate your reply here? Blue Sonnet (talk) 08:57, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No. I wrote that reply myself.Haziran11 (talk) 09:38, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• OFFS, obviously that's AI. Indef for using AI to promise to stop using AI, then lying about it. Why do we waste our time coddling incompetent liars? AI must be destroyed. EEng 09:45, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  What is your argument for saying this?Haziran11 (talk) 09:48, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  @Haziran11: because it reads like one, and ZeroGPT concurs, giving it 100% likelihood of being AI-generated. Which is particularly concerning, given that's kind of the reason for this discussion in the first place. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:58, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  So are we going to engage in yet another waste-of-electrons exercise in futility by engaging this person further as they continue lying? Please, someone just block right now. EEng 10:33, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Is the use or assistance of AI generally and unconditionally prohibited on Wikipedia? Haziran11 (talk) 10:50, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Or can it be used within the rules? Haziran11 (talk) 10:55, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't remember the rules on that. What I do know is that AI liars are AI liars, and you're an AI liar. Go lie somwewhere else. Productive editors don't want your kind wasting their time, which is what you're doing right now. EEng 12:11, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  LLMs aren't explicitly against the rules. There is no total ban. However, adding hallucinated text and text unsupported by references is considered disruptive. Judging from the number of warnings on your talk page and links provided above, I would say you fall into that area. You are required to verify any information you post regardless of LLM usage, and you haven't been doing so. • Quinn (talk) 12:19, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  LLM use is not banned outright. However, as Quinn said, LLMs have real problems producing content that complies with Wikipedia's core policies, like verifiability. You are responsible for every edit you make. See Wikipedia:Large language models for an overview of the relevant policies. If you feel that you need to use an LLM to contribute here then you probably shouldn't contribute here. Mackensen (talk) 12:25, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I may have used AI occasionally to help improve the wording of texts, correct spelling errors, and make the writing smoother. My understanding is that this kind of assistance does not in itself violate Wikipedia policies.

  Also, not all of my contributions to Wikipedia can reasonably be questioned on the basis that I used AI. According to Wikipedia guidance, the real concern with AI is when it leads to policy violations or the creation of inaccurate or misleading content.

  If there were one or two mistakes in my edits, I acknowledge that this can happen, but occasional errors should not by themselves be considered sufficient grounds for blocking an account. I would appreciate it if the situation could be reviewed more carefully and based on the actual content and sources used in my edits. Haziran11 (talk) 13:34, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  More AI-written bullshit. EEng 18:33, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I shall point this out again, fully aware that nobody is listening: if you ask an LLM to defend your use of an AI to write an article (or your essay or your dissertation – ask me how I know this), 100% of the time it will tell you to say "I only used AI to improve my English/correct spelling errors/check my writing" in some combination. Anybody who says words to that effect, especially after they have previously denied LLM usage, is lying directly to your face. • a frantic turtle 🐢 18:42, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  No, their LLM is lying to your face for them.

  To lighten the mood, here's a little anecdote: As some may know to their dismay, I have a minor role in shaping young minds at a small but respected liberal arts college. So imagine my shock when, in the run-up to a recent semester, one student petitioned for an exception to the course prerequisites:

  As a graduating senior, this course is incredibly important for completing my concentration requirements and aligning with my academic goals. It will not only enhance my understanding of computer science but also serve as a capstone to my academic journey, bridging the theoretical and practical knowledge I’ve gained throughout my time at [University Name].

  To be clear: "my time at [University Name]" is the original text as the student submitted it (and note the curly apostrophe near the end of the quote). This is when I first became aware that the contagion had spread to [University Name]. (In the unlikely event this particular student somehow stumbles on this post, I rush to add that we overlooked this faux pas, and they proved a valuable addition to the class.) EEng 21:35, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  According to Wikipedia guidance, the real concern with AI is when it leads to policy violations or the creation of inaccurate or misleading content.

  You used AI and it caused policy violations and the creation of inaccurate content, therefore there can be sufficient grounds for blocking in this situation. Besides, you have fabricated quotes or have cited an article that does not agree with the text you added, so even if you have not used AI, those were still violations of the policy for verifiability. ~2026-68406-1 (talk) 13:45, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Please reply in your own words and comment on the actual issues that have been raised, rather than suggesting there may be a hypothetical "one or two". CMD (talk) 13:52, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  So (in my earlier words) engage in yet another waste-of-electrons exercise in futility by engaging this person further as they continue lying it is, I guess. EEng 14:26, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  In Attacks on Iranian schools during the 2026 war, which you created, many quotes are plainly not supported by the sources (e.g. "students are protected under international humanitarian law in a place dedicated to education and that 'attacks on educational facilities endanger students and teachers and undermine the right to education." cited to [45] and [46]) or changed the words inside the quotation ("grave violation" changing to "gross violation" cited to [47], or "must not become another horrific incident that slips out of the headlines and is no longer a priority. There must be accountability." cited to [48], which was present in two near-duplicated sections).

  This is just from spot-checking one article, but looking at other recent edits, we see the same pattern of inaccurate quotes ("Rising oil prices weigh on economic growth and push up inflation" cited to [49] in Special:Diff/1342329177) and issues with paraphrasing veering into the absurd ("Gasoline prices in the US rose 7.5% to $3.20 per gallon. Gasoline prices rose above $4 per gallon, the highest since late 2023." in the same edit, when the source for the first was referring to the average gasoline price and the second to diesel specifically). In general, your edits are more or less closely paraphrasing news outlets without much attention to the meaning of the words, which is not a constructive way to edit with LLMs.

  "Mistakes can happen" doesn't really work when you're changing the words in quotes, or making them out of thin air, which isn't something that accidentally happens when writing articles. I've blocked you from mainspace to avoid further issues until you can demonstrate that you are able to use LLMs constructively and will not introduce errors at such a high rate in the future. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 14:57, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Whether or not LLMs can be used responsibly on Wikipedia (I think it's possible generally, but relatively rarely in practice), you very clearly did not use them responsibly. As such, a ban on you using LLMs for any purpose on Wikipedia should be part of any unblock.

  I spot checked a lot of your older edits, and there are a lot of signs of LLM pollution in them. For example, in [50], you added in This launch represents a continuation of bilateral collaboration in high-technology sectors and reflects the growing role of scientific and technological exchanges within the broader framework of trade and economic relations between Iran and Russia., LLM-style prose that draws a broader conclusion that isn't contained within the sources, a notorious LLM quirk. And there are a lot of these.

  Your slopfarming to reduce the work needed for you is now more than cancelled out by the additional work that you've created for others. That is an unacceptable situation. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:26, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  continuation bilateral collaboration high-technology sectors broader framework – If this is what articles are going to read like from here on out, please just kill me now. EEng 18:29, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  As someone who likes using LLMs for silly pictures that wouldn't exist otherwise, it pains me to see people use them to undermine a collaborative, human-written encyclopedia. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 18:40, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi again @Haziran11, since you've already been blocked I'm going to copy this message to your Talk page in case you find it easier to speak in a less public place. Firstly, please see Wikipedia:NEWLLM and Wikipedia:AITALK.

  AI and LLM's are well-known for hallucinations and overly promotional language. They cause so many problems at Wikipedia that a lot of editors are genuinely upset and stressed whenever we see yet another new editor using AI without reviewing it's output to check if it's accurate.

  Cutting and pasting AI output takes seconds, but fixing the damage can take hours and is very, very rarely done by the person who caused the problem because they're too inexperienced to understand how to do this.

  Basically, you shouldn't use AI unless you're experienced enough to be able to check all the output thoroughly and understand how to check for and correct errors before publishing. Experienced editors very rarely use AI because it's simply one extra step, another thing they have to check.

  Re. Talk pages, AI always writes in a robotic, sycophantic (overly eager to please) way. Seeing different people say exactly the same thing as each other can be exhausting because we've seen it before. It feels disrespectful, like we're not being listened to because we aren't - we're taking to a machine that can't properly understand what we're saying, so it just spits out the same responses every single time. This happens so often that we can see AI-generated text a mile away. If you write something that's pretty much identical to something we know comes from AI, then all your subsequent replies follow exactly the same pattern, chances are extremely high that you're using AI.

  Even if your English isn't perfect, we always, always want to speak to the human - this is a human-centric encyclopedia, after all.

  AI doesn't currently have the ability to edit Wikipedia properly (we know because people are constantly trying use it), so feeding our replies into the machine doesn't do anything helpful; it just stresses all the humans out and makes things worse for everyone involved - especially the person using the AI. If you don't think it can cause too much damage, please take a moment to check out the Wikipedia:AI noticeboard.

  You've only been blocked from editing articles directly, so you can still submit edits using the Edit request process. Once you've made a few of these and they've been accepted, you could use that as evidence that you know how to edit properly for a future block appeal. One last point, please don't use AI to write your appeal - that obviously won't go down well. Blue Sonnet (talk) 20:17, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Gotta disagree with you there, Blue-Sonnet. My advice is: if you still feel that AI is the best way to write your block appeal, then by all means do so. That way we'll know immediately that you still can't be trusted to edit articles. EEng 21:37, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Welp, at least this way they've been given every possible chance!

  Pretty much every AI-written appeal looks identical so they're easy to spot, but they can be incredibly exhausting to deal with; the AI never fully understands what's going on & it feels like you're speaking to a brick wall - but I'll stop here lest I go off on a huge rant. Blue Sonnet (talk) 22:01, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

User:Editor of military has been warned repeatedly, by multiple editors, against adding unsourced content, misrepresenting sources as supporting his additions when they do not, and adding off-topic information. He has not responded on his talk page or the talk pages of the articles involved, but has continued the behaviour.

• Special:Diff/1337318350 Added to the list of wars in which the BTR-50 was used the "India–Pakistan war of 1971", without citing a source. According to SIPRI, India received its first BTR-50s in 1978, and Pakistan has never received any, so it's highly unlikely that any were used in their 1971 war.
• Special:Diff/1338702406 Added casualties to Burma campaign without citing a source, just the edit summary "TRUE".
• Special:Diff/1341260181 Added to the equipment list of Bangladesh Air Force two prototype aircraft, without citing a source.

• Special:Diff/1337476492 Added to Battle of Shiromoni's list of Pakistani losses "3 M-113". As evidence, he added three undefined citations: "{{r|Dhaka Tribune}} {{r|Military Wiki - Fandom}} {{r|The Business Standard}}". I searched the archives of the Dhaka Tribune and The Business Standard, but found no mentions of M-113s. The user-generated Military Wiki on Fandom is not a reliable source. According to Gill's An Atlas of the 1971 India-Pakistan War: The Creation of Bangladesh, Pakistan did have M-113s at the time, but they were all in West Pakistan, 1000 miles away through enemy territory, so it's unlikely that Pakistan lost any at Shiromoni.
• Special:Diff/1339034780 Added to Bangladesh Army Aviation Group "3 Beechcraft Super King Air". Misrepresented this journal article as supporting the addition when it does nothing of the sort.

• Special:Diff/1337381446 Added to the list of accidents and incidents related to Hazrat Shahjalal International Airport an aircraft flying from and to Kumbhigram that was hit by ground fire during a supply drop at Sylhet. No plausible flight path would have brought the plane within 100 miles of Hazrat Shahjalal International Airport. (The pages he cited make no mention of the incident, but it is mentioned on a different page, 119.)
• Special:Diff/1337381446 Added to the list of accidents and incidents related to Osmani International Airport an aircraft flying from Guwahati that was hit by ground fire while conducting close air support at Brahmanbaria. The cited book mentions the crash (on page 117, not on the pages he cited) but does not connect it in any way to Osmani International Airport (80 miles from Brahmanbaria). Nor does it support much of the other hallucinated? details he added (if was from No. 4 Squadron, for example).

80-90% of all their edits are problematic. One edit summary ("Search 'give me a crashes in kurmitola ww2' and you will find what I wrote") suggests he may be using an AI chatbot to generate content and find sources. They aren't communicating, aren't learning from their mistakes, and should be prevented from continuing their disruption. --Worldbruce (talk) 23:49, 13 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Indef'd from mainspace until they communicate. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:13, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that quite a few of those edits are ones they shouldn't be making anyway, even if 100% correct, as they fall under the IMH portion of CT/SA which is under extended confirmed restrictions. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:15, 15 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Voorts and The Bushranger: Now they're socking. Idk q1 was created using the slang abbreviation "idk", something which is uncommon among editors who typically edit Bangladeshi topics, but which Editor of military has used before on their user page (since oversighted, I believe). Their first edit was to a Bangladeshi airline, a typical topic for the master. Their second edit was to User talk:Editor of military, an extremely unlikely page for a new editor to stumble across accidentally. --Worldbruce (talk) 23:11, 16 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note also they ended their post on Eom's page with "bye", which Eom also used to end their user page. I hear enough quacking to toss this at SPI. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:28, 16 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

JGBlue1509 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User has been warned on 3 separate occasions about the failure to use PREVIEW to check their edits: Special:Diff/1337620042, Special:Diff/1338670153 & Special:Diff/1341129459.

They have ignored every warning and continued the same pattern of editing. They were also given a warning about failure to communicate in this diff as they had ignored every one of the previous messages. Their editing behavior has not improved and they have continued to ignore messages. They once again invented parameters when they created Xiaomi Mi 6.

User clearly does not understand the basic requirement to check their work and preview their edits. Once or twice is one thing, but this is an ongoing problem that this user is actively refusing to address or acknowledge. Request block from article namespace until user demonstrates that they can engage with other editors as required and preview their work. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:06, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Like the previous time you brought someone to ANI, you should specify that all of the warnings were from you, and some of the warnings you've left were within a minute of each other. Your example of "failure to communicate" shows them attempting to communicate only for you to shut it down and respond with generic warnings. Even after reading your warnings to them, I still don't know what the actual error was except that it was somehow related to template parameters. There are ways to solve common mistakes in editing that don't involve scolding, threatening, or reporting editors. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:54, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• User:Zackmann08: Giving people multiple warnings within minutes of each other is not acceptable, especially when the editor was attempting to talk with you. Also, failure to use the preview function by itself is not an offense worthy of blocking. While using the preview function is recommended for editors, it is possible to use it and still miss errors. In addition, some editors -- especially those who are neurodiverse -- may have editing patterns that make you think they aren't using the preview function when they are. Anyway, please refrain from posting warnings like this to editors. If this pattern of behavior continues, you may end up being the one getting a warning.--SouthernNights (talk) 19:09, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  @SouthernNights: the diffs I provided show that these warnings were not minutes apart. One was Feb 10th, one Feb 16th, one March 1st and here we are with the same issue being presented on March 14th. Yes on March 1st I used 2 different templates back to back as there were 2 separate messages that needed to be conveyed. If that action violates some policy (link please?) I will absolutely refrain from doing that in the future. I will point out that in my initial ANI post that started this thread, I treated those back-to-back warnings as one diff, not two. I totally understand and agree that I cannot be upset that someone didn't respond in under a minute so I intentionally said that the user had been warned 3 times even thought technically 4 warnings had been posted because I acknowledge that 2 were posted virtually simultaneously.

  I would like you to explain to me what in my behavior here is worth of a warning? I have been posting these warnings on thousands of pages for years and never have I once been warned that I am doing anything wrong... I would appreciate an explanation of your statement If this pattern of behavior continues, you may end up being the one getting a warning. A warning for what exactly? What policy or procedure am I in violation of? I notified a user, multiple times, weeks apart, that their edits had broken a page. I will also point out that I have made very similar ANI reports dozens of times in the past for this exact same situation with other editors: 3+ unknown param warnings and a failure to communicate warning, that have resulted in blocks of those editors. Not every time', often the editor in question immediately sees the ANI and wakes up (for lack of a better phrase) and changes their editing. But the numerous times that blocks have been applied seemed to be a clear endorsement that what I was doing was correct. When an editor repeatedly makes the same mistake and refuses to address the issue, that is a problem. If there is a lesson to be learned here I am all ears (eyes?) to learn it and change my behavior, but you have not really made any clear point about what supposed mistake I made here?

  I am also bewildered by your statement about neurodivergent editors? I have zero issue with anyone editing regardless of their neurodiversity. What does that have to do with the issue at hand? I see nothing here that is relevant? There are no userboxes on JGBlue1509's page claiming they are neurodivergent and even if there were, not sure what that has to do with the issue at hand? If you cannot understand the clear message I placed on the talk page that very clearly explains the issue, we all know that competence is required. But again, I don't see what that has to do with the issue here... JGBlue1509 did not respond to the first 2 messages and it wasn't until the warning about possibly being blocked that they did respond here in a manner that shows that they had not read the previous messages (and I quote): what happened here? when creating an article about phones, what requirements should met the following?. The issue at hand was very clearly spelled out and the user has not responded further.

  I look forward to better understand what issue you see with my editing so that I can learn from it and do better. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:28, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  It's very simple: on JGBlue1509's talk page you posted two warnings within one minute of each other. That's inappropriate and comes off as highly antagonistic. Also, JGBlue1509 is not required to respond to your messages. But when the editor did respond and asked exactly what mistake they made, you replied in a snarky, hostile manner instead of actually answering the question. Then you came to ANI saying that this editor ignored warnings to use preview, which isn't even a reason to block someone. And to top it all off, the error you warned this editor about was so small compared to the new article they'd just created, that even using preview doesn't mean they would have caught it. My point in all this is to chill out and not escalate nothingburgers to ANI, and also take more care in how you talk to other editors. SouthernNights (talk) 20:56, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  While I acknowledge that posting 2 back to back warnings may not be ideal, they were different warnings. You have only addressed about a third of what I said above, which is in itself an issue. I will take your warning about watching my tone to heart. Hope you will be careful about brining up irrelevant arguments such as some supposed bias against neurodiversity in the future. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:00, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I didn't address everything you said b/c you dropped 600 words into the discussion. I'm not going to respond to all that. Also, I didn't accuse you of any bias against neurodiversity -- I simply said that not everyone edits Wikipedia in the same way. That means it can be difficult to know if someone is using preview or not, or if they do use it they may not use preview in the same way you do. SouthernNights (talk) 21:13, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  You cannot say that I am acting in a way that may warrant admin warnings if I continue, then be surprised when I ask for an explanation of exactly what I am doing wrong and be bothered by the fact that I dropped 600 words? Like what the heck? Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:30, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I explained exactly what you were doing wrong. SouthernNights (talk) 21:31, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  My lesson here is not to post 2 warnings back to back. That is noted and I will endeavor to avoid doing so in the future. At this point I don't see any future discussion needing to take place here and you (or another admin) are free to close this discussion as it seems that it has been deemed that JGBlue1509's repeatedly breaking pages and ignoring warnings (including this ANI discussion) do not warrant any sort of action. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:32, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

[51] Is this the same Zackmann who is deprecating fields suddenly and breaking info boxes? I recommend Zackmann holds themselves to the same standards and starts to preview their breaking (and needless) changes. ~2026-16275-74 (talk) 20:58, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I do hold myself accountable for the mistakes I make and the above is a VERY CLEAR case of WP:EWLO... Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:01, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AGF, unlike in the conversation I linked above. You may want to read about temporary accounts. WP:TEMP. This replaces the older IP editor system. ~2026-16275-74 (talk) 21:05, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I know full well about temp accounts. The fact that an temp account with ZERO edits to their name, knows about a mistake I made a week ago, means you are clearly an experienced editor who is hiding behind a temp account to avoid these comments being tied to your primary account. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:09, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, do you think someone has to be logged in to view Wikipedia talk pages? You can probably get WP:TAIV if you tried. It may help you be more civil if you don't jump to as many conclusions without data. ~2026-16275-74 (talk) 21:16, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

And, after warning Zackmann about personal attacks, they attacked me again by accusing me of trolling[52]. They've suggested an admin be recalled for an infobox error, and here they are hoping to get another editor sanctioned over a different infobox content dispute. They lashed out at me for pointing out that they also break as many boxes as those they seek to sanction. Honestly, it feels like this editor would do better if they were to stay away from infobox templates completely. ~2026-16275-74 (talk) 21:36, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You posted here that I was being disruptive, then immediately trolled my page with a template about a personal attack and are upset that I reverted your edit on my own talk page? If you think that my mistake on {{Infobox mountain}} overrides my over half million constructive edits, you are free to bring an ANI of your own against me. But thus far, your trolling comments are WP:DUCK in my opinion. If any admin feels differently, I will gladly address them further, but won't engage further with this editor who is very clearly a more experienced editor hiding behind a temp account. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:42, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You'd be better off striking the aspersions, or just not responding, than doubling down with more personal attacks. Nobody cares how many edits you have. You do not get to attack people. ~2026-16275-74 (talk) 21:49, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're giving Zackmann08 a hard time here. There are so many nothingburgers being brought to WP:ANI these days that they obviously thought that it was appropriate. And of course being technically proficient in IT and knowing how to write a template mean that they are better qualified than anyone else to write an encyclopedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:43, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Zackmann08's approach here is an ongoing problem. There is no requirement...to preview their edits in any policy or guideline. There is a requirement to WP:AGF, and dropping templated warnings on users rapidly after an almost certainly inadvertent error was made (in some cases just four minutes after an error) does not leave a reasonable window for the assumption that a good faith editor will return and fix the error, a point I have made to Zackmann08 multiple times. Zackmann08's tone in response has been impatient and condescending. I truly appreciate Zackmann08's work to patrol broken parameters on infoboxes (and have previously said as much), but this work does not need to involve so many templated warnings followed by threats of blocking and ANI complaints (two now on this page) when the editor does not provide a response that satisfies them. Prolific editors make occasional mistakes (I believe one of the ones Zackmann08 warned Deor about was clearly a typo adding an extra "d" to "coordinates"), and infobox parameters are especially fiddly. Wikipedia's policy is that "perfection is not required", so no one should be brought to ANI who is a good-faith editor who has made a few simple and understandable mistakes. (Zackmann08 claims their previous filings have resulted in blocks, but looking at the previous cases, three that resulted in a block had actual blockable issues beyond the non-violation of "not using preview", while two others resulted in no action.) I would urge Zackmann08 to take the feedback they have received from others in these two ANI discussions onboard; if they persist in filing ANI complaints in this kind of situation, I believe WP:BOOMERANG would be an appropriate response. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:03, 15 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Dclemens1971: I genuinely appreciate your comments and am going to re-examine my process. For what it is worth, the "templated warnings" are always an attempt to educate usually new editors. They are almost always well received by editors who appreciate that I took the time to both correct their error AND inform them of the mistake. As I often tell editors who respond to my templated message, we were all new at one point and this is how we learn also I have been known to point out that if I had a nickel for every time I've broken something on here, I could retire and edit full time.

When I drop the same message multiple times over the course of days, weeks or months, repeatedly on the same user's talk page it can be frustrating to feel like they are repeating the same error with no regard for the fact that others have to clean up their mistakes. What I am hearing here is that I need to be more careful about when that personal frustration of feeling like I am being ignored actually warrants an ANI. You identified some of the previous cases where my primary reason for filing an ANI was the same as this one, but you have correctly pointed out that there were other issues at play in those cases that were missing from this case.

@SouthernNights: I will also acknowledge to you that I need to not let my personal frustrations leach out in snarky responses. I am usually pretty good about educating without being a dick... But we are all human and sometimes I'm just annoyed that I have to explain something for the 5th or 6th time. This is one of the many reasons I have never thrown my hat into the ring to be an admin despite multiple suggestions that I do so and my editing experience.

In any event, I appreciate you both for helping me learn from this. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 03:18, 15 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's all good and thanks for the kind words. You're an excellent editor doing much-needed work and stuff like this isn't worth getting stressed out over. SouthernNights (talk) 10:29, 15 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response. I agree that you're doing great work patrolling infobox changes and I appreciate your considering the feedback. Dclemens1971 (talk) 10:37, 15 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

DA persists in error and cannot understand what he did wrong. He is preaching about the Holy Trinity, Christian faith, the soul, The Truth, and good thoughts. His block will soon expire has expired. [53] and [54]. The second diff is before he got blocked. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:09, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Dragos Albei is a ranty SPA promoting incoherent pseudo-medical crankery with religious overtones. I spotted this when he edited Judith Reisman with this astonishingly awful edit summary full of personal attacks and allegations of criminality. (Maybe that should be revdelled?)

I saw that he got a short block and I had a feeling that that might not be the end of it so I kept a tab open and was waiting to see what he did once the block expired. So far, he is just kvetching incoherently on his User Talk page, which is not great, but at least he hasn't tried to mess up the article again. I'd probably have waited to see whether he did that before bringing it here but then, if he had accused me of promoting paedophilia and infanticide in an edit summary, then maybe I wouldn't have been so reticent either. I can hardly blame tgeorgescu if he has had enough of this crap. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:07, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this is not on. Those posts on the talk page make it clear they're WP:NOTHERE. Revdel'd that edit summary and blocked indef. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:29, 15 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• It must be said, however, that the Judith Reisman article is a rambling mess. EEng 04:09, 15 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I can't do everything myself. I still abode by WP:PRESERVE. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:03, 15 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• ~2026-13478-51 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This isn't immediately obvious vandalism, but includes:

• Unexplained content removal: [55]
• Posting false information directly contradicted by reliable sources:
  • [56] removing all information on Swoop Airlines operating Boeing 737-8 MAX, despite sources stating otherwise, e.g. [57] (granted, the original article's source is now a deadlink as they are a defunct airline)
    • Violating 3RR on the edit above: [58] [59] [60] [61]
  • [62] stripping the fleet table of WestJet of everything except for the 737-800
  • [63] likewise for Flair Airlines
• Blanking vandalism and disruptive editing warnings from Talk page: [64]
• Removing this ANI report: [65]

4300streetcar (talk) 05:26, 15 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked for 31h. Anyone else is free to bump that if necessary. Izno (talk) 06:24, 15 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have requested page protection for WestJet, Swoop (airline), and Sunwing Airlines via WP:RFPP shown here. WestJet was the hardest hit by vandalism. ~ŤheŴubṂachine-840≈ 12:15, 15 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]