Epstein Files Full PDF

I had second thoughts about filing this but then looked for TurboSuperA+ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) in the ANI archives, which led to Helpful Cat's 2025 report being the most recent result. In that report, Helpful Cat mentioned Turbo's "refusal to get the point", which was also to be the subject of my report. The instances I remember:

• On Denis Kapustin (militant), there was a discussion titled "Nazi views are not proved", which contained an exchange regarding the neo-Nazi label in the article lede.
• In a month from then, Turbo creates a new topic and tells the user involved in that discussion that the change of the label to "far-right" was "without any kind of discussion".

In fairness, Turbo may have missed the original discussion despite its relevant title, but the instances below involve Turbo's engagement.

• Me and Helpful Cat telling Turbo that MANDY is merely an essay. I quote from the WP definition of self-published sources and explain that reliable sources like Al Jazeera don't count as self-published. Turbo replies to that.
• Turbo refers to MANDY again just days later and also misuses a self-published sources guideline in the context of PBS News.

• Turbo was told by Helpful Cat that "Kapustin claims that he is not neo-Nazi". Turbo indicated having read the comment by replying "As I said, whitewashing".
• Turbo removes the part on Kapustin denying being a neo-Nazi and white supremacist, says "He never denied being a nazi, that's more WP:OR" in the edit summary.

• On the same talk page, Turbo says Azov should be described as "far right" and immediately suggests creating an RFC. Helpful Cat mentions an RFC on the same topic previously launched by Turbo and that the conclusion was not to describe Azov as far-right. Turbo launches a new RFC about the same subject but in a different article. As before, the RFC's conclusion was not to describe Azov as far-right.

Other instances of Turbo misusing or going against the guidelines:

• Turbo misusing WP:PROMO to dismiss a quote sourced to PBS rather than anything associated with Kapustin.

• Turbo says "I don't think attribution is necessary" after I've linked the full guideline and explicitly pointed out that WP:CONTENTIOUS instructs to use in-text attribution. Since Turbo's comment, they have edited the article to re-introduce the contentious label without attribution, which by my count was their third edit or revert to that effect despite there being no agreement on Talk and NPOVN (edit 1, edit 2).

Other issues related to the subject:

• Turbo being uncivil by replying to a user's argument with "Oh fuck off".
• Turbo telling the same user "You're not fooling me. I know what you are doing."

Daisy Blue (talk) 16:14, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As this comment shows, there are 14 sources that call Kapustin a "neo-nazi", including this: Researcher of far-right movements Robert Claus described Kapustin as a key figure among right-wing extremists in Europe and one of the continent’s most dangerous neo-Nazis. On the other hand there is 1 source calling him an "extremist", 1 calling him "extreme right-wing", 2 calling him "far right" and 1 calling him a "nationalist". Daisy Blue wishes to add the {{POV statement}} template without providing any evidence that the "neo-nazi" label is disputed in RS. Yes, Kapustin denies being a neo-nazi, but he would, wouldn't he? WP:CONTENTIOUS also states that these sorts of labels "may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject". As I have shown, the label is widely used to describe Kapustin. The guy was also banned from all of EU/Schengen area for being a neo-nazi. So yes, I do consider removing the "neo-nazi" label or inserting tags to suggest the label is non-neutral as whitewashing of neo-nazis. I would also like to note that regarding Kapustin's denial of antisemitism I wrote "Other editors agree with you, so it should be included. I'm not going to object or revert any more." So I am more than happy to recognise consensus and admit when it is against me. Those who wish to show that the "neo-nazi" label is disputed are welcome to provide RS that dispute it, which they haven't done. The label is used as recently as 2 January 2026 by Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty, for example. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 16:45, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

When you quote WP:CONTENTIOUS, whether on NPOVN or here just now, you omit the last part saying "in which case use in-text attribution", and it seems that no amount of emphasis by others, whether by me or by Helpful Cat, changes your mind. Giving in after a lot of pushback, as with the RFCs or regarding Kapustin's comments on antisemitism, does not take away from how burdensome the process becomes for the community. Daisy Blue (talk) 17:34, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"in which case use in-text attribution"

So why didn't you? All you did was add a {{POV statement}} tag[1] to the label. Another editor changed the label to "far right"[2]. These are attempts to remove/change the label, not attribute it. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 18:11, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BURDEN says it's on the editor introducing content to back it. In fact, it goes even further and says "Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living people or existing groups". Besides, my writing in the main space is hit or miss, being very dependent on the mood. I probably do more copy editing, sourcing and cleanup tasks than I do writing. Lastly, the way WP:CONTENTIOUS is written is that it's an either/or type instruction: avoid the label or attribute it in-text if widely sourced. Daisy Blue (talk) 18:33, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BURDEN says it's on the editor introducing content to back it.

I didn't introduce the content. The label has been there since it was created on 23 May 2023[3]. So it is you who wishes to change long-standing content. You also moved the goalpost from "the label should be attributed" to "you need to defend the label". So which is it?

or attribute it in-text if widely sourced.

You made no attempts to do so. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 18:42, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Turbo being uncivil by replying to a user's argument with "Oh fuck off".

Why didn't you say what the user's argument was? The user asked whether Kapustin should be described as a neo-nazi or antifascist[4]. After my "oh fuck off" comment, the user then doubled down and said that Kapustin is a "de facto antifascist"[5]. I find the idea of labeling a neo-nazi an "antifascist" absolutely abhorrent.

Turbo telling the same user "You're not fooling me. I know what you are doing."

This is true, the editor is not fooling me and I do know what they are doing. The same user removed the "far right" label from Stepan Bandera article lede, btw.[6] TurboSuperA+_[talk] 16:52, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Then I wonder what "you are doing" when you selectively use guidelines depending on what the situation is and what content it concerns. You accused me of being a WP:TENDENTIOUS editor, so you know what this entails, can you see how perhaps the way you conduct yourself make people see some of those signs in you, or is it just everyone else is wrong or whitewashing Nazis?

For example, foreign personnel being recruited into the Russian military, you took massive issue with this on the Russian Armed Forces, with arguments to keep this information out of the article ranging from WP:OR about them being "mercenaries" or "private military" rather than actually enlisted, despite the sources provided clearly stating they were directly going into the Russian military, to falsely claiming said sources contradict each other when it comes to the nature of how Russia goes about obtaining such recruits.

This is not the only time either, since you removed content regarding Russian efforts to conceal North Korean military presence under the explanation "removed allegation that has no evidence", despite the evidence being named in the sources.

That's two blatant examples I can think of, I think it's clear that TurboSuperA+ is more than capable of editing productively if they wish, but there is a clear issue in WP:CT/EE, specifically when it comes to Russia and Ukraine. TylerBurden (talk) 18:22, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"removed allegation that has no evidence",

At the time it didn't really. It was a contentious issue. I also recall that after seeing evidence of it, I agreed that the North Korean soldiers were in Kursk, and even told an editor who wished to remove it that it should stay. So you're saying disagreeing and then changing my mind is bad? TurboSuperA+_[talk] 18:46, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Fair, but what about the first example? TylerBurden (talk) 17:30, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• I think this is mostly a content dispute, and it should be resolved at article talk page or NPOVNB. I am not en expert, but simply checked most recent news sources and believe that Turbo was wrong [7], [8]. My very best wishes (talk) 02:12, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The conversation was closed before I could say anything, but in response to a comment I made on the last ANI, they responded by quoting the first line of my comment and saying There it is, folks: "Nazis were bad, but..." I don't particularly like the insinuation that I'm a Nazi defender (I do think think the Nazis were cartoonishly evil in the worst way, I believe the full text of my comment illustrates that), and it seems TurboSuperA+ is really fast to frame editors as such. I was going to drop it, and don't want any sanctions against them, but do think a trout is appropriate and that they should cool down the rhetoric a bit.GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:37, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• There is more to this than a normal content dispute. I suspect that the actual issue is that one side wants to use language that supports a Russian perspective (Kapustin is just another Ukrainian Nazi) while the other wants to present Kapustin as a hero (which, from Ukraine's point of view, he is). Johnuniq (talk) 02:45, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No one denied that the subject has a reputation as a Russian neo-Nazi or far-right, which is basically the same. The discussion was about wording, and it could be easily resolved on the article talk page. Perhaps it is already resolved. Can the subject still be viewed as a hero by some people because he fights against the aggressors? Yes, sure. Should he be defined as a "hero" in the lead? No, of course not, and no one suggested it. My very best wishes (talk) 13:59, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No neo-Nazi and far-right are not the same. All neo-Nazis are far-right, but not all far-right are neo-Nazis. TarnishedPath^talk 21:42, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

OK, your point is taken. All neo-Nazi are far-right. Some RS call the subject far-right, others call him neo-Nazi. OK. Then, thinking logically, "far-right" would cover the entire spectrum of opinions in the RS and would be the way to go in his BLP article. That is what I suggested, especially when other people are arguing to infinity about his political views [9].My very best wishes (talk) 23:02, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If there is serious contention about them not being a neo-Nazi, then yes "far-right" may be the way to go. It would really depend though on how many call them a neo-Nazi and if there is sourcing that state that they aren't.

For example, an article I brought to GA Thomas Sewell (neo-Nazi), sources usually use neo-Nazi and sometimes far-right; however, I've not seen anything credible which contends that they aren't a neo-Nazi and there is video footage of him reading from Mein Kampf, so clearly there is no problem with stating that they are a neo-Nazi in wikivoice. TarnishedPath^talk 23:45, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is an excellent example. No doubts, you handled the page about Thomas Sewell correctly. He was well-known specifically for organizing the neo-Nazi movement. The story of Kapustin was different. Few people knew he existed before the beginning of the Russian invasion in 2022. Then, be became well known as a commander of his military unit fighting on the Ukrainian side. This is reflected in the first version of his page [10] created only in 2023 when he became notable. Sure, his right-wing activities before this time were also covered in sources, some of them published earlier. Not only he is a controversial figure, but he was made such on purpose by the Ukrainian intelligence and personally Kyrylo Budanov to embarrass Russians ("The whole enterprise is a pet project of Kyrylo Budanov, the head of HUR." https://www.politico.eu/article/the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly-of-the-ukraine-war/]). Which has been criticized as helping Russian propaganda (same source). Budanov himself is a hugely controversial figure, but I would leave this for another thread. My very best wishes (talk) 03:24, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

[Thomas Sewell] was well-known specifically for organizing the neo-Nazi movement. The story of Kapustin was different.

@TarnishedPath This is simply not true and no matter how many times MVBW repeats it it will not make it true. Here is an article from Der Spiegel from 2019: White Rex founder Nikitin has made a significant contribution to professionalizing the neo-Nazi martial arts scene, according to the North Rhine-Westphalian Ministry of the Interior. He was banned in 2019 from the EU for his neo-nazi activities: According to the German authorities, Moscow-born Kapustin was banned because of his efforts against the liberal democratic constitution. The 34-year-old neo-Nazi, who grew up... There is an Al Jazeera article from 2020: ...Ukraine-based Russian neo-Nazi Denis Kapustin, a longtime organiser of far-right combat sports events,... Here is an article from 2017: Denis Nikitin, a supporter of the extreme right from Moscow and the founder of the Neo-Nazi martial arts brand White Rex., Nikitin is both neo-Nazi and businessman. He is also discussed in two articles in 2018, ProPublica The Guardian. There is an article from 2021 that discusses him, his brand and his activities at length and in depth: Kapustin has also played a substantial role in the formation of a transnational white nationalist identity... The Guardian, Der Spiegel, Al Jazeera, these are all mainstream news sources.

@My very best wishes So to say that "Few people knew he existed before the beginning of the Russian invasion in 2022" is simply not true and I don't know why you keep repeating it when these links are all in the source table, which you first ignored by saying Sorry, I do not have time[11], but then you later edited the article's the lede to say that Kapustin is a "former neo-nazi". Then you said I have provided some input and leaving this to you guys.[12] And now you're back arguijng the same thing. It seems when you wish to ignore something you "don't have time", but then suddenly find time when it comes to making unsupported changes to the article and repeating yourself in order to push a change you want. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 06:38, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there were publications about him. That is what I said ("some of them published earlier"). But was he notable before the war by WP standards? No one trying to create a page about him is an indication that he was not. Was he mentioned on any other pages before the war? Would an article about him survive an AfD if it were created before the war? I doubt, but do we not know really. More importantly, I commented only on the content here and elsewhere, while you replied by commenting on multiple contributors and distorting what they say and do in the process. For example, no, I did not make unsupported changes in the article. The change was supported by the reference you found, and it was explained at the talk [13]. Same with your recent filings of poorly substantiated complaints on AE and ANI. My very best wishes (talk) 13:23, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

And yes, Sewell and Kapustin are two different people, and they are described differently in RS. I can refer to the same article in Politico as above [14]. It is entitled: "Ukraine embraces far-right Russian ‘bad guy’ to take the battle to Putin". This is not about the wording ("far-right" or "neo-Nazi"). More importantly, the source says what Kapustin is known for. Briefly, he is known for being a far-right Russian ‘bad guy’ embraced by Uikrine "to take the battle to Putin", as this RS and almost all other RS say. This is why I suggested some changes in the lead. My very best wishes (talk) 05:13, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree. Not to promote a false balance, but if we have sources for both of these perspectives then we can and should include both, and any others that exist, using neutral language that clearly indicates the opinions are of the sources. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:50, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't know about people's motives, but the article has never hinted at presenting Kapustin as a hero. Turbo framed it that way on NPOVN ("It'd be nice to have some more eyes on the article, lest on Wikipedia he becomes a progressive fighter for equality and human rights") and by saying "whitewashing" on Talk, but at the time of Turbo's edit re-introducing the neo-Nazi label, the article already had the following parts, at least one of them introduced by me in the month between Turbo's edits:

  • Radicalized by his involvement in German hooliganism, he participated in hooligan fights and attacks on minority groups
  • Kapustin launched his own clothing brand, White Rex, which featured violent, white nationalist, and xenophobic elements. He wanted the brand to be a National Socialist complete outfitter.
  • In Switzerland, Kapustin provided combat training to members of the far-right Swiss Nationalist Party (PNOS). He also gave training to members of National Action, a British neo-Nazi group banned by the U.K. government
  • Germany also issued him an entry ban into the Schengen Area for "efforts against the liberal democratic constitution" and organising neo-Nazi martial arts events.
  • The interior ministry of Herbert Reul in North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany, called Kapustin "one of the most influential neo-Nazi activists" in Germany, and noted that he professionalized the fighting subculture in the country.

  Looking at the article today, it's even less charitable to Kapustin, but that's largely from Helpful Cat asking if there are sources that cover Kapustin's beliefs, me providing a link to PBS, and Helpful Cat significantly expanding based on that source and Politico. Daisy Blue (talk) 03:26, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I suspect that the actual issue is that one side wants to use language that supports a Russian perspective (Kapustin is just another Ukrainian Nazi)

  Kapustin is actually Russian. Also, do you think outlets like RFE/RL, Reuters and Politico are pushing the "Russian narrative"? TurboSuperA+_[talk] 04:44, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Furthermore, Germany banned Kapustin from the whole of EU for neo-nazi activism. Is that the work of Russians as well? TurboSuperA+_[talk] 04:48, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I am not commenting about the merits of the arguments. I have just outlined what I think is the core issue. Johnuniq (talk) 08:11, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I have just outlined what I think is the core issue.

  And I am saying that your outline is inaccurate. You incorrectly call Kapustin a Ukrainian, when he is in fact a Russian national. MVBW makes the same mistake: I think the issues about the alleged Ukrainian neo-Nazi fighting against Russia should be presented very carefully in WP. [15] This makes me think that you haven't looked closely at the facts of the dispute. Another fact is that the "neo-nazi" label has been in the lede since the article was created on 23 May 2023, so the WP:ONUS is on those wishing to change long-standing content to present sources to back their claims up. Thirdly, no WP:RS actually denies Kapustin is a neo-nazi, they only relate and attribute his own denial, i.e. Kapustin admitted he was right-wing but disputed the "neo-Nazi" label. [16] Since when does a BLP subject's own denial trump tens of secondary, reliable sources? Not only that, but he was caught in a lie, in his denial he continues "you will never find me raising my hand in a Hitler sign." (ibid.) But the PBS article on him says Yet, at this White Rex MMA event from 2013, we see Denis in the white T-shirt cheering "Russians, go forward," with the crowd, some of whom are throwing Nazi salutes, which he then appears to mirror back. [17] TurboSuperA+_[talk] 08:39, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree with Daisy Blue; the article has never portrayed Kapustin as a hero. This is also a longstanding behavioural issue that has affected many WP:RUSUKR articles beyond this one. Helpful Cat {talk} 11:15, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding MANDY, they acknowledged and responded to that in your second link: Just because WP:MANDY is an essay that doesn't make what it says any less correct. I don't think there's any issue with referring to an essay even if it's not policy, they were not saying it must be followed.

Regarding the RFC, Turbo felt it was different (the last RfC was about the current status of Azov, while this discussion is about how we should refer to them for the period when Kapustin was associated with them.) and Helpful Cat responded Feel free to start a new RFC if you feel that that is necessary and constructive. Nothing wrong with starting a new RFC after that exchange.

In my own experience, I have had probably six or seven interactions with Turbo. I think we initially disagreed on all but a couple, but I don't think they have failed to "get the point", and indeed, in at least one instance I recall, they changed their mind (as also noted above on a couple different issues).

I do think Turbo can come off as hostile sometimes; that is what I felt on my first engagement with them months ago, and the oh **** off, There it is, folks: "Nazis were bad, but...", etc. mentioned above are not helpful. But I agree with GeogSage that it's not sanction-worthy at this point. LordCollaboration (talk) 15:16, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I was against TSA+ opening the second Azov RFC because I did not feel it was meaningfully different from the first one, and indeed, their actual arguments in the second RFC were not specific to 2017-2019 but were mostly about relitigating the description of Azov in general. I said Feel free to start a new RFC if you feel that that is necessary and constructive because they obviously wouldn't agree with me that the RFC was unnecessary, and I can't stop them or any user from doing anything no matter how unconstructive I think it is, not because I was endorsing the RFC. Helpful Cat {talk} 18:04, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I concur that TurboSuperA+ has a pattern of disruptive, WP:TENDENTIOUS behaviour and POV-pushing long before this latest issue, particularly in the WP:RUSUKR topic area. I want to be clear that my post has nothing to do with the current dispute about the lead of the Kapustin article, nor any attempt to whitewash Kapustin, which TSA+ is obviously deeply concerned about. I have not objected to the neo-Nazi label, and only raised a question about whether MOS:CONTENTIOUS requires attribution in the lead (as I've now said on the article's talk page, I'm fine with including it in the lead and attributing it in the body). I have also added extensive material that any reasonable person would agree is negative. Apologies for the long post, where I've compiled evidence across months.

• Misrepresentation and failure to read. TSA+ often fails to read properly before responding, and misrepresents material - diffs they are presenting as evidence; sources they are interpreting; comments of users they are responding to. While everyone misreads things sometimes, TSA+ does it so often and so conveniently that it unfortunately strains the limits of WP:AGF. Here are some examples:
  • Misrepresentation of diffs: multiple examples in their AE case against TylerBurden; see LordCollaboration's and caeciliusinhorto's statements. For example, TSA+ objected to TylerBurden rightly correcting a blatant error (using source text about the French Foreign Legion to describe the Ukrainian International Legion).
    • I pointed out in my statement that TSA+ had misrepresented this diff: TSA+ wrongly said that TylerBurden had removed sourced content...because it was seemingly critical of Ukraine, and changed his mind because another editor explain[ed] how it is actually debunking Russia's claims. Actually, TylerBurden clearly argued both in his edit summary and the talk page that disinformation only notable for being debunked is not WP:DUE, and changed his mind because another user pointed out that the disinformation had been covered beyond being debunked.
      • When I pointed this out, TSA+ asked for an extension just to respond, but misrepresented the diff again (see the whole "Regarding Helpful Cat's first point" section), this time wrongly saying that TylerBurden had said EUvsDisinfo was Russian state propaganda, and changed his mind because he realised it wasn't.
      • When I pointed this out again, TSA+ posted another diff where they objected to TylerBurden citing WP:TASS to remove material cited to...TASS. They did remove this last diff after I pointed this out, but it is alarming that they fail so badly to read the evidence they are presenting that they make three false statements about the same article in a row. Frankly, misrepresenting so much evidence in an attempt to sanction another user is something I would consider WP:BOOMERANG-worthy.
    • Here Black Kite points out TSA+'s misrepresentation of a diff in their ANI report against My very best wishes.
    • Here's another example where they rushed to condemn TylerBurden before reading their own evidence, causing LordCollaboration to rightly point out And you should stop making false accusations against Tyler, please read the diffs first. While TSA+ also retracted this when it was pointed out, this is just textbook WP:NOTENOUGH#What it looks like: - doing the same harmful thing over and over, and apologising when caught each time.
  • Misrepresentation of sources - and here, I want to note that TSA+ is capable of reading sources and doing excellent detailed analysis when they want to. They simply choose not to when it doesn't favour their POV, which is very unfortunate. (Update 11:10, 12 February 2026 (UTC): Daisy Blue has pointed out that TSA+'s analysis included some non-RSes, which TSA+ has now removed. Daisy Blue also pointed out that some parts of the analysis are WP:HEADLINES, and I'm unsure if those have been removed. Although there were issues in the analysis, this comprehensive table still shows that TSA+ is able to read and engage with the wording of sources in a way that they didn't apply in the examples in this section.)
    • Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 118#Russian usage of mobile crematoriums in Ukraine - TSA+ wrongly says France24 identified that "fake images" were used by the media to push that conspiracy theory. But the France24 videos they cited never said the allegations were proven false or a "conspiracy theory", only that the footage presented was unrelated and did not prove the allegations. TSA+ then suggests removing Ukraine from the title.
    • Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 122#Dispute at Russian Armed Forces - I post numerous sources with quotes showing coercion of foreigners to join the Russian military; TSA+ replies None of the paragraphs you quoted suggest coercion. Deception, yes, but not coercion. I post more sources, and TSA+ decides they just don't believe the sources (more on this below under "bad-faith WP:GAME behaviour in discussions"). This is WP:BFN: An editor withholds agreement to a change unless additional, more satisfactory sources are provided, but declares all the new sourcing to be unsatisfactory despite the citation work clearly fulfilling the core content policies.
    • Talk:Denis Kapustin (militant)#Kapustin's thoughts on antisemitism - in a PBS interview, Kapustin said: I spoke a lot with the guys who seem to share the same ideology as I do from United States, and they have some sort of a complete obsession with Jews, like Jews control everything. I don't understand that thing. I have -- I don't have a problem with actually any ethnicity. I included this (along with numerous clearly negative details) as He has said he does not understand the focus on antisemitism of his American counterparts who "seem to share" his ideology.
      • TSA+ removes it and goes into a bout of WP:SEALIONING and WP:GASLIGHTING (prevaricating about the obvious meaning of a claim) to deny that when Kapustin says he doesn't understand why American extremists are obsessed with Jews and think they control everything, he is saying he doesn't understand their focus on antisemitism. They even say it is WP:OR to equate "obsessively thinking Jews control everything" with antisemitism! Note: the interviewer responded to Kapustin's statement with Whether antisemitic or not, he has a longstanding hostility towards migrants, particularly Muslims, so clearly the source itself immediately links Kapustin's statement to antisemitism (no WP:SYNTH).
      • Since TSA+ insists that the distinction between extremists' focus on antisemitism and on Jews is relevant, I then suggest alternate wording: He has said he does not understand why his American counterparts who "seem to share" his ideology have an "obsession" with Jews and believe "Jews control everything". TSA+ wrongly claims that the PBS interview is self-published, and removes my alternate wording with the edit summary Just as irrelevant now as it was yesterday. It's only when multiple editors jump in to agree that Kapustin's stated views on antisemitism are relevant that TSA+ has no choice but to give in. But as Daisy Blue pointed out, TSA+ dragging the community through repetitive, pointless discussions is still disruptive even if they are ultimately forced to relent.
  • Misrepresentation of other users' comments: unfortunately, TSA+ often puts words in people's mouths and rebuts points nobody was making.
    • First Azov RFC - I am clear in all my comments that my stance is not to describe the Azov Brigade as currently far-right in wikivoice because RSes disagree on whether it is, making it a seriously contested assertion that should not be presented as fact per WP:VOICE (and this was also explained in the closing statement). TSA+ creates a strawman that I am trying to claim in wikivoice that it is not far-right: While there is a brigade that does the fighting and a movement that does the PR, to claim that they are completely separate ideologically or that there is no coordination between the two would require consensus among WP:RS that this is the case. When I point out that I am not claiming this, TSA+ just doesn't hear it (The onus is on those making the claim that there was a break.), and misrepresents me again: You are however against mentioning the movement in the first paragraph and against labeling the brigade as far-right, which pretty much amounts to the same thing - I wanted to mention the far-right accusations in the second paragraph of the lead; how is that at all the same as saying the brigade is not far-right in wikivoice?
    • ANI thread after the first Azov RFC - Chicdat also points out this tendency of TSA+ here: TurboSuperA+ commented almost 30 times, continually bludgeoning while misrepresenting other editors' words. FOARP was even driven to using bold, italic, underlined, asterisked text to emphasize their viewpoint after this. - that seems to refer to this comment. This is also an example of TSA+ misunderstanding other editors in ways that strain credibility: FOARP clarifies their stance by saying I said absolute nothing of the kind. I have consistently oppose the inclusion of "supporters" in any form: I do not want *ANY* country listed as a supporter in the infobox. Is that clear enough for you?, and TSA+ replies Why is it your decision? WP:OWN. edit: wrong policy, it is more like WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT.
    • NPOV/N thread about foreign personnel in the Russian Armed Forces - TSA+ creates a strawman that I am saying the Russian military is in India: The sources do not say it is the Russian military in India who are coercing people to go. and The Russian militaty doesn't have its own recruiters in India actively forcing them to go to Russia. Nothing about the text that I proposed (Media has reported that to increase manpower amid casualties in the Russo-Ukrainian war, the Russian Armed Forces has increasingly turned to foreign recruits...) required that, nor did I ever suggest it. This is also a disingenuous way to move the goalposts by claiming that in order for Russia to recruit foreign personnel, the Russian military must physically go to that country and conscript people.
• WP:IDHT behaviour in discussions. It happens often that TSA+ raises an objection, someone addresses it, and TSA+ simply repeats the same point or asks the same question over and over rather than actually responding to the rebuttal. This is also WP:GAME (pretending your question has not already been answered), and WP:SEALION (ignoring the substance of previous replies in order to raise yet another question, and prevent the discussion from reaching a reasonable conclusion).
  • Examples in the second Azov RFC:
    • TSA+ argues that their second Azov RFC is different from their first one because the new one is about whether the Azov Brigade was far-right in 2017-2019, when Kapustin was associated with it. I explicitly address this in my comment, saying that the conclusion from the first RFC (that we cannot call the Azov Brigade far-right in wikivoice because RSes disagree) also applies to 2017-2019, as there are multiple RSes arguing that the unit's deradicalisation had started by 2017. TSA+ then simply repeats themselves: And lastly, we are talking about the time period when Kapustin ran the fight club for Azov, the period before the war, 2018-2019. So if Azov is not far-right now (doubtful) doesn't mean that it wasn't back in 2018-2019.
    • I suggest changing the wording from "Battalion" to "movement" because sources don't describe him joining the Azov military unit, but do describe him doing political activities such as attending conferences and working with the National Corps. I explicitly point out that the Journal for Illiberalism Studies source that was cited at the time to support the "Battalion" wording is dependent on this RFE/RL article it cites, which describes his political activities, but not military ones. TSA+ responds by citing the Journal for Illiberalism Studies article again.
    • The first Azov RFC established that we could not call the Azov Brigade far-right in wikivoice because RSes disagree. The relationship between the brigade and the movement is a key part of that disagreement, as described in Azov Brigade#Azov movement and Azov Brigade#Neo-Nazi origins and allegations of ongoing far-right associations, which explore RSes on both sides of the issue in detail. I point this out multiple times. TSA+ ignores this and continues making arguments premised on their personal opinion that the brigade and the movement are one and the same, never addressing existing consensus that we cannot state this in wikivoice. (They eventually start nitpicking capitalisation)
  • Another example on Talk:Denis Kapustin (militant): I had just significantly expanded the "political views" section with this addition, which includes many of Kapustin's own statements, and is clearly unflattering to Kapustin. I explained why the "political views" section should include Kapustin's own statements as well as secondary sources (as every "political views" section or article does!), because Kapustin's statements provide detail on his specific views. I added that if TSA+ finds secondary sources evaluating his views that are currently missing, they should add them to the article. Two hours later, TSA+ asks Why should so much space be given to his own descriptions of himself?
• Bad-faith WP:GAME behaviour in discussions: Denying that you posted what you did; bad-faith negotiation
  • Many of the examples of TSA+ doing this are covered under my other points, but the WP:NPOV/N discussion on foreign personnel in the Russian military is particularly egregious. I suggested wording (well-supported by sources) describing a spectrum of cases, saying that some foreign fighters for Russia agreed to join the military but thought they would be in non-combat roles, while others say they were promised civilian employment (or were tourists or students), but were forced to join the military after arriving in Russia. TSA+ agrees to that wording.
    • But just 14 hours later, they suddenly change their mind and insist that there was no coercion at all, despite extensive sourcing and the fact that TSA+ had already agreed that at least some soldiers were coerced. (By the way, their WP:OR argument for why they don't believe all the RSes saying there was coercion is apparently that if human trafficking victims receive any healthcare or manage to contact the press, they are no longer human trafficking victims)
  • They also strangely dispute that recruiters getting people into the Russian military are connected to the Russian military (Nothing suggesting these recruiters are part of the Russian military.), and then claim three hours later that they never disputed Russian involvement: "It's good that you have at least stopped disputing Russian involvement." I have never disputed it. Someone who does two U-turns in one discussion just to continue arguing, and who attempts to WP:GASLIGHT people about what they said three hours ago, clearly does not intend to engage in good-faith discussion.
• Bludgeoning of RFCs and other discussions - they frequently reply to users who disagree with them, not with any actually relevant rebuttals or responses, but simply to restate their own stance ad nauseam. LordCollaboration points this out here: You have also now responded six separate times in this section, not including your own !vote. I think you've made your position clear. Slatersteven also pointed this out in the first Azov RFC: So this WILL be my last word, I have explained my thoughts and you need to let others have their say without you correcting them.
  • Here, I suggested writing that Kapustin worked with the Azov movement rather than the "Battalion". TSA+ replied: In 2020, Christopher Miller called the leader of Azov Movement a "neo-nazi". (emphasis mine) and Furthermore, links between Kapustin and his Russian Volunteer Corps (RDK) do not end in 2019 (who ever said Kapustin left the RDK? What does that have to do with this RFC, which is apparently about the description of Azov from 2017 to 2019? In fact, he founded the Russian Volunteer Corps in 2022, so how could he have left it in 2019?) Here, TSA+ was so intent on bludgeoning that they said things that made no sense, simply to have the last word.
• WP:RGW and WP:ASPERSIONS. They have been so fixated on not whitewashing Kapustin that they accuse anyone of whitewashing who doesn't write exactly what they would have written in the article. Here they suggested that I was whitewashing Kapustin for this clearly negative diff because I didn't go out of my way to repeat the word "neo-Nazi", which was already used multiple times in the article, or because I didn't add every single piece of information that exists out there in one go. Notice that I later added a source that described Kapustin's specific neo-Nazi views in more detail when I found it. Rather than finding sources themselves and constructively adding anything they think is missing, they found ways to keep complaining about what I wrote by selectively quoting the source - when I pointed out the misinterpretation, they complained again that that sentence is "whitewashing" even though I never even tried to include that sentence in the article.
• Advancing WP:FRINGE theories. Here they claim that a subject matter expert's statement that the 2024 Russian presidential election was fraudulent and significantly exaggerated Russians' true support for Putin (with that expert's estimate of their true level of support), and that the Russian government is a repressive authoritarian regime - statements very well-documented by RSes across all our relevant articles - is somehow an WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim.
• WP:FORUMSHOPPING by starting two RFCs about almost exactly the same topic within 7 months, first on the Azov Brigade article itself - where there was consensus not to call the Azov Brigade far-right in wikivoice - and then on the article of someone associated with Azov, to include the "far-right" label in wikivoice there instead. There was again consensus not to do this, and the closing statement explicitly noted that As has been pointed out, there is no benefit in independently relitigating the descriptor for the Azov Brigade, Battalion or movement in the article of every person affiliated therewith. When I made that same point, pointed out the existence of the previous RFC and argued that we should follow its consensus, TSA+ said: You constantly trying to imply impropriety is not helpful nor constructive. Note that even though TSA+ said the second RFC was different because it was specifically about 2017-2019, none of their arguments were specifically about that time period, and were instead focused on relitigating the description of Azov on a tangentially related article.
• Personal attacks and incivility. As GeogSage pointed out, TSA+ suggested on ANI that a user unrelated to the dispute was a Nazi sympathiser for making the very reasonable point that we can recognise Soviet atrocities without taking away from Nazi ones.
• The pattern of baseless accusations and incivility is unfortunately old. In the first Azov RFC, TSA+ made false accusations that I and another user who !voted against their stance had been canvassed to the discussion (this was the subject of my first ANI report). They claimed to have secret evidence, forcing ArbCom to get involved and clarify that there was no credible evidence that any specific editors were canvassed. TSA+ apologised, but then essentially walked back their apology by misrepresenting ArbCom and falsely saying as ArbCom saw, the accusation was not baseless. They then continued that behaviour within the ANI thread itself by questioning how other editors had found the ANI discussion. Many people commenting agreed that TSA+ should at least receive a formal warning, while others proposed a topic ban or even an indef because of their history of other problematic behaviour (which was already well-known then!), but the thread was archived without action, allowing them to continue their disruption to this day. I don't mean to reopen this old incident, which is resolved as far as I'm concerned, but merely to point out that this is a pattern of behaviour that hasn't been stopped.

TSA+'s behaviour exhibits many signs of WP:GAME - WP:BFN, WP:GASLIGHT - as well as WP:CPUSH (although I would disagree that it's always civil POV-pushing) - When unable to refute discussion on the talk page against their point of view, they will say the discussion is original research; Using the talk page for soapboxing, and/or to re-raise the same issues that have already been discussed numerous times; Misrepresenting other editors or discussions in an attempt to incriminate or belittle others' opinions - and WP:SEALION. When I encounter TSA+ in a discussion, I do not know if this is a day when they will be reasonable (which they can be when they are willing - see here for example, where although their initial report included WP:FRINGE theories as I described above, they were open to discussion and made and engaged with suggestions, enabling us to reach consensus). I find myself writing endless disclaimers to avoid being misrepresented, and resigning myself to the fact that that no matter how much I try to engage in good faith, write nuanced comments, and make constructive suggestions, it may go to waste because they choose to misrepresent my words, repeat themselves meaninglessly, and refuse to read and engage with anything they don't like.

Sanctions against TSA+ have been repeatedly proposed, most recently here, but TSA+ has always escaped even a formal warning so far (AFAIK) because discussions happened to be archived or closed before anyone could take action. Unfortunately, I think it is time to finally address this pattern and stop the disruption. TSA+ once said Is that the kind of place we want the CTOP to be? You decide. - I agree, and hope they will take these issues to heart. Helpful Cat {talk} 17:52, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

On the point of misrepresentation of comments, there was a recent exchange in the context of labels in the lede where Turbo presented my position on analyzing sources as "we must only look at the introductory labels in an article" (emphasis mine), even though my sources summary rework draft introduced a planned Other description(s) column, I suggested prioritizing introductory labels depending on what other editors think, and relied on four parts of a source article to argue it's improper to distill those to just one label of choice. It's very difficult to engage in discussion when your own arguments get re-framed like this. Daisy Blue (talk) 21:18, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You said (in the diff you linked): if we exclude headlines and go by the introductory labels of those same sources(emphasis mine). I understood "go by" to mean "only look at", because you then discounted all the sources where he wasn't called a neo-nazi in the "introductory label". I don't think that is an unreasonable interpretation of "go by", especially when your argument was: To me, the introductory labels are more important because the context of this discussion is the lead section. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 06:54, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like a content dispute. Take it to DRN or an RFC if the parties feel that strongly about it. TarnishedPath^talk 21:44, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Helpful Cat outlines a lot that's beyond a content dispute. Given the amount of wall of text here I don't begrudge anyone for not wading into the swamp. Also, shouldn't this have been posted at WP:ANI? Nemov (talk) 22:35, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Probably to WP:AE, as I was told after posting, but there were already replies from other users by then, so the administrator suggested leaving it here. Daisy Blue (talk) 23:19, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Given the ridiculous size of @Helpful Cat's comment above (please be more concise!) and the large number of replies by various users, I think the word limits and separate sections of the AE structure could be very helpful here. Toadspike [Talk] 02:28, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I read it, but it wasn't easy, and I may have missed some bits. The word counter shows there are over 3000 words, while AE suggests 500 before extensions. Would you advise that Helpful Cat takes this to AE? I could include a few new diffs to build on some of the raised points as well. Daisy Blue (talk) 03:37, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Toadspike the "various users" are all editors with whom I am currently engaged in content disputes. Please see here: Talk:Denis Kapustin (militant)#He's a neo-nazi. The topic was started by Daisy Blue who wishes to either remove the "neo-nazi" label from the first sentence or attribute it in the lede. I have pointed Daisy Blue to WP:DR and even suggested they can start an RFC to gain consensus, but in all this time they haven't done so, but keep (frankly) bludgeoning the discussion. This AN report is nothing more than an attempt to bypass the need to build a consensus for their change. I have compiled a source review table here: Talk:Denis Kapustin (militant)/Source review. There are literally dozens of sources (including academic ones) where in no uncertain terms they call Denis Kapustin a neo-nazi and outline his neo-nazi activities, for which he was banned from the EU. This topic is titled "misusing policy", but it is Daisy Blue who is ignoring policy and coming up with arguments such as we must look at the "introductory label" in a source and ignore labels the source uses later in the text. This dispute has been going on for weeks. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 08:22, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry,  Self-trout for the wall of text. I've submitted this to WP:AE. Helpful Cat {talk} 13:31, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

noting that the AE request has been closed to avoid duplicating the proceedings here at AN; if this thread is archived, or closed with a consensus to refer to AE or with no consensus, the AE request can be refiled. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:31, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Theleekycauldron Would you advise presenting the additional evidence I had for AE here, or would it being presented here make it less appropriate to present it again on AE? One problem with doing it here is that it's clear at least some users and an admin appear overwhelmed by Helpful Cat's extensive report, so I'm worried my additional comments would just get lost in the pile. Daisy Blue (talk) 01:11, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Daisy Blue! I don't think presenting more evidence here would disqualify it for presentation at AE unless the community were to resolve it, in which case you have your answer anyway. This thread is pretty long already, though, which is probably why the AE request was opened in the first place. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 01:57, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There are deeper issues here than a content dispute, though I'm not sure if this is the correct venue rather than ANI or ARB. TylerBurden (talk) 17:32, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There really should be a limit on the length of replies. The walls of text here are ridiculously and unnecessarily long. Some of us have lives to live. Carlstak (talk) 18:13, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's also on AN/I already right now. I'll say here what I said there: there is a subset of editors who are very active in the Ukraine / Russia conflict contentious topic area who are more concerned with countering what they see as contemporary Russian propaganda than with producing neutral article content. The complicated truth is that, in the post-soviet bloc a lot of nationalism has deep ties to far-right politics including Naziism. This is the case both of Russia and of Ukraine. A neutral article about a neo-nazi nationalist would call him a neo-nazi even if that complexifies the moral landscape of his nationalism in relation to the unjust invasion of Ukraine by Russia. I honestly think TurboSuperA+ has taken on a very unenviable role of attempting to single-handedly rein in these non-neutral impulses and they've suffered for their attempt. I would have walked away long ago in the face of such a consistent failure of Wikipedia's neutrality principle. With that being said, I'd advise trout all around and close this down so that everybody involved can have a good hard think about whether Wikipedia is a neutral encyclopedia or an active participant in the propaganda arm of a war. Simonm223 (talk) 19:20, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

there is a subset of editors who are very active in the Ukraine / Russia conflict contentious topic area who are more concerned with countering what they see as contemporary Russian propaganda than with producing neutral article content Who are you talking about? I don't think it's fair to say many of our active editors are like this. Everyone has biases, but I think the vast majority of our established editors in the space are able to put that aside and edit neutrally.

a consistent failure of Wikipedia's neutrality principle I see this just as often accused the opposite way (particularly with the recent Baltic RFC). If you think there is a neutrality issue on any particular article, then post on the talk page.

I'd advise trout all around This I concur with. We've had like a dozen threads over the past couple months (here, on ANI, on AE) for active participants in this topic area, almost all over incredibly minor issues. It has become exhausting. I don't think there's anything intractable here requiring sanctions for any of the involved users at this point, but we should all chill and try to work together better (not signaling anyone out specifically here, and I myself have been guilty of needing to chill in the past). LordCollaboration (talk) 21:50, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

After looking at mainspace edits by Daisy Blue and Helpful Cat, they clearly improve the content and do a lot of good work in the project. I do not think their edits are biased or "pro-Ukrainian". By the same token, I wound not say that TurboSuperA+ is so much "pro-Russian". There is an issue, but I think it is completely different. There is a clear WP:BATTLE by TurboSuperA+: without even trying to discuss anything at talk pages (and I mostly, although not completely agree with him on the issues), he just filed a second extremely offensive and a poorly substantiated complaint about me at the ANI, which is practically the same as his first ANI report, just a few days ago. My very best wishes (talk) 13:33, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In Turbo's overview of sources, now also used by Turbo in their ANI report against My very best wishes, at least some are misrepresented, while the whole overview appears driven by confirmation bias (e.g. searching for "Denis Kapustin" to then search the articles specifically for desired labels like "neo-Nazi", as suggested by the difference from my review of most of the same sources). For example, for Illiberalism, Turbo's summary is that Kapustin is labeled a "white nationalist", even though the label is not applied to him directly. ProPublica included multiple labels and descriptions, but Turbo picked only "neo-Nazi" from an adjective. Some others were based on headlines and an image caption. Me pointing this out more than once, and My very best wishes raising a very similar issue has not resulted in changes. At a minimum, I would ask that Turbo's review is moved to their user space so it does not look like an "official" review of sources compiled by multiple users. I could edit it, but I don't want to be in an edit war type dispute over a subpage of a Talk page. Daisy Blue (talk) 02:30, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Turbo said Additions and corrections welcome when they posted it and then pinged you.[18]

I think this better belongs on the talk page than here, as this doesn't seem to be a conduct issue. The issues you named are all likely mistakes (like the headline one, which they plausibly didn't even know was a rule) or reasonable different points of view (my understanding was that the point of the table was whether to include the label, not whether to put it in the first sentence, which I agree your table helps more with). LordCollaboration (talk) 13:55, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Misrepresentation of sources was among Helpful Cat's points in the report here. Considering Turbo has referenced the same table on NPOVN and ANI, even the issue of how Turbo handles these particular sources goes beyond Kapustin.

In addition to the table itself, one of Turbo's comments on ANI contained another oversimplification, which is simply misleading, considering people tend to trust other people rather than verify every statement. Turbo said Kapustin "has been seen doing the Nazi salute", but the linked article (and its accurate rephrasing for the WP article by Helpful Cat) says "[Kapustin] then appears to mirror [the salute] back". Why is the word "appears" absent from Turbo's presentation? Details of that nature may not matter in casual conversations, but Wikipedia is about accurately summarizing reliable sources, not consistently cutting corners as if trying to convince others someone is a neo-Nazi just for its sake. It's very similar to Turbo saying "How about him being a fucking neo-nazi. lmao" in response to Helpful Cat asking for sources regarding antisemitic remarks.

To your other point, if you are right, then it just goes to Turbo not listening, given that I brought up the issues across multiple short and thus easily readable comments, to which Turbo replied. See from here down. The aforementioned NPOVN thread also contains my comment regarding headlines.

As a bonus, here is Turbo's edit involving improper synthesis, which also speaks to how Turbo handles sources. Daisy Blue (talk) 14:52, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

These are mostly different issues than what I replied to. Regarding the headlines, you did not specify which ones; they removed three other sources that you specifically named issues with reliability on in that thread, so they were clearly receptive to your feedback and were actively trying to improve the table based on that feedback.

I do agree that your critiques of the table are relevant to the other thread on MVBW. LordCollaboration (talk) 15:40, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're nearing circularity, and though the answer would be evident to those who would follow the discussion links, I'll clarify in case you're simply not seeing every aspect due to the volume of information across the talks and not being as involved as the other participants of that discussion.

At least in one instance, Turbo's own table said "Direct label only in title", so Turbo knew, and I only needed to inform of the guideline (not to mention my presented version of the table was as concrete as it gets as far as what I would change). The problem is the same as in the salute example: if the reader will scrutinize, they'll get to the full picture, but most people are just going to trust Turbo's summary labels, like you did when you counted the number of times the label appears on the list without discounting such labels.

I also specified Radio Liberty and ProPublica in the adjacent context (while MVBW separately specified Novaya Gazeta). In both instances, Turbo's response was to not touch the table and to go on the offensive: to misrepresent my position and to make a wild comment on MVBW saying they prefer Western sources over Russian to catch them in a perceived inconsistency. From where I stand, that's not collaborative at all. Daisy Blue (talk) 17:00, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

At least in one instance, Turbo's own table said "Direct label only in title" But in the cases where they note that, they don't seem to use it in the main label column. For NYT and Meduza, both directly say neo-Nazi in the title, but attribute in the article; Turbo correctly uses "attributed". For SRF, they say "attributed", while the headline is direct (although I'm not sure where they are getting even attributed from, doesn't seem to be mentioned at all in the source).[19] And for Declassified UK, the title says neo-Nazi, the article says "violent racist"; Turbo correctly uses the latter. These are all the ones Turbo notes directly use it in the title but not the body, and they seem to correctly labeled in three out of four, and in the fourth they did not go off the title with their mistake. I don't see this as purposely ignoring the rule, or not listening.

I did do a spot check when I used his count (and corrected one minor issue), although yes, I am not nearly as involved nor did I do nearly as thorough a check as you did. LordCollaboration (talk) 17:39, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a POV-ish way of working with sources. Instead of collecting and summarizing various labels about a living person, one should simply read the most recent and most reliable sources about him and summarize them in a neutral and a BLP-consistent manner. That is what I tried to do. For example, can one find reliable sources making a direct analogy between a political leader and well-know fascists or even labeling him as such? Yes, sure. But should this politician be described as such in the first phrase of his BLP page? No, that would be probably against our BLP policy. Why? Probably because he is not known primarily for being a fascist right now. Or at least this is my understanding. My very best wishes (talk) 02:19, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of collecting and summarizing various labels about a living person, one should simply read the most recent — that does not remove a person's past. If they had one political stance in the past and then changed to a different one in the present, the article should still reflect that. Nakonana (talk) 13:09, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sure, nothing removes the past. That's why all recent sources tell about the past of the person. However, they put his past into proper perspective. If he is mostly known today for something else, they say it. My very best wishes (talk) 23:26, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

An RFC on the disputed content, should've been the next step. GoodDay (talk) 17:37, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think an RfC is probably long over-due here. The question, in my mind, is one of framing and location. This dispute has played out across multiple pages. Do we narrowly focus on Kasputin or should this also cover related disputes like whether the Azov Brigade should be trusted with WP:ABOUTSELF statements that they're not Nazis anymore? Simonm223 (talk) 17:45, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What RfC? Looking at the latest discussion [20], I am not sure what they disagree about if anything. I would only change the order of phrases and expand the lead (along the lines in the German or Ukrainian versions of the page), but no one objected to this. This is much ado about nothing, in terms of content disagreements. My very best wishes (talk) 23:18, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

We have had two recent RFCs on Azov. Neither concluded that we should trust their own statements. We do not need another RFC on Azov. LordCollaboration (talk) 04:51, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• These last few weeks have been draining and I feel mentally exhausted. I am going to step away from the topic area because I feel sucked into it and like I'm spending way too much time on it, rather than editing in areas that actually give me joy. I am also taking a wiki-break. My commmitment is as follows: I am not going to edit in the RUSUKR topic area for at least 6 months from my first edit after the wikibreak.

I hope my sincerity is not in doubt and that the community trusts me that I can keep my word, as I have so far abided by everything I've said I'd do and I don't think I have given a reason for you not to trust me.

I would like to reserve the right/exception to participate in any RfC regarding the "neo-nazi" label and lede of Denis Kapustin (militant), if one happens. I spent time collecting sources on it and I might like to give my opinion regarding that issue if it comes up. That is the only exception.

In case there is something that requires my response, you can ping me and I will get a notification by email.

I hope that this puts an end to this matter to everyone's satisfaction. Happy editing! TurboSuperA+_[talk] 01:15, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have logged this as a voluntary editing restriction. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:18, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

TSA+ previously "retiring" from Wikipedia last year, only to come back less than 48 hours later might be of interest here, not saying this isn't genuine, but this kind of rhetoric isn't new and didn't work out last time. Then again actions speak louder than words. TylerBurden (talk) 17:08, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with @TylerBurden here and think this should be an imposed topic ban otherwise we're going to be right back here when Turbo decides they're ready. Star Mississippi 18:06, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Topic bans are enforceable whether they're voluntary or not, although the community may want to impose a different topic ban than the one TSA+ has self-imposed here. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:43, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(If we need to do a vote type thing, please move my comment below to a separate subsection)

As with many editors, I'm sure Turbo has made helpful contributions to the project, but based on the evidence presented here and my own experience, as partially documented here, the good seems to be heavily outweighed by the disruptive.

As documented, substantively, the issues go beyond one topic and show a pattern of behavior related to editing, handling sources, and communication. Just before the announced break and Turbo's ANI request where some of the same issues can be seen, Turbo replied to my comment on Kapustin by repeating a point already addressed by that comment and digging up an article I worked on mostly in 2014 (long before I knew of WP:CONTENTIOUS), as if to catch me in a contradiction, as opposed to focusing on the comment's substance and trying to work together. It's striking how much my own experience with Turbo matches the other instances from Helpful Cat's report or how Turbo has interacted with My very best wishes, even though I know these editors only from Kapustin - I can't say I'm active in RUSUKR in general.

Though any relevant sanction could help, and though I'm unlikely to run into Turbo outside Kapustin, the problems go far beyond my experience, and I would not wish it on others to have to face the same. I'm not sure there is a sanction that's not a full block that would address the issues, though I don't know if those are normally applied progressively here as to see if the affected editor learns. Daisy Blue (talk) 05:34, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have a history of discussion with TurboSuperA+ on RUSUKR pages so I can't close anything here, but I would also support a TBAN on this given their history of extremely tendentious arguing, POVpushing, and refusing to get the point. However I'm willing to accept the voluntary 6-month TBAN, noting that this 6 months runs from the end of their present Wikibreak which apparently began on 19 February 2026 (and so should run until 19 August 2026). If they suddenly return to editing in the RUSUKR field before 19 August, we can re-open this discussion. In any future discussion where sanctions are considered, this should be logged as a previous sanction and treated as the equivalent of a previous community-imposed TBAN. FOARP (talk) 14:07, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

tendentious arguing, POVpushing, and refusing to get the point

That is not true, and I have diffs to prove it. While I may have stepped away from Wikipedia, I will not stand for baseless accusations.

• Here is somebody accusing me of working for the Ukrainian government.
• Here is me saying we can't change an infobox to "Russian victory".
• Here I added a video of Ukrainian soldiers shooting down a Russian jet.
• Here is me adding information about women in the Ukrainian armed forces.

And so on. I can provide more examples if needed. If one side says I'm pro-RU and another side says I'm pro-UA, that's neutral editing.

Re:refusing to get the point. On many occasions I have changed my mind:

• Despite starting an RfC on inclusion of NATO countries in the infobox as supported by Ukraine, after the consensus was against it I dropped the issue. Here I told an editor that their RfC on inclusion shouldn't happen and outlined other ways they can pursue the change. I could have jumped on the opportunity to again argue for the change I want, but I didn't, I followed consensus.
• Here I recognised the consensus was against me when other editors gave their opinion, and I dropped the issue.
• Here, after being reverted and disagreed with, the next day Ukraine's MOD published a statement, I accepted the disputed status and said I won't make changes to the result in the infobox (and I haven't since).

So the history I have is one of changing my mind, accepting consensus, admitting when I am wrong. Apparently these are undesirable qualities because no matter how much I change my behaviour, how much I try to follow consensus and the Wikipedia way, editors will just repeat things about me that aren't true. This is a good time to remind everyone that I was accused of pro-RU POV pushing because I started an RfC on including the "far right" label in the Azov brigade article. I guess original sin exists on Wikipedia.

this should be logged as a previous sanction and treated as the equivalent of a previous community-imposed TBAN.

I took a self-imposed editing restriction only to save the community time and get this over with. If you want to impose a community sanction, then a vote could have been done a long time ago. But after two weeks nobody started one. This is another example of me trying to be less combative. Apparently this is seen as a weakness. No wonder editors fight tooth and nail and argue until the bitter end. Because damned if you do, damned if you don't. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 17:19, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

All I can see here is that when you come back your refusal to get the actual point being made (which is not, necessarily anyway, being a pro-Russian troll) is going to cause further problems unless you geneuinely reflect on what's been going wrong with your editing. For what it's worth I also get accusations of being pro-Russian and pro-Ukrainian, because nearly everyone who edits in this field gets those accusations, because so much of the editing in this field is based on WP:RGW. You may remember the change of title saw lots of people accusing me of being pro-Russian because...? Actually I don't know why they accused me of this, but that's just what happens when people convince themselves that things have to be a certain way and then don't change their minds at all afterwards.

There's plentiful examples of your refusal to get the point, POVpushing, and incivility cited above. You wouldn't be stepping away from this topic area if you didn't already know that was the case. Take what you can get and move on here. FOARP (talk) 09:48, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: after reading the below screed, I now support a community TBan. FOARP (talk) 09:57, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I took a self-imposed editing restriction. What more do you want? A pound of flesh? All this time nobody has even said anything about Daisy Blue's POV pushing and MVBW's blatant IDHT behaviour.

MVBW

• MVBW removed Denis Kapustin's (formerly Nikitin's) name from Template:Neo-Nazism in Russia saying in the edit summary: That guy does not appear anywhere on the page Neo-Nazism in Russia; he is mostly known as a military commander. He might be a neo-Nazi, but not famous as Russian neo-Nazi. (emphasis mine) Both of the statements in italics have been disproved for them, over and over and over again. They also could have convinced themself, had they bothered to look at the source review, instead of saying I do not have time, [21]
• MVBW continues to push the narrative that "he isn't known as a (Russian) neo-nazi", when some 34 sources (found so far) call him a neo-nazi, while others use epithets such as "white nationalist" and "violent racist". Kapustin himself has said that he kept a framed photograph of Joseph Goebbels in his bedroom and has been seen "apparently" doing the Nazi salute.
• This is a person for whom MVBW said for many people who support Ukraine this guy is a hero [22] and said he is de facto an antifascist[23].
• MVBW also continued to insist The description of a person can also change. [24] without providing any sources for it. What is Kapustin fighting for? In his own words: "creating a Russian nation-state focused on the well-being of so-called ethnic Russians.” (emphasis mine) So this guy is fighting for a fascist ethnostate and is part of a global, white supremacist movement.
• An editor even told MVBW: The fact that you are citing an article with the subheadline "Germany describes Denis Kapustin as a top neo-Nazi" which repeatedly discusses Kapustin's neo-Nazi politics in support of your position that he is not known as a neo-Nazi is not exactly a great show of judgement at this point.
• After which MVBW continued by saying I think this is a POV-ish way of working with sources. Apparently following WP:RS, including ones as recent as January 2026 which call Kapustin a neo-nazi is "POV-ish".

Daisy Blue

Other than this frivolous report that went on for nearly three weeks without action, Daisy Blue has actually misused policy to push for a change to the lede of Kapustin:

• They say that we should look at "introductory labels" in articles To me, the introductory labels are more important because the context of this discussion is the lead section. (diff)
• In this very thread they've told me that I must argue for inclusion of the "neo-nazi" label, despite the label being in the article from the very first version. It is them who wishes to change long-standing content.
• An editor has recently said that there should be an RfC on the lede, something I said 10 days ago, but Daisy Blue refuses to start an RfC, instead choosing to take me to AN and AE. Is it perhaps because sources overwhelmingly support the label and any RfC would come to that consensus?

Indefinite wikibreak

I cannot stand this bullying any more. I am accused of "misusing guidelines", "POV pushing", while the editors levying these accusations against me are the ones misusing guidelines, POV pushing and engaging in IDHT behaviour, literally in this very thread. Most editors are turning a blind eye to it. I am done with being bullied and harassed. Why would I choose to edit Wikipedia and be part of this community after being treated like this?

And this AN report was made because I followed reliable sources that overwhelmingly call Denis Kapustin a neo-nazi. lol TurboSuperA+_[talk] 17:19, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• I believe you made some if not all of the same points about MVBW on ANI just days ago. Likewise, it's your third time making the same point about me in this thread. Once here, then here (aspersions), then in the comment I'm replying to. I doubt repeating it is going to help the admins determine whether I was going against any policy in or around that diff. The RfC part is just an aspersion again. I invite every interested editor and admin to review the entirety of the talk page discussions to see if there is any evidence of what is claimed. Daisy Blue (talk) 18:13, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• If you want to count the numbers, then all recent RS described him as a military commander, and in this sense he is primarily described as a military commander. No one ever denied that he was also defined as a neo-Nazi in many, although not all RS. But my point was different: one should not count the labels about living people, whatever these labels might be. Instead, one should read the best RS and neutrally summarize that they say. That is what I usually do. As about the "bloodlust", what are you talking about? It was you who just filed two nearly identical ANI complaints. Moreover, you continue commenting "on contributors" right here. My very best wishes (talk) 18:26, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Even the title of the page is Denis Kapustin (militant). Militant [during the war]. Yes, this is how he is primarily described in RS. Yes, he also conducted certain Neo-Nazi activities, leading to his expulsion from Germany, which should be said in the lead. My very best wishes (talk) 00:05, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is just to summarize what I think. No one does any "tendentious edits". There is no any serious content disagreement, at least with me. I did not revert other contributors recently and ready to self-revert if asked. Turbo does make reverts per WP:BRD, which is fine. The actual issue is different: it is the way Turbo interacts with other contributors and misrepresents their views and comments. Is it related to RUSUKR? Based on the comments and the focus by Turbo just above, the answer is "yes". My very best wishes (talk) 13:50, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Support community imposed topic ban, and this has nothing to do with a pound of flesh. Turbo means well, but their wikibreak lasted six days. They do not have the self control to support their planned breaks and this cycle needs to end before it ends in a full block for Turbo. It's time for a community one. If there are issues with Daisy and MVBW's edits, someone else can handle them. Star Mississippi 18:04, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think that's exactly fair as Turbo was put in a rather rough catch-22 here. They've been accused of an absolute laundry list of different things & despite no uninvolved editors having actually evaluated or engaged with said accusations, sanctions have been proposed against them.

  When in response they said they'd take a wikibreak you (among others) continued to threaten sanctions against them, justifying it by doubting they'd commit to the wikibreak.

  You essentially left them with the options of either keeping their word by committing to their wikibreak & being sanctioned in absentia or for them to stop their wikibreak prematurely to try & defend their conduct, only to be sanctioned for not committing to said wikibreak.

  This entire dispute has been a complete mess of accusations being flung back & forth, but if sanctions are to be divvied out, they should be given on the merits of the case. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 21:25, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  @Butterscotch Beluga this is unfortunately how conduct issues with Turbo go. They leave, and then come back and nothing changes overall. That's why I think it's time for a more full resolution, rather than kicking it down the road. There either needs to be a t-ban, or none. Not one that ties into their nebulous timeline. Star Mississippi 21:45, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  There are other options other than "TBAN for a single user or none at all". I concur with BB. He's not the only one to blame here. He is in a catch-22. Buffs (talk) 20:41, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  @Star Mississippi: to clarify, this is an indefinite topic ban from RUSUKR with no exceptions? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:11, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  @Theleekycauldron, @Buffs the reason I think we need clear cut is more or less what @FOARP noted. With a time limited sanction we're going to be right back here. It's time to end the cycle, whether it comes in good faith or not. With respect to Daisy/MVBW, a topic ban against Turbo does not preclude actions against them if all three need to be removed from the topic area. Star Mississippi 01:45, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Tban from RUSUKR - I supported just moving on after TurboSuperA+ said they'd take a voluntary TBAN, but if you take a break, if you say you're going to have a self-imposed TBan, you've got to stick to it, and they clearly have not stuck to it even for the minimum amount of time. Instead they've flown off the handle with repeated incivility ("bloodlust... pound of flesh..."). All this shows is that a voluntary restriction is not enough - let's make it official. FOARP (talk) 09:55, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Is participating in an ANI report that was filed against them being counted as a violation of the self-imposed RUSUKR-TBan here, or have they edited the topic outside this ANI thread after declaring their self-imposed TBan? Nakonana (talk) 10:56, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  They took a wikibreak and proposed the topic ban while the ANI was already in progress. And then they doubled back. Star Mississippi 13:20, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Basically this. Saying you're agreeing to a TBan and a Wikibreak should mean end-of-discussion. If I had been able to close this discussion at that point I would have closed it as "they're going on a break, everyone just move along" just as I said in my comment above. But then they had to go and post this "pound of flesh" stuff.

  The ANI report is closed - was closed because they agreed to a Wikibreak/Tban - so they are not "participating in an ANI report" here. Even if this was ANI, the above rant is clearly just carrying on the same RUSUKR article-content dispute on this page in an uncivil fashion, which is something they already said they would desist from. FOARP (talk) 13:53, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Reluctant support TBAN per Star Mississippi and FOARP. I've been observing these threads for a little while, and regardless of any content concerns I'm not convinced Turbo has the self-control to stay away from this topic area, nor the civility needed to keep content disputes from turning nasty/personal - the above "pound of flesh"/"harassed and bullied" comments are emblematic of that. The Kip ^(contribs) 18:44, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Support TBAN and indefinite block - Although after that "bloodlust" rant I'm not sure I'm optimistic that this person has the temperament for the project. Update: I've updated my vote to indefinite block after Uhoj's comment below. The most disturbing thing to me is the biting of a newcomer. As a newcomer, Turbo made a load of poor closes, never really admitted they were poor, and was banned from making future closes. It seems like someone with that kind of record would be more welcoming to new editors. A year ago I was willing to give the benefit of the doubt, but this is a pattern of behavior now that needs to be addressed by the editor. - Nemov (talk) 20:25, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Support TBAN if Turbo's wherewithal to abide by a self-imposed topic ban lasts less than a week and ends with 8k bytes of complaining, I hope they'll forgive me not trusting their word. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:55, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose TBAN, but support a 30-day block I guess I'll be the contrarian here. I don't think this is a problem just related to the topic at hand. What I'm seeing is a behavioral issue by Turbo and Daisy/MVBW. On the content, Turbo makes some good points that I think should be incorporated. He also correctly points out that he's been part of previous contentious discussions in the past where consensus didn't go his way and he abided by them. That sort of behavior should be lauded and noted. Just because you are a contrarian and present opinions that are not in line with popular consensus doesn't mean you are not welcome for that alone. So, the block is for a refusal to get the point, the bludgeoning responses, and the curt/unwarranted hostility. To be succinct: it's the behavior. Daisy/MVBW are not without blame here. They are heaping gas on the flames and it would do well for them to refrain from further responses/antagonism. You both made your points long ago. Let others weigh in. When you (Turbo) return from your block, I would request that you spend some time simply engaging in respectful collegial discussion before you make such edits. Buffs (talk) 20:35, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Can't speak for the others here, but the reason why I thought a TBAN was a good idea - and thought so whilst I was OK with just doing a voluntary TBAN - is the bad behaviour seems to be linked to their feelings about the RUSUKR area. A TBAN from there would give them the opportunity to get some perspective on that and edit in other fields. I'm not convinced a time-limited block would do anything but just result in us having the same discussion some months down the road, also it looks like a punishment for bad behaviour rather than a remedy. It would, however, be better than nothing I suppose. FOARP (talk) 20:52, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The problems aren't limited to WP:RUSUKR. Looking through recent edits I also see biting a newcomer and an RfC !vote that appears to be based entirely on personal political POV. TurboSuperA+ was banned from closing discussions. The discussions involved had nothing to do with WP:RUSUKR. TurboSuperA+ then accused the admin who imposed the sanction of acting in bad faith. The grandstanding a few months back isn't promising, nor is the way they went on wikibreak in the middle of this discussion. I get the general sense that TurboSuperA+ continues to believe that they're right ... about everything. --Uhoj (talk) 05:40, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  This pattern of behaviour can only really be addressed in two ways - an indefinite block or a TBan. The indef block seems excessive. I'm favouring the TBan as a chance to turn in the right direction. A 30-day block would be better than nothing but if it was going to be done should have been done immediately when they posted the above screed (I suspect the reason this didn't happen is no admin who doesn't already have a history with Turbo even saw it), and anyway is likely to be just a way-point on the road to an indef ban. FOARP (talk) 08:49, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  That interaction at Talk:Ideonomy is not good. There was no reason to accuse Gunkelfan of WP:BADGERing and certainly not of being WP:NOTHERE, and TSA+ must have later realised that Gunkelfan was right, because they quietly withdrew the AfD nomination, but never apologised for the unnecessary hostility. This is typical of TSA+'s conduct: lashing out in response to pushback; groundless accusations; and assuming the worst of other editors.

  Other disruption outside RUSUKR: they vandalised and were warned, and responded: No need to be so hostile, it was a single edit., I guess it came across stronger than you intended it. I didn't have the intention of making more than one such edit. :). They are frequently hostile and uncivil to others, but can't take even basic pushback. I would suggest it is TSA+ who is WP:NOTHERE and WP:NOTCOMPATIBLE. Helpful Cat {talk} 11:21, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Support TBAN because continuing to emphasize your own neutrality because you once added content about Ukrainians shooting down a Russian jet and an account with 6 edits calling you a Ukrainian government employee don't outweigh repeated WP:TENDENTIOUS behavior in the topic, which incidentally always seems to concern Russia and things the Russian government want to downplay, for example involvement of foreign soldiers in its military, seems more like doubling down on your habits than recognizing issues with your editing. You're not being bullied, you edited disruptively and are now facing the consequences that you do not mind other people receiving, there appears to be a victim mentality here rather than signs of improvement so I fully support a T-BAN on RUSUKR. --TylerBurden (talk) 16:55, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Support TBAN As a full formalized community-imposed topic ban, without any caveats, carve-outs, or restrictions. Either it'll solve the issue or it'll demonstrate it's unsolvable, either way it's necessary. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:27, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Support TBAN per above, though people who have interacted with Turbo a lot in the topic area should probably note that they're involved per WP:CBAN Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 00:14, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Barron Trump (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Trump, Barron (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Not sure if this is the best place to post this, but would someone who is expert at page histories and merges take a look at the talk pages of Barron Trump and Trump, Barron? I raised this at at WT:GA but I think the right person to look at it is an admin with the appropriate experience. As far as I can tell, what should have happened is that the newer page should have been constructed from a move of the older page, but in fact Trump, Barron is a redirect, yet its talk page has all the article history up to the new article's creation -- e.g. GA1 is listed at Talk:Trump, Barron, but GA2 at Talk:Barron Trump. I think they should be merged but I'm really not sure. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:53, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've consulted with @Sennecaster, whose conclusion is basically that 1. the two talk pages are for completely different versions of the article, with some intervening deletion(s) and recreation(s), and 2. there are parallel page histories, both of which mean a history merge is not necessary. Thanks Senne! Toadspike [Talk] 23:24, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. It's weird from a human perspective, as they're functionally the same article, but I can see that if the page histories don't intersect a merge is not needed. Thank you (and Sennecaster) for looking into it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:38, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie; I'll clarify on the Barron Trump talk page when I get back on Sennecaster. I can see how it would look weird to someone that doesn't regularly look at chaotic page histories involving repeated ATDs. Pennecaster (Chat with Senne) 00:10, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In a nutshell, the history now at Trump, Barron is a years-long back-and-forth conflict over whether Barron Trump should be a redirect or whatever content an editor happened to put on the page for a time. It was not until a draft was created in draftspace and worked on for some time (while the mainspace conflict continued) that there was content deemed sufficient to support a freestanding article. BD2412 T 00:56, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

deemed sufficient to support a freestanding article is a bit generous since the current thing only squeaked by as "No consensus" at AfD. (Not that there's anything wrong with the actual point you're making.) ~2026-92659-0 (talk) 00:45, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, we totally failed to follow proper process there. But that's water under the bridge now. At this point I would suggest history merging Trump, Barron to Barron Trump. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:20, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What proper process would make the result of a no consensus AfD result in deletion? That is explicitly against all precedent and existing policies and guidelines. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Administrator instructions#No consensus and Wikipedia:Deletion process#Common outcomes are crystal clear that specific actions are not taken by the closing administrator in the event of a no consensus AfD result. Katzrockso (talk) 02:04, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Black Kite, Ser kham gogoi is now edit-warring using sockpuppets and using LLMs to communicate. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:18, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ser kham gogoi.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:59, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm putting this here and not on the incidents noticeboard because I'm not looking to report another user but I would like feedback from more experienced editors on how I handled a situation on my talk page (see the most recent section). It started a couple days ago when I reverted an edit made by a TA on an article that I subsequently reported to WP:RPP for falling under WP:PIA while I was patrolling recent changes. When I logged in earlier today I found the thing from a new user claiming to be the TA on my talk page. Anyway, its been eating at me for a few hours and I thought I would ask for input from other editors to see if there's something I missed.
(putting this back up after it accidentally got reverted) ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 15:04, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, yeah, temporary accounts and new editors aren't supposed to be editing in I/P articles and their comments look like a WP:RGW situation which... yeah... not ideal. I don't think you did anything wrong here from just that conversation. Simonm223 (talk) 15:47, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You in fact did things entirely correctly; the user in question has received a warning for personal attacks on your talk page. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:12, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both for the reassurance! ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 15:54, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Ethnicity in Afghanistan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Dear admins, after the months-long quarrel on the content of the afforementioned article and the subsequent ban of the disruptive user, it still seems as if the article won't come to rest. Especially newly created and not extended-confirmed users such as @Afghanistan Mottahid and @ArashArianpour888 showed actions of disruptive editing in the recent past:

1) Afghanistan Mottahid.

- Removing sourced and agreed-upon texts: [31]

- Adding hoax texts (as also noted by @Alaexis with falsely used sources: [32]

- Adding unsourced claims: [33]

- Re-reverting, provoking edit-wars: [34]. On that note, it seems as if this user especially isn't ready to talk either, since I asked him to stop disruptively editing on a different, but similar topic about ethnicity in the Kabul Province which he chose to ignore.

2) ArashArianpour888.

- Adding unsourced claims: [35], [36]

- Removing sources and agreed-upon texts: [37]

I don't want to play bodyguard for this article all the time, so I think moving this semi-protected page to extended confirmed protection is long overdue. SdHb (talk) 14:27, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The reason i removed is because there is no valid and reliable document .

Can you please provide a reliable and authoritative source that the Pashtuns are the largest ethnic group in Afghanistan? Do you confirm that a census was conducted and you added this information? The source provided by the government, many writers and politicians disagree that the Tajiks are the largest and some others say the Pashtuns. So in this regard, I think it is right to refrain from using the term “large ethnic group” until you provide credible documents. There are many unofficial sources that are not accepted by many and are supported by Pashtun politicians. Or the US CIA has announced that there are no accurate and official figures as to which ethnic group is the largest, but there are language figures and it can be said that more than 77 to 80 percent of Afghans speak Persian and 45 percent speak Pashto. This is where it can be said that if there is a majority in Afghanistan, it is a linguistic majority, not a tribal or ethnic one! ArashArianpour888 (talk) 09:12, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the place to discuss this. If you‘re interested how the content was agreed-upon in a 4 months long process, read the Talk page entries entirely. Thank you. SdHb (talk) 10:09, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've published this post on the talk page for the German dialects category. Can an administrator answer it, please? Karamellpudding1999 (talk) 23:56, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be a content dispute. What are you looking for from an admin? Star Mississippi 00:13, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anyone on the other side of the "content dispute", which means it isn't really a dispute. This reads to me more as a request for technical assistance, like "how do I remove these subcategories from this parent category?". @Karamellpudding1999, I think the answer is that you'd have to remove the category from each subcategory page, either by editing the source wikitext or using a tool like HotCat. Toadspike [Talk] 02:51, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

apologies for misreading it @Karamellpudding1999 @Toadspike Star Mississippi 16:53, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Toadspike @Karamellpudding1999! There is a script, called Cat-a-lot, that allows you to do this in bulk without having to go through each page individually! I figure it might help in this situation. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:10, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2026).

Administrator changes

• Brendanconway
• Calmer Waters
• Hut 8.5
• Joe Roe
• VersedFenrir

CheckUser changes

Ks0stm

Oversight changes

Ks0stm

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RfC, the web archival service archive.today has been deprecated; links to the site should be removed.
• A request for comment is open to discuss retiring CSD criterion R3 in favour of handling such redirects through RfD.

Arbitration

• Following a motion, remedy 9.1 of the Conduct in deletion-related editing case has been amended to limit TenPoundHammer to one XfD nomination or PROD per 24-hour period.
• Following a motion, the Iskandar323 further POV pushing motion has been rescinded.
• The Arbitration Committee has passed a housekeeping motion rescinding a number of outdated remedies and enforcement provisions across multiple legacy cases. In most instances, existing sanctions remain in force and continue to be appealable through the usual processes, while some case-specific remedies were amended or clarified.

Miscellaneous

• Following the 2026 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: A09, AmandaNP, Barras, Count Count, M7, SHB2000, Teles and VIGNERON.
• An Unreferenced articles backlog drive is taking place in March 2026 to reduce the backlog of articles tagged with {{Unreferenced}}. You can help reduce the backlog by adding citations to these articles. Sign up to participate!

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

For the Arbitration Committee, EggRoll97 ^(talk) 22:42, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Arbitration motion regarding Indian military history

Per this discussion on the Three Alls policy article, I determined @User:Wahreit appears to have added content to the article not supported by the source they cited. I am extremely concerned Wahreit is attempting to build a false historical consensus by writing whatever they wish and citing non-English sources that readers and contributors are unlikely to verify (i.e fictious reference). I have tried to avoid Wahreit and articles they contribute to as I have had many issues with them in the past, but as their false information was pertinent to the discussion on a related article,[1] I ultimately went ahead and corrected it. After I made my correction, Wahreit immediately followed up with WP:Hounding, wasting no time in following me to the related article and acting belligerent.[2] In spite of working with others in the talkpage to reach a consensus and that my contributions to the article used reputable secondary sources, Wahreit began nitpicking over WP:Coatrack issues[3] and rather than work to correct the alleged issues, nor await the input of other contributors, has engaged in WP:Edit_Warring by completely reverting my contributions three times in a row now.[Diff1][Diff2[Diff3]

Around this time, the user also went and altered the Defense of Sihang Warehouse article, which in the past I had heavily contributed to and had past issues with this same user on. Nearly two years ago, it was determined through extensive discussion and a laundry list of sources on the talk page that the Imperial Japanese Army's 3rd Division was not a participating force, even though some Western sources claimed the contary.[4] Since this was determined nearly two years ago, no other editors have since taken issue with the participating Japanese forces listed. In spite of this, Wahreit has arbitrarily readded the incorrect claim of the 3rd Division's participation, despite it already being explained to them years ago.[5] Even Stephen Robinson, who Wahreit relies on heavily as a source for this claim, has personally corresponded with me and agreed their inclusion of the 3rd Divison's involvement at Sihang Warehouse in their writing was incorrect. I am happy to send a copy of this correspondence to an administrator if necessary.

While good faith should be assumed, just a month ago Wahreit went through a very arduous effort of collecting all of my negative interactions with them to try and have me banned, although it was ultimately unsuccessful.[6] It would not be a stretch to say this user holds some kind of grudge against me and is engaged in deliberate harassment through their disruptive editing. Adachi1939 (talk) 23:36, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is now the third time @Adachi1939 is trying to get me banned for content disputes (the first two being unsuccessful).[38][39]

I joined that discussion because:

- adachi badmouthed me unprovoked[40]

- adachi was pushing "an actual number of victims" for the Nanjing Massacre (lower than page consensus) and repeatedly calling a documented genocide "so-called" and "alleged" (which constitutes Denial). Editor @RelmC has taken issue with this too,[41] but adachi has continued to revert their contributions without consensus[42]

Rather than seek consensus per Bold-Revert-Discuss, adachi has reverted everyone's edits to the page repeatedly[43][44][45] and now escalated to WP:ANI for the third time.

I now insist on a block for @Adachi1939 because:

- adachi explicitly hounding me (by offering opposition to me, not content, across different pages) despite prior warnings from admins to stop[46]

- adachi's repeated visits to my talk page to insult me[47][48][49]

- adachi's repeated attempts to get me banned without discussion, and edit warring [50][51]

- adachi's continued reliance on personal attacks (despite prior warnings and blocks from admins) [52][53][54][55][56]

It is getting tiresome coming back to this page over and over again to defend myself because adachi won't resolve content disagreements. adachi has never been of any interest, I only edit wikipedia for the readers. Wahreit (talk) 01:00, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

also, adachi seems to "gain satisfaction" from making people angry and upset, per his own admission[57]. Just some food for thought. Wahreit (talk) 01:00, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

>>adachi badmouthed me unprovoked

Referencing the Chinese version of Wikipedia article, Wahreit wrote a completely different statement in English while citing the same Chinese source, as already explained above.[1] This is not unprovoked "badmouthing", they have engaged in academic dishonesty and it was directly relevant to the discussion. The fact Wahreit has not only engaged in such academic dishonesty, but still refuses to acknowledge it nor take responsibility, should be more than enough reason to have their editing rights revoked.

>>adachi was pushing "an actual number of victims" for the Nanjing Massacre (lower than page consensus)

This is rather disingenuous. I wrote:

Modern scholarship on the Nanjing Massacre, such as Wakabayashi's The Nanking Atrocity, 1937-1938 estimates the actual number of victims to range from 100,000–200,000 POWs and civilians killed

The actual Nanjing Massacre article states "newer estimates adhere to a death toll between 100,000 and 200,000" citing the same source.[2]

>>repeatedly calling a documented genocide "so-called" and "alleged"

Again this is disingenuous, I have not denied a genocide. I called the term "Three Alls policy" "alleged" and "so-called" as it does not exist in Japanese documents, the very sources cited in the article on it state it was a term created by the Chinese Communist Party to criticize Japan's brutal annihilation/pacification operations.[3] I have never denied the Japanese military flagrantly committed atrocities during these campaigns, only questioned the terminology and who was actually responsible.

>>adachi has continued to revert their [RelmC's] contributions without consensus

RelmC expressed doubts with my contributions adhering to the academic consensus, largely due to confusion stemming from Wahreit writing a fictious claim on the Three Alls policy article as already mentioned above. After clarifying this,[4] I readded the changes and have not received further input from RelmC. I don't know why Wahreit thinks they are entitled to speak on behalf of this editor who has so far expressed no further concerns.

>>adachi explicitly hounding me (by offering opposition to me, not content, across different pages) despite prior warnings from admins to stop

While the hounding is true, the allegation I was already warned to not do so is false. Wahreit's cited example occurred on Jan 16 2026. I was warned on Jan 19 2026 to stop.[5] I have since stopped, however as seen above Wahreit has not.

>>adachi's repeated visits to my talk page to insult me

All of these are old examples which have already been discussed on the Administrator's noticeboard before and are missing the context that in said noticeboard discussions, they were found to be guilty of the same behavior. An administrator noted about Wahreit:

I am extremely unimpressed with your behavior. You seem to be arranging inappropriate offwiki coordination with another editor against "a certain guy". It's hardly harassment for that "guy" to then show up to the conversation.

Another user wrote of Wahreit:[6]

does @Wahreit think talk pages are exempt of WP:CIVIL? The only embarrassing behavior I see is from you [Wahreit].

>>adachi's repeated attempts to get me banned

Nowhere in these examples did I explicitly ask for Wahreit to be banned. I was requesting admin intervention for measures to be taken against their disruptive behavior. Perhaps Wahreit is unaware that an alternative to being banned is simply not engaging in prolonged disruptive behavior.

>>adachi's continued reliance on personal attacks

As already discussed above, pointing out someone's poor conduct doesn't necessarily mean it's a personal attack. In the numerous examples Wahreit has cited, they have take responsibility for their misconduct in zero of them.

>>also, adachi seems to "gain satisfaction" from making people angry and upset, per his own admission

The full context here is that I was gaining satisfaction from the anger someone suffered as a consequence of their own stupidity. For that I am guilty as charged. Adachi1939 (talk) 02:09, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

>>>The full context here is that I was gaining satisfaction from the anger someone suffered as a consequence of their own stupidity. For that I am guilty as charged.

@Adachi1939 admits the truth on how he interacts with and treats newcomers. Just appalling.

>>>While the hounding is true, the allegation I was already warned to not do so is false

adachi admits to hounding me. And he was warned previously by an admin here to not to hound me:[58] Then he was warned again recently[59] He still has refused to stop.

>>>Nowhere in these examples did I explicitly ask for Wahreit to be banned. I was requesting admin intervention for measures to be taken against their disruptive behavior.

No. He did. Here: [60][61]

So adachi has just admitted to hounding me and has not stopped despite two previous warnings. He has been blocked already for edit-warring twice too (see his block log). He gains satisfaction from "the anger from other people's stupidity" as he calls it.

I really do believe the wiki community would benefit from a long block on adachi. Wahreit (talk) 02:33, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

hey just popping in here. What happened?? It doesn't look like any of you are in the right judging by what I see, it's better if we get someone here now Raizief (talk) 02:58, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Adachi1939 has escalated to WP:ANI for the third time over a content issue, seeking to get me banned. He didn't try getting a consensus on a talk page or discuss substantially.

Adachi's also been hounding me across Wikipedia despite previous warnings from admins. I am bored of having to come here every time adachi disagrees with me. I'll let the diffs speak the truth. Wahreit (talk) 03:19, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

>>No. He did. Here:

My apologies if I missed them, but looking over these two examples I don't see any examples where I explicitly called for Wahreit to be banned.

At this point I am fairly certain they lack the ability to engage in a constructive manner with me but that doesn't necessarily mean they need a sitewide ban, just blocking their editing privileges on a few articles could probably help. Adachi1939 (talk) 03:10, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If you two want someone to assist a good first step would be to stop going back and forth with each other. ~2026-13567-93 (talk) 16:26, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hey folks! We seem to have reached a consensus to implement @Qcne's proposed rewrites for the AfC templates, but their code is currently template-protected. I'd love to help, but it is nearly 3am here and the code is complicated enough that I don't want to mess up and potentially break thousands of drafts. Is anyone willing to take on the task? Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 01:47, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The changes that need to be made are listed here: User:Qcne/AfC template rewrites. Ca ^{talk to me!} 01:51, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've implemented some of the changes at Template:AfC submission/comments/sandbox (which can be previewed on the testpage), if that makes implementing them easier (/less time consuming) for any passing admins / template editors.

I've not added the new decline comments yet (small steps), nor updated the CV ones (as those have three different sets of conditional wording that will need re-running past WT:AFC first). nil ^nz 00:18, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

MisterFandomIFC99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user's edit history appears to be comprised of deleting any mentions of Filipino television networks. Here are a few examples:

• On December 20th 2025, They removed mentions of GMA and TV5 from the article about ABC. The summary randomly refers to the movies Killer Bean Forever and Cats & Dogs.

• On the same date, they removed mentions of GMA and ABS-CBN from an article on a Malaysian television network. Same summary.

• On January 21st 2026, they reverted my revert on the ABC article, claiming I was a vandal.

• About an hour ago, they messaged an anonymous user with the title "YOU ARE PHILIPPINE!!!". This seems to imply this behavior may stem from some form of anti-Filipino racism?

Now, I don't wanna jump into conclusions, but there definitely appears to be a pattern. I attempted to ask them about why they were doing this, but they just removed my message. -Gamerappa (talk) 04:32, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Call @RandomMe98, @Khairul hazim, @Fandi89, @ViperSnake151, @Hotwiki, @WayKurat, @PJ Santos and @Pratama26 for discussing further information regarding these issues. ~2026-13689-61 (talk) 05:15, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Don't ask me or ping me; I know nothing and don't care about this. Sorry. Khairul hazim (talk) 07:06, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

i'm sorry but i don't think doing this is a good idea -Gamerappa (talk) 09:33, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also summon @Scoophole2021 for tell any information regarding the MisterFandomIFC99 cases. ~2026-13689-61 (talk) 05:17, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the edit he reverted calling you a vandal (https://teknopedia.ac.id/w/index.php?title=American_Broadcasting_Company&diff=prev&oldid=1334057541) had no edit summary. Put some down and it'll happen less. Was also citation less.

But all caps edit summaries often are annoying to read. And they should at least make sense. 🚂ThatTrainGuy1945 ^{Peep peep!} 04:10, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that Cyberbot I has stopped archiving WP:RFPP - there's a massive backlog of actioned requests, with multiple "archive immediately" tags on some, and the bot has done nothing on RFPP since 18:43 despite continuing to operate otherwise. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:27, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've come across a couple of new articles created about the recent military conflict between the US, Israel, and Iran. I'm wondering whether such articles should be subject to special restrictions like WP:AELOG/2026#IRP and WP:AELOG/2026#PIA and need some more eyes on them. The articles are List of Iranian officials killed during the 2026 Israeli–United States strikes on Iran, Mohammad Baseri, Hossein Jabal Amelian, and Gholamreza Rezaian. The biographies, in particular, each have section titled "Assassination", which may or may not be true depending on one's POV and which sources one is reading. I'm wondering whether there's any admins or arbcom members hanging out at AN at the moment who are familiar with how WP:CT works, and how they apply to articles subject to them. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:43, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

They all absolutely fall under IRP. Those that directly relate to the current conflict do fall under PIA (this is actually at ARCA at the moment and the majority of arbs appear to agree). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:40, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you The Bushranger for taking a look at these. Should something be added to their respective talk pages to let those editing/reading the article that 1RR applies? -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:45, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

They probably should have {{Contentious topics/talk notice|a-i}} added, yes. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:41, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the aforementioned template to each article's talk page. Is there anything else that needs to be done? Does an administrator need to do anything to the articles to implement the now restrictions mentioned on their talk pages? -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:37, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents § Alexplayer1 is still WP:NOTHERE

 – The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:09, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

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

Nobody responded the first time I reported this user, so here we go again.

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

I am getting tired of Alexplayer1 miscrediting me, because it is pretty obvious that they do not care, and based on recent edits, I think they've found their new scapegoat. I want something done about this. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 11:21, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like you want WP:ANI. ~2026-13567-93 (talk) 16:25, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I would like to request the review of a non-admin closure of a discussion at the subject talk page here: Talk:The Golden Girls#Merge Proposal. It appears to me the positions taken were closer to even rather than showing an obvious consensus, with a "Strongly oppose" not properly bolded. I would like an uninvolved administrator to review the chosen outcome. Thanks. Stefen 𝕋ower ^{Huddle • Handiwerk} 23:22, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The close seems fine, the supports carry more weight in policy and guidelines. The opposes say the post-merge article would be too long, but it's about 10,000 words. Even if the character descriptions are expanded using sources, the solution would be to spin out a list of characters article and not recreate character articles. Fences&Windows 01:54, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your consideration. It does seem surprising, though, that there wouldn't be many sources to back up individual articles for these widely discussed (and beloved) characters over 40 years. Stefen 𝕋ower ^{Huddle • Handiwerk} 02:03, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NOPAGE, “at times it is better to cover a notable topic as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context.” ~2026-86111-3 (talk) 02:45, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Of course but it ultimately depends on what the reliable coverage looks like. If it is as expansive I as believe it to be, individual articles would be within reason, and there is plenty of precedent. Also, it's best in wiki discussions to not use a guideline as a hammer for one side of a point, as if we cannot read the rest or have ample experience in understanding how Wikipedia works. Stefen 𝕋ower ^{Huddle • Handiwerk} 02:55, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop; two administrators have already given you what you asked for. Reiterating your personal displeasure with the outcome and arguing with everyone are not “requesting review by an uninvolved administrator”. ~2026-86111-3 (talk) 11:49, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I "stopped" yesterday evening. Your reply here is wholly inappropriate and against WP:AGF, so It is understandable that you are using a temporary account to say it. This discussion space is exactly for the purpose I utilized it for. Stefen 𝕋ower ^{Huddle • Handiwerk} 19:42, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that there is enough encyclopedic material about the characters to justify seperate articles then write them. That would demonstrate that the close was wrong. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:10, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've been here since 2004. I know the drill. :) I was simply making a comment about my astonishment of the current state of affairs. Stefen 𝕋ower ^{Huddle • Handiwerk} 20:18, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As a note, marking a !vote as "strong" doesn't mean anything except to the !voter. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:13, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but my point I stressed was that it wasn't bolded, and possibly therefore missed by the closer. Stefen 𝕋ower ^{Huddle • Handiwerk} 03:19, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that happened, because the closer directly referred to that !vote, "I have also set aside the TA !vote". Phil Bridger (talk) 21:08, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriately, since that !vote was just as PAG-based (which isn't very much) as some of the merge !votes. Katzrockso (talk) 23:08, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have a different concern about this close, in that the close was in favor of a merge, but the vast majority of content has not been merged, making this a de facto deletion of articles carried out without going through the proper protocol for deletion. BD2412 T 20:39, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I note that some of the supporters of merging volunteered to help. Maybe we should hold them to that? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:56, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In fact none of those articles were deleted, de facto or otherwise. If no content has yet been merged it's functionally a WP:BLAR, and note explicitly said there is the article has not been deleted. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:48, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (RfC closure in question) (Discussion with closer)

Closer: Thryduulf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User requesting review: Wikieditor662 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) at 02:57, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Notified: User talk:Thryduulf#AN

Reasoning: In the closure, the user claimed an overwhelming majority in favor of listing hope not hate (HnH) as GREL, and that every counter-argument has been strongly refuted and/or shown not to be relevant. On the other side, some (but not all) examples of these concerns included Guy Macon's statement that HnH did not have sufficient evidence of corrections or retractions, Alaexis worries about HnH's editorial policy, my statement that they were investigated by an official UK commission due to deep concerns about their behavior (and despite the commission letting them off the hook, they still noted significant problems with HnH, such as not cooperating earlier despite being aware of the situation), and others who opposed the RfC in general.

I am not arguing about what side I personally support; my point is that dismissing all of these reasonable arguments and acting like there was an overwhelming majority for GREL sounds more like a WP:SUPERVOTE than a fair conclusion of the consensus.

I reached out to the closer, and brought up some of these concerns. The conversation got a little off topic when I confused around a part about reliability, and asked some questions for clarification. Eventually, they responded by shutting the conversation down, and said Move on. I may not respond further if you do not. even though the supervote essay states closers, administrator or non-administrator, are subject to the administrators' accountability policy, and must explain all closes when questioned. Wikieditor662 (talk) 02:57, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I explained fully on my talk page why my close was not a supervote. My final comment was regarding being repeatedly asked the same question in different ways regarding adding an (imo unnecessary) comment regarding attribution to the closing statement, I assumed that my first response had been sufficient regarding other matters as they were not brought up again. Note that I am just off to bed and will have at best very limited time for Wikipedia until circa late morning/early afternoon Wednesday (UK time). Thryduulf (talk) 03:17, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Doing a simple vote count:

• 18 editors supported Option 1 (generally reliable);
• Eight supported Option 2 (no consensus / additional considerations)
• Five supported either Option 3 (generally unreliable) or Option 4 (deprecate).

That's not a particularly close !vote, and there was a clear consensus from participants for Option 1. The concerns raised by a minority of editors were either refuted, or deemed irrelevant (with regards to reliability) by the majority of participants !voting against Options 3 & 4.

Reading the discussion on Thryduulf's Talk, you argued the issue with the close was that it didn't reflect that The opposing side wasn't arguing that it should never be used, but that it should be attributed to. As Thryduulf points out, that was clearly addressed in the close comment, and was acknowledged by supporters of Option 1 who noted that reliable ≠ non-biased. I don't see how this is a WP:SUPERVOTE. nil ^nz 04:25, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it a a violation of WP:NOTAVOTE to be counting the number of !votes to determine how strong the consensus is (and even if it wasn't, 18 vs 13 is not an overwhelming decision, and you forgot to include the number of people who opposed the RfC in general)?

And the opposing side wasn't only discussing that, but rather many people preferred it be MREL or GUNREL or something else. Wikieditor662 (talk) 04:47, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's why I referred to it as a simple vote count. And no one has said there's an overwhelming decision, but it clearly wasn't a close one either. It's still not clear what policy or guideline you believe wasn't met by the closer to warrant a review. nil ^nz 05:08, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse the close seems totally reasonable and in line with the discussion. ~2026-86111-3 (talk) 11:51, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse It's not a vote, but the generally reliable crowd had the strongest policy-based arguments, and while I think you could justify a no consensus result, a "generally reliable" close was absolutely reasonable from the discussion, certainly nowhere the threshold for an overturn. Bias and reliability are not the same thing, and we could be doing a better job at getting that across *coughTelegraphUK close* than we frequently do. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 18:04, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - I agree with other assessments of the analysis involved in the close, and note that the arguments against it here, flitting as they do from WP:SUPERVOTE to WP:NOTAVOTE, and seemingly attempting to wield any WP:ALPHABETSOUP that comes their way in the interim, come off as extremely weak WP:WIKILAWYERing _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:15, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Perhaps a different closer could have made a case for no consensus here, but the close which was actually made is a clearly reasonable reading of the discussion. When a clear majority are making policy-based arguments, including explicitly addressing some of the arguments made by the other side, the minority needs to make a very convincing case to win the day. I don't see that here. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:04, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Well, I don't know how else you'd close this. Especially as (a) most of the "Option 4" comments seemed to be based upon WP:IDONTLIKEIT as a source, rather than how reliable it actually is, and (b) to downgrade a source I'd expect to see multiple clear examples of its unreliability, yet I can see very little here at all. Black Kite (talk) 10:24, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  IDONTLIKEIT is not a policy that is applicable here (it pertains to deletion discussions). Multiple markers of unreliability were enumerated (no evidence of fact-checking, timely corrections, retractions or any editorial policy at all). A USEDBYOTHERS-only approach would quickly turn the NYP and the Daily Mail into the greenest of green sources. ~2026-13631-30 (talk) 11:00, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  IDONTLIKEIT isn't a policy at all. It's part of an essay that happens to be about deletion discussions, but is just as relevant to any discussion on Wikipedia. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:43, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn, obviously. It is hard to take a closure seriously when half of its summary is just "Trusted by X" (certified GUNREL MBFC in this case), and the other half is a blatant misrepresentation of the discussion overall. ~2026-13631-30 (talk) 11:00, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  IDONTLIKEIT isn't even a policy at all, which is why is was even weirder that HNH's opponents seemed to use it as a reason to deprecate - i.e. this is just a rant about how terrible the organisation is and provides zero evidence of reliability/unreliability. Black Kite (talk) 11:36, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse I don't see how this could have been closed any other way. Comments calling for deprecation couldn't be taken seriously, this isn't a source that behaves in an underhand manner in the way it publishes or some other exceptionally bad behaviour that would require such a serious step. After that a large amount of the comments for saying the source was unreliable where based on it being biased or having a political position, but sources are not required to be neutral (WP:RSBIAS). What was left is correctly summarised by the close. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:42, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Did anyone in the discussion give any example of this organisation publishing a falsehood? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:01, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I believe so, although it was more about contested accusations rather than universally accepted facts. Wikieditor662 (talk) 20:02, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, there. I discovered there was a high database server lag when I tried editing. Can someone please look into this and how often does it happen? Thanks, sjones23 (talk - contributions) 10:05, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Phabricator ticket here – appears to have been a database issue that's now resolved. nil ^nz 10:31, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• In my opinion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people named in the Epstein files needs an experienced closer because there are BLP issues involved. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:24, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  +1 I looked at that AfD and chose not to comment on it because, yikes, it's a hot one. Not volunteering to be the closer despite being uninvolved, lol, this should probably be an uninvolved party with a strong history of closing contentious BLP structured discussions. Simonm223 (talk) 13:27, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm sure that, whichever way this is closed, we haven't seen the last of it. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:04, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know why this happened, but two templates had requests for speedy deletion: Template:Rulers of medieval England and Template:Rulers of medieval Wales. These templates were transcluded in about 350 articles, and when I looked at the list of articles for speedy deletion, these 350+/- articles were all listed! It took me a while to figure out that it was caused by the template, as the articles, while they had a speedy request, did not have any edits inserting the speedy request. I deleted the two templates in order to stop having the CSD request included in the articles.

Two questions: 1) is there a way to stop this from happening again? It seems to create an opportunity for erroneous deletion of articles, which is why I quickly deleted the two templates before figuring out how to address the second issue ->. 2) How do I clean up the mess of the red links to the templates remaining in those hundreds of articles after the templates were deleted? — rsjaffe 🗣️ 04:07, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) The templates have been undeleted by @Izno. Chess enjoyer (talk) 04:20, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the pages and removed the G7 to minimize page disruption for the moment. Procedurally a G7 looks fair for both, but there are some issues I think are thorny.

1. Putting the G7 tag in <noinclude>...</noinclude> would resolve the issue of transclusion of the G7 tag.
2. But, if someone misses that the template is still transcluded widely, it won't fix the resulting red links.
3. If you want to process a G7 for templates, cleaning up transclusions is something either you have to do or request at WP:TFDH or WP:BOTR or similar. (Maybe someone who patrols the queues for G7 will have seen a widely-transcluded template there, but I can't recall having the issue when a G7 needs performing after a TFD has started for a widely-used template.)
4. Both templates are also at WP:TFD with a handful of keeps there.
5. So I probably would have declined the G7 on those grounds.

Regarding the first question, I expect admins to review the pages they delete, where they would have found the tag as displayed at the bottom of the page and in no regard in the source, so they probably would have said "nope, this tag needs to go away for a bit" and done at least item 1 (and fallen into the trap of item 2). But there is no systematic prevention of the tagging. Izno (talk) 04:26, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]