Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

This page is for urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

• Before posting:
  • Consider other means of dispute resolution first
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • If the issue concerns use of admin tools or other advanced permissions, request an administrative action review
  • Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly
  • Still not sure what to do? Seek advice at the Teahouse
• Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.
• Accounts in the format ~2025-12345-67 are temporary accounts.

When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.

You may use {{subst:ANI-notice|thread=}} ~~~~ to do so.

---

Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

Start a new discussion

citation bot malfunctioning

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

---

I've just reverted an edit by citation bot to Retrograde and prograde motion. The bot appears to be malfunctioning. It replaced the title of a book with an unrelated journal article. Fdfexoex (talk) 22:34, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Several of us have reported similar bugs at User talk:Citation bot#ArXiv references getting completely messed up, the bot is being run on the draft namespace with no one checking the changes, it is difficult to spot as well because at least for my case, it is merging and mixing up information from other references. I have blocked it from making changes on my pages, but I worry about all the other pages not being scrutinized as much. Ajheindel (talk) 15:40, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Now the bot has reverted me and reintroduced the incorrect edit. Fdfexoex (talk) 01:10, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Fyi Smith609. Anne drew (talk · contribs) 01:19, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Please see stopping the bot from editing a specific citation. Isaidnoway (talk) 15:32, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

For months now the bot's maintenance has fallen to someone with little coding experience who can only change small things, and not fix any serious malfunctions; see User talk:Citation bot#Is anyone actually maintaining this bot?. So when the bot repeatedly introduces serious errors to citations with little hope of fixing it, I think stopping the bot from editing altogether should come into consideration, rather than playing whack-a-mole with the same error on all the articles where it recurs. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:59, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

I agree. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 18:16, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

The bot has been reverted at List of largest exoplanets for once again replacing titles with other random titles. How do we shut this bot down for good? Fdfexoex (talk) 00:40, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

It has also just been blocked from editing Union-closed sets conjecture for similar misbehavior. I suggest that it be blocked until its maintainers convincingly claim that these bugs have been fixed. (I wouldn't want to block it permanently if it is properly maintained; on the whole it does much more good than harm.) —David Eppstein (talk) 08:11, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Time to hit the funny red button? ~2025-31733-18 (talk) 13:51, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Does this need to be reported somewhere else or can it be resolved here? Not sure what the procedure for something like this would be. Ajheindel (talk) 15:44, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

If the maintainers were maintaining the bot the reporting mechanism would be to go to User talk:Citation bot and follow the instructions at the top of the page (click a button and fill out a form, starting a new bug report). —David Eppstein (talk) 17:57, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

• Blocked As there have been repeated concerns raised about the bot introducing errors, and the lack of avaibility of experienced developers, I have blocked the bot for 72 hours. As well as stopping any other errors from occurring, it may also bring attention to this thread from other editors. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:44, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
• For context, the phrase Feedback [required] from maintainers appears 100 times on that page—as noted above, going back over a year *minor facepalm* —Fortuna, imperatrix 17:16, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

This is rather unfortunate. If there is anything I can do to help (experienced professional software engineer) I would. Andre🚐 18:50, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

I'd contribute too if it weren't written in PHP. — DVRTed (Talk) 19:07, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Well, the code is at https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot, and AManWithNoPlan, while mostly inactive on-wiki, still appears to be reviewing PRs there. So I suspect code contributions would be welcome. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:39, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

I've been programming PHP for years (random example), but I don't think I can help as I don't know how Citation Bot is supposed to work. The last project I had a go at writing was an open-source replacement for SineBot and that stalled when the "real" bot came back online. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:29, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

• Let's ping the other maintainers: @Kaldari and AManWithNoPlan:. I'll also leave a block notice at User talk:Citation bot. –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:13, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

  I've opened an issue on github (https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/issues/4823) to help alert the maintainers as well. Redalert2fan (talk) 09:58, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

  So far the only action has been a small update to the "bot is blocked" error message. The current 72-hour block may not be enough, especially if the goal is to get the current significant problems fixed before unblocking and not merely to trigger someone to start paying attention. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:01, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

  I've lengthened the block to a indefinite block for now. Even optimistically speaking I don't think 72 hours was (or is) sufficient to address the concerns but given the inactivity of the maintainers, the chances of everything being fixed approach zero unless folks step up (I personally haven't looked deeply at the code, but might do so later) Sohom (talk) 04:34, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

  It is unfortunate that citation bot has to be blocked. But I agree these problems need to be resolved before removing the block. Also, I didn't realize that problems have been manifesting for awhile without any response. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:50, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

  72 hours was a starting point; enough time to add discussion to either decide the bot could be unblocked, or should remain so - the latter has now happened. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:07, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

  The same problem with {{cite book}} and {{cite web}} has been going on for months... since February, at least. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 19:03, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Citation bot is an important bot. I hope we don't loose its knowledge and solutions. Certain features could be disabled as being too ambitious and half-baked. But most of it is fine and mostly bug free (I think). Would like to see AI produce a spec of the features it contains. Then determine which ones are causing bug reports. Then ask AI to disable those features. -- GreenC 04:50, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm skeptical that it can be done as reductionistically as that, especially by an AI. I'm unfamiliar with the code, but it is uncommon for big pieces of code to be as modular as you suggest. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:28, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Of course it won't be as simple as flipping a switch somewhere, and will require testing, but disabling features is often easy relative to adding/repairing them. I've written two large bots like this and you are almost forced to modularize to maintain control of the code. If it's so bad where everything is a global variable and not isolated from everything else, it's probably not worth the time, but when I checked the code a while ago it didn't seem that way. Sometimes you get a clue by the length of the functions. Shorter the better. -- GreenC 16:25, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

• Keeping this bot blocked is disruptive. So it should be unblocked soon, possibly with some extra guidance for users on how to check for incorrect results. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:04, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

  @Graeme Bartlett, You are free to use the citation expander gadget to run the bot manually through your own account. The block does not block editors from using it with proper oversight. Sohom (talk) 00:21, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

  @Sohom Datta, unfortunately the gadget doesn't work (except on really small articles) and hasn't for quite some time, so the bot is the only way to use it reliably. Jay8g [V•T•E] 00:35, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

  It just uses Citation Bot which is blocked. Actually it does work to some extent. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:41, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

  I did some exploration of the gadget just now. Looks like the gadget calls either https://citations.toolforge.org/process_page.php or https://citations.toolforge.org/gadgetapi.php depending on what you click. So it is likely that whatever is wrong with the gadget is actually a bug in the bot's PHP code (rather than a bug in MediaWiki:Gadget-citations.js). –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:56, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

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

LLM use, denial of said use, lots of hallucinated references

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

I came across this user at Kwararafa Confederacy where they made this edit that included several fictional references. I went to their talk page to tell them and saw several warnings. On 2 November they were warned about exactly this by Aesurias 1 2 3 to no response. Then User talk:NatHaddan#November 2025 where Jonesey95 had warned them about this exact thing on 7 November, to which they denied use of AI. They then doubled down with a probable AI-generated comment. Fast-forward to today (23 November), they've received several more warnings as well as a final warning by Jonesey. Rather than tack on, I thought it best to report here (imo they should've been taken here after denying using AI with an AI-generated comment). Seeking an acknowledgement that they were using LLMs, and a promise not to do it anymore. Kowal2701 (talk) 23:34, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Based on this comment at the associated filing at WP:AINB, it looks like there is a language-related CIR issue here NicheSports (talk) 00:09, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Oshwah Ping incase you saw my DM Tankishguy 00:12, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

@NatHaddan You said that you used a tool to suggest sources for you in this post.

Can you let us know the exact tool that you are using, as there are concerns over inaccurate sourcing? Blue Sonnet (talk) 00:22, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Ah, they're not happy Blue Sonnet (talk) 00:25, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

IDK why they gave us a reason Tankishguy 00:27, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

I use combination of Scribbr by chrome and mendeley. In some rare situation I use citethisforme.com platform to generate APA and Harvard compliance references NatHaddan (talk) 00:32, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Visual editor lets you do it Tankishguy 00:35, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you so much for coming over. When you generate the references/sources, do you go into each one to check they say what they're supposed to say?

When you submit an edit, you're responsible for checking that it's accurate - sometimes tools get it wrong so it's really important that you always double-check before you publish your edit. Blue Sonnet (talk) 00:36, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

I do systematic check through mostly the validity of the references as my top most priority, Sometimes I may not run through every pieces of reference articles/essay most especially when it relates to lenghten research thesis. But I have never relent in any of my edit to follow up with immediate carrying-out thoroughly cleaning up after publication to ensure the references say what I said and meet relevant publication guidelines. NatHaddan (talk) 00:56, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

@NatHaddan: Do you use some kind of spell/grammar checker when you write article content? Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 01:13, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes. I use Visual Studio Code studio for my edit with "Grammar checker" extension feature enable. NatHaddan (talk) 06:57, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

@NatHaddan: Do you, by any chance, use the Copilot feature in Visual Studio Code? Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 07:01, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

To be honest, I may have to go through my active features to know if it's enable, I am a web developer and have several features enable for purpose of smooth coding work. I don't remember purposefully enable any AI features for wikitext markup article or project. Thank you for this intelligent and helpful observation! NatHaddan (talk) 07:14, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

@NatHaddan: Per this comment, you are clearly using AI tools, whether you realize it or not. The only way to get unblocked would be to come clean. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 07:18, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Even the most egregious of "grammar checkers" will not result in the output seen in those diffs, it would be impossible to not notice a model generating output whole, or transforming it so dramatically.

My advice for any unblock requests: wait a while, then come fully clean about grammar checker use, address the disruption caused citing WP:NODISRUPT, why it is disruptive, and how it will be avoided in the future citing WP:RESOLVE. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 07:39, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Once again I repeat " I am not internationally using any LLM tool." Be it you believe me or not, I said to you as it is, and nothing anyone does or said will ever force me into saying otherwise to the truth. From the first admin warning I received, I politely made this very clear and known to the admin and at second warning from same admin, I repeatedly said the same thing and even ask for a help in figure-out the issue with my edits and he never give me such attention as you are doing now. I have no reason to said otherwise when it's obvious isn't. If I am wrong I have no right to be angry and put up defend, if am right I have no reason to be angry over anyone disbelieving me. The decision you or anyone would take are completely your choice not mine and burn to your interest and the interest of the entire community. Why should I fake saying anything, when my did is volunteering not burn to a personal interest or reward. I committed my time and resources to come up with some articles and you things I will just burn my hard earn resources to put up jargons for fun. C'mon! With due respect, I believe an admin have me blocked already, If am not be disrespectful, I don't think this conversation is necessary anymore! I am sorry if my statement or action are by any means disrespectful or arrogant.🙏 I can't said otherwise to what it is. NatHaddan (talk) 07:45, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

@NatHaddan: We're not accusing you of lying, I'm so sorry if you have taken it that way. What we're trying to say is that there may be some miscommunication about your potential use of LLM tools. Large language models include ChatGPT, Google Gemini, Claude, Grok, Meta AI, GitHub Copilot, and several others that generate text for you based on a prompt that you give it. This comment you made a few days ago cited a policy that does not exist (WP:NODELAY), so we think it may have been written with the help of an AI tool. I would suggest thinking about how you wrote that comment and any tools/features you may have used to draft it for clues. If you don't remember writing that comment, it is possible your account is compromised. Again, we're not accusing you of anything, we're trying to help you and ourselves get to the bottom of this situation. If you need any help with any of this, feel free to ask. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 08:14, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

We're not accusing you of lying – To be clear, while you are not, I did in the comment you linked to. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 08:21, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

If you'd takes your time to go through the argument we had at the time that results in that comment. I sense it's obviously wrong that group of editors are for unknown reasons or personal interest denying an existing event and facts from the comfort of their keyboard at home or where ever they may be. I am a field researcher and web developer with almost two decades of working experience. For instance, before coming up with article about "Akpanta killings," after heard about the injustice happening in the region, I did travelled down to the community in person and the entire Apa/Agatu region with aim of giving voice to voiceless and helpless people, (you can reference my upload of snapshot from the community to Wikimedian common for your perusal, I used mobile phone to take those images with a serious protection of police). Do you have ideas how much of my hard earn money and life risk go to that movement to to make up that article? After days of intensive work, I then comes up with article with verifiable sources evidents that are notable about the event, an editor is trying to denied it existence even threatening deletion and block to my account as if he paid me to make gig for him, more annoying, tagging it as LLM generated content. Even at this discussion, an admin is still busy flagging the Akpanta, Nigeria article as LLM. This is my argument, why not first hand engage creator in polite conversation and possibly give advice through user talk page instead of completely condemning and sentence? For what purpose is "User Talk page created?" Why not try having a meaningful and helping conversation about this first and observe if an amendment is necessary and will be immediately follow up or not, most especially considering the fact the contributor is new in the platform and is making a notable and factual articles and not engaging in vandalism.

In reference, the Article that brought about the discussion on possible deletion wasn't created by me, it was new and an editor nominate it for deletion. With my field experience of the happening, I believe the user have a point maybe in a wrong context, it's my opinion the article need some meaningful contribution to help it meet relevant guidelines instead of deletion, An editor tagged the article as "Accusation sole on Trump comment" and I was only try to give reasons to the editor that the article meet notability, verifiability and maybe having challenge with neutrality but to my best knowledge it meet neutrality and should be allow to stay if some amendment can be done to help the article comply with relevant Wikipedia policies. What's my offence? An editor then attacks me directly and threatening reporting my account despite clarified in my comment "I am not the creator of the article neither do I know the creator in person", I am only working to improve the article. The editor went on to dogged out my Wikipedia edit history in bid to witch hunt me, stating in his comment that I have been "formally warned against using LLM", another admin follow suite started flagging all my comment in the discussion forum as LLM generated.🤣 On the Article "Akpanta, Nigeria" they're referencing to, was an inconclusive inclusive conversation I had with the admin that flagged "Akpanta Nigeria" article for possible use of LLM, of which the admin advice me to leave the article for other editors and admin to have a review and I obey and abandon the article awaiting decision, of which several editors have make adjustments to it and many others are still making adjustments to the article mostly on daily basis. Why coming up with such direct attack on me instead of focus on the deletion debate. In no doubt I was on very tense mood responding to the opposing editors voting for deletion instead making relevant contribution to help build the article to meet Wikipedia neutrality, verifiability and notability policy as results of of the unnecessary provocation, most especially the veryone that attempt directly attack me. At all cause I still abandoned the deletion debate to focus on what's important. I have couple of intelligent video and snaps live capturing atrocities of this terrorists against the Christian Communities and worshippers that I personally took using fly drone and hidden cameras and there are load of numerous reports of this event out there on daily basis both by notable local and international medias, certainly i can't upload such kind of video to public domains, else I would have done so. To be honest, I recalled be obsessed with an editor who went on to tag my article not existing an LLM generated content. It's crazy that I spend my hard earn resources to conduct a finding with clear notability both in national and international newspaper with valid references and someone sitting at comfort of his/her zoom with keyboard tag it "not existing and LLM generated." Of course I may have made mistake quoting non existing policy because I was obsess. I believe I quoted several valid existing policies too with notable references to back my argument. Why single out one wrong quote to conclude my content as LLM generated? That's harsh! I believe this is community of well knowledge and like-minded people with a common goal not a judgement court. It's obvious Wikipedia is now more an enforcement and judgement court by self acclaimed "perfect editors" instead of a community of like-minded people working towards achieving one goal through open contribution. Even a peer-review journal have room for writers and editors to make adjustments to manuscript.

The decision to block and unblock me is completely at your sole description. Whatsoever decision you take won't cause me to say things otherwise to please you or anyone. I have said the truth as it's, you believing it or not are completely your choice.

YOU'RE CERTAINLY FREE TO EXERCISE YOUR POWER AND RIGHT AT BEST DESCRIPTION!

The decision is taken already, what do you want me to do? I should plead and appeal to be unblock?

NO, I WON'T!

I have paying gig need my attention too.

"Where I am not welcome, I don't force my way in" NatHaddan (talk) 10:34, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

You ask what we want you to do - I'd like you to answer my question here [1].

Other editors would also like you to explain why you added sources that don't exist.

We're getting concerned that you're making a lot of posts, but you're not going into any specifics when challenged.

We keep asking but you still aren't answering.

Everyone must be able to justify specific edits with the community raises concerns, we're all treated equally in that respect.

We don't care about your background or who you are, we care about what you're doing.

If you don't want to edit Wikipedia anymore then that's fine, but if you want to stay you're going to have to take responsibility for your actions and properly explain why you've been adding multiple non-existent sources on several occasions.

Please answer my question. Blue Sonnet (talk) 11:46, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

I understand AGF and giving second chances but we are wasting our time here. There is a 100% chance that this editor has repeatedly used LLMs in article space given the vast gap in English language fluency between their article and talk space contributions. The editor has repeatedly denied doing so, including after this ANI thread was opened, which means the only two possible explanations are 1) they are lying 2) they don't know they are using LLMs. I don't know which it is, but either one requires an indefinite block per NOTHERE CIR or both. We cannot afford to waste our time on black and white cases of LLM abuse like this. NicheSports (talk) 01:14, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Yeah I might be wasting my time, but I don't mind asking a couple of questions if it helps get to the bottom of what's actually going on here.

On a couple of occasions it's helped the editor to understand what they're doing wrong, but they need to give clear answers when challenged for that to happen. I'm not sure we're there yet because the answers don't explain what we're seeing. If an admin sees enough to block then at least we've given them a fair shot. Blue Sonnet (talk) 01:20, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

I agree, re the Kwararafa edit, 7/14 refs are fictional (and that’s before checking whether the real ones verify). They say they’re systematically checking every ref, that simply can’t be true. They’ve been given 4 (?) chances to own up and denied obvious use every time Kowal2701 (talk) 01:30, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Their user page is fairly solid evidence as well. Is there a editor who would legitimately describe themselves as "dedicated to advancing the quality, structure, and integrity of articles within the Wikimedia ecosystem"? (At least they wisely removed the word "senior" from the original generated text.) It's typical AI junk (and gets worse as you keep reading, quite frankly), especially in comparison to the level of English fluency seen in (what are presumably) the comments they've actually written. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:48, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

The 'editorial standards' heading with a list of policies they comply with gave me a good chuckle. Athanelar (talk) 18:31, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

@NatHaddan Can you take a look through the warnings on your Talk page to try to understand what happened? Because there are a lot of instances where other people can't find the sources you're adding. You're saying you check them but that's not what we're seeing here and we need to figure out what's going wrong.

It really does look like you're using AI/LLM/chatbot tools & not checking the information they're giving you - you're saying this isn't right, so everyone is very confused over what you're doing & how to stop these invalid sources from showing up in your edits.

1. In this edit you apparently replaced one source that didn't exist with another source that didn't exist.

1. In this example you added more sources that don't exist.

Can you explain how you found those sources and the exact steps you took to verify their authenticity? Blue Sonnet (talk) 01:14, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

• There is conclusive evidence of LLM use. Every reference in Special:Diff/1320039380 is hallucinated alongside pervasive markdown, Special:Diff/1319055226 contains LLM-specific unprintable character sequences like 0 and 1, Special:Diff/1323328155 hallucinates policy (WP:NODELAY) in a deletion discussion (see also their other contributions to the discussion), etc...

Despite this the user has lied about their LLM use:

• Here
• At their talk page: I am not in use of any AI or LLM generated content tool ... I AM NOT USING AI OR ANY LLM GENERATED CONTENT TOOL! [2], In my years of experience ... I always commit my time and resources visit the geographic region for self observation for inspirations not using proxy resources or LLM machines. [3], and I am not using ai chatbot [4]...
• and at LLMN: not AI generated content [5]

This is an immensely disruptive behavioral pattern that is incompatible with a collaborative encyclopedia. Asking that an admin indef them as an independent action so we don't need to waste time with a CBAN. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 02:30, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

I was looking at this user earlier, and while I would like to assume good faith, AI was definitely used here, sorry. An indef might be too harsh, but time shouldn't be wasted on a CBAN here. Z E T A^C 02:39, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Persistent dishonesty leaves no other viable option to prevent future disruption. Behavior cannot be corrected if it is not acknowledged, and acknowledgement at this point is too little too late as they have given every reason not to trust them. Indef isn't infinite anyways, they would be able to demonstrate understanding via an unblock request in the future. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 02:49, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

I really hope they can properly look at and address the hallucinated sources - right now we're getting vague non-answers that infer they're doing the right thing, except we can see that they aren't. Blue Sonnet (talk) 02:53, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Given their denials of obvious LLM use, I have indefinitely blocked NotHaddan from articlespace. No prejudice against a full block if it is deemed necessary. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:04, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

No CBAN consensus? Close. Tankishguy 05:10, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes cban consensus? close idk Tankishguy 05:12, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

There is very clearly no consensus for a CBAN. In my opinion, there isn't a necessity to close either. Threads can get archived either way, even without a closure. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 05:32, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Their wording Was confusing to me. Tankishguy 15:54, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, I am not given you answer because I was obviously sleeping. As at times the talk was launch it was a middle late night hour here in Nigeria, I made couple of few response before sleeping off. It wasn't intentional silent. NatHaddan (talk) 07:19, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

@The Bushranger Simply banning them from article space may be ineffective, as they also use LLMs on discussion pages. This message that I left on the talk page of @NatHaddan on 22 November may provide some additional context:

@Jonesey95 I believe this user is still using LLMs to generate content and adding it to Wikipedia articles. I found many inconsistencies, some sources are unreliable, and some of the edits are not supported by the sources they cite. Despite your clear warning, this user continues to add LLM-generated responses, even in discussions like: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Christian_genocide_in_Nigeria (Many of this user's responses have been collapsed in that discussion as per Wikipedia guidelines against the use of LLMs). The user must be warned again; otherwise, they will turn all Nigeria-related Wikipedia articles into Grokipedia articles. An example is the edit history on this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christian_genocide_in_Nigeria&action=history. Thanks to @Bobfrombrockley, who reverted many of the edits made by this user. The problem I face when engaging with them is that they don't seem to read the discussion; they just copy-paste responses from an LLM, so the discussion never ends. Hu741f4 (talk) 13:54, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Hu741f4 (talk) 14:37, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

• Support Indef/CBAN - The AI clean-up noticeboard have had to create a subpage specifically for NatHaddan and they still haven't given a straight answer to any of our questions about specific edits & sources.

Other editors are having to spend time fixing NatHaddan's mistakes and they won't provide the information we need to find out why this occurred and how to stop it from happening again. We're left with AI as the most likely explanation because there's absolutely no evidence to prove otherwise, and only NatHaddan can change that.

We're only getting generalised platitudes and I've spent quite a lot of time trying to guide them into giving a proper explanation, unfortunately I'm getting nowhere. The explanation given doesn't adequately account for what we're seeing.

Every editor should be able to explain why they've made an edit if challenged, or admit they've made a mistake. We're all human and we all screw up.

We also need to work together on Wikipedia - we can't do that without open and clear communication.

I've given them as much of a chance as I can (hopefully everyone can see that here and on their Talk page), but my AGF well is running dry.

Here they say they check almost all their edits, but we know that's not the case.

Here and here I ask them to explain how and why specific sources were added, but whilst my other questions are answered these two are completely ignored.

They've been asked repeatedly to explain the diffs in the original post but have yet to do so. Instead, they're focusing on the fact that people have said that they think they're using AI and completely ignoring the reasons why we have those suspicions. I can only see two possibilities:

• They didn't use AI and should explain how they managed to create multiple non-existent sources repeatedly on several articles, or
• They did use AI, in which case they need to admit it and promise they won't use it again.

This isn't a witch-hunt, persecution or bullying. I just want clear answers that make sense, that's all I ask.

If NatHaddan can give us an adequate explanation for the non-existent sources that have been presented at ANI, I'll happily reconsider. Otherwise, I can't see how we can trust that any of their edits will be accurate, since we have no idea where they're getting their information from. Blue Sonnet (talk) 15:43, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

They are already indefinitely blocked from articlespace [6], there is no need to spend any more time on this. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 16:44, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Ok, if you feel that's sufficient then that's totally fine with me. Blue Sonnet (talk) 16:52, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

I agree with fifteen. I think CBANs for LLM use should be reserved for more complex cases. This one is as black and white as it gets and the necessary block has already been applied by an admin NicheSports (talk) 17:16, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

You want a screenshot of my tool for a forensic analysis and investigation, I will comply. Thanks for the offer, but no thanks. Narky Blert (talk) 19:36, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

The ironic thing here is if they genuinely are somehow hallucinating references without using a LLM that's worse. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:53, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

I singled out what looked to me like an obscenity in British English (wikt:tool #6). I of course agree that fake citations are unforgivable, however they arise. (It once took me the best part of an hour to expose a years-old WP:HOAX. My admiration at the skill and my fury at the deception increased together.) Narky Blert (talk) 17:01, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

• This is yet another case of the community falling all over itself to salvage the unsalvageable. We are now being flooded with people who completely lack the skills needed to be productive editors, but think AI their open sesame. Block indef and move on. EEng 21:11, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

  Unfortunately, some people here don’t like the idea of banning AI and argue at every oppurtunity that ‘there are uses for AI!’ or some other refrain. That is why WP:NEWLLM barely even became a guideline. ~212.70~ ~2025-31733-18 (talk) 05:43, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

• Support an indef An article space block won't stop them dropping AI-slop on discussion space, which has been clearly demonstrated already. There shouldn't be anybody writing hallucinated references. An decent editor would check the reference when it was being written to be sure is genuine and satisfies WP:V. It is absolute core of Wikipedia. And not checking them, assuming the AI is going to do it, is an absolute WP:CIR issue on its own. It is incompetence plain and simple. Another reason to block them. It is sloppy and crass editing. They are making assumptions that don't exist at our expense. This isn't salvagable. scope_creep^Talk 01:38, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
• Support indef NatHaddan is tending to be not here to building an encyclopedia. They also can’t hear us and are using AI, a sign of not meeting the competence levels to edit this encyclopedia. ~212.70~~2025-31733-18 (talk) 04:42, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Phuc Truong Dinh - CIR issues

Phuc Truong Dinh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has been editing for two years, with a bit over 550 edits in that time. However, their contributions are largely disruptive, and it appears to be a CIR issue. Image disruption has been prolific - replacing adequate images with ones that are much worse. Whether it's indoor shots with bad lighting ([7] [8]), ones taken at unencylopedic tilted angles, so badly shaded the subject isn't fully distinguishable, replacing clean backgrounds with busy ones, and a wide away of others, almost none of their edits have improved an article.

Beyond image disruption, they've been removing hatnotes and deleting legitimate cleanup tags.

Attempts at making other edits to articles have also been largely disruptive, including misinformation like incorrect dates. This clearly-disruptive gibberish is a strong indication that they don't have a sufficient grasp of English to edit here.

The user has been warned on their talk page several times, but all have been ignored. They are aware of their talk page, but instead of acknowledging the issues with their editing, posted something barely comprehensible. They clearly are a not a net positive to the project. --Sable232 (talk) 00:33, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Agreed, they also made many edits with unsourced changes. And I've encountered many users with poor English grammar, but with nearly every mainspace edit having been reverted, this one has contributed nothing positive to the wiki. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:11, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

They've not responded to my request, but haven't edited since the 26th either. Blue Sonnet (talk) 21:58, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Their sole edit since then has been to add an image to an article that didn't previously have one. I can't comment on the image itself as I'm unfamiliar with the subject. Hellbus (talk) 17:45, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

That appears to be the correct image for the article, from what I was able to find.

This user has disappeared for a few days in the past when level-4 warnings were given, so the lack of editing may be a case of WP:ANI flu. --Sable232 (talk) 22:33, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Personal attacks by BobSmithME

• BobSmithME (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) They have been warned twice on making such attacks, and they state they aren't personal attacks.

"because you write at roughly a fourth-grade English level" (...) "Which you would know if you read it." They are then warned about this behavior, twice. Responds with "A non-admin certainly cannot drop a block threat. This is ludicrous", in response to a redwarn. Then states

You do write at roughly a fourth-grade level. That's not a personal attack. It's a very simple observation. You can't seem to understand that your concessions have been granted. All of your additions would have had to been rewritten anyways. In fact, a look at your edit history shows that significant numbers of your edits have been reverted for improper grammar usage. Also, literally none of what you just wrote would border on personal attacks. This really only furthers my point that you have a very limited grasp of reading comprehension. Interacting with this person is impossible, they are clearly WP:NOTHERE. Des Vallee (talk) 10:08, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

OP, you don't need to post their comments word for word. A link to the relevant revision is acceptable, preferable in fact. guninvalid (talk) 10:15, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Noted I just thought it is easier to look at instead of having to open plenty of links. Des Vallee (talk) 10:17, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

I never once attacked the editor personally. Review of the extensive conversation at the aforementioned article would show that I am not exactly mistaken. I did in fact engage with the editor for an extended period of time, after which I noted that the editor was clearly failing to understand the sources they were referring to. A look at the editor's writing shows that it is of a low writing standard, and one should note that, as I stated, this editor has had a significant number of edits reverted due to poor grammar.

In fact, while I could have accused the editor of acting in ill faith, I did not. I simply attributed it to the belief that their English was not up to snuff. In fact, a look at this edit in particular shows that the editor went out of their way to insert incorrect grammar. That was literally the only edit made. Either the editor was deliberately sabotaging the page by inserting incorrect grammar to prevent auto-reverts, or they truly believed that was the correct grammatical structure. I proceeded to continuously engage with the editor despite the fact that some of their comments were almost incomprehensible. Out of frustration, I pointed out that the editor's grasp of the English language was clearly tenuous and they struggled to comprehend the correct meaning of the sources even though sometimes I inserted things that this editor themself wanted to be added. BobSmithME (talk) 10:22, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

I proceeded to continuously engage with the editor – You mean continually, Mr. English Expert? EEng 11:14, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Go through the edit logs. It was quite literally continuous. I don't think there was a letup for several hours, which both of us have already admitted we were in the wrong for. Your point? BobSmithME (talk) 13:11, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

No, it was not quite literally continuous but continual. If you want to set yourself up as the language police then you should learn the difference. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:18, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

@BobSmithME: English is my first language, I was born and raised in Indiana, your clearly making gross personal attacks in this and I don't understand how you don't see that. Do I need to genuinely explain to why comparing someone to a fourth grader is a personal attack. Des Vallee (talk) 10:37, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Well, my sincere apologies for assuming otherwise. I also never compared you personally to a fourth grader. I said your writing was. If you took offense to that, my apologies. That doesn't change the fact that I couldn't understand most of what you were writing. BobSmithME (talk) 10:41, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

@BobSmithME, you were brought here specifically because of your personal attacks. Please stop casting WP:ASPERSIONS regarding their reading comprehension. This is ANI so I'm not going to template your comment myself, but please stop, for both of our sakes. guninvalid (talk) 10:28, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

I am defending myself, which I believe I have a right to do. I am not going to cast any further aspersions regarding their comprehension skills, but I do think it is ludicrous that I am being brought here for something that is not in any way a personal attack. I provided specific sources where the editor clearly made mistakes. That is all. Many editors here do not have sufficient language skills, since English isn't the first language for many. That's not a personal failing. I fail to see how pointing out the difficulties of engaging with this editor is a personal attack. And I don't think anybody can reasonably or objectively say that large chunks of that thread were of the writing standard that would be included in an encyclopedia. BobSmithME (talk) 10:33, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Bob, if I am honest, your response in general here feels disingenuous. And for your own sake with regard to longterm engagement with the project, I kind of hope it is, because otherwise you are dangerously close to demonstrating a basic social competency issue here, compounded by WP:IDHT. Is it sometimes necessary to make reference to another editor's limitations with the English language? Yes, of course. But the manner in which you went about that here was clearly juvenile, provocative, WP:disruptive, and, frankly, obnoxious. Any time you find yourself providing your own personal assessment of another person's capacities in terms of elementary grade levels, you have crossed the threshold between valid criticism and, ironically, grade-school pettiness.

Furthermore, every iteration of your sorry-but-not-sorry above conveniently leaves out how that particular comment was also threaded with multiple, inaccurate accusations of WP:vandalism. I appreciate you only have a couple of months of experience here, but I must inform you that you need to better familiarize yourself with that policy before you can reasonably consider yourself in a position to use it so aggressively, because frankly, your understanding is fundamentally flawed. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 09:09, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

After taking a couple of days to think I have posted a better response below. It was also posted before you made this extensive response. I also don't really know how my response is disingenuous when I have not argued a single time with my punishment for my behavior. If full acceptance and an apology isn't good enough, then I'm beat. BobSmithME (talk) 11:17, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

As a (mostly) uninvolved third party, I think the best practice here is a 30 day page block for both of these users on 2024 United States presidential election in Hawaii. They are well past the WP:3RR there. guninvalid (talk) 10:25, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

@Guninvalid: 3RR was never broken, but yet there was a long out edit war. I shouldn't have kept editing the article, although I tried to add sources or change the information if I ever made revert. If that's what is done, it's that I guess though. Des Vallee (talk) 10:33, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

I acknowledge that I got heated and should have brought in a third party when it became apparent that discussion was pointless. I have no issues with this. BobSmithME (talk) 10:35, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

How can you say this when deny making any personal attacks, and there was an RFC I opened. Des Vallee (talk) 10:42, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Please refrain from continuing this argument (at least that's what I think you're doing) and allow other editors to decide. Nothing more is going to come from throwing barbs at each other. BobSmithME (talk) 10:44, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

One thing I've learned here is that we need to take additional care when communicating with each other on Wikipedia (and online in general). There are important contextual, non-verbal cues that are missing when we talk to each other through text alone.

I find it valuable to ask myself whether my post could be taken negatively by someone who's in a poor situation or frame of mind, because that's entirely possible. There's no way for you to know the personal circumstances of the editor you're currently talking to, so it's reasonable to take care when doing do. You don't know what's happening on the other side of the screen.

Ask whether the claim you're making or comment you're writing is absolutely necessary, or if you can still communicate the core of your argument without it.

As an example, was the "fourth grader" comment really necessary? Did you have the ability to put your point across without that statement being included?

I'm going to be far more receptive and inclined to accept someone's argument if they can make their case by sticking to the facts rather than their interpretation of them, especially if there's any possibility that interpretation might be considered as a personal attack.

Instead of giving your opinion as to someone's level of education, it would have been preferable to say "you did X and that's bad because Y".

If you're not able to do this, perhaps a community-driven project like Wikipedia isn't for you. Blue Sonnet (talk) 14:02, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Fair enough, I'll toss a barb then. Do you see anyone agreeing with you here, BobSmithME? Like several others, I find it tiresome and disingenuous for people to weasel-word plain personal attacks. If you're incapable of understanding that a crack like the "fourth grader" business constitutes a personal attack (or, as I believe more likely, you think that your deflections constitute a get-out-of-jail-free card), then I agree with Blue Sonnet: you're a poor fit for Wikipedia. Ravenswing 15:00, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

It is absolutely tiresome to hear people attempt to defend their personal attacks by saying "That's not a personal attack. It's a very simple observation." [9] If that were somehow allowable, anybody could say absolutely anything about anyone and just claim it's an observation. I could just as well say "<insert editor name> is a <insert pejorative>" and claim it's ok because it's an observation! @BobSmithME: it is deeply troubling that you are taking this stance. WP:NPA is unequivocally clear when it says "Comment on content, not the contributors." There is no circumstance under which saying "you have a very limited grasp of reading comprehension." [10] would qualify as commenting on content. In that diff you are unequivocally commenting on the editor. Further, stating that a non-admin can't place a warning note [11] is absolutely false. Wikipedia is comprised of a body of over 260 thousand active editors. Only a small fraction, ~500 of them, are active administrators. It is impossible on the face of it for 500 administrators to patrol the 7 million plus articles on this project. If you still insist that only administrators can give you warnings, then let me make this warning to you, as an administrator: If you persist in personally insulting people you will be blocked. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:42, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

How about we indef BobSmithME but it won't be an indefinite block but instead simply a technical measure to stop them making further personal attacks? Nil Einne (talk) 15:20, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

That seems premature. tony 15:28, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

For an indefinite block sure. But since we can just call it something else and then it somehow isn't what it clearly is, it should be fine at least according to BobSmithME themselves. Nil Einne (talk) 15:32, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Ah, an enforced editing hiatus of unspecified duration. Touché. Blue Sonnet (talk) 15:56, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

• I have p-blocked both indefinitely from 2024 United States presidential election in Hawaii which does not require 3RR to be broken. Either is welcome to make a convincing argument that the conduct won't resume in 31 days, which is why a time limited one won't be helpful. This does not preclude any further actions here but simply stops the ongoing disruption. Star Mississippi 16:48, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

I think that for someone who is blatant in making personal attacks, taking zero actions on this is kinda disgusting. After they have battlegrounded so heavily they tried to remove dubious tags leading to the talk page because it "Initiating editor has not begun a discussion on talk," when there was obviously a discussion on the page, and when after I stopped making changes or reverts to the article and committed myself not to change the article. This doesn't stop this behavior and they will act like this on other pages not least as they haven't admitted to anything wrong and are likely a sock. I think taking no action on blatant personal attacks, awful behavior, ownership of the article, battle grounding constantly, while saying they did nothing wrong doing while provided reasons it's wrong is wild to me. Anyway the decision was made, and after this experience I am taking a permanent break from Wikipedia. Hope everyone has a good day, thanks. Des Vallee (talk) 19:11, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

• Buttinsky here. BobSmithME adduces this as an example of Des Vallee writing ungrammatically. It's a revert by BobSmith, with the edit summary You literally went out of your way to insert improper grammar here. This itself is vandalism. (a clear aspersion with the assertion of deliberate degrading of the grammar). Yet in the edit, BobSmith has changed "Despite this Hawaii is usually ranked as one of the most progressive in the country." to "Despite this Hawaii usually being ranked as one of the most progressive in the country." That's both bad syntax and a sentence fragment; "is" was perfectly correct. BobSmith's edit is a straightforward revert of Des Vallee's previous edit; the disimprovement is BobSmith's. Des Vallee, who's just said they are taking a "permanent break", is owed an apology here. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:48, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

@Des Vallee: There's a reality in any large project of any kind, including Wikipedia, that things will not always go as you hope and expect them to. I have been disappointed over, and over, and over again. I was once told that I was the "most ignorant and disrespectful editor", along with a number of other personal insults by the same editor. In response, I was told it wasn't a personal attack, and I needed to calm down. This is also hardly isolated to me nor to many people on this project. the WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL policies are routinely ignored. I don't ignore them, which is why I made my post above. I will block BobSmithME if he issues another personal attack as they did towards you. Their actions are intolerable. I'm sorry you've decided to leave this project, but please understand this; in my opinion it isn't a good reason to leave. I hope you stay. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:57, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

@Hammersoft: Thanks that means a lot. Des Vallee (talk) 22:49, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Seconded - I recently left for six months or so after being bitten by an admin who's no longer here (I believe they left due to other, similar incidents).

That one incident completely deflated my passion for the project, even though it was a single comment and others completely disagreed with what was said.

I'm a little sad for the time I lost here, but I'm really glad I returned!

Don't let the actions of one single person affect your decision to stay or leave - although it's much easier said than done, so no-one would begrudge you taking a break if that's what you need right now.

BTW These discussions take a bit of time - we first talk about the history and merit of the case, give the editor a chance to respond appropriately, then someone will usually suggest an appropriate action (sanction, close, etc.). Right now we're in the middle of this process & I'm not currently seeing anyone taking BobSmithME's side.

Just to reiterate, this just isn't acceptable behaviour and Wikipedia editors should be able to enter into a civilised discussion without needing to be petty. Blue Sonnet (talk) 01:51, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

I can see from observing the comment thread what people's issues were with my statements and after taking the time to step away and observe I agree fully. I do believe that I deserve a chance to explain myself without being snidely piled on by a dozen different people, but I will not argue pointlessly until I am asked to "respond appropriately." I don't know how to respond without it being taken as a personal attack (calling somebody a fourth grader is an insult, but I don't think anybody that has read the logs would say that the other editor's statements were comprehensible at several points in the conversation). I have already admitted that several of my barbs were in the heat of the moment and accepted responsibility.

My main defense is that I did not try to edit war with this editor, I only removed information that was objectively not backed up by the sources. For the information that was backed up, I not only left in the article but took the time to make the article more legible. In addition, when the other editor voiced concern to a source that I had not inserted (in fact, none of these were my edits and I only came across the other editor's edits randomly), I conceded and removed that citation as they had asked.

During this time, the editor not only reverted edits I made that were agreeable to their position, but repeatedly flung insults at me, which is undeniable. I flung them back as well. I do not remember nor am I going to assume who started it, but I do take offense at the idea that I was verbally assaulting an innocent editor who was being completely reasonable. Said editor was objectively throwing POV attacks at me as well, as a view of the edit descriptions and talk page logs will clearly show. In fact, in this very discussion the other user has accused me of being a sock, which doesn't even make any sense. I took time away to let this thing run its course, but I'm only putting this here because I just read it and I don't enjoy being singled out for egregious behavior that both of us engaged in (and one of us is still engaging in despite the fact that I very respectfully told them to let the others decide). I don't even know who I would be a sock for. This article doesn't appear to have an extensive edit history to me, and my history will show that I have spent a lot of time making very helpful edits that nobody else would have made. BobSmithME (talk) 08:23, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

I don't think anybody that has read the logs would say that the other editor's statements were comprehensible at several points in the conversation is a personal attack, when other editors here such have read the edits and have stated here it was "comprehensible," but you still insist otherwise and still say your behavior on saying. My main defense is that I did not try to edit war with this editor is objectively false, you removed dubious tag from the article which is supposed to create a discussion during a dispute, for an obviously false reason of "no discussion." That is one of the most blatant examples of battlegrounding I have ever seen. I also don't really know how my response is disingenuous, when editors such as @Yngvadottir:, @Blue-Sonnet:, @Guninvalid:, @Nil Einne:, @Ravenswing: and @Snow Rise: have all described the way you are interacting with people as wrong. Again you are taking no responsibility for your actions, or responsibility on edit warring. You apologized (after long refusal on ANI) for calling my writing level that of a 4th grader. But you still can't admit the fact you were edit warring, or see the issue with your comments, and if you don't your just going to behave like this in the future. I think BobSmithME should at least be given a block for a limited amount of time for this behavior. Des Vallee (talk) 20:53, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

No, there was no discussion for the dubious tag, unless you're referring to the RFC that was closed by an administrator that proceeded to say the topic should be discussed on a different page.

And if I was edit-warring, I must be pretty terrible at it since I conceded to nearly all of your proposed edits. This is edit-warring how? BobSmithME (talk) 23:12, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Des, I largely endorsed the argument of your report in a response to Bob above, but now I have to take a moment to question your own approach to the conflict here. Do you have specific, concrete reasons to suspect them of socking. If so, you can share them here or at WP:SPI. But if you do not have enough to support a colourable WP:DUCK argument in one of these spaces, and are working more off supposition and "vibes", you would do better to say nothign at all. Otherwise, you are just running afoul of WP:ASPERSIONS yourself (and possibly committing a WP:BEANS error at the same time. You are clearly coming off as the more aggrieved and reasonable party here for most people who have reviewed the dispute, but you waste that good will when you engage in unsubstantiated accusations. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 09:22, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

@Snow Rise: I think they might be this person who I interacted with and was blocked a long time ago, Skellyret. They have a similar editing pattern, similar article interests, similar writing style. Similar approach to conflict resolution and have the same tendency to state personal attacks. Their first edits seem like they already have experience with editing Wikisource. Des Vallee (talk) 20:16, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

You can take that to WP:SPI. For what it's worth though, from a cursory glance, the writing style is different enough that if the checkuser comes up clean, it's probably nothing. guninvalid (talk) 23:29, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with guninvalid here. These two editors do not seem to be the same person. Although I hope you come back to contribute here. Kvinnen (talk) 18:49, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

New user not communicating

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

---

[12] and [13] say it all. It seems unlikely that Byron Comp 3 (talk · contribs) is aware of talk pages, and if they are, then they refuse to communicate. I'd suggest pblocking from mainspace in the hope they start communicating. lp0 on fire () 19:09, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Noting they have two sleepers at Byron Comp II and Byron Comp III, all created within the same week. Anyway, they have made 401 edits, none of which include sources, and most of them have been reverted. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 20:02, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

I've attempted to communicate with them through edit summaries, since talk page messages have proven ineffective. Their edits thus far appear to either have been MOS violating or copyright violations. Maybe a partial block from article space would be effective until they communicate (and obviously understand copyright, reliable sourcing, etc)? Jellyfish (mobile) (talk) 21:04, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Something is very...not right with those edits. I went with a layered block approach here; a 72-hour article space block to draw Byron Comp 3's attention to their talk page and this report. I also partial blocked them from creating pages for one month as they're edit warring and creating way too much work for others. Either of these blocks can be lifted if progress is made in communicating and they demonstrate an understanding of how article creation works. Note that if they start using a new account a site-wide block would be more applicable.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:55, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

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

@Ponyo: They're socking as Angela Comp now, with a sleeper at Angela Comp 66. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 16:27, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

I have created Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Byron Comp 3. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:14, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

This editor returned to their disruptive editing pattern, with no communication, after the three-day block expired. The SPI case has been closed with no action to block this apparent sockmaster. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:53, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

I'm now in favor of an indef - multiple edit summaries pointing them to their talk page and still nothing. Jellyfish (mobile) (talk) 04:23, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

I would also support an indefinite block. sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:26, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

• Support indef They're right back at it after socking. [14][15]

Blue Sonnet (talk) 09:22, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

• Support indef. I don't see a choice when they won't engage. I initially tried to give the benefit of doubt, as some of the additions were/seemed useful, e.g. adding genus and species numbers for sections where these were missing. I also thought that the changing of the numbers was a misunderstanding of the articles purpose (updating to current thinking rather than what was in the books), but my edit summaries should have clarified this. They keep introducing erroneous material and won't engage, so even without the sockpuppetry, a ban seems the only option.  —  Jts1882 | talk  09:30, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
• Support indefinite pblock. Seems highly unlikely they'll ever start communicating, but if they do there's no point having them blocked from talk pages. lp0 on fire () 09:55, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Support indef PBLOCK. They have shown no sign of communicating and have continued to edit war even after this discussionn opened so a PBLOCK is necessary to prevent disruption to article space but a indef is not necessary as their disruption is limited to article space. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 18:40, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

AverageSkiptar

There has been many issues regarding the Averageskiptar:

-Edit warnings (note:i showed only revisions that violated The three-revert rule): [16],

-Nationalistic editing probably Anti-serbian type of editing, saying things like that serbian source aren't reliable and how Serbian sources are propaganda: [17][18][19][20][21][22]

-OR editing, adding sources in wrong context and unreliable ones also failed to provide his claims: [23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31]

Other users including myself send him warnings which he deleted calling them fake accusations: [32][33]

He is also known for acusing editors for sockpuppetry if they don't agree with him same goes with saying they're not some nationality because they don't agree with his claims: [34][35][36]

-Vandalism and POV: [37] (he did same edit on same article multiple times) Wikicommonsfan134 (talk) 08:22, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

The edit warring between Wikicommonsfan134 and AverageSkiptar has been disruptive for a while now and has continued despite multiple warnings and a 24 hour block.

• I reported both Wikicommonsfan134 and AverageSkiptar to WP:ANEW on 21 November after they continued edit warring at Yugoslav offensive in Drenica (1999) after warnings and multiple 3RR violations, which resulted in a 24 hour block for both of them [38]. Since that block expired, they have both continued edit warring on Yugoslav offensive in Drenica (1999) [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46], as well as on Drenica massacres [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] and Yugoslav September offensive [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65].
• Their interactions at Talk:Yugoslav offensive in Drenica (1999) in particular, as well as on each others' talk pages, on the ANEW report above, and elsewhere, seem to demonstrate WP:BATTLEGROUND editing from both parties and an inability to drop the stick. They obviously both also have a habit of repeatedly calling each other vandals and sockpuppets. I agree that AverageSkiptar’s comments questioning Wikicommonsfan134’s nationality 2, appearing to dismiss a source based solely on its nation of origin and resorting to a “they started it” argument to justify edit warring are particularly concerning.

Finally, it also seems to me that there is some kind of meatpuppetry or coordinated editing going on here with Wikicommonsfan134. See the evidence in the SPI report I made a few days ago at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SpeedyHaste. I’d also note the checkuser comments and the evidence presented by @Demetrios1993 regarding AverageSkiptar on the SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Albanian atdhetar. MCE89 (talk) 10:17, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

I didn't violated the 3 revert rule on September offensive neither on Drenica massacres and i explained in my tp why i moved SpeedyHaste article to mainspace and why i later put it back to draft and reason why i edited some of the articles speedy created was because of vandalism by other users you can also see i was removing vandalism on other articles as well also i think Skiptar isn't sockpuppet of Albanian Adhetar but rather an sockpuppet of user called Kachak who was reported in January this year Wikicommonsfan134 (talk) 10:33, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Whilst I haven't counted the many, many diffs above, you don't have to violate 3RR for it to count as edit warring. It doesn't matter if you're right, edit warring isn't acceptable.

Just looking at the edit history on Yugoslav offensive in Drenica (1999) is concerning. Barely anyone else is showing up on the recent edit history, it's just the two of you fighting. Even if you don't hit three reverts per day, it's edit warring in spirit and it's clearly not stopping. Blue Sonnet (talk) 13:59, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

i haven't edited that article since 23 November Wikicommonsfan134 (talk) 14:10, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Ok, but now I've had time to look I can see that you reverted the Drenica massacres article three times yesterday and once every day since you were unblocked.

You also reverted the Yugoslav September offensive article three times yesterday too.

Whilst you're trying to stay under three reverts, you're still edit warring in spirit like I said earlier.

I'm seeing AverageSkiptar more than you, but you both need to do better.

There are dispute resolution and third opinion processes that both of you could (and arguably should) be using long before it gets to the point where you have to be blocked. Blue Sonnet (talk) 14:41, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Ok but what about my report about Skiptar? Wikicommonsfan134 (talk) 14:56, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

That needs dealing with also. I can see they're currently editing and I've reminded them that they should participate. Hopefully they'll respond soon so we can address everything properly. Blue Sonnet (talk) 15:02, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Stop accusing me of vandalism, i stated the Reasons in the TP of the Yugoslav September offensive, that‘s just coping. Also you can‘t accuse me of vandalism when you edited my My first article and added Yugoslav victory with a totally unrelated source. AverageSkiptar (talk) 15:04, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Granted it's not necessarily vandalism, but you're still edit warring after coming out of a block for edit warring. Can you please read through @MCE89's post and address the concerns raised? You reverted the Drenica massacres page four times alone yesterday. Blue Sonnet (talk) 15:12, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

I tried to add additional information to the Drenica massacres page, but User:SpeedyHaste and User:Wikicommonsfan134 kept reverting my edits for no reason and never stated the reasons in their edit summaries. AverageSkiptar (talk) 15:17, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

That's still edit warring and you should know better by now, since you've been blocked for doing exactly that only a few days ago and given links to explain why in the block notices. You both really should read WP:BRIE. Blue Sonnet (talk) 15:19, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

It is not my fault, i didn‘t start the edit war. They‘re blaming me for something they started, AverageSkiptar (talk) 15:27, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

You are participating in an edit war. You are under no obligation to do so. Accordingly, yes, what you do is your fault, and regardless of what anyone else is doing, you may be blocked for it. And the next block is likely to be a lot longer than the last. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:32, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Just like Andy said, it doesn't matter whether you started it - you chose to participate in and continue it. You could easily be blocked since you've clearly edit warred past 3RR yesterday.

Please read the WP:BRIE link I've given you - what you've said is specifically given as an example of what not to do. Blue Sonnet (talk) 15:55, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

@AverageSkiptar "It's not my fault, I didn't start it"... That sounds very childish. These very experienced editors have told you several times that it doesn't matter who started the edit war -- you must both stop, or you risk a longer block. David10244 (talk) 05:14, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Will anyone see other reasons why i reported him? Yeah edit warning and wars are really bad but there are other problems with this user Wikicommonsfan134 (talk) 05:31, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) Skiptar looks very similar to Shqiptar, the Albanians name for themselves. Narky Blert (talk) 16:46, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

I haven't looked into the matter and lack the energy to do so, but am puzzled as to why we seem to have two articles about the same ethnic group. Narky Blert (talk) 17:15, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Because Shqiptar is meant to be only about the endonym for Albanians. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:28, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Maybe because i am a Shqiptar? AverageSkiptar (talk) 17:58, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

And an average one, at that. Folks, a user's ethnicity is irrelevant to an AN/I discussion. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 00:13, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Users Smallangryplanet and Raskolnikov.Rev: persistent disruptive editing

Smallangryplanet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Raskolnikov.Rev (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

On 21Nov2025,14:36, I made a fairly surveyable edit in the lead section of article Hamas, with a careful motivation placed on talk page. This edit was reverted a day later, by editor Smallangryplanet, who appeared not able (neither in edit summary 22Nov,15:17, nor on talk page 15:33) to give any valid reason for his reverting. Alaexis re-reverted that revert (21:37). That version was again reverted, by Raskolnikov.Rev (22Nov,21:43), who also did not give (neither in edit summary, nor on talk page 22:12) any valid reason for his reverting.
I strongly object against these practices, and request the administrators to act against these practices, by warning these two contributors. As for ‘first dealing with their incivility myself’: I’ve often and extensively warned Raskolnikov about this type of actions of his, for example here on 16Oct2025, but he does not yield an inch and only throws mud in my direction. Also Smallangryplanet has often been addressed by me about his strange discussion posts and dubious editing, most recently in this talk posting (3Nov2025), but also Smp seems to simply ignore messages that displease him.

The central and indispensable element in the Wikipedia logic and philosophy is that editors openly and fairly explain their motives for their edits. Without editors being clear in their edit summaries about their motives and reasons and respecting the careful work of colleagues Wikipedia can’t possibly function well and prosper, but is doomed.
You can find my analysis of these two in my opinion invalid, thus disruptive, reverts in talk-page-subsection Talk:Hamas#Criticism on the revert summaries and (absent) revert motivations of Smallangryplanet (22Nov,15:17), Alaexis(22Nov,21:37) and Raskolnikov.Rev (22Nov,21:43), which is a subsection of Talk:Hamas#Motivation for edit lead section (‘1967 borders’) date 21Nov2025. --Corriebertus (talk) 22:51, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

I responded both in my edit summary and in the talk explaining why your edit did not align with standard Wikipedia policy and you need to obtain consensus for it. You did not reply on the talk page, and instead brought the case here while presenting the dispute in a way that does not accurately reflect the core issue. To start with, @Corriebertus has for years attempted to change the Hamas page in order to remove references to what the consensus in RS states: that Hamas has, on multiple occasions, accepted the 1967 borders, and that this is understood by those sources as consistent with the two-state framework. Corriebertus disputes this interpretation, arguing that such statements from Hamas are inherently unreliable, and that any RS including the widely recognized scholars of Hamas stating otherwise are merely repeating Hamas propaganda.

Editors have raised concerns regarding this, noting that it does not align with Wikipedia policy: we follow what the consensus among RS is, and we do not dismiss sources based on personal assessments that they are "spreading Hamas propaganda". Some of the earlier discussions on this point are linked in my recent talk reply, and @Smallangryplanet provided further links in their responses here and here.

There is a more fundamental issue with Corriebertus' edit as noted in my reply to him on the talk page. The content of the edit was entirely redundant and unrelated to the argument provided for it:

The content of your revision is virtually identical to what was already stated before. You changed: "It began acquiescing to 1967 borders in the agreements it signed with Fatah in 2005, 2006 and 2007" to "As of 2005, in agreements with Fatah, Hamas has expressed willingness to accept a state in the 1967 borders."

I don't understand what the purpose of this edit even is per your own reasoning. It is entirely superfluous.

Another editor, the one who had restored the edit, also defended the edit based on the same argumentation that has nothing to do with the actual content of the edit! And just now Corriebertus has reprimanded him for doing so and being off-topic. So it's a very strange situation where an argument is being made to justify an edit which content-wise doesn't have anything to do with the argument being made for it.

This has been a recurring pattern in interactions with Corriebertus. I encourage other editors to review the posts of his he linked on the Hamas page, as well as the discussions on Talk:2017 Hamas charter, and consider whether the explanations provided are clear or actionable. As other editors have pointed out, he keeps posting elaborate walls of text that are inscrutable, then making contentious edits on the basis of them, and then when it gets challenged he responds with more walls of text, and when that inevitably does not lead to the consensus he desires he becomes frustrated, leaves talk messages on my and other pages with further walls of text, and then after a period of quiet the same cycle repeats itself. This is going back years now on those two pages with many editors.

This is why I and others have repeatedly advised @Corriebertus to follow WP:DROPTHESTICK and not WP:STONEWALL when they are unable to obtain consensus for their desired edit. Unfortunately, this has not resolved the issue and the cycle continues. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 23:33, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

This should probably be at WP:AE. (t · c) buIdhe 03:56, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

+1 M.Bitton (talk) 14:29, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Probably, but it's here now. TarnishedPath^talk 06:18, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

+1 Smallangryplanet (talk) 17:53, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

There are RfCs. Trying to do something other editors find contentious, especially to a lead section, without gaining consensus in the topic area is a great way to start fires and get topic banned. Sean.hoyland (talk) 04:20, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

• Warn Corriebertus for falsely stating that Raskolnikov.Rev did not explain his edit, against evidence which they themselves have brought up. Corriebertus possibly does not comprehend this evidence (the diff) and therefore does not understand that Raskolnikov.Rev did explain his edit, which is a serious competence problem. Corriebertus did not follow the minimum level of good practices in collaborative editing and dispute resolution.—Alalch E. 10:38, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

• I also believe at least a warning is in order – I have explained myself many times, ad nauseum and at length and Corriebertus continues to cast aspersions rather than reply to my questions or comments. Smallangryplanet (talk) 17:32, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Conduct Report (TA)

This is a conduct report concerning a temporary user (TA). This concerns TAs; ~2025-36830-85, ~2025-36886-64, ~2025-35835-93, ~2025-36450-46, ~2025-36650-86, ~2025-36699-05, ~2025-36939-24, ~2025-36848-36, and ~2025-36732-95 (sorry, not sure how to best link TAs) and primarily concerns edits on the Las Vegas City Marshals article and the "Reverted Edit" Talk section.

1.This editor failed to notify me of this ANI report (now-closed), as required.

2. This editor has accused me of bad-faith edits, conflict of interest, and other false allegations. The most egregious of which may be located here.

3. As extensively laid-out in the Talk page, I was addressing non-neutral langauge, WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS concerns, etc. I readily admit I should not have gotten into the legal arguments. However, please rest-assured that my opinions have not impacted my editing, and I hold neutrality in the highest of regards.

4. This editor has, however, placed a COI thread on my Talk page.

5. I would request appropriate conduct sanctions and a reversion to this diff + low-level, short-term protection for the article in-question. (Protection has been requested seperately, FYI linky) However, I am happy to take this latter request to content resolution. EDIT: The content dispute has been resolved to my satisfaction via assistance from an extremely helpful THIRD editor and will hopefully not require further action. My conduct report still remains, however.

6. This editor may have been less than honest in their own ANI report, stating they only interacted "today," when one can see the Talk page interaction began yesterday.

7. This editor may have begun extensively utilizing AI to form their arguments, in their own ANI report, here, and at the Page Protection request.

MWFwiki (talk) 23:34, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Here we go again. This user has filed a report here against me, and a counter report was filed, and it was closed as a content based editing dispute. I guess the user wants to give it another swing, trying to get his version of the article published and only his version. Here are the facts:

this dispute centers around the Las Vegas City Marshals article. They are a law-enforcement agency located in Las Vegas, and the smallest law-enforcement agency in the county. Nevada law granted them very, very limited jurisdiction, basically they only have jurisdiction on city properties and city parks. Despite this, earlier this year, they began a campaign of wide, reaching law-enforcement action throughout the city. They began conducting traffic stops and arresting drivers for a multitude of misdemeanor and felony offenses. Several of those drivers and citizens filed lawsuits alleging that the arrests were illegal and outside of their jurisdiction. Those lawsuits were then picked up on by the media. Every single television station in the Las Vegas area has reported on the lawsuits. The local newspaper and several local podcasts have also reported on the lawsuits. One of the television stations, KTNV, assigned an investigative news reporter to the story and she has published many different news stories that are super well researched and sourced, and has conducted a wide ranging investigation into the particular issue.

as of the date of this writing, eight different federal lawsuits have been filed this year, alleging illegal, and improper arrests by this particular police department. The news stories that were published by KTNV have around 5 million views total on YouTube. There have also been several other high profile news stories done on this particular law-enforcement agency, the most noteworthy being from a lawyer that runs a YouTube channel called “the civil rights lawyer”. Based upon the significant number of media and news stories, a flood of edits came this year to the Wikipedia article. The article has largely been dormant for the past 10 years. All of the media attention caused dozens and dozens of edits in the first few quarters of this year. Then the media attention died down, and there have not been any meaningful edits to the article in about six months.

Then, user MWFwiki seems to find the article. He proceeds to remove large sections of content that were properly sourced from the many news reports that have been published this year. From his user page, he states that he is a career law-enforcement officer. His edits on the page have been overwhelmingly positive towards the Police. He has removed almost all of the sections of article that mention the large lawsuits and controversies surrounding this police department and reduced them to a single sentence. However, he has taken content from the police department’s version of the lawsuits and published that statement in its entirety, representing an entire paragraph. Some of the paragraphs of content that he has removed had as many as five different sources.

further troubling is the fact that the user has done his own legal research and drawn his own conclusions in relation to his edits. He has stated on the talk page that he feels that these lawsuits will be found in favor of the police department. He has also reached conclusions on what he believes the “primary” and “general” jurisdiction of this law-enforcement agency is, despite that being at the heart of all of the controversy and lawsuits. He has made edits to the article that are simply not accurate, such as stating that the police department has “unrestricted” law-enforcement authority, despite the fact that Nevada law clearly states that their “authority and jurisdiction” is limited to taking police actions on City property, as has been reported by all of the different media outlets and respected journalistic organizations that have been cited as sources.

The user has now filed reports for Wikipedia administrators to intervene and block the other users and request page protection to keep the IP users from editing the page so that his point of view is the only point of view that will be shown in the article. This attempt should be seen for what it is. This is a purely content based editorial dispute from an editor who appears to have clear bias and has done original research on the issue, despite the overwhelming amount of verified and reliable journalistic sources, which stated the opposite of his position. ~2025-36886-64 (talk) 23:50, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Again, less than honest: "This user has filed a report here against me, and a counter report was filed, and it was closed as a content based editing dispute. I guess the user wants to give it another swing, trying to get his version of the article published and only his version.". The TA filed the original report, not me, and I replied. Their report was closed. My reply was not addressed, as I was told to file my own report. Which I did, here. (I will refrain from continuing the "argument" here, I just felt that this needed to be addressed) This editor also continues to argue content, above and has not addressed the conduct report. MWFwiki (talk) 00:19, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

This is a really long post and you risk people either stopping halfway through or just not bothering to read it at all.

Please try to imagine that your average reader is on a break at work, on the bus or has a newborn baby - presume they only have a few minutes to read through and understand the point you're making and tailor your post to that audience.

Respecting someone's limited time on this planet is a show of respect, and since this a community project that ethos will take you far.

You can't refactor (change) posts once they've been replied to, but if you'd like to provide a TL;DR version in a reply to this post, I am certain that most of the people reading this will be very grateful.

Direct diffs to the edits you're referring to are also greatly appreciated, that way we don't need to go hunting around in the edit history for all of those different accounts.

As it is, it'll probably take me 15-20mins to check everything you're saying and it's currently 1am so I just don't have the heart right now... That might change in the morning, but for now I just can't do it. Cookies and applause for those that can. Blue Sonnet (talk) 01:04, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

I don’t think that I need to provide a response. As a defense is not necessarily required here. But, I provided a comprehensive response, including the complete background of the article from my point of view as a defense. Someone who is not local to Las Vegas and it’s not familiar with the context around the article and why the edits are this way is probably going to think that this is just another random article that is in dispute. The entire city of Las Vegas has been embroiled in the content surrounding this article and I was providing some background to that. ~2025-36934-42 (talk) 01:07, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Further, if I try to use AI tools to help summarize my thoughts or to format my text, I get called out as apparently using AI to help get my thoughts together on a talk page is somehow scandalous. ~2025-36934-42 (talk) 01:08, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

We want to hear your thoughts, not what the LLM says for you. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:30, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

@The Bushranger + @Blue-Sonnet Sorry for the pings, but it has been several days and you had both responded, so I figured it was only fair to rope you back in. This user is now, additionally, openly accusing me of "having an agenda." On its own, I wouldn't normally complain, but coupled with their other conduct I can't abide it. Thanks for your time, as usual MWFwiki (talk) 05:50, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

MWFwiki very clearly has an agenda regarding this (and all law enforcement) articles. Let's recap: The user's userpage states that they are a current law-enforcement officer and have a law-enforcement career. His edit history is entirely pro-police. The user has found an article that had significant negative content about a police department, despite it being fully sourced. The user removed all of that sourced content on his own accord, and then stated on the article's talk page that he disagreed with the lawsuits mentioned in the article and thought that the police would win them, justifying his removal of the content. He then removes my edits today, that were well-sourced, because the word "large" was used in the article when describing a class-action lawsuit that alleged that thousands of people had been illegally arrested. ~2025-37688-98 (talk) 05:56, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

If I need to respond to this, I'm happy to, but I'm just exhausted and tired of the bludgeoning and accusations. MWFwiki (talk) 06:03, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Here's another one: MWFwiki has made a total of 27 major edits to the article in question over the past day. Removing content without consensus. I discovered this and made FIVE minor changes, all of which were supported by WP:RS. MWFwiki then reverts all of my edits, and goes to other editors in an attempt to WP:CAN and get others to revert me, despite my edits being within policy and consensus. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Katzrockso&diff=prev&oldid=1325109459 ~2025-37688-98 (talk) 06:07, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Not sure if I need to respond to content dispute allegations here, but:

• For context; I collaborated actively via the Talk page with a THIRD editor with those edits, over the course of several hours. Katzrockso will confirm this.
• I requested the THIRD revert in order to remove content they had previously removed which this user has re-added. I made it clear I would be happy to go to dispute resolution.
• These are now additional unfounded accusations. Again, "pro-police."

MWFwiki (talk) 06:14, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Replying because I've been pinged.

• @~2025-37688-98 Looking at the "five minor changes" from the past day, the only one I would consider to be minor has the edit summary "Removed "large" to satisfy someone with an agenda" - IMO that's close to a personal attack and is not acceptable. Your other edits that day definitely weren't minor.
• Re. WP:CAN, I'm not sure whether asking an editor who was already involved in the discussion to revert on their behalf would count as canvassing per se, someone else may disagree. I see that MWFwiki made the revert themselves.
• Re. Number of edits, Katzrockso has also made a similar number of edits to MWFwiki so that alone isn't a red flag to me.
• @MWFwiki I'm wondering why you removed the second half of this quote, it seems to be relevant?

You changed "The lawsuit alleges that there are "thousands of victims of a rogue law enforcement agency brazenly operating outside its legal authority" (a direct quote from the source) to "Myers alleges that the LVCM is operating as a "rogue law enforcement agency" (half of a longer sentence).

It's a bit unusual to cut a short quote in half like that, especially since it's effectively lessened the impact (and arguably the message) from the original quote.

I'm not seeing any of the "lawyerspeak" given as a reason in your edit summary; I think that the majority of our readers would be able to understand the original version, so hopefully you can see why this might look a little strange from the outside.

• @~2025-37688-98, if you're alleging a long-term behavioural problem with a lack of neutrality, can you please provide specific diffs? It took a while to go though the history manually to find out which edits you meant just for this article. It also means I might have misunderstood something, in which case it'd be great if you could provide specific diffs for us to consider.

You've been making allegations (which may or may not be well-founded), but it's hard for us to investigate unless you provide diffs of specific edits. We can't go combing through someone's entire edit history trying to guess which ones you mean.

I'd also like to suggest that everyone involved stops editing the article until the ANI is resolved, things will just get more confusing otherwise. You're both getting pretty close to edit warring, there's a lot of history so it's pretty hard to tell but I'd say we're definitely getting there in spirit. Blue Sonnet (talk) 10:34, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

@Blue-Sonnet Appreciate the response; Regarding trimming the quote: 1. We mention the jurisdictional issue several times throughout the article, so I felt it was repetitive. 2. "Thousands of victims" is argumentative and lawyer-speak, in my opinion. At the time the lawyer said that, there was one case filed, their own. 3. I had previously culled/shortened the city attorney's statements, as well. 4. I would hope it is clear from my edits that my only goal was to fix some rather egregious NPOV statements and RIGHTGREATWRONGS issues that existed in the TA's preferred diff 5. All of that being said, I would not be adamantly against re-adding the quote in its entirety; I 100% understand what you're getting-at.

Regarding the content, I am perfectly happy with where the article is, now. It looks good.

However, this user has continuously accused me of bad-faith edits, extreme bias, and has asserted that I have an "obvious conflict of interest." Being a law enforcement officer two thousand miles away from the subject of the article and never having met a single person from Nevada does not a COI make. I readily and voluntarily disclose this on my userpage (I wonder; If I didn't voluntarily do this, what would the argument become? I suppose it doesn't matter) I sincerely welcome a vigorous look through my edit history; One will not find one non-neutral edit on law enforcement-related pages (or anywhere else, for that matter, I would hope). Indeed, in my previous 1,000 edits, unless I'm missing something, the only two LE pages (apart from LVCM) I've edited are list of law-enforcement agencies in Massachusetts and list of defunct law enforcement agencies of Massachusetts (the latter of which I have created probably 80% of; if it's sourced, I probably placed it). I welcome a glance at them to see my editing style/prose. This user has outright asserted "His edit history is entirely pro-police" and "MWFwiki very clearly has an agenda regarding this (and all law enforcement) articles" [emphasis added] — just above. I hate to be dramatic, but in my eleven-plus years of editing, no one has ever said anything as egregious to me. MWFwiki (talk) 10:49, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

It's not scandalous, it's because it causes far more problems than it solves. AI usually provides vague assurances and is great at completely missing the point.

Even if the wording isn't great, we'd much rather talk person to person since that's exactly what Talk pages are for. If you put a brand-new, barely-tested & experimental machine learning algorithm in the middle of that, things seldom go well.

We also see it regularly make up fictitious policies, misunderstand guidelines or (most frequently) mask the original editors lack of knowledge or understanding of the core issue we're trying to address.

See Wikipedia:AITALK & Wikipedia:LLMCIR if you want to find out more, or scroll through the multiple previous AI discussions in the ANI archives. Blue Sonnet (talk) 01:49, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

WP:CIR: @Unknown FG

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

---

Unknown FG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Disclaimer: I did post on their talk page on the 25th with a suggestion to withdraw from the upcoming admin election in December. Other than that, I have had no prior interaction with this editor before.

It is unfortunate I find myself posting here regarding this editor, especially when have recently nominated themself for the upcoming admin elections in December. I understand the precariousness of reporting a fellow editor to AN/I when they are a nominee for admin, however I believe it is necessary due to ongoing disruptive editing on the project.

---

WP:BLP violations: @Unknown FG added content that violated WP:BLP to Sumit Hridayesh, which was reverted in full by @Iiii I I I. The various violations were outlined here on the article talk page. They consist mostly of unsourced text, WP:NOTNEWS, unreliable sources and WP:OR. The content added by @Unknown FG can be viewed over numerous edits made on the 6 September 2025 here. They were warned on their talk page.

Unsourced content: An unsubstantiated link was added to Nagaland by @Unknown FG. Less than 3 hours later, the article was set to WP:ECP by admin @Yamaguchi先生 and another editor then had to locate a source which @Unknown FG failed to provide. They were given a notice on their talk page.

WP:EDITCON: @Unknown FG has been warned multiple times for their lack of edit summary use. 30 October 2025 by @Kautilya3. 9 November 2025 by @THEZDRX. As can be seen here, they have only used edit summaries in mainspace 1.3% of the time. That's over 6200 edits without a summary in a 12+ month editing period. This is a violation of WP:EDITCON which makes clear that 'all edits should be explained'.

Undisclosed multiple accounts: In December 2024, CU admin @Izno left a notice on their talk page regarding multiple accounts being used. @Unknown FG responded using the other account saying they had disclosed it. However, this is not evident as the user pages of both @Unknown FG and @Dr Hachi have not been created. I don't know how this was followed up unfortunately.

LLM generated text: The recently promoted guideline, WP:NEWLLM, along with the advice written at WP:AISIGNS, makes quite clear that AI should not be used to generate text for comments and definitely not for article text.

Unfortunately, @Unknown FG generated their entire Admin election nomination page using an LLM. Despite receiving multiple warnings about this on their talk page (1, 2, 3). They decided to ignore the advice given and respond using LLM.

---

On Wikipedia, competence is required to contribute in a positive way to the project and @Unknown FG has shown many times in a short period that they are unable to do this, despite many warnings and notices from fellow editors/admins. Some of the violations border on disruptive editing, however there is a definite CIR issue here. As the warnings and notices have not provoked any change in behaviour, I believe a short time block from article space may be required here. I would definitely encourage @Unknown FG to respond here without using an LLM at the very least. Thank you.

I will notify @Unknown FG about this AN/I discussion on their talk page immediately after posting this. 11WB (talk) 01:15, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Discussion

Just a comment, did you intend to ping here? Doesn't seem like the pings went through. Z E T A^C 01:29, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

I generally don't ping at AN/I due to the canvassing rule. 11WB (talk) 01:34, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

• Why wait for a response? This editor is obviously a CIR case -- the evidence being that they actually think AI-generated comments are going to fool anyone here -- and on that basis should be immediately indef'd. Zero tolerance. This will no only save unnecessary discussion here at ANI, but as a bonus will save further waste of time at the admin election. EEng 05:26, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

  I agree, however I try to assume good faith for as long as possible. If they respond without using an LLM, maybe an indef can be avoided. 11WB (talk) 05:39, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

  Good faith has nothing to do with it. Incompetents are often here with good intentions. And it really doesn't matter if they manage to answer without using AI -- the fact that they ever though AI could gererate useful content or comments shows they lack the skills to edit here, period. In summary, AI on WP must be destroyed. EEng 05:53, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

  I can't argue against what you are saying and I am definitely not defending this editor in any way. Based on my time editing, from what I've observed, an indef block is usually used when there is no hope, right? 11WB (talk) 05:57, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

  Reluctantly, +1 to this Z E T A^C 13:42, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

  Based on the fact they attempted to remove this AN/I thread, I will also support an indef block at this time. 11WB (talk) 15:21, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

  +1 aesurias (talk) 05:43, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

  It's obviously difficult to get through to this editor as the AI is almost acting like a wall between us and getting through to them. We're never speaking to them, we're speaking to ChatGPT and I don't want that to be an admin.

  So we've got an editor & prospective admin who isn't listening to community concerns.

  They've added fake and inadequate sources to BLP whilst also including completely unsourced information. This could also be due to using AI (not a justification, only an explanation since the end result is disruption).

  Not using an edit summary isn't great, but the fact that so many people have warned them indicates that there's confusion over the reason for their edits.

  Then we also have the undisclosed second account.

  You could possibly argue that each issue taken in isolation wouldn't be sanctionable, but taken together I've got serious concerns that we have an editor who is causing disruption and we can't communicate with them properly to try to resolve it.

  ChatGPT says it's taking our concerns seriously, but I'm not sure that the editor is. Blue Sonnet (talk) 06:30, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

• Considering all your concerns, I apologise to each one of you. I have no intention to vandalize Wikipedia, rather I wanted to benefit it. I am withdrawing from the election.Unknown FG (talk) 10:30, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

  While withdrawing from the election was something that needed to be done, you need to directly address the specific issues raised in this thread, because they would be highly concerning for any editor, not just an administrator. That includes your attempt to remove a discussion about you from an administrative page, which is blatantly inappropriate. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:22, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

  Thank you for your concerns, actually I was scared after I saw the misunderstood intvestigation against me. Unfortunately, I am still learning. Unknown FG (talk) 13:22, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

  Unknown FG, if the reason you entered the election was to receive feedback on how to improve as an editor, a better thing to do would be to ask a friendly-looking experienced editor or admin. One thing they'd certainly say is stop using LLMs. If the reason you're using LLMs is because your English isn't quite good enough, it'd probably be better to edit Wikipedia in your native language (see List of Wikipedias) Kowal2701 (talk) 15:24, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

  @Unknown FG I realise this must feel awful, you were excited for the election and got carried away, then realised you bit off much more than you could chew and now everyone's attention is on you.

  Admin elections are a big thing, there are notices to let everyone know that candidates are up for election and to go and take a look.

  It's actually good that this has come up now, you've got all these experienced editors and admins who can help you. The problems that have been raised are best sorted out here - it would have been awful to see dozens of people oppose your nomination publicly because these issues hadn't been fixed.

  I get the feeling you tried to delete this section because you panicked. Just make sure you don't do anything like that again - talk pages and noticeboards are where we express ourselves to others, so changing or deleting someone else's comments is like putting words in their mouth, or even taking them away completely.

  Look at this as a positive thing. @11WB has taken the time to look through your history and found areas where you need to improve. If you need help doing that, it's available - no-one would begrudge an editor who's genuinely wanting and trying to improve.

  How about you stay by looking at the problems in 11WB's original post at the top. Try to understand why there was a problem in the way you approached that situation, then learn how to do better next time.

  Honestly look at the concerns everyone has and try to explain what you'll do differently.

  Be open and honest about the problems and work hard at fixing them - that's all anyone can ask of you, ok? Blue Sonnet (talk) 16:50, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

  Thank you very much for your comment. Unknown FG (talk) 13:23, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

• Note for admins: I did post an AN/I notice to @Unknown FG's talk page, however they have now removed it. 11WB (talk) 15:07, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

  It appears they also attempted to blank this very AN/I discussion but were reverted. That is a major WP:TPO violation. 11WB (talk) 15:19, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

  Unfortunately, I lost my mind and thought I would be banned from Wikipedia. Unknown FG (talk) 13:23, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

• Support. I can see User:Unknown FG's refusal to WP:LISTEN to advice—however civily and repeatedly offered—is not limited to admin elections. I also note that, far from heralding the beginning of a new career in the administration, their removal of legitimate comments in their entirety, combined with a refusal to communicate—except through an LLM—might go someway towards bringing said career to a premature, if by now not unexpected, close. —Fortuna, imperatrix 18:08, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
• For God's sake, please will some admin put this thread out of its misery with an indef? Far too much time has already been wasted on a completely obvious situation. EEng 21:03, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

  EEng, you should be familiar with the concept of Bridger's First Law of Wikipedia by now: that the more obvious an outcome the more discussion is needed before it is carried out. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:12, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

  In all seriousness, there's probably something to that -- something like bikeshedding. EEng 21:16, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

  @Phil Bridger, whilst I'm not as direct as @EEng, I agree with them that this AN/I can probably be closed now. 11WB (talk) 21:24, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

11WB EEng did ask for this to be closed; but with a resolution, not without. Indef now.—Fortuna, imperatrix 21:55, 28 November 2025 (UTC)°

I supported that already. 11WB (talk) 21:58, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

I will reluctantly !vote for indef - user needs to show that they won't use AI/LLMs and will take advice (as well as the other violations, such as WP:TPO) to be able to competently edit on Wikipedia. Z E T A^C 22:38, 28 November 2025 (UTC) Switched to oppose per below comment. I still stand by what I said, that this user has to show that they won't use LLMs, won't violate TPO, and will take advice. Z E T A^C 22:53, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Yeah this should be closed with an indef. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 22:10, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

I am taking an oath that I will never edit in Wikipedia without giving a reliable source. Unknown FG (talk) 13:50, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

@Unknown FG - right after you made this comment, you made this edit adding an uncited sentence. I'm not sure if you've really learned or if you intend to uphold what you've said here. Z E T A^C 14:17, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

I truly promise to uphold now. Unknown FG (talk) 14:19, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

While that was in the lede section, this is in the body and also uncited. I'm not intending to pressure you on anything, but this behavior immediately after making these comments is concerning. Z E T A^C 14:20, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

I've just completed a reversion of unsourced content recently added by @Unknown FG. This is disappointing. 11WB (talk) 14:24, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

This is appalling and we shouldn't give this person any more of our time. Clearly they just don't care about Wikipedia. aesurias (talk) 22:02, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Question: Would an indef here count as a CBAN? I think a CBAN might be too harsh. Z E T A^C 22:40, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

If an admin at this point takes unilateral action in the face of obvious discontent, no. If this keeps racking up "this should be an indef" comments, that could be interpreted as a CBAN. Rambling Rambler (talk) 22:42, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes, it would, since it would be an assessment of community consensus and not a unilateral admin action, meaning a single admin won't be able to reverse it. For the record, I will oppose an indef by virtue of avoiding the chilling effect in administrator elections, as this issue came to light following Unknown FG's candidacy. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:43, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

They have withdrawn. 11WB (talk) 22:45, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

If it's going to be a CBAN, I've struck my !vote and oppose per that. We've been a bit too harsh on handing out CBANS as of late. Z E T A^C 22:50, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

@Chaotic Enby, I am slightly perplexed by your comment. No one in this discussion has explicitly mentioned a community ban until 20 minutes ago. I personally gave @Unknown FG the opportunity to respond without using an LLM before supporting an indef, however they unfortunately attempted to wipe the entire thread instead. 11WB (talk) 22:56, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

The wipe isn't the best thing that they could have done, but I have to agree that this whole ordeal might scare others from running for AELECT or RfA, even if they are truly qualified. A CBAN would be too harsh for this purpose - I don't think the AI usage is as widespread as previous users who have ended up here, and they do seem to have some good contributions and some intention of bettering the encyclopedia, even if misguided. Z E T A^C 23:05, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Given the circumstances surrounding this I am not quite sure this will scare other qualified candidates away but I do agree a c ban is too harsh and given this would be considered a C BAN not an indef I will strike my comment like you did. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 23:14, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Per WP:CBAN (following this 2017 RfC):

Editors who are indefinitely blocked by community consensus, or remain indefinitely blocked after due consideration by the community, are considered "banned by the Wikipedia community".

Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:08, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I brought it up since I saw another CBAN proposal earlier where the user was CBANned despite that word never coming up in the proposal. Z E T A^C 23:15, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

An indef before the 24 hour mark (at the time of your comments) and without a formal close of the discussion cannot be a CBAN, it's plainly against the letter of the policy. Any doubt would be cleared up by a note saying "Indef'd as an individual admin action". REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 13:57, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Zeta, I agree. CBANS seem to be used as a cop-out for admins to avoid taking unilateral action. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:36, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Chaotic Enby, wouldn't your approach amount to immunity from blocking for admin candidates? I don't think we should give anyone such immunity. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:30, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

That is a good point, and, if their conduct had proved to be problematic (to the point of justifying an indef) beyond the admin candidacy, I would have supported blocking them. I don't think that this is the case, as they were already warned for the previous issues, and the new material presented here specifically relates to their candidacy (which they have since withdrawn). Given how RfA or AELECT can be a very uncertain (and stressful) experience for the candidate, I am willing to give them more latitude there, though not an unlimited amount. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:52, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

I have decided to withdraw my support for an indef and I will return to the original proposal in my opening message: 'As the warnings and notices have not provoked any change in behaviour, I believe a short time block from article space may be required here.' 11WB (talk) 00:32, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Well that's a bit more lenient - I would support for a month or so, weak support for longer. Z E T A^C 00:42, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

I would support that as well to hopefully change the disruptive behaviour. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 00:49, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Responding to above and below, I am fine with a period of one month. 11WB (talk) 01:25, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

They have been problematic beyond their admin candidacy. Some diffs were provided in the original message and their talk page is full of various warnings for NPOV language and unverified additions to articles, including BLPs. They also tried to remove this entire ANI discussion! If this editor knows/cares so little about Wikipedia guidelines to use AI to write their candidacy statement (and use AI to reply to concerns about AI usage), who knows what horrors will be found when examining their 6,500 edits?

I think removing their permission to edit mainspace articles is a good alternative that addresses your concerns. aesurias (talk) 00:37, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

As the issues mainly affect article space, this seems reasonable, with the condition that they improve the way they communicate (no more LLM use), providing reliable sources and working to improve competence generally. This is a good suggestion. 11WB (talk) 00:42, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

I don't think it should be a perma-pblock though, just enough to ensure that they will communicate and avoid LLM use in the future. The LLM usage in this case isn't as severe as some other cases I've seen on this noticeboard and AINB. Z E T A^C 00:46, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose either an indef or CBAN. I hate LLMs as much as the next person but this is extremely harsh for no reason. ^EF⁵ 23:07, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
• Comment: Thank you @Chaotic Enby for the clarification. I am very confused as to how to assess this discussion now. I think I will take a step back for the moment and use this as a learning opportunity. 11WB (talk) 23:13, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
• Support indef. Unfortunately they've shown that they're simply not competent enough to continue editing. DoubleCross (‡) 07:04, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

  I promise from now on to

  1)Fully cite my news

  2)Not to make foolish decisions

  3)Not use external help Unknown FG (talk) 13:47, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

  Yet a mere 20 minutes after you made this promise, you broke rules 1 and 2 here! aesurias (talk) 22:04, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

• Stupidly long comment Taking the AGF view (and offer a defence for them in their absence), my instinct is that we've got an editor who got themselves all excited over possibly (yeah, I know) becoming an admin, learned about AI around the same time, and jumped in far, far too deep. They then panicked when they realised this was an incredibly bad idea and made things worse by trying to delete everything.

The issues raised outside this might not warrant an indef or other sanction, so do we look at the admin incident as a one-off? If I'm right and this is what happened, I'd imagine that the shock of seeing this all play out so publicly would be deterrent enough. I think we've all done something spectacularly stupid in the past and watched it snowball down the hill into a crowd of people.

They've only made one edit since and I'd be surprised if we see them again (although I hope we do, stuff still needs sorting out).

Honestly, I just want them to come back and discuss the other issues (and promise not to use AI). The question is what we do if they don't? Does their editing to date justify an indef or is that too harsh and we should see how they respond?

Time-limited indef I'm not so sure on. I get the feeling they're going to contract ANI-flu, which is time away from Wikipedia anyway. It wouldn't be unexpected to have them stay away until the heat has died down.

If they don't respond, do we indef until they do respond to our concerns, or just wait and see & hope they've learned their lesson? I wonder if we've got a bit of a lack of maturity, considering the way this has all played out. I hate AI almost as much as EEng, but it feels like a smaller piece of the puzzle here.

I know I'm making massive presumptions about some of what's happened, but I wanted to present this as a possibility. I haven't voted on an outcome because I'm genuinely not sure what the best outcome would be.

EDIT- Ok I've written all of this out and my brain has just veered towards the "indef until they respond" option. They have caused a lot of disruption by virtue of how much time we've all spent on this. There are long-running CIR issues and you could easily argue that this, even ignoring the adminship part for the possible chilling effect, definitely needs addressing. We can't do that if they don't respond. That said, it's been less than a day since they last edited so I'm not sure I'll vote for this yet. Blue Sonnet (talk) 08:26, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Some supported my proposal for a short-term partial block from editing mainspace. Whilst others are still supporting a full indef, which would be a community ban. Only one of these outcomes allows for quicker rehabilitation back into the project. 11WB (talk) 10:29, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

An indef is not a community ban. Indefinite is not infinite. Temporary blocks do not usually lead to rehabilitation. Only an indef allows for rehabilitation. Rehabilitation will be as quick as it needs to be. —Alalch E. 11:13, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

That contradicts this if that is the case. 11WB (talk) 11:24, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

It depends on how an admin executes the block, i.e., whose decision it is. If the admin closes this discussion as having created a consensus decision to indefinitely block, that would count as equivalent to a cban, but it is still very much possible for an admin to block as an individual action, by their own decision. —Alalch E. 11:36, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Ah, that's an important distinction. Based on what was said yesterday I assumed an indef would be a community ban under any application. For this editor, an indef block, whilst "indefinite" doesn't actually mean forever to my knowledge. If they begin to attempt to change how they edit, then maybe some good can come from this discussion. 11WB (talk) 11:42, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes, Alalch E., an indef does not have to last more than 5 minutes. I would go further and say that all blocks (apart from cool-down blocks which we are not supposed to do anyway) should be indefinite. There's no reason to remove a block if the editor has not learnt anything, and there's no need to leave someone blocked if they have. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:47, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Yep, this is why I'm steadily leaning towards an indef until we get a good explanation. I want to make sure I'm objective in my decision - for some reason I feel pretty strongly about this case, probably because I've done some stupid stuff in my time then dug myself into an even deeper hole (complete with an audience).

I'm going to give it a few more hours - if they've been offline for a full 24hrs without a response, I think that's a good time for me to reevaluate & I'll probably go with indef.

Everyone screws up, it's what you do next that's important. Blue Sonnet (talk) 11:56, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Well, this is a shame. I believe an indef/CBAN is too heavy, so I am going to oppose. 11WB (talk) 12:23, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Well they've responded, so I'm reconsidering :) Blue Sonnet (talk) 13:25, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

I've opened a new section for this underneath the discussion. I believe AN/I discussions like this are kept open for 72 hours, so that gives everybody a day to formalise a decision and leave it below. 11WB (talk) 23:23, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your concerns, actually I could not see your messages as I am busy in real life.

Unknown FG (talk) Unknown FG (talk) 13:19, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Agree with indef till response. "Assuming" they have learnt their lesson is only an incentive for them (and others) to continue such behaviour because they don't fear reprehension or consequence for being disruptive. They have clearly seen this conversation (as evidenced by their removal of the ANI notif from their talk page) but are now as silent as a mouse! If they don't want to explain themselves, so be it. I support an indef or article space block, both essentially do the same thing which is trying to get them to talk and explain. aesurias (talk) 11:31, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

I also think a thread needs to be opened to look at this persons 6,500+ edits, especially created articles. If the OP comment has found multiple issues just from a quick look at contribution history, I think we can expect to find a few more issues that need to be rectified. aesurias (talk) 11:32, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

I am also concerned about all of this user's edits, as changes were clearly made to articles by someone who did not understand what changes they are making. —Alalch E. 11:39, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

• Support CIR indef for accumulating this many edits and not knowing not to remove the ANI topic about them, which, combined with the misuse of so-called AI, means that all this time, this user lacked awareness of what they were doing, and has not been learning in the process. Strongly oppose on principle that we should fear a chilling effect regarding the admin elections.—Alalch E. 10:26, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

  I promise from now on to

  1)Fully cite my news

  2)Not to make foolish decisions

  3)Not use external help Unknown FG (talk) 13:47, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

• Reluctant support. I am not happy to cast this vote, but this is someone who is just not willing to listen. The AI-generated RFA was bad enough (and, as stated earlier, an insult to anyone willing to ask questions and to the community at large who expects a person to be running, not ChatGPT), then you add the removal of this thread to which someone who has been around long enough should know better, I just do not see this person as fit for Wikipedia at this time. Also, the fact that they have been receiving BLP and disruptive editing warnings as recently as this month just adds to the number of issues. Lynch44 13:10, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

  Thank you for your concerns, if you want me to be thrown out of Wikipedia, there is nothing I object. I guess I deserve it. Unknown FG (talk) 13:17, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

  @Unknown FG, this is the moment you need to write a response and tell us how you are going to improve on the project. No AI, in your own words. This really is the time to do it whilst editors are still discussing this in a public venue. 11WB (talk) 13:20, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

  Exactly this - a lot of people just want to see you address the concerns raised and only wanted a block to be in place until you responded.

  Since you're responding here, it's recently the right time for you to talk about what happened and what you've learned.

  People who've already voted can change their decision if they feel you've responded well enough, nothing is set in stone. Blue Sonnet (talk) 13:28, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

  When I restored this thread from Davy Jones' Locker after Unknown had blanked it, I thought it'll only be a moment or two until an indef is imposed. Yet here we are !! - Walter Ego 13:35, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

  @Unknown FG, I can see you've gone back to general editing in mainspace (without providing reliable sources I might add). I would seriously recommend directing your attention to this AN/I. 11WB (talk) 13:39, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

  I am really sorry. From now, I promise to cite reliable sources. Unknown FG (talk) 13:48, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

  I promise from now on to

  1)Fully cite my news

  2)Not to make foolish decisions

  3)Not use external help Unknown FG (talk) 13:46, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

  @Unknown FG How will you keep your promise "not to make foolish decisions"? Presumably you didn't think blanking this discussion was foolish when you decided to do it.[66] NebY (talk) 16:48, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

  This made me do a double-take, I could have sworn I replied but I've just seen this is a double-post! Blue Sonnet (talk) 17:09, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

  I promise from now on to

  1)Fully cite my news

  2)Not to make foolish decisions

  3)Not use external help Unknown FG (talk) 13:46, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

  @Unknown FG Please, in your own words and without external help, explain what "fully cite my news is". As part of your explanation, explain also what "news" means. —Alalch E. 14:30, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

  @Unknown FG It'll be much easier if you look through your own Talk page and find the warnings you've been given. Click on every blue-linked page to see what they say you should have done instead, then come back here and answer this question, ok?

  We just need to see that you understand what the problem is and know exactly what to do next time. The answer is definitely linked on your Talk page so you just need to find it. Blue Sonnet (talk) 16:11, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

  @Unknown FG You just said that you would cite the source, but some of your edits has already been reverted because you didn't cite any source there.

  It is important to always provide a citation when making such edits otherwise it could be called as original research. Additionally also when editing, it is advisable to give at least a brief edit summary describing what changes were made. THEZDRX _{(User) | (Contact)} 16:11, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Proposals: CBAN (Indef) or PBLOCK (Short-term from article space) or no further action

It has been almost 48 hours since this AN/I was opened and editors are supporting either an indefinite block which would be a CBAN or a short-term block from editing article space (a 1 month PBLOCK).

@Unknown FG has responded here and has said, however briefly, they will cite reliable sources. They have also apologised for causing trouble.

For the benefit of the administrators, I believe it is now the appropriate time to ascertain exactly what the outcome of this should be and whether UFG will be able to stick to their commitments for the long-term. Are we in support of a CBAN (indef) or a short-term PBLOCK from article space or no further action? 11WB (talk) 22:10, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

• PBLOCK: I support the latter despite my reservations. If UFG can take some time to assess the way they edit and return with a clear focus then I believe they should be given the chance to do that. 11WB (talk) 22:13, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

  I held out hope that they would take note, however they continue to make edits even now without providing a reliable source. Due to this, I am switching my support to an indef PBLOCK from editing article space. 11WB (talk) 01:14, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

• PBLOCK for 1-3 months per what I said above in my original indef !vote and the following comments. Z E T A^C 22:16, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

  Yeah, per 11WB's comment, they're still continuing to add unsourced information. After reading the previous !votes as well, I would support an indef PBLOCK from mainspace or a unilateral indef that may be lifted by any uninvolved administrator. Z E T A^C 01:17, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

• PBLOCK for 1 month for the reasons I mentioned in my comments above and below. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 23:08, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

  Sadly,per 11WB's comment, I am changing my !vote to an Indef PBLOCK as despite this ANI thread and multiple concerns raised to them they are still continuing to add unsourced content to articles. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 01:22, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

• INDEF Despite the editors assurances that they would use reliable sources, their edit history shows they have continued to add unsourced information to Indian political articles. I have zero confidence in their ability to listen and abide by Wikipedia guidelines and I don't think a 1-month PBLOCK would be effective. They'll just go offline for 1 month before resuming the same disruptive editing patterns. aesurias (talk) 23:31, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
• Indef (same as my recommendation above). I still strongly suggest an indefinite block, because I am not satisfied with the assurances given, particularly the one worded as I promise from now on to ... Fully cite my news. You see, the starter of this section stated that Unknown FG committed ... to providing reliable sources, but Uknown FG only said that they would cite "their news". Immediately after making this assurance, Unknown FG went on to make further unsourced edits. You can't pull their incomprehensible statement through the filter of Wikipedia jargon to cause it to become a legitimate assurance that relevantly attaches to Wikipedia policies. We need to be open to the probable reality that Unknown FG does not understand anything about Wikipedia and does not know what sources are, let alone reliable sources. Unknown FG does not have the faintest notion of any Wikipedia policy. They don't know what they are doing at all. They are using AI and don't understand the text the AI gives them to put in the articles. They should be blocked until they are able to deeply reflect on their past period of editing and explain how absurd it has been.—Alalch E. 09:11, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

• Indef I hate doing this, but we've asked them to provide a decent explanation and I've gone into detail about how to do that.

Despite this, as Alalch E. has pointed out, they're continuing to make problematic edits that had to be reverted and did not respond to our further questions and concerns.

A time-limited block won't fix that, they need to be stopped because they won't stop themselves.

They should be unblocked only when they can adequately prove that they won't cause further disruption. Blue Sonnet (talk) 12:52, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I'm not voting for CBAN because that would be excessive - just an indef until a proper appeal/explanation is given & they can show they understand sourcing etc.

An indef block from article space, where they have to submit edit requests through Talk pages is my second choice.

Definite no to timed blocks, I don't think that would be helpful in this case. Blue Sonnet (talk) 18:24, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

As it's been over 24 hours, an indef would be considered a CBAN as discussed above. Pinging @Chaotic_Enby to confirm. 11WB (talk) 18:26, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

I was a bit fast-and-loose in my earlier assessment, assuming that "an indef" referred to the discussion being closed as a consensus for "indef" rather than an admin preempting it before the time limit for discussion closure. However, unlike with other sanctions, the limit for CBAN discussions is 72 hours, not 24 hours (except if there has been no meaningful opposition, which isn't the case here).

As there have been !votes for sanctions before a separate proposal section was created, I am not sure which one should be counted as the start of the 72 hours, and I will defer to editors more experienced with that matter. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:42, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

However, a sanction which (I believe) hasn't been explored yet would be an indef by community consensus, but where the consensus is also that an uninvolved administrator can lift the block after a proper appeal. I don't think we have any formal procedures for that, but it makes sense as a concept, and, of course, we're not a bureaucracy. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:55, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

TBH That's what was in my mind when I originally voted Indef - I got a bit confused over what we're voting for after things got shuffled around! Blue Sonnet (talk) 18:59, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Indef pblock at least, no objection to more. Their assurances aren't meaningful and show they don't understand the nature of the encylopedia ("Fully cite my news"?), and then they've edited in contravention of their own commitment. A time-limited block's no good; there's no reason to think their approach will have improved in that time. A pblock to allow for talk-page edit requests might let them learn but they'd need to be told from the start, very firmly, that if they waste any more of the community's time, they're out. NebY (talk) 13:05, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

• Support indefinite PBLOCK. Oppose timed PBLOCK block or CBAN. I think a CBAN is a bit too far at this juncture. I also don't think a timed partial block is appropriate because the conduct has been severe enough, and goes much farther than an extremely poorly considered admin election issue, that just letting this editor take a couple months off without demonstrating knowledge of how sourcing works is unacceptable in my view. If this editor can demonstrate an understanding of sourcing with their edit requests over the next six months or a year, only then would full removal of their restriction be appropriate. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:27, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose pblock of any duration, as much of their problenatic behavior wasn't confined to article space. In any case, editng articles is literally what we're here for; an ediotor ubale to be trusted to do so is unlikely to be helpful elsewhere. —Fortuna, imperatrix 14:35, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Support indef Let this editor go back to editing when and only when they've demonstrated that they've actually learned from their mistakes. There's absolutely no point in enacting a timed block on somebody with this level of WP:ICANTHEARYOU because you're then just hoping they'll learn during the block time but not requiring them to prove anything. Athanelar (talk) 18:49, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

• Support indef block that an uninvolved administrator may lift after a proper appeal that addresses the identified shortcomings in Unknown FG's edits. CBAN seems unnecessarily harsh. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 19:30, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

  I could get behind this if it isn't a CBAN Z E T A^C 19:47, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

• Support indefinite PBLOCK. Oppose timed PBLOCK block or CBAN. As soon as they made that comment, they immediately made some unsourced edits. Despite having so many warn templates on their talk page, they kept making edits without edit summaries and citations. A PBlock seems appropriate because a Cban would be a bit too harsh. THEZDRX _{(User) | (Contact)} 01:19, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

• Support indef PBlock as per ZDRX. UFG's disruptive behavior on the articles they edit is very concerning. sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:21, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
• Support indef/CBAN trying to bludgeon other users with their 3-step boilerplate promises then proceeding to break them is just plain trolling. Borgenland (talk) 02:02, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Other comments:

• If you're going to use this unusual survey format (at ANI, usually one subheading = one sanction, so you would want to have a subheading for PBLOCK and a subheading for CBAN), there also needs to be an Option C - no sanction. And also, anybody !voting for CBAN may also want to say that they would also support a PBLOCK if the CBAN doesn't pass, since I think most CBAN folks would intend this, but not saying it might confuse the closer. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:38, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks @Novem Linguae. I'll make those edits! 11WB (talk) 23:41, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

  @Novem Linguae, is this acceptable? (This is my first time formatting something like this, so I appreciate the help a lot!) 11WB (talk) 23:45, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

  The wording of your opening statement in the section you've created is poor, because you misstated what Unknown FG wrote. You only highlighted their assurance and also changed its language to make it more appealing to editors commenting here. You pulled it through your own filter and prettified it. You link to Unknown FG saying "my news" and translate that to "reliable sources". And then: you did not say that the editor immediately after making the assurance made further unsourced edits. By reengineering their case for them in the opening statement of the section where a decision may be made you have introduced a lot of bias. —Alalch E. 09:22, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

  They have littered a lot of comments in the discussion. The effort on their part is weak, but I'm happy to either strike through, reword or remove that part entirely. They did mention citing reliable sources here. I understand it reads as biased, but we both know I did not intend it to be biased. 11WB (talk) 09:26, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

  I have reworded the new section statement and changed the link to the correct message. The original AN/I opening message stands and I have not defended their behaviour in any way. I disagree with your perception of bias but I'm willing to edit the new message accordingly, @Alalch E.. 11WB (talk) 09:33, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

  Of course, I don't think you intended it to be biased. Also, it might be best not to change anything now. But in the future, you might be careful not to paraphrase important statements where the devil may be in the details. You have now linked to their reply containing "reliable sources", but that was a reply to you who effectively signalled to them to use this term, as you had included this term in your reply, whereas they had originally, writing in their own words, not been showing any cognizance, let alone comprehension, of the reliable source standards on Wikipedia, and have only referred to "my news". —Alalch E. 09:34, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

  Well I can't argue with that, you are absolutely right. I realise I've essentially helped them by how I paraphrased it, which is the opposite of what I should be doing... I apologise. 11WB (talk) 09:40, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

  Don't worry about it. —Alalch E. 09:45, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

• Comment: I messed up the formatting for this section. I give consent to any editors who are regulars at AN/I to edit these into the correct format. 11WB (talk) 23:54, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

  Courtesy ping to @EEng, @Alalch E., @Lynch44, @Chaotic Enby, @Blue-Sonnet, @Fortuna imperatrix mundi to leave their support for one of the options above. (I've only pinged those who've already participated in the discussion and expressed support for either an indef or CBAN.) 11WB (talk) 07:30, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

  Would suggest pinging all !voters. For example EF5 who !voted oppose. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:48, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

  Is there a way to do it en masse? 11WB (talk) 07:50, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

  @EF5, @DoubleCross per above. 11WB (talk) 08:28, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

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

ActiveContributor2020 and violations of MOS:NOPIPE

Status:     No further action currently required: ActiveContributor2020 blocked from mainspace for failure to communicate, thread waiting for a response from them. Rusalkii (talk) 22:57, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

ActiveContributor2020 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been repeatedly warned about not piping links, see User talk:ActiveContributor2020#August 2025, User talk:ActiveContributor2020#September 2025 and a further plea today at User talk:ActiveContributor2020#Pipe linking - again. The September warning resulted in them logging out to avoid scrutiny (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ActiveContributor2020/Archive) resulting in a one week block. Since today's plea they have made this edit, yet again piping a link needlessly. FDW777 (talk) 18:04, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

In more than 3,600 edits spanning five entire years, I can't see a single Talk page edit - user or article.

I'd be very surprised if we hear from them, but hopefully I'm in for a shock. Blue Sonnet (talk) 18:39, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

I see the lack of talk page edits as much more concerning than breaching the MOS. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:03, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Since creating their account just over five years ago they have made exactly one edit to an article talk page that was not the result of a page move, and exactly zero edits in the user talk namespace. I am blocking them from the article namespace until they start communicating. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:23, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Aw, I missed one... Blue Sonnet (talk) 08:53, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

I have blocked them indefinitely from articles, left them an explanation, and invited them to comment here. Hopefully they will. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:36, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Btf26482 wikihounding and uncivil behavior

I warned @Btf26482 about uncivil behavior towards two editors here [67] after our interactions on Moms 4 Housing and Carroll Fife. While it was curious that Btf26482 showed up to "clarify" the very section I edited on this unrelated page [68] the harassment became apparent when Btf26482 again appeared at the relatively untravelled Election interference page for the first time to delete content and sources I recently added [69]. I reverted them, and posted a warning on their talk page about WP:HOUNDING [70] after which Btf26482 went back to change the page to their preferred version. @Meters has also given Btf26482 escalating warnings about their personal attacks and accusations, [71], asking Btf26482 to retract them, but instead, they doubled-down [72] saying to Meters that they "will be following every contribution you make going forward". BBQboffin^{grill me} 18:32, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

• Support indef In that last diff they're telling Meters they're spreading false information because they made a mistake that they admitted and corrected. Despite that, they're threatening to hound, follow and get Meters blocked because of one template and one mistake.

Yes, you could argue that Meters was a bit bitey but I can see why, and their response is not acceptable under any circumstances.

If that single post isn't the epitome of Wikipedia:BATTLEGROUND, I don't know what is.

They're also taking templates as specific threats and attacking the person who left the template. Everything is a battle and taken personally.

Even ignoring the issues with their editing, they are openly committing harassment and don't seem suited to a collaborative project like Wikipedia.

I always prefer to AGF, unfortunately I'm not seeing any "G" that I can grab onto in this case.

Blue Sonnet (talk) 09:09, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

• Support indef. The user is not collaborative.—Alalch E. 10:11, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

  Replying to avoid auto-archive of topic. BBQboffin^{grill me} 15:54, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

User Tioaeu8943 - Repeated failure to WP:AGF and suspected WP:CPUSH in relation to Contentious Topic WP:CT/A-I

Tioaeu8943 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Above user quite simply can't seem to help themselves but make repeated assertions of bad faith on the part of other editors that don't agree with them in relation to the Contentious Topic area noted above (in particular in relation to the Israel-Gaza War), instead they have a tendency to treat the subject as a WP:BATTLEGROUND in talk discussions. Just some recent examples include:

• Thank you, nevertheless, for the reminder via that link that you've been laboring mightily to mischaracterize the problems at the BBC so that they appear less serious than they are.[73]
• At any rate, @Queens Historian, you see what you'd be up against. The editors who WP:OWN this page assume that Israel's perspective is inherently WP:UNDUE and WP:MANDY. They're also evidently allowed to violate any policy they like, starting with WP:CIV.[74]
• A long discussion at Gaza Genocide where they stated Thank you again for clarifying that you're applying standards to this item that you're not applying to the rest of the article... Truly, I prefer your candor to their gaslighting. and On the contrary, I'm commending you for telling the truth. I've suspected all along that editors were targeting this item with hostile scrutiny that they weren't applying to the rest of the article. It's validating to read it in so many words.[75]
• A further comment at Gaza Genocide where they stated Real talk: Because the authoritarian leftists who patrol this page are trying to establish their narrative as reality.[76] which they struck only to then state Suffice it to say that that pro- and anti-Israel claims are not being held to the same standards[77]
• And this comment on a discussion at the Reliable Sources noticeboard where they stated about other editors that As demonstrated at Talk:Gaza genocide, anti-Israel activists are disappointed that pro-Israel perspectives exist. They won't be satisfied until the BBC is as bereft of pro-Israel perspectives as that article.[78]

They have been asked by several people to adjust their tone or stop assuming bad faith[79][80][81], including an admin[82], yet it has persistently failed to stick.

Even outside of just ABF they are also engaging in a WP:CPUSH, such as:

• WP:SEALIONING, such as here where they just endlessly fail to understand why you can't use a GUNREL source for Israel-Palestine topics to cite criticism of an organisation's coverage of Israel-Palestine[83]
• Threatening WP:POINTY behaviour to get their way[84]
• The use questionable and unreliable sources Pro-Israel to make claims, including regarding BLPs[85]

At this point I think there's a clear case that this editor should receive a TBAN from CTOP WP:CT/A-I as a minimum. Rambling Rambler (talk) 19:17, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Edit: As a further example of ABF, they are also now accusing myself of operating sockpuppets (or more accurately undertaking logged out editing)[86] Rambling Rambler (talk) 19:19, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

I've had my eye on tioaeue showing up in various ctop areas as well.

• their edit history seems to show possible WP:GAMING to reach 500 rapidly as well within the course of 4 days, easily hitting 500 after a series of edits, most of which <50 bytes. Most substantial edits are in A-I area, or other ECR areas as far as I can tell.
• a suggestion that a third party attack by an external right wing news source suggests that an editor is automatically guilty in the topic area. [87] this diff was galling to me Editors involved in the canvassing effort described by PW have a COI with respect to this RFC. and [88] If Huldra is not one of those editors, then no harm done. But she denies that she is pro-Hamas, not that she was involved in the activities described in the link she provided. If that reporting is accurate, then she's not a disinterested commenter in this RFC.
• another editor in that section said it best I think it's remarkable that Tioaeu8943 is able to look at Pirate Wires literally manufacturing a conspiracy theory about our colleagues on Wikipedia and instead of saying "that's pretty clear evidence that Pirate Wires is unreliable" instead tells those people who were subject to this conspiracizing that they should keep their mouths shut. This is clear proof of Pirate Wires' unreliability. This is all that we see here. - a quote of a participant in that rfc.
• the Begin-Sadat talk section that Rambling Rambler took quotes from shows that Tiouaeu contributed more than others

wordcounts from wordcount tool, collapsed for convenience

Tioaeu8943: 1,556 words, 37 comments
Alexandraaaacs1989: 1,048 words, 22 comments
Butterscotch Beluga: 924 words, 10 comments
Bobfrombrockley: 863 words, 10 comments
Cambial Yellowing: 732 words, 7 comments
Cdjp1: 656 words, 18 comments
Metallurgist: 565 words, 4 comments
Darouet: 540 words, 2 comments
EvansHallBear: 360 words, 10 comments
Iljhgtn: 330 words, 13 comments
Rainsage: 207 words, 4 comments
Shrike: 114 words, 3 comments
Buidhe: 112 words, 3 comments
Gjb0zWxOb: 111 words, 1 comment
Chrisahn: 82 words, 1 comment
QuicoleJR: 62 words, 1 comment
ScottishFinnishRadish: 52 words, 2 comments
Bluethricecreamman: 33 words, 1 comment
Objective3000: 20 words, 1 comment
Stephan rostie: 15 words, 1 comment
David A: 5 words, 1 comment

User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 19:27, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Discussion segment initiated by comment in violation of extended confirmed restriction in Arab–Israeli conflict contentious topic — Newslinger talk 16:21, 29 November 2025 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

@Alalch E. You do not look clean yourself. You were previously blocked by the ArbCom for sockpuppeting while making a rapid succession of copyedits in random articles in the early days of your account mimicking EC gaming itself. On the same basis as the filer argues you are no better than the accused user. ~2025-37183-96 (talk) 12:04, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

That doesn't have any bearing on the current post and doesn't invalidate their opinion. People can change and you should not hold someone's past against them.

Can you please stop casting aspersions on everyone who says something you don't agree with?

You're very focused on defending this editor using any means possible.

You've had your say so please stop bludgeoning. It's not going to work. Blue Sonnet (talk) 12:50, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

People can change and you should not hold someone's past against them. Quoted for truth. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 13:45, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

I do sincerely believe this - that's why I've voted for TBAN & not anything more severe. I want to see you produce great edits in other areas of Wikipedia, then in the future you can present that evidence to show that you can edit without conflict.

We've all got things that we're so passionate about that it's hard to think clearly sometimes, or we might be a bit sharper then we would usually be when we're pushed.

Passion and really caring about something is admirable, but so is the ability to go "hang on, I'm having a bit of trouble staying objective when I'm doing this - perhaps I should step away for a little while". All that's happened in your case is that other people are having to make that decision for you.

Everyone screws up, but what's important is how we choose to deal with it. Blue Sonnet (talk) 14:29, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

That block was 3 years ago that should not be held against them today and as mentioned by Blue Sonnet is not relevant to this discussion anyway. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 13:22, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

That's a not a correct description of why and how I was blocked. I was not blocked by ArbCom but unblocked by ArbCom. I was instead blocked by a CU for block evasion after having been indeffed by an individual admin, for disruptive editing, which was a little particular in nature and was not related to this topic area. While I did subsequently evade my block, the edits I made which you describe as a "rapid succession of copyedits" is simply my editing style, as I do indeed often make a series of smaller edits in an article, because I like it when each change is separated out in its own edit, and I still edit like that most of the time (I'm an adherent of WP:FEET). In addition, I still edit what to most people would look like "random articles". Many of the articles I edit I open from recent changes, or similar channels that don't group articles in a topically coherent way. That pattern of editing (a rapid succession of copyedits in random articles) was not at all deceptive. Ultimately, I don't care about Tioaeu8943 alleged early gaming of permissions. The reason why I recommend a topic ban is the overall WP:BATTLEGROUND approach and an apparent lack of interest in regular dispute resolution. —Alalch E. 14:20, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

This is my first (and I hope last) time responding to charges on ANI, so I'd appreciate guidance if I'm supposed to respond or not respond in a particular manner here. Apparently some of my remarks have been taken as rude. I apologize for that. On the other hand, I've been subjected to some surprising comments, including one editor who told me, In polite society, you would have your throat split open with a rusty butterknife and then filled with laxatives. I certainly haven't posted anything like that. Allow me to reply to the above criticisms in a manner I hope is at least somewhat exculpatory.

• the Begin-Sadat talk section that Rambling Rambler took quotes from shows that Tiouaeu contributed more than others Indeed, I introduced the related item - a 2025 report on the topic by BESA - to the page, so naturally I had things to say about it. At one point, two sentences of claim had six sentences of qualification attached to it. I said something POINTY. I should not have, but that's how I learned about POINTY and I said nothing like it again. More neutral editors observed that the qualifications were too much. Someone shortened them. I said it was satisfied with it.

• Then another editor blanked it, called it shit public relations bumph and similar, repeatedly, at length. I thought this was an obvious case of WP:JUST and repeated kicks in the shin of WP:CIV, but no one objected, so I rolled with it, politely. This was the source of Thank you again for clarifying that you're applying standards to this item that you're not applying to the rest of the article and so on. When told to knock it off, I knocked it off.

• But it was on that basis that I said on another TP item, a proposal to include Israel's perspective on the topic, that The editors who WP:OWN this page assume that Israel's perspective is inherently WP:UNDUE and WP:MANDY. They're also evidently allowed to violate any policy they like, starting with WP:CIV. Deficient in AGF, I admit, but I was speaking from recent experience, and nobody said I was wrong. I haven't edited the page since early October anyway.

That ought to convey the gist of what's gone on with these exchanges. Editors who have pointed out policy violations to me sensibly, I have heeded and abided. Editors who seem like they're on some kind of a trip, not so much. Rambler accuses me of sealioning, but even Bluethricecreamman was not convinced that their application of BLP was correct regarding the item we were discussing.

That I accused Rambler of sockpuppetry is not true; I asked them if they were socking, because, per WP:SOCK, there are some valid reasons for maintaining multiple accounts, and I was assuming good faith. To Most substantial edits are in A-I (I assume P-I) area, or other ECR areas as far as I can tell, I read a lot of Jewish and Israeli news and edit accordingly. I consider my most substantial edits to be the pages I created on Ghazi Faisal Al-Mulaifi, Ayelet Rose Gottlieb, Ravid Kahalani, and Neta Elkayam. Some of the musicians seem to remember that humans are good and peace is possible. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 04:14, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Editors who have pointed out policy violations to me sensibly, I have heeded and abided. Editors who seem like they're on some kind of a trip, not so much.

Yeah, this attitude right here is ABF and why I felt it necessary to bring this matter here. You seem to decide that simply disagreeing with you is people on a "power trip" and use that as a justification for your lack of WP:CIV. Also there seems to be a pattern where your politeness only emerges when you're given a templated warning about your conduct as shown by your repeated warnings about BLP violations.[89][90]

Funny how in that second example you state "I will invite you to go threaten someone else on their talk page" only to do a quick about face and move to "Okay, thank you for that" after they mention you're heading towards a TBAN or CBAN. Rambling Rambler (talk) 09:18, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

You're misrepresenting what happened in that second example. That editor opened with a threat, then cited policy. The thanks was for citing policy. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 12:27, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

You seem to decide that simply disagreeing with you is people on a "power trip" and use that as a justification Asking for guidance here: Does AGF also apply to this discussion, or is it taking place in a meta-realm of discussion about discussion that runs according to other policy? Tioaeu8943 (talk) 12:40, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. Necessary and proportionate measure to stop further disruption. The evidence by the OP suffices.—Alalch E. 10:08, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

• Support TBAN This isn't a one-off issue brought by a single editor. If their feelings about a particular subject makes it difficult for them to collaborate with others in a collegial manner, they should be focusing on other topic areas where they won't inadvertently cause further disruption. I believe that they don't think they're causing problems, but that doesn't change the effect they're having. Blue Sonnet (talk) 12:07, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Discussion segment initiated by comment in violation of extended confirmed restriction in Arab–Israeli conflict contentious topic — Newslinger talk 16:24, 29 November 2025 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

• Other users who conflict with the accused user have engaged in similar behavior as well. Would you propose a TBAN for some of them as well? Rules need to be applied equally. ~2025-37183-96 (talk) 12:22, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

  I'm looking at the behaviour of this one specific editor based on the evidence presented.

  Besides, just because one editor is disruptive (and I'm not saying they were), it doesn't mean that I should ignore another.

  If you have (valid) concerns about another editor then please raise them separately, with specific diffs as evidence. I'm not going to dig around their history to try to find proof, if you're making an allegation please do so with evidence, so it can be fairly considered. Blue Sonnet (talk) 12:41, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

  If you appear to be considering evidence selectively, then it is reasonable for some uninvolved parties to have the perception that the accused user is being targeted for their views. ~2025-37045-55 (talk) 12:51, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

  No, you've alleged that another editor has engaged in disruptive behaviour, I asked for evidence of that which you still have not provided.

  I can't see much history for your account so I'm presuming you're new - if you want someone to consider your car at ANI, you must present diffs. A link to the OP and a vague allegations tells me nothing of use.

  If you genuinely feel I've not taken something into account, please tell me what I've missed (with diffs) so that I can consider it.

  I'm not going to hunt around @Bluethricecreamman's entire edit history to try to guess what you mean.

  If I've genuinely missed something that changes my decision, I'll be happy to reconsider - I have in fact done that very thing recently on this same page.

  But you're inferring that I'm purposefully focusing on evidence and ignoring other evidence because I'm out to get this editor who (to my knowledge) I've never once interacted with in a topic area I don't usually touch.

  You're apparently making this allegation on the basis of us having differing opinions, and that's awfully close to a personal attack. Something you're also close to doing with other editors in this same thread. With all due respect, please knock it off. Blue Sonnet (talk) 13:03, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

  I'm also replying on the basis that @~2025-37045-55 and @~2025-37183-96 are the same person. Whilst it's possible they aren't, I don't have access to check and am making this assumption based on behaviour. Either way, neither account has Extended confirmed status and probably shouldn't be part of this discussion. Blue Sonnet (talk) 13:34, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Discussion segment initiated by comment in violation of extended confirmed restriction in Arab–Israeli conflict contentious topic — Newslinger talk 16:21, 29 November 2025 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

• Oppose TBAN Overkill. An AE warning will suffice. The filer, just many other butting heads with the accused user, also has a strong POV on the topic area and engages in similar (battleground) behavior as shown by their own evidence. This report appears retaliatory. Rules should be applied equally. Using AE or ANI to try removing opponents ought to be advised against. Whenever content disputes arise, civil discussions are the key to resolution, not seeking to get every opponent removed and let themselves win. ~2025-37183-96 (talk) 11:58, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

  "...civil discussions are the key to resolution, not seeking to get every opponent removed and let themselves win."

  Good advice. Please follow it. Blue Sonnet (talk) 12:52, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) I don't think these TAs should be commenting here. Virtually the entire thing is about the A-I area so ARBECR should apply. Nil Einne (talk) 13:21, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

  Thank you so much, I was about to ask that question then RL stuff happened. Blue Sonnet (talk) 13:29, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Support TBAN its possible to lift it given time and good faith effort. currently, they mostly seem to be treating the topic area as a WP:BATTLEGROUND, or at the very least accusing other editors of having it out for them. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 14:53, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

I do wonder how you came in at the end of this exchange and concluded that I was battling, but the editor baselessly characterizing the item I tried to introduce as shit public relations bumph was not. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 23:32, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

<- Re: Bluethricecreamman's comment their edit history seems to show possible WP:GAMING to reach 500 rapidly as well within the course of 4 days, easily hitting 500 after a series of edits, most of which <50 bytes. Most substantial edits are in A-I area, or other ECR areas as far as I can tell.

• Is it the case that the edits show possible gaming? Yes, that appears to be the case, although it was 14 days with edits rather than 4. See Gaming Check, a new tool in development. Sean.hoyland (talk) 14:21, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

  Amazing tool. I said 4 days cuz I looked at the user's edit history the old fashioned way [91], they hit 500 edits on May 11th, if i look at the oldest 500 edits, about 4 days after they start their first edit. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 14:31, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

  Right, but EC wasn't granted until 2025-07-01 after 679 revisions. For fun, you can estimate the probability of survival using this survival analysis for extendedconfirmed accounts. It took them 55 days from registration to EC, and the account age is 151 days, so the average probability of survival is about 74%. The shorter the EC acquisition time, the lower the survival rate => the higher the probability of being blocked. Sean.hoyland (talk) 15:06, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

• Support TBAN. The evidence shows a lack of WP:AGF if not WP:BATTLEGROUND and is disruptive so a TBAN is necessary to stop the disruption to the topic area. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 15:04, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

  Support TBAN due to evidence cited. If you write this you have no business near this topic area. (t · c) buIdhe 16:57, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

• Support TBAN bearing in mind that TBANs can be lifted given good faith engagement. The topic can be very frustrating to edit in, but enough comments were disproportionate lapses in AGF that some sanction is probably the best way forward. There was some outreach about temperature, but it quickly fell away to a content dispute which wasn't great in AGF either Placeholderer (talk) 23:11, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

  I'd encourage @Tioaeu8943 to take a voluntary break from the topic, respecting their contributions but also worried in good faith about temperature Placeholderer (talk) 23:17, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

  How does that work, do I just announce that I'm taking a voluntary break from the topic here? Tioaeu8943 (talk) 23:35, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

  As far as I know that's how it works Placeholderer (talk) 23:48, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

  If the goal of this exercise is to foster a productive editing environment, and not to shackle a perceived enemy editor, it seems like that should have been mentioned at the outset, and not 2000 words or whatever into the process. I'm not criticizing you, Placeholderer, on the contrary.

  Could another editor kindly confirm what Placeholderer is saying here? Tioaeu8943 (talk) 12:54, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

  Yep, you are absolutely able to step away from this topic voluntarily.

  It's not an "official" process AFAIK but it does happen. You're basically saying "I see why everyone feels this way, I'm making this decision of my own free will because it's obviously necessary". People who've voted may change their minds if they see that you've taken a voluntary TBAN.

  Just be prepared for the possibility that it might still be deemed necessary to put a formal one in place (I don't want to second-guess what an admin might decide to do).

  Either way, it would show a willingness to take the communities concerns to heart and only count in your favour, no matter the eventual outcome. Blue Sonnet (talk) 13:36, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

  @Blue-Sonnet @Placeholderer personally I think given the protracted nature of the disruption and issues, as well as the demonstrable repeated unofficial warnings that've gone unheeded, this will have to end with a TBAN being imposed as quite simply they have shown themselves incapable of voluntarily walking away.

  As we know TBANs don't prevent them from engaging elsewhere on the project and can down the line be appealed with a demonstration of why they can now be trusted to edit in the previously problematic area. That's the best situation for all parties rather than a nebulous "voluntary" withdrawal that doesn't have any safeguards in place and is quite frankly likely to lead to further editor time being wasted given prior conduct. Rambling Rambler (talk) 13:47, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

  That was definitely a concern, which is why I thought I'd better make it clear that the TBAN could still be placed. Considering the number of votes and area involved, I do think a formal TBAN is likely. Blue Sonnet (talk) 13:51, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

  It depends on whether or not such a voluntary thing seems like a sincere enough commitment to address the concerns of the people !voting here. Obviously it shouldn't be a mechanism to escape a clear track to sanctions via a nebulous pinky promise, but ideally it's an outcome that involves, again, a sincere commitment.

  Basically invoking WP:ROPE. Though one point there is not to give leniency when the user is not giving any indication that they even feel they did anything wrong. But WP:ROPE is more about unblocking after sanctions have been imposed; maybe it would be better in terms of not bypassing this discussion to put up a TBAN and see how an appeal goes Placeholderer (talk) 17:49, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

  If we are at a point where voting on tban starts, i see no reason not to have a tban and voluntary retreat from topic area.

  if they are truly sincere on taking a step back, the tban should not matter. And they should be able to do work to justify removal of tban when time comes User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 18:32, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

  Very well. In recognition of Placholderer's superior decency, I hereby pinky-promise to them to undertake a voluntary TBAN on PIA and associated talk pages for three months, with sincere apologies to anyone offended by my prior remarks. In return, I drop my concerns about the nominator's 1RR violation and subsequent chicanery that immediately preceded the nomination. If that's acceptable to you, @Placeholderer, please say so and let's see if the eventual closer agrees. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 14:48, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

  I'm a bit uncomfortable making that call myself. I don't have any special authority here, and have relatively little ANI experience Placeholderer (talk) 18:10, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

  That's why I trust you. But fair, and no pressure. I stand by your superior decency and the pledge remains to whom will accept it. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 18:44, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

• Support TBAN: Clear repeated instances of ABF and WP:BATTLE. Not sure why the OP classified Tioaeu8943's behaviour as CPUSH as there is nothing civil about their behaviour. This topic area needs less heat, not more. TarnishedPath^talk 00:13, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
• Support TBAN This topic area is filled with disruptive POV pushers. The less we have in there, the better. Tioaeu's behavior is not only POV pushing, but also uncivil in parts, and generally not conductive to the creation of the encyclopedia. Therefore, it would be a net positive to Wikipedia if he did not continue to edit in that topic area. He's not the only editor who could use a topic ban, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't enact one. I would have no objections to an appeal once he has shown that he can be a productive editor in other areas of the site. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:34, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose TBAN - I'm of the impression that the evidence adduced to propose a topic ban here is insufficient. None of the examples presented point to User:Tioaeu8943's edits being problematic. All accusations of the "POV pushing" stem from their responses on Talk Page comments.

I have come across a number of editors who employ a little bit of a combative attitude in their Talk Page responses. Often, they are advised to cool down for some period of time. Tio might just need to touch some grass, not be banished.

A warning should suffice in this specific scenario, in my opinion. A T-Ban sanction here is grossly disproportionate for a few brusque comments, considering Tio thmeself has been a recipient of such comments. Kvinnen (talk) 19:05, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Do you think this is acceptable on a BLP? (t · c) buIdhe 22:05, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

CTOPs cover talk pages, not just edits in mainspace. That their disruption has so far been contained to talk pages is no mitigation. TarnishedPath^talk 23:36, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Consideration of CBAN beyond a TBAN for Tioaeu8943

I was willing to leave this at just a TBAN (for which there is clear consensus above), but quite frankly this latest remark by Tioaeu8943, where amongst a general lack of genuine contrition they have now further repeated accusations that I'm operating sockpuppets/undertaking inappropriate logged-out editing[92] despite being told four days ago this is inappropriate[93], leaves me with no impression other than they are quite simply incapable of civil discussion and collaborative editing despite repeated warnings over WP:NPA, in particular WP:ASPERSIONS. Rambling Rambler (talk) 15:09, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Support CBAN as proposer. Rambling Rambler (talk) 15:09, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

And here I was, thinking that I was helping this along toward a reasonable conclusion. Oh well. For the record, "subsequent chicanery" mentioned at Rambler's link should be understood as "chicanery occurred," not "Rambler committed chicanery," which I do not mean to imply and of which I do not accuse them. I attest that my contrition is genuine. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 15:28, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Oppose - aren't there yet. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 15:33, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Oppose - I am happy to presume this is a misunderstanding unless it's really obviously malicious and/or continues. I want to see how a TBAN will go first. Tioaeu8943, it's probably best to read everything you post twice and make sure it can't be taken the wrong way, especially since you've got so many eyes on you at the moment. Blue Sonnet (talk) 15:53, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Understood. Trying to de-escalate; sorry for the editorial mishap. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 16:04, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Personal attacks from SPA

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

---

Carlspackler75 (talk · contribs) has all the hallmarks of a promotional SPA. All of their edits have been to promote a Spotify podcast by Steve Comisar. I first encountered them while patrolling the AfC backlog with their draft Draft:Scam Junkie podcast. After looking at their other edits I saw they were pushing a variety of edits at the Comisar article to the point that another editor told them to stop bothering them about this topic [94]. Two of their first three edits were to create sandboxes about the podcast. Their following edits are all in the vein of trying to get others to add content about the podcast to Wikipedia [95], to post comments about Comisar on articles totally unrelated to him [96], and to randomly demand deletion of other articles on their talk pages [97]. They also seem to think we should be more like Grokipedia and posted a long rambling message about it at GorillaWarfare's talk page [98]. After I removed promotional language and stuff sourced to press releases and other unreliable sources from the Comisar article, they posted a rant on my talk page full of childish personal attacks. The also apparently were so angry they posted something that triggered the edit filter [99]. This editor is clearly WP:NOTHERE. - The literary leader of the age ✉ 03:27, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Without having fully evaluated this issue, I have initially blocked @Carlspackler75 31 hours for personal attacks like this one: Special:Diff/1324674877 to stop further disruption. Any admin can take further action without consulting me. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 03:39, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

I will also add the Comisar article has a long history of promotional editing to the point it's semi protected. The talk page archive contains comments from other editors who have been harassed by the article subject and multiple denied edit requests dismissed as lobbying [100] including several from socks of PediatricMD (talk · contribs). Furthermore, I believe Carlspackler75 is a sockpuppet of Maniamit (talk · contribs). Both have tried to edit the Comisar article in promotional fashion and use a very similar comment style on talk pages, claiming to need help and be new: Maniamit: [101], Carlspackler75 [102]. - The literary leader of the age ✉ 04:01, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

• Request indef. This user shouldn't be returning to editing after their short block expires.—Alalch E. 09:22, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

• Support indef Things really aren't adding up for me.

If we disregard all the user talk posts, then their first ever mainspace edit is on 17 Oct to Robert Downey Jr's talk page, which (surprise!) compares him to Comisar.

Then on 21 Oct we have these three (random ?) article talk page posts nominating them for deletion (obviously nothing happened).

On 26 Nov, for someone who apparently needs the level of support they're asking for, these two edits seems awfully precocious for the image they present here,, but maybe I'm misreading that.

They were made shortly before they started working on the podcast draft & feel like an attempt to show that they're not fixated on Comisar.

This post on their own Talk page is strange - they say they were assigned a mentor on their first day and given several articles to edit, but all they did that day was edit their sandbox and ask a question about you-know-who.

Most concerningly, I can't see any edits where they discussed a "list of articles" with a mentor.

I'm going to ask this in question the spirit of AGF - @Spbvj, if you are Carlspackler75's mentor (I have no idea who else they are referring to), did you give them a list of articles as they're claiming, or know what/where this list is?

(BTW this is indeed a bit creepy, please don't do that.)

Blue Sonnet (talk) 10:56, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello i'm randomly assigned to him and first of all he claims that this page was protected to edit from random user(edit protected)so he ask me to edit behalf of ((his/her(or they)) and i edited and added filmography tab and there is no reliable(sufficient) source to create separate article for podcast(scam junkie).

Because;he initially ask to create article about podcast ,but i only added some para and links to steve comisar article.then; i asked in teahouse for further guidance,because he constantly ask me to create and he even sandboxed article himself but he didn't know to move to mainspace without any source and necessity. Spbvj (talk) 15:04, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

it was archived Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1272 and 49th QA.Spbvj (talk) 15:06, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

So and finally;i didn't know single thing about him and please stop mentioning i was in part of some cult or group in edits or vandalizing.i asked to understand policy and guidelines in my talk page tabs ...

i didnt know what gotten into him about podcast article creation.@Blue-Sonnet and it is my responsibility(not fully) for every mentee's behaviour.after i guided them..hopefully i dont repeat it and will correct myself. Its in my talk page about all this drama.Spbvj (talk) 15:17, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

That's totally fine, I was trying to get to the bottom of what Carlspackler75 said.

They said that their mentor gave them a list of tasks to do, so I wanted to check if this was perhaps by email or if I'd missed some other discussion you might have had, because the history doesn't show that you gave them a list at all - all you did was make a couple of edits for them in good faith.

I'm not at all happy that they were almost using you as a shield, to make it look like they were following a mentor's instructions when that never happened in the first place. Blue Sonnet (talk) 15:59, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

You were acting in good faith. I believe you've been manipulated here by a sock farm who have been obsessed with promoting Comisar all over Wikipedia for at least 10 years. Have a look at the Steve Comisar talk page including the archives and archives and you'll see what I mean. The way this new account writes is pretty much exactly like previously blocked promotional sockpuppets. - The literary leader of the age ✉ 21:18, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

I wondered whether to request EC protection, but it looks like the socks only pop up every couple of years or so? Not sure if it's worth asking since the level of incidents is pretty low.

Because they're relatively infrequent, write & present themselves in exactly the same manner, are incredibly single-minded and use the same arguments over and over again, I suspect we're looking at one person (I wonder who it is) rather than a UPE farm, for example. Blue Sonnet (talk) 21:41, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

I've requested a sockpuppet investigation [103]. - The literary leader of the age ✉ 22:04, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

I just want to reiterate again @Spbvj, I'm not blaming you at all - I think this person exploited your help & mentorship and that's not ok at all. You didn't do anything wrong, ok? Blue Sonnet (talk) 21:47, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Ok. Spbvj (talk) 14:15, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Time-limited block is a minimum. Indef second. ~2025-37045-55 (talk) 12:52, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

ADMINS - This can be closed as they've been blocked as a sockpuppet here. Blue Sonnet (talk) 13:27, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Will do. You would have also been welcome to close this discussion yourself, as it has been superseded by the sockpuppet investigation result and no longer serves a purpose. — Newslinger talk 18:06, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

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

Vulgar personal attack on Doug Weller

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

---

Proposal for CBAN

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

---

Taunting ANY editor in such a despicable fashion, let alone someone as well-respected as @Doug Weller, is beyond the pale. Star Mississippi graciously invited me to open this back up again if I wished, and frankly, indef or no, I don't ever want to see the likes of Royal2Real on Wikipedia ever again. I'm therefore proposing a community ban on Royal2Real, and seldom was such a ban more deserved. Ravenswing 05:08, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

• Support Mess with the Weller, end up in the cellar. Support a CBAN and will be waiting with an oppose whenever they appeal. ~2025-37411-29 (talk) 05:56, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
• Support - The editor-in-question, needs to be kept away. GoodDay (talk) 06:41, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
• Support: I'll support this, though I can guarantee no administrator would have accepted an unblock request for the indef anyway. 11WB (talk) 06:54, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
• Support But I kinda do actually want some uniquely brave admin to invoke WP:IGNORE regarding the outing restrictions and just ruin this person's week Snokalok (talk) 06:57, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
• Support – make it clear this kind of behaviour is unacceptable. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 07:01, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
• Support as we cannot respond to anything like this with anything but the harshest sanction Ultraodan (T, C) 07:04, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
• Support The comment was beyond the pale. - SchroCat (talk) 08:08, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
• Support - Disgusting behaviour. TarnishedPath^talk 08:18, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

• Support Get rid, don't want. Urgh. Blue Sonnet (talk) 12:56, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

• Support Probably the most vile personal attack I've seen yet, and yeah... Good riddance. Codename AD ^talk 14:36, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

• Support both Ravenswing's reopening and an absolute never to this editor's return. The comment makes me wish we had an unappealable ban. Star Mississippi 14:58, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
• Support I can't even view what the attack was, and that is why I'm supporting. Making a revdel-level attack on someone like Doug means that you are someone who should never be on this site again. Indefinite is not infinite, except cases like this, where it most certainly is. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:26, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

  I just saw what it was earlier in the thread, and wow. That is one of the most vile sentences ever written in the history of the English language. Get this editor off the site. Forever. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:29, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

• Support. WP:CIVIL restrains me from saying what I think of this editor. Narky Blert (talk) 18:15, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

  I really don't think anyone would penalize you for it here, mate. Snokalok (talk) 18:22, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

• Support. Has anyone done a sock check? The conrib history looks sock-y. We could be playing whac-a-mole if there are other accounts. Viriditas (talk) 20:52, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

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

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

User:LuffyDe Block Evasion

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

---

It looks like @User:LuffyDe was first subject to restriction on editing topics related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, and that restriction was renewed after the user violated it. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it looks like those restrictions are indefinite pending extended confirmed status, and given that the user has not yet reached 500 lifetime edits, the restriction is still in place.

Today, the user blanked an entire section of Herzog Park, related to the proposal to rename the park from the former President of Israel to a young alleged victim of the Israel-Palestine war. I responded with a Level 3 talk page warning, noting the previous violations. The user's explanation is difficult to believe.

See also 1, 2, 3 three more edits in the last nine days related to the Arab-Israel conflict, out of only thirteen total edits in this time period before the Herzog Park edit. Ilvekset (talk) 19:27, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

I'll explain my rationale on the edits and why I don't believe I have violated A/I topic ban. For Jamaal Bowman edit, I think it was editorializing. I couldn't find a reliable source that says his competitor was pro-Israel, and therefore I removed the reference. Jamaal Bowman is largely American and his promixity to the A/I conflict is secondary at best. 2026 United States House of Representatives elections in New York article: Pure editorializing. No candidate has such a line and only Torres had that line. Not even attempting to be impartial, pure hatred towards a candidate towards his politics. I reviewed all districts and ZERO candidates had any form of that line. Also, the article is talking largely about US elections. Tucker Carlson article: Do talk requests count towards A/I topic ban? I am under impression they don't. Happy to be corrected. Thank you all. LuffyDe (talk) 20:13, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

This post on your Talk page says you can't edit about the conflict anywhere on Wikipedia when you were blocked last time - topic bans are also usually "broadly construed", which means you can't edit anything even tangentially related to the topic.

You were also told that commenting on the conflict is out-of-bounds here, well before you breached the ban last time. To most editors, this would indicate that you shouldn't be anywhere near the subject.

I don't get how you could think that a park that's going to be named after a victim of the conflict isn't a topic that's related to the conflict? Plus the part that you removed was specifically talking about the conflict and included a direct link to it?

You removed: "It proposes to rename the park after Hind Rajab, a five-year-old Palestinian girl from the Gaza Strip who was allegedly killed by Israeli forces during the Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip."

I'm not using hyperbole, I'm genuinely having trouble understanding your logic here. I also note this is the one edit that you haven't mentioned in your response, maybe because it's harder to defend.

In the other linked edits, you removed the words "by pro-Israel candidate”, "Torres is considered vulnerable to a primary challenge by progressives due to his pro-Israel views.", then created a Talk page section, titled: "Anti Israel or against Zionism" discussing whether Tucker Carlson is anti-Israel.

If you're not sure if something is related to your ban, stay well away from it. It doesn't matter if your edit is justified, you can't touch it. Leave it for someone else.

If you failed to adhere to your topic ban on two separate occasions - even after having things literally spelled out to you - you're not leaving the admins with a lot of choices in what to do next. Blue Sonnet (talk) 20:35, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

"Happy to be corrected"

On your talk page, here, @Cullen328 specifically warned you that talk pages were included in the ban. This is one of many things that you WP:CANTHEAR. Ilvekset (talk) 20:44, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Expanding on Blue Sonnet's comment, you should be aggressively analyzing any subject's connection to the conflict. "Secondary at best" touches on the conflict. TERTIARY at best touches on the conflict. Casual mentions of Israel or Gaza should be giant red flags to you to keep your hands off, even if they're as trivial or trite as speculation as to whether there's going to be a new halal McDonalds in Khan Yunis next year. You need to be acting as if you're at the mercy of the most kneejerk, hardcore admin on Wikipedia. Ravenswing 20:54, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

It also looks like the previous block was due to this substantive edit which was explicitly talking about the conflict, as were the added sources.

The title of the sources also mentioned the conflict.

This is another reason LuffyDe should have been well aware that "secondary" edits definitely count as a ban violation. Blue Sonnet (talk) 21:20, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

• Given (a) the blatant and unambigous violations of the ECR restriction on WP:CT/A-I, (b) the attempted Wikilawyering about whether or not they were violations, and (c) the fact the last block for this was for 14 days, I have blocked LuffyDe for a month. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:53, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

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

Giovanni Potage EC gaming

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

---

Giovanni Potage (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) requested EC protection for Battle for Dream Island [104] shortly after a minor editing disagreement with another editor, after protection was granted they made a series of nonsense edits at their sandbox to reach 500 edits [105]. Requesting EC be revoked, and protection be reversed. The asserted disruptive activity has been overstated, is highly manageable, and protection is blocking out productive non-EC contributors at the article like RaveCrowny, Asex Twin, or JudeHalley.​ fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 19:49, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Their last edit has the summary: "I might actually add something productive later." That says it all, really.

Also mandatory plug for the Gaming check tool. That also says it all. Blue Sonnet (talk) 20:16, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Bishonen has revoked extendedconfirmed access. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:17, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I have, and I have told them they will have to appeal to an administrator if they want it re-added once they have made 500 non-gaming edits. Bishonen | tålk 20:20, 29 November 2025 (UTC).

and @Giovanni Potage should consider themselves lucky they weren't blocked for DE.

BFDI is more trouble than its worth. Star Mississippi 20:21, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

I don't understand why suddenly in the last month or so it's become such a hot bed of edit warring and disruptive editing. But also I think we should start handing out PBlocks on that article like candy. Canterbury Tail talk 20:48, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Because it didn't exist before. As WP:BFDI explains, it was already contentious, just it had been salted due to being contentious while not crossing the threshold for notability. It finally crossed that threshold unambigously, the article was rightfully created, and the disruption was off to the races. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:42, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Compared to when it was first created, the disruption now is negligible (no doubt thanks in part to semi-protection). Considering the demographic the topic appeals most to, I've been pleasantly surprised at how productive editing and discussion there has been. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 22:08, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

@Fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four it's not negligible. It has moved to at least two long running discussions on the Huangs, which I will not link to avoid canvassing concerns. A notable topic can still be an enormous waste of time. And @Canterbury Tail yes I wholly concur, and would not be surprised if this ends up at ArbComm, unfortunately. Fandoms are obsessive. Star Mississippi 23:34, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

BFDI is on the internet, has a young audience and went viral.

Wikipedia is on the internet and is the first or second search result for almost everything.

It's a perfect storm, really. Blue Sonnet (talk) 21:53, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

After taking a through look at the edit history, I think EC was a bit overkill. There hasn't been any disruption from an auto-confirmed account for almost a week. Giovanni Potage (talk) 00:29, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

@Giovanni Potage: Would you have said this if extended confirmed wasn't revoked from you? Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 00:34, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

@ChildrenWillListen: Yes. The reason why I requested EC was because I mistakenly thought the small number of disruptive edits were from auto-confirmed accounts. Once I took a look, realized that I EC wasn't going to fix any problems. I request that the page's protection be reverted back to semi. Giovanni Potage (talk) 00:38, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

an uninvolved, experienced editor is welcome to make that request. You'd really be best served by editing something else entirely @Giovanni Potage to show that you can be a productive editor here. Star Mississippi 00:41, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

I also made a request for the protection to be reversed in the initial report, and have no issue waiting for the protecting admin, Daniel Case, to review the request (they've been pinged). fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 00:47, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm not going to action it as I've had my fill of BFDI and friends, but have no objection to that from you or any other established editor, @Fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four Star Mississippi 02:35, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

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

Johnpaulweller spam texting everyone at Paul Weller

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

---

• Johnpaulweller (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Paul Weller (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

hello and thank you for your contribution I'm impressed with your comments you can text me directly on my personal whatsapp +1 (xxx) xxx-xxxx I have something to share with you JPW seems to be spam posting this on a bunch of comments. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 21:12, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

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

Selim beg

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

---

I’m following this up from an admin talk who suggested opening an ANI, I wanted to notify them first as the blocking admin.

Selim beg was blocked by The Bushranger and later ended up being unblocked by Rosguill. Since the unblock and gaining extended confirmed status, Selim beg has demonstrated that they unfit to edit contentious topics such as AA, and I would even argue WP:NOTHERE given the number of highly concerning edits.

• First I caught a glimpse of an article outside AA, the Italo-Turkish war article, where they edit-warred and engaged in WP:OR to the point of unblocking admin cautioning them. The WP:OR didn't stop here as evidenced below and leaked into AA, hence the reason I'm here.

• Their edits later diverted to personal interpretations and tendentious editing on Armenian genocide related articles such as this — and in this example, they also use genocide denialist authors like Stanford J. Shaw (not the last time).

• Adding unsourced "revolt" to a genocide resistance article, no mention of a revolt anywhere in the article.

• Edit warring with their own WP:OR despite the source clearly stating what they tried to remove, twice: [106], [107]

• More "revolt" in another genocide resistance article, this time using the denialist Shaw again.

• [108] Adds a criticism section based on 3 controversial authors: Sidney Bradshaw Fay, Harry Elmer Barnes who wasn't even regarded as a historian by 1950s and who was a Holocaust denier, and Heath W. Lowry, an open Armenian genocide denier. The other 2 "criticisms" are memoirs of Djemal and Talaat pashas, two of the three perpetrators of Armenian genocide.

• [109] Adds author's own book as criticism of himself, WP:OR interpretation of WP:PRIMARY

• [110] Changes what was basically the summary of this featured article and genocide denial.

I believe their block should be reinstated given the evidence above. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 22:15, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

You keep mentioning AA. What's AA? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 22:36, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Armenia-Azerbaijan contentious topics, I’ve warned them about it months ago [111] KhndzorUtogh (talk) 22:41, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

@Erpert: - WP:CT/AA, and the community addition imposing WP:ECR, WP:GS/AA. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:37, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

A lot of these edits are at least look like they could have been made in good faith (although they have issues such as lacking context, not using the best sources, etc.), but the second to last one is undoubtedly WP:OR. Right now Selim is not a net positive, so I would like a commitment that the editor will avoid WP:OR and FRINGE citations in future, otherwise a some kind of admin intervention would be appropriate. Struck per my comment below (t · c) buIdhe 22:53, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

First, regarding the Italo-Turkish War article:

I don't think I've engaged in edit wars at all there. Instead, when I had a issue with somebody, I took the discussion over to the talk page (as shown here) instead of continuing to edit the article. I've never edited an article more than three times in a 24-hour period.

Second, on the use of Stanford J. Shaw:

I have chosen Shaw due to his credentials as an academically published historian. His scholarly works were published by many major academic institutions, including Cambridge University. I haven’t chosen to use him for his political position; I also recognize that authors who have controversial opinions should be approached with caution. I aimed to avoid endorsing any fringe viewpoint.

On the “revolt” wording in the Urfa resistance article:

The uprise refers to a form of a revolt and the site uses this term in its description of this particular event. The use of the term, "Urfa uprisings" indicates that this event was a localized form of a revolt. I edited this content for uniformity in terminology only and did not make any attempt to re-interpret the actual event that took place. If there was a different term the community would like me to use, I would certainly consider it.

Regarding the allegation of edit warring ([229], [230]):

Per the definition at WP:WAR, I did not exceed three reverts within a 24-hour period, nor did I repeatedly reinsert material after objections. If any of my edits were disputed, I am willing to discuss and defer to consensus.

"An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. A series of consecutive edits that undoes or manually reverses other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a single revert. Violations of this rule often attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Fourth reverts just outside the 24-hour period will usually also be considered edit warring, especially if repeated or combined with other edit-warring behavior. See below for exemptions."

I did not do three reverts within a 24-hour period.

On the Musa Dagh article and the use of Shaw again:

The page itself states, “…one of the leaders of the revolt was Movses Der Kalusdian…”, which is why I used the term “revolt.” A sourced term is preferable to an unsourced one. Again, Shaw was used because he is an academically published historian, not because of his political reputation.

Regarding the criticism section added at Ambassador Morgenthau’s Story:

Sidney Bradshaw Fay: "Sidney Bradshaw Fay (April 13, 1876, in Washington, D.C. – August 29, 1967, in Lexington, Massachusetts) was an American historian whose examination of the causes of World War I, "

Harry Elmer Barnes: Harry Elmer Barnes (June 15, 1889 – August 25, 1968) was an American historian who, in his later years, was known for his historical revisionism and Holocaust denial.

Just because Lowry is a denialist doesn't mean his book is bad. He compares Morgenthau's diaries and his own memoir and it's explicit that there are big contradictions.

The intent was not to validate these authors’ views, but to summarize published criticisms of Morgenthau’s account. Inclusion in a criticism section does not imply endorsement.

On the alleged WP:OR regarding Morgenthau criticizing himself:

My interpretation was different. I took quotes from Morgenthau's writings directly, which include expressively racist and stereotyped terminologies. My purpose was to provide sources with an example rather than to give you my opinion about it.

Page 108: "Specific instructions for carrjdng out this holy purpose follow. There shall be a " heart war " — every follower of the Prophet, that is, shall constantly nourish in his spirit a hatred of the infidel ; a " speech war " — with tongue and pen every Moslem shall spread this same hatred wherever Mohammedans live'; and a war of deed — fighting and killing the infidel wherever he shows his head. This latter conflict, says the pamphlet, is the " true war." There is to be a " little holy war " and a " great holy war " ; the first describes the battle which every Mohammedan is to wage in his community against his Christian neighbours, and the second is the great world-struggle' which united Islam, in India, Arabia, Turkey, Africa, and other countries, is to wage against the infidel oppressor"

Page 156: "I saw that it was causing him much concern. The Turk, as I have said before, is psychologically primitive ;"

Page 166: acquired dropped like a mask ; I now saw him for what he really was — a savage, blood-thirsty Turk. " They will not come back ! " he shouted. " I shall let them stay there until they rot !

Page 181 and 182: I was really witnessing a remarkable development in race psychology — an almost classical instance of reversion to type. The ragged, unkempt Turk of the twentieth century was vanishing, and in his place was appearing the Turk of the fourteenth and the fifteenth, the Turk who had swept out of his Asiatic fastnesses, conquered all the powerful peoples in his way, and founded in Asia, Africa, and Europe one of the most extensive empires that history has known. If we are properly to appreciate this new Talaat and Enver, and the events which now took place, we must understand the Turk who, under Osman and his successor, exercised this mighty but devastating influence in the world. We must realise that the basic fact underlying the Turkish m.entahty is its utter contempt for all other races. A fairly insane pride is the element that largely explains this strange human species. The common term applied by the Turk to the Christian is " dog," and in his estimation this is no mere rhetorical figure ; he actually looks upon his European neighbours as far less worthy of consideration than his own domestic animals.

" My son," an old Turk once said, " do you see that herd of swine ? Some are white, some are black, some are large, some are small ; they differ from each other in some respects, but thev are all swine. So it is with Christians deceived, my son. These Cliristians may wear fine clothes, their women may be very beautiful to look upon ; their skins are white and splendid ; many of them are very intelligent, and they build wonderful cities and create what seem to be great States. But remember that underneath all this dazzling exterior they are all the same — they are all swine."

These are straight up his own words, i did not put my own comment into this.

On the Iğdır Genocide Memorial sentence:

The reference to a "promotes the false view that Armenians committed genocide against Turks" is not something supported by the source cited. That phrase makes an evaluative statement that has no available source, which violates WP:NOR and WP:SYN. I made the necessary changes to keep the article neutral and accurate according to the cited source.

Finally:

It is important to me to be clear that my edits were not motivated by any political agendas. Also, I will make sure that I will always use the talk pages when making my edits as well as avoiding original research, editing with a good faith attitude, and working with the consensus of the community, especially in these kinds of sensitive areas. I am willing to refrain from making any edits to anything that I have improperly edited based on improper references or have a tendency to be controversial in nature. Selim beg (talk) 23:04, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Support TBAN or indef I was willing to extend some ROPE but you've just demonstrated here that you don't understand what fringe sources and original research are. (t · c) buIdhe 23:06, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

If the cited source does not explicitly use the word “false,” then calling lt "false" is editorial analysis. Not a summary Selim beg (talk) 23:08, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Support indef per Buidhe. I don't personally think we need to lower the rope to people who have already dug a deep hole into a dark place that I don't think Wikipedia should go, namely, using an author whose first sentence of his wikipedia bio reads, "an American historian who, in his later years, was known for his historical revisionism and Holocaust denial." If I ever use an author close to that, trout me wildly. Andre🚐 23:10, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

I did not know he was a holocaust denialist, and i only put him because he published a criticism of Morgenthau's book. Selim beg (talk) 23:15, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Support indef - You gave Morgenthau's book as a source then proceeded to analyse it, writing that they were negative and stereotypical.

Everything in this edit entirely your analysis. It wasn't a reliable source saying it was negative and stereotypical, you wrote that.

You could probably have found an RS that had analyzed the book, but you chose to do it yourself.

That's the very definition of original research - if you don't understand this fundamental tenet of Wikipedia (and I'm still not convinced that you do) I'm concerned about your ability to edit in general. Blue Sonnet (talk) 00:44, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Support indef law of holes mate, law of holes. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:08, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Independent of whether their block should be reinstated, I have removed extended confirmed due to their clearly problematic edits in contentious areas. @Selim beg does not have the experience needed to edit in these areas. Star Mississippi 23:39, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

I've AEblocked indefinitely in light of their explanation here and looking at contributions from the last 24 hours. Sennecaster (Chat) 02:11, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

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

Violation of editing restrictions.

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

---

Normal rookie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to an editing restriction per a previous ANI found here. They were recently blocked for 48 hours for violating this restriction. IMMEDIATELY upon their block being lifted, they started reverting other editors edits with zero explanation.

For example see this revert where they inexplicably reverted my removal of a template that was deleted at TFD thus inserting a non-existent template into the article. This user clearly has not learned their lesson.

@Oshwah, Deepfriedokra, and Blue-Sonnet: who participated in the recent attempt by the user to get their block lifted. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 03:18, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

I already explained that is a technicak issue already. Normal rookie (talk) 03:19, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

You are subject to WP:0RR which AS YOU KNOW means a complete prohibition on reverts. You should not be reverting AT ALL. You are well aware of this as you have already been blocked for ignoring this restriction. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 03:22, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

What do you mean by a technical issue, more precisely? Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 03:22, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

User:Chaotic Enby per their explanation on their talk page, they seem to have "accidentally" reverted my edit while reverting at least 6 other edits. While the revert to my edit may be excusable as an accident, 6 reverts is not an accident and is a clear violation of the WP:0RR restriction. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 03:25, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I am looking for a more detailed explanation of what they mean by that, as "technical issue" might cover a variety of reasons and isn't a sufficient explanation. @Normal rookie, do you understand what the zero-revert rule means and what specifically is exempted from revert limits, and can you explain precisely whether or not your edits fell under these exemptions? Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 03:36, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

I already explained that is a technical issue already. Normal rookie (talk) 03:37, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

• Perhaps the 0RR should be modified to not have any exceptions, in order to get rid of situations like this. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 03:52, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

  User:45dogs what is unclear about a WP:0RR? This user should not be reverting edits, PERIOD. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 04:26, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

I don't really want this to get to a cban so I hope an admin will indef or some other long block as a normal action until Normal rookie can communicate with us and void violating their restrictions. An edit summary like "Undid revision 1324444975 by Wikiuser9876543212022 (talk undo first later I will come back)" after getting a 0RR isn't acceptable. (Why no CBAN? I think if they can justify to an admin they can communicate and comply with restrictions is enough for now.) Skynxnex (talk) 04:10, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

@The Bushranger: as the previous blocker of Normal rookie, wanted to make you aware of this new violation. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 04:27, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Sigh. The fact that they repeatedly were "how do I lift the ban" during their last block for violating it is also not encourgaing at all. I've indeffed until they can demonstrate they understand and will abide by the editing restriction. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:36, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Hopefully everyone can see how much help this editor needed to answer basic questions, it took several days to get them to even say what a 0RR was and another to explain how they violated it. I don't think they truly understand what's going on.

I may have held their hand too much in this case because I had to tell them where the question they had to answer was twice - both times I gave direct links plus directions on where to look on the page (up). Eventually I just cut and pasted it out of sheer desperation.

I'm pretty sad that I wasted all that time, but I don't regret trying to help.

This time, they need to appeal the block on their own without guidance. Blue Sonnet (talk) 04:40, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

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

Edit warring

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

---

Hello, a dispute recently arose over changes to this page: Military strategy. I made an edit, backed up by a source from a military officer's website—an anonymous site, but therefore, an unreliable source, according to the rules. I have read articles from this website before, and I can say the site is not lying. However, I did not check to see if it cited any sources and decided to use it as a source anyway, which was incorrect. Then I cited another source, which also, while not verbatim, confirmed my words. However, my opponent decided this was not sufficient, or he had not properly looked into it at all. That is how the edit war began. Now, another conflict is brewing, here: Battle of Zama. All the edits were supported by reliable citations, but they were reverted with statement like: "your source of information is missing," and a completely inappropriate essay (not a guideline) is cited as an addendum. My nerves are not made of steel either, and I cannot take this calmly. What should I do? Kolya Muratov (talk) 07:45, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

You should not consider other editors as "opponents" - that's a mindset that needs to change. Secondly you need to stop edit warring. Don't force your personal preference if a change you make is reverted. Thirdly you need to discuss matters on article talk pages, calmly and in a measured way. - SchroCat (talk) 08:17, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Excellent advice, but it is very difficult when a fully cited change is reverted due to some absurdity. If you look at it from a human perspective, you will see the injustice. If the esteemed Gog de Mild does not respond to my reply within 24 hours, I will have to revert my edits. Kolya Muratov (talk) 08:27, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

No, that is continuing to edit war and I'll happily file a report against you for it. You're already blocked from editing one page, the possibility is a block on a second or a block on all pages. You haven't made any comments dealing with challenged material on the talk page. I opened a thread yesterday for you, but all you've done is complain about Gog requesting you follow WP:BRD. The "D" bit means you have to discuss what bits you want to change and why. Maybe try engaging with Gog in a positive and constructive manner on the talk page. You've been here for over 11000 edits - surely you know how this all works by now? - SchroCat (talk) 08:35, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

You're telling me the obvious, but nothing useful. And I left a comment. Kolya Muratov (talk) 08:53, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

What you should do is listen to the advice provided by more experienced editors before you are indefinitely blocked. Instead of trolling them with "Dear, do not you want to think that you are only interfering with the contribution to Wikipedia?" on a user talk page (diff), use article talk to ask what the problem with the edit was. Ask at WP:Teahouse whether WP:BRD should be described as "a completely inappropriate essay" in the OP above. Johnuniq (talk) 09:01, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

No, the point is, I already asked. But the main point of this edit is the assertion that the changes are not cited, but they are, as you can see for yourself. The dear Gog made a mistake, refuses to admit it, and so it is simply difficult to process this adequately. Please understand the situation. Kolya Muratov (talk) 10:40, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

This is a content question (and therefore unsuitable for this particular page). Post on the article talk page why you think your edit was appropriate and why you think it should be allowed. It's how consensus is built on pages. - SchroCat (talk) 10:47, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

I think you lost any case you may have had when you called WP:BRD "some obscure essays". Looking at it from a human perspective, the other editor is also human and you've treated them poorly whereas AFAIK all they've done is reverted some of your edits because they disagree with them. And reverted edits is a perfectly normal part of editing here which every editor needs to be able to accept with good grace. If those changes bettered the article, it generally shouldn't be that hard to convince others probably even the reverting editor of the merits of your changes. You need to be able to cooperate and discuss changes with other editors, instead of seeing them as the enemy or people you can't work with. If you can't do that, you're not likely to survive here as Wikipedia is a collaborative project. Nil Einne (talk) 11:17, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

This essay is inappropriate here because there is nothing to discuss. I have already written that Gog is wrong because everything has been cited, and there is no response yet. Kolya Muratov (talk) 12:08, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

If someone disagrees in good faith, there is pretty much never nothing to discuss. That's one of the points of BRD and why it's appropriate in nearly all content disputes. And your comments were left less then 12 hours ago, it's generally reasonable to wait several days for a response in something like this dispute which is decidedly no urgent. I haven't looked into your history but it's perhaps not surprising that there is that edit warring problem Fortuna imperatrix mentioned if you're always thinking there is nothing to discuss and expecting responses so fast. Nil Einne (talk) 12:19, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Just saying "I'm right, you are wrong" when multiple editors have reverted your edits is not the way to participate in this Wikipedia.

You need to discuss and not immediately revert back to your version, especially when you have an active block for edit warring. Discussions can take multiple days which is acceptable and normal. You need to be patient. TwoNineNineOne (talk) 12:26, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There is obviously something to discuss, which is why we're here. You made a Bold edit; it was Reverted; Discussion is the only way forward. You haven't really posted a decent comment putting forward why you think the edit should stand. You've spent a lot of time and energy posting here, and that would have been better spent on the article talk page putting forward arguments to open the discussion properly. - SchroCat (talk) 12:28, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

In addition to what others have said, being right isn't enough. We still expect you to discuss your content disputes appropriately even if you are factually correct. Athanelar (talk) 13:49, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict) WP:BRD is not some "completely inappropriate essay" but provides the answer to the question that you pose at the end of your original post here. What you should do is build a consensus on the talk page and, if you are still unhappy, to follow WP:DR, which does not include posting at WP:ANI. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:30, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

• (Uninvolved) It is disingenuous of Kolya Muratov to complain here about edit warring when they are already blocked for two weeks for edit warring on the Military Strategy article they have mentioned. Since they are a) an established, recidivist edit warrior with no intention of WP:LISTENing to other editors or of voluntarily dropping the WP:STICK, and b) attempting to weaponise this board to win a content dispute, I suggest that their current two week partial block be extended site-wide. This would prevent both further disruption to articles and editors having to waste their time on spurious reports such as this. —Fortuna, imperatrix 11:23, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

  Do whatever you want. Do not you think it is impolite to simply undo someone else's changes for some stupid reason, explaining this as a lack of sources, yet everything is quoted? How can you respond normally to this? These changes need to be discussed first. Gog was impolite, and he received impoliteness in return. Kolya Muratov (talk) 12:29, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

There was nothing impolite in either Gog's words or actions. The article in question is a WP:Featured Article, which means it's been through two community review processes and care needs to be taken when editing it. Try discussing it on the talk page - I can't repeat this often enough, but you don't seem to be listening to the advice being given to you by several other editors. - SchroCat (talk) 12:40, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

As I already wrote on the discussion page, is it really necessary to prove the credibility of these individuals (Spencer C. Tucker and Hans Delbrück) I cited as sources? What is our topic? History. Who are they? Historians, that is what was written on their page. It does not say they are journalists or writers, but rather that they're historians. I see that the material and citations on their wikipedia pages are sufficient to conclude that they are credible historians. I'm stating such obvious things now, as if I were teaching a child about life. Kolya Muratov (talk) 12:54, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

@Kolya Muratov, whilst it's just an essay, I really think you should take a moment to read Wikipedia:Being right isn't enough. It's not a policy, but it was written (and is used regularly by) very experienced and respected veteran editors. It doesn't matter how justified an edit is, if it's made disruptively you're still causing problems. Blue Sonnet (talk) 13:40, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

The block was placed by ToBeFree. —Fortuna, imperatrix 13:44, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

It's now sitewide and for a month. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:52, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Good block. I'd be the tenth editor to look over Kolya Muratov's words and attitude and say that he's out of line. Ravenswing's Fifth Law: "The nature of a consensus-driven encyclopedia is that sometimes you're going to be on the wrong side of consensus, in which case the only thing to do is lose gracefully and move on." Whatever his contributions, if he can't wrap his head around that "But I have cited sources!" isn't an automatic I! Win! card, he's a net negative to the project. Ravenswing 17:57, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

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

Gawaon disruptive editing in Aztecs

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

---

Status:     No further action currently required

Gawaon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) user is obsessed with made disruptive edits about my own edits since past year due he commited a shameful mistake about archeological ruins, is obsessed with me since then. Now is restoring a revision due a no notations-map about Aztec Empire in the place of an Aztec calendar scultpure but this time he undid 7 REVISIONS! , I made improvements in technical language by hours and he just reverts me in that article. Please stop him. Difuarti (talk) 13:50, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Someone reverting your edits is not necessarily a reason for an ANI report. If you need outside advice to resolve a content dispute, try WP:DRN or WP:3O. If there's an edit warring issue (which there doesn't really seem to be) report at WP:ANEW. For general advice on solving content disputes see WP:DR. Otherwise simply discuss the dispute with Gawaon at Talk:Aztecs

If your only complaint about this user's conduct is them reverting your edits, there's no ANI case here. Athanelar (talk) 14:02, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Is a thing by one day, is horrific made a complaint about dispute resolution by just an apparent whim. Difuarti (talk) 14:08, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't understand what this means. Athanelar (talk) 14:11, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Well, then stop returning the version and I made your complaint tomorrow. Difuarti (talk) 20:45, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "I made your complaint tomorrow". You also can't tell another editor to stop reverting your edits if they have a valid reason to do so, that's the epitome of ownership and you've been told that's unacceptable already. Blue Sonnet (talk) 20:49, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Any admin viewing this should take note that the reporting user has demonstrated OWNy attitude about the article and undid Gawaon's fairly well-substantiated reversion by uncivilly and inaccurately describing it as 'vandalism' Athanelar (talk) 14:14, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Re "is obsessed with me", Gawaon's made 574 edits so far this month, of which about 1% have been interactions with you, half of those on their talk page because you posted there. You may not be as important as you think. Re "this time he undid 7 REVISIONS! , I made improvements in technical language", your word substitutions which Gawaon reverted were not only inappropriate but also poorly implemented, creating ungrammatical phrasing. Your description of Gawaon's edit as "vandalism" when you reinstated them is also inappropriate; do read at least the opening paragraphs of WP:VANDALISM. NebY (talk) 14:50, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

@NebY: That day I made edits later in other two articles and Gawaon today and other days return to the article until that 574 edits so far this month, Neby, explain me, what part are "inappropiate but also poorly implemented" of the gramatically corrections? Difuarti (talk) 20:24, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Difuarti, the problem is that it doesn't look like you are able to write in English to the standard required for an English encyclopedia. Even here, it's very hard to understand what you're trying to say.

It's good that you want to contribute, but you might be better working on a project on another language. You can find a list of them at List of Wikipedias. Blue Sonnet (talk) 20:55, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

No, is problem of your phone. [112] [113] Difuarti (talk) 21:14, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

You're really trying hard to find a reason not to listen to what I'm trying to say, to the point of digging through my edit history.

I was genuinely trying to help and I'm sorry that you can't see that.

In view of your unsubstantiated attack on my motivations below, I will not engage with you any further. Blue Sonnet (talk) 21:27, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

@Difuarti, I'm afraid that your edits were not an improvement to the article. The link you gave is to a reversion that I myself would have made, had I come across it. Also, you absolutely cannot tell someone else they can't edit an article. If you want to know why someone reverted an edit, ask them in the article Talk page.

If someone is reverting seven edits of yours, your very first thought should be: "maybe I did something wrong, let's try to find out". You are not assuming good faith by default, which is required at Wikipedia. Blue Sonnet (talk) 15:06, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

@Blue-Sonnet: Why you needs a citation in past nation's territories in Pacific and Atlantic coasts that covers territories like Soconusco and Tuxpan? Difuarti (talk) 20:30, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

The problem was the poor grammar and unexplained removal of an image. Blue Sonnet (talk) 20:44, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

@Blue-Sonnet:, have you a problem with the article?. Difuarti (talk) 21:08, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

The link you gave in your very first report here, was to an edit that was reverted.

You aren't happy that edit was reverted.

I'm saying I would have reverted it too, because the grammar you used was not an improvement - you made the article worse. Blue Sonnet (talk) 21:14, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Your attitude confirms your bias with that article. Difuarti (talk) 21:20, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

I've not come across that article before today, please don't make personal attacks like that. I'm only talking about that one edit and your grammar in that one edit. Blue Sonnet (talk) 21:24, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

@Blue-Sonnet: For the next time accordingly check you removed refs. Are much Aztec city-states in both American coasts in many maps, specially in the Atlantic coast, are very, very large territories. Difuarti (talk) 21:42, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm sorry I have to say this, Difuarti, but Blue-Sonnet and others are right that your English is not good enough for you to be editing the English Wikipedia. That's nothing to be ashamed of - unless you are Polish my command of your native language is worse than your English - but you need to understand it. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:44, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

@Phil Bridger: No problem, I don't understand what you tried to say. Difuarti (talk) 22:04, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Q.E.D. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:19, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

@Phil Bridger: I'm not wanted hurt you. ~2025-37439-25 (talk) 22:31, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Difuarti, please do not edit logged-out. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:36, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

P-blocked from Articles for English competence and article ownership issues. May make edit suggestions on article talk pages. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:32, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure that this can be considered an improvement. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:47, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

I agree. I was being a bit optimistic. Indeffed. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:59, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

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

WP:SLEEPER, WP:PGAME, edit warring on locked topics.

Ethiopian Epic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

The first account listed went dormant on 17th February 2025, and since 18th November 2025 until the time of writing of this topic, the user has made 218 edits to gain extended access, in order to bypass extended protection that was recently placed on an article to continue an edit war.

The second account listed went dormant on 13th of June 2025, shortly after a topic ban. Resurfaced again on the 28th of November making some edits, before engaging in a few edit wars.

I believe both events may be tied to one another, as well as in few other pages and may file an SPI following the outcome of this. I do have evidence of an individual's offsite activities influencing these behaviour, but I would like some advice on how should I go about this. Shincerity (talk) 14:13, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

I'll leave it to an admin/CU to comment on the rest; but please do refrain from discussing either of these users' offwiki activities as it would likely violate WP:OUTING Athanelar (talk) 14:17, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Shincerity (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is very obviously not a new user and appears to be using these TAs:

~2025-37405-16

~2025-37336-09

~2025-36935-40

~2025-37450-39

~2025-34162-00

I've recently filed an AIV report on this. He repeatedly resets his TA account to reinstate his personal attacks as well as avoid scrutiny on his edits. He engages in POV editing such as trying to whitewash the term "neo-nazi".[114] BMWF (talk) 14:44, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

That's not me, make an IP check if you want ~2025-37405-16 (talk) 14:47, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

This style of retaliatory attack is getting stale now, the onus is on you now and why you're engaging in an edit war in a locked topic and that topic specifically after dormancy. Shincerity (talk) 14:52, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

And now BMWF is getting involved in a page that EE partook in, right after EE got partially blocked. Shincerity (talk) 14:58, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Shincerity just exposed himself below.[115] BMWF (talk) 16:22, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

yes, this article as well as Jamaica has been a complete mess the last couple of weeks, see also the discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Black_Japanese#Extended-confirmed-protected_edit_request_on_16_November_2025 and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jamaica#Large_chunk_of_info_was_removed several users who have never edited these articles have popped up out of nowhere to restore vandalised versions. In both cases content related to slavery was removed. ~2025-37405-16 (talk) 14:45, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

• The OP created their acount eleven days ago, seemingly just to file this report (and, perhaps ironically, comment at an SPI): {Checkuser needed} —Fortuna, imperatrix 14:58, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

  I'm open to one, if it clears my name. Shincerity (talk) 15:00, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

  You are obviously the owner of these TAs regardless. You posted here very quick on ~2025-37405-16 despite no notification. BMWF (talk) 15:10, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

  Take it to SPI then. Shincerity (talk) 15:12, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

  Same, I have nothing to hide ~2025-37405-16 (talk) 15:11, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

@Shincerity I'm thoroughly confused, I'm not seeing any gaming on Ethiopian Epic's part to get EC status. You've not given any on-wiki behavioural evidence that these are the same user.

• Have you got any on-wiki evidence that can be assessed at ANI?
• Can you also confirm if any TA's (or previous accounts) are yours?

Blue Sonnet (talk) 15:03, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

1. I'm basing this off of irregular activity post dormancy, TAs making edits only for EE to revert them and then posting a template to those TAs to inflate edit count and the fact that the account engaged in that protected article after gaining extendedconfirmed.

2. No, I do not own any TAs nor previous account, but I do have a general idea of how Wikipedia works. Shincerity (talk) 15:09, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

I am involved in the dispute at Jamaica, and have already done more than I should have, so I will recuse myself here, but there does appear to be some sort of coordinated editing there. Donald Albury 15:08, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Suggest a boomerang on Shincerity for being a WP:NOTHERE attack account who clearly isn't new, as well as the fairly obvious owner of a bunch of TAs. BMWF (talk) 15:14, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

BMWF's extended edit history is insane. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/BMWF&target=BMWF&offset=&limit=500 I've never seen a more obvious case of NOTHERE than this ~2025-37405-16 (talk) 15:42, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Have you tried looking at? Shincerity (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Or alternatively the rest of your history while you keep hopping across TAs.

~2025-37336-09 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

~2025-36935-40 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

~2025-37450-39 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

~2025-34162-00 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

~2025-37405-16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) BMWF (talk) 15:54, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

I have no idea who Sincerity is and could care less a out what happens to them. I want you and your group to stop vadalising articles ~2025-37405-16 (talk) 15:57, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Strange that you went mostly stopped posting on Shincerity after you started posting more on ~2025-37405-16. BMWF (talk) 16:01, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

I saw the notification he posted on your talk page ~2025-37405-16 (talk) 16:07, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Temporary accounts cannot watch pages. You just exposed yourself. BMWF (talk) 16:14, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Never said I did. I have been in discussion with you on your talk page this whole day basically and saw the note ~2025-37405-16 (talk) 16:18, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Obviously this report is likely bad-faith, but worth noting there was consensus to indef BMWF here that was never enacted, and lots of people raised concerns about meatpuppetry. Koriodan, who's involved at Jamaica, was also discussed Kowal2701 (talk) 15:40, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Indeed, Kowal2701; I more or less 'led the charge' against BMWF on that occasion, and it was annoying that the thread got archived because no admin felt it necessary, or perhaps convenient, to enact a crystal-clear consensus. Sigh. —Fortuna, imperatrix 16:19, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Koriodan was someone I also expected to be involved with the group. I actually have a list of around 15 accounts, all of which I'm positive are related to one another. I don't know if I should bring this to SPI, documenting all this will literally take me days ~2025-37405-16 (talk) 15:53, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

You might be able to ask Tamzin for help in filing the report concisely (she's not an admin atm) but yeah, it's a time sink for all involved, and I don't envy the SPI admin who'd have to deal with that Kowal2701 (talk) 16:00, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

From what I've gathered reading up on earlier discussions and SPI reports it seems that they're different users working in tandem, so I'm not sure a checkuser would even achieve anything. If it continues I will probably be forced to write a veeery long report though ~2025-37405-16 (talk) 16:06, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Editor Interaction Analyzer Kowal2701 (talk) 17:18, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Obviously this report is likely bad-faith, but worth noting there was consensus to indef BMWF here that was never enacted, and lots of people raised concerns about meatpuppetry. Koriodan, who's involved at Jamaica, was also discussed

Those accounts are still at it? The fact that a number of accounts from the endlessly stupid edit-warring over video games that have become culture wars are now for whatever reason suddenly all fighting on the article for Jamaica should be proof in being of both WP:NOTHERE and quite clear engaging in off-wiki organising and it's causing us nothing but grief. We've spent too long on this.

BLOCKS ALL AROUND Rambling Rambler (talk) 16:22, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

• For what its worth, with what I saw from TAIPV, ~2025-37336-09, ~2025-36935-40, ~2025-37450-39, ~2025-37405-16, and ~2025-34162-00 are all probably the same editor; all are within a singular large range. Within that, ~2025-37405-16, ~2025-36935-40, and ~2025-37450-39 are all very likely to each other. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 16:21, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

  yes that's me, I don't claim anything else ~2025-37405-16 (talk) 16:23, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

  ~2025-37405-16, just to clarify; are you saying ~2025-37405-16, ~2025-36935-40, and ~2025-37450-39 are all you? or is the complete list of TAs you. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 16:26, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

  I'd rather you make your own account if you're planning to engage here. All you're doing is muddying the waters and frankly, being a nuisance. Shincerity (talk) 16:29, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

  Shincerity, "I don't claim anything else" is a lie because you have even more TAs.

  ~2025-34434-85 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

  ~2025-34261-18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

  ~2025-34148-16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) BMWF (talk) 16:41, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

  Like I said, take it to SPI. I do not know those TAs nor do I need them, and given their join history, who's to say there's not bad actors? Do not attempt to derail your wrongdoing by nailing unrelated topics onto me. Shincerity (talk) 16:44, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

  You just admitted to watching a page to see your ANI notification, only TAs cannot watch pages. You're very obviously actively using multiple accounts in this very discussion. BMWF (talk) 16:57, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

  What the TA does have got nothing to do with me, if you're so adamant about it, like I said, take it to SPI, otherwise it's nothing but flimsy hearsay.

  What you're doing is nothing but derailing the topic, and up until now, you have not explained yourself on how you went from dormancy straight into that edit war. Shincerity (talk) 17:04, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

  I'm not confident these TAs are the same editor as the other batch of TAs, but I don't think it would be impossible. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 16:48, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

  Actually, its quite unlikely for these TAs and the previous batch of TAs to be the same editor. They are in different countries. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 16:51, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

  It's the same person and they just accidentally exposed that they have a named account.[116] Very obviously Shincerity. BMWF (talk) 16:24, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

  Not necessarily, it's possible they just clicked the link next to your sig, had a tab open, etc. It's usually one of the first things I do when considering an ANI case.

  I'm not saying you're wrong, I am saying this isn't really proof of anything other than someone looking at your Talk page. Blue Sonnet (talk) 17:35, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

  Yup. Normally I wouldn't rule out coincidence if Shincerity weren't suspicious but the first TA group is the only one to interact with both editors mentioned by Shincerity. And Shincerity is so obviously not a new editor and is a WP:NOTHERE attack account regardless. BMWF (talk) 17:55, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

  Casting aspersions much? ~2025-31733-18 (talk) 18:05, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

  BMWF, we've now been advised that at least two of the TA's you believe are Shincerity logged-out are actually in different countries. As you know, accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence are considered personal attacks, and further, that serious accusations require serious evidence. SPI, as they say, is thataway. —Fortuna, imperatrix 18:19, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Might be a good time to drop the stick. Blue Sonnet (talk) 18:34, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

I don't mind filing at SPI. Thank you. BMWF (talk) 19:10, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Next steps

• I have blocked Shincerity for DE as it's clearly an inappropriate use of an alt account. Picking up Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1191#Indef_proposal is there consensus now for an indef or other action against BMWF? Time for that discussion. Star Mississippi 19:14, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

  Indef them - As I've said above, I think those from the previous ANI who are now causing issues as Jamaica should also be Indeffed (which includes BMWF & Koriodan, but possibly others as well). We can all tell there's some level of off-wiki coordination going on between those accounts, and they seem to be here to partake in POV-pushing edit wars on topics where there's been some sort of culture war issue. It's frankly WP:NOTHERE and it's been going for months. Rambling Rambler (talk) 19:34, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

  +1 Kowal2701 (talk) 19:37, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

• Support indef, and thanks to Mississippi Star for their willingness in reopening the discussion initially proposed by ImaginesTigers. My reasoning in the other thread applies here: particular brand of aggression, bludgeoning and gaslighting—evidenced by their every reply to these threads—is unconducive to an atmosphere of collegiality. The fact that they are still exhibiting much the same traits (albeit perhaps the gaslighting has been replaced by aspersions!) suggests they are behaviorally unsuited to a collaborative project. If they'd demonstrated a pattern of civil participation over the months since I might view the current situation with less... jaundice, shall we say, but no; they were topic banned on 3 June, went dark and have literally only became active again two days ago, getting almost immediately into an edit war on Jamaica. Apropos, WP:INCORRIGIBLE should probably redirect to WP:RECIDIVISM... —Fortuna, imperatrix 19:58, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
• @Star Mississippi, Rambling Rambler, and Fortuna imperatrix mundi: The accounts in that June ANI discussion which all appeared and all !voted to oppose the blocks of the tag-team edit warriors included Symphony Regalia (talk · contribs), Bladeandroid (talk · contribs), Wyll Ravengard (talk · contribs), and NutmegCoffeeTea (talk · contribs). I documented the links between those accounts a couple months ago, see my comments here.

This is an extensive case of sock/meatpuppetry. The accounts are likely using a residential VPN to avoid CU blocks. Wyll Ravengard is still unblocked, despite being TBAN'd for tag-teaming in that June ANI thread then appearing out of nowhere months later to engage in a tag-team edit war (which I will hat to avoid clutter).

Extended content

• There was a tag-team edit war about a redirect template on Austin Metcalf [117] [118] [119] [120]

• The template related to a redirect which Symphony Regalia had tried to blank and delete [121] [122] and the Metcalf article is one of Symphony Regalia's most-edited

• The first account in the above edit war, Ryuudou (talk · contribs), had previously been inactive for 9 years before jumping into the Metcalf talkpage and !voting the same way as Symphony Regalia [123] [124]

• The other account involved, Wyll Ravengard (talk · contribs), returned after 3 months of inactivity to continue the edit war after Ryuudou had made 3 reverts

The accounts generally edit articles that are controversial so there seems to be community fatigue regarding all of it but this needs to be given real scrutiny as LTA sockpuppetry. New/dormant accounts seem to pop up whenever one of the others is blocked or banned. NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM (talk) 20:51, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

While we're at it, here is the rest

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Wyll_Ravengard
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Koriodan
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/BlackVulcanX
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Bladeandroid
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Axiom_Theory
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/EkkoJinxZaun
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Ryuudou
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Hardik.patil23
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Ethiopian_Epic
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/DragonBrickLayer
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Bagel7

~2025-37405-16 (talk) 21:10, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

I am neither new (my first edit was in 2021) nor dormant (my last edit before getting involved at Black Japanese was on the 20th) and, frankly, I dislike being attacked simply because I disagree with you in what feels like an attempt to cause a witch hunt to freeze out dissenting opinions. I responded to the RFC as I was courtesy pinged to give my opinion by @NotJamestack and my only involvement in that edit war was a single comment trying to understand a claim another TA made against another editor. I left some minor edit suggestions (outside the edit war and applicable to both versions) on the talk page and gave my opinion on which version of the page I considered better and why. That is the full extent to my involvement in this matter. DragonBrickLayer (talk) 00:37, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Duck 1, 2 ~2025-37405-16 (talk) 08:34, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

So, let me get this straight. You attacked me twice during an RFC on a contentious topic, violating Wikipedia:AOBF in doing so, linked to those attacks here where plenty of Admins can see, and think that because this BMWF fellow correctly removed your attack (hours after my last comment, I having went to work long before your second attack) that we're the same person?

Folks, I welcome you to compare my IP and edit history to @BMWF or any and all of the other named and TA accounts involved here. In the interest of openness, I think I may have interacted with @Ethiopian Epic once on Talk:Yasuke, but I'm not sure. I can tell you I'm not a puppet nor do I have any puppets, nor do I know or interact with any of these people offsite or in meatspace. My interest has been, and has always been, in making Wikipedia better and I feel my edit history will bare that out as well. I came across Black Japanese from the recently edited articles list and took notice as it falls into a subject I have passing familiarity with and interest in, but I have had limited interaction with it, as I mentioned in my previous comment. DragonBrickLayer (talk) 12:19, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

• Support indef: I agree that there is extended meatpuppetry going on. Since the three editors have been topic banned from editing video game articles, Koriodan, BlackVulcanX, and Bladeandroid, all of which voted in the ANI thread to support BMWF, had taken up the baton of WP:TAGTEAM at Dragon Age: The Veilguard and Forspoken (both ended up with long RfC threads in their respective talk pages) (Evidence for TAGTEAM at Veilguard: [125][126][127]; Forspoken: [128][129][130]). This comment from Axiom Theory also suggested a similar line of thought at BMWF's (who accused everyone who opposed them as some kind of racists/bigots, essentially). I know it was previously suggested that they are not direct sockpuppets of each other according to @Tamzin:, but I do not believe that it is a coincidence that multiple newbies editors crossed paths like this, from voting in the same ANI thread to displaying the same type of behaviours across the same set of articles .

Even if they are not banned for meatpuppetry, I will also support banning them on civility ground, mainly for weaponizing the consensus-building process and bypassing WP:BRD every single time through REPEATED tag team editing/gaming the system to push an agenda. They should also be banned for WP:TE and WP:NOTHERE simply because it was essentially impossible to build any consensus through local talk page discussion without a drawn-out RfC). I will have to say, I tried very hard to really engage them in discussion, but they really are here to exhaust every one's patience. They contributed nothing to the project, their entire purpose here is to argue, and all they did is to frustrate and irritate several experienced editors. OceanHok (talk) 14:17, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

I had to decline a lot of SPIs because no one could provide any evidence that any one specific person involved in this was a sock/meatpuppet of any other person involved. I maintained throughout that something fishy was clearly going on, and that blocks were probably needed, and I ultimately indeffed three of the users for non-socking user-conduct issues. (In all three cases, as it happens, for spurious accusations of sockpuppetry... Although that just confused me more. You'd think that, if they were all puppets, after the first or second indef they'd get the message that "actually 'tis you the sock!" is not a winning strategy.) Anyways, yeah, there's clearly coördinated editing on that side of this particularly lame culture-war dispute, and seemingly also at least some on the other side (although not necessarily any of the specific unsubstantiated claims of coördinated editing that I blocked over). Overall, I'm pretty inclined just to start treating anyone who shows up to these culture-war flashpoints on obscure pages as WP:NOTHERE, whether or not they're per se a sock/meatpuppet. So, I'd support a ban of BMWF, and pretty much anyone who keeps showing up in the same threads as them agreeing or disagreeing with them. God, this all feels very... 2006, no? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 14:42, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

I agree to this if we limit it to new, WP:SPA accounts. OceanHok (talk) 17:09, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Request for administrator attention

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

---

I would like to request administrator attention regarding repeated warnings left by User:DoubleGrazing on my talk page.

I am new to Wikipedia and still learning the policies. I understand that users may warn editors about COI or promotional editing, and I am trying to edit correctly.

However, this user has left three or more messages on my talk page, and the tone in these comments felt harsh and intimidating. Several of the messages included statements about being “very close to blocking” me and described my edits as “tendentious, disruptive and purely promotional.” As a new editor, receiving multiple warnings in this tone made me uncomfortable and unsure how to proceed without making further mistakes.

I am not trying to cause disruption. I want to learn the correct way to contribute and follow Wikipedia policy. I am requesting clarification and guidance from uninvolved administrators about the appropriate next steps, and whether the tone and repetition of these warnings is appropriate toward a new user.

Thank you. Saria116 (talk) 14:52, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

It looks like you are trying to publish an article about someone you have a connection with - maybe your boss? I think we are being patient considering you only seem to be interested in editing about this one particular person. Secretlondon (talk) 14:57, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the person I created the article about is not my boss, and I do not have that kind

of relationship with them. I am a new user and still learning Wikipedia's policies, especially about

COI and article creation. My intention is not to promote anyone, and I am trying to understand the

correct process. Thank you for the guidance. Saria116 (talk) 15:00, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

What is your connection to this person, then? You said on your helpdesk thread that you have 'disclosed relativity' to this person. Athanelar (talk) 15:04, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes we have the same family name . But our family is big we aren’t direct cousins if that makes sense Saria116 (talk) 15:07, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Ahmed Shatila, who lives his life with multiple sclerosis himself, has transformed his personal experience into a powerful force for patient encouragement. He is dedicated to disassembling the stigma and myths surrounding MS, working tirelessly through awareness campaigns, educational initiatives, and community-centered support programs to help others affected by the situation. How can you say, "My intention is not to promote anyone" and then give us writing like this? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:08, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

If you're not trying to cause disruption stop posting LLM stuff. We're not interested in hearing what an LLM has to say, only in what you have to say. Nil Einne (talk) 15:01, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

I said what I wanted to say . I am tired of being harassed here Saria116 (talk) 15:03, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Nobody's harassing you. You've clearly demonstrated you're not here to build an encyclopedia and are ignoring well-intentioned feedback because of your single-minded focus on publishing an article about this person despite their evident lack of notability. On top of that, you're now posting LLM-generated complaints about one of the people trying to steer you in the correct direction, and people are consequently understandably losing patience with you. Athanelar (talk) 15:09, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

@Saria116: this was a clever move, in that you've made me involved so I can't block you now. You probably have no idea how close you came to a block. (BTW, you were meant to notify me of this discussion.)

FWIW, I do believe you're not writing about your boss. I'm pretty sure I know what your relationship to this person is, but at the risk of WP:OUTING I'll keep my views to myself. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:08, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes stop harassing me Saria116 (talk) 15:10, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

• No one is harassing you. Given the ongoing disruption and clear IDHT, I have indefinitely blocked as Not Here. Spam works too. They're welcome to file a convincing unblock but it should include provisions against editing about their non direct cousin and LLM usage. Star Mississippi 15:17, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

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

User:Pree bhat using artificial intelligence

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

---

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

The only edits by this editor are three versions of AI slop about Art therapy, and we already have an article about Art therapy:

• Draft:THE ART THERAPY
• Draft:The Art Therapy (which I have tagged for G15)
• User:Pree bhat/sandbox

Robert McClenon (talk) 19:55, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Using AI isn't against any policies or guidelines in a way that warrants sanctions against a user. The only real relevant guideline is the fresh and still not-conclusive WP:NEWLLM which says not to generate articles 'from scratch' using AI. That's probably a good reason to reject these drafts (in addition to the fact that they aren't, well, Wikipedia articles at all, really) but not necessarily to sanction the user.

That said, there might be a WP:NOTHERE case here, and I certainly wouldn't oppose at least blocking this user from articlespace and page moves so they don't start dropping articles like these onto mainspace as soon as they're autoconfirmed. Athanelar (talk) 20:04, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Agreed, they did submit the article to AFC so I am concerned they'll try to create live articles when they're able. It doesn't look like they understand what's encyclopedic and what's just not appropriate.

Plus, they've made the article three times in an attempt to get it accepted - lower case, ALL CAPS and now sandbox. That makes me a bit concerned that they're so focused on creating a live article that they're not paying attention to silly things like rules and policies. Blue Sonnet (talk) 21:00, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Actually, they have made it 4 times total. Draft:The Art Therapy, Draft:The art therapy, Draft:THE ART THERAPY, and the sandbox. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 21:56, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

INDEFfed as spam, which it is regardless of the mechanism of creation. Star Mississippi 21:59, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

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

ConanHighwoods

ConanHighwoods (talk · contribs) seems to misunderstand the purpose of categories on Wikipedia. I tried to explain this to him some time ago, addressing WP:NOTDEFCAT, and that he should not include articles in certain categories just because of incidental events that occur in a work, but he has ignored this and continue to do so anyway.[131][132][133][134][135] I wanted to avoid reaching this point, but since the user continues with the same behavior, I think this issue should be addressed now. Xexerss (talk) 22:16, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

ConanHighwoods is not collaborative, is apparently not interested in dispute resolution, is not concerned with with following a guideline such as the one on categorization, has been edit warring, has stopped engaging on their talk page, and so, ConanHighwoods should be blocked to stop further disruption. —Alalch E. 23:29, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Most of my edits are constructive. I agree i can do better, but I mean none of my edits are vandalism. And i do respond to other users, where is this misinformation coming from? ConanHighwoods (talk) 23:33, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

And the near edit war was only once. I might revert an edit, but if it gets reverted again now, I just drop it. ConanHighwoods (talk) 23:42, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

All in all, I think I should not be blocked from editing as most of my edits are constructive, and none are straight up vandalism. I also am rather new with Wikipedia culture, so this should be taken into account. Any more examples of this behavior in the future is me misjudging the relevancy of a tag.

ConanHighwoods (talk) 23:53, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

It's generally good practice when an editor reverts your bold edit on an article to discuss it on the talk page as per WP:BRD. sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:21, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

I see. I will do that in the future. ConanHighwoods (talk) 00:31, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

This turned out to be false. [136] is a return to edit warring. ~2025-37197-04 (talk) 04:33, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

You said: I might revert an edit, but if it gets reverted again now, I just drop it. That's not how it works. Instead, you should discuss your disputed edits, including a certain type of edit made across multiple articles, and saying how you would even revert someone reverting that, instead of simply not making the disputed edit in the first place until the dispute is resolved, is not really sustainable. In Special:Diff/1324983748 (Manyu Scroll), on Nov. 29, you restored your disputed addition with the edit summary Reverting as there is a whole episode devoted towards an octopus/octopus like creature, 'The Lady Diver and Her Breasts'. You can find on this very article. I feel like an episode centered on something is enfor a tag, especially a shorter series. If not, so bit, just revert it again. This kind of wrong reasoning is what you were told about 20 days prior, in Special:Diff/1321324817/1321326246, and you did not reply to that. Instead, you subsequently made the same kind of edit and tried to enforce that it stays. But I see now that you have decided now not to do that any more and have said you would follow wp:BRD, which is great, so I don't think you should be blocked any more.—Alalch E. 00:42, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Just curious, did you think I should have been permablocked? ConanHighwoods (talk) 01:05, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

You are still making these edits. You should definitely be blocked indefinitely to stop the disruption. [137] is after your most recent comment here. Obviously you refuse to listen to other editors about how categories are used here. ~2025-37197-04 (talk) 03:40, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Why? The tags were used on the Splatoon related articles. It is a franchise about humanoid cephalopods/werecephalopds. It 100% should get the 'Tentacles/tentacle monsters in fiction'. This is almost an no brainer. Plus despite how obvious it is, I pisted in the reverter's talk page. ConanHighwoods (talk) 04:14, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Also, can you stop reverting all my relavent edits? Ursala is obviously a tentacle monster, Pluribus is about a hivemind, says it right in the article, Squid Girl has tentacles for hair, etc. ConanHighwoods (talk) 04:17, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Everything that has anything to do with sealife isn't defined by that sealife. Most breakdowns of Ursula don't discuss her tentacles, it's just an artistic choice. If you don't comprehend the difference, you need to stop throwing everything into buckets. It is disruptive. ~2025-37197-04 (talk) 04:31, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

What kinda logic that? The tag is for works with lots of or relavent tentacles and tentacled creatures or for tentacled characters. Ursala is a tentacled character. It is accurate. Point blank. I feel like you are reverting my edits out of spit or distrust. ConanHighwoods (talk) 04:35, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

You have had how categories work explained to you multiple times now. You have started edit warring to add your original research to articles. ~2025-37197-04 (talk) 04:39, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Yes, and ones like Ursula, Displacer Beast, Squid Girl, Pluribus, were the correct usages of the tag. They were either a major plot point or major part of the character. Also, why are you not signing your comments? ConanHighwoods (talk) 04:43, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Multiple editors have told you that you are using categories incorrectly. Go to the talk pages to argue content. This board is to discuss behavior.

You have been asked multiple times to be careful with categories, but you have ignored all such advice.

You said you would use talk pages when reverted, but you have decided not to, and are engaged in edit wars on multiple articles with multiple editors.

This is a behavioral board, you are are being disruptive. I still support an indefinite ban for WP:IDHT and WP:DE. I get you are enthusiastic about tentacles. That doesn't override policy and consensus. ~2025-37197-04 (talk) 04:49, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

No, I was reverting them back to how they were as they were correct, it was a single revert by me on some of the pages, not multiple reverts on the same pages. ConanHighwoods (talk) 04:45, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

So you are a sockpuppet? Are you Xexerss? Did i offend you? I see your account was made today. ConanHighwoods (talk) 04:48, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Please see WP:PA. If you think I'm Xexerss, provide evidence other than me agreeing with their public post. If you don't have any evidence, I ask you to strike your very serious personal attack. It is another form of disruptive editing. ~2025-37197-04 (talk) 04:52, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

If you are not them, I am sorry for a false accusation. But i just find it odd this new account pops up after I tell them that reporting me was unnecessary. ConanHighwoods (talk) 04:56, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

So are you striking the accusation, or do the accusations against me and Xerxess stand? ~2025-37197-04 (talk) 05:02, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

TBH, idk how to edit my comments in this place. I see no edit button, but I think Xerxess is most likely innocent. Sjones tho... ConanHighwoods (talk) 05:06, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Sjones? I think it is you? You made a sockpuppet just to revert all my edits. I saw you welcome the new account. I made a talk page to ask why you reverted my Splatoon edits, but it was removed. I was not rude, just asked why. IDK, i guess i will let the admins or other users deal with it. ConanHighwoods (talk) 05:03, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

So you are accusing me, Xerxess, and @Sjones23: of being sock puppets. Why would any of us need to sock in the area of whether Ursula is a tentacle monster? This is just another example WP:IDHT and the inability to realize that multiple people do not agree with you and are advising you to take another approach. ~2025-37197-04 (talk) 05:09, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

For the record, I'm definitely not a sockpuppet, but a long-standing user with several years and many edits to my credit. Same with Xerxess. sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:14, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

I saw that you welcomed that new account in. That is suspicious. Why make a new account just to revert my edits? I made a post in your talk page about the Splatoon reverts, and instead of conversing on the matter, you axed it. Honestly sjones, I would be less upaet if you only reverted the edits that were iffy, but what is temping me to edit war is you reverting edits that are clearly accurate. Ursula is clearly a tentacled being, Sharktopus has octupus in its name and it is clearly a hybrid of an octopus, Pluribus was definitely about a virus and a hivemind, and saud it right on the article itself. Why thecwanton reverts? Why not just get the iffy stuff? ConanHighwoods (talk) 05:39, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

First of all, I have only one account. Also, I'm concerned you are engaging in disruptive activity to illustrate a point. sjones23 (talk - contributions) 06:56, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

I made a topic on your talk page and you axed it, the Splatoon one. It was not rude or anything, but you did not reply, just trashed it. I saw you make the talk page for 2025-37197-04. That was a very new account. Why would they just decide to make an acc5for something like this? Why not just be straight forward and reverse my bad edits instead of using an alt, assuming I am right? I would move this to your talk page, but you would just throw it out. ConanHighwoods (talk) 07:23, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

I sometimes deleted sections on my talk page most likely because I would have already read through them. After all, the comments are in the history page. sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:33, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

I just logged back in here. First, let me clarify that I am not the IP user in this discussion; I literally have no reason to continue a discussion that I myself started here using another account or participating anonymously. Secondly, in response to what you indicate here, as I said at the start of this discussion, I didn't want to get to this point, but given that you have continued with this behavior despite several editors already telling you why it is wrong, I felt it was necessary to address this once and for all instead of simply continuing to revert your edits and getting involved in edit wars that will be pointless if you continue to refuse to understand, because, based on what you've said, I get that you don't want to be disruptive (even though you actually are with these edits) and you don't want all this to simply end with an indefinite block. Xexerss (talk) 11:26, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

There is a new user reverting my edits. Some were warranted but others were wrong, like the removal or 'Tentacles/tentacle monsters in fiction' From Ursala and Displacer Beast and the 'Hive mind in fiction' abd 'Fictional viruses' tag from Pluribus, even tho the article itself listed the in the premise with sources. ConanHighwoods (talk) 04:54, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Proposal of Categories TBAN

After refusing to acknowledge Wikipedia has policy and guidelines around WP:CATDEF, ConanHighwoods has accused multiple editors of being sock puppets while engaging in edit wars over original research into "tentacle monsters". Until they are willing to be in alignment with the community on the usage of categories, they should not be editing in this area to prevent further disruption.

• Support as proposer. ~2025-37197-04 (talk) 14:37, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

I was already gonna take a break from editing, well at least categories for awhile, no need for a block. ConanHighwoods (talk) 15:17, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

You came to my talk page after being warned that wild accusations of socking are personal attacks in order to attack me again. If you can't participate without attacking people, you shouldn't edit at all. ~2025-37197-04 (talk) 16:25, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

No, it was a legit suspicion, and I have screenshots to back it up. And as I stated, I was not 100% certain. I apologized to Xerxess as i realized that was a bad assumption. This is what talk pages are for so i would not have to disrupt pages like this. ConanHighwoods (talk) 16:39, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

There isn't an exception to personal attacks for "legit suspicion". Either prove it, or stop dragging multiple editors through the mud.

Hint, you are the only person with a passion for defining Ursula from the Little Mermaid as a tentacle monster. It's unreasonable to conclude you are encountering some conspiracy to defend a fictional character from a bizarre category when it's much more likely people just don't call her a tentacle monster. ~2025-37197-04 (talk) 16:53, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Fair enough, you may or may not be an alt, but I will drop it as screenshots are not used here from my understanding. ConanHighwoods (talk) 18:43, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Conan, if you want to reference specific edits, read this guide. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:01, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

@ConanHighwoods: Multiple people reverting you doesn't make them the same person. Either provide more evidence at the dedicated noticeboard, or drop the stick. Otherwise, continuing to accuse them of being a sockpuppet without strong evidence is a personal attack, and you may be sanctioned for it. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:54, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Orlando Davis: LLM use, dishonesty, generally NOTHERE

Orlando Davis (talk · contribs) has been misusing LLMs, repeatedly lying about it and other things, and is in general NOTHERE: see the original filing at WP:AINB § Orlando Davis for diffs covering these claims. Their conduct at AINB has been egregious, bizarrely stating at least three times - [138] is the most recent - that their edits did not contain any WP:V issues, after multiple editors had already documented such issues [139][140]. They have lied about using LLMs; see @Jlwoodwa describing [141] one claim [142] as insultingly dishonest. They have made strange comments about their abilities [143][144] (from first diff: I have been, perhaps, one of the greatest Wikipedia contributors...). In the meantime, they repeatedly reintroduced promotional content to Mastercooks of Belgium - see [145]. The last straw for me came after @Valereee gave them these final-ish warnings [146][147]. OD then promised [148] to no longer use AI (good!) but then immediately went and added this LLM-generated comment [149] in support of maintenance tags they placed [150][151] - apparently in retaliation (?) - to articles that valereee and another involved editor @Theroadislong had created. NicheSports (talk) 22:59, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

I've got a feeling OD's issues could be disruptive editing to illustrate a point, which isn't tolerated. sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:04, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

OD's issues are everything he does. We don't have to look for a convenient application of some single guideline to this case. The AINB thread speaks for itself. —Alalch E. 23:19, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Is the collapse markup broken? I could only add into it, not after it. Is there supposed to be a bottom? Valereee (talk) 23:55, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

I fixed it, there was an edit conflict when I was sorting it out - apologies everyone! Blue Sonnet (talk) 23:58, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

There is no Wikipedia policy requiring disclosure of LLM use. WP:LLM is an essay reflecting community discussion, not a binding rule. Editors may choose whether to disclose such use, just as they are not obligated to reveal personal identity or editing tools.

All of my edits comply with WP:V: they are verifiable, accurately sourced, and written neutrally. My removal of the promotional tag on Mastercooks of Belgium was a good-faith effort to reach consensus, as I immediately made numerous edits to improve the article and address any promotional content before agreeing to take the tag down. The edit history clearly demonstrates these improvements, showing that my actions were aimed at enhancing the article’s neutrality and reliability.

I also agreed to edits made by PolyGnotus and TheRoadIsLong after brief discussions, reflecting my willingness to reach consensus when reasonable improvements are proposed (see: Talk:Mastercooks of Belgium).

Similarly, the tags I placed on articles created by Valereee and TheRoadIsLong were good-faith efforts to improve Wikipedia, not acts of retaliation. I assume that editors such as Valereee and TheRoadIsLong acted in good faith when making edits or adding tags to my contributions. Reviewing the article histories prior to tagging shows that the justification for the tags I added was well-founded and consistent with maintaining verifiability and neutrality.

Orlando Davis (talk) 23:35, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

after brief discussions? Polygnotus (talk) 02:29, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

In reply to the collapsed message: some of this users edits use [oaicite:3] instead of a citation, which isn't a real thing and is only generated by LLMs. Drafting an article with LLMs and then verifying it yourself is not a massive issue (although it's obviously not ideal), but the only way that [oaicite:3] makes its way into an edit is if a human did not proofread said edit. That is unconstructive editing, and editors can be blocked for it. aesurias (talk) 23:51, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

@Orlando Davis ChatGPT forgot to tell you about WP:AITALK, I see. Four AI detectors came up positive. (Sorry everyone, template went wonky when you replied originally). Blue Sonnet (talk) 23:54, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

I told them about it [152] a week ago, and their response was to tell me to stop harassing them. They have also re-added the message, including the truly brazen falsehood about their edit history not containing any WP:V issues. NicheSports (talk) 00:15, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

• I'll take issue with accurately sourced. I have had exhausting discussions at Talk:Mastercooks_of_Belgium/Archive_1#3 best for notability? and Draft_talk:Michael_Katz_(chef)#Best_3_sources during which I tried to explain that someone calling a chef renowned in a 25-word mention did not constitute significant coverage and OD saying 'that's just your opinion'. Over and over. Literally I told them to go to wt:n to see if I was blowing smoke up their ass and they told me they had better things to do, like asking why I had deleted crap sources at an AfD. Valereee (talk) 23:51, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

  I agree that my tone in the conversation could have been better, and I will take care to be more professional in future discussions. That said, having a difference of opinion is entirely normal, and there is nothing wrong with it. Wikipedia is full of topics where gray areas exist, and reasonable editors can—and do—disagree on interpretation, sources, or neutrality.

  For example, I have a difference of opinion regarding neutrality in the Police Abolition article. That does not mean I make personal judgments about other editors’ intelligence or intentions. Similarly, it’s important to recognize that article acceptance and rejections are part of the creation process: some articles I work on may be rejected a few times before sufficient sources are found.

  I also want to acknowledge and appreciate the time and effort other editors put into discussions and reviews. Even if we disagree on certain points, I value the input and engagement from other editors. Orlando Davis (talk) 00:20, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

  If you're bringing up your tagging of Police abolition because you think I care, you are barking up the wrong tree. I created it because it was in the news and we didn't have an article. As of today my contributions are less than 14% and my last was 5 years ago. If you're trying to get my attention, go throw a tag on Cincinnati chili lol. Valereee (talk) 00:37, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

It appears that one of my posts was deleted. Just as Wikipedia has the right to enforce rules, I also have the right to defend myself. Removing my post without discussion feels like censorship.

There is no Wikipedia policy requiring disclosure of LLM use. WP:LLM is an essay reflecting community discussion, not a binding rule. Editors may choose whether to disclose such use, just as they are not obligated to reveal personal identity or editing tools.

All of my edits comply with WP:V: they are verifiable, accurately sourced, and written neutrally. My removal of the promotional tag on Mastercooks of Belgium was a good-faith effort to reach consensus, as I immediately made numerous edits to improve the article and address any promotional content before agreeing to take the tag down. The edit history clearly demonstrates these improvements, showing that my actions were aimed at enhancing the article’s neutrality and reliability.

I also agreed to edits made by PolyGnotus and TheRoadIsLong after brief discussions, reflecting my willingness to reach consensus when reasonable improvements are proposed (see: Talk:Mastercooks of Belgium).

Similarly, the tags I placed on articles created by Valereee and TheRoadIsLong were good-faith efforts to improve Wikipedia, not acts of retaliation. I assume that editors such as Valereee and TheRoadIsLong acted in good faith when making edits or adding tags to my contributions. Reviewing the article histories prior to tagging shows that the justification for the tags I added was well-founded and consistent with maintaining verifiability and neutrality. Orlando Davis (talk) 00:03, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Orlando Davis, your posts aren't being removed, they're being collapsed. I'm going to uncollapse so we can have a reasonable discussion here, this is confusing for all involved. Valereee (talk) 00:18, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Fair enough, collapsing definitely isn't helping here. Blue Sonnet (talk) 00:19, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Orlando Davis Your replies are still here, they're being collapsed in accordance with guidelines. Please reply without using AI, LLM or Chatbot tools, again in accordance with guidelines. Blue Sonnet (talk) 00:18, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

@Blue-Sonnet, this is a bit meta. Let's leave the LLM responses in place while we discuss LLM responses. Valereee (talk) 00:21, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

I only tagged one of them, then things got messy and the second was tagged whilst I was writing a reply. Not sure who did that one... Blue Sonnet (talk) 01:00, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

I think it would be helpful to review the guidelines. You are not an administrator yet, and I respect that you may be someday. Please do not delete my comments; if an administrator does, they will provide justification for doing so. It is best to let an administrator handle such matters. Orlando Davis (talk) 00:24, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Blue-Sonnet, please don't take this bait. Valereee (talk) 00:26, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

I agree with Valereee there definitely seems to be a problem with OD's edits, judging from the recent evidence and LLM. How long would a potential block be in this case? sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:36, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

We generally don't make a block longer because a case is more problematic, as that's punitive, which isn't what we are going for. What we want is for the editor to improve, and in many cases that can be immediate. An indefinite block very often means: until they convince an admin they get it. It might be five minutes. Valereee (talk) 00:42, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

I see. While I'm only trying to help (as I usually do), maybe we can try asking the user to remove the AI tools where necessary? sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:49, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

sjones23, I appreciate what you are trying to do but this user has been given enough rope to rig the HMS Victory and has wasted literally dozens of hours of editor time. The repeated falsehoods about their editing history not containing WP:V issues (now stated 5 times) is the most brazen falsehood I have encountered here, as this user has extensively rewritten multiple articles after being informed of these issues. They absolutely know that claim is not true. The LLM use and lies are intractable. They will likely be fortunate to avoid a CBAN NicheSports (talk) 00:56, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Hmm, you may have a point, NicheSports, given the evidence. sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:05, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

No worries Valereee, I can see what's happening :) Blue Sonnet (talk) 00:58, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

• I have blocked Orlando Davis for one week for disruptive editing, which has continued throughout this thread. The LLM usage is incidental as the behavior is the issue regardless of which tool is used. Star Mississippi 00:49, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

  I think this is insufficient Star NicheSports (talk) 00:57, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

  @NicheSports @Deepfriedokra I have no objection to it being increased. This was purely to stop the current disruption and it was my opinion that an INDEF was too long. They don't necessarily need to be unblocked if a cban is proposed, Niche. They can respond on their Talk and someone can carry them over. Star Mississippi 02:15, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

• I've already commented on model use at the large language model noticeboard, but something I did not mention there is Davis's persistent please-and-thank-you battleground behavior/incivility and repeated failures to assume good faith. Some illustrative diffs: [153][154][155][156][157][158]^{(edit summary)}[159][160][161][162].

These are only from discussions on user talk pages, and are non-exhaustive, this pattern continues elsewhere at AfDs [163][164][165][166], noticeboards [167][168], etc... fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 00:51, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Considering that this pattern dates back to May 2023, and continued through a year long editing gap, I have little faith a one week block alone will be adequate in preventing future disruption. Currently considering proposing a cban. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 00:59, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

So I stayed away once the baiting started, now I'm back this doesn't look like something a short block will fix.

If they were away for an entire year and their behaviour didn't change during that amount of time, IMO a week definitely won't be enough. Blue Sonnet (talk) 01:14, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

@Blue-Sonnet, this comment from OD is not correct. You acted in good faith to close AI-generated comments. Being an admin doesn't matter, I've collapsed such messages myself. 11WB (talk) 01:20, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Honestly, I barely skimmed that post once it became clear what was going on so it's fine!

I definitely only collapsed the first one though, the other seemed to be collapsed when I was writing my reply? Either someone else did that one, or it was a really weird glitch.

Think I'll play it safe and avoid anything that could be seen as admin-related, and just write posts going forwards. Blue Sonnet (talk) 02:15, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Would support, this must be considered at this point. OD should also presumably be unblocked if a CBAN is proposed? NicheSports (talk) 01:50, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

After reading this thread, I think a one week block is overly optimistic, but we generally start low and work our way up for recidivism. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:53, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

I think a cban is overkill. This editor isn't ill-intentioned. They just need to start listening. Valereee (talk) 02:17, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

@Valereee The problem is that they are a net negative. Other people have spent a hell of a lot of time and energy cleaning up the trash and debating an LLM. while they refuse to read PaGs when requested to. Then when they started clearly editing in bad faith it is time to part ways. Polygnotus (talk) 02:27, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Proposal: Orlando Davis blocked for 1 year

Because of the ongoing disruption, bad faith edits and the wasting of everyones time Orlando Davis is blocked for one year, after which they may return without LLM tools.

• As proposer. I hope an indef can be avoided this way. We need a meaningful length of time to give them a reasonable chance to improve. Polygnotus (talk) 02:35, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
• Support - I agree with Polygnotus's observations on this situation, as an indef block is too much at this point. I would also consider a block for no more than six months as per the relevant WP:STANDARDOFFER. sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:48, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
• Support my preference in these cases of intractable LLM misuse is an admin-administered indef, so probably not more than 6 months per the WP:SO, assuming a compelling unblock request. Given the additional considerations here - repeated and frankly egregious dishonesty, long-term incivility as outlined by fifteen's diffs - I think a one year block is reasonable to protect the community's time and give the editor a chance to adjust their approach. I also obviously support the ban on LLM tools as an unblock condition NicheSports (talk) 02:52, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
• As the admin who implemented the current block, I'm not going to take a position here. Just noting the standard-I have no objection to my block being amended by another admin, community consensus or both. Star Mississippi 02:59, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
• Support following my interactions with them above. Blue Sonnet (talk) 02:58, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
• Just indef them. There's no reason to time-limit a block like this. Worst-case scenario is they come back in a year and resume disruption, which they've already done once. Much better to indef them and let them come back only when they demonstrate they've learned a lesson. Athanelar (talk) 03:06, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
• Support the one year proposal, would also support the idea raised about the six month ban to make it align with WP:OFFER. Also explicitly a ban from using LLMs for any purpose on Wikipedia, so that we don't have to haggle about that after six months or a year. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 04:14, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
• Support: Somehow we will have to survive without the greatness and amazingness of this fellow's stupendous 1800 mainspace edits. (We'll also manage to survive without this guy using ChatGPT to write his ANI responses, which is just headshaking.) Ravenswing 09:40, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose as overkill. I'd support a pblock from article space to try to convince them to listen to experienced editors here. If that doesn't work, we can revisit. Valereee (talk) 11:14, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

  The problems extend beyond article space, so I'm not sure a partial block would be sufficient. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:36, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, I understand that there are issues in talk, too. I just think being pblocked from article space would be a powerful motivator to start taking advice on board, which to me is the root of the issue here.

  A cban like this one -- a full year with no realistic chance to appeal, no chance to prove you've learned -- is something people often don't recover from. And if they do return, they still haven't proven they've learned. This is why we don't generally like time-limited anythings: they aren't really productive. Valereee (talk) 20:41, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

• Support: LLMs aren't responsible for the bad attitude here, that's all on them. Gnomingstuff (talk) 14:54, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

  Touché -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:26, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

• Support, but I worry that it's just going to continue after 1 year.—Alalch E. 15:27, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

  Which is exactly why time-limited restrictions are so useless and exactly why most experienced admins prefer indefs: the editor has to convince us they've changed. They don't just have to wait it out. Valereee (talk) 20:43, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

  Right, a normal indef would have been my preference, but no admin seemed willing to apply one. So that wasn't an option for the community, unfortunately. This is a reasonable proposal given that constraint. I assume you prefer it to an indefinite CBAN? NicheSports (talk) 21:33, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

  I'd have preferred an indef full block imposed by a single admin to a community-imposed time-limited cban, which is the worst possible outcome for the editor. Valereee (talk) 22:54, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

  Indef full block imposed by a single admin is what I was hoping for when filing, but it never came. A long, community-imposed, time-limited block may be bad for the editor (although I think an indef CBAN would be worse) but it is a very reasonable outcome for the project, given the level of disruption and how much editor time was being wasted. I think there is a gap between the community and admins in how to handle this type of conduct; I hope that that gap comes down bc single admin action is preferable in most cases imo NicheSports (talk) 23:04, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

  An indef cban is worse for the editor, but time-limited is worse for the community because the editor never has to change. They just have to wait it out. Valereee (talk) 01:00, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

• Support per Deepfriedokra. —Fortuna, imperatrix 15:33, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
• Give them a month off for the holidays, and then subtract a couple of days for good behavior..., and thank them for pointing out that it is not required to list or defend a user's AI use on their user page. Shouldn't it be? Maybe Orlando (who starts off their user page with a pretty good joke and that's worth good behavior points) can help lobby for or organize MOS to include such user page clarification. I'm personally anti-AI use in writing, and have never asked AI anything on purpose or not yet given it a request to create an imaginary painting although that might be fun, and intend to keep away from it for any writing whatsoever ("OK! Boomer!"). It'd be nice to further limit its use as a tool for writing on Wikipedia, and Orlando, if you used Chatty or whatever its called to write ANI replies, that's just weird, but Orlando should not be given an entire year in solitary for pretty much roughhouse playing within some badly drawn lines. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:47, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

• Support per nom, Orlando Davis has demonstrated WP:ICANTHEARYOU behavior from the diffs provided; a ban of 1 year would be lenient, but I believe it is justified in this case. ~2025-30597-01 (talk) 01:17, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

~2025-31252-28

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

---

~2025-31252-28 (talk · contribs) received numerous warnings not to add unref info, continues doing so on a massive scale. I am currently reviewing. --Altenmann >talk 00:15, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Some diffs of adding material without sources after a final warning: [169][170][171][172] fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 01:18, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

@Altenmann: They've also added the Category:Russian people of German descent to quite a few pages without a reliable source. At this point, I think administrative action might need to be taken. I've already asked an uninvolved administrator, Sergecross73 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (who, like myself, is also a long-standing user for nearly two decades), for their input. sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:32, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Looks like pretty standard unsourced editing. Have they done it again since their final warning? Sergecross73 msg me 14:03, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

At the moment, they haven't edited anything even after I gave them a final warning not too long ago. sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:33, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Okay, if that's the case, then I think we're good for now, but I'll issue a short block if it happens any further. Just shoot me a talk page message if that's necessary. Sergecross73 msg me 18:09, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Will do. Closing this topic for now. sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:06, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

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

Andro124

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

---

Andro124 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I nominated a template for deletion on November 30. Tfd here. I responded to the user to their keep vote and addressing why I believe the template should be deleted. After responding, user has engaged in PA's and has escalated their hostility after my second reply.

After I replied citing a MOS over why the template should be deleted, they responded "The astute reader will notice that the WP you linked is basically a non-sequitur that doesn't have much to do with the content of your argument at all, a favourite of oldhead wiki editors desperately looking to drive away any engagement from anyone not in their clique." That sounded like a PA to me. My reply was "It actually isn't. Considering how many sidebars exists and continue to be created for almost every subject does not mean one is needed in the first place. This sidebar fits into that. Your comment is coming off as a PA. And my linking of a manual of style is not an act of driving away any engagement." Perfectly explaining why MOS was relevant to the discussion and nomination.

Then they went further "Again, you refuse to engage in any discussion and your entire argument is that you personally don't like the template and that we should somehow trust you as the sole arbitor fit to judge if templates are needed or not per the intentionally vague WP guidelines. Also somewhat unclear why you seem to think this doesn't come off as at minima somewhat arrogant and at worst, actively unpleasant."

None of this is true. I replied in a nice manner offering my reasons for my nomination. 1) That is not refusing to engage in any discussion. 2) Nomination is not based on personal reasons or feelings. 3) Not acting as sole arbiter. 4) Not a vague guideline was cited. 5) Not sure how I came off as arrogant and unplesant.

I do not believe this user is here to engage in a calm manner. Their userpage states "So-called "people" that put those "this user stands for X" userboxes on their user pages are mouthbreathing morons. Interested in improving Wikipedia, not participating in the nightmarish office politics most high edit count users so enjoy." That is an insult directed at a lot of users. Going back to 2016, their reply to another user who denied their article submission is very telling. And the reply in response from the user they attacked nine years ago.

This came out of nowhere to my surprise and really unnecessary. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 02:11, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

So go post a warning on his user talk page. He's got a history of overt vandalism and several other warnings for incivility. So start at {{uw-npa3}}, I guess. Then if he goes on some uncivil rant again, post here or on my user talk page. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:03, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Id argue a 4im is better, he isn't a "new" editor. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 03:12, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

I presume they will even in response to my ANI notice on their talk page. Don't see what good it will do. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 03:14, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Civility is policy here. I've warned Andro124 they'll be blocked next time they poison the air like that. Bishonen | tålk 11:56, 1 December 2025 (UTC).

All I'll say is that OP is being so civil that he nominated articles i've worked on for deletion lol. Andro124 (talk) 12:57, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

If that's all, it's nothing. Nominating articles for deletion is a normal Wikipedia action and there's nothing intrinsically uncivil about it. Do you have any reasonable cause to consider those nominations to be aimed at disobliging you? Bishonen | tålk 13:48, 1 December 2025 (UTC).

On a side note, user's userpage also seems to indicate little interest in civility. Coupled with the comments on this ANI thread, it doesn't seem convincing that anything will change without clear procedures explaining how behavior will be reformed. asoundd 14:14, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Agreed - referring to editors as "mouth breathing morons" is pretty much the definition of a PA. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 19:36, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

The template nominated was never edited or created by this user. The user is always hostile toward other editors. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:45, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

... because you think the definition of "civility" is to treat any article you've deigned to edit as invulnerable? (Amusing, seeing as the only AfD you ever participated in you advocated deletion. [173]) Seems right up there with your definition of "arrogant," as phrased in the TfD. Ravenswing 18:25, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Well, he hasn't changed and certainly is not listening. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:28, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Blocked 31 hours per Bish's previous warning. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:39, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

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

User:Moonsun147258

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

---

The above-mentioned user keeps reverting changes to File:Europe-blocs-49-89x4.svg. Even though I have posted on the file's talk page and on their talk page in hopes of engaging in a discussion, but have not received a response. Assadzadeh (talk) 05:28, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

These reverts are happening at commons so I don't believe there's anything to do on enwiki. ~ Matthewrb ^{Get in touch · Breadcrumbs} 06:17, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Why can't the user be blocked? Assadzadeh (talk) 06:23, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Because Commons is a different project with different administrators. A block on en wiki doesn't change anything on Commons. I might recommend commons:Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems. ~ Matthewrb ^{Get in touch · Breadcrumbs} 06:32, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

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

OceanSplash - LLM Use on Articles and User Talk Spaces

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

---

OceanSplash (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) recently made a series of problematic edits to Ali Sina (activist), which I reverted. I identified the various issues with his edit in my edit summary, on the talk page of the article, and on the user's talk page. While his additions to the article seemed to be AI-generated, I did not raise the issue immediately because I wanted to focus on the fact that he was altering/removing sourced content and introducing a large amount of material that violated WP:BLPSELFPUB. He then began making numerous LLM-generated talk page posts:

• 04:56, 29 November 2025
• 07:03, 29 November 2025
• 00:04, 30 November 2025
• 05:02, 30 November 2025
• 09:55, 30 November 2025
• 23:01, 30 November 2025
• 03:48, 1 December 2025

I asked the user multiple times to cease the LLM-generated posts: 1, 2, 3, 4. However, he has continued. I ask that an administrator familiar with LLM-generated writing please review this matter. Snuish (talk) 06:00, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

This isn't the first time that they've proven problematic either; talkpage comments from the 2000's show that the account also participated in edit warring and calling random users Muslims without any sources. GrinningIodize (talk) 13:57, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

And also: You give power to a Muslim: he will abuse it., and [174]: there is nothing extraordinary in Muslims issuing death threats., [175]: He is a militant cyber jihadi [...] If we let these militant Islamists become administrators, you might as well kiss goodbye the Wikipedia. [176]: The problem in dealing with Muslims is that they gang up and back up each other. [177]: Muslims’ abuse of power in Wikipeia has gone too far. Fortunately, they were indeffed over all this, but some admin decided to unblock them to try to "mentor" him, which, of course, never happened (the real reason they were unblocked was likely because of this.) They then went on to say stuff like [178]: There is definitely a cabal to uproot any criticism of Islam. It is no secret that Muslims do not like their faith critiqued and they have killed those who dare to., [179]: ...so the argument to remove the article because the subject is hated by Muslims [...] Is there any personal reason that you’d like to share?, while promoting Ali Sina (activist) and his advocacy groups for over fifteen years (examples: [180], [181], [182]). They are clearly WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 14:47, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Wow. The writing style in this complaint to Jimbo Wales gives me some pause. If interested, an administrator may contact me about COI concerns. I will avoid posting additional details here. Snuish (talk) 16:20, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Indeffed; hate is disruptive and not here to build an encyclopedia. Just reading their talk page: How could that be tolerated for 20 years? — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:46, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Just fell through the cracks, seemingly; fewer than 500 edits over twenty years. Possibly he kept misplacing his tin foil hat. Ravenswing 18:11, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

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

~2025-37197-04 serial reversal of correct tags

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

---

This user has been reversing my edits as of the last hour or so. While there were a good bit of ones I understood why they got reverted, there were several that were blatantly correct but still reverted such as Ursula, Sharktopus, Pluribus, and Displacer Beast. I have told them multiple times that these were obviously fine, but the user keeps reverting them. I also suspect that the user is sjones' sockpuppet/alt as they made the talk page for this very new user that had their very first action in my section of this page, and through out my question on their talk page. I want them to stop wonton reverting, and only revert iffy pages — Preceding unsigned comment added by ConanHighwoods (talk • contribs) 06:35, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Please see the above thread named "ConanHighwoods".

Tl:dr, this is a basic WP:1AM situation.

You are required to notify @Sjones23:, which I see you have failed to do. ~2025-37197-04 (talk) 06:58, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

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

Persistent violation of MOS:CALLIGRAPHY and WP:NOTCENSORED

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

---

Wikieditor969 (talk · contribs)

This user has repeatedly replaced Islamic imagery of prophets with user-created calligraphy such as File:The Prophet Isa (Jesus In Islam).png (uploaded by a third-party user), in violation of the guidelines at MOS:CALLIGRAPHY regarding Islamic honorifics and calligraphy. They complained about this at Talk:Jesus_in_Islam#False_illustration_of_Jesus on November 20; and I found a warning about an edit war at Jacob in Islam on August 5, beginning at Special:Diff/1304366099. Where they give a nontrivial edit summary or justification, it is because they consider depictions of Islamic prophets to be blasphemous (against WP:NOTCENSORED).

Anyway, after following up today on the Jesus talk page comment, they replied dismissively to a level-4 disruptive warning, and then they went on an editing spree replacing images of prophets with calligraphy. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:36, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Also, I noticed that they are continuing discussion at the Jesus page, not here. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:51, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I think I've reverted all of the image changes. @Wikieditor969, I strongly suggest you not change any more images without getting consensus on the talk page of the relevant article. Chess enjoyer (talk) 08:31, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Wikieditor969 appears to have stopped adding the problematic images and is engaging in conversation. If the disruptive behavior resumes, let us know. To other admins: nothing to do right now. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:03, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

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

Editor reverting after Third Opinion and implying paid editing on Brant Pinvidic (BLP)

I am requesting administrator assistance regarding ongoing disruptive editing on the Brant Pinvidic article, which is a biography of a living person (BLP).

Background

I made revisions to the Lead and Awards sections of the article to bring them into compliance with core policies:

• WP:BLP – removal of unsourced or potentially promotional claims about a living person
• WP:NPOV – neutral wording only, no subjective or promotional language
• WP:V – adding inline citations to independent sources (e.g. Hollywood Reporter, InvestorBrandNetwork, film festival result pages)

Another editor, User:Mortdav, reverted these changes with the edit summary "Promo." I then:

• Opened discussion on the article Talk page to ask for specific concerns – no response.
• Requested a Third opinion. The Third Opinion volunteer (User:MWFwiki) reviewed the edits, found them neutral and properly sourced, and restored the revised Lead and Awards sections.
• Soon after, User:Mortdav reverted the same content again, without engaging on the Talk page, and implied “paid editing” in the edit summary, without any evidence.

This is now a pattern of reverting against consensus-building and ignoring dispute resolution on a BLP article.

Attempts at dispute resolution

Here are the steps I have already taken:

• Talk page discussion: Talk:Brant Pinvidic#Clarification on Lead and Awards section edits
• Third Opinion request and result: 3O by User:MWFwiki who restored my version as neutral and sourced
• Attempted dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN), which was closed procedurally.

I have tried to work through discussion and formal processes before coming here.

Current concern

The issues I am asking admins to look at are:

• Reverting neutral, properly sourced content on a BLP after a Third Opinion supported that content
• Failure to engage on the article Talk page despite multiple invitations
• Implying I am a “paid editor” in edit summaries without evidence, contrary to WP:AGF and WP:PAID (and potentially WP:NPA)

I am not editing on behalf of any client; my edits were solely focused on BLP/NPOV/Verifiability compliance.

What I am requesting

I am requesting that administrators:

• Review the editing conduct of User:Mortdav on this article
• Remind them to use the Talk page and established dispute resolution instead of repeated reverts
• Address the unfounded paid-editing implication
• If necessary, consider warnings, page protection, or other appropriate measures to prevent further disruption on this BLP

I am happy to answer questions, and adjust any wording in the article to keep everything strictly neutral and fully sourced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jadu23 (talk • contribs) 13:06, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Are you sure you didn't use an LLM to write this? You also need to provide evidence of what they have done wrong by showing diffs. GarethBaloney (talk) 13:30, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Using an AI chatbot to submit a complaint like this is both against best practices (WP:LLMCOMM) and also a guaranteed way to immediately make people take the other side. It's not a very good sign if you can't even summon the effort to write your complaint in your own words. Athanelar (talk) 13:31, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

@Jadu23: You are required to notify the person whom you are reporting. See the instructions at the top of the page when you edit this page. The sections you added are unnecessary here and have been removed. Please remember to sign your comments. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:33, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

The reporting user has bwen using AI to 'fix' articles with maintenance tags, as confirmed at this diff where they directly added the [oaicite 1] tag indicating text copypasted from ChatGPT without any human review. Athanelar (talk) 13:34, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Understood. I’ll avoid Grammarly assistance for article edits going forward. The issue here is simply the repeated reverts without discussion even after starting a section on the talk page. Sorry for the misses, still reading and learning here. Jadu23 (talk) 14:02, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Did you use any AI assistance to find sources for or to compose your edits to Brant Pinvidic? That might explain Mortdav's engagement with you.

I'd encourage you to read over this very good essay on why AI chatbots are bad at helping with Wikipedia things. Athanelar (talk) 14:08, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Just to toss my two cents in; @Jadu23 did not appear to utilize an LLM prior to this, though I also did not see any reason to scrutinize for such. Secondly, the editor-in-question also has not engaged with me, either, the WP:THIRD. Regardless of Jadu23's conduct, I would say that the accusations made by Mortdav still warrant at least a warning. I think the content dispute can be resolved separately, however, likely by a proper re-filing of the DRN. MWFwiki (talk) 19:30, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

The filing party writes: I have tried to work through discussion and formal processes before coming here. It is always a good idea to work through discussion and formal processes. However, the filing party did not discuss at the article talk page before filing at DRN, which is why I closed the DRN procedurally. Please don't say that you have tried to work through discussion if there is little or no evidence of attempts at discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:18, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

To be entirely fair, @Jadu23 did tag Mortdav 4+ days ago and they still have not responded — Talk:Brant Pinvidic#Clarification on Lead and Awards section edits — Only sought a 3O after two days and filed their DRN after three days. If the argument is that they don't wish to engage Jadu23 because of their (now-admitted) LLM use, they don't have the same argument with not engaging with me. However, I do 100% cede that they did file the said DRN improperly, and obviously I defer to you in that regard entirely. MWFwiki (talk) 21:30, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

I get the concerns. Just to clarify I did not use any AI tool to write the actual article edits or to find sources. I only looked things up online while trying to understand how stuff works here and maybe that affected the tone without me realizing. I’ll make sure anything I write from now on is in my own words.

About the dispute; I did start a discussion on the article Talk page, but the other editor didn’t reply at all even after a few days and That’s why I went for a Third Opinion next. I understand now that my DRN filing was done the wrong way. I’ll reopen a new DRN properly this time and my only goal is to fix the content issue the correct way and learn the proper step as i learn and remove the allegation made on me by the editor. Jadu23 (talk) 08:00, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

If that is the case, then in this edit what made you decide to include the text :contentReference[oaicite:1]{index=1}?

Using AI isn't necessarily forbidden. Using it and being dishonest about it, as I currently suspect you are (because there is, to my knowledge, no way the text above could have appeared except by you copypasting text directly from the output of an AI chatbot) most certainly is. It's hard to take seriously your promise that 'anything you write will be in your own words' if you're not transparent about what you did before. Athanelar (talk) 10:10, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

I did not use any AI tool to write the content or sources. I only used online help to understand how to do citations, references and templates which might be the reason of this. Jadu23 (talk) 12:45, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

User:Nhtpaf

Nhtpaf (talk · contribs) 100% meets the description in the introduction of Wikipedia:Nationalist editing: a WP:NOTHERE single-purpose account that focuses exclusively on the Mosquito Coast region, increasing its importance and promoting its sovereignity (see e.g. 1, 2, 3, 4). They cherry pick what sources say for content to promote and spread their historical narrative. Their edits long-term lack a neutral perspective, they do not recognize consensus (Talk:Mosquito Coast#Nationalism alert, Talk:Golfo de los Mosquitos). In addition, they are currently involved in an edit war and violated 3RR rule (despite being warned once recently). They are also a suspected sockpuppet. I thought it would be enough to wait for the investigation to be concluded, but their disruptive editing and inappropriate behaviour has increased recently and I think it should be stopped. FromCzech (talk) 14:14, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

@FromCzech: The characterisation presented here is inaccurate and misapplies Wikipedia policy. My editing history shows engagement with a broad range of pages—including geography, history, legal frameworks, and sourcing discussions—not a single-issue promotional agenda. All edits have relied on published academic, journalistic, or historical sources, and none have introduced personal views or unsourced claims, and if they are I try to get them fix. Raising underrepresented scholarship or correcting outdated material does not constitute “nationalist editing” under WP:NATIONALIST, especially when the content is verifiable and grounded in reliable sources.

The accusation of cherry-picking also misrepresents the talk-page record. In every dispute, I have provided the full context of sources, responded to counter-arguments, and asked for third-party input. Disagreements over interpretation are part of normal content development and do not amount to refusal to recognise consensus—particularly when the discussions are ongoing, non-closed, and involve multiple editors presenting differing viewpoints.

Regarding conduct, I have not engaged in intentional edit warring; edits were made in good faith while attempts at discussion were underway. Any inadvertent breach of 3RR was addressed promptly upon warning, and I have followed dispute-resolution steps since. As for the sockpuppetry allegation, that matter is already under formal review, and I will fully cooperate with the SPI process. It should not be prejudged here.

In sum, my edits have consistently aimed to improve accuracy, update scholarship, and ensure that Central America’s history—like any other regional topic—is represented with balance, proper sourcing, and adherence to policy. Nhtpaf (talk) 14:28, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

@Nhtpaf, please do not use LLMs to communicate on talk pages, see WP:AITALK NicheSports (talk) 14:47, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

• Note Nhtpaf has broken 3RR on Gulf of Mosquitia and so I have temporarily partial-blocked them from that page only. This should not pre-empt any other action that may be taken. Black Kite (talk) 14:45, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Several edits also appear to be AI-generated, including their talk page posts. Example 1, example 2, example 3 visible above, just a lot. Gnomingstuff (talk) 14:46, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Nhtpaf has written several articles and edited existing articles to promote an activist interpretation of Moskitian (Nhtpaf currently prefers "Mosquitian") identity that is allegedly based on the Mosquito Reservation polity and its antecedents, and allegedly transcends ethnic categories (compare Miskito people, Afro-Nicaraguans, and Miskito Sambu). See this article for some context on such "radical world-building". Besides creating the Gulf of Mosquitia POV fork, other problematic behaviours include:

• Attempts to erase references to Nicaragua from articles related to the Mosquito Coast, and to convert present-day Spanish names to historical English names under the pretext that the Spanish names are "misspellings" or "incorrect", e.g.:
  • deleting references to Nicaragua in Miskito Cays [183], Cabo Gracias a Dios [184] and the lead of Rama people [185]
  • changing "El Bluff" to "Bluefields Bluff": [186], [187]
  • moving "Escondido River" to "Bluefields River": [188]

• Attempts to legitimise a revisionist narrative of Mosquito Coast history by creating articles on legal documents that cite no sources except the document in question. See, e.g., Treaty of Cuba and Regency Commission. The documents themselves appear to be genuine, but I can't find any reliable sources that actually discuss their content and significance. For the so-called "Treaty of Cuba", I cannot even find any source that calls that document by that name.

• Attempts to disguise their revisionist reinterpretation of Moskitian identity as mainstream by creating an AI-generated article on Mosquitians. Citations are not provided for most statements, and the few citations that are provided do not actually support the claims made. When challenged to provide sources for specific statements, Nhtpaf simply inserted a different AI-generated version of the article with the same problems. See Talk:Mosquitians for further details.

• Ongoing activity at Mosquito Coast to reframe that article in accordance with revisionist notions of "Mosquitia", as documented at Talk:Mosquito Coast#Nationalism alert. For example, one paragraph discusses an "Organic law of the Moskitia Community Nation" and its purported significance to Mosquitian communities, but other than a link to the law itself, none of the citations in that paragraph actually refer to said law or discuss its significance. Cobblet (talk) 15:40, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

The issue of renaming sites in Panama extends beyond the Golfo de los Mosquitos. From what I've seen, he created King Buppan Peak to bolster a possible expansion of the Mosquito kingdom into Panamanian territory (and that could include Costa Rica in the process). However, the mountain's name doesn't appear on current maps, and only appears on some 19th-century maps. I've requested the name change, since, based on the coordinates and description in old reports, there is indeed a mountain, but it's named after the Ngäbe people, indigenous group that lives in the area, and it doesn't have an English name. Taichi (talk) 18:44, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

The claim that I created “King Buppan Peak” to promote territorial expansion is an assumption about motives, not an assessment of the edits. I used a historically attested name found in 19th-century sources; documenting historical toponyms is normal on Wikipedia and carries no political implication. If the mountain has a different modern indigenous name, I have no objection to using that as the title, with the historical name mentioned as an alternate. This is simply a naming and sourcing question—not evidence of advocacy or reinterpretation of borders. Nhtpaf (talk) 13:38, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

By presenting both historical and locally used names, the edits aim to reflect the linguistic and cultural reality of the area, in line with Wikipedia policy. This approach was intended to find a neutral, verifiable position—not to rewrite, erase, or impose a political interpretation.

Creating pages for historical or legal documents is also standard practice. If secondary coverage is insufficient, the remedy is content-based—improve sourcing, merge, or discuss notability—not accusations of agenda-pushing. Nhtpaf (talk) 14:03, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

You realize that the more you use ChatGPT to write your responses for you, the less people are going to pay attention to them? Ravenswing 14:51, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

User:Consumersapproach

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

---

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

Promotional username with promotional edits on one page (Draft:Jack’s Building Materials) that is extremely promotional. The use of replacement templates suggests that it may be AI-generated. This page was previously deleted, but was then recreated by the same user. They seem to be WP:NOTHERE. ~2025-31416-56 (talk) 17:49, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

You are required to notify the user of this discussion with {{ANI-notice}}. I have notified them for you. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 17:57, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

I apologize. I did notify them; I forgot to add a header. ~2025-31416-56 (talk) 18:20, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Oops, I didn't see that! Thanks for

pointing that out. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 18:22, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

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

User:~2025-31531-99

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

---

• ~2025-31531-99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This is a user who is being very combative, and with their responses being very sub-par of conduct, such as this incivility: [189] and more examples of accusing a fellow editor of advocating racism and xenophobia, that is clearly aspersions: [190] And with a WP:IDHT attitude in the article diffs, such as this:[191] and this:[192] and this: [193]. This is very unhelpful behaviour, and with possible edit warring. Codename AD ^talk 19:18, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

I've just requested an WP:RFPP on Italian Canadians to prevent any persistent disruption. sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:59, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

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

Batchofcookies220

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

---

• Batchofcookies220 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Revoke TPA access --みんな空の下 (トーク) 01:12, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

 Done by Hammersoft. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:12, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

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

Temporary user IP range continuously adding unsourced changes despite multiple warnings

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

---

The /64 range associated with the temporary account ~2025-37183-74 (talk · contribs) has been continuously adding unsourced changes to articles, particularly changing the names of fictional characters, without leaving an edit summary to explain these changes, over the past month. This is despite multiple warnings to stop from multiple users across multiple other temporary accounts. In some cases, these accounts have been blocked, but the underlying IP range has not. At this point, I believe a range block, or at least a partial block on the pages that they are targeting, is warranted.

The main targets of unsourced changes for this range include (in no particular order):

• Moe Syzlak
• Comic Book Guy
• List of Monica and Friends characters
• Bug-a-Booo
• Apu Nahasapeemapetilon
• Phillip J. Fry
• Lionel Hutz
• Krusty the Clown
• Groundskeeper Willie

- Umby 🌕🐶 (talk) 03:58, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

 IP blocked for a month. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:28, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

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

BASLAMIC VINEGAR

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

---

BASLAMIC VINEGAR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Revoke TPA access --みんな空の下 (トーク) 07:12, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

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

LLM use and COI by User:Thetransitguru

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

I decided to bring this to ANI because of the multiple simultaneous issues going on:

AI generated content

As pointed out by Pi.1415926535 and pointed out by LuniZunie and pointed out by OrdinaryScarlett, the editor has been adding large batches of text with hallucinated citations. They have also been using AI-generated edit summaries that appear to be copy-pasted from ChatGPT or a similar LLM. Examples include: up-to-date info being replaced with older info or being removed entirely, a citation linking to a 404 page, incorrectly formatted capital letters in headers, false dates given in the "access-date" of references, removing citations entirely, as well as the clear use of AI in edit summaries.

User has also clearly generated multiple articles from scratch using LLMs, as shown here:

• New York–New Jersey Metropolitan Rapid Transit Commission
• Tri-State Regional Planning Commission
• Metropolitan Regional Council
• New York-New Jersey Transportation Agency
• United States Trust Co. of New York v. New Jersey

All of these articles (and two additional drafts) are over 9,000 bytes upon initial creation, a feat unlikely for an account with less than 100 edits before today.

Conflict of Interest and attempted socking

User appears to have a conflict of interest with the City Club of New York (disclosure given by the user here). On the article's talk page, Kew Gardens 613 pointed out that the alt account Youalmosthadit had added an op-ed authored by this user from the City Club's website. The main account referenced the City Club on the article for George Dow. This user's response to the allegations of COI, as well as the request for more information to be added to the article also appears to be AI-generated. The account Youalmosthadit is also in violation of WP:PUBLICSOCK, as there is no disclosure on the alt and the name is not recognizable as an alt of the main user.

Now that their LLM edits have been removed by multiple users, this user is also repeatedly attempting to hide their connection to the City Club of New York as well as hide their alt account after both had already been disclosed publicly by the user. I am requesting that this user and the (stale) alt be blocked per WP:NOTHERE. Cards84664 07:36, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Procedural Objection — Off-Wiki Outing and Harassment

I cannot participate in a good-faith discussion with this editor because they are currently engaging in severe off-wiki harassment against me.

User Cards84664 has contacted my real-world employer via email to "out" my identity and attempt to disparage my professional reputation.. This is a direct violation of WP:OUTING and WP:HARASSMENT.

Because the evidence of this violation contains my personal information, I cannot post it here. I have forwarded the email and proof to the Arbitration Committee and the Oversight Team via email. I request that this thread be paused or closed until ArbCom has reviewed the evidence of the Original Poster's off-wiki conduct. Thetransitguru (talk) 16:29, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Is this LLM? Also that is some serious allegations you’re throwing here… ~2025-31733-18 (talk) 17:28, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Without weighing in on any possible off-wiki activity, and whether or not it would be/was inappropriate, the issue raised remains valid. This diff is strong evidence not only of LLM use, but of an effort to avoid the detection of that use ("Key changes to avoid LLM detection:**"). Do you have an explanation for this? BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 17:43, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

You've tagged multiple articles for speedy deletion as unreviewed LLM, on the basis that they have nonsensical cites, but you haven't said which of the cites are nonsensical. I'm not saying that they aren't LLM-created, but some more info is necessary to support a speedy delete, since the articles aren't, on a quick read, obviously LLM cruft. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 17:29, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

This edit is particularly damning: Not only is it direct proof that Thetransitguru is using LLMs to write articles, it indicates they were deliberately attempting to hide that usage. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 17:30, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, that's very clear. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 17:35, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Sneaky vandalism, Obvious vandalism and hidden misinformation.

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

---

Hello, Hope all is well. User:~2025-36829-81 has been recently engaged in several articles surrounding the NFL however I am concerned by their activity and I was directed to this noticeboard by AIV, as undoing their vandalism may be a bit of a complex task.

Some of the edits, such as this one are obvious examples of vandalism, with un-cited allegations defaming an NFL player, in a section and manner which would be inappropriate to mention even if true.

However some of them are more subtle, such as this edit, in which the user changed the score from 10-1 to 11-1 in the 2018 season. Now according to this website the LA Rams won 10-11, leading me to believe this user is subtly putting misinformation into various articles in an attempt to vandalise without it being instantly reverted.

What makes it complicated is they have made some legitimate edits, such as the follows

• here, in which they added the full name of Akili Smith Jr. (which I mistakenly reverted based off his instagram and espn, now corrected)
• here, in which based off my research seems to be the correct score, and whilst un-cited doesn't seem to be a bad-faith edit.
• here, where again, the edit is un-cited and possibly too emotive with language, however it doesn't appear to be an intentionally bad-faith edit.

Other edits such as here and here and previously mentioned here are more obvious examples of vandalism and disruptive editing.

I believe the user generally has an understanding of the NFL, and whilst they initially were editing the Wiki with good faith, has decided to start vandalising the wiki, in sometimes subtle ways. I believe this user should be blocked to prevent subtle misinformation being spread in the NFL wiki pages, which could take up a significant amount of time to rectify. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by InterestGather (talk • contribs) 12:33, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

• Indeffed and reported to Trust and Safety. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 12:53, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

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

Legal threat?

~2025-37884-57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

This TA said to include their name in a wikipedia article otherwise they will have to sue people. Here is the comment. NotJamestack (✉️|📝) 13:14, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Sorted. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:19, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

~2025-34731-06

A user by the name of ~2025-34731-06, keeps constantly going around to every single heratige railroad article and he keeps spamming the status section with unsourced information. He has done this twice already and yet he continues to spam the article with unnecessary and disruptive edits.

Here is his Contributions history: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/~2025-34731-06 ~2025-37514-40 (talk) 17:01, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

There was only one (mild level-1) warning on their talk page; I've added a final warning. If they persist, I can report them to WP:AIV. Btw, thank you for doing the tedious work of reverting their unsourced changes. Schazjmd (talk) 17:24, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

~2025-37917-21

~2025-37917-21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Hello, administrators! I think he's pushing me for an Edit warring [194]. I don't want edit warring. Thanks.--СтасС (talk) 18:26, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

That account has only made one edit, and that's to properly remove the flag from the infobox per MOS:INFOBOXFLAG. Schazjmd (talk) 18:30, 2 December 2025 (UTC)