Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1195

2603:7001:76F0:8340:A18D:A0BB:93CD:3882

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

---

2603:7001:76F0:8340:A18D:A0BB:93CD:3882 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This IP continuously adding poorly sourced content to Wikipedia articles. What's even worse is that this edit adds a YouTube source, which is not considered as a reliable source. Note that most of his/her contributions were reverted by PhilKnight for disruptively unsourced changes. This was reported on WP:AIV/TB2. Fabvill (Talk to me!) 07:09, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

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

user Hemants293 – User:Hemant Dabral! Sock Puppetry Dispute resolution

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

---

user @Hemants293 – @Hemant Dabral This Dispute resolution continuously adding poorly sourced content to Wikipedia articles Sock Puppetry . 2409:40D4:1248:CEC5:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 07:49, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

That's not my alternative account, and I don't know what you're accusing me of? I have only two accounts on Wikipedia that I've already mentioned in my user page. — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 07:52, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

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

Magellan Fan and unsourced information

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

---

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

Magellan Fan has added unsourced information to Razdolnoye, Primorsky Krai nine times now. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] Attempting to talk to him hasn’t worked, as he started out with hostility and hasn’t said anything since his one strange and uncivil response on his talk page. [10] His addition isn’t even consistent with the other article he claimed it was - that article doesn’t mention Razdolnoye. Since he won’t listen to me, could someone explain sourcing requirements to him? 50.213.83.65 (talk) 16:03, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

The 'uncivil' word the user in question used is actually, at least according to google, a combination of two offensive words, and is mainly used as an insult. Just a note going forwards. Daedalus969 (talk) 16:24, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Quickly noting that word is commonly used in online (Instagram, mainly) culture to call someone a “dumb African-American”, although you can probably guess the word combo. Not acceptable in any way; the N word or any variants of it should warrant an immediate block imo. ^EF⁵ 17:08, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Surprised they have a clean block log: [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 17:28, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Noting that their userpage featured a userbox with "Pronouns: (Not mentally ill)". I removed it under WP:POLEMIC and left a warning. EducatedRedneck (talk) 17:02, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

The hilarious irony is that Kim Jong Il wasn't even born at Razdolnoye, Primorsky Krai, but Vyatskoye, Khabarovsk Krai. Also looking at their userpage history, these two edits are interesting. Given the repeated reversions without explanation, the...interesting...word choice there, the userbox issue mentioned above, and the repeated incivility noted by Real Mouse above, I've indef'd. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:00, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

A brand new account has popped up to reinstate their edit [16] REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 09:02, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

The new account , John Shackleberry, went on to leave this [17] on my talk page, revert a bunch of edits I made, and then got blocked for block evasion by Yamaguchi先生. Thank you to everyone that’s helped out with this. Hopefully, there won’t be more block evasion. 50.213.83.65 (talk) 22:09, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

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

Request for Administrator Review – Conduct of User @ChildrenWillListen

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

---

Dear administrators,

I’d like kindly request your attention regarding the behaviour of user @ChildrenWillListen in connection with the article Rocc (opera stage director) I originally created in 2015.

I’m submitting this request because I’m completely lost with this user’s approach to work others people do here and their behaviour to other users as well.

I am strongly against the arrogant tone of this user: “Were you paid to write that article? By whom?” At that moment I wasn’t sure if I was a criminal…

I responded politely and asked this user, whether they need any action from me. Their reply was “You don’t have to do anything else for now.”

Despite this, they after that nominated the article for deletion and blocked the article’s history. So the original content is inaccessible now and no other can work on improving that article.

To be honest I really do not understand how this user, who openly stated they do not speak German, Czech, or Slovenian, can judge the quality of sources in those languages or evaluate the article properly. I still believe they were not able to verify or assess some of the content.

They completely ignored relevant sources about Rocc receiving the Recognition for important works of art in 2018, the highest artistic tittle of the University of Ljubljana – which is equivalent to the scientific title of Doctor of Sciene: https://www.tromba.si/najvisja-umetniska-priznanja-univerze-v-ljubljani-v-letu-2018/

They also deleted the information about Rocc’s work being broadcasted on OperaVision, a global online opera streaming platform: https://operavision.eu/performance/two-widows

I am strongly against their behavior: on one hand offering help, and on the other hand proposing that my account be blocked. That’s contradictory and unfair.

I am strongly against their way of communication and treating other editors like criminals. I only try to work in good faith, across languages and on topics that could be insightful for other users.

In the end I was forced to declare I was paid for creating that article, even though I wasn’t. I never received any direct or indirect benefit. This user themselves noticed, that my COI is defeating the article now. Yes, I tried to defeat my original work and inputs the other editors did over a decade.

If you need me to declose it, it is already done on my user page.

My honest question is – is this really the kind of approach to other Wikipedia editors you are align?

Thank you very much for your time, and I really apologise for my English – I’m not a native speaker.

Kind regards, Tomas

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomas Cafourek (talk • contribs) 13:55, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

I can give you some advice - you are much more likely to get a reply if you write a much shorter complaint in your own words. Ditch the LLM. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:20, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your advice. I'd like to be shorter but this case didn't allow me to do so. Tomas Cafourek (talk) 14:29, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

That's bollocks. You could cut at least 90% of that without losing any meaning. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:18, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Done. And I apologise for my English. Tomas Cafourek (talk) 15:53, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Is this LLM? 176.202.109.198 (talk) 14:22, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Has a lot of hallmarks of LLM work Danners430 _{tweaks made} 14:23, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Looks pure LLM to me. I'd rather read a simple post in broken English, with actual diffs, than verbose bland TL;DR dreck, with extra boldface, like this. Narky Blert (talk)

(edit conflict) This smells like AI. People don’t like AI here (the page I linked is about talk pages, but I see it used on AN/I too). Please try not to use AI. DalsoLoonaOT12 (talk) 14:57, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Would there be any appetite for a ban on LLM use at ANI? This page is for issues needing urgent attention, so if it's really urgent, why get an AI to write it? If I called the police with an urgent issue and then got ChatGPT to talk on my behalf, I don't think that would go down well. Stockhausenfan (talk) 15:33, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

I tried to rewrite with my broken English. Thank you for your comment - I fully understand. Tomas Cafourek (talk) 15:53, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

I tried in the rewritten version. I apologise for all my mistakes, I am not a native English speaker. Tomas Cafourek (talk) 16:07, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Looking into this, it looks like the main issue is that Cafourek made edits which introduced copyright-violating material when he created the page, which has since led to all but the 11 most recent edits on the article to be RevDel'd to scrub copyright violations from the history. Note that's around 300 edits since 2015. CWL's question in re paid editing was because they had concerns about the provenance of c:File:Rocc - profile photo.jpg, which is presently tagged for deletion on Commons; CWL's attempt to clarify the issue with Cafourek led only to conflicting answers, followed by what I presume is this AN/I thread.

Reading the discussion, I don't see anything wrong or untoward by CWL or by Counterfeit Purses (talk · contribs) (who bowed out of the thread due to a fear they'd breach WP:OUTING). Cafourek's been fairly evasive and contradictory in his answers to both the image's provenance and their paid-editing status. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 15:29, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

I will weigh in here since my name was mentioned. Although there may be reasons to suspect a business or personal relationship, @Tomas Cafourek says that they were not a paid editor when they created the Rocc article. I choose to believe them when they say they created it independently. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 18:57, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much @Counterfeit Purses for your polite approach. Tomas Cafourek (talk) 19:47, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

I have emailed some private evidence to the paid mailing list yesterday. I can't say anything here because it will violate the outing policy. As for deleting most of the article, I had to because it looked like a resume (and it was; people with access to the private evidence can see why) and I eventually found out that most of the article is a copyright violation, which is obviously not allowed per Wikipedia policy.

Tomas Cafourek does not understand that I have no control over the article history, and I'm just doing what anyone would have done if they had stumbled across that article. Again, I cannot restore revision deleted entries in the page history.

I know this isn't the place to discuss content issues, but the Tromba.Si source fails WP:SIGCOV and the OperaVision piece fails WP:INDEP. I noticed all this and did a through WP:BEFORE to the best of my ability before PRODding the article. 🧙‍♀️ Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 16:15, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

and on the other hand, propose user blocks @Tomas Cafourek: I have never said this to you to the best of my knowledge. The only thing that could get close to that was this reply. I was simply stating policy, not "proposing user blocks." 🧙‍♀️ Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 18:02, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Nevermind, you did get blocked. I forgot to check your talk page. My apologies. 🧙‍♀️ Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 20:08, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

I kindly ask you do not collect, store or even share any information about me. Tomas Cafourek (talk) 19:33, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

I have never shared any information about you onwiki, since doing so would violate our outing policy. 🧙‍♀️ Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 19:34, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Do not act so anywhere. Thank you for your understanding. Tomas Cafourek (talk) 19:37, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

I have sent some "private" evidence to the COI VRT mailing list. I only did so because I felt that the situation was becoming increasingly misleading. 🧙‍♀️ Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 19:42, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Please, email me what you shared, where and with whom. Thank you very much. Tomas Cafourek (talk) 19:44, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

As I've said before, I shared the info with the COI VRT mailing list, which can only been seen by trusted arbitrators and other functionaries. These communications cannot be seen by the general public. The contents just show the nature of your conflict of interest, nothing more. 🧙‍♀️ Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 19:54, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

If you are sharing any content about anybody, not the general public, but the affected person has full rights to know, what, who and with whom is shared. I kindly ask you to email me information about you are collecting about me. Tomas Cafourek (talk) 19:59, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

You can't force anyone to divulge information.

I didn't unblock you so you could run here. 331dot (talk) 20:32, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Dear 331dot, I do not force anybody, I am just kindly asking, because I am not OK that anybody is collecting information about me. Tomas Cafourek (talk) 20:39, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

And thank you very much for considering my request. I really appreciate it and made all statements I said. Tomas Cafourek (talk) 20:41, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

(Comment on content (sorry)) The sourcing in Rocc (opera stage director) looks strikingly thin. I lack the energy to check the sources in mk:Рок (оперски режисер) (mostly in Czech or Slovenian, nothing wrong with that); but unless they or a proper WP:BEFORE search throw up something, I have serious doubts about the enwiki article passing WP:GNG. Narky Blert (talk) 16:07, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

@Narky Blert: See my comment above about 300 edits since 2015 being revdel'd out of the history for copyvio. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 16:10, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

An article's history is irrelevant to its notability or lack thereof. The only thing that matters is what it is now. Narky Blert (talk) 17:02, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

If no better sourcing is forthcoming I may well, if I have the time tomorrow, nominate this article for deletion at WP:AFD, as the deletion proposal has been contested. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:38, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Dear Phil Bridger, with full respect, if I may just ask regarding the arguments here if the topic of this article meets Wikipedia's notability guideline for biographies:

- How come the article was notible enough 10 years ago when it was approved to be published? And after 10 years (after all the international work Rocc did) you do not consider the article notable any more?

- The Wiki editors also rated the article Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale, being of interest to the following WikiProjects: Biography: Arts and Entertainment & Opera. Now you suggest to delete this same article? Tomas Cafourek (talk) 20:29, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Tomas, these things don't really factor into a notability discussion. First off, there's not really an "approval to be published" process that assigns a incontrovertible declaration of notability. Consensus changes over time; there are articles that are only deleted on the fourth or fifth discussion, based on changed community consensus. New page patrol mostly identifies articles that are just not entirely unsuitable. The Articles for Creation (AfC) process mostly passes articles based on whether they're likely to survive a deletion discussion.

Whether or not the subject of this article is notable under Wikipedia's definition of notability will come down to the strength of the arguments made by the participants in July 2025. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 22:36, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

@CoffeeCrumbs Understood. I was just asking. Thank you very much for clarifying this. TuomasWriter (talk) 23:29, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Phil Bridger, as an uninvolved editor, I went ahead and took it behind the woodshed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:27, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

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

Boomerang time?

The above discussion was (correctly) closed since there was no misconduct on the part of ChildrenWillListen, however TuomasWriter's behavior itself wasn't properly considered there.

TuomasWriter is an effectively single-purpose account whose sole edits have been to promote Rocc (opera stage director) and argue at extreme length (WP:BLUDGEONING this ANI, the AfD, etc, all other discussions I can find, etc.). This makes then WP:NOTHERE and they should be blocked or community banned accordingly.

To be clear, I'm proposing this solely on the basis of TuomasWriter's own on-wiki conduct, not on the basis of any private evidence (and I haven't seen any). I don't care whether or not they're paid, have a COI, or whatever; their edits standing alone say enough.

* Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:01, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm involved, but I agree that this user isn't here to build an encyclopedia. He has constantly misled me and other editors about his COI until he got blocked, and he continues to claim that he doesn't have a paid relationship with Rocc (which, by the way, is very obvious.) I feel he's only here to advertise his clients even after I tried to tell him that Wikipedia isn't a promotional platform. I really didn't want it to come to this. 🧙‍♀️ Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 07:38, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

I am not here to advertise my clients only. I am using Wikipedia on daily basis as many other people. And I donate Wikipedia, because it helps me a lot outside as well. But yes, my contributions were weak. I am open to any discussion. Thank you for considering. TuomasWriter (talk) 07:46, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Many people see donating to the WMF as a negative. I try to treat it neutrally. Maybe it would help if you explained why you are so obsessed with Rocc and his Wikipedia article? Phil Bridger (talk) 07:53, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

I personally try to help where I receive something "for free", if I can. But after all this I can probably understand why many people see donating to the WMF as a negative.

Regarding Rocc, I am sorry if I misled anybody, it wasn't my goal. This article was my first article ever (10 years ago) and I was happy that I could contribute to Wikipedia and to this subject as well, because I admire him for what he has done for opera. TuomasWriter (talk) 08:04, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

People with the private evidence know this is incorrect. @TuomasWriter Please start being honest with us, it is the only way we can resolve this. 🧙‍♀️ Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 08:06, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

I don't know what evidences those people have. I used to work for an institution where this subject worked as well. And I partly volunteered in other institution where the subject also used to work. So there was contact/or professional discussion between me and him, years ago. But regarding the article and the rules here, I created the article in the past and I have never made any changes after its creation. TuomasWriter (talk) 08:16, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

You definitely don't have to tell us your exact conflict of interest if you aren't comfortable to, but I would avoid making statements like I was happy that I could contribute to Wikipedia and to this subject as well, because I admire him for what he has done for opera since the private evidence proves it false. 🧙‍♀️ Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 08:22, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

I believe this statement might be valid both for paid/non-paid contributions. Thank you for considering. TuomasWriter (talk) 08:25, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

True, but it makes it seem like you created the article just because you admire him, which is misleading at best. 🧙‍♀️ Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 08:27, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Might be. And a paid collaboration means to me to receive money for something. You explained it to me, what and why, and I made that statement. And I don't want to bludgeoning or anything else against the rules here, on Monday and never. TuomasWriter (talk) 08:33, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Off topic, but a lot of people here don't like the WMF for a variety of reasons, such as not appropriating donation money for improving the wikipedia, the WP:FRAMBAN scandal, and a general lack of trust. However, the WMF runs our servers and they're essential for Wikipedia to survive. 🧙‍♀️ Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 08:11, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying it in more detail. I understand both cases. I am more a regular user. I do not follow any scandals regarding Wikipedia and I am not in a very deep detail. TuomasWriter (talk) 08:20, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Children Will Listen, I don't understand how you are familiar with the rocky relationship between the Wikipedia editor community and the WMF when you have only had this account for one month. You respond as if you were an editor here for a decade not a few weeks. What were your previous accounts? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:36, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

@Liz: See my previous response here. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 00:58, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

EditorSage42 bludgeoning and likely LLM use

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

---

EditorSage42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Full disclosure, my involvement here started with a BITEy comment when I declined their AfC draft (I'm not proud of that comment). This morning I apologised for my tone then left for work. Coming back this evening, I've read the rest of their talk page and AfD contributions and have to agree with DoubleGrazing's concerns about bludgeoning. Further, I know I can sometimes be too quick to assume LLM use, but I am genuinely concerned that LLMs are learning how to fabricate replies on Wikipedia discussion pages, even engaging in behaviour that looks a lot like gaslighting to me.

Almost every reply of theirs on their own talk page in the last 24 hours fits DoubleGrazing's observation that pretty much every time someone raises a concern or queries any aspect of your editing, your standard response is to invoke WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, WP:ASPERSIONS, etc. Diffs of some of the comments that left me particularly gobsmacked:

• Reply to Ldm1954's COI query
• Reply to Ldm1954's templated warnings about removing maintenance tags
• Reply to Ldm1954's level 4 warning (by the way, who else remembers MeatballWiki?)
• Reply to Jay8g's query about chatbot use
  • Sidebar: This AfD is by no means successfully defended – I count four delete !votes, each of them met with more responses of the same nature
• At this point things get muddy (in my mind) as there seem to have been at least two different drafts of "AI book generation" that Ldm1954, Jay8g, and I have commented on and declined, plus a move to mainspace at AI book generation (2) (yes, really) ... which Bobby Cohn took to AfD while I was compiling this report.
  • Anyway, in response to my BITEy reaction to an AI-generated draft about AI generation: First, regarding the AI generation claims, WP:LLM states that AI assistance is acceptable when editors take responsibility for verifying content and ensuring policy compliance. The decline reasoning conflates AI assistance with wholesale generation without providing specific evidence. Per WP:BURDEN, accusations require substantiation beyond stylistic assumptions. And there's a variation on this response in the following thread about the other copy of this draft.
  • When I point out WP:LLMCIR, the response is Your suggestion that I should have "substantial experience" before using an LLM appears to be a misapplication of WP:LLM. The policy's primary focus is on editor accountability; it requires that any editor using such a tool must take full responsibility for the output, ensuring it is verifiable, neutral, and free of plagiarism. The guideline is not a prohibition for newer editors, but a caution to ensure standards are met—a responsibility I fully accept. At this point I am starting to question my own grip on reality.
• You'll see that this editor or their robot friend pepper their comments liberally with WP shortcuts, but they start hallucinating these when DoubleGrazing brings up bludgeoning.

In my moment of contrition this morning, I really meant to assume good faith and assume a fully human presence, but reading EditorSage42's comments again now, they feel more like a bot that has ingested an unhealthy amount of this very noticeboard. It's even possible that we are being trolled or are unwitting subjects in some kind of experiment. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 14:54, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm clearly involved so I doubt any support of mine for a complete ban will (and should) fall on deaf ears; a ban based on the assessment of uninvolved editors will clearly be stronger. But I had to step away from this because it is clearly an attempt at bludgeoning in multiple venues and I got the sense that the AI I was either feeding the trolls or communicating through someone with an LLM that clearly did not address the issues raised. I see similar issues with the other AFD this user has participated in and I get the sense that we should look at an overlap with extended use of LLM with the WP:CIR aspect on disruptive editing. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 15:02, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

LLM-generated comment collapsed per WP:AITALK by fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 15:18, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

@Bobby Cohn I appreciate ClaudineChionh taking the time to compile their concerns, and I accept their apology regarding the initial, admittedly BITEy comment. However, I must address several significant mischaracterizations in this report that require clarification before any administrative judgment can be made. The continued focus on my supposed use of a Large Language Model (LLM) appears to be a violation of core Wikipedia principles. Making serious accusations without providing concrete evidence runs contrary to the spirit of assuming good faith (WP:AGF) and can be construed as a personal attack (WP:NPA). ClaudineChionh even admits to being "too quick to assume LLM use," yet persists in the claim. Writing clearly and citing relevant policies is not an indication of bot-like activity; it is a sign of an editor who has taken the time to understand Wikipedia's documentation, an action that should be encouraged, not treated with suspicion. Similarly, the accusation of "bludgeoning" misinterprets the guideline. WP:BLUDGEON specifically targets the act of repeating the same argument to shut down discussion, rather than engaging with new points. My responses have been distinct and tailored to the specific issues raised by different editors. For instance, I addressed Ldm1954's conflict of interest query as required by WP:COI, explained the removal of maintenance tags with specific policy-based rationales, and responded to unique arguments regarding notability criteria in the AfD discussion. Far from being disruptive, WP:CONSENSUS building relies on editors "responding to the arguments of others" to move the discussion forward. A review of the timeline reveals a concerning pattern of escalation. The issue began with a BITEy decline, which was acknowledged. When I defended my contributions by citing policy, the accusation shifted to LLM use. When I refuted that, the claim escalated to "gaslighting." Now, this has culminated in an ANI report founded on speculation rather than evidence. This progression seems to follow the pattern described in WP:BOOMERANG, where an accuser escalates their claims when their initial complaints do not achieve the desired outcome. There are also procedural concerns regarding the complainant's understanding of the very policies they cite. ClaudineChionh’s comment about "questioning my own grip on reality" after I correctly cited WP:PSTS suggests a fundamental unfamiliarity with the guideline, which does indeed place a strong emphasis on editor accountability. To characterize the standard practice of citing Wikipedia's own rules as "hallucinating" is deeply troubling. Wikipedia operates on a shared understanding of its code of conduct (WP:CODE); referencing that code is a cornerstone of collaborative editing, not a reason for suspicion. To move forward constructively, I am more than willing to address any specific content disagreements or policy violations that can be substantiated with evidence. This report, however, consists primarily of admitted assumptions about my editing methods, a mischaracterization of policy-based responses as "bludgeoning," and personal incredulity rather than actual policy breaches. Per WP:ADMINACCT, administrative attention should be focused on demonstrable misconduct. I remain committed to improving Wikipedia through careful, policy-compliant editing and welcome any specific, actionable feedback on how I can better adhere to behavioral guidelines. EditorSage42 (talk) 15:02, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Care to offer an explanation at your "signing" of an {{AFC comment}} with Example (talk) and a wrong timestamp here? Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 15:09, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

@Bobby Cohn You are correct, thank you for catching that. It was a simple copy-paste error from the template documentation page, which I was reviewing to ensure I used it correctly. I have corrected it.

That said, I find it telling that after making broad accusations of gaslighting and incompetence without evidence, the only concrete issue you've found is a minor slip-up in a signature. This seems to confirm my point about the pattern of escalation here: the goal is not to address substance, but to find any pretext, no matter how small, to support a pre-determined conclusion. EditorSage42 (talk) 15:12, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

But the template doesn't have user:example or user talk:example on the template documentation page, can you specify where you copy and pasted from? Easternsahara (talk) 15:15, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Likely. I appreciate that your LLM also takes the time to explain shortcuts to you:

• the pattern described in WP:BOOMERANG, where
• WP:BLUDGEON specifically targets
• WP:CONSENSUS building relies
• Per WP:ADMINACCT, administrative attention should be

I'll note the same pattern of yours while also getting some of them wrong as pointed out in the AFDs. Is there anything else your LLM should explain to the participants at ANI? Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 15:18, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

"You are correct, thank you for catching that." Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 15:21, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Let's look at both your drafts of Ai book writing: Draft:AI book generation (2) and Draft:AI book generation. Now, you seem quite familiar with various policies like admin accountability, code of conduct, bite, etc. etc. You even cited the manual of style in various places so why do you violate MOS:EMBED, WP:TEXTBOOK and MOS:BOLD. Easternsahara (talk) 15:13, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

I've indeffed for bludgeoning and obvious LLM abuse. If they can convince an admin that this behavior won't continue they can be unblocked. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:15, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Their unblock request is another likely-LLM-generated wall of text. Took them a few minutes from you blocking them to post that, which in itself suggests LLM. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:25, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

I agree, and warned them, but I won't remove an unblock request on my block when it's not flagrant vandalism. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:32, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

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

Request for AFD closure

Hi admins, following the above, there is the matter of an AFD that is likely misplaced or with a problematic move history (depending on the next steps).

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AI book generation (2)

Normally I'm against moves mid-AfD discussion and would prefer to let it play out, but it's pretty clear LLM content isn't wanted on this board or in the mainspace. I don't know if it could be SNOW closed and the now-draftified article deleted or something, but there is a bit of outstanding mess there.

Thanks, Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 15:55, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

My apologies but I didn't want content that was possibly hallucinated, which some of my source checking showed could be the case in the mainspace so I moved it into draftspace. This wasn't proper procedure but I think it would be better than to leave it up for readers. Easternsahara (talk) 15:59, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

It is improper procedure, so I have reverted the move. The article is already tagged showing issues with it. If there are specific things that are wrong, you can remove them. -- Whpq (talk) 18:41, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

There is also

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Horia Mihail Teodorescu

Ldm1954 (talk) 16:01, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

And Surgibox where some of the LLM edits are OK. Ldm1954 (talk) 16:14, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

SNOW closed. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:15, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

NOTHERE case

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

---

Kakar32 is a case of WP:NOTHERE and is violating WP:NORACISTS.[18] Azuredivay (talk) 13:53, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

That also probably needs to be revdel’ed 37.186.52.8 (talk) 15:23, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Kakar32 directly called another user an unambiguous slur in that diff, its an edit made to the targeted users' userpage with an edit summary of "You". This is an easy block. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 15:43, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

This has been revdel'd under WP:RD2. Having seen it prior to revdel I can also vouch for this being a no-brainer indef. tony 16:35, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked Kakar32 for using a racist slur to attack another editor. Cullen328 (talk) 16:44, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

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

Giray 3532

• Giray 3532 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user is placing non existent Turkey's so called emblem on every articles, also has other edits like this and this. Basically fantasy editing. Not to mention the edit warring if you revert him. On his talk page, he replies always like:

• Please do not act prejudiced without a source
• You don't have any official sources, don't judge without researching
• Don't think you're scaring me by complaining, do some history research, you don't have a single source

I don't even know what to tell. Beshogur (talk) 09:12, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

User continues to edit warring. Beshogur (talk) 16:03, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

The ANI notice was buried in two paragraphs of comments so I placed it in its own section so it is more visible to the editor. Hopefully, they will come here to discuss matters. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:53, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

I've gotten into it myself with him on his talk page. I can see that his sources demonstrate a different flag (you keep using the turn of phrase "non existent Turkey emblem," which is inaccurate English), but instead of seeking to upload an image of that flag, he keeps on reverting to this spurious regimental flag and claiming that it is either a "war flag" or the national military's flag. Granted, this is a content dispute, but his intransigence isn't going to win him favors. Ravenswing 07:01, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Given the repeated additions of this flag image to multiple pages and templates, I've indef pblocked from articlespace and template space. If clue improves, anyone can unblock. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:40, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

They do now personal attacks, "Don't you understand, kid? Search Turkish resources. Stop learning from YouTube short videos. There is a war flag in Turkiye, but you don't understand because you are disabled" [[19]] Shadow4dark (talk) 10:23, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

I order you to open my blocked account or I will report you to the moderators. @The Bushranger: Beshogur (talk) 19:25, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

"fuck you kid" [[20]] Shadow4dark (talk) 19:33, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

serious WP:NPA violation! 176.202.109.198 (talk) 20:07, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

And they're now indef'd. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:27, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Giray is back as an IP, using the same mis-spelled file '39th Regment flag' and adding it to two articles:

editing logged out

I've reverted both, but he might keep coming back. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 00:30, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Blocked 176.220.247.150 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 176.219.171.176 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for a week, and semiprotected War flag for two weeks. Will protect other pages if it's needed. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:53, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Now semiprotected List of military flags as the editor is repeatedly IP block evading while using taunting edit summaries. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:32, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

new IP? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Turkish_flags&action=history Shadow4dark (talk) 15:53, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Whack-a-moled and semiprotected List of Turkish flags for two weeks. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:31, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Edit Warring on Death_of_Aristotelis_Goumas

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

---

On Death of Aristotelis Goumas there is an ongoing dispute between me and User 2a02:587:8730:cb00:3630:9bc3:8f7a:e3d4 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) regarding some of the content in the article. Their edits try to push a rather nationalist view than a neutral viewpoint (truth) by misusing and falsifying the cited sources! Wikipedia is not meant to be used as a propaganda tool! Can an Admin please take a look at that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A8:1990:15E0:B1D9:1432:1FA5:B55B (talk • contribs)

The first step in a content dispute is not come to ANI but start a discussion on the article talk page, Talk:Death of Aristotelis Goumas, which neither of you has done. So head that way and put forth your argument there. ANI doesn't settle content disputes. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:58, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! And if the dispute is not settled there? 2A02:908:1990:15E0:B1D9:1432:1FA5:B55B (talk) 23:04, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

I found these two while doing RCP, noticed the edit warring and applied the user warning templates in the hopes that they'd get the memo. The other user (we'll call E3D4) has also accused the above user (B55B) of being the blocked sockmaster Guxhuli (talk · contribs), and they might be on to something. A quick peek at B55B's contribs show they're editing mostly the same pages and removing the same content (here and here, for one), and their writing style is extremely similar (B55B: The only vandalism here is being done by you, trying to push a narrative which is not true, by misrepresenting sources you cite! [..] you should not put any Original Research here, that even borders on nationalist propaganda!, Guxhuli: It is a policy-based rationale there. And two editors of the article think it like me! Namely the person who added the info you irrationally dispute and me! I simply reverted it to how it was!). For their part, B55B has accused the other of being a WP:LOUTSOCK as well, but I don't see anything supporting that. tony 23:25, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

The user @Demetrios1993 is the one who has reported Guxhuli for sockpuppetry based on logs! That is why he is directly accusing me! He is also not being constructive here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Death_of_Aristotelis_Goumas#c-Guxhuli-20250428195900-Source_missing 2A02:908:1990:15E0:B1D9:1432:1FA5:B55B (talk) 23:28, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

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

Continued vandalism on Death of Aristotelis Goumas page

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

---

• Death of Aristotelis Goumas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Request page protected against vandalism 2a02:908:1990:15e0:b1d9:1432:1fa5:b55b (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). @Guxhuli / @Bruhkup3 / @2A02:908:1990:15E0:B1D9:1432:1FA5:B55B have been engaging in disruptive edits. See Death of Aristotelis Goumas edit history and talk page. They have been removing sourced content even using sockpuppet (see edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Death_of_Aristotelis_Goumas&diff=prev&oldid=1289915084) using established sockpuppet @Bruhkup3. 2A02:587:8730:CB00:3630:9BC3:8F7A:E3D4 (talk) 23:06, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

This user is a sockpuppet of @Demetrios1993

He is not engaing in a constructive discussion on the talk page! He just wants his POV pushed! 2A02:908:1990:15E0:B1D9:1432:1FA5:B55B (talk) 23:18, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

This is just silly. WP:NPA,WP:TROLL, WP:FORUM. 2A02:587:8730:CB00:3630:9BC3:8F7A:E3D4 (talk) 23:52, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

You can't call me a troll if you don't engage in the Talk page and you start adding irrelevant sources desperately! 2A02:908:1990:15E0:B1D9:1432:1FA5:B55B (talk) 23:58, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

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

Henmosseri edit warring, personal attacks

Henmosseri

Edit warring: See history of Pudgy Penguins where they made two reverts in four minutes. The page is in the WP:GS/Crypto contentious topic area, which has a topic-wide 1RR rule

(Sidenote, I'll admit I also breached 1RR there, simply because I had forgotten it existed. So block me too if you want ...)

Personal attacks:

"obviously incapable of making objective edits"

This user is clearly WP:NOTHERE and should be blocked. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:56, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

This is untrue and I was also unaware of the 1RR in this case. The article is also not tagged. I am making a meaningful effort to expand the encyclopedia. Pudgy Penguins is a major entertainment and retail brand with a diverse product offering.

I would accept any meaningful edits that would help expand the encyclopedia and the reader’s knowledge of the topic. Blanket labeling something as “crypto” and slimming the article down to a stub is not productive. Saying things like “block me too if you want…” is childish and also unhelpful. Henmosseri (talk) 03:09, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

You've now made a 3rd revert in 24 hours even though you now clearly know this is 1RR territory and know that your edits have been contested by two different people. If that isn't blockworthy as expressing open contempt for Wikipedia's processes then I don't know what is. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:25, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Pblocked one week from that article. Henmosseri, no more edit warring, and no more unevidenced personal attacks (the most recent being the revert where you said a good-faith editor had "malicious intent to vandalize". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:39, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

How is that a personal attack? If you look at the edits made, they clearly diminished the amount of useful information in the article. If anything the edits should be reviewed for vandalism. The edits were made without context or comments by the editor who has demonstrated limited knowledge of the company and subject matter as a whole. Henmosseri (talk) 16:43, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

It is also a personal attack to insinuate that I have a financial stake in the company. Will that user be banned as well? Henmosseri (talk) 16:50, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

If an editor makes an edit you feel shows promotional bias, it is reasonable to say so in a neutrally worded user talk page post. It is not a personal attack to do so. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:41, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Vandalism has a very specific meaning on Wikipedia. Making unsupported allegations of vandalism against other editors is considered a personal attack. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:24, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

If an editor makes an edit you feel diminishes the amount of useful information, you should pursue the steps of WP:CONTENTDISPUTE. Only if you are reasonably certain that they did so with malicious intent to harm the encyclopedia should you label them vandalism, and you'll have to be extra certain to say so in an edit summary. I'm certain the editor in question did not have such an intent, so I'm concerned about your ability to tell the difference between edits you disagree with and edits that are purposefully disruptive and harmful. I recommend reading WP:VAND carefully. I'm sorry to see you focusing on this aspect of the pblock, as the edit warring was the more major cause. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:41, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Jasonfran1206 disruptive editing – unsourced material & non-communicative

Jasonfran1206 (talk · contribs) has been warned at least seven times by three editors – starting in 2021 – about unsourced additions. They never acknowledged the warnings, nor post to any talk page at all in fact that I can see. I think they need to hear from an administrator about disruptive and uncommunicative behavior, as they have not stopped yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bri (talk • contribs) 04:40, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

p-blocked from main. We'll see if this helps them find a talk page. -- asilvering (talk) 06:32, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Fabvill, this issue is clearly outstanding, so I'm reversing your close of this item. This is the second time I've done this for one of your closes - please be more careful with this and only close things that are obviously completely sorted out. -- asilvering (talk) 17:33, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

@Asilvering I only close discussions whose users reported here are blocked. If you think the discussion is still open, feel free to revert. Fabvill (Talk to me!) 07:00, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

@Fabvill, if you thought that was appropriate in this case, I would request that you cease clerking at ANI. Sorry. -- asilvering (talk) 13:44, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Longterm disruptive editing on GENSEX by 82.10.58.36

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/82.10.58.36

This editor has done nothing that I can see in their entire contrib history over the course of years but make disruptive, POV edits on GENSEX articlespace, make personal attacks against editors he disagrees with, blank threads that he disagrees with from talk pages, and most recently blank article content because it cites an RSP green LGBT news source on LGBT topics. Please CBAN. He has been warned numerous times on his talk pages, has blanked the warnings, and continued on. Snokalok (talk) 12:45, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Can we CBAN an IP? Anyway, the problems here are serious and sustained so we need to do something. They openly threatened to commit IP hopping Sockpuppetry here. I warned them and they blanked the warning. They clearly know that what they are doing is wrong and they don't care. DanielRigal (talk) 13:07, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

CBANing an IP results in playing whack a mole. Better off semi-protecting the pages. TarnishedPath^talk 13:18, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Is this the same person? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/BleeepBlooop -- Very Polite Person (talk) 13:21, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

• Encountered this at RFPP, but I've gone ahead an  blocked (31h) + AE 1RR-sanctioned for 1 month 82.10.58.36, as they had already been alerted to WP:CT/GG and were clearly starting to edit war. --slakr^\ talk / 13:49, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

User:LukeJo15

LukeJo15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This editor has a history of removing and changing images, always without edit summary or explanation. Has never engaged in any discussion, on user talk or on any article talk page. A few of their edits are good, but the majority are not. Nearly half have been directly reverted, and many others undone by multiple editors soon afterwards. A short block is I suggest needed to force the editor to engage. Example: Removal of image, repeated after talk page warning, repeated again after second warning. MichaelMaggs (talk) 14:30, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

I've posted a notice encouraging them to come to ANI and participate in this discussion but they only seem to edit about once a month so they may not be back until August. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:01, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Another undiscussed revert has been made today, yet again without engagement or edit summary, this time undoing a revert that explicitly invites a talk page discussion. (Their edit was quickly undone by another editor with the call "Discuss image changes on talk page"). LukeJo15 continues unabated with bad or at least unhelpful edits with zero acknowledgement of the community's existence. MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:01, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Vandal using another proxy needs another block

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

---

Recently, a vandal has been using open proxies and nominating multiple pages for speedy deletion. Their edits are pure vandalism and they have been repeatedly blocked e.g., [21], [22]. They've returned with a new proxy and need to be blocked again. Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 11:41, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Most IP addresses editing English Wikipedia from East Asia seem to be proxies these days. Blocked. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:22, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

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