Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1208

WP:CIR: @Unknown FG

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.

---

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.[1] 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. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. 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. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. 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. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Moonsun147258

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.

---

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. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

New user not communicating

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.

---

[2] and [3] 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. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. 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. [4][5]

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)

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." [6] 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." [7] 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 [8] 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)

~2025-31252-28

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.

---

~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: [9][10][11][12] 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. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Consumersapproach

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.

---

• 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. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. 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. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. 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 [13]: there is nothing extraordinary in Muslims issuing death threats., [14]: He is a militant cyber jihadi [...] If we let these militant Islamists become administrators, you might as well kiss goodbye the Wikipedia. [15]: The problem in dealing with Muslims is that they gang up and back up each other. [16]: 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 [17]: 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., [18]: ...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: [19], [20], [21]). 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. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:~2025-31531-99

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.

---

• ~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: [22] and more examples of accusing a fellow editor of advocating racism and xenophobia, that is clearly aspersions: [23] And with a WP:IDHT attitude in the article diffs, such as this:[24] and this:[25] and this: [26]. 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. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Andro124

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.

---

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. [27]) 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. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. 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)

Batchofcookies220

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.

---

• 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. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. 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. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. 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. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

BASLAMIC VINEGAR

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.

---

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. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. 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. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. 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. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sneaky vandalism, Obvious vandalism and hidden misinformation.

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.

---

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. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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)

LLM-generated comment collapsed per WP:AITALK

@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 [28], Cabo Gracias a Dios [29] and the lead of Rama people [30]
  • changing "El Bluff" to "Bluefields Bluff": [31], [32]
  • moving "Escondido River" to "Bluefields River": [33]

• 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)

LLM-generated comment collapsed per WP:AITALK

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)

Legal threat?

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.

---

~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)

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.

~2025-34731-06

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.

---

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)

One point. Can you point out where this account self-identified as male? Please don't assume the gender and identity of editors. Canterbury Tail talk 21:33, 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)

(non-admin reply) Please notify the account that you are talking about when going to ANI next time. I did it this time, but just be aware. NotJamestack (✉️|📝) 01:03, 3 December 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.

Possible legal threat

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 @Tandon269p appears to have made a legal threat against me here: [34] after I warned him about his caste-related edits. MaplesyrupSushi (talk) 17:50, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Blocked. They can't be editing about castes at all, either, it's a CTOP under a 30/500 restriction. 331dot (talk) 17:53, 4 December 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.

Paid editor refusing to communicate

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.

---

Cgreen7777 (talk · contribs) is a paid editor according to their comment made at Draft:OffWestEnd. They have repeatedly attempted to insert large chunks of unsourced, poorly formatted material into The Offies seemingly on behalf of their employer (as their edits exclusively revolve around OffWestEnd). For example. They refuse to communicate or use a talk page despite several requests for them to do so, and have now resorted to silently edit warring.^LaffyTaffer💬(she/they) 15:37, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

On review of The Offies's history, I've been edit warrinig myself and went past 3rr. Apologies, will accept some kind of boomerang on that one. ^LaffyTaffer💬(she/they) 15:41, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

CGreen7777 has also been reported (by me) at WP:AIV. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:49, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

CGreen7777 has been blocked. This matter can now be closed. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:56, 4 December 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:Irisyourmoondino and User:PetephetsungneonSWN3Dinoirisbrother (Evident case of WP:IDONTHEARYOU and suspected case of sockpuppetry)

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.

---

Both user accounts have constantly refused to elaborate their reverts when other users including myself has asked or warned about it (e.g. see Stegosauria article revision history); even when they're asked to discuss this at the talk page or warned about reporting their actions, they refuse to listen and keep reverting. This is an apparent case of WP:IDONTHEARYOU mentality, and is definitively a disruptive editing. Additionally, the fact that both accounts are created at the same day, and the fact that they do not revert each others' edits but only revert any other users' if they disagree with it for some reason (without explaining it), which makes me more suspicious that they're sockpuppets (see [35] for more detail regarding suspected sockpuppetry). Even when both are not found to be the same person, an action must be needed regardless due to the apparent disruptive editing. Junsik1223 (talk) 14:09, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Both editors have been blocked at SPI. Blue Sonnet (talk) 16:57, 4 December 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.

Temp account evidently WP:NOTHERE.

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.

---

This temp account: User:~2025-37025-97 has disrupted and vandalized Wikipedia multiple times, as can be seen by their contributions. Special:Contributions/~2025-37025-97. I would like this temp account to be blocked. NotJamestack (✉️|📝) 13:31, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Just reverted an edit myself - might be quicker at AIV? Blue Sonnet (talk) 13:59, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

User:NotJamestack, WP:AIV is that way. Drmies (talk) 14:05, 4 December 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.

Disruptive edits from CJK17205

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.

---

CJK17205 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Hello admins,

I'm here to report a series of disruptive edits from user CJK17205 on the article for the movie Weapons. So a couple months back there was an agreement that we shouldn't put plot relevant detail in a character's (Gladys, played by Amy Madigan) cast description. As mentioned in a talk page discussion, "The guidance in MOS:FILMCAST does say "Subjective interpretation using labels such as protagonist, antagonist, villain, or main character, should be avoided. The plot summary should convey such roles"". Everything was fine until this user decided to violate this rule by adding plot relevant information. I gave him a warning and mentioned his violation on the talk page of the movie. However, he replied back, "Sorry but you she is responsible for the missing 17 children’s disappearance", indicating that he intends to continue his actions and has no plans to stop adding this until he gets banned. Please ban this user immediately. HiGuys69420 (talk) 10:14, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

HiGuys69420, please provide diffs to the issue. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 10:20, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

HiGuys69420, what you are describing is a run-of-the-mill content dispute, and this noticeboard does not adjudicate content disputes. Since you are here, will you please explain the symbolism of the five digits in your username? Thank you. Cullen328 (talk) 10:23, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Oh hey I initially Planned this account as an occassional editor but I will change the last digit to 1 as soon as possible, I just don’t know how to do so. HiGuys69420 (talk) 17:55, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Don't worry I applied for a rename check just now. HiGuys69420 (talk) 18:05, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

I'm just gonna rename my account to HiGuys so I think we're good on that issue HiGuys69420 (talk) 18:12, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

As for the diffs here you go:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Weapons_(2025_film)&diff=prev&oldid=1325601986 HiGuys69420 (talk) 17:56, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Weapons (2025 film)#Character summary plot spoiler. HiGuys69420 (talk) 17:57, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

This sounds like a content dispute, except admins can't help with those. You can look into getting a third opinion or add a request to the Dispute resolution noticeboard.

If the editor is actively disruptive and refuses to engage with these processes, that's when admins may need to intervene. Blue Sonnet (talk) 18:13, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Okay, I will monitor the user carefully in case he tries resisting any further, as I'm pretty sure he's violating wikipedia policy. If he does edit again I will report him once more. HiGuys69420 (talk) 18:17, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Update: The user has agreed to stop his disruptive edits on the Weapons movie. HiGuys69420 (talk) 19:57, 4 December 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.

ZWrld and WP:NOTHERE

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.

---

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

The editor ZWrld appears to not be here to build an encyclopedia. They have repeatedly created drafts on themselves, and seem solely interested in self promotion through a published article. See [36] and their draft. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 08:31, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

I’m not trying to do a “self promotion, I’m just trying to get a biography and history on the google knowledge panel. ZWrld (talk) 08:52, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

I have proof of the knowledge panel and my listeners across the world, if you can just let me show you, I can prove that I’m not doing self promotion. ZWrld (talk) 08:56, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

ZWrld, if you aren't sourced in reliable, independent sources that contain significant coverage, you are not fit to be the subject of a Wikipedia article. Popularity doesn't equal notability, at least for Wikipedia. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 09:02, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

I’m not saying popularity does, I’m just saying all I’m trying to do is get my basic information of my songs and a little biography on my google knowledge panel. ZWrld (talk) 09:07, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

FWIW, I was going to block ZWrld as not here, but saw this thread and left it to the community Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:04, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Im not trying to promote mysel, as I stated before im just trying to get a small biography on my google knowledge panel. ZWrld (talk) 09:09, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

You should read WP:PROMOTION Kaotac (talk) 09:03, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked ZWrld as an account here only for self-promotion. ZWrld, repeating an obviously false statement four times does not make it true and does not make the false statement more persuasive. To the contrary. Cullen328 (talk) 10:17, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

See [208]
— User:45dogs

Did you mean to link [37]/Special:Diff/1208603452? --Gurkubondinn (talk) 11:21, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Gurkubondinn yes, it would appear I didn't know how to properly use the diff template. That diff is the one I meant to show. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 17:23, 4 December 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:Non-Veg_Craft: unreviewed LLM-content on mainspace

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.

---

@Non-Veg Craft created the following two mainspace articles and a draft:

• Dark meat
• Chicken leg
• Draft:Goat meat cuts

All three exhibit obvious unreviewed LLM content as they include multiple hallucinated references.

I also see a couple of hallucinated sources on their additions to the Chicken as food article.

I also do not believe that they have the English language proficiency to contribute to the English Wikipedia, when you compare this LLM-generated comment on The Teahouse with this non-LLM generated comment on their contested deletion: I understand the concerns, and I apologise for that my englishis good but some time we need more professional grammarian large we love it professional wrote so i just take help . or on this talk page reply: sorry but at least i am not create any promotional work ya personal clint i am here just for improving my english skill also making my life professional disciplined lifestyle noting eles

They have already stated they will not use LLMs further, but I would like to see them blocked from mainspace to stop further disruptive LLM use. qcne (talk) 20:30, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

@Qcne I understand. I am not using AI now. I am writing this myself. I am sorry for the problem I caused with the articles. I did not know the rules well. I will stop editing mainspace for now and only work in drafts. I will learn how to do proper sourcing and not use any AI tools again. I just want to improve and follow the rules here. Thank you for explaining the issues. Non-Veg Craft (talk) 20:44, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

See the dramatic drop in english proficiency? We're sure there is a Wikipedia in your home language! Try finding it, edit there until we see decent english proficiency if you come back, no block here. OK? Tankishguy 21:05, 3 December 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.

FPSfan3000

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.

---

FPSfan3000 (talk · contribs) continues editing, despite having already said twice that they would leave the site for good. Their edits continue to include original research, references to primary sources (not even taking the time to include in-line citations), and also misuse of parameters.[38][39][40] I honestly don't know what other measure besides an indefinite block should be taken before waiting a third "voluntary departure" on the user's part. Xexerss (talk) 18:49, 3 December 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.

Obvious undeclared paid/COI account making edits to Nancy Mace

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 the Nancy Mace page, we have the account User:TeamMace, created 15 minutes ago at the time that I type this, mass deleting material that reflects badly on Nancy Mace and marking it as minor edits.[41][42]Snokalok (talk) 17:02, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Blocked for the username violation and obviously promotional edits. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:06, 3 December 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:LAyub12

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.

---

Can someone please ban the account User:LAyub12 (Special:Contributions/LAyub12)? Their only objective is to plant false death information on biographies of living people. Thanks. Jkaharper (talk) 16:38, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Blocked them and their socks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:52, 3 December 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.

Abusive language by IP

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.

---

~2025-38150-57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Main issue: Usage of abusive and highly offensive language in a Talk page discussion.

Link refering to the abusive text: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tonyy_Starkk#December_2025

Abusive text in regional language (Tamil): Oru pundayum thevayilla. Nee oombu. It is obvious that you have an agenda with your edits. So mind your own business and edit other pages. Nee romba naala inga oombikittu irukku theru thevudiya magane.. Nee Suriya hater nu theriyum.. inimel ozhunga irukkura idam theriyama irukkala na thonga vechu thola urichiduven avusari thayoli magane.

Similar incident was reported some time ago, adding that incident link as well. [43]

Suspected socks and IPs:

~2025-35944-05 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

~2025-35993-43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

~2025-35863-90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

and the list goes on, most of them have participted in editing the article Retro (film).

Requesting admins to please take action regarding the repeated use of abusive language and investigate the listed IPs/accounts. Thanks. Tonyy Starkk (talk) 15:47, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

• The following temporary accounts are  Confirmed to each other:
  • ~2025-38150-57 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • ~2025-36975-17 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • ~2025-35944-05 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • ~2025-37927-44 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • ~2025-37217-69 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • ~2025-35993-43 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • ~2025-36004-49 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • ~2025-36037-48 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • ~2025-35927-34 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • ~2025-35009-58 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • ~2025-34050-54 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • ~2025-33586-63 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

I am in the process of blocking all of them. ~2025-35863-90 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) is  Unlikely. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:23, 3 December 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.

(Non-administrator comment) @Tonyy Starkk: Google Translate can't translate romanized Tamil. What does the Tamil text mean, and do you believe it meets RD2? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:58, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

As I know Tamil, the text contains very vulgar sexual abuse, personal insults, and a clear threat of violence, if needed you may use GPT to understand the exact meaning. Tonyy Starkk (talk) 13:46, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

I'm a Celebrity...Get Me Out of Here! (British TV series) series 25

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.

---

• I'm a Celebrity...Get Me Out of Here! (British TV series) series 25 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There seems to be a dispute between certain users, who can’t fathom that a public vote between 7 people cannot have somebody finishing 12th. Primarily User:Lavalizard101 who should know better as a long term user. User:Msalmon has tried to explain ~2025-38136-59 (talk) 14:11, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

This appears to be a content dispute. Is that not correct? --Yamla (talk) 14:14, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

It is a content dispute. Lavalizard101 (talk) 14:58, 3 December 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.

Conduct concern regarding User:TarnishedPath on Talk:Daniel Andrews

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.

---

Text generated by a large language model or similar AI technology has been collapsed in line with the relevant guideline and should be excluded from assessments of consensus. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 11:57, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I am requesting administrative review of User:TarnishedPath due to repeated disruption, personal accusations, and improper talk-page conduct during a BLP-sensitive content discussion.

I was attempting to discuss improvements to the "Bike Boy" section of Daniel Andrews biography based on WP:BLP, WP:RS, and WP:UNDUE concerns.

Instead of engaging constructively with policy or the text, the editor has:

1: Collapsed my comments without consensus

(Violates WP:TPO)

Diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1313080326

During my discussion with User:TarnishedPath, a second editor (User:Newslinger) briefly entered the thread and collapsed much of the conversation without providing a clear reason. User:Newslinge made one other comment then did not participate further. This made it difficult to continue content discussion.

2: Made personal accusations about AI tool misuse

(Violates WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL) Diffs: • https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1313080326

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1313098656

The editor alleged my contribution was AI generated and used this as a reason to dismiss them. No evidence was provided and the editor's insistence derailed the content-based discussion.

3: Refused to address content or policy. Focused on the contributor.

(violates WP:FOCUS, WP:BATTLEGROUND) Diffs: • https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1313098656

The editor ignored several requests to provide specific policy-based objections and instead, resorted to personal accusations.

4: Attempted to negate and delete my draft without addressing content issues

(violates WP:DR, WP:AGF) Diff: • https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1313098656 User labelled the draft as 'BLP violation, without citing any specific word, sentence, paragraph or policy breach.

Summary

This behaviour made constructive discussion impossible. I am requesting admin attention to restore a collaborative environment. I want to focus the discussion on policy and content, not personal accusations.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vinluna (talk • contribs) 09:11, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Vinluna, usage of ChatGPT and lying about it

Diffs to come shortly. Pinging @Newslinger and HiLo48 as involved editors. TarnishedPath^talk 09:32, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Editors, please refer to:

1. discussion at Talk:Daniel_Andrews#Proposed_revision_of_'Bike_Boy’_conspiracy_theory_section_for_accuracy,_neutrality,_and_compliance in which Newslinger brings up and provides evidence of Vinluna using ChatGPT to generate article content and Vinluna lies that they haven't done so.
2. Special:Diff/1313080326 and Special:Diff/1313098656 which has clear evidence showing the usage of ChatGPT in article generation ("chatgpt.com" at the end of URLs).

I call for a boomerang. TarnishedPath^talk 09:40, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Ps, this report is clearly ChatGPT generated. It's clear that Vinluna didn't even bother to check the content of this slop and provided the same diff four times. TarnishedPath^talk 09:42, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

"utm_source=chatgpt.com" in one of the sources doesn't inspire confdence. GarethBaloney (talk) 09:44, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

The report here is also seemingly AI, and also the links don't at all match up with what you are alleging. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:51, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

As nonsensical as the diff links are, at least they linked four times to Diff/1313098656 with utm_source=chatgpt.com. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 10:07, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Vinluna: Someone else has already done this, but you are required to notify the user you're dragging to ANI. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 10:12, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Boomerang again. Using LLM to create nonsensical reports should really be an auto CIR block. Northern Moonlight 10:15, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Also see the following diffs written (or perhaps I should say not written) by Vinluna:

1. Special:Diff/1325440274 where they state "The Herald Sun is officially recognised on Wikipedia as a reliable source. It appears at WP:NEWSORG. This is clearly erroneous. Clearly AI generated slop. Also they write BLPPRIMARY allows primary sources to verify procedural facts (case title, filing date, number)" which is again erroneous. More AI slop.
2. Special:Diff/1325445719 where they repeat the line about Herald Sun: "The Herald-Sun is is officially recognised on Wikipedia as a reliable source. It appears at WP:NEWSORG." More slop.
3. Special:Diff/1325447118: "For the purposes of this section, the Herald Sun is only being used for routine, uncontroversial facts, which is fully consistent with WP:RS." Yet more slop.
4. Special:Diff/1325461322 starts telling lies: "I’ve written all of my comments myself and stand by the policy points I’ve raised which, took me some time to learn and understand."
5. Special:Diff/1325464057 In response to Newslinger stating "your comments were clearly LLM-generated, and did not solely use AI for "A grammar and spell check". A dedicated grammar checker would not transform your comments into the format and style used by LLM outputs." provides the deceitful response "That's your opinion. I disagree."
6. Special:Diff/1325489539 in response to Newslinger stating "Posting LLM-generated comments and creating articles with an LLM without proper disclosure are inappropriate and will lead to you losing your editing privileges, regardless of whether you "disagree" or think that it is a "non-issue"." responds with "My contributions are my own."

TarnishedPath^talk 10:32, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

This noticeboard report ironically links to the two diffs that show Vinluna's LLM use. As Vinluna's edits to date are solely dedicated to advancing a conspiracy theory about a living person, Vinluna should be indefinitely blocked per WP:NOTHERE. — Newslinger talk 10:23, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

• Support - clearly a WP:SPA that is NOTHERE. TarnishedPath^talk 10:33, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
• Support (Non-administrator comment), but I would like to see the LLM use be noted towards the block as well as the NOTHERE and SPA issues. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 10:55, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
• Support (Non-administrator comment), Vinluna appears to be demonstrating WP:ICANTHEARYOU regarding their perpetual and tendentious use of AI, and WP:BATTLEGROUND with regard to conduct. Perhaps they weren't aware of WP:BOOMERANG. They appear to be militantly WP:NOTHERE, and POV pushing. My good faith has been stretched beyond its elastic limit. Time to curb this time sink. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 12:15, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
• Support: Aside from the above, a key element without which Wikipedia couldn't survive is holding trust that other editors are being honest. Someone who just sticks to their baldfaced, obvious lies is someone we can't have around. Ravenswing 12:25, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

• I have blocked Vinluna indefinitely, and warned them that their talk access will be revoked if a chatbot submits an unblock request on their behalf. I'm also not impressed by editors who start with threats that they've saved screenshots, it is plain battleground behaviour and a good indicator of someone who fundamentally doesn't understand what Wikipedia is. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:38, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

For completeness regarding User:TarnishedPath

I have looked at the material above. I wish to propose that there is no case for them to answer. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 12:51, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 12:51, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
• Support (Non-administrator comment) --Gurkubondinn (talk) 12:54, 3 December 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.

Inappropriate uses of user talk pages

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.

---

• Lucn98mcgod (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Vanphongthcsphuninh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Inappropriate talk page comments, requesting to revoke TPA --みんな空の下 (トーク) 06:35, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Heads up, you have to let users know when there is an ANI discussion involving them (also, AIV was probably a better board for this). jolielover♥talk 06:42, 3 December 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.

Editor removing policy-based AfD comment without justification (“rm llm”)

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.

---

I'd like to report User:Kelob2678 for removing my good-faith comment in the AfD discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eugenia de Borbón. The edit summary was simply "rm llm", and the diff confirms that my entire contribution — which included references to *Tatler*, *¡Hola!*, *El Confidencial*, and policy-based reasoning under WP:NBIO and WP:GNG — was deleted with no warning, no prior discussion, and no policy citation.

For 10+ years I have been an editor contributing to royal content, my comment with verified sourcing adhered to Wikipedia’s content and civility standards. My comments were drafted by me not an LLM! Where is the proof an LLM wrote my comment?!! Also, there is **no rule prohibiting editors from posting externally drafted comments** to discussion pages, especially when they are **grounded in verifiable sources and policy**, and do not violate WP:OR, WP:NPOV, or WP:V; the guidelines at WP:LLM clearly state that discussion comments are **not subject to the same restrictions** as article content.

The unilateral removal — based solely on bias — undermines participation and building consensus around a discussion, and chills the good-faith effort standard for editors. I am concerned this is part of a recurring pattern in royalty-related discussions, especially around certain dynastic topics. I dedicated my valuable time to supporting editors as we consider whether the page should be kept or redirected or deleted, my contribution is meaningful and of important to the discussion. Rainbowtrail (talk) 21:17, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

If you're going to lie about using AI to generate your talk page comments (which is, in fact, against guidelines), at least remove the markdown formatting. Gnomingstuff (talk) 21:20, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

I've restored the contribution, but placed it under an LLM template as your rationale has LLM tells, and would be better re-written with your own hand. Please do so. I assume this was done for language proficiency reasons rather than any ill will myself.Nathannah • 📮 21:21, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

I apologize for the removal, I should have hatted that. Kelob2678 (talk) 21:21, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

And please not-vote once, not once for each paragraph. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:23, 2 December 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.

Hipal blanked sourced dob, says United Press International is "unreliable"

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.

---

Hipal blanked Demie's date of birth (repeatedly) then trolled my talk page saying it was "unsourced" (an outright lie) and "poorly sourced defamatory" (also an outright lie). This is beyond ridiculous and must be stopped. Was-a-singin (talk) 20:33, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

• Alexa Demie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

It's poorly sourced. See WP:DOB and the lengthy discussions at Talk:Alexa Demie, which Was-a-singin has yet to participate in or acknowledge after adding the content four times now. [44][45][46][47] --Hipal (talk) 20:40, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

There's nothing in the policies or guidelines that says United Press International is unreliable. You're the only one saying UPI is unreliable, Hipal. Was-a-singin (talk) 20:46, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

WP:ONUS is on the person wanting to introduce content (which is you), not the person challenging it and removing it. Rambling Rambler (talk) 20:47, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

So by this standard, anybody can "challenge" a firmly established fact and force others to waste time by engaging in a pseudo "discussion" that serves no purpose? Demie's date of birth is authenticated by the CABI (which is indisputable proof of when she was born) and has been published in the mass media for years now. There is nothing to discuss. It is uncontradicted. Was-a-singin (talk) 20:59, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Per the policy under WP:DOB:

The standard for inclusion of personal information of living persons is higher than mere existence of a reliable source that could be verified.

Yes, you have to discuss it and seek consensus for why it should be included.

Also see WP:VNOT Rambling Rambler (talk) 21:07, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

And I've never stated UPI was unreliable. Discussing such UPI sources here, I brought up WP:DOB. --Hipal (talk) 20:54, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

You most certainly did say it was unreliable, when you trolled my talk page, Hipal. It's linked right here in this post. The fact that you're denying it is unreal. Was-a-singin (talk) 20:59, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

That's incorrect. --Hipal (talk) 21:06, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

@Was-a-singin, this is a content dispute and you haven't attempted to resolve it on the article's talk page. Schazjmd (talk) 20:44, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

I'm more concerned about Was-a-singin's behaviour in regards to this content issue than anything Hipal's done. (which looks to be simply abundance of caution in relation to BLP).

Editor seems to simply accuse anyone who doesn't agree with them of "trolling" or "vandalism",[48][49][50][51] and edit war repeatedly.

Possibly grounds for action on incivility grounds for Was-a-singin. Rambling Rambler (talk) 20:46, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Given this seems to be ongoing edit-warring largely contained to one article I've filed an ANEW report as that's probably the most appropriate forum. Rambling Rambler (talk) 20:58, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

• What's not being mentioned here (though it's been covered at the article talkpage) is that Demie (or more likely her agent/company) previously falsified her age. If you look at some media from around the time she became famous on Euphoria, they say she is 24 (i.e. born 1995). Some examples - New York Times PaperMag. The 1990 date is almost certainly her correct birthdate (i.e. [52]) , but on that track record you can understand why we need solid sourcing. Black Kite (talk) 21:26, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
• ANI is not for content disputes. And, even if an editor is in the wrong, you need to show much stronger diffs to suggest this is a behavior issue. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 21:30, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

This can now be closed, Was-a-singin has been indef'ed following ANEW report. Rambling Rambler (talk) 21:39, 2 December 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.

~2025-37917-21

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.

---

~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 [53]. I don't want to start 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)

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.

WP:SLEEPER, WP:PGAME, edit warring on locked topics.

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.

---

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".[54] 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.[55] 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.[56] 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 [57] [58] [59] [60]

• The template related to a redirect which Symphony Regalia had tried to blank and delete [61] [62] 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 [63] [64]

• 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: [65][66][67]; Forspoken: [68][69][70]). 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)

Talking of 2006, one of the accounts which appeared after months of inactivity to jump into an edit war at a sockpuppet target article was created in 2006. 8 months of inactivity then jumps in to continue an edit war [71] from a few days prior [72]. After that account gets blocked, Ethiopian Epic shows up to the article for the first time to continue the edit war. Also Ethiopian Epic is connected to Symphony Regalia, same target areas, re-added identical wording [73] [74]. Ethiopian Epic began editing after Symphony Regalia was TBAN'd from the same topic area as these socks operate in.

One or two incidents like these in theory could have innocent explanations, but not when it's the same pattern again and again: new/dormant accounts appearing out of nowhere to then edit war or double !vote in TP discussions. (The Ryuudou account I mentioned above was inactive for 9 years then jumped straight into the sock areas, and the Hardik.patil23 account appeared after 5 years of inactivity to continue an edit war alongside Koriodan and BWMF. Joined a few days later by another account with 5 years of inactivity.) There's barely an attempt to hide the sockpuppetry with intermezzo edits. Since the technical evidence is obscured by a residential VPN or such, whoever is operating the accounts feels confident to repeat the same WP:DUCK patterns over and over again, even the spurious retaliatory sockpuppet accusations whenever someone calls out the socks.

I don't edit these video game/Japan articles that are targeted by the socks so I don't know about whatever culture war issue is at hand, but these accounts are evidently draining community time/energy in edit wars, TP discussions, ANI threads, even ArbCom cases. It would be time/resource efficient to deal with this as an LTA sock farm and root it out. NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM (talk) 20:57, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

I will say, yet again, that I see no evidence this is a single sockmaster. I am not a checkuser, so I cannot see the IP evidence, but my understanding from talking to CUs is that the evidence suggests multiple distinct people, not one person on a VPN. Perhaps @asilvering can correct me if I'm misremembering. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 22:09, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

What I'll say quite explicitly is that the next person to allege sockpuppetry in this thread is getting blocked for aspersions. Lay out the evidence at SPI, or knock it the hell off. -- asilvering (talk) 22:44, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Just want to say that the characterization that NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM isn't involved is false. NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM was involved in the Killing of Iryna Zaruksti thing which was being used to push the "black crime" narrative. BMWF (talk) 22:37, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

• Support indef if that is the appropriate response to meatpuppetry. I think I unwittingly was a meatpuppet, a dynamic I did not fully understand because I have been at best an intermittent contributor over the years. I obviously cannot substantiate that the person who contacted me in real life is in fact this user, but the person who contacted me in real life specifically requested comment on this ANI, which ironically established the pattern of behavior pretty clearly to me and seemed like a bridge too far. That's a big part of why, rather than manually reverting the Jamaica page to their preferred version, I made a couple targeted edits that I supported independently of their perspective. Everyday847 (talk) 20:15, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

  May I ask them, why was your first edit to Wikipedia in 5-1/2 years to make much the same changes to Jamaica that had been made and reverted repeatedly in the last week by Hardik.patil23 and BWMF? Donald Albury 21:25, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

  I think this may be the thread starter Shincerity engaged in trolling to target perceived editing opponents. Shincerity was banned as WP:PROJSOCK and in the opening comment here as well as in other places mentioned a desire to show "offsite activities" multiple times.[75] BMWF (talk) 22:12, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

  BMWF, I would highly recommend you stop calling other editors socks. It isn't particularly helpful. If these new accounts are socks, other editors will notice. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 22:21, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

  I think that should apply to everyone here then. BMWF (talk) 22:23, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose Nothing I've seen from BMWF justifies an indef. The rest of this, as DragonBrickLayer put it, seems like aspersions toward editors based on opinions. Koriodan (talk) 20:53, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
• Support community ban of BMWF, as there was consensus to do in the previous discussion. I'm shocked to realise that discussion wasn't closed with the clear consensus for a site ban, and somewhat appalled that it was left to rot on the vine. The community made its opinion clear there, and nothing I see here indicates that BMWF is more compatible with a collaborative project than they were before their five-month wikibreak. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:31, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
• INDEF'D. I'm astonished the discussion was not closed as a cban when it happened months ago. There was clear consensus for it. Accordingly, I've indef'd. I think we can simply close this with a cban at this point but given the low participation in this specific discussion, I'll leave that to someone else's judgement, since I'm the one who just pressed the button. -- asilvering (talk) 23:50, 2 December 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 Tioaeu8943 - Repeated failure to WP:AGF and suspected WP:CPUSH in relation to Contentious Topic WP:CT/A-I

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.

---

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.[76]
• 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.[77]
• 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.[78]
• 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.[79] 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[80]
• 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.[81]

They have been asked by several people to adjust their tone or stop assuming bad faith[82][83][84], including an admin[85], 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[86]
• Threatening WP:POINTY behaviour to get their way[87]
• The use questionable and unreliable sources Pro-Israel to make claims, including regarding BLPs[88]

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)[89] 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. [90] this diff was galling to me Editors involved in the canvassing effort described by PW have a COI with respect to this RFC. and [91] 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.[92][93]

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 [94], 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[95] despite being told four days ago this is inappropriate[96], 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)

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.

Btf26482 wikihounding and uncivil behavior

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.

---

I warned @Btf26482 about uncivil behavior towards two editors here [97] 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 [98] 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 [99]. I reverted them, and posted a warning on their talk page about WP:HOUNDING [100] 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, [101], asking Btf26482 to retract them, but instead, they doubled-down [102] 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)

  Again. BBQboffin^{grill me} 03:27, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

I dislike placing an indef with so little discussion here, but attempts to engage on usertalk seem to be notably useless. :( Blocked until he can convince another admin that he can edit collaboratively without all the personal attacks and the editorializing in edit summaries. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:52, 4 December 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.

Quotes from WPO

I just revdelled a comment where one editor quoted a whole bunch of WPO posts from another editor about a third editor, complete with links. I wasn't sure this was acceptable, so I reverted and revdelled pending further opinions. Thoughts? SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:14, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

I think that the message can be restored sans the links, which as far as I can tell just serve to demonstrate "yes I did the homework and you have spent excessive energy lambasting the third editor". _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:06, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Ok, that was half my objection, thanks. The other half was a third party bringing off-wiki commentary back onto the wiki. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:13, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

User:Ninemay1994

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.

---

Already reported at AIV and WP:Sockpuppet investigations/MaMemmi09, but in the meantime they're creating a lot of cleanup work with rapid page moves. Admin intervention would be appreciated. Please see previous ANI, for what is probably the main account. Wikishovel (talk) 09:31, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

+1 aesurias (talk) 09:48, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Blocked them from the AIV report. Closed the SPI - they are  Confirmed. PhilKnight (talk) 11:46, 5 December 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:ClueBot III is malfunctioning: Talk page archiving

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.

---

Bot is archiving discussions to Talk:EGOT/Archives/ 2 rather than Talk:EGOT/Archive 2. Unclear (to me) whether this is a bot malfunction, or a configuration error for this particular Talk page. — HipLibrarianship ^talk 00:15, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

The issue might be related to the archive prefix being set as | archiveprefix=Talk:List of EGOT winners/Archive, which wasn't fixed when the page was moved earlier this year. I've fixed the prefix, we can see if the error keeps happening. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 01:35, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Yes, that's what would've caused it and your fix will work. I've moved the incorrectly archived discussions to the right place. Graham87 (talk) 02:21, 6 December 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.

Requesting page creation block of User:Harold Foppele

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.

---

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

User has a history of creating physics pages that fail WP:OR, WP:Coatrack, WP:Notability and can be inaccurate or worse. While there is no evidence of blatant malicious intent, these are creating work for others to clean up. A large number of editors have tried to help/advise him (@Johnjbarton, Rambley, Commander Keane, Bryanmackinnon, Jähmefyysikko, Michael D. Turnbull, and Roffaduft: and more) but the page creation continues with his latest page Quantum beams inside a spherical volume AfD'd by User:Tercer after a brief discussion at WT:Physics#Quantum beams inside a spherical volume. Hence I suggest a page creation block, although I would welcome better suggestions.Ldm1954 (talk) 13:38, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

I agree with page creation block. These AfDs have wasted a lot of time, and the editor still doesn't seem to understand how to select an appropriate topic and write a coherent article about it. There's also been problems with LLM use and most recently, Draft:Quantum Beams was deleted per WP:G15. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 14:32, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Btw, the pings probably failed: @Johnjbarton, Rambley, Commander Keane, Bryanmackinnon, Michael D. Turnbull, and Roffaduft:. Sorry for the double ping if this was not the case. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 14:36, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Support page creation block. I've been in extensive email conversations with Harold and have tried to drive home the points about reliable sourcing, OR, appropriate tone in articles, etc., but this seems to be becoming a big issue. I think it would be favourable for Harold to engage in smaller edits across Wikipedia rather than jumping into article creation if he'd still like to positively contribute in order to get used to the policies and guidelines around here. I have actually recommended him to read existing articles to get a good idea of our standards, but this advice has seemingly gone unheard. Rambley ^{(talk / contribs)} 14:49, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

• Support - Harold obviously cares a lot, he's asking for feedback frequently and seems to be trying really hard, unfortunately that doesn't change the fact that he's disrupting Wikipedia by virtue of the amount of time other editors are having to spend fixing his work & providing support (without much success).

Article creation is one of the most difficult tasks at Wikipedia; you need knowledge and skill to be able to do this properly and it doesn't look like Harold has this right now. If he won't stop creating articles of his own accord, Harold will unfortunately need to be blocked until he's able to demonstrate competency editing in other areas. Blue Sonnet (talk) 15:25, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

• Support I tried to help (see my user page) but this has become a drag on other editors' time. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:49, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

OK, I have looked at page creation history and the user's talk page (most of which user had deleted). Harold has been thoroughly warned over the months about this issue but persists, and has not been producing useable new pages. Blocked from page creation. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:04, 5 December 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.

Potential MEATPUPPET situation?

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.

---

• Expert1989 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · blacklist hits · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

This diff and this one might be evidence of an off-wiki WP:TAGTEAM situation. Looks like WP:CANVASS at a minimum, but it would be good to get some experienced eyes on this. - Amigao (talk) 20:21, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

I may be misreading this, but all I see is a report that some vanadalism may or may not have been by some particular reddit user. I'm not seeing either tag teaming or canvassing here. Dalai Lama has been protected already by @ToBeFree and Altan Khan had a few bad edits over a week ago, all of which have been reverted. I'm not seeing any need for action beyond what has already been taken. Rusalkii (talk) 21:16, 4 December 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.

Newsjunkie part 6

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.

---

Moved from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard § Newsjunkie part 6

newsjunkie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) continues to bludgeon talk pages and is refusing to accept consensus. Part 5 can be found here [103], which includes links to the previous incidents. In June 2025, part 4 was closed with newsjunkie being issued a final warning.[104]

On 20 September, newsjunkie started a thread at the NCIS:Sydney talk page which evolved into a discussion regarding the production companies on the series.[105]

On 21 September, they posted at WikiProject television, repeating their argument from the talk page.[106] There was no response.

On 26 September, they started an RfC.[107]. The first response to this was to point out "nobody agreed with you in the earlier discussion so I'm a little confused why you started a RFC".

On 5 October, they requested a third opinion.[108]

On 3 November, they restarted the discussion at the article talk page.[109] At the same time, their changes to two list articles involving the series were discussed at the respective talk pages, where the same arguments were repeated.[110] [111]

On 5 November, they started a new section at the article talk page, regurgitating the same arguments.[112]

Unable to find any support from any other editor at any of these article talk pages, on 7 November they tried raising the subject again at yet another talk page.[113]

Undeterred, on 1 December they turned to the No Original Research noticeboard to relitigate the issue.[114]

In these myriad of discussions, newsjunkie has been asked multiple times by multiple editors to abide by consensus and to drop the stick. There is every indication that they will continue to refuse to do so. Barry Wom (talk) 11:21, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Literally all I I've done in this instance is tried to add reliable sourced information that doesn't go against any policy whatsoever. Everything cited is either the same primary source that was originally cited by somebody in opposition or reliable news secondary sources, including Deadline which is widely cited as a reliable source across movie and TV articles. (not fan pages, not blogs.) The companies in question are literally in the opening credits of the series. All the counter-arguments seem to boil down seem to is "I don't like it" or some suggestion of American bias, and cherrypicking, even though I was happy to accept the same primary source that was cited in opposition. (And I don't even watch the show.) And I was the only one to link to and bring up any secondary sources at all in the original discussion.

I have tried suggesting compromises using literally just the cited text of the primary source without any interpretation whatsoever. I believe arguments in opposition tend towards original research, or over interpretation. I think both sides were somewhat guilty of this on the original discussion and so I was literally trying to suggest the most basic statement without any interpretation whatsoever. I'm not sure how I can be sanctioned for just trying to add sourced information. This was the one of the original edits in question with Australian sources and relevant quotes: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NCIS:_Sydney&diff=prev&oldid=1312538121 The information was there originally uncited not added by me originally: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NCIS:_Sydney&oldid=1284077936 and even in its current form what is there is uncited.

newsjunkie (talk) 11:49, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

I had begun compiling evidence, but Barry Wom filed a report first. I’ll just add on.

The tl;dr version is that this editor needs an indef to prevent wasting many other editor's time; their behavior has not changed from warnings, and is spread over many pages and topics, so an indef is the least restrictive option to effectively prevent disruption.

First, a complete list of previous ANI filings with outcomes noted is at the bottom of this post for convenience.

Second, the issue is not restricted only to this one subject. Newsjunkie is currently involved in a slow edit war at Fawlty Towers, having made 3 reverts in 24 hours. They have opened a section at the talk page, but only after coming right up against 3RR.

They have been bludgeoning the talk page at Talk:Jane Kaczmarek#Frequent appearances, refusing to drop it in the face of unanimous opposition.

They relitigated an already closed RFC held nine months prior at the Brown University talk page. The argument began in March, had a long hiatus, then was picked back up in October, after the previous ANI filing, where newsjunkie was again advised to drop it and refused.

They insisted on another fruitless discussion at WikiProject Televison] regarding NCIS: Sydney, which ended only because they duplicated the discussion elsewhere (more WP:FORUMSHOPPING.)

All of this (except where indicated) is since the last ANI closed. The issues are the same as the previous ANIs; bludgeoning, poor understanding of sourcing, WP:IDHT when told their interpretation is incorrect, now with the added element of forumshopping.

They have been warned in most of those discussions, plus again by me on their talk page. None of them, including warnings in the most recent ANI to avoid sourcing and the final warning previous, have made a difference. Indeed, when told they are bludgeoning or forumshopping and advised to stop, their response has uniformly been to relitigate the content dispute. While they could be a very productive editor, they refuse to listen and are a significant timesink. The issues are spread over several subjects, so a Pblock or Tban won’t work. At this point, the only thing to do is indef them until they demonstrate that they’ve learned.

I therefore request an indef block of newsjunkie until such a time as they can convince an administrator that they will cease to cause disruption. I don’t propose this formally, as a cban would be harder for them to appeal, and I do believe they could be a great editor if only they’d learn to listen when others tell them they’re being disruptive.

I’m working on compiling an estimate of editor time wasted by newsjunkie, if anyone thinks that would be useful.

Complete list of previous ANI filings:

1. Result: pblocked for 31 hours, later upgraded to 1 year

2. Result: pblocked for 1 year as independent admin action

3. Result: Stalled, archived

4. Result: Final warning

5. Result: Stalled, archived

EducatedRedneck (talk) 12:38, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Corrected misspelling of other editor's name. Apologies, Barry! EducatedRedneck (talk) 13:19, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Discussion is supposed to be how these issues are resolved. Nobody is forcing anyone to participate or get involved in discussions. I have tried not to edit war. And in the NCIS:Sydney issue, there should be no issue with sourcing whatsoever, and that is the only one I have pursued to other avenues because of that reason. There has been no discussion on the Brown University page in weeks by anyone (and there was no RFC that I know of), and the Jane Kaczmarek discussion has also stopped with no further editing or discussion. And as mentioned, I stopped editing on the Fawlty Towers page and opened a discussion as one Is supposed to. A lot of these discussions have not had much participation and particularly on the NCIS:Sydney page, opposition seemed to be more based on negative bias based on previous discussions rather than any engagement with the substance, ie comments on the editor rather than the content. I also believe several of the previous filings were all started by another editor with a grudge against me (who has since appeared to have stopped participating entirely) which has contributed to the negative bias mentioned above. newsjunkie (talk) 12:47, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

The NCIS:Sydney issue is a clear case of WP:FORUMSHOPPING, which shows that you will never take "no" for an answer. Your response of all I've done in this instance is tried to add reliable sourced information that doesn't go against any policy whatsoever ignores WP:VNOT (which has been pointed out to you before): Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion...Consensus may determine that inclusion of a verifiable fact or claim does not improve an article. At this point, the fact that this has been explained to you seemingly ad infinitum indicates an unwillingness to course correct, and thus indicates an attitude that is incompatible with this community. ButlerBlog (talk) 16:29, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

• Support an indefinite block. It is both ironic and predictable that newsjunkie's response to a report about bludgeoning would be to bludgeon the report itself. Barry Wom (talk) 14:14, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
• Support indef. It's unfortunate, but it has been an ongoing pattern that newjunkie has been unable to adjust (it could be "unwilling to" rather than "unable to", but I operate on the assumption that it's more a form of WP:NOTHERENORMS as opposed to simply being willfully obtuse). But that doesn't change the fact that this editor wastes untold hours of valuable editor time arguing over insignificant minutia. The fact that they had a "final warning" two ANI reports ago indicates they dodged a bullet with the last one (probably due to editor exhaustion on this topic). Enough is enough already. No more time should be wasted on this. ButlerBlog (talk) 15:26, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

  After a further review of presented evidence in this case and re-visting the previous cases, I perhaps was too hasty above in softening my assessment to NOTHERENORMS. Part of being here to build an encyclopedia involves self-correction and heeding lessons. After 6 trips to ANI, that does not appear to have ever happened, and pblocks have simply moved the disruption to other pages involving more editors. ButlerBlog (talk) 16:58, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

  A lot of the previous concerns had to do with sourcing or information being unencyclopedic -- without trying to relitigate the NCIS: Sydney case entirely here, I don't think any of that applies in that case and regarding "Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion" I don't think there was a substantive case made as to why it should not be for any overriding reason based on policy or anything else -- to the extent there were substantive concerns (and not personal comments based on prior interactions) I addressed them and I don't think any of them had to do with any fundamental policy issues in terms of content. And given all the RFCs and discussions I've seen about all kinds of minutiae and very small differences of phrasing, I'm not sure how one is supposed to make a distinction of importance there. newsjunkie (talk) 17:34, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

  This is a good example of what I mean. When confronted with a behavioral problem (relitigating a content dispute after consensus was against them), their response is to insist that it's not a problem, and the content dispute must be relitigated because they believe themselves correct. As recently as a month ago it was explained to them that consensus does not require unanimity. It clearly didn't stick. EducatedRedneck (talk) 17:46, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

  But consensus is supposed to be based on quality of the arguments and how they relate to policies and guidelines. My only point is that that to me that was lacking in this case at least as directly related to the content question, and that contributed to making it difficult to coming to a compromise or a have a discussion that didn't get out of hand. And nobody seemed to be able to articulate a consistent explanation as to what the basic actual objection was. newsjunkie (talk) 17:53, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

  If you have to wikilawyer every discussion, then you've proven that you cannot edit productively. ButlerBlog (talk) 18:32, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

• Propose one-month block for repeated failures to drop the stick, with the understanding that any future block has an extremely low threshold and will coincide with a community ban. This user has never, in twenty years, been fully blocked from the project. Escalating blocks are a thing, and I believe Newsjunkie could be an asset to the project after they take an enforced breather. --tony 18:30, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

  Support 1 month block. I expect we'll end up right back here, but I've been wrong before. Maybe it'll be a wake-up call. If not, as you say, reblocks are cheap. EducatedRedneck (talk) 18:38, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

• +1 - @Newsjunkie There are going to be decisions and outcomes on Wikipedia that you don't agree with or can't understand. That doesn't mean it's a good idea to reopen them because you're not happy with that way it was left - if consensus was reached and the majority of editors were satisfied with the outcome, then there should be a good reason for revisiting (e.g. new information, clear violation of a policy etc.)

With respect, it's not the responsibility of other editors to make you understand why a decision was originally reached. Sometimes it's better for everyone if you realise you're not getting anywhere, let it go and trust the process. Blue Sonnet (talk) 18:44, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Comment: The problem here goes beyond behavioral issues. They simply do not understand what it is they are doing wrong. This is a WP:NOTHERE problem (see 4th point of WP:HERE). NOTHERE problems are rarely solved with a time oriented block, which just kicks the can down the road as they wait out their block. Instead, they need to reflect, understand, and then convince whomever (admin or community) that they actually understand what it was they were doing wrong. ButlerBlog (talk) 18:57, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

I do understand the objection to bludgeoning,though I find it difficult in some cases to know where that line is based on various circumstances in different situations and a lot of other contentious discussions I've observed and not been involved in. What I don't understand at least in this case is what if anything was non-encyclopedic about the initial contribution. newsjunkie (talk) 19:05, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Would an indef appealable through the regular unblock process work better? I don't particularly think a timed block is the solution here, while I'm also not sure a CBAN is needed. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 19:11, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Open to being corrected here, but my understanding is that any "block" the community enacts at a noticeboard is, by definition, a community ban (CBAN), and is appealable to the community at WP:AN. That contrasts with blocks issued via regular admin actions, which can be appealed using a template on the user talk page (the regular unblock process). tony 19:26, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Any indefinite block endorsed by the community is a CBAN, yes. Time-limited ones are not mentioned in WP:CBAN. I will agree that I think an indef as a regular admin action would be preferable, but I don't think the proposed one-month block is insufficient. The caveat with the understanding that any future block has an extremely low threshold and will coincide with a community ban seems clear enough to me that any admin would be free to reblock for even a minor relapse, and that would be likely to be endorsed by the community as a CBAN. EducatedRedneck (talk) 20:23, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Yes indeed !voting for an indef is usually a CBAN, as it says that 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". I am specifically suggesting an IAR/NOTBUREAU indef !vote that would make the appeal able to go through the regular unblock process, allowing the editor to be unblocked by any admin. Put another way, its essentially just a suggestion to the admins to indef the editor as a regular admin action. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 20:31, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Indeffing but explicitly not making this a community siteban. The repeated bludgeoning and warnings around sourcing. I want this person to return productively, without the bludgeoning and disruption. Sennecaster (Chat) 21:11, 4 December 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.

AverageSkiptar

There has been many issues regarding the Averageskiptar:

-Edit warnings (note:i showed only revisions that violated The three-revert rule): [115],

-Nationalistic editing probably Anti-serbian type of editing, saying things like that serbian source aren't reliable and how Serbian sources are propaganda: [116][117][118][119][120][121]

-OR editing, adding sources in wrong context and unreliable ones also failed to provide his claims: [122][123][124][125][126][127][128][129][130]

Other users including myself send him warnings which he deleted calling them fake accusations: [131][132]

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: [133][134][135]

-Vandalism and POV: [136] (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 [137]. Since that block expired, they have both continued edit warring on Yugoslav offensive in Drenica (1999) [138] [139] [140] [141] [142] [143] [144] [145], as well as on Drenica massacres [146] [147] [148] [149] [150] [151] [152] [153] [154] [155] [156] [157] [158] and Yugoslav September offensive [159] [160] [161] [162] [163] [164].
• 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)

Anti-archiving. Participation encouraged ~2025-31733-18 (talk) 04:04, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

I genuinely can't believe that we discussed his nationality Wikicommonsfan134 (talk) 04:54, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Report of user @Phoenixxfeather

Apologies, this was mistakenly filed at WP:AN because it was my first time reporting a user, and I wasn't sure where to report it. I'm reposting here for proper handling. Some discussion took place there, but I don't think his "retract all statements" justifies his past behavior. The thread was: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Report of user @Phoenixxfeather.

The context is that the user @Phoenixxfeather: removed a politician's name from an article (which contained one of his statistics), which was an obvious vandalism, so I reverted it and warned him with uw-vandalism2. After that, he accused me of political affiliation (which is false), claimed that I am spreading "false propaganda," and, most importantly, made hostile statements such as "Be careful before threatening me the next time. I will report you." I felt offended and warned him with uw-harass4im template. After that, it escalated further, and he said,"IF YOU KEEP THREATENING ME THIS WILL NOT END GOOD FOR YOU. ALSO MY VERY LAST WARNING TO YOU! I HEREBY ORDER YOU TO REFRAIN FROM SUCH PROVOCATIVE AND THREATENING STATEMENTS!"

These messages contain intimidation, personal attacks, and escalating hostility, with no attempt to discuss content or policy.

Link to their talk page containing the full exchange: User talk:Phoenixxfeather#December 2025. Now he has removed that discussion.

• diff1
• diff2

Also, let me show you something, which might be irrelevant to this report, but still...

• Talk:Bangladesh Premier League#Remove Shakib Al Hasan, who is a convicted criminal and is currently on the run
• Talk:2021–22 Bangladesh Premier League#Sponsorship is in the name of the Fascist Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur

He just wants to spread his political opinion through wikipedia, not knowing what wikipedia is not.

This kind of behaviour is unacceptable. I have not responded further to avoid escalation, and I am requesting admin intervention. Raihanur (talk) 19:54, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

As the user Raihanur correctly stated, I have retracted my previous statements and have nothing further to add. It is, however, evident that the user is intentionally attempting to escalate this matter, including by restoring removed comments on my personal talk page - a clear violation of Wikipedia guidelines.

I will not engage further in this exchange.

Should any disciplinary action be deemed appropriate against me, I will accept it without objection. Phoenixxfeather (talk) 20:24, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

• Uninvolved. @Raihanur, restoring comments from other editors as you did here and multiple other times on @Phoenixxfeather's talk page is a violation of WP:TPO. Editing comments from other editors is only permissible if they've made a typo and they've given express permission that they don't mind corrections being made, or the message in question is extremely WP:UNCIVIL or an WP:OUTING. I don't know the specifics of this situation, just wanted to highlight TPO. Thanks. 11WB (talk) 02:13, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks. I understand, and I have already apologized once, but I would like to apologize again for restoring the removed comments. I only restored the part necessary for documentation of the harassment, and I won’t restore any comments again. Raihanur (talk) 07:03, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

  Even if removed, unless the revision is deleted, the diff still stores that information publicly. 11WB (talk) 07:08, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

User:AydenOD

User:AydenOD has now posted 2026 World Athletics Relays 3 times to the mainspace with faked references. The first time I moved it to draft and explained the reason why in my edit summary[165], the second time, 2 days ago I moved it again to draft (before anyone cries foul, WP:DRAFTOBJECT is only an essay) and left a message on their user talk page[166]. They removed the message (no problem, shows they have seen it) and published the page once again today with the same faked sources, e.g. the first source is titled "Home Gaborone 26" but links to a page about the previous (2025) edition (and "the original" link gives a 404). The third source is even more bizarre; it is titled "World Athletics Relays Gaborone 2026 Timetable", but it links to the 2025 timetable in the archived link[167], and the 2024 timetable in the "original" link[168]. In other places, the sources are correctly described (e.g. source 10 and 11) but don't actually support the section ("Overview") they supposedly reference. Many of their other creations have similar sourcing issues, with sources not containing the claims they supposedly reference, though the issues are less severe than with this one. Fram (talk) 10:59, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

• OK--thanks Fram. We can't have that. I'm sorry I don't have time right now to look at their other articles. User:AydenOD, if you move this back into mainspace without addressing these issues you will find yourself blocked. Drmies (talk) 14:36, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Analyst246

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.

---

Analyst246 (talk · contribs) has been making pages recently that have been made by AI and is unambigously promotional in nature. This has been going on since 2009 from their talk page being top to bottom full of speedy deletion nominations.

I discovered them through the recent changes, and I saw a page with the tags "possible ai generated citations", "recreated" so I checked it out, after looking at the page, the citations were broken, they werent templated nor formatted correctly, so using Twinkle, I requested speedy deletion under the criterias of A7, G11, and G15. The page in question was MP Antenna, a page about a company, which was the cause for the A7 and G11 criteria being requested.

Since this has been long term abuse of the ability for autoconfirmed users to create pages by Analyst246, banning them from article creation would be my solution to this isssue. shane (talk to me if you want!) 18:07, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Janet Dorenkott has ChatGPT tags, they're 100% using AI.

Analyst246 also happens to have signed a recent Talk page post as "Janet". Blue Sonnet (talk) 18:23, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Possible conflict of interest concerns as well shane (talk to me if you want!) 18:26, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

(just a nitpick -- anything before ~November 2022 isn't going to be AI, though it may be problematic) Gnomingstuff (talk) 18:45, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Blocked. Drmies (talk) 22:56, 4 December 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.

Hostile and threatening behavior

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:~2025-38506-99 hostile behavior towards other editors: [169] MossOnALog^Talk 17:33, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Probably best to report to AIV since their edits are pretty clear vandalism. Blue Sonnet (talk) 17:44, 4 December 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.

Report of user @Phoenixxfeather

Apologies, this was mistakenly filed at WP:AN because it was my first time reporting a user, and I wasn't sure where to report it. I'm reposting here for proper handling. Some discussion took place there, but I don't think his "retract all statements" justifies his past behavior. The thread was: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Report of user @Phoenixxfeather.

The context is that the user @Phoenixxfeather: removed a politician's name from an article (which contained one of his statistics), which was an obvious vandalism, so I reverted it and warned him with uw-vandalism2. After that, he accused me of political affiliation (which is false), claimed that I am spreading "false propaganda," and, most importantly, made hostile statements such as "Be careful before threatening me the next time. I will report you." I felt offended and warned him with uw-harass4im template. After that, it escalated further, and he said,"IF YOU KEEP THREATENING ME THIS WILL NOT END GOOD FOR YOU. ALSO MY VERY LAST WARNING TO YOU! I HEREBY ORDER YOU TO REFRAIN FROM SUCH PROVOCATIVE AND THREATENING STATEMENTS!"

These messages contain intimidation, personal attacks, and escalating hostility, with no attempt to discuss content or policy.

Link to their talk page containing the full exchange: User talk:Phoenixxfeather#December 2025. Now he has removed that discussion.

• diff1
• diff2

Also, let me show you something, which might be irrelevant to this report, but still...

• Talk:Bangladesh Premier League#Remove Shakib Al Hasan, who is a convicted criminal and is currently on the run
• Talk:2021–22 Bangladesh Premier League#Sponsorship is in the name of the Fascist Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur

He just wants to spread his political opinion through wikipedia, not knowing what wikipedia is not.

This kind of behaviour is unacceptable. I have not responded further to avoid escalation, and I am requesting admin intervention. Raihanur (talk) 19:54, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

As the user Raihanur correctly stated, I have retracted my previous statements and have nothing further to add. It is, however, evident that the user is intentionally attempting to escalate this matter, including by restoring removed comments on my personal talk page - a clear violation of Wikipedia guidelines.

I will not engage further in this exchange.

Should any disciplinary action be deemed appropriate against me, I will accept it without objection. Phoenixxfeather (talk) 20:24, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

• Uninvolved. @Raihanur, restoring comments from other editors as you did here and multiple other times on @Phoenixxfeather's talk page is a violation of WP:TPO. Editing comments from other editors is only permissible if they've made a typo and they've given express permission that they don't mind corrections being made, or the message in question is extremely WP:UNCIVIL or an WP:OUTING. I don't know the specifics of this situation, just wanted to highlight TPO. Thanks. 11WB (talk) 02:13, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks. I understand, and I have already apologized once, but I would like to apologize again for restoring the removed comments. I only restored the part necessary for documentation of the harassment, and I won’t restore any comments again. Raihanur (talk) 07:03, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

  Even if removed, unless the revision is deleted, the diff still stores that information publicly. 11WB (talk) 07:08, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

User:AydenOD

User:AydenOD has now posted 2026 World Athletics Relays 3 times to the mainspace with faked references. The first time I moved it to draft and explained the reason why in my edit summary[170], the second time, 2 days ago I moved it again to draft (before anyone cries foul, WP:DRAFTOBJECT is only an essay) and left a message on their user talk page[171]. They removed the message (no problem, shows they have seen it) and published the page once again today with the same faked sources, e.g. the first source is titled "Home Gaborone 26" but links to a page about the previous (2025) edition (and "the original" link gives a 404). The third source is even more bizarre; it is titled "World Athletics Relays Gaborone 2026 Timetable", but it links to the 2025 timetable in the archived link[172], and the 2024 timetable in the "original" link[173]. In other places, the sources are correctly described (e.g. source 10 and 11) but don't actually support the section ("Overview") they supposedly reference. Many of their other creations have similar sourcing issues, with sources not containing the claims they supposedly reference, though the issues are less severe than with this one. Fram (talk) 10:59, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

• OK--thanks Fram. We can't have that. I'm sorry I don't have time right now to look at their other articles. User:AydenOD, if you move this back into mainspace without addressing these issues you will find yourself blocked. Drmies (talk) 14:36, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Significant content dispute/edit war in Jamaica

• Jamaica (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I responded to an RFPP request for this page and found that there has been a content dispute ongoing there for the last two weeks at least, but maybe since October. Of the many accounts involved, almost none of them have made an edit on the article's talk page at all, ever. The Bushranger full-protected the article a few days ago but the edit warring started again as soon as that expired. My usual approach when editors continue an edit war after protection without having discussed at all is to block them all from the article, but one of them is an administrator, so instead I have full-protected the article for a month. I am reporting here because this is obviously extreme, but it felt just slightly more rational to me than blocking an administrator for edit warring. I noted at RFPP that anyone who isn't involved in the dispute can go ahead and unprotect if they feel that the issue is resolved, but I don't know where else to go from here. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:52, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Ivanvector. I reported it noticing it was kicking off again. It's already come up as part of the subject of the ongoing ANI thread here[174] Rambling Rambler (talk) 22:53, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Fuck's sake. I should have just blocked everyone. I still might. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 23:02, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

@Ivanvector given the discussion in the "next steps" section of that ANI thread I don't think you'd find any complaints if you did... Rambling Rambler (talk) 23:22, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Obv involved as I started the next steps sub thread to avoid it getting archived again, but support protection and further sanctions as potentially needed. This is ridiculous. Star Mississippi 03:25, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

You should not change your usual approach just because one of them is an admin. This only reinforces the SuperMario effect. If your approach is not correct for dealing with an admin, then it isn't correct for dealing with e.g. experienced non-admins either. Next time, just do what you always do in such situations. Fram (talk) 11:45, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

This. If they deserve a block, they deserve a block, whether they're temporary account ~2067-27549-42 or Jimbo. If they don't, they don't. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:15, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

This 'current monarch' template idea (which came into usage a few weeks ago), appears to be developing into a problem. GoodDay (talk) 23:18, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

I have already made clear that my involvement in this was done in error, and I was merely reinstating the images I had added to the article which had been reverted on grounds of "vandalism". I have had no involvement in any form of edit war in this article. Just thought I would clear up any confusion or doubt about my involvement here. Thanks. Goodreg3 (talk) 18:30, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Repeated sourcing issues from User:Kalpesh Manna 2002

• Kalpesh Manna 2002 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Some months ago on the page 125th Heavy Mechanized Brigade I found the User:Kalpesh Manna 2002 repeatedly adding a source which was irrelevant to the subject of the article. I opened this talk page discussion, translating the source into English and demonstrating its irrelevance, and asking the user to justify why he was adding the irrelevant source into the article. In one of the most illogical and unbecoming interactions I have ever witnessed on Wikipedia the user ignored the question after being asked point-blank no less than six times.

On 26 November, the user restored the source in question. Given Kalpesh's previous refusal to explain himself I have no hope that the user will engage in a good faith discussion with me, so I now seek the intervention of an administrator.

It is also worth noting that I have previously had a dispute with the user Kalpesh Manna 2002 regarding his extensive use of the website MilitaryLand.net against consensus (deprecated here: 1, 2, 3). Kalpesh Manna 2002 was informed by an administrator that if he wished to use this website on Wikipedia he would need to achieve a new consensus on RSN. Kalpesh Manna 2002 opened an RSN discussion which ultimately did not establish a new consensus. Nonetheless he has since resumed his use of the source (here: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8) SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) (contributions) 19:47, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Malicious reverts despite asking for explanation

Krzys123456 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Despite me asking for an explanation of a revert, this person did not provide a single explanation and is escalating an edit war for almost a week now. I really wanted to have any feedback, but literally nothing [175]. I simplified content of the article, as I doubt it's a new "generation". I also provided a picture, that with the revert was deleted. No arguments why. No attempts to de-escalate. The same here: just bland reverts without any arguments! [176] What's the point of providing a chinese video in the english-speaking article? I don't know, because this user does not interract, acts like a bot. And I'm not the only one complaining about needless reverts: [177].

Please, help: Deuwberst (talk) 19:33, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

While the lack of edit summary on their part isn't great, it takes two people to edit war and I don't see any messages on the article talk page. Both of you need to stop reverting and discuss the issue on the talk page.

That being said, @Krzys123456, you must explain potentially contentious edits, and restoring a reverted edit is unambiguously contentious. What do you hope to achieve by just reverting someone's edits without even an edit summary? They haven't gotten any additional information, so whatever reason they had to revert your edit still stands. Communication is not optional. Rusalkii (talk) 21:05, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Just a note: Krzys did not receive a talk page notification about this ANI report. Nakonana (talk) 21:14, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Deuwberst,

Not only are you edit-warring, too but it is MANDATORY to post a User talk page notification to any editor when you start a discussion about them on a noticeboard, there are notices saying you have to do this in many places on the ANI page (including one on the page that you used when you posted your own message here about Krzys123456). How can this dispute be resolved without the other party even knowing that you started this discussion? Please do so immediately and always in the future if you participate in a noticeboard discussion. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:19, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, Nakonana, it looks like we were editing at the same time. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:20, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Request for rangeblock on 2402:800:6000:0:0:0:0:0/35

• 2402:800:6000:0:0:0:0:0/35 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log)

This range has become a huge source of disruption since September 2025 (potentially even longer than that), especially within the last 1 or 2 months. In that period, this range has produced a variety of disruption, including extremely persistent vandalism, clear IP socking , data vandalism (including infobox vandalism), TV series and sports vandalism, and BLP vandalism, and LTA activity. The Yummie1207 also appears to be active on this range, which is another problem, given their propensity for high abuse rates. See both the Legacy IP edits and the temp account logs - there's already evidence of ongoing block evasion there. I will list out just some examples of problematic edits here:[178][179][180][181][182][183][184][185][186][187][188][189][190][191][192][193][194] The final examples are especially problematic, and they match the known behavioral patterns of the Yummie1207 LTA, as seen on 2405:4802:6C44:E890:0:0:0:0/35, 2405:4802:A221:16B0:0:0:0:0/64, 2405:4803:DBC0:0:0:0:0:0/43, and 1.53.0.0/16. (A CU sweep of the current range might also pick up some LTA socks.) And this is just on en.wiki. This range has been overwhelmingly disruptive for the last few months, and the number of constructive edits is relatively small by comparison. Note also that this range is already partially or entirely blocked on multiple projects, including the Vietnamese Wikipedia, vi.wikitionary, vi.wikiquote, Italian Wikipedia, Commons, and Meta Wiki (there also appears to be a global rangeblock, but the block is clearly not active on en.wiki for some reason). There's far too many pages targeted for Semi-Protection to be effective, and given the LTA(s) on the range, a partial block on article space is unlikely to be effective as well. And I don't think we should take this abuse sitting down, or continue to entertain the LTA and the trolls on this range by giving them the attention they clearly enjoy by playing whack-a-mole day after day with their IP socks. Given the massive amount of disruption and socking coming out of this range over the course of the last few months, I think a rangeblock is in order here. Perhaps for a few months. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 00:18, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Speaking of Yummie1207 what's with the person that I always see in recent changes saying stuff like "I DISLIKE YUMMIE1207 AGAIN, QUYQUANG2048 IS BETTER"? Is that the same person or is there some actual context to this? Stockhausenfan (talk) 00:24, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

I took a peek at Meta & their global account history earlier, it looks like Quyquang2048 was probably an early blocked account. It's just usual sock/vandal behaviour after being found out. Blue Sonnet (talk) 01:21, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

The lack of block on enwiki might be because the block has the block parameter locally disabled by Johannnes89: potential false positives on this project, local admins should decide whether to block. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 01:00, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Andy Dingley's conduct

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.

---

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

I am greatly concerned by the recent edits of Andy Dingley, a 19 year veteran of this website. I caught wind of Andy Dingley's recent activities when I had to revert this wholly unsourced edit. Three days ago, Andy Dingley restored multiple egregious BLP violations (see Talk:Operation Raise the Colours#Article concerns). On November 15, Andy Dingley reverted an administrator attempting to remove copyright violations and then engaged in repeated incivility at Talk:Nose cone design#Copyvio cleanup. Offending lines include By misreprenting what I wrote, then going to an already-partisan audience looking for articles to delete, and without any subject knowledge of either rocketry or maths. Typical WP logic. You should run as an admin, they'd love you. (diff) (readers may note that they did in fact love her) and arguing with three editors in good standing, two of whom are experts in copyright, that So your contention, like that of Sennecaster, is that there can be no other non-infringing textual expression of the descriptions here, thus blanket deletion is the only option? Because otherwise, the useful fix to this is to copyedit the text, same as we do in every other article to make an encyclopdically useful and non-infringing article. But there seems to be no interest in writing anything any more, just finding excuses to do something Very Important and usually damaging, with minimal effort. (diff).

Attacking others as uninterested in writing, particularly as an attempt to deflect criticism, is a frequent tactic of this editor. In response to an AfD I initiated, Andy Dingley, rather than to perhaps identify some sources or make any sort of argument that the subject was notable, wrote Some editors are just more interested in doing Serious Business whenever dogma lets them, rather than trying to build anything useful. (diff). Not particularly sanctionable on its own, but helps to paint the picture.

Back to October, we have edits such as this vote at AfD which read in part Verse is an important language of the near future, so we should cover it... I expect that this will be deleted. But that's because WP's capacity to favour dogma over value is legendary. This was then followed by a dismissive ABF comment, which was rightfully called out. Further poor participation by Andy Dingley ended with an exasperated editor writing I am shocked that someone with two decades of editing experience is seriously making arguments like these.

In August, Andy was trying to report someone to ANEW over four reverts in three days, which was rejected by an admin who noted Andy was wrong both on the content and on the question of edit warring. Of course, a look at the article history shows that by his own definition, Andy was edit warring too. A plea to "Please discuss on talk page" was ignored when Andy reverted with no edit summary 12 minutes later. Also in August, we have the assertion that I do not trust Russians with enhanced rights to view private data, especially not those who are already grinding a political axe. (diff), which brought complaints from several editors on Andy's talk page and was rightly characterized by multiple administrators as "a blatant personal attack". The editor in question is not even Russian, for the record. Unfortunately, this appears to be part of a long standing pattern of behavior going back years.

Back to 2023, we have another example of blatant incivility with highlights such as characterizing an AfD as A particularly ignorant and stupid nomination by someone who's obviously read nothing of the content here and calling other editors ignorant Yanks. As the first link in this paragraph clearly shows, Andy doubled down when asked by a then-administrator to redact the attack, forcing another administrator to redact it instead, stating Andy: the comment was beyond the pale, a clear violation of "comment on content, not contributors", and not acceptable no matter how frustrated you are nor how much you disagree with the nomination. Please don't do it again. Had Andy followed that advice, we wouldn't be at ANI right now.

Also in 2023, we have more instances of BLP violations. The discussion on Andy's talk page concluded with an admin warning that if I see you post more BLP vios, I will block you.

I'm could add more examples of incivility or otherwise disruptive editing from this user, but I believe I've established a clear pattern of unacceptable behavior by this editor. A course correction needs to happen, now, or we should start discussing sanctions in response to years of disruptive editing. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:45, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

• OK, the one that caught my eye there as a serious issue would be the "restored multiple egregious BLP vios" one, but upon examining the actual diff, they actually aren't are they? Yeah, WP:UNDUE I could definitely make a case for, but everything appears to be sourced/attributed as far as I can see. Black Kite (talk) 00:09, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

  How is detail on a 2009 conviction for affray for a person who's not Wikipedia notable even remotely appropriate for an article on an event in 2025? How is awaiting trial in Spain for his alleged role in a holiday compensation claim scam, sourced to someone's substack, not wildly inappropriate for another non-notable person? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:36, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

  Adding undue material is not prohibited behavior. It looks like you have a content dispute. Your recourse is to remove the material or go to the talk page to impeach the material. This is not a noticeboard issue. Constant314 (talk) 00:43, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

  Adding undue material is not prohibited behavior WP:NPOV, including WP:UNDUE, was policy, last I checked. You might want to reconsider what you just wrote. You also might want to explain to me why In 2018 *person's name* had been ordered at Brighton County Court to pay Aviva more than £13,000 after making a "fundamentally dishonest" £98,000 injury claim when the company's legal team found social media posts showing Cooper regularly working at height as a roofer, and enjoying walking and cycling when said person was mentioned only as "part of a group of 30 people who have been attaching flags to lampposts" isn't a flagrant BLP violation. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:48, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

  You would do well not to conflate what is clearly a content dispute (you don't get to decide WP:UNDUE all on your own) with WP:BLP issues, which aren't. Drop the former, stick to the latter, and maybe we'll have something to discuss. AndyTheGrump (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 00:57, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

  Restoring text claiming that someone non-notable is awaiting trial in Spain for his alleged role in a holiday compensation claim scam in an article that is not directly related to either that person or the alleged crime is a brightline violation of WP:BLPCRIME, and that anyone would restore such content is extremely concerning. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:47, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

  I can certainly see your argument. How about providing a diff, so we don't have to click through half a dozen links to other things to find it? This thread is a mess, and I'm not surprised how little attention it is getting from uninvolved contributors. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:53, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

If my memory is correct, Andy Dingley has been brought to the noticeboards so often that long-time editors tend to tune out at the lastest posting. In the future, I think it would be best to present 3-4 definite policy violations rather than a long presentation. I sympathize with your efforts but to the folks who can act on this information, it's clear and undisputed, RECENT evidence that is most important and not your opinion of the editor. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:18, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Nose cone design happened less than a month ago. What a way to make a thankless task even more thankless. Pennecaster (Chat with Senne) 04:51, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Mm, but that's the argument that kept the MickMacNees of the world around for far, far too long, with conduct that gets newbies indeffed twenty times over. Ravenswing 11:42, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

So just to check, if someone is regularly brought to the admin boards…the admins decide to stop paying attention? ~2025-38438-33 (talk) 13:31, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Well, it’s an opportunity for Liz to copy-paste her favourite “I can’t be bothered” boilerplate, so it’s not a total loss. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:59, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

~~ AirshipJungleman29, what the heck did I ever do to you? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:49, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Well it's certainly refereshing to know that ANI reports on certain people will get ignored just because of how many reports have been filed in the past... seems like a serious issue. ^EF⁵ 14:07, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Liz isn't speaking for me, at least. I'm always willing to entertain reports to ANI. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:25, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Just pointing out that a prolific editor, like AD, will have proportionately more incidents of conflict than a less prolific editor. Constant314 (talk) 14:26, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Plenty of editors have been here for a decade or more and never made racist attacks against fellow contributors, knowingly restored copyvio, or committed bright line BLP violations. I'm not expecting flawless conduct from anyone (I certainly make mistakes) but there's no excuse for the behavior that prompted this thread. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:37, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Could you provide a diff to the racist attack? Constant314 (talk) 23:05, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

I think they mean this earlier post. Blue Sonnet (talk) 23:14, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Is 3 days prior to me filing this thread not recent enough, Liz? Not to mention the blatant incivility at Talk:Nose Cone Design which happened a few weeks ago. The evidence from 2023 is to show that this is a chronic, intractable behavioral problem as it says at the top of this board. I agree with all those above who have challenged this comment. It took me over an hour to compile the opening statement, and I wasn't able to do it the exact second I saw the BLP violations. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:35, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

The issue I have with this, and I'm not defending anything @AD has said by the way, is that the uncivil comments are spaced 2 years apart. If there are more examples, from 2024, it would certainly strengthen that particular argument. 11WB (talk) 21:52, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Looking at thie diffs, I have no clue why an experienced editor would ever include the claim[195]:

is awaiting trial in Spain for his alleged role in a holiday compensation claim scam

sourced to a social media account [196]. This is a clear WP:BLPSPS violation, even if the actual criminal issue was 100% due. Andy Dingley knew this, given that he was reverting somebody who pointed out the BLP guideline in their edit summary.

Loking at this most recent article creations, and about 50 to 60% of the text in articles like Volley Sight, Gölsdorf Adriatics lacks inline citations, and what little text is sourced appears a bit too well sourced. A brief spotcheck quickly revealed this:

Long-range sights were provided in the earlier Mark III, giving elevations from 1,700 to 2,800 yards. The backsight consisted of an aperture attached to the left side of the body. It was carried on a bar terminating at the upper end in a cup-shaped button through which a peep-hole was bored. It was pivoted on the stem of the locking bolt and kept in position by a spring. The foresight, known as the dial sight, was attached to the left side of the fore-end, and consisted of a dial on which the ranges were marked, a pointer, and a bead which acted as a foresight

Long-range sights were provided giving elevations from 1,700 to 2,900 yards. The backsight consisted of an aperture attached to the left side of the body. It was carried on a bar terminating at the upper end in a cup-shaped button through which a peep-hole was bored. It was pivoted on the stem of the locking bolt and kept in position by a spring. The foresight, known as the dial sight, was attached to the left side of the fore-end, and consisted of a dial on which the ranges were marked, a pointer, and a bead which acted as a foresight.

from the source and the article, respectively.

Needless to say, this is well below the standards I'd expect of any autopatrolled editor.[197]

GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 05:29, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Agreed on both the...unfortunate BLP sourcing and the blatant WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASING. Yikes. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:46, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Earwig currently reports volley sight as having 47.6% similarity. 11WB (talk) 07:17, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

@11WB, are you sure? I followed your link, and it only says 20.0%. Chess enjoyer (talk) 07:34, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Currently writing a longer comment, it may have been edited already. 11WB (talk) 07:35, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

I have now edited it out and requested revision deletion. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 07:42, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Chess enjoyer, see this comparison. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 07:36, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, that's more like it. Chess enjoyer (talk) 07:43, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No further action Warning for persistent copyright violations: I am unaware of the context provided by the filer. I say this respectfully, but their opening message is difficult to navigate (as has been mentioned already). There was a close paraphrasing issue highlighted above, which has already been sorted. Regarding communication, having read @Andy Dingley's talk page, they are clearly very knowledgeable and mostly polite, if not a bit outspoken, but that isn't a major issue and has no relevance to editing problems. They haven't come across as uncivil, to me at least. Having checked some of their recent articles, which are mostly related to locomotives, they appear well written and well sourced. With over 450 articles, I think they have earned the Autopatrolled right (so long as their other articles are of similar quality).

Based on all of this, I find myself agreeing with @Constant314 and @AndyTheGrump regarding this being a content dispute. AN/I 'is for urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems', which I am not seeing here, aside from some minor editing issues. I don't think any further action is required at this time, other than a warning for the ongoing copyvios.

Happy to consider any other diffs and evidence. Thanks! 11WB (talk) 07:44, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

@11WB I would argue that repeatedly attempting to disqualify another editor's opinion because of a perceived ethnicity is very much uncivil, and not a minor issue in the slightest. [198][199] All editors, no matter their race, gender, sexuality, religious beliefs, nationality, etcetera, should have a right to edit whatever topics they chose.

I'd also like to see some response about the BLP issues - given their re-occurring nature, and how recent the newest set of diffs are, I think this should be dealt with now. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 07:59, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

The second diff is an WP:FOC violation. That specific discussion took place back in August. I don't say that to discredit your evidence, however it would need to be ongoing. 11WB (talk) 08:11, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

I still haven't completely unpacked all of @Trainsandotherthings's diffs that were provided in the original post. Give me some time to have a look through these. 11WB (talk) 08:13, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Realized I linked the wrong diff earlier - [200] is the one where they oppose an editor gaining advanced rights, on the basis of ethnicity. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 08:29, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Courtesy link to the follow-up discussion. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 14:15, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

The first paragraph appears to be a content dispute only, I don't see any real evidence of wrongdoing on @Andy Dingley's part other than sarcasm directed at @Sennecaster, which should usually be avoided. The second paragraph admits that there is no wrongdoing within the specific diff that was linked.

The AfD discussion from the third paragraph appears to just be a disagreement of something @AD gave as their !vote rationale.

The fourth paragraph notes a violation of WP:3R, however if this is the only instance I don't see any further action for that other than a warning to stop edit warring, which I can't place on their talk page from that period of time. The comments regarding race violate WP:FOC, which make up the rest of this paragraph.

This discussion was unfortunate. I believe @Andy Dingley owes @Melik an apology for this.

Finally, we come to the WP:BLP violations. Without seeing the sources used with the corresponding article text, I cannot comment on this yet. With everything compiled, we have one FOC violation (from August 2025), a 3R violation (also from August 2025), some personal attacks (from August 2023) and potential BLP violations.

The individual violations aren't great and @Andy Dingley is definitely in the wrong for those, however as of right now, I don't think there is justification for any type of preventative action (such as a block). It would actually be unfair in my opinion for one to be applied. That being said, I would be interested in seeing the BLP violation diffs. 11WB (talk) 08:37, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

11WB, I highlighted the WP:BLPSPS violations in my comment above. [201] These date from this past week. And Andy is already on notice for BLPSPS violations in CTOPS [202], one which another admin pointed out he was lucky not to have been blocked for. These were in the past two years; Andy's been an active editor since 2006. We're rapidly reaching the point where he's either willfully disregarding basic BLP sourcing policy, or he does not have the ability to follow it. Regardless, I would like to hear from him now, thank you. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 08:56, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

No problem. Just be aware they removed the AN/I notice from their talk page. They may respond here, or they might not. I'll check back later on for any further discussion here regardless. Thanks! 11WB (talk) 09:00, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Do you see nothing wrong with But there seems to be no interest in writing anything any more, just finding excuses to do something Very Important and usually damaging, with minimal effort.? ([203]) Again, what a way to make a thankless task even more thankless. It's clear that the community is tolerating of insults to my efforts (as seen with multiple other CCIs I've had to request), but I'm not going to tolerate that towards the people I work with. GreenLipstickLesbian is incredibly diligent over close paraphrasing and copyright violations and is someone I trust 100% of the time on this. Her judgment is excellent. Andy also only took issue with my removal after I waited 7 days to handle a blatant copyright violation because I knew it would involve a large scale removal, as is explained by putting {{copyvio}} on an article. Sennecaster (Chat) 14:44, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

They've said some regrettable things for which an apology wouldn't go amiss. 11WB (talk) 19:28, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

I did not see any "attempting to disqualify another editor's opinion because of a perceived ethnicity" in either of those diffs. Perhaps I missed it. Can you quote the exact phrase that is causing offense? Constant314 (talk) 23:11, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

• The copyvio might be worse than just that one article. This doesn't seem like a major violation (Whitelegg also added a small superheater, enlarged the firebox and grate, and raised the boiler pressure to 180 psi in the article, Whitelegg also added a superheater of modest dimensions, enlarged the firebox and grate, and raised the boiler pressure in the source), but if its a trend its worrying. Admittedly I'm not great with copyright, so I don't know if that is too close. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 09:43, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

  Full paragraphs:

  • The motion was only slightly changed, with all four cylinders rebuilt to the same 14" diameter, but retaining their same space-constrained differences in stroke. Whitelegg also added a small superheater, enlarged the firebox and grate, and raised the boiler pressure to 180 psi. (article)
  • He only slightly modified the motion, which consisted at the time of two 14 1/2" and two 12 1/2" cylinders, each pair with a different stroke. After the renewal, all 4 cylinders had the same diameter, but retained their space-saving differences in stroke. Whitelegg also added a superheater of modest dimensions, enlarged the firebox and grate, and raised the boiler pressure. (source)

  This is not the most egregious close paraphrasing I've seen, but it preserves a lot of the creative language from the original text; I would rewrite or remove it a CCI. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 09:49, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

  There might be a third instance. See this and also this. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 09:59, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

  {Just want to make clear, I misunderstood GLL before and assumed by BLPVIO, they meant unreliable sources being used in BLP articles. I am now aware these are actually about COPYVIOS.) 11WB (talk) 10:01, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

• Given that this issue has come up before and Andy should know better, I would support at minimum a logged warning about the BLP and copyvio issues. The comment about a Russian editor is also unacceptable on a collaborative project. (t · c) buIdhe 16:22, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

  I agree that the persistence of the copyvios warrants a warning of some kind. Taking up the time of other editors isn't fair each time this happens. 11WB (talk) 19:32, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Andy's conduct at Talk:Nose cone design#Copyvio cleanup is indefensible. If a new editor acted that way we'd block them and move on. We should expect more of our experienced editors, not less. Mackensen (talk) 19:44, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

• Comment: I've changed my comment from this morning. Whilst the individual incidents involving @AD are not good, the continued COPYVIO issues highlighted by @GLL and @Senne do warrant some type of official warning. Otherwise, we continue to allow it to be a time commitment, when all that's needed instead is improved paraphrasing (along with some civility). 11WB (talk) 19:54, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

  WP:TIMESINK redirects to Wikipedia:Tendentious editing, which I don't think matches your meaning, as you seem to be suggesting that this is a waste of time. Let me ask you a hypothetical question. You think Andy should be more civil. Let's assume Andy Dingley refuses to apologize and doesn't change his conduct going forward. What would you say to all the editors who have to endure that? Are they wasting everyone's time if they complain again? Mackensen (talk) 20:01, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

  Ah, it's a redirect. I'll edit that. But yes, it does take up time editors could be using elsewhere. 11WB (talk) 20:13, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

  To answer your hypothetical, if the incivility were to carry on even after this AN/I, then that would warrant action. At the moment, each incident of @AD saying something uncivil resulted in a verbal warning. @Ivanvector was quite clear about one of those here. I would encourage editors to report @AD should any future incivility occur after this AN/I is closed, as somebody can only be let off the hook so many times. 11WB (talk) 20:22, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

  At the moment, each incident of @AD saying something uncivil resulted in a verbal warning. Is the idea to warn him again, but next time actually do something about it? Why not break the cycle now? Mackensen (talk) 21:06, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

  The incidences of uncivil comments as tracked occurred during August 2023, August 2025 and recently at Talk:Nose cone design#Copyvio cleanup. I don't actually think @AD was uncivil in the nose cone discussion, other than directing unnecessary sarcasm at @Sennecaster, the primary violation there concerned copyright. A block for incivility now would be very delayed. 11WB (talk) 22:08, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

• Mackensen is correct. We wouldn't allow a new editor to persist in any of these behaviors - aggression, personal attacks, and assumption of bad faith on the attitude side, and BLP issues and copyright issues on the content side. So why do we tolerate it from someone who has enough tenure that he ought to know better on all of these counts? At the very least, per Buidhe, this merits a logged warning. I'd also support any form/length of block, given the persistence of these issues. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:28, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

  Not to mention AD hasn't deigned to show up and answer for any of it, so seems to be quite confident in waiting to get off scot free again. Seems sensible to me that the community should at least demand some understanding of wrongdoing here. Athanelar (talk) 21:38, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

  I wasn't seeking a block when I opened this, just a warning and some sort of acknowledgement from Andy that he needs to change his behavior. He's certainly capable of being a productive editor when he chooses to be. The more he remains silent, the harder it is for me to keep that position. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:41, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

  They are not obliged to partake in this discussion, it should be said. It would be a tad unfair to simply raise the severity of action based only on the fact they've chosen not to respond. The effectiveness of this AN/I will be evident in their conduct after this has closed. 11WB (talk) 21:45, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

  You said above They've said some regrettable things for which an apology wouldn't go amiss which I agree with. What do we do if Andy just ignores this thread entirely? How do we know he's even read it? Yes, nobody is required to post here, but they can't claim it unfair if they end up getting sanctioned after ignoring the opportunity to speak in their defense. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:50, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

  I did answer that already just above. 11WB (talk) 22:03, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

• We have evidence above that:
  • Andy is introducing copyvios to articles (see GLL's extensive comparisons)
  • Andy is insulting, belittling, and obstructing the work of the saints who do the herculean task of cleaning up copyvios (see Talk:Nose cone design#Copyvio cleanup; Andy complained that WT:Copyright problems is an already-partisan audience; one wonders if he would consider WP:ANEW a partisan audience for claims of edit warring)
  • Andy is violating the BLP policy (see GLL's evidence)
  • Most astonishingly, Andy was openly racist towards an editor editors from Russia
• ...and our answer is "meh, an apology would be nice, but wait until he does something serious"? What? How is that not egregious? There are far-reaching examples of violations of two of our most important policies (WP:BLP and WP:C), plus incivility towards editors fixing those policy violations, plus racism. One of the supporters of finger wag, 11WB (pinged for courtesy), says that the prior instances of incivility were all met with warnings. So clearly warnings don't work! A block is needed, and I would also give admins community support for escalating blocks if this recurs. Also, revoke autopatrol. Copyright or BLP violations are incompatible with being autopatrolled, let alone both at the same time.

  If Andy doesn't take steps to ensure this never happens again, I hope the editors supporting a finger wag will be first in line to fix Andy's copyright violations—rather than hoisting that work onto the overworked copyvio cleanup regulars, who are victims of Andy's incivility. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 21:08, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

  The first two incidences of incivility were two years apart. The FOC violation (which you have labelled as racism), was several months ago and has not occurred since. These are, in my view, individual incidents that were dealt with at the time. The current issue, which this AN/I can deal with, are the copyvios. @HouseBlaster 11WB (talk) 21:31, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

  The edits that I take issue with are the incivility, the copyvios, the BLP issues, and a quite clearly racist comment (if you want a citation that supports it being racist, our sibling project defines racism as Prejudice or discrimination based upon race or ethnicity), and I believe that we need to prevent all of that from recurring. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:06, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

  They were wrong to discriminate in that manner, I cannot defend that. The comment was a definite violation of FOC and point 1B of WP:IUC. 11WB (talk) 22:11, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

  Just wanted to add, opposing a WP:TAIV request strikes me as odd all things considered. That isn't one of the permissions that is given based on community consensus. Just an observation I made. 11WB (talk) 22:14, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

  It isn't unheard of, see WP:AN#Request for review: I denied TAIV access. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 22:16, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

  I recall seeing that recently. Whatever the case, @AD's rationale for opposing was unnecessary. 11WB (talk) 22:21, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

  you don't need to reply to everyone, you know. ... sawyer * any/all * talk 22:21, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

  The editor in question has stated they aren't even Russian, which makes Andy's conduct worse, actually. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:29, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks, clarified. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:06, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

  With regard to [204]. AD says

  "This is an account I've only seen connected with pro-Russian edit-warring. I do not trust Russians with enhanced rights to view private data, especially not those who are already grinding a political axe."

  • He is opposing the granting of a privilege to an account because of pro-Russian edit-warring. His opposition is based on the activities of the editor and not because of the perceived ethnicity of the editor.
  • He said that he did not trust Russians. He did not say Russians are untrustworthy. It is not the kind of attitude we like to see, but he has only revealed his own bias; he has not disrespected anybody's ethnicity.

  Constant314 (talk) 00:40, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

  ....are you serious? ... sawyer * any/all * talk 00:56, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

  Of course I am serious. I could be offended that you appear to be attacking my sincerity, but I'm not. I understand that you are using an idiom to express disagreement, but you see how easy it is misunderstand one's intents. Please state what you disagree with and why. Constant314 (talk) 01:04, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

  he said he did not trust Russians to view sensitive information in order to discredit an editor whom he perceived as Russian, to prevent them from getting TAIV. that is blatantly disrespectful and bigoted against not only the editor in question (Mellk) but all of our Russian editors. just because you wouldn't be offended if someone said that about Americans does not mean it's acceptable here. ... sawyer * any/all * talk 01:09, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, saying that he did not trust Russians was an admission of his own bigotry. It might even have worked against his argument. He opposed the privilege because of the pro-Russian edit warring. Whether he also opposed it because the editor was perceived to be Russian is an inference that might be true or might not. Constant314 (talk) 01:29, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

  ok... so what is your point then, as it regards sanctions against him? he's admitted his bigotry against other editors but has not committed egregious incivility? what? ... sawyer * any/all * talk 01:33, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, I would oppose sanction based on the admission that "I don't trust Russians". If we are going to sanction someone for what they said, then we need to consider exactly what they said and not what we think that they were thinking.

  I don't see us making any progress on this item. I don't see it as an actionable offense and it looks like you do. I've had my say.

  Lets focus on the copyright violations. Constant314 (talk) 01:48, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

  He said that he did not trust [Black people]. He did not say [Black people] are untrustworthy. Do you see the problem with your statement? voorts (talk/contributions) 01:05, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

  Actually I don't see a problem. Again, I don't like to see people expressing prejudice. However, when he says that he doesn't trust [xxx people], he is not insulting [xxx people]. He is only embarrassing himself. Constant314 (talk) 01:12, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

  And you're embarassing yourself by trying to "well actually" bigotry. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:15, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

  Please don't concern yourself with what embarrasses me.

  It looks like the issue is now moot as AD has been blocked.

  Cheers. Constant314 (talk) 02:01, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

  Many things have been said on this board but I have to say, acknowledging prejudice and dismissing it is a real low point. Prejudice against a specific group of people is unfair, highly noninclusive, and ultimately harmful to the project as a whole. It is absolutely a problem for all of us. Giraffer (talk) 01:20, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

  We don't judge people on what they think but on what they do. Bigotry and bias is a problem. I don't like it. I don't support it. But when it comes to stripping the rights of an editor, merely admitting one's prejudice does not come up to the level of an offense against another editor. Constant314 (talk) 01:35, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

  WP:Hate is disruptive describes how public displays of bigotry negatively affect the project. If I was Russian I would definitely not feel comfortable by what he just said. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 02:17, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

  I see your point. Clearly others do feel the same way. Constant314 (talk) 03:14, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

• I wasn't initially aware of the copyvio when I started this thread, but that shows even more so that Andy needs to course correct now. Right now, I support a formal warning regarding BLP, civility, and copyvio and a revoking of autopatrolled as an absolute minimum. If Andy continues his current strategy of ignoring this thread and failing to take any sort of accountability, I'd be in favor of a block as well. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:29, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

  I concur with the revocation of AP, until such a time as their content creation improves. 11WB (talk) 21:33, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

  • Copyright violations can cause serious harm to Wikipedia. I would support a warning for copyright violations, if those allegations hold up. I suggest closing this incident report and opening a new one that focuses only on copyright violations.
  • I oppose the revocation of AP status as a punishment for behavior not related to the use of AP rights.
  • I did not see any egregious incivility. I'm an American. If he said he didn't trust Americans I would not have been offended.

  Constant314 (talk) 00:59, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

  I oppose the revocation of AP status as a punishment for behavior not related to the use of AP rights. Except the copyvios shown in this thread were all on articles he created, which NPP could have caught if he didn't have auto patrolled. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 01:03, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

  Copyvios are very serious and should be thoroughly investigated. Revocation of AP status might be a consequence of that investigation. Constant314 (talk) 01:09, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

• Enough is enough. I've indef'd Andy and revoked AP. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:37, 5 December 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.

some guy keeps reverting my edits

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.

---

so this guy named Jessicapierce reverted my edits on Icosium my edit turned the translations into efn, im pretty sure this is what you're supposed to do and popular articles like william Shakespeare do it, also they say my edits are error filled but the efn's do work as there's a notelist and everything. Misterpotatoman (talk) 17:48, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi Misterpotatoman, welcome to Wikipedia. We have a requirement that when you have an issue with a user and post on this noticeboard, you're required to notify them on their talk page. Another editor has already done this for you, but please remember for next time. You can use the template {{ANI-notice}} for this. Thanks. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:54, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

I don't see the errors in your work, but we have just over seven million articles and a few different referencing and footnote styles that are all valid. We only expect them to be consistent within an article, not consistent across articles, and we usually discourage changing from one style to another without a good reason. It seems to me that you should discuss your proposed changes with Jessicapierce and see if you can come to an agreement. Have a look at this link for some more information. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:00, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Agree that this is a content dispute. There are however straight errors introduced: Al Jaza'ir and eíkosi are not English, they are transliterations of Arabic and Greek script into Latin script. The original text also says 'Al Jaza'ir' is pronunciation, but that ideally should use IPA. There's MOS issues as well including ENGVAR and NUM, but I can't hold a new editor to the expectation that they know all this. No action required, but I did revert the edit explicating several of the issues in the edit summary. That summation is not exhaustive, but I ran out of space for the edit-summary.

Before I forget: I do think it is at the very least an 'orange flag' that Misterpotatoman is insistent on referring to an obviously female editor, Jessicapierce, by the moniker 'some guy'. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:35, 5 December 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:MCAACM

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.

---

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

This and this are only two examples of the massive damage that the user has done recently by uploading a large amount of photos and signatures to Commons with the source faked as "Wikipedia", and then proceeding to add these unsourced images to a vast amount of articles on various Wikipedia language projects. The user has been blocked for mischief before at Swedish Wikipedia, but seems to be incorrigible. See h contribution list on this project for the rest of the damage being dome. I can only recommend a global block. SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:28, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

• You can get those for free on Meta. Drmies (talk) 22:47, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

  Requesting... –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:08, 5 December 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.

Harassment by CarterDillard

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.

---

CarterDillard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

I've actually never done this before, so I apologize if this isn't the way to go about it. I recently started an AfD discussion for The Fair Start Movement. User CarterDillard, presumably the organization's policy director and a member of its board if the name is to be believed, participated in this discussion. That's totally fine and why I did an AfD rather than a speedy deletion or proposed deletion. What I'm less fine with are edits to my user page, an attempt to start up some kind of campaign against me on the page's talk page, insinuations that I am interfering in active legal proceedings and taking money from Coca Cola, messages on my user page after I explicitly asked them not to send messages like this, and in particular, a demonstrated interest in my personal identity, which I find pretty concerning. I would rather not get doxxed or harassed and am pretty shaken by all this. Again, sorry if this isn't the right way to do this. Spookyaki (talk) 18:20, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

I have no knowledge about the subject matter in question, but it appears that marking up a user's user page is very unusual. If it is was not intended to be harassment, I suggest that User:CarterDillard revert their edits and discuss on the user's user talk page instead. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:54, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

To clarify, I already reverted the edits and messaged them about it on their talk page. Spookyaki (talk) 18:57, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Robert and that is what I did, though the editor asked I not post there either. CarterDillard (talk) 19:00, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

CarterDillard: I have to second this request, and reinforce it: Do not bother Spookyaki again, or you will be blocked from editing. Modifying their user page with your own commentary is highly irregular in Wikipedia culture. But more importantly, implying that Spookyaki is responsible for the death of millions for not including your favored topic on a Wikiproject page demonstrates both a gross misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works (Wikiproject pages are not public-facing) and, more importantly, a staggeringly out-of-proportion battleground mentality. You need to recalibrate your approach to editing Wikipedia, and fast. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:52, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

I don't imply that Spookyaki is responsible for those deaths. I make clear Spookyaki uses the same standard in assessing human rights and legitimacy. That's a fair critique. In terms of where to make it, I was not aware of the policy on user pages (if it's just culture, it should be made a policy). I made it there because there was no response to my rebuttal, to be clear. CarterDillard (talk) 19:05, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Yes, my name is Carter Dillard, that is my real name, and this is my SSRN page. https://observatory.wiki/Carter_Dillard. I have no idea who Spookyaki is, or how to assess whether they have a conflict of interest under wiki policy.

In looking through Spookyaki's wiki writing, I see evidence of a fallacy that I write about in academic and popular media, the omission of birth inequity and inequitable growth as a key factor altering the accuracy of public impact claims. This is my book on the subject, https://www.amazon.com/Justice-Fair-Start-Life-Understanding/dp/9975154891, which is recommended reading on a leading legal theory site.

That fallacy is now being challenged in litigation against Coca-Cola in California: https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/fair-start-movement-urges-california-attorney-general-to-recognize-full-justice-standard-as-preemptive-of-fraud-claims-1035104323. We allege Coke's omission hid significant harm from their production processes, illegally discounting future lives by as much as 5x what is accurate.

Spookyaki has suggested deletion of the wiki page for the Fair Start Movement - the page that covers this issue, a social justice effort dating back to roughly 2018 and now involving dozens of advocates from around the world, and almost 30 projects. The entire discussion is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Fair_Start_Movement

The premise of the movement - that no child is worth more than another - is subject to nearly ten positive peer reviews, and any lack of notability for reporting in main stream media derives from the threat our work poses to those companies, companies that use the same illegal discounting as Coke.

Spookyaki's reply to my rebuttal was that it "proves [their} point." I asked how so, with no response.

Put simply, there is someone for whom I have no way to assess a conflict of interest trying to remove extensively peer-reviewed information that would show current climate and related policies to be illegal, and in a way that discounts the lives of and threatens millions. I've reviewed Wiki's policies and I am well within my rights to ask for information so I can assess a conflict of interest, and to publicly note the same illegal discounting in Spookyaki's writing that our movement challenges. That suggests a conflict of interest, as does other identifying information about Spookyaki. Other experiences editors are now further verifying the Fair Start Movement page. Pursuing my rights to protect this information and those who benefit from it is not harassment, and calling it that is defamatory. CarterDillard (talk) 18:58, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Virtually none of this is relevant to the issue at hand. Wikipedia works on collaboration, not slinging accusations and insinuations. Nominating an article for deletion itself is not grounds for accusations of conflict of interest. Again, I implore you to reconsider how you're interacting with your fellow editors. Any more responses along these lines, here or elsewhere, will lead to a block. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:03, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

My rebuttal to the deletion suggestion is very collaborative. And I think it's fair to say I did not allege a conflict of interest. I'm looking at exactly what I wrote. I said I did not have enough information to assess one. I'm very clear about that above. That's relevant because presumably Spookyaki's alleging my seeking their institutional affiliations is what they consider harassment. As I read wiki's COI policy, it is not. CarterDillard (talk) 19:11, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Well, then as they replied to your question in the negative, it will presumably be easy for you to never bother them again. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:14, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

I'm happy just to stick to the facts of the incident, what was alleged, whether it is substantiated, and whether the process for assessing deletion is itself neutral in keeping with Wiki's policy. The Fair Start project is that true neutrality requires first accounting for one's privileged birth and developmental positionality and the full impacts of the system that create it, by far the largest driver of the polycrisis. Attempts to delete that as a standard deserves scrutiny. CarterDillard (talk) 19:24, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

This is what I'm referring to as your battleground mentality. What is under discussion at the AfD is the potential deletion of a Wikipedia article. This is not the same as deleting the concept as a whole. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; it is an encyclopedia, which reflects and gathers only what has already been written about in other reliable sources. If there isn't enough coverage in reliable sources to provide a Wikipedia article's worth of information, then that aeticle shouldn't exist in Wikipedia. That, summed up in a nutshell as the general notability guideline, is only one of many reasons why a Wikipedia article might be inappropriate for a particular topic. I don't know if that is exactly why this article has been nominated for deletion; I bring it up to illustrate to you that there are many perfectly valid reasons to delete a Wikipedia article regardless of its truth or (perceived) importance. Thus, your insistence that opposition to the article is equivalent to opposition to the subject is dead wrong. And that's why I'm telling you you need to rethink your approach to Wikipedia. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:42, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

That's fair and I will rely on Wiki's policies in assessing the incident and what gave rose to it. CarterDillard (talk) 19:51, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

If the article gets deleted, it can be remade again at a later date. The Fair Start Movement still exists regardless of whatever happens to the article. GarethBaloney (talk) 21:21, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

GarethBaloney, that's not true, articles that are deleted through AFD that are simply "remade" are deleted via WP:CSD G4. The only way to overcome this is to create a brand new, different article in Draft space and submit it to AFC for review. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:21, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

This response does not inspire me with confidence. How do you explain this diff, [205] that asking someone's identity isn't harrassment? It is, because it's considered a form of doxxing, which is prohibited. Please don't do this again, and per Writ Keeper's reasons. And also by the way, posting on a user's talk page after they told you to stop, and continuing to do so, is considered harassment, per this: WP:USERTALKSTOP. Codename AD ^talk 19:07, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

As I read the doxxing definition, I would have had to publicize the information, not ask for it. No editor has to reveal their affiliations, and I will not ask again. But many do reveal their affiliations, and asking for it does not constitute doxxing. Having confidential information to assess a conflict is not the same as sharing it publicly. CarterDillard (talk) 19:20, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Let me rephrase that: Do you understand that doxxing is not okay, and that asking for someone's identity is also not okay? But also, per Writ Keeper: AFD is the potential deletion of a Wikipedia article. This is not the same as deleting the concept as a whole. That's important to know; the concept isn't going to be deleted just because the page on Wikipedia could be potentially deleted. And, there's a lot of reasons for why an article might be deleted, as it is a normal part of Wikipedia. But please, remember to talk concisely, as too much text could be TLDR'ed, and not be read. And in regards to page deletion, if the page is deleted, that doesn't mean it's gone forever, it just means that the page is not notable at the time, or isn't compatible currently with Wikipedia. Codename AD ^talk 20:01, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

@CarterDillard It's clear you're completely unfamiliar with the day-to-day functioning of Wikipedia for you to react the way that you are. An editor nominating your article for deletion says absolutely nothing about their opinion of the article's subject or content. People don't nomimate articles for deletion because they disagree with them, they do so because they believe the article doesn't meet the standards necessary to qualify for a Wikipedia article. Please calibrate your attitude accordingly; nobody is trying to censor your organisation nor question your ideology or methods, and it certainly has absolutely nothing to do with any ongoing litigation. The unfounded accusations of paid editing you made against Spookyaki are personal attacks which are not allowed on Wikipedia. Athanelar (talk) 21:37, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

I appreciate the difference but the record shows no allegation of a COI, but me asking for information so I could assess whether there is one, given the use of a particular standard, both in the deletion discussion and elsewhere. I'm trying to be collaborative here, but allegations of doxing and slipping past key facts don't help. As I said, I am now working to further verify a page with more citations and what I'm focused on here is the allegation of harassment because I asked for information on affiliations or posted a clear statement of the facts in a place culture but not policy prohibited. I think calling the level of peer-review and actors involved in this movement to simply account for accurate harm to infants "astroturfing," as this editor did, is worthy of challenging and again, on the standard used. CarterDillard (talk) 22:41, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Literally right above in this discussion you said That suggests a conflict of interest, as does other identifying information about Spookyaki. Demanding an editor provide you with their personal information so you can 'investigate' whether they have a conflict of interest very much does count as an accusation of a conflict of interest; which in this case is unfounded and uncivil.

I would strongly suggest you take this opportunity retract your implication that Spookyaki is in any way involved with Coca-Cola or any other party in litigation with you. Athanelar (talk) 23:17, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

As I said, I would need more information to make any determination, and I'm not going to rewrite what I said, and not because one person determines alone what counts as an accusation. The Wiki policy on COI does not prohibit seeking that information, but does prohibit false allegations of harassment. CarterDillard (talk) 01:42, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Talking about "false allegations of harassment" is inflammatory, inappropriate, and demonstrates a lack of understanding of the problems with your behavior. You have been asked to stop this behavior multiple times—by me, by at least one admin, and by other users. I am not interested in justifications for it, and the more you try to give them, the more problems you are causing for yourself, me, and everyone here. I would ask only that you stop and do something more productive with your time. Spookyaki (talk) 02:01, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

I am happy to stop the back and forth on this page and I think this is a fair summary of where things stand and a path forward.

1. I am not requesting further information from you and can remove the topic/edit from your user talk page depending on your retracting your allegation of harassment. I will continue verifying the Fair Start Movement page, though at this point other experienced Wiki editors are likely to assist.

2. You have made a public allegation of harassment naming me on this page, and for the single act of posting a cut and paste of our back and forth regarding the standard you used in suggesting deletion of a page I edited, and in your own pages. That act does not come close to meeting the standard for harassment defined here, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Harassment, and that policy ends with this statement: Unfounded accusations of harassment are a serious personal attack and dealt with accordingly.

If you are willing to retract your allegation, we can move forward as I suggest.

3. When you allege an incident based on a policy violation you can expect the person accused to defend themselves, and it's not appropriate to encourage them not to do so. If what I've suggested is not agreeable, we can use official https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution process including seeking an arbitration panel to cover all of the issues. CarterDillard (talk) 03:09, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

I will not be doing that. Spookyaki (talk) 03:31, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

That's fine. We can disengage here and I will proceed. CarterDillard (talk) 03:36, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Spookyaki is under absolutely no obligation to retract their allegation of harassment against you, because that is in fact what you are and have been doing. It is you who needs to retract your "suspicion" of COI against them, apologise for your hounding of them, and cease interaction with them.

I am not an admin, so you're under no obligation to follow what I've said. However, given that at this point you have three editors telling you you're in the wrong, I really don't think you should be digging your heels in as you are. Athanelar (talk) 03:40, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

The allegations seem pretty grounded to me. My advice to you is stop digging this hole lest you get an indef for harassment. Northern Moonlight 02:43, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

• In a review of the posted links for behavior I noticed the use of the words “we” and “our”, which suggests a group account or a corporate account. If that is indeed the case, then it is in violation of Wikipedia’s user account policies and should be acted on by an admin. Independent of that, given the above, I see an indef block coming for not here behavior, violations of the harassment policy, legal threats, or some combination of those three points. ~2025-38323-74 (talk) 20:21, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

  I don't see those pronouns use to refer to the account, which I am the sole operator of. I use them to refer to those impacted. CarterDillard (talk) 20:27, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

• Christ, talk about WP:RGW!!! EEng 06:05, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) Hi @CarterDillard, it's obvious that you care a lot about this subject (it would be strange if you didn't), but the core tenets of Wikipedia require us to view encyclopedia articles in an objective and neutral manner, separate to the subject matter contained within - see WP:NPOV, WP:V, et al.

We all have subjects we feel strongly about, and it's our responsibility as editors to use our own judgement to determine whether those views may be causing us to inadvertently disrupt Wikipedia when editing in those areas. If we can't do this, others may have to do it for us; this is when sanctions may be imposed.

If you're not able to act objectively due to your close proximity and feelings about the subject, then it might be best to leave the subject for other editors (as difficult as this may be for you to consider).

I implore you to read through this discussion again and see how many editors are involved, how many agree with and how many disagree with the way you've conducted yourself so far. Try to see this from the outside and understand why we have concerns over your behaviour.

When it comes to Wikipedia, sometimes you just need to trust that the community as a whole knows what it's doing. Blue Sonnet (talk) 07:35, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

CarterDillard while you didn't bring up free speech, since you keep talking about your rights, I suggest you read Wikipedia:Free speech#Summary. As said there, the only real rights you have here are the right to fork, the right to leave, and that you get to keep the copyright over what you contribute while licencing it under certain free licences. You don't have any "rights to ask for information so I can assess a conflict of interest" nor "rights to protect this information". Instead if you want to continue to contribute here, you need to abide by our policies and guidelines. This includes not asking someone about a CoI when you have no good reason to do so and our WP:Notability criteria which is how we access whether to keep an article. It also includes WP:assuming good faith of your fellow editors and not making personal attacks such as making accusations without sufficient. And definitely you should not be harassing your fellow editors. If for any reason you are unable or unwilling to follow our policies and guidelines, then we will block or ban you from editing here if needed. Although it would be better if you exercise one of your limited rights and leave voluntarily. As others have said, since you clearly have a COI with certain areas, you should take great caution when editing those areas. Also Wikipedia isn't the place to right great wrongs, whatever problems there are in the world, Wikipedia isn't the place to correct them. What you do in the real world may help with that, and if it makes enough of a dent than it will impact what Wikipedia covers and says, but that's for other editors to deal with and it will come after you've made these significant documented changes rather than before. Nil Einne (talk) 09:42, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

CarterDillard, while I know you care a lot about the certain page, be careful on what you type in Wikipedia, as some stuff can be considered incivil. And take to heart all of the advice the above editors have given you, and remember that the community is trying to improve Wikipedia, not destroy it. And, if you are too emotionally connected to a subject, then let other editors edit it. And look, everyone is interested and cares about a specific subject, but if it's getting in the way of editing collaboratively, then you should probably take a step back. Codename AD ^talk 14:45, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

• Comment: Lost in all this discussion above is the central fact that CarterDillard has made 61 edits (plus 20 deleted ones) to English Wikipedia, and every single one of them was made with Mr. Dillard's personal projects in mind. I'm sure Mr. Dillard is in earnest, and I have no doubt that many wikipedians would tend to empathize with his off-wiki work. Mr. Dillard is, however, WP:NOTHERE to improve the pedia. To date, he sees no interest in Wikipedia except as it serves his purpose to advance his own interests, as if it were Yelp!, the Yellow Pages, or Instagram, a mere platform with which to advocate his own content. This is sad for all the regular reasons. Wikipedia does not exist solely to platform your advocacy, Mr. Dillard. BusterD (talk) 15:04, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

  In fact, it doesn't exist at all to platform his advocacy. EEng 17:14, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

There appear to be ongoing issues, even after this ANI thread had been started. Dillard has just made an edit to The Fair Start Movement, [206] citing a Google Scholar listing for his own works, [207], to justify adding the text "an extensively peer-reviewed system". Any assertion regarding the extent of peer review based solely on a Google Scholar listing for a single scholar would be inappropriate editorialising, and to make such an assertion about ones own works is grossly inappropriate. At absolute minimum, an article-space block would seem appropriate, though frankly I can't see much prospect of Dillard being anything but a time sink, and a WP:NOTHERE block might be more sensible. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:29, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

• CarterDillard alleges illegality by Spookiyaki ("the same illegal discounting in Spookyaki's writing",[208] the "discounting" being a failure to mention birth equity) and attacks Spookiyaki for editing a Wikiproject page that "has no discussion of birth equity as a preemptive human right" which "replicates the error ... now fundamentally leading to the deaths of millions".[209] Trying to impose a legal and moral burden on Wikipedia's editors to insert content in accord with CarterDillard / Fair Start's thesis of birth inequity is one of the more extreme forms of WP:NOTHERE, a marked lack of value for the project's actual aims and methods, and trying to put editors under such burdens to insert content is harmful to the project of building an encyclopedia. NebY (talk) 16:47, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

  Not to mention being insufferably self-righteous. EEng 17:14, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

  Yep. That, plus @CarterDillard is only here to push a POV = indeffed. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:58, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

  rsjaffe, your block constitutes a desperate attempt to equitywash Wikipedia's intrinsic commitment to the status quo of the perinatal industrial complex, deliberately sidestepping the root causes of obstetric racism and the pervasive impact of systemic disadvantage and reifying existing power dynamics, thus ensuring that the fundamental apparatus of oppression remains unchallenged, while simultaneously generating a specious narrative of progress that is, in fact, regressively aligned with dominant, extractive frameworks. So put that in your pipe and smoke it! EEng 17:22, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

  Nigel Hawthorne couldn't have said it better. Yes he could have, but not by very much. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:08, 5 December 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.

Unexplained removals and other disruptive edits in SA CTOP

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.

---

Editor172992 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was warned four times by four editors against making unexplained removals [210][211][212][213], they were made aware of the South Asia CTOP by a different editor after the first warning [214]. A month afterwards they made another unexplained removal [215], and gained another warning [216]. Editor has also been warned [217] for using misleading edit summaries [218], and given a final warning [219] for NPOV [220][221][222].

They've since made unsupported additions [223] and removals [224] concerning South Asian ethnic groups. User has never used a talk page. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 23:34, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

 Blocked x 72 hrs for persisten disruptive editing. There is a wall of messages and warnings going back three months with zero communication in response. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:03, 6 December 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.

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 ([225] [226]), 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)

And they're back putting disruptive off-kilter images in articles. I think it's time for an indefinite block from article space until they're willing to acknowledge the issues with their editing. --Sable232 (talk) 22:43, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Still at it - [227], [228], [229] - and still refuses to discuss or even acknowledge the issues. (None of these are particularly egregious, but still clear downgrades.) --Sable232 (talk) 00:48, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

While they have edited their user talk page in the past, they are not communicating and are continuing to edit. Blocked from mainspace, invited to reply about this issue. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 01:34, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

5 December 2025

Both of these users, User:Lim Zhi Hang and User:Thegreatrebellion, keep adding redundant information to infoboxes, which is discouraged by MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE.

A non-exhaustive list of examples:

• Lim Zhi Hang (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bung_Moktar_Radin&diff=1325722345&oldid=1325722060 I previously de-bloated the infobox on 18 November 2025, but they added the redundant material back on 4 December (see example above). I reminded them about MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE on their talk page on 23 November, before escalating the issue here at ANI.
• Thegreatrebellion (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • I have reminded this user about the same issue since February 2025, as seen on their talk page here, and again in November 2025 here.

This behaviour of infobox bloating has persisted since at least 2020 for User:Lim Zhi Hang (see our talk here) and since at least 2022 for User:Thegreatrebellion (diff here).

I'm not entirely sure what the correct process is for reporting two users simultaneously, but for transparency I should disclose that I previously reported a disruptive incident here. I escalated this issue here because I've seen it occurring since at least 2020, and it has already affected hundreds of Malaysian politician BLPs. I have fixed some of the articles I've come across, but the volume is too large to keep up with. I can provide more examples later if needed. ~2025-38614-44 (talk) 03:28, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

This appears to be, at its core, a content dispute, for which ANI is ill-suited as a venue to escalate that aspect of the issue. Administrators don't have extra powers regarding content, and I invite you to look into forms of dispute resolution as a more suitable path. However, the lack of communication from both users is far from ideal: discussing any contested edits is the best advice I can give them, and often the first step towards working together on a collaborative project. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 03:59, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

I do not believe this is a subjective content dispute. The disagreement is, at its core, an issue of policy adherence concerning the proper use of the infobox per MOS:INFOBOX. Specifically, the editors are continually insisting on adding the full, verbose name of a political party into the width-limited space of the infobox, as demonstrated by the diffs. This practice is visible in hundreds Malaysian politician articles already.

This action directly contradicts the MOS's guidance on Infoboxes, which states two key points that relate to the issue of brevity and abbreviation:

• "Infoboxes may tend towards greater abbreviation than that generally used in article bodies."
• "The less information that an infobox contains, the more effectively it serves its purpose..."

The use of the full name instead of the widely recognized acronym (which is linked to the full article) unnecessarily bloats the infobox, akin to insisting on writing [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes]] ([[MOS:INFOBOX]]) every time when [[MOS:INFOBOX]] is sufficient and policy-compliant. This is not about one user's opinion on a content, but one's refusal to follow style guidelines designed for clarity and conciseness. I am escalating based on this pattern of non-collaborative editing that compromises policy. ~2025-38614-44 (talk) 04:42, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

So, at its core, this is a content dispute. You're (rightfully) frustrated because 2 editors are adding brackets to infoboxes.

I appreciate that you have attempted to contact each of them once on their talk pages (with no reply), but can I ask why you don't think seeking dispute resolution would be effective in this situation? aesurias (talk) 04:51, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

I have already attempted a discussion at WT:WikiProject Malaysia/Archive 7#Redundant acronym in infobox and Manual of Style issues but unfortunately received no collaborative responses from editors. I am now reporting the editors(s) who I found often fail to adhere to the MOS guideline. ~2025-38614-44 (talk) 05:09, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Here is the list of edits that continue to ignore the MOS I mentioned, all made after I gave them a talk regarding the guideline on their talk page here (14 Feb):

• 19 Mar, MOS:SMALL issue: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anwar_Ibrahim&diff=prev&oldid=1281303515
• 19 Mar: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anwar_Ibrahim&diff=prev&oldid=1281303636
• 14 Apr, MOS:SMALL, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abdullah_Ahmad_Badawi&diff=prev&oldid=1285590300
• 15 Apr, redundant: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abdullah_Ahmad_Badawi&diff=prev&oldid=1285670984
• 12 Oct: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Syed_Saddiq&diff=prev&oldid=1316458099

For User:Lim Zhi Hang after 23 Nov:

• 4 Dec: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bung_Moktar_Radin&diff=prev&oldid=1325722345

These are only the edits that occurred after our interaction on their respective talk pages. They have dozens of other edits where they ignore the MOS. By reviewing this category ([230], and likely in other related categories as well), other editors can estimate the severity of the redundant information being added to the infobox. ~2025-38660-85 (talk) 02:31, 6 December 2025 (UTC) (As I primarily edit politics on shared devices, I logged out of my temporary account often and prefer to remain unknown)

The category I linked above often has similar issues. I will list the diffs proving the editors made these changes if I deem administrative action is insufficient (though I'm not familiar with the available types of action). ~2025-38660-85 (talk) 02:48, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

• A reminder that Infoboxes are an arbcom-designated contentious topic. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:39, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
• If I may, it seems these editors have not responded to repeated talk page warnings, which makes this a conduct (IDHT) issue and not solely a content dispute. Toadspike [Talk] 10:58, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks, agree. I should've been a little more explicit when saying the lack of communication from both users is far from ideal, as that is indeed the main problem we can address here at ANI. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 19:52, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

  I can now see the attempted communication at WikiProject Malaysia (a suggested form of dispute resolution) so I do agree. aesurias (talk) 20:50, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

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.[231][232][233][234][235] 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. [236] 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. [237] 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)

• Support due to Conan's refusal to listen. Hellbus (talk) 20:08, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

• Comment I was going to oppose based on Conan's agreement to voluntarily cease categorisation following our discussion here.

I'm given pause now that they've said in their last post they said they'd "tag more wisely in future" - so they'll continue to categorise ("tag"), but in a different manner.

I don't think they properly understand categorisations yet (see our discussion), and recommended that they stay away voluntarily before sanctions were proposed. I really felt the discussion was productive, so I was saddened by that last post, which I hope is just some poor wording on their part.

ConanHighwoods , I can't in good conscience vote oppose unless you clearly commit to staying away of your own accord - can you please address this? Blue Sonnet (talk) 06:43, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Is following guidelines not wise? ConanHighwoods (talk) 14:46, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, but I thought I was still allowed to like maybe next year or something. Anyways, I had tagged pretty much my all my 'special interests' articles on this site, so i see no reason to tag often. ConanHighwoods (talk) 14:49, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

All in all, I am holding back on edits for awhile unless it is something obviously fitting or bad(new anime with tentacle monster mc or vandalism). Consider me back to lurking for awhile. You see i have not reverted edits for a few days. ConanHighwoods (talk) 14:57, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Like a LONG while. Blocking is just unnecessary imo. I am just not active on here other than reading. I literally only began again using my account after 5 years of in active to categorize tentacle based media. I have done that, and to tag further unless it is very obvious(cat tag on new Garfield film), would be something I am not interested in. So yeah, I am 99% done. OK, well, I did propose a new tag a few days ago, but using the advice you guys gave me, could not find many. But yeah, still done atm ConanHighwoods (talk) 15:14, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

I was thinking it'd be best to step back from categories completely for a few weeks or months voluntarily - do simpler edits but pay attention to the way each article has it's categories set up (Good articles are great for this sort of research!).

Just as an idea, perhaps join the Wikipedia:Typo Team & fix simple stuff, gradually go for more complicated things as you build confidence.

From our discussion, I think the problem was when a part of your brain told you "maybe this isn't a great thing to do" - your subconscious was giving you a warning that you needed to pause and check.

If you get more general experience in understanding how Wikipedia works, that'll help you understand how categories work by extension.

I think this would be a great way to learn a bit more about categories without actually editing them:

• Every time you edit an article, look at the categories and try to figure out why someone put that category on and see where it's mentioned in the article.
• Look at other articles from the same category & see why those were added too - what do they have in common?
• If you were forced to remove one category, which one would it be and why?

Once you've spent a couple of months building up the foundations of your knowledge and want to go back to editing categories, I'd strongly recommend getting a mentor who can double check and coach you through your first dozen examples or so.

That way you can be sure that you're doing everything you can to improve and get better!

Being totally honest, once someone's been brought to ANI they're going to have more people watching their edits for a while after. The last thing you need is to be brought back here because you've misunderstood something & I think this can be solved by voluntarily staying away from editing categories for a little while & learning how they work in the background.

That way, there's no need for any formal action - all we want is to make sure you make good edits going forwards.

What do you think of this plan? I don't want to you stop editing, you won't learn & grow that way. But of course of you feel this is all too stressful and want to stop, then absolutely stop. Blue Sonnet (talk) 15:18, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

I will stick with small edits atm. If i find them. Good idea. ConanHighwoods (talk) 22:04, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose: As the user who reported ConanHighwoods on this noticeboard, and having read the subsequent discussions, I think that the user is now aware that he made a mistake with the categorization stuff, and although I don't think it's appropriate to accuse other users of sockpuppetry out of the blue like that, I want to believe that it was due to the heated discussion and a lack of familiarity with the site's policies and guidelines and not because he really wants to be defiant towards others. The user has stopped editing and adding the category for a few days now, so assuming that he will maintain this attitude going forward and is willing to listen and improve his edits, I would support giving him another chance. Xexerss (talk) 20:28, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

  +1 Oppose for the same reason. Blue Sonnet (talk) 03:13, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

User:Lamp21 and AI

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.

---

• Lamp21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Lamp21 is a prolific user of LLMs in generating their articles, which they do not adequately check, including references that do not exist and sourcing that does not verify. They are continuing to generate articles of questionable notability with questionable sourcing and prose that does not match the content, despite several warnings, speedy deletions, and so on. Their talk page has multiple warnings and article deletions, even only including the ones they did not remove [238].

For more examples, see the category Category:Thai occult, which is what made me notice this issue. I nominated this for renaming before taking a closer look at it and realizing the extent of the problem. Saiyasat is a particularly bad example, full of flowery text that does not verify whatsoever. Also Thai Ruesi, Mitmor Knife, for a very limited sample. Mitmor Knife has several references that do not exist.

The less questionable ones appear to be AI translations from Thai wiki. However, these translations also show AI problems, like their most recent article, yesterday's Wat Sung Men which has classic AI tells that the parent Thai article does not. The articles made by this user are often sourced entirely to questionable sources (when I can confirm they exist, which was not always the case).

A few articles have been speedied, but the problem continues, and many of these AI articles have existed for months. They have failed to respond to multiple warnings from multiple editors for months and the problem shows no signs of abating. I am not exactly sure how to clean this up as I have no experience with the Thai language and cannot properly verify these sources or whether they exist; this makes it even more dangerous than an article AI generated based on western sources, as that can be cleaned up easily by the many western editors. We do not have as many Thai-fluent editors. This needs to stop. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:10, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

• Another incompetent run amok with AI. Immediate indef. In one year, if they can explain in their own words why AI use, in writing article content or talk-page contributions, is intolerable, then an unblock can be considered, with the understanding that any relapse may result in a community ban. In conclusion, AI must be destroyed. EEng 03:40, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

INDEFfed as DE Star Mississippi 03:57, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. Any suggestion on how to clean this up? I would go about it myself, at least for occult ones, but the language barrier makes that an issue... PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:02, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Try asking for help on WP:LLMN. Northern Moonlight 05:17, 6 December 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.

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)

• Note I have restored this from the archive as the TA in question has not responded and has continued to edit the article in question. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:55, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

  As an update here, I have made ONE (1) small and properly sourced edit in the past day to reflect a recent news article that reported on the issues in controversy. User MWFwiki has then removed some of my edit, made an additional NINE (9) edits to the page, bringing his total edit count on the page to 92. The user has then notified other users in violation of WP:CAN to un-archive and resurrect baseless reports he has made about my conduct as part of his clearly long-running campaign to silence his detractors so that this article, and all law-enforcement articles, remain pro-police and not neutral.

  https://sigma.toolforge.org/usersearch.py?name=MWFwiki&page=Las+Vegas+City+Marshals&server=enwiki&max= ~2025-38541-11 (talk) 02:07, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

  Yet another non-response. I stand by all of my edits. The edit they are referring to today was not removed it was moved and actually expanded upon. Besides, I have no way of knowing "they" made the edit, considering they're on their... dozenth(?) TA. Regardless; This user has made additional conduct violations in the very message. I have been dealing their bludgeoning and libel for over a week. The so-called "canvassing" this user is accusing me of is requesting an administrator to un-archive my report due to inactivity. This user has made use of AI several times and I suspect is feeding it information about this situation and asking it what policy violations it "thinks" I've violated. Regardless, I refer to my previous statement in-regards to everything else. MWFwiki (talk) 02:31, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

@~2025-38541-11 Can you please review my last post and let me know your thoughts? MWFwiki responded to my question so I'd appreciate if you could please do the same.

I still don't think this is canvassing BTW, asking one admin for advice/assistance is normal and, in this case, probably a good idea.

If you have evidence of widespread canvassing that falls under Wikipedia:Canvassing, please provide specific diffs for the edits so we can examine them and properly investigate your concerns.

Just making vague allegations about bias and giving us a total number of edits isn't going to cut it, I'm afraid. This could be part of a larger puzzle, but you've only handed us a corner piece and thrown the rest on the floor for everyone else to pick up.

You can't expect other editors to trawl through 92 edits to try to figure out which ones you mean. You're making the claim, so the burden of proof is on you.

If MWFwiki provides evidence of their case and you don't, you're not going to persuade anyone here.

You've made some strong claims about another editor on an administrator's noticeboard; since you've chosen to make a public allegation, you need to back it up with evidence.

This is a serious matter, if it's true then you absolutely should be providing evidence of your claims.

• To reiterate, please provide diffs of specific edits to substantiate your claim that there is "clearly long-running campaign to silence [MWFwiki's] detractors".

Alternatively, you could withdraw your allegations if you don't want to pursue the matter. Blue Sonnet (talk) 07:40, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

While I appreciate the opportunity to respond, I am not the one making the report here. I am simply responding to reports made about myself. And I'm trying to add context to the reason this bogus "content report" is being made about me. The user who filed this frivolous complaint and Has a clear user page that shows a clear bias towards law enforcement and analysis of his edits Show a complete Focus on law enforcement and military articles. I'm not going to do a deep dive on this and put a significant amount of time into this, as it's not productive and I'm not getting paid for this. I think this entire thread should be deleted And put back into the archive exactly where it was prior to yesterday, before the Canvassing took place. This is purely a content dispute where it appears that I am trying to add neutrality into the article And introduce negative facts and negative sources into the article. The other user attempts to be removing those facts and adding Positive sentiment Facts to the article. It is my position that the article should both include positive and negative content as long as both are properly sourced. The problem is that this is a Police Department with a huge amount of negative properly sourced media coverage and very little if any positive coverage. I was fine with the article in the state it was in as of yesterday's date, until yet another negative media article came out regarding this department. This small department is embroiled in dozens of lawsuits, one of which is a class action lawsuit naming as many as 10,000 victims. There was a news report yesterday stating that the department paid $150,000 to settle one of the cases. Since MWFwiki had placed a statement in the lead section of the article Mentioning the lawsuits, I added a single line mentioning that the city was settling lawsuits for over $100,000. That obviously triggered him to not only delete my edit, make an additional 8 edits, and then do some canvassing to resurrect this bogus "conduct report". Here's an edit of note:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Las_Vegas_City_Marshals&diff=prev&oldid=1324375184

It doesn't matter what the sources say, what the court orders say, what the Subject of the Article has filed in court. This user is a police officer who will side with police 100 percent of the time Regardless of the facts, and regardless of what anyone else says. It's a term known as the Thin blue line. I'm decently Satisfied With the state that the article is in right now, minus the fact that my sentence in the lead was removed and I think it should be put back. There is a 3rd editor who has engaged in this article and has made useful edits In an attempt to balance out MWFwiki's non-neutral edits. ~2025-38684-51 (talk) 16:53, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

As you were asked above: please provide diffs of specific edits to substantiate your claim[s]. If you do not, we can only assume there are none, and thus you are making egrerious personal attacks. Either provide diffs or strike your claims. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:20, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Dispute: Mass Reversions, Personal Attacks, and Threats by User:SportsGuy789

I am reporting User:SportsGuy789 for disruptive editing, edit-warring, personal attacks, and threats made following my content corrections regarding the unofficial Premo-Porretta Power Poll (PPPP) titles across multiple college basketball articles.

1. Mass Reversions/Edit Warring: The user followed me to multiple pages and undid 10 of my content and infobox corrections across multiple related pages (e.g., Mizzou, Bucknell, PPPP page itself) after I had ceased editing, despite my edits being based on adherence to WP:NPOV/WP:UNDUE policy regarding unofficial claims. The same exact message was copied and pasted with each undo.

Example reversions (2 of the 10+):

• Forest Sale (reverted content correction with boilerplate edit summary): [239]
• LIU Sharks men's basketball (reverted content correction with boilerplate edit summary): [240]

2. Personal Attack/Threats: The user left a highly aggressive message on my talk page containing both a personal attack and a threat of administrative action if I did not comply exactly with his demands. [241]

• "Your account is brand new but it almost feels like you've been editing for a longer time, maybe a sockpuppet account, I'm not quite sure."
• "If you do not bring up the proposed changes to the project's talk page for others' input, your acts may be considered vandalism and reverted, with your account blocked."

Current Status:

• I have immediately ceased all editing related to this dispute to comply with the three-revert rule.
• I have opened a formal discussion at WT:CBBALL to gain consensus on the content issue as requested.

I request intervention to stop the disruptive mass-reversions and to address the personal attacks and threats made against my account.

Hinklehomie (talk) 09:08, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Was this written using AI? ANI posts written using AI always follow this exact style, particularly the 'despite my edits being based on adherence to WP:NPOV/WP:UNDUE policy' part sounds very AI-generated. Stockhausenfan (talk) 09:45, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

I wrote this myself and tried to educate myself on terms and syntax, but as this user made abundantly clear on my talk page, I'm new at this and don't have all the ins and outs down yet. I would like to maintain focus on the substance of my report (personal attacks/threats and mass revision hounding) and request that admins focus on that. Hinklehomie (talk) 10:00, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

I see, I apologise for jumping to conclusions in that case. AI reports are just so common here that it seemed worth at least checking. Stockhausenfan (talk) 10:39, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

I also believe the unnecessary capitalization used in the second word of section titles e.g. "Current Status" & "Mass Reversions" makes it seem like AI, but "undid 10 of my content" makes it clear that this was human-written – LLMs don't make mistakes like that aesurias (talk) 14:42, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Comment
1. I would like to ask SportsGuy789 for further information regarding their reverts. They do not appear as untoward as you are presenting them (though I'm certainly not implying that you are lying; I believe you feel the way you do). For instance, you added an assertion of "the NCAA doesn't recognize this," but I don't see a source? (I'm not clicking on that "BigBlueHistory" site, it's giving security warnings). You can't just... assert things. One needs a source to say what you're wanting to say, especially when you lack consensus.

2. I think the SportsGuy789's Talk page messages to you were a tad aggressive, and they should probably tone-down the rhetoric, but... they didn't really say anything technically incorrect. Perhaps swinging the "sockpuppet" accusation around is a bit far, sans evidence. If SportsGuy789 has some evidence of this, they should probably present it.

This seems like a situation where everyone involved could do with taking a deep breath, let the content dispute be resolved on its own merits, and shake-hands. MWFwiki (talk) 09:57, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to review this. I just wanted to clarify a few things, I have not provided or used the "BigBlueHistory" site. When I did the revisions, I referenced other Wikipedia pages and also only added two links to two NCAA websites (their list of champions and an annual record book). I was in the middle of trying to properly link sources and link pages, moving away from what I believed were misleading claims, when the user began their disruptive mass-reversion actions. Their reverts were based on the boilerplate claim that I removed a "recognized NCAA championship," a claim directly contradicted by the official NCAA documents I cited.

I admit I am new to this, but is there no room for new contributors? I thought this would be a fun thing to do, I'm a huge sports guy and I feel I have a lot of knowledge to add. I absolutely did not appreciate the user immediately going to accusations instead of giving me the benefit of the assuming good faith. My edits were made in good faith, but the user's response was immediately hostile and disruptive. Hinklehomie (talk) 10:20, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

I understand. I think this is, in essence, a content dispute. There are other steps to take (and I recognize you opened a discussion on the relevant project page, which is a good move). Please also considering requesting a THIRD opinion in future content disputes (between only you and another user). However, my point is that while you believe you are in the right? The other user probably believes the same. What you consider "mass reversions," the other user may consider "reverting mass vandalism" or "reverting good-faith but flawed edits," or what have you. Hopefully, the content dispute can be resolved at the Talk discussion. If not, you can consider WP:DRN.

Otherwise, I fully understand your concerns. Wikipedia can be an overwhelming and intimidating place. Editors also tend to have a... certain way of writing. Not all, but some, if not many. Sometimes, the best thing to do is just to remind an editor to assume good faith and remain civil. If, at that point, the attacks continue, then at least you have the argument that you tried to de-escalate and remind them of policy, etc. I promise you that you'll start to get used to it all if you choose to stick around, and ultimately, many of us would t trade this for the world. The cultural quirks, rules, procedures... it is the only way an entity such as Wikipedia could possibly operate.

Filing an ANI is relatively serious. I've been editing for 11+ years, a third of my life, and I just this month filed my very first conduct report against another user. I guess my point is that sometimes, people can be rude or at least rude-adjacent without necessarily violating any conduct policies. All of that said, accusing you of being a "sockpuppet" (or even "seeming" like one) is not great, sans evidence.

I suppose this is my very long-winded way of asking and suggesting that SportsGuy789 and you shake-hands and agree to resolve the content dispute amicably and via the proper channels, and to withdraw the ANI. I think SportsGuys789 owes some explanations, and possible an apology, as well, but nothing beyond the pale has been said yet. But I've said far more than I should have, and ultimately, it's up to both of you. SportsGuy789 is welcome to disagree with my opinions and you are welcome to disagree with my suggestions. There is nothing stopping you from filing another ANI if there are additional issues. MWFwiki (talk) 11:05, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Is this Islamophobic?

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

---

User:~2025-38137-69 is a user that has recently made controversial edits to talk pages, claiming that "Muhammed raped children and enslaved females", and doing so in a borderline hostile manner. This is either a civility block, or a NOTHERE block. NotJamestack (✉️|📝) 14:27, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

All of this temp account's other edits have been reverted (on Samantha Fulnecky essay controversy) and it looks as if they are WP:NOTHERE from the messages on the talk page in question (which are very clearly Islamophobic). With that being said, the sentence you used as evidence simply does not exist – the editor never wrote that, and I'm unsure why are claiming it was a quote. What they actually wrote is bad enough that there's really no need to make things up, so I can only assume you mistakenly misread something. aesurias (talk) 14:39, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

I wasn't necessarily stating that they actually made those quotes. It was really just examples of what they said. NotJamestack (✉️|📝) 14:41, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

I think you should probably amend your message then, as it currently reads "[User] is ... claiming that "Muhammed raped children and enslaved females", which very much implies (if not outright claims) they said those things. Would be more transparent for an admin dealing with this. aesurias (talk) 14:43, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Also @Aesurias, please TPA revoke this TA to prevent further Islamophobia. NotJamestack (✉️|📝) 14:42, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

<ecX2>Blocked and revdel'd for BLP issues - by me, not Aesurias. There's no reason at this time to pre-emptively pull talkpage access. Acroterion (talk) 14:44, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Did you mean to revert to a little further back? Two of the TA's edits remain visible in the page right now, including the one at 14:12 UTC. NebY (talk) 14:49, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, fixed - got distracted by an LTA troll. Acroterion (talk) 14:59, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Ugh. Thanks. NebY (talk) 15:01, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

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

Persistent MoS violation and failure to communicate

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

First off, most of this user's edits are against MOS:INFOEDU and/or MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, and many of them don't have edit summaries (e.g. this one, this one, this one, and this one). Second, they have been editing Wikipedia for more than two years but have never used a single article talk page. Third, my warning obviously doesn't work. Thedarkknightli (talk) 13:34, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Well, have you ever communicated your concerns to this person? And I don't mean "please stop violating WP:ALLCAPSBLUELINK". I mean writing out exactly what your concern is in easily understandable English without all-caps jargon randomly littered throughout. If not, maybe that would be a good first step. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:40, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

I will note that, despite a pile of notices and warnings, Xtools suggests they've only made one edit to talkspace - said edit was to reply to a block that explicitly called on them to be more responsive to feedback. nothing since. I'm not entirely convinced that they'll take note of any concerns... Rexo (talk | contributions) 01:01, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Throwing my opinion in here because I have stumbled upon their edits in multiple articles and thought they were odd, to say the least. This is Croystron’s 3rd ANI discussion and they have never responded to them. The only time they responded to their talk page was because they were temporarily banned. They have been editing pages since the notification for this ANI discussion was posted on their talk page. Maybe another short block will get their attention and they will finally respond. Afheather (talk) 09:16, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello again guys, right now, while I'm pretty sure Croystron's violated MOS:INFOEDU an awful lot of times, I'm not indeed sure if they've also violated MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE; so I've opened a discussion on WT:MOSIBX. Regards, Thedarkknightli (talk) 18:33, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

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)

UPDATE: Drmies pointed-out several things to me which leads me to question my sanity... but I must withdraw all support for Jadu23, unfortunately. I am quite embarrassed to say that I believe I may have been looking at the wrong diff. Suffice it to say; The fact that I missed something so obvious means my opinion must be discounted for this issue. I would welcome a check regarding the possibility of an association with the other editor (as well as me against Jadu23 and Karieol51, to be clear). MWFwiki (talk) 21:08, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

FYI, a checkuser revealed no connection at SPI. Athanelar (talk) 22:02, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

@Athanelar; Sorry, just for my sake (and others'); No connection between me and the two listed editors (which obviously I know to be a fact, haha)? Or no connection between all three? I'm assuming the latter MWFwiki (talk) 22:54, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

No connection i.e., Jadu23 and Karieol51 are not confirmed to be sockpuppets by the CU. Athanelar (talk) 22:56, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

I still don't understand why i am being dragged to the previous edits made by some other users? I only edited the page because i thought i can fix it and that's what i have been doing with other articles learning and editing. I don't know why i am being connected some other issue on the page, i only opened this because after 3O i was confident that my edits are right. Even if my edits are not right i didn't asked for anything just the right direction how it should be and that's how one learn.

Also, since you have already checked i am not associated with any editor. I still not sure why Mortdav & Drmies both had similar views for me? Do they have some sort of evidence on me? Because i never did anything with the Paid tag, simply had edited the page and removed the promotional stuff as per my understanding. Even though i didn't had any relation to anyone, infact i don't even know exactly how the stuff works here. These allegations makes me think are they both related to each other or connected and working towards same goal? Because as now i can see it's just Drmies coming to picture and no words from other editor. Jadu23 (talk) 08:24, 3 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)

I did not use any AI tool to write the content or sources – This is not true, :contentReference[oaicite:1]{index=1} is an error specific to OpenAI's AI technology, most commonly ChatGPT.

Disruptively using AI then being continually deceptive about it should lead to an immediate indef. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 20:15, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Please see my comment again Sir, i am not denying learning online and taking help, have clearly mentioned " I only used online help to understand how to do citations, references and templates which might be the reason of this" means have been learning to do citation and references online so while copying the commands it might be possible it got copied. Thank you! Jadu23 (talk) 08:29, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Just to clarify, you asked AI to find a source for you then cut & pasted the result into Wikipedia? Blue Sonnet (talk) 17:05, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Not to put words in their mouth, but my interpretation was that they utilized an AI to build the citation itself, or to at least guide them in doing-so. MWFwiki (talk) 22:52, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

• As far as I'm concerned AI is the least of the problems here. CU revealed no match with the previous COI editor in the article, but CU is not the final answer. I thank MWFwiki for their note. FWIW this is the second time that I get pulled to this article in the same way--by seeing an editor file administrative reports to get rid of Mortdav; last time it was User:Karieol51, who went to RPP and AIV (so let's see if Jadu also starts editing M Lhuillier). And at first glance Mortdav does indeed seem like the disruptor--they certainly act like a very questionable editor--but on closer inspection they are dead on. Drmies (talk) 22:34, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Repeated copyvio from student editor

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

---

Vinh9595 inserted copyvio on Androgen suppression which I flagged for revdel. Not long after, ~2025-39551-31 reinserted this (twice). It's worth noting these are the TA's only 2 edits, so it was probably the same user logged out. Vinh9595 then removed {{cvrd}} and proceeded to make a string of edits without summaries (possibly including further copyvio – I haven't checked). They also removed the same template from the sandbox where they had developed the article. The article was drafted in another student's sandbox (FrogEngine72), but I haven't seen anything wrong with their edits. Requesting immediate 24-hour block of TA and Vinh9595 pending further discussion and/or sanctions. lp0 on fire () 18:43, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Looking at the source of the copyrighted material, this may be a case of the student assuming that everything on the NIH website is in the public domain. It's a pretty common misconception. I ran into it quite a bit when I worked with Wiki Ed, but I also ran into it a lot with non-student editors. No one from Wiki Ed was pinged to this (Ian (Wiki Ed)) or to the editor's talk page, so I'll do that now.

My recommendation here would be to give the student more of an explanation of copyright and make it more clear that reposting the content could lead to a block. The student wasn't warned the first time around and this is an easy mistake to make, so I feel like more explanation is warranted here rather than an outright block. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:38, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

I've given them some explanation on taking material from government websites. I really must state that this is a super easy mistake to make. If they do continue after this, then we can debate if blocking is necessary. I'd like to give the student the benefit of the doubt though. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:57, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

@Lp0 on fire I've partially blocked them (or my alterego has) for a week. Vinh9595 has been blocked from just the Androgen suppression article, while the TA has been blocked from mainspace as a whole.

It's not the copyvio that bothers me, it's the edit warring. Also please feel free to ping me or Brianda (Wiki Ed) if you run into problems like this in the future. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:02, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Ian! ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:03, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! lp0 on fire () 20:23, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

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

Orlando Davis: LLM use, dishonesty, generally NOTHERE

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.

---

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.

---

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 - [242] is the most recent - that their edits did not contain any WP:V issues, after multiple editors had already documented such issues [243][244]. They have lied about using LLMs; see @Jlwoodwa describing [245] one claim [246] as insultingly dishonest. They have made strange comments about their abilities [247][248] (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 [249]. The last straw for me came after @Valereee gave them these final-ish warnings [250][251]. OD then promised [252] to no longer use AI (good!) but then immediately went and added this LLM-generated comment [253] in support of maintenance tags they placed [254][255] - 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 [256] 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: [257][258][259][260][261][262]^{(edit summary)}[263][264][265][266].

These are only from discussions on user talk pages, and are non-exhaustive, this pattern continues elsewhere at AfDs [267][268][269][270], noticeboards [271][272], 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)

  Change to indef. Plenty of rope. Polygnotus (talk) 14:07, 3 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)

  Change support to indef due to the continued battleground behavior on the user's talk page NicheSports (talk) 21:32, 3 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)

  Change to indef in view of their continued attacks on other editors. I don't think time will ameliorate this behaviour, they need to actively prove they've changed before they should be allowed to return Blue Sonnet (talk) 14:04, 3 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)

Oppose - I'm either opposing as moot if an indefinite block has been given by an admin at the time the consensus is evaluated or opposing in favor of a community ban if no indefinite block has been given by an admin. Their recent contributions to this discussion make me far less hopeful that a timed block will be effective. I now don't think this editor ought to get their editing right restored until either an administrator or the community actively believes it will benefit the community. I don't care which. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 20:56, 3 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)

  After OD's response on their talk: sigh. Okay, support indef. It sucks that this is a community indef, but maybe OD can go to another project and start listening. At least an indef requires appeal rather than simply waiting it out. Valereee (talk) 00:56, 4 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. Support indef. ~2025-30597-01 (talk) 01:17, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
• Support indef, support one year if consensus for indef is not met. In an above comment I provided diffs illustrating what I believe is battleground behavior, since then and in response to this report, Orland Davis has continued this pattern of behavior on their talk page in #Response to the CBAN Proposal and #Further Response to CBAN (MasterCooks of Belgium). I believe future disruption is highly likely, and believe an indef, which would require an unblock request, is the best remedy. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 19:48, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Support indef per 15224, appealable to any admin rather than the community if that's allowed Kowal2701 (talk) 20:15, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

@Kowal2701 a community-imposed ban will need to be appealed to the community. (Unlikely consensus, WP:NOTBUR and WP:IAR invocations aside) fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 20:38, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

• Support per nom, massive time sink, WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Theroadislong (talk) 21:42, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
• I don't see how blocking for a year isn't just passing the buck to whoever is monitoring this page in a years time. Make the block indefinite, then it can be shorter or longer than a year depending on their future behaviour. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:59, 3 December 2025 (UTC) P.S. I was racking my brains thinking who Orlando reminds me of. It just came to me - it is Ignatius from A Confederacy of Dunces
• Support indef as first choice. Support proposed one year block as second choice per Phil Bridger above me. Per all the problems documented above.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:20, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

  The persistent LLM use is only a part of the disruptive behavior. Of course the LLM use added inappropriate content to the encyclopedia, but the worse problem is the refusal to acknowledge they were using an LLM, their refusal to acknowledge that the LLM use was causing problems, the denial of obvious LLM use, the personal attacks battle grounding and incivility. Then there is the inability to take in constructive criticism and attempts to inform them that their editing was disruptive and act upon this constructive criticism. They promised to not use LLM's and yet continued to do so. More, they did bizarre things apparently in retaliation like adding inappropriate maintenance tags. There is a chronicity and repetitiveness to their behavior that indicates they are not compatible with a collaborative project and not capable of following the rules and then insisting upon rubbing other people's noses in the rules incorrectly. (There may be more that I did not see in the thread above.) This all rises to a level of "severity" requiring a block with no set time limit so that they must fully and convincingly address the reasons for their block in order to be unblocked. The perpetual wikilawyering and lecturing in no way is convincing that they do not need a block. Perhaps they should reread the portion of the guide to appealing blocks where it talks about addressing one's own behavior by acknowledging the behavior and describing what they will do instead of returning to that behavior. Thanks. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:14, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

  To further elaborate on my rationale, the "further comments" section carried over below by Blue Sonnet illustrates appellant's inability or unwillingness to recognize the problems with their behavior and their inability or unwillingness to change that behavior.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:26, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

• support indef because otherwise they’ll just come back and do it again after a year.

Poppip10 (talk) 17:40, 4 December 2025 (UTC) :Note:This user has made few other edits on Wikipedia. Theroadislong (talk) 17:53, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Poppip10, how did you find this noticeboard? 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 17:43, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

i stumbled across it while reading the teahouse and thought it was interesting enough to participate in Poppip10 (talk) 17:52, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

It is NOT mentioned at the Teahouse? Theroadislong (talk) 18:01, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

this is the comment that linked me here. Poppip10 (talk) 18:11, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

• Just indef and move on The below responses by OD here have shown either WP:CIR, WP:NOTHERE or straight up wikilawyering which is certainly not fit for any environment and doesn't seem like something that will be resolved with time. ~212.70~ ~2025-31733-18 (talk) 18:10, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

@Theroadislong The template you were looking for is called Template:Single-purpose account Polygnotus (talk) 18:12, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

• Support indef - unfortunately it looks like the problem will just move to Simple WP, but I'm sure they have experience dealing with such things. ~2025-38852-98 (talk) 23:16, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

  Indeed -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:39, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Orlando Davis response

• My on wiki time is limited, but I agreed to link this. Please see User_talk:Orlando_Davis#Response_to_the_CBAN_Proposal and feel free to reformat this or fully transfer the text as needed. cc @NicheSports: Star Mississippi 13:23, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

  OK, this should be an indef. Every time I am too nice I get reminded of why I shouldn't be. Polygnotus (talk) 13:25, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

  They've also now added User talk:Orlando Davis#Further Response to CBAN (MasterCooks of Belgium) which adds theroadislong to the attack list, and User talk:Orlando Davis#A response to the diffs presented by fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four Athanelar (talk) 13:42, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

  While I disagree with that response to my comment, I don't feel attacked, but all their responses taken together further illustrate the battleground behavior I had mentioned. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 19:38, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

  I don't know why OD asked this to be moved here after Star warned them what it would lead to. I don't think it is helpful to copy the text, if anyone wants to read they can follow the link. And I would ask an admin to do so. The community is struggling to deal with an editor who has now at their talk page demonstrated they are currently incompatible with a collaborative project, and we really could use some admin support here. NicheSports (talk) 17:37, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

  They probably thought they knew better than the newbie Star Mississippi who has only... 17.5 years of experience as an admin. They also seem to have misinterpreted the word incidental in this comment. Polygnotus (talk) 12:59, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, it's true. We new admins have much to learn. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:31, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

  Aw, it'll take decades for me to become a proper admin then... I didn't even know I wanted to be one. Blue Sonnet (talk) 15:55, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

• Further comments (it's relatively short so copying in full):

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

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

So given that the LLM use was incidental, we should focus on my behavior only. I have never in my time in Wikipedia engaged in behavior even close to being severe enough to warrant being blocked. It would be a critical misjudgment to vote that way." [273]

Copied over by Blue Sonnet (talk) 07:02, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

• Even more comments

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

Given Polygnotus's long-term pattern of edit warring, canvassing, and bludgeoning (as initially referenced in my first C-BAN response), doesn’t the community recognize that Polygnotus's current one year C-BAN proposal could be seen as a potential continuation of that pattern?" [274]

Copied over by Blue Sonnet (talk) 17:06, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Should they still have TPA if they continue to attack the conduct of other editors and harm their own case like this? They're also inferring that anyone who voted for a CBAN has either misunderstood the blocking policy or not bothered to read it first. I know they are entitled to plead their case, but it doesn't feel like this is what's happening here. Should I keep copying these over? Blue Sonnet (talk) 17:17, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Yes please... and note that they are busy removing other editors comments from their talk page, which of course they are allowed to do, but it looks disruptive and is not helpful. Theroadislong (talk) 17:21, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

That 1 year cban is not actually my current proposal. That was me being too kind. Now its indef. Polygnotus (talk) 17:58, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

• Comments continue

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

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

The community has not given the one week block a chance to see if it is a sufficient deterrent. It looks like this guideline has not yet been looked at by voters." [275]

Copied over by Blue Sonnet (talk) 18:02, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

• "Actions I plan on taking"

"Here are the actions that I plan on taking:

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

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

• I will value and seek more input from other editors

• I will take a step back in heated conversations

I am committed to making the necessary changes to never be in an ANI again." [276]

Copied over by Blue Sonnet (talk) 19:14, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Not the first time I saw an AI generated promise to stop using AI.

I wrote:

Apparently you fed the ANI post into ChatGPT and this is what it told you to say, but what do you say? Without an LLM? And why do you trust ChatGPT but not all the people who tried to help you? It is kinda difficult to believe that 18:55 Orlando Davis is very different from 16:46 Orlando Davis who lashes out or 14:59 Orlando Davis who tries to hide his misdeeds or 14:37 Orlando Davis who (again) lashes out.

If this sudden change of heart is to be believable, then we gotta get some backstory on what changed, other than the fact you realized that being community banned would mean you would have to stop promoting Michael Katz. Polygnotus (talk) 20:14, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

and they deleted it without answering. Polygnotus (talk) 20:20, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

This is a very quick turnaround considering all the time and effort spent on their earlier posts. I'm concerned that they might only be saying what we want to hear, now it's clear that their original approach wasn't working.

I want to believe this is genuine contrition but I'm having a lot of difficulty doing so.

Valereee tried really hard to help after Orlando said they were "glad to go over each and every point", but got this response in return.

Hang on, we have another post I need to add here... Blue Sonnet (talk) 20:40, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

• "Requesting Polygnatus to stay of my page"

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

See here:

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Coordinating_Committee/Cases/2025/Polygnotus" [277]

Copied over by Blue Sonnet (talk) 20:44, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Sigh. I dropped them a note that this is going to lead to their TPA being revoked if it continues. Polygnotus, I know you described yourself as being as stubborn as a dead mule (ha) but I think your interactions with OD have been quite constructive (at AfD, at Mastercooks, at your talk page), and I am sorry they have singled you out this way, I have seen no indication that any of this was deserved. I'd suggest disengaging here though, it should be resolved soon. NicheSports (talk) 20:56, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

@NicheSports Thanks. It is a common crybully tactic, nothing I haven't seen before. simple:User:Polygnotus/tmp may be of interest.

If this takes much longer we may have to start randomly pinging admins because this is gone far enough. Polygnotus (talk) 21:01, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra sorry for the ping but they did not take my advice and have continued [278] to dig up unrelated stuff about Polygnotus. This is the 4th time they've done so at their TP since being blocked by Star, can someone please revoke their TPA? This needs to stop. NicheSports (talk) 21:02, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

I suggest everyone disengage, there is nothing to be gained by providing more rope. Continuing to reply will only use up more editor time with no benefit. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 21:07, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Noted. Will do so. Thanks fifteen NicheSports (talk) 21:09, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

I'll continue to carry over comments that are clearly intended for ANI, but I've avoided specifically responding on their Talk page since other editors haven't found this to be productive.

If anyone feels this is no longer necessary or appropriate, please let me know. Blue Sonnet (talk) 21:16, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

@Blue-Sonnet Meh, I wouldn't bother. Its not like they can still climb out of this hole. Polygnotus (talk) 21:20, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I was going to stop soon anyway because it's getting late, plus their recent posts are all replies to editors so there not much point carrying those over - anyone can see them by viewing their Talk page directly. Blue Sonnet (talk) 21:31, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

I suppose you're right, 15224. It's difficult, but I've bitten my lip, and I'll try to keep it bitten. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:47, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Agreed - whilst they can't dictate who can and can't participate at ANI, they're only going to continue responding & I think the currently available evidence speaks for itself.

The Law of holes applies here, let them dig if they wish. Blue Sonnet (talk) 21:04, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Admins appear to have taken the day off so I'll just ping the most recently active one. @Wbm1058: Would you be so kind to implement the community consensus above? Thanks, Polygnotus (talk) 13:43, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Responding to ping requesting administrator action in an area which is not one of my active domains. This editor has not consistently caused problems in the areas I patrol, so I'm unfamiliar with their editing. I'm uncomfortable with imposing sanctions based simply on assessing community consensus in a !vote that on the surface looks a lot like a vote. There are a lot of diffs to wade through, given in the discussion above. I've just taken a look at one of them. He asked an editor for help with Guillermo Rojas Bazan, an article he created on 16 April 2023, in May 2023 – 2 1⁄2 years ago. revert, response. I don't really see the problem. Orlando Davis is responsible for 86% of the content of that article. I wouldn't expect to see so much of their contribution sticking, if it was that problematic. Maybe someone can point me to the diffs showing the two articles with his worst recent behavior, to save me time wading through more weak allegations of troublemaking? Don't rehash them here, just give me quick diffs showing the entrances to rabbit holes. Thanks, wbm1058 (talk) 15:48, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

@Wbm1058 You might enjoy Mastercooks of Belgium, which led to discussions on a handful of other pages. The rabbit hole is pretty deep. Polygnotus (talk) 15:53, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Wbm1058, I'd recommend looking at these three:

1. This post on the AI clean-up noticeboard. They denied using AI despite the existence of AI tags in the sources themselves and committed to not using AI in future.

1. AI-written responses then continued, including this current ANI discussion.

1. Orlando's Talk page. After being blocked, they've had TPA removed as they persisted in attacking other editors instead of addressing their own behaviour, even after several editors and admins warned against doing so.

We initially considered a time-limited block, but consensus changed to indef following continued battleground behaviour both here and on their Talk page. This is a long thread as a direct result of this same behaviour. Blue Sonnet (talk) 16:45, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi all, I posted at AN yesterday asking for a close here as well as action at OD's talk page. @Sarek Of Vulcan handled the latter, and I think someone who is familiar assessing CBAN proposals will be along to close this. NicheSports (talk) 16:52, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Are you referring to THIS REQUEST to close a discussion started back in August about LLM/AI generated proposals? That's the only thing I see there relating to LLM use; I don't see this specific discussion listed there. I need to run an errand now, but can look deeper into this later today. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:18, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Don't worry, probably best if we ping another admin. They were referring to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#ANI_case_needs_action. Polygnotus (talk) 17:22, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

We've got over 24hrs until the block expires so you can leave it for a little while, especially since it's already posted at AN. @wbm1058 this is a messy one, so it's understandable if you prefer to leave this for another admin. Blue Sonnet (talk) 17:25, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Hey, just had an edit conflict with you & agree that this might be better with someone who's more familiar due to complexity - am I right in thinking the ban doesn't expire for another two days? Blue Sonnet (talk) 16:57, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

@Blue-Sonnet Expiry (UTC): 2025-12-08T00:48:00.000Z -- Time remaining: 1d 7h 47m. Polygnotus (talk) 17:01, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks - I was looking at the TPA removal tag that expires on the 8th & today is the 6th! Should have done the maths... Blue Sonnet (talk) 17:12, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

I forced a computer to do math, which makes me some kind of war criminal when the machines finally take over. Polygnotus (talk) 17:21, 6 December 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.

I feel like the prophecy foretold above has come to pass now. [279]. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 00:11, 7 December 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:Maazoz English CIR issue & problematic page creations

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.

---

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

The first bullet point of WP:CIR is the ability to read and write English well enough to avoid introducing incomprehensible text into articles and to communicate effectively., and unfortunately I think this editor does not meet that.

I first found this editor through their comment on an AfD thread which reads KeeeepBold text sirr Vikram Solar 20 years old, share market listed company, why why deletion.[bare URLs redacted] [sic].

So I looked at their contribs and found this diff of them blanking their talk page. Reading through the removed material, we see comments like I understand it now sir, i taking chatgpt help,, gtp was showing his dob, this is not corect dob i am removing this (an immediate WP:LLMCIR issue) and Sir no help long time my draft not processes Pardon me no draft in future they always waiting. sir canu revie[[Swahid Kanaklata Barua State University|w Swahid Kanaklata Barua State University

Now, what's notable in this series of removed talk page messages is that the user;

1. Promised they wouldn't use ChatGPT anymore sir please forgive me no gpt in future[...]
2. Promised they wouldn't create unfinished articles directly in mainspace anymore and would stick to making drafts. Pardon me sir no review request in future. I promise only draft

The latter of those two promises is signed on the 20th of November. On the 25th of November, this user proceeded to create the article Swahid Kanaklata Barua State University directly into mainspace. That article looked like this when they created it. Another example of one of their direct-to-mainspace articles is Horaga takanamii, which looked like this, which was however posted prior to their promise.

At the bare minimum this user needs to be blocked from page creation indefinitely until they show that they know what a Wikipedia article needs to look like when it's created; but given that they unfortunately also don't seem to have the English language skills necessary to understand and appropriately act on feedback when it's given to them, I think the most prudent action would simply be to block them and direct them to the wiki for their native language. Athanelar (talk) 01:42, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Rereading this, I just now noticed that Sir no help long time my draft not processes Pardon me no draft in future they always waiting. seems to be them going back on their promise to only make articles in draft because they don't want to wait for drafts to be reviewed, which would explain why they then published SKBS University to mainspace. Athanelar (talk) 01:47, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

INDEFfed LLM, CIR. I went with DE which encompasses both. Star Mississippi 02:03, 7 December 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.

Persistent incivility, personal attacks, and disruptive editing by user Hogshine in ACAS topics

I am reporting user @Hogshine for a sustained pattern of uncivil conduct, personal attacks and disruptive editing which is poisoning discussion and preventing constructive work on articles related to (ACAS) subjects. This follows from an earlier ANI where both of us were warned by Asilvering. The warning notwithstanding, Hogshine's behavior has continued to escalate, now drawing another editor into conflict and making consensus impossible. The immediate context is the dispute at Jacob of Edessa talk page, but the core issue is his conduct.

1.Personal Attacks and Incivility

Hogshine takes the course of personal insults, without any discussion on content. This creates an environment that is hostile to collaboration. He has accused me of being:

- "intentionally dishonest"

- "serious case of lack of competence”.

- repeatedly insinuated that I am part of a "meat/sockpuppet network”.

- Engages with backhanded, uncollegial remarks "I'm being charitable towards you (again), try to be charitable back for once” (1 & 2)

- ''Your contributions to this project are minimal'' and "gaming the system to rack up edit counts”

- "I don't think you're here to build an encyclopedia"

2. Disruptive Editing and "Ownership" of Articles. 

Hogshine's method seems to be article content control and disregarding other editors a true cause of edit warring and stagnation. When editor @777network made a good faith correction to fix a citation, Hogshine reverted them and dismissed discussion with "I'm all out of ways of telling you need to discuss such edits...”. (see diff)

This set off a revert war (see this 1 & 2). Hogshine's continued insistence on his version, while making token concessions, reveals a pattern of WP:OWN style article ownership, where edits from others are viewed as intrusions to be reverted.

This has resulted in a poisoned collaborative atmosphere. Simple tasks such as correcting a citation error, exploded into multi-editor conflicts. Discussion threads become mired in personal friction, and policy-based arguments such as 777network's correct point about WP:OR are met with defensiveness rather than collaboration. This made me no longer engage in the talkpage since zero productivity was meet.

I tried my best to have an adult and respectful dialog with Hogshine but unfortunately he made it impossible due to his behavior. This pattern of conduct is the biggest single factor preventing improvement of the article. I therefore ask the administrators to review this pattern and take whatever appropriate measures to curb the incivility and disruptive editing, so that constructive work can proceed. Historynerd361 (talk) 15:13, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

@Historynerd361, This is your second ANI against me in less than a month. Old one here: [280]
Let's take a look at each accusation, shall we?

without any discussion on content This is simply not true when I have contributed more than anyone to the discussions. It is actually you who consistently ignored my requests despite being tagged. [281]

- "intentionally dishonest" / - "serious case of lack of competence”. You have:
• Completely missed the fact that a citation was wrong, only realizing after much time & replies [282]
• Failed to notice the new citation in Jabril ibn Bukhtishu, which resulted in a violation of your warning [283][284]
• In the previous ANI ([285]), you made the following statements: The two sources added by Hogshine does not support the terminology of the term Assyrians // Add to that the whole section was not even supported by the source // The first source has been added wrongly, only a quote is visible not where the source is form — all are demonstrably false.
How else would you objectively explain these inconsistencies if not WP:CIR and/or WP:DISHONESTY?

Engages with backhanded, uncollegial remarks relevant user has threatened me and called me a shit-talker before [286]

repeatedly insinuated that I am part of a "meat/sockpuppet network”. And I will do it again: your edits are identical to theirs, on the same articles, utilizing the WikiProject of the puppetmaster, and you were indicted with a "Possible" in the relevant SPI (twice) [287][288]

gaming the system to rack up edit counts I will simply leave these here [289][290]. Twice I reminded you to reply to this comment [291] asking you to voluntarily declare that you won't edit WP:GS/KURD articles, and you ignored it. [292][293]

When editor @777network made a good faith correction to fix a citation, Hogshine reverted them and dismissed discussion with "I'm... That's not what happened (see my point about competence/dishonesty? Which is it now?). The talk page post "I'm all out of ways..." came after this [294] revert, not the "good-faith" citation fix. 777network took it upon themselves to edit the page when consensus has not been reached. In fact, we're still waiting on them to reply here [295].

The rest of the above post can be simply refuted by the fact that I have faithfully engaged in the dispute resolution process on the talk page (unlike either user, HN and 777). [296].

@Historynerd361 clearly has a personal bone to pick with me, given the false nature of these accusations and how this is the second ANI in less than a month. Presumably, they're not satisfied with my objections to their consistent POV‌ edits and want me out, despite my contibution history showing I've been both faithful to the sources and constructive. HN's contribs, meanwhile, recently constitutes a bunch of dummy edits to their draft. ~ Hogshine (talk) 20:48, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

@Hogshine: (Non-administrator comment) On that last point (and nothing else, I haven't read the full discussion yet), Historynerd361 was brought to ANI less than a month ago here because of those edits. Personally, I think that they were just having technical issues. Since that discussion, all of their edits to the draft have been constructive. Chess enjoyer (talk) 21:20, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

I just saw that you already linked to the discussion. I maintain that it was probably an honest mistake. Chess enjoyer (talk) 21:31, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

I don't really buy that it was a technical issue. Adding a WikiProject banner does not produce/delete spaces, showcased by your own edit. [297].
Moreover, I don't believe that such insignificant edits seconds/minutes apart are particularly constructive [298][299][300][301][302]... It's best to see the page history rather than I link each one [303] ~ Hogshine (talk) 21:33, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

@Hogshine: Yeah, I was a little confused by the spacing thing, but I just attributed that to them having issues with the visual editor (which I admittedly don't use much). I get where you're coming from about the consecutive edits, but different editors have different ways they prefer to edit a page. There's nothing wrong with making small edits over the course of multiple edits as opposed to making one large, sweeping edit. None of the edits since the ANI report were dummy edits. Chess enjoyer (talk) 22:06, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

@Hogshine, please stop accusing me of threatening you; this is clearly not the case. You linked to a discussion on @Asilvering talk page, but that discussion actually proves my point. I specifically asked Asilvering if saying "this is the last time I am saying this" was considered a threat, and they confirmed it was "perfectly fine." Please stop misrepresenting the situation and slandering my name. 777network (talk) 21:58, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

It is not actually perfectly fine when combined with the talk page discussion that went on. You can ask me to stop, but with this [304] implying that if I don't you'll report me, that's where the threats are from. Moreover, I am under no obligation to actually stop pointing your disruptive behavior if it's ongoing; in this case the use of LLM to write articles for you that contain copyvio [305] & bogus citations [306]. What is the endgoal of the discussion if you won't acknowledge that your sources were mis-cited due to ChatGPT mixing them up? ~ Hogshine (talk) 22:27, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Yes, me asking for advice on how to go forward with these accusations and attacks was to Asilvering, not threats to you.

And I'll also say this one more time to not further BLUDGEON this report, I have not used AI, when I was notified about it, the admins/editors pointed out that they think I had taken the text as-is from the source and worked from there, but not changed it up enough, which is the case. Regarding the mixing of citations, I've answered it further below. I've told you numerous time; I have not used AI. 777network (talk) 22:34, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

I can see no connection to the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service, so what do you mean by "ACAS"? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:39, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

@Phil Bridger here WP:GS/ACAS. Rambling Rambler (talk) 21:44, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:58, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

I was meant to bring this up in another venue (WP:AE), but since I noticed there is already an ANI filed against him, I thought I could include it here.

Accusations/personal attacks Hogshine seems to throw accusations and aspersions so constantly that it is starting to look like personal attacks. In every response he made on Michael the Syrian’s talk page, some accusation was dropped: not in good faith, POV, rule-breaking, gaming the system, AI.

He has said things such as:

"I don't think real 'scholars' as you self-proclaimed wholly use ChatGPT to write their works."

"You want include poorly written AI-generated niche opinions."

"Good faith was assumed and handed to you on a silver plate, but you've proven otherwise."

"This is what happens when you use ChatGPT to write your articles for you."

"It is you who wants to shoehorn poorly-written AI content."

At this point, I told him to stop the accusations: "Enough with the AI slanders."

However, he did not stop and instead told me that Wikipedia might not be for me: "It is not my concern what you tolerate when it's true, you keep doing it, and you keep saying it to me. If you're going to get emotional with every single disagreement, maybe this place isn't for you." He then ended the sentence with "Take it or leave it" in a discussion about consensus.

I then told him a second time to quit his allegations: "Stop with your allegations, I've told you twice now. Also, don't say 'when it's true..."

He kept doing it, adding more fuel to the fire, and again told me to stop being emotional: "I'll stop when it stops being the case, @777network. I'm not bashing you with these; you need to learn how to be less emotional in these discussions."

I answered: "As for the allegations, this is the last time I’m going to tell you to stop with them. You don’t get to throw them every response you do and claim they’re true and that you’ll stop when 'it stops being the case.' It’s not about being emotional, it’s about knowing where the line is drawn. Also, if I am emotional about it, I have every right to."

He then twisted this and responded that I was being threatening: "Being threatening is not a good look (see WP:THREATEN)."

After I explicitly laid out what the sources state and what the text added to the article says (which is completely supported), he ignored it, waited 10 days, and reverted, saying no consensus had been reached. I did not expect a consensus to be reached when one party seems to be pushing a POV against something that goes against his POV. Note that he has been warned about this before. He used to create multiple source-text integrity issues, rendering Syriac in the source as Assyrian, and when it was fixed, he kept reverting. Since the warning asilvering gave, he has stopped doing that, but he has not stopped pushing POV and objecting to everything Aramean.

I will admit that I’ve called him out for pushing a POV, but to be clear, I explicitly stated in a reply to him that I believe all editors have a POV. Given that he had already been called out on this by admins and other non-involved editors, I felt that my suspicions were validated.

More recently, he involved himself in a discussion I was having with asilvering that was completely unrelated to him. He joined in, threw allegations that I had broken my warning (I hadn't), and referred back to the 'threat' issue I mentioned above. He also claimed I called him a shit-talker (where?) and even ended by casting aspersions on asilvering, claiming they had given me the 'blessings' to do so: "You've already threatened and called me a shit talker with Asilvering's blessings before, let's not stoop that low again."

POV objection to sourced content:

His first objections to the Michael the Syrian and Bar Hebraeus material were for copyvio reasons. After the copyvio was fixed, he then opted for the "no consensus" and WP:BRD reasons, despite WP:BRD-NOT saying otherwise. His POV has been noted by others who joined the discussion on the copyvio reasons, stating:

"...obviously Hogshine wants it removed for another reason. It's transparent that they cite WP:CVREPEAT in a first time warning because they are itching to eject an opponent from the topic area." [307]

He denied this, accused the person of throwing aspirations, however an admin then stepped in and stated:

"...is so transparently true I would strongly caution you about implying that anyone else is casting aspersions here..."[308]

I've left a complete break down on the content in the article of Michael the Syrian and compared it to the sources used, to outline and demonstrate as clearly as possible that it's fully supported, I've since been left with no reply and his version is still standing on the article. He also objected to the inclusion of content on Michael the Syrian and Barhebraeus, making the sections WP:UNDUE. I lifted this multiple times:

"If your “neutral” version omits the Aramean material entirely, that itself creates WP:UNDUE weight. The aim is WP:DUE: include all significant, well-sourced viewpoints."

"Your version basically want to eliminate him being Aramean and him not proving an Assyrian identity of his time. We must present all significant viewpoints, please see WP:DUE. If you think there is WP:UNDUE, please state what you think we should give more weight to."

His reasons to not include the content was because of different opinions on Assyrian continuity to which I replied with: "Assyrian continuity is not the topic here; we are discussing Michael’s Chronicle directly."

He did an edit on Jacob of Edessa, where he first removed a sentence that is supported by sources and has been in the article for years. The sentence included the word "Aramean." [309]

After he was reverted on that part, a new section about identity was created in the article. Everything was believed to be sourced. [310]

He then labeled a change he made as a "rv uncited info,". Regarding the Aramean part that had been in the article for years, after noticing he could not get rid of it, he moved it from the lead all the way down to veneration.

He was again reverted on this, but his changes to the language section were kept after the concerns he raised on the talk page. This, too, was reverted yet again by Hogshine, who stated it was still not cited.

After I made one revert, which was also my only revert on Jacob of Edessa, he reverted it, claimed I was edit warring, and proceeded to give me a warning on my talk page. [311] This is not the first time he gives out warnings of this kind for ungrounded reasons, remember the WP:CVREPEAT warning he had given me as a first time warning. I let his version be.

A discussion then took place on the talk page of Jacob of Edessa, where it was shed to light that I had confused two sources under the same title (The Syriac World), after the source had been source-article checked for verifiability on the talk page, I proceeded to restore the version, but this time with the correct source. I also added new information, with the correct references attached.

Hogshine then comes in and again changes the Identity section. He moves the sentence "He is considered to be one of the most important scholars of the Christian Aramean tradition." from the lead to the veneration and legacy section, which I assume is for POV-related reasons. He also engages in WP:OR by trying to break the link between “Syrian” and “Aramean” and “Arameans in Syria”, even though the source explicitly states that "‘Syrian’ and its synonym ‘Aramaean’ could specifically denote the putative descendants of the biblical figure Shem or his son Aram...". He removes the new sentence and supporting reference that Jacob saw his people as descendants of Aram, again for what appear to be POV-related reasons.

I reverted this because it lacked a valid rationale and instead introduced WP:OR and removed cited material that had not been discussed on the talk page. Hogshine then reverted back to his version. On Michael the Syrian, Hogshine reverted my version on the grounds that new material requires prior consensus. On Jacob of Edessa, however, Hogshine is now insisting that Hogshine’s own version, which lacks consensus and departs from the discussed text, should not be reverted and is telling others “do not revert just because you do not like it,” even though that version has been challenged as WP:OR.

Case A: When he wants to BLOCK content (Michael the Syrian), he enforces a strict interpretation of WP:ONUS and consensus. He reverted my version on the specific grounds that new material requires prior consensus.

Case B: When he wants to KEEP his own changes (Jacob of Edessa), he completely exempts himself from the standard above. After he introduced disputed changes that altered long-standing text (without consensus), he refused to revert. Instead, he is now telling others “do not revert just because you do not like it,” insisting his version must stay while under discussion.

Contradiction: If the standard is "you need consensus before changing the article," then Hogshine’s version on Jacob of Edessa is a violation and must be reverted.

If the standard is "do not revert just because you do not like it," then my sourced version of Michael the Syrian was wrongly reverted and should be restored.

He flips between these rules solely to maintain control over the narrative: invoking "consensus" to block others, but ignoring "consensus" to protect himself. 777network (talk) 21:50, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

WP:WALLS

Accusations/personal attacks These were not attacks. They were objective facts pointed out to you. Were you not using AI? You proceeded to WP:THREATEN me with reporting me if I don't stop. Won't you stop using LLM to write articles for you, which caused you to copyvio [312] and insert fake citations [313]?

objecting to everything Aramean‌ I literally agreed to your version on Jacob of Edessa [314]. You are throwing aspersions.

claimed I called him a shit-talker (where?) Here [315], as I pointed out above. The rest of the linked threat tackles the other objections in the paragraph.

His POV has been noted by others [...] an admin then stepped in And both the accuser and admin were wrong about this, as I explained [316]. It was an aspersion with no evidence, and the admin quoted the wrong part of my reply.

For Michael the Syrian, I followed the regular consensus/lack thereof process. No consensus was reached, you were reverted a week later after constantly repeating yourself.

For Jacob of Edessa, you published your edit before consensus was established, which caused all these issues. I was well within my right to revert you. Otherwise, I demonstrably followed protocol to the letter, and in fact we're still waiting for your reply, which you keep ignoring. [317]

For non-involved users, it's good to see the previous SPI where both users were implicated as "Possible", and now they — like the banned puppets — are pushing the same content verbatim, on the same articles, and tag-teaming for consensus. ~ Hogshine (talk) 22:14, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Hogshine, you keep proving my point. I never said anything about what I would do if you did not stop accusing me, I simply said it is the last time I'll mention it. We already have had an admin saying me saying so was perfectly fine, here you go: [318]

And like I said on its talk page, no, I did not use a AI, me citing the wrong source was a genuine human mistake on my end which I took accountability for. I explicitly said that I probably had read the correct source on archive.org, and when going to use the source as reference, I googled for the Google Books link, first result is the other "The Syriac World" book, to which I must have used.

I am not part of a sock-network, stop it. I am not sure how everyone but you can be wrong, allegedly both me and Historynerd361, the non-involved copyvio-helping editor and an admin have been wrong according to you...

As for the double standard I noted, we can let non-involved editors see for themselves. 777network (talk) 22:29, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Just going to let you know that it's blatantly obvious that you used AI‌ to write it for anyone with eyes to see. All the tells are there.

I am not sure how everyone but you can be wrong I've explained it without pushback from either admin or accuser. They were wrong and that can be seen.

Also, in that same thread, you were repeatedly told to undo & engage in talk page discussions first, which you haven't done. In fact you proceeded to undo the reversion. [319] ~ Hogshine (talk) 22:35, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

@Historynerd361, @Hogshine, if you do not get a resolution here (and I expect you may not), and this is archived without action, I recommend filing at WP:AE. -- asilvering (talk) 03:13, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Gross violation of WP:BLP policy on article talk 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.

---

Killing of Lisa from Abcoude (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Amily6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The following was posted on Talk:Killing of Lisa from Abcoude by User:Amily6, regarding an unconvicted suspect: I without waiting for sentence, I will be saying he is rapist, murder and I'm disgusted of him and people that try to defend him This is about as blatant a violation of WP:BLP policy (which applies everywhere on Wikipedia, and not just in articles) as one might possibly imagine. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:07, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

I've suppressed it. 331dot (talk) 17:14, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Should the person who introduced the info to the article also be at least warned?[320]

(The person who added the info to the infobox has been blocked in the meantime[321]. And Amily6 actually restored one of that user's other additions after it was removed by someone else[322](original)[323](removal)[324](restoration and addition).) Nakonana (talk) 17:36, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Note that the Amily6 account was created on the same day (19 November) that the person mentioned above (User:Bildete) was blocked. A quick check of editing intersections [325] would appear to confirm obvious socking. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:51, 7 December 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.

Yup - SM closed this while I was tidying up - for the record, they were  Confirmed to those prior accounts. Girth Summit _(blether) 18:23, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Orange Jones continued AI edits after several warnings

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.

---

Orange Jones (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Multiple users, including myself, @Hqb, and @Seercat3160, have given Orange Jones warnings about AI use. Unfortunately, they have continued to make rather obvious AI-generated edits -- in fact, basically all of their edits (including talk page posts) appear to be AI-generated. Jay8g [V•T•E] 00:10, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

• I agree that Orange Jones edits are generated by LLMs, despite them denying it. Ca ^{talk to me!} 00:39, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
• Immediate indef, no questions asked. AI must be destroyed. EEng 02:17, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
• Can we delete his userpage too? It's obvious AI slop. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 02:38, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
• 24 November – ... I clearly made an error by trusting references generated by an LLM without independently verifying them ... Going forward ... I will avoid using LLMs for content generation on Wikipedia.

28 November – **German chamber department** ... **Lithuanian chamber department**

6 December – **Animals** ... **Birds** ... **Elements** ... **Fish** ... etc. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 04:20, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

• I'm not an expert here, but honestly, all the contribs I've viewed, and their use page, look indistinguishable from LLM generated slop with little or no cleanup. The fact that they are denying this only makes it worse. Their claim of 30 years of "communications" on their userpage? I don't know, it seems their contribs are not worth the effort of policing them, making them a net-negative for the project. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 04:27, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Would someone mind having a look at this edit to see if the sources have been accurately rearranged? Or have hallucinations been introduced? -- asilvering (talk) 07:04, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

No, you know what, nevermind. I've indeffed, and we should simply roll back everything. -- asilvering (talk) 07:12, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

• And now there's a mindless AI-generated unblock request. Remove TPA and good riddance. EEng 15:16, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

  First unblock request declined, so now their machine has posted a second one. Narky Blert (talk) 15:50, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

I'm not convinced the latest unblock request is LLM generated. I've left them some sternly worded guidance. Hopefully it makes an impact. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:21, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Among other things, the angled apostrophes are a dead giveaway. EEng 18:46, 7 December 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.

Falsehood and non-neutral editing at the Bonnie Pointer biography

• Bonnie Pointer
• An5j2mp (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• ~2025-38684-15 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• ~2025-38921-45 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• ~2025-36889-26 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• ~2025-36243-42 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• ~2025-35963-38 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Starting in August with this false inflation of chart success, An5j2mp has edited the Bonnie Pointer page multiple times both logged in and logged out. An5j2mp and the associated TAs have persisted in a false chart attainment of Pointer's final album,[326][327] which was a commercial flop and did not chart at all.

The other non-neutral part is that An5j2mp insists on portraying Bonnie Pointer as successful in her own right, more famous as a solo artist than for her role in the Pointer Sisters.[328] All of the obituaries emphasized that her solo career was smaller, that the Pointer Sisters enjoyed their greatest success without Bonnie, and that Bonnie did not take off as a big star.

I'm asking for page protection at the very least, to stop the violations of WP:MULTIPLE. I don't think the latest non-neutral changes by An5j2mp should stay on the page. It would help to have more eyes on the page. Binksternet (talk) 19:20, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

I have semi'ed the article but also p-blocked the named editor who will be autoconfirmed with two more edits. Star Mississippi 19:25, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

User:Ahmeddahir1

• Ahmeddahir1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has a slew of warnings on their talk page, 42 out of 58 of the edits they made is marked as "reverted" and I can't find a single one that is actually constructive. They appear to be obsessed with "Hawd Zone" (just take a brief glance at their contributions) which probably refers to Hawd Region, which was a region in Somaliland. Yes, Somaliland.

KatnissEverdeen reverted some of their most recent edits in Misraq Gashamo (Diff ~1325846774) saying "Unsourced. Edit also broke image."

• Jarar Zone (history) shows several users reverting their unsourced edits.
• List of districts in the Somali Region (Diff ~1320059957) used the "fixed typo" edit summary.
• Talk:Misraq Gashamo (Diff ~1321987624) is not helpful.
• The user came to my attention due to DoorDash Girl controversy (Diff ~1325846215) which makes literally no sense whatsoever.
• I'd rather not list every single one of their edits.

We must assume good faith, but at this point it seems they are failing basic WP:COMPETENCE. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 18:24, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

After reverting some more unsourced questionable edits, only 3 out of their 58 edits remain live. I suppose Somali Region (Diff ~1323975493) and the two follow-up edits to correct that list entry are constructive. Every other edit they made has been reverted. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 19:13, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with this user besides the edit I reverted this morning, but having looking at the other diffs linked here and their gibberish edit summaries, I'd also second everything said here. Definitely seems that this user is WP:NOTHERE. Katniss May the odds be ever in your favor ♥ 22:28, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

It appears this user is also using multiple accounts to make their nonconstructive edits. They reached out about the edit from the diff linked above on my talk page this morning as Aimirjan, and they indirectly confirmed in their message that they are using multiple accounts. Katniss May the odds be ever in your favor ♥ 13:08, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

KatnissEverdeen, Aimirjan doesn't seem related to me. See Talk:Abd al-Wahab Mirjan#Mirjan or Murjan, Abdul or Abd al. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 19:01, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

I just want to say I am so sorry. This was totally a mix-up on my part, and you are correct that Aimirjan has no relation to this situation. I mixed up the two situations and mistakenly assumed the user reaching out this morning was the same as Ahmeddahir1. It is clear that my sleep deprivation has affected my editing, so I will be taking an edit break until I can get my personal life sorted out. I am mortified that I reported the wrong user and just want to apologize again for the mishap. Katniss May the odds be ever in your favor ♥ 20:40, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Looks like this is still happening. [329] Sugar Tax (talk) 20:05, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Blocked from mainspace until they satisfactorily respond to the concerns. I invited them to respond. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:17, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

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

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.

---

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 [330].

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! [331], 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. [332], and I am not using ai chatbot [333]...
• and at LLMN: not AI generated content [334]

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)

“they don't seem to read the discussion; they just copy-paste responses from an LLM, so the discussion never ends”.

Yep, that’s what it looks like, but not the standard AI. I speculate that they are using AI drawing specifically from Wikipedia talk namespaces, which is why some posts look like typical newcomer bad arguments, worse than expected from usual AI. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:11, 4 December 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 [335], 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 full indef: The problem with an incrementalist system like Wikipedia is that a vast number of editors are staunch defenders of the status quo, no matter how little it serves us nearly a quarter century in. I expect that most of the pro-AI types aren't involved in cleanup, aren't on the noticeboards, aren't on vandalism patrol, aren't on new page patrol, don't deal with copyvios, and are fanatic believers in Geek Social Fallacy #1: Ostracizers Are Evil. For my part, I'm right with EEng on this one: LLM Delenda Est. Ravenswing 12:04, 5 December 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)

Keeping this alive. I think this could use a formal close. Chess enjoyer (talk) 05:27, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Indef. They can’t hear us. The person is not checking their AI output, nor are they reading messages to them. They are running a conversation between AI and Wikipedians. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:33, 4 December 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.

Create User:Harold Foppele/Archive-2025

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.

---

Please create : User:Harold Foppele/Archive Harold Foppele (talk) 19:29, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

This is not the right place to ask. GarethBaloney (talk) 19:36, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

That has to be just about the least helpful reply I've ever seen on Wikipedia. Luckily rsjaffe has both told the OP where would be better to ask next time, and has created the page. You will have noticed that the editor can't create the page himself because he is blocked from doing so. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:16, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

I have created the page. Next time, WP:AN may be a better location since this isn't urgent. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:57, 7 December 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.

Suspected sockpuppetry by User:JesusChristismySavior777

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.

---

Suspected sock (User:Mahal ko si Jesus) openly admits that they are a second account of User:JesusChristismySavior777 at Special:Diff/1303978036 on their talk page. The accounts also share a pattern of editing Christianity-related pages, sometimes disruptively (see contribs), both have religious messages on their userpages and have religion-related usernames, which could also suggest that the two accounts are related. Because there appears to be obvious evidence of possible socking (like the user admitting to having a sock account) and WP:SPICOST, I am reporting this user at ANI instead of SPI. RaschenTechner (talk) 15:14, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Neither account has edited for months, and between them they've only got about 100 edits. WP:ANICOST is a redlink, but it's still a thing - come back if there is any ongoing disruption. Girth Summit _(blether) 15:32, 7 December 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:SteeledDock541's possibility of using temporary accounts to evade their 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.

---

Originally reported on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SteeledDock541 on December 1, it seems like they are using TAs to evade their block. The TA ~2025-36112-07 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) reverted back to an older sock TongoJelly43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)[336][337] and reverted User:Lumakid100's edits, adding their own preferred style of template, which is a common practice for them.

The TA stopped editing on December 1. — MysticCipher87(alt-account) (talk) 16:29, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

No comment on the TAs, but User:BrickChism was them. Blocked and tagged. I'll leave it to others to evaluate the behaviour of any TAs (and remind the OP that WP:SPI is thataway). Girth Summit _(blether) 18:08, 7 December 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.

Donation

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.

---

I've noticed there's a banner at the top of the page asking for donations. It states that you "haven't yet hit your goal" during your latest fundraiser. I am a gentleman of reasonably HNW who would be willing to help you out, but there would be certain strings attached. Happy to discuss further. ~2025-38989-48 (talk) 15:49, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

You can donate here, although the Foundation will very likely not accept donations with "strings". • a frantic turtle 🐢 16:03, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, I will contact them directly. I suspect they will want to hear me out. ~2025-38989-48 (talk) 21:00, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Firstly you're asking in the wrong place. Wikipedia editors and administrators write the encyclopedia, but have nothing to do with donations. If it was up to me I'd say "fuck off" to anyone who asked for any strings to be attached, however H their NW. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:09, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Well then if it were up to you, "Phil Bridger", I doubt the WMF would be receiving a single solitary cent. ~2025-38989-48 (talk) 20:59, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

As it says at the top of the page, This page is for urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems so unless you're a chronic troll, you're in the wrong place. NebY (talk) 16:40, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

• HNW = Haughty Narcissistic Wealthy? Has Numerous Wines? EEng 20:54, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

  Provided you're not asking in jest, I assume that would be High Net Worth. I've tried to come up with some other funny backronyms (W for Wikimedia, maybe?) to make it worth your while to click on this in case you did know what it means, but I've failed, so sorry if that's what happened. JustARandomSquid (talk) 21:36, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

  Oh no, don't apologize. I actually did not know what HNW means, and it was just by complete chance that I came up with those phrases that relate to wealth and its costly hobbies. EEng 03:36, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

  In today's world, there seems to be a new abbreviation to make you go WTF every time you turn around, and if you don't figure out what they mean PDQ you can easily find yourself SOL. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:52, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

  I had 'humorous naughty witticisms', but that was moreso to appeal to EEng's interests than any serious guess as to the meaning. Mr rnddude (talk) 20:48, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

  Good one. EEng 22:21, 7 December 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:MetalGod80's

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.

---

• MetalGod80's (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has been making many unsourced death edits like those made by blocked user LAyub12, can someone block this account for unreferenced content? 77qq 💬 contributions 17:49, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

For context, this was also reported at the Rest239 SPI case, and I found MetalGod80's to be  Unrelated to the Rest239/LAyub12 sock drawer - I am very confident they are a different person. I also saw no evidence that MetalGod80's is using multiple accounts. This report should therefore be evaluated solely on the merits of the reported account (unless anyone can think of another blocked sockmaster who does stuff like this). FWIW, while the edits are unsourced, the couple I looked at during the investigation checked out - the edits were uncited, but the information was accurate. Girth Summit _(blether) 17:55, 7 December 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.

Alex132219georgia

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.

---

@Alex132219georgia has received 9 talk page warnings this week. I first came across this user in the new pages feed, where they were creating some standard articles about historical figures – harmless, perhaps in need of copy editing (see William Bunting (mayor), one of their first articles which I gladly helped rewrite)

They've quickly turned to a much wider range of editing topics ... so wide that some may call it suspicious!

This began with Craig Loudon (Mechanic) and Randy (friend of Craig) just over a week ago, both of which the editor attempted to recreate twice after the first speedy deletion. Zero notability whatsoever.

From there, they created Cheerio (Opossum Of Craig), Craig's Beef Jerky and Craig's House Site twice, and were then warned here by @Win8x, here by @Lofty abyss and cautioned here by @Jiten D. They acknowledged the 2nd warning but did not change their behaviour.

They then began performing copy and paste moves, for which they were warned here. @HurricaneZeta declined Draft:Shaun Jackson (Doctor), an Australian scientist, and the editor later copy and pasted the article to Sir Shaun Jackson, which was speedily deleted. Both the decline & the speedy cited promotional language and a possible COI.

They received a warning here for vandalism at Michelangelo Agro, another article they created about a BLP with a lack of notability. Continuing on their path of copy and paste moves, they first created Draft:John Philipp (Einstein Etcher), then Draft:John Philipp (both originally in mainspace) before recreating the article with no changes at John Philipp. They also recreated Thomas Fettiplace at Thomas Fettiplace (Knight) without changes.

I saw Orchard Brokerage soon after it's creation, and noted that it was very overtly promotional and referenced Jon Bostocky (see two paragraphs below). I notified them that if they happen edto be receiving compensation for editing (a possibility I began to consider while still remembering WP:AGF when they began to use some crazy promotional tone; see below), but received no reply. The editor continued to perform copy and paste moves during this time, recreating the article as Orchard (Real Estate Company).

Just minutes later, @Seawolf35 moved Jon Bostocky to draftspace – the article is clearly promotional in nature and once again, the editor has completely jumped topics. They then created John Bostock (CEO) (deleted in this name but then recreated again), Jon Bostock and Jon Bostock (Buisnessperson), copy and pasting the content from the previous drafts and then blanking the drafts.

Even if there is no UPE in this situation, the sheer amount of vandalism (among other) warnings on their talk page warrant some sort of action; perhaps a block from article space so the editor will use AfC. So many editors have had to spend their time fixing related issues that the situation has now become WP:DISRUPTIVE. aesurias (talk) 04:28, 8 December 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.

Registered user blocked from making TAs, but they made another TA

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.

---

• An5j2mp (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• ~2025-39610-04 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

On December 7, An5j2mp was partially blocked from making further accounts, but on December 9 they made the temporary account Special:Contributions/~2025-39610-04. The TA was active at Contact (Pointer Sisters album), and was warned by LuniZunie who reverted the warning. The TA replied to LuniZunie at 23:14 UTC, December 9, then An5j2mp replied to LuniZunie at 23:39 UTC, December 9 complaining about the same issue, but saying the TA was "an anonymous user" rather than the same person—they were pretending to be two different people. An5j2mp and the TA both continued to expand the Contact page, unfortunately adding lots of analysis based only on primary-source YouTube music videos, which is a separate problem. Binksternet (talk) 17:49, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

 Comment: I figured this user was editing logged out on my talk page, it was pretty obvious but I could not care enough to call them out (nor did I have enough evidence to make such a claim), and I also did not want to get in a full on argument. I reverted my revert and the warning because I mistakenly reverted for AI usage. The whole situation was a mess, but the message on my talk page is rather suspicious. – LuniZunie_(talk) 17:58, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

• They're not just spamming TAs, they're very purposely using them to pretend to be multiple people. They are now site-blocked for 2 weeks, standard for sockpuppeteers. Any more TAs editing anything related to the Pointer Sisters are probably socks; please report to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/An5j2mp which I will create momentarily. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:53, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for finding a decent solution. We're done here, pending the next activity by An5j2mp. Binksternet (talk) 04:02, 11 December 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.

Legal Threat

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.

---

Several TAs have been removing any mention of an approved recall petition in Alberta for Rajan Sawhney on the basis that it is "promotion" to note its existence and to cite the CBC News and Elections Alberta. Now ~2025-34380-43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has indicated that Wikipedia editors are acting illegally and action may be pursued with the government [338]. Granted, the action would be against the recall campaign and not the editors, but it seems to meet WP:NLT in inhibiting free editing. LizardJr8 (talk) 21:26, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Blocked for the legal threats, as a regular admin action. --Yamla (talk) 21:33, 10 December 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.

Brazil IP rangeblock needed for wrong number vandalism

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.

---

• 186.237.96.0/20 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

Someone using Brazil IPs has been vandalizing Wikipedia since June 2024[339] by incrementing random numbers by one digit. Most of their edits are zero kilobytes, switching one numeral for another.[340][341] They are still active today, working through TAs, of course.

Can we get a lengthy rangeblock on this sneaky vandal? Binksternet (talk) 03:59, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Range blocked for 3 months Mfield (Oi!) 04:12, 11 December 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.

Who's gonna clean this up? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:34, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

TA mass restoring sock edits

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.

---

• ~2025-39181-22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Can someone block this temporary account that has quickly appeared to mass restore sock edits made by IdrapoelIII? Thanks in advance. Mellk (talk) 17:20, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Blocked. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:28, 8 December 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.

Edit-warring at Fortran

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.

---

Resolved

 – Reporting user blocked indef; talk page access revoked Daniel Case (talk) 04:01, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

There is an ongoing redo-reverse action on the Fortran wikipedia history page regarding a citation that an editor modified recently. Specifically, the user associated with account MrOllie, who appears to have a form of administrative powers on Wikipedia, has been insisting on reverting article changes that are based on the collective Fortran community's consensus. This behavior exhibited by @MrOllie is non-productive and discouraging to people who are genuinely interested in and experts on the topic, and who would otherwise contribute their knowledge to Wikipedia. This request is an attempt to resolve the raised conflicts between the collective community of Fortran experts and the Wikipedia bot @MrOllie. @MrOllie's abuse of their power, whether a bot or human, has already had repercussions outside Wikipedia ((Redacted)). Such aggressive one-sided behavior will ultimately work against the interests of Wikipedia. Thank you for your attention to this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philosopher13 (talk • contribs)

Nobody here gives a shit about what some random with a grudge posts on Medium. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:59, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

The page is indefinitely pending changes protected now to assist in defending against the off-site canvassing that is going on. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:06, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

• Daniel Case, indef PC is quite a knee-jerk reaction. There were a whopping two edits from new accounts over a couple of days. Something like semi for a week or two would make a lot more sense. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:18, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

  That can always be changed; I considered it advisable since some non-AC accounts were making constructive edits and we do not know how long this situation will last.

  As I suggested at my talk page, the best course of action to take would be getting more editors involved, preferably those with some subject-matter expertise. I trust MrOllie a lot from previous experience with his reports to RFPP and ANEW, and certainly my suspicions would be raised as well by a repeated effort to introduce a reference to a published book that had hitherto not been made in the article. But, since we must assume good faith until we know differently, the editors from the thread may well have a point about Modern Fortran Explained being an accepted source among users of that language. I cannot speak with any reliability on this myself, I see no indication that MrOllie has that expertise, and so we need someone who does. So I will be doing as I have suggested and soliciting input from more knowledgeable editors through WT:COMPSCI and WT:SOFTWARE.

  And, along those lines, profanely dismissing these concerns out of hand is unhelpful and BITE-y. Daniel Case (talk) 18:33, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

  It's not a couple of days. This was initially added by an account that had a rather clear COI with one of the authors, and after that COI was pointed out there have been edits about this from SPA named accounts and IP editors off and on for a year - I won't paste in a full list here since this is not SPI, but see for example 2A01:CB10:9147:FE00:7CB4:AC6D:FF4C:76D1/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) and GuillaumeFabbri (talk · contribs).

  If non-SPAs want to cite the book as a source, that's fine, I've been mostly reacting to the external coordination, which I find to be a problem. MrOllie (talk) 18:41, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

  In the last 6 months: 6 Dec 2025, 6 Dec, 5 Dec, 5 Dec, 25 Oct reverted 28 Nov, 24 Sep reverted 4 Oct, 11 Jul reverted 17 Aug, and more before then - I see some in early 2024. NebY (talk) 18:41, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

  Also @Philosopher13: MrOllie has no administrative powers and is also not a Wikipedia bot. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:11, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

  Yeah, that "don't understand actual humans" got an indef from me. I'm willing to consider overreaction, but... SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:30, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

  Block stands, in my opinion. There's behavioural evidence of the OP POV-pushing on TAs relating to the Fortran discussion, and I really wouldn't be surprised at all if they're affiliated with the absurd Medium hit-piece which alleges that MrOllie is a bot because 75% of his edits are 'semi-automated' (they're talking about Twinkle and AutoWikiBrowser, which the piece talks about as if they're some kind of nefarious tools of ultimate control) Athanelar (talk) 01:43, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

  Given their responses were to double and triple down on what got them blocked in the first place (winding up with the usual 'delete my account' demand as the cherry on top), I've revoked their talk page access. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:47, 8 December 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.

Is their talk page access actually revoked? I don't see the "cannot edit own talk page" in the block log for Philosopher13, just "account creation blocked". 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 04:25, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I'm seeing too. @The Bushranger:? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:24, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

I actually revoked tpa. Bishonen | tålk 15:16, 8 December 2025 (UTC).

That's weird. I was *sure* I'd ticked the box, but the block log only shows a "normal" block. Thanks for catching this. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:48, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Legal threats on User talk:Cinch1965

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.

---

Cinch1965 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has posted legal threats on their talk page and should be blocked accordingly. Aydoh8^{[what have I done now?]} 12:41, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

 Done DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:46, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

• For the record, he's also issuing doxxing threats, so mere withdrawal of the legal threats won't be enough. EEng 16:13, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

  I think the doxxing threats are worthy of a WP:CBAN at least. QwertyForest (talk) 16:27, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

  No need. There's little to no chance he's capable of composing a convincing unblock request. EEng 16:42, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

  THey are also admitting to off-wiki canvass people in the same talk page post, we may need to protect the article. Lavalizard101 (talk) 17:01, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

  The mention of editors harming children is equally beyond any pale. Nathannah • 📮 21:23, 8 December 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.

Large-scale copyright violations

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.

---

HorseBro the hemionus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I have warned this editor on-wiki and off for copyright violations and LLM use; I nominated Battle of Khoton Lake for WP:G12 because it was entirely copyvio, while Draft:Oirat-Uzbek War is entirely AI-generation. I told the editor then that if I saw one more incident for copyvio or LLM-generation I would open an ANI report. Now the editor has resorted to machine-translating foreign-language sources and copy-pasting their text; aka WP:TRANSVIO:

Article (Draft:Kazakh–Oirat Wars)	Machine-translated source
"where Nouruz-Ahmed (who died in 1556) was still the khan. Tevekkul offered him an alliance against the enemies, but Nouruz-Ahmed replied that "even ten kings like the two of them would not have been able to cope with the Oirats.""	"where Nouruz-Ahmed (who died in 1556) was still the khan; Tevekkul offered him an alliance against the enemies, but Nouruz-Ahmed replied that "even ten kings like the two of them would not have been able to cope with the Kalmyks.""
"In the 1560s, the Kazakh ruler Haqnazar (1560-1580) fought against the khans of Moghulistan for dominance in Semirechye. The Oirats aided the Moghulistan, and Haqnazar was defeated. After this, the Kazakh khans lost influence in Semirechye for a long time, where dominance subsequently passed from the Moghulistan rulers"	"In the 1560s-1580s, the Kazakh ruler Khakhnazar (1560-1580) fought against the khans of Moghulistan for dominance in Semirechye. The Oirats aided the Moghulistan khanates, and Khakhnazar was defeated. After this, the Kazakh khans lost influence in Semirechye for a long time, where dominance eventually passed from the Moghulistan rulers"
"Yesim khan continued operations and campaigns agains the Oirats, and Kyrgyzs. However, it was not successful. Mahmud ibn Wali's "Bahr al-a-srar" reports his severe defeat at the hands of the Oirat' Sultan-taishi, who after this victory was named Ildai-tayishi (Wind-taishi, taishi swift as the wind) ...according to the "Jami at-tavarikh" of Kadyrgali-bek Kosumuly, the Kazakh Sultan and batyr Ondan, son of Shigai Khan, father of the famous ruler of the Kasimov Khanate, died in one of the battles with the Oirats. After his death, he was buried in Turkistan"	"Yesim khan continued his struggle against the Kalmaks, which, however, was not always successful. Thus,, Mahmud ibn Wali's "Bar al-a-sar" reports his severe defeat at the hands of the Kalmaks' Sultan-taishi, who after this victory was renamed Ildai-taishi (Wind-taishi, taishi swift as the wind). According to Kadyrgali-bek Kosumuly's "Jami al-tavarikh", the Kazakh sultan Ondan, father of the famous ruler of the Kasimov Khanate Oraz-Muhammad, died in one of the battles with the Kalmaks...After his death, he was buried in Turkistan.
"Kazakh nomadic camps of the Middle and Little juzes were routed. In pursuit, Oirat troops crossed the Ishim, Irghiz, and Emba rivers and, skirting the Aral Sea from the north, ravaged the areas around the cities of Urgench and Khiva"	"The Kazakh nomadic camps of the Middle and Little Zhuzes were routed. In pursuit, Oirat troops crossed the Ishim, Irghiz, and Emba rivers and, skirting the Aral Sea from the north, ravaged the areas around the cities of Urgench and Khiva"
"The struggle between the Kazakhs and their Kyrgyz allies against the Oirats during these years was unsuccessful. According to reports from Russian ambassadors T. Petrov and I. Kunitsyn, they succeeded in subjugating the Senior Juz and the Kyrgyz:"	"The struggle between the Kazakhs and their Kyrgyz allies against the Kalmaks during these years was unsuccessful. According to reports from Russian ambassadors T. Petrov and I. Kunitsyn, they succeeded in subjugating the Great Zhuz and the Kyrgyz:"

And that is the one article I have had time to review in depth. I suspect very similar problems at Torghut Migration, Battle of Ayagoz River (1717), Erdeni's second campaign against Kazakhs (1640), etc. I suggest at least a block from mainspace and immediate draftification of all created articles. Pings to other editors who dealt with this editor onwiki or off: @Femke, IsCat, Grapesurgeon, and Aesurias: ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:22, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Support. I've reviewed articles created by this editor previously and was unable to verify multiple claims made in the sources provided. I couldn't find some of the other sources cited either, and I suspect those were just LLM hallucinations. I'm furthermore troubled by a message left by this editor on their talk page in which they appeared to state that an article they created and cited multiple sources in was actually based entirely on a misinterpretation of a source. This resulted in an article that is tantamount to a hoax, containing more incorrect information than accurate content. Finally, this editor has repeatedly been disrespectful. Notably, they posted a profane comic which they made on their userpage that depicted a solider killing a civilian based on their ethnic group. The comic has since been deleted from Commons, but the description given in the diff paints enough of a picture. I too feel a block from mainspace and draftification is the least that should occur, as this editor has repeatedly shown they cannot be trusted to contribute respectfully. IsCat (talk) 19:46, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Wasn't there a similar case recently about Battles around the Volga and the question whether the articles were hoaxes? Nakonana (talk) 19:59, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Ah, not the Volga River but the Don River: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1207#Circassian bubuzuan.

But maybe they are unrelated after all... Nakonana (talk) 20:08, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Sadly I have to support a block from mainspace. I saw some pretty bad copyright issues in a newly-created article but decided to bring it up with them on their talk page rather than publicly. They did amend the wording (as I asked) and I hoped that they would stop this behaviour, but it doesn't look like it. aesurias (talk) 20:40, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

• Block from mainspace numerous warnings and little improvement. grapesurgeon (talk) 21:27, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

I do see your suspicion of me using LLM as i did on early October to early novenber until the Dzungar-Russian conflicts, which i started collabiratin eith kalmyks to find use the sources. I did sometimes use google translate to translate my foriegn sources. I am fine with my block on wikipedia. - The Khan of the universe and the Hoofed animals. (talk) 22:23, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

• I have blocked HorseBro the hemionus indefinitely for copyright violations. Since these were not limited to the mainspace, I had to block from all namespaces. The reply above gives me no confidence they understand why introducing copyright violations is not okay and puts the encyclopedia at risk. Toadspike [Talk] 08:57, 9 December 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.

Repeated removal of ill links and unresponsive to discussion

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

A new user who at Dhurandhar has made repeated removals ([342], [343], [344]) of {{ill}} links without explanation. Apparently the user doesn't know how they work or going from their edit summaries is removing them simply because they don't like it. Warned the user and started a Talk page discussion, the removals continued without any response.

Eitherway, a comptency or not here issue, the user needs to be told to stop this or engage in discussion.

PS: Haven't listed here the numerous unsourced/unexplained edits to film budgets/box office. Gotitbro (talk) 18:28, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Probably should just block untill they notice the discussion shane (talk to me if you want!) 18:30, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

[345] And surely enough Kentfate again disruptively removes the ill link after another user reverted them. Unlikely they are going to respond here or to the multiple messages that have been left at Talk pages or the user Talk. As I can see it now, this is clearly a not here issue. Gotitbro (talk) 04:50, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

I have blocked from mainspace until they respond. @Gotitbro, a friendly reminder to explain the problem clearly in talk page warnings, especially to new users. Explaining what the ill template does and what it looks like would have been more helpful. Toadspike [Talk] 09:10, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Competence concern - Jaredryandloneria

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.

---

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

I am concerned about the competence of Jaredryandloneria (talk · contribs) who has failed to understand the AfC process. He has created multiple articles, many of which have been moved by multiple users like me into Draft space. Where he has participated in the AfC process for a draftified article - see Draft:Nathan Schauf specifically - he has made repeated resubmissions, received multiple rejections, and then finally just moved it into article space anyway. If his user page is to be believed then (Redacted), but regardless of that, some strong guidance or other admin action is needed.--10mmsocket (talk) 07:29, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

 Question: They appear to be a young person. Might they be susceptible to mentoring? They are enthusiastic, but undisciplined. It would be a shame to lose the enthusiasm when discipline might be mentored in?

@Jaredryandloneria: it is important that you contribute to this discussion. If you do not contribute then decisions about you may be made in your absence. I am particularly interested in whether you feel that mentoring would be appropriate. Wikipedia has a mentoring programme which would help you learn what you do not yet understand 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 09:23, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

A pblock from article creation might help with steering them in the right direction. However, I'm frankly concerned about WP:IDHT here, because this user has been receiving ample guidance and warnings on their talk page which they aren't engaging with at all, and it'll surprise nobody that their rapid draft creation seems to be being assisted by AI. At a cursory glance, Draft:Nathan Schauf stands out with the passage His subsequent work as editor on KPop Demon Hunters (2025) presented unique challenges, Draft:Samsung Foundry has and the two firms dominate the market for leading-edge processor manufacturing. and The integrated structure, however, posed challenges for securing external business, as potential clients Editors will also note the difference in English proficiency between this user's talk page & smaller edits, and their article drafts.

Classic case of a young editor with certain passions and interests who thinks successfully creating a Wikipedia article is the ultimate badge of honour here and promptly starts mass producing AI-generated drafts to bombard AfC. Athanelar (talk) 10:45, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

seems to be being assisted by AI: Agreed, some additional examples found quickly:

Special:Diff/1325990180 – *Ars Technica* ... *Reuters* ... *TechCrunch*

Special:Diff/1326113378 – 7 of 8 references and three templates are hallucinated.

Special:Diff/1325659041 – This subject meets the criteria for WP:CREATIVE. The article includes multiple instances of *significant coverage* in *independent, reliable, secondary sources*, not just routine mentions., followed by more generated bullet points which misapply notability standards. A direct misuse of AfC reviewers' time. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 12:06, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

@Timtrent I couldn't agree more. Properly channelled enthusiasm is a good thing. Hopefully an enforced pause on article creation combined with some mentoring will lead to a good outcome. 10mmsocket (talk) 14:02, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, @10mmsocket. Despite my concerns, I think you are correct to bring this here. I just worry that we might end up doing this poorly. If I am correct and they are a young person then guidance and mentoring is likely to be of more use to them than a preventative block, and thus of more use to Wikipedia.

I believe we should give Jaredryandloneria sufficient time to respond. I will, however, not be happy if a response is AI generated(!), or is inappropriate in another way, or is absent. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 14:35, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Is it possible to restrict them to edit requests for a bit? I also have competency concerns since their edits have required a fair amount of cleanup at KPop Demon Hunters & related articles (bulk handled by @Jamie Eilat) - examples of grammar/formatting issues: grammar ([346], [347], [348], [349], [350]), AI upscaled images ([351], [352], [353]), other formatting ([354], [355], [356], [357], [358]), etc. Sariel Xilo (talk) 15:14, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

No response forthcoming. The user has put a retired/fresh start template on their user page. He has also created a new account and is now editing the same articles as before, including editing a draft article that he created under his original username. Hmmmm..... 10mmsocket (talk) 08:47, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Instead of participating here, they've put a {{retired}} [359] and then a {{clean start}} [360] template on their userpage while this report has been open. Naturally, they are not clean start eligible. Could a checkuser please find whatever account they're socking under and kindly redirect them to this report? Nevermind, it's ContextCube [361] in this very thread, who's first reply here was simple trolling [362]. Support indef for WP:CIR. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 09:05, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Think that guy is very dumbass to be honest ContextCube (talk) 08:47, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

This is not a forum where you should be playing childish games. If you are going to respond to this ANI then please do seriously. 10mmsocket (talk) 08:49, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Sorry 😔 ContextCube (talk) 08:51, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

I Starting a new account reason:i made this former account my personal own because of reading Wikipedia. Second, I created the ContextCube account for editing accounts, and I also read Wikipedia guidelines and other more to make my edit persize as possible. ContextCube (talk) 09:06, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Even if you were eligible for a clean start, which you are not, the fact you decided to come here and troll after your 'clean start' means you're not a clean start, you're a sockpuppet created to attempt to evade scrutiny. Blocked ContextCube accordingly, and will block Jaredryandloneria as well. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:20, 9 December 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:Paulie302 reported by Woovee

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.

---

• Paulie302 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I raised an editorial issue on two discussion pages of articles related to the band OMD. In response, this user posted a message with a conclusion that constitutes a clear attempt to discredit me through negative and malicious comments, with the aim of negatively influencing other users. Here is what this user posted: Last sentence of their post: "There are no discernible issues [...] other than those that a multi-time blocked user seems hell-bent on creating." Posted at this talk [363] and this talk [364]. I am asking for sanctions for these attempts of blocking any further edit towards an user. Woovee (talk) 06:23, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

I raised the fact that you've already been blocked multiple times for edit-warring, in response to your edit-warring, editing against Wikipolicy (and attempts to bend "WP:STICKTOSOURCE" to support your crusade), and dismissal of sources whose reliability has already been agreed upon by the community at WP:RSMUSIC (your claim that SuperDeluxeEdition is owned by record labels was a total fabrication). Please, WP:DROPTHESTICK, adhere to Wikipolicy, stop edit-warring, respect reliable sourcing (even if you just don't like it), and don't try to make this into some kind of "rivalry" between us. Since it apparently offends you so much, I have removed the references to your multi-time blocked status on those talk page discussions. Paulie302 (talk) 06:57, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

I maintain that I am demanding sanctions for these particularly low attempts to discredit any viewpoint of mine in the present and the future. Woovee (talk) 07:03, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Good grief. You got yourself blocked multiple times for edit warring, I mentioned this in response to your edit-warring (and other quarrelsome behaviour), you got offended, and I did you the courtesy of removing those mentions. I could ask for petty "sanctions" against you as well, for falsely accusing me of "false claims" and outright lying about WP:RSMUSIC-approved SuperDeluxeEdition being "owned by record labels", but I won't stoop to that. Please, stop trying to foster a "rivalry", and work for the betterment of the project. WP:DROPTHESTICK. Paulie302 (talk) 07:25, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Huh ? [365]

How bizarre when a person accuses someone's else of edit warring to achieve their goals when there are only two people involved. Woovee (talk) 08:43, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Still not "owned by record labels". And this just epitomises the petty, rivalry-courting BS I'm dealing with here. WP:DROPTHESTICK. Paulie302 (talk) 09:57, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

This report is only about an attempt made by a user to delegitimize another person's viewpoint at two discussion pages. And ANI is not the platform for discussing editorial content.Woovee (talk) 10:32, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

*Yawn*. Those supposed attempts to "delegitimize another person's viewpoint at two discussion pages" have already been gone from Wikipedia for far longer than they were ever live. WP:DROPTHESTICK. Paulie302 (talk) 11:03, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Speaking of which, D-R-O-P-T-H-E-S-T-I-C-K isn't a magical incantation that becomes the more potent the more often you type them. You've done so four times now. We get it. Ravenswing 11:37, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

My apologies. Noted. Paulie302 (talk) 11:53, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

There is also a single-purpose account (spa) concern with Paulie302 as this account serves to only promote Orchestral Manoeuvres in the Dark at many articles as possible with sometimes wp:undue editing. The issue is not being a spa. The issue is Paulie302 has their own agenda for advocacy and promotion OMD on wikpedia and there might be a conflict of interest if they are hired by a management company ,(as one ip suggested it at Paulie302 talk). This might explain the petty attacks with a very well put sentence which wa a call aimed at the community to reject any viewpoint from me. They attacked when I suggested them that claiming that Radiohead were influenced by their pet band OMD would require the inclusion of at least one quote by the members of Radiohead, as no quote is available in the reliable sources they used which are not interviews of Radiohead. That suggestion made paulie302 show their teeth and bite. This is not a good sign. When such a petty comment is made at discussion pages to an user who is an expert in legacy sections, this is worrying. Receiving such hostility from the start can't be justified. Woovee (talk) 11:37, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

And speaking of repetitiveness ... Yes, yes, we get that you're mad that Paulie302 launched an ad hominem attack as opposed to focusing on the content dispute at hand. So stipulated. He removed it. He also didn't lie about the fact that you've been blocked several times for edit warring, and you can't imagine that it's a good look for you to bludgeon this discussion with attempts to discredit Paulie302. He's not wrong about the stick dropping (however much he should take his own advice). Ravenswing 11:42, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Wait, minutes ago you said "This report is only about an attempt made by a user to delegitimize another person's viewpoint at two discussion pages". Now your crusade against me extends to claiming that I'm working for OMD, which is complete horse crap. They are my favourite band, yes. But if I were working for OMD, things like this would look a hell of a lot different. And once again: We do not need direct "quotes" from artists. There is no Wikipolicy that says we do. Paulie302 (talk) 11:48, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

"They might be a..." means an eventuality: it is not an assertion. Huh, user:SnapSnap had already edited the Critical reception section adding those sources as soon as 2000 before the arrival of the other person.[366] Users would have seen it if an OMD fan had changed the section.Woovee (talk) 12:30, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Nope, try again. That section was largely written by me over the last four years. Do bands normally pay people to write a detailed section about how everyone thought their album sucked? You're deep in conspiracy mode now, scrambling to discredit me. You may have forgotten, but you initially filed this report because I was allegedly trying to discredit you. Doh! Paulie302 (talk) 12:37, 9 December 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.

Disruptive editing at Christine Blasey Ford

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.

---

Editor involved: User:Rgblack316

Pages affected: Christine Blasey Ford

Diffs showing problematic behavior:

• Re-adding challenged content after removal: [367]
• Talk page blanking to remove warnings: [368]

Summary of issue: User:Rgblack316 has repeatedly added unsourced and challenged content to the Christine Blasey Ford article. User has also blanked their talk page after warnings, and said some not so nice things to other editors — Preceding unsigned comment added by StalkerFishy (talk • contribs) 18:41, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely as arbitration enforcement for the repeat edit warring, incivility, and general disruptiveness, which increased in severity after this report was filed. N.b. StalkerFishy, please be sure to notify editors you report here in the future, as I don't see evidence that this was carried out properly in this case. You are also encouraged to place {{alert}} notices for contentious topics when editors have demonstrated an interest in them. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:16, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) The reported editor has been indefinitely blocked and is now up to no good on their talk page. Revocation of talk page access should be considered. Chess enjoyer (talk) 19:17, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

They also made a legal threat. I don't know if they're subsequent blanking of the page could be considered retracting it, but I also don't know if that matters. Chess enjoyer (talk) 19:26, 9 December 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.

Persistent unreviewed LLM usage & COI violation by AKLKPhilo

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.

---

AKLKPhilo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (formerly Michigan1studios, relevant momentarily)

I'll lead with the COI violation, as it's probably the most egregious thing. The user originally opened their account under the username Michigan1studios and created the page Draft:M-1 Studios. The draft was speedy-deleted for unambiguous promotion on Aug 19 (as visible in the deletion log when you click that redlink), and on the same day they were blocked for the promotional username and requested an unblock and change, which was carried out on Aug 20; that can be seen in this revision of their talk page (curiously, they neglected to archive this unblock request when they blanked and archived their talk page.) They are a founder of M-1 studios, which they disclosed here and which they also have disclosed on their current user page.

Now, despite all of that, they then proceeded to recreate the page M-1 Studios directly into mainspace, where it was speedy-deleted on Nov 29 under A7 and G15. They then proceeded to create it again, whereupon it was moved into draftspace and promptly speedied under G7 on November 30. Certainly by the time of that third case they must have been aware of COI guidelines and that they shouldn't be creating their COI page directly onto mainspace, but they persisted anyway. They either acted in blatant ignorance of advice given and best practice, or there's a CIR issue.

Other than that is the LLM issues. You can see full details at WP:AINB#AKLKPhilo, but the short version is that even after promising that they're verifying the output of the LLM they're using to create drafts, there are still blatant source-to-text discrepancies, as pointed out in AfC comments at Draft:Keypunch Software and Draft:Bishop's Buffet for example, which means the user is either lying about verifying their sources, or there's a CIR issue. Athanelar (talk) 02:43, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

INDEFfed for DE Star Mississippi 02:48, 10 December 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.

Saifyalakmar

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.

---

Saifyalakmar (talk · contribs) has repeatedly posted another unblock request despite being a confirmed sock two declined requests. I think WP:STANDARDOFFER would be a best option. Ahri Boy (talk) 22:35, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) He's had standard offer already, at another of his sock accounts. He's not actually asking to be unblocked: he wants a different account, possibly his real name, set as the main account at SPI. Simply revoking TPA is what's needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikishovel (talk • contribs) 23:05, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Actually they are explicitly requesting an unblock. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:50, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

@Ahri Boy, I'm not sure why you've brought this to ANI? The unblock template already puts this into a queue for administrators to have a look. There's no need to bring someone to ANI for making multiple requests. -- asilvering (talk) 01:43, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

For any admins not yet aware, and if standard offer is being considered, there are worse issues than sockpuppetry to consider. This guy has directed vile abuse at WP editors who reverted his sock edits, including threat of rape, homophobic abuse, and WP:OUTING as noted at their user talk. Wikishovel (talk) 08:26, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Now glocked. That Jio clause wasn't really a genuine reason to unblock. Ahri Boy (talk) 04:42, 10 December 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.

Continuous personal attacks

A user @FactCheckerBharath: keeps attacking me personally and also asking me to revert all my edits at the earliest, instead of seeking consensus. His uncivil comments are against Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Collaboration first. Also, he want to portray me as a bad character among other editors (by providing a link for previous AN discussion labelling it as "info for other editors" in a public talk page). Instead of seeking consensus through RfC, he started a whole new section to criticize me. It's truly disappointing and discouraging. Anbarasan1523 (talk) 12:59, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

I have not made any personal attacks to defame you personally. In your earlier communication, the administrators have already confirmed and closed the discussion.

I clearly mentioned that "deleting the entire talk page message was inappropriate," you deleted my entire talk page RfC, which is not correct, and you are agreeing the same in your comment above.

Earlier, you confirmed to me that you were not going to delete my sourced content. After obtaining Extended Confirmed User status (which I do not have), you deliberately removed all my edits and other authors' content under the excuse of NPOV.

I'm not sure what kind of personal attack you are referring to now. FactCheckerBharath (talk) 13:25, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Furthermore, all the edits by @Anbarasan1523 are aimed at criticizing and defaming subject of the article. His account is a new account that was created 30 days earlier only. All his edits on this page look like they are paid or intentional. FactCheckerBharath (talk) 13:36, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

The user @FactCheckerBharath: is continuing personal attacks here also and his comment tone is clearly out of personal hatred against me. Now he is insulting me by labelling me as a paid editor. That's why I stopped engaging in discussion with him. I request the administrators to intervene soon on this issue and also please ask him to stop any further discussions with me. Also, another clarification: His claim of deleted my entire talk page Rfc is false. He didn't start Rfc at all. I removed his uncivil comments only. Anbarasan1523 (talk) 13:43, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

On 8 November 2025, I left a courtesy warning regarding the user’s edit on the article talk-page. After that, I filed a formal complaint at ANI.

1. The user has since claimed that I was making personal attacks. My comments were directed at the editing behavior involved in the dispute, not at the user personally. (Please check his previous compliant and admins comment)
2. The user also removed my follow-up RfC. He has stated that he only removed an “uncivil comment,” but the entire RfC was deleted.

From my perspective, these explanations do not align with what actually occurred. I am requesting administrators to review the situation and consider appropriate action. FactCheckerBharath (talk) 14:05, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

That removed section is not a follow-up RFC, it is a request for admins to restrict that user's editing privileges. Those should be posted here at ANI, not on article talk pages. Regardless of where it was posted, however, the section they removed was not an RFC and should not be construed as one. I haven't looked at the rest of the issue yet, but I thought I should clarify this. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:46, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

@QuicoleJR, yes, I do agree, from the heading point of view. But my intention was to follow-up on the earlier post which was closed by him. And there is no point in deleting my section as I mentioned earlier. FactCheckerBharath (talk) 15:45, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

In the future, all posts like that should be directed to pages like this one, not article talk pages. I can see how Anbarasan could have been offended and considered it a removable personal attack, although it is debatable and I don't think they should have been the one to make that call. If you would like to post your concerns about Anbarasan here, please feel free to do so, so that the admins can have a full view of the issues here. Thanks, QuicoleJR (talk) 15:50, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

admins comment — did you mean to link to this section? If so, then it looks like the filer is forumshopping. Nakonana (talk) 19:51, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

He linked the administrators noticeboard, and added section header also here. Anbarasan1523 (talk) 00:55, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you to all admins for your time in the section. I would like to present the timeline of Anbrasan and his edits to the article which I believe are paid and or intentional edits,

1.     Anbrasan account created on 07 November 2025.

2.     On the next day ie. 08 November 2025, he started his edit war on the article. I engaged with him on the same day. Furthermore, I lodged a formal complaint on ANI and we were both warned since we are new or inexperienced editors. He informed me on his talk-page that he would not revert or edit on the article.

3.     On 09 November 2025, the article status changed to protected which requires extended confirmed access.

4.     Anbrasan waited for 30days, made enough edits and gained extended confirmed access on the 07 December 2025.

5.     Exactly on the same day of getting extended confirmed access ie on 07 December 2025, he resumed editing the article with content favorable towards criticism and removed many sections without contest. I also wish to note that many of the removed portions were those that were not favorable to him. (edit diff.)

6.     Furthermore, please refer his entire edit log on all the articles he has contributed to. His edits are primarily limited to templates, tables and infoboxes only. However, in this article he made significant changes to the background section and other sections as well. This is unusual and raises doubts about paid or intentional edit.

Elections are a hot topic now and are scheduled in the coming 5 months. The edits, as I mentioned above, create confusion among the readers, hence, I request admins to review his edits and impose restrictions on his account, especially on the political topics. If any other information is required, I am happy to help. FactCheckerBharath (talk) 05:49, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

    FactCheckerBharath (talk) 05:49, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Refutations to @FactCheckerBharath:: 1. Your comment is underrating new users. 2. It was a content dispute, so you have to reach consensus first, instead of personal attacks. Edit war started by you, not me. 3. The page was protected due to edit war. 4. If I have to gain extended-confirmed access, I would have stopped at 500th edit and waited 30 days. That was not my intention. My contributions are over 1000+ now and I also received a barnstar. 5. I followed bold, revert, discuss, cycle. If you want to restore the content, start an RFC and get consensus. 6. Check my contributions first before insulting like this. Your comments are against the collaborative first policy of Wikipedia. Anbarasan1523 (talk) 07:27, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

@CoffeeCrumbs: I request you to intervene here as the user is continuing his personal attacks even after your advice. Anbarasan1523 (talk) 07:27, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I do agree that your 1000 edits within 30 days, most of them in political pages at the election time, raises questions about paid editing. I strongly believe that all your responses about personal attack, NPOV concerns are being used as excuses, since you have not engaged with me in talk-page and instead went directly to ANI. Please note that I'm not insulting you, I am presenting evidence based on your editing history. FactCheckerBharath (talk) 07:42, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

@FactCheckerBharath: I don't want to engage in discussion with one who continues to attack personally over content dispute. Your insults are crossing limits now. Please leave me alone and stop talking with me. Let the administrators solve this issue. Anbarasan1523 (talk) 07:55, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

This is your perspective I intend to present to the administrators to demonstrate how you have been shielding yourself by offering repeated excuses. FactCheckerBharath (talk) 08:21, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

The user's personal attacks are continuing and crossing the limits. His usage of words like "paid editor", "shielding..excuses" showing his personal hatred against me just because of a content dispute. His only intention is to portray me as bad and restrict my account instead of gaining consensus for content dispute through RfC process. Wikipedia is based on collaboration, not for personal hatred. So I request administrators here to intervene as soon as possible as the issue becoming a serious concern now. Anbarasan1523 (talk) 08:31, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

@FactCheckerBharath, if you have off-wiki evidence that someone is a paid editor, you need to send it to WP:COIVRT. If the evidence you have is what you've said in this thread - which is to say, no evidence whatsoever - what you're doing is indeed a personal attack and you need to stop. -- asilvering (talk) 06:22, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Idris Shirazi

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.

---

Idris Shirazi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Idris Shirazi was recently blocked for "Personal attacks or harassment". See the previous ANI thread for their bad behaviour [369]. Not much has improved since. They still violate WP:NPA, WP:ASPERSIONS, and WP:BATTLEGROUND.

1. "sneaky" try to relax okay just take a deep breath, right now you are edit warring on an impressive scale, props to you, it takes a lot of mental energy to have 15 tabs open at a time
2. thats just another arrogant remark from some chauvinist who knows nothing about iran as a civilization, and has the same understanding of iran as someone who watched that sparta movie 300
3. btw he is a chauvinist he thinks "yes i am so smart "persia" ended when islam came and then about 60 years ago "iran" was created.
4. LOL i need a academic citation for why that guy is an ignorant chauvinist too?
5. Still don't refer to yourself in the third person though thats a little weird. This was a response to me telling them for the dozenth of times to follow WP:CONSENSUS, they were more concerned about my "weird" wording (I also wasn't referring to myself in third person...)
6. i know you are my biggest fan and all, and you love stalking me
7. (historyofiran i know you are stalking

And now to the next part; They simply don't care about Wiki policies:

Idris Shirazi has been told dozens of times (at least 18 (!) times) to adhere to WP:CONSENSUS, not only by me, but also others [370] [371] [372] [373] [374] [375] [376] [377] [378] [379] [380] [381] [382] [383] [384] [385] [386] [387]

They don't care, they are still attempting to bruteforce their way through edit warring, perfectly shown in their own words when you were disregarding MOS:ETHNICITY at Rumi "you will not find a single soul who agrees with this BS that persian is irrelevant. its everything he is, his religion comes from khorasani mystique school, his language is persian, his blood is persian he is persian, so keep edit warring me if you want, ill die on this hill". They just got partially blocked for 2 weeks for edit warring at Shahnameh [388], but despite that, is currently edit warring at Daqiqi [389]. Not a single time throughout all this, have they bothered to create a talk page section and engage in a discussion. Heck, at Talk:Buyid dynasty, I had to do that for them [390], only to be insulted by them (which was when they got their first block).

1. rv, WP:GS. please provide 16.2 trillion sources per cubic centimeter of pixel space taken up on my talk page or it will have to be reverted unfortunately. (this was after another long attempt to explain Wiki policies to them, dismissing all of it with this "joke").
2. or you can just get some thicker skin ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ LOL i need a academic citation for why that guy is an ignorant chauvinist too? is my talk page gonna be reverted now? (This was after I advised them to not attack the user they accused of "chauvinism" without evidence (and in general be a bit nicer) after I had just told them for the dozenth of times to not add unsourced information, resulting in another "joke").

I could go into greater details, such as their removal of sourced information (eg [391]) or unsourced additions, but I assume this is more than enough. --HistoryofIran (talk) 01:24, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Out of context, framing me as a bad faith editor. I ask anyone to actually look at my edit history and judge for themselves. Idris Shirazi (talk) 01:27, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

He is mixing a lot of things up there, including from when I just created my account (which is the personal attack ban hes talking about)

I want to point out a pattern - every single one of this incidents involves HistoryofIran. It is not a persistent pattern across wikipedia, in my interactions with editors, but only a reaction to HistoryofIrans constant reversions of my good faith editing. And its no where near as unprovoked, extreme, or even what it seems by his characterization above. Idris Shirazi (talk) 01:31, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

If you take the time to look past his deceptive quote links, and just look at the edit history, you'll see what this really is. Im not saying I am justified to have been sassy like that, in fact, I've already apologized for that (I even apologized for it in some of the quotes he links to without quoting that part). What Im saying is all this is, is one guy offended by me and trying to get me wiped off the platform. Hes been trying this since the beginning.

Even my first ban for "personal attacks" was a reaction to his own insulting and condescending tone (the talk page where it all went down is all open) again, I got a 24 hour ban for that, i was brand new, and I categorically condemn that behavior, but all I said was "get a life" in response to him not leaving me alone, so I just want to be clear about that. Idris Shirazi (talk) 01:34, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

It's much, much worse with more context. Also, clearly not every single one of this incidents involves me (which doesn't really matter, disruptive is disruptive), as everyone can see in the diffs. Speaking of which, courtesy ping @D.Lazard:, since you're the one Idris accused of being a "chauvinist" thrice. HistoryofIran (talk) 01:36, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

To be clear @D.Lazard, HistoryofIran is referring to a thread on my own talk page, a largely sarcastic thread, where I also said "please provide 16.2 trillion sources per cubic centimeter of pixel space taken up on my talk page or it will have to be reverted unfortunately."

Thats obviously sarcasm and hyperbole. I don't think you personally are a chauvinist. Idris Shirazi (talk) 01:39, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

You're not fooling anyone. HistoryofIran (talk) 01:41, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Anybody can click those out of context links and see the reason why I was being mildly sarcastic or sassy towards you on my own talk page. Any time there is an instance of sassiness on my part, its always because you nuked my good faith edits. And specifically targeted my edits, using any excuse like "not WP:RS/this sentence is not cited" and you'll remove just my addition and leave the entire article which has like 0 citations in total. I genuinely believe any good faith person can see that, even back to when i first created my account, ive never gotten in fights for the sake of it. Its always in response to what I perceive as an abuse of power. Idris Shirazi (talk) 01:44, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

These are two good examples right here

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

Here you can see him revert my change and then personally attacking me "You clearly dont care about WP policy", only to realize that I was literally reflecting the body. He didnt apologize for that, he just withdrew and waited for the next chance to revert me.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Turco-Persian_tradition&action=history

Here you can see him undo hours of work to create an infobox for no good reason. Idris Shirazi (talk) 01:48, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

If you look past his deceptive links, you'll find that this pattern of being targeted by this guy has gone on since I created my account. Idris Shirazi (talk) 01:49, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

In conclusion I restate that this is extremely out of context, I want to also emphasize that I only have problems with HistoryofIran, and not other users. He wants it to seem like my reactions to him are reflections of my editing quality. Which isnt the case. Idris Shirazi (talk) 01:51, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Comment: https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/context-3 Placeholderer (talk) 01:56, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

the context is that i was being unfairly targeted. thats it. Idris Shirazi (talk) 01:57, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

I think being sassy is fair game in response to someone being condescending to me.

Like the example i gave where he said "its clear you dont care at all"

Im not sassy to everybody, but if someone has a condescending tone towards me then I think its pretty justified ethically, even though Ive been trying to limit that Idris Shirazi (talk) 01:59, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

I admit my comment was impulsive (I just happened to check ANI and it popped into my head) and not super helpful, but a takeaway from the comic is that "context" only makes sense as an excuse if that context excuses the behavior. Even if you're being treated badly, that doesn't give you a blank check to treat other people badly. I'm personally in favor of some lenience when people are treated badly and rightfully feel upset, but that lenience only goes so far, and in my brief look-over of this thread I don't see examples provided of HistoryofIran (or D.Lazard) behaving badly to be a basis for that sort of lenience.

Though I'm not keen on getting too wrapped up in this issue Placeholderer (talk) 02:09, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

If it were the case that I was just bad behaved for the fun of it, I wouldn't have productive relationships with other editors (as visible from my edit history). Literally the only editor I have a problem with is historyofiran, and its solely a reaction to being targeted by him with aggressive reversions. Its an easy trail to follow, every sassy remark he quotes of mine, you only need to go back a few steps to find him completely nuking good faith contributions of mine with condescending messages. I gave some examples above, one where hours of my work was nuked.

And the reasons for reverting are irrelevant, he searches for any policy that allows him to remove my content. Like in the Safavid Iran article, it went from one thing to another to finally "actually you know what you are not even allowed to edit here because of WP:GSA". Idris Shirazi (talk) 02:14, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Is this the part where I also ping the two other editors you attacked in your previous report? [392] when you were ranting about "WIKIPEDIA VETERN POWERTRIPPING NECKBEARDS" in your userpage? [393]. Or is that taken out of context too? Also, please refrain from WP:BLUDGEONING this thread. HistoryofIran (talk) 02:18, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Are you talking about when my account was a few days old? Yeah, i guess this is the part where you feel like your argument is falling apart from examination so you try to go over things I already had an ANI for when my account was a few days old.

And you act as if what I did was so terrible, I just told you "get a life and leave me alone" because you were failing to engage in good faith Idris Shirazi (talk) 02:20, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

So clearly, your problem is not only with me. You have attacked me, G. Lazard, and at least two other users, probably more. And in the thread (the afromentioned Talk:Buyid dynasty [394]) where you told me to "Please get a life", I was trying to achieve WP:CONSENSUS since you refused to do it and only engaged in edit warring, which you still do. Your other claims/excuses are just as unserious, and clearly, everything is not falling apart for me, but you, hence you why you have resorted to WP:BLUDGEONing this thread heavily. I have nothing more to say to you unless an admin wants me to comment further. HistoryofIran (talk) 02:28, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Once again, you are bringing up my previous ANI from when my account was a few days old. I didnt even know how to make a sandbox on my own account back then. I already served the 24 hour block when i was noob. And my edit history now speaks for itself that it has only been you ive had an issue with. You can try to twist this any way you want.

And once again, I don't have beef with D.Lazard. Its actually hilarious how seriously you took a thread where I said "imagine giving birth to someone and they get shot the next day" as a metaphor for the pain of you reverting my edits as well as countless other obviously sarcastic comments (keep in mind, all on my own talk page) Idris Shirazi (talk) 02:31, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

If you're accusing other editors of misbehavior, you should provide specific links/diffs to problematic comments. It's not up to the people reading this to go and look through all of someone's edits to find what you mean Placeholderer (talk) 02:25, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

1. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Derafsh_Kaviani&diff=prev&oldid=1325651351

Here is an example of HistoryofIran nuking a recent change, and condescendingly saying "clearly you dont care"

When he realized he was wrong about that, he didnt apologize but rather waited for the next opportunity to nuke my edits. Idris Shirazi (talk) 02:28, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

1. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Daqiqi&diff=prev&oldid=1326258810

Heres what he did not show when he took the out of context edit message i wrote on the Daqiqi page.. the fact that he nuked it literal MINUTES after I added the poem, before I even had TIME to add the source Idris Shirazi (talk) 02:38, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

• I think @HistoryofIran has a point regarding Idris Shirazi's problems with WP:CASTING, and avoiding WP:ETHNICITY policy. in their last edits, they accused me of random things and bad behaviour, even though I have no idea how am I involved in any of this:

1. R3YBOl this u? You are once again interpreting it in the most Arabized way possible. I kept the citation and added a quote from the page you cited to the citation and I made the sentence reflect it
2. lede reflects body better, the body isnt great though and R3YBOl you are making it line up with a single Iraqi nationalist historian R3YBOl (🌲) 07:07, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

   Although I do not know User:Idris Shirazi well, my encounter with R3YBOl does back up their claim that R3YBOl keeps "interpreting" things in the most "Arabized" way possible. R3YBOl has a consistent bias towards the Arab POV that manifests in adding content supported by obviously exaggerated or dubious statements related to conflicts involving Arabs ([395][396][397][398][399][400][401]). Qiushufang (talk) 12:46, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

   Also note that R3YBOl is the subject of their own section on ANI where I've outlined problems with their editing behavior and past actions such as the use of racial slurs and socking. Qiushufang (talk) 12:51, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

I agree that the personal attacks are a recurring issue (the most recent example is that I am clearly biased for warning them for edit warring). That said, in my encounters with them, I've noticed there's clearly a WP:BATTLEGROUND problem in that they totally disregard WP:CONSENSUS and WP:ONUS by repeatedly inserting disputed content and reverting others to keep it rather than seeking consensus on the talk page. Upon introducing their disputed edits to Abu Hanifa, they've engaged in a long edit war and made numerous reverts reinstating their edits, despite their edits clearly being contested by other editors and WP:ONUS placing responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion "on those seeking to include disputed content." This trend of theirs is apparent in many other articles they've edited, such as Umayyad Caliphate. Skitash (talk) 01:46, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

You are exhibiting bias by trying to enforce an orthodox Sunni view of history on the Umayyad Article. You are exhibiting bias by trying to help R3YBOl Arabify Abu Hanifa, who was literally hated by traditionalist Arabists and insulted by being called a Persian slave in his own lifetime. You and R3YBOl are perfect examples of civil POV pushers.

I wrote an entire essay in good faith in the Umayyad talk page and you are not even engaging with it. You reverted four times providing no good reason to do so. Idris Shirazi (talk) 01:53, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Idris Shirazi has been blocked indefinitely for edit-warring. Borgenland (talk) 02:47, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

I had warned them before ([402]), partially blocked them when the warning was ignored, extended it to sitewide as it continued on two other pages ([403]). Both times it was Idris Shirazi themselves who had asked for administrative action. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:55, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Proposal: Boomerang

No we don't take sanction motions from newly created accounts. TarnishedPath^talk 02:50, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Idris is obviously a good faith editor, and it looks like an edit dispute is happening. Looks like historyofiran has a history of bringing edit disputes here to seek a block instead of using dispute resolution techniques.

• Support As proposer. Smashed up benis as a soup (talk) 02:36, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

  Welcome to Wikipedia. Your first edit was 15 minutes ago; this is your sixth.

  I'll leave the SPI to someone else... Placeholderer (talk) 02:39, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

  What exactly are you proposing? A block for HistoryofIran? Aydoh8^{[what have I done now?]} 02:39, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

• Looks like historyofiran has a history of bringing edit disputes here to seek a block – And from a quick review of the archives, he gets them, too -- because he's usually in the right. EEng 02:43, 8 December 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.

ChronoEditor1 repeated use of LLM in talk pages, FORUM-y, legal threats?

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: ChronoEditor1 (talk)

First warning here

Use of LLM again, using talk page as a forum here

Use of LLM yet again, using talk page as a forum here Use of LLM yet again, this time with threats to "write an open letter to the Wikimedia Foundation’s CEO" here

Finally, FORUM-y post on talk page, maybe a bit of WP:ICHY here ~2025-30597-01 (talk) 16:24, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

It's not a legal threat to write to the WMF and demand they do something, nor to tell the public that's what they're doing. It most likely won't work, but it's not a legal threat. If they have a legitimate libel complaint, they should be directed to WP:LIBEL. 331dot (talk) 16:26, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

It may be an issue if there is a court case involved here- which some of their posts suggest. 331dot (talk) 16:36, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

pinging @331dot here, according to lighthouse, on october 18, they've "In full discovery and research mode here, as well as being in communication with Wikipedia and consulting lawyers.." per https://lighthouseglobal.media/lighthouse-daily-update-18th-october-2025/. ChronoEditor1's creation date was on the 17th of october, and their entry on https://lighthouseglobal.media/lighthouse-daily-update-16th-october-2025/ suggests that they haven't done anything yet. I believe that this means that ChronoEditor1 is WP:PAID ~2025-30597-01 (talk) 17:15, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

redacted~2025-30597-01 (talk) 17:31, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

@ChronoEditor1 Could you please clarify whether you are affiliated in any way with Lighthouse or Paul Waugh? Could you also please clarify if there are multiple people using your account? Your talk page messages contain statements like "we" did x, "we" sent x. Is your account being shared by multiple people? Athanelar (talk) 17:43, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

@Athanelar, ChronoEditor1's first post, creating a new section which they titled "Request for Review: Article on Lighthouse (British Organisation) – Conflict of Interest Declaration and Concerns About Accuracy", includes (emphasis theirs) "I wish to declare that I have a conflict of interest, as I am an affiliate of the organisation in question. ... I, because of my conflict of interest, will therefore refrain from directly editing the article myself, in accordance with Wikipedia’s Conflict of Interest policy." NebY (talk) 18:01, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

This impacts multiple people and others have tried to change things as their livelihoods are impacted. ChronoEditor1 (talk) 07:57, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Just a point -- none of these are instances of WP:NOTFORUM. NOTFORUM refers to general discussion about an article's subject, unrelated to the article itself. All of these comments are obviously, unambiguously requesting changes to the article, whether or not those changes are good or appropriate. NOTFORUM would be more like "I think Paul Waugh is awesome, anyone agree?" Gnomingstuff (talk) 23:43, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

oh, that's a good point!

could you give me a few more examples @Gnomingstuff? ~2025-30597-01 (talk) 00:11, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

"Paul Waugh sucks and the world deserves to know it!", "Paul this is your old high school sweetheart Jennifer trying to contact you please call me at [actual real life phone number]," etc.

Not that the comments aren't inappropriate for other reasons (WP:HATGPT being one), but they're at least about hypothetical changes to the article. Gnomingstuff (talk) 06:02, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

• The user seems to represent Lighthouse (British organisation) and doesn't want their organization described as a "cult"(which is well cited in the article) or at least wants the description qualified to say something to the effect of "according to the BBC...." as well as offering their viewpoint about their organization(not cited to independent sources, but to themselves). The article Paul Waugh is involved due to the leader of the organization sharing the same name as the British MP. 331dot (talk) 00:30, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Not the first trip to ANI regarding Lighthouse, see this from November. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:50, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
• Looks like a case of undeclared paid editing and WP:NOTHERE. The legal threats may not be as blunt as threats we quickly block for, but they are still designed to intimidate, which crosses the threshold imho. Righting great wrongs, etc, however you view it, this isn't someone here to improve the encyclopedia. They have a clear agenda, and are using legalistic threats, LLM and whatever to achieve them. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:40, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
  • I agree. They may not be explict legal threats per se, but they are blatantly intended to cause a chilling effect. Blocked indef as WP:NOTHERE. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:01, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

    @The Bushranger Could you please close the thread then? ~2025-30597-01 (talk) 01:00, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

  Admins should generally avoid closing threads in which they used the admin tools or participated in a material way. Another admin or highly experienced editor will likely close it after they review. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 06:00, 9 December 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.

AverageSkiptar

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.

---

There has been many issues regarding the Averageskiptar:

-Edit warnings (note:i showed only revisions that violated The three-revert rule): [404],

-Nationalistic editing probably Anti-serbian type of editing, saying things like that serbian source aren't reliable and how Serbian sources are propaganda: [405][406][407][408][409][410]

-OR editing, adding sources in wrong context and unreliable ones also failed to provide his claims: [411][412][413][414][415][416][417][418][419]

Other users including myself send him warnings which he deleted calling them fake accusations: [420][421]

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: [422][423][424]

-Vandalism and POV: [425] (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 [426]. Since that block expired, they have both continued edit warring on Yugoslav offensive in Drenica (1999) [427] [428] [429] [430] [431] [432] [433] [434], as well as on Drenica massacres [435] [436] [437] [438] [439] [440] [441] [442] [443] [444] [445] [446] [447] and Yugoslav September offensive [448] [449] [450] [451] [452] [453].
• 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)

Anti-archiving. Participation encouraged ~2025-31733-18 (talk) 04:04, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

I genuinely can't believe that we discussed his nationality Wikicommonsfan134 (talk) 04:54, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

I wanted to note that Wikicommonsfan134 and AverageSkiptar have continued edit warring while this thread has been open. See the history on Timeline of the Kosovo War, where they have both just breached 3RR again: [454] [455] [456] [457] [458] [459] [460] [461] [462] [463]. There was also edit warring between them on Drenica massacres on 1 December (although no 3RR violation). AverageSkiptar has also continued to justify edit warring by saying that Wikicommonsfan134 started it [464], and they have both continued to call each other anti-Serbian/anti-Albanian at Talk:Drenica massacres#Reliability of sources. And there's also the... odd conversation at User talk:AverageSkiptar#Blud. MCE89 (talk) 17:24, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

The conversation titled "Blud" is largely just quoting Zoomer/Gen Alpha memes at each other, to decipher. Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 17:31, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Skiptar also refused to reach consensus and to add additional sources for some claims like the one that KLA recaptured most of territory they lost during Yugoslav offensive and when i said that one BBC report isn't enough for such claim and that it needs more sources he said that he doesn't need to add and said something like "quality>quantity". There hasn't been a single successful consensus reached with him because he isn't willing to reach it and instead starts arguing and after some time stop talking leaving consensus without result which i see it's very useful for him because his edits stay. And what to do then? Admins aren't willing to revert it, he isn't willing to reach consensus and would do edit wars until he gets blocked and when i report him nobody is willing to take action or anything, I'm kinda disappointed:/ Wikicommonsfan134 (talk) 23:18, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

One source is already enough. Quality > Quantity. AverageSkiptar (talk) 10:42, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

@MCE89 you see what am i talking about? Wikicommonsfan134 (talk) 13:22, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

You were literally re-adding wp:or, "the KLA re-established control in "some" of its lost territories", that‘s not what the source says. Re-adding the fact that """some territories""" were regained, is both WP:OR and WP:JUST. AverageSkiptar (talk) 14:41, 8 December 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.

Disruptive temp

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.

---

I got the User:TeamMace account indeffed for blanking material critical of Nancy Mace from her article for what should be obvious reasons. Shortly after that, this IP which is very clearly a VPN started editing her page while making personal attacks against me elsewhere.[465][466] and has since repeatedly edited my comments[467][468][469][470] since then on the grounds that putting "trans rights" at the bottom on a legitimate ANI notice is 'abusing Nancy Mace'.[471] I verified that it was the same address in all of these cases using the temporary IP viewer, though they deny being the same and mischaracterize my addition to the ANI notice as something added after the fact and not something that was included in the original notice (which it was).[472] Anyway, I'm almost certain that it's just User:TeamMace because of the very obvious everything.

Snokalok (talk) 13:21, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

I'm not on a VPN. Removing unsourced material [473] is not a personal attack on you. You are being deliberately tendentious and trolling in adding unecesssary commentary to a legitimate ANI notice. This is intentional shit stirring and you know it.

Don't put 'abusing Nancy Mace' in quotes when I've said no such thing. ~2025-38455-28 (talk) 13:25, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Direct quote from your comment: It's pretty gratifying to know that Snokalok will be using up his time jumping at shadows and IP checking every temp account he comes across from now on.. You know I can see that it's the same IP, right? Snokalok (talk) 13:27, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia always assumes good faith. GarethBaloney (talk) 13:27, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

* Support Block Obvious Sockpuppetry by TeamMace. Tankishguy 14:04, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

I think TeamMace is just a COI/UPE editor, while the temp account looks like they've been around for a bit. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 14:17, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Update: Tagging @Drmies and @Sarek Of Vulcan.

So, I used IP viewer, and it turns out the user that'd been edit warring extensively using multiple sockpuppet temps that they claimed were different people on Girlguiding,[474][475][476] a page I had recently contributed to, and who later filed a motion to get an article I had created deleted at AfD and then logged in as a different temp and added "Delete" to inflate the number of deletions in bad faith[477][478], traces to the same location as the user this thread is about. Combine that with their prior comment of It's pretty gratifying to know that Snokalok will be using up his time jumping at shadows and IP checking every temp account he comes across from now on.,[479] and I think we may have a bigger issue on our hands. I don't think they're TeamMace anymore, I think they followed me there. Snokalok (talk) 23:40, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

That's entirely possible. Another range blocked. Drmies (talk) 15:55, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

And here [480][481][482]

And back on Girlguiding against because somehow that protection lapsed in a minute [483][484][485][486][487] Their latest game is to just take anything I add in, say the source doesn't support it when it directly does, and that it's undue, and revert as many times as they want, along with throwing any other policy words at it to make it stick. Also going to document the personal attack Drmies kindly deleted here, just for posterity.[488]Snokalok (talk) 16:22, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Because the source doesn't say what you claim it does synther. ~2025-38916-27 (talk) 18:40, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

And now they're going and removing any sections I wrote from other pages as well. Not even bothering to come up with a fake reason anymore. Anyway, I'm coding a bot to just auto-revert them. [489] Snokalok (talk) 19:07, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Now they're reverting admin restorations as well.[490]. At this point, I'm deploying the robot. If anyone objects, speak now or forever revert this disruptive individual in my stead. Snokalok (talk) 19:25, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

[Attack redacted] — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2025-38995-58 (talk) 19:33, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Wow what a an aspersion! How did this stalker not get their IP rangeblocked yet??? Is this an LTA?~212.70~ ~2025-31733-18 (talk) 19:39, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Don't spoil the fun buddy! I'm still wating for this robot! ~2025-38824-05 (talk) 19:51, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

And now we're onto slurs [491] Snokalok (talk) 19:55, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Anyway he’s back, edit warring the same content on Labour Women’s Network. He waited out the page protection and went the moment it was down. Snokalok (talk) 13:56, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

And at Lesley Stahl, now.[492] Snokalok (talk) 14:07, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Anyway, while they continue their harassment campaign on my page,[493], I shall affidavit here that given that they are a several

-times banned IP user who explicitly said they were doing this to cause me distress on the grounds of me being a “tranny”, I am allowed by wikipedia countervandal regs to continually revert him on the simple grounds of him being a banned user and a vandal - and I shall continue to exercise that right for as long as I see fit. Snokalok (talk) 14:57, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Can someone please rangeblock? This has gone on for too long. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 18:35, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

And more transphobia and personal attacks.[494][495] Snokalok (talk) 19:05, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

And now they’ve followed me onto Executive Order 14187, where I added a hospital to the list of hospitals citing today’s news, and they reverted it using their usual personal attacks.[496] Snokalok (talk) 19:26, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

More slurs, sexual harassment, and personal attacks [497][498] Snokalok (talk) 19:29, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

They're trying to troll you. Do not feed the trolls. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 20:05, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

What would you recommend Snokalok specifically do, let other people revert this harassment or just stop editing completely for a few days? LunaHasArrived (talk) 20:15, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

I recommend that Snokalok try to completely ignore everything this person does and let other people do the reverting and reporting. This person obviously derives satisfaction from eliciting negative reactions from Snokalok, so the way to stop them is to deprive them of that satisfaction by ignoring them. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 21:59, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

When this account said "failed verification" they were correct. Thank you, User:LizardJr8, for adding the source. Drmies (talk) 14:16, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

I'm not saying they weren't correct in that diff, they were, just that they started editing immediately after TeamMace was banned. Also, check the IP, they're all the same location. Snokalok (talk) 14:24, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

We got it. Drmies (talk) 14:39, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Support Block Standard whack-a-Mace trollery. King Lobclaw (talk) 14:45, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

• UPDATE: I have reported several users on the above mentioned article at WP:AIV. Plasticwonder (Cat got your tongue?) 19:13, 6 December 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.