Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

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

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

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

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

    Start a new discussion
    Noticeboard archives
    Administrators' (archives, search)
    356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365
    366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375
    Incidents (archives, search)
    1186 1187 1188 1189 1190 1191 1192 1193 1194 1195
    1196 1197 1198 1199 1200 1201 1202 1203 1204 1205
    Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
    482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491
    492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501
    Arbitration enforcement (archives)
    342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351
    352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361
    Other links

    User:Astral highway & AI-generated editing

    [edit]

    I am very concerned with multiple instance of apparent AI-generated edits from User:Astral highway.

    1) The user created Anoxic microsites in soil, which returned a 100% probability of AI on Pangram, and was deleted via G15 on October 24.

    2) This entire conversation reeks of AI generation. I do not know whether the edits to Bee and Bumblebee were AI-generated or not. Pinging User:Chiswick Chap.

    3) This conversation at GA focused on GA reviews which were apparently AI-generated. Talk:Silver Lake (Whatcom County, Washington)/GA1 was also reverted via G15 on october 26. Discussion is ongoing with regards to whether Talk:Canon EOS/GA2 was AI generated or not.

    4) This thread created this morning accuses User:Astral highway of creating AI-generated hoax sources at calcareous grassland. The user then admitted to using AI to generate the sources. The response also smells like AI. Pinging User:Steinsky.

    These are just the four examples I have witnessed, but this user has made significant edits and article creations across a variety of topics, and every edit should probably be scrutinized at this point. Bgsu98 (Talk) 13:52, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    It doesn't look like anyone is going to propose a CBAN so I think this is done. Can someone please close this before it gets archived? NicheSports (talk) 23:42, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    At the risk of dragging this out any longer, is it possible to also block Astral highway from doing any more GA reviews? Truthnope (talk) 01:31, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Good morning/ afternoon, depending on time zones.
    I'd appreciate if we could be more careful about going from a 'suspicion' about an incident on probabilistic terms, to a damaging generalization like this.
    1) You alerted me to a suspicion of LLM citation generation by Pangram (zero suspicion by ChatGPTZero) and asked if I had manually checked all refs. I encouraged you to speedy delete the article rather than risk any harm, as couldn't instantly dig into the issue.
    2)You checked this conversation and found no suspicion of AI generation on my talk page, unsurprising for talk generated by me. 'Reeks of...' is an unsafe determination indeed. For the two articles you refer to, that seems to be trying to extend a doubt founded on suspicion in a more damaging way, to human-generated main-space edits. It looks as if you were invited to do this by the person you have 'pinged' into this discussion.
    3) I've had a look at this talk about a GA review just now Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#Another seemingly AI-generated review and a couple of things come up. The semantic content of a review (the words)are a wholly different issue to the markup.
    In this recent article, Chris Albon and Leila Zia, of the Wikidedia Foundation, encourage editors to make intelligent use of AI. (https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2025/04/30/our-new-ai-strategy-puts-wikipedias-humans-first/) The scope of what they encourage certainly extends to avoiding mark-up errors and assisting neat presentation in formal processes like reviews, which is how I used it here and explains "the lack of Wikitext errors." Like I say elsewhere, we used to have to know some HTML to format some page features, back in the day.
    So getting a block of words and headings neat is a courtesy to the reader, not an offense to any Wikipedia principles.
    Making neatly formatted review pages doesn't evidence that the reviewer has rushed anything, or that the reviewer's actual words are AI generated. Not at all.
    I thought the Silver Lake article was stand-out GA standard and evidenced that. We don't need lots of words to justify a straight-up pass.
    My "List signature" doesn't make me a bad guy, even if human evaluators say hey, that that's a stand-out AI concoction. It isn't.
    I've had a lifelong interaction with a massive volume of words. This ranges from patient study of super-dry regulatory material, to writing complex metanalyses for formal academic review, to writing in rather freer forms and more engaging forms of expression for less specialized publication out there.
    I've also written highly technical material and process flows. All of this has been part of my professional career for as long as I can remember.
    I've translated, too, for publication, and in the course of that endeavor, completed a formal study of applied linguistics.
    The other GA review I'm conducting Talk:Canon EOS again evidences a detailed and consistent level of care. I didn't rush the thing through, have made constructive comments, read it over in detail numerous times and twice invited the nominator to evidence retrieval of all sources with a timestamp, pointing out that the onus of making sure refs resolve lies with the nominator - even as the GA reviewer will also check carefully after that.
    My behavior is not that of someone who wishes to cut corners or damage the Wikipedia project. This thread has the makings of a moral panic resulting from unfounded extension of a specific suspicion to unfounded, widespread & bad faith practice.
    For context: I have come across a few cases of failed citations, in which, precisely, a DOI didn't resolve, or that there was a hallucinated paper or journal title, even in GA-class article. That shocked me and appalled me.
    That's why my conclusion on (4) references a deeper reason why I have dug into this issue in the last few days.
    As a sidebar, we could all get very busy alerting admins to an AI malpractice, every time we see the signature M dash on a page in articles, which is a widespread occurrence. But the ChatGPT thumbprint that everyone knows about, doesn't automatically point to bad-faith content generation that is the existential threat to the Wikipedia project; it can simply mean care for well-presented code.
    I'll sign off here, but please note my commitment to this endeavor and its underlying principles. I'd appreciate it if this response could be included as a 'lens' for any scrutiny of my actions.

    Astral highway (talk) 15:40, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Astral highway, which responses of yours do NOT use LLM generation? Nobody here wants to talk to a bot instead of the person they are addressing. Hooples (talk) 15:59, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm beginning to think that anyone who is the subject of a complaint regarding LLM generated content and then responds to that complaint with LLM generated slop should be blocked. We keep seeing this over, and over, and over, and over, and over again. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:34, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's too soft. Anyone posting article content, or talk-page content, that is AI generated should be blocked on sight, without our awaiting any response, because anyone who thinks AI-generated content is acceptable is ipso facto incompetent. EEng 21:24, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I gotta say, I don't actually think this is from an LLM. There are some grammatical and punctuation errors scattered throughout that an LLM typically won't make, and missing words (such as the missing I between "as" and "couldn't instantly dig"). This seems more like an attempt to be polite and detailed that got fed a heavy helping of long-windedness. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 17:47, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. I'm human! Astral highway (talk) 17:53, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You haven't answered the question. EEng 22:32, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don’t see any policy reason to collpapse my earlier comment as (entirely unproven) AI generated. My words, written it in good faith and in response to the issue that was put forward, and that’s what it's about. I’m hoping we can stick to WP: AGE, WP:NPA &keep focus on content, per WP: FOC. Please could that collapse be undone for fairness and transparency Astral highway (talk) 17:30, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No, because you are using an LLM to generate those comments. 173.22.12.194 (talk) 00:57, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a meta-comment, and I've not been part of the discussion - just happened to doomscroll through ANI after visiting a discussion I'd heard about. If you feed an LLM some content, and tell it that you want it to "add a small number of misspellings, grammatical structure errors, syntax errors, punctuation errors, at about what the expectation would be for a high school senior essay", it will dutifully do so, without difficulty. JADP. This is why, in my opinion, we're doomed. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 22:16, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @User:Astral highway Could you explain more about your discussion here with User:Chiswick Chap? Chiswick Chap says that a number of citations in Bee were changed for seemingly no reason. You respond by agreeing that the changes were "bizarre" and are at first unsure if you made them, and then conclude that you edited source, copied and pasted a block of material to work on offline, then pasted the edited source back into the article, but that somehow changed a number of sources into completely different sources. Can you explain in more detail what you did? I don't see how copying and pasting source would somehow create completely new citations. For reference, Chiswick Chap manually reverts those citation changes in this diff and the two after it. Truthnope (talk) 20:29, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know what happened; I did something accidental and apologized profusely as soon as I realized. Astral highway (talk) 20:47, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It would help if you could explain your editing process to show how this accident occurred. If you didn't make these changes yourself, I can only imagine two possible explanations: 1) somebody else got access to your device and made these changes while you weren't paying attention (also known as WP:My little brother did it), or 2) at some point, you copied and pasted the content into a proofreading software and it changed these citations without you noticing. Does either of these explanations sound plausible? Truthnope (talk) 21:23, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    When I say I don't know what happened, I'm pointing to an outcome that makes no sense to me, either then or now. It would be pure conjecture to try to explain it as if part of any rational process. Astral highway (talk) 22:04, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright, how about this discussion with User:Steinsky? Steinsky (signature displayed as Joe D) notes three references you added to Black Nore Lighthouse and points out that none of those URLs resolve and that no evidence shows that those sources exist. Your response suggests that you had trouble with understanding how generating references works, but it doesn't address the question of whether or not those references actually exist. My question is, assuming that you did add those references yourself, regardless of any difficulty you had with generating references on Wikipedia, are there underlying real sources that those references correspond to, and if so, can you provide evidence (ideally, URLs), that prove they are real?
    Also, can I assume your response means that you did not use any proofreading software to revise your edits, since you are not considering that possibility? Truthnope (talk) 22:35, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I hadn't clocked those non-resolving refs until Joe D pointed them out, and explained something of what was going on at the time. No proofreading software used. From today: Here's a diff on Blacknore Lighthouse, showing that I removed a wholly uncontroversial statement about the treacherousness of the waters, after I had doubts about supporting it with a reference to something that looks very real (The Admiralty does, precisely, produce such book and charts (no URL avail for it), but that I couldn't have eyes on. I had the choice of 1/leaving a statement that could hardly be contested, 2/ finding a ref that explicitly supported it, or 3/ taking the lot down until I could. I chose that option. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Black_Nore_Lighthouse&diff=1319444652&oldid=1319366853. I dropped in a TV news report on the Brunswick, which did have an URL: https://news.sky.com/story/the-brunswick-ghost-ship-of-christmas-past-11584701. Astral highway (talk) 01:27, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That doesn't answer my question. I wasn't asking about edits you made today, I was asking about references you added back in 13 September 2025, listed by Joe D in the aforementioned discussion, for which the URLs do not work. Did you create those references? Do those sources actually exist? Truthnope (talk) 01:59, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not trying to be dense and I'm digging deep to answer the questions the best way I can. Yes, I created them. I've gone over my processes but there's nothing concrete I can come up with; there isn't something I do that's automatic or engrained that would account for it.
    I'm also trying hard to make sense of it from the distance of six weeks ago, when my workflow is now more established and I've worked a few things out.
    The Brunswick story stands up with one single news story, which was easy to source, so I am totally a loss as to why it had three citations attached to it.
    Of the three, Maritime Journal exists and has a relevant story: https://www.maritimejournal.com/century-old-wreck-uncovered-while-performing-routine-port-company-survey/970620.article?utm_source=chatgpt.com. Of the other two, Historic England exists, is the organization that "listed" the building and is the source of greatest authority on its history, but not the Brunswick story.
    On that day, I added refs 14, 15, 16, 19, 23, 24, 26 as well as those in question. These included results from a lengthy search of accounts held on a government website, and you can see I'm active on the page much of the day. The relevance here is that my state of mind was one of adding depth, context and scope to page.
    Once this issue was raised, I re-checked the relevant references from that date and corrected the citation. I remain committed to making sure that every reference I add is fully verifiable.Astral highway (talk) 12:04, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is, frankly, an unsatisfactory answer. You should not be creating references to nonexistent sources, no matter the state of your workflow. Errors such as typos or mixing up sources are reasonable mistakes, creating entire sources out of whole cloth is not. Even if you claim that you have no idea how this keeps happening (and there are more such cases), then it becomes a WP:COMPETENCE issue that you somehow can't stop adding made up sources. However, I also see utm_source=chatgpt.com in the URL you included, and that, along with this entire conversation, is sufficient evidence to me that you're using ChatGPT to write these responses and to help with your edits, and that it has hallucinated all of these nonexistent sources that you have been unable to explain. Truthnope (talk) 16:41, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There are two things here. I want neat, ordered code on my page and spend a lot of time trying to fix formatting errors. That is a coding job that I have tried to outsource to an LLM at times, but learned that this may be perilous. I don't need any kind of assistance with my writing or thinking. Nobody is engaging with an bot when they are talking to me.Astral highway (talk) 17:35, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you use an LLM to find the Maritime Journal url you included in your previous comment? Truthnope (talk) 17:49, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. I didn't think I needed to chop off the end of that search result, for that very reason.
    Why hide something that isn't a policy vio at all? That shows transparency, nothing else.
    The LLM you mention has been around for what, 3 years now? Many serious researchers use it in sophisticated way a smart search engine, and it can help to find the physical location of an obscure journal, or a book, wherever it may be hiding, and similar productive tasks.
    I don't take it at face value, but it can be a good assistant in that way, not a master. I haven't used the popular browser for as long as I can remember.
    That is absolutely no evidence of my using it to dream up sources. Where I think I may have been over-trusting for a while is in trying to format sources, at which point, it seems in some cases that I'm now aware of, at the point of formatting it can chuck in a non-resolving DOI. So of course I won't be doing that any more.
    I have checked every single source for the content I've put out there, bar the handful that came to my notice.
    The irony is that I have come across non-resolving DOI's a lot since coming back to Wikipedia, and I found it disturbing, and still do.
    I am determined to produce citations that resolve and can be stable, especially as hosts for information disappear or move around.
    As well, in an effort to have a nice, clean block of code, at one stage I tried to outsource that sub-task to the LLM, with mixed results. So that isn't something I continued, and all of this learning was weeks ago.
    It remains difficult to put citations in without them going awry at times, as I said, because of some templating issues that may be easily resolved if people are from a coding background, but seem to result in a mess of 'cite error' and other redlines. I hope that is totally clear. Astral highway (talk) 18:07, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The fundamental issue here is that you have consistently generated references to sources that do not exist. Some users believe you used an LLM which hallucinated those sources. You deny this, and instead have no rational explanation for why this has repeatedly happened, which is not a better alternative. Frankly, it doesn't matter which interpretation you take. If you can't reasonably explain why you have a history of making up sources, you can't reasonably promise that you will not continue to do so in the future, and so no editor can reasonably conclude that you have the competence required to edit Wikipedia.
    I have to emphasize this: the damage has already been done. You have already breached the trust of your fellow editors by making up sources and including urls that lead to error pages. What you need to do is show that you understand that these mistakes were problematic, and show that you will avoid making these mistakes in the future, which requires you to know how they were made in the first place. Trying to show other edits where you didn't make citation errors doesn't allay concerns about all of the other edits where you did, and talking about your opinions on LLMs or Wikipedia makes it look like you're avoiding talking about the issues at hand. Truthnope (talk) 19:49, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for putting this across so clearly. I willingly acknowledge that those mistakes were problematic and do apologize without hesitation for those cases, as well as for any anxiety and distress that has resulted. That's entirely on me.
    How can I can vouch that mistakes won't recur? I've refined my workflow to use verified citation databases. As well, I'll double check for perfect resolution of all citations.
    In response to the concerns raised, I did put everything to one side for a few days to recheck everything, as well as with assistance from another person, so as to cover more ground. Astral highway (talk) 22:30, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, you've been blocked from editing articles. I'm not an admin, so there's not much I can do to help you there.
    There's one thing I want to clarify though: in an earlier comment, you said the following: As well, in an effort to have a nice, clean block of code, at one stage I tried to outsource that sub-task to the LLM, with mixed results. So that isn't something I continued, and all of this learning was weeks ago. Are you saying that all of the earlier hallucinated citations were due to you using an LLM, and that after you saw that the results were mixed, you stopped using it weeks ago? Because that would be the closest thing you've done to taking responsibility and giving an actionable plan for no longer making this error. Truthnope (talk) 00:48, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, I'm sorry if I have come across as evasive, that wasn't my intention, not at all. The title of this notice has put me on guard, as it is wide in scope and damning.
    When it came to the assertion that it's not even me on my talk page, even though that hunch was disproven entirely it seemed difficult to engage without getting into an exhausting circular discussion.
    I understand the need for frank disclosure, and here is what I can say about which sub-tasks I have at times asked for LLM assistance, what I have learned in the process, and what is different now.
    1) Sub-task type: asking LLM to format an "already confirmed source with the '"already confirmed correct title, in an attempt to produce a stable DOI.
    I discovered that the LLM output can be a fabricated identifier attached to a real article, or a DOI can be guessed when none is present in the publisher record. That is a perverse outcome, exactly in the opposite direction of the intention, which is to produce a stable DOI. I repeat, clearly this is not something I would continue. I rigorously re-checked over all my mainspace edits.
    2) I have dug into the Blacknore Lighthous example from 13 Sept. Here my best understanding is that I was subtasking an LLM only to format references that I had already selected. However, it turns out it can complete or expand and corrupt references by adding items it judges to be similar to the existing content, without prompting to do so. I didn't check the outputs on that occasion, and they went under the radar. That was my responsibility. Practice discontinued.
    Again, I have re-checked over all edits in the article and they all resolve. The template was reinstated even after I had done this and so I do wonder if that could be removed, as my attempt to do so was reverted.
    Evidence for this being the best explanation is that there was no editorial reason for me to include three sources to support a completely uncontroversial story with a readily available secondary source to back it up. I don't do that under any circumstances, but it stands up my point.
    Again, now I understand that an LLM doesn't enact instructions as if given a bunch of code, but uses heuristics, I have stopped using it for that sub-task also.
    3) Sub-tasking an LLM to put into correct, Wiki mark-up, blocks of references that have already been checked. I now understand that again, even without being asked, the LLM can mark refs as 'retrieved.' Again, I have stopped asking an LLM to enact this sub-task.
    These are three specific sub-task categories of using an LLM that apply.
    I hope that these illustrations affirm my willingness to take responsibility for what happened, as well as showing what I have learned and what I will do differently. Astral highway (talk) 11:44, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What do you mean "produce a stable DOI"? DOIs are assigned by the DOI foundation and approved bodies. They cannot be produced by llms. If you are asking an llm to produce anything, that is already beyond formatting. CMD (talk) 00:09, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It remains difficult to put citations in without them going awry at times No, it really isn't. There's a too (a gadget you can enable, I believe?) that lets you format citations right in the edit window. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:42, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, aware. A minor but time-consuming issue recently was citation correctly formatted but superscript replaced with same-size as text. Other issues I'll categorize offline and work out. Astral highway (talk) Astral highway (talk) 11:57, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is a better example. The template on the right of the page (scrolling all the way down) is messed up by my inclusion of a valid PDF, referring to a verified advanced text for radar operatives. That edit and more has been rolled back as nonsense - perhaps because it is in Russian. But on-topic, I'm illustrating a real-life example of working hard to improve an article by adding depth to it, only to encounter this class of error.Astral highway (talk) 12:36, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Astral, we need a clear and direct answer to Truthnope and Joe D's question. You have repeatedly avoided answering this question. We need to know why and how you added those seemingly non existent references. Please note that admins are not the only group active here and the community also takes these issues seriously. The truth - whatever it is - is your best bet here! NicheSports (talk) 02:03, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Phantom nonsense was also added to P-70 radar. Bgsu98 (Talk) 08:29, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This doesn't seem at all justified. Particularly could I ask for more care when you class a whole set of discrete activities as 'nonsense.' You removed references 4,5,6, here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=P-70_radar&diff=prev&oldid=1319391093. 4) Chernyak is the author of a journal paper with that exact description; I have the PDF and have read it. 5) The P-70 Radar, resolves. 5) Is a highly relevant paper on foundational principles of this type of radar. So these are healthy additions. For wider context, this diff in January 2009 (I was an early contributor to the page) shows great care for it: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=P-70_radar&diff=1319518924&oldid=262747326 In it, I point out that there is a several orders of magnitude error in the operating frequency and this major error should be corrected. This is the posture of someone who cares deeply about information stewardship, as I do. Astral highway (talk) 10:39, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Your 2009 diff shows you confusing pulse repetition frequency with carrier frequency. The radar sends pulses in VHF 70 or 140 times per second, that is not a contradiction. In fact this is backed up by a source you added. [1]
    To analogize, if I were to say "hi" to you once every two seconds, the frequency of the "hi"s would be 0.5Hz, while the pitch of my voice would be much higher at ~200Hz.
    This seems like a very basic error for someone overhauling radar articles to miss, frankly. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 12:48, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, easily done but looks like you mis-read the original text. It clearly said : The radar operated on two frequencies, 140 Hz [sic] to observe low -altitude targets (aircraft and missiles) and 70 Hz [sic] to observe high -altitude targets. That means the original writer didn't know that would suggest carrier; if [they] did, they wouldn't have stated in a confusing way and would have mentioned the PRF. I do know about and have used PRF for high-power RF systems. Love the analogy though for those who don't know! Astral highway (talk) 16:03, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    So you made the assumption it should be MHz without checking the source at all, didn't notice when reading your own additional sources, and didn't think to double check before you presented this as the posture of someone who cares deeply about information stewardship? Incredibly worrying on top of the other sourcing issues. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 16:44, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's conventional to state radio frequency/ band first, then PRF, pulse width etc. PRF doesn't tell you the most important thing. So, going back to 2009 and my diff, I'm showing RF literacy by correcting 70Hz and 140Hz (audio frequencies) to MHz (consistent with the VHF carrier). It later turns out the numbers 70 and 140 are PRF's, but I didn't put those there.
    My 2009 edit adds value straight away, by correcting a six orders of magnitude error. Simply put, 150MHz is about 2 metres wavelength, and 150Hz is over 2KM wavelength.Astral highway (talk) 17:23, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It later turns out no, the source present in the article at the time states that the repetition frequency is 70/140Hz. You did not "add value" by introducing misinformation. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 17:32, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Regardless of the merits, I don't think that edits from 2009 are relevant at all here NicheSports (talk) 17:41, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given the repeated cases of inserting hallucinated references (which if they aren't the result of LLM useage that's worse) and the constant evasiveness and apparent lack of ability to ensure this won't happen again, I have indefinitely pblocked Astral highway from articlespace. If and when they are able to assure these problems will not recur, anyone can lift the pblock. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:42, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I note this today. Thank you for prompting me to make a full presentation of the extent and context of my LLM usage and its boundaries. Please understand that my earlier reticence to dig into this was from the broad-brush title of this page and the repetition of some allegations based on 'hunch' alone, as well as needing more time to replicate some tasks off-line to distil my understanding.
      I hope this latest explanation [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#c-Astral_highway-20251031114400-Truthnope-20251031004800 shows me to be a good-faith, transparent and collegiate member of the Wikimedia Project. Astral highway (talk) 12:12, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't think you've really addressed what you will do differently. I think that a binding promise to not use LLMs for any purpose on Wikipedia is the bare minimum of an expectation. LLMs are an extremely dangerous tool to Wikipedia that you have misused repeatedly and been evasive about, so that should end any use of the tool. You've accidentally had a gun misfire at the family picnic on multiple occasions; the time has come to say you can choose to either leave the gun at home or you no longer are invited to the picnic. Wikipedia articles shouldn't be victimized by your personal journey to discover what subtasks LLMs suck at. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 07:12, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I'll try better. I begin by making a binding promise not to use citation formatting or referencing 'assistance' from any LLM.
      My mistakes came from believing that formatting and citation assistance from an LLM could be adopted reliably. I detailed how that was misguided and how 100% I will no longer do that; I worked hard to correct those errors when they came to light.
      I understand and feel the scope of your concern, so I further make a binding promise that I won't use any LLM in a way that affects markup or content on Wikipedia.
      (Please note that I don't need LLM assistance to help me communicate with fellow editors, nor to structure my thoughts, and people are talking to me on my talk pages, not via an LLM, as suggested in some comments.)
      To support my commitment, I emphasize that I'm committing to a reset of workflow to be entirely manual, including manual formatting of citations in the source. Before saving any edit, I will double check that every reference resolves correctly.
      I hope this demonstrates my sincere wish to put things right, as well as to be given a second chance to prove my commitment to the highest standards Astral highway (talk) 11:45, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      The ambiguity of this statement, and the faux-legalese that gives you loopholes to still use LLM for some things on Wikipedia is highly concerning. As elsewhere in this discussion, it's difficult to gauge just what you're agreeing to; your intention might be to agree to not use LLMs on Wikipedia ever, but it's hard to tell with all the meandering. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:43, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Plainly: I will not use LLM's on Wikipedia. Astral highway (talk) 16:37, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Please understand that my earlier reticence to dig into this was from the broad-brush title of this page That characterization feels dishonest. Concerns were raised with your hallucinated citations before this ANI report was filed (they were the impetus for the ANI report in the first place), such as in the discussion with Chiswick Chap, the discussion with Steinsky, and this AfC submission in which User:Pythoncoder warned you of the risks of using an LLM, including hallucinations and nonexistent references, and you responded by saying No such method was used. Even if your talk page responses are human-written, the concerns about you using an LLM to edit articles were entirely justified, and you refused multiple opportunites to come clean about your LLM usage. It's unfair to Bgsu98 to characterize this ANI report as being based on a "hunch" when it was actually based on the considerable body of evidence showing you adding nonexistent sources. Truthnope (talk) 22:54, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      This. Lifting the block would be a mistake. DoubleCross (‡) 01:37, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Agreed. This person does not need to be editing Wikipedia. Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:39, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Now that my heart is no longer racing from the notification that I've been mentioned on ANI: I've certainly wrongly declined drafts for LLM usage before, but I don't think I'm wrong here. So what we've got here is a user getting blocked from mainspace, repeating the same behavior that got them blocked in other namespaces, and actively trying to obfuscate the truth in the hopes of getting unblocked without actually changing their ways. The use of LLMs to hallucinate a GA review a week ago is a whole new level of deceit that I've never seen before. I would not be opposed to dropping the ban hammer here. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 11:10, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      As the one who received the GA review... yeah, it stings. I'm a staunch critic (one could even say hater) of LLMs in general, and I honestly completely missed the obvious red flags. I did notice the inaccuracies, like the "most images are from commons" and the references not being live (they all were). The fact that I put more effort into making sure that every single one of the 80+ references I personally added *also* had an archive link, just to satisfy a reviewer that put less time into his "review" than I spent doing that, is genuinely infuriating. I wish I weren't the recipient of such a review, but it is what it is. I just ask that the next person who reviews the article does so in a way that warrants the good faith I had in the last one. Serebit (talk) 17:06, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      It also hurts because it was the most work I've ever put into a Wikipedia article *by far*, and I had no reference point for what a GA review is "supposed" to look like, so I assumed the weird formatting and inaccuracies were just things I didn't know about or missed from reading about the GA system. Plainly, I feel cheated. Serebit (talk) 17:09, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      The use of LLMs to hallucinate a GA review a week ago They what? <goes and looks further at contribs> Oh, dear. Given that, should their pass of Talk:Cup of China/GA1 be vacated as well? - The Bushranger One ping only 22:45, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      We discussed that issue here. I am the nominator of that article. I stand behind Cup of China and welcome any re-inspection. Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:53, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      It should probably be vacated because of the rest of the discussion in this thread and because of the author of the review being banned from mainspace, though I don't think it shows the signs of an LLM-generated review (plenty of typos, very little actual text, just surface-level short observations). It's just not very well reviewed. The review should be discarded and the article should be put back into the queue for someone qualified to take a look at it. Serebit (talk) 22:56, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      @Pythoncoder, respectfully, "...repeating of any behaviour on other spaces" isn't true. Please note timings a& sequence:
      30 Oct Mainspace ban 22:42
      31 Oct - my explanation of full extent of LLM usage and context
      1 Nov - further extension of that explanation and a binding promise.
      It' logically impossible to 'repeat' something before another thing, so there isn't a case that I could have "repeated" behaviour (which had not been established in other spaces, beyond a 'hunch') in GA spaces or talk space, after the ban.
      I didn't use LLM's to analyse or review GA spaces and I didn't get an LLM to do GA reviews. That was limited to formatting wiki markup, as a courtesy to the recipient of the review, wishing nice neat blocks of text and formatting.
      I didn't expect that to be an issue as pages are made of markup. Since that time, too, I've been made aware that there is a GA template.
      I didn't use an LLM to communicate on on my talk page and there wasn't any evidence, either, that I did.
      But sticking with now: I repeat what I said two days ago:
      Plainly: I will not use LLM's on Wikipedia. Astral highway (talk) 16:37, 1 November 2025 (UTC)Astral highway (talk) 12:08, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      You have not fully explained your LLM usage. You still have not answered (after repeated questions here and on your talk page) where these seemingly hallucinated references came from. You have spoken again and again about using LLMs for citation "formatting" but per User:Steinsky's analysis at the link above none of these articles ever existed. Also, per the ANI filing you apparently had a GA review G15'd? I cannot confirm this, or review it, because I am not an admin. @Bgsu98 do you remember which of the G15 criteria was involved? If that indeed happened then how are you saying you did not use LLMs on GA reviews? NicheSports (talk) 13:31, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      It was Talk:Silver Lake (Whatcom County, Washington)/GA1, which was deleted, but has since been re-created as another user did the review. An administrator should be able to see the history to examine details of the original deletion. Bgsu98 (Talk) 14:32, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      @The Bushranger can an admin please temporarily restore the deleted version of Talk:Silver Lake (Whatcom County, Washington)/GA1 so we can look at it, in light of Astral's comment above? NicheSports (talk) 14:43, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
       In progress This will be a little tetchy because another editor took over the review (and passed it) and so there's an existing /GA1 for that article. One moment please. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:44, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
       Done it can be reviewed at User:The Bushranger/Silver Lake (Whatcom County, Washington)/GA1 @NicheSports:. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:46, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks for restoring. It is certainly plausible that the review was LLM-generated, but I don't see it meeting any G15 criteria and I am surprised it was deleted on those grounds. I suppose the argument was 1) it is very likely LLM generated 2) the entire page is "communication intended for the user" and 3) it needed to be gotten rid of, so someone stretched on the definition. Which is fair. But I don't think it is relevant to what we do here. NicheSports (talk) 23:00, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Here is the thread where this was discussed. Pinging User:David Eppstein, the admin who deleted that GA. Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:07, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I see from this diff range that my guess above was pretty close. I agree with the deletion, but the G15 criteria was sufficiently loose that I don't think it should inform a CBAN, which it seems people are considering. But @Astral highway can you please provide a clear answer about how you generated these nonexistent references in your edits to Black Nore Lighthouse? NicheSports (talk) 23:24, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Astral highway's comment here on point 2) explains how the nonexistent references on that page were generated. I have dug into the Blacknore Lighthous example from 13 Sept. Here my best understanding is that I was subtasking an LLM only to format references that I had already selected. However, it turns out it can complete or expand and corrupt references by adding items it judges to be similar to the existing content, without prompting to do so. I didn't check the outputs on that occasion, and they went under the radar. That was my responsibility. Practice discontinued. Truthnope (talk) 00:01, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Ah, I see. Um, can we really believe that? LLMs hallucinate, yeah, but not when told to create a reference for a real, live URL... NicheSports (talk) 00:07, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Oh, I see what you mean. It would help if they could explicitly state what their process of using LLMs was, i.e. how much did they write and what did they ask the LLM to do, though I'm not sure if they plan on commenting further. Truthnope (talk) 01:13, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      After seeing their explanation I am convinced they are lying about how those references were created. LLMs are not going to hallucinate a phantom url if you provide them a real url and ask them to create a wikipedia style reference using it. NicheSports (talk) 01:29, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm sure there are some that would, but I agree that most easily accessible models (e.g. GPT) wouldn't. It also strikes me as odd that a user would go to an LLM for that task instead of using one of the many freely available citation generator tools like citer.toolforge.org, which I've used frequently when editing on mobile in source mode. The only reasonable explanation to me is that the references were entirely generated by an LLM. Serebit (talk) 06:50, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I've now openly described what I did in concrete terms and very clearly, what I will do differently. I hope in time that can make a difference
      If @Serebit you feel that a page isn't very well reviewed for GA, that is a very different discussion and doesn't need to involve me, and of course you are free to ask someone else to take over the review. I'm not trying to minimize your feelings about what's the right thing to do.
      But to be fair, a decent amount of thought, time and discernment went into it, using only the stuff that's between my ears. The alternative would have been to speed it through as it stood.
      The same applies for Cup of China. That was stand-out well written, and just because I put that across using few words doesn't suggest any co-opting of other resources.
      It looks as if there may be limited productivity in my further commenting here.Astral highway (talk) 11:03, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      @Astral highway With the extent to which you misled and obstructed the truth prior to your ban, I'm not of the opinion that any of your claims about the veracity of your edits and reviews should be taken seriously. I agree that there's not much reason for you to continue commenting—the decision made by the admins is not going to be revisited anytime soon, and you're only digging yourself a deeper hole by continuing to argue against the conclusions made. I suggest that you take a break from Wikipedia to reflect on your actions instead of trying to convince everyone that our well-founded conclusions are wrong. Serebit (talk) 12:21, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Needs archiving. ~212.70~ ~2025-31733-18 (talk) 05:17, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Frachx75

    [edit]

    Frachx75 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has got a talk page of nothing but warnings about adding unsourced content and block notices. They were blocked only a month ago, but upon being released from that block they’ve gone straight back to editing without sources: [2][3][4][5]. I feel like this may be somewhat of a lost cause here… Danners430 tweaks made 21:51, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Even in the short time this thread has been open, I’ve reverted another three unsourced additions… [6][7][8] Danners430 tweaks made 22:11, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Is someone able to have a look at this? Danners430 tweaks made 00:02, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Just leaving a message to keep LCSB at bay until this can be looked at - although the user has been quiet since the end of October, so perhaps they've moved on... Danners430 tweaks made 17:25, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry for not getting to this sooner - it does appear that this is stale due to the editor not continuing to edit. If they pick up again, then please re-report (if this has rolled off the board by that point). - The Bushranger One ping only 08:47, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No worries at all - it certainly hasn't exactly been quiet here of late! Happy to close as stale unless they reappear :-) Danners430 tweaks made 09:06, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @The Bushranger Can I have some of what you're using...? They've literally just returned...! [9] Whatever it is, I'm blaming you for bringing them back :P Danners430 tweaks made 14:31, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Vmzp85

    [edit]
    Vmzp85 has been blocked for three months by Cullen328 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (non-admin closure). sjones23 (talk - contributions) 11:40, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Vmzp85 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been at ANI at least three times already - Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive930#User:Vmzp85, WP:UNBROKEN and WP:CIVIL, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1201#Vmzp85 - persistent addition of unsourced/poorly sourced content, edit warring and refusal to discuss and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1143#Vmzp85. Since the most recent discussion, they’ve taken to systematically blanking every warning left on their talk page. While this is of course permitted, it’s also seen as them having read and understood those warnings. However, they are persistently removing sourced from articles without good reason, and refusing to discuss this. They’re also adding poorly sourced and unsourced content, which was the reason for their prior block. What can be done to get this editor to discuss other editors’ concerns about their editing?

    Diffs: [10][11][12][13][14] Danners430 tweaks made 16:25, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    And of course par for the course, the ANI notice instantly removed from their talk page. Again of course perfectly valid, but they know this discussion exists. Danners430 tweaks made 16:29, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    They’re now edit warring at Saltillo Airport, despite being told the source they’re using is deprecated - WP:AEROROUTES Danners430 tweaks made 16:33, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Now rather going against WP:CIVIL with a response on their talk page… [15]. Accept I was frustrated when writing my initial post, but this is the second note I left them about this topic and they obviously ignored it. Danners430 tweaks made 20:28, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yet more… warned the user a number of times about this, but they’re still removing citations from articles without reason, leaving the content unsourced. [16] @Vmzp85 could you please address these concerns?
    As an additional twist, I just discovered a dormant second account at User:Vmzp86... edit history shows identical interests, so possibly a dormant sock?Danners430 tweaks made 08:43, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    (Non-administrator comment) it looks like they haven't used an article Talk page since 2016, which is unexpected since there are apparently disputes over content.
    Last time (one month ago), their response to the concerns raised was "Nothing to say" and they were subsequently blocked by Cullen328. Blue Sonnet (talk) 12:05, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    They did use to use their user talk page, but since the last two ANIs notices have just been summarily deleted, aside from the rather rude response I got linked above. Danners430 tweaks made 12:07, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Is someone able to have a look at this? Danners430 tweaks made 19:54, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think Vmzp85 should be blocked from editing in article space. shane (talk to me if you want!) 20:33, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have blocked Vmzp85 for three months for disruptive editing such as removing sourced content, adding unsourced or poorly sourced content and refusing to discuss issues with other editors. Cullen328 (talk) 19:35, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Cinaroot reverts on Israel lead section against consensus

    [edit]

    Cinaroot (talk · contribs) keeps changing a sentence in the Israel lead to state in WP:WIKIVOICE that Israel is committing genocide ([17], [18], [19]), despite previous RFCs (1, 2) and talk page consensus that such claims should only be attributed. The user cites an RFC from a different article to justify this. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 20:04, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    With due respect, this feels like a content dispute on the usage of Wikivoice, and I recommend getting more people to determine what language to use for the content. That being said, Cinaroot hasn't technically done 3RR yet and you haven't made the attempt at discussing it once more. Conyo14 (talk) 21:42, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks like there was a discussion, late September, between Cinnaroot, Triggerhippie4, and several other users. There does not appear to be a consensus from that discussion. Personally, I'd find it a little eyebrow raising when someone participates in a discussion on a controversial change acknowledging that they *could* start a new RFC on it, but then doesn't do so and when the talk page discussion results in no consensus, makes their preferred changes anyway after a couple weeks when hopefully everyone's forgotten about it. I'll also note that the RFC at Talk:Gaza genocide was specific to the that article -- the question was formulated in explicit reference to the first sentence Should the WP:first sentence of the article have the title in bold as the sentence subject, such as The Gaza genocide is... or should it have an 'X says Y' format, such as...; respondents to that RFC were not asked to address, nor were they addressing, the broader usage of that term project wide. A local consensus in one place at one time, does not overrule a separate local consensus at another place and another time, nor a lack of a general project-wide consensus. Cinnaroot should start a broader RFC if they want to change consensus more broadly; or start one locally if they want to get it specifically for this particular article. Regardless, there's no administrator action to be taken here. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 22:46, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the reply. After making our arguments - and there is no reply from involved editors - a silent consensus was assumed. WP:SILENCE i understand it is a weak consensus. But i think - me and another editor have made strong arguments - but if other editors disagree - they should speak out.
    Consensus on Gaza genocide is recent and site-wide - it is explained in Gaza genocide FAQ
    The term "Gaza Genocide" is supported by a sufficient number of reliable sources. It is the consensus, not an opinion, that it is a genocide (see discussion). Cinaroot (talk) 03:26, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If I could bet on the future outcome of a hypothetical RFC on the Israel article, I'd put solid money on it adopting the same or similar language as the Gaza genocide article, sure. But process-wise, if y'all want that to happen someone needs to actually *do* that. It might be a non-issue in any other topic, but this one is basically the mother of all CTOPs, so dotting the I's and crossing the T's here is important regardless of the position on the merits one has. For one thing, doing so might have avoided <waves hand> all of this. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 03:59, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    (Might well have been the first CTOP, come to that.) Ravenswing 06:12, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If i want a site wide consensus - where should i open the rfc. On Israel talk page or Village Pump or somewhere else ? Cinaroot (talk) 08:25, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have already raised this on the talk page, but the user continues to make the change. They cite an RFC from a different article and argue that consensus can change, although no new consensus has been reached in the past month. Triggerhippie4 (talk) 22:49, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is lie. They have never engaged me on my talk page - until now to post this notice about admin discussion Cinaroot (talk) 03:17, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    They didn't say they engaged on YOUR talk page. They say that they did on THE talk page. I presume that's the article talk page, and lo and behold, it's indeed been discussed. You want to pull back on that assertion? Ravenswing 03:53, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    my bad. thanks Cinaroot (talk) 04:03, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This seems like long term edit warring that would belong as a report on WP:AE.
    regardless, cinaroot should stop.
    agree consensus for gaza genocide was for that specific rfc. If they want to do a broader rfc impacting multiple articles or to do one for the israel arricle they are free to. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 22:57, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    A talk discussion about it happened here Talk:Israel#WP:voice_-_Gaza_genocide-_lede
    After 26 days - another user @Rafi Chazon made a revert to original - without getting involved in the talk page - which i reverted asking them to engage in talk.
    Another use @DecrepitlyOnward also agree with me about the issue on talk.
    Please not that @Triggerhippie4 edit warred with another editor here about the issue. [20]
    @Triggerhippie4 has gone silent about the issue on talk. Because of silence from other editors - consensus was assumed.
    I have followed all rules. This is a content dispute - not something that needs administrative interference.
    @Triggerhippie4 Please use your words on talk page - instead of taking things to admin noticeboard. Cinaroot (talk) 03:13, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Bluethricecreamman that perhaps a broader discussion at a project page (or even Village Pump since it's so controversial) should be had. However, I still don't think administrator intervention was necessary here. Conyo14 (talk) 06:19, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I will open an rfc. But it makes no sense to me - that in Gaza genocide article we can use genocide as wiki-voice - but in Israel we cannot. Infact - in many other articles - we are using gaza genocide as wiki-voice. Cinaroot (talk) 06:25, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Broader RfC-like things with multi-article consequences have worked in PIA in the past, sort of... Standardizing language related to the status of Jerusalem and the legal status of Israeli settlements in Palestine spring to mind. Of course, such a RfC and all participants would be relentlessly targeted off-site by...let's call them pro-Hamas antisemitic Jihadists and pro-genocide/radicalized Israel supporters, using the nuanced language preferred in off-wiki discussions about the topic area. Sean.hoyland (talk) 07:13, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Editors have been taking the RFC on the genocide page and applying it everywhere. In some cases, this isnt a big deal, such as Bob Vylan, and I didnt bother to contest it. But on the Israel article that would be more contentious. And given Jimbos intervention, a larger discussion as suggested above is probably merited. ← Metallurgist (talk) 04:46, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    ThouShaltEdit and IDHT

    [edit]

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

    After a few days of discussion with this user it is clear that no amount of discussion is going to be productive. This concerns mutliple articles.

    • Gypsy-Rose Blanchard
      On 22 October they removed information from Gypsy-Rose Blanchard citing several policies one of which was a fake policy (WP:NOTGRAPHIC) [21]. This was reverted several days later by me. TSE then reremoved the information again citing the non-existent policy of WP:NOTGRAPHIC [22] and the editor opened up 2 discussions at the talk page [23] [24]. I asked TSE if they were using AI due to the fake policy being cited. They said they confused it with MOS:GRATUITOUS another non-existent policy [25]. A back and forth discussion on the talk occurred between me and TSE with them ignoring my followup about MOS:GRATUITOUS.
    • Factitious disorder imposed on another
      On 22 October they opened a discussion to remove Blanchard from the notable cases citing WP:MEDRS, this was opposed by @Avatar317: as WP:MEDRS doesn't apply. TSE went ahead any and removed the entry twice and was reverted both times. A discussion on the talk page occured betwwen Avatar317 and TSE, with TSE showing signs of IDHT by repeating themselves about MEDRS. TSE then opened up a second discussion to propose removal stating if their standards weren't met in 30 days they'd remove the entry anyway. A back and forth between me and TSE occurred here as well, during this back and forth they attempted to open up a non-neutral malformed (and misplaced) RFC to rewrite MEDRS to their interpretation, which had the rfc template swiftly removed by @Nemov:. TSE can be seen displaying WP:IDHT by repeating themselves about MEDRS despite being told multiple times that MEDRS doesn't apply.
    • List of Munchausen by proxy cases
      On 22 OCtober they removed Blanchard from this list for the same reasons as the above, again reverted by Avatar. More back and forth between me and TSE about MEDRS not applying [26] [27].

    The main IDHT occurrence is at the FDIA talk page, where the user is refusing to listen. Lavalizard101 (talk) 12:43, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    ThouShaltEdit: I collapsed your reply because it was generated by an LLM. You need to write replies in your own words, not the words a slop bot tells you to use. DoubleCross (‡) 06:49, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    They should be blocked indef, right now, on CIR grounds. No competent editor could possibly believe posting the above was appropriate. EEng 07:19, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I was cautious of claiming AI myself from their talk page posts, but the responses here are obvious LLM.
    There were several instances of productive discussion, the issue is not over misconduct. I did hear everything that was being said but I did not agree with the replies, I stated my lack of agreement in LL's interpretation of the policy, lack of policy in removal of sourced content, revision of removed content which LL's basis seemed to be about "non existent policy" having nothing to do with the content he removed and replaced with modification and no edit summary detailing additional words which changed meaning. LL also used references to what "the Sheriff said at trial," that was found within the article itself as reasoning to remove verifiable sourced content. When this failed, LL began to argue that because a suspect is dead, that they can no longer be investigated and that should be reason enough to label them with a medical diagnosis and abuse claims since the chance was lost upon their death. LL proceeded to explain to me what an investigator's job entails, and LL stated that making public reports is not one of those duties. However, a source from the article shows the Sheriff LL mentioned as making a public statement about the investigation of the deceased individual in a newly discovered long running financial fraud scheme, with no mention of any abuse allegations or a psychiatric diagnosis or even so much as a claim against the deceased. Then LL began to argue with me on another page about whether MEDRS applied to diagnosis, he said it did not and I said that when it comes to living people and the recently deceased, the policy states that Biography of living people rules apply. This is found in Wikipedia: Biomedical Information under "Notable Cases". LL refused to take my interpretation into consideration and began to ask me "How many times do we have to tell you?" and I felt this was his inappropriate and that he was trying to pull me into arguing with him, so I kept the communication policy based and I suggested alternatives such as rewording, and better sources. My refusal to engage in a debate with LL over MEDRS not being applicable to Diagnosis, was not because I didn't hear him or wasn't listening or couldn't take no for an answer. It was because I had moved to different ways that we could possibly come to an agreement such as letting a consensus form, and adding a medical citation needed tag, which he removed before discussion could be had, based on what he alleged was a single minded point of view. I explained to LL that I planned on cleaning up the rest of the list and he said none of the other entries had medical diagnosis, and I explained that at least one of them had a legal finding and that I was working on the rest of the article in the meantime while waiting to move past the one entry, which was there, and still is there. I have been very willing to listen and I have listened. I have tried to remain focused on the content and the sourcing and I have had several other interactions with several other editors which started out with a revert and ended in agreement without further issue. I have never stopped listening or responding politely to LL, though I am not sure that the same can be said for him, I just did not want to cause problems, I wanted to work and be productive. ThouShaltEdit (talk) 12:57, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I feel like there might be something here worth adding to Wikipedia:signs of AI writing. Though that article might already be comprehensive enough. 🐲Jothefiredragon🔥talk🧨contributions✨log🐉 11:19, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    MOS:GRATUITOUS doesn't exist, as I pointed out at the talk page. Plus you've completely ignored the reason for the IDHT report, you repeatedly made claims of MEDRS despite being told it doesn't apply. Lavalizard101 (talk) 11:06, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    (Non-administrator comment) I've tried to explain things on their Talk page since I couldn't see whether anyone's gone into detail over the problems with AI yet.
    Leaving the link here for reference, in case it gets blanked. Blue Sonnet (talk) 12:42, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:GRATUITOUS does exist, I again, apologize for the typo. The policies which the removal of the content in https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gypsy-Rose_Blanchard&diff=prev&oldid=1318124468 were based on, BLP, and GRATUITOUS have been competently applied. Material that could be considered vulgar, obscene or offensive should not be included unless it still reads like an encyclopedia. Because the material in question is about a living person, the standards are higher, and therefore the sourcing of the material provided should be high-quality, not tabloid, not promotional and even when sourced, if the omission of the material does not create a less informative article and there is other, more suitable material, then the material should be removed. I never saw the reason to argue a policy term that I have already stated was made as an oversight and a typo. I believe that if there is a question about the material removal itself then that is the discussion we should be having. If that makes it appear as if IDHT, I believe this can be shown to be a perception based on a narrowly framed view by looking at all of my interactions with others and how they tend to resolve with agreement or they cease before the limit of three reverts, and with suggestion to find a consensus. I did not stick to one viewpoint after a consensus occurred. You have conflated a discussion regarding MBP with a discussion on FDIA and assumed that I should assume the same consensus would occur on both pages since they are similar topics, however, MBP is a Categorical list as a page, and it is a list containing cases that are of a psychiatric diagnosis, Munchausen by Proxy, and because there is no inclusion criteria included on the page, any entry on the list may appear to readers to ba a diagnosed case. My discussion there was not about MEDRS until you brought that into it, and then told me that I am not listening, and asked me how many times I need to be told. I do not think that is the way to prove that IDHT, it is a way to project your frustration at the extremely well laid out points that I am making when you have no where left to go with your debate. So, when I cease discussion and suggest that a rewrite or a better source might help instead, which I believe is not disruptive and shows I do listen and modify, does not prove your IDHT claim. If there is anything else you would like me to address while here, please feel free to do so. I have always held my composure with you but you've given me an opportunity to say things now, by bringing it here. ThouShaltEdit (talk) 15:01, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    My discussion was not about MEDRS until you brought it up not true, your first talk page note at LMBP brought up MEDRS [28], you claimed MEDRS on each comment at LMBP [29], [30]. At FDIA you have been told by two people (Avatar and myself) that MEDRS does not apply to diagnosis of people, but continued claiming MEDRS 1 2 3 4 5. Lavalizard101 (talk) 15:18, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It baffles me that anyone thinks that using an LLM makes an argument more persuasive. It doesn't. Rather, the reverse. Narky Blert (talk) 16:12, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's part and parcel of their incompetence. It's the reason AI user should result in an immediate, indefinite block. EEng 17:37, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's true, I did bring it up in the proposal first, and I apologize for the confusion and for saying that you did. Considering the circumstances, I think it's best if I let my edits and talk pages speak for themselves from this point forward as a defense to your claims. While the administrators work through this matter I will refrain from commenting here further until a decision has been made. ThouShaltEdit (talk) 20:13, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not experienced enough to know...could this be listed at Requests for Closing? Hiobazard (talk/contribs) 16:55, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal 1: Indefinite Block

    [edit]

    In response to call that may be between User:EEng and Sol 3, I am opening this section for discussion of an indefinite block of ThouShaltEdit, which will be a community ban. I am inserting this break procedurally, and have only read the record once, and am not voting at this time. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:27, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Support for WP:IDHT, moving the goalpoasts, AI-generating comments and either lying about or CIR regarding their own arguments. Lavalizard101 (talk) 17:37, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Support per above. The fewer incompetent, slop-posting liars here, the better. DoubleCross (‡) 19:43, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Kang Zhang article seems to be heavily (positively) biased by user Cryptochelys who deletes negative information about Zhang

    [edit]

    I previously posted this on WP:BLPN and was told to report it here and on WP:COIN. I am copying my previous statement with minor edits:

    I'm worried that the article Kang Zhang has issues of both WP:COI and WP:NPOV. While I don't think the article needs to be necessarily deleted, I think it needs heavy revisions and that Cryptochelys should be banned or at least barred from editing that specific article. I will note the user has also made edits about Zhang on other articles, so perhaps a site-wide ban is in order.

    Kang Zhang was created by Cryptochelys shortly after Cryptochelys created their account in 2019, around the time the unethical activities of Kang Zhang fist came to light. The article mentions none of Zhang's numerous notable controversies, and Cryptochelys has continued editing this page deleting any controversial aspect of Kang Zhang's carear. For example, see this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kang_Zhang&diff=prev&oldid=983457408

    Cryptochelys claimed that the edit was "unsourced" but the claim had a citation (which Cryptochelys likewise deleted. Cryptochelys has continued to edit the page as recently as August of the year. If you look at pages which link to Kang Zhang, you will find that many of those edits (which positively mention Zhang) were made by Cryptochelys. I find it highly likely that Cryptochelys is either Zhang himself or otherwise someone highly close to Zhang who has a vested interest in biasing the article and removing any negative information about Zhang. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.112.8.60 (talk) 15:34, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    It looks like you didn't actually file a report at COIN, but that's probably for the best, since one forum is enough. Looking at User:Cryptochelys's edits to Kang Zhang [33], I would support determining a COI exists between the two and requiring Cryptochelys to only edit about Zhang through edit requests. The article as initially created by Cryptochelys is fairly promotional [34]. This was immediately followed up by adding Zhang to List of Chinese Americans [35]. Other suspicious edits include replacing a fairly negative news article about his resignation with a link to Zhang's CV, while simultaneously adding two further links to Zhang's personal website [36]; replacing all mentions of his resignation [37]; and again removing mention of the resignation and the negative news article [38] (as pointed out above, this edit removes a source while claiming that the content was unsourced). Toadspike [Talk] 21:50, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I did file it on WP:COIN, but it was undone, because I reported it here. See the following:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&oldid=1320072287
    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&oldid=1320072420
    Should I re-post it, or just leave it here?
    Fully agree with your analysis
    ~2025-31528-45 (talk) 15:26, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know why my name changed, but this is 65.112.8.60 it seems I've been given a "temporary account"
    ~2025-31528-45 (talk) 15:29, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a new thing; see Wikipedia:Temporary accounts. The very nutshelled explanation is that it's on account of European privacy laws. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:09, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Devlet Geray community topic ban violations

    [edit]

    Devlet Geray (talk · contribs) was indefinitely topic-banned from topics related to Turkic peoples in February 2021, by EdJohnston (talk · contribs). This followed years of disruptive edits in articles related to the Crimean Tatars and other Turkic peoples. While his indefinite block was lifted in July 2024, the topic ban was intended to remain in place until a separate appeal was made and accepted. However, Devlet Geray's first edit following the lifting of his block contained content that should have been covered by his topic ban. He has continued to edit Crimean-Tatar related articles in the intervening period, with no enforcement of the topic ban whatsoever. His edits include repeated, tendentious and unsourced changes to various articles, with the aim of promoting some kind of point of view. I will note that he removed the notice of the topic ban and unblock request from his talk page, so other editors had no obvious way of knowing that it was still in effect. Almost every edit he has made post unblock falls into the scope of his topic ban. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 00:49, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The topic ban was related to Iranian-Turkic issues in Asia, while Crimea is definitely in Europe and Crimean Tatars are a European ethnic group. I haven’t touched any topics related to Iranians/Turks in Asia since then. Read carefully, then make appeals in the middle of discussion important for you Devlet Geray (talk) 02:10, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at the topic-ban discussion, I can't actually see any particular reason why the closer limited the scope to Asia, given that this wasn't otherwise discussed, and given the response here (i.e. 'Lol', which comes across as frankly contemptuous), I'd have to suggest that maybe we should consider removing the unexplained and arbitrary geographical limitation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:17, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Having read through that thread, there is literally nothing in the discussion about limiting the topic ban to "in Asia"; indeed the precise proposed wording of the topic ban was all topics related to the Iranian/Turkic world, as the veryone focus of the entire problem was Crimean Tatars. @EdJohnston:, is there a reason you limited the topic ban in this manner? - The Bushranger One ping only 02:40, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No, the very focus of that discussion were Iranian-Turkic topics (like Old Bulgar Empire, Safavids etc - these issues related to their ethnicity - I was proponent of their Turkic ethnicity in my 2021 edits). That’s the pure reason why the discussion was started by HistoryofIran back then. Plus you cannot ban me for what I have already been banned and then unbanned. My edits on Crimean Tatar topics since unban are not disruptive in any way, instead I created some good written articles and improved other. Yes since unban I mentioned Russian serfdom twice as a historical example discussing the article about slavery, but don’t think this is such an issue. Devlet Geray (talk) 02:47, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You're partially right; that was the initial focus of the dispute, but the Crimean Tatar issue was also brought up in the discussion; I've slightly modifed my statement above accordingly. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:53, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    At least we can partially agree, I also slightly edited my first claim removing “lol” as an unnecessary emotional phrase Devlet Geray (talk) 03:29, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The definition of 'Asia' is ambiguous, and not universally agreed upon. However, even if we put that issue aside, topics related to Turkey are specifically included in the topic ban, which should obvious include anything related to the conflict between the Ottoman Empire and Russia. Never mind that you have also made plenty of edits to articles involving what is unambiguously related to Asia, not least of all Deportation of the Crimean Tatars (the Crimean Tatars were deported to Central Asia), or to Nogais, an ethnic group that live in Asia (as well as parts of Europe). Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 03:42, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Nogais live in Europe (Stavropol - Europe, Kuban - Europe, Astrakhan - Europe, Karachay-Cherkes Reublic- Europe, Dobruja - Europe, Dagestan - Europe. So their homeland is Europe, and they are a European ethnic group too) and my edits there were about Crimean Tatars - a European ethnic group. I didn’t touch anything in Asia, and my edits were about Europe. Devlet Geray (talk) 03:46, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's clearly incorrect. Anyone can see from the diff you removed these parts (amongst others) from the article with your revert "Crimean Tatars were deported to rural Siberia, Kazakh SSR, and Uzbek SSR (parts of Central Asia)" and "and a further several thousand died in exile in Central Asia" and "In Central Asia, Crimean Tatars continued to be mistreated and starved while in exile by the Stalinist regime.". So this is clearly part of "everything in Asia" which is what the topic ban covered. So the only question is whether Crimean Tatars are "Turkic peoples" or "Iranian peoples", "historic or modern". Our article Crimean Tatars says "are an Eastern European Turkic ethnic group and nation indigenous to Crimea.". So I'm going to say they are. So a clear and unambigious violation of the topic ban even with the questionable limited scope. The topic ban did not say anywhere that the Turkic people needed to be Asian Turkic people. It simply said it had to be something in Asia to do with them. Turkic people dying in Asia, being mistreated and starved in Asia, and yes just being successfully deported to Asia is clearly something that happened in Asia no matter where these Turkic people originated from. Nil Einne (talk) 04:30, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Mister RGloucester, my nickname is Devlet Geray, so use it in the correct way please. Devlet Geray (talk) 02:18, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    For clarity, are you asking people don't shorten your name to Devlet? Nil Einne (talk) 03:52, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes it’s not my name it’s a nick. If I need familiarity here, I will inform about it. - Devlet Geray (talk) 03:55, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      A nick is still a form of a name otherwise it wouldn't be "nickname". Also I doubt it's intended as a form of familiarity but instead simply a way to avoid typing out a long name. People do it with my nick name sometimes too. That said it's fine to ask people not to shorten it and that should be respected but you need to be clear what you want since "my nickname is Devlet Geray, so use it in the correct way please" is very unclear. It could easily be referring to a typo or something else. Nil Einne (talk) 04:21, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have fixed this as per your request. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 06:14, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I gotta be honest, instead of arguing over the exact wording of the topic ban, something that I think will just end up as fruitless fighting over words and clauses, the most straightforward resolution seems to me to be one of two options:
    • - If the topic ban is no longer needed, remove the topic ban.
    • - If the topic ban is still needed, make it Turkic peoples and Iranian people, broadly construed, and remove an ambiguity that doesn't benefit the community or Devlet Geray.
    CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 06:23, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I endorse selecting one of the two choices described by CoffeeCrumbs. And since Devlet Geray seems to be focused on wikilawyering about what is European and what is Asian, I recommend clarifying the topic ban to cover Turkic peoples and Iranian people, broadly construed, eliminating all ambiguity. Cullen328 (talk) 08:48, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Technically speaking, that could potentially be imposed right now as Crimea falls within WP:CT/EE. I seriously considered just doing it earlier, but the fact Devlet Geray was only notified of CT/EE just before this ANI was filed (i.e. had not edited within it after notification at all) made me hesitate. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:59, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd support extending the topic ban especially since it doesn't even seem like the community wanted to limit it in the discussion. That said, I think it's important for Devlet Geray to appreciate they did violate the topic ban as worded unless there's someone else who agrees with the intepretation that something which happened in Asia to Turkic people is somehow not covered by a topic ban on everything in Asia to do with Turkic people etc. The violation might have been long enough ago that it's not clear a short block now will be preventative but they need to appreciate that even if this thread closes with no action they can expect an extended block if they do that again. Nil Einne (talk) 11:33, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually I just noticed a very recent violation. This source Devlet Geray reinserted by revert [39] is titled "Genetic differentiation between upland and lowland populations shapes the Ychromosomal landscape of West Asia". Whatever personal definition Devlet Geray wants to use, they clearly don't get to override sources they themselves are using when it comes to the topic ban. So they don't get to reinsert a source which explicitly refers to West Asia when it comes to a Turkic people. I have reverted their topic ban violation as it was still the latest edit. Also I should mention one reason it's important for Devlet Geray to appreciate this is that even with an extended and simpler topic ban, there are still going to be grey areas. Editors who can't even accept unambigious violates of existing topic bans are unlikely to succeed with any topic ban even an extended one with a clearer wording IMO. To be clear, I don't think this should be made a prerequiste for anything but Devlet Geray needs to carefully consider their position if they want to continue to edit here IMO since if they keep up with this whatever happens from here, barring a removal of the topic ban which seems unlikely, they'll likely quickly find themselves in big trouble. Edit: Just to note I said they themselves are using for emphasis, but it wouldn't matter if Devlet Geray is adding or removing the source, it would still be a violation. Nil Einne (talk) 11:48, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Why can't I use a source that have "Asia" in its name? For instance, can I use as a source a book named "History of Europe and Asia" to write article about the history of Europe? It has Asia in its name and it clearly describes history of Asian Turkic peoples. The only phrase I used from the mentioned source is "Three Yamnaya samples belong not only to the eastern branch in general, but to a specific sub-branch identified in a present-day sample from the Crimean Tatar population: I0231 and I0429 are GG625 derived, and I0444 is 17146508 derived (this SNP was identified in the our Crimean Tatar sample but not shown on the tree as the call rate was less than 90%)." It has nothing to do with Asia. Or can't I edit the article Virgin Lands campaign - it's about soviet policy in Kazakhstan, Turkic country? I belive that the primary reason for me that topic ban related to Iranian and Turkic peoples in Asia was given to me because of my edits in the relative topics, not because of my edits about Crimea and Crimean Tatars. Saying that I had "years of disruptive edits in articles related to the Crimean Tatars" for me seems unfair. If there is a proof that my edits on Crimean topics have somehow been disruptive all the time since unban and my articles are a harm to community, only then the extension of topic-ban can be discussed. I admit that some of my edits, one way or another, unintenially fall under the scope of the topic ban as it was intended, I apologize for it, but I am ready to follow restrictions according to a less ambiguous interpretation, I hope we can find a solution that addresses the concerns while allowing me to continue editing in my areas of knowledge. Devlet Geray (talk) 12:31, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    To be clear, I opened this thread because of these two edits, where you accused me of holding 'the desire to proof Russia was right all the time', justified removal of content cited in the article that is inconvenient to some narrative you want to portray by referring to the completely unrelated Russian serfdom, and also completely skewed the lead of the article, adding content that is not supported by the citations you added, all to either right great wrongs or prove a point. The move discussion has nothing to do with it. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 13:07, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I said it generally, not your desire to prove Russia was right all the time, but the desire generally, not meaning you. I didn't delete nor I add anything, but I pointed out that in the preamble you repeat yourself - a clear unnecessary tautology: "Russia aimed to control the Black Sea and end raids by Crimean slavers into its territory - The annexation ended the centuries-long Crimean slave trade" (referring to the Black Sea slave trade article not to Crimean–Nogai slave raids in Eastern Europe like it's in consensus version), which (repetition) I indicated in the explanation of the edit, and then simply returned the article to the consensus version not changing anything in it. How is serfdom unrelated? If Russia abolished Black Sea slave trade with a kind gesture, then why did it continue from Circassia until 20th century and slavery (we can name it in different ways - krepostnichestvo like in Russian: this had stopped being a requirement by the 19th century, and serfs were by then practically indistinguishable from slaves, or yasırlıq like in Crimean Tatar - the nature is generally the same) form the backbone of the Russian economy until 1861? I'm not promoting any "narratives" as you want to present it, it's again a personal attack on me (discuss my edits, not my personality and not my "desires"), I'm just trying to point out the inconsistencies. Devlet Geray (talk) 13:15, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    You're missing the key part of my point and the examples are not equivalent. In the example you gave, the source covers several different things. By the same token, you could use a source which covers the entire world although Asia is clearly part of the world.

    However the source you used is exclusively about something in West Asia as per the title itself. It only talks about stuff elsewhere in relation to something in West Asia otherwise it's irrelevant to the focus of their research.

    This is confirmed by reading the source:

    Since the Y-chromosomal gene pool of the Yamnaya is represented mainly by haplogroup R1b (as shown for both Yamnaya subpopulations studied to date), the question arises of whether Yamnaya Y-chromosomes also originated from West Asia.

    Or frankly even the abstract:

    In view of the contribution of West Asians to the autosomal gene pool of the steppe Yamnaya archaeological culture, we sequenced a large portion of the Y-chromosome in haplogroup R1b samples from present-day East European steppe populations. The ancient Yamnaya samples are located on the “eastern” R-GG400 branch of haplogroup R1b-L23, showing that the paternal descendants of the Yamnaya still live in the Pontic steppe and that the ancient Yamnaya population was not an important source of paternal lineages in present-day West Europeans.

    In other words, this part of their research is relation to their analysis of whether the Crimean Tartar population has significant paternal contributions from historic Turkic peoples and Iranian people in Asia. Whether the answer is yes or no or we still don't know or something else, this is still clearly covered by the topic ban since either way this is relating the modern people to ancient i.e. historic Turkic or Iranian people in Asia.

    Also unless WP:BANEX applies, then edits in violation of a topic ban are inherently disruptive. The community has already decided we don't want you editing the area. The way to demonstrate you can contribute productively in the area is not to violate your topic ban then argue there was nothing wrong with your edits content wise. It's to make edits to other areas of the encyclopaedia and demonstrate you can edit constructively there and then make a successful appeal to the community giving examples of your good non violating edits while explaining why you went wrong last time and how you'll avoid that this time.

    If you believe that you can demonstrate a topic ban isn't needed anymore by making perfect edits which are otherwise violating your topic ban, you're seriously mistaken. Editors aren't likely to seriously consider whether your edits are positive or negative when they violated a topic ban, instead you're just going to end up blocked. In fact, IMO your attitude here makes me wonder if expanding the topic ban is even worth it since it unclear you'll respect it. It might be best if we just return to a full site ban.

    Nil Einne (talk) 14:24, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Ok, I see your point, I withdraw all my justifications for my edits Devlet Geray (talk) 14:44, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Alright. Given that this seems to have tapered off, the original topic ban discussion seems to have had consensus for a non-geographically limited sanction, the admin who closed that discussion and imposed the sanction that is geographically limited appears to have chosen not to comment here, and there's a rough consensus above for expanding the topic ban as issued, I am altering Devlet Geray's topic ban to note that it applies to Turkic peoples and Iranian people, broadly construed, historic or modern. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:39, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit warring/disruptive/personal attacking IPs

    [edit]

    Both of the IP range and IP have been going at each other recently- seems to be mainly stemming from edit warring on List of Are You Afraid of the Dark? episodes, which has recently resulted in a protection that expires on December 3. Despite this, both IPs are now personally attacking each other (see here and here for example). The IP range has also been disruptively edit warring year ranges on List of All That episodes, despite my reverts of their edits as per MOS:TVSEASONYEAR and the article's local usage of year ranges (these edits on the All That episodes article is actually what led me to all of this going on).

    Based on the article history of List of Are You Afraid of the Dark? episodes, it seems that the range has also been reverted multiple times (from other editors) for unsourced edits. Not entirely sure where the range's and IP's warring originated, but based off of recent behaviors from both, seems like some sort of blocking is needed for both of these. Magitroopa (talk) 22:25, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Also, it appears this is all the 'response' to this we'll be getting from the one IP... Magitroopa (talk) 23:23, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, genius. I'm clearly worthy of blocking for making less than five *factually constructive* MINOR EDITS on a tv show episodes page which resulted in me being forced to waste an ungodly amount of my time for the past 3 days repeatedly dealing with a braindead, illiterate troll-spammer.
    Cluelessly complain and fail elsewhere you pathetic hypocrite. Reporting you right back. 86.155.72.170 (talk) 23:26, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This one was previously reminded about civility by myself and another user. tony 23:28, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Just reported the IP after their personal attacks towards others is continuing (here in an ANI thread specifically regarding their behavior??). Clearly their behavior hasn't/will not be stopping after continuing said personal attacks here and being warned multiple times previously. Magitroopa (talk) 23:33, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Genius non-response. Keep the pathetic false-reporting coming. 86.155.72.170 (talk) 23:44, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    FYI, it is not 'false reporting' when your behavior continues to go against no personal attacks. No matter who started all this edit warring, you are the one continuing with personal attacks towards other editors, even continuing to do so in this very ANI thread discussing that issue. While I originally created this ANI regarding yours and the IP range's edit warring/personal attacks, you continuing with that same behavior here is only increasing the likelihood of getting blocked. Magitroopa (talk) 23:50, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You reported me for telling a *factual troll spammer* to get off my talk page as they repeatedly harassed me and deleted MY OWN REPLIES. Ergo, you are unequivocally *pathetic*.
    And big spoilers: I couldn't give the slightest toss about a 3 day old non-account getting blocked. Worthlessly report it forever. 86.155.72.170 (talk) 00:00, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The IPv6 range edit warred yesterday but seems to have ceased that today. They were also trying to de-escalate the conflict, but 86..., as can readily be seen above, seems to relish conflict. I have blocked 86... for 1 week for personal attacks and am not taking action against the IPv6 range. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 00:13, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    LOL keep miserably failing at life you embarrassingly pathetic, hypocrite geek pricks 92.40.219.154 (talk) 00:42, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The irony of this coming from someone who is throwing a temper tantrum over a show for children. Industrial Insect (talk) 19:10, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @Rsjaffe: Dunno if it's too large a range or not, but another IP has popped up under 92.40.218.0/23 following the other recent block evasion. Magitroopa (talk) 01:20, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I have blocked 92.40.218.0/23 Mfield (Oi!) 01:23, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That range has a worrisome edit history. See, e.g., Special:Diff/1319780678 Special:Diff/1316804820. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 02:05, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Kane43 intentionally uses unreliable sources

    [edit]
    User:Kane43 indef blocked from article space by Cullen328 Mfield (Oi!) 07:34, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The editor Kane43 has been using Joshua Project as a source on multiple articles since September 2025. I provided a welcome message on their talk page on 9 September with emphasis on reliable sources. But the editor was hostile in response. On that same day, I left a message on their talk page explaining why Joshua Project is an unreliable source but once again, this was met with hostility. On 19 September, I gave a warning about the use of poor sources but this was ignored. Despite the warning, Kane43 has continued to use Joshua Project as a source to change content on articles. Examples of such edits are 1, 2 and 3. Number 4 took place recently on 2 November. Kwesi Yema (talk) 00:04, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    They've also been adding content cited to PeopleGroups.org (another missionary source, per this RSN discussion and the briefest glance at the site) and removing reliably sourced content while saying that sources contradict oral traditions. Then there are comments like "ur not smart kid" and "You’re not even Congolese, yet you’re all over everything related to Congo. You even stalk all our ethnic groups—like bro, are you really okay? Don’t you have any shame?". I suggest blocking as NOTHERE. Woodroar (talk) 03:10, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have indefinitely blocked Kane43 from article space. The editor is free to make neutral, well referenced edit requests on article talk pages. Cullen328 (talk) 03:47, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Good block. Any time someone asserts a "You're not/don't follow/don't edit X, what business do you have here?" line, that marks the Someone as blockworthy. Ravenswing 06:59, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If there isn't already a WP:OWB for that, there should be. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:20, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Heh, I've added it to Ravenswing's Laws. Ravenswing 13:27, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Persistent, disruptive "flagship" edits at New Mexico State University

    [edit]
    PBLOCKS APPLIED
    Appears this is resolved for now. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:23, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Alamo NM has a long history of editing New Mexico State University to claim that it is a "flagship" university. This dates back to 2018 and has often been paired with edits removing "flagship" from University of New Mexico (e.g., [40], [41]) or claims that the two universities are both flagships (e.g., [42], [43]). There was discussion in the Talk pages of both articles last year (UNM and NMSU discussion 1 and NMSU discussion 2) among multiple editors that resulted in consensus that the evidence supported labeling only the University of New Mexico a flagship university. There weren't very many editors in the discussion so it's not a terribly strong consensus.

    Since then, Alamo NM has occasionally returned to edit the articles to impose their view without any further attempt at discussion or new evidence e.g. adding "flagship" to the NMSU article, again adding "flagship" to the NMSU article, again adding "flagship" to the NMSU article, again adding "flagship" to the NMSU article and removing "flagship" from the UNM article. Their edits in 2025 have either not used any edit summaries (e.g., [44], [45], [46]) or have used edit summaries that don't mention their addition or removal of this material (e.g., "Updated story"). One of the edits that didn't include an edit summary did include a reference but the document doesn't even mention New Mexico State University; Alamo NM didn't reply to a question about this source in the article's Talk page. Yesterday, an unregistered editor made the exact same kind of edit that Alamo NM has made many times.

    This is a clear pattern of edit-warring, misleading communication, and refusal to communicate and collaborate that has escalated to editing while logged out to continue the same behavior. Please block Alamo NM from editing these articles. ElKevbo (talk) 02:59, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Potentially of note is that at least two of the IPs that made these edits, 192.88.140.18 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 192.88.140.15 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), are associated with New Mexico State University. I'd be concerned about paid editing and/or COIs if it's the same user. – Frood (talk) 03:40, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I highly doubt this is paid editing. Probably a faculty or student, but one acting independent of the University. I say this because I don't think NMSU would pay for this. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 21:52, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. -- asilvering (talk) 00:26, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    (rolls eyes) The university's own splash page doesn't assert it's a "flagship" anything. Ravenswing 06:57, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    p-blocked. If this spirals into related pages, let us know. -- asilvering (talk) 19:14, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I just added University of New Mexico to your p-block, as Alamo NM has removed the flagship designation there as well as adding it to NMSU. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:29, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Mandruss

    [edit]
    Please do not use ANI as a way of silencing editors you have disagreements with. This board is for resolving intractable behavioral problems that are disrupting the community. Getting along with others is part of "adulting" and we all need to learn it as long as we work on a collaborative editing project. Liz Read! Talk! 03:25, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:Mandruss has an ongoing history of Biting the Newcomers which is especially noticeable in the user essay ELDERS. Additionally, it can be seen that they refer to this article disingenuously as "WP:ELDERS" in when referring to it, as can be seen in their TALK page, where they seem to attempt to refer to it as such to give the false impression that it's a binding behavioral guideline. Additionally, they explicitly disagree with WP:Don't Bite the Newcomers in the talk page of their ELDERS essay, saying that they don't believe it should be applied or respected as a rule every time, and that it's only valid "95%" of the time, justifying their ELDERS essay as a "very soft bite." The essay itself is in staunch disregard to not biting the newcomers, explicitly comparing Wikipedia to a "cocktail party" that is meant for the ELDERS, and that newcomers are like "14-year-old children" who have been brought to the party despite not really belonging, and that it's understandable for ELDERS to look down upon and disrespect the newcomers. It generally tries to give weight to the idea that simply being a long-term user inherently makes them, and other ELDERS, more likely to be correct about both Wikipedia rules and general information on articles. This can be seen in their above mentioned TALK page, where they had taken it upon themselves to shut down talk threads in other articles, claiming CONSENSUS, yet ignoring that CONSENSUS is not a permanent decision and can be opened to re-discussion when new information or changing information comes to light. When disagreed with, they pointed to what they referred to as WP:ELDERS, and said that the other person was simply wrong because Mandruss has been editing articles for 10+ years. The thread led to Mandruss publicly admitting that they would start an edit war over the issue and shut down further threads, and that it would be "worth it" to receive a block for the edit war as long as it meant sticking it to the user that they disagreed with, concluding with a direct insult against the user, saying: "YOU ARE DUMB AS A POST... Care to double down?"— Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2025-31330-45 (talk • contribs) 19:51, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    No significant factual errors that I can see, but there is a distinct selectivity and spin. This is not an accurate characterization of my feelings or intent. Otherwise I'll throw myself at the mercy of the court unless someone addresses me directly. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢ IMO. 20:32, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Your gonna have to provide some WP:DIFFs here @~2025-31330-45 – having a quick scroll through the most recent of Mandruss' Talk Page conversations shows quite the opposite of biting imho. Nil🥝 20:40, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have stipulated to the facts presented, so I don't see a need for diffs. I do not stipulate to the selectively or spin; rather, I implore editors to look at the larger picture as you have done. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢ IMO. 20:57, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Also @~2025-31330-45, you seem familiar with Mandruss, yet you've only made two edits. Your IP /24 has only made two other edits this year, on pages Mandruss hasn't edited on at all.
    Have you previously edited under any other accounts? Nil🥝 21:01, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Mandruss also has a history of being blatantly homophobic (example here) ~2025-31294-09 (talk) 22:40, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Something going on here. I'm sensing a concerted effort to get Mandruss blocked, for something. GoodDay (talk) 22:43, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No connection to the others, from what I saw. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 22:45, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    i don't care if he's blocked or not, i just think people should what kind of person we're talking about here. if nothing here is deemed block-worthy, that's fine. ~2025-31294-09 (talk) 22:52, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh. In that case, I confess to being a terrible person. Maybe we can wrap this up early. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢ IMO. 23:19, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NQP. ~2025-31294-09 (talk) 23:32, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is disappointing to see. You and I got off to a shaky start, and when you reached out later to mend things over, I respected that. But these comments about converting "a female gay" and casually using the R-slur... Are you aiming to offend people? Anne drew (talk · contribs) 01:56, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's probably best not to re-litigate a previous ANI on the matter – the template was removed, and the "female gay" remark was struck. Nil🥝 02:08, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough, I'll leave it at that. I think that thread answered my question anyway. Anne drew (talk · contribs) 02:17, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    OP socks

    [edit]
    I understand the new IP designation rule, now. GoodDay (talk) 17:12, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I think we need a range block for OP's likely evading socks. See @~2025-31256-28:, @~2025-31074-80:, @~2025-31330-45:, @~2025-31241-95:

    GoodDay (talk) 21:24, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Not socks, see WP:Temporary accounts. Nil🥝 21:27, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Trust my instincts. They're likely the same individual. GoodDay (talk) 21:31, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't disagree that there's some sort of socking/WP:LOUTSOCKing here, but the IP addresses for some of the accounts you've listed are on opposite sides of the world to each other. They appear unrelated, unless you're seeing something I'm not? Nil🥝 21:39, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Per technical data, I do not see ~2025-31241-95 evading any block, at least. Haven't checked the others. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 21:39, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I very much doubt ~2025-31241-95, ~2025-31074-80, and ~2025-31330-45 are the same person. I also see no reason to check ~2025-31256-28 at this time. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 21:55, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Somebody, please help me. ~2025-31319-62 (talk) 00:47, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi! You don't seem to have made any comments prior to this one, and technical data doesn't indicate any previous accounts on your range. Can you clarify what you are looking for? Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 00:53, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - As an onlooker, I can agree with 45dogs (talk · contribs) about the IP ranges being in different locations. sjones23 (talk - contributions) 09:39, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Jimbo Wales; IDHT, inability to DROPTHESTICK, COI, and abusing his position as founder for self-promotion

    [edit]
    Are we all cool with closing this now? There's no consensus for any action, somebody already trouted Jimbo, and I stopped getting a dozen notifications every time I refreshed my watchlist so it looks like discussion has died off. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:42, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    This is generating far more heat than light. Clearly Jimbo has ruffled feathers in what most seem to agree was a hamfisted attempt to discuss WP:NPOV at Gaza genocide. But this discussion is much overblown. We hardly ever topic ban experienced editors for their edits on a single talk page. We don't remove user rights because someone expressed an unpopular opinion. Folks have pointed out that the Founder role is ceremonial anyways.

    This discussion alone should serve to remind Jimbo Wales (talk · contribs) that Wikipedia is a community, and that changing the community's mind requires working with it rather than against it.

    As an aside, User:TurboSuperA+ is trouted for casting aspersions and assuming bad faith in their report. You don't have to insult Jimbo's book or social membership to raise valid concerns about his conduct. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 01:09, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Disclaimer: I have not participated in the RfC on the first sentence of Gaza genocide, nor have I previously interacted with Jimmy Wales.

    Self-promotion04:47, 6 November 2025 (UTC) Jimbo Wales (talk · contribs) has recently published a book. Despite being out for a whole week, and despite being an "Editor's pick" on Amazon and in the category "Best nonfiction", it has so far attracted a whopping 1 review. Jimbo is probably disappointed that his world-changing book has not garnered the attention of scholars and world media he thinks it deserves, so he has resorted to04:47, 6 November 2025 (UTC)He has made waves in one of the most controversial articles on Wikipedia. This has been covered, incorrectly, by many outlets: [47] [48] [49] [50] and so on. It looks as though Jimmy has made no effort to correct the news outlets and tell them that he wasn't the one to lock the article, because he personally stands to benefit from the attention.04:47, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

    IDHT and DROPTHESTICK As editors have pointed out, it took the community months of debate, analysing sources and weighing viewpoints to come to a consensus for the Gaza genocide article. Now Jimbo comes barging in like a bull in a china shop, pulling rank "This message is from me, Jimbo Wales, co-founder of Wikipedia.", demanding that consensus be overturned, while lecturing the community on neutrality. It has been explained to him over and over on the article talk page how the article came to be, but he simply refuses to listen, wasting everyone's time with a discussion that is going nowhere. Vast majority of editors are disagreeing with Jimmy. When the community was asked "How to proceed?" and if another RFC is needed, the vast majority of editors responded that no action should be taken. I assume Jimmy is also aware of how consensus works, and when and how to challenge an RFC.

    COI Jimmy Wales is a member of the World Economic Forum along with Benjamin Netanyahu. Aside from vaguely stressing "the importance of protecting the civilian population in Gaza and taking care of the most vulnerable" the WEF seems to have taken the ahistorical stance that the crisis in Gaza began on October 7, 2023 and places the blame for the war solely on the Palestinians in Gaza: "The conflict in Gaza, which erupted after the 7 October attack on Israel, has created a major humanitarian crisis for the territory's roughly 2 million people". Wikipedia article on the Gaza war says it is a conflict that is fought as part of the ongoing Israeli–Palestinian conflict and Gaza–Israel conflict. This means that Jimmy's views are currently incompatible with the consensus of the community when it comes to the WP:PIA topic area. Is Jimmy editing as a Wikipedia editor or a member of the WEF?21:01, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

    TBAN proposal It is clear that Jimbo Wales has no interest in following community consensus and, as several editors have pointed out to him, is openly canvassing for his preferred changes to the article, trying to bypass community consensus and procedures. His continued presence and participation in the PIA topic area is disruptive, especially because it is drawing unnecessary media attention to the issue, and adding more heat than light. That is why I think Jimbo Wales should be TBAN'd from the PIA topic area, broadly construed.

    Alternative proposal: deprecate the "founder" user right If Jimbo Wales insists on participating on Wikipedia, then I think he should do so as an editor. He has not abused his Administrator user rights, so I think he should keep the bit. The user right "founder" should be removed from his account and he should no longer be able to call himself "founder of Wikipedia" while on Wikipedia (what he tells people outside of Wiki is none of our business). This online encyclopaedia is what it is not because he had founded it 24 years ago, but because of the countless hours thousands of editors have poured into this project without any expectation of monetary gain, fame or recognition. It is disrespectful to other editors for Jimmy to expect to be first among equals and demand he be listened to while there are probably dozens out there who have put more work writing content for the encyclopaedia. The community owes him nothing. The title of "founder" should be an honorary title in recognition of starting Wikipedia, but Jimmy has been using it to demand that the community indulge him. TurboSuperA+[talk] 20:42, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    See WP:JIMBO for his not having actually been an admin for some time. Where's Iridescent when you need them. But yeah, on principle, I support the deprecation of the Founder's flag as a historical curiosity. It is irrelevant to the modern project, has the potential for misuse (which is a very generous take on recent events on WT:Gaza genocide) and frankly an anachronism. In the vernacular, the flag is like a third teat on a bull; of minor interest and even less practical use. —Fortuna, imperatrix 20:52, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    (This comment was removed as a violation of the extended-confirmed restriction in the Arab–Israeli conflict contentious topic. — Newslinger talk 00:54, 5 November 2025 (UTC))[reply]
    Yes. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 00:00, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The claim of guilt by association via the WEF is not impressive. Is Mahmoud Abbas now guilty of having the wrong opinions on Gaza too? I do not think these profile pages mean what you think they mean. Toadspike [Talk] 20:57, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Point taken. I've struck that part. TurboSuperA+[talk] 21:02, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose a topic ban as if that anodyne content was topic ban-worthy, then pretty much anyone in good standing in that area is guilty of the same offense. Canvassing because lots of people read his talk page is a gigantic stretch; he shouldn't have more rights for being the founder, but he also shouldn't have fewer. Changing his unique status as a founder is out of scope for ANI, and something like this ought to be discussed at the village pump and among the wider community. Frankly, this is a waste of time to even be at ANI, and strikes me as a bit WP:POINTY. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 21:01, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Why did he have to open the topic at Talk:Gaza genocide with "founder of Wikipedia here"? How is that not an expectation of more rights, i.e. that his opinion be given more weight? TurboSuperA+[talk] 21:04, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, but that is utterly small potatoes, smaller than crumbs-on-the-bottom-of-the-bag-of-chips small. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 22:55, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Concur. Look, TurboSuperA+, hundreds upon hundreds of editors fall back on similar riffs: that they have expertise in X, that they have degrees in Y, that they've worked thirty years in Z field. And all with the same goal: to have their opinion seen as having more weight. Is that in of itself sanction-worthy? No, of course not. Do we routinely discount it as trumpery? Well, sure, we do. Ravenswing 23:38, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Until Jimbo actually does start dictating coverage of topics of Wikipedia, we cannot treat his trumpery as if he were waging active war upon this website. And there is no indication he has any meaning to go and do that outright. BarntToust 23:44, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Bah, positioning is off. I was concurring with CoffeeCrumbs, not with TurboSuperA+. I'm thinking this is a tempest in a tea cup myself, and will generate ten times as much heat and frothing at the mouth as light. Ravenswing 00:48, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Bob on with everything.Halbared (talk) 22:03, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that Jimbo wading into this dispute on wiki, and invoking his position as founder and a member of the "NPOV working group" is a huge abuse of community trust. The founding ideals of Wikipedia are built on community control, not diktat from a non-profit foundation "working group" that was created in response to bad faith political pressure. Jimbo says he made this statement solely in his "personal capacity" as an editor, but he would, wouldn't he? He surely knows that his outsized role on wiki would create mishegas around the article. I would support an uninvolved admin issuing a logged WP:PIA warning and potentially imposing consensus restrictions at Gaza genocide. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:02, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The more problematic part, in my opinion, is that he is mischaracterizing what the NPOV working group actually is. I wouldn't necessarily call the NPOVWG a non-profit foundation 'working group' that was created in response to bad faith political pressure, but the third paragraph of Jimbo's post reads like it relies on the vagueness of the name to confer it some purpose and authority it doesn't have.
    Pinging @Risker (NPOVWG's community seat) who wrote a solid explanation at Talk:Gaza genocide#A brief note about the Neutral point of view (NPOV) working group and might be able to clarify better what the working group's powers are and aren't. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:27, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've struck the part about political pressure. However, I am concerned about a working group that has the incoming and outgoing board chairs as members and the authority to develop a baseline standard applicable to all Wikipedias specific to NPOV. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:33, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose TBan, support Trout for tone and presumption. I dislike this discussion being framed by his recent publication.
    Augmented Seventh (talk) 21:08, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Rosguill's point is fair, but if Jimbo gets a logged warning, that might be enough of a message for him to back off, no? voorts (talk/contributions) 21:13, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think a logged warning would be appropriate and would likely address the issue at hand. signed, Rosguill talk 21:20, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I see where you're coming from @Rhododendrites, but Jimbo could've just chosen not to weigh in here, particularly when he hadn't even bothered to do the research of looking at the prior community consensus. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:40, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with @Femke. Oppose logged warning. Support trout to be served by an experienced admin. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:52, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    In a sense, I agree with BarntToust below: if editors didn’t accord special weight to Jimbo, this wouldn’t really be an issue. But I think the state of Talk:Gaza genocide speaks for itself: Jimbo’s comment was disruptive, regardless of its intent, and has set back discussion of actually improving the article (regardless of what one’s POV of “improvement” looks like), in addition to suggesting several practices vis-a-vis BOLD and NPOV that are by turns inaccurate and unproductive. It’s disruption for the same reason any vague shoot-from-the-hip talk page critique of an article is. If Jimbo had ideas for how to improve the article, he should have provided specific critiques and sources to support them. signed, Rosguill talk 21:55, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Voorts: But why is "weighing in without doing enough research into prior community consensus" by someone who's not even editing the article the stuff of dramatic ANI threads and logged warnings, as opposed to something that happens all the time? I get that having someone with soft power comment on an already hotly contentious subject is complicated. I don't think this ANI thread is the way to deal with those complications, though.
    I'll also add: I don't think optics should play a role in motivating our decisions, and they are not the reason why I expressed the opinion below, but there is also an optics-related consequence worth remarking on to go along with this bad-for-its-own-reasons thread -- "co-founder tries to start discussion, doesn't even edit article, and is met with efforts to shut down discussion, insults, remove a merely decorative right, prevent him from talking about it any more in the future, and a logged warning" (the inevitable framing) is a bad look, regardless of the merits (or not) of his approach. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:59, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough RE optics, which I am concerned about. as opposed to something that happens all the time It does, but not from editors who should know way better. I've now changed to just a trout rather than a logged warning. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:02, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the trout should be something along the lines of "you should know better than to weigh in on a controversial topic without determining what the current consensus is, why that's the consensus, and presenting strong contrary evidence". voorts (talk/contributions) 22:04, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    A trout is still a formal outcome, and I don't think it winds up serving anyone in this case other than outside observers. Jimmy's already reading this, and has read the many, many responses to his comments already. FWIW. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:06, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:11, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's put the trout back in the freezer. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:14, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You can do some real damage with a frozen trout. NebY (talk) 23:32, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think some of the framing in this post here stretch towards the conspiratorial, but frankly the comment made by Jimbo at Talk:Gaza_genocide#Statement_from_Jimbo_Wales is astoundingly poorly justified. Charitably, it's a forum post. Less charitably, it's WP:BATTLEGROUND pure and simple--and privileges his personal opinion without citing a single relevant reliable source. Jimbo has demonstrated that they should not be editing or discussing PIA topics on Wikipedia. It's within my authority as an uninvolved administrator to impose a topic-ban or warning unilaterally, but I'd rather see it come from the community. And more generally, regarding the founders trying to throw their weight around this past month: לא בשמים היא. The community is responsible for itself. signed, Rosguill talk 21:10, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Special:ListGroupRights tells us the "founder" right enables reading pages and using two-factor authentication. Everyone has the first right and by the end of the year, everyone will have the second. The proposal to deprecate the founder right seems as empty a gesture as the right itself. NebY (talk) 21:21, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Support alternate proposal: collectively trout the entire community for caring so much about a guy who is on the "I have a book tour coming up" phase of his career. I mean, unless Jimbo actually coordinates some effort to circumvent community process, at the moment all he is doing is the equivalent of an IP editor going to Talk:Donald Trump and declaring Wikipedia as a biased failure. Jimbo is basically having all the influence of the British Royal Family, where he is treated with much symbolic value, and many people care about what he thinks, but he holds no real power, and nobody actually expects Jimmy to make a real power play here. At the end of the day, this is going to amount to a non-issue. BarntToust 21:23, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Support removing Founder right - It may seem "empty" to some, but I do think it sends an important message in that he holds no greater weight here than anyone else.
    I've not been involved in anything on this topic as far as I can remember, but reading through that quite frankly it has a disturbing energy of "look I'm not demanding you to make an exception but if you think that's deserved then I won't argue against it..." and the fact he's seemingly trying to play games by referencing his NPOV working group and bringing up the article in an interview would for anyone else in a position of trust be seen as far beyond what's acceptable.
    And to finish, I don't see any grounds to give him benefit of the doubt because as he himself opens the discussion with, he co-founded this place so should know its rules and more importantly its expectations better than anyone. Rambling Rambler (talk) 21:29, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    (This comment was removed as a violation of the extended-confirmed restriction in the Arab–Israeli conflict contentious topic. — Newslinger talk 00:54, 5 November 2025 (UTC))[reply]
    First of all, he hasn't been censored at all but rather chastised for acting in a way that's inappropriate. I care about the project, not about wider public "outrage" in the usual rags. Rambling Rambler (talk) 00:45, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Come on now. Everything from the bad faith speculations about motives and insults at the top to It is clear that Jimbo Wales has no interest in following community consensus, when he has made literally zero edits to the article in question, seems way, way, way over the top here. I don't have strong feelings about the founder userright, but it has no technical function at all, so how can it be abused? If the objection is that he's introducing himself as the co-founder, that will still be true without the technical userright. Is anyone under the impression that people know he's the co-founder, then check his user-right, see "founder", and think "oh, well that userright changes everything"? On what basis would we be logging a warning? Expressing strong disagreement with where consensus stands at the moment is very much allowed, and basically half of talk page posts for controversial topics. There is no policy called Wikipedia:Do not use the soft power of a co-founder to try to influence article content, and if there were, I'd be surprised to see its enforcement start with Jimmy. If Jimmy starts edit warring and banning people for disagreeing with him, or otherwise trying to set article content by fiat, we can have a different conversation, but for now this is not IMO a matter for ANI. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:35, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Only place I disagree is with "There is no policy called Wikipedia:Do not use the soft power of a co-founder to try to influence article content, and if there were, I'd be surprised to see its enforcement start with Jimmy". That is a WP:AIRBUD fallacy right there, and it doesn't take an essay to realize that that what he did is improper. Of course, while may it be a debated matter of impropriety, you and I solidly agree that Jimbo's moves are de facto worthless and won't really have any impact as they are. BarntToust 21:59, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I support the removal of the 'founder' right, due to (as others have pointed out) it being redundant. But a topic ban is IMO too harsh, so I support voorts' proposal of a logged warning. MiasmaEternal☎ 21:40, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are there people that can have a quiet chat with him per User:Barkeep49/Friends don't let friends get sanctioned? About the community expectations around the use of sources in controversial areas, showing a willingness to compromise, and not flouting his founder status. Disagreeing vehemently with a consensus is allowed, but this should happen in a colleageal way. It's unfortunate that Wales denied canvassing after me and another uninvolved admin reminded him of that guideline, but that's not enough to base a sanction on. A trout is perhaps the most tactful way out. Sanctioning proper would not put Wikipedia in a good light, as it would be misinterpreted by various media outlets as trying to silence certain voices. And to keep Wikipedia neutral long-term, we need buy-in and editing from people with a wide variety of opinions. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 21:49, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • Agree with the first and the last part. Along the lines of the first, I don't know Jimmy well enough to know if this is something he would want, but he probably has many highly experienced Wikipedian friends who would be willing to connect informally off-wiki to give him a sounding board. I know there are people I sometimes talk to before I do or write something that could be controversial (maybe I should've done that before jumping into this thread :) ). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:13, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support both TBan and removal of founder right or as an alternate proposal, give Larry Sanger the founder right too and allow the two of them demonstrate how things are supposed to work when there is a dispute. ~2025-31274-24 (talk) 21:54, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Femke, if you and other admins think that'd be the best way forward in the interest of the 'pedia, should probably IAR and close this before it balloons. One thing I hope will be discussed with him is how he can allow himself to fall so far out of touch with the community and its editing processes (obv it's a two-way street), and how that can be addressed for the future. Kowal2701 (talk) 22:49, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It can be debated whether or not it was wise for Wales to wade into that page in the manner that he did.
    Premature for any topic ban talk (yet). As Wales has (seemingly) no official power here beyond any other board member and the Founder "option", this should be reviewed IF Wales attempts to force/compel Article content changes against consensus. If the Wikimedia Foundation wants to do it, they can do it on the record and officially, and own the consequences good or bad. If any board member in their personal role tried to play King in fiat content decisions, then' of course, immediately and without delay remove their ability to do so. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 21:56, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is so dumb. --JBL (talk) 22:18, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose removal of the founder right; that's petty and doesn't actually solve any of the problems presented here. If he had never had that technical right, then this entire drama would have carried out in basically the exact same way. No opinion on anything else. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:21, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support removal of Founder right, Support TBAN. I really dislike the obvious use of this honourary title to try and influence the community on such a contentious article. It's implicit deference does undermine the collective work of the community, and if Wales wishes to constructively edit Wikipedia in the current community norms, he can do so on an equal footing with all the rest of us. The creeping attempts at personal influence from Wales and other unmentioned co-founders in the current political climate really worries me. qcne (talk) 22:25, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose removal of founder right, Speedy close with appropriately thoughtful trouting - not useful any other way and would rather avoid further escalation per femke. He is influential by social clout and by nature of his involvement and WP:JIMBO will always apply, similar to a certain other infamouse cofounder. however, if he wants to do something as an ordinary user, he is allowed to.
      I think a petition by trusted admins, or an RFC statement as such would be useful to send a message if time comes, but currently a TROUT is most appropriate. Agree Jimbo probably did some level of unacceptable canvassing, but he seemed to lack WP:CLUEness in this specific area. we really do not need to overreact to this and escalate further beyond thoughtfully considering his advice (and possibly rejecting it if necessary if consensus proves so).
      and for what its worth, there is some productive analysis coming from his intervention in the form of a possible new policy, WP:GENOCIDE. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 22:31, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think the founder right means much, and a TBAN might be too harsh at this point in time, but I'd support a logged warning for poor behavior in a contentious topic. Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 22:37, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose all actions against Jimbo, Trouting may be appropriate Like others have said, this is just petty. Jimbo has made zero edits to the article and has shown zero intent to unilaterally override community consensus. There are legitimate problems with the article that need to be addressed, and it doesn't matter who starts that discussion, it needs to happen. Jimbo is not trying to override community consensus; he's just pointing out problems that need to be solved. The civil POV pushing and "righting great wrongs" mentality in the PIA topic area is pretty bad and we need to do something about it. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 22:39, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      There are definitely problems in that topic area. But starting an entire subsection entitled "Statement by Jimbo Wales" with an air of officialness and allusions to his soft power is the exact opposite of what should be done to end that problem. Rambling Rambler (talk) 22:53, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Nothing else seemed to be working, so I understand why he did that. I also understand that what he did has caused lots of disruption. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 23:16, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sigh, I see we're already in the news for this too. I really wish Jimbo would stop trying to do this "as the founder of Wikipedia, I, a normal editor, think we should do this" schtick. But I know, since we're on decade two of him repeatedly doing this over and over and causing controversy every single time, he's unlikely to stop anytime soon. It's also well known that the vast majority of his involvement in these sorts of situations is on the side of "what will make Wikipedia look good" rather than "what are Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for articles". Being on the same side as Sanger on the issue shows we're far, far away from anything involving the latter or how NPOV is meant to be used on Wikipedia. I honestly don't know if I can support as far as a topic ban, but I do think a logged warning and deprecated founder right is appropriate. I'm honestly surprised the latter is still around, I thought that would have gone away when we all voted to remove his founder flag way back when during the previous Jimbo/Larry power battle over Commons images. SilverserenC 22:46, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose any action against Jimmy. He stated he was "co-founder" because he literally is; removing the "Founder" right is therefore pointless, as it's not any additional user rights he's misused. Equally oppose any suggestion he shouldn't call himself a founder on Wikipedia as it is in conflict with reality. Maybe trout him for being grandiose in how he made the argument and to encourage him to show more wisdom on how he words such discussions in the future (which he is well within his rights to do). — Czello (music) 22:53, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support removal of founder right and logged warning (or a trout at the bare minimum.) I think a TBan might be going too far, especially because the topic area isn't really the problem (at least not so far). The problem, to me, is the way he implicitly invoked his status as a founder and his position with the WMF via the NPOV Working Group in the context of a content dispute; I'm also not at all happy with his dismissal of the existing consensus on the page, which was established in a well-attended, extremely long running, and time-consuming RFC. Just trying to... throw that all away because he disagrees with the outcome is not great (yes, even if the disagreement is based in thinking there are NPOV issues - that's what the RFC was about.) Naturally he has the right to weigh in as a normal user, and it will always be true that he was a founder; but if he's going to use that fact as an argument in content disputes like this, then we should make it clear that the community doesn't give it any special weight, which is best-achieved by removing any technical recognition of it.
    But his invocation of the NPOV Working Group is the bigger problem, because it is an actual role that he could, in theory, try to use to influence the policies related to this - even if all it can do is make recommendations, those come with the weight of the WMF behind them. I strongly feel that it is obviously inappropriate for anyone who has a role with the WMF, even a purely advisory one, to invoke that role during content disputes - even if one is extremely careful, it can have a chilling effect, and regardless of his intent Jimbo absolutely has not been careful here. In the context of a discussion he started by invoking his position in the NPOV Working group, statements like (from the diff above) We need to look at this as a case study - the article is not in line with policy but there are massive barriers for anyone who wants to correct it, barriers that should not exist or his wording here about how it will be investigating enwiki to determine if we're neutral bluntly read like a threat - "make the changes I'm requesting to this article or I'll escalate with the WMF to remove those barriers." Again, I absolutely don't believe he intended it that way, but the reaction makes it clear that that's how many people read it, and since he hasn't shown any indication that he understands how badly he screwed up, we need to take at least some steps to make it undeniable. --Aquillion (talk) 23:03, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The founder right literally does nothing. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 23:17, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Logged warning - I was quite bothered by the title and subtitle calling it a statement from the co-founder of Wikipedia. Like a voice from on-high came to tell us the “truth”. I think it could be quite off-putting to some editors – although most of the editors on that page would not be spooked. I do not mind retention of the founder bit as nowadays it is more an honor, not a super mop, and deserved. I do think the behavior requires more than trout for dinner. But a logged warning should be quite enough as I don’t see a likely reprise. And I don’t like speculation about motive. O3000, Ret. (talk) 23:06, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support formal warning, but currently oppose TBAN - His behavior has been highly disruptive in a contentious topic area & while he has every right to participate as an average editor, he has not done so. His refusal to cite sources & his encouragement of others to bypass community consensus showed a disregard of established policy unbecoming of a longtime editor that would not be tolerated by others. However, due to how rarely he participates in editing, let alone WP:PIA, I believe a TBAN may be unnecessary at the time. This is said with the understanding that future disruptive behavior like this will have harsher consequences. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 23:14, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have no opinion on whether or not Jimbo's actions on the talk page were or were not appropriate, but I do raise my eyebrow at the start of the OP's initial statement here. How, exactly, is the accusation that he's probably disappointed that his world-changing book has not garnered the attention of scholars and world media he thinks it deserves relevant here? Are there diffs to evidence that his deciding to weigh in on this debate is connected to a lack of reviews for his book? Because Jimbo isn't immune from Wikipedia's policies and guidelines - both ways. WP:NPA included. And that really sounds to me like WP:ASPERSIONS. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:22, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      eh, I don't really think this is a harrowing matter of great offense to Jimbo, but it definitely is biting, on-the-nose, and not really fitting anywhere in any serious discussion of the evident problematic-ness that Jimbo's recent moves have erupted in. A simple "knock it off and keep things relevant, please" will suffice. BarntToust 23:33, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Trouting per Femke. I think if this was an ordinary user coming in late into a content dispute and demanding a change, no one would bat an eyelid and they would just get some talk page messages and that would be the end of that, but because its WP:JIMBO doing this while seemingly trying to use his status to give his position extra clout this becomes problematic.
    I also think the optics of this are important, this has already generated a lot of controversy and I feel like taking action that is too drastic would not be a very good idea, this can always be escalated later if things don't improve.
    And I would say to him that people trust wikipedia because it has a transparent process and content disputes are resolved through community consensus, having the appearance of the founder trying to get around that process risks hurting trust in wikipedia more than any edit dispute ever could. Giuliotf (talk) 23:33, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support logged warning, oppose revoking founder right or TBAN Revocation of the right would be petty and do nothing to reduce the actual power Jimbo exerted here, that to start discussion. The issue is that the way he used that power here to start a discussion in a way that was poorly formed and already in a contentious area. User:JasonMacker already did a great job breaking down the issues with the statement, I'd recommend reading his reply to Jimbo as an explanation for why his request is poorly formed, unactionable and irresponsible. What Jimbo did was throw gas on a fire, seemingly without so much as reading the discussions that had already taken place on the page, ironically to try to push his own POV. Given the nature of the issue, I think a thoughful and strongly worded trouting would also suffice. A TBAN seems a bit far when his conduct would not be out of line for pretty much any other editor — the topic would've gotten a handful of replies and nobody would remember it within 24 hours. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 23:40, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose action beyond maybe a WP:TROUT. Jimbo's infraction here is several orders of magnitude lower than the activity we see from problem editors in this topic area. This isn't about solving a problem, it's a response to media attention. It's hypocritical that genuine POV pushing is overlooked or dismissed but this is gaining traction. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 23:47, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Except Wales is the one engaged in textbook POV-pushing, defined as "the aggressive presentation of a particular point of view in an article, particularly when used to denote the undue presentation of minor or fringe ideas. The term "POV-pushing" is primarily used in regard to the presentation of a particular point of view in an article, including on talk page discussions." IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 23:58, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose any action against Jimbo Any and all actions suggested by the proposal are petty at best and a violation of WP:RGW at worst. In what universe does it make sense to topic ban any editor over a call for NPOV to be followed? And would this be instituted if it were perhaps any other editor, Jimbo or otherwise? Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 23:48, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Support trouting, oppose founder tag removal, oppose TBAN - The founder tag confers no right WP:JIMBO so I see nothing constructive coming from removing it. From the guy who founded the site and trying to swing his authority around, yeah this is completely out of line. The topic area isn't the problem. Whether he has the role or not he will still be the founder regardless and will still be able to bring that up regardless. I don't see this being constructive. No matter what, he will always be the founder, and whether they should or shouldn't, people will always back jimbo just for being jimbo. I don't see anything constructive arising from removing the founder tag that a trouting won't send the message accomplish in the same way. I sincerely believe just trouting him with the reminder that his founder tag *can* be taken will send the message far better and stronger. DarmaniLink (talk) 23:47, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support logged warning The preaching from on high to try and override community consensus was really disappointing to see. The specific complaint demonstrates a quite incredible misunderstanding of how we operate, both in achieving consensus and reaching NPOV. I think we should clearly respond that such interventions are unwelcome and a formal warning makes it clear that we won't tolerate further interventions to "fix" articles at his behest. SmartSE (talk) 00:29, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose any actions against Jimbo, especially the Founder Rights. First of all, no matter what he is doing, he is one of the most important founders of Wikipedia. That "status" should never be taken from him. And as that status is just a "ceremonial role" today without any real power, we should not bother to take it from anyone. Many of American's Founding Fathers are "bad people" by modern standards. Aaron Burr even tried to create his own country in the Burr conspiracy but he still retained his Founding Fathers status. Bottom line, short of Jimbo doing a thing like Benedict Arnold who openly levies a war against Wikipedia, he should never lose his Founder status. Second, this is off-wiki conduct. He hasn't done a thing in the article itself. He can attempt to use soft-power to change the article, but nothing has changed in the article. In essence, he tried (and failed) to affect changes off-wiki, but nothing gets changed in-wiki. TBAN is too much as it is only handed out to persistent editors that have tried to affect change multiple times and went to real edit wars multiple times. We shouldn't be handing out TBAN like candies. Third, what a bad optics. Wikipedia decided to oust their own "founder" will be a very bad optics. There is nothing constructive in doing any of this. There is lots of unneeded pain in doing this. ✠ SunDawn ✠ Contact me! 01:03, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose any action Everyone here needs to take a breath and step back for a moment. The reaction to Jimbo’s comment has gotten completely out of proportion to what actually happened. He didn’t edit the article, didn’t issue commands, and didn’t abuse any authority. He introduced himself as the founder because that’s who he is, not as a power move. Turning that into misconduct is a stretch, and the speculation about motives, books, and conspiracies is doing this discussion no favors. Disagreement is not disruption, and consensus isn’t sacred law. If the community can’t handle one talk page comment without spiraling into outrage, that’s a bigger concern than anything Jimbo said. Everyone needs to take a deep breath and then let's put this back in perspective. TrueCRaysball 💬|✏️ 01:06, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Gaza Genocide article now unprotected from full protection

    [edit]

    some edits and reversions likely to be incoming. im certain many eyes on this article already, but more admin eyes on the article are appreciated to see if edit war starts. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 22:39, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    NPOV Working Group

    [edit]

    I mentioned this in my !vote above, but I didn't want to go into more detail on it because my comment was already long enough - my biggest concerns over this focus on the NPOV Working Group, which Jimbo referenced when raising the topic and which has, as a result, been a focus of discussion throughout. See here and here - note particularly Jimbo's statement that Whether there is a role for the Foundation in terms of strengthening policy in this area is a valid question. I think it's obvious now that the answer from the community is no, it has no role. Many of Jimbo's comments in the discussion show a fairly surprising lack of understanding for current Wikipedia policy surrounding NPOV; I do not think the community can put any faith in recommendations from a working group with him at the helm. This is a discussion we might better spin off to elsewhere (it's not a conduct issue; people are allowed to be wrong, and if having a poor understanding of our current policies was a problem, we'd have no new users at all.) But it's important, because it's an actually official role, and, in light of his poor showing in the linked discussion, one I don't think the community is likely to agree he's qualified for. More than anything the community actually can directly do, I would prioritize stripping him of his seat on that body above all else, because that's the one thing that his missteps here make clear he shouldn't be doing; and if we can't do that, we can at least make it clear that we don't desire and don't approve of any recommendations coming from it while he is at the helm. --Aquillion (talk) 23:27, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Frankly looking at how brilliantly the temporary accounts stuff is going I'm reminded of my Ronald Reagan: "I'm from the Wikimedia Foundation and I'm here to help..."
    I feel sorry for everyone else on the working group, because Jimbo's frankly at best naive decision to wander into that discussion and raise the NPOV working group has basically torpedoed any goodwill people were probably willing to give it and will now instead be viewed by many with suspicion as WMF political interference. Rambling Rambler (talk) 23:40, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I see Jimbo's ideas as a slippery slope—if we are to editorially operate based on the ideas that Jimbo has about "NPOV", that will be the day that The Holocaust has to concede its objectivity to the positions of Nazi Germany on account of them being a powerful, influential government. BarntToust 23:40, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Whoof, that's pretty fast for Godwin's law to kick in. Ravenswing 00:54, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You freakin' bet. It all leads back to Nazis. They're in in our grammar, in our video games, they even managed to enter the Matrix. BarntToust 01:02, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Whoof, that's pretty quick mention of Godwin's law. Yes mentions of Hitler are often not on point. But yes, many times they are on point and important, and should not be discarded simply because they mention an extremely historic event that may have been misused in other instances. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:03, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Post close discussion

    [edit]
    • I feel that this thread has been closed prematurely, in that no one's mentioned infoboxes yet. EEng 06:30, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Or the size of your talk page which is visible from the Arctic. CambridgeBayWeather (#1 deranged), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 01:02, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I just want to say, for the record, that it was not my intent to actually have the thread reopened. If that was indeed the effect, I do apologize. EEng 07:01, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given the back and forth over this close, I should note that despite not having struck my suggestions of sanctions in the course of the discussion, I'm satisfied with the close on reflection. My initial reaction was based on the presumption that Jimbo is an experienced editor; on reflection of the discussion, it's clear that as far as PIA is concerned (and likely other CTs as well), he isn't, and thus deserves a bit of WP:ROPE before sanctions would be appropriate. signed, Rosguill talk 19:02, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      So long as he doesn't take any more irresponsible declarations any further than this, I think that a fishie and a few well-wishes about his book tour are sufficient. BarntToust 19:05, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Leaving aside our disagreements on the declaration being irresponsible, I doubt it will be taken further by him as under the system as these decisions are taken by the community and there was clearly no consensus for any changes at that Statement discussion. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 19:08, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I will separate the issue of Jimbo's actions into two areas: 1. intent and 2. reality.
      1. Jimbo may or may not have gone into this honestly thinking everything was going to go smoothly. He may have honestly come into this thinking he could fashion himself as a normal editor; or, he may have damn well known he couldn't come in here, just simply being the founder of Wikipedia (and even worse for the matter going to the lengths to declare that he is the Founder before his statement) and masquerade as if he were a humble mediator, and have everything pan out smoothly. Of his intents: You don't believe Jimbo came into this knowing he was being irresponsible; I have serious doubts as to his intents.
      2. In reality, Jimbo caused a shitstorm. Many here will not have a King, as it were, make King-like declarations, and then allow the King to pretend he is but a simple common man. You and I both can see that the reality of the matter is that what Jimbo did was taken by a significant number of enough editors as problematic.
      Ultimately, if Jimbo knew what he was doing was a hypocritical thing, then he needs all the trout in the world. If he thought he could make a statement pretending he wasn't the King, while making King-like declarations—and this not end up badly—Jimbo should be criticized for his lack of foresight and awareness of his importance, and be told to consider this before making any further, weighty and controversial statements. BarntToust 20:04, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      1. Ok so we agree on his intent at least.
      2. I think what Jimbo did on the Gaza Genocide page was justified yes there was a negative reaction but he is entitled per the system to comment on a talk page like that. The difference is under a king system it will be argued they are not just a common man. In wikipedia anyone can be an editor if they are not sanctioned and that includes Jimbo. And a kingly declaration is far different to what Jimbo did.
      I disagree with a trout as A I dont think it was hypocritical and B I am not sure he thought it was hypocritical certainly I have seen no evidence of that. I am sure he is aware of his importance but he also knows that he is allowed to voice his view as an editor. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 00:25, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Sadly, noting Silverseren's comments in the discussion, I doubt we've seen the end of irresponsible declarations from Jimbo. But the problem isn't "Jimbo is incapable of editing PIA collegially", it's "Jimbo has repeatedly insisted on having his cake and eating it too when it comes to being both an Authoritative Co-Founder and a regular editor". signed, Rosguill talk 19:13, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Wales has got form for throwing his weight around (and discovering how it can backfire). —Fortuna, imperatrix 19:21, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      As Founder's syndrome puts it, "Entrepreneurs generally tend to be confident or overconfident, or they do not become entrepreneurs in the first place." NebY (talk) 19:27, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Partial re-opening: remind, warn, or no action

    [edit]

    This has become perhaps my most controversial close ever, with six people asking me to reopen it, and ten thanking me for closing it, in just twelve hours. Seeing as this close is barely holding, I'm going to narrowly re-open this with a focus on what we can do (and with an eye towards those who were grateful for the off-topic discussion to end). Suggestions that we remove the Founder right are, as pointed out in the prior discussion, simply unrealistic and petty. The right is ceremonial, and no matter what color we say the sky is, we can't change the fact that he did found the place. Further, suggestions of a topic ban are a nonstarter. We don't generally topic ban people for making polite posts on the talk page of a single article. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:03, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    With that preamble, here is the remaining question:

    Should the community remind or warn Jimbo Wales (talk · contribs) based on his posts at Talk:Gaza genocide? If so, why? Answers should take the form of a bolded "Remind", "Warn", or "No action", followed by an explanation. Comments that are unrelated should be put in the discussion section.

    This discussion about a conduct issue in the Palestine-Israel Contentious Topic area is restricted by motion of the Arbitration Committee. Only editors who are WP:ECP, i.e., have more than 500 edits and an account older than 30 days, may comment. Further, each person is limited to no more than 1,000 words.

    Answers

    [edit]
    • Trout/warn? - As has been noted above, setting aside the PIA specific stuff, it is troubling that Jimbo's proclivity to throwing his weight around has continued despite this having repeatedly drawn the community's ire. I do think that we need some measure to stop this from happening, or at least head it off, and I'm honestly uncertain what would get the point across at this point if his last run-ins with the community have not successfully resulted in him getting a WP:CLUE. I don't think there's a huge difference between a trouting and a warning here. I also don't know that either of them will really address the issue: my magic wand solution would be to have a policy page WP:Jimbo doesn't get to dictate content or policy anymore, which could be shortened to WP:JIMBONO, documenting the various times that the community has had it with his actions and underlining that he should get no special consideration in discussions. As a side note, I do dispute one element of CaptainEek's framing of this discussion: posting a self-important declaration of how things should be without even beginning to engage in a good faith discussion of relevant sources and arguments is not polite. I'll grant that it was civil. But it was also deeply disrespectful of the community's policies, norms and the hard work of individual editors, in addition to being stupid from a PR perspective. Finally, on a somewhat tangential note, I'd recommend to other editors (like myself) who started editing in the late 2010s or more recently and are unfamiliar with the early history of Wikipedia to read Good Faith Collaboration by Joseph M. Reagle; it is eye-opening in terms of describing how Jimbo really was the dictator of Wikipedia for quite a long period of its early history, and that his exit from Wikipedia's limelight was a gradual and largely informal process. signed, Rosguill talk 20:32, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Re he should get no special consideration in discussions, I'd say he should neither get _nor claim_ any special consideration in discussions (and neither should anyone else who did some work on setting Wikipedia up). NebY (talk) 21:05, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Warn - His behavior was highly disruptive in a contentious topic area & while he had every right to participate as an average editor, he had not done so. His refusal to cite sources & his encouragement of others to bypass community consensus showed a disregard of established policy unbecoming of a longtime editor that would not be tolerated by others. As I stated above, while I believe a TBAN is unnecessary, a formal warning is important to discourage potential future disruptive behavior like this & that the founder is not above community standards & policies. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 20:39,
    • Warn for canvassing in PIA on his talk page a logged warning is reasonable. It doesn't mean a lot, other than if the behaviour continues then a topic ban can be considered. Jimbo doesn't appear to see what he did as canvassing, despite two admins raising this issue so I think it's best the community remind him of that. CNC (talk) 20:50, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Logged warning, per above comments. Jimbo's recent participation in this CT has been disruptive and helped generate a battleground in a topic that is already difficult to deal with. Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 20:54, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      👍 Like Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 02:57, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd stick with warn awaiting a response from Jimbo which could change it to trout already served. It's difficult to assume the point has been made without a response. TBan makes no sense and I still see no point in erasing a founder bit. There is already enough reality-denial on this planet these days. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:16, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whale/warn - I'm sure everyone with some degree of experience here has made a silly proposal and misread the room. As I understand it, his idea of NPOV is to take a meta/real-world view and weigh POVs held by parties involved in the topic irl (relative to what idk, power?), rather than weighing POVs found in sources relative to their reliability/quality (I can't think of another reason why he'd want to include primary sources of involved governments when weighing for use of wikivoice). I'm flabbergasted tbh. It's ideals vs. practicality. I don't think he wanted to dictate content against the wishes of the community, I think he thought that he was acting with the silent majority in the community against '5-10 POV pusher regulars' at the article, and that they would be overwhelmed and then the fanfare begins. But instead he was miles out of touch (not to say that people/the article can’t be more neutral). I hope something constructive comes out of this. Not just Jimbo, everyone at the WMF (at least in positions of authority) needs to have experience editing to actually understand the site and community. The alternative is dethroning Jimbo and conflict between the community and WMF (people have recently been talking about blackouts to leverage community control), which nobody wants. Kowal2701 (talk) 21:24, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • whale/warn for canvassing in PIA and for throwing his weight around. Yes, he is the founder, yes, he is WP:JIMBO. However his arguments should be independent of his own status. Trying to use his status to elevate his arguments is hugely inappropriate. DarmaniLink (talk) 21:30, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • warn my view is that his behavior was disruptive, wasted a lot of community time, and that he should have known that going in. (t · c) buidhe 21:59, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • no action. He made a comment. He used the talk page for its purpose. Yes, he did mention that he had to answer a question about the article. The fact is though, that the article is bad. He gets contacted by the press and he answered his opinion, and then brought it to the talk page. The fact is that there is a concerted effort to RGW and push an agenda which Wikipedia shouldn't be doing. Even if you say what he did was wrong, what is the rationale for a warning or trout or anything? He raised an issue and it's being discussed. Sir Joseph (talk) 22:10, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • No action per my previous !vote. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 22:11, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • No action per my previous comment. This should not have been reopened as people are leading with emotion, not reason. TrueCRaysball 💬|✏️ 22:56, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • No action. Jimbo stuck his oar in. The community responded with "Oh wait, you're serious". Even allowing for the problematic manner in which he stuck his oar in, this is a single discussion in which he did so. He's been trouted for it. Let's move on to actually improving the encyclopedia, shall we? - The Bushranger One ping only 23:05, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • No action - I think it's time to move on, everyone had their moment to vent but not seeing anything here that would require action. PackMecEng (talk) 23:29, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • No action - User edits contentious talk page and complains about wording in the article, like countless other people do every day. User doesn't make any edits at all to the article itself. User is polite, even if his strategy is flawed. He makes edits for a little more than a day, then stops. Those comments understandably frustrate some people. Now, a full two days later (and still no edits to the article itself), we have a pile-on demanding some sort of formal action.
      I have a hard time thinking anyone other than Jimmy would be subject to a trip to ANI for this sequence of events, not to mention insults about off-wiki activities, accusations of bad faith, demands for formal warnings, and ceremonial removal of ceremonial user rights that do nothing at all.
      Regardless of what you think about his opinion or the merits behind it (or lack thereof), opening this thread was a bad call, as was the edit warring to keep it open, and then formal reopening. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:07, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • No action - what, posting to one's own page is canvassing now? participating on TP to propose improvements on main space is verboten? People complaining of hurt feelings? Not a good look. Let the man say his piece, just like any other editor. XavierItzm (talk) 03:03, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion

    [edit]
    (This is not aimed at any one person, but the entire thing) I can't believe time is being wasted on this. Pictorial representation follows.
    . --Hammersoft (talk) 21:50, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    👍 Like BarntToust 21:52, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately due to formatting it now looks like the closer of the following entry was particularly upset at unreferenced edits. Rambling Rambler (talk) 22:08, 5 November 2025
    • I have now struck the inappropriate part of my comment. My apologies to Jimbo for the WP:PA. I admit it was out of place and uncalled for; I was wrong to speculate about motivations. I also apologise to everyone else for distracting from the issues and making the discussion that much harder. I am not going to weigh in on the reopened case/remedies. TurboSuperA+[talk] 04:53, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Florenciaflores12's persistent unreferenced edits

    [edit]
    User:Florenciaflores12 blocked for 31 hours to get their attention Mfield (Oi!) 05:18, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    A newly registered account User:Florenciaflores12, keeps adding the same content without a reference, not using the edit summary and marking their edits as minor edits.[51][52][53][54] They have been warned in their talk page trice and there's no response from them. I brought up the article for article protection and didn't get a reply/solution.[55] The reported editor's unreferenced edit is still in the article. Hotwiki (talk) 23:07, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I checked several previous pages of article protection to see if there was a response. I was mistaken to say there wasn't a response.[56] "Consider giving the editor a final warning, but also explain why sources are needed, even though most of the cast in the article is also unsourced." After several hours after the third warning. I don't think the reported editor is going to communicate back and it would just lead to a 5th revert from them, if I reverted them. Hotwiki (talk) 23:24, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
     Done User blocked for 31 hours for adding un-sourced content. See if this gets their attention and causes them to read their talkpage. Mfield (Oi!) 05:17, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Edit by User:Goswami21

    [edit]
    NO ACTION
    Wrong venue. WP:RSN is this way. Northern Moonlight 07:50, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    User:Sahadawiki

    [edit]

    Sahadawiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - this user's talk page is a long wall of WP:ENGVAR notices which they are either not understanding or ignoring as they continue to "correct" British to American English on articles like Jemima Goldsmith ([57]), Jeanne Calment ([58]), and Ghislaine Maxwell ([59]). Aside from showing no notice of talk page messages, some of these copyedits aren't really improvements. The linked edit to Ghislaine Maxwell I ended up reverting in full (after trying to partially revert) because it introduced typos, moved text away from its references and did change the meaning of the text in a few places. I understand Wikipedia can be technically challenging but I think this user's editing is quite disruptive and creates work for people cleaning it up. I suggest they should be restricted from editing mainspace until they figure out how to use talk pages and collaborate. Not going to take any action myself as WP:INVOLVED. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 11:07, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Just for clarity, while the editor makes decent use of edit summaries, they've never editing a talk page or anything besides main space. Also they keep adding 5 tildes to they edit summaries which make me wonder if they incorrectly think signing works in edit summaries although 5 to just add the date is a little weird. (I mean neither are needed since the diff will have both the time stamp and editor but just adding the date seems especially weird to me.) Note the editor often but doesn't always use the visual editor, but never the mobile site or apps so there's no particular reason for WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU to apply other than the generic reasons that any editor may not notice any indication someone is trying to contact them. Nil Einne (talk) 12:26, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked from article space until a response is forthcoming. If they come up with a valid response then just unblock them. CambridgeBayWeather (#1 deranged), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 00:59, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I hope that the block gets them to communicate. I see the possibility of their becoming a very useful editor. Yes, there's the ENGVAR irritation; yes, there's the oddity of signing ESs with five tildes; but on the other hand, there are some excellent edits like this one. Narky Blert (talk) 07:29, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. I agree, if this user paid attention to their usertalk and read the guidelines posted there they could be a good contributor. @CambridgeBayWeather just FYI I fixed the link to this section in your talkpage comment. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 09:43, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Krzys123456

    [edit]
    New socks, same block. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:29, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    This user keeps unreasonably reverting edits by other users that are mostly harmless and unwilling to have a discussion. Possible CIR issues. ~2025-31393-07 (talk) 12:38, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi, are you the same user as Special:Contributions/~2025-31204-56 who is currently blocked for sock puppetry? (pinging blocking admin @ScottishFinnishRadish, as I can't find a link to an SPI case or similar) – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:12, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    See also ~2025-31478-68, whom I just blocked for block evasion. I'd say OP is the same editor, but the underlying range is a bit too large for a block, IMO. Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 13:36, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is uh... User:Alex Neman. Also @Isabelle Belato, you can safely indef-block temp accounts because they can only be used by one person. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 13:41, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Is Special:Contributions/~2025-31404-71 another sock? They also reverted Krzys[60]. Nakonana (talk) 15:14, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    ~2025-31478-68, ~2025-31204-56, ~2025-31393-07 and ~2025-31404-71 are all likely to be the same person, from what I saw. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 18:18, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, I've blocked the other two. Think this can be closed. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 19:02, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    And Krzys edit warred over this report for some reason[61][62][63]. Nakonana (talk) 13:12, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Krzys just posted an apology on their talk page[64]. Nakonana (talk) 13:37, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Edit war, November 5 2025

    [edit]
    Amicably resolved. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:40, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    @Nathannah has engaged in multiple reverts on the following AfD discussion, hereby censuring my post, accusing me of improper LLM usage, sockpupettry and other things without attempting constructive discussion and without sharing evidence.

    — Here are my attemps at discussion...

    — Unfortunatelty, it didn't worked out, I have made myself 2 reverts and given WP:3RR, I'm here (I hope it's the right place!).
    If I can do anything to help: I'm yours! Thanks in advance for the help,
    Grigorirasputinlover (talk) 16:59, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I had hoped that a warning to stop using LLMs would have been enough to settle this, but unfortunately Grigor has obviously persisted as seen above.
    First the two nominations in question;
    Both were nominated by @Equine-man: for being non-notable lists. The first account in question, Therealbrettcooper (talk · contribs), who is one of the major contributors to both articles, immediately added plainly obvious LLM usage, and I warned them to not do that again. Instead of taking my advice and ceasing, they instead chose to abuse the WP:VANISH process and become Renamed user dd69b3d78e1dc5229f589ec9784def1e (talk · contribs) with no response; because of that I chose to hat it as an LLM vote and strike it as it was clear the editor refused to defend their vote and we weren't talking to a human.
    Grigor then comes in with an equally obvious LLM vote on the Vance nom (and note I have no vote on either at all), I hatted it and struck it (again because it was obviously LLM-generated), and warned them on their talk page, along with noting that I had suspicions that both Brett and Grigor were the only two major contributors to the article. Overnight, Grigor then responds to my talk page warning with three further comments which are very obviously badly translated LLM contributions, and a dash of gaslighting that the two accounts aren't related.
    The simple ask for Grigor is to stop using any LLMs at all on Wikipedia, but I'm not sure that they will do so, along with being concerned about their handle on regular English based on the above and their response to my warning, but more than that, the obvious sockpuppetry needs to be addressed in those two articles and the AfD. Nathannah • 📮 17:22, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You mentioned three further comments, but I find the links you provided confusing. I'm not sure which comments you are referring to. Could you provide Special:Diff / {{diff}} links instead? Thanks! — Chrisahn (talk) 17:31, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    My impression is that @Nathannah got a bit carried away and got some of the comments in the deletion discussion mixed up. I'd say the comments by Spiderone and Therealbrettcooper do read like they may have been generated by LLMs, but the comment by @Grigorirasputinlover reads like it's been written by a human. @MuffinHunter0 could you read these comments again? I hope you'll agree with me... But there's another issue: Is the user name "Grigorirasputinlover" in line with our policies? WP:USERNAME says: "When choosing an account name, do not choose names which may be offensive, misleading, disruptive, or promotional." The user name "Grigorirasputinlover" could easily be read as accusing someone of being be a "Putin lover", or promoting the user as a "Putin lover". After reading the name ten times, I realized it could also refer to "Rasputin lover", but that's a very uncommon phrase. Either way, I think the user name should be changed. — Chrisahn (talk) 17:26, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This was their AfD comment with tell-tale LLM points made by em-dashes (and every heading starting with 'Given...') and a misunderstanding of AfD keep/delete and which is incorrectly indented. I certainly didn't mix up anyone here at all and again point to the two accounts being majority contributors on both pages. Nathannah • 📮 17:34, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Wrong link? — Chrisahn (talk) 17:37, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    [65], but as you noted below, there are typos, which is unusual for LLM. Nakonana (talk) 17:41, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If the editor in question is a Russian native speaker (as their username implies) then one should point out that em-dashes are extremely common and frequent in regular text. Even in a simple phrase like "I'm Nakonana" you'd use an em-dash in Russian: "Я — Nakonana". Just as an info. Nakonana (talk) 17:44, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't speak Russian, but I use mdash "—" and ndash "–" all the time. Just because I usually prefer them over the dash "-". They're easy to type on my mobile device and laptop. For example, I always type the mdash preceding my signature: — Chrisahn (talk) 18:00, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "Grigorirasputinlover" could easily be read as accusing someone of being be a "Putin lover". That has nothing to do with Putin. Grigori Rasputin is a famous historical figure of the Russian Empire. Nakonana (talk) 17:36, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I guess I was mistaken. I didn't know Rasputin's first name was Grigori. I actually thought "Rasputin" was the whole name. :-) And since "Putin lover" has become a somewhat common slur or accusation, it's the first thing I see when I read that username. CamelCase would make that name a lot less ambiguous... — Chrisahn (talk) 17:57, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Grigorirasputinlover Would you consider changing your name to "GrigoriRasputinLover" or "Grigori Rasputin Lover" or whatever you prefer? I guess I'm not the only one who might be confused by your current name. — Chrisahn (talk) 18:17, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've read several of Grigorirasputinlover's comments and edit summaries, and to me they all look like they've been written by a human who speaks English as a second language. Lots of little mistakes that LLMs or automatic translators are unlikely to make. (No offense, Grigorirasputinlover.) (I bet sooner or later LLMs will get better at emulating such mistakes if so instructed, but I don't think we're there yet.) — Chrisahn (talk) 17:36, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I can confirm my native langage isn't English! Grigorirasputinlover (talk) 18:10, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I can confirm, my native langage isn't English. I can also confirm that my username is a reference to Grigori Rasputin. I registered as "grigorirasputinlover" and it was put "Grigorirasputinlover", I should have probably used capital letters as such: "Grigori Rasputin Lover".

    I don't know how to change my username but I am willing to do so, if it violates the rules of Wikipedia.

    Even though it's against the principle of good faith, if you want me to do anything to prove that I am a human and that I don't do sockpupetting, I would be delighted! Grigorirasputinlover (talk) 18:16, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You can request a name change at meta:Steward requests/Username changes. — Chrisahn (talk) 18:20, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I sincerely apologize then Grigor; I just wanted to make sure there was no ill will intended with any votes, and I admit that LLM usage around ESL people like you is something that doesn't show up well to me as someone experienced with AfD. I am going to go ahead and restore your vote and strike my warning since you have further explained things, and I apologize if I came off to you in the wrong manner. Nathannah • 📮 18:21, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds good! I guess this can be closed then. Thanks everyone for the level-headed and civil discussion! — Chrisahn (talk) 18:35, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Uglytriangle999 creating templates to promote unsourced and blatently-POV-pushing personal views.

    [edit]

    Uglytriangle999 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    See templates {{Zionism UK}} and {{Zionism US}}, both recently created by Uglytriangle999, and both entirely their own work regarding content. I came across the first, UK, template when Uglytriangle999 added it to the Tommy Robinson biography. The biography (of a British far-right anti-Islam political activist) says precisely nothing about Zionism, and only mentions Israel briefly in passing. Uglytriangle999's response when I pointed this out was to assert, without the slightest evidence, that "Robinson is a highly prominent figure in Zionism in the United Kingdom". [66]

    Inspecting the Zionism UK template revealed futher POV pushing: the listing of the Daily Mail, Daily Mirror, GB News and Sun as 'Media'. There may well be more of the same, but for now this seems quite sufficient to prove the point.

    The Zionism US template is even more blatant. It has a 'History' section consisting of the following: History of the Jews in the United States, Murder of Wadea al-Fayoume, 2023 shooting of Palestinian students in Burlington, Vermont, 2025 pro-Israel mob attack in Brooklyn. It seems unnecessary to explain what the problem is with that bit of cherry-picking. Again, there may well be further issues with the template.

    At minimum, I would suggest that the templates need moving to draft, if not immediate deletion, and that Uglytriangle999 be topic banned from anything concerning Zionism, Israel, and related matters, though depending on the response here, greater sanctions might well be seen as necessary. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:21, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll wait for Uglytriangle999 to respond before making up my mind, but this looks like pretty solid evidence of anti-Zionist POV pushing. If they don't provide a good explanation, a topic ban from the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed, may be necessary. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:32, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Possibly even more broadly 'anti-Semitic', rather than 'anti-Zionist', given the UK 'media' content, which might well be seen as promoting a 'Jews control the media' PoV. I note that Uglytriangle999 was given an 'Introduction to contentious topics' notification for post-1992 politics of the United States back in July last year, and their talk page more generally seems to indicate some sort of theme, as well as a recurring issue with creating inappropriate content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:53, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The anti-Zionist phrasing (as opposed to antisemitic) was me being cautious. I'll wait for a response, but it will have to be a very good one to avoid an Israel-Palestine topic ban. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:59, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at Uglytriangle999's edit history (or at least, what's visible to non-admins after multiple deletions) I'm inclined to think that more than a single-subject topic ban might be required. I've just PRODded Libertarianism in England, another of Uglytriangle999's creations, as a WP:OR concoction of primary and fringe sources, none of which establish that the subject exists as more than 'Libertarians who happen to be English', and would, if it made an effort to actually cite reliable sources, duplicate the existing Libertarianism in the United Kingdom article. It also betrayed an astonishing lack of subject-matter knowledge, including Enoch Powell - an MP for the Conservative and Unionist Party, and later for the Ulster Unionist Party, as a promoter of 'Libertarianism in England'. Powell was English, certainly, but regardless of whether he was a libertarian or not (which is questionable to say the least), at no time in his political career was he advancing views for anything but the UK as a whole. I get the distinct impression from this that Uglytriangle999 doesn't understand what England is in relation to the UK, and has confused the two. The same article also cited (before I removed it) the distinctly non-RS Socialist Worker for something it didn't actually say. Uglytriangle999 seems not to understand Wikipedia sourcing policy, or possibly doesn't like it and has chosen to get around it by creating unsourced templates rather than editing articles that tend to get watched by other contributors. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:30, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe an article and infobox relating specifically to libertarianism within England is necessary. The reason that there is not much on there is that I didn't really have the time to do much editing, but, given the pressure, I would happily improve it. The history of libertarianism in the British Isles is almost entirely within England, from classical liberalism all the way to modern-day libertarian movements. Aside from one or two Scottish historical figures that one could argue play a role in the lineage of libertarianism, such as the role of figures such as Adam Smith and James Mill in economic liberalism, there is not quite as much of a history of libertarianism in Scotland, much less Northern Ireland or Wales. Uglytriangle999 (talk) 15:19, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, so you admit that the history of libertarianism in the United Kingdom is almost entirely confined to England. Therefore, when we already cover said history in the article on libertarianism in the United Kingdom, that makes your article redundant. I'm personally much more concerned about the Zionism infoboxes, as your explanation below gives me no confidence that you have the required competency to edit in such a controversial topic area. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:52, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The article on libertarianism in the United Kingdom focuses chiefly on political parties rather than its history. Not only that, much of the history of English libertarianism predates the Acts of Union. Regarding the topic of Zionism, it is not a topic that I have edited much on. The infobox was pretty much my foray into the topic. Uglytriangle999 (talk) 15:56, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, libertarians claim the Levellers as their own. As do socialists, anarchists, and the odd Marxist or two. We don't however build articles around the primary-sourced fringe claims of political activists. As for the absurdities of anarcho-capitalists trying to make out Anglo-Saxon England as an anarcho-capitalist paradise, I'm surprised they even take that ridiculously anachronistic claim seriously themselves. Wikipedia certainly won't. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:15, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to note, both templates are now at TfD. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 11:00, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Be the change you want to see and edit it more to your liking. I merely went through the categories of articles relating to Zionism in the United States and added them to get the infobox going. If you can find some other articles which balance it out a bit more, feel free to add them. Uglytriangle999 (talk) 15:03, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Given that vacuous refusal to acknowledge the need to maintain NPOV, rather than pushing ones own and expecting others to fix the problem, I can now only suggest that a WP:NOTHERE indef block would be appropriate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:34, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Having read that, I do not believe myself to be under such a description. What is to say that any other user is not here to build an encyclopedia? Everyone has opinions, including the writers of articles cited on every page. The point of discussion is to talk about this and decide together what should be written. Uglytriangle999 (talk) 16:40, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What is to say that any other user is not here to build an encyclopedia? The community, and/or the admins appointed by the community. Contributors who fail to adhere to policy and abuse the project to push their own opinions get blocked quite regularly. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:48, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Very well, understood. Uglytriangle999 (talk) 16:50, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    For another example of Uglytriangle999's disregard for the need for proper sourcing, see this bit of pure WP:OR I've just removed from the Libertarianism in England article. [67] Uglytriangle999 is citing (or rather, pretending to cite) Christopher Hill as summarising a 'principle' cited to an unpublished PDF by one 'Nathan B. Gilson'. A remarkable occurrence, were it true, since Gilson's document dates from 2022, and Hill published Puritanism and Revolution in 1958. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:45, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Fine, nevermind, I'll leave the aforementioned topics alone, do whatever you see fit with it. Uglytriangle999 (talk) 16:49, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it isn't 'fine'. The issue isn't specific topics, it is an apparent inability to understand even the basics of multiple core Wikipedia policies: WP:RS, WP:OR, and WP:NPOV for a start. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:54, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    When I say "fine", I mean the whole situation of whether the articles stay up or not, isn't of tremendous importance to me. Uglytriangle999 (talk) 16:58, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, let's try another tack here: Uglytriangle999, can you please give a clear and unambiguous explanation as to why you described the Daily Mail, Daily Mirror, GB News and Sun as 'Media' in the Zionism UK template? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:20, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It was just sort of off the top of my head, as the aforementioned publications are known for their unequivocal pro-Zionist perspective. Admittedly, perhaps it was a bit of a stretch, seeing as they are publications that take a pro-Israel angle, not publications founded for the express purpose of promoting Zionism, but I could not immediately think of any British publications run solely for the purpose of Zionism as a single-issue topic. It would only be like listing Jeremy Corbyn and George Galloway, as well as media associated with them, in a pro-Palestinian infobox, as they are prominent voices in pro-Palestinian activism. The same goes with the aforementioned figures and media publications cited as Zionist. Uglytriangle999 (talk) 17:37, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for making your blatant PoV-pushing unequivocally clear. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:06, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure if I would go as far as to describe it as blatant POV-pushing. I would be quite happy to someone to rectify the issue by editing it to a way that they see as more appropriate. Rome wasn't built in a day, something is started by creating something and then working on it as one goes along to make it better. Uglytriangle999 (talk) 18:25, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "just sort of off the top of my head ... a bit of a stretch ... I could not immediately think" = Clearly not being here to build an encyclopedia NebY (talk) 18:15, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Is listing publications that epouse an opinion to an infobox about that opinion against building an encyclopedia? I take an interest in many other topics of a non-political nature that are of constructive use to an encyclopedia. Uglytriangle999 (talk) 18:27, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it is very much against 'building an encyclopedia' (or at least, Wikipedia) if you do it based on nothing but your own personal opinions. Wikipedia is supposed to be a tertiary source, and its articles/templates etc are supposed to summarise what reliable secondary sources have to say on a subject. Neither articles nor templates are even remotely appropriate places to express your own opinions (which by your own admission, hadn't involved a great deal of thought). That you still appear to have failed to have understood the problem - and just how utterly biased it is to single out 'off the top of my head' mainstream publications as if they are 'Zionist media' - can only be further evidence of why you shouldn't be editing at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:37, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I just merely thought of it as common knowledge. Again, I made no description of whether I believed it to be right or wrong that these publications chiefly offer pro-Israel views, merely that they do. Uglytriangle999 (talk) 18:45, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I'm done here. Hopefully an admin will be along soon to prevent Uglytriangle999 from spamming Wikipedia with any more improperly-constructed templates containing whatever they think (or barely bothers to think about) constitutes 'common knowledge'. (who'd need an encyclopaedia built on that, anyway?) This utter inability to grasp the problem after having it explained umpteen times is entirely ample grounds for a WP:CIR block, even disregarding the blatant PoV pushing and the rest. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:59, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have made it clear that I understand and grasp the problem. I can't change what has already been done. The only reason that it supposedly needed to be explained umpteen times is because we are still talking about it. Uglytriangle999 (talk) 19:03, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure I agree it means they're not here to build an encyclopedia. I think they are here to do that, they've just failed to understand the standards we apply. — Czello (music) 20:38, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    agreed; uglytriangle has been pretty forthcoming about their mistakes and willing to listen and they've only been met with vitriol here. ... sawyer * any/all * talk 00:33, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe someone with more patience than me would like to enquire of Uglytriangle999 whether a 'History' section for a Zionism US template which contained only History of the Jews in the United States, Murder of Wadea al-Fayoume, 2023 shooting of Palestinian students in Burlington, Vermont and 2025 pro-Israel mob attack in Brooklyn could possibly be built around 'common knowledge', rather than being the disgusting example of shallow propaganda-mongering it gives every appearance of being. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:08, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Uglytriangle999: Mind explaining why you thought that was a good idea? QuicoleJR (talk) 20:10, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It can't really be explained, since I wasn't really thinking of whether it was a good or bad idea at the time. In retrospect, it was a poor decision to include that right away, without a lot of other stuff first. I didn't think it would be an infobox that would be particularly prominent, so I thought there was a lot of time and room to add more stuff. I was just adding things to get it started. Uglytriangle999 (talk) 20:31, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd say that there were at least two perfectly good explanations. The first is anti-Zionism. The second is antisemitism. Given that neither is remotely appropriate in a template, I see little reason to try to figure out which applies. And none whatsoever to believe that this was somehow accidental. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:24, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    All ideologies have adherents which advocate their ideas peacefully and those who don't. An infobox of anti-Zionism would be well within its rights to mention attacks on Zionists, with anti-Zionists as the perpetrators. An infobox on Nazism, for example, mentions the Holocaust and other crimes perpetrated by the Third Reich. Is this seen as an anti-Nazi or even anti-German bias? No, as it is describing history, good and bad. Uglytriangle999 (talk) 23:27, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh look, it's vacuous and misinformed platitudes, conveniently placed to make a pretence of missing the point entirely. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:57, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What is the point that you want me to get? I have already conceded that I appear to have misunderstood the Wikipedia rules and that my edits were somewhat poor. At this point, it appears to just be an unconstructive argument. Uglytriangle999 (talk) 00:24, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Possibly, since the question now seems to revolve around whether the edits were anti-Zionist, antisemitic, or merely monumentally stupid and giving that impression purely by chance (yeah, right...), it is somewhat unconstructive, since all three constitute legitimate grounds for an indefinite block. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:33, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    about five and a half hours ago you said "i'm done" and yet here you are. they've conceded, stopped making the problematic edits, and acquiesced to deletion, so give it a rest - protracted back-and-forth ripping into them is not going to do anything. ... sawyer * any/all * talk 00:36, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, that was the product of me looking through the categories of American Zionist history and finding things to add. Something covering a topic will include both neutral, positive and negative parts of the history. Granted, on its own, it probably wasn't the wisest to add those without a whole lot of other stuff either, as it does skew it somewhat towards a more negative impression. Uglytriangle999 (talk) 20:29, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Anonymous user keeps making disruptive edits to Fallon episode guide

    [edit]

    I've been updating and maintaining the current episode guide for The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon. Miley Cyrus was the lead guest on the June 4 episode, alongside Annie Murphy and Benson Boone. However, since May 31, an anonymous user operating under different IP addresses has been making disruptive edits to this particular episode. This user has been replacing Cyrus with celebrities/characters who did not appear in the episode (including Ja Morant and Peter Griffin) to outright removing her from the episode, even as I've added a proper citation. If an administrator could intervene in this situation, I would appreciate your help. LateNightDdue (talk) 01:02, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    This appears to be stale, the IP (before TA rollout) hasn't edited the page in at least a week (I didn't bother searching the /32 contribs before that since there were so many), and I couldn't find any persistent vandalism on the page in recent times either. I don't think any action needs to be taken right now. Aydoh8[what have I done now?] 01:33, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User Dotsdomain: Repeated WP:RGW behaviour, WP:ASPERSIONS despite warnings

    [edit]
    COMMUNITY BAN IMPOSED
    Clear consensus below to indefinitely block/community ban Dotsdomain. This is a clear case where there is limited opposition and the outcome is obvious after 24 hours. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:00, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    User's behaviour shows a pattern of general WP:RGW POV-pushing behaviour including editorialising on articles including those under WP:BLP[68][69][70] and now using the reliable source noticeboard to post their unsourced and approaching conspiratorial personal beliefs regarding the BBC and UK government that fall well outside of the parameters of the actual discussion[71][72][73][74] (and are likely motivating edits[75]).
    Beyond that they keep making WP:ASPERSIONS about editors[76][77], despite attempts to warn them about this[78][79], which have now morphed into general complaints about 'being silenced' by Wikipedia.[80][81] As a result, don't believe they are suited to making positive contributions to this project. Rambling Rambler (talk) 02:31, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    As a bonus, I'm going to add this thread from September where Dotsdomain violated NOTFORUM with some very transphobic remarks. Add that to the POV pushing, editorialization, and aspersions, and we have an editor who is clearly NOTHERE. I believe a block is warranted to prevent further disruption. QuicoleJR (talk) 02:55, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I cant tell if these remarks are done deliberately or if he's just lacking the self awareness to realize how it's perceived. Maybe we could ask him to retract them Trade (talk) 03:33, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Trade given they seem to ignore everyone's attempts to explain to them how what they're doing is inappropriate, the demonstrated instances of POV-pushing that seems to match cause célèbre of the British right, and now a frankly strange message they've left in a sudden push at RSN to redetermine GB News as a reliable source where they seemingly expect only GB News viewers to take part[82] I don't think that's likely to happen.
    Simply seems to be a classic mix of someone who is interested in pushing their preferred political views combined with a lack of competence/awareness of what Wikipedia is. Rambling Rambler (talk) 11:46, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I tried to warn them about their non-ec Israel Palestine topic violations, but even if they were EC their edits were not constructive to start with. I think there is a pattern of problematic behavior that needs to be addressed. (t · c) buidhe 04:54, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Get the feeling this might as well be WP:SNOW closed once it hits 24 hours from the first vote in the interests of minimising further disruption. The user in question shows no interest in actually explaining their actions despite continued activity, and it's currently unanimous that they should be blocked as a result. Rambling Rambler (talk) 15:53, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Arbitrary Break/ CBAN vote for Dotsdomain

    [edit]
    Note: Dotsdomain is now over at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, arguing on the most absurd grounds (essentially 'the viewers like it, so it must be reliable') that GB News should be put on the (non existent) "reliable sources list". [83] Clueless. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:54, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, following their contributions to RSN on the BBC and now GB News, I'm fairly comfortable to say they require Indef for WP:NOTHERE. It's so completely devoid of any genuine merit or ability to take seriously that it can not be seriously taken in good faith as simply a naïve user making understandable errors. Rambling Rambler (talk) 18:33, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: I've opened an spi investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/NotQualified User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 17:23, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    even if SPI fails, I'd support Indef. That I see immediately clear parallels to another user that was tbanned, except with a pattern of behavior that seems to be exagerrated, seems a sign to me they are nothere. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 18:50, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Possible nonconstructive edit by User:Pbritti on Octavia, Nebraska

    [edit]
    This is 6 month old simple vandalism done by a drive by IP. Pbritti did nothing wrong. Nothing to act on here. --Hammersoft (talk) 03:38, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Report text:

    I would like to bring to administrators’ attention an edit made by User:Pbritti to the article Octavia, Nebraska

    The diff in question is here:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Octavia,_Nebraska&oldid=1306944456

    In this revision, the town name was changed to “Hell” in multiple places, and the downtown area was described as “one of the Seven Circles of Hell.” These changes appear to be fictional and not based on any reliable sources.

    A neutral notification has been left on the editor’s talk page: User talk:Pbritti#ANI_notification_–_Octavia,_Nebraska_edit.

    I am requesting administrator review of this edit and any guidance or action deemed appropriate. Thank you. Joseph Sneep (talk) 03:25, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The edit was not made by Pbritti, but an IP user.
    You should probably retract this ANI thread. Plasticwonder (talk) 03:32, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That wasn't User:Pbritti, but an IP editor.[85] Action deemed appropriate: an apology to Pbritti. --GRuban (talk) 03:35, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Hypersite

    [edit]
    They have not edited in four months. If they become active, this can be revisted. Star Mississippi 19:10, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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


    Hypersite (talk · contribs) was blocked in 2024 for adding LLM-generated content: see [86]. They were unblocked after they agreed to stop using AI. However, they have begun adding LLM content again, for example on Observant Freemasonry. They've also been uploading AI-generated images: see commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:VITRIOL.jpg. (I know commons has different policy but it does demonstrate the same behavior.) They're banned on frwiki for the same LLM use.

    @Ponyo: I see you've already warned them once. Apocheir (talk) 04:32, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    they have begun adding LLM content again – Their last edit was 7 July. Either way, there is strong evidence of post-unblock LLM use:
    Hypersite stated in their accepted unblock request: I would frankly like to continue contributing in a productive manner and I pledge to never use AI again. If I do, then I will fully accept a ban. [87] fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 05:58, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Repeated TBAN violations

    [edit]

    @Iskandar323 has recently edited at El Sayyid Nosair, an article about an Arab who assassinated an Israeli politician. This is a WP:ARBPIA TBAN violation, following what appears to be a long list of violations and warnings, including a logged warning from an admin.

    Previous violations and warnings include:

    1. Erased a text including a reference to Hamas.
    2. Warned on their talk page for the above violation.
    3. Edit warring on Jerusalem Temple which they self reverted "pending clarification on CT restrictions".
    4. Warned again on their talk page for the above violation.
    5. Starting an AfD for a personality related to ARBPIA and removing material from the same article, later self-reverting the latter edit admitting a topic ban violation.
    6. Logged warning by an admin (Tamzin) for the violations on the above page. Nehushtani (talk) 13:27, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I do think the Nosair edits were tban violations, and I'd call for Iskandar to self-rv. Note that the other list items are from January and February. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:56, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmm. I am unconvinced, to be honest. I don't really see the link between an Egyptian-American who murdered an Israeli in the USA, and the Palestine conflict; and the edits did not refer to anything ARBPIA-related (indeed, they were very trivial edits). Black Kite (talk) 13:59, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      @Black Kite - I fail to understand how an assassination of an Israeli politician known for extreme views on Palestinians by an Islamist with associations to Osama Bin Laden and taking part in a 1993 attempt to destroy the World Trade Center in NYC is not related to ARBPIA.
      @Firefangledfeathers - Why does it matter that the edits were a few months ago? The pattern of violating the topic ban is disturbing, and they have been warned several times. Additionally, since being topic banned in January, Iskandar323 has done all of approximately 700 edits, the vast majority in January and February. Since 1 March, they have done a total of approximately 300 edits, so another topic ban violation seems to be significant. Nehushtani (talk) 14:15, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I think it would be worse if Iskandar had violated the tban four times in the past week. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:19, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I don’t think the Bin Laden or WTC stuff moves the needle, but the assassin of Meir Kahane is definitely part of the conflict. Even if he’d only been the acquitted suspected assassin, that’s still sufficient association with the conflict, and Iskandar323’s edit highlighted at the beginning of this report touch on the assassination of Kahane in particular signed, Rosguill talk 14:24, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      PIA covers the entirety of the Arab/Israel conflict, not just the Palestine/Israel conflict. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:46, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello all. I wasn't intending to do anything riskeé on the criminal BLP. I saw some unusual sections, one single sources, and just went to improve the page structure without really thinking about the contents. Belatedly, I did take a double take and wonder it was too ARBPIA adjacent, but I checked the talk page and it had no template and I reckoned that it was because it was a US-Egyptian criminal bio first and foremost. I had only altered header levels, not content. I've self-reverted now given concerns that this was a TBAN violation have arisen. No funny business intended. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:40, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the self-rv. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:50, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I propose an indef for “ riskeé ”. (risqué, risky) ~2025-31850-11 (talk) 13:00, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:17, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Vivian Dsena 2

    [edit]

    A month ago, I asked for some review and assistance at Vivian Dsena to deal with a couple of SPA accounts adding promotional and POV material to the article and not responding to any of the warnings or messages left on their talk page (see their entire talk page), nor trying to work on concensus on the article talk page [88]. That was at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1203. This behavior has continued from Jabji. Examples from today are adding footballer to the profession - they've played in a few charity events and seem to have played at a reasonably high level but not professionally and there is nothing to support it as a significant/notable profession.[89] They're also continuing to try to push a significant claim about being the highest paid indian TV actor with less then extraordinary sourcing.[90] This last one is something they have been trying to push into the article for months - [91], [92], [93] [94], [95], [96]. They've been warned about COI/paid editing, about edit-warring and generally disruptive editing, but no response to any of those messages or attempts at collaboration. This feels like a PR team or contracted out from the repeated attempts to push certain phrasing and material into the article. This needs a second look and ideally Jabji pblocked from Vivian Dsena. There are a couple of other accounts that seem to edit alongside Jabji, but not very often recently, so I'm not sure if the page needs to be ECP protected, although that would also stop Jabji. Ravensfire (talk) 18:10, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    2025-range

    [edit]
    Temporary account issue, nothing further needed. Star Mississippi 19:12, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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


    There seems to be a lot of one-edit accounts, fething up with pointless edits in the 2o25 range such as this [[97]], is something going on? Slatersteven (talk) 18:57, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    See WP:TEMPA EvergreenFir (talk) 18:59, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Those are temporary accounts - they’re IP editors Danners430 tweaks made 19:00, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The 2025 "range" refers to the year the temporary account was created/made edits. The current year is 2025. All temporary accounts creates this year will start with 2025. TurboSuperA+[talk] 19:00, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Cheers Slatersteven (talk) 19:03, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I see a lot disruptive accounts with "(talk)" at the end of their signatures. What's up with that? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:02, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    First time I encountered the new system, I was not aware of it. Slatersteven (talk) 19:03, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Phew, I’m safe then! :D Danners430 tweaks made 19:03, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Part of the "(UTC)" gang! Guards! Seize him! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:05, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You’ll never take me alive! Danners430 tweaks made 19:08, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Block evasion by regret e/bbb

    [edit]

    User:Regret e, who is currently under an indefinite block, seems to have a sock at User:Regret bbb. In addition to username similarity, they also have similar edit behavior on the article Maple River Senior High School. Also, i'm new at Wikipedia, not only do I not know how to link diffs but i'm not sure if this is the correct board or if there's a specialized board for block evades.  RBarr-12@wiki:~/user/talk/contribs$  20:15, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I just learned how to diff, here are some diffs for you guys:
    - [98] From User:Regret bbb
    - [99] [100] [101] From User:Regret e  RBarr-12@wiki:~/user/talk/contribs$  20:50, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! This board works for the more obvious cases, although for the future, the more specialized board you're looking for is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:13, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, I'll put this case up there then. RBarr-12@wiki:~/user/talk/contribs$  19:22, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you mind changing your signature? It's giving me motion sickness. Northern Moonlight 21:36, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    [edit]

    I'm INVOLVED and not entirely sure whether it constitutes a threat, so please consider [102] I will send this to Stratford Magistrates Court by Nofoolie. At the very least it indicates they are way too conflicted to edit the article. SmartSE (talk) 21:04, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Definte legal threat. 331dot (talk) 21:08, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to make it clear, 331dot has blocked the editor for the legal threat (which I agree and support). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:16, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Barkeep49, why in the world would you support a legal threat? EEng 08:48, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you should first ask the user to clarify what they meant by this comment. But out of context, it really does sound quite ambiguous. Is any compromising information about the organization being discussed in this thread? Solaire the knight (talk) 21:10, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You should have read the hatted discussion on the article talk page first. I don't think this us a legal threat to WMF. Liz Read! Talk! 22:58, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The content was not hatted in the diff provided. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:53, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Nofoolie was saying that they would bring the other editor's comments to the attention of a court that is currently presiding over a case on issues related to the article topic. That is definitionally a legal threat. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:53, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User just admitted to being a sock puppet?

    [edit]
    Resolved. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 00:52, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    DaytonJupiterSABFan2015 seems to be a sock of Claudexspeed, and has even confirmed this. – LuniZunie ツ(talk) 23:06, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The editor in question is really young, I think this was an attempt at coming back and constructively contributing (see added images @ Special:Diff/1320813285). Would keep an eye out if they end up posting anything oversightable about themselves, given their most recent talk page post. jellyfish ✉ 00:25, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, will keep in mind. – LuniZunie ツ(talk) 00:26, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That post is oversightable on its own. I've contacted oversight, please do so if you see similar comments again. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 00:29, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you! I'll report those in the future, wasn't too sure since it wasn't location, contact information, etc. jellyfish ✉ 00:31, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Next time, please directly contact oversight rather than mentioning the problem here, as this is a highly visible page and could increase exposure of the information prior to its removal. Thanks. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 00:42, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately, that reply has already been mentioned here, so I assumed it didn't matter anymore. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 00:45, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Less said the better. It's gone now. I also revoked talk page access to prevent further problems. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 00:49, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    See also WP:NEEDTOKNOW. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 00:50, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Temporary account vandalism

    [edit]
    Blocked as vandalism-only account. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:49, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:~2025-31259-17 The link above goes to a temporary account that has been vandalizing very recently. The Great Epiphany (talk) 01:42, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    First, you are required to notify editors when you bring them to ANI. See the instructions above. Second, you are required to provide diffs at ANI. See the instructions above. Third, simple vandalism can be brought to WP:AIV instead. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:46, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, thx. The Great Epiphany (talk) 01:49, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Idris Shirazi

    [edit]
    Blocked for 31 hours for personal attacks by Mfield. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:24, 7 November 2025 (UTC) Noting have also removed the disruptive/attack content from their userpage. Mfield (Oi!) 02:26, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Idris Shirazi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Their whole "WIKIPEDIA VETERN POWERTRIPPING NECKBEARDS" remark and rant in their userpage [103] is obviously a vengeful dig at the two users they were disagreeing with at Talk:Buyid_dynasty#Change_to_Lead, during which they added that to their userpage. Here's the most relevant part of the rant:

    If you have a problem with me personally because I hurt your ego (looking at you powertripping neckbeards), then please just leave me alone and don't lose hair over wikipedia beef. I edit in good faith out of passion for Iranian and Moroccan history, spend your time trying to block and ban people who commit actual vandalism instead of people who offend your contrived little sense of Wikipedia authority.

    And more attacks:

    You're a grown man and you're embarrassing yourself with your childish "nuh uh YOU ARE WRONG". Or, you can stop being a cry baby, and accept you are wrong.

    Can you just stop this ego war?

    Are you being purposely obtuse?

    You can take your condescending and pathetic attempts at intimidating me with your passive aggressive threats off of my talk page.

    Just let your self righteousness go and leave me alone.

    Please get a life.

    And yes, they have already been told to stop this behaviour [104] [105] [106] [107] [108]. Don't even get me started on their editing activities. HistoryofIran (talk) 02:15, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Tester6462656543 WP:NOTHERE

    [edit]
    Editor Indef'd as NOTHERE by K6ka Mfield (Oi!) 04:42, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Tester6462656543 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Tester6462656543 appears to not here to build an encyclopedia, but instead test, with zero edits to mainspace. They created Draft:Test temp, which I G2ed. Many of their edits are talking with LuniZunie and HwyNerd Mike. User:Tester6462656543/Thanking appears to be their main sandbox. Also asked LuniZunie to friend them on an off-wiki website three times [109]. --pro-anti-air ––>(talk)<–– 03:42, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Unfortunately, +1 – LuniZunie ツ(talk) 03:43, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Xtools monkeysmashingkeyboards (talk) 03:45, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Although it seems like he is acting in good faith, unfortunately that is the case. I also G2ed Template:Test temp. HwyNerd Mike (t | c) 03:46, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it is worth pointing out User talk:Pro-anti-air#A barnstar for you! 3. I do not think this user is mature enough for Wikipedia. – LuniZunie ツ(talk) 04:15, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've gone ahead and blocked so they don't keep wasting our time. The user is a clear textbook example of NOTHERE, and this ANI thread isn't going to conclude any differently. —⁠k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 04:27, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. – LuniZunie ツ(talk) 04:28, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    +1 HwyNerd Mike (t | c) 04:34, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    +2 --pro-anti-air ––>(talk)<–– 04:35, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    +4 monkeysmashingkeyboards (talk) 04:41, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Apollo579 continually creating AI-generated articles and hoaxes

    [edit]
    Editor indef blocked by Newslinger for disruptive editing. Turns out they have also been abusing multiple accounts Mfield (Oi!) 07:18, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    @Apollo579 has been engaging in disruptive editing -- creating many AI-generated articles, including a blatant hoax. Some avoided detection because the editor removed redirects on existing redirect pages to replace them with their own articles.

    See:

    - [110] AI article

    - [111] AI article

    - Eingang/Ausgang the exact same article (word for word) in the second link, uploaded to mainspace despite being moved to draft & submitted by the editor for review

    - Social Space AI article

    - Draft:Juan Mauricio Schmid Bello AI article

    - Juan Mauricio Schmid Bello AI article recreated in mainspace word for word

    - Draft:Nomadic Internet AI article

    - Draft:Inframediality AI article

    - [112] removal of relevant redirect, replaced with AI article

    - [113] removal of relevant redirect multiple times, replaced with AI article

    - ♇ – Pluto (2023) AI article

    - [114] AI hoax article about a fake award ceremony, recreated twice

    - Draft:Transmedial Space AI article

    - Performative Intervention AI article

    - Draft:Digital Presence AI article

    Many templates and warnings have been left on their talk page, with no response. Continual creation of AI articles has happened, showing that the user is on Wikipedia but appears to be ignoring warnings. Aesurias (talk) 06:20, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    There are some COI issues as well; the user was originally named Monsterwheel ([115]), which is the name of the website they linked to here. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 06:29, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Apollo579, please don't remove this thread. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 06:35, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've tagged Draft:Juan Mauricio Schmid Bello 2 and Draft:Juan Mauricio Schmid Bello for copyright infringement, and Draft:Performative Intervention for G15. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 06:52, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    And now it seems they are socking. See Dolphin667 Sharky. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 07:04, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Noting the attempted removal of this section by Dolphin667 Sharky. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 07:10, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Monsterwheel appears to belong to Juan Mauricio Schmid Bello. Nil🥝 06:43, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The user just attempted to delete this entire discussion, by the way. Aesurias (talk) 06:35, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Pretty clear to me user needs an indef for WP:NOTHERE. Does anyone concur. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:15, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Red X Blocked Apollo579 (talk · contribs) and Dolphin667 Sharky (talk · contribs) indefinitely. Thank you for reporting this. — Newslinger talk 07:17, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Account sharing and promotional editing by Tag-hive-new

    [edit]
    Indeffed. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:03, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Tag-hive-new (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been “writing” a draft Draft:Class Saathi for the past month. I put “writing” in quotes because it appears to be LLM-generated (especially the “evaluation and independent studies” section). After I declined the draft multiple times for that reason, they left a comment on my talk page that’s written in the first person plural and says the draft was written by their “content team”. This appears to be an admission that the account is shared (and editing for promotional purposes). —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 11:14, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @Pythoncoder: I've reported them to Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention; in future, requests like this should probably be taken there. As for the page, it will probably be G13 deleted after six months from when they are blocked. Aydoh8[what have I done now?] 13:09, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked.
    As an aside, I don't think UAA is the correct venue since this relates to the account being shared, not to the username. Since we don't have a specific "shared account noticeboard" the generic AN/ANI boards are the right place to deal with this in my opinion. WaggersTALK 14:00, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    CherrySoda and WP:GAMING

    [edit]
    (non-admin closure) Extend confirmed permission removed. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 20:22, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    It appears the editor may be WP:NOTHERE given their statistics. At the very least they need their WP:XC yanked and a WP:TBAN from WP:ARBPIA. TarnishedPathtalk 12:08, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    File:Gaming check - CherrySoda.png Sean.hoyland (talk) 12:22, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sean.hoyland cheers, your ability to distil things down into stats is very useful. TarnishedPathtalk 12:56, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's because I have a dream of Wikipedia being run by Carol Beer. But to reach that utopia we need to build some decision-making tools. Sean.hoyland (talk) 15:16, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sean.hoyland if the charts are consistent for similar analysis, would you mind if I turn it into a project on toolforge some day? – robertsky (talk) 15:31, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @User:Robertsky, I wouldn't mind anything, but Tamzin has provided an opportunity for me to fail first, which is the kind of opportunity I always find hard to refuse. The chance of me failing is quite high, so you are very welcome to join in. Sean.hoyland (talk) 15:49, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    minus Removed extended confirmed permission from CherrySoda (talk · contribs). CherrySoda may reapply for the extended confirmed permission at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions after making at least 500 constructive edits (in addition to the 596 edits currently recorded on her account) after a minimum of 30 days from today. — Newslinger talk 14:08, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    This might be an SPA.

    [edit]

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

    Special:Contributions/Uiefa NotJamestack (talk) 12:50, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Please note that when you report an editor to ANI, you are required to notify them; I have done so for you this time, but please remember that for the future. I haven't looked into the issue behind the report deeply enough to form an opinion on it yet. QuicoleJR (talk) 12:57, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I tried, but I couldn’t find the right notification using Twinkle’s “Warn” feature. Sorry about that. NotJamestack (talk) 13:11, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No worries. For future reference, the template isn't in Twinkle. It has to be added manually, using {{subst:ANI notice}}. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:13, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You can send noticeboard notifications with Twinkle. This menu is located (perhaps unintuitively) under TB for talkback. It took me a while to find it the first time. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 13:20, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Good candidate for a WP:NOTHERE block if not borderline WP:NPA. Accusing editors of pushing propaganda among other things will not bode well. The rest is a content dispute arising from a Romanian court ruling earlier this year. Aydoh8[what have I done now?] 13:18, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    More context of which can be found at Steaua București football records dispute, which arose when the club was split in the 1990s. Aydoh8[what have I done now?] 13:21, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There is not anything directly actionable about an account being a single-purpose account. I have reviewed their edits, and while they have violated WP:NPA a few times, there's no reason to block at this point. I have warned them about the NPA violations. We'll see where they go from here. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:49, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I am involved (since I've declined one of their malformed edito requests and futilely tried to explain what consensus and WP:COMMONNAME are). But I think sanctions are premature at this point. While I'm not optimistic, the NPA violations are real small potatoes, and at this point, they're limiting themselves to low-grade sniping rather than doing anything actually damaging. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:18, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Continuous Plagiarism by @Deusestlux

    [edit]

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

    User Deusestlux has multiple warnings about plagiarism of copyrighted material on their talk page. They have been warned for their edits on various pages, such as Genetic history of Italy, Tarim mummies, Scythians, and Chandman culture. They also have a history of Edit Warring, and have been reported for both this and sockpuppeting in the past. Warnings for copyrighted material were given out on October 4th, October 18th, November 2nd, and November 7th. NuggFrog (talk) 18:18, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Plagiarism and breach of copyright are different things. Of the two, breaching copyright is much more serious though, and I'd have to agree that somthing needs to be done. Maybe block from article-space until we get a firm commitment that this will stop. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:26, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Good idea. Article space blocked until we nail this down properly. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:01, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    They've submitted an unblock request here Blue Sonnet (talk) 01:16, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Number 57 removing undisputed, constructive edits outside of a dispute

    [edit]

    On an article, I made several edits that improve content and comply with Wikipedia policy. Examples include - removing these sentences [116] [117] as they fail at WP:SYNTH and failed at arguments unsuitable for minimal Wikipedia standards. I also noticed a section was outdated so updated it. [118] these are neutral edits and NOBODY has ever disputed against them. Additionally another editor Amigao improved the article and added unsourced tags as certain paragraphs are unsourced.[119] These edits are also not being disputed. But one editor User: Number 57 has overreached and reverted all of them. Their reasoning is arbitrary as they claim there's an ongoing dispute and revert to pre-dispute version. There is a dispute however my current disputed edit hasn't been restored back. I am still discussing that specific edit on DRN and never undid the revert. Outside that dispute, edits that are not disputed shouldn't be removed without a fair proper reason. I explained that to user Number 57 on talk [120] [[121] but instead they continue to imply all those edits are still actively being disputed when they never were. The repeated removal of these neutral, undisputed improvements constitutes a misuse of BRD and is disruptive. The editor's justification that there is a generalized ongoing dispute is incorrect, as these specific edits have never been contested. Edits that follow Wikipedia policy and improve the article should not be removed arbitrarily, and continuing to do so wastes editor time and hinders article quality. I request that these neutral edits be respected and not reverted without a valid, policy-based reason. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 19:18, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    There are two issues here. Firstly, JaredMcKenzie is an SPA purely on Wikipedia to push a particular viewpoint (that Taiwan is not a sovereign state). Secondly, there is a dispute at Political status of Taiwan, which is currently at WP:DRN. JM's edits were reverted by other editors three times,[122][123][124] Since this has been at DRN, JM has continued to attempt to force the edits back in. I noticed the discussion at DRN and decided (given the above) that the article should be restored to its pre dispute state. While JM has claimed that no-one is against these edits, one of the editors who has previously reverted him has stated that they dispute them. On each occasion I have restored the pre-dispute version I have asked JM to observe WP:BRD, which they have failed to acknowledge; if they were truly concerned about there being some legitimate edits being caught up in the rollback, they could have restored only those ones, but instead they reverted everything back into the article. Number 57 19:29, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you attempting to pressure me to end the dispute and give up well-sourced, notable content from legal experts stating that the ROC constitution still claims the mainland and that the ROC has never formally declared independence? That is not acceptable. Attempting to use unrelated edits as leverage to influence the resolution of the dispute over the ROC constitution content constitutes obstructive behavior, which is discouraged under Wikipedia policy. The edits you reverted were unrelated to the ongoing dispute. Neutral, policy-compliant edits outside the scope of an active dispute should not be removed. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 19:35, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've no idea what the first half of the response is about, but the claim that the edits reverted were 'unrelated to the ongoing dispute' is clearly untrue: Some of the text you are reinstating is exactly what was removed by previous editors (e.g. text from the 'ROC sovereignty' section and the views of James Crawford, which was previously removed by Horse Eye's Back[125][126]). In other areas you are continuing to add new material disputing Taiwan's sovereignty (e.g. in the Background section) or removing material that supports it (e.g. the bit about Belgium). Number 57 19:48, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Those are not the same edits. The newer edit's argument was that Taiwan is not legally a state according to Max Planck encyclopaedia of International Law. And explaining why. Previously I never added that argument or source and that edit key argument wasn't even the same as the disputed, albeit closely related. But even if they were the same argument, you could just remove only them. What's your excuse for the mass majority of other edits that are definitely outside the scope of the disputed edits?JaredMcKenzie (talk) 19:53, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    And the first half is you appear to be stretching the scope of the dispute. The ongoing discussion concerns a very specific sourced edit about the ROC constitution and Taiwan's legal status. However, unrelated, factual updates - such as revising the number of countries maintaining diplomatic relations with Taiwan from 27 to 11 - have also been reverted. [127] These edits are entirely outside the scope of the dispute and are verifiable, neutral, and consistent with Wikipedia’s sourcing and neutrality policies. Reverting constructive, undisputed edits like these under the pretext of the broader dispute misuses BRD Regardless the original reason given for removing THE DISPUTED edits is due to claims of WP: SYNTH. On talk, it's now being established that it's supported by the source. If I wanted to, I can restore it but am going through DRN in good faith first. But in the meantime, different edits well outside the dispute, shouldn't be reverted without a specific fair reason for them. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 20:13, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    They are the same edits or in the same vein. HEB restored the text "The ROC fulfills all requirements for a state according to the Convention of Montevideo" and removed the addition "Even if Taiwan does not fully satisfy the fourth Montevideo criterion"; you delete / add this back in (for about the sixth or seventh time) in this edit. Similarly, HEB removed the section you added titled "Arguments that Taiwan is currently not independent"; you then created a similar section under the heading 'Taiwan is not sovereign nor de jure independent'. Number 57 20:28, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you bother to read the message I left on your talk page? That's literally the only disputed edit that was restored. It was restored after a discussion and another editor restored it after reaching a consensus and agreeing that it was neutral and acceptable. I wasn't even the editor who restored it. It was the other editor who restored it after that SPECIFIC dispute was resolved. [128] JaredMcKenzie (talk) 20:33, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    And the disputed edit is a different edit to newer arguments. Don't conflate them. The newer edit mentions constitutional amendment in 1990s are insufficient to be deemed a declaration of independence. I never mentioned that core argument in disputed edits. Additionally I NEVER cited Max Planck encyclopaedia of International Law in disputed edit before nor them in explaining why Taiwan isn't legally a state under international law due to not declaring a separate legal status. Those are primarily different edits from the disputed ones. They are not even identical arguments so don't be obtuse. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 20:45, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    When did Taiwan lose their independence? GoodDay (talk) 19:38, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd prefer to keep the discussion focused on verifiable sources and relevant policies. Our role is to summarize what reliable, expert sources state - for example, legal analyses explaining that the ROC constitution continues to claim jurisdiction over the mainland, and that the ROC has not made a formal declaration of independence. The issue is about accurate representation of sources, not taking a political stance. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 20:00, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Regardless - there’s no Wikipedia policy that allows admins (or any editor) to remove undisputed, policy-compliant content simply because there’s a broader dispute happening elsewhere in the article. Specifically what is the issue with this edit? Here I detailed further that ROC governed the mainland and wasn't merely there. [129] And here I updated a very outdated section. [130] And over here - [131] - I saw a clear violation of WP: synth at ridiculous levels. Nobody even disputed against their removal and unlikely will because any neutral editor would agree that violates WP: synth at excessive levels. You can't use a lame excuse of a dispute - to remove all constructive edits that aren't even remotely the same as the disputed edits.JaredMcKenzie (talk) 20:25, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    User:JaredMcKenzie - What part of DRN Rule A.2 didn't you understand? It says that any discussion at DRN will be failed if any of the parties makes a report at WP:ANI or Arbitration Enforcement. I have failed the DRN case. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:50, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't. To clarify, the post I made here was not a report concerning Horse or the specific disputed edit under DRN. It was about separate edits outside that dispute which were reverted without policy-based justification. My intent was to address that separate conduct issue, not to undermine the DRN process.JaredMcKenzie (talk) 20:55, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    And I believe there’s been a misunderstanding about the situation. The original reason Horse gave for reverting the edit was that it violated WP:SYNTH. That specific concern was addressed and resolved on the talk page, where another editor confirmed the sources directly support the statement. No other policy-based objections have been presented since then.
    My only intent in filing at DRN was to assume good faith and allow space for Horse (or others) to explain any additional concerns, if they exist. However, no further reasoning has been given after all this time and the content remains supported by reliable, high-quality sources. I am not trying to escalate the matter but to clarify that consensus exists that the material is properly sourced and policy-compliant. If further objections are raised, then feel free to state them and I of course will always be open to discussing them on the talk page, but without clear, policy-based reasoning, continued reverts would just become a conduct concern rather than a content issue under Wikipedia’s standards.JaredMcKenzie (talk) 21:20, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Both Rule A.2 and Rule A.6 are about the article, not about the editor. Rule A.2 says: Discussion of issues about the article and the editing of the article can only take place at one noticeboard at a time. … If you report any issues about the article at any other noticeboards, such as WP:ANI or Arbitration Enforcement, you will be withdrawing from moderated discussion, and the mediation will be failed. Rule A.6 says: Do not edit the article while moderated discussion is in progress. If the article is edited by a party while discussion is pending at DRN, the mediation at DRN will be failed. I instructed the parties to read DRN Rule A on 27 October. JaredMcKenzie agreed to accept my role as moderator on 29 October, which meant that they had read the rules. They tweaked the wording of the article on 31 October. I think that the tweak would have been innocuous, except that I had said not to edit the article. On 6 November and 7 November, they reverted edits made by User:Number 57. It is true that Number 57 was not a party to the DRN, which means that they had not agreed not to edit the article. JaredMcKenzie should have either invited Number 57 to join the mediation, or asked the moderator (me) to ask them to join the mediation. JaredMcKenzie may have wanted to discuss a content dispute with some editors at DRN and the conduct of Number 57 at ANI at the same time. That is not permitted. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:28, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The main issue here is one of bludgeoning and harassment... JaredMcKenzie has bludgeoned and harassed a string of editors until they've given up and walked away... And then they'e continued to bludgeon... The last significant non-JaredMcKenzie comment in the discussions at Talk:Political status of Taiwan occured on 8 October... Since then JaredMcKenzie has made all of these edits[132][133][134][135][136][137][138][139][140][141][142][143][144][145][146][147][148][149][150][151][152][153][154][155][156][157][158][159] to that talk page... They bludgeon even when there isn't anyone around to argue with. They have also expanded the dispute laterally making related edits to Taiwan independence movement and Constitution of the Republic of China. See also User talk:Augmented Seventh, User talk:Number 57, [[160]], and User:JaredMcKenzie/sandbox. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:05, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    And another one[161]... If this isn't WP:BLUDGEON then what is? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:06, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    My talk-page edits are focused on clarifying sourcing and addressing policy concerns. They are not personal attacks or harassment, but standard discussion to resolve disputes. You previously claimed that the disputed edits were original research, but Aaron later confirmed that my sources support the content. Given that there is consensus that the edits are not original research, I attempted to assume good faith and ask if you had any other policy-based issues with the edits. So far, no valid policy reason has been provided. Attempts to direct attention to my conduct as justification for removing these edits are misplaced, as the content itself is compliant with Wikipedia policy.JaredMcKenzie (talk) 22:25, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no such consensus... Driving everyone else away without addressing the issues raised is not a consensus for your position. When policy and guideline are cited (which they have repeatedly been) you have dismissed them and then claimed that none were provided. You also appear to be repeatedly misrepresenting the views of other editors and the fact pattern in a way which makes your conduct seem less disruptive, for example you have repeatedly claimed that this is a number of smaller edit disputes while everyone else sees to view it as one rolling dispute which starts with this revert [162]. You also repeatedly claim that other people are trying to goad you into an edit war and you won't do that... But you have clearly edit warred. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:42, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    And this edit [163] is after I asked you for one single policy based reason to remove edit and waited over a month. You still haven't told me one.I am acting in good faith and in accordance with Wikipedia policy. What else am I supposed to do? If an editor repeatedly removes edits without providing a valid reason, should I simply accept that as acceptable conduct? JaredMcKenzie (talk) 22:32, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you mean one more policy based reason? You'd already been told that there were WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:DUE issues by multiple editors. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:42, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Aaron had told you that you were wrong on this. They showed that my source supported every info. And you didn't tell him that he is wrong. Instead you stopped replying soon after you agreed with him that the spirit of the edit was correct. Also you are the ONLY EDITOR who are saying it's not supported by sources. Both me and Aaron disagree with you on that and proved it. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 22:50, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That simply isn't what happened... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:52, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have the links to prove this happened. Here Arron told you that sources does say all that.[164] Additional said my edit was correct in spirit but needed some minor rewording.[165] Your final reply said you agreed with Arron that edit is correct in spirit and did not even refute or deny his statement. Regardless, no neutral honest editor will look at this edit[166] and say it's original (unsourced) research with a straight face. I constantly had to deal with you saying it's original research when it's not. At one point, you even suggested the edit was not of the same topic because the legal status supposedly differs from the political status. [167] But in the legal arguments section, this represents due weight and is highly relevant to the topic. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 22:58, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    [168] is just one part of this and that Aaron's last comment says that it "need some rewording (and definitely remove the second sentence)" does not seem to agree with the claims you are making. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:07, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I actually agree with him that second sentence should be removed. I am fine with that and even repeated that on DRN. But they also said overall edit is fine and didn't say it wasn't supported by sources like you did. They explicitly stated source says all of the info I written down. Their entire comment was - Special:Diff/1315128638. I think at least the spirit of this edit is correct even if it might need some rewording (and definitely remove the second sentence). JaredMcKenzie (talk) 23:13, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Again that edit is not the only thing which has been challenged... And you do appear to be framing another editor's position in a way which is most beneficial to you but seems to largely talk past what they have to say (which is how I feel you generally treat my comments). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:17, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You literally just cut out half of Arron's comment to suit you. I merely showed the entire comment. And if I made a SINGLE unsourced edit, then please show me an edit that's unsourced. If I can't prove all my edits are supported by sources then I concede that you are right. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 23:25, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    And nothing in the full text of the comment supports the claim that "They explicitly stated source says all of the info I written down." If they want wording changes including the removal of a full sentence doesn't that tell you that they don't think that the sources support all of the info as written? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:33, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    During vandal patrolling, i read over a slow rolling edit war. It appeared an editor was putting in wikivoice their dearly held conclusion, and using tendentious editing to create a pov synthesis constructed from disparate sources. I could be wrong. Augmented Seventh (talk) 00:38, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What sources are bad? The only two main sources I rely on is Max Planck enclyopeadia of international law. https://opil.ouplaw.com/display/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e1362 A highly reputable reference that is used to educate legal experts. And a subject expert from the Conversation. https://theconversation.com/explainer-the-complex-question-of-taiwanese-independence-188584 Both sources together are acceptable especially when attributed. In which I have attributed the Oxford Press site. And I am literally just quoting them. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 00:45, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is what I had to deal with. I already showed you the link above. Here is the text where they themselves said "I'm just looking at [24] and [25] from the opening comment to support the diff linked in the opening comment. It does say all that. Conversation "Explainer"

    To be fair, I am less sure about [24] (the Reuters article), but it isn't even cited." It seems they agree my edit was supported by sources according to them and you can't keep claiming they didn't say that. The link- [169] JaredMcKenzie (talk) 23:41, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    And another one[170]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:49, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • If we have a policy under which the OP can be indefinitey blocked, then I support it; this is nothing but (political propanganda and) tendentous editing. —Fortuna, imperatrix 22:58, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I disagree with the characterization of my edits as “tendentious.” My edits are well-sourced, neutral, and policy-compliant. I have followed Wikipedia procedures, including discussing disputed edits on talk pages and seeking DRN resolution. If you believe there is a policy concern, please point to a specific policy and how my edits violate it, rather than making broad assertions. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 23:06, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @JaredMcKenzie: I made an earlier comment on mobile when I confused something. I'd agree that the synth is a problem and your removal shouldn't have been reverted. However the problem seems to be you've made so many edits, a lot of which were less clear cut, that it was easier to revert them all. Your statement that your edits don't need to be discussed doesn't help either, nor the fact that when you have discussed, your comments have been all over the place. If you'd concentrate on one thing at a time like the synth, you might have had a chance of affection change instead of the topic or site ban now seeming likely. Nil Einne (talk) 00:11, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes for that, I am sorry. But bear in mind that I did try to discuss them on talk. Horse said my edit wasn't supported by sources. I think my big error was going back and forth on that. He kept saying it's unsourced and I asked him multiple Times to be specific. What I should have done is only ask once and copy my mentor Arron where I just show all sources and the excerpts. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1315826401&title=Talk:Political_status_of_Taiwanu I know this now. But there were so many edits reverted hence I didn't even know which edit they accused of being original research. And they took a long to finally be specific after which Arron replied to tell them they are wrong on that. I am not trying to be difficult but I am new so still learning ropes. If I have violated a policy unintentionally like boomerang, allow me a chance to prove myself to be better as I do want to edit in good Faith. As it's harsh to ban when my edits like undoing the SYNTH was in good faith. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 00:29, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal 2: Topic-Ban JaredMcKenzie from Taiwan

    [edit]

    In reviewing the DRN history a third time, my conclusion that User:JaredMcKenzie was only going through the motions of dispute resolution at DRN is reinforced. I have already described some, but not all, of the issues. After the DRN, JaredMcKenzie threw this boomerang after being told not to throw anything. I propose that JaredMcKenzie be topic-banned from the topic of Taiwan, broadly construed.

    • Support as proposer. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:21, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Clearly an SPA POV-pusher. I would recommend all their edits on Taiwan-related topics are undone as well. Number 57 23:25, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I would like to clarify regarding the source-related concerns. My edits have been well-sourced and based on reliable experts, including legal scholars from Oxford and other recognized authorities. If there is a specific edit that genuinely constitutes original research or violates Wikipedia policy, I am fully willing to accept that finding.For reference, this is the disputed edit accused of original research.[171]

    However, I am concerned that some accusations of “POV-pushing” or “unsupported edits” are being applied broadly to well-sourced, policy-compliant contributions simply because the content may be unpopular or politically sensitive. My edits reflect what reputable sources state, not personal opinion, and I have always aimed to improve article quality in good faith. I respectfully ask that any proposal for a topic ban consider actual policy violations rather than disagreement over content that is properly sourced and neutral. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 23:31, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Your edit summary there says "This info is correct and doesn't need discussion. It's not opinion but facts supported by strong sources. Unless you can prove it's wrong or insignificant, the onus is on you to prove it's wrong. Otherwise don't revert this without giving a specific valid reason." but both of the sources provided are opinion pieces (which may be usable if written by subject matter experts but aren't exactly the strongest sources for facts) and you appear to have WP:ONUS backwards. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:40, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is Arron, my mentor who explained in detail that my source indeed says all that. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1315826401&title=Talk:Political_status_of_Taiwan - additionally you know LATER on, I found a much stronger source from Max Planck encyclopaedia of International Law.[172] JaredMcKenzie (talk) 23:42, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    And you know that I have questioned that source's reliability especially how you want to use it and specifically the author's qualifications because that encyclopedia is one where single (often very academically junior) authors write whole pieces with minimal editorial review or oversight, kind of like Britannica but run on a shoestring. That means that its reliability is almost entirely dependent on the author, sometimes its very good but sometimes its a little peculiar or amateurish. The author doesn't appear to have ever published anything on Taiwan, they appear to be solely a China expert... But this isn't the place to re-hash content disputes. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:48, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Um the Max Planck Encyclopedia is published under the auspices of the Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law, meaning the Institute formally sponsors, oversees, and ensures the scholarly quality of its erovides eitorial oversight and maintaining world-class scholarly standards. Regardless ii is not up to Wikipedia editors to speculate or make original research claims about an expert’s knowledge of Taiwan, nor to attempt to out-debate recognized world leading legal authorities. I merely cite and summarise what they wrote.JaredMcKenzie (talk) 23:50, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    And it's not againat Wikipedia policy to cite a reference that is LLiterally used to educate legal experts globally and has a stellar reputation. is fully consistent with Wikipedia policy. Using such sources to support content is not only allowed but encouraged, as they meet the standards of reliability and verifiability. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 23:54, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    it seems the issue is that I want to add edits supported by legal experts. If there is a specific edit that genuinely violates Wikipedia policy, I am fully willing to accept that finding and take appropriate action. However, I am confident that the majority of my edits comply with WP:RS, WP:N, and WP:V, and aim to provide accurate, verifiable, and notable information. I provide high quality sources to back everything and encourage neutral editors to check my edits and see if they comply. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 23:59, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Its actually a little more complicated than that... Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law. This isn't the first time I've interacted with this source on here (but it is the first in the context of Taiwan)... The first time was when two different articles in the Encyclopedia contradicted each other, but both were by published experts in the field (yes it matters and no that isn't covered by WP:OR) so we included both opinions with attribution. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:56, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I am okay with attribution and actually did attribute them later. If we agree they are supported by sources but need to be attributed, then we have at least a starting consensus. Also it seems at least one other editor agrees that my edits are mostly correct and restored some edits. [173]JaredMcKenzie (talk) 00:02, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    My dude... That is literally where we were a month ago *facepalm* I'm signing off for a while. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:04, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is what happened before too. Arron replied to your claims of wp:synth and said it's supported by sources but needed rewording.[174] So I later ask you what kind of rewording you would like but you make some excuse to leave as soon as there's progress. We finally came to an agreement that sources support. I even stated on DRN that Amigao wanted attribution to TC and was willing to compromise. If we agree that there should be attribution and that sources support, then we have a consensus. So there shouldn't be any issues?JaredMcKenzie (talk) 00:08, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Why does ZeroGPT say that this comment, another comment, and the second half of this are 100% AI-generated? ~2025-31597-25 (talk) 23:45, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    (Non-administrator comment) Best be careful with those, I've had one say everything in a post is 100% AI generated when three others disagree. I've ended up checking four to be safe, especially if it's a short piece of text. Blue Sonnet (talk) 01:27, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    True, the AI detector isn't always right. But what's inexplicable is why this AI-sounding comment uses curly quotes like “POV-pushing”, but this human-sounding comment (still mobile) uses straight quotes like "bludgeoning". ~2025-31597-25 (talk) 01:40, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with -25 that some (but not all) of JaredMcKenzie's posts have the stench of LLM-generated text. ~2025-31168-81 (talk) 01:53, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support at a minimum. As far as I concerned an indef-block per NOTHERE is valid too: who's got time and energy for this? Drmies (talk) 23:53, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - User:Horse Eye's Back says, above, that the main issue is bludgeoning and harassment. Yes. I haven't counted the posts either in this thread or on the talk pages, but it appears that more of them are by User:JaredMcKenzie than by anyone else, and I think that is what is meant by bludgeoning. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:31, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I think I should apologise for going back and forth. I merely wanted horse ti tell me specifically which edit is unsourced as they claimed WP: synth. They couldn't give me a straight answer. When they finally did, Aarron corrected them and said they were wrong on that as sources does support it. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1315826401&title=Talk:Political_status_of_Taiwa if my comments asking horse to clarify which edit is unsourced is called "bludgeoning" then I think that's a bit harsh but in the future - I would only ask this once and will not ask multiple Times if Horse or others refuses to give a straight answer. I think as a new editor still learning ropes, that's one lesson I am able to abide by and agree it's the best policy. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 00:38, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Final statement- also this report is me concerned about an administrator's handling of this issue, so I'm requesting review of the process, not the person. If an administrator believes my conduct needs improvement, I'm open to feedback - I only ask for specific examples so I can learn and adjust accordingly. I get Taiwan related articles are sensitive and I was willing to wait over a month to have issue resolved. all of my disputed edits were based on high-quality, verifiable sources - including Oxford Public International Law and The Conversation. They both support each other and have not found a single reliable source contradicting them. https://opil.ouplaw.com/display/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e1362 + https://theconversation.com/explainer-the-complex-question-of-taiwanese-independence-188584 I acknowledge that I became frustrated when others claimed my edits weren't supported by sources, even after I provided evidence and at least one editor Aaron also gave evidence.[175] However, my intent has never been to be disruptive - only to ensure factual accuracy based on reliable references. If any of my edits are genuinely found to lack source support or violate content policy, I'm willing to accept a topic restriction and learn from it. I only ask that the review be specific and fair. If my edits are in fact properly sourced and policy-compliant, I respectfully ask that this be considered before any topic ban is imposed. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 01:26, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      (Non-administrator comment) If you're being accused of bludgeoning, it's not a good look if the majority of comments in the thread are from you.
      I realise this means a lot to you, but for your own sake put down the stick - if you haven't made your point by now then you're not going to be able to do it.
      I implore you not to respond to this post either, just let the process run and only respond if someone asks you a direct question. Blue Sonnet (talk) 01:33, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think JaredMc is contributing with the purest of intentions (being here to improve coverage, not advance any particular viewpoint), I agree with with the spirit of the proposed change whose dispute got me into this discussion, and I believe that he participated at DRN in complete good faith/conscience, but his wordwordowordy communication style is extremely difficult to work with. It's all the reasons Bludgeoning is widely frowned upon, hence I am unsure if his good conscience and ideas alone are enough to keep him around. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:59, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Aaron is neutral and more familiar with my edits but I think they don't realise I am a quick study. I learned a lot on Wikipedia in only a month but I didn't know what bludgeoning is until looking it up just now. I wasn't previously aware that's a punishable offense if my intentions are of purest intent. But if I have pure intent then at least I have potential for good faith contributions. I recognize that my communication style on DRN + talk has caused bludgeoning concerns, and stepping back is appropriate to respect smoother community processes. All I want is a fair go - to demonstrate that I will not bludgeon in the future. I will fuller read up on this policy later tonight so there be no excuses, and try to adhere to it strictly henceforth. If I bludgeon again, I will accept a permanent topic ban. I only ask for a fair second chance. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 02:48, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Thing is, you've been told many times about communication before. For one, bludgeoning is a big theme of the concerns about you in this thread, and I find it hard to believe that the first time you've read how many people believe you should not make a whole lot of wordy comments. And I recall spelling this it to you myself on the Taiwan political status talk page. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:56, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      My impression from you was that my intention were pure but I wasn't helping myself by making it harder for others to understand me. It didn't seem like a crime but more a unintentional failing. Despite the talk Page doesn't mention "bludgeoning" at all - I think I did read a link you sent me but skimmed it. I guess that's my bad and sorry I didn't read it thoroughly. I wish I could go back and take it seriously, but I assure you that I am now and fully aware. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 04:01, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      The best way to demonstrate that I will not bludgeon in the future is to stop bludgeoning now. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:48, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Continued addition of unsourced/poorly sourced content into articles despite warnings

    [edit]

    ATK1997 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) continues to add in unsourced/poorly sourced content into the Bite Me tour article. This has been ongoing since October 26, 2025, with warnings issued each time. User has refused to acknowledge the warnings and continue on with their disruptive editing. The sole time they did acknowledge the warning was to issue a personal attack by calling me "annoying," which is beyond uncivil.

    First offence:

    Second offence:

    • 22:58, 28 October 2025 (return of information, again, without citing a reliable, third-party source)
    • no warning was issued

    Third offence:

    Fourth offence:

    The user is continuing to introduce information from the fourth offence with citations that violate both WP:SOCIALMEDIA and WP:RSPYT (WP:USERG). They are clearly not here to edit constructively towards the encyclopedia, and their continued disruption is tendentious, via being unwilling or unable to satisfy Wikipedia's policy on Wikipedia:Verifiability and continuing to cite unencyclopedic sources and perform original research. livelikemusic (TALK!) 20:02, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The fact they're citing themselves as the source[176] and nothing else that actually shows what they claim is the most obvious issue here. Basic WP:CIR/WP:OR issue. Rambling Rambler (talk) 20:08, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Due to their policy violations, I have indefinitely blocked ATK1997 from article space. In order to be unblocked, they will need to persuade an administrator that they fully understand the core content policies No orginal research and Verifiability, and that they will fully comply with those policies. Cullen328 (talk) 21:51, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:NOTHERE and Wikibiryalanmakinesi

    [edit]
    Subject Indef'd as WP:NOTHERE by The Bushranger Mfield (Oi!) 05:14, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Editor repeatedly edits to HQ-9 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) using unreliable sources. Attempts to explain the problems with these edits (article talk page, my talk page, their talk page, mentor talk page) have been met with WP:IDHT and WP:UNCIVIL.

    Use of unreliable sources extends to other article (Special:Diff/1305014530 WP:EURASIANTIMES, Special:Diff/1320015364 WP:BLOGS), which the editor sees nothing wrong with neither (Special:Diff/1320948444). - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 23:07, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Indef'd as WP:NOTHERE. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:53, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Sam Vaknin

    [edit]

    Could I please ask for some eyes on the Sam Vaknin article? The short version of the story is:

    • Vaknin is an author who writes a lot about narcissism, including from a personal perspective. He lives in Skopje, Macedonia.
    • He previously edited (and was banned) as User:Samvak in 2006
    • User:Zorandimitrovskiskopje has been editing the Vaknin article (only) since May 2024, adding large amount of primary sources (youtube, self-published Vaknin sources). There were also problems with verifiability. Other editors expressed concerns that it was overly promotional. I expressed the problems on the talkpage and tried to work with Zoran,[177] but to no avail, as the problematic edits continued with no interaction. Zoran was not happy when I followed through with my proposal and deleted material in question.[178][179] Two days later, Vaknin began a series of off-wiki attacks on Wikipedia and me in particular. For a list of some of them, see here: [180]
    • The same day, an IP from France popped up with a series of anti-Vaknin BLP vio edits. The editor was blocked.[181]
    • The article was extended protected.
    • User:Zorandimitrovskiskopje has been Arbcom blocked.
    • In the last two days, 3 temp accounts from Macedonia (likely the same person) have appeared on the talkpage, ostensibly anti-Vaknin and arguing for the article to be deleted. But also complaining that noone is fixing up the article as fast as they would like. And posting an ever expanding list of Vaknin's off-wiki ongoing attacks on on Wikipedia, me and utterly innocent User:BlockArranger.

    It would be very helpful to have some extra eyes on what is going on and how best to manage it. Slp1 (talk) 23:24, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    (Non-administrator comment) Considering the block way back in '06 was because Vaknin had a drawer that was full of socks, this honestly sounds to me like he's reopened it. It could be worth taking to SPI again. Emma (chats ✦ edits) 00:24, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello Emma. Thanks for your comment. It is interesting that you immediately suspect a sock issue: that is my opinion, and that of others it seem[182]. I could go to SPI for sure, but my preference is for a broader consideration given all the on and off wiki issues here. And who knows? Maybe there is a checkuser floating around here at ANI who could clarify certain aspects of this!!!! Slp1 (talk) 01:15, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    {{checkuser needed}}. Note I'm not sure if temporary accounts can be linked to a 'proper' account publically, since IPs cannot... - The Bushranger One ping only 01:49, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Our standing instructions from the Ombuds Commission is not to do that. So appreciate that you raised this question. - Mailer Diablo 02:02, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Oh yes, of course. Makes sense and I do understand the privacy issue. Do you have any suggestion about what is best to do? Slp1 (talk) 02:17, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      You should still be able to open a SPI and list the TAs. In the village pump discussion, SGrabarczuk (WMF) stated: "There's also this: 'When it is reasonably believed to be necessary, users with access to temporary account IP addresses may also disclose the IP addresses in appropriate venues that enable them to enforce or investigate potential violations of our Terms of Use, the Privacy Policy, or any Wikimedia Foundation or user community-based policies. Appropriate venues for such disclosures include pages dedicated to Long-term abuse. If such a disclosure later becomes unnecessary, then the IP address should be promptly revision-deleted.' (Source)". Sariel Xilo (talk) 03:41, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User Touchedme123 WP:NOTHERE

    [edit]

    User Touchedme123 is repeatedly showing WP:NOTHERE behavior - using various talk pages as WP:FORUM repeating their own POV interpretations (e.g. noted here) and assumptions against people/denomination without using WP:RS on various talk pages (e.g. Teahouse, NPOV notice board, Article talks: [183], [184] etc. Also seems a possible WP:COI since they are claiming to be a "former member" of the denomination they are criticizing and using talk pages to advance their personal views as noted here - e.g. see more talk pages: [185], [186].

    They are also trying to support their claims using various websites which are primary sources and doing WP:OR/WP:SYNTH (e.g. [187], [188]). And, they seem to be using LLMs - some signs I noticed e.g. title case, em dashes, curly quotation marks etc. Another editor also noticed at Teahouse. They are also referring to sources that don't exist (I tried looking for the sources but was not able to find) and when asked multiple times ([189], [190]) if they used LLM, they did not answer, and instead suggested that "I would like to refer to my primary source". I tried explaining their behavior and edits (e.g. [191], [192], [193]) - and another editor also had explained [194] and had reverted [195], [196] their POV, which they restored back [197], [198].

    Seems Touchedme123 continues to ignore NPOV and pushes personal views based on WP:OR - expecting other editors to read websites of primary sources. It seems they are not here to contribute. Due to their clear COI and NOTHERE issues, it seems at least a topic ban is needed.

    Updating to add their use of WP:UNCIVIL language - at noticeboard "F* It doesn't bother me." Asteramellus (talk) 01:08, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I have never made one edit to an article and just have asked for clarification on several topics on talk pages and provided sources when asked. This particular user has been stalking my posts non stop and may be part of a long standing sock farm I uncovered while looking at the history. They are claiming I restored a revert out of the blue when in fact, I provided sources.
    I was told to go to the tea house by a user and from the tea house page, I was told to go to the dispute resolution board for my concern. This person is obsessed with the following me and trying to make me stop having discussions particularly with BAPS and how tactfully they have promoted themselves.
    My point is there should be a disambiguation page with the Swaminaryan movement/theology/Hinduism.
    The swaminaryan Sampraday was established by swaminarayan with the acharyas as the leaders.
    BAPS had multiple court cases where they lost the right to be a part of the Swaminaryan Sampraday because their founder Shashtri claimed he was divine and a manifest of God.
    This for some reason is being ignored.
    Then they went out to change multiple scriptures, ignore scriptures and manipulate, which I provided sources for and are not explained on the BAPS page.
    But for some reason BAPS Akshar Puroshottam theology is continuously littered throughout the Swaminarayan Sampradaya page. Which just doesn’t make sense to me so I am asking on a talk page why?
    This person is not engaging in good faith.Touchedme123 (talk) 01:42, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This user is literally obsessed and stalking every post I make. Another editor told me that I’m pushing my religious narrative POV as if I’m a member of the other side. I didn’t say anything to anyone that’s uncivil, I said it to myself so that it’s clear I’m not a part of any religious group or narrative. Stop harassing me. You appear to be extremely invested in monitoring critical BAPS content. Touchedme123 (talk) 01:50, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You do know we can see your contribs shane (talk to me if you want!) 02:41, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, so I don’t understand why this particular user is narrowly obsessed with my discussion not even actual edits to any pages to BAPS that question why things are presented the way they are.
    Instead of answering questions and engaging and discussion, they are attacking the way I speak, really fixated on getting me to stop discussing BAPS manipulation and edits to scriptures.
    It’s just very creepy and offputting. I feel like I’m being monitored every time I type by a BAPS member who doesn’t want these discussions taking place. I have sourced everything I’m saying like they changed eight scriptures. At minimum it can be noted that they are different.
    The multiple court cases that BAPS was involved in resulting in the split are not mentioned on the BAPS page. But this user doesn’t find that to be shocking or needing to be updated. They are fixated on getting me banned from this topic. If it’s not clear as day what’s happening then forget it. 02:55, 8 November 2025 (UTC) Touchedme123 (talk) 02:55, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Just one question, have you read any policies listed in this report? shane (talk to me if you want!) 02:57, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I have and I responded to them. I didn’t even know the teahouse existed. I was told to go there by another editor. And then from there, another editor told me to go to the dispute resolution board. I opened every Wikipedia policy here and on the talk pages. And if something is not supposed to be on the discussion board or talk pages, then tell me and I can remove it but so far it’s been a narrow focus just not to answer BAPS critical content.
    I guarantee that this editor that posted this here wants to get me banned from this topic and then they will go ahead and delete/hide everything rather than than engaging on removing certain aspects because there are valid points but we need to work on them this way or that way. Touchedme123 (talk) 03:06, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    hold on on the accusations shane (talk to me if you want!) 03:14, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Asteramellus @Touchedme123 In my opinion (which is usually 43% correct in some cases), Touchedme123 did a ton of things correct, discussing on talk pages about edits, and that noticeboard comment, I can argue that it is kind of incivil, but heck it, there has been a ton of people using the same terminology that Touchedme123 has been using, so it just makes no sense.
    The LLM use is kind of suspicious, but I think we should just let Touchedme123 explain the weirdly formatted responses. shane (talk to me if you want!) 03:09, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Support topic ban. This editor has tried WP:FORUMSHOPPING around to get approval for POV-pushing Katzrockso (talk) 03:21, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I was told to go to the tea house and then from there I was told to go to the dispute resolution board. Everything I’ve posted on the talk pages belongs on that talk page to discuss to come to a consensus. Touchedme123 (talk) 03:25, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia is not the place to settle your personal aversion against the BAPS. You didn't uncover any sockfarm; Tamzin did. Asteramellus is not part of it. Stick to WP:RS, make usefull suggestions, or just find another outlet for your views. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:12, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Template messages

    [edit]
    User:SuperOverClockedKrypton was blocked indefinitely for using their account only for vandalism.--Lenticel (talk) 03:56, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Why do I keep getting templated? SuperOverClockedKrypton (talk) 01:47, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @SuperOverClockedKrypton - You continue to vandalize Wikipedia articles. — ERcheck (talk) 01:49, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Personal attack

    [edit]

    I've identified the article as containing false information with multiple references that followed the WP:RS Guidelines in Talk:Dance in Thailand#True etymology of terms Rabam, Ram which is not of Khmer origin. The editor @MoonsMoon who edited the article was hostile in response, accused me of cherry-picking and personally attacked me on my Talk page as being disrespectful to other editors. [199] As I told the editor about my personal experience in the article, "I'm not surprised, as the behavior I've witnessed is consistent with that of Cambodian editor with whom I've had previous experience in war-editing." That's the incident about my personal experience where the editor @Bolatio used to personal attack and racially abuse me during April-May, 2024. [200][201][202]

    My ability to address the issue was restricted in this article because the editor disregarded those references that followed the WP:RS Guidelines. Additionally, I also found that this editor uses a reference list that does not mention the etymological content of the word and list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quantplinus (talk • contribs) 05:09, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User talk:Braden nekton 9

    [edit]

    Could an admin Revoke this user's talk page access and consider an Indef Block for User:Braden nekton 9 since this user evading an block on User:braden nekton 6 Untamed1910 (talk) 06:46, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Searching for User:Braden nekton turns up a total of nine serialised names. This seems to belong at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hweuiyiu, which lists four of them. Narky Blert (talk) 07:09, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=1321039128"