🇮🇷 Iran Proxy | https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ANI
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|thread=}} ~~~~ to do so.

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

    Start a new discussion
    Noticeboard archives
    Administrators' (archives, search)
    357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366
    367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376
    Incidents (archives, search)
    1189 1190 1191 1192 1193 1194 1195 1196 1197 1198
    1199 1200 1201 1202 1203 1204 1205 1206 1207 1208
    Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
    483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492
    493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502
    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

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

    [edit]

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

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

    Based on this comment at the associated filing at WP:AINB, it looks like there is a language-related CIR issue here NicheSports (talk) 00:09, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Oshwah Ping incase you saw my DM Tankishguy 00:12, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @NatHaddan You said that you used a tool to suggest sources for you in this post.
    Can you let us know the exact tool that you are using, as there are concerns over inaccurate sourcing? Blue Sonnet (talk) 00:22, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, they're not happy Blue Sonnet (talk) 00:25, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    IDK why they gave us a reason Tankishguy 00:27, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I use combination of Scribbr by chrome and mendeley. In some rare situation I use citethisforme.com platform to generate APA and Harvard compliance references NatHaddan (talk) 00:32, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Visual editor lets you do it Tankishguy 00:35, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you so much for coming over. When you generate the references/sources, do you go into each one to check they say what they're supposed to say?
    When you submit an edit, you're responsible for checking that it's accurate - sometimes tools get it wrong so it's really important that you always double-check before you publish your edit. Blue Sonnet (talk) 00:36, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I do systematic check through mostly the validity of the references as my top most priority, Sometimes I may not run through every pieces of reference articles/essay most especially when it relates to lenghten research thesis. But I have never relent in any of my edit to follow up with immediate carrying-out thoroughly cleaning up after publication to ensure the references say what I said and meet relevant publication guidelines. NatHaddan (talk) 00:56, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @NatHaddan: Do you use some kind of spell/grammar checker when you write article content? Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 01:13, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. I use Visual Studio Code studio for my edit with "Grammar checker" extension feature enable. NatHaddan (talk) 06:57, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @NatHaddan: Do you, by any chance, use the Copilot feature in Visual Studio Code? Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 07:01, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    To be honest, I may have to go through my active features to know if it's enable, I am a web developer and have several features enable for purpose of smooth coding work. I don't remember purposefully enable any AI features for wikitext markup article or project. Thank you for this intelligent and helpful observation! NatHaddan (talk) 07:14, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @NatHaddan: Per this comment, you are clearly using AI tools, whether you realize it or not. The only way to get unblocked would be to come clean. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 07:18, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Even the most egregious of "grammar checkers" will not result in the output seen in those diffs, it would be impossible to not notice a model generating output whole, or transforming it so dramatically.
    My advice for any unblock requests: wait a while, then come fully clean, address the disruption caused, why it is disruptive, and how it will be avoided in the future. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 07:39, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Once again I repeat " I am not internationally using any LLM tool." Be it you believe me or not, I said to you as it is, and nothing anyone does or said will ever force me into saying otherwise to the truth. From the first admin warning I received, I politely made this very clear and known to the admin and at second warning from same admin, I repeatedly said the same thing and even ask for a help in figure-out the issue with my edits and he never give me such attention as you are doing now. I have no reason to said otherwise when it's obvious isn't. If I am wrong I have no right to be angry and put up defend, if am right I have no reason to be angry over anyone disbelieving me. The decision you or anyone would take are completely your choice not mine and burn to your interest and the interest of the entire community. Why should I fake saying anything, when my did is volunteering not burn to a personal interest or reward. I committed my time and resources to come up with some articles and you things I will just burn my hard earn resources to put up jargons for fun. C'mon! With due respect, I believe an admin have me blocked already, If am not be disrespectful, I don't think this conversation is necessary anymore! I am sorry if my statement or action are by any means disrespectful or arrogant.🙏 I can't said otherwise to what it is. NatHaddan (talk) 07:45, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @NatHaddan: We're not accusing you of lying, I'm so sorry if you have taken it that way. What we're trying to say is that there may be some miscommunication about your potential use of LLM tools. Large language models include ChatGPT, Google Gemini, Claude, Grok, Meta AI, GitHub Copilot, and several others that generate text for you based on a prompt that you give it. This comment you made a few days ago cited a policy that does not exist (WP:NODELAY), so we think it may have been written with the help of an AI tool. I would suggest thinking about how you wrote that comment and any tools/features you may have used to draft it for clues. If you don't remember writing that comment, it is possible your account is compromised. Again, we're not accusing you of anything, we're trying to help you and ourselves get to the bottom of this situation. If you need any help with any of this, feel free to ask. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 08:14, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    We're not accusing you of lying – To be clear, while you are not, I did in the comment you linked to. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 08:21, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If you'd takes your time to go through the argument we had at the time that results in that comment. I sense it's obviously wrong that group of editors are for unknown reasons or personal interest denying an existing event and facts from the comfort of their keyboard at home or where ever they may be. I am a field researcher and web developer with almost two decades of working experience. For instance, before coming up with article about "Akpanta killings," after heard about the injustice happening in the region, I did travelled down to the community in person and the entire Apa/Agatu region with aim of giving voice to voiceless and helpless people, (you can reference my upload of snapshot from the community to Wikimedian common for your perusal, I used mobile phone to take those images with a serious protection of police). Do you have ideas how much of my hard earn money and life risk go to that movement to to make up that article? After days of intensive work, I then comes up with article with verifiable sources evidents that are notable about the event, an editor is trying to denied it existence even threatening deletion and block to my account as if he paid me to make gig for him, more annoying, tagging it as LLM generated content. Even at this discussion, an admin is still busy flagging the Akpanta, Nigeria article as LLM. This is my argument, why not first hand engage creator in polite conversation and possibly give advice through user talk page instead of completely condemning and sentence? For what purpose is "User Talk page created?" Why not try having a meaningful and helping conversation about this first and observe if an amendment is necessary and will be immediately follow up or not, most especially considering the fact the contributor is new in the platform and is making a notable and factual articles and not engaging in vandalism.
    In reference, the Article that brought about the discussion on possible deletion wasn't created by me, it was new and an editor nominate it for deletion. With my field experience of the happening, I believe the user have a point maybe in a wrong context, it's my opinion the article need some meaningful contribution to help it meet relevant guidelines instead of deletion, An editor tagged the article as "Accusation sole on Trump comment" and I was only try to give reasons to the editor that the article meet notability, verifiability and maybe having challenge with neutrality but to my best knowledge it meet neutrality and should be allow to stay if some amendment can be done to help the article comply with relevant Wikipedia policies. What's my offence? An editor then attacks me directly and threatening reporting my account despite clarified in my comment "I am not the creator of the article neither do I know the creator in person", I am only working to improve the article. The editor went on to dogged out my Wikipedia edit history in bid to witch hunt me, stating in his comment that I have been "formally warned against using LLM", another admin follow suite started flagging all my comment in the discussion forum as LLM generated.🤣 On the Article "Akpanta, Nigeria" they're referencing to, was an inconclusive inclusive conversation I had with the admin that flagged "Akpanta Nigeria" article for possible use of LLM, of which the admin advice me to leave the article for other editors and admin to have a review and I obey and abandon the article awaiting decision, of which several editors have make adjustments to it and many others are still making adjustments to the article mostly on daily basis. Why coming up with such direct attack on me instead of focus on the deletion debate. In no doubt I was on very tense mood responding to the opposing editors voting for deletion instead making relevant contribution to help build the article to meet Wikipedia neutrality, verifiability and notability policy as results of of the unnecessary provocation, most especially the veryone that attempt directly attack me. At all cause I still abandoned the deletion debate to focus on what's important. I have couple of intelligent video and snaps live capturing atrocities of this terrorists against the Christian Communities and worshippers that I personally took using fly drone and hidden cameras and there are load of numerous reports of this event out there on daily basis both by notable local and international medias, certainly i can't upload such kind of video to public domains, else I would have done so. To be honest, I recalled be obsessed with an editor who went on to tag my article not existing an LLM generated content. It's crazy that I spend my hard earn resources to conduct a finding with clear notability both in national and international newspaper with valid references and someone sitting at comfort of his/her zoom with keyboard tag it "not existing and LLM generated." Of course I may have made mistake quoting non existing policy because I was obsess. I believe I quoted several valid existing policies too with notable references to back my argument. Why single out one wrong quote to conclude my content as LLM generated? That's harsh! I believe this is community of well knowledge and like-minded people with a common goal not a judgement court. It's obvious Wikipedia is now more an enforcement and judgement court by self acclaimed "perfect editors" instead of a community of like-minded people working towards achieving one goal through open contribution. Even a peer-review journal have room for writers and editors to make adjustments to manuscript.
    The decision to block and unblock me is completely at your sole description. Whatsoever decision you take won't cause me to say things otherwise to please you or anyone. I have said the truth as it's, you believing it or not are completely your choice.
    YOU'RE CERTAINLY FREE TO EXERCISE YOUR POWER AND RIGHT AT BEST DESCRIPTION!
    The decision is taken already, what do you want me to do? I should plead and appeal to be unblock?
    NO, I WON'T!
    I have paying gig need my attention too.
    "Where I am not welcome, I don't force my way in" NatHaddan (talk) 10:34, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You ask what we want you to do - I'd like you to answer my question here [1].
    Other editors would also like you to explain why you added sources that don't exist.
    We're getting concerned that you're making a lot of posts, but you're not going into any specifics when challenged.
    We keep asking but you still aren't answering.
    Everyone must be able to justify specific edits with the community raises concerns, we're all treated equally in that respect.
    We don't care about your background or who you are, we care about what you're doing.
    If you don't want to edit Wikipedia anymore then that's fine, but if you want to stay you're going to have to take responsibility for your actions and properly explain why you've been adding multiple non-existent sources on several occasions.
    Please answer my question. Blue Sonnet (talk) 11:46, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand AGF and giving second chances but we are wasting our time here. There is a 100% chance that this editor has repeatedly used LLMs in article space given the vast gap in English language fluency between their article and talk space contributions. The editor has repeatedly denied doing so, including after this ANI thread was opened, which means the only two possible explanations are 1) they are lying 2) they don't know they are using LLMs. I don't know which it is, but either one requires an indefinite block per NOTHERE CIR or both. We cannot afford to waste our time on black and white cases of LLM abuse like this. NicheSports (talk) 01:14, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah I might be wasting my time, but I don't mind asking a couple of questions if it helps get to the bottom of what's actually going on here.
    On a couple of occasions it's helped the editor to understand what they're doing wrong, but they need to give clear answers when challenged for that to happen. I'm not sure we're there yet because the answers don't explain what we're seeing. If an admin sees enough to block then at least we've given them a fair shot. Blue Sonnet (talk) 01:20, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, re the Kwararafa edit, 7/14 refs are fictional (and that’s before checking whether the real ones verify). They say they’re systematically checking every ref, that simply can’t be true. They’ve been given 4 (?) chances to own up and denied obvious use every time Kowal2701 (talk) 01:30, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Their user page is fairly solid evidence as well. Is there a editor who would legitimately describe themselves as "dedicated to advancing the quality, structure, and integrity of articles within the Wikimedia ecosystem"? (At least they wisely removed the word "senior" from the original generated text.) It's typical AI junk (and gets worse as you keep reading, quite frankly), especially in comparison to the level of English fluency seen in (what are presumably) the comments they've actually written. --Kinu t/c 07:48, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The 'editorial standards' heading with a list of policies they comply with gave me a good chuckle. Athanelar (talk) 18:31, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @NatHaddan Can you take a look through the warnings on your Talk page to try to understand what happened? Because there are a lot of instances where other people can't find the sources you're adding. You're saying you check them but that's not what we're seeing here and we need to figure out what's going wrong.
    It really does look like you're using AI/LLM/chatbot tools & not checking the information they're giving you - you're saying this isn't right, so everyone is very confused over what you're doing & how to stop these invalid sources from showing up in your edits.
    1. In this edit you apparently replaced one source that didn't exist with another source that didn't exist.
    1. In this example you added more sources that don't exist.
    Can you explain how you found those sources and the exact steps you took to verify their authenticity? Blue Sonnet (talk) 01:14, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Despite this the user has lied about their LLM use:
    • Here
    • At their talk page: I am not in use of any AI or LLM generated content tool ... I AM NOT USING AI OR ANY LLM GENERATED CONTENT TOOL! [2], In my years of experience ... I always commit my time and resources visit the geographic region for self observation for inspirations not using proxy resources or LLM machines. [3], and I am not using ai chatbot [4]...
    • and at LLMN: not AI generated content [5]
    This is an immensely disruptive behavioral pattern that is incompatible with a collaborative encyclopedia. Asking that an admin indef them as an independent action so we don't need to waste time with a CBAN. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 02:30, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I was looking at this user earlier, and while I would like to assume good faith, AI was definitely used here, sorry. An indef might be too harsh, but time shouldn't be wasted on a CBAN here. Z E T AC 02:39, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Persistent dishonesty leaves no other viable option to prevent future disruption. Behavior cannot be corrected if it is not acknowledged, and acknowledgement at this point is too little too late as they have given every reason not to trust them. Indef isn't infinite anyways, they would be able to demonstrate understanding via an unblock request in the future. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 02:49, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I really hope they can properly look at and address the hallucinated sources - right now we're getting vague non-answers that infer they're doing the right thing, except we can see that they aren't. Blue Sonnet (talk) 02:53, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Given their denials of obvious LLM use, I have indefinitely blocked NotHaddan from articlespace. No prejudice against a full block if it is deemed necessary. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:04, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No CBAN consensus? Close. Tankishguy 05:10, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes cban consensus? close idk Tankishguy 05:12, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There is very clearly no consensus for a CBAN. In my opinion, there isn't a necessity to close either. Threads can get archived either way, even without a closure. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 05:32, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Their wording Was confusing to me. Tankishguy 15:54, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I am not given you answer because I was obviously sleeping. As at times the talk was launch it was a middle late night hour here in Nigeria, I made couple of few response before sleeping off. It wasn't intentional silent. NatHaddan (talk) 07:19, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @The Bushranger Simply banning them from article space may be ineffective, as they also use LLMs on discussion pages. This message that I left on the talk page of @NatHaddan on 22 November may provide some additional context:

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

    Hu741f4 (talk) 14:37, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    “they don't seem to read the discussion; they just copy-paste responses from an LLM, so the discussion never ends”.
    Yep, that’s what it looks like, but not the standard AI. I speculate that they are using AI drawing specifically from Wikipedia talk namespaces, which is why some posts look like typical newcomer bad arguments, worse than expected from usual AI. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:11, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Indef/CBAN - The AI clean-up noticeboard have had to create a subpage specifically for NatHaddan and they still haven't given a straight answer to any of our questions about specific edits & sources.
    Other editors are having to spend time fixing NatHaddan's mistakes and they won't provide the information we need to find out why this occurred and how to stop it from happening again. We're left with AI as the most likely explanation because there's absolutely no evidence to prove otherwise, and only NatHaddan can change that.
    We're only getting generalised platitudes and I've spent quite a lot of time trying to guide them into giving a proper explanation, unfortunately I'm getting nowhere. The explanation given doesn't adequately account for what we're seeing.
    Every editor should be able to explain why they've made an edit if challenged, or admit they've made a mistake. We're all human and we all screw up.
    We also need to work together on Wikipedia - we can't do that without open and clear communication.
    I've given them as much of a chance as I can (hopefully everyone can see that here and on their Talk page), but my AGF well is running dry.
    Here they say they check almost all their edits, but we know that's not the case.
    Here and here I ask them to explain how and why specific sources were added, but whilst my other questions are answered these two are completely ignored.
    They've been asked repeatedly to explain the diffs in the original post but have yet to do so. Instead, they're focusing on the fact that people have said that they think they're using AI and completely ignoring the reasons why we have those suspicions. I can only see two possibilities:
    • They didn't use AI and should explain how they managed to create multiple non-existent sources repeatedly on several articles, or
    • They did use AI, in which case they need to admit it and promise they won't use it again.
    This isn't a witch-hunt, persecution or bullying. I just want clear answers that make sense, that's all I ask.
    If NatHaddan can give us an adequate explanation for the non-existent sources that have been presented at ANI, I'll happily reconsider. Otherwise, I can't see how we can trust that any of their edits will be accurate, since we have no idea where they're getting their information from. Blue Sonnet (talk) 15:43, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    They are already indefinitely blocked from articlespace [6], there is no need to spend any more time on this. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 16:44, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, if you feel that's sufficient then that's totally fine with me. Blue Sonnet (talk) 16:52, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with fifteen. I think CBANs for LLM use should be reserved for more complex cases. This one is as black and white as it gets and the necessary block has already been applied by an admin NicheSports (talk) 17:16, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The ironic thing here is if they genuinely are somehow hallucinating references without using a LLM that's worse. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:53, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I singled out what looked to me like an obscenity in British English (wikt:tool #6). I of course agree that fake citations are unforgivable, however they arise. (It once took me the best part of an hour to expose a years-old WP:HOAX. My admiration at the skill and my fury at the deception increased together.) Narky Blert (talk) 17:01, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is yet another case of the community falling all over itself to salvage the unsalvageable. We are now being flooded with people who completely lack the skills needed to be productive editors, but think AI their open sesame. Block indef and move on. EEng 21:11, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Unfortunately, some people here don’t like the idea of banning AI and argue at every oppurtunity that ‘there are uses for AI!’ or some other refrain. That is why WP:NEWLLM barely even became a guideline. ~212.70~ ~2025-31733-18 (talk) 05:43, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Support full indef: The problem with an incrementalist system like Wikipedia is that a vast number of editors are staunch defenders of the status quo, no matter how little it serves us nearly a quarter century in. I expect that most of the pro-AI types aren't involved in cleanup, aren't on the noticeboards, aren't on vandalism patrol, aren't on new page patrol, don't deal with copyvios, and are fanatic believers in Geek Social Fallacy #1: Ostracizers Are Evil. For my part, I'm right with EEng on this one: LLM Delenda Est. Ravenswing 12:04, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support an indef An article space block won't stop them dropping AI-slop on discussion space, which has been clearly demonstrated already. There shouldn't be anybody writing hallucinated references. An decent editor would check the reference when it was being written to be sure is genuine and satisfies WP:V. It is absolute core of Wikipedia. And not checking them, assuming the AI is going to do it, is an absolute WP:CIR issue on its own. It is incompetence plain and simple. Another reason to block them. It is sloppy and crass editing. They are making assumptions that don't exist at our expense. This isn't salvagable. scope_creepTalk 01:38, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support indef NatHaddan is tending to be not here to building an encyclopedia. They also can’t hear us and are using AI, a sign of not meeting the competence levels to edit this encyclopedia. ~212.70~~2025-31733-18 (talk) 04:42, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Keeping this alive. I think this could use a formal close. Chess enjoyer (talk) 05:27, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Indef. They can’t hear us. The person is not checking their AI output, nor are they reading messages to them. They are running a conversation between AI and Wikipedians. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:33, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Phuc Truong Dinh - CIR issues

    [edit]

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

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

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

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

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

    Agreed, they also made many edits with unsourced changes. And I've encountered many users with poor English grammar, but with nearly every mainspace edit having been reverted, this one has contributed nothing positive to the wiki. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:11, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    They've not responded to my request, but haven't edited since the 26th either. Blue Sonnet (talk) 21:58, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Their sole edit since then has been to add an image to an article that didn't previously have one. I can't comment on the image itself as I'm unfamiliar with the subject. Hellbus (talk) 17:45, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That appears to be the correct image for the article, from what I was able to find.
    This user has disappeared for a few days in the past when level-4 warnings were given, so the lack of editing may be a case of WP:ANI flu. --Sable232 (talk) 22:33, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Still at it - [9], [10], [11] - and still refuses to discuss or even acknowledge the issues. (None of these are particularly egregious, but still clear downgrades.) --Sable232 (talk) 00:48, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    While they have edited their user talk page in the past, they are not communicating and are continuing to edit. Blocked from mainspace, invited to reply about this issue. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 01:34, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    AverageSkiptar

    [edit]

    There has been many issues regarding the Averageskiptar:

    -Edit warnings (note:i showed only revisions that violated The three-revert rule): [12],

    -Nationalistic editing probably Anti-serbian type of editing, saying things like that serbian source aren't reliable and how Serbian sources are propaganda: [13][14][15][16][17][18]

    -OR editing, adding sources in wrong context and unreliable ones also failed to provide his claims: [19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27]

    Other users including myself send him warnings which he deleted calling them fake accusations: [28][29]

    He is also known for acusing editors for sockpuppetry if they don't agree with him same goes with saying they're not some nationality because they don't agree with his claims: [30][31][32]

    -Vandalism and POV: [33] (he did same edit on same article multiple times) Wikicommonsfan134 (talk) 08:22, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The edit warring between Wikicommonsfan134 and AverageSkiptar has been disruptive for a while now and has continued despite multiple warnings and a 24 hour block.
    Finally, it also seems to me that there is some kind of meatpuppetry or coordinated editing going on here with Wikicommonsfan134. See the evidence in the SPI report I made a few days ago at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SpeedyHaste. I’d also note the checkuser comments and the evidence presented by @Demetrios1993 regarding AverageSkiptar on the SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Albanian atdhetar. MCE89 (talk) 10:17, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't violated the 3 revert rule on September offensive neither on Drenica massacres and i explained in my tp why i moved SpeedyHaste article to mainspace and why i later put it back to draft and reason why i edited some of the articles speedy created was because of vandalism by other users you can also see i was removing vandalism on other articles as well also i think Skiptar isn't sockpuppet of Albanian Adhetar but rather an sockpuppet of user called Kachak who was reported in January this year Wikicommonsfan134 (talk) 10:33, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Whilst I haven't counted the many, many diffs above, you don't have to violate 3RR for it to count as edit warring. It doesn't matter if you're right, edit warring isn't acceptable.
    Just looking at the edit history on Yugoslav offensive in Drenica (1999) is concerning. Barely anyone else is showing up on the recent edit history, it's just the two of you fighting. Even if you don't hit three reverts per day, it's edit warring in spirit and it's clearly not stopping. Blue Sonnet (talk) 13:59, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    i haven't edited that article since 23 November Wikicommonsfan134 (talk) 14:10, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, but now I've had time to look I can see that you reverted the Drenica massacres article three times yesterday and once every day since you were unblocked.
    You also reverted the Yugoslav September offensive article three times yesterday too.
    Whilst you're trying to stay under three reverts, you're still edit warring in spirit like I said earlier.
    I'm seeing AverageSkiptar more than you, but you both need to do better.
    There are dispute resolution and third opinion processes that both of you could (and arguably should) be using long before it gets to the point where you have to be blocked. Blue Sonnet (talk) 14:41, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok but what about my report about Skiptar? Wikicommonsfan134 (talk) 14:56, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That needs dealing with also. I can see they're currently editing and I've reminded them that they should participate. Hopefully they'll respond soon so we can address everything properly. Blue Sonnet (talk) 15:02, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Stop accusing me of vandalism, i stated the Reasons in the TP of the Yugoslav September offensive, that‘s just coping. Also you can‘t accuse me of vandalism when you edited my My first article and added Yugoslav victory with a totally unrelated source. AverageSkiptar (talk) 15:04, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Granted it's not necessarily vandalism, but you're still edit warring after coming out of a block for edit warring. Can you please read through @MCE89's post and address the concerns raised? You reverted the Drenica massacres page four times alone yesterday. Blue Sonnet (talk) 15:12, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I tried to add additional information to the Drenica massacres page, but User:SpeedyHaste and User:Wikicommonsfan134 kept reverting my edits for no reason and never stated the reasons in their edit summaries. AverageSkiptar (talk) 15:17, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's still edit warring and you should know better by now, since you've been blocked for doing exactly that only a few days ago and given links to explain why in the block notices. You both really should read WP:BRIE. Blue Sonnet (talk) 15:19, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not my fault, i didn‘t start the edit war. They‘re blaming me for something they started, AverageSkiptar (talk) 15:27, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You are participating in an edit war. You are under no obligation to do so. Accordingly, yes, what you do is your fault, and regardless of what anyone else is doing, you may be blocked for it. And the next block is likely to be a lot longer than the last. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:32, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Just like Andy said, it doesn't matter whether you started it - you chose to participate in and continue it. You could easily be blocked since you've clearly edit warred past 3RR yesterday.
    Please read the WP:BRIE link I've given you - what you've said is specifically given as an example of what not to do. Blue Sonnet (talk) 15:55, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @AverageSkiptar "It's not my fault, I didn't start it"... That sounds very childish. These very experienced editors have told you several times that it doesn't matter who started the edit war -- you must both stop, or you risk a longer block. David10244 (talk) 05:14, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Will anyone see other reasons why i reported him? Yeah edit warning and wars are really bad but there are other problems with this user Wikicommonsfan134 (talk) 05:31, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I haven't looked into the matter and lack the energy to do so, but am puzzled as to why we seem to have two articles about the same ethnic group. Narky Blert (talk) 17:15, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Because Shqiptar is meant to be only about the endonym for Albanians. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:28, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe because i am a Shqiptar? AverageSkiptar (talk) 17:58, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    And an average one, at that. Folks, a user's ethnicity is irrelevant to an AN/I discussion. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 00:13, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Anti-archiving. Participation encouraged ~2025-31733-18 (talk) 04:04, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I genuinely can't believe that we discussed his nationality Wikicommonsfan134 (talk) 04:54, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    ConanHighwoods

    [edit]

    ConanHighwoods (talk · contribs) seems to misunderstand the purpose of categories on Wikipedia. I tried to explain this to him some time ago, addressing WP:NOTDEFCAT, and that he should not include articles in certain categories just because of incidental events that occur in a work, but he has ignored this and continue to do so anyway.[62][63][64][65][66] I wanted to avoid reaching this point, but since the user continues with the same behavior, I think this issue should be addressed now. Xexerss (talk) 22:16, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    ConanHighwoods is not collaborative, is apparently not interested in dispute resolution, is not concerned with with following a guideline such as the one on categorization, has been edit warring, has stopped engaging on their talk page, and so, ConanHighwoods should be blocked to stop further disruption. —Alalch E. 23:29, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Most of my edits are constructive. I agree i can do better, but I mean none of my edits are vandalism. And i do respond to other users, where is this misinformation coming from? ConanHighwoods (talk) 23:33, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    And the near edit war was only once. I might revert an edit, but if it gets reverted again now, I just drop it. ConanHighwoods (talk) 23:42, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    All in all, I think I should not be blocked from editing as most of my edits are constructive, and none are straight up vandalism. I also am rather new with Wikipedia culture, so this should be taken into account. Any more examples of this behavior in the future is me misjudging the relevancy of a tag.
    ConanHighwoods (talk) 23:53, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's generally good practice when an editor reverts your bold edit on an article to discuss it on the talk page as per WP:BRD. sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:21, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I see. I will do that in the future. ConanHighwoods (talk) 00:31, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This turned out to be false. [67] is a return to edit warring. ~2025-37197-04 (talk) 04:33, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You said: I might revert an edit, but if it gets reverted again now, I just drop it. That's not how it works. Instead, you should discuss your disputed edits, including a certain type of edit made across multiple articles, and saying how you would even revert someone reverting that, instead of simply not making the disputed edit in the first place until the dispute is resolved, is not really sustainable. In Special:Diff/1324983748 (Manyu Scroll), on Nov. 29, you restored your disputed addition with the edit summary Reverting as there is a whole episode devoted towards an octopus/octopus like creature, 'The Lady Diver and Her Breasts'. You can find on this very article. I feel like an episode centered on something is enfor a tag, especially a shorter series. If not, so bit, just revert it again. This kind of wrong reasoning is what you were told about 20 days prior, in Special:Diff/1321324817/1321326246, and you did not reply to that. Instead, you subsequently made the same kind of edit and tried to enforce that it stays. But I see now that you have decided now not to do that any more and have said you would follow wp:BRD, which is great, so I don't think you should be blocked any more.—Alalch E. 00:42, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Just curious, did you think I should have been permablocked? ConanHighwoods (talk) 01:05, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You are still making these edits. You should definitely be blocked indefinitely to stop the disruption. [68] is after your most recent comment here. Obviously you refuse to listen to other editors about how categories are used here. ~2025-37197-04 (talk) 03:40, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Why? The tags were used on the Splatoon related articles. It is a franchise about humanoid cephalopods/werecephalopds. It 100% should get the 'Tentacles/tentacle monsters in fiction'. This is almost an no brainer. Plus despite how obvious it is, I pisted in the reverter's talk page. ConanHighwoods (talk) 04:14, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, can you stop reverting all my relavent edits? Ursala is obviously a tentacle monster, Pluribus is about a hivemind, says it right in the article, Squid Girl has tentacles for hair, etc. ConanHighwoods (talk) 04:17, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Everything that has anything to do with sealife isn't defined by that sealife. Most breakdowns of Ursula don't discuss her tentacles, it's just an artistic choice. If you don't comprehend the difference, you need to stop throwing everything into buckets. It is disruptive. ~2025-37197-04 (talk) 04:31, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What kinda logic that? The tag is for works with lots of or relavent tentacles and tentacled creatures or for tentacled characters. Ursala is a tentacled character. It is accurate. Point blank. I feel like you are reverting my edits out of spit or distrust. ConanHighwoods (talk) 04:35, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You have had how categories work explained to you multiple times now. You have started edit warring to add your original research to articles. ~2025-37197-04 (talk) 04:39, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, and ones like Ursula, Displacer Beast, Squid Girl, Pluribus, were the correct usages of the tag. They were either a major plot point or major part of the character. Also, why are you not signing your comments? ConanHighwoods (talk) 04:43, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Multiple editors have told you that you are using categories incorrectly. Go to the talk pages to argue content. This board is to discuss behavior.
    You have been asked multiple times to be careful with categories, but you have ignored all such advice.
    You said you would use talk pages when reverted, but you have decided not to, and are engaged in edit wars on multiple articles with multiple editors.
    This is a behavioral board, you are are being disruptive. I still support an indefinite ban for WP:IDHT and WP:DE. I get you are enthusiastic about tentacles. That doesn't override policy and consensus. ~2025-37197-04 (talk) 04:49, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I was reverting them back to how they were as they were correct, it was a single revert by me on some of the pages, not multiple reverts on the same pages. ConanHighwoods (talk) 04:45, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    So you are a sockpuppet? Are you Xexerss? Did i offend you? I see your account was made today. ConanHighwoods (talk) 04:48, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see WP:PA. If you think I'm Xexerss, provide evidence other than me agreeing with their public post. If you don't have any evidence, I ask you to strike your very serious personal attack. It is another form of disruptive editing. ~2025-37197-04 (talk) 04:52, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If you are not them, I am sorry for a false accusation. But i just find it odd this new account pops up after I tell them that reporting me was unnecessary. ConanHighwoods (talk) 04:56, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    So are you striking the accusation, or do the accusations against me and Xerxess stand? ~2025-37197-04 (talk) 05:02, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    TBH, idk how to edit my comments in this place. I see no edit button, but I think Xerxess is most likely innocent. Sjones tho... ConanHighwoods (talk) 05:06, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Sjones? I think it is you? You made a sockpuppet just to revert all my edits. I saw you welcome the new account. I made a talk page to ask why you reverted my Splatoon edits, but it was removed. I was not rude, just asked why. IDK, i guess i will let the admins or other users deal with it. ConanHighwoods (talk) 05:03, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    So you are accusing me, Xerxess, and @Sjones23: of being sock puppets. Why would any of us need to sock in the area of whether Ursula is a tentacle monster? This is just another example WP:IDHT and the inability to realize that multiple people do not agree with you and are advising you to take another approach. ~2025-37197-04 (talk) 05:09, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, I'm definitely not a sockpuppet, but a long-standing user with several years and many edits to my credit. Same with Xerxess. sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:14, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I saw that you welcomed that new account in. That is suspicious. Why make a new account just to revert my edits? I made a post in your talk page about the Splatoon reverts, and instead of conversing on the matter, you axed it. Honestly sjones, I would be less upaet if you only reverted the edits that were iffy, but what is temping me to edit war is you reverting edits that are clearly accurate. Ursula is clearly a tentacled being, Sharktopus has octupus in its name and it is clearly a hybrid of an octopus, Pluribus was definitely about a virus and a hivemind, and saud it right on the article itself. Why thecwanton reverts? Why not just get the iffy stuff? ConanHighwoods (talk) 05:39, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    First of all, I have only one account. Also, I'm concerned you are engaging in disruptive activity to illustrate a point. sjones23 (talk - contributions) 06:56, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I made a topic on your talk page and you axed it, the Splatoon one. It was not rude or anything, but you did not reply, just trashed it. I saw you make the talk page for 2025-37197-04. That was a very new account. Why would they just decide to make an acc5for something like this? Why not just be straight forward and reverse my bad edits instead of using an alt, assuming I am right? I would move this to your talk page, but you would just throw it out. ConanHighwoods (talk) 07:23, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I sometimes deleted sections on my talk page most likely because I would have already read through them. After all, the comments are in the history page. sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:33, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I just logged back in here. First, let me clarify that I am not the IP user in this discussion; I literally have no reason to continue a discussion that I myself started here using another account or participating anonymously. Secondly, in response to what you indicate here, as I said at the start of this discussion, I didn't want to get to this point, but given that you have continued with this behavior despite several editors already telling you why it is wrong, I felt it was necessary to address this once and for all instead of simply continuing to revert your edits and getting involved in edit wars that will be pointless if you continue to refuse to understand, because, based on what you've said, I get that you don't want to be disruptive (even though you actually are with these edits) and you don't want all this to simply end with an indefinite block. Xexerss (talk) 11:26, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a new user reverting my edits. Some were warranted but others were wrong, like the removal or 'Tentacles/tentacle monsters in fiction' From Ursala and Displacer Beast and the 'Hive mind in fiction' abd 'Fictional viruses' tag from Pluribus, even tho the article itself listed the in the premise with sources. ConanHighwoods (talk) 04:54, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal of Categories TBAN

    [edit]

    After refusing to acknowledge Wikipedia has policy and guidelines around WP:CATDEF, ConanHighwoods has accused multiple editors of being sock puppets while engaging in edit wars over original research into "tentacle monsters". Until they are willing to be in alignment with the community on the usage of categories, they should not be editing in this area to prevent further disruption.

    I was already gonna take a break from editing, well at least categories for awhile, no need for a block. ConanHighwoods (talk) 15:17, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You came to my talk page after being warned that wild accusations of socking are personal attacks in order to attack me again. If you can't participate without attacking people, you shouldn't edit at all. ~2025-37197-04 (talk) 16:25, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it was a legit suspicion, and I have screenshots to back it up. And as I stated, I was not 100% certain. I apologized to Xerxess as i realized that was a bad assumption. This is what talk pages are for so i would not have to disrupt pages like this. ConanHighwoods (talk) 16:39, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There isn't an exception to personal attacks for "legit suspicion". Either prove it, or stop dragging multiple editors through the mud.
    Hint, you are the only person with a passion for defining Ursula from the Little Mermaid as a tentacle monster. It's unreasonable to conclude you are encountering some conspiracy to defend a fictional character from a bizarre category when it's much more likely people just don't call her a tentacle monster. ~2025-37197-04 (talk) 16:53, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough, you may or may not be an alt, but I will drop it as screenshots are not used here from my understanding. ConanHighwoods (talk) 18:43, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Conan, if you want to reference specific edits, read this guide. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:01, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @ConanHighwoods: Multiple people reverting you doesn't make them the same person. Either provide more evidence at the dedicated noticeboard, or drop the stick. Otherwise, continuing to accuse them of being a sockpuppet without strong evidence is a personal attack, and you may be sanctioned for it. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:54, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I was going to oppose based on Conan's agreement to voluntarily cease categorisation following our discussion here.
    I'm given pause now that they've said in their last post they said they'd "tag more wisely in future" - so they'll continue to categorise ("tag"), but in a different manner.
    I don't think they properly understand categorisations yet (see our discussion), and recommended that they stay away voluntarily before sanctions were proposed. I really felt the discussion was productive, so I was saddened by that last post, which I hope is just some poor wording on their part.
    ConanHighwoods , I can't in good conscience vote oppose unless you clearly commit to staying away of your own accord - can you please address this? Blue Sonnet (talk) 06:43, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Is following guidelines not wise? ConanHighwoods (talk) 14:46, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, but I thought I was still allowed to like maybe next year or something. Anyways, I had tagged pretty much my all my 'special interests' articles on this site, so i see no reason to tag often. ConanHighwoods (talk) 14:49, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    All in all, I am holding back on edits for awhile unless it is something obviously fitting or bad(new anime with tentacle monster mc or vandalism). Consider me back to lurking for awhile. You see i have not reverted edits for a few days. ConanHighwoods (talk) 14:57, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Like a LONG while. Blocking is just unnecessary imo. I am just not active on here other than reading. I literally only began again using my account after 5 years of in active to categorize tentacle based media. I have done that, and to tag further unless it is very obvious(cat tag on new Garfield film), would be something I am not interested in. So yeah, I am 99% done. OK, well, I did propose a new tag a few days ago, but using the advice you guys gave me, could not find many. But yeah, still done atm ConanHighwoods (talk) 15:14, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I was thinking it'd be best to step back from categories completely for a few weeks or months voluntarily - do simpler edits but pay attention to the way each article has it's categories set up (Good articles are great for this sort of research!).
    Just as an idea, perhaps join the Wikipedia:Typo Team & fix simple stuff, gradually go for more complicated things as you build confidence.
    From our discussion, I think the problem was when a part of your brain told you "maybe this isn't a great thing to do" - your subconscious was giving you a warning that you needed to pause and check.
    If you get more general experience in understanding how Wikipedia works, that'll help you understand how categories work by extension.
    I think this would be a great way to learn a bit more about categories without actually editing them:
    • Every time you edit an article, look at the categories and try to figure out why someone put that category on and see where it's mentioned in the article.
    • Look at other articles from the same category & see why those were added too - what do they have in common?
    • If you were forced to remove one category, which one would it be and why?
    Once you've spent a couple of months building up the foundations of your knowledge and want to go back to editing categories, I'd strongly recommend getting a mentor who can double check and coach you through your first dozen examples or so.
    That way you can be sure that you're doing everything you can to improve and get better!
    Being totally honest, once someone's been brought to ANI they're going to have more people watching their edits for a while after. The last thing you need is to be brought back here because you've misunderstood something & I think this can be solved by voluntarily staying away from editing categories for a little while & learning how they work in the background.
    That way, there's no need for any formal action - all we want is to make sure you make good edits going forwards.
    What do you think of this plan? I don't want to you stop editing, you won't learn & grow that way. But of course of you feel this is all too stressful and want to stop, then absolutely stop. Blue Sonnet (talk) 15:18, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I will stick with small edits atm. If i find them. Good idea. ConanHighwoods (talk) 22:04, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose: As the user who reported ConanHighwoods on this noticeboard, and having read the subsequent discussions, I think that the user is now aware that he made a mistake with the categorization stuff, and although I don't think it's appropriate to accuse other users of sockpuppetry out of the blue like that, I want to believe that it was due to the heated discussion and a lack of familiarity with the site's policies and guidelines and not because he really wants to be defiant towards others. The user has stopped editing and adding the category for a few days now, so assuming that he will maintain this attitude going forward and is willing to listen and improve his edits, I would support giving him another chance. Xexerss (talk) 20:28, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      +1 Oppose for the same reason. Blue Sonnet (talk) 03:13, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Orlando Davis: LLM use, dishonesty, generally NOTHERE

    [edit]

    Orlando Davis (talk · contribs) has been misusing LLMs, repeatedly lying about it and other things, and is in general NOTHERE: see the original filing at WP:AINB § Orlando Davis for diffs covering these claims. Their conduct at AINB has been egregious, bizarrely stating at least three times - [69] is the most recent - that their edits did not contain any WP:V issues, after multiple editors had already documented such issues [70][71]. They have lied about using LLMs; see @Jlwoodwa describing [72] one claim [73] as insultingly dishonest. They have made strange comments about their abilities [74][75] (from first diff: I have been, perhaps, one of the greatest Wikipedia contributors...). In the meantime, they repeatedly reintroduced promotional content to Mastercooks of Belgium - see [76]. The last straw for me came after @Valereee gave them these final-ish warnings [77][78]. OD then promised [79] to no longer use AI (good!) but then immediately went and added this LLM-generated comment [80] in support of maintenance tags they placed [81][82] - apparently in retaliation (?) - to articles that valereee and another involved editor @Theroadislong had created. NicheSports (talk) 22:59, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I've got a feeling OD's issues could be disruptive editing to illustrate a point, which isn't tolerated. sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:04, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    OD's issues are everything he does. We don't have to look for a convenient application of some single guideline to this case. The AINB thread speaks for itself. —Alalch E. 23:19, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Is the collapse markup broken? I could only add into it, not after it. Is there supposed to be a bottom? Valereee (talk) 23:55, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I fixed it, there was an edit conflict when I was sorting it out - apologies everyone! Blue Sonnet (talk) 23:58, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]


    There is no Wikipedia policy requiring disclosure of LLM use. WP:LLM is an essay reflecting community discussion, not a binding rule. Editors may choose whether to disclose such use, just as they are not obligated to reveal personal identity or editing tools.
    All of my edits comply with WP:V: they are verifiable, accurately sourced, and written neutrally. My removal of the promotional tag on Mastercooks of Belgium was a good-faith effort to reach consensus, as I immediately made numerous edits to improve the article and address any promotional content before agreeing to take the tag down. The edit history clearly demonstrates these improvements, showing that my actions were aimed at enhancing the article’s neutrality and reliability.
    I also agreed to edits made by PolyGnotus and TheRoadIsLong after brief discussions, reflecting my willingness to reach consensus when reasonable improvements are proposed (see: Talk:Mastercooks of Belgium).
    Similarly, the tags I placed on articles created by Valereee and TheRoadIsLong were good-faith efforts to improve Wikipedia, not acts of retaliation. I assume that editors such as Valereee and TheRoadIsLong acted in good faith when making edits or adding tags to my contributions. Reviewing the article histories prior to tagging shows that the justification for the tags I added was well-founded and consistent with maintaining verifiability and neutrality.
    Orlando Davis (talk) 23:35, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    after brief discussions? Polygnotus (talk) 02:29, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    In reply to the collapsed message: some of this users edits use [oaicite:3] instead of a citation, which isn't a real thing and is only generated by LLMs. Drafting an article with LLMs and then verifying it yourself is not a massive issue (although it's obviously not ideal), but the only way that [oaicite:3] makes its way into an edit is if a human did not proofread said edit. That is unconstructive editing, and editors can be blocked for it. aesurias (talk) 23:51, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Orlando Davis ChatGPT forgot to tell you about WP:AITALK, I see. Four AI detectors came up positive. (Sorry everyone, template went wonky when you replied originally). Blue Sonnet (talk) 23:54, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I told them about it [83] a week ago, and their response was to tell me to stop harassing them. They have also re-added the message, including the truly brazen falsehood about their edit history not containing any WP:V issues. NicheSports (talk) 00:15, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll take issue with accurately sourced. I have had exhausting discussions at Talk:Mastercooks_of_Belgium/Archive_1#3 best for notability? and Draft_talk:Michael_Katz_(chef)#Best_3_sources during which I tried to explain that someone calling a chef renowned in a 25-word mention did not constitute significant coverage and OD saying 'that's just your opinion'. Over and over. Literally I told them to go to wt:n to see if I was blowing smoke up their ass and they told me they had better things to do, like asking why I had deleted crap sources at an AfD. Valereee (talk) 23:51, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree that my tone in the conversation could have been better, and I will take care to be more professional in future discussions. That said, having a difference of opinion is entirely normal, and there is nothing wrong with it. Wikipedia is full of topics where gray areas exist, and reasonable editors can—and do—disagree on interpretation, sources, or neutrality.
      For example, I have a difference of opinion regarding neutrality in the Police Abolition article. That does not mean I make personal judgments about other editors’ intelligence or intentions. Similarly, it’s important to recognize that article acceptance and rejections are part of the creation process: some articles I work on may be rejected a few times before sufficient sources are found.
      I also want to acknowledge and appreciate the time and effort other editors put into discussions and reviews. Even if we disagree on certain points, I value the input and engagement from other editors. Orlando Davis (talk) 00:20, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      If you're bringing up your tagging of Police abolition because you think I care, you are barking up the wrong tree. I created it because it was in the news and we didn't have an article. As of today my contributions are less than 14% and my last was 5 years ago. If you're trying to get my attention, go throw a tag on Cincinnati chili lol. Valereee (talk) 00:37, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]


    It appears that one of my posts was deleted. Just as Wikipedia has the right to enforce rules, I also have the right to defend myself. Removing my post without discussion feels like censorship.
    There is no Wikipedia policy requiring disclosure of LLM use. WP:LLM is an essay reflecting community discussion, not a binding rule. Editors may choose whether to disclose such use, just as they are not obligated to reveal personal identity or editing tools.
    All of my edits comply with WP:V: they are verifiable, accurately sourced, and written neutrally. My removal of the promotional tag on Mastercooks of Belgium was a good-faith effort to reach consensus, as I immediately made numerous edits to improve the article and address any promotional content before agreeing to take the tag down. The edit history clearly demonstrates these improvements, showing that my actions were aimed at enhancing the article’s neutrality and reliability.
    I also agreed to edits made by PolyGnotus and TheRoadIsLong after brief discussions, reflecting my willingness to reach consensus when reasonable improvements are proposed (see: Talk:Mastercooks of Belgium).
    Similarly, the tags I placed on articles created by Valereee and TheRoadIsLong were good-faith efforts to improve Wikipedia, not acts of retaliation. I assume that editors such as Valereee and TheRoadIsLong acted in good faith when making edits or adding tags to my contributions. Reviewing the article histories prior to tagging shows that the justification for the tags I added was well-founded and consistent with maintaining verifiability and neutrality. Orlando Davis (talk) 00:03, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Orlando Davis, your posts aren't being removed, they're being collapsed. I'm going to uncollapse so we can have a reasonable discussion here, this is confusing for all involved. Valereee (talk) 00:18, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Fair enough, collapsing definitely isn't helping here. Blue Sonnet (talk) 00:19, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    (edit conflict) @Orlando Davis Your replies are still here, they're being collapsed in accordance with guidelines. Please reply without using AI, LLM or Chatbot tools, again in accordance with guidelines. Blue Sonnet (talk) 00:18, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @Blue-Sonnet, this is a bit meta. Let's leave the LLM responses in place while we discuss LLM responses. Valereee (talk) 00:21, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I only tagged one of them, then things got messy and the second was tagged whilst I was writing a reply. Not sure who did that one... Blue Sonnet (talk) 01:00, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it would be helpful to review the guidelines. You are not an administrator yet, and I respect that you may be someday. Please do not delete my comments; if an administrator does, they will provide justification for doing so. It is best to let an administrator handle such matters. Orlando Davis (talk) 00:24, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Blue-Sonnet, please don't take this bait. Valereee (talk) 00:26, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Valereee there definitely seems to be a problem with OD's edits, judging from the recent evidence and LLM. How long would a potential block be in this case? sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:36, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    We generally don't make a block longer because a case is more problematic, as that's punitive, which isn't what we are going for. What we want is for the editor to improve, and in many cases that can be immediate. An indefinite block very often means: until they convince an admin they get it. It might be five minutes. Valereee (talk) 00:42, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I see. While I'm only trying to help (as I usually do), maybe we can try asking the user to remove the AI tools where necessary? sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:49, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    sjones23, I appreciate what you are trying to do but this user has been given enough rope to rig the HMS Victory and has wasted literally dozens of hours of editor time. The repeated falsehoods about their editing history not containing WP:V issues (now stated 5 times) is the most brazen falsehood I have encountered here, as this user has extensively rewritten multiple articles after being informed of these issues. They absolutely know that claim is not true. The LLM use and lies are intractable. They will likely be fortunate to avoid a CBAN NicheSports (talk) 00:56, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, you may have a point, NicheSports, given the evidence. sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:05, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No worries Valereee, I can see what's happening :) Blue Sonnet (talk) 00:58, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    These are only from discussions on user talk pages, and are non-exhaustive, this pattern continues elsewhere at AfDs [94][95][96][97], noticeboards [98][99], etc... fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 00:51, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Considering that this pattern dates back to May 2023, and continued through a year long editing gap, I have little faith a one week block alone will be adequate in preventing future disruption. Currently considering proposing a cban. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 00:59, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    So I stayed away once the baiting started, now I'm back this doesn't look like something a short block will fix.
    If they were away for an entire year and their behaviour didn't change during that amount of time, IMO a week definitely won't be enough. Blue Sonnet (talk) 01:14, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Blue-Sonnet, this comment from OD is not correct. You acted in good faith to close AI-generated comments. Being an admin doesn't matter, I've collapsed such messages myself. 11WB (talk) 01:20, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Honestly, I barely skimmed that post once it became clear what was going on so it's fine!
    I definitely only collapsed the first one though, the other seemed to be collapsed when I was writing my reply? Either someone else did that one, or it was a really weird glitch.
    Think I'll play it safe and avoid anything that could be seen as admin-related, and just write posts going forwards. Blue Sonnet (talk) 02:15, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Would support, this must be considered at this point. OD should also presumably be unblocked if a CBAN is proposed? NicheSports (talk) 01:50, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    After reading this thread, I think a one week block is overly optimistic, but we generally start low and work our way up for recidivism. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:53, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think a cban is overkill. This editor isn't ill-intentioned. They just need to start listening. Valereee (talk) 02:17, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Valereee The problem is that they are a net negative. Other people have spent a hell of a lot of time and energy cleaning up the trash and debating an LLM. while they refuse to read PaGs when requested to. Then when they started clearly editing in bad faith it is time to part ways. Polygnotus (talk) 02:27, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal: Orlando Davis blocked for 1 year

    [edit]

    Because of the ongoing disruption, bad faith edits and the wasting of everyones time Orlando Davis is blocked for one year, after which they may return without LLM tools.

    Oppose - I'm either opposing as moot if an indefinite block has been given by an admin at the time the consensus is evaluated or opposing in favor of a community ban if no indefinite block has been given by an admin. Their recent contributions to this discussion make me far less hopeful that a timed block will be effective. I now don't think this editor ought to get their editing right restored until either an administrator or the community actively believes it will benefit the community. I don't care which. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 20:56, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support: Somehow we will have to survive without the greatness and amazingness of this fellow's stupendous 1800 mainspace edits. (We'll also manage to survive without this guy using ChatGPT to write his ANI responses, which is just headshaking.) Ravenswing 09:40, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose as overkill. I'd support a pblock from article space to try to convince them to listen to experienced editors here. If that doesn't work, we can revisit. Valereee (talk) 11:14, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      The problems extend beyond article space, so I'm not sure a partial block would be sufficient. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:36, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, I understand that there are issues in talk, too. I just think being pblocked from article space would be a powerful motivator to start taking advice on board, which to me is the root of the issue here.
      A cban like this one -- a full year with no realistic chance to appeal, no chance to prove you've learned -- is something people often don't recover from. And if they do return, they still haven't proven they've learned. This is why we don't generally like time-limited anythings: they aren't really productive. Valereee (talk) 20:41, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      After OD's response on their talk: sigh. Okay, support indef. It sucks that this is a community indef, but maybe OD can go to another project and start listening. At least an indef requires appeal rather than simply waiting it out. Valereee (talk) 00:56, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support: LLMs aren't responsible for the bad attitude here, that's all on them. Gnomingstuff (talk) 14:54, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Touché -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:26, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, but I worry that it's just going to continue after 1 year.—Alalch E. 15:27, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Which is exactly why time-limited restrictions are so useless and exactly why most experienced admins prefer indefs: the editor has to convince us they've changed. They don't just have to wait it out. Valereee (talk) 20:43, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Right, a normal indef would have been my preference, but no admin seemed willing to apply one. So that wasn't an option for the community, unfortunately. This is a reasonable proposal given that constraint. I assume you prefer it to an indefinite CBAN? NicheSports (talk) 21:33, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I'd have preferred an indef full block imposed by a single admin to a community-imposed time-limited cban, which is the worst possible outcome for the editor. Valereee (talk) 22:54, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Indef full block imposed by a single admin is what I was hoping for when filing, but it never came. A long, community-imposed, time-limited block may be bad for the editor (although I think an indef CBAN would be worse) but it is a very reasonable outcome for the project, given the level of disruption and how much editor time was being wasted. I think there is a gap between the community and admins in how to handle this type of conduct; I hope that that gap comes down bc single admin action is preferable in most cases imo NicheSports (talk) 23:04, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      An indef cban is worse for the editor, but time-limited is worse for the community because the editor never has to change. They just have to wait it out. Valereee (talk) 01:00, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per Deepfriedokra. —Fortuna, imperatrix 15:33, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Give them a month off for the holidays, and then subtract a couple of days for good behavior..., and thank them for pointing out that it is not required to list or defend a user's AI use on their user page. Shouldn't it be? Maybe Orlando (who starts off their user page with a pretty good joke and that's worth good behavior points) can help lobby for or organize MOS to include such user page clarification. I'm personally anti-AI use in writing, and have never asked AI anything on purpose or not yet given it a request to create an imaginary painting although that might be fun, and intend to keep away from it for any writing whatsoever ("OK! Boomer!"). It'd be nice to further limit its use as a tool for writing on Wikipedia, and Orlando, if you used Chatty or whatever its called to write ANI replies, that's just weird, but Orlando should not be given an entire year in solitary for pretty much roughhouse playing within some badly drawn lines. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:47, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Support indef per 15224, appealable to any admin rather than the community if that's allowed Kowal2701 (talk) 20:15, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Kowal2701 a community-imposed ban will need to be appealed to the community. (Unlikely consensus, WP:NOTBUR and WP:IAR invocations aside) fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 20:38, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per nom, massive time sink, WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Theroadislong (talk) 21:42, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see how blocking for a year isn't just passing the buck to whoever is monitoring this page in a years time. Make the block indefinite, then it can be shorter or longer than a year depending on their future behaviour. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:59, 3 December 2025 (UTC) P.S. I was racking my brains thinking who Orlando reminds me of. It just came to me - it is Ignatius from A Confederacy of Dunces[reply]
    • Support indef as first choice. Support proposed one year block as second choice per Phil Bridger above me. Per all the problems documented above.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:20, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      The persistent LLM use is only a part of the disruptive behavior. Of course the LLM use added inappropriate content to the encyclopedia, but the worse problem is the refusal to acknowledge they were using an LLM, their refusal to acknowledge that the LLM use was causing problems, the denial of obvious LLM use, the personal attacks battle grounding and incivility. Then there is the inability to take in constructive criticism and attempts to inform them that their editing was disruptive and act upon this constructive criticism. They promised to not use LLM's and yet continued to do so. More, they did bizarre things apparently in retaliation like adding inappropriate maintenance tags. There is a chronicity and repetitiveness to their behavior that indicates they are not compatible with a collaborative project and not capable of following the rules and then insisting upon rubbing other people's noses in the rules incorrectly. (There may be more that I did not see in the thread above.) This all rises to a level of "severity" requiring a block with no set time limit so that they must fully and convincingly address the reasons for their block in order to be unblocked. The perpetual wikilawyering and lecturing in no way is convincing that they do not need a block. Perhaps they should reread the portion of the guide to appealing blocks where it talks about addressing one's own behavior by acknowledging the behavior and describing what they will do instead of returning to that behavior. Thanks. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:14, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      To further elaborate on my rationale, the "further comments" section carried over below by Blue Sonnet illustrates appellant's inability or unwillingness to recognize the problems with their behavior and their inability or unwillingness to change that behavior.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:26, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • support indef because otherwise they’ll just come back and do it again after a year.

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

    Poppip10, how did you find this noticeboard? 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 17:43, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    i stumbled across it while reading the teahouse and thought it was interesting enough to participate in Poppip10 (talk) 17:52, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It is NOT mentioned at the Teahouse? Theroadislong (talk) 18:01, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    this is the comment that linked me here. Poppip10 (talk) 18:11, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Theroadislong The template you were looking for is called Template:Single-purpose account Polygnotus (talk) 18:12, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Orlando Davis response

    [edit]
    • Further comments (it's relatively short so copying in full):
    "Perhaps voters should take a look at Wikipedia:Blocking policy when they vote.
    It says that when considering the duration of a block, the "severity" of the behavior should be considered.
    So given that the LLM use was incidental, we should focus on my behavior only. I have never in my time in Wikipedia engaged in behavior even close to being severe enough to warrant being blocked. It would be a critical misjudgment to vote that way." [100]
    Copied over by Blue Sonnet (talk) 07:02, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Even more comments
    "Please take a look at Wikipedia:Blocking policy (WP:BLOCK), “Blocks should not be used" on Wikipedia "to retaliate."
    Given Polygnotus's long-term pattern of edit warring, canvassing, and bludgeoning (as initially referenced in my first C-BAN response), doesn’t the community recognize that Polygnotus's current one year C-BAN proposal could be seen as a potential continuation of that pattern?" [101]
    Copied over by Blue Sonnet (talk) 17:06, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Should they still have TPA if they continue to attack the conduct of other editors and harm their own case like this? They're also inferring that anyone who voted for a CBAN has either misunderstood the blocking policy or not bothered to read it first. I know they are entitled to plead their case, but it doesn't feel like this is what's happening here. Should I keep copying these over? Blue Sonnet (talk) 17:17, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes please... and note that they are busy removing other editors comments from their talk page, which of course they are allowed to do, but it looks disruptive and is not helpful. Theroadislong (talk) 17:21, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That 1 year cban is not actually my current proposal. That was me being too kind. Now its indef. Polygnotus (talk) 17:58, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments continue
    "Wikipedia:Banning policy: This says that a ban should only be used as a last resort:
    “Editors are site-banned or topic-banned only as a last resort, usually for extreme or very persistent problems that have not been resolved by lesser sanctions…”
    The community has not given the one week block a chance to see if it is a sufficient deterrent. It looks like this guideline has not yet been looked at by voters." [102]
    Copied over by Blue Sonnet (talk) 18:02, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Actions I plan on taking"
    "Here are the actions that I plan on taking:
    • I will avoid using AI in either articles or talk pages
    • I will refrain from being excessively argumentative and work on giving concise responses
    • I will value and seek more input from other editors
    • I will take a step back in heated conversations
    I am committed to making the necessary changes to never be in an ANI again." [103]
    Copied over by Blue Sonnet (talk) 19:14, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Not the first time I saw an AI generated promise to stop using AI.
    I wrote:
    Apparently you fed the ANI post into ChatGPT and this is what it told you to say, but what do you say? Without an LLM? And why do you trust ChatGPT but not all the people who tried to help you? It is kinda difficult to believe that 18:55 Orlando Davis is very different from 16:46 Orlando Davis who lashes out or 14:59 Orlando Davis who tries to hide his misdeeds or 14:37 Orlando Davis who (again) lashes out.
    If this sudden change of heart is to be believable, then we gotta get some backstory on what changed, other than the fact you realized that being community banned would mean you would have to stop promoting Michael Katz. Polygnotus (talk) 20:14, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    and they deleted it without answering. Polygnotus (talk) 20:20, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a very quick turnaround considering all the time and effort spent on their earlier posts. I'm concerned that they might only be saying what we want to hear, now it's clear that their original approach wasn't working.
    I want to believe this is genuine contrition but I'm having a lot of difficulty doing so.
    Valereee tried really hard to help after Orlando said they were "glad to go over each and every point", but got this response in return.
    Hang on, we have another post I need to add here... Blue Sonnet (talk) 20:40, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Requesting Polygnatus to stay of my page"
    "If I get banned, then I will have to accept that. Even though I disagree. In the end, there are other places on the internet for me. But Polygnotus is informed that I wish to disengage from him now, and forever. Just so you don't think I'm making this stuff up. And I was advised to send this up to ANI, and I didn't. I now regret that.
    See here:
    https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Coordinating_Committee/Cases/2025/Polygnotus" [104]
    Copied over by Blue Sonnet (talk) 20:44, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Sigh. I dropped them a note that this is going to lead to their TPA being revoked if it continues. Polygnotus, I know you described yourself as being as stubborn as a dead mule (ha) but I think your interactions with OD have been quite constructive (at AfD, at Mastercooks, at your talk page), and I am sorry they have singled you out this way, I have seen no indication that any of this was deserved. I'd suggest disengaging here though, it should be resolved soon. NicheSports (talk) 20:56, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @NicheSports Thanks. It is a common crybully tactic, nothing I haven't seen before. simple:User:Polygnotus/tmp may be of interest.
    If this takes much longer we may have to start randomly pinging admins because this is gone far enough. Polygnotus (talk) 21:01, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Deepfriedokra sorry for the ping but they did not take my advice and have continued [105] to dig up unrelated stuff about Polygnotus. This is the 4th time they've done so at their TP since being blocked by Star, can someone please revoke their TPA? This needs to stop. NicheSports (talk) 21:02, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I suggest everyone disengage, there is nothing to be gained by providing more rope. Continuing to reply will only use up more editor time with no benefit. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 21:07, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Noted. Will do so. Thanks fifteen NicheSports (talk) 21:09, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll continue to carry over comments that are clearly intended for ANI, but I've avoided specifically responding on their Talk page since other editors haven't found this to be productive.
    If anyone feels this is no longer necessary or appropriate, please let me know. Blue Sonnet (talk) 21:16, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Blue-Sonnet Meh, I wouldn't bother. Its not like they can still climb out of this hole. Polygnotus (talk) 21:20, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I was going to stop soon anyway because it's getting late, plus their recent posts are all replies to editors so there not much point carrying those over - anyone can see them by viewing their Talk page directly. Blue Sonnet (talk) 21:31, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I suppose you're right, 15224. It's difficult, but I've bitten my lip, and I'll try to keep it bitten. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:47, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed - whilst they can't dictate who can and can't participate at ANI, they're only going to continue responding & I think the currently available evidence speaks for itself.
    The Law of holes applies here, let them dig if they wish. Blue Sonnet (talk) 21:04, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Editor reverting after Third Opinion and implying paid editing on Brant Pinvidic (BLP)

    [edit]

    I am requesting administrator assistance regarding ongoing disruptive editing on the Brant Pinvidic article, which is a biography of a living person (BLP).

    Background

    I made revisions to the Lead and Awards sections of the article to bring them into compliance with core policies:

    • WP:BLP – removal of unsourced or potentially promotional claims about a living person
    • WP:NPOV – neutral wording only, no subjective or promotional language
    • WP:V – adding inline citations to independent sources (e.g. Hollywood Reporter, InvestorBrandNetwork, film festival result pages)

    Another editor, User:Mortdav, reverted these changes with the edit summary "Promo." I then:

    • Opened discussion on the article Talk page to ask for specific concerns – no response.
    • Requested a Third opinion. The Third Opinion volunteer (User:MWFwiki) reviewed the edits, found them neutral and properly sourced, and restored the revised Lead and Awards sections.
    • Soon after, User:Mortdav reverted the same content again, without engaging on the Talk page, and implied “paid editing” in the edit summary, without any evidence.

    This is now a pattern of reverting against consensus-building and ignoring dispute resolution on a BLP article.

    Attempts at dispute resolution

    Here are the steps I have already taken:

    I have tried to work through discussion and formal processes before coming here.

    Current concern

    The issues I am asking admins to look at are:

    • Reverting neutral, properly sourced content on a BLP after a Third Opinion supported that content
    • Failure to engage on the article Talk page despite multiple invitations
    • Implying I am a “paid editor” in edit summaries without evidence, contrary to WP:AGF and WP:PAID (and potentially WP:NPA)

    I am not editing on behalf of any client; my edits were solely focused on BLP/NPOV/Verifiability compliance.

    What I am requesting

    I am requesting that administrators:

    • Review the editing conduct of User:Mortdav on this article
    • Remind them to use the Talk page and established dispute resolution instead of repeated reverts
    • Address the unfounded paid-editing implication
    • If necessary, consider warnings, page protection, or other appropriate measures to prevent further disruption on this BLP

    I am happy to answer questions, and adjust any wording in the article to keep everything strictly neutral and fully sourced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jadu23 (talk • contribs) 13:06, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Are you sure you didn't use an LLM to write this? You also need to provide evidence of what they have done wrong by showing diffs. GarethBaloney (talk) 13:30, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Using an AI chatbot to submit a complaint like this is both against best practices (WP:LLMCOMM) and also a guaranteed way to immediately make people take the other side. It's not a very good sign if you can't even summon the effort to write your complaint in your own words. Athanelar (talk) 13:31, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jadu23: You are required to notify the person whom you are reporting. See the instructions at the top of the page when you edit this page. The sections you added are unnecessary here and have been removed. Please remember to sign your comments. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:33, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The reporting user has bwen using AI to 'fix' articles with maintenance tags, as confirmed at this diff where they directly added the [oaicite 1] tag indicating text copypasted from ChatGPT without any human review. Athanelar (talk) 13:34, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Understood. I’ll avoid Grammarly assistance for article edits going forward. The issue here is simply the repeated reverts without discussion even after starting a section on the talk page. Sorry for the misses, still reading and learning here. Jadu23 (talk) 14:02, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you use any AI assistance to find sources for or to compose your edits to Brant Pinvidic? That might explain Mortdav's engagement with you.
    I'd encourage you to read over this very good essay on why AI chatbots are bad at helping with Wikipedia things. Athanelar (talk) 14:08, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to toss my two cents in; @Jadu23 did not appear to utilize an LLM prior to this, though I also did not see any reason to scrutinize for such. Secondly, the editor-in-question also has not engaged with me, either, the WP:THIRD. Regardless of Jadu23's conduct, I would say that the accusations made by Mortdav still warrant at least a warning. I think the content dispute can be resolved separately, however, likely by a proper re-filing of the DRN. MWFwiki (talk) 19:30, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    UPDATE: Drmies pointed-out several things to me which leads me to question my sanity... but I must withdraw all support for Jadu23, unfortunately. I am quite embarrassed to say that I believe I may have been looking at the wrong diff. Suffice it to say; The fact that I missed something so obvious means my opinion must be discounted for this issue. I would welcome a check regarding the possibility of an association with the other editor (as well as me against Jadu23 and Karieol51, to be clear). MWFwiki (talk) 21:08, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    FYI, a checkuser revealed no connection at SPI. Athanelar (talk) 22:02, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Athanelar; Sorry, just for my sake (and others'); No connection between me and the two listed editors (which obviously I know to be a fact, haha)? Or no connection between all three? I'm assuming the latter MWFwiki (talk) 22:54, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No connection i.e., Jadu23 and Karieol51 are not confirmed to be sockpuppets by the CU. Athanelar (talk) 22:56, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I still don't understand why i am being dragged to the previous edits made by some other users? I only edited the page because i thought i can fix it and that's what i have been doing with other articles learning and editing. I don't know why i am being connected some other issue on the page, i only opened this because after 3O i was confident that my edits are right. Even if my edits are not right i didn't asked for anything just the right direction how it should be and that's how one learn.
    Also, since you have already checked i am not associated with any editor. I still not sure why Mortdav & Drmies both had similar views for me? Do they have some sort of evidence on me? Because i never did anything with the Paid tag, simply had edited the page and removed the promotional stuff as per my understanding. Even though i didn't had any relation to anyone, infact i don't even know exactly how the stuff works here. These allegations makes me think are they both related to each other or connected and working towards same goal? Because as now i can see it's just Drmies coming to picture and no words from other editor. Jadu23 (talk) 08:24, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The filing party writes: I have tried to work through discussion and formal processes before coming here. It is always a good idea to work through discussion and formal processes. However, the filing party did not discuss at the article talk page before filing at DRN, which is why I closed the DRN procedurally. Please don't say that you have tried to work through discussion if there is little or no evidence of attempts at discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:18, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    To be entirely fair, @Jadu23 did tag Mortdav 4+ days ago and they still have not responded — Talk:Brant Pinvidic#Clarification on Lead and Awards section edits — Only sought a 3O after two days and filed their DRN after three days. If the argument is that they don't wish to engage Jadu23 because of their (now-admitted) LLM use, they don't have the same argument with not engaging with me. However, I do 100% cede that they did file the said DRN improperly, and obviously I defer to you in that regard entirely. MWFwiki (talk) 21:30, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I get the concerns. Just to clarify I did not use any AI tool to write the actual article edits or to find sources. I only looked things up online while trying to understand how stuff works here and maybe that affected the tone without me realizing. I’ll make sure anything I write from now on is in my own words.
    About the dispute; I did start a discussion on the article Talk page, but the other editor didn’t reply at all even after a few days and That’s why I went for a Third Opinion next. I understand now that my DRN filing was done the wrong way. I’ll reopen a new DRN properly this time and my only goal is to fix the content issue the correct way and learn the proper step as i learn and remove the allegation made on me by the editor. Jadu23 (talk) 08:00, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If that is the case, then in this edit what made you decide to include the text :contentReference[oaicite:1]{index=1}?
    Using AI isn't necessarily forbidden. Using it and being dishonest about it, as I currently suspect you are (because there is, to my knowledge, no way the text above could have appeared except by you copypasting text directly from the output of an AI chatbot) most certainly is. It's hard to take seriously your promise that 'anything you write will be in your own words' if you're not transparent about what you did before. Athanelar (talk) 10:10, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not use any AI tool to write the content or sources. I only used online help to understand how to do citations, references and templates which might be the reason of this. Jadu23 (talk) 12:45, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not use any AI tool to write the content or sources – This is not true, :contentReference[oaicite:1]{index=1} is an error specific to OpenAI's AI technology, most commonly ChatGPT.
    Disruptively using AI then being continually deceptive about it should lead to an immediate indef. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 20:15, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see my comment again Sir, i am not denying learning online and taking help, have clearly mentioned " I only used online help to understand how to do citations, references and templates which might be the reason of this" means have been learning to do citation and references online so while copying the commands it might be possible it got copied. Thank you! Jadu23 (talk) 08:29, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • As far as I'm concerned AI is the least of the problems here. CU revealed no match with the previous COI editor in the article, but CU is not the final answer. I thank MWFwiki for their note. FWIW this is the second time that I get pulled to this article in the same way--by seeing an editor file administrative reports to get rid of Mortdav; last time it was User:Karieol51, who went to RPP and AIV (so let's see if Jadu also starts editing M Lhuillier). And at first glance Mortdav does indeed seem like the disruptor--they certainly act like a very questionable editor--but on closer inspection they are dead on. Drmies (talk) 22:34, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    LLM use and COI by User:Thetransitguru

    [edit]

    I decided to bring this to ANI because of the multiple simultaneous issues going on:

    AI generated content

    As pointed out by Pi.1415926535 and pointed out by LuniZunie and pointed out by OrdinaryScarlett, the editor has been adding large batches of text with hallucinated citations. They have also been using AI-generated edit summaries that appear to be copy-pasted from ChatGPT or a similar LLM. Examples include: up-to-date info being replaced with older info or being removed entirely, a citation linking to a 404 page, incorrectly formatted capital letters in headers, false dates given in the "access-date" of references, removing citations entirely, as well as the clear use of AI in edit summaries.

    User has also clearly generated multiple articles from scratch using LLMs, as shown here:

    All of these articles (and two additional drafts) are over 9,000 bytes upon initial creation, a feat unlikely for an account with less than 100 edits before today.

    Conflict of Interest and attempted socking

    User appears to have a conflict of interest with the City Club of New York (disclosure given by the user here). On the article's talk page, Kew Gardens 613 pointed out that the alt account Youalmosthadit had added an op-ed authored by this user from the City Club's website. The main account referenced the City Club on the article for George Dow. This user's response to the allegations of COI, as well as the request for more information to be added to the article also appears to be AI-generated. The account Youalmosthadit is also in violation of WP:PUBLICSOCK, as there is no disclosure on the alt and the name is not recognizable as an alt of the main user.

    Now that their LLM edits have been removed by multiple users, this user is also repeatedly attempting to hide their connection to the City Club of New York as well as hide their alt account after both had already been disclosed publicly by the user. I am requesting that this user and the (stale) alt be blocked per WP:NOTHERE. Cards84664 07:36, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Procedural Objection — Off-Wiki Outing and Harassment
    I cannot participate in a good-faith discussion with this editor because they are currently engaging in severe off-wiki harassment against me.
    User Cards84664 has contacted my real-world employer via email to "out" my identity and attempt to disparage my professional reputation.. This is a direct violation of WP:OUTING and WP:HARASSMENT.
    Because the evidence of this violation contains my personal information, I cannot post it here. I have forwarded the email and proof to the Arbitration Committee and the Oversight Team via email. I request that this thread be paused or closed until ArbCom has reviewed the evidence of the Original Poster's off-wiki conduct. Thetransitguru (talk) 16:29, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Is this LLM? Also that is some serious allegations you’re throwing here… ~2025-31733-18 (talk) 17:28, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Without weighing in on any possible off-wiki activity, and whether or not it would be/was inappropriate, the issue raised remains valid. This diff is strong evidence not only of LLM use, but of an effort to avoid the detection of that use ("Key changes to avoid LLM detection:**"). Do you have an explanation for this? BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 17:43, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You've tagged multiple articles for speedy deletion as unreviewed LLM, on the basis that they have nonsensical cites, but you haven't said which of the cites are nonsensical. I'm not saying that they aren't LLM-created, but some more info is necessary to support a speedy delete, since the articles aren't, on a quick read, obviously LLM cruft. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 17:29, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This edit is particularly damning: Not only is it direct proof that Thetransitguru is using LLMs to write articles, it indicates they were deliberately attempting to hide that usage. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 17:30, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, that's very clear. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 17:35, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Support indef based on this diff and the other blatantly obvious LLM use. Indefinite is not infinite, of course, but this editor cannot be allowed to continue editing when they're engaging in blatant deception and misconduct. Their extreme, evidence-free allegation against Cards84664 is not a shield to protect them against their own misconduct. Not to mention you cannot cry "outing" when you've self-disclosed your real life name and job on your userpage and it was publicly viewable until yesterday. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:43, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Partially striking my comment in the light of Arbcom taking action against Cards. I was mistaken in what I said previously. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:02, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've actually already p-blocked Thetransitguru from article space indefinitely, so an indef full block might not be needed. And it looks like Arbcom wanted to have a word or two with Cards, so I don't think referring to the accusation as "evidence-free" is accurate. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:49, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    In my defense, there was no indication within this thread that Thetransitguru had been blocked until your reply just now. I'd prevously read this discussion on mobile, which I don't edit from, so the tool that shows if editors are blocked wasn't active for me. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:07, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    And I should have mentioned it earlier here. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:14, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've pblocked Youalmosthadit to match Thetransitguru's pblock. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:39, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Support this block, Special:Diff/1319184372 is egregious, highly disruptive editing pattern. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 19:28, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    A couple of updates, not on behalf of the Committee (but rather as an individual admin), but just to update this thread:
    • Cards84664 has been blocked by the Arbitration Committee.
    • Following a request to the oversight queue, Thetransitguru's userpage has been deleted per WP:CSD#U1. As I made very clear in my message here, this deletion does not absolve the editor of meeting their disclosure obligations under PAID moving forward, which they should do as soon as possible.
    I'd encourage the community to give Thetransitguru a day or two to sort out these disclosures before taking any further action — but to be clear, nothing relating to the Cards84664 issue should be seen as precluding the community from taking whatever on-wiki action it deems necessary to resolve potential breaches of our editing policies (LLM, PAID, COI etc.) by Thetransitguru. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 16:19, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the update. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 16:48, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. I updated my User Page with the {{User COI}} template to fully disclose my affiliation with City Club of New York.
    Clarification on WP:PAID status: I'm not paid for this position. Therefore, I strictly fall under WP:COI rather than WP:PAID. To be clear, and to ensure full transparency per the administrators' requests, my User Page now prominently displays my affiliation using the Conflict of Interest template. I will also include disclosure of my other account, Youalmosthadit. Thetransitguru (talk) 17:44, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Significant content dispute/edit war in Jamaica

    [edit]

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

    Hi @Ivanvector. I reported it noticing it was kicking off again. It's already come up as part of the subject of the ongoing ANI thread here[106] Rambling Rambler (talk) 22:53, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Fuck's sake. I should have just blocked everyone. I still might. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 23:02, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ivanvector given the discussion in the "next steps" section of that ANI thread I don't think you'd find any complaints if you did... Rambling Rambler (talk) 23:22, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Obv involved as I started the next steps sub thread to avoid it getting archived again, but support protection and further sanctions as potentially needed. This is ridiculous. Star Mississippi 03:25, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You should not change your usual approach just because one of them is an admin. This only reinforces the SuperMario effect. If your approach is not correct for dealing with an admin, then it isn't correct for dealing with e.g. experienced non-admins either. Next time, just do what you always do in such situations. Fram (talk) 11:45, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This. If they deserve a block, they deserve a block, whether they're temporary account ~2067-27549-42 or Jimbo. If they don't, they don't. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:15, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    Persistent MoS violation and failure to communicate

    [edit]

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

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

    Well, have you ever communicated your concerns to this person? And I don't mean "please stop violating WP:ALLCAPSBLUELINK". I mean writing out exactly what your concern is in easily understandable English without all-caps jargon randomly littered throughout. If not, maybe that would be a good first step. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:40, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I will note that, despite a pile of notices and warnings, Xtools suggests they've only made one edit to talkspace - said edit was to reply to a block that explicitly called on them to be more responsive to feedback. nothing since. I'm not entirely convinced that they'll take note of any concerns... Rexo (talk | contributions) 01:01, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Harassment by CarterDillard

    [edit]
    CarterDillard indef'd. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:51, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

    I have no knowledge about the subject matter in question, but it appears that marking up a user's user page is very unusual. If it is was not intended to be harassment, I suggest that User:CarterDillard revert their edits and discuss on the user's user talk page instead. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:54, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    To clarify, I already reverted the edits and messaged them about it on their talk page. Spookyaki (talk) 18:57, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Robert and that is what I did, though the editor asked I not post there either. CarterDillard (talk) 19:00, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    CarterDillard: I have to second this request, and reinforce it: Do not bother Spookyaki again, or you will be blocked from editing. Modifying their user page with your own commentary is highly irregular in Wikipedia culture. But more importantly, implying that Spookyaki is responsible for the death of millions for not including your favored topic on a Wikiproject page demonstrates both a gross misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works (Wikiproject pages are not public-facing) and, more importantly, a staggeringly out-of-proportion battleground mentality. You need to recalibrate your approach to editing Wikipedia, and fast. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:52, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't imply that Spookyaki is responsible for those deaths. I make clear Spookyaki uses the same standard in assessing human rights and legitimacy. That's a fair critique. In terms of where to make it, I was not aware of the policy on user pages (if it's just culture, it should be made a policy). I made it there because there was no response to my rebuttal, to be clear. CarterDillard (talk) 19:05, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, my name is Carter Dillard, that is my real name, and this is my SSRN page. https://observatory.wiki/Carter_Dillard. I have no idea who Spookyaki is, or how to assess whether they have a conflict of interest under wiki policy.
    In looking through Spookyaki's wiki writing, I see evidence of a fallacy that I write about in academic and popular media, the omission of birth inequity and inequitable growth as a key factor altering the accuracy of public impact claims. This is my book on the subject, https://www.amazon.com/Justice-Fair-Start-Life-Understanding/dp/9975154891, which is recommended reading on a leading legal theory site.
    That fallacy is now being challenged in litigation against Coca-Cola in California: https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/fair-start-movement-urges-california-attorney-general-to-recognize-full-justice-standard-as-preemptive-of-fraud-claims-1035104323. We allege Coke's omission hid significant harm from their production processes, illegally discounting future lives by as much as 5x what is accurate.
    Spookyaki has suggested deletion of the wiki page for the Fair Start Movement - the page that covers this issue, a social justice effort dating back to roughly 2018 and now involving dozens of advocates from around the world, and almost 30 projects. The entire discussion is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Fair_Start_Movement
    The premise of the movement - that no child is worth more than another - is subject to nearly ten positive peer reviews, and any lack of notability for reporting in main stream media derives from the threat our work poses to those companies, companies that use the same illegal discounting as Coke.
    Spookyaki's reply to my rebuttal was that it "proves [their} point." I asked how so, with no response.
    Put simply, there is someone for whom I have no way to assess a conflict of interest trying to remove extensively peer-reviewed information that would show current climate and related policies to be illegal, and in a way that discounts the lives of and threatens millions. I've reviewed Wiki's policies and I am well within my rights to ask for information so I can assess a conflict of interest, and to publicly note the same illegal discounting in Spookyaki's writing that our movement challenges. That suggests a conflict of interest, as does other identifying information about Spookyaki. Other experiences editors are now further verifying the Fair Start Movement page. Pursuing my rights to protect this information and those who benefit from it is not harassment, and calling it that is defamatory. CarterDillard (talk) 18:58, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Virtually none of this is relevant to the issue at hand. Wikipedia works on collaboration, not slinging accusations and insinuations. Nominating an article for deletion itself is not grounds for accusations of conflict of interest. Again, I implore you to reconsider how you're interacting with your fellow editors. Any more responses along these lines, here or elsewhere, will lead to a block. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:03, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    My rebuttal to the deletion suggestion is very collaborative. And I think it's fair to say I did not allege a conflict of interest. I'm looking at exactly what I wrote. I said I did not have enough information to assess one. I'm very clear about that above. That's relevant because presumably Spookyaki's alleging my seeking their institutional affiliations is what they consider harassment. As I read wiki's COI policy, it is not. CarterDillard (talk) 19:11, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, then as they replied to your question in the negative, it will presumably be easy for you to never bother them again. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:14, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm happy just to stick to the facts of the incident, what was alleged, whether it is substantiated, and whether the process for assessing deletion is itself neutral in keeping with Wiki's policy. The Fair Start project is that true neutrality requires first accounting for one's privileged birth and developmental positionality and the full impacts of the system that create it, by far the largest driver of the polycrisis. Attempts to delete that as a standard deserves scrutiny. CarterDillard (talk) 19:24, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is what I'm referring to as your battleground mentality. What is under discussion at the AfD is the potential deletion of a Wikipedia article. This is not the same as deleting the concept as a whole. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; it is an encyclopedia, which reflects and gathers only what has already been written about in other reliable sources. If there isn't enough coverage in reliable sources to provide a Wikipedia article's worth of information, then that aeticle shouldn't exist in Wikipedia. That, summed up in a nutshell as the general notability guideline, is only one of many reasons why a Wikipedia article might be inappropriate for a particular topic. I don't know if that is exactly why this article has been nominated for deletion; I bring it up to illustrate to you that there are many perfectly valid reasons to delete a Wikipedia article regardless of its truth or (perceived) importance. Thus, your insistence that opposition to the article is equivalent to opposition to the subject is dead wrong. And that's why I'm telling you you need to rethink your approach to Wikipedia. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:42, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's fair and I will rely on Wiki's policies in assessing the incident and what gave rose to it. CarterDillard (talk) 19:51, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If the article gets deleted, it can be remade again at a later date. The Fair Start Movement still exists regardless of whatever happens to the article. GarethBaloney (talk) 21:21, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    GarethBaloney, that's not true, articles that are deleted through AFD that are simply "remade" are deleted via WP:CSD G4. The only way to overcome this is to create a brand new, different article in Draft space and submit it to AFC for review. Liz Read! Talk! 05:21, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This response does not inspire me with confidence. How do you explain this diff, [107] that asking someone's identity isn't harrassment? It is, because it's considered a form of doxxing, which is prohibited. Please don't do this again, and per Writ Keeper's reasons. And also by the way, posting on a user's talk page after they told you to stop, and continuing to do so, is considered harassment, per this: WP:USERTALKSTOP. Codename AD talk 19:07, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As I read the doxxing definition, I would have had to publicize the information, not ask for it. No editor has to reveal their affiliations, and I will not ask again. But many do reveal their affiliations, and asking for it does not constitute doxxing. Having confidential information to assess a conflict is not the same as sharing it publicly. CarterDillard (talk) 19:20, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me rephrase that: Do you understand that doxxing is not okay, and that asking for someone's identity is also not okay? But also, per Writ Keeper: AFD is the potential deletion of a Wikipedia article. This is not the same as deleting the concept as a whole. That's important to know; the concept isn't going to be deleted just because the page on Wikipedia could be potentially deleted. And, there's a lot of reasons for why an article might be deleted, as it is a normal part of Wikipedia. But please, remember to talk concisely, as too much text could be TLDR'ed, and not be read. And in regards to page deletion, if the page is deleted, that doesn't mean it's gone forever, it just means that the page is not notable at the time, or isn't compatible currently with Wikipedia. Codename AD talk 20:01, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @CarterDillard It's clear you're completely unfamiliar with the day-to-day functioning of Wikipedia for you to react the way that you are. An editor nominating your article for deletion says absolutely nothing about their opinion of the article's subject or content. People don't nomimate articles for deletion because they disagree with them, they do so because they believe the article doesn't meet the standards necessary to qualify for a Wikipedia article. Please calibrate your attitude accordingly; nobody is trying to censor your organisation nor question your ideology or methods, and it certainly has absolutely nothing to do with any ongoing litigation. The unfounded accusations of paid editing you made against Spookyaki are personal attacks which are not allowed on Wikipedia. Athanelar (talk) 21:37, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate the difference but the record shows no allegation of a COI, but me asking for information so I could assess whether there is one, given the use of a particular standard, both in the deletion discussion and elsewhere. I'm trying to be collaborative here, but allegations of doxing and slipping past key facts don't help. As I said, I am now working to further verify a page with more citations and what I'm focused on here is the allegation of harassment because I asked for information on affiliations or posted a clear statement of the facts in a place culture but not policy prohibited. I think calling the level of peer-review and actors involved in this movement to simply account for accurate harm to infants "astroturfing," as this editor did, is worthy of challenging and again, on the standard used. CarterDillard (talk) 22:41, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Literally right above in this discussion you said That suggests a conflict of interest, as does other identifying information about Spookyaki. Demanding an editor provide you with their personal information so you can 'investigate' whether they have a conflict of interest very much does count as an accusation of a conflict of interest; which in this case is unfounded and uncivil.
    I would strongly suggest you take this opportunity retract your implication that Spookyaki is in any way involved with Coca-Cola or any other party in litigation with you. Athanelar (talk) 23:17, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said, I would need more information to make any determination, and I'm not going to rewrite what I said, and not because one person determines alone what counts as an accusation. The Wiki policy on COI does not prohibit seeking that information, but does prohibit false allegations of harassment. CarterDillard (talk) 01:42, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Talking about "false allegations of harassment" is inflammatory, inappropriate, and demonstrates a lack of understanding of the problems with your behavior. You have been asked to stop this behavior multiple times—by me, by at least one admin, and by other users. I am not interested in justifications for it, and the more you try to give them, the more problems you are causing for yourself, me, and everyone here. I would ask only that you stop and do something more productive with your time. Spookyaki (talk) 02:01, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I am happy to stop the back and forth on this page and I think this is a fair summary of where things stand and a path forward.
    1. I am not requesting further information from you and can remove the topic/edit from your user talk page depending on your retracting your allegation of harassment. I will continue verifying the Fair Start Movement page, though at this point other experienced Wiki editors are likely to assist.
    2. You have made a public allegation of harassment naming me on this page, and for the single act of posting a cut and paste of our back and forth regarding the standard you used in suggesting deletion of a page I edited, and in your own pages. That act does not come close to meeting the standard for harassment defined here, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Harassment, and that policy ends with this statement: Unfounded accusations of harassment are a serious personal attack and dealt with accordingly.
    If you are willing to retract your allegation, we can move forward as I suggest.
    3. When you allege an incident based on a policy violation you can expect the person accused to defend themselves, and it's not appropriate to encourage them not to do so. If what I've suggested is not agreeable, we can use official https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution process including seeking an arbitration panel to cover all of the issues. CarterDillard (talk) 03:09, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I will not be doing that. Spookyaki (talk) 03:31, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's fine. We can disengage here and I will proceed. CarterDillard (talk) 03:36, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Spookyaki is under absolutely no obligation to retract their allegation of harassment against you, because that is in fact what you are and have been doing. It is you who needs to retract your "suspicion" of COI against them, apologise for your hounding of them, and cease interaction with them.
    I am not an admin, so you're under no obligation to follow what I've said. However, given that at this point you have three editors telling you you're in the wrong, I really don't think you should be digging your heels in as you are. Athanelar (talk) 03:40, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The allegations seem pretty grounded to me. My advice to you is stop digging this hole lest you get an indef for harassment. Northern Moonlight 02:43, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • In a review of the posted links for behavior I noticed the use of the words “we” and “our”, which suggests a group account or a corporate account. If that is indeed the case, then it is in violation of Wikipedia’s user account policies and should be acted on by an admin. Independent of that, given the above, I see an indef block coming for not here behavior, violations of the harassment policy, legal threats, or some combination of those three points. ~2025-38323-74 (talk) 20:21, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't see those pronouns use to refer to the account, which I am the sole operator of. I use them to refer to those impacted. CarterDillard (talk) 20:27, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Christ, talk about WP:RGW!!! EEng 06:05, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Non-administrator comment) Hi @CarterDillard, it's obvious that you care a lot about this subject (it would be strange if you didn't), but the core tenets of Wikipedia require us to view encyclopedia articles in an objective and neutral manner, separate to the subject matter contained within - see WP:NPOV, WP:V, et al.
    We all have subjects we feel strongly about, and it's our responsibility as editors to use our own judgement to determine whether those views may be causing us to inadvertently disrupt Wikipedia when editing in those areas. If we can't do this, others may have to do it for us; this is when sanctions may be imposed.
    If you're not able to act objectively due to your close proximity and feelings about the subject, then it might be best to leave the subject for other editors (as difficult as this may be for you to consider).
    I implore you to read through this discussion again and see how many editors are involved, how many agree with and how many disagree with the way you've conducted yourself so far. Try to see this from the outside and understand why we have concerns over your behaviour.
    When it comes to Wikipedia, sometimes you just need to trust that the community as a whole knows what it's doing. Blue Sonnet (talk) 07:35, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    CarterDillard while you didn't bring up free speech, since you keep talking about your rights, I suggest you read Wikipedia:Free speech#Summary. As said there, the only real rights you have here are the right to fork, the right to leave, and that you get to keep the copyright over what you contribute while licencing it under certain free licences. You don't have any "rights to ask for information so I can assess a conflict of interest" nor "rights to protect this information". Instead if you want to continue to contribute here, you need to abide by our policies and guidelines. This includes not asking someone about a CoI when you have no good reason to do so and our WP:Notability criteria which is how we access whether to keep an article. It also includes WP:assuming good faith of your fellow editors and not making personal attacks such as making accusations without sufficient. And definitely you should not be harassing your fellow editors. If for any reason you are unable or unwilling to follow our policies and guidelines, then we will block or ban you from editing here if needed. Although it would be better if you exercise one of your limited rights and leave voluntarily. As others have said, since you clearly have a COI with certain areas, you should take great caution when editing those areas. Also Wikipedia isn't the place to right great wrongs, whatever problems there are in the world, Wikipedia isn't the place to correct them. What you do in the real world may help with that, and if it makes enough of a dent than it will impact what Wikipedia covers and says, but that's for other editors to deal with and it will come after you've made these significant documented changes rather than before. Nil Einne (talk) 09:42, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    CarterDillard, while I know you care a lot about the certain page, be careful on what you type in Wikipedia, as some stuff can be considered incivil. And take to heart all of the advice the above editors have given you, and remember that the community is trying to improve Wikipedia, not destroy it. And, if you are too emotionally connected to a subject, then let other editors edit it. And look, everyone is interested and cares about a specific subject, but if it's getting in the way of editing collaboratively, then you should probably take a step back. Codename AD talk 14:45, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Lost in all this discussion above is the central fact that CarterDillard has made 61 edits (plus 20 deleted ones) to English Wikipedia, and every single one of them was made with Mr. Dillard's personal projects in mind. I'm sure Mr. Dillard is in earnest, and I have no doubt that many wikipedians would tend to empathize with his off-wiki work. Mr. Dillard is, however, WP:NOTHERE to improve the pedia. To date, he sees no interest in Wikipedia except as it serves his purpose to advance his own interests, as if it were Yelp!, the Yellow Pages, or Instagram, a mere platform with which to advocate his own content. This is sad for all the regular reasons. Wikipedia does not exist solely to platform your advocacy, Mr. Dillard. BusterD (talk) 15:04, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      In fact, it doesn't exist at all to platform his advocacy. EEng 17:14, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There appear to be ongoing issues, even after this ANI thread had been started. Dillard has just made an edit to The Fair Start Movement, [108] citing a Google Scholar listing for his own works, [109], to justify adding the text "an extensively peer-reviewed system". Any assertion regarding the extent of peer review based solely on a Google Scholar listing for a single scholar would be inappropriate editorialising, and to make such an assertion about ones own works is grossly inappropriate. At absolute minimum, an article-space block would seem appropriate, though frankly I can't see much prospect of Dillard being anything but a time sink, and a WP:NOTHERE block might be more sensible. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:29, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • CarterDillard alleges illegality by Spookiyaki ("the same illegal discounting in Spookyaki's writing",[110] the "discounting" being a failure to mention birth equity) and attacks Spookiyaki for editing a Wikiproject page that "has no discussion of birth equity as a preemptive human right" which "replicates the error ... now fundamentally leading to the deaths of millions".[111] Trying to impose a legal and moral burden on Wikipedia's editors to insert content in accord with CarterDillard / Fair Start's thesis of birth inequity is one of the more extreme forms of WP:NOTHERE, a marked lack of value for the project's actual aims and methods, and trying to put editors under such burdens to insert content is harmful to the project of building an encyclopedia. NebY (talk) 16:47, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Not to mention being insufferably self-righteous. EEng 17:14, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Yep. That, plus @CarterDillard is only here to push a POV = indeffed. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:58, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      rsjaffe, your block constitutes a desperate attempt to equitywash Wikipedia's intrinsic commitment to the status quo of the perinatal industrial complex, deliberately sidestepping the root causes of obstetric racism and the pervasive impact of systemic disadvantage and reifying existing power dynamics, thus ensuring that the fundamental apparatus of oppression remains unchallenged, while simultaneously generating a specious narrative of progress that is, in fact, regressively aligned with dominant, extractive frameworks. So put that in your pipe and smoke it! EEng 17:22, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Nigel Hawthorne couldn't have said it better. Yes he could have, but not by very much. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:08, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Report of user @Phoenixxfeather

    [edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    As the user Raihanur correctly stated, I have retracted my previous statements and have nothing further to add. It is, however, evident that the user is intentionally attempting to escalate this matter, including by restoring removed comments on my personal talk page - a clear violation of Wikipedia guidelines.
    I will not engage further in this exchange.
    Should any disciplinary action be deemed appropriate against me, I will accept it without objection. Phoenixxfeather (talk) 20:24, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Andy Dingley's conduct

    [edit]
    Andy Dingley has been indefinitely blocked by voorts for an assortment of policy violations including copyright and BLP. Liz Read! Talk! 03:50, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    • OK, the one that caught my eye there as a serious issue would be the "restored multiple egregious BLP vios" one, but upon examining the actual diff, they actually aren't are they? Yeah, WP:UNDUE I could definitely make a case for, but everything appears to be sourced/attributed as far as I can see. Black Kite (talk) 00:09, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      How is detail on a 2009 conviction for affray for a person who's not Wikipedia notable even remotely appropriate for an article on an event in 2025? How is awaiting trial in Spain for his alleged role in a holiday compensation claim scam, sourced to someone's substack, not wildly inappropriate for another non-notable person? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:36, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Adding undue material is not prohibited behavior. It looks like you have a content dispute. Your recourse is to remove the material or go to the talk page to impeach the material. This is not a noticeboard issue. Constant314 (talk) 00:43, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Adding undue material is not prohibited behavior WP:NPOV, including WP:UNDUE, was policy, last I checked. You might want to reconsider what you just wrote. You also might want to explain to me why In 2018 *person's name* had been ordered at Brighton County Court to pay Aviva more than £13,000 after making a "fundamentally dishonest" £98,000 injury claim when the company's legal team found social media posts showing Cooper regularly working at height as a roofer, and enjoying walking and cycling when said person was mentioned only as "part of a group of 30 people who have been attaching flags to lampposts" isn't a flagrant BLP violation. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:48, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      You would do well not to conflate what is clearly a content dispute (you don't get to decide WP:UNDUE all on your own) with WP:BLP issues, which aren't. Drop the former, stick to the latter, and maybe we'll have something to discuss. AndyTheGrump (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 00:57, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Restoring text claiming that someone non-notable is awaiting trial in Spain for his alleged role in a holiday compensation claim scam in an article that is not directly related to either that person or the alleged crime is a brightline violation of WP:BLPCRIME, and that anyone would restore such content is extremely concerning. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:47, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I can certainly see your argument. How about providing a diff, so we don't have to click through half a dozen links to other things to find it? This thread is a mess, and I'm not surprised how little attention it is getting from uninvolved contributors. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:53, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If my memory is correct, Andy Dingley has been brought to the noticeboards so often that long-time editors tend to tune out at the lastest posting. In the future, I think it would be best to present 3-4 definite policy violations rather than a long presentation. I sympathize with your efforts but to the folks who can act on this information, it's clear and undisputed, RECENT evidence that is most important and not your opinion of the editor. Liz Read! Talk! 04:18, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Talk:Nose cone design happened less than a month ago. What a way to make a thankless task even more thankless. Pennecaster (Chat with Senne) 04:51, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Mm, but that's the argument that kept the MickMacNees of the world around for far, far too long, with conduct that gets newbies indeffed twenty times over. Ravenswing 11:42, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    So just to check, if someone is regularly brought to the admin boards…the admins decide to stop paying attention? ~2025-38438-33 (talk) 13:31, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, it’s an opportunity for Liz to copy-paste her favourite “I can’t be bothered” boilerplate, so it’s not a total loss. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:59, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    ~~ AirshipJungleman29, what the heck did I ever do to you? Liz Read! Talk! 03:49, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well it's certainly refereshing to know that ANI reports on certain people will get ignored just because of how many reports have been filed in the past... seems like a serious issue. EF5 14:07, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Liz isn't speaking for me, at least. I'm always willing to entertain reports to ANI. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:25, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Just pointing out that a prolific editor, like AD, will have proportionately more incidents of conflict than a less prolific editor. Constant314 (talk) 14:26, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Plenty of editors have been here for a decade or more and never made racist attacks against fellow contributors, knowingly restored copyvio, or committed bright line BLP violations. I'm not expecting flawless conduct from anyone (I certainly make mistakes) but there's no excuse for the behavior that prompted this thread. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:37, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you provide a diff to the racist attack? Constant314 (talk) 23:05, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think they mean this earlier post. Blue Sonnet (talk) 23:14, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Is 3 days prior to me filing this thread not recent enough, Liz? Not to mention the blatant incivility at Talk:Nose Cone Design which happened a few weeks ago. The evidence from 2023 is to show that this is a chronic, intractable behavioral problem as it says at the top of this board. I agree with all those above who have challenged this comment. It took me over an hour to compile the opening statement, and I wasn't able to do it the exact second I saw the BLP violations. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:35, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue I have with this, and I'm not defending anything @AD has said by the way, is that the uncivil comments are spaced 2 years apart. If there are more examples, from 2024, it would certainly strengthen that particular argument. 11WB (talk) 21:52, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at thie diffs, I have no clue why an experienced editor would ever include the claim[112]:

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

    sourced to a social media account [113]. This is a clear WP:BLPSPS violation, even if the actual criminal issue was 100% due. Andy Dingley knew this, given that he was reverting somebody who pointed out the BLP guideline in their edit summary.
    Loking at this most recent article creations, and about 50 to 60% of the text in articles like Volley Sight, Gölsdorf Adriatics lacks inline citations, and what little text is sourced appears a bit too well sourced. A brief spotcheck quickly revealed this:

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

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

    from the source and the article, respectively.
    Needless to say, this is well below the standards I'd expect of any autopatrolled editor.[114]
    GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 05:29, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed on both the...unfortunate BLP sourcing and the blatant WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASING. Yikes. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:46, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Earwig currently reports volley sight as having 47.6% similarity. 11WB (talk) 07:17, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @11WB, are you sure? I followed your link, and it only says 20.0%. Chess enjoyer (talk) 07:34, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Currently writing a longer comment, it may have been edited already. 11WB (talk) 07:35, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have now edited it out and requested revision deletion. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 07:42, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Chess enjoyer, see this comparison. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 07:36, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, that's more like it. Chess enjoyer (talk) 07:43, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

    @11WB I would argue that repeatedly attempting to disqualify another editor's opinion because of a perceived ethnicity is very much uncivil, and not a minor issue in the slightest. [115][116] All editors, no matter their race, gender, sexuality, religious beliefs, nationality, etcetera, should have a right to edit whatever topics they chose.
    I'd also like to see some response about the BLP issues - given their re-occurring nature, and how recent the newest set of diffs are, I think this should be dealt with now. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 07:59, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The second diff is an WP:FOC violation. That specific discussion took place back in August. I don't say that to discredit your evidence, however it would need to be ongoing. 11WB (talk) 08:11, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I still haven't completely unpacked all of @Trainsandotherthings's diffs that were provided in the original post. Give me some time to have a look through these. 11WB (talk) 08:13, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Realized I linked the wrong diff earlier - [117] is the one where they oppose an editor gaining advanced rights, on the basis of ethnicity. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 08:29, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Courtesy link to the follow-up discussion. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 14:15, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The first paragraph appears to be a content dispute only, I don't see any real evidence of wrongdoing on @Andy Dingley's part other than sarcasm directed at @Sennecaster, which should usually be avoided. The second paragraph admits that there is no wrongdoing within the specific diff that was linked.
    The AfD discussion from the third paragraph appears to just be a disagreement of something @AD gave as their !vote rationale.
    The fourth paragraph notes a violation of WP:3R, however if this is the only instance I don't see any further action for that other than a warning to stop edit warring, which I can't place on their talk page from that period of time. The comments regarding race violate WP:FOC, which make up the rest of this paragraph.
    This discussion was unfortunate. I believe @Andy Dingley owes @Melik an apology for this.
    Finally, we come to the WP:BLP violations. Without seeing the sources used with the corresponding article text, I cannot comment on this yet. With everything compiled, we have one FOC violation (from August 2025), a 3R violation (also from August 2025), some personal attacks (from August 2023) and potential BLP violations.
    The individual violations aren't great and @Andy Dingley is definitely in the wrong for those, however as of right now, I don't think there is justification for any type of preventative action (such as a block). It would actually be unfair in my opinion for one to be applied. That being said, I would be interested in seeing the BLP violation diffs. 11WB (talk) 08:37, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    11WB, I highlighted the WP:BLPSPS violations in my comment above. [118] These date from this past week. And Andy is already on notice for BLPSPS violations in CTOPS [119], one which another admin pointed out he was lucky not to have been blocked for. These were in the past two years; Andy's been an active editor since 2006. We're rapidly reaching the point where he's either willfully disregarding basic BLP sourcing policy, or he does not have the ability to follow it. Regardless, I would like to hear from him now, thank you. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 08:56, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No problem. Just be aware they removed the AN/I notice from their talk page. They may respond here, or they might not. I'll check back later on for any further discussion here regardless. Thanks! 11WB (talk) 09:00, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you see nothing wrong with But there seems to be no interest in writing anything any more, just finding excuses to do something Very Important and usually damaging, with minimal effort.? ([120]) Again, what a way to make a thankless task even more thankless. It's clear that the community is tolerating of insults to my efforts (as seen with multiple other CCIs I've had to request), but I'm not going to tolerate that towards the people I work with. GreenLipstickLesbian is incredibly diligent over close paraphrasing and copyright violations and is someone I trust 100% of the time on this. Her judgment is excellent. Andy also only took issue with my removal after I waited 7 days to handle a blatant copyright violation because I knew it would involve a large scale removal, as is explained by putting {{copyvio}} on an article. Sennecaster (Chat) 14:44, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    They've said some regrettable things for which an apology wouldn't go amiss. 11WB (talk) 19:28, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not see any "attempting to disqualify another editor's opinion because of a perceived ethnicity" in either of those diffs. Perhaps I missed it. Can you quote the exact phrase that is causing offense? Constant314 (talk) 23:11, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • The copyvio might be worse than just that one article. This doesn't seem like a major violation (Whitelegg also added a small superheater, enlarged the firebox and grate, and raised the boiler pressure to 180 psi in the article, Whitelegg also added a superheater of modest dimensions, enlarged the firebox and grate, and raised the boiler pressure in the source), but if its a trend its worrying. Admittedly I'm not great with copyright, so I don't know if that is too close. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 09:43, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Full paragraphs:
      • The motion was only slightly changed, with all four cylinders rebuilt to the same 14" diameter, but retaining their same space-constrained differences in stroke. Whitelegg also added a small superheater, enlarged the firebox and grate, and raised the boiler pressure to 180 psi. (article)
      • He only slightly modified the motion, which consisted at the time of two 14 1/2" and two 12 1/2" cylinders, each pair with a different stroke. After the renewal, all 4 cylinders had the same diameter, but retained their space-saving differences in stroke. Whitelegg also added a superheater of modest dimensions, enlarged the firebox and grate, and raised the boiler pressure. (source)
      This is not the most egregious close paraphrasing I've seen, but it preserves a lot of the creative language from the original text; I would rewrite or remove it a CCI. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 09:49, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      There might be a third instance. See this and also this. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 09:59, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      {Just want to make clear, I misunderstood GLL before and assumed by BLPVIO, they meant unreliable sources being used in BLP articles. I am now aware these are actually about COPYVIOS.) 11WB (talk) 10:01, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given that this issue has come up before and Andy should know better, I would support at minimum a logged warning about the BLP and copyvio issues. The comment about a Russian editor is also unacceptable on a collaborative project. (t · c) buIdhe 16:22, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree that the persistence of the copyvios warrants a warning of some kind. Taking up the time of other editors isn't fair each time this happens. 11WB (talk) 19:32, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    • Comment: I've changed my comment from this morning. Whilst the individual incidents involving @AD are not good, the continued COPYVIO issues highlighted by @GLL and @Senne do warrant some type of official warning. Otherwise, we continue to allow it to be a time commitment, when all that's needed instead is improved paraphrasing (along with some civility). 11WB (talk) 19:54, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      WP:TIMESINK redirects to Wikipedia:Tendentious editing, which I don't think matches your meaning, as you seem to be suggesting that this is a waste of time. Let me ask you a hypothetical question. You think Andy should be more civil. Let's assume Andy Dingley refuses to apologize and doesn't change his conduct going forward. What would you say to all the editors who have to endure that? Are they wasting everyone's time if they complain again? Mackensen (talk) 20:01, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Ah, it's a redirect. I'll edit that. But yes, it does take up time editors could be using elsewhere. 11WB (talk) 20:13, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      To answer your hypothetical, if the incivility were to carry on even after this AN/I, then that would warrant action. At the moment, each incident of @AD saying something uncivil resulted in a verbal warning. @Ivanvector was quite clear about one of those here. I would encourage editors to report @AD should any future incivility occur after this AN/I is closed, as somebody can only be let off the hook so many times. 11WB (talk) 20:22, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      At the moment, each incident of @AD saying something uncivil resulted in a verbal warning. Is the idea to warn him again, but next time actually do something about it? Why not break the cycle now? Mackensen (talk) 21:06, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      The incidences of uncivil comments as tracked occurred during August 2023, August 2025 and recently at Talk:Nose cone design#Copyvio cleanup. I don't actually think @AD was uncivil in the nose cone discussion, other than directing unnecessary sarcasm at @Sennecaster, the primary violation there concerned copyright. A block for incivility now would be very delayed. 11WB (talk) 22:08, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mackensen is correct. We wouldn't allow a new editor to persist in any of these behaviors - aggression, personal attacks, and assumption of bad faith on the attitude side, and BLP issues and copyright issues on the content side. So why do we tolerate it from someone who has enough tenure that he ought to know better on all of these counts? At the very least, per Buidhe, this merits a logged warning. I'd also support any form/length of block, given the persistence of these issues. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:28, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Not to mention AD hasn't deigned to show up and answer for any of it, so seems to be quite confident in waiting to get off scot free again. Seems sensible to me that the community should at least demand some understanding of wrongdoing here. Athanelar (talk) 21:38, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I wasn't seeking a block when I opened this, just a warning and some sort of acknowledgement from Andy that he needs to change his behavior. He's certainly capable of being a productive editor when he chooses to be. The more he remains silent, the harder it is for me to keep that position. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:41, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      They are not obliged to partake in this discussion, it should be said. It would be a tad unfair to simply raise the severity of action based only on the fact they've chosen not to respond. The effectiveness of this AN/I will be evident in their conduct after this has closed. 11WB (talk) 21:45, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      You said above They've said some regrettable things for which an apology wouldn't go amiss which I agree with. What do we do if Andy just ignores this thread entirely? How do we know he's even read it? Yes, nobody is required to post here, but they can't claim it unfair if they end up getting sanctioned after ignoring the opportunity to speak in their defense. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:50, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I did answer that already just above. 11WB (talk) 22:03, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • We have evidence above that:
    • ...and our answer is "meh, an apology would be nice, but wait until he does something serious"? What? How is that not egregious? There are far-reaching examples of violations of two of our most important policies (WP:BLP and WP:C), plus incivility towards editors fixing those policy violations, plus racism. One of the supporters of finger wag, 11WB (pinged for courtesy), says that the prior instances of incivility were all met with warnings. So clearly warnings don't work! A block is needed, and I would also give admins community support for escalating blocks if this recurs. Also, revoke autopatrol. Copyright or BLP violations are incompatible with being autopatrolled, let alone both at the same time.

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

      The first two incidences of incivility were two years apart. The FOC violation (which you have labelled as racism), was several months ago and has not occurred since. These are, in my view, individual incidents that were dealt with at the time. The current issue, which this AN/I can deal with, are the copyvios. @HouseBlaster 11WB (talk) 21:31, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      The edits that I take issue with are the incivility, the copyvios, the BLP issues, and a quite clearly racist comment (if you want a citation that supports it being racist, our sibling project defines racism as Prejudice or discrimination based upon race or ethnicity), and I believe that we need to prevent all of that from recurring. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:06, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      They were wrong to discriminate in that manner, I cannot defend that. The comment was a definite violation of FOC and point 1B of WP:IUC. 11WB (talk) 22:11, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Just wanted to add, opposing a WP:TAIV request strikes me as odd all things considered. That isn't one of the permissions that is given based on community consensus. Just an observation I made. 11WB (talk) 22:14, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      It isn't unheard of, see WP:AN#Request for review: I denied TAIV access. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 22:16, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I recall seeing that recently. Whatever the case, @AD's rationale for opposing was unnecessary. 11WB (talk) 22:21, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      you don't need to reply to everyone, you know. ... sawyer * any/all * talk 22:21, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      The editor in question has stated they aren't even Russian, which makes Andy's conduct worse, actually. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:29, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks, clarified. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:06, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      With regard to [121]. AD says
      "This is an account I've only seen connected with pro-Russian edit-warring. I do not trust Russians with enhanced rights to view private data, especially not those who are already grinding a political axe."
      • He is opposing the granting of a privilege to an account because of pro-Russian edit-warring. His opposition is based on the activities of the editor and not because of the perceived ethnicity of the editor.
      • He said that he did not trust Russians. He did not say Russians are untrustworthy. It is not the kind of attitude we like to see, but he has only revealed his own bias; he has not disrespected anybody's ethnicity.
      Constant314 (talk) 00:40, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      ....are you serious? ... sawyer * any/all * talk 00:56, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Of course I am serious. I could be offended that you appear to be attacking my sincerity, but I'm not. I understand that you are using an idiom to express disagreement, but you see how easy it is misunderstand one's intents. Please state what you disagree with and why. Constant314 (talk) 01:04, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      he said he did not trust Russians to view sensitive information in order to discredit an editor whom he perceived as Russian, to prevent them from getting TAIV. that is blatantly disrespectful and bigoted against not only the editor in question (Mellk) but all of our Russian editors. just because you wouldn't be offended if someone said that about Americans does not mean it's acceptable here. ... sawyer * any/all * talk 01:09, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, saying that he did not trust Russians was an admission of his own bigotry. It might even have worked against his argument. He opposed the privilege because of the pro-Russian edit warring. Whether he also opposed it because the editor was perceived to be Russian is an inference that might be true or might not. Constant314 (talk) 01:29, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      ok... so what is your point then, as it regards sanctions against him? he's admitted his bigotry against other editors but has not committed egregious incivility? what? ... sawyer * any/all * talk 01:33, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, I would oppose sanction based on the admission that "I don't trust Russians". If we are going to sanction someone for what they said, then we need to consider exactly what they said and not what we think that they were thinking.
      I don't see us making any progress on this item. I don't see it as an actionable offense and it looks like you do. I've had my say.
      Lets focus on the copyright violations. Constant314 (talk) 01:48, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      He said that he did not trust [Black people]. He did not say [Black people] are untrustworthy. Do you see the problem with your statement? voorts (talk/contributions) 01:05, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Actually I don't see a problem. Again, I don't like to see people expressing prejudice. However, when he says that he doesn't trust [xxx people], he is not insulting [xxx people]. He is only embarrassing himself. Constant314 (talk) 01:12, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      And you're embarassing yourself by trying to "well actually" bigotry. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:15, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Please don't concern yourself with what embarrasses me.
      It looks like the issue is now moot as AD has been blocked.
      Cheers. Constant314 (talk) 02:01, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Many things have been said on this board but I have to say, acknowledging prejudice and dismissing it is a real low point. Prejudice against a specific group of people is unfair, highly noninclusive, and ultimately harmful to the project as a whole. It is absolutely a problem for all of us. Giraffer (talk) 01:20, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      We don't judge people on what they think but on what they do. Bigotry and bias is a problem. I don't like it. I don't support it. But when it comes to stripping the rights of an editor, merely admitting one's prejudice does not come up to the level of an offense against another editor. Constant314 (talk) 01:35, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      WP:Hate is disruptive describes how public displays of bigotry negatively affect the project. If I was Russian I would definitely not feel comfortable by what he just said. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 02:17, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I see your point. Clearly others do feel the same way. Constant314 (talk) 03:14, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wasn't initially aware of the copyvio when I started this thread, but that shows even more so that Andy needs to course correct now. Right now, I support a formal warning regarding BLP, civility, and copyvio and a revoking of autopatrolled as an absolute minimum. If Andy continues his current strategy of ignoring this thread and failing to take any sort of accountability, I'd be in favor of a block as well. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:29, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I concur with the revocation of AP, until such a time as their content creation improves. 11WB (talk) 21:33, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • Copyright violations can cause serious harm to Wikipedia. I would support a warning for copyright violations, if those allegations hold up. I suggest closing this incident report and opening a new one that focuses only on copyright violations.
      • I oppose the revocation of AP status as a punishment for behavior not related to the use of AP rights.
      • I did not see any egregious incivility. I'm an American. If he said he didn't trust Americans I would not have been offended.
      Constant314 (talk) 00:59, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I oppose the revocation of AP status as a punishment for behavior not related to the use of AP rights. Except the copyvios shown in this thread were all on articles he created, which NPP could have caught if he didn't have auto patrolled. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 01:03, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Copyvios are very serious and should be thoroughly investigated. Revocation of AP status might be a consequence of that investigation. Constant314 (talk) 01:09, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Enough is enough. I've indef'd Andy and revoked AP. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:37, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:AydenOD

    [edit]

    User:AydenOD has now posted 2026 World Athletics Relays 3 times to the mainspace with faked references. The first time I moved it to draft and explained the reason why in my edit summary[122], the second time, 2 days ago I moved it again to draft (before anyone cries foul, WP:DRAFTOBJECT is only an essay) and left a message on their user talk page[123]. They removed the message (no problem, shows they have seen it) and published the page once again today with the same faked sources, e.g. the first source is titled "Home Gaborone 26" but links to a page about the previous (2025) edition (and "the original" link gives a 404). The third source is even more bizarre; it is titled "World Athletics Relays Gaborone 2026 Timetable", but it links to the 2025 timetable in the archived link[124], and the 2024 timetable in the "original" link[125]. In other places, the sources are correctly described (e.g. source 10 and 11) but don't actually support the section ("Overview") they supposedly reference. Many of their other creations have similar sourcing issues, with sources not containing the claims they supposedly reference, though the issues are less severe than with this one. Fram (talk) 10:59, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive temp

    [edit]

    I got the User:TeamMace account indeffed for blanking material critical of Nancy Mace from her article for what should be obvious reasons. Shortly after that, this IP which is very clearly a VPN started editing her page while making personal attacks against me elsewhere.[126][127] and has since repeatedly edited my comments[128][129][130][131] since then on the grounds that putting "trans rights" at the bottom on a legitimate ANI notice is 'abusing Nancy Mace'.[132] I verified that it was the same address in all of these cases using the temporary IP viewer, though they deny being the same and mischaracterize my addition to the ANI notice as something added after the fact and not something that was included in the original notice (which it was).[133] Anyway, I'm almost certain that it's just User:TeamMace because of the very obvious everything.

    Snokalok (talk) 13:21, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not on a VPN. Removing unsourced material [134] is not a personal attack on you. You are being deliberately tendentious and trolling in adding unecesssary commentary to a legitimate ANI notice. This is intentional shit stirring and you know it.
    Don't put 'abusing Nancy Mace' in quotes when I've said no such thing. ~2025-38455-28 (talk) 13:25, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Direct quote from your comment: It's pretty gratifying to know that Snokalok will be using up his time jumping at shadows and IP checking every temp account he comes across from now on.. You know I can see that it's the same IP, right? Snokalok (talk) 13:27, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia always assumes good faith. GarethBaloney (talk) 13:27, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    * Support Block Obvious Sockpuppetry by TeamMace. Tankishguy 14:04, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think TeamMace is just a COI/UPE editor, while the temp account looks like they've been around for a bit. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 14:17, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Update: Tagging @Drmies and @Sarek Of Vulcan.
    So, I used IP viewer, and it turns out the user that'd been edit warring extensively using multiple sockpuppet temps that they claimed were different people on Girlguiding,[135][136][137] a page I had recently contributed to, and who later filed a motion to get an article I had created deleted at AfD and then logged in as a different temp and added "Delete" to inflate the number of deletions in bad faith[138][139], traces to the same location as the user this thread is about. Combine that with their prior comment of It's pretty gratifying to know that Snokalok will be using up his time jumping at shadows and IP checking every temp account he comes across from now on.,[140] and I think we may have a bigger issue on our hands. I don't think they're TeamMace anymore, I think they followed me there. Snokalok (talk) 23:40, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's entirely possible. Another range blocked. Drmies (talk) 15:55, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    When this account said "failed verification" they were correct. Thank you, User:LizardJr8, for adding the source. Drmies (talk) 14:16, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not saying they weren't correct in that diff, they were, just that they started editing immediately after TeamMace was banned. Also, check the IP, they're all the same location. Snokalok (talk) 14:24, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    We got it. Drmies (talk) 14:39, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Block Standard whack-a-Mace trollery. King Lobclaw (talk) 14:45, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Hostile and threatening behavior

    [edit]
    NOT AN ANI MATTER
    If they continue past a final warning, which they haven't actually received yet, WP:AIV is thataway. Rusalkii (talk) 21:08, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:~2025-38506-99 hostile behavior towards other editors: [141] MossOnALogTalk 17:33, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Probably best to report to AIV since their edits are pretty clear vandalism. Blue Sonnet (talk) 17:44, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Analyst246

    [edit]
    BLOCKED
    Analyst246 indefinitely blocked as WP:NOTHERE by Drmies. (non-admin closure) Chess enjoyer (talk) 01:52, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

    Janet Dorenkott has ChatGPT tags, they're 100% using AI.
    Analyst246 also happens to have signed a recent Talk page post as "Janet". Blue Sonnet (talk) 18:23, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Possible conflict of interest concerns as well shane (talk to me if you want!) 18:26, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    (just a nitpick -- anything before ~November 2022 isn't going to be AI, though it may be problematic) Gnomingstuff (talk) 18:45, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked. Drmies (talk) 22:56, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Newsjunkie part 6

    [edit]
    INDEF
    newsjunkie has been blocked indefinitely by Sennecaster. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:11, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Moved from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard § Newsjunkie part 6

    newsjunkie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) continues to bludgeon talk pages and is refusing to accept consensus. Part 5 can be found here [142], which includes links to the previous incidents. In June 2025, part 4 was closed with newsjunkie being issued a final warning.[143]

    On 20 September, newsjunkie started a thread at the NCIS:Sydney talk page which evolved into a discussion regarding the production companies on the series.[144]

    On 21 September, they posted at WikiProject television, repeating their argument from the talk page.[145] There was no response.

    On 26 September, they started an RfC.[146]. The first response to this was to point out "nobody agreed with you in the earlier discussion so I'm a little confused why you started a RFC".

    On 5 October, they requested a third opinion.[147]

    On 3 November, they restarted the discussion at the article talk page.[148] At the same time, their changes to two list articles involving the series were discussed at the respective talk pages, where the same arguments were repeated.[149] [150]

    On 5 November, they started a new section at the article talk page, regurgitating the same arguments.[151]

    Unable to find any support from any other editor at any of these article talk pages, on 7 November they tried raising the subject again at yet another talk page.[152]

    Undeterred, on 1 December they turned to the No Original Research noticeboard to relitigate the issue.[153]

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

    Literally all I I've done in this instance is tried to add reliable sourced information that doesn't go against any policy whatsoever. Everything cited is either the same primary source that was originally cited by somebody in opposition or reliable news secondary sources, including Deadline which is widely cited as a reliable source across movie and TV articles. (not fan pages, not blogs.) The companies in question are literally in the opening credits of the series. All the counter-arguments seem to boil down seem to is "I don't like it" or some suggestion of American bias, and cherrypicking, even though I was happy to accept the same primary source that was cited in opposition. (And I don't even watch the show.) And I was the only one to link to and bring up any secondary sources at all in the original discussion.
    I have tried suggesting compromises using literally just the cited text of the primary source without any interpretation whatsoever. I believe arguments in opposition tend towards original research, or over interpretation. I think both sides were somewhat guilty of this on the original discussion and so I was literally trying to suggest the most basic statement without any interpretation whatsoever. I'm not sure how I can be sanctioned for just trying to add sourced information. This was the one of the original edits in question with Australian sources and relevant quotes: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NCIS:_Sydney&diff=prev&oldid=1312538121 The information was there originally uncited not added by me originally: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NCIS:_Sydney&oldid=1284077936 and even in its current form what is there is uncited.

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

    I had begun compiling evidence, but Barry Wom filed a report first. I’ll just add on.
    The tl;dr version is that this editor needs an indef to prevent wasting many other editor's time; their behavior has not changed from warnings, and is spread over many pages and topics, so an indef is the least restrictive option to effectively prevent disruption.
    First, a complete list of previous ANI filings with outcomes noted is at the bottom of this post for convenience.
    Second, the issue is not restricted only to this one subject. Newsjunkie is currently involved in a slow edit war at Fawlty Towers, having made 3 reverts in 24 hours. They have opened a section at the talk page, but only after coming right up against 3RR.
    They have been bludgeoning the talk page at Talk:Jane Kaczmarek#Frequent appearances, refusing to drop it in the face of unanimous opposition.
    They relitigated an already closed RFC held nine months prior at the Brown University talk page. The argument began in March, had a long hiatus, then was picked back up in October, after the previous ANI filing, where newsjunkie was again advised to drop it and refused.
    They insisted on another fruitless discussion at WikiProject Televison] regarding NCIS: Sydney, which ended only because they duplicated the discussion elsewhere (more WP:FORUMSHOPPING.)
    All of this (except where indicated) is since the last ANI closed. The issues are the same as the previous ANIs; bludgeoning, poor understanding of sourcing, WP:IDHT when told their interpretation is incorrect, now with the added element of forumshopping.
    They have been warned in most of those discussions, plus again by me on their talk page. None of them, including warnings in the most recent ANI to avoid sourcing and the final warning previous, have made a difference. Indeed, when told they are bludgeoning or forumshopping and advised to stop, their response has uniformly been to relitigate the content dispute. While they could be a very productive editor, they refuse to listen and are a significant timesink. The issues are spread over several subjects, so a Pblock or Tban won’t work. At this point, the only thing to do is indef them until they demonstrate that they’ve learned.
    I therefore request an indef block of newsjunkie until such a time as they can convince an administrator that they will cease to cause disruption. I don’t propose this formally, as a cban would be harder for them to appeal, and I do believe they could be a great editor if only they’d learn to listen when others tell them they’re being disruptive.
    I’m working on compiling an estimate of editor time wasted by newsjunkie, if anyone thinks that would be useful.
    Complete list of previous ANI filings:
    1. Result: pblocked for 31 hours, later upgraded to 1 year
    2. Result: pblocked for 1 year as independent admin action
    3. Result: Stalled, archived
    4. Result: Final warning
    5. Result: Stalled, archived
    EducatedRedneck (talk) 12:38, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Corrected misspelling of other editor's name. Apologies, Barry! EducatedRedneck (talk) 13:19, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Discussion is supposed to be how these issues are resolved. Nobody is forcing anyone to participate or get involved in discussions. I have tried not to edit war. And in the NCIS:Sydney issue, there should be no issue with sourcing whatsoever, and that is the only one I have pursued to other avenues because of that reason. There has been no discussion on the Brown University page in weeks by anyone (and there was no RFC that I know of), and the Jane Kaczmarek discussion has also stopped with no further editing or discussion. And as mentioned, I stopped editing on the Fawlty Towers page and opened a discussion as one Is supposed to. A lot of these discussions have not had much participation and particularly on the NCIS:Sydney page, opposition seemed to be more based on negative bias based on previous discussions rather than any engagement with the substance, ie comments on the editor rather than the content. I also believe several of the previous filings were all started by another editor with a grudge against me (who has since appeared to have stopped participating entirely) which has contributed to the negative bias mentioned above. newsjunkie (talk) 12:47, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The NCIS:Sydney issue is a clear case of WP:FORUMSHOPPING, which shows that you will never take "no" for an answer. Your response of all I've done in this instance is tried to add reliable sourced information that doesn't go against any policy whatsoever ignores WP:VNOT (which has been pointed out to you before): Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion...Consensus may determine that inclusion of a verifiable fact or claim does not improve an article. At this point, the fact that this has been explained to you seemingly ad infinitum indicates an unwillingness to course correct, and thus indicates an attitude that is incompatible with this community. ButlerBlog (talk) 16:29, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support an indefinite block. It is both ironic and predictable that newsjunkie's response to a report about bludgeoning would be to bludgeon the report itself. Barry Wom (talk) 14:14, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support indef. It's unfortunate, but it has been an ongoing pattern that newjunkie has been unable to adjust (it could be "unwilling to" rather than "unable to", but I operate on the assumption that it's more a form of WP:NOTHERENORMS as opposed to simply being willfully obtuse). But that doesn't change the fact that this editor wastes untold hours of valuable editor time arguing over insignificant minutia. The fact that they had a "final warning" two ANI reports ago indicates they dodged a bullet with the last one (probably due to editor exhaustion on this topic). Enough is enough already. No more time should be wasted on this. ButlerBlog (talk) 15:26, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      After a further review of presented evidence in this case and re-visting the previous cases, I perhaps was too hasty above in softening my assessment to NOTHERENORMS. Part of being here to build an encyclopedia involves self-correction and heeding lessons. After 6 trips to ANI, that does not appear to have ever happened, and pblocks have simply moved the disruption to other pages involving more editors. ButlerBlog (talk) 16:58, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      A lot of the previous concerns had to do with sourcing or information being unencyclopedic -- without trying to relitigate the NCIS: Sydney case entirely here, I don't think any of that applies in that case and regarding "Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion" I don't think there was a substantive case made as to why it should not be for any overriding reason based on policy or anything else -- to the extent there were substantive concerns (and not personal comments based on prior interactions) I addressed them and I don't think any of them had to do with any fundamental policy issues in terms of content. And given all the RFCs and discussions I've seen about all kinds of minutiae and very small differences of phrasing, I'm not sure how one is supposed to make a distinction of importance there. newsjunkie (talk) 17:34, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      This is a good example of what I mean. When confronted with a behavioral problem (relitigating a content dispute after consensus was against them), their response is to insist that it's not a problem, and the content dispute must be relitigated because they believe themselves correct. As recently as a month ago it was explained to them that consensus does not require unanimity. It clearly didn't stick. EducatedRedneck (talk) 17:46, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      But consensus is supposed to be based on quality of the arguments and how they relate to policies and guidelines. My only point is that that to me that was lacking in this case at least as directly related to the content question, and that contributed to making it difficult to coming to a compromise or a have a discussion that didn't get out of hand. And nobody seemed to be able to articulate a consistent explanation as to what the basic actual objection was. newsjunkie (talk) 17:53, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      If you have to wikilawyer every discussion, then you've proven that you cannot edit productively. ButlerBlog (talk) 18:32, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Propose one-month block for repeated failures to drop the stick, with the understanding that any future block has an extremely low threshold and will coincide with a community ban. This user has never, in twenty years, been fully blocked from the project. Escalating blocks are a thing, and I believe Newsjunkie could be an asset to the project after they take an enforced breather. --tony 18:30, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Support 1 month block. I expect we'll end up right back here, but I've been wrong before. Maybe it'll be a wake-up call. If not, as you say, reblocks are cheap. EducatedRedneck (talk) 18:38, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • +1 - @Newsjunkie There are going to be decisions and outcomes on Wikipedia that you don't agree with or can't understand. That doesn't mean it's a good idea to reopen them because you're not happy with that way it was left - if consensus was reached and the majority of editors were satisfied with the outcome, then there should be a good reason for revisiting (e.g. new information, clear violation of a policy etc.)
    With respect, it's not the responsibility of other editors to make you understand why a decision was originally reached. Sometimes it's better for everyone if you realise you're not getting anywhere, let it go and trust the process. Blue Sonnet (talk) 18:44, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: The problem here goes beyond behavioral issues. They simply do not understand what it is they are doing wrong. This is a WP:NOTHERE problem (see 4th point of WP:HERE). NOTHERE problems are rarely solved with a time oriented block, which just kicks the can down the road as they wait out their block. Instead, they need to reflect, understand, and then convince whomever (admin or community) that they actually understand what it was they were doing wrong. ButlerBlog (talk) 18:57, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I do understand the objection to bludgeoning,though I find it difficult in some cases to know where that line is based on various circumstances in different situations and a lot of other contentious discussions I've observed and not been involved in. What I don't understand at least in this case is what if anything was non-encyclopedic about the initial contribution. newsjunkie (talk) 19:05, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Would an indef appealable through the regular unblock process work better? I don't particularly think a timed block is the solution here, while I'm also not sure a CBAN is needed. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 19:11, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Open to being corrected here, but my understanding is that any "block" the community enacts at a noticeboard is, by definition, a community ban (CBAN), and is appealable to the community at WP:AN. That contrasts with blocks issued via regular admin actions, which can be appealed using a template on the user talk page (the regular unblock process). tony 19:26, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Any indefinite block endorsed by the community is a CBAN, yes. Time-limited ones are not mentioned in WP:CBAN. I will agree that I think an indef as a regular admin action would be preferable, but I don't think the proposed one-month block is insufficient. The caveat with the understanding that any future block has an extremely low threshold and will coincide with a community ban seems clear enough to me that any admin would be free to reblock for even a minor relapse, and that would be likely to be endorsed by the community as a CBAN. EducatedRedneck (talk) 20:23, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes indeed !voting for an indef is usually a CBAN, as it says that Editors who are indefinitely blocked by community consensus, or remain indefinitely blocked after due consideration by the community, are considered "banned by the Wikipedia community". I am specifically suggesting an IAR/NOTBUREAU indef !vote that would make the appeal able to go through the regular unblock process, allowing the editor to be unblocked by any admin. Put another way, its essentially just a suggestion to the admins to indef the editor as a regular admin action. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 20:31, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeffing but explicitly not making this a community siteban. The repeated bludgeoning and warnings around sourcing. I want this person to return productively, without the bludgeoning and disruption. Sennecaster (Chat) 21:11, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Malicious reverts despite asking for explanation

    [edit]

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

    Despite me asking for an explanation of a revert, this person did not provide a single explanation and is escalating an edit war for almost a week now. I really wanted to have any feedback, but literally nothing [154]. I simplified content of the article, as I doubt it's a new "generation". I also provided a picture, that with the revert was deleted. No arguments why. No attempts to de-escalate. The same here: just bland reverts without any arguments! [155] What's the point of providing a chinese video in the english-speaking article? I don't know, because this user does not interract, acts like a bot. And I'm not the only one complaining about needless reverts: [156].

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

    While the lack of edit summary on their part isn't great, it takes two people to edit war and I don't see any messages on the article talk page. Both of you need to stop reverting and discuss the issue on the talk page.
    That being said, @Krzys123456, you must explain potentially contentious edits, and restoring a reverted edit is unambiguously contentious. What do you hope to achieve by just reverting someone's edits without even an edit summary? They haven't gotten any additional information, so whatever reason they had to revert your edit still stands. Communication is not optional. Rusalkii (talk) 21:05, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a note: Krzys did not receive a talk page notification about this ANI report. Nakonana (talk) 21:14, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello, Deuwberst,
    Not only are you edit-warring, too but it is MANDATORY to post a User talk page notification to any editor when you start a discussion about them on a noticeboard, there are notices saying you have to do this in many places on the ANI page (including one on the page that you used when you posted your own message here about Krzys123456). How can this dispute be resolved without the other party even knowing that you started this discussion? Please do so immediately and always in the future if you participate in a noticeboard discussion. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 21:19, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, Nakonana, it looks like we were editing at the same time. Liz Read! Talk! 21:20, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Repeated sourcing issues from User:Kalpesh Manna 2002

    [edit]

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

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

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

    Potential MEATPUPPET situation?

    [edit]
    I don't see it either. Drmies (talk) 22:51, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    I may be misreading this, but all I see is a report that some vanadalism may or may not have been by some particular reddit user. I'm not seeing either tag teaming or canvassing here. Dalai Lama has been protected already by @ToBeFree and Altan Khan had a few bad edits over a week ago, all of which have been reverted. I'm not seeing any need for action beyond what has already been taken. Rusalkii (talk) 21:16, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Cambial Yellowing on Scientology

    [edit]

    I request administrator evaluation for a possible topic ban or block.

    On Scientology-topic articles, mostly Scientology and Church of Scientology, User:Cambial Yellowing is engaging in disruptive editing and incivility to the point that consensus on content cannot be reached. I will highlight Cambial's incivility from just the last week which has derailed every discussion about content. These are just a few of the many insults and dismissive comments.

    Those directed at me:

    1. Do try to get your ducks in a row, especially if you want to misuse the talk page, yet again, to bore everyone (diff)
    2. your silly list above and That's one of the most ridiculous arguments I've read on this talk page, against some stiff competition. (diff)
    3. To save you some time, Grorp, note that I muted notifications from you quite a long time ago [...] Save your typing finger (/s), if you like. (diff)
    4. You are welcome to make ridiculous arguments like that, but no (diff)
    5. Please refrain from groundless and absurd claims of incivility (diff)

    To participating editor Gitz6666:

    1. The rank hypocrisy you display in your second pretend example is embarrassing for you (diff)
    2. That level of awkward unselfconsciousness is pretty astounding (diff)
    3. you are pretending [...] to make yourself feel important (diff)
    4. is not only your own groundless opinion, but frankly laughable. (diff)

    To another participating editor, Kvinnen:

    1. You’ve evidently failed to grasp the purpose of article talk pages. [...] Do try to stick to what people actually write, rather than imagining a reasoning that fits with a narrative you want to believe about your desire to change the article. (diff)
    2. [which] you found difficult to understand (diff)
    3. possibly that comprehension issue (diff)
    4. if you’re having difficulty with reading citations please see the help pages. I’m afraid I don’t consider the rest of your comment to merit a response. (diff)

    Cambial accounts for around half of this week's ~9,000 words on Talk:Scientology, far exceeding each other contributor in 7 discussions of ~150 edits, and 6 editors including Kvinnen, Guy Macon, Feoffer, Gitz6666, and myself. Despite all this talk, the threads never seem to resolve, while Cambial dominates the discussions (WP:BLUDGEONING).

    In the middle of these article content discussions, Cambial took to picking on other editors on their user talk pages under the guise of pointing out minor behavior, including here on Kvinnen's and here on my own. These threads contain more insults, incivility, and relitigation from the article talk page. When confronted by Gitz on Cambial's user talk page (here and here), Cambial again deflected, reinsulted, and continued to litigate their views on points from the Talk:Scientology threads. These satellite discussions added another 6,000 words to the week's count.

    This week's discussions are representative of a multi-year pattern of habitual incivility, dominating discussions, edit warring, gaming, WP:IDHT, and refusing to provide sources when asked (WP:BURDEN).

    Long-term behavior: There are numerous discussions on scientology-topic talk pages which display this same tendentious editing (e.g., Notability thread, Proposal: Rename this article, and most of Talk:Scientology/Archive 33). Cambial has a long history of edit warring, with at least twenty (20) 3RR reports filed (6 in the last year). Of these, 9 were filed against Cambial, resulting in 3 blocks and 1 warning. (search results), 11 were filed by Cambial, 2 of which boomeranged and resulted in sanctions. (search results). Here, here and here are a few of the many ANI filings against Cambial showing similar behavior (edit warring, ownership, etc.) and their recurring pattern of incivility, deflection, and diversion. These two "vile" edits by Cambial in 2022 (diff, diff) added a lying cunt and a lying piece of dogshit to Doug Weller's signature; discovered weeks later and removed by Mz7. And lastly, this 2023 arbitration request by Cambial ended with admin HJ Mitchell's remark "As for Cambial Yellowing, I'd love to hear an argument for why their combative approach to editing doesn't necessitate an indefinite block."

    These behaviors have created a hostile environment which has driven away several editors from the topic. Just off the top of my head, this includes Kvinnen who hasn't posted in the scientology-topic in a week after hinting to me they might quit; Gitz6666 who today posted (diff, diff) that he was quitting the topic; another editor North8000 who quit a while ago; and I had earlier quit, though returned with drastically reduced participation and have avoided the main article Scientology.

      ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 21:08, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Are there issues with their editing outside of scientology? If not, I'd suggest a topic ban from scientology, broadly construed. Either way, the incivility and bludgenoining are entirely inappropriate and I may block over those. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:18, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. Based on my rifling through their user talk page and ANI history, yes. However I don't participate in those and this ANI was lengthy enough to focus solely on this topic area in which we intersect, the nearest time frame, and a little historical background.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 21:50, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I read somewhere they had gotten some other topic ban, and I see three page blocks on their block log.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 21:57, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't Cambial Yellowing's first rodeo:[157]
    Most of the disruption involves Scientology, but this editor has also been a lesser problem on other pages. Comments like this[158] are not helpful whether or not the editor is correct on the facts. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:56, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm glad Grorg started this thread. I don't know much about Cambial's editing outside this topic, and I also know very little about past discussions on Scientology, since I've only started editing the article less than two weeks ago, but I've already had my fair share of uncivility, failure to AGF and also tendentious editing, including restoring WP:SYNTH and misrepresented sources. I plan to post more diffs tomorrow or by Saturday at the latest, as soon as I get them pulled together. In the meantime, I think this thread is relevant. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:45, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've tried to be as brief as possible, and to select diffs not already covered by Grorp. My concerns relate to 1) WP:CIVIL, 2) WP:DISRUPTIVE, 3) WP:TENDENTIOUS and WP:ADVOCACY.
    1. As the diffs and quotes provided by Grorg and PARAKANYAA clearly show, WP:CIVIL is a real issue. I was particularly struck by the following episode. I discovered that between 2019 and 2020 Cambial had made a few edits containing WP:SYNTH and misrepresenting sources [159][160][161], and on 1 December 2025, with eight consecutive edits, I removed six sources from Scientology with detailed edit summaries. Cambial reverted only one of my edits, restoring one source, with the rather annoying edit summary Source removed on fabricated grounds [162]. Having managed to verify all but one of the sources used in Cambial's edits, I went to their talk page to highlight the issues and ask them to help me verify the missing one (Edge 2006). A lengthy discussion ensued, during which I repeatedly asked Cambial to provide a quote from Edge (1, 2, 3 and, on the article t/p, 4). They never responded. They could easily have said, "I'm sorry, I don't remember Edge, it's been a long time", or even, "Thank you for correcting my mistakes". Instead they hid behind accusations and long, resentful comments (not only your own groundless opinion, but frankly laughable ... I have no interest in discussing your highly partial personal views ... your failure to grasp fundamental elements of content policy ... your illogical double talk, facetious claims, and pointless sophistry in attempts to defend your misrepresentation of sources) without ever mentioning Edge.
    2. Apart from incivility, in the short time I spent on Scientology and Church of Scientology, I noticed two occasions where Cambial deliberately restored misrepresented sources and unsupported text (SYNTH and OR). I say "deliberately" because I had already explained the issue affecting sources and content in detail, either with edit summaries or on the talk page. Note that what follows are not content disputes: this kind of editing clearly falls under WP:DISRUPTIVE.
      • Firstly, this revert [163] restores, along with several outdated primary sources, the source Hunt-de Puig-Espersen 1992, which is incorrectly described as European Council, Recommendation 1178: Sects and New Religious Movements, whereas it's actually a Danish politician (Espersen) giving his views in a 1992 debate at the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. I had already highlighted this misrepresentation in my edit summaries [164][165] and then, after Cambial's revert, I opened this thread - to no avail.
      • Secondly, these four consecutive edits [166] restore two misrepresented sources (Flinn 2009 and Urban 2021) and unsupported text/OR (advocates [of Scientology] engaging in lying), while also adding a further misrepresented source (Hammer-Rothstein 2012). Details are provided in this thread, plus verbatim quotations from sources in my sandbox here and here.
    3. There is also a pattern of tendentious editing. Some of what follows is borderline, as it touches on genuine content disputes where reasonable disagreement is possible, but overall it reveals, in my view, a case of WP:POVPUSH. The last week is only indicative of long-lasting problems: note how much Scientology has changed and lost balance from the 2019 version prior to Cambial's first edit, to the current version. With 22.6% of the characters and 626 edits, Cambial is the first author of that article.[167]
      • 27 November 2025 restores a business, a cult, a religion, or a scam (instead of "a religion, a cult, a business, or a scam") from the opening paragraph of Scientology. In the edit summary and on the talk page, Cambial explains that the sentence should follow alphabetical order.
      • 27 November 2025 restores ridiculed.
      • 28 November 2025: given that the overwhelming majority of NRM scholars classify Scientology as a new religious movement (which is frankly obvious and almost non-controversial), Cambial argues that NRM studies are a relatively insignificant sub-discipline of sociology.
      • 2 December 2025, I had removed a UK minister's anti-Scientology statement from a 1992 House of Lords debate, which was misrepresented as supporting a list of high-level findings. Cambial restores this irrelevant/UNDUE primary source and adds in parliamentary debate to the article.
      • 2 December 2025 restores ridiculed.
      • 2 December 2025 restores nonsense.
      • 2 December 2025 restores invented.
      • Cambial describes Scientology's Dianetics in ways that express animosity and contempt, contributing to a battleground atmosphere and discouraging participation from good-faith editors with differing points of view: pseudoscientific bullshit (31 October 2025); bunk science, hogwash, and systems invented by the mentally ill (22 November 2025); pseudoscience worthy of ridicule (28 November 2025).
    Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:59, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I was pinged into the discussion -- I don't see a huge problem with the actual editing or speaking poorly of the book Dianetics. "Ridicule-worthy", "nonsense", "bullshit", and "pseudoscientific" are all fairly mainstream opinions for a "science" book that suggested talk therapy might cure leukemia. Hubbard was widely-alleged to be mentally-ill. But persistent incivility to other editors is always a problem. It doesn't matter how "silly" or even "dangerous" we find a person's beliefs: EVERYONE deserves respect. Feoffer (talk) 18:07, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I can attest to the fact that Cambial Yellowing's general behavior has put me, at least, off from editing in the topic area. In a topic area such as this, it is natural that there will be disagreements, but most of the other editors I have noticed in the topic area, e.g. North8000, Grorp, Feoffer, even if I have disagreed with them at times, conduct themselves appropriately and all resolve the matter like reasonable adults.
    Cambial Yellowing does not. They treat the whole topic as a battleground. It has made the editing experience in the topic area so unpleasant I have chosen to give it a wide berth with only limited exceptions, even if there are articles I would like to improve in it (e.g. about the many interesting books about Scientology). But when I asked myself: is it worth it? Is it worth dragging myself into this nightmare of a topic area? I found the answer was no. I saw the dispute on the Scientology article this week, wrote up a response, and decided it was not worth it. I assume the other editors who have quit the topic area have asked themselves similarly. Putting forward a point of view is one thing but the bludgeoning, the insults, it is not appropriate.
    Also that insult towards Doug Weller is just disgusting, even if it was some years ago. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:46, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @PARAKANYAA Where have I been uncivil to you? Cambial — foliar❧ 01:43, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You have not, at least to my recollection, because I have elected to limit my involvement to prevent myself from getting dragged into this mess beyond what I consider necessary. My opinion comes from seeing how you have treated other editors in this topic area. I watch a lot more discussions in this topic area than I participate in for that reason. Walking on eggshells is an unpleasant experience. It can't even be said to be born of past resentments, because the things you said to Gitz, an editor new to this topic area who you had never interacted with before, are incredibly uncivil.
    This entire exchange is ridiculous [168].
    "that level of awkward unselfconsciousness is pretty astounding. Either you are pretending you find that comment uncivil, because you wanted to tell someone off to make yourself feel important"
    "It's amazing that you recognised that repeating the same misrepresentations that you made in earlier responses is a waste of time, and then proceeded to waste time doing so anyway."
    "I didn't claim you did so intentionally, I said it is difficult to understand how you misrepresented it so egregiously after, one naturally assumes, having read it. Did you read it?"
    This is not an acceptable tone when speaking to other editors, and this was all in the past week. That there may not be individual "insult words" that you can single out and point at as some bright line does not mean that it is not a problem, the general tone is incredibly hostile. You can use polite or formal words to be uncivil, it is the meaning that matters, and it is obvious what you mean. You have continued this behavior for years, e.g. your comment to Doug Weller. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:00, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me start off by saying that this is going to be a toxic topic area whether or not Cambial Yellowing is around... But I've commented before that they seem to lean into/feed off of that toxicity rather than resist it. I've stepped away from the topic area for the most part for a while now but I am disappointed to see it continuing to spiral out of control (nobody drove me away, its just not a topic area with a good effort-result ratio). I would hope that a formal warning could bring them around, but barring that being successful I don't think that I could in good faith oppose at least a temporary topic ban. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:59, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Driving off multiple editors from a topic for months or years just isn't acceptable. Wikipedia runs and thrives on collaboration, if that process can't happen then everybody loses - editors, readers and the project as a whole.
    Time-limited sanctions don't seem appropriate for long-term behavioural issues, and there is evidence of similar behaviour in other areas. If a TBAN were put in place, I suspect it's highly likely that the behaviour would escalate elsewhere.
    I'm not voting for this yet as there's a lot of history to read through and this is a major sanction, but right now I'm having a hard time seeing any alternative to a CBAN. Blue Sonnet (talk) 01:13, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Grorp has an extremely long history of attacking me on article and project talk pages. I've lost count of the number of times I've asked them to keep discussion on article talk about content, in response to yet another accusation of bad faith from Grorp. That's the context for the seriously truncated - to the extent it mispresents the content - first quote. I will delineate that lengthy history, alongside some pretty serious and flagrant misrepresentation of sources, when I have some time in the next couple of days. I will also respond to the two diffs, presented as four, on my talk page in response to Gitz6666's posts there. Grorp also truncates these and strips them of context to misrepresent them.
    My response to Kvinnen was intemperate. Kvinnen accused me of "continuously misunderstanding the intention" of a proposal. I have never commented on anyone's intention behind that proposal, nor ever mentioned intention - as I pointed out to Kvinnen - so will admit I found this quite annoying, putting not merely words but a whole topic in my mouth, that I've never written a word about. My response was not appropriate. That said, Grorp's claim that an edit summary template - with reference to a misleading summary - was "picking" on Kvinnen, is not correct, and there's no grounds for that characterisation. I was clear to Kvinnen that the issue was that the edit summary, not the edit content, was misleading, when they asked what was misleading about improving the wording of the article.
    For now I will briefly note the first such exchange from Grorp: on Karin Pouw, Grorp notes that the sources are trivial mentions and the subject may lack notability. Noting Grorp's comment, I propose the article for deletion. Grorp deprods and indicates his reasoning on Wikiproject talk for this and a couple of other articles (minor books). I respond stating I don't think the redirects are that useful but I'll not dispute them, but I'll seek deletion of Karin Pouw based on the the lack of notability Grorp raised, and a related list article. I ask for his input the latter, and indicate the results of a search for indications of notability. Regular discussion so far.
    Grorp posts this odd response, writing Jesus Fucking Christ! and expressing "exhaustion". I write that I'm happy to dig further in the literature and that I find the (non-content) part of the response bizarre.
    Grorp responds by accusing me of gaslighting "your little gaslighting attempt looks bad on you." Then accuses me of "heavy POV-pushing" and "destructive edits." He claims that I "tried to push your POV by categorizing Hubbard's Scientology books as fiction and added pseudoscience" (this despite the well-known understanding they are pseudoscience). Grorp accuses me of this bad faith POV-pushing despite the fact that in response to his comments on the wikiproject on that issue, I acted in acccordance with his concerns and moved them to a different category. He writes "So if you really are clueless, then it's time to get a clue. And if you're not clueless, then you're doing all this deliberately. Either way, it's untenable, disruptive..." He cites not a single diff for these naked accusations of bad faith.
    Later attacks on article talk follow a similar pattern, with increasingly aggressive accusations of disruption and bad faith e.g. accusing me of "sneaking in" content (by making well-sourced public edits to an open wiki (?)). I'll lay out that history shortly - Far more project-damaging than the naked accusations of bad faith are the claims about sources that are directly contrary to the facts.
    I maintain that describing an argument that someone makes on article talk as "ridiculous" is not a personal attack. It is a comment on the quality of the argument, and plenty of similar comments have been directed at arguments I have made here. I never considered them uncivil, nor do I think editors saying "that's a silly/ridiculous argument" is considered uncivil generally. (As an example, Kvinnen writes that claiming that this word-change is not adherent to reliable sources is simply preposterous). Strongly worded, sure. But to argue that saying you think the point someone makes is "preposterous" or "ridiculous", is an attack or is uncivil, is reaching and has the appearance of WP:SANCTIONGAMING.
    "Please refrain from groundless and absurd claims of incivility" is an appropriate response to an accusation of incivility by Grorp for the words "There is evidently a disconnect here" which are part of a discussion about seeking neutrality, are not an attack, and are not uncivil.
    The talk pages that Grorp links to, ostensibly to show tendentious editing, do not indicate tendentious editing (Notability/Rename proposal/Archive page 33). I laid out my concerns with the article and aims for editing it here. At the time Grorp wrote that he agreed, but his subsequent edits, such as deleting whole article sections without leaving a summary, suggest he no longer agrees with those aims. Cambial — foliar❧ 01:30, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Cambial Yellowing, instead of making counter-accusations against other editors, can you explain the evidence compiled about how you respond to other editors? That would be helpful to read. Liz Read! Talk! 02:39, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed - @Cambial Yellowing I'm looking at your behaviour right now, Grorp isn't the only person who raised concerns over the way you interact with other editors.
    Wikipedia is all about collaboration and working together, except multiple people have been unable to work with you to the point that they feel driven away from an entire topic area.
    This has been happening over a long time and, being frank, it can't be allowed to continue.
    Taking a comment from the thread that I'm currently reviewing, this is not how I would expect to be treated by another editor.
    You were condescending and confrontational during the entire exchange, strongly inferring that the other editor lacked the ability to understand what was going on and you constantly talked down to them.
    This is a continued pattern throughout your edit history.
    On a collaborative project like Wikipedia, we should invite and welcome input from other editors. Even if we don't agree the merits of their argument, we should still respect the person making said argument.
    I really want to advocate a topic ban rather than anything more severe, but I'm not sure I can do this unless you directly address the concerns raised above
    Blue Sonnet (talk) 03:43, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello all, Thank you @User:Grorp for starting this discussion and mentioning me here. After my (few) exchanges with User:Cambial Yellowing, I stopped enjoying editing Wikipedia, and suddenly felt burdened logging in to find talk page bells with notifications. I mean no offense when I say this, but I would dread opening notifications if they were from Cambial and contemplate about ignoring them to retain my peace. Thankfully, I quit editing Scientology and this sad spell did not last long.
    Scientology is a topic that I recently became interested in after listening to former Scientologists and their quitting journeys on Youtube. Naturally, as anyone using the internet would, I came to Wikipedia to find out more about this cult-like-religion.
    I admit, I am not an experienced editor compared to some of the editors commenting here, but words like "nonsense" and "ridicule" right in the lead of an article that is supposed to briefly describe a subject seemed to fly in the face of WP:NPOV. This is a non-negotiable requirement for an article, even if the subject of the article has the reputation of being a destructive cult/religion. From the beginning, if someone wants to verify, this is all I had tried to correct.
    Cambial Yellowing has also warned me in my talk page for using "misleading edit summaries"
    Let me present the changes here:

    “his ideas were rejected and ridiculed by the scientific community”

    I had replaced "rejected and ridiculed" with "broadly rejected". In my mind, this seemed to accurately and neutrally represent scientific consensus on rejecting Dianetics as anything approaching science, rather than a word like "hahahah" ridicule. And my edit summary was "Readability improved from sloppy sentences”. Please feel free to compare how that sentence read before and after I changed it. This is an edit, I assumed, Cambial would appreciate, as I believed I was helping the lead have some fluidity when readers attempted to read it.
    As for Cambial Yellowing complaining that their comments being misrepresented, they have proceeded to the same to me. I do not understand how I put "a whole topic" in their mouth.
    Cambial, in this discussion spoke as though the other editors and I were unwilling to call Dianetics what it is, pseudoscientific. The disagreement there was not about Dianetics being pseudoscientific. But rather, whether or not, the claim 'dianetics is pseudocscience' should be attributed to "experts in the field" or say so plainly with no descriptor to add strength to the non-neutral-sounding claim. I had opined that adding "expert opinion" or something in those lines would conspicuously draw attention to the fact that "Dianetics is pseudoscientific".
    Cambial Yellowing: My response to Kvinnen was intemperate. Kvinnen accused me of "continuously misunderstanding the intention" of a proposal. I was merely pointing out the discrepancy between what User:Grorp tried to convey (they can confirm if I had understood their intention correctly) and what Cambial Yellowing had continued on to comment over there. I assumed good faith on Cambial's part, but considering the evidence above and how they communicate in general, it seems as though derailment of conversations and intentionally misconstruing others' words seem to be their MO.
    I am shocked to see the horrible disfiguring of Doug's signature. I had recently come across their health-wise struggle somewhere and was moved to tears out of sympathy for them as I have lost my grandma to similar circumstances. Aren't they supposed to be experienced enough to know better than to desecrate someone's signature? This is the type of vandalism I revert on a daily basis. Disappointed to see this done to an editor I deeply respect by an editor who is supposedly civil and accusing others of incivility. Kvinnen (talk) 11:32, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    OK they're from 2022, but these two edits by CY, already linked above 1 and 2, need a lot of explaining away. Narky Blert (talk) 17:15, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    After reading Gitz's post above, I wanted to add some about Cambial's edits indicating POVPUSH and ADVOCACY in the scientology topic—which elaborates on Gitz's remarks, and shows the deeper scope of this aspect of Cambial's editing in this topic. (I apologize in advance to readers for the length.)

    • In discussions, Cambial has repeatedly expressed vitriolic hostility and deep‑seated loathing for Scientology-founder L. Ron Hubbard, such as a mentally ill huckster and pathological liar (diff), and the incoherent ramblings of a paranoid schizophrenic [...] we pay no attention to a dead crackpot's desires (diff).
    • The WP:Who Wrote That? tool provides insight into Cambial's contributions to the current version of the Scientology article, including all of the lead. Their content contributions are primarily derogatory examples. The article is excessively weighted toward negative content.
    • Over the last few years, I have watched Cambial edit the Scientology article by incrementally "bubbling up" derogatory material from lower in the article and into the lead until it has become so bloated with disparaging material that it no longer provides readers a simple explanation of Scientology (as it did in the pre-Cambial 2019 version, as pointed out by Gitz above). There have been numerous discussions about this, and in February 2025, an editor tried to move out some of the bloat from the lead. In my observations, a general pattern is that when another editor makes an edit, Cambial's response has been to either revert it or move derogatory material above the new content, pushing the new content further down the page. Numerous discussions about bloat or NPOV in the lead and article body have not resulted in any [lasting] change.
    • In this 2020 edit, Cambial added 8 "[sic]" after "the church" in various quotations in the content, inferring their objection to calling it a "church". Then in this 2024 edit, Cambial edited Scientology by changing dozens of text occurrences from "the church" to "the organization", from "Church of Scientology" to "the Scientology organization", from "church members" to "members" or "scientologists", and from "converts" to "recruits". Today, the article sports 46 occurrences of "Scientology organization". Prior to this mega-edit there were 19 occurrences, most added by Cambial in prior edits (per WP:Who Wrote That? tool).
    • Cambial unilaterally turned several scientology-topic standalone articles into redirects that pointed to general top-level scientology-topic articles which at the time didn't contain any content about the topic, and Cambial didn't merge or create any. Examples: Scientology Justice, Supernatural abilities in Scientology doctrine, Rundown (Scientology), Bridge Publications. I have since added content to several, adjusted redirects to sections, and even resurrected and expanded whole articles about the topic, such as with Scientology ethics and justice.
    • Cambial often adds citation-overkill such as this 2020 edit to Scientology which exists to this day despite several editors attempting to trim it (always reverted) and several discussions. The Auditing (Scientology) article received a similar treatment when edits & discussions to correct some content language and non-verifying sources was met with Cambial dogmatically increasing citations to a 6-source refbomb; discussions went nowhere, and it still stands today. Church of Scientology has the same refbomb issue. Numerous archived discussions on Talk:Scientology show that discussions challenging non-verifying or weak-verifying sources which were added by Cambial never resolve.

    While not comprehensive, I have provided the above summary to support other editors' remarks indicating POVPUSH/ADVOCACY-type actions, and to ensure these editing patterns are documented for posterity.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 23:53, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal: Topic ban (Cambial Yellowing)

    [edit]

    Cambial Yellowing (talk · contribs) is topic banned from Scientology, broadly construed. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:01, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Support per all of the above. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:01, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm also open to an uninvolved admin issuing up to a 2 week block for the incivility on top of a TBAN. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:06, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Support: It's really telling that Cambial started with deflection rather than an explanation. IMHO, a topic ban is damn mild faced with that level of incivility. Ravenswing 04:10, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban and short block: In my opinion, the topic ban alone is too mild. A short (maybe a week?) block on top of the topic ban with a promise of longer blocks if the behavior persists will give Cambial Yellowing a clear message about what the requirements for editing Wikipedia are. I am especially concerned with the "It's OK to abuse other editors because of User:Grorp" argument. It has been my experience that Gorp treats everyone well, and in general is gentle and diplomatic with people who strongly disagree with them. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:24, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      This is an unambiguously involved !vote by Guy Macon; tagging.[169][170][171] Cambial — foliar❧ 18:46, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      You're not helping yourself by going on the offensive instead of responding to the concerns raised by many editors and committing to changing your conduct. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:04, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm not "going on the offensive" by tagging an involved !vote. The policy states to do so. This section runs to ~5000 words, the vast majority of which was posted while I was asleep or at work. Grorp evidently spent a significant amount of time putting his post together. Two admins, Liz and Blue Sonnet, have specifically requested I respond to the individual claims. Obviously a lengthy task, by which time I imagine this will already be decided anyway, so any effort to do so on my part will likely be wasted. But I assure you I'm not on the offensive. Cambial — foliar❧ 19:23, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Blue-Sonnet is not an admin. I am, though, and my warning was meant to redirect you to addressing your comments, rather than the !votes. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:29, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      conduct, not comments voorts (talk/contributions) 19:29, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Yep, not an admin but a concerned fellow editor. An admin won't take action until there is a clear community consensus, and editors who've submitted a vote may well change their decision based on a well-reasoned and argued response.
      Unless you refocus and address the core issues of this complaint (your own conduct, not the conduct of others) then the outcome is pretty much set.
      Being completely honest, the time you spent writing about Grorp would have been better served addressing the points they raised instead - try to focus on the argument, not the arguer. Blue Sonnet (talk) 03:59, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      So? This is a community discussion, not an admin action. WP:INVOLVED has nothing to do with it. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:24, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I haven't cited WP:INVOLVED, and Guy is not an admin, so you're right that it has nothing to do with it. I linked to CBAN which refers to " a consensus of editors who are not involved in the underlying dispute" and involved !votes can be tagged. Cambial — foliar❧ 19:34, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Ok, fair enough, thanks for the pointer. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:50, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I freely admit to being biased in favor of science and biased against pseudoscience (including Dianetics), and the closer should indeed take that fact into account. I even wrote an essay on it: WP:YWAB. I would also note that I have never advocated banning anyone for disagreeing with me, and in fact have praised Scientologists, UFO Believers, Homeopaths, ect. for presenting their positions in a calm. reasonable, and civil fashion. and opposed the tendency of some to gang up on them. I wrote an essay about that, too: WP:1AM. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:23, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Guy, it's good to have you back. EEng 03:34, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban, oppose short block at this time. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:29, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - I'm still concerned about their behaviour in other areas, including CTOP's, but we've had a few CBAN's recently so they should take this as both a warning and an opportunity to learn what is and is not acceptable on Wikipedia.
    If they continue to be condescending and make things unpleasant for other editors, the line should be drawn then and there.
    @Cambial Yellowing, I'm certain that you don't see things in the same way that we do. You feel that you were justified in speaking and acting in the way you did, otherwise it wouldn't have carried on for so long.
    Please try to remember that you're talking to other human beings. Everyone deserves to be treated with respect, Wikipedia cannot function unless we talk to each other civilly and work together to come to a collective decision. One person alone isn't a consensus.
    It's easy to assume the worst in others or go on the attack. It's much harder to be open-minded and welcome the input of those who have a different point of view to ourselves, even if we disagree with their reasoning. It takes skill and effort to be able to do that, for the sake of everyone involved (including yourself) please try to learn.
    You can't keep treating people like this and it has to stop - the question is whether you choose to do so of your own accord, or have the decision made for you. Blue Sonnet (talk) 14:54, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - as someone utterly uninvolved, and after looking through the various diffs presented, this feels pretty cut-and-dry to me. Honestly I'm inclined to agree with Ravenswing: a topic ban alone seems like a slap on the wrist by comparison. Emma (chats ✦ edits) 06:00, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:MCAACM

    [edit]
    MCAACM now globally blocked. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:44, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

    [edit]

    This range has become a huge source of disruption since September 2025 (potentially even longer than that), especially within the last 1 or 2 months. In that period, this range has produced a variety of disruption, including extremely persistent vandalism, clear IP socking , data vandalism (including infobox vandalism), TV series and sports vandalism, and BLP vandalism, and LTA activity. The Yummie1207 also appears to be active on this range, which is another problem, given their propensity for high abuse rates. See both the Legacy IP edits and the temp account logs - there's already evidence of ongoing block evasion there. I will list out just some examples of problematic edits here:[172][173][174][175][176][177][178][179][180][181][182][183][184][185][186][187][188] The final examples are especially problematic, and they match the known behavioral patterns of the Yummie1207 LTA, as seen on 2405:4802:6C44:E890:0:0:0:0/35, 2405:4802:A221:16B0:0:0:0:0/64, 2405:4803:DBC0:0:0:0:0:0/43, and 1.53.0.0/16. (A CU sweep of the current range might also pick up some LTA socks.) And this is just on en.wiki. This range has been overwhelmingly disruptive for the last few months, and the number of constructive edits is relatively small by comparison. Note also that this range is already partially or entirely blocked on multiple projects, including the Vietnamese Wikipedia, vi.wikitionary, vi.wikiquote, Italian Wikipedia, Commons, and Meta Wiki (there also appears to be a global rangeblock, but the block is clearly not active on en.wiki for some reason). There's far too many pages targeted for Semi-Protection to be effective, and given the LTA(s) on the range, a partial block on article space is unlikely to be effective as well. And I don't think we should take this abuse sitting down, or continue to entertain the LTA and the trolls on this range by giving them the attention they clearly enjoy by playing whack-a-mole day after day with their IP socks. Given the massive amount of disruption and socking coming out of this range over the course of the last few months, I think a rangeblock is in order here. Perhaps for a few months. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 00:18, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Speaking of Yummie1207 what's with the person that I always see in recent changes saying stuff like "I DISLIKE YUMMIE1207 AGAIN, QUYQUANG2048 IS BETTER"? Is that the same person or is there some actual context to this? Stockhausenfan (talk) 00:24, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I took a peek at Meta & their global account history earlier, it looks like Quyquang2048 was probably an early blocked account. It's just usual sock/vandal behaviour after being found out. Blue Sonnet (talk) 01:21, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The lack of block on enwiki might be because the block has the block parameter locally disabled by Johannnes89: potential false positives on this project, local admins should decide whether to block. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 01:00, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Conduct Report (TA)

    [edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Here we go again. This user has filed a report here against me, and a counter report was filed, and it was closed as a content based editing dispute. I guess the user wants to give it another swing, trying to get his version of the article published and only his version. Here are the facts:
    this dispute centers around the Las Vegas City Marshals article. They are a law-enforcement agency located in Las Vegas, and the smallest law-enforcement agency in the county. Nevada law granted them very, very limited jurisdiction, basically they only have jurisdiction on city properties and city parks. Despite this, earlier this year, they began a campaign of wide, reaching law-enforcement action throughout the city. They began conducting traffic stops and arresting drivers for a multitude of misdemeanor and felony offenses. Several of those drivers and citizens filed lawsuits alleging that the arrests were illegal and outside of their jurisdiction. Those lawsuits were then picked up on by the media. Every single television station in the Las Vegas area has reported on the lawsuits. The local newspaper and several local podcasts have also reported on the lawsuits. One of the television stations, KTNV, assigned an investigative news reporter to the story and she has published many different news stories that are super well researched and sourced, and has conducted a wide ranging investigation into the particular issue.
    as of the date of this writing, eight different federal lawsuits have been filed this year, alleging illegal, and improper arrests by this particular police department. The news stories that were published by KTNV have around 5 million views total on YouTube. There have also been several other high profile news stories done on this particular law-enforcement agency, the most noteworthy being from a lawyer that runs a YouTube channel called “the civil rights lawyer”. Based upon the significant number of media and news stories, a flood of edits came this year to the Wikipedia article. The article has largely been dormant for the past 10 years. All of the media attention caused dozens and dozens of edits in the first few quarters of this year. Then the media attention died down, and there have not been any meaningful edits to the article in about six months.
    Then, user MWFwiki seems to find the article. He proceeds to remove large sections of content that were properly sourced from the many news reports that have been published this year. From his user page, he states that he is a career law-enforcement officer. His edits on the page have been overwhelmingly positive towards the Police. He has removed almost all of the sections of article that mention the large lawsuits and controversies surrounding this police department and reduced them to a single sentence. However, he has taken content from the police department’s version of the lawsuits and published that statement in its entirety, representing an entire paragraph. Some of the paragraphs of content that he has removed had as many as five different sources.
    further troubling is the fact that the user has done his own legal research and drawn his own conclusions in relation to his edits. He has stated on the talk page that he feels that these lawsuits will be found in favor of the police department. He has also reached conclusions on what he believes the “primary” and “general” jurisdiction of this law-enforcement agency is, despite that being at the heart of all of the controversy and lawsuits. He has made edits to the article that are simply not accurate, such as stating that the police department has “unrestricted” law-enforcement authority, despite the fact that Nevada law clearly states that their “authority and jurisdiction” is limited to taking police actions on City property, as has been reported by all of the different media outlets and respected journalistic organizations that have been cited as sources.
    The user has now filed reports for Wikipedia administrators to intervene and block the other users and request page protection to keep the IP users from editing the page so that his point of view is the only point of view that will be shown in the article. This attempt should be seen for what it is. This is a purely content based editorial dispute from an editor who appears to have clear bias and has done original research on the issue, despite the overwhelming amount of verified and reliable journalistic sources, which stated the opposite of his position. ~2025-36886-64 (talk) 23:50, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, less than honest: "This user has filed a report here against me, and a counter report was filed, and it was closed as a content based editing dispute. I guess the user wants to give it another swing, trying to get his version of the article published and only his version.". The TA filed the original report, not me, and I replied. Their report was closed. My reply was not addressed, as I was told to file my own report. Which I did, here. (I will refrain from continuing the "argument" here, I just felt that this needed to be addressed) This editor also continues to argue content, above and has not addressed the conduct report. MWFwiki (talk) 00:19, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a really long post and you risk people either stopping halfway through or just not bothering to read it at all.
    Please try to imagine that your average reader is on a break at work, on the bus or has a newborn baby - presume they only have a few minutes to read through and understand the point you're making and tailor your post to that audience.
    Respecting someone's limited time on this planet is a show of respect, and since this a community project that ethos will take you far.
    You can't refactor (change) posts once they've been replied to, but if you'd like to provide a TL;DR version in a reply to this post, I am certain that most of the people reading this will be very grateful.
    Direct diffs to the edits you're referring to are also greatly appreciated, that way we don't need to go hunting around in the edit history for all of those different accounts.
    As it is, it'll probably take me 15-20mins to check everything you're saying and it's currently 1am so I just don't have the heart right now... That might change in the morning, but for now I just can't do it. Cookies and applause for those that can. Blue Sonnet (talk) 01:04, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don’t think that I need to provide a response. As a defense is not necessarily required here. But, I provided a comprehensive response, including the complete background of the article from my point of view as a defense. Someone who is not local to Las Vegas and it’s not familiar with the context around the article and why the edits are this way is probably going to think that this is just another random article that is in dispute. The entire city of Las Vegas has been embroiled in the content surrounding this article and I was providing some background to that. ~2025-36934-42 (talk) 01:07, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Further, if I try to use AI tools to help summarize my thoughts or to format my text, I get called out as apparently using AI to help get my thoughts together on a talk page is somehow scandalous. ~2025-36934-42 (talk) 01:08, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    We want to hear your thoughts, not what the LLM says for you. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:30, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @The Bushranger + @Blue-Sonnet Sorry for the pings, but it has been several days and you had both responded, so I figured it was only fair to rope you back in. This user is now, additionally, openly accusing me of "having an agenda." On its own, I wouldn't normally complain, but coupled with their other conduct I can't abide it. Thanks for your time, as usual MWFwiki (talk) 05:50, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    MWFwiki very clearly has an agenda regarding this (and all law enforcement) articles. Let's recap: The user's userpage states that they are a current law-enforcement officer and have a law-enforcement career. His edit history is entirely pro-police. The user has found an article that had significant negative content about a police department, despite it being fully sourced. The user removed all of that sourced content on his own accord, and then stated on the article's talk page that he disagreed with the lawsuits mentioned in the article and thought that the police would win them, justifying his removal of the content. He then removes my edits today, that were well-sourced, because the word "large" was used in the article when describing a class-action lawsuit that alleged that thousands of people had been illegally arrested. ~2025-37688-98 (talk) 05:56, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If I need to respond to this, I'm happy to, but I'm just exhausted and tired of the bludgeoning and accusations. MWFwiki (talk) 06:03, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's another one: MWFwiki has made a total of 27 major edits to the article in question over the past day. Removing content without consensus. I discovered this and made FIVE minor changes, all of which were supported by WP:RS. MWFwiki then reverts all of my edits, and goes to other editors in an attempt to WP:CAN and get others to revert me, despite my edits being within policy and consensus. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Katzrockso&diff=prev&oldid=1325109459 ~2025-37688-98 (talk) 06:07, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure if I need to respond to content dispute allegations here, but:
    • For context; I collaborated actively via the Talk page with a THIRD editor with those edits, over the course of several hours. Katzrockso will confirm this.
    • I requested the THIRD revert in order to remove content they had previously removed which this user has re-added. I made it clear I would be happy to go to dispute resolution.
    • These are now additional unfounded accusations. Again, "pro-police."
    MWFwiki (talk) 06:14, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Replying because I've been pinged.
    • @~2025-37688-98 Looking at the "five minor changes" from the past day, the only one I would consider to be minor has the edit summary "Removed "large" to satisfy someone with an agenda" - IMO that's close to a personal attack and is not acceptable. Your other edits that day definitely weren't minor.
    • Re. WP:CAN, I'm not sure whether asking an editor who was already involved in the discussion to revert on their behalf would count as canvassing per se, someone else may disagree. I see that MWFwiki made the revert themselves.
    • Re. Number of edits, Katzrockso has also made a similar number of edits to MWFwiki so that alone isn't a red flag to me.
    • @MWFwiki I'm wondering why you removed the second half of this quote, it seems to be relevant?
    You changed "The lawsuit alleges that there are "thousands of victims of a rogue law enforcement agency brazenly operating outside its legal authority" (a direct quote from the source) to "Myers alleges that the LVCM is operating as a "rogue law enforcement agency" (half of a longer sentence).
    It's a bit unusual to cut a short quote in half like that, especially since it's effectively lessened the impact (and arguably the message) from the original quote.
    I'm not seeing any of the "lawyerspeak" given as a reason in your edit summary; I think that the majority of our readers would be able to understand the original version, so hopefully you can see why this might look a little strange from the outside.
    • @~2025-37688-98, if you're alleging a long-term behavioural problem with a lack of neutrality, can you please provide specific diffs? It took a while to go though the history manually to find out which edits you meant just for this article. It also means I might have misunderstood something, in which case it'd be great if you could provide specific diffs for us to consider.
    You've been making allegations (which may or may not be well-founded), but it's hard for us to investigate unless you provide diffs of specific edits. We can't go combing through someone's entire edit history trying to guess which ones you mean.
    I'd also like to suggest that everyone involved stops editing the article until the ANI is resolved, things will just get more confusing otherwise. You're both getting pretty close to edit warring, there's a lot of history so it's pretty hard to tell but I'd say we're definitely getting there in spirit. Blue Sonnet (talk) 10:34, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Blue-Sonnet Appreciate the response; Regarding trimming the quote: 1. We mention the jurisdictional issue several times throughout the article, so I felt it was repetitive. 2. "Thousands of victims" is argumentative and lawyer-speak, in my opinion. At the time the lawyer said that, there was one case filed, their own. 3. I had previously culled/shortened the city attorney's statements, as well. 4. I would hope it is clear from my edits that my only goal was to fix some rather egregious NPOV statements and RIGHTGREATWRONGS issues that existed in the TA's preferred diff 5. All of that being said, I would not be adamantly against re-adding the quote in its entirety; I 100% understand what you're getting-at.

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

    However, this user has continuously accused me of bad-faith edits, extreme bias, and has asserted that I have an "obvious conflict of interest." Being a law enforcement officer two thousand miles away from the subject of the article and never having met a single person from Nevada does not a COI make. I readily and voluntarily disclose this on my userpage (I wonder; If I didn't voluntarily do this, what would the argument become? I suppose it doesn't matter) I sincerely welcome a vigorous look through my edit history; One will not find one non-neutral edit on law enforcement-related pages (or anywhere else, for that matter, I would hope). Indeed, in my previous 1,000 edits, unless I'm missing something, the only two LE pages (apart from LVCM) I've edited are list of law-enforcement agencies in Massachusetts and list of defunct law enforcement agencies of Massachusetts (the latter of which I have created probably 80% of; if it's sourced, I probably placed it). I welcome a glance at them to see my editing style/prose. This user has outright asserted "His edit history is entirely pro-police" and "MWFwiki very clearly has an agenda regarding this (and all law enforcement) articles" [emphasis added] — just above. I hate to be dramatic, but in my eleven-plus years of editing, no one has ever said anything as egregious to me. MWFwiki (talk) 10:49, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not scandalous, it's because it causes far more problems than it solves. AI usually provides vague assurances and is great at completely missing the point.
    Even if the wording isn't great, we'd much rather talk person to person since that's exactly what Talk pages are for. If you put a brand-new, barely-tested & experimental machine learning algorithm in the middle of that, things seldom go well.
    We also see it regularly make up fictitious policies, misunderstand guidelines or (most frequently) mask the original editors lack of knowledge or understanding of the core issue we're trying to address.
    See Wikipedia:AITALK & Wikipedia:LLMCIR if you want to find out more, or scroll through the multiple previous AI discussions in the ANI archives. Blue Sonnet (talk) 01:49, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note I have restored this from the archive as the TA in question has not responded and has continued to edit the article in question. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:55, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      As an update here, I have made ONE (1) small and properly sourced edit in the past day to reflect a recent news article that reported on the issues in controversy. User MWFwiki has then removed some of my edit, made an additional NINE (9) edits to the page, bringing his total edit count on the page to 92. The user has then notified other users in violation of WP:CAN to un-archive and resurrect baseless reports he has made about my conduct as part of his clearly long-running campaign to silence his detractors so that this article, and all law-enforcement articles, remain pro-police and not neutral.
      https://sigma.toolforge.org/usersearch.py?name=MWFwiki&page=Las+Vegas+City+Marshals&server=enwiki&max= ~2025-38541-11 (talk) 02:07, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Yet another non-response. I stand by all of my edits. The edit they are referring to today was not removed it was moved and actually expanded upon. Besides, I have no way of knowing "they" made the edit, considering they're on their... dozenth(?) TA. Regardless; This user has made additional conduct violations in the very message. I have been dealing their bludgeoning and libel for over a week. The so-called "canvassing" this user is accusing me of is requesting an administrator to un-archive my report due to inactivity. This user has made use of AI several times and I suspect is feeding it information about this situation and asking it what policy violations it "thinks" I've violated. Regardless, I refer to my previous statement in-regards to everything else. MWFwiki (talk) 02:31, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @~2025-38541-11 Can you please review my last post and let me know your thoughts? MWFwiki responded to my question so I'd appreciate if you could please do the same.
    I still don't think this is canvassing BTW, asking one admin for advice/assistance is normal and, in this case, probably a good idea.
    If you have evidence of widespread canvassing that falls under Wikipedia:Canvassing, please provide specific diffs for the edits so we can examine them and properly investigate your concerns.
    Just making vague allegations about bias and giving us a total number of edits isn't going to cut it, I'm afraid. This could be part of a larger puzzle, but you've only handed us a corner piece and thrown the rest on the floor for everyone else to pick up.
    You can't expect other editors to trawl through 92 edits to try to figure out which ones you mean. You're making the claim, so the burden of proof is on you.
    If MWFwiki provides evidence of their case and you don't, you're not going to persuade anyone here.
    You've made some strong claims about another editor on an administrator's noticeboard; since you've chosen to make a public allegation, you need to back it up with evidence.
    This is a serious matter, if it's true then you absolutely should be providing evidence of your claims.
    • To reiterate, please provide diffs of specific edits to substantiate your claim that there is "clearly long-running campaign to silence [MWFwiki's] detractors".
    Alternatively, you could withdraw your allegations if you don't want to pursue the matter. Blue Sonnet (talk) 07:40, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    While I appreciate the opportunity to respond, I am not the one making the report here. I am simply responding to reports made about myself. And I'm trying to add context to the reason this bogus "content report" is being made about me. The user who filed this frivolous complaint and Has a clear user page that shows a clear bias towards law enforcement and analysis of his edits Show a complete Focus on law enforcement and military articles. I'm not going to do a deep dive on this and put a significant amount of time into this, as it's not productive and I'm not getting paid for this. I think this entire thread should be deleted And put back into the archive exactly where it was prior to yesterday, before the Canvassing took place. This is purely a content dispute where it appears that I am trying to add neutrality into the article And introduce negative facts and negative sources into the article. The other user attempts to be removing those facts and adding Positive sentiment Facts to the article. It is my position that the article should both include positive and negative content as long as both are properly sourced. The problem is that this is a Police Department with a huge amount of negative properly sourced media coverage and very little if any positive coverage. I was fine with the article in the state it was in as of yesterday's date, until yet another negative media article came out regarding this department. This small department is embroiled in dozens of lawsuits, one of which is a class action lawsuit naming as many as 10,000 victims. There was a news report yesterday stating that the department paid $150,000 to settle one of the cases. Since MWFwiki had placed a statement in the lead section of the article Mentioning the lawsuits, I added a single line mentioning that the city was settling lawsuits for over $100,000. That obviously triggered him to not only delete my edit, make an additional 8 edits, and then do some canvassing to resurrect this bogus "conduct report". Here's an edit of note:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Las_Vegas_City_Marshals&diff=prev&oldid=1324375184
    It doesn't matter what the sources say, what the court orders say, what the Subject of the Article has filed in court. This user is a police officer who will side with police 100 percent of the time Regardless of the facts, and regardless of what anyone else says. It's a term known as the Thin blue line. I'm decently Satisfied With the state that the article is in right now, minus the fact that my sentence in the lead was removed and I think it should be put back. There is a 3rd editor who has engaged in this article and has made useful edits In an attempt to balance out MWFwiki's non-neutral edits. ~2025-38684-51 (talk) 16:53, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    5 December 2025

    [edit]

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

    A non-exhaustive list of examples:

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

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

    This appears to be, at its core, a content dispute, for which ANI is ill-suited as a venue to escalate that aspect of the issue. Administrators don't have extra powers regarding content, and I invite you to look into forms of dispute resolution as a more suitable path. However, the lack of communication from both users is far from ideal: discussing any contested edits is the best advice I can give them, and often the first step towards working together on a collaborative project. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 03:59, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not believe this is a subjective content dispute. The disagreement is, at its core, an issue of policy adherence concerning the proper use of the infobox per MOS:INFOBOX. Specifically, the editors are continually insisting on adding the full, verbose name of a political party into the width-limited space of the infobox, as demonstrated by the diffs. This practice is visible in hundreds Malaysian politician articles already.

    This action directly contradicts the MOS's guidance on Infoboxes, which states two key points that relate to the issue of brevity and abbreviation:
    • "Infoboxes may tend towards greater abbreviation than that generally used in article bodies."
    • "The less information that an infobox contains, the more effectively it serves its purpose..."

    The use of the full name instead of the widely recognized acronym (which is linked to the full article) unnecessarily bloats the infobox, akin to insisting on writing [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes]] ([[MOS:INFOBOX]]) every time when [[MOS:INFOBOX]] is sufficient and policy-compliant. This is not about one user's opinion on a content, but one's refusal to follow style guidelines designed for clarity and conciseness. I am escalating based on this pattern of non-collaborative editing that compromises policy. ~2025-38614-44 (talk) 04:42, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    So, at its core, this is a content dispute. You're (rightfully) frustrated because 2 editors are adding brackets to infoboxes.
    I appreciate that you have attempted to contact each of them once on their talk pages (with no reply), but can I ask why you don't think seeking dispute resolution would be effective in this situation? aesurias (talk) 04:51, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have already attempted a discussion at WT:WikiProject Malaysia/Archive 7#Redundant acronym in infobox and Manual of Style issues but unfortunately received no collaborative responses from editors. I am now reporting the editors(s) who I found often fail to adhere to the MOS guideline. ~2025-38614-44 (talk) 05:09, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is the list of edits that continue to ignore the MOS I mentioned, all made after I gave them a talk regarding the guideline on their talk page here (14 Feb):

    For User:Lim Zhi Hang after 23 Nov:

    These are only the edits that occurred after our interaction on their respective talk pages. They have dozens of other edits where they ignore the MOS. By reviewing this category ([189], and likely in other related categories as well), other editors can estimate the severity of the redundant information being added to the infobox. ~2025-38660-85 (talk) 02:31, 6 December 2025 (UTC) (As I primarily edit politics on shared devices, I logged out of my temporary account often and prefer to remain unknown)[reply]
    The category I linked above often has similar issues. I will list the diffs proving the editors made these changes if I deem administrative action is insufficient (though I'm not familiar with the available types of action). ~2025-38660-85 (talk) 02:48, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ninemay1994

    [edit]
    Ninemay1994 confirmed as a sockpuppet and blocked. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:25, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    +1 aesurias (talk) 09:48, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked them from the AIV report. Closed the SPI - they are  Confirmed. PhilKnight (talk) 11:46, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Requesting page creation block of User:Harold Foppele

    [edit]
    REQUEST GRANTED
    Harold Foppele blocked from page creation by rsjaffe. (non-admin closure) Chess enjoyer (talk) 17:22, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    I agree with page creation block. These AfDs have wasted a lot of time, and the editor still doesn't seem to understand how to select an appropriate topic and write a coherent article about it. There's also been problems with LLM use and most recently, Draft:Quantum Beams was deleted per WP:G15. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 14:32, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Btw, the pings probably failed: @Johnjbarton, Rambley, Commander Keane, Bryanmackinnon, Michael D. Turnbull, and Roffaduft:. Sorry for the double ping if this was not the case. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 14:36, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Support page creation block. I've been in extensive email conversations with Harold and have tried to drive home the points about reliable sourcing, OR, appropriate tone in articles, etc., but this seems to be becoming a big issue. I think it would be favourable for Harold to engage in smaller edits across Wikipedia rather than jumping into article creation if he'd still like to positively contribute in order to get used to the policies and guidelines around here. I have actually recommended him to read existing articles to get a good idea of our standards, but this advice has seemingly gone unheard. Rambley (talk / contribs) 14:49, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - Harold obviously cares a lot, he's asking for feedback frequently and seems to be trying really hard, unfortunately that doesn't change the fact that he's disrupting Wikipedia by virtue of the amount of time other editors are having to spend fixing his work & providing support (without much success).
    Article creation is one of the most difficult tasks at Wikipedia; you need knowledge and skill to be able to do this properly and it doesn't look like Harold has this right now. If he won't stop creating articles of his own accord, Harold will unfortunately need to be blocked until he's able to demonstrate competency editing in other areas. Blue Sonnet (talk) 15:25, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I have looked at page creation history and the user's talk page (most of which user had deleted). Harold has been thoroughly warned over the months about this issue but persists, and has not been producing useable new pages. Blocked from page creation. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:04, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    some guy keeps reverting my edits

    [edit]
    This is a content dispute, not a serious conduct issue. Please try to discuss this issue on the article talk page before coming to ANI. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:02, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    Hi Misterpotatoman, welcome to Wikipedia. We have a requirement that when you have an issue with a user and post on this noticeboard, you're required to notify them on their talk page. Another editor has already done this for you, but please remember for next time. You can use the template {{ANI-notice}} for this. Thanks. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:54, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see the errors in your work, but we have just over seven million articles and a few different referencing and footnote styles that are all valid. We only expect them to be consistent within an article, not consistent across articles, and we usually discourage changing from one style to another without a good reason. It seems to me that you should discuss your proposed changes with Jessicapierce and see if you can come to an agreement. Have a look at this link for some more information. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:00, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree that this is a content dispute. There are however straight errors introduced: Al Jaza'ir and eíkosi are not English, they are transliterations of Arabic and Greek script into Latin script. The original text also says 'Al Jaza'ir' is pronunciation, but that ideally should use IPA. There's MOS issues as well including ENGVAR and NUM, but I can't hold a new editor to the expectation that they know all this. No action required, but I did revert the edit explicating several of the issues in the edit summary. That summation is not exhaustive, but I ran out of space for the edit-summary.
    Before I forget: I do think it is at the very least an 'orange flag' that Misterpotatoman is insistent on referring to an obviously female editor, Jessicapierce, by the moniker 'some guy'. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:35, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Ahmeddahir1

    [edit]

    This user has a slew of warnings on their talk page, 42 out of 58 of the edits they made is marked as "reverted" and I can't find a single one that is actually constructive. They appear to be obsessed with "Hawd Zone" (just take a brief glance at their contributions) which probably refers to Hawd Region, which was a region in Somaliland. Yes, Somaliland.

    KatnissEverdeen reverted some of their most recent edits in Misraq Gashamo (Diff ~1325846774) saying "Unsourced. Edit also broke image."

    We must assume good faith, but at this point it seems they are failing basic WP:COMPETENCE. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 18:24, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    After reverting some more unsourced questionable edits, only 3 out of their 58 edits remain live. I suppose Somali Region (Diff ~1323975493) and the two follow-up edits to correct that list entry are constructive. Every other edit they made has been reverted. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 19:13, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not familiar with this user besides the edit I reverted this morning, but having looking at the other diffs linked here and their gibberish edit summaries, I'd also second everything said here. Definitely seems that this user is WP:NOTHERE. Katniss May the odds be ever in your favor ♥ 22:28, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Unexplained removals and other disruptive edits in SA CTOP

    [edit]
    BLOCKED
    Editor172992 blocked for 3 days by Ad Orientem. (non-admin closure) Chess enjoyer (talk) 01:30, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Editor172992 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was warned four times by four editors against making unexplained removals [190][191][192][193], they were made aware of the South Asia CTOP by a different editor after the first warning [194]. A month afterwards they made another unexplained removal [195], and gained another warning [196]. Editor has also been warned [197] for using misleading edit summaries [198], and given a final warning [199] for NPOV [200][201][202].

    They've since made unsupported additions [203] and removals [204] concerning South Asian ethnic groups. User has never used a talk page. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 23:34, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

     Blocked x 72 hrs for persisten disruptive editing. There is a wall of messages and warnings going back three months with zero communication in response. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:03, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:ClueBot III is malfunctioning: Talk page archiving

    [edit]
    RESOLVED
    The Bushranger One ping only 02:35, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    The issue might be related to the archive prefix being set as | archiveprefix=Talk:List of EGOT winners/Archive, which wasn't fixed when the page was moved earlier this year. I've fixed the prefix, we can see if the error keeps happening. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 01:35, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that's what would've caused it and your fix will work. I've moved the incorrectly archived discussions to the right place. Graham87 (talk) 02:21, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Lamp21 and AI

    [edit]
    BLOCKED
    Lamp21 indefinitely blocked for disruptive editing by Star Mississippi. (non-admin closure) Chess enjoyer (talk) 05:45, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:Lamp21 is a prolific user of LLMs in generating their articles, which they do not adequately check, including references that do not exist and sourcing that does not verify. They are continuing to generate articles of questionable notability with questionable sourcing and prose that does not match the content, despite several warnings, speedy deletions, and so on. Their talk page has multiple warnings and article deletions, even only including the ones they did not remove [205].

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

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

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

    • Another incompetent run amok with AI. Immediate indef. In one year, if they can explain in their own words why AI use, in writing article content or talk-page contributions, is intolerable, then an unblock can be considered, with the understanding that any relapse may result in a community ban. In conclusion, AI must be destroyed. EEng 03:40, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    INDEFfed as DE Star Mississippi 03:57, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. Any suggestion on how to clean this up? I would go about it myself, at least for occult ones, but the language barrier makes that an issue... PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:02, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Try asking for help on WP:LLMN. Northern Moonlight 05:17, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=1325960573"