Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1206

User:Cinaroot reverts on Israel lead section against consensus

Cinaroot (talk · contribs) keeps changing a sentence in the Israel lead to state in WP:WIKIVOICE that Israel is committing genocide ([1], [2], [3]), despite previous RFCs (1, 2) and talk page consensus that such claims should only be attributed. The user cites an RFC from a different article to justify this. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 20:04, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

With due respect, this feels like a content dispute on the usage of Wikivoice, and I recommend getting more people to determine what language to use for the content. That being said, Cinaroot hasn't technically done 3RR yet and you haven't made the attempt at discussing it once more. Conyo14 (talk) 21:42, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

It looks like there was a discussion, late September, between Cinnaroot, Triggerhippie4, and several other users. There does not appear to be a consensus from that discussion. Personally, I'd find it a little eyebrow raising when someone participates in a discussion on a controversial change acknowledging that they *could* start a new RFC on it, but then doesn't do so and when the talk page discussion results in no consensus, makes their preferred changes anyway after a couple weeks when hopefully everyone's forgotten about it. I'll also note that the RFC at Talk:Gaza genocide was specific to the that article -- the question was formulated in explicit reference to the first sentence Should the WP:first sentence of the article have the title in bold as the sentence subject, such as The Gaza genocide is... or should it have an 'X says Y' format, such as...; respondents to that RFC were not asked to address, nor were they addressing, the broader usage of that term project wide. A local consensus in one place at one time, does not overrule a separate local consensus at another place and another time, nor a lack of a general project-wide consensus. Cinnaroot should start a broader RFC if they want to change consensus more broadly; or start one locally if they want to get it specifically for this particular article. Regardless, there's no administrator action to be taken here. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 22:46, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. After making our arguments - and there is no reply from involved editors - a silent consensus was assumed. WP:SILENCE i understand it is a weak consensus. But i think - me and another editor have made strong arguments - but if other editors disagree - they should speak out.

Consensus on Gaza genocide is recent and site-wide - it is explained in Gaza genocide FAQ

The term "Gaza Genocide" is supported by a sufficient number of reliable sources. It is the consensus, not an opinion, that it is a genocide (see discussion). Cinaroot (talk) 03:26, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

If I could bet on the future outcome of a hypothetical RFC on the Israel article, I'd put solid money on it adopting the same or similar language as the Gaza genocide article, sure. But process-wise, if y'all want that to happen someone needs to actually *do* that. It might be a non-issue in any other topic, but this one is basically the mother of all CTOPs, so dotting the I's and crossing the T's here is important regardless of the position on the merits one has. For one thing, doing so might have avoided <waves hand> all of this. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 03:59, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

(Might well have been the first CTOP, come to that.) Ravenswing 06:12, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

If i want a site wide consensus - where should i open the rfc. On Israel talk page or Village Pump or somewhere else ? Cinaroot (talk) 08:25, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

I have already raised this on the talk page, but the user continues to make the change. They cite an RFC from a different article and argue that consensus can change, although no new consensus has been reached in the past month. Triggerhippie4 (talk) 22:49, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

This is lie. They have never engaged me on my talk page - until now to post this notice about admin discussion Cinaroot (talk) 03:17, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

They didn't say they engaged on YOUR talk page. They say that they did on THE talk page. I presume that's the article talk page, and lo and behold, it's indeed been discussed. You want to pull back on that assertion? Ravenswing 03:53, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

my bad. thanks Cinaroot (talk) 04:03, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

This seems like long term edit warring that would belong as a report on WP:AE.

regardless, cinaroot should stop.

agree consensus for gaza genocide was for that specific rfc. If they want to do a broader rfc impacting multiple articles or to do one for the israel arricle they are free to. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 22:57, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

A talk discussion about it happened here Talk:Israel#WP:voice_-_Gaza_genocide-_lede

After 26 days - another user @Rafi Chazon made a revert to original - without getting involved in the talk page - which i reverted asking them to engage in talk.

Another use @DecrepitlyOnward also agree with me about the issue on talk.

Please not that @Triggerhippie4 edit warred with another editor here about the issue. [4]

@Triggerhippie4 has gone silent about the issue on talk. Because of silence from other editors - consensus was assumed.

I have followed all rules. This is a content dispute - not something that needs administrative interference.

@Triggerhippie4 Please use your words on talk page - instead of taking things to admin noticeboard. Cinaroot (talk) 03:13, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

I agree with Bluethricecreamman that perhaps a broader discussion at a project page (or even Village Pump since it's so controversial) should be had. However, I still don't think administrator intervention was necessary here. Conyo14 (talk) 06:19, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

I will open an rfc. But it makes no sense to me - that in Gaza genocide article we can use genocide as wiki-voice - but in Israel we cannot. Infact - in many other articles - we are using gaza genocide as wiki-voice. Cinaroot (talk) 06:25, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Broader RfC-like things with multi-article consequences have worked in PIA in the past, sort of... Standardizing language related to the status of Jerusalem and the legal status of Israeli settlements in Palestine spring to mind. Of course, such a RfC and all participants would be relentlessly targeted off-site by...let's call them pro-Hamas antisemitic Jihadists and pro-genocide/radicalized Israel supporters, using the nuanced language preferred in off-wiki discussions about the topic area. Sean.hoyland (talk) 07:13, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Editors have been taking the RFC on the genocide page and applying it everywhere. In some cases, this isnt a big deal, such as Bob Vylan, and I didnt bother to contest it. But on the Israel article that would be more contentious. And given Jimbos intervention, a larger discussion as suggested above is probably merited. ← Metallurgist (talk) 04:46, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Florenciaflores12's persistent unreferenced edits

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

---

A newly registered account User:Florenciaflores12, keeps adding the same content without a reference, not using the edit summary and marking their edits as minor edits.[5][6][7][8] They have been warned in their talk page trice and there's no response from them. I brought up the article for article protection and didn't get a reply/solution.[9] The reported editor's unreferenced edit is still in the article. Hotwiki (talk) 23:07, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

I checked several previous pages of article protection to see if there was a response. I was mistaken to say there wasn't a response.[10] "Consider giving the editor a final warning, but also explain why sources are needed, even though most of the cast in the article is also unsourced." After several hours after the third warning. I don't think the reported editor is going to communicate back and it would just lead to a 5th revert from them, if I reverted them. Hotwiki (talk) 23:24, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

 Done User blocked for 31 hours for adding un-sourced content. See if this gets their attention and causes them to read their talkpage. Mfield (Oi!) 05:17, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

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

Kane43 intentionally uses unreliable sources

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

---

• Kane43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

They've also been adding content cited to PeopleGroups.org (another missionary source, per this RSN discussion and the briefest glance at the site) and removing reliably sourced content while saying that sources contradict oral traditions. Then there are comments like "ur not smart kid" and "You’re not even Congolese, yet you’re all over everything related to Congo. You even stalk all our ethnic groups—like bro, are you really okay? Don’t you have any shame?". I suggest blocking as NOTHERE. Woodroar (talk) 03:10, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked Kane43 from article space. The editor is free to make neutral, well referenced edit requests on article talk pages. Cullen328 (talk) 03:47, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Good block. Any time someone asserts a "You're not/don't follow/don't edit X, what business do you have here?" line, that marks the Someone as blockworthy. Ravenswing 06:59, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

If there isn't already a WP:OWB for that, there should be. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:20, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Heh, I've added it to Ravenswing's Laws. Ravenswing 13:27, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

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

Edit by User:Goswami21

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

---

• User:Goswami21 deleted an edit with this diff citing reason The Week' is not a reliable source to cite here.... I am here to get an outcome to know whether their their was reasonable and really The Week is a reliable source or not. SaTnamZIN (talk) 05:58, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

  SaTnamZIN, ANI is for conduct issues, not content. I would recommend you discuss with the user on this issue. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 06:05, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

  Gone through their Talk page. Despite several edit related warnings, they have never replied anyone. So I felt it to get an outcome. If the issue is not suitable to bring here, please close. SaTnamZIN (talk) 06:11, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

  (Non-administrator comment) You should really ask that question on the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard or use the article Talk page for content discussion - neither of you have used it yet.

  If the Talk page discussion comes to an impasse, you can try Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

  ANI is for long-term behavioural issues as per the warning message that appears when you post and at the top of the page, which also asks you to provide evidence that other avenues have failed via diffs. Blue Sonnet (talk) 06:49, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

  I would go to WP:RSN. Please close this issue here. SaTnamZIN (talk) 07:20, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

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

Vmzp85

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

---

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

Diffs: [11][12][13][14][15] Danners430 _{tweaks made} 16:25, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

And of course par for the course, the ANI notice instantly removed from their talk page. Again of course perfectly valid, but they know this discussion exists. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 16:29, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

They’re now edit warring at Saltillo Airport, despite being told the source they’re using is deprecated - WP:AEROROUTES Danners430 _{tweaks made} 16:33, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Now rather going against WP:CIVIL with a response on their talk page… [16]. Accept I was frustrated when writing my initial post, but this is the second note I left them about this topic and they obviously ignored it. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 20:28, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Yet more… warned the user a number of times about this, but they’re still removing citations from articles without reason, leaving the content unsourced. [17] @Vmzp85 could you please address these concerns?

As an additional twist, I just discovered a dormant second account at User:Vmzp86... edit history shows identical interests, so possibly a dormant sock?Danners430 _{tweaks made} 08:43, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) it looks like they haven't used an article Talk page since 2016, which is unexpected since there are apparently disputes over content.

Last time (one month ago), their response to the concerns raised was "Nothing to say" and they were subsequently blocked by Cullen328. Blue Sonnet (talk) 12:05, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

They did use to use their user talk page, but since the last two ANIs notices have just been summarily deleted, aside from the rather rude response I got linked above. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 12:07, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Is someone able to have a look at this? Danners430 _{tweaks made} 19:54, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

I think Vmzp85 should be blocked from editing in article space. shane (talk to me if you want!) 20:33, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

I have blocked Vmzp85 for three months for disruptive editing such as removing sourced content, adding unsourced or poorly sourced content and refusing to discuss issues with other editors. Cullen328 (talk) 19:35, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

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

Possible nonconstructive edit by User:Pbritti on Octavia, Nebraska

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

---

Report text:

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

The diff in question is here:

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

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

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

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

The edit was not made by Pbritti, but an IP user.

You should probably retract this ANI thread. Plasticwonder (talk) 03:32, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

That wasn't User:Pbritti, but an IP editor.[18] Action deemed appropriate: an apology to Pbritti. --GRuban (talk) 03:35, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

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

OP socks

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

---

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

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

Not socks, see WP:Temporary accounts. Nil🥝 21:27, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Trust my instincts. They're likely the same individual. GoodDay (talk) 21:31, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

I don't disagree that there's some sort of socking/WP:LOUTSOCKing here, but the IP addresses for some of the accounts you've listed are on opposite sides of the world to each other. They appear unrelated, unless you're seeing something I'm not? Nil🥝 21:39, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Per technical data, I do not see ~2025-31241-95 evading any block, at least. Haven't checked the others. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 21:39, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

I very much doubt ~2025-31241-95, ~2025-31074-80, and ~2025-31330-45 are the same person. I also see no reason to check ~2025-31256-28 at this time. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 21:55, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Somebody, please help me. ~2025-31319-62 (talk) 00:47, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi! You don't seem to have made any comments prior to this one, and technical data doesn't indicate any previous accounts on your range. Can you clarify what you are looking for? Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 00:53, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Comment - As an onlooker, I can agree with 45dogs (talk · contribs) about the IP ranges being in different locations. sjones23 (talk - contributions) 09:39, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

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

Edit war, November 5 2025

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

---

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

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

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_vice_presidential_trips_made_by_JD_Vance&diff=prev&oldid=1320496536
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_vice_presidential_trips_made_by_JD_Vance&diff=prev&oldid=1320496536
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_vice_presidential_trips_made_by_JD_Vance&diff=prev&oldid=1320560796

— Here are my attemps at discussion...

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Grigorirasputinlover#November_2025
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MuffinHunter0#Question_from_Grigorirasputinlover_(07:33,_5_November_2025)
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Imzadi1979#Avoiding_an_editing_war

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

I had hoped that a warning to stop using LLMs would have been enough to settle this, but unfortunately Grigor has obviously persisted as seen above.

First the two nominations in question;

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of vice presidential trips made by Kamala Harris
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of vice presidential trips made by JD Vance

Both were nominated by @Equine-man: for being non-notable lists. The first account in question, Therealbrettcooper (talk · contribs), who is one of the major contributors to both articles, immediately added plainly obvious LLM usage, and I warned them to not do that again. Instead of taking my advice and ceasing, they instead chose to abuse the WP:VANISH process and become Renamed user dd69b3d78e1dc5229f589ec9784def1e (talk · contribs) with no response; because of that I chose to hat it as an LLM vote and strike it as it was clear the editor refused to defend their vote and we weren't talking to a human.

Grigor then comes in with an equally obvious LLM vote on the Vance nom (and note I have no vote on either at all), I hatted it and struck it (again because it was obviously LLM-generated), and warned them on their talk page, along with noting that I had suspicions that both Brett and Grigor were the only two major contributors to the article. Overnight, Grigor then responds to my talk page warning with three further comments which are very obviously badly translated LLM contributions, and a dash of gaslighting that the two accounts aren't related.

The simple ask for Grigor is to stop using any LLMs at all on Wikipedia, but I'm not sure that they will do so, along with being concerned about their handle on regular English based on the above and their response to my warning, but more than that, the obvious sockpuppetry needs to be addressed in those two articles and the AfD. Nathannah • 📮 17:22, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

You mentioned three further comments, but I find the links you provided confusing. I'm not sure which comments you are referring to. Could you provide Special:Diff / {{diff}} links instead? Thanks! — Chrisahn (talk) 17:31, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

My impression is that @Nathannah got a bit carried away and got some of the comments in the deletion discussion mixed up. I'd say the comments by Spiderone and Therealbrettcooper do read like they may have been generated by LLMs, but the comment by @Grigorirasputinlover reads like it's been written by a human. @MuffinHunter0 could you read these comments again? I hope you'll agree with me... But there's another issue: Is the user name "Grigorirasputinlover" in line with our policies? WP:USERNAME says: "When choosing an account name, do not choose names which may be offensive, misleading, disruptive, or promotional." The user name "Grigorirasputinlover" could easily be read as accusing someone of being be a "Putin lover", or promoting the user as a "Putin lover". After reading the name ten times, I realized it could also refer to "Rasputin lover", but that's a very uncommon phrase. Either way, I think the user name should be changed. — Chrisahn (talk) 17:26, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

This was their AfD comment with tell-tale LLM points made by em-dashes (and every heading starting with 'Given...') and a misunderstanding of AfD keep/delete and which is incorrectly indented. I certainly didn't mix up anyone here at all and again point to the two accounts being majority contributors on both pages. Nathannah • 📮 17:34, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Wrong link? — Chrisahn (talk) 17:37, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

[19], but as you noted below, there are typos, which is unusual for LLM. Nakonana (talk) 17:41, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

If the editor in question is a Russian native speaker (as their username implies) then one should point out that em-dashes are extremely common and frequent in regular text. Even in a simple phrase like "I'm Nakonana" you'd use an em-dash in Russian: "Я — Nakonana". Just as an info. Nakonana (talk) 17:44, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

I don't speak Russian, but I use mdash "—" and ndash "–" all the time. Just because I usually prefer them over the dash "-". They're easy to type on my mobile device and laptop. For example, I always type the mdash preceding my signature: — Chrisahn (talk) 18:00, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

"Grigorirasputinlover" could easily be read as accusing someone of being be a "Putin lover". That has nothing to do with Putin. Grigori Rasputin is a famous historical figure of the Russian Empire. Nakonana (talk) 17:36, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

OK, I guess I was mistaken. I didn't know Rasputin's first name was Grigori. I actually thought "Rasputin" was the whole name. :-) And since "Putin lover" has become a somewhat common slur or accusation, it's the first thing I see when I read that username. CamelCase would make that name a lot less ambiguous... — Chrisahn (talk) 17:57, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

@Grigorirasputinlover Would you consider changing your name to "GrigoriRasputinLover" or "Grigori Rasputin Lover" or whatever you prefer? I guess I'm not the only one who might be confused by your current name. — Chrisahn (talk) 18:17, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

I've read several of Grigorirasputinlover's comments and edit summaries, and to me they all look like they've been written by a human who speaks English as a second language. Lots of little mistakes that LLMs or automatic translators are unlikely to make. (No offense, Grigorirasputinlover.) (I bet sooner or later LLMs will get better at emulating such mistakes if so instructed, but I don't think we're there yet.) — Chrisahn (talk) 17:36, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

I can confirm my native langage isn't English! Grigorirasputinlover (talk) 18:10, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

I can confirm, my native langage isn't English. I can also confirm that my username is a reference to Grigori Rasputin. I registered as "grigorirasputinlover" and it was put "Grigorirasputinlover", I should have probably used capital letters as such: "Grigori Rasputin Lover".

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

Even though it's against the principle of good faith, if you want me to do anything to prove that I am a human and that I don't do sockpupetting, I would be delighted! Grigorirasputinlover (talk) 18:16, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

You can request a name change at meta:Steward requests/Username changes. — Chrisahn (talk) 18:20, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

I sincerely apologize then Grigor; I just wanted to make sure there was no ill will intended with any votes, and I admit that LLM usage around ESL people like you is something that doesn't show up well to me as someone experienced with AfD. I am going to go ahead and restore your vote and strike my warning since you have further explained things, and I apologize if I came off to you in the wrong manner. Nathannah • 📮 18:21, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Sounds good! I guess this can be closed then. Thanks everyone for the level-headed and civil discussion! — Chrisahn (talk) 18:35, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

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

User:Krzys123456

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

---

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

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

Hi, are you the same user as Special:Contributions/~2025-31204-56 who is currently blocked for sock puppetry? (pinging blocking admin @ScottishFinnishRadish, as I can't find a link to an SPI case or similar) – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:12, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

See also ~2025-31478-68, whom I just blocked for block evasion. I'd say OP is the same editor, but the underlying range is a bit too large for a block, IMO. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 13:36, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

This is uh... User:Alex Neman. Also @Isabelle Belato, you can safely indef-block temp accounts because they can only be used by one person. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 13:41, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Is Special:Contributions/~2025-31404-71 another sock? They also reverted Krzys[20]. Nakonana (talk) 15:14, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

~2025-31478-68, ~2025-31204-56, ~2025-31393-07 and ~2025-31404-71 are all likely to be the same person, from what I saw. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 18:18, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Agreed, I've blocked the other two. Think this can be closed. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 19:02, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

And Krzys edit warred over this report for some reason[21][22][23]. Nakonana (talk) 13:12, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Krzys just posted an apology on their talk page[24]. Nakonana (talk) 13:37, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

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

Devlet Geray community topic ban violations

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

The topic ban was related to Iranian-Turkic issues in Asia, while Crimea is definitely in Europe and Crimean Tatars are a European ethnic group. I haven’t touched any topics related to Iranians/Turks in Asia since then. Read carefully, then make appeals in the middle of discussion important for you Devlet Geray (talk) 02:10, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Looking at the topic-ban discussion, I can't actually see any particular reason why the closer limited the scope to Asia, given that this wasn't otherwise discussed, and given the response here (i.e. 'Lol', which comes across as frankly contemptuous), I'd have to suggest that maybe we should consider removing the unexplained and arbitrary geographical limitation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:17, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Having read through that thread, there is literally nothing in the discussion about limiting the topic ban to "in Asia"; indeed the precise proposed wording of the topic ban was all topics related to the Iranian/Turkic world, as the veryone focus of the entire problem was Crimean Tatars. @EdJohnston:, is there a reason you limited the topic ban in this manner? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:40, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

No, the very focus of that discussion were Iranian-Turkic topics (like Old Bulgar Empire, Safavids etc - these issues related to their ethnicity - I was proponent of their Turkic ethnicity in my 2021 edits). That’s the pure reason why the discussion was started by HistoryofIran back then. Plus you cannot ban me for what I have already been banned and then unbanned. My edits on Crimean Tatar topics since unban are not disruptive in any way, instead I created some good written articles and improved other. Yes since unban I mentioned Russian serfdom twice as a historical example discussing the article about slavery, but don’t think this is such an issue. Devlet Geray (talk) 02:47, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

You're partially right; that was the initial focus of the dispute, but the Crimean Tatar issue was also brought up in the discussion; I've slightly modifed my statement above accordingly. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:53, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

At least we can partially agree, I also slightly edited my first claim removing “lol” as an unnecessary emotional phrase Devlet Geray (talk) 03:29, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

The definition of 'Asia' is ambiguous, and not universally agreed upon. However, even if we put that issue aside, topics related to Turkey are specifically included in the topic ban, which should obvious include anything related to the conflict between the Ottoman Empire and Russia. Never mind that you have also made plenty of edits to articles involving what is unambiguously related to Asia, not least of all Deportation of the Crimean Tatars (the Crimean Tatars were deported to Central Asia), or to Nogais, an ethnic group that live in Asia (as well as parts of Europe). Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 03:42, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Nogais live in Europe (Stavropol - Europe, Kuban - Europe, Astrakhan - Europe, Karachay-Cherkes Reublic- Europe, Dobruja - Europe, Dagestan - Europe. So their homeland is Europe, and they are a European ethnic group too) and my edits there were about Crimean Tatars - a European ethnic group. I didn’t touch anything in Asia, and my edits were about Europe. Devlet Geray (talk) 03:46, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

That's clearly incorrect. Anyone can see from the diff you removed these parts (amongst others) from the article with your revert "Crimean Tatars were deported to rural Siberia, Kazakh SSR, and Uzbek SSR (parts of Central Asia)" and "and a further several thousand died in exile in Central Asia" and "In Central Asia, Crimean Tatars continued to be mistreated and starved while in exile by the Stalinist regime.". So this is clearly part of "everything in Asia" which is what the topic ban covered. So the only question is whether Crimean Tatars are "Turkic peoples" or "Iranian peoples", "historic or modern". Our article Crimean Tatars says "are an Eastern European Turkic ethnic group and nation indigenous to Crimea.". So I'm going to say they are. So a clear and unambigious violation of the topic ban even with the questionable limited scope. The topic ban did not say anywhere that the Turkic people needed to be Asian Turkic people. It simply said it had to be something in Asia to do with them. Turkic people dying in Asia, being mistreated and starved in Asia, and yes just being successfully deported to Asia is clearly something that happened in Asia no matter where these Turkic people originated from. Nil Einne (talk) 04:30, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Mister RGloucester, my nickname is Devlet Geray, so use it in the correct way please. Devlet Geray (talk) 02:18, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

For clarity, are you asking people don't shorten your name to Devlet? Nil Einne (talk) 03:52, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

• Yes it’s not my name it’s a nick. If I need familiarity here, I will inform about it. - Devlet Geray (talk) 03:55, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

  A nick is still a form of a name otherwise it wouldn't be "nickname". Also I doubt it's intended as a form of familiarity but instead simply a way to avoid typing out a long name. People do it with my nick name sometimes too. That said it's fine to ask people not to shorten it and that should be respected but you need to be clear what you want since "my nickname is Devlet Geray, so use it in the correct way please" is very unclear. It could easily be referring to a typo or something else. Nil Einne (talk) 04:21, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

I have fixed this as per your request. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 06:14, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

I gotta be honest, instead of arguing over the exact wording of the topic ban, something that I think will just end up as fruitless fighting over words and clauses, the most straightforward resolution seems to me to be one of two options:

• - If the topic ban is no longer needed, remove the topic ban.
• - If the topic ban is still needed, make it Turkic peoples and Iranian people, broadly construed, and remove an ambiguity that doesn't benefit the community or Devlet Geray.

CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 06:23, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

I endorse selecting one of the two choices described by CoffeeCrumbs. And since Devlet Geray seems to be focused on wikilawyering about what is European and what is Asian, I recommend clarifying the topic ban to cover Turkic peoples and Iranian people, broadly construed, eliminating all ambiguity. Cullen328 (talk) 08:48, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Technically speaking, that could potentially be imposed right now as Crimea falls within WP:CT/EE. I seriously considered just doing it earlier, but the fact Devlet Geray was only notified of CT/EE just before this ANI was filed (i.e. had not edited within it after notification at all) made me hesitate. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:59, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

I'd support extending the topic ban especially since it doesn't even seem like the community wanted to limit it in the discussion. That said, I think it's important for Devlet Geray to appreciate they did violate the topic ban as worded unless there's someone else who agrees with the intepretation that something which happened in Asia to Turkic people is somehow not covered by a topic ban on everything in Asia to do with Turkic people etc. The violation might have been long enough ago that it's not clear a short block now will be preventative but they need to appreciate that even if this thread closes with no action they can expect an extended block if they do that again. Nil Einne (talk) 11:33, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Actually I just noticed a very recent violation. This source Devlet Geray reinserted by revert [25] is titled "Genetic differentiation between upland and lowland populations shapes the Ychromosomal landscape of West Asia". Whatever personal definition Devlet Geray wants to use, they clearly don't get to override sources they themselves are using when it comes to the topic ban. So they don't get to reinsert a source which explicitly refers to West Asia when it comes to a Turkic people. I have reverted their topic ban violation as it was still the latest edit. Also I should mention one reason it's important for Devlet Geray to appreciate this is that even with an extended and simpler topic ban, there are still going to be grey areas. Editors who can't even accept unambigious violates of existing topic bans are unlikely to succeed with any topic ban even an extended one with a clearer wording IMO. To be clear, I don't think this should be made a prerequiste for anything but Devlet Geray needs to carefully consider their position if they want to continue to edit here IMO since if they keep up with this whatever happens from here, barring a removal of the topic ban which seems unlikely, they'll likely quickly find themselves in big trouble. Edit: Just to note I said they themselves are using for emphasis, but it wouldn't matter if Devlet Geray is adding or removing the source, it would still be a violation. Nil Einne (talk) 11:48, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Why can't I use a source that have "Asia" in its name? For instance, can I use as a source a book named "History of Europe and Asia" to write article about the history of Europe? It has Asia in its name and it clearly describes history of Asian Turkic peoples. The only phrase I used from the mentioned source is "Three Yamnaya samples belong not only to the eastern branch in general, but to a specific sub-branch identified in a present-day sample from the Crimean Tatar population: I0231 and I0429 are GG625 derived, and I0444 is 17146508 derived (this SNP was identified in the our Crimean Tatar sample but not shown on the tree as the call rate was less than 90%)." It has nothing to do with Asia. Or can't I edit the article Virgin Lands campaign - it's about soviet policy in Kazakhstan, Turkic country? I belive that the primary reason for me that topic ban related to Iranian and Turkic peoples in Asia was given to me because of my edits in the relative topics, not because of my edits about Crimea and Crimean Tatars. Saying that I had "years of disruptive edits in articles related to the Crimean Tatars" for me seems unfair. If there is a proof that my edits on Crimean topics have somehow been disruptive all the time since unban and my articles are a harm to community, only then the extension of topic-ban can be discussed. I admit that some of my edits, one way or another, unintenially fall under the scope of the topic ban as it was intended, I apologize for it, but I am ready to follow restrictions according to a less ambiguous interpretation, I hope we can find a solution that addresses the concerns while allowing me to continue editing in my areas of knowledge. Devlet Geray (talk) 12:31, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

To be clear, I opened this thread because of these two edits, where you accused me of holding 'the desire to proof Russia was right all the time', justified removal of content cited in the article that is inconvenient to some narrative you want to portray by referring to the completely unrelated Russian serfdom, and also completely skewed the lead of the article, adding content that is not supported by the citations you added, all to either right great wrongs or prove a point. The move discussion has nothing to do with it. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 13:07, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

I said it generally, not your desire to prove Russia was right all the time, but the desire generally, not meaning you. I didn't delete nor I add anything, but I pointed out that in the preamble you repeat yourself - a clear unnecessary tautology: "Russia aimed to control the Black Sea and end raids by Crimean slavers into its territory - The annexation ended the centuries-long Crimean slave trade" (referring to the Black Sea slave trade article not to Crimean–Nogai slave raids in Eastern Europe like it's in consensus version), which (repetition) I indicated in the explanation of the edit, and then simply returned the article to the consensus version not changing anything in it. How is serfdom unrelated? If Russia abolished Black Sea slave trade with a kind gesture, then why did it continue from Circassia until 20th century and slavery (we can name it in different ways - krepostnichestvo like in Russian: this had stopped being a requirement by the 19th century, and serfs were by then practically indistinguishable from slaves, or yasırlıq like in Crimean Tatar - the nature is generally the same) form the backbone of the Russian economy until 1861? I'm not promoting any "narratives" as you want to present it, it's again a personal attack on me (discuss my edits, not my personality and not my "desires"), I'm just trying to point out the inconsistencies. Devlet Geray (talk) 13:15, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

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

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

This is confirmed by reading the source:

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

Or frankly even the abstract:

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

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

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

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

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

Ok, I see your point, I withdraw all my justifications for my edits Devlet Geray (talk) 14:44, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

It looks like you didn't actually file a report at COIN, but that's probably for the best, since one forum is enough. Looking at User:Cryptochelys's edits to Kang Zhang [26], I would support determining a COI exists between the two and requiring Cryptochelys to only edit about Zhang through edit requests. The article as initially created by Cryptochelys is fairly promotional [27]. This was immediately followed up by adding Zhang to List of Chinese Americans [28]. Other suspicious edits include replacing a fairly negative news article about his resignation with a link to Zhang's CV, while simultaneously adding two further links to Zhang's personal website [29]; replacing all mentions of his resignation [30]; and again removing mention of the resignation and the negative news article [31] (as pointed out above, this edit removes a source while claiming that the content was unsourced). Toadspike [Talk] 21:50, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

I did file it on WP:COIN, but it was undone, because I reported it here. See the following:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&oldid=1320072287

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&oldid=1320072420

Should I re-post it, or just leave it here?

Fully agree with your analysis

~2025-31528-45 (talk) 15:26, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

I don't know why my name changed, but this is 65.112.8.60 it seems I've been given a "temporary account"

~2025-31528-45 (talk) 15:29, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

That's a new thing; see Wikipedia:Temporary accounts. The very nutshelled explanation is that it's on account of European privacy laws. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:09, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

2025-range

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

---

There seems to be a lot of one-edit accounts, fething up with pointless edits in the 2o25 range such as this [[32]], is something going on? Slatersteven (talk) 18:57, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

See WP:TEMPA EvergreenFir (talk) 18:59, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Those are temporary accounts - they’re IP editors Danners430 _{tweaks made} 19:00, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

The 2025 "range" refers to the year the temporary account was created/made edits. The current year is 2025. All temporary accounts creates this year will start with 2025. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 19:00, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Cheers Slatersteven (talk) 19:03, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

I see a lot disruptive accounts with "(talk)" at the end of their signatures. What's up with that? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:02, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

First time I encountered the new system, I was not aware of it. Slatersteven (talk) 19:03, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Phew, I’m safe then! :D Danners430 _{tweaks made} 19:03, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Part of the "(UTC)" gang! Guards! Seize him! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:05, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

You’ll never take me alive! Danners430 _{tweaks made} 19:08, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

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

Edit warring/disruptive/personal attacking IPs

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

---

• 2601:881:8482:6CF0:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 86.155.72.170 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

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

Also, it appears this is all the 'response' to this we'll be getting from the one IP... Magitroopa (talk) 23:23, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes, genius. I'm clearly worthy of blocking for making less than five *factually constructive* MINOR EDITS on a tv show episodes page which resulted in me being forced to waste an ungodly amount of my time for the past 3 days repeatedly dealing with a braindead, illiterate troll-spammer.

Cluelessly complain and fail elsewhere you pathetic hypocrite. Reporting you right back. 86.155.72.170 (talk) 23:26, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

This one was previously reminded about civility by myself and another user. tony 23:28, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Just reported the IP after their personal attacks towards others is continuing (here in an ANI thread specifically regarding their behavior??). Clearly their behavior hasn't/will not be stopping after continuing said personal attacks here and being warned multiple times previously. Magitroopa (talk) 23:33, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Genius non-response. Keep the pathetic false-reporting coming. 86.155.72.170 (talk) 23:44, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

FYI, it is not 'false reporting' when your behavior continues to go against no personal attacks. No matter who started all this edit warring, you are the one continuing with personal attacks towards other editors, even continuing to do so in this very ANI thread discussing that issue. While I originally created this ANI regarding yours and the IP range's edit warring/personal attacks, you continuing with that same behavior here is only increasing the likelihood of getting blocked. Magitroopa (talk) 23:50, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

You reported me for telling a *factual troll spammer* to get off my talk page as they repeatedly harassed me and deleted MY OWN REPLIES. Ergo, you are unequivocally *pathetic*.

And big spoilers: I couldn't give the slightest toss about a 3 day old non-account getting blocked. Worthlessly report it forever. 86.155.72.170 (talk) 00:00, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

The IPv6 range edit warred yesterday but seems to have ceased that today. They were also trying to de-escalate the conflict, but 86..., as can readily be seen above, seems to relish conflict. I have blocked 86... for 1 week for personal attacks and am not taking action against the IPv6 range. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 00:13, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

LOL keep miserably failing at life you embarrassingly pathetic, hypocrite geek pricks 92.40.219.154 (talk) 00:42, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

The irony of this coming from someone who is throwing a temper tantrum over a show for children. Industrial Insect (talk) 19:10, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

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

I have blocked 92.40.218.0/23 Mfield (Oi!) 01:23, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

That range has a worrisome edit history. See, e.g., Special:Diff/1319780678 Special:Diff/1316804820. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 02:05, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

---

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

Alamo NM has a long history of editing New Mexico State University to claim that it is a "flagship" university. This dates back to 2018 and has often been paired with edits removing "flagship" from University of New Mexico (e.g., [33], [34]) or claims that the two universities are both flagships (e.g., [35], [36]). There was discussion in the Talk pages of both articles last year (UNM and NMSU discussion 1 and NMSU discussion 2) among multiple editors that resulted in consensus that the evidence supported labeling only the University of New Mexico a flagship university. There weren't very many editors in the discussion so it's not a terribly strong consensus.

Since then, Alamo NM has occasionally returned to edit the articles to impose their view without any further attempt at discussion or new evidence e.g. adding "flagship" to the NMSU article, again adding "flagship" to the NMSU article, again adding "flagship" to the NMSU article, again adding "flagship" to the NMSU article and removing "flagship" from the UNM article. Their edits in 2025 have either not used any edit summaries (e.g., [37], [38], [39]) or have used edit summaries that don't mention their addition or removal of this material (e.g., "Updated story"). One of the edits that didn't include an edit summary did include a reference but the document doesn't even mention New Mexico State University; Alamo NM didn't reply to a question about this source in the article's Talk page. Yesterday, an unregistered editor made the exact same kind of edit that Alamo NM has made many times.

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

Potentially of note is that at least two of the IPs that made these edits, 192.88.140.18 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 192.88.140.15 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), are associated with New Mexico State University. I'd be concerned about paid editing and/or COIs if it's the same user. – Frood (talk) 03:40, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

I highly doubt this is paid editing. Probably a faculty or student, but one acting independent of the University. I say this because I don't think NMSU would pay for this. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 21:52, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Indeed. -- asilvering (talk) 00:26, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

(rolls eyes) The university's own splash page doesn't assert it's a "flagship" anything. Ravenswing 06:57, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

p-blocked. If this spirals into related pages, let us know. -- asilvering (talk) 19:14, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

I just added University of New Mexico to your p-block, as Alamo NM has removed the flagship designation there as well as adding it to NMSU. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:29, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

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

User:Mandruss

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

---

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

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

No significant factual errors that I can see, but there is a distinct selectivity and spin. This is not an accurate characterization of my feelings or intent. Otherwise I'll throw myself at the mercy of the court unless someone addresses me directly. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢ IMO. 20:32, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Your gonna have to provide some WP:DIFFs here @~2025-31330-45 – having a quick scroll through the most recent of Mandruss' Talk Page conversations shows quite the opposite of biting imho. Nil🥝 20:40, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

I have stipulated to the facts presented, so I don't see a need for diffs. I do not stipulate to the selectively or spin; rather, I implore editors to look at the larger picture as you have done. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢ IMO. 20:57, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Also @~2025-31330-45, you seem familiar with Mandruss, yet you've only made two edits. Your IP /24 has only made two other edits this year, on pages Mandruss hasn't edited on at all.

Have you previously edited under any other accounts? Nil🥝 21:01, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Mandruss also has a history of being blatantly homophobic (example here) ~2025-31294-09 (talk) 22:40, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Something going on here. I'm sensing a concerted effort to get Mandruss blocked, for something. GoodDay (talk) 22:43, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

No connection to the others, from what I saw. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 22:45, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

i don't care if he's blocked or not, i just think people should what kind of person we're talking about here. if nothing here is deemed block-worthy, that's fine. ~2025-31294-09 (talk) 22:52, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Oh. In that case, I confess to being a terrible person. Maybe we can wrap this up early. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢ IMO. 23:19, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

WP:NQP. ~2025-31294-09 (talk) 23:32, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

This is disappointing to see. You and I got off to a shaky start, and when you reached out later to mend things over, I respected that. But these comments about converting "a female gay" and casually using the R-slur... Are you aiming to offend people? Anne drew (talk · contribs) 01:56, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

It's probably best not to re-litigate a previous ANI on the matter – the template was removed, and the "female gay" remark was struck. Nil🥝 02:08, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Fair enough, I'll leave it at that. I think that thread answered my question anyway. Anne drew (talk · contribs) 02:17, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

---

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

---

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

Self-promotion04:47, 6 November 2025 (UTC) Jimbo Wales (talk · contribs) has recently published a book. Despite being out for a whole week, and despite being an "Editor's pick" on Amazon and in the category "Best nonfiction", it has so far attracted a whopping 1 review. Jimbo is probably disappointed that his world-changing book has not garnered the attention of scholars and world media he thinks it deserves, so he has resorted to04:47, 6 November 2025 (UTC)He has made waves in one of the most controversial articles on Wikipedia. This has been covered, incorrectly, by many outlets: [40] [41] [42] [43] and so on. It looks as though Jimmy has made no effort to correct the news outlets and tell them that he wasn't the one to lock the article, because he personally stands to benefit from the attention.04:47, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

See WP:JIMBO for his not having actually been an admin for some time. Where's Iridescent when you need them. But yeah, on principle, I support the deprecation of the Founder's flag as a historical curiosity. It is irrelevant to the modern project, has the potential for misuse (which is a very generous take on recent events on WT:Gaza genocide) and frankly an anachronism. In the vernacular, the flag is like a third teat on a bull; of minor interest and even less practical use. —Fortuna, imperatrix 20:52, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

(This comment was removed as a violation of the extended-confirmed restriction in the Arab–Israeli conflict contentious topic. — Newslinger talk 00:54, 5 November 2025 (UTC))

Yes. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 00:00, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

The claim of guilt by association via the WEF is not impressive. Is Mahmoud Abbas now guilty of having the wrong opinions on Gaza too? I do not think these profile pages mean what you think they mean. Toadspike [Talk] 20:57, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Point taken. I've struck that part. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 21:02, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose a topic ban as if that anodyne content was topic ban-worthy, then pretty much anyone in good standing in that area is guilty of the same offense. Canvassing because lots of people read his talk page is a gigantic stretch; he shouldn't have more rights for being the founder, but he also shouldn't have fewer. Changing his unique status as a founder is out of scope for ANI, and something like this ought to be discussed at the village pump and among the wider community. Frankly, this is a waste of time to even be at ANI, and strikes me as a bit WP:POINTY. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 21:01, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Why did he have to open the topic at Talk:Gaza genocide with "founder of Wikipedia here"? How is that not an expectation of more rights, i.e. that his opinion be given more weight? TurboSuperA+_[talk] 21:04, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that is utterly small potatoes, smaller than crumbs-on-the-bottom-of-the-bag-of-chips small. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 22:55, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Concur. Look, TurboSuperA+, hundreds upon hundreds of editors fall back on similar riffs: that they have expertise in X, that they have degrees in Y, that they've worked thirty years in Z field. And all with the same goal: to have their opinion seen as having more weight. Is that in of itself sanction-worthy? No, of course not. Do we routinely discount it as trumpery? Well, sure, we do. Ravenswing 23:38, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Until Jimbo actually does start dictating coverage of topics of Wikipedia, we cannot treat his trumpery as if he were waging active war upon this website. And there is no indication he has any meaning to go and do that outright. BarntToust 23:44, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Bah, positioning is off. I was concurring with CoffeeCrumbs, not with TurboSuperA+. I'm thinking this is a tempest in a tea cup myself, and will generate ten times as much heat and frothing at the mouth as light. Ravenswing 00:48, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Bob on with everything.Halbared (talk) 22:03, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

I agree that Jimbo wading into this dispute on wiki, and invoking his position as founder and a member of the "NPOV working group" is a huge abuse of community trust. The founding ideals of Wikipedia are built on community control, not diktat from a non-profit foundation "working group" that was created in response to bad faith political pressure. Jimbo says he made this statement solely in his "personal capacity" as an editor, but he would, wouldn't he? He surely knows that his outsized role on wiki would create mishegas around the article. I would support an uninvolved admin issuing a logged WP:PIA warning and potentially imposing consensus restrictions at Gaza genocide. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:02, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

The more problematic part, in my opinion, is that he is mischaracterizing what the NPOV working group actually is. I wouldn't necessarily call the NPOVWG a non-profit foundation 'working group' that was created in response to bad faith political pressure, but the third paragraph of Jimbo's post reads like it relies on the vagueness of the name to confer it some purpose and authority it doesn't have.

Pinging @Risker (NPOVWG's community seat) who wrote a solid explanation at Talk:Gaza genocide#A brief note about the Neutral point of view (NPOV) working group and might be able to clarify better what the working group's powers are and aren't. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:27, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

I've struck the part about political pressure. However, I am concerned about a working group that has the incoming and outgoing board chairs as members and the authority to develop a baseline standard applicable to all Wikipedias specific to NPOV. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:33, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose TBan, support Trout for tone and presumption. I dislike this discussion being framed by his recent publication.

Augmented Seventh (talk) 21:08, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

@Rosguill's point is fair, but if Jimbo gets a logged warning, that might be enough of a message for him to back off, no? voorts (talk/contributions) 21:13, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

I think a logged warning would be appropriate and would likely address the issue at hand. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:20, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from @Rhododendrites, but Jimbo could've just chosen not to weigh in here, particularly when he hadn't even bothered to do the research of looking at the prior community consensus. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:40, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Agree with @Femke. Oppose logged warning. Support trout to be served by an experienced admin. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:52, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

In a sense, I agree with BarntToust below: if editors didn’t accord special weight to Jimbo, this wouldn’t really be an issue. But I think the state of Talk:Gaza genocide speaks for itself: Jimbo’s comment was disruptive, regardless of its intent, and has set back discussion of actually improving the article (regardless of what one’s POV of “improvement” looks like), in addition to suggesting several practices vis-a-vis BOLD and NPOV that are by turns inaccurate and unproductive. It’s disruption for the same reason any vague shoot-from-the-hip talk page critique of an article is. If Jimbo had ideas for how to improve the article, he should have provided specific critiques and sources to support them. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:55, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

@Voorts: But why is "weighing in without doing enough research into prior community consensus" by someone who's not even editing the article the stuff of dramatic ANI threads and logged warnings, as opposed to something that happens all the time? I get that having someone with soft power comment on an already hotly contentious subject is complicated. I don't think this ANI thread is the way to deal with those complications, though.
I'll also add: I don't think optics should play a role in motivating our decisions, and they are not the reason why I expressed the opinion below, but there is also an optics-related consequence worth remarking on to go along with this bad-for-its-own-reasons thread -- "co-founder tries to start discussion, doesn't even edit article, and is met with efforts to shut down discussion, insults, remove a merely decorative right, prevent him from talking about it any more in the future, and a logged warning" (the inevitable framing) is a bad look, regardless of the merits (or not) of his approach. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:59, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Fair enough RE optics, which I am concerned about. as opposed to something that happens all the time It does, but not from editors who should know way better. I've now changed to just a trout rather than a logged warning. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:02, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

I think the trout should be something along the lines of "you should know better than to weigh in on a controversial topic without determining what the current consensus is, why that's the consensus, and presenting strong contrary evidence". voorts (talk/contributions) 22:04, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

A trout is still a formal outcome, and I don't think it winds up serving anyone in this case other than outside observers. Jimmy's already reading this, and has read the many, many responses to his comments already. FWIW. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:06, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Fair enough. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:11, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Let's put the trout back in the freezer. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:14, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

You can do some real damage with a frozen trout. NebY (talk) 23:32, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

• I think some of the framing in this post here stretch towards the conspiratorial, but frankly the comment made by Jimbo at Talk:Gaza_genocide#Statement_from_Jimbo_Wales is astoundingly poorly justified. Charitably, it's a forum post. Less charitably, it's WP:BATTLEGROUND pure and simple--and privileges his personal opinion without citing a single relevant reliable source. Jimbo has demonstrated that they should not be editing or discussing PIA topics on Wikipedia. It's within my authority as an uninvolved administrator to impose a topic-ban or warning unilaterally, but I'd rather see it come from the community. And more generally, regarding the founders trying to throw their weight around this past month: לא בשמים היא. The community is responsible for itself. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:10, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Special:ListGroupRights tells us the "founder" right enables reading pages and using two-factor authentication. Everyone has the first right and by the end of the year, everyone will have the second. The proposal to deprecate the founder right seems as empty a gesture as the right itself. NebY (talk) 21:21, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Support alternate proposal: collectively trout the entire community for caring so much about a guy who is on the "I have a book tour coming up" phase of his career. I mean, unless Jimbo actually coordinates some effort to circumvent community process, at the moment all he is doing is the equivalent of an IP editor going to Talk:Donald Trump and declaring Wikipedia as a biased failure. Jimbo is basically having all the influence of the British Royal Family, where he is treated with much symbolic value, and many people care about what he thinks, but he holds no real power, and nobody actually expects Jimmy to make a real power play here. At the end of the day, this is going to amount to a non-issue. BarntToust 21:23, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Support removing Founder right - It may seem "empty" to some, but I do think it sends an important message in that he holds no greater weight here than anyone else.

I've not been involved in anything on this topic as far as I can remember, but reading through that quite frankly it has a disturbing energy of "look I'm not demanding you to make an exception but if you think that's deserved then I won't argue against it..." and the fact he's seemingly trying to play games by referencing his NPOV working group and bringing up the article in an interview would for anyone else in a position of trust be seen as far beyond what's acceptable.

And to finish, I don't see any grounds to give him benefit of the doubt because as he himself opens the discussion with, he co-founded this place so should know its rules and more importantly its expectations better than anyone. Rambling Rambler (talk) 21:29, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

(This comment was removed as a violation of the extended-confirmed restriction in the Arab–Israeli conflict contentious topic. — Newslinger talk 00:54, 5 November 2025 (UTC))

First of all, he hasn't been censored at all but rather chastised for acting in a way that's inappropriate. I care about the project, not about wider public "outrage" in the usual rags. Rambling Rambler (talk) 00:45, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

• Come on now. Everything from the bad faith speculations about motives and insults at the top to It is clear that Jimbo Wales has no interest in following community consensus, when he has made literally zero edits to the article in question, seems way, way, way over the top here. I don't have strong feelings about the founder userright, but it has no technical function at all, so how can it be abused? If the objection is that he's introducing himself as the co-founder, that will still be true without the technical userright. Is anyone under the impression that people know he's the co-founder, then check his user-right, see "founder", and think "oh, well that userright changes everything"? On what basis would we be logging a warning? Expressing strong disagreement with where consensus stands at the moment is very much allowed, and basically half of talk page posts for controversial topics. There is no policy called Wikipedia:Do not use the soft power of a co-founder to try to influence article content, and if there were, I'd be surprised to see its enforcement start with Jimmy. If Jimmy starts edit warring and banning people for disagreeing with him, or otherwise trying to set article content by fiat, we can have a different conversation, but for now this is not IMO a matter for ANI. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:35, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

  Only place I disagree is with "There is no policy called Wikipedia:Do not use the soft power of a co-founder to try to influence article content, and if there were, I'd be surprised to see its enforcement start with Jimmy". That is a WP:AIRBUD fallacy right there, and it doesn't take an essay to realize that that what he did is improper. Of course, while may it be a debated matter of impropriety, you and I solidly agree that Jimbo's moves are de facto worthless and won't really have any impact as they are. BarntToust 21:59, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

I support the removal of the 'founder' right, due to (as others have pointed out) it being redundant. But a topic ban is IMO too harsh, so I support voorts' proposal of a logged warning. MiasmaEternal☎ 21:40, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

• Are there people that can have a quiet chat with him per User:Barkeep49/Friends don't let friends get sanctioned? About the community expectations around the use of sources in controversial areas, showing a willingness to compromise, and not flouting his founder status. Disagreeing vehemently with a consensus is allowed, but this should happen in a colleageal way. It's unfortunate that Wales denied canvassing after me and another uninvolved admin reminded him of that guideline, but that's not enough to base a sanction on. A trout is perhaps the most tactful way out. Sanctioning proper would not put Wikipedia in a good light, as it would be misinterpreted by various media outlets as trying to silence certain voices. And to keep Wikipedia neutral long-term, we need buy-in and editing from people with a wide variety of opinions. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 21:49, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Agree with the first and the last part. Along the lines of the first, I don't know Jimmy well enough to know if this is something he would want, but he probably has many highly experienced Wikipedian friends who would be willing to connect informally off-wiki to give him a sounding board. I know there are people I sometimes talk to before I do or write something that could be controversial (maybe I should've done that before jumping into this thread :) ). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:13, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

• Support both TBan and removal of founder right or as an alternate proposal, give Larry Sanger the founder right too and allow the two of them demonstrate how things are supposed to work when there is a dispute. ~2025-31274-24 (talk) 21:54, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Femke, if you and other admins think that'd be the best way forward in the interest of the 'pedia, should probably IAR and close this before it balloons. One thing I hope will be discussed with him is how he can allow himself to fall so far out of touch with the community and its editing processes (obv it's a two-way street), and how that can be addressed for the future. Kowal2701 (talk) 22:49, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

It can be debated whether or not it was wise for Wales to wade into that page in the manner that he did.

Premature for any topic ban talk (yet). As Wales has (seemingly) no official power here beyond any other board member and the Founder "option", this should be reviewed IF Wales attempts to force/compel Article content changes against consensus. If the Wikimedia Foundation wants to do it, they can do it on the record and officially, and own the consequences good or bad. If any board member in their personal role tried to play King in fiat content decisions, then' of course, immediately and without delay remove their ability to do so. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 21:56, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

This is so dumb. --JBL (talk) 22:18, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose removal of the founder right; that's petty and doesn't actually solve any of the problems presented here. If he had never had that technical right, then this entire drama would have carried out in basically the exact same way. No opinion on anything else. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:21, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
• Support removal of Founder right, Support TBAN. I really dislike the obvious use of this honourary title to try and influence the community on such a contentious article. It's implicit deference does undermine the collective work of the community, and if Wales wishes to constructively edit Wikipedia in the current community norms, he can do so on an equal footing with all the rest of us. The creeping attempts at personal influence from Wales and other unmentioned co-founders in the current political climate really worries me. qcne (talk) 22:25, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose removal of founder right, Speedy close with appropriately thoughtful trouting - not useful any other way and would rather avoid further escalation per femke. He is influential by social clout and by nature of his involvement and WP:JIMBO will always apply, similar to a certain other infamouse cofounder. however, if he wants to do something as an ordinary user, he is allowed to.
  I think a petition by trusted admins, or an RFC statement as such would be useful to send a message if time comes, but currently a TROUT is most appropriate. Agree Jimbo probably did some level of unacceptable canvassing, but he seemed to lack WP:CLUEness in this specific area. we really do not need to overreact to this and escalate further beyond thoughtfully considering his advice (and possibly rejecting it if necessary if consensus proves so).
  and for what its worth, there is some productive analysis coming from his intervention in the form of a possible new policy, WP:GENOCIDE. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 22:31, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
• I don't think the founder right means much, and a TBAN might be too harsh at this point in time, but I'd support a logged warning for poor behavior in a contentious topic. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 22:37, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose all actions against Jimbo, Trouting may be appropriate Like others have said, this is just petty. Jimbo has made zero edits to the article and has shown zero intent to unilaterally override community consensus. There are legitimate problems with the article that need to be addressed, and it doesn't matter who starts that discussion, it needs to happen. Jimbo is not trying to override community consensus; he's just pointing out problems that need to be solved. The civil POV pushing and "righting great wrongs" mentality in the PIA topic area is pretty bad and we need to do something about it. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 22:39, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

  There are definitely problems in that topic area. But starting an entire subsection entitled "Statement by Jimbo Wales" with an air of officialness and allusions to his soft power is the exact opposite of what should be done to end that problem. Rambling Rambler (talk) 22:53, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

  Nothing else seemed to be working, so I understand why he did that. I also understand that what he did has caused lots of disruption. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 23:16, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

• Sigh, I see we're already in the news for this too. I really wish Jimbo would stop trying to do this "as the founder of Wikipedia, I, a normal editor, think we should do this" schtick. But I know, since we're on decade two of him repeatedly doing this over and over and causing controversy every single time, he's unlikely to stop anytime soon. It's also well known that the vast majority of his involvement in these sorts of situations is on the side of "what will make Wikipedia look good" rather than "what are Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for articles". Being on the same side as Sanger on the issue shows we're far, far away from anything involving the latter or how NPOV is meant to be used on Wikipedia. I honestly don't know if I can support as far as a topic ban, but I do think a logged warning and deprecated founder right is appropriate. I'm honestly surprised the latter is still around, I thought that would have gone away when we all voted to remove his founder flag way back when during the previous Jimbo/Larry power battle over Commons images. Silverseren^C 22:46, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose any action against Jimmy. He stated he was "co-founder" because he literally is; removing the "Founder" right is therefore pointless, as it's not any additional user rights he's misused. Equally oppose any suggestion he shouldn't call himself a founder on Wikipedia as it is in conflict with reality. Maybe trout him for being grandiose in how he made the argument and to encourage him to show more wisdom on how he words such discussions in the future (which he is well within his rights to do). — Czello ^(music) 22:53, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
• Support removal of founder right and logged warning (or a trout at the bare minimum.) I think a TBan might be going too far, especially because the topic area isn't really the problem (at least not so far). The problem, to me, is the way he implicitly invoked his status as a founder and his position with the WMF via the NPOV Working Group in the context of a content dispute; I'm also not at all happy with his dismissal of the existing consensus on the page, which was established in a well-attended, extremely long running, and time-consuming RFC. Just trying to... throw that all away because he disagrees with the outcome is not great (yes, even if the disagreement is based in thinking there are NPOV issues - that's what the RFC was about.) Naturally he has the right to weigh in as a normal user, and it will always be true that he was a founder; but if he's going to use that fact as an argument in content disputes like this, then we should make it clear that the community doesn't give it any special weight, which is best-achieved by removing any technical recognition of it.

But his invocation of the NPOV Working Group is the bigger problem, because it is an actual role that he could, in theory, try to use to influence the policies related to this - even if all it can do is make recommendations, those come with the weight of the WMF behind them. I strongly feel that it is obviously inappropriate for anyone who has a role with the WMF, even a purely advisory one, to invoke that role during content disputes - even if one is extremely careful, it can have a chilling effect, and regardless of his intent Jimbo absolutely has not been careful here. In the context of a discussion he started by invoking his position in the NPOV Working group, statements like (from the diff above) We need to look at this as a case study - the article is not in line with policy but there are massive barriers for anyone who wants to correct it, barriers that should not exist or his wording here about how it will be investigating enwiki to determine if we're neutral bluntly read like a threat - "make the changes I'm requesting to this article or I'll escalate with the WMF to remove those barriers." Again, I absolutely don't believe he intended it that way, but the reaction makes it clear that that's how many people read it, and since he hasn't shown any indication that he understands how badly he screwed up, we need to take at least some steps to make it undeniable. --Aquillion (talk) 23:03, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

The founder right literally does nothing. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 23:17, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

• Logged warning - I was quite bothered by the title and subtitle calling it a statement from the co-founder of Wikipedia. Like a voice from on-high came to tell us the “truth”. I think it could be quite off-putting to some editors – although most of the editors on that page would not be spooked. I do not mind retention of the founder bit as nowadays it is more an honor, not a super mop, and deserved. I do think the behavior requires more than trout for dinner. But a logged warning should be quite enough as I don’t see a likely reprise. And I don’t like speculation about motive. O3000, Ret. (talk) 23:06, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
• Support formal warning, but currently oppose TBAN - His behavior has been highly disruptive in a contentious topic area & while he has every right to participate as an average editor, he has not done so. His refusal to cite sources & his encouragement of others to bypass community consensus showed a disregard of established policy unbecoming of a longtime editor that would not be tolerated by others. However, due to how rarely he participates in editing, let alone WP:PIA, I believe a TBAN may be unnecessary at the time. This is said with the understanding that future disruptive behavior like this will have harsher consequences. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 23:14, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
• I have no opinion on whether or not Jimbo's actions on the talk page were or were not appropriate, but I do raise my eyebrow at the start of the OP's initial statement here. How, exactly, is the accusation that he's probably disappointed that his world-changing book has not garnered the attention of scholars and world media he thinks it deserves relevant here? Are there diffs to evidence that his deciding to weigh in on this debate is connected to a lack of reviews for his book? Because Jimbo isn't immune from Wikipedia's policies and guidelines - both ways. WP:NPA included. And that really sounds to me like WP:ASPERSIONS. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:22, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

  eh, I don't really think this is a harrowing matter of great offense to Jimbo, but it definitely is biting, on-the-nose, and not really fitting anywhere in any serious discussion of the evident problematic-ness that Jimbo's recent moves have erupted in. A simple "knock it off and keep things relevant, please" will suffice. BarntToust 23:33, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Support Trouting per Femke. I think if this was an ordinary user coming in late into a content dispute and demanding a change, no one would bat an eyelid and they would just get some talk page messages and that would be the end of that, but because its WP:JIMBO doing this while seemingly trying to use his status to give his position extra clout this becomes problematic.

I also think the optics of this are important, this has already generated a lot of controversy and I feel like taking action that is too drastic would not be a very good idea, this can always be escalated later if things don't improve.

And I would say to him that people trust wikipedia because it has a transparent process and content disputes are resolved through community consensus, having the appearance of the founder trying to get around that process risks hurting trust in wikipedia more than any edit dispute ever could. Giuliotf (talk) 23:33, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

• Support logged warning, oppose revoking founder right or TBAN Revocation of the right would be petty and do nothing to reduce the actual power Jimbo exerted here, that to start discussion. The issue is that the way he used that power here to start a discussion in a way that was poorly formed and already in a contentious area. User:JasonMacker already did a great job breaking down the issues with the statement, I'd recommend reading his reply to Jimbo as an explanation for why his request is poorly formed, unactionable and irresponsible. What Jimbo did was throw gas on a fire, seemingly without so much as reading the discussions that had already taken place on the page, ironically to try to push his own POV. Given the nature of the issue, I think a thoughful and strongly worded trouting would also suffice. A TBAN seems a bit far when his conduct would not be out of line for pretty much any other editor — the topic would've gotten a handful of replies and nobody would remember it within 24 hours. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 23:40, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose action beyond maybe a WP:TROUT. Jimbo's infraction here is several orders of magnitude lower than the activity we see from problem editors in this topic area. This isn't about solving a problem, it's a response to media attention. It's hypocritical that genuine POV pushing is overlooked or dismissed but this is gaining traction. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 23:47, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

  Except Wales is the one engaged in textbook POV-pushing, defined as "the aggressive presentation of a particular point of view in an article, particularly when used to denote the undue presentation of minor or fringe ideas. The term "POV-pushing" is primarily used in regard to the presentation of a particular point of view in an article, including on talk page discussions." IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 23:58, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose any action against Jimbo Any and all actions suggested by the proposal are petty at best and a violation of WP:RGW at worst. In what universe does it make sense to topic ban any editor over a call for NPOV to be followed? And would this be instituted if it were perhaps any other editor, Jimbo or otherwise? Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 23:48, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Support trouting, oppose founder tag removal, oppose TBAN - The founder tag confers no right WP:JIMBO so I see nothing constructive coming from removing it. From the guy who founded the site and trying to swing his authority around, yeah this is completely out of line. The topic area isn't the problem. Whether he has the role or not he will still be the founder regardless and will still be able to bring that up regardless. I don't see this being constructive. No matter what, he will always be the founder, and whether they should or shouldn't, people will always back jimbo just for being jimbo. I don't see anything constructive arising from removing the founder tag that a trouting won't send the message accomplish in the same way. I sincerely believe just trouting him with the reminder that his founder tag *can* be taken will send the message far better and stronger. DarmaniLink (talk) 23:47, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

• Support logged warning The preaching from on high to try and override community consensus was really disappointing to see. The specific complaint demonstrates a quite incredible misunderstanding of how we operate, both in achieving consensus and reaching NPOV. I think we should clearly respond that such interventions are unwelcome and a formal warning makes it clear that we won't tolerate further interventions to "fix" articles at his behest. SmartSE (talk) 00:29, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose any actions against Jimbo, especially the Founder Rights. First of all, no matter what he is doing, he is one of the most important founders of Wikipedia. That "status" should never be taken from him. And as that status is just a "ceremonial role" today without any real power, we should not bother to take it from anyone. Many of American's Founding Fathers are "bad people" by modern standards. Aaron Burr even tried to create his own country in the Burr conspiracy but he still retained his Founding Fathers status. Bottom line, short of Jimbo doing a thing like Benedict Arnold who openly levies a war against Wikipedia, he should never lose his Founder status. Second, this is off-wiki conduct. He hasn't done a thing in the article itself. He can attempt to use soft-power to change the article, but nothing has changed in the article. In essence, he tried (and failed) to affect changes off-wiki, but nothing gets changed in-wiki. TBAN is too much as it is only handed out to persistent editors that have tried to affect change multiple times and went to real edit wars multiple times. We shouldn't be handing out TBAN like candies. Third, what a bad optics. Wikipedia decided to oust their own "founder" will be a very bad optics. There is nothing constructive in doing any of this. There is lots of unneeded pain in doing this. ✠ SunDawn ✠ Contact me! 01:03, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose any action Everyone here needs to take a breath and step back for a moment. The reaction to Jimbo’s comment has gotten completely out of proportion to what actually happened. He didn’t edit the article, didn’t issue commands, and didn’t abuse any authority. He introduced himself as the founder because that’s who he is, not as a power move. Turning that into misconduct is a stretch, and the speculation about motives, books, and conspiracies is doing this discussion no favors. Disagreement is not disruption, and consensus isn’t sacred law. If the community can’t handle one talk page comment without spiraling into outrage, that’s a bigger concern than anything Jimbo said. Everyone needs to take a deep breath and then let's put this back in perspective. TrueCRaysball ^💬|✏️ 01:06, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Gaza Genocide article now unprotected from full protection

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

NPOV Working Group

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

Frankly looking at how brilliantly the temporary accounts stuff is going I'm reminded of my Ronald Reagan: "I'm from the Wikimedia Foundation and I'm here to help..."

I feel sorry for everyone else on the working group, because Jimbo's frankly at best naive decision to wander into that discussion and raise the NPOV working group has basically torpedoed any goodwill people were probably willing to give it and will now instead be viewed by many with suspicion as WMF political interference. Rambling Rambler (talk) 23:40, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

I see Jimbo's ideas as a slippery slope—if we are to editorially operate based on the ideas that Jimbo has about "NPOV", that will be the day that The Holocaust has to concede its objectivity to the positions of Nazi Germany on account of them being a powerful, influential government. BarntToust 23:40, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Whoof, that's pretty fast for Godwin's law to kick in. Ravenswing 00:54, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

You freakin' bet. It all leads back to Nazis. They're in in our grammar, in our video games, they even managed to enter the Matrix. BarntToust 01:02, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Whoof, that's pretty quick mention of Godwin's law. Yes mentions of Hitler are often not on point. But yes, many times they are on point and important, and should not be discarded simply because they mention an extremely historic event that may have been misused in other instances. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:03, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

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

Post close discussion

• I feel that this thread has been closed prematurely, in that no one's mentioned infoboxes yet. EEng 06:30, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

  Or the size of your talk page which is visible from the Arctic. CambridgeBayWeather (#1 deranged), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 01:02, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

  I just want to say, for the record, that it was not my intent to actually have the thread reopened. If that was indeed the effect, I do apologize. EEng 07:01, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

• Given the back and forth over this close, I should note that despite not having struck my suggestions of sanctions in the course of the discussion, I'm satisfied with the close on reflection. My initial reaction was based on the presumption that Jimbo is an experienced editor; on reflection of the discussion, it's clear that as far as PIA is concerned (and likely other CTs as well), he isn't, and thus deserves a bit of WP:ROPE before sanctions would be appropriate. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:02, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

  So long as he doesn't take any more irresponsible declarations any further than this, I think that a fishie and a few well-wishes about his book tour are sufficient. BarntToust 19:05, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

  Leaving aside our disagreements on the declaration being irresponsible, I doubt it will be taken further by him as under the system as these decisions are taken by the community and there was clearly no consensus for any changes at that Statement discussion. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 19:08, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

  I will separate the issue of Jimbo's actions into two areas: 1. intent and 2. reality.

  1. Jimbo may or may not have gone into this honestly thinking everything was going to go smoothly. He may have honestly come into this thinking he could fashion himself as a normal editor; or, he may have damn well known he couldn't come in here, just simply being the founder of Wikipedia (and even worse for the matter going to the lengths to declare that he is the Founder before his statement) and masquerade as if he were a humble mediator, and have everything pan out smoothly. Of his intents: You don't believe Jimbo came into this knowing he was being irresponsible; I have serious doubts as to his intents.
  2. In reality, Jimbo caused a shitstorm. Many here will not have a King, as it were, make King-like declarations, and then allow the King to pretend he is but a simple common man. You and I both can see that the reality of the matter is that what Jimbo did was taken by a significant number of enough editors as problematic.

  Ultimately, if Jimbo knew what he was doing was a hypocritical thing, then he needs all the trout in the world. If he thought he could make a statement pretending he wasn't the King, while making King-like declarations—and this not end up badly—Jimbo should be criticized for his lack of foresight and awareness of his importance, and be told to consider this before making any further, weighty and controversial statements. BarntToust 20:04, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

  1. Ok so we agree on his intent at least.

  2. I think what Jimbo did on the Gaza Genocide page was justified yes there was a negative reaction but he is entitled per the system to comment on a talk page like that. The difference is under a king system it will be argued they are not just a common man. In wikipedia anyone can be an editor if they are not sanctioned and that includes Jimbo. And a kingly declaration is far different to what Jimbo did.

  I disagree with a trout as A I dont think it was hypocritical and B I am not sure he thought it was hypocritical certainly I have seen no evidence of that. I am sure he is aware of his importance but he also knows that he is allowed to voice his view as an editor. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 00:25, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

  Sadly, noting Silverseren's comments in the discussion, I doubt we've seen the end of irresponsible declarations from Jimbo. But the problem isn't "Jimbo is incapable of editing PIA collegially", it's "Jimbo has repeatedly insisted on having his cake and eating it too when it comes to being both an Authoritative Co-Founder and a regular editor". _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:13, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

  Wales has got form for throwing his weight around (and discovering how it can backfire). —Fortuna, imperatrix 19:21, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

  As Founder's syndrome puts it, "Entrepreneurs generally tend to be confident or overconfident, or they do not become entrepreneurs in the first place." NebY (talk) 19:27, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

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

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

With that preamble, here is the remaining question:

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

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

Answers

• Trout/warn? - As has been noted above, setting aside the PIA specific stuff, it is troubling that Jimbo's proclivity to throwing his weight around has continued despite this having repeatedly drawn the community's ire. I do think that we need some measure to stop this from happening, or at least head it off, and I'm honestly uncertain what would get the point across at this point if his last run-ins with the community have not successfully resulted in him getting a WP:CLUE. I don't think there's a huge difference between a trouting and a warning here. I also don't know that either of them will really address the issue: my magic wand solution would be to have a policy page WP:Jimbo doesn't get to dictate content or policy anymore, which could be shortened to WP:JIMBONO, documenting the various times that the community has had it with his actions and underlining that he should get no special consideration in discussions. As a side note, I do dispute one element of CaptainEek's framing of this discussion: posting a self-important declaration of how things should be without even beginning to engage in a good faith discussion of relevant sources and arguments is not polite. I'll grant that it was civil. But it was also deeply disrespectful of the community's policies, norms and the hard work of individual editors, in addition to being stupid from a PR perspective. Finally, on a somewhat tangential note, I'd recommend to other editors (like myself) who started editing in the late 2010s or more recently and are unfamiliar with the early history of Wikipedia to read Good Faith Collaboration by Joseph M. Reagle; it is eye-opening in terms of describing how Jimbo really was the dictator of Wikipedia for quite a long period of its early history, and that his exit from Wikipedia's limelight was a gradual and largely informal process. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:32, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

  Re he should get no special consideration in discussions, I'd say he should neither get _nor claim_ any special consideration in discussions (and neither should anyone else who did some work on setting Wikipedia up). NebY (talk) 21:05, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

• Warn - His behavior was highly disruptive in a contentious topic area & while he had every right to participate as an average editor, he had not done so. His refusal to cite sources & his encouragement of others to bypass community consensus showed a disregard of established policy unbecoming of a longtime editor that would not be tolerated by others. As I stated above, while I believe a TBAN is unnecessary, a formal warning is important to discourage potential future disruptive behavior like this & that the founder is not above community standards & policies. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 20:39,
• Warn for canvassing in PIA on his talk page a logged warning is reasonable. It doesn't mean a lot, other than if the behaviour continues then a topic ban can be considered. Jimbo doesn't appear to see what he did as canvassing, despite two admins raising this issue so I think it's best the community remind him of that. CNC (talk) 20:50, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
• Logged warning, per above comments. Jimbo's recent participation in this CT has been disruptive and helped generate a battleground in a topic that is already difficult to deal with. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 20:54, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

  Like Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 02:57, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

• I'd stick with warn awaiting a response from Jimbo which could change it to trout already served. It's difficult to assume the point has been made without a response. TBan makes no sense and I still see no point in erasing a founder bit. There is already enough reality-denial on this planet these days. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:16, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
• Whale/warn - I'm sure everyone with some degree of experience here has made a silly proposal and misread the room. As I understand it, his idea of NPOV is to take a meta/real-world view and weigh POVs held by parties involved in the topic irl (relative to what idk, power?), rather than weighing POVs found in sources relative to their reliability/quality (I can't think of another reason why he'd want to include primary sources of involved governments when weighing for use of wikivoice). I'm flabbergasted tbh. It's ideals vs. practicality. I don't think he wanted to dictate content against the wishes of the community, I think he thought that he was acting with the silent majority in the community against '5-10 POV pusher regulars' at the article, and that they would be overwhelmed and then the fanfare begins. But instead he was miles out of touch (not to say that people/the article can’t be more neutral). I hope something constructive comes out of this. Not just Jimbo, everyone at the WMF (at least in positions of authority) needs to have experience editing to actually understand the site and community. The alternative is dethroning Jimbo and conflict between the community and WMF (people have recently been talking about blackouts to leverage community control), which nobody wants. Kowal2701 (talk) 21:24, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
  • people have recently been talking about blackouts to leverage community control Which would backfire spectacularly, as the only thing a blackout does is make people who are 'neutral' on an issue pissed off at the people who instigated the blackout. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:05, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

    I agree, it's a terrible idea, but status quo isn't tenable in the long-term, something needs to change at some point Kowal2701 (talk) 23:13, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

• whale/warn for canvassing in PIA and for throwing his weight around. Yes, he is the founder, yes, he is WP:JIMBO. However his arguments should be independent of his own status. Trying to use his status to elevate his arguments is hugely inappropriate. DarmaniLink (talk) 21:30, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
• warn my view is that his behavior was disruptive, wasted a lot of community time, and that he should have known that going in. (t · c) buidhe 21:59, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
• no action. He made a comment. He used the talk page for its purpose. Yes, he did mention that he had to answer a question about the article. The fact is though, that the article is bad. He gets contacted by the press and he answered his opinion, and then brought it to the talk page. The fact is that there is a concerted effort to RGW and push an agenda which Wikipedia shouldn't be doing. Even if you say what he did was wrong, what is the rationale for a warning or trout or anything? He raised an issue and it's being discussed. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 22:10, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
• No action per my previous !vote. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 22:11, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
• No action per my previous comment. This should not have been reopened as people are leading with emotion, not reason. TrueCRaysball ^💬|✏️ 22:56, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
• No action. Jimbo stuck his oar in. The community responded with "Oh wait, you're serious". Even allowing for the problematic manner in which he stuck his oar in, this is a single discussion in which he did so. He's been trouted for it. Let's move on to actually improving the encyclopedia, shall we? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:05, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
• No action - I think it's time to move on, everyone had their moment to vent but not seeing anything here that would require action. PackMecEng (talk) 23:29, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
• No action - User edits contentious talk page and complains about wording in the article, like countless other people do every day. User doesn't make any edits at all to the article itself. User is polite, even if his strategy is flawed. He makes edits for a little more than a day, then stops. Those comments understandably frustrate some people. Now, a full two days later (and still no edits to the article itself), we have a pile-on demanding some sort of formal action.
  I have a hard time thinking anyone other than Jimmy would be subject to a trip to ANI for this sequence of events, not to mention insults about off-wiki activities, accusations of bad faith, demands for formal warnings, and ceremonial removal of ceremonial user rights that do nothing at all.
  Regardless of what you think about his opinion or the merits behind it (or lack thereof), opening this thread was a bad call, as was the edit warring to keep it open, and then formal reopening. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:07, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
• No action - what, posting to one's own page is canvassing now? participating on TP to propose improvements on main space is verboten? People complaining of hurt feelings? Not a good look. Let the man say his piece, just like any other editor. XavierItzm (talk) 03:03, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Off-topic.

• Well, I tried editing the article, but it didn't go well. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 00:26, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

  What did you expect? M.Bitton (talk) 00:29, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

  Exactly that. I was maybe hoping that my edit would last longer than four minutes but it getting reverted was inevitable. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 00:31, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

  This sounds like a discussion for the article talk page. I don't see the relevance of "I tried to make an edit and got reverted" to what I wrote, which is about someone who has made no edits to the article. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:34, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

  Yup. (I have a bad habit of making off-topic comments and I apologize.) SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 00:35, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

• This is so dumb. --JBL (talk) 00:12, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
• No further action Jimbo was already trouted so no further action is necessary.GothicGolem29 (Talk) 00:17, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
• Ratify my sign-on to the trout. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:52, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

  Jimbo has already received the fish. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 01:57, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, that's why I said to ratify my sign-on to it. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:58, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

  Oh, okay. I get it. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 01:59, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

• No action: Mountain. Molehill. Quite aside from that accusing someone of canvassing for a post solely on their own talk page is a staggering overreach. What the hell, folks? If this was User:SomebodyOrOther, no one would give a damn. This was already closed once, and reopening it solely because a minority wants Jimbo's head on a pike Just Because and doesn't like the prior outcome was wrong. We still operate off of consensus for such matters, right? Ravenswing 03:25, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
• No action - this doesn't require any action. If this was anyone else, we wouldn't be having this discussion. PhilKnight (talk) 03:36, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
• Warn. As I said last time, the problem, to me, is the way he implicitly invoked his status as a founder and his position with the WMF via the NPOV Working Group in the context of a content dispute, especially in the context of his dismissal of the existing consensus on the page, which was established in a well-attended, extremely long running, and time-consuming RFC. His invocation of the NPOV Working Group is a problem, because it is an actual role that he could, in theory, try to use to influence the policies related to this - even if all it can do is make recommendations, those come with the weight of the WMF behind them; invoking a role with the WMF can have a chilling effect on discussions, even if one is careful (and he absolutely was not.) In the context of a discussion he started by invoking his position in the NPOV Working group, statements like (from the diff above) We need to look at this as a case study - the article is not in line with policy but there are massive barriers for anyone who wants to correct it, barriers that should not exist or his wording here about how it will be investigating enwiki to determine if we're neutral bluntly read like a threat - "make the changes I'm requesting to this article or I'll escalate with the WMF to remove those barriers." Since he hasn't shown any indication that he understands how badly he screwed up, we need to take at least some steps to make it undeniable. --Aquillion (talk) 03:50, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
• No action: It was reported in the news media in several languages. Further steps might be reported too, and other online encyclopedias are around the corner. Two Congress members and a senator are also playing a role. _Dgw|Talk 03:54, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

  Don't forget that Trump made a Truth Social post about it. Ravenswing 07:36, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

  Respectfully, what does news media reporting have to do with whether to warn him? Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 08:05, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

• Canvassing warning: It is a textbook violation to seek votes from your friends and followers. It is a moment of irresponsibility that I am sure will not be repeated, but Jimbo should be given a simple reminder that he is not above the rest of us. The rest of the concerns have relatively little weight and basis. MB2437 04:01, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
• Logged warning This is disruptive activity in the PIA topic area, a contentious topic. I see no reason why Jimbo should be treated any differently than another editor here. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 04:13, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
• Logged warning. Wales is on record for "strongly supporting" Israel. He may believe whatever he wants but if he really cares about NPOV, he should know that he should stay away from topics that he has a strong opinion about. (Which is proof that whatever NPOV task force he's on doesn't seem to have "NPOV" as its overarching purpose, at least not as understood here). We are past the stage when whatever Jimbo says is gospel, and he needs to understand that. Trying to wield his status to attempt to influence the content is highly inappropriate, and he should have got the memo when his Founder flag was converted from an OP tool to a purely ceremonial title. That he didn't makes the warning necessary. Szmenderowiecki (talk · contribs) 04:58, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
• Logged warning followed by a trout - Canvassing in a CTOP is not okay. He should be treated like any other editor in here 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 05:59, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
• Logged warning - He should never use his position to influence CTOP. Warn for canvassing. Cinaroot (talk) 07:05, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
• Warning (Canvassing): Warning just for the canvassing, neutral otherwise. My understanding is that he believes he did not canvass at all, which is my main concern. (I don't see anything in my note that could plausibly be interpreted that way. The day that someone posting a neutral message to their own talk page could be regarded as canvassing is a long way off.) --Super Goku V (talk) 08:36, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
• No action: because to say this is a storm in a teacup would be massively overstating it. Mathmo ^Talk 09:17, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
• No action: As the wrestling god says, dumb, daft, petty, whatever. I look forward to the next reference to NAZIs. I'm sure the pile-on's will continue.Halbared (talk) 09:47, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
• No action. Per Rhododendrites and many others above. - Walter Ego 10:21, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
• No action. Jimbo is right. Many discussions and articles in the English Wikipedia have a certain bias, and it's much more often leaning "left" / "liberal" than "right" / "conservative". (I'm putting these words in quotation marks because their meaning depends on context, but I can't think of better way to put it succinctly.) The problem is much less severe than idiots like Trump or Musk proclaim, but it is an issue, and we should at least acknowledge it. The Gaza genocide articles are examples of this that gained particular prominence lately. — Chrisahn (talk) 10:30, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
• No action —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 10:47, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Discussion

• As a practical note, Jimbo was not active yesterday. Most editors live on real world time, not the machine gun pace of ANI, so he might not have had a chance to reply yet. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:03, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
• Note Jimbo was already trouted in this edit by @DarmaniLink:. Given that Whacking with a wet trout is something that can be done by any editor with no discussion, I'm not sure we need to have a continued discussion on this notice board about if Jimbo should be whacked or not when he already has been whacked. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 20:29, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

  Seeing as he has been trouted, I've just changed the discussion to remind or warn, following the traditional ArbCom remind/warn/admonish scale. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:37, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

  Perhaps a WP:WHALEing from the community would be appropriate? Given somewhere between trout and warn seems to be what's appropriate. DarmaniLink (talk) 20:38, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

  Or maybe we could have the community +1/+X the trout? Sorry, didn't think this would be re-litigated, else I wouldn't have. DarmaniLink (talk) 20:44, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

• @CaptainEek: can I just say I think if you're going to reopen the discussion labelling those who believed removing a user-right, even ceremonial, as "petty" is a poor way of laying the ground. Yes it is ceremonial, yes he will always be known as a founder in terms of historical record, but the point was more that even ceremonial roles are things people put value and weight on (see ceremonial heads of state), and it's therefore not baseless to suggest that maybe we shouldn't be having someone with a unique identifier which on first glance does give at least the impression they hold more weight in the same way people do see "admin" in an infobox and will suddenly treat said user with more courtesy compared to the plebs. It's almost self-evidential it was causing enough misunderstanding as to its nature that we had to create a shortcut to explain it (WP:FOUNDER). Rambling Rambler (talk) 21:43, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

  (This comment by ~2025-31547-64 (talk · contribs) was removed as block evasion and as a violation of the extended-confirmed restriction in the Arab–Israeli conflict contentious topic. — Newslinger talk 11:54, 6 November 2025 (UTC))

  Like Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 03:17, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

(This is not aimed at any one person, but the entire thing) I can't believe time is being wasted on this. Pictorial representation follows.

. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:50, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Like BarntToust 21:52, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Unfortunately due to formatting it now looks like the closer of the following entry was particularly upset at unreferenced edits. Rambling Rambler (talk) 22:08, 5 November 2025

• I have now struck the inappropriate part of my comment. My apologies to Jimbo for the WP:PA. I admit it was out of place and uncalled for; I was wrong to speculate about motivations. I also apologise to everyone else for distracting from the issues and making the discussion that much harder. I am not going to weigh in on the reopened case/remedies. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 04:53, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

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

Idris Shirazi

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

---

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

Their whole "WIKIPEDIA VETERN POWERTRIPPING NECKBEARDS" remark and rant in their userpage [44] is obviously a vengeful dig at the two users they were disagreeing with at Talk:Buyid_dynasty#Change_to_Lead, during which they added that to their userpage. Here's the most relevant part of the rant:

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

And more attacks:

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

Can you just stop this ego war?

Are you being purposely obtuse?

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

Just let your self righteousness go and leave me alone.

Please get a life.

And yes, they have already been told to stop this behaviour [45] [46] [47] [48] [49]. Don't even get me started on their editing activities. HistoryofIran (talk) 02:15, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

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

Temporary account vandalism

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

---

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

First, you are required to notify editors when you bring them to ANI. See the instructions above. Second, you are required to provide diffs at ANI. See the instructions above. Third, simple vandalism can be brought to WP:AIV instead. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:46, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Ok, thx. The Great Epiphany (talk) 01:49, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

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

User just admitted to being a sock puppet?

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

---

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

The editor in question is really young, I think this was an attempt at coming back and constructively contributing (see added images @ Special:Diff/1320813285). Would keep an eye out if they end up posting anything oversightable about themselves, given their most recent talk page post. jellyfish ✉ 00:25, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Agreed, will keep in mind. – LuniZunie ツ_(talk) 00:26, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

That post is oversightable on its own. I've contacted oversight, please do so if you see similar comments again. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 00:29, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! I'll report those in the future, wasn't too sure since it wasn't location, contact information, etc. jellyfish ✉ 00:31, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Next time, please directly contact oversight rather than mentioning the problem here, as this is a highly visible page and could increase exposure of the information prior to its removal. Thanks. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 00:42, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that reply has already been mentioned here, so I assumed it didn't matter anymore. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 00:45, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Less said the better. It's gone now. I also revoked talk page access to prevent further problems. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 00:49, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

See also WP:NEEDTOKNOW. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 00:50, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

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

User:Hypersite

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

---

Hypersite (talk · contribs) was blocked in 2024 for adding LLM-generated content: see [50]. They were unblocked after they agreed to stop using AI. However, they have begun adding LLM content again, for example on Observant Freemasonry. They've also been uploading AI-generated images: see commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:VITRIOL.jpg. (I know commons has different policy but it does demonstrate the same behavior.) They're banned on frwiki for the same LLM use.

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

they have begun adding LLM content again – Their last edit was 7 July. Either way, there is strong evidence of post-unblock LLM use:

collapsed quotes

CLIPSAS envisions Freemasonry as a transformative force in society, actively engaging with contemporary challenges while upholding Masonic traditions. The organization's approach to social progress integrates Masonic wisdom with modern humanitarian concerns, creating innovative responses to global challenges. Through coordinated efforts among member obediences, CLIPSAS advances human rights initiatives, supports educational development, and promotes cross-cultural understanding.

The organization's social engagement extends beyond traditional charitable works to encompass systematic approaches to social transformation. CLIPSAS members work within their communities to promote education, defend human rights, and foster cultural dialogue. These efforts reflect the organization's understanding that Masonic principles must find practical expression in addressing societal needs and promoting human advancement.

— Special:Diff/1255440532

The elusive quality of the egregore makes it challenging to pin down with words alone. Like many profound experiences, it is something that must be felt to be truly understood. Those who have experienced a powerful egregore often struggle to adequately convey its essence to others who haven't shared in that collective energy. This ambiguity surrounding the egregore concept has allowed for a rich diversity of interpretations and applications across various mystical, philosophical, and social contexts. Its meaning continues to evolve as new generations encounter and work with this enigmatic aspect of group dynamics and consciousness.

— Special:Diff/1253473600

These edits enhance Wikipedia's neutrality by replacing biased terminology with balanced "Conservative/Liberal" designations, adhering to Wikipedia's guidelines on neutral point of view. The revisions acknowledge all Masonic traditions as legitimate parallel developments with their own merits, rather than presenting one as the standard. By giving equal weight to different recognition approaches, these changes fulfill Wikipedia's core principles of representing all significant viewpoints fairly.

— Generated edit summary of Special:Diff/1281407809

Hypersite stated in their accepted unblock request: I would frankly like to continue contributing in a productive manner and I pledge to never use AI again. If I do, then I will fully accept a ban. [51] fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 05:58, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

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

Tester6462656543 WP:NOTHERE

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

---

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

Tester6462656543 appears to not here to build an encyclopedia, but instead test, with zero edits to mainspace. They created Draft:Test temp, which I G2ed. Many of their edits are talking with LuniZunie and HwyNerd Mike. User:Tester6462656543/Thanking appears to be their main sandbox. Also asked LuniZunie to friend them on an off-wiki website three times [52]. --pro-anti-air ––>(talk)<–– 03:42, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Unfortunately, +1 – LuniZunie ツ_(talk) 03:43, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Xtools monkey_smashing^keyboards (talk) 03:45, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Although it seems like he is acting in good faith, unfortunately that is the case. I also G2ed Template:Test temp. HwyNerd Mike (t | c) 03:46, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

I think it is worth pointing out User talk:Pro-anti-air#A barnstar for you! 3. I do not think this user is mature enough for Wikipedia. – LuniZunie ツ_(talk) 04:15, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and blocked so they don't keep wasting our time. The user is a clear textbook example of NOTHERE, and this ANI thread isn't going to conclude any differently. —⁠k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 04:27, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. – LuniZunie ツ_(talk) 04:28, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

+1 HwyNerd Mike (t | c) 04:34, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

+2 --pro-anti-air ––>(talk)<–– 04:35, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

+4 monkey_smashing^keyboards (talk) 04:41, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

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

User:Apollo579 continually creating AI-generated articles and hoaxes

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

---

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

See:

- [53] AI article

- [54] AI article

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

- Social Space AI article

- Draft:Juan Mauricio Schmid Bello AI article

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

- Draft:Nomadic Internet AI article

- Draft:Inframediality AI article

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

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

- ♇ – Pluto (2023) AI article

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

- Draft:Transmedial Space AI article

- Performative Intervention AI article

- Draft:Digital Presence AI article

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

There are some COI issues as well; the user was originally named Monsterwheel ([58]), which is the name of the website they linked to here. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 06:29, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Apollo579, please don't remove this thread. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 06:35, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

I've tagged Draft:Juan Mauricio Schmid Bello 2 and Draft:Juan Mauricio Schmid Bello for copyright infringement, and Draft:Performative Intervention for G15. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 06:52, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

And now it seems they are socking. See Dolphin667 Sharky. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 07:04, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Noting the attempted removal of this section by Dolphin667 Sharky. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 07:10, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Monsterwheel appears to belong to Juan Mauricio Schmid Bello. Nil🥝 06:43, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

The user just attempted to delete this entire discussion, by the way. Aesurias (talk) 06:35, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Pretty clear to me user needs an indef for WP:NOTHERE. Does anyone concur. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:15, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

 Blocked Apollo579 (talk · contribs) and Dolphin667 Sharky (talk · contribs) indefinitely. Thank you for reporting this. — Newslinger talk 07:17, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

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

Account sharing and promotional editing by Tag-hive-new

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

---

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

@Pythoncoder: I've reported them to Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention; in future, requests like this should probably be taken there. As for the page, it will probably be G13 deleted after six months from when they are blocked. Aydoh8^{[what have I done now?]} 13:09, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Blocked.

As an aside, I don't think UAA is the correct venue since this relates to the account being shared, not to the username. Since we don't have a specific "shared account noticeboard" the generic AN/ANI boards are the right place to deal with this in my opinion. WaggersTALK 14:00, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

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

Vivian Dsena 2

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

---

• Vivian Dsena (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Jabji (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

A month ago, I asked for some review and assistance at Vivian Dsena to deal with a couple of SPA accounts adding promotional and POV material to the article and not responding to any of the warnings or messages left on their talk page (see their entire talk page), nor trying to work on concensus on the article talk page [59]. That was at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1203. This behavior has continued from Jabji. Examples from today are adding footballer to the profession - they've played in a few charity events and seem to have played at a reasonably high level but not professionally and there is nothing to support it as a significant/notable profession.[60] They're also continuing to try to push a significant claim about being the highest paid indian TV actor with less then extraordinary sourcing.[61] This last one is something they have been trying to push into the article for months - [62], [63], [64] [65], [66], [67]. They've been warned about COI/paid editing, about edit-warring and generally disruptive editing, but no response to any of those messages or attempts at collaboration. This feels like a PR team or contracted out from the repeated attempts to push certain phrasing and material into the article. This needs a second look and ideally Jabji pblocked from Vivian Dsena. There are a couple of other accounts that seem to edit alongside Jabji, but not very often recently, so I'm not sure if the page needs to be ECP protected, although that would also stop Jabji. Ravensfire (talk) 18:10, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

• I've ECP'd it for three months. If people can't stop being disruptive, it seems to be the only answer. Black Kite (talk) 19:11, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

  Thank you! Ravensfire (talk) 23:21, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

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

WP:NOTHERE and Wikibiryalanmakinesi

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

---

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

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

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

Indef'd as WP:NOTHERE. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:53, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

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

Anonymous user keeps making disruptive edits to Fallon episode guide

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

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

User:Sahadawiki

Sahadawiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - this user's talk page is a long wall of WP:ENGVAR notices which they are either not understanding or ignoring as they continue to "correct" British to American English on articles like Jemima Goldsmith ([68]), Jeanne Calment ([69]), and Ghislaine Maxwell ([70]). Aside from showing no notice of talk page messages, some of these copyedits aren't really improvements. The linked edit to Ghislaine Maxwell I ended up reverting in full (after trying to partially revert) because it introduced typos, moved text away from its references and did change the meaning of the text in a few places. I understand Wikipedia can be technically challenging but I think this user's editing is quite disruptive and creates work for people cleaning it up. I suggest they should be restricted from editing mainspace until they figure out how to use talk pages and collaborate. Not going to take any action myself as WP:INVOLVED. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 11:07, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Just for clarity, while the editor makes decent use of edit summaries, they've never editing a talk page or anything besides main space. Also they keep adding 5 tildes to they edit summaries which make me wonder if they incorrectly think signing works in edit summaries although 5 to just add the date is a little weird. (I mean neither are needed since the diff will have both the time stamp and editor but just adding the date seems especially weird to me.) Note the editor often but doesn't always use the visual editor, but never the mobile site or apps so there's no particular reason for WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU to apply other than the generic reasons that any editor may not notice any indication someone is trying to contact them. Nil Einne (talk) 12:26, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Blocked from article space until a response is forthcoming. If they come up with a valid response then just unblock them. CambridgeBayWeather (#1 deranged), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 00:59, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

I hope that the block gets them to communicate. I see the possibility of their becoming a very useful editor. Yes, there's the ENGVAR irritation; yes, there's the oddity of signing ESs with five tildes; but on the other hand, there are some excellent edits like this one. Narky Blert (talk) 07:29, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree, if this user paid attention to their usertalk and read the guidelines posted there they could be a good contributor. @CambridgeBayWeather just FYI I fixed the link to this section in your talkpage comment. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 09:43, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

TPA Revoke needed

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

---

Can someone please revoke TPA for User talk:~2025-32132-89. Lavalizard101 (talk) 16:58, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

 Done. --Yamla (talk) 16:59, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

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

Urgent Report of Disruptive Behavior by User CFA

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

---

Dear [Recipient],

I am writing to report disruptive behavior by the user CFA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), which I believe stems from a personal vendetta against user Paradygmaty (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). This conflict has led to CFA's unwarranted removal of months of constructive work by user Marina redaktor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

Specifically, CFA deleted the well-sourced article "Nisko Jewish Cemetery" and moved several pages without justification, causing significant disruption to categories and redirects. Notable examples of these actions include:

• The removal of the "Nisko Jewish Cemetery" article (see diff: [date and time of diff]).

• The repeated moving of pages such as "Bruk-Bet Termalica Sports Stadium" and several Jewish cemetery articles to incorrect titles or with invalid redirects (see the listed diffs for full details).

These actions appear to be driven by personal grievances rather than an intent to improve content. Such conduct is damaging to the collaborative nature of this platform and undermines the work of other users. It is crucial that this issue be addressed urgently, as it is unacceptable for anyone to erase valuable Wikipedia contributions that are properly sourced and substantively sound due to personal conflicts.

Please note that this translation was performed by ChatGPT, which does not alter the substance of the report. I trust that this will not result in the rejection of the complaint. Immediate action is required to stop this behavior and prevent further harm.

Sincerely, Paradygmaty2 (talk) 12:09, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

 Blocked Paradygmaty2 (talk · contribs) indefinitely as a sockpuppet of Paradygmaty (talk · contribs), with the above comment as behavioral evidence. — Newslinger talk 12:20, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

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

User talk:Braden nekton 9

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

---

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

Searching for User:Braden nekton turns up a total of nine serialised names. This seems to belong at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hweuiyiu, which lists four of them. Narky Blert (talk) 07:09, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Five accts added at SPI. Narky Blert (talk) 16:55, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

We're gonna need a bigger pond... Danners430 _{tweaks made} 17:00, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Like this one? Narky Blert (talk) 17:06, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

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

Template messages

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

---

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

@SuperOverClockedKrypton - You continue to vandalize Wikipedia articles. — ERcheck (talk) 01:49, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

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

CherrySoda and WP:GAMING

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

---

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

• Please see the editor's statistics, which indicate that 422 of their 596 edits were made in March 2025, with almost all of those edits being in user space.
• Please refer to the editor's contributions] which indicates that the vast majority of those edits in March were to User:CherrySoda/sandbox or User:CherrySoda/Sample page, with almost all of them being between 5 and 25 bytes.
• The editors is currently engaged in discussion concerning the article Gaza Genocide.

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

File:Gaming check - CherrySoda.png Sean.hoyland (talk) 12:22, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

@Sean.hoyland cheers, your ability to distil things down into stats is very useful. TarnishedPath^talk 12:56, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

It's because I have a dream of Wikipedia being run by Carol Beer. But to reach that utopia we need to build some decision-making tools. Sean.hoyland (talk) 15:16, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

@Sean.hoyland if the charts are consistent for similar analysis, would you mind if I turn it into a project on toolforge some day? – robertsky (talk) 15:31, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

@User:Robertsky, I wouldn't mind anything, but Tamzin has provided an opportunity for me to fail first, which is the kind of opportunity I always find hard to refuse. The chance of me failing is quite high, so you are very welcome to join in. Sean.hoyland (talk) 15:49, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

 Removed extended confirmed permission from CherrySoda (talk · contribs). CherrySoda may reapply for the extended confirmed permission at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions after making at least 500 constructive edits (in addition to the 596 edits currently recorded on her account) after a minimum of 30 days from today. — Newslinger talk 14:08, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

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

Block evasion by regret e/bbb

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

I just learned how to diff, here are some diffs for you guys:

- [71] From User:Regret bbb

- [72] [73] [74] From User:Regret e  RBarr-12@wiki:~/user/talk/contribs$  20:50, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! This board works for the more obvious cases, although for the future, the more specialized board you're looking for is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:13, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Okay, I'll put this case up there then. RBarr-12@wiki:~/user/talk/contribs$  19:22, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Do you mind changing your signature? It's giving me motion sickness. Northern Moonlight 21:36, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Legal threats by ~2025-31854-81

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

---

• ~2025-31854-81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

@~2025-31854-81: Made legal threats to another user here, saying FINE. SEE YOU IN FEDERAL COURT. – LuniZunie ツ_(talk) 23:35, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure that's a legal threat per se given this - they seem to believe some court case on the subject may be going to be undertaken, apparently. Either way it is disruptive so blocked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:52, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

See templates {{Zionism UK}} and {{Zionism US}}, both recently created by Uglytriangle999, and both entirely their own work regarding content. I came across the first, UK, template when Uglytriangle999 added it to the Tommy Robinson biography. The biography (of a British far-right anti-Islam political activist) says precisely nothing about Zionism, and only mentions Israel briefly in passing. Uglytriangle999's response when I pointed this out was to assert, without the slightest evidence, that "Robinson is a highly prominent figure in Zionism in the United Kingdom". [75]

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

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

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

I'll wait for Uglytriangle999 to respond before making up my mind, but this looks like pretty solid evidence of anti-Zionist POV pushing. If they don't provide a good explanation, a topic ban from the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed, may be necessary. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:32, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Possibly even more broadly 'anti-Semitic', rather than 'anti-Zionist', given the UK 'media' content, which might well be seen as promoting a 'Jews control the media' PoV. I note that Uglytriangle999 was given an 'Introduction to contentious topics' notification for post-1992 politics of the United States back in July last year, and their talk page more generally seems to indicate some sort of theme, as well as a recurring issue with creating inappropriate content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:53, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

The anti-Zionist phrasing (as opposed to antisemitic) was me being cautious. I'll wait for a response, but it will have to be a very good one to avoid an Israel-Palestine topic ban. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:59, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Looking at Uglytriangle999's edit history (or at least, what's visible to non-admins after multiple deletions) I'm inclined to think that more than a single-subject topic ban might be required. I've just PRODded Libertarianism in England, another of Uglytriangle999's creations, as a WP:OR concoction of primary and fringe sources, none of which establish that the subject exists as more than 'Libertarians who happen to be English', and would, if it made an effort to actually cite reliable sources, duplicate the existing Libertarianism in the United Kingdom article. It also betrayed an astonishing lack of subject-matter knowledge, including Enoch Powell - an MP for the Conservative and Unionist Party, and later for the Ulster Unionist Party, as a promoter of 'Libertarianism in England'. Powell was English, certainly, but regardless of whether he was a libertarian or not (which is questionable to say the least), at no time in his political career was he advancing views for anything but the UK as a whole. I get the distinct impression from this that Uglytriangle999 doesn't understand what England is in relation to the UK, and has confused the two. The same article also cited (before I removed it) the distinctly non-RS Socialist Worker for something it didn't actually say. Uglytriangle999 seems not to understand Wikipedia sourcing policy, or possibly doesn't like it and has chosen to get around it by creating unsourced templates rather than editing articles that tend to get watched by other contributors. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:30, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

I believe an article and infobox relating specifically to libertarianism within England is necessary. The reason that there is not much on there is that I didn't really have the time to do much editing, but, given the pressure, I would happily improve it. The history of libertarianism in the British Isles is almost entirely within England, from classical liberalism all the way to modern-day libertarian movements. Aside from one or two Scottish historical figures that one could argue play a role in the lineage of libertarianism, such as the role of figures such as Adam Smith and James Mill in economic liberalism, there is not quite as much of a history of libertarianism in Scotland, much less Northern Ireland or Wales. Uglytriangle999 (talk) 15:19, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Okay, so you admit that the history of libertarianism in the United Kingdom is almost entirely confined to England. Therefore, when we already cover said history in the article on libertarianism in the United Kingdom, that makes your article redundant. I'm personally much more concerned about the Zionism infoboxes, as your explanation below gives me no confidence that you have the required competency to edit in such a controversial topic area. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:52, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

The article on libertarianism in the United Kingdom focuses chiefly on political parties rather than its history. Not only that, much of the history of English libertarianism predates the Acts of Union. Regarding the topic of Zionism, it is not a topic that I have edited much on. The infobox was pretty much my foray into the topic. Uglytriangle999 (talk) 15:56, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes, libertarians claim the Levellers as their own. As do socialists, anarchists, and the odd Marxist or two. We don't however build articles around the primary-sourced fringe claims of political activists. As for the absurdities of anarcho-capitalists trying to make out Anglo-Saxon England as an anarcho-capitalist paradise, I'm surprised they even take that ridiculously anachronistic claim seriously themselves. Wikipedia certainly won't. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:15, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Just to note, both templates are now at TfD. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 11:00, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Be the change you want to see and edit it more to your liking. I merely went through the categories of articles relating to Zionism in the United States and added them to get the infobox going. If you can find some other articles which balance it out a bit more, feel free to add them. Uglytriangle999 (talk) 15:03, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Given that vacuous refusal to acknowledge the need to maintain NPOV, rather than pushing ones own and expecting others to fix the problem, I can now only suggest that a WP:NOTHERE indef block would be appropriate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:34, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Having read that, I do not believe myself to be under such a description. What is to say that any other user is not here to build an encyclopedia? Everyone has opinions, including the writers of articles cited on every page. The point of discussion is to talk about this and decide together what should be written. Uglytriangle999 (talk) 16:40, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

What is to say that any other user is not here to build an encyclopedia? The community, and/or the admins appointed by the community. Contributors who fail to adhere to policy and abuse the project to push their own opinions get blocked quite regularly. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:48, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Very well, understood. Uglytriangle999 (talk) 16:50, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

For another example of Uglytriangle999's disregard for the need for proper sourcing, see this bit of pure WP:OR I've just removed from the Libertarianism in England article. [76] Uglytriangle999 is citing (or rather, pretending to cite) Christopher Hill as summarising a 'principle' cited to an unpublished PDF by one 'Nathan B. Gilson'. A remarkable occurrence, were it true, since Gilson's document dates from 2022, and Hill published Puritanism and Revolution in 1958. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:45, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Fine, nevermind, I'll leave the aforementioned topics alone, do whatever you see fit with it. Uglytriangle999 (talk) 16:49, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

No, it isn't 'fine'. The issue isn't specific topics, it is an apparent inability to understand even the basics of multiple core Wikipedia policies: WP:RS, WP:OR, and WP:NPOV for a start. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:54, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

When I say "fine", I mean the whole situation of whether the articles stay up or not, isn't of tremendous importance to me. Uglytriangle999 (talk) 16:58, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

OK, let's try another tack here: Uglytriangle999, can you please give a clear and unambiguous explanation as to why you described the Daily Mail, Daily Mirror, GB News and Sun as 'Media' in the Zionism UK template? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:20, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

It was just sort of off the top of my head, as the aforementioned publications are known for their unequivocal pro-Zionist perspective. Admittedly, perhaps it was a bit of a stretch, seeing as they are publications that take a pro-Israel angle, not publications founded for the express purpose of promoting Zionism, but I could not immediately think of any British publications run solely for the purpose of Zionism as a single-issue topic. It would only be like listing Jeremy Corbyn and George Galloway, as well as media associated with them, in a pro-Palestinian infobox, as they are prominent voices in pro-Palestinian activism. The same goes with the aforementioned figures and media publications cited as Zionist. Uglytriangle999 (talk) 17:37, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for making your blatant PoV-pushing unequivocally clear. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:06, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Not sure if I would go as far as to describe it as blatant POV-pushing. I would be quite happy to someone to rectify the issue by editing it to a way that they see as more appropriate. Rome wasn't built in a day, something is started by creating something and then working on it as one goes along to make it better. Uglytriangle999 (talk) 18:25, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

"just sort of off the top of my head ... a bit of a stretch ... I could not immediately think" = Clearly not being here to build an encyclopedia NebY (talk) 18:15, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Is listing publications that epouse an opinion to an infobox about that opinion against building an encyclopedia? I take an interest in many other topics of a non-political nature that are of constructive use to an encyclopedia. Uglytriangle999 (talk) 18:27, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes, it is very much against 'building an encyclopedia' (or at least, Wikipedia) if you do it based on nothing but your own personal opinions. Wikipedia is supposed to be a tertiary source, and its articles/templates etc are supposed to summarise what reliable secondary sources have to say on a subject. Neither articles nor templates are even remotely appropriate places to express your own opinions (which by your own admission, hadn't involved a great deal of thought). That you still appear to have failed to have understood the problem - and just how utterly biased it is to single out 'off the top of my head' mainstream publications as if they are 'Zionist media' - can only be further evidence of why you shouldn't be editing at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:37, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

I just merely thought of it as common knowledge. Again, I made no description of whether I believed it to be right or wrong that these publications chiefly offer pro-Israel views, merely that they do. Uglytriangle999 (talk) 18:45, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

OK, I'm done here. Hopefully an admin will be along soon to prevent Uglytriangle999 from spamming Wikipedia with any more improperly-constructed templates containing whatever they think (or barely bothers to think about) constitutes 'common knowledge'. (who'd need an encyclopaedia built on that, anyway?) This utter inability to grasp the problem after having it explained umpteen times is entirely ample grounds for a WP:CIR block, even disregarding the blatant PoV pushing and the rest. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:59, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

I have made it clear that I understand and grasp the problem. I can't change what has already been done. The only reason that it supposedly needed to be explained umpteen times is because we are still talking about it. Uglytriangle999 (talk) 19:03, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Not sure I agree it means they're not here to build an encyclopedia. I think they are here to do that, they've just failed to understand the standards we apply. — Czello ^(music) 20:38, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

agreed; uglytriangle has been pretty forthcoming about their mistakes and willing to listen and they've only been met with vitriol here. ... sawyer * any/all * talk 00:33, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Maybe someone with more patience than me would like to enquire of Uglytriangle999 whether a 'History' section for a Zionism US template which contained only History of the Jews in the United States, Murder of Wadea al-Fayoume, 2023 shooting of Palestinian students in Burlington, Vermont and 2025 pro-Israel mob attack in Brooklyn could possibly be built around 'common knowledge', rather than being the disgusting example of shallow propaganda-mongering it gives every appearance of being. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:08, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

@Uglytriangle999: Mind explaining why you thought that was a good idea? QuicoleJR (talk) 20:10, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

It can't really be explained, since I wasn't really thinking of whether it was a good or bad idea at the time. In retrospect, it was a poor decision to include that right away, without a lot of other stuff first. I didn't think it would be an infobox that would be particularly prominent, so I thought there was a lot of time and room to add more stuff. I was just adding things to get it started. Uglytriangle999 (talk) 20:31, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

I'd say that there were at least two perfectly good explanations. The first is anti-Zionism. The second is antisemitism. Given that neither is remotely appropriate in a template, I see little reason to try to figure out which applies. And none whatsoever to believe that this was somehow accidental. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:24, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

All ideologies have adherents which advocate their ideas peacefully and those who don't. An infobox of anti-Zionism would be well within its rights to mention attacks on Zionists, with anti-Zionists as the perpetrators. An infobox on Nazism, for example, mentions the Holocaust and other crimes perpetrated by the Third Reich. Is this seen as an anti-Nazi or even anti-German bias? No, as it is describing history, good and bad. Uglytriangle999 (talk) 23:27, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Oh look, it's vacuous and misinformed platitudes, conveniently placed to make a pretence of missing the point entirely. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:57, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

What is the point that you want me to get? I have already conceded that I appear to have misunderstood the Wikipedia rules and that my edits were somewhat poor. At this point, it appears to just be an unconstructive argument. Uglytriangle999 (talk) 00:24, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Possibly, since the question now seems to revolve around whether the edits were anti-Zionist, antisemitic, or merely monumentally stupid and giving that impression purely by chance (yeah, right...), it is somewhat unconstructive, since all three constitute legitimate grounds for an indefinite block. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:33, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

about five and a half hours ago you said "i'm done" and yet here you are. they've conceded, stopped making the problematic edits, and acquiesced to deletion, so give it a rest - protracted back-and-forth ripping into them is not going to do anything. ... sawyer * any/all * talk 00:36, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Well, that was the product of me looking through the categories of American Zionist history and finding things to add. Something covering a topic will include both neutral, positive and negative parts of the history. Granted, on its own, it probably wasn't the wisest to add those without a whole lot of other stuff either, as it does skew it somewhat towards a more negative impression. Uglytriangle999 (talk) 20:29, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

This might be an SPA.

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

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

Please note that when you report an editor to ANI, you are required to notify them; I have done so for you this time, but please remember that for the future. I haven't looked into the issue behind the report deeply enough to form an opinion on it yet. QuicoleJR (talk) 12:57, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

I tried, but I couldn’t find the right notification using Twinkle’s “Warn” feature. Sorry about that. NotJamestack (talk) 13:11, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

No worries. For future reference, the template isn't in Twinkle. It has to be added manually, using {{subst:ANI notice}}. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:13, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

You can send noticeboard notifications with Twinkle. This menu is located (perhaps unintuitively) under TB for talkback. It took me a while to find it the first time. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 13:20, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Good candidate for a WP:NOTHERE block if not borderline WP:NPA. Accusing editors of pushing propaganda among other things will not bode well. The rest is a content dispute arising from a Romanian court ruling earlier this year. Aydoh8^{[what have I done now?]} 13:18, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

More context of which can be found at Steaua București football records dispute, which arose when the club was split in the 1990s. Aydoh8^{[what have I done now?]} 13:21, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

There is not anything directly actionable about an account being a single-purpose account. I have reviewed their edits, and while they have violated WP:NPA a few times, there's no reason to block at this point. I have warned them about the NPA violations. We'll see where they go from here. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:49, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

I am involved (since I've declined one of their malformed edito requests and futilely tried to explain what consensus and WP:COMMONNAME are). But I think sanctions are premature at this point. While I'm not optimistic, the NPA violations are real small potatoes, and at this point, they're limiting themselves to low-grade sniping rather than doing anything actually damaging. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:18, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Continuous Plagiarism by @Deusestlux

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

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

Plagiarism and breach of copyright are different things. Of the two, breaching copyright is much more serious though, and I'd have to agree that somthing needs to be done. Maybe block from article-space until we get a firm commitment that this will stop. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:26, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Good idea. Article space blocked until we nail this down properly. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:01, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

They've submitted an unblock request here Blue Sonnet (talk) 01:16, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

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

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

---

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

User's behaviour shows a pattern of general WP:RGW POV-pushing behaviour including editorialising on articles including those under WP:BLP[77][78][79] and now using the reliable source noticeboard to post their unsourced and approaching conspiratorial personal beliefs regarding the BBC and UK government that fall well outside of the parameters of the actual discussion[80][81][82][83] (and are likely motivating edits[84]).
Beyond that they keep making WP:ASPERSIONS about editors[85][86], despite attempts to warn them about this[87][88], which have now morphed into general complaints about 'being silenced' by Wikipedia.[89][90] As a result, don't believe they are suited to making positive contributions to this project. Rambling Rambler (talk) 02:31, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

As a bonus, I'm going to add this thread from September where Dotsdomain violated NOTFORUM with some very transphobic remarks. Add that to the POV pushing, editorialization, and aspersions, and we have an editor who is clearly NOTHERE. I believe a block is warranted to prevent further disruption. QuicoleJR (talk) 02:55, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

I cant tell if these remarks are done deliberately or if he's just lacking the self awareness to realize how it's perceived. Maybe we could ask him to retract them Trade (talk) 03:33, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

@Trade given they seem to ignore everyone's attempts to explain to them how what they're doing is inappropriate, the demonstrated instances of POV-pushing that seems to match cause célèbre of the British right, and now a frankly strange message they've left in a sudden push at RSN to redetermine GB News as a reliable source where they seemingly expect only GB News viewers to take part[91] I don't think that's likely to happen.

Simply seems to be a classic mix of someone who is interested in pushing their preferred political views combined with a lack of competence/awareness of what Wikipedia is. Rambling Rambler (talk) 11:46, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

I tried to warn them about their non-ec Israel Palestine topic violations, but even if they were EC their edits were not constructive to start with. I think there is a pattern of problematic behavior that needs to be addressed. (t · c) buidhe 04:54, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Get the feeling this might as well be WP:SNOW closed once it hits 24 hours from the first vote in the interests of minimising further disruption. The user in question shows no interest in actually explaining their actions despite continued activity, and it's currently unanimous that they should be blocked as a result. Rambling Rambler (talk) 15:53, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Arbitrary Break/ CBAN vote for Dotsdomain

Note: Dotsdomain is now over at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, arguing on the most absurd grounds (essentially 'the viewers like it, so it must be reliable') that GB News should be put on the (non existent) "reliable sources list". [92] Clueless. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:54, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, following their contributions to RSN on the BBC and now GB News, I'm fairly comfortable to say they require Indef for WP:NOTHERE. It's so completely devoid of any genuine merit or ability to take seriously that it can not be seriously taken in good faith as simply a naïve user making understandable errors. Rambling Rambler (talk) 18:33, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Note: I've opened an spi investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/NotQualified User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 17:23, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

even if SPI fails, I'd support Indef. That I see immediately clear parallels to another user that was tbanned, except with a pattern of behavior that seems to be exagerrated, seems a sign to me they are nothere. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 18:50, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

• Support indef per either/or CIR or trolling; the result is the same. With two open threads at RSN (1,2)—both claiming, in effect, that The Times and BBC are less reliable as sources than GBNews—whitewashing on Tommy Robinson and a logged CTop warning, I think the suggestion of NOTHERE/RGW is pretty well proven. —Fortuna, imperatrix 18:44, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

• Support Indef They shouldn't have this much trouble understanding what a reliable source is after having so many people explain it to them. I'm particularly concerned with this comment [93]. Unless I'm misreading it, they've admitted they only want input from people who watch GB News - ergo editors who are most likely to share a positive view. Blue Sonnet (talk) 19:35, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
• Support CBAN due to a clear pattern of POV pushing, with a side of blatant transphobia. This user is clearly NOTHERE. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:41, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

  Support indef /cban seems Wp:nothere to me. (t · c) buidhe 20:26, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

• Support an indef. MiasmaEternal☎ 20:45, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
• Support CBAN. Is either incapable of understanding even the basics of how Wikipedia works and what it is for, or refuses to accept it. I see no point in wasting further time trying to figure out which, since both are entirely valid grounds to exclude someone, even without the tedious and repetitive WP:RGW aspects of their behaviour. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:42, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
• Support CBAN. Blatant POV pushing about the BBC and GB News and repeated aspersions against editors which they have not learned from as they then claimed they were silenced by Wikipedia. They are clearly WP:NOTHERE.GothicGolem29 (Talk) 11:31, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
• No bold, but Dotsdomain needs to climb back down the Reichstag. Adding exclamation points to articles in wikivoice, and conspiritorial claims that the UK government are behind a bodged edit on a BBC current affairs programme show a WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS mentality. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:29, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
• SUpport CBANTBAN based mostly on their participation at RSN, but also on the rest of the evidence presented here. I don't believe this editor has the requisite competence to contribute to this project, merely to cause disruption by non-stop pushing of their POV. Their response to Buidhe warning them about their EC-clause violations at their talk page smacks of an inability to accept correction and their insistence that UK law is the end-all for determining a person's gender smacks of an inability to engage is critical thinking, a necessary trait for editors. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:33, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

  @MjolnirPants do you mean CBAN by any chance? Rambling Rambler (talk) 17:32, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

  I did. Not quite sure how I could have typo-ed that, so I must blame it on a brain fart. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:55, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

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

User:Astral highway & AI-generated editing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It doesn't look like anyone is going to propose a CBAN so I think this is done. Can someone please close this before it gets archived? NicheSports (talk) 23:42, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

At the risk of dragging this out any longer, is it possible to also block Astral highway from doing any more GA reviews? Truthnope (talk) 01:31, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Good morning/ afternoon, depending on time zones.

I'd appreciate if we could be more careful about going from a 'suspicion' about an incident on probabilistic terms, to a damaging generalization like this.

1) You alerted me to a suspicion of LLM citation generation by Pangram (zero suspicion by ChatGPTZero) and asked if I had manually checked all refs. I encouraged you to speedy delete the article rather than risk any harm, as couldn't instantly dig into the issue.

2)You checked this conversation and found no suspicion of AI generation on my talk page, unsurprising for talk generated by me. 'Reeks of...' is an unsafe determination indeed. For the two articles you refer to, that seems to be trying to extend a doubt founded on suspicion in a more damaging way, to human-generated main-space edits. It looks as if you were invited to do this by the person you have 'pinged' into this discussion.

3) I've had a look at this talk about a GA review just now Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#Another seemingly AI-generated review and a couple of things come up. The semantic content of a review (the words)are a wholly different issue to the markup.

In this recent article, Chris Albon and Leila Zia, of the Wikidedia Foundation, encourage editors to make intelligent use of AI. (https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2025/04/30/our-new-ai-strategy-puts-wikipedias-humans-first/) The scope of what they encourage certainly extends to avoiding mark-up errors and assisting neat presentation in formal processes like reviews, which is how I used it here and explains "the lack of Wikitext errors." Like I say elsewhere, we used to have to know some HTML to format some page features, back in the day.

So getting a block of words and headings neat is a courtesy to the reader, not an offense to any Wikipedia principles.

Making neatly formatted review pages doesn't evidence that the reviewer has rushed anything, or that the reviewer's actual words are AI generated. Not at all.

I thought the Silver Lake article was stand-out GA standard and evidenced that. We don't need lots of words to justify a straight-up pass.

My "List signature" doesn't make me a bad guy, even if human evaluators say hey, that that's a stand-out AI concoction. It isn't.

I've had a lifelong interaction with a massive volume of words. This ranges from patient study of super-dry regulatory material, to writing complex metanalyses for formal academic review, to writing in rather freer forms and more engaging forms of expression for less specialized publication out there.

I've also written highly technical material and process flows. All of this has been part of my professional career for as long as I can remember.

I've translated, too, for publication, and in the course of that endeavor, completed a formal study of applied linguistics.

The other GA review I'm conducting Talk:Canon EOS again evidences a detailed and consistent level of care. I didn't rush the thing through, have made constructive comments, read it over in detail numerous times and twice invited the nominator to evidence retrieval of all sources with a timestamp, pointing out that the onus of making sure refs resolve lies with the nominator - even as the GA reviewer will also check carefully after that.

My behavior is not that of someone who wishes to cut corners or damage the Wikipedia project. This thread has the makings of a moral panic resulting from unfounded extension of a specific suspicion to unfounded, widespread & bad faith practice.

For context: I have come across a few cases of failed citations, in which, precisely, a DOI didn't resolve, or that there was a hallucinated paper or journal title, even in GA-class article. That shocked me and appalled me.

That's why my conclusion on (4) references a deeper reason why I have dug into this issue in the last few days.

As a sidebar, we could all get very busy alerting admins to an AI malpractice, every time we see the signature M dash on a page in articles, which is a widespread occurrence. But the ChatGPT thumbprint that everyone knows about, doesn't automatically point to bad-faith content generation that is the existential threat to the Wikipedia project; it can simply mean care for well-presented code.

I'll sign off here, but please note my commitment to this endeavor and its underlying principles. I'd appreciate it if this response could be included as a 'lens' for any scrutiny of my actions.

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

Astral highway, which responses of yours do NOT use LLM generation? Nobody here wants to talk to a bot instead of the person they are addressing. Hooples (talk) 15:59, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm beginning to think that anyone who is the subject of a complaint regarding LLM generated content and then responds to that complaint with LLM generated slop should be blocked. We keep seeing this over, and over, and over, and over, and over again. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:34, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

That's too soft. Anyone posting article content, or talk-page content, that is AI generated should be blocked on sight, without our awaiting any response, because anyone who thinks AI-generated content is acceptable is ipso facto incompetent. EEng 21:24, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

I gotta say, I don't actually think this is from an LLM. There are some grammatical and punctuation errors scattered throughout that an LLM typically won't make, and missing words (such as the missing I between "as" and "couldn't instantly dig"). This seems more like an attempt to be polite and detailed that got fed a heavy helping of long-windedness. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 17:47, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm human! Astral highway (talk) 17:53, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

You haven't answered the question. EEng 22:32, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

I don’t see any policy reason to collpapse my earlier comment as (entirely unproven) AI generated. My words, written it in good faith and in response to the issue that was put forward, and that’s what it's about. I’m hoping we can stick to WP: AGE, WP:NPA &keep focus on content, per WP: FOC. Please could that collapse be undone for fairness and transparency Astral highway (talk) 17:30, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

No, because you are using an LLM to generate those comments. 173.22.12.194 (talk) 00:57, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

This is a meta-comment, and I've not been part of the discussion - just happened to doomscroll through ANI after visiting a discussion I'd heard about. If you feed an LLM some content, and tell it that you want it to "add a small number of misspellings, grammatical structure errors, syntax errors, punctuation errors, at about what the expectation would be for a high school senior essay", it will dutifully do so, without difficulty. JADP. This is why, in my opinion, we're doomed. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 22:16, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

@User:Astral highway Could you explain more about your discussion here with User:Chiswick Chap? Chiswick Chap says that a number of citations in Bee were changed for seemingly no reason. You respond by agreeing that the changes were "bizarre" and are at first unsure if you made them, and then conclude that you edited source, copied and pasted a block of material to work on offline, then pasted the edited source back into the article, but that somehow changed a number of sources into completely different sources. Can you explain in more detail what you did? I don't see how copying and pasting source would somehow create completely new citations. For reference, Chiswick Chap manually reverts those citation changes in this diff and the two after it. Truthnope (talk) 20:29, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

I don't know what happened; I did something accidental and apologized profusely as soon as I realized. Astral highway (talk) 20:47, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

It would help if you could explain your editing process to show how this accident occurred. If you didn't make these changes yourself, I can only imagine two possible explanations: 1) somebody else got access to your device and made these changes while you weren't paying attention (also known as WP:My little brother did it), or 2) at some point, you copied and pasted the content into a proofreading software and it changed these citations without you noticing. Does either of these explanations sound plausible? Truthnope (talk) 21:23, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

When I say I don't know what happened, I'm pointing to an outcome that makes no sense to me, either then or now. It would be pure conjecture to try to explain it as if part of any rational process. Astral highway (talk) 22:04, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Alright, how about this discussion with User:Steinsky? Steinsky (signature displayed as Joe D) notes three references you added to Black Nore Lighthouse and points out that none of those URLs resolve and that no evidence shows that those sources exist. Your response suggests that you had trouble with understanding how generating references works, but it doesn't address the question of whether or not those references actually exist. My question is, assuming that you did add those references yourself, regardless of any difficulty you had with generating references on Wikipedia, are there underlying real sources that those references correspond to, and if so, can you provide evidence (ideally, URLs), that prove they are real?

Also, can I assume your response means that you did not use any proofreading software to revise your edits, since you are not considering that possibility? Truthnope (talk) 22:35, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

I hadn't clocked those non-resolving refs until Joe D pointed them out, and explained something of what was going on at the time. No proofreading software used. From today: Here's a diff on Blacknore Lighthouse, showing that I removed a wholly uncontroversial statement about the treacherousness of the waters, after I had doubts about supporting it with a reference to something that looks very real (The Admiralty does, precisely, produce such book and charts (no URL avail for it), but that I couldn't have eyes on. I had the choice of 1/leaving a statement that could hardly be contested, 2/ finding a ref that explicitly supported it, or 3/ taking the lot down until I could. I chose that option. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Black_Nore_Lighthouse&diff=1319444652&oldid=1319366853. I dropped in a TV news report on the Brunswick, which did have an URL: https://news.sky.com/story/the-brunswick-ghost-ship-of-christmas-past-11584701. Astral highway (talk) 01:27, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

That doesn't answer my question. I wasn't asking about edits you made today, I was asking about references you added back in 13 September 2025, listed by Joe D in the aforementioned discussion, for which the URLs do not work. Did you create those references? Do those sources actually exist? Truthnope (talk) 01:59, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be dense and I'm digging deep to answer the questions the best way I can. Yes, I created them. I've gone over my processes but there's nothing concrete I can come up with; there isn't something I do that's automatic or engrained that would account for it.

I'm also trying hard to make sense of it from the distance of six weeks ago, when my workflow is now more established and I've worked a few things out.

The Brunswick story stands up with one single news story, which was easy to source, so I am totally a loss as to why it had three citations attached to it.

Of the three, Maritime Journal exists and has a relevant story: https://www.maritimejournal.com/century-old-wreck-uncovered-while-performing-routine-port-company-survey/970620.article?utm_source=chatgpt.com. Of the other two, Historic England exists, is the organization that "listed" the building and is the source of greatest authority on its history, but not the Brunswick story.

On that day, I added refs 14, 15, 16, 19, 23, 24, 26 as well as those in question. These included results from a lengthy search of accounts held on a government website, and you can see I'm active on the page much of the day. The relevance here is that my state of mind was one of adding depth, context and scope to page.

Once this issue was raised, I re-checked the relevant references from that date and corrected the citation. I remain committed to making sure that every reference I add is fully verifiable.Astral highway (talk) 12:04, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

This is, frankly, an unsatisfactory answer. You should not be creating references to nonexistent sources, no matter the state of your workflow. Errors such as typos or mixing up sources are reasonable mistakes, creating entire sources out of whole cloth is not. Even if you claim that you have no idea how this keeps happening (and there are more such cases), then it becomes a WP:COMPETENCE issue that you somehow can't stop adding made up sources. However, I also see utm_source=chatgpt.com in the URL you included, and that, along with this entire conversation, is sufficient evidence to me that you're using ChatGPT to write these responses and to help with your edits, and that it has hallucinated all of these nonexistent sources that you have been unable to explain. Truthnope (talk) 16:41, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

There are two things here. I want neat, ordered code on my page and spend a lot of time trying to fix formatting errors. That is a coding job that I have tried to outsource to an LLM at times, but learned that this may be perilous. I don't need any kind of assistance with my writing or thinking. Nobody is engaging with an bot when they are talking to me.Astral highway (talk) 17:35, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Did you use an LLM to find the Maritime Journal url you included in your previous comment? Truthnope (talk) 17:49, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes. I didn't think I needed to chop off the end of that search result, for that very reason.

Why hide something that isn't a policy vio at all? That shows transparency, nothing else.

The LLM you mention has been around for what, 3 years now? Many serious researchers use it in sophisticated way a smart search engine, and it can help to find the physical location of an obscure journal, or a book, wherever it may be hiding, and similar productive tasks.

I don't take it at face value, but it can be a good assistant in that way, not a master. I haven't used the popular browser for as long as I can remember.

That is absolutely no evidence of my using it to dream up sources. Where I think I may have been over-trusting for a while is in trying to format sources, at which point, it seems in some cases that I'm now aware of, at the point of formatting it can chuck in a non-resolving DOI. So of course I won't be doing that any more.

I have checked every single source for the content I've put out there, bar the handful that came to my notice.

The irony is that I have come across non-resolving DOI's a lot since coming back to Wikipedia, and I found it disturbing, and still do.

I am determined to produce citations that resolve and can be stable, especially as hosts for information disappear or move around.

As well, in an effort to have a nice, clean block of code, at one stage I tried to outsource that sub-task to the LLM, with mixed results. So that isn't something I continued, and all of this learning was weeks ago.

It remains difficult to put citations in without them going awry at times, as I said, because of some templating issues that may be easily resolved if people are from a coding background, but seem to result in a mess of 'cite error' and other redlines. I hope that is totally clear. Astral highway (talk) 18:07, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

The fundamental issue here is that you have consistently generated references to sources that do not exist. Some users believe you used an LLM which hallucinated those sources. You deny this, and instead have no rational explanation for why this has repeatedly happened, which is not a better alternative. Frankly, it doesn't matter which interpretation you take. If you can't reasonably explain why you have a history of making up sources, you can't reasonably promise that you will not continue to do so in the future, and so no editor can reasonably conclude that you have the competence required to edit Wikipedia.

I have to emphasize this: the damage has already been done. You have already breached the trust of your fellow editors by making up sources and including urls that lead to error pages. What you need to do is show that you understand that these mistakes were problematic, and show that you will avoid making these mistakes in the future, which requires you to know how they were made in the first place. Trying to show other edits where you didn't make citation errors doesn't allay concerns about all of the other edits where you did, and talking about your opinions on LLMs or Wikipedia makes it look like you're avoiding talking about the issues at hand. Truthnope (talk) 19:49, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for putting this across so clearly. I willingly acknowledge that those mistakes were problematic and do apologize without hesitation for those cases, as well as for any anxiety and distress that has resulted. That's entirely on me.

How can I can vouch that mistakes won't recur? I've refined my workflow to use verified citation databases. As well, I'll double check for perfect resolution of all citations.

In response to the concerns raised, I did put everything to one side for a few days to recheck everything, as well as with assistance from another person, so as to cover more ground. Astral highway (talk) 22:30, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Well, you've been blocked from editing articles. I'm not an admin, so there's not much I can do to help you there.

There's one thing I want to clarify though: in an earlier comment, you said the following: As well, in an effort to have a nice, clean block of code, at one stage I tried to outsource that sub-task to the LLM, with mixed results. So that isn't something I continued, and all of this learning was weeks ago. Are you saying that all of the earlier hallucinated citations were due to you using an LLM, and that after you saw that the results were mixed, you stopped using it weeks ago? Because that would be the closest thing you've done to taking responsibility and giving an actionable plan for no longer making this error. Truthnope (talk) 00:48, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Again, I'm sorry if I have come across as evasive, that wasn't my intention, not at all. The title of this notice has put me on guard, as it is wide in scope and damning.

When it came to the assertion that it's not even me on my talk page, even though that hunch was disproven entirely it seemed difficult to engage without getting into an exhausting circular discussion.

I understand the need for frank disclosure, and here is what I can say about which sub-tasks I have at times asked for LLM assistance, what I have learned in the process, and what is different now.

1) Sub-task type: asking LLM to format an "already confirmed source with the '"already confirmed correct title, in an attempt to produce a stable DOI.

I discovered that the LLM output can be a fabricated identifier attached to a real article, or a DOI can be guessed when none is present in the publisher record. That is a perverse outcome, exactly in the opposite direction of the intention, which is to produce a stable DOI. I repeat, clearly this is not something I would continue. I rigorously re-checked over all my mainspace edits.

2) I have dug into the Blacknore Lighthous example from 13 Sept. Here my best understanding is that I was subtasking an LLM only to format references that I had already selected. However, it turns out it can complete or expand and corrupt references by adding items it judges to be similar to the existing content, without prompting to do so. I didn't check the outputs on that occasion, and they went under the radar. That was my responsibility. Practice discontinued.

Again, I have re-checked over all edits in the article and they all resolve. The template was reinstated even after I had done this and so I do wonder if that could be removed, as my attempt to do so was reverted.

Evidence for this being the best explanation is that there was no editorial reason for me to include three sources to support a completely uncontroversial story with a readily available secondary source to back it up. I don't do that under any circumstances, but it stands up my point.

Again, now I understand that an LLM doesn't enact instructions as if given a bunch of code, but uses heuristics, I have stopped using it for that sub-task also.

3) Sub-tasking an LLM to put into correct, Wiki mark-up, blocks of references that have already been checked. I now understand that again, even without being asked, the LLM can mark refs as 'retrieved.' Again, I have stopped asking an LLM to enact this sub-task.

These are three specific sub-task categories of using an LLM that apply.

I hope that these illustrations affirm my willingness to take responsibility for what happened, as well as showing what I have learned and what I will do differently. Astral highway (talk) 11:44, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

What do you mean "produce a stable DOI"? DOIs are assigned by the DOI foundation and approved bodies. They cannot be produced by llms. If you are asking an llm to produce anything, that is already beyond formatting. CMD (talk) 00:09, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

It remains difficult to put citations in without them going awry at times No, it really isn't. There's a too (a gadget you can enable, I believe?) that lets you format citations right in the edit window. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:42, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, aware. A minor but time-consuming issue recently was citation correctly formatted but superscript replaced with same-size as text. Other issues I'll categorize offline and work out. Astral highway (talk) Astral highway (talk) 11:57, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Here is a better example. The template on the right of the page (scrolling all the way down) is messed up by my inclusion of a valid PDF, referring to a verified advanced text for radar operatives. That edit and more has been rolled back as nonsense - perhaps because it is in Russian. But on-topic, I'm illustrating a real-life example of working hard to improve an article by adding depth to it, only to encounter this class of error.Astral highway (talk) 12:36, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Astral, we need a clear and direct answer to Truthnope and Joe D's question. You have repeatedly avoided answering this question. We need to know why and how you added those seemingly non existent references. Please note that admins are not the only group active here and the community also takes these issues seriously. The truth - whatever it is - is your best bet here! NicheSports (talk) 02:03, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Phantom nonsense was also added to P-70 radar. Bgsu98 (Talk) 08:29, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

This doesn't seem at all justified. Particularly could I ask for more care when you class a whole set of discrete activities as 'nonsense.' You removed references 4,5,6, here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=P-70_radar&diff=prev&oldid=1319391093. 4) Chernyak is the author of a journal paper with that exact description; I have the PDF and have read it. 5) The P-70 Radar, resolves. 5) Is a highly relevant paper on foundational principles of this type of radar. So these are healthy additions. For wider context, this diff in January 2009 (I was an early contributor to the page) shows great care for it: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=P-70_radar&diff=1319518924&oldid=262747326 In it, I point out that there is a several orders of magnitude error in the operating frequency and this major error should be corrected. This is the posture of someone who cares deeply about information stewardship, as I do. Astral highway (talk) 10:39, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Your 2009 diff shows you confusing pulse repetition frequency with carrier frequency. The radar sends pulses in VHF 70 or 140 times per second, that is not a contradiction. In fact this is backed up by a source you added. [94]

To analogize, if I were to say "hi" to you once every two seconds, the frequency of the "hi"s would be 0.5Hz, while the pitch of my voice would be much higher at ~200Hz.

This seems like a very basic error for someone overhauling radar articles to miss, frankly. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 12:48, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Ah, easily done but looks like you mis-read the original text. It clearly said : The radar operated on two frequencies, 140 Hz [sic] to observe low -altitude targets (aircraft and missiles) and 70 Hz [sic] to observe high -altitude targets. That means the original writer didn't know that would suggest carrier; if [they] did, they wouldn't have stated in a confusing way and would have mentioned the PRF. I do know about and have used PRF for high-power RF systems. Love the analogy though for those who don't know! Astral highway (talk) 16:03, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

So you made the assumption it should be MHz without checking the source at all, didn't notice when reading your own additional sources, and didn't think to double check before you presented this as the posture of someone who cares deeply about information stewardship? Incredibly worrying on top of the other sourcing issues. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 16:44, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

It's conventional to state radio frequency/ band first, then PRF, pulse width etc. PRF doesn't tell you the most important thing. So, going back to 2009 and my diff, I'm showing RF literacy by correcting 70Hz and 140Hz (audio frequencies) to MHz (consistent with the VHF carrier). It later turns out the numbers 70 and 140 are PRF's, but I didn't put those there.

My 2009 edit adds value straight away, by correcting a six orders of magnitude error. Simply put, 150MHz is about 2 metres wavelength, and 150Hz is over 2KM wavelength.Astral highway (talk) 17:23, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

It later turns out no, the source present in the article at the time states that the repetition frequency is 70/140Hz. You did not "add value" by introducing misinformation. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 17:32, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Regardless of the merits, I don't think that edits from 2009 are relevant at all here NicheSports (talk) 17:41, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

• Given the repeated cases of inserting hallucinated references (which if they aren't the result of LLM useage that's worse) and the constant evasiveness and apparent lack of ability to ensure this won't happen again, I have indefinitely pblocked Astral highway from articlespace. If and when they are able to assure these problems will not recur, anyone can lift the pblock. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:42, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

  I note this today. Thank you for prompting me to make a full presentation of the extent and context of my LLM usage and its boundaries. Please understand that my earlier reticence to dig into this was from the broad-brush title of this page and the repetition of some allegations based on 'hunch' alone, as well as needing more time to replicate some tasks off-line to distil my understanding.

  I hope this latest explanation [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#c-Astral_highway-20251031114400-Truthnope-20251031004800 shows me to be a good-faith, transparent and collegiate member of the Wikimedia Project. Astral highway (talk) 12:12, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

  I don't think you've really addressed what you will do differently. I think that a binding promise to not use LLMs for any purpose on Wikipedia is the bare minimum of an expectation. LLMs are an extremely dangerous tool to Wikipedia that you have misused repeatedly and been evasive about, so that should end any use of the tool. You've accidentally had a gun misfire at the family picnic on multiple occasions; the time has come to say you can choose to either leave the gun at home or you no longer are invited to the picnic. Wikipedia articles shouldn't be victimized by your personal journey to discover what subtasks LLMs suck at. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 07:12, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

  I'll try better. I begin by making a binding promise not to use citation formatting or referencing 'assistance' from any LLM.

  My mistakes came from believing that formatting and citation assistance from an LLM could be adopted reliably. I detailed how that was misguided and how 100% I will no longer do that; I worked hard to correct those errors when they came to light.

  I understand and feel the scope of your concern, so I further make a binding promise that I won't use any LLM in a way that affects markup or content on Wikipedia.

  (Please note that I don't need LLM assistance to help me communicate with fellow editors, nor to structure my thoughts, and people are talking to me on my talk pages, not via an LLM, as suggested in some comments.)

  To support my commitment, I emphasize that I'm committing to a reset of workflow to be entirely manual, including manual formatting of citations in the source. Before saving any edit, I will double check that every reference resolves correctly.

  I hope this demonstrates my sincere wish to put things right, as well as to be given a second chance to prove my commitment to the highest standards Astral highway (talk) 11:45, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

  The ambiguity of this statement, and the faux-legalese that gives you loopholes to still use LLM for some things on Wikipedia is highly concerning. As elsewhere in this discussion, it's difficult to gauge just what you're agreeing to; your intention might be to agree to not use LLMs on Wikipedia ever, but it's hard to tell with all the meandering. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:43, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

  Plainly: I will not use LLM's on Wikipedia. Astral highway (talk) 16:37, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

  Please understand that my earlier reticence to dig into this was from the broad-brush title of this page That characterization feels dishonest. Concerns were raised with your hallucinated citations before this ANI report was filed (they were the impetus for the ANI report in the first place), such as in the discussion with Chiswick Chap, the discussion with Steinsky, and this AfC submission in which User:Pythoncoder warned you of the risks of using an LLM, including hallucinations and nonexistent references, and you responded by saying No such method was used. Even if your talk page responses are human-written, the concerns about you using an LLM to edit articles were entirely justified, and you refused multiple opportunites to come clean about your LLM usage. It's unfair to Bgsu98 to characterize this ANI report as being based on a "hunch" when it was actually based on the considerable body of evidence showing you adding nonexistent sources. Truthnope (talk) 22:54, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

  This. Lifting the block would be a mistake. DoubleCross (‡) 01:37, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

  Agreed. This person does not need to be editing Wikipedia. Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:39, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

  Now that my heart is no longer racing from the notification that I've been mentioned on ANI: I've certainly wrongly declined drafts for LLM usage before, but I don't think I'm wrong here. So what we've got here is a user getting blocked from mainspace, repeating the same behavior that got them blocked in other namespaces, and actively trying to obfuscate the truth in the hopes of getting unblocked without actually changing their ways. The use of LLMs to hallucinate a GA review a week ago is a whole new level of deceit that I've never seen before. I would not be opposed to dropping the ban hammer here. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 11:10, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

  As the one who received the GA review... yeah, it stings. I'm a staunch critic (one could even say hater) of LLMs in general, and I honestly completely missed the obvious red flags. I did notice the inaccuracies, like the "most images are from commons" and the references not being live (they all were). The fact that I put more effort into making sure that every single one of the 80+ references I personally added *also* had an archive link, just to satisfy a reviewer that put less time into his "review" than I spent doing that, is genuinely infuriating. I wish I weren't the recipient of such a review, but it is what it is. I just ask that the next person who reviews the article does so in a way that warrants the good faith I had in the last one. Serebit (talk) 17:06, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

  It also hurts because it was the most work I've ever put into a Wikipedia article *by far*, and I had no reference point for what a GA review is "supposed" to look like, so I assumed the weird formatting and inaccuracies were just things I didn't know about or missed from reading about the GA system. Plainly, I feel cheated. Serebit (talk) 17:09, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

  The use of LLMs to hallucinate a GA review a week ago They what? <goes and looks further at contribs> Oh, dear. Given that, should their pass of Talk:Cup of China/GA1 be vacated as well? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:45, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

  We discussed that issue here. I am the nominator of that article. I stand behind Cup of China and welcome any re-inspection. Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:53, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

  It should probably be vacated because of the rest of the discussion in this thread and because of the author of the review being banned from mainspace, though I don't think it shows the signs of an LLM-generated review (plenty of typos, very little actual text, just surface-level short observations). It's just not very well reviewed. The review should be discarded and the article should be put back into the queue for someone qualified to take a look at it. Serebit (talk) 22:56, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

  @Pythoncoder, respectfully, "...repeating of any behaviour on other spaces" isn't true. Please note timings a& sequence:

  30 Oct Mainspace ban 22:42

  31 Oct - my explanation of full extent of LLM usage and context

  1 Nov - further extension of that explanation and a binding promise.

  It' logically impossible to 'repeat' something before another thing, so there isn't a case that I could have "repeated" behaviour (which had not been established in other spaces, beyond a 'hunch') in GA spaces or talk space, after the ban.

  I didn't use LLM's to analyse or review GA spaces and I didn't get an LLM to do GA reviews. That was limited to formatting wiki markup, as a courtesy to the recipient of the review, wishing nice neat blocks of text and formatting.

  I didn't expect that to be an issue as pages are made of markup. Since that time, too, I've been made aware that there is a GA template.

  I didn't use an LLM to communicate on on my talk page and there wasn't any evidence, either, that I did.

  But sticking with now: I repeat what I said two days ago:

  Plainly: I will not use LLM's on Wikipedia. Astral highway (talk) 16:37, 1 November 2025 (UTC)Astral highway (talk) 12:08, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

  You have not fully explained your LLM usage. You still have not answered (after repeated questions here and on your talk page) where these seemingly hallucinated references came from. You have spoken again and again about using LLMs for citation "formatting" but per User:Steinsky's analysis at the link above none of these articles ever existed. Also, per the ANI filing you apparently had a GA review G15'd? I cannot confirm this, or review it, because I am not an admin. @Bgsu98 do you remember which of the G15 criteria was involved? If that indeed happened then how are you saying you did not use LLMs on GA reviews? NicheSports (talk) 13:31, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

  It was Talk:Silver Lake (Whatcom County, Washington)/GA1, which was deleted, but has since been re-created as another user did the review. An administrator should be able to see the history to examine details of the original deletion. Bgsu98 (Talk) 14:32, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

  @The Bushranger can an admin please temporarily restore the deleted version of Talk:Silver Lake (Whatcom County, Washington)/GA1 so we can look at it, in light of Astral's comment above? NicheSports (talk) 14:43, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

   In progress This will be a little tetchy because another editor took over the review (and passed it) and so there's an existing /GA1 for that article. One moment please. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:44, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

   Done it can be reviewed at User:The Bushranger/Silver Lake (Whatcom County, Washington)/GA1 @NicheSports:. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:46, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks for restoring. It is certainly plausible that the review was LLM-generated, but I don't see it meeting any G15 criteria and I am surprised it was deleted on those grounds. I suppose the argument was 1) it is very likely LLM generated 2) the entire page is "communication intended for the user" and 3) it needed to be gotten rid of, so someone stretched on the definition. Which is fair. But I don't think it is relevant to what we do here. NicheSports (talk) 23:00, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

  Here is the thread where this was discussed. Pinging User:David Eppstein, the admin who deleted that GA. Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:07, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

  I see from this diff range that my guess above was pretty close. I agree with the deletion, but the G15 criteria was sufficiently loose that I don't think it should inform a CBAN, which it seems people are considering. But @Astral highway can you please provide a clear answer about how you generated these nonexistent references in your edits to Black Nore Lighthouse? NicheSports (talk) 23:24, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

  Astral highway's comment here on point 2) explains how the nonexistent references on that page were generated. I have dug into the Blacknore Lighthous example from 13 Sept. Here my best understanding is that I was subtasking an LLM only to format references that I had already selected. However, it turns out it can complete or expand and corrupt references by adding items it judges to be similar to the existing content, without prompting to do so. I didn't check the outputs on that occasion, and they went under the radar. That was my responsibility. Practice discontinued. Truthnope (talk) 00:01, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

  Ah, I see. Um, can we really believe that? LLMs hallucinate, yeah, but not when told to create a reference for a real, live URL... NicheSports (talk) 00:07, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

  Oh, I see what you mean. It would help if they could explicitly state what their process of using LLMs was, i.e. how much did they write and what did they ask the LLM to do, though I'm not sure if they plan on commenting further. Truthnope (talk) 01:13, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

  After seeing their explanation I am convinced they are lying about how those references were created. LLMs are not going to hallucinate a phantom url if you provide them a real url and ask them to create a wikipedia style reference using it. NicheSports (talk) 01:29, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

  I'm sure there are some that would, but I agree that most easily accessible models (e.g. GPT) wouldn't. It also strikes me as odd that a user would go to an LLM for that task instead of using one of the many freely available citation generator tools like citer.toolforge.org, which I've used frequently when editing on mobile in source mode. The only reasonable explanation to me is that the references were entirely generated by an LLM. Serebit (talk) 06:50, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

  I've now openly described what I did in concrete terms and very clearly, what I will do differently. I hope in time that can make a difference

  If @Serebit you feel that a page isn't very well reviewed for GA, that is a very different discussion and doesn't need to involve me, and of course you are free to ask someone else to take over the review. I'm not trying to minimize your feelings about what's the right thing to do.

  But to be fair, a decent amount of thought, time and discernment went into it, using only the stuff that's between my ears. The alternative would have been to speed it through as it stood.

  The same applies for Cup of China. That was stand-out well written, and just because I put that across using few words doesn't suggest any co-opting of other resources.

  It looks as if there may be limited productivity in my further commenting here.Astral highway (talk) 11:03, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

  @Astral highway With the extent to which you misled and obstructed the truth prior to your ban, I'm not of the opinion that any of your claims about the veracity of your edits and reviews should be taken seriously. I agree that there's not much reason for you to continue commenting—the decision made by the admins is not going to be revisited anytime soon, and you're only digging yourself a deeper hole by continuing to argue against the conclusions made. I suggest that you take a break from Wikipedia to reflect on your actions instead of trying to convince everyone that our well-founded conclusions are wrong. Serebit (talk) 12:21, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

• Needs archiving. ~212.70~ ~2025-31733-18 (talk) 05:17, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Deamonpen on Evie Magazine

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

---

Deamonpen (talk · contribs) has been relentlessly refusing to drop the stick and edit warring against consensus on Evie Magazine even when everyone in the talk page thread[95] is against him. He consistently edit wars to water down the language describing the mag in the lead from "Alt-right" to "conservative" to "An American women's magazine described as conservative" despite everyone in the thread consistently being against him, on the grounds that consensus is not determined by the number of peope who say X. It is about what arguments they bring and how the debates end.[96] (Deleted and reposted because apparently we can do this via visual editing now) Snokalok (talk) 00:14, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

I don't remove the "alt-right" materials. I add the "conservative" materials. And nobody in the Talk page protests the additions of "conservative" materials. They just have different ideas on how to put "conservative" and "altright" in the description of the magazine (first sentence)

Evidenced by the fact that this is User: Bluethricecreamman who readded the conservative part after deleting my initial edit:

Bluethricecreamman's edit

Then User: Gurkubondinn rearranging the refs in that exact part to make it clearer.

Gurkubondinn's edit

The other users in the Talk page also didn't protest the addition of "conservative". They just argued about how the exact sentence should be written. In the last message of User:Zenomonoz, they said that they agreed with my position:

Talk page

And nobody since yesterday has rebuffed my last answer.

The fact that you don't just want to change how the sentence is written, but remove all the "conservative" materials (without even trying to talk it out on the Talk page) does not show good will on your part.

Current edit history of the Evie page for reference Deamonpen (talk) 00:25, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I can see an immediate issue with your last edit, which could just be down to a misunderstanding if I take the AGF route (perhaps English isn't your first language?).

In your last edit [[97]] to the page you changed "...is an American alt-right magazine" to "...magazine described as a conservative; alt-right."

You're changing the magazine from being alt-right to being described as alt-right.

That changes the meaning by distancing the term "alt-right" from the subject (the magazine).

Whilst you're not removing the term, you're changing how it's being presented in the article in a fairly significant way. Blue Sonnet (talk) 00:54, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Because it is described as "conservative" and "alt-right" by different sources respectively, and the sentence should reflect that. Wikipedia exists to reflect the sources, right? As I said in the Talk page, merging it into "conservative alt-right" is an untenable position, because the sources themselves do not do that (sources that say "conservative" don't say "alt-right", and vice-versa). Wikipedia does not say "X is Y" (except if the subject is universally or near universally accepted as such, and always with sources, implying that the position is something taken from sources). If some sources say X is Y while other sources say X is Z, then it is better to take note of those different position. One of the sources (agreed to be best source on Talk page) explicitly makes the case that the authors say "conservative" and distance themselves from "alt-right". So it is one more reason not to write "conservative alt-right". Deamonpen (talk) 01:00, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Also, I am fine with "conservative [with sources] or alt-right [with sources] women-magazine" (no "described as"). Or even "conservative/alt-right women's magazine" - just a bit awkward for an encyclopaedia.

But others do not like that. Deamonpen (talk) 01:09, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Consensus on talk already found the sources saying conservative to be weaker for various reasons, include HEADLINE and being a quote from an interview Snokalok (talk) 01:27, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Per User:Blue Sonnet's opinion, I temporarily restore User:Gurkubondinn's version (basically User:Bluethricecreamman's version. No one has agreed that "conservative" sources should be removed. But I want admins and others to propose their own solution in this case. Deamonpen (talk) 01:40, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) @Snokalok, it seems as though you've also been edit warring yourself.

@Snokalok @Deamonpen if you two disagree on what edits should be made, even if you think you're right, please first reach consensus before making the edit. I would also suggest you both take a look at dispute resolution.

Wikieditor662 (talk) 01:27, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

I am restoring the last stable version. It's not edit warring when you're restoring the consensus version against a single disruptive editor who acts against consensus. That's just being a good editor - and I would thank you to observe the talk page where consensus was overwhelmingly found against his position. Snokalok (talk) 01:28, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Please take a look at WP:3RR. Wikieditor662 (talk) 01:30, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

The consensus on Talk does not say "conservative" are weaker. Please don't invent more imaginary stuff. In fact the agreed best source says conservative, not "alt-right". Deamonpen (talk) 01:36, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

User:Grayfell, you are removing the versions inserted by three different users + me, I don't see how it is me who is edit warring. Deamonpen (talk) 01:43, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

What you did does count as edit warring given the ammount of times you did restoring a pervious version is not an exemption even if there is consensus. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 01:43, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

User:GothicGolem29, The versions User:Snokalok and User:Grayfell are trying to remove (there are slight differences, but all keep the language "conservative [sources] alt-right magazine....") were inserted by the following:

1

2

3

+me (I don't agree, but temporarily restore per User:Blue Sonnet's request).

That was also the position we left before we started yesterday's debate.

Also User:Wikieditor662, I did the initial edit of today, because no one protested my last reply on the Talk page. Deamonpen (talk) 01:50, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Just to clarify I didn't request anything, the article had already been changed from the version I quoted, so that sentence was no longer in the live article.

I was also reviewing the edit history and writing a response to suggest that editors to temporarily stop working on the article whilst it's at ANI, but things move pretty fast on this board and unfortunately I wasn't in time. Blue Sonnet (talk) 01:59, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

OK, taken note. But I think that given the way everybody else has kept the "conservative" ref, it is safe to say the stable version is not the one Snokalok is trying to revert to. Deamonpen (talk) 02:02, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

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

2026 Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly election

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

---

• 2026 Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The user Anbarasan1523 has repeatedly removed well-sourced content from the article, despite the inclusion of proper third-party references. The edits appear to focus mainly on deleting sections related to government achievements while retaining or emphasizing criticism. These removals have continued even after updates and discussions were initiated on the talk page. FactCheckerBharath (talk) 12:53, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Frankly, neither of you should be editing there, as neither of you have extended-confirmed rights, and edits related to the topic of political parties in India are explicitly restricted for non-EC editors, per WP:CT/SA. I've added the required notice to both your talk pages. Since this particular dispute seems to be limited to the two of you, hopefully this stops the incident without any sanctions. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 13:08, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

You're now both blowing well past WP:3RR. Both of you have contributed to making a godawful mess. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 13:20, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

I've blocked both from that page for 48 hours for the clear edit warring. If it spills to other pages (there's a revert on an another page as well), then we can expand the blocks.Sam Kuru (talk) 13:25, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Honestly, I tried my best to summarize the content of the article and ensure NPOV. I also helped to add the content under sections which were empty before. Please check out my contributions before labelling them as "mess". Also, the other user was the major reason for adding more unnecessary contents and engaging in edit war. I accept my action also count as "edit war" but my intent was to restore the maintenance templates and reaching consensus on article's talk page. I also refrain from editing political articles hereafter, as I'm new user and didn't know about that contentious topic policy. Anbarasan1523 (talk) 13:58, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Personal attacks and edit wars

A user FactCheckerBharath (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) keeps attacking me personally in my talk page and accused me of "vandalism" when I tried to summarize a lengthy article 2026 Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly election. Due to persistent content dispute, I added the clean-up and maintenance templates on the article and asked opinions from other editors. But the aforementioned user [removed those templates] (edit war), even after asking him to wait before reaching the consensus on the article's talk page. I noticed there is ongoing ANI discussion on this issue only after posting this (as I didn't receive ANI notice from the user as required by the ANI rule). Anbarasan1523 (talk) 13:51, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

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

HELP restoring against vendetta

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

---

Text generated by a large language model or similar AI technology has been collapsed in line with the relevant guideline and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

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

I am writing to inform you that this account is the same as my previous one, Paradygmaty2. Due to the loss of access to my old accounts and passwords, I am now using this new account. Although I have not edited Wikipedia for several months, I find it necessary to raise an issue, as I believe certain facts are being treated unfairly.

Specifically, I want to bring attention to the actions of the user CFA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who has engaged in disruptive behavior, likely stemming from a personal conflict with me. CFA has removed months of constructive work by user Marina redaktor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), including deleting the article “Nisko Jewish Cemetery” (see diff: [date and time of diff]). Additionally, CFA has moved several pages without justification, such as “Bruk-Bet Termalica Sports Stadium,” which caused confusion with redirects and categories.

The correct entry of the article in question is [Nisko Jewish Cemetery]. These actions appear to be driven by personal grievances rather than an intent to improve the content, which undermines the collaborative nature of this platform.

On November 8, 2025, I contacted the user Newslinger requesting clarification on this matter, and instead of a constructive dialogue, I was promptly blocked. This is not only disappointing but deeply troubling. Such behavior is harmful and dangerous because it can happen to anyone. If one user can remove another’s legitimate contributions based on personal animosity without any form of recourse, it essentially deprives individuals of their right to defend their work, making it impossible to seek proper resolution. This amounts to a violation of personal rights and the basic principles of fairness.

I want to emphasize that I will not let this issue go unaddressed. I am awaiting a response, as this situation cannot be allowed to continue unchecked. It is crucial that people’s contributions are not erased simply because of personal bias. Such actions undermine the integrity of this platform and represent a serious violation of individual rights, depriving individuals of access to basic justice and accountability.

Please note that this message was generated with the help of ChatGPT, which does not alter the substance of the report. I request that this issue be addressed promptly, and that my account not be blocked while I work to resolve this matter.

Thank you for your attention to this issue Paradygmaty10 (talk) 14:24, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Sock, needs a block Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Paradygmaty. Rambling Rambler (talk) 14:26, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

And very quacky as well and also with a lie such as ‘haven’t edited in months’ ~2025-31733-18 (talk) 14:29, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Posting an admission to creating sockpuppet accounts to violate a block is never a good idea, regardless of whether ChatGPT is involved. AndyTheGrump (talk)

This account, and the previous ones, are  Confirmed to Marina redaktor. The master is stale, but given the choice of username I don't think there is any readon to doubt that they are all the person behind the original Paradygmaty account. Given that they're persisting with this nonsense, I'd be grateful if another CU would quietly run a check and block the underlying range, it'll be a bit obvious if I do it. Girth Summit _(blether) 14:51, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

{{Checkuser needed}} - see my post above. Girth Summit _(blether) 14:56, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

This has been dealt with now. Girth Summit _(blether) 17:27, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

---

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

First offence:

• 15:16, 26 October 2025 (change of information without citing a reliable, third-party source)
• Warning issued (warning removed)

Second offence:

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

Third offence:

• 3 November 2025 (third return of information, again, without citing a reliable, third-party source)
• Warning issued (warning removed)

Fourth offence:

• 6 November 2025 (introduction of information from a depreciated source, per WP:ALBUMAVOID)
• Final warning issued (responded with a personal attack, then removed)

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

The fact they're citing themselves as the source[98] and nothing else that actually shows what they claim is the most obvious issue here. Basic WP:CIR/WP:OR issue. Rambling Rambler (talk) 20:08, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Due to their policy violations, I have indefinitely blocked ATK1997 from article space. In order to be unblocked, they will need to persuade an administrator that they fully understand the core content policies No orginal research and Verifiability, and that they will fully comply with those policies. Cullen328 (talk) 21:51, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

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

ThouShaltEdit and IDHT

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

---

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

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

• Gypsy-Rose Blanchard

  On 22 October they removed information from Gypsy-Rose Blanchard citing several policies one of which was a fake policy (WP:NOTGRAPHIC) [99]. This was reverted several days later by me. TSE then reremoved the information again citing the non-existent policy of WP:NOTGRAPHIC [100] and the editor opened up 2 discussions at the talk page [101] [102]. I asked TSE if they were using AI due to the fake policy being cited. They said they confused it with MOS:GRATUITOUS another non-existent policy [103]. A back and forth discussion on the talk occurred between me and TSE with them ignoring my followup about MOS:GRATUITOUS.

• Factitious disorder imposed on another

  On 22 October they opened a discussion to remove Blanchard from the notable cases citing WP:MEDRS, this was opposed by @Avatar317: as WP:MEDRS doesn't apply. TSE went ahead any and removed the entry twice and was reverted both times. A discussion on the talk page occured betwwen Avatar317 and TSE, with TSE showing signs of IDHT by repeating themselves about MEDRS. TSE then opened up a second discussion to propose removal stating if their standards weren't met in 30 days they'd remove the entry anyway. A back and forth between me and TSE occurred here as well, during this back and forth they attempted to open up a non-neutral malformed (and misplaced) RFC to rewrite MEDRS to their interpretation, which had the rfc template swiftly removed by @Nemov:. TSE can be seen displaying WP:IDHT by repeating themselves about MEDRS despite being told multiple times that MEDRS doesn't apply.

• List of Munchausen by proxy cases

  On 22 OCtober they removed Blanchard from this list for the same reasons as the above, again reverted by Avatar. More back and forth between me and TSE about MEDRS not applying [104] [105].

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

Text generated by a large language model or similar AI technology has been collapsed in line with the relevant guideline and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

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

Response by ThouShaltEdit

Thank you for the opportunity to respond.

This report appears to stem from ordinary content disputes across several related articles in the Blanchard topic area (Gypsy Rose Blanchard, Murder of Dee Dee Blanchard, Factitious Disorder Imposed on Another, and List of Munchausen by proxy cases).

All of my edits were policy-based, discussed on talk pages, and made in good faith under normal BRD procedure.

Below is a summary of each issue with supporting diffs.

----

1. Gypsy Rose Blanchard article

• 22 Oct 2025 (02:03 UTC): I removed explicit, unsourced material describing violent and sexual acts, citing BLP / BLPGOSSIP / UNDUE. My edit summary used the shorthand “NOTGRAPHIC,” a mistyped reference to MOS guidance on gratuitous or salacious detail. (diff 1)
• I acknowledged and corrected that shorthand on the Talk page and clarified that the edit was grounded in BLP / BLPGOSSIP / UNDUE. (diff 2)
• Several days later, Lavalizard101 reverted his own prior removal of unrelated sourced material and added new wording (“some of these claims”) under an edit summary referring to a “non-existent policy.” That rationale did not apply to the content he altered, and the modification was not disclosed in the edit summary.

These diffs show a single, policy-based cleanup and a corrected typo, not a pattern of misuse or disruption.

----

2. Factitious Disorder Imposed on Another article

• 22 Oct 2025: I opened a Talk-page proposal to remove the Dee Dee Blanchard entry from “Notable cases,” citing BLP / MEDRS / BLPCRIME, since no clinical diagnosis or legal finding exists. (proposal diff)
• 23 Oct 2025: I made one bold removal consistent with that proposal. (bold diff) Avatar317 reverted my edit, I reverted once, and Avatar317 then undid my revision. (revert diff) I then stopped reverting and instead added a medical-citation-needed tag to flag the sourcing issue for discussion. Lavalizard101 later removed that tag with the edit summary “singling this case out as needing MEDRS is obviously done for POV reasons.” This shows that I had already moved from reverting to normal maintenance and discussion rather than edit-warring.
• This represents a normal BRD cycle handled through policy-based discussion, not edit-warring. Subsequent edits (Oct 31 – Nov 2) were unrelated maintenance: citation cleanup, neutral wording, and DSM/ICD alignment.

When my later RfC draft was removed for formatting, Nemov advised resubmitting a shorter version or seeking WP:3O, which I followed, showing adherence to dispute-resolution guidance.

----

3. List of Munchausen by proxy cases

• 22 Oct 2025: I made a single BRD removal of the Blanchard entry, reverted by Avatar317, then took the discussion to Talk without further reverts.
• My rationale here differed from the FDIA article because this page is a categorical list. I relied on WP:LISTBIO, WP:CATDEF, WP:ONUS, and WP:BLP, as the list categorizes individuals with a medical or behavioral label despite the absence of any verified diagnosis, and the page itself has no defined inclusion criteria.
• The later MEDRS discussion focused only on whether inclusion implies diagnosis; regardless, the sourcing did not meet core BLP standards.

This was a standard policy-based content dispute conducted through Talk, not disruption.

----

4. Overall conduct

• I have remained civil and transparent in all discussions.
• I have never exceeded 3RR or edit-warred.
• I acknowledged and corrected the one policy-shortcut typo immediately and publicly.
• I redirected discussion toward consensus, sourcing, and neutrality.
• I complied with moderator feedback and dispute-resolution guidance.

----

Summary

These diffs collectively show good-faith, policy-based editing, not disruption or “IDHT.”

This report appears to stem from misunderstanding normal BRD and dispute-resolution processes.

I respectfully ask that no administrative action be taken and that discussion continue productively on the article talk pages.

Thank you for reviewing.

ThouShaltEdit (talk) 05:15, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

ThouShaltEdit: I collapsed your reply because it was generated by an LLM. You need to write replies in your own words, not the words a slop bot tells you to use. DoubleCross (‡) 06:49, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

They should be blocked indef, right now, on CIR grounds. No competent editor could possibly believe posting the above was appropriate. EEng 07:19, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

I was cautious of claiming AI myself from their talk page posts, but the responses here are obvious LLM.

Text generated by a large language model or similar AI technology has been collapsed in line with the relevant guideline and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

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

This report seems to come from normal content disagreements within the Blanchard topic area. All of my edits were policy based, discussed on talk pages and made in good faith under standard BRD. On Gypsy Rose Blanchard, I removed explicit unsourced material per BLP and BLPGOSSIP. My "NOTGRAPHIC" edit summary was an error as I was referring to MOS:GRATUITOUS, which I corrected on the talk page. On Factitious Disorder Imposed on Another, I proposed removing the Dee Dee Blanchard entry because there is no verified diagnosis or legal finding to support the addition in a "Notable Cases" list. After one BRD cycle I stopped reverting, I added a "medical citation needed" tag instead. When Nemov removed the tags on the RfC, I accepted their advice to shorten the request or change it to a WP:3O as an alternative. The tags were not removed for any misconduct. On List of Munchausen by proxy cases, I made one removal based on LISTBIO, CATDEF, and BLP. After being reverted, I took it to talk without further reverts. I've stayed civil, stayed under 3RR, corrected my one typo transparently, and followed dispute resolution steps. These are policy discussions, not disruption. I ask that no action be taken and that discussion continue on the article talk pages. ThouShaltEdit (talk) 07:57, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

There were several instances of productive discussion, the issue is not over misconduct. I did hear everything that was being said but I did not agree with the replies, I stated my lack of agreement in LL's interpretation of the policy, lack of policy in removal of sourced content, revision of removed content which LL's basis seemed to be about "non existent policy" having nothing to do with the content he removed and replaced with modification and no edit summary detailing additional words which changed meaning. LL also used references to what "the Sheriff said at trial," that was found within the article itself as reasoning to remove verifiable sourced content. When this failed, LL began to argue that because a suspect is dead, that they can no longer be investigated and that should be reason enough to label them with a medical diagnosis and abuse claims since the chance was lost upon their death. LL proceeded to explain to me what an investigator's job entails, and LL stated that making public reports is not one of those duties. However, a source from the article shows the Sheriff LL mentioned as making a public statement about the investigation of the deceased individual in a newly discovered long running financial fraud scheme, with no mention of any abuse allegations or a psychiatric diagnosis or even so much as a claim against the deceased. Then LL began to argue with me on another page about whether MEDRS applied to diagnosis, he said it did not and I said that when it comes to living people and the recently deceased, the policy states that Biography of living people rules apply. This is found in Wikipedia: Biomedical Information under "Notable Cases". LL refused to take my interpretation into consideration and began to ask me "How many times do we have to tell you?" and I felt this was his inappropriate and that he was trying to pull me into arguing with him, so I kept the communication policy based and I suggested alternatives such as rewording, and better sources. My refusal to engage in a debate with LL over MEDRS not being applicable to Diagnosis, was not because I didn't hear him or wasn't listening or couldn't take no for an answer. It was because I had moved to different ways that we could possibly come to an agreement such as letting a consensus form, and adding a medical citation needed tag, which he removed before discussion could be had, based on what he alleged was a single minded point of view. I explained to LL that I planned on cleaning up the rest of the list and he said none of the other entries had medical diagnosis, and I explained that at least one of them had a legal finding and that I was working on the rest of the article in the meantime while waiting to move past the one entry, which was there, and still is there. I have been very willing to listen and I have listened. I have tried to remain focused on the content and the sourcing and I have had several other interactions with several other editors which started out with a revert and ended in agreement without further issue. I have never stopped listening or responding politely to LL, though I am not sure that the same can be said for him, I just did not want to cause problems, I wanted to work and be productive. ThouShaltEdit (talk) 12:57, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

I feel like there might be something here worth adding to Wikipedia:signs of AI writing. Though that article might already be comprehensive enough. 🐲Jothefiredragon🔥talk🧨contributions✨log🐉 11:19, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

MOS:GRATUITOUS doesn't exist, as I pointed out at the talk page. Plus you've completely ignored the reason for the IDHT report, you repeatedly made claims of MEDRS despite being told it doesn't apply. Lavalizard101 (talk) 11:06, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I've tried to explain things on their Talk page since I couldn't see whether anyone's gone into detail over the problems with AI yet.

Leaving the link here for reference, in case it gets blanked. Blue Sonnet (talk) 12:42, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

WP:GRATUITOUS does exist, I again, apologize for the typo. The policies which the removal of the content in https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gypsy-Rose_Blanchard&diff=prev&oldid=1318124468 were based on, BLP, and GRATUITOUS have been competently applied. Material that could be considered vulgar, obscene or offensive should not be included unless it still reads like an encyclopedia. Because the material in question is about a living person, the standards are higher, and therefore the sourcing of the material provided should be high-quality, not tabloid, not promotional and even when sourced, if the omission of the material does not create a less informative article and there is other, more suitable material, then the material should be removed. I never saw the reason to argue a policy term that I have already stated was made as an oversight and a typo. I believe that if there is a question about the material removal itself then that is the discussion we should be having. If that makes it appear as if IDHT, I believe this can be shown to be a perception based on a narrowly framed view by looking at all of my interactions with others and how they tend to resolve with agreement or they cease before the limit of three reverts, and with suggestion to find a consensus. I did not stick to one viewpoint after a consensus occurred. You have conflated a discussion regarding MBP with a discussion on FDIA and assumed that I should assume the same consensus would occur on both pages since they are similar topics, however, MBP is a Categorical list as a page, and it is a list containing cases that are of a psychiatric diagnosis, Munchausen by Proxy, and because there is no inclusion criteria included on the page, any entry on the list may appear to readers to ba a diagnosed case. My discussion there was not about MEDRS until you brought that into it, and then told me that I am not listening, and asked me how many times I need to be told. I do not think that is the way to prove that IDHT, it is a way to project your frustration at the extremely well laid out points that I am making when you have no where left to go with your debate. So, when I cease discussion and suggest that a rewrite or a better source might help instead, which I believe is not disruptive and shows I do listen and modify, does not prove your IDHT claim. If there is anything else you would like me to address while here, please feel free to do so. I have always held my composure with you but you've given me an opportunity to say things now, by bringing it here. ThouShaltEdit (talk) 15:01, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

My discussion was not about MEDRS until you brought it up not true, your first talk page note at LMBP brought up MEDRS [106], you claimed MEDRS on each comment at LMBP [107], [108]. At FDIA you have been told by two people (Avatar and myself) that MEDRS does not apply to diagnosis of people, but continued claiming MEDRS 1 2 3 4 5. Lavalizard101 (talk) 15:18, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

It baffles me that anyone thinks that using an LLM makes an argument more persuasive. It doesn't. Rather, the reverse. Narky Blert (talk) 16:12, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

It's part and parcel of their incompetence. It's the reason AI user should result in an immediate, indefinite block. EEng 17:37, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

That's true, I did bring it up in the proposal first, and I apologize for the confusion and for saying that you did. Considering the circumstances, I think it's best if I let my edits and talk pages speak for themselves from this point forward as a defense to your claims. While the administrators work through this matter I will refrain from commenting here further until a decision has been made. ThouShaltEdit (talk) 20:13, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

• FFS, at long last will some admin have the testicles (figuratively speaking, of course) to indef this lying, time-wasting pest? EEng 17:37, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm not experienced enough to know...could this be listed at Requests for Closing? Hiobazard (talk/contribs) 16:55, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

• TSE is now appearing to be moving the goalposts at GRB. First it was no investigator/prosecutor has commented [109] now its no judicial finding [110]. Lavalizard101 (talk) 11:09, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

• Earth calling! Indef needed! Over! EEng 16:45, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

  Mork calling Orson! Walter Ego 17:57, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Proposal 1: Indefinite Block

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

---

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

Support for WP:IDHT, moving the goalpoasts, AI-generating comments and either lying about or CIR regarding their own arguments. Lavalizard101 (talk) 17:37, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Support per above. The fewer incompetent, slop-posting liars here, the better. DoubleCross (‡) 19:43, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Support per above. AI-generated response was the nail in the coffin Aesurias (talk) 10:28, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Support per above. Hellbus (talk) 15:41, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Support per the analysis of EEng. —Fortuna, imperatrix 16:10, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Support a community ban after having reviewed the user's history. This editor has contributed nothing constructive in nine years and has insulted the community by using artificial intelligence to respond to our concerns. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:29, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked. I have no power to ban, but I'm willing to prevent further disruption by applying an indefinite block. BusterD (talk) 19:41, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

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

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

User Touchedme123 WP:NOTHERE

• Touchedme123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User Touchedme123 is repeatedly showing WP:NOTHERE behavior - using various talk pages as WP:FORUM repeating their own POV interpretations (e.g. noted here) and assumptions against people/denomination without using WP:RS on various talk pages (e.g. Teahouse, NPOV notice board, Article talks: [111], [112] etc. Also seems a possible WP:COI since they are claiming to be a "former member" of the denomination they are criticizing and using talk pages to advance their personal views as noted here - e.g. see more talk pages: [113], [114].

They are also trying to support their claims using various websites which are primary sources and doing WP:OR/WP:SYNTH (e.g. [115], [116]). And, they seem to be using LLMs - some signs I noticed e.g. title case, em dashes, curly quotation marks etc. Another editor also noticed at Teahouse. They are also referring to sources that don't exist (I tried looking for the sources but was not able to find) and when asked multiple times ([117], [118]) if they used LLM, they did not answer, and instead suggested that "I would like to refer to my primary source". I tried explaining their behavior and edits (e.g. [119], [120], [121]) - and another editor also had explained [122] and had reverted [123], [124] their POV, which they restored back [125], [126].

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

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

I have never made one edit to an article and just have asked for clarification on several topics on talk pages and provided sources when asked. This particular user has been stalking my posts non stop and may be part of a long standing sock farm I uncovered while looking at the history. They are claiming I restored a revert out of the blue when in fact, I provided sources.

I was told to go to the tea house by a user and from the tea house page, I was told to go to the dispute resolution board for my concern. This person is obsessed with the following me and trying to make me stop having discussions particularly with BAPS and how tactfully they have promoted themselves.

My point is there should be a disambiguation page with the Swaminaryan movement/theology/Hinduism.

The swaminaryan Sampraday was established by swaminarayan with the acharyas as the leaders.

BAPS had multiple court cases where they lost the right to be a part of the Swaminaryan Sampraday because their founder Shashtri claimed he was divine and a manifest of God.

This for some reason is being ignored.

Then they went out to change multiple scriptures, ignore scriptures and manipulate, which I provided sources for and are not explained on the BAPS page.

But for some reason BAPS Akshar Puroshottam theology is continuously littered throughout the Swaminarayan Sampradaya page. Which just doesn’t make sense to me so I am asking on a talk page why?

This person is not engaging in good faith.Touchedme123 (talk) 01:42, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

This user is literally obsessed and stalking every post I make. Another editor told me that I’m pushing my religious narrative POV as if I’m a member of the other side. I didn’t say anything to anyone that’s uncivil, I said it to myself so that it’s clear I’m not a part of any religious group or narrative. Stop harassing me. You appear to be extremely invested in monitoring critical BAPS content. Touchedme123 (talk) 01:50, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

You do know we can see your contribs shane (talk to me if you want!) 02:41, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes, so I don’t understand why this particular user is narrowly obsessed with my discussion not even actual edits to any pages to BAPS that question why things are presented the way they are.

Instead of answering questions and engaging and discussion, they are attacking the way I speak, really fixated on getting me to stop discussing BAPS manipulation and edits to scriptures.

It’s just very creepy and offputting. I feel like I’m being monitored every time I type by a BAPS member who doesn’t want these discussions taking place. I have sourced everything I’m saying like they changed eight scriptures. At minimum it can be noted that they are different.

The multiple court cases that BAPS was involved in resulting in the split are not mentioned on the BAPS page. But this user doesn’t find that to be shocking or needing to be updated. They are fixated on getting me banned from this topic. If it’s not clear as day what’s happening then forget it. 02:55, 8 November 2025 (UTC) Touchedme123 (talk) 02:55, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Just one question, have you read any policies listed in this report? shane (talk to me if you want!) 02:57, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I have and I responded to them. I didn’t even know the teahouse existed. I was told to go there by another editor. And then from there, another editor told me to go to the dispute resolution board. I opened every Wikipedia policy here and on the talk pages. And if something is not supposed to be on the discussion board or talk pages, then tell me and I can remove it but so far it’s been a narrow focus just not to answer BAPS critical content.

I guarantee that this editor that posted this here wants to get me banned from this topic and then they will go ahead and delete/hide everything rather than than engaging on removing certain aspects because there are valid points but we need to work on them this way or that way. Touchedme123 (talk) 03:06, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

hold on on the accusations shane (talk to me if you want!) 03:14, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Shane how many times have you been asked to step back from admin areas? You are not helping. ~2025-31850-11 (talk) 13:20, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

I've been told that once..? shane (talk to me if you want!) 14:33, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

[127] and [128] are two explicit instances (and to be clear, one of those is from me); this does not count numerous examples like AN/IncidentArchive1205 where you have been told off for doing a bad job in individual administation-adjacent areas. ~2025-31168-81 (talk) 17:59, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

@Asteramellus @Touchedme123 In my opinion (which is usually 43% correct in some cases), Touchedme123 did a ton of things correct, discussing on talk pages about edits, and that noticeboard comment, I can argue that it is kind of incivil, but heck it, there has been a ton of people using the same terminology that Touchedme123 has been using, so it just makes no sense.

The LLM use is kind of suspicious, but I think we should just let Touchedme123 explain the weirdly formatted responses. shane (talk to me if you want!) 03:09, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Support topic ban. This editor has tried WP:FORUMSHOPPING around to get approval for POV-pushing Katzrockso (talk) 03:21, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

I was told to go to the tea house and then from there I was told to go to the dispute resolution board. Everything I’ve posted on the talk pages belongs on that talk page to discuss to come to a consensus. Touchedme123 (talk) 03:25, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place to settle your personal aversion against the BAPS. You didn't uncover any sockfarm; Tamzin did. Asteramellus is not part of it. Stick to WP:RS, make usefull suggestions, or just find another outlet for your views. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:12, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Shame on you, you know what I meant. You are taking my words out of context. I was trying to find out who posted non-NPOV version of the BAPS version of the vachanamrut and found out and saw that account that was listed sock farm. All their edits still seem to be present. So job well done to them. Touchedme123 (talk) 13:00, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

I think you should put some efforts to address the problems mentioned on Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Swaminarayan_Sampraday instead of replying to every message made here. Zalaraz (talk) 10:43, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

What is your problem? I literally have been engaging with an editor who actually made a change on my behalf on that page. Why are you dictating where I should respond when I’ve literally been doing both. Touchedme123 (talk) 13:00, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

As I see it, this is one of the reasons that WP:CT/SA is in place. I think this is an editor who believes they're doing good, but has waded into one of the most controversial, heated areas of English Wikipedia long before they learned how to interact with other Wikipedia editors. All these discussions are related to a religious/philosophical/social movement in India, and I'm surprised nobody has given Touchedme123 the WP:CT/SA notice (I just did).

Touchedme123, you really should only be making completely uncontroversial (either not a fact that can be disputed or implementing an existing consensus) edit requests (in the format of a specific x-to-y change of specific content) in this topic area until you have extended-confirmed user rights (500 edits/30 days), and that includes discussions anywhere on English Wikipedia. You'll have far more ability to constructively edit topics like these once you have more experience understanding how sourcing, verifiability, and reliability are approached here. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 11:38, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Touchedme123 can edit WP:CT/SA but not the topics about Indian caste and military until he is WP:ECP (500 edits). He is currently editing about Swaminarayan which is not related to caste or military. THEZDRX _{(User) | (Contact)} 11:53, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Unless I'm mistaken -- and I know better than to ever dismiss the possibility that I am -- the current WP:CT/SA folded in WP:GSCASTE, which isn't just castes but all pages about social groups, explicitly including caste associations and political parties related to India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal. A religious/philosophical/social movement is certainly a social group. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 00:05, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Swaminarayan is a religious group, or a religious denomination of Hinduism to be more specific. It is not a social or ethnic group for which GSCASTE was created and is explicitly about caste in South Asia. THEZDRX _{(User) | (Contact)} 03:34, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Swaminarayan is a historic individual who is not covered by WP:CT/SASG (the former WP:GSCASTE). Swaminarayan Sampradaya is a religious group, as is Bochasanwasi Akshar Purushottam Swaminarayan Sanstha, and is, by definition, a social group and thus falls under WP:CT/SASG (the former WP:GSCASTE), which, quoting GSCASTE itself, covers all pages about social groups, explicitly including caste associations and political parties related to India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal (emphasis added). I have accordingly ECP'd Swaminarayan Sampradaya and Bochasanwasi Akshar Purushottam Swaminarayan Sanstha. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:51, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

• (In passing) I have never made one edit to an article is rather the definition of WP:NOTHERE, and with over half their edits to talk pages, WP:NOTFORUM might also apply. —Fortuna, imperatrix 12:09, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Sam Vaknin

• Sam Vaknin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

• Vaknin is an author who writes a lot about narcissism, including from a personal perspective. He lives in Skopje, Macedonia.
• He previously edited (and was banned) as User:Samvak in 2006
• User:Zorandimitrovskiskopje has been editing the Vaknin article (only) since May 2024, adding large amount of primary sources (youtube, self-published Vaknin sources). There were also problems with verifiability. Other editors expressed concerns that it was overly promotional. I expressed the problems on the talkpage and tried to work with Zoran,[129] but to no avail, as the problematic edits continued with no interaction. Zoran was not happy when I followed through with my proposal and deleted material in question.[130][131] Two days later, Vaknin began a series of off-wiki attacks on Wikipedia and me in particular. For a list of some of them, see here: [132]
• The same day, an IP from France popped up with a series of anti-Vaknin BLP vio edits. The editor was blocked.[133]
• The article was extended protected.
• User:Zorandimitrovskiskopje has been Arbcom blocked.
• In the last two days, 3 temp accounts from Macedonia (likely the same person) have appeared on the talkpage, ostensibly anti-Vaknin and arguing for the article to be deleted. But also complaining that noone is fixing up the article as fast as they would like. And posting an ever expanding list of Vaknin's off-wiki ongoing attacks on on Wikipedia, me and utterly innocent User:BlockArranger.

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

(Non-administrator comment) Considering the block way back in '06 was because Vaknin had a drawer that was full of socks, this honestly sounds to me like he's reopened it. It could be worth taking to SPI again. Emma (chats ✦ edits) 00:24, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello Emma. Thanks for your comment. It is interesting that you immediately suspect a sock issue: that is my opinion, and that of others it seem[134]. I could go to SPI for sure, but my preference is for a broader consideration given all the on and off wiki issues here. And who knows? Maybe there is a checkuser floating around here at ANI who could clarify certain aspects of this!!!! Slp1 (talk) 01:15, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

{{checkuser needed}}. Note I'm not sure if temporary accounts can be linked to a 'proper' account publically, since IPs cannot... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:49, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

• Our standing instructions from the Ombuds Commission is not to do that. So appreciate that you raised this question. - Mailer Diablo 02:02, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

  Oh yes, of course. Makes sense and I do understand the privacy issue. Do you have any suggestion about what is best to do? Slp1 (talk) 02:17, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

  You should still be able to open a SPI and list the TAs. In the village pump discussion, SGrabarczuk (WMF) stated: "There's also this: 'When it is reasonably believed to be necessary, users with access to temporary account IP addresses may also disclose the IP addresses in appropriate venues that enable them to enforce or investigate potential violations of our Terms of Use, the Privacy Policy, or any Wikimedia Foundation or user community-based policies. Appropriate venues for such disclosures include pages dedicated to Long-term abuse. If such a disclosure later becomes unnecessary, then the IP address should be promptly revision-deleted.' (Source)". Sariel Xilo (talk) 03:41, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

  We can connect TAs to IPs and to named accounts as we've always done - behaviourally. But you can't say "I used CU/TAIV and can tell you that..." about named accounts vs TAs/IPs. -- asilvering (talk) 04:23, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Number 57 removing undisputed, constructive edits outside of a dispute

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

---

On an article, I made several edits that improve content and comply with Wikipedia policy. Examples include - removing these sentences [135] [136] as they fail at WP:SYNTH and failed at arguments unsuitable for minimal Wikipedia standards. I also noticed a section was outdated so updated it. [137] these are neutral edits and NOBODY has ever disputed against them. Additionally another editor Amigao improved the article and added unsourced tags as certain paragraphs are unsourced.[138] These edits are also not being disputed. But one editor User: Number 57 has overreached and reverted all of them. Their reasoning is arbitrary as they claim there's an ongoing dispute and revert to pre-dispute version. There is a dispute however my current disputed edit hasn't been restored back. I am still discussing that specific edit on DRN and never undid the revert. Outside that dispute, edits that are not disputed shouldn't be removed without a fair proper reason. I explained that to user Number 57 on talk [139] [[140] but instead they continue to imply all those edits are still actively being disputed when they never were. The repeated removal of these neutral, undisputed improvements constitutes a misuse of BRD and is disruptive. The editor's justification that there is a generalized ongoing dispute is incorrect, as these specific edits have never been contested. Edits that follow Wikipedia policy and improve the article should not be removed arbitrarily, and continuing to do so wastes editor time and hinders article quality. I request that these neutral edits be respected and not reverted without a valid, policy-based reason. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 19:18, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

There are two issues here. Firstly, JaredMcKenzie is an SPA purely on Wikipedia to push a particular viewpoint (that Taiwan is not a sovereign state). Secondly, there is a dispute at Political status of Taiwan, which is currently at WP:DRN. JM's edits were reverted by other editors three times,[141][142][143] Since this has been at DRN, JM has continued to attempt to force the edits back in. I noticed the discussion at DRN and decided (given the above) that the article should be restored to its pre dispute state. While JM has claimed that no-one is against these edits, one of the editors who has previously reverted him has stated that they dispute them. On each occasion I have restored the pre-dispute version I have asked JM to observe WP:BRD, which they have failed to acknowledge; if they were truly concerned about there being some legitimate edits being caught up in the rollback, they could have restored only those ones, but instead they reverted everything back into the article. Number 57 19:29, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Are you attempting to pressure me to end the dispute and give up well-sourced, notable content from legal experts stating that the ROC constitution still claims the mainland and that the ROC has never formally declared independence? That is not acceptable. Attempting to use unrelated edits as leverage to influence the resolution of the dispute over the ROC constitution content constitutes obstructive behavior, which is discouraged under Wikipedia policy. The edits you reverted were unrelated to the ongoing dispute. Neutral, policy-compliant edits outside the scope of an active dispute should not be removed. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 19:35, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

I've no idea what the first half of the response is about, but the claim that the edits reverted were 'unrelated to the ongoing dispute' is clearly untrue: Some of the text you are reinstating is exactly what was removed by previous editors (e.g. text from the 'ROC sovereignty' section and the views of James Crawford, which was previously removed by Horse Eye's Back[144][145]). In other areas you are continuing to add new material disputing Taiwan's sovereignty (e.g. in the Background section) or removing material that supports it (e.g. the bit about Belgium). Number 57 19:48, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Those are not the same edits. The newer edit's argument was that Taiwan is not legally a state according to Max Planck encyclopaedia of International Law. And explaining why. Previously I never added that argument or source and that edit key argument wasn't even the same as the disputed, albeit closely related. But even if they were the same argument, you could just remove only them. What's your excuse for the mass majority of other edits that are definitely outside the scope of the disputed edits?JaredMcKenzie (talk) 19:53, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

And the first half is you appear to be stretching the scope of the dispute. The ongoing discussion concerns a very specific sourced edit about the ROC constitution and Taiwan's legal status. However, unrelated, factual updates - such as revising the number of countries maintaining diplomatic relations with Taiwan from 27 to 11 - have also been reverted. [146] These edits are entirely outside the scope of the dispute and are verifiable, neutral, and consistent with Wikipedia’s sourcing and neutrality policies. Reverting constructive, undisputed edits like these under the pretext of the broader dispute misuses BRD Regardless the original reason given for removing THE DISPUTED edits is due to claims of WP: SYNTH. On talk, it's now being established that it's supported by the source. If I wanted to, I can restore it but am going through DRN in good faith first. But in the meantime, different edits well outside the dispute, shouldn't be reverted without a specific fair reason for them. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 20:13, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

They are the same edits or in the same vein. HEB restored the text "The ROC fulfills all requirements for a state according to the Convention of Montevideo" and removed the addition "Even if Taiwan does not fully satisfy the fourth Montevideo criterion"; you delete / add this back in (for about the sixth or seventh time) in this edit. Similarly, HEB removed the section you added titled "Arguments that Taiwan is currently not independent"; you then created a similar section under the heading 'Taiwan is not sovereign nor de jure independent'. Number 57 20:28, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Did you bother to read the message I left on your talk page? That's literally the only disputed edit that was restored. It was restored after a discussion and another editor restored it after reaching a consensus and agreeing that it was neutral and acceptable. I wasn't even the editor who restored it. It was the other editor who restored it after that SPECIFIC dispute was resolved. [147] JaredMcKenzie (talk) 20:33, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

And the disputed edit is a different edit to newer arguments. Don't conflate them. The newer edit mentions constitutional amendment in 1990s are insufficient to be deemed a declaration of independence. I never mentioned that core argument in disputed edits. Additionally I NEVER cited Max Planck encyclopaedia of International Law in disputed edit before nor them in explaining why Taiwan isn't legally a state under international law due to not declaring a separate legal status. Those are primarily different edits from the disputed ones. They are not even identical arguments so don't be obtuse. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 20:45, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

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

I'd prefer to keep the discussion focused on verifiable sources and relevant policies. Our role is to summarize what reliable, expert sources state - for example, legal analyses explaining that the ROC constitution continues to claim jurisdiction over the mainland, and that the ROC has not made a formal declaration of independence. The issue is about accurate representation of sources, not taking a political stance. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 20:00, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Hahahhahahahaah Aesurias (talk) 10:03, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Australia never made a formal declaration of independence either. Does that mean we are still a colony of Great Britain? TarnishedPath^talk 01:44, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Australia doesn't have a constitution that states our national boundaries include Great Britian. We are very clear that our boundaries are girth by sea. Meanwhile Taiwanese constitution doesn't recognise itself as independent but still claims the mainland as its territory per Cross-Strait Act article 2. So ROC never legally amended the constitution to say, "We are now an independent Republic of Taiwan." It doesn't legally recognise itself as independent from China, but as the government of the same state of China established in 1912. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 01:52, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Please stop WP:BLUDGEONING it is not necessary to respond to every comment disagreeing with you on this ANI discussion. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 02:04, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

To be fair to them, they were asked a direct question - even if it wasn't relevant to the ANI discussion itself. @JaredMcKenzie it's probably best to ignore off-topic stuff like this, so you're not inadvertently giving the wrong impression to admins. Blue Sonnet (talk) 02:13, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Yeah fair point. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 02:16, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Regardless - there’s no Wikipedia policy that allows admins (or any editor) to remove undisputed, policy-compliant content simply because there’s a broader dispute happening elsewhere in the article. Specifically what is the issue with this edit? Here I detailed further that ROC governed the mainland and wasn't merely there. [148] And here I updated a very outdated section. [149] And over here - [150] - I saw a clear violation of WP: synth at ridiculous levels. Nobody even disputed against their removal and unlikely will because any neutral editor would agree that violates WP: synth at excessive levels. You can't use a lame excuse of a dispute - to remove all constructive edits that aren't even remotely the same as the disputed edits.JaredMcKenzie (talk) 20:25, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

User:JaredMcKenzie - What part of DRN Rule A.2 didn't you understand? It says that any discussion at DRN will be failed if any of the parties makes a report at WP:ANI or Arbitration Enforcement. I have failed the DRN case. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:50, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

I didn't. To clarify, the post I made here was not a report concerning Horse or the specific disputed edit under DRN. It was about separate edits outside that dispute which were reverted without policy-based justification. My intent was to address that separate conduct issue, not to undermine the DRN process.JaredMcKenzie (talk) 20:55, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

And I believe there’s been a misunderstanding about the situation. The original reason Horse gave for reverting the edit was that it violated WP:SYNTH. That specific concern was addressed and resolved on the talk page, where another editor confirmed the sources directly support the statement. No other policy-based objections have been presented since then.

My only intent in filing at DRN was to assume good faith and allow space for Horse (or others) to explain any additional concerns, if they exist. However, no further reasoning has been given after all this time and the content remains supported by reliable, high-quality sources. I am not trying to escalate the matter but to clarify that consensus exists that the material is properly sourced and policy-compliant. If further objections are raised, then feel free to state them and I of course will always be open to discussing them on the talk page, but without clear, policy-based reasoning, continued reverts would just become a conduct concern rather than a content issue under Wikipedia’s standards.JaredMcKenzie (talk) 21:20, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Both Rule A.2 and Rule A.6 are about the article, not about the editor. Rule A.2 says: Discussion of issues about the article and the editing of the article can only take place at one noticeboard at a time. … If you report any issues about the article at any other noticeboards, such as WP:ANI or Arbitration Enforcement, you will be withdrawing from moderated discussion, and the mediation will be failed. Rule A.6 says: Do not edit the article while moderated discussion is in progress. If the article is edited by a party while discussion is pending at DRN, the mediation at DRN will be failed. I instructed the parties to read DRN Rule A on 27 October. JaredMcKenzie agreed to accept my role as moderator on 29 October, which meant that they had read the rules. They tweaked the wording of the article on 31 October. I think that the tweak would have been innocuous, except that I had said not to edit the article. On 6 November and 7 November, they reverted edits made by User:Number 57. It is true that Number 57 was not a party to the DRN, which means that they had not agreed not to edit the article. JaredMcKenzie should have either invited Number 57 to join the mediation, or asked the moderator (me) to ask them to join the mediation. JaredMcKenzie may have wanted to discuss a content dispute with some editors at DRN and the conduct of Number 57 at ANI at the same time. That is not permitted. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:28, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

The main issue here is one of bludgeoning and harassment... JaredMcKenzie has bludgeoned and harassed a string of editors until they've given up and walked away... And then they'e continued to bludgeon... The last significant non-JaredMcKenzie comment in the discussions at Talk:Political status of Taiwan occured on 8 October... Since then JaredMcKenzie has made all of these edits[151][152][153][154][155][156][157][158][159][160][161][162][163][164][165][166][167][168][169][170][171][172][173][174][175][176][177][178] to that talk page... They bludgeon even when there isn't anyone around to argue with. They have also expanded the dispute laterally making related edits to Taiwan independence movement and Constitution of the Republic of China. See also User talk:Augmented Seventh, User talk:Number 57, [[179]], and User:JaredMcKenzie/sandbox. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:05, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

And another one[180]... If this isn't WP:BLUDGEON then what is? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:06, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

My talk-page edits are focused on clarifying sourcing and addressing policy concerns. They are not personal attacks or harassment, but standard discussion to resolve disputes. You previously claimed that the disputed edits were original research, but Aaron later confirmed that my sources support the content. Given that there is consensus that the edits are not original research, I attempted to assume good faith and ask if you had any other policy-based issues with the edits. So far, no valid policy reason has been provided. Attempts to direct attention to my conduct as justification for removing these edits are misplaced, as the content itself is compliant with Wikipedia policy.JaredMcKenzie (talk) 22:25, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

There is no such consensus... Driving everyone else away without addressing the issues raised is not a consensus for your position. When policy and guideline are cited (which they have repeatedly been) you have dismissed them and then claimed that none were provided. You also appear to be repeatedly misrepresenting the views of other editors and the fact pattern in a way which makes your conduct seem less disruptive, for example you have repeatedly claimed that this is a number of smaller edit disputes while everyone else sees to view it as one rolling dispute which starts with this revert [181]. You also repeatedly claim that other people are trying to goad you into an edit war and you won't do that... But you have clearly edit warred. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:42, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

And this edit [182] is after I asked you for one single policy based reason to remove edit and waited over a month. You still haven't told me one.I am acting in good faith and in accordance with Wikipedia policy. What else am I supposed to do? If an editor repeatedly removes edits without providing a valid reason, should I simply accept that as acceptable conduct? JaredMcKenzie (talk) 22:32, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Do you mean one more policy based reason? You'd already been told that there were WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:DUE issues by multiple editors. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:42, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Aaron had told you that you were wrong on this. They showed that my source supported every info. And you didn't tell him that he is wrong. Instead you stopped replying soon after you agreed with him that the spirit of the edit was correct. Also you are the ONLY EDITOR who are saying it's not supported by sources. Both me and Aaron disagree with you on that and proved it. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 22:50, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

That simply isn't what happened... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:52, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

I have the links to prove this happened. Here Arron told you that sources does say all that.[183] Additional said my edit was correct in spirit but needed some minor rewording.[184] Your final reply said you agreed with Arron that edit is correct in spirit and did not even refute or deny his statement. Regardless, no neutral honest editor will look at this edit[185] and say it's original (unsourced) research with a straight face. I constantly had to deal with you saying it's original research when it's not. At one point, you even suggested the edit was not of the same topic because the legal status supposedly differs from the political status. [186] But in the legal arguments section, this represents due weight and is highly relevant to the topic. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 22:58, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

[187] is just one part of this and that Aaron's last comment says that it "need some rewording (and definitely remove the second sentence)" does not seem to agree with the claims you are making. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:07, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

I actually agree with him that second sentence should be removed. I am fine with that and even repeated that on DRN. But they also said overall edit is fine and didn't say it wasn't supported by sources like you did. They explicitly stated source says all of the info I written down. Their entire comment was - Special:Diff/1315128638. I think at least the spirit of this edit is correct even if it might need some rewording (and definitely remove the second sentence). JaredMcKenzie (talk) 23:13, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Again that edit is not the only thing which has been challenged... And you do appear to be framing another editor's position in a way which is most beneficial to you but seems to largely talk past what they have to say (which is how I feel you generally treat my comments). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:17, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

You literally just cut out half of Arron's comment to suit you. I merely showed the entire comment. And if I made a SINGLE unsourced edit, then please show me an edit that's unsourced. If I can't prove all my edits are supported by sources then I concede that you are right. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 23:25, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

And nothing in the full text of the comment supports the claim that "They explicitly stated source says all of the info I written down." If they want wording changes including the removal of a full sentence doesn't that tell you that they don't think that the sources support all of the info as written? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:33, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

During vandal patrolling, i read over a slow rolling edit war. It appeared an editor was putting in wikivoice their dearly held conclusion, and using tendentious editing to create a pov synthesis constructed from disparate sources. I could be wrong. Augmented Seventh (talk) 00:38, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

What sources are bad? The only two main sources I rely on is Max Planck enclyopeadia of international law. https://opil.ouplaw.com/display/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e1362 A highly reputable reference that is used to educate legal experts. And a subject expert from the Conversation. https://theconversation.com/explainer-the-complex-question-of-taiwanese-independence-188584 Both sources together are acceptable especially when attributed. In which I have attributed the Oxford Press site. And I am literally just quoting them. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 00:45, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

This is what I had to deal with. I already showed you the link above. Here is the text where they themselves said "I'm just looking at [24] and [25] from the opening comment to support the diff linked in the opening comment. It does say all that. Conversation "Explainer"

To be fair, I am less sure about [24] (the Reuters article), but it isn't even cited." It seems they agree my edit was supported by sources according to them and you can't keep claiming they didn't say that. The link- [188] JaredMcKenzie (talk) 23:41, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

And another one[189]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:49, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

• If we have a policy under which the OP can be indefinitey blocked, then I support it; this is nothing but (political propanganda and) tendentous editing. —Fortuna, imperatrix 22:58, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

  I disagree with the characterization of my edits as “tendentious.” My edits are well-sourced, neutral, and policy-compliant. I have followed Wikipedia procedures, including discussing disputed edits on talk pages and seeking DRN resolution. If you believe there is a policy concern, please point to a specific policy and how my edits violate it, rather than making broad assertions. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 23:06, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

@JaredMcKenzie: I made an earlier comment on mobile when I confused something. I'd agree that the synth is a problem and your removal shouldn't have been reverted. However the problem seems to be you've made so many edits, a lot of which were less clear cut, that it was easier to revert them all. Your statement that your edits don't need to be discussed doesn't help either, nor the fact that when you have discussed, your comments have been all over the place. If you'd concentrate on one thing at a time like the synth, you might have had a chance of affection change instead of the topic or site ban now seeming likely. Nil Einne (talk) 00:11, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes for that, I am sorry. But bear in mind that I did try to discuss them on talk. Horse said my edit wasn't supported by sources. I think my big error was going back and forth on that. He kept saying it's unsourced and I asked him multiple Times to be specific. What I should have done is only ask once and copy my mentor Arron where I just show all sources and the excerpts. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1315826401&title=Talk:Political_status_of_Taiwanu I know this now. But there were so many edits reverted hence I didn't even know which edit they accused of being original research. And they took a long to finally be specific after which Arron replied to tell them they are wrong on that. I am not trying to be difficult but I am new so still learning ropes. If I have violated a policy unintentionally like boomerang, allow me a chance to prove myself to be better as I do want to edit in good Faith. As it's harsh to ban when my edits like undoing the SYNTH was in good faith. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 00:29, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Proposal 2: Topic-Ban JaredMcKenzie from Taiwan

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

• Support as proposer. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:21, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
• Support Clearly an SPA POV-pusher. I would recommend all their edits on Taiwan-related topics are undone as well. Number 57 23:25, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
• Comment I would like to clarify regarding the source-related concerns. My edits have been well-sourced and based on reliable experts, including legal scholars from Oxford and other recognized authorities. If there is a specific edit that genuinely constitutes original research or violates Wikipedia policy, I am fully willing to accept that finding.For reference, this is the disputed edit accused of original research.[190]

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

Your edit summary there says "This info is correct and doesn't need discussion. It's not opinion but facts supported by strong sources. Unless you can prove it's wrong or insignificant, the onus is on you to prove it's wrong. Otherwise don't revert this without giving a specific valid reason." but both of the sources provided are opinion pieces (which may be usable if written by subject matter experts but aren't exactly the strongest sources for facts) and you appear to have WP:ONUS backwards. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:40, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Here is Arron, my mentor who explained in detail that my source indeed says all that. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1315826401&title=Talk:Political_status_of_Taiwan - additionally you know LATER on, I found a much stronger source from Max Planck encyclopaedia of International Law.[191] JaredMcKenzie (talk) 23:42, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

And you know that I have questioned that source's reliability especially how you want to use it and specifically the author's qualifications because that encyclopedia is one where single (often very academically junior) authors write whole pieces with minimal editorial review or oversight, kind of like Britannica but run on a shoestring. That means that its reliability is almost entirely dependent on the author, sometimes its very good but sometimes its a little peculiar or amateurish. The author doesn't appear to have ever published anything on Taiwan, they appear to be solely a China expert... But this isn't the place to re-hash content disputes. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:48, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Um the Max Planck Encyclopedia is published under the auspices of the Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law, meaning the Institute formally sponsors, oversees, and ensures the scholarly quality of its erovides eitorial oversight and maintaining world-class scholarly standards. Regardless ii is not up to Wikipedia editors to speculate or make original research claims about an expert’s knowledge of Taiwan, nor to attempt to out-debate recognized world leading legal authorities. I merely cite and summarise what they wrote.JaredMcKenzie (talk) 23:50, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

And it's not againat Wikipedia policy to cite a reference that is LLiterally used to educate legal experts globally and has a stellar reputation. is fully consistent with Wikipedia policy. Using such sources to support content is not only allowed but encouraged, as they meet the standards of reliability and verifiability. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 23:54, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

it seems the issue is that I want to add edits supported by legal experts. If there is a specific edit that genuinely violates Wikipedia policy, I am fully willing to accept that finding and take appropriate action. However, I am confident that the majority of my edits comply with WP:RS, WP:N, and WP:V, and aim to provide accurate, verifiable, and notable information. I provide high quality sources to back everything and encourage neutral editors to check my edits and see if they comply. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 23:59, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Its actually a little more complicated than that... Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law. This isn't the first time I've interacted with this source on here (but it is the first in the context of Taiwan)... The first time was when two different articles in the Encyclopedia contradicted each other, but both were by published experts in the field (yes it matters and no that isn't covered by WP:OR) so we included both opinions with attribution. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:56, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

I am okay with attribution and actually did attribute them later. If we agree they are supported by sources but need to be attributed, then we have at least a starting consensus. Also it seems at least one other editor agrees that my edits are mostly correct and restored some edits. [192]JaredMcKenzie (talk) 00:02, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

My dude... That is literally where we were a month ago *facepalm* I'm signing off for a while. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:04, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

This is what happened before too. Arron replied to your claims of wp:synth and said it's supported by sources but needed rewording.[193] So I later ask you what kind of rewording you would like but you make some excuse to leave as soon as there's progress. We finally came to an agreement that sources support. I even stated on DRN that Amigao wanted attribution to TC and was willing to compromise. If we agree that there should be attribution and that sources support, then we have a consensus. So there shouldn't be any issues?JaredMcKenzie (talk) 00:08, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Why does ZeroGPT say that this comment, another comment, and the second half of this are 100% AI-generated? ~2025-31597-25 (talk) 23:45, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Best be careful with those, I've had one say everything in a post is 100% AI generated when three others disagree. I've ended up checking four to be safe, especially if it's a short piece of text. Blue Sonnet (talk) 01:27, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

True, the AI detector isn't always right. But what's inexplicable is why this AI-sounding comment uses curly quotes like “POV-pushing”, but this human-sounding comment (still mobile) uses straight quotes like "bludgeoning". ~2025-31597-25 (talk) 01:40, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

I agree with -25 that some (but not all) of JaredMcKenzie's posts have the stench of LLM-generated text. ~2025-31168-81 (talk) 01:53, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

It's possible, maybe even somewhat likely, that this message was LLM generated, but I still think that accusations of this sound speculative. It's also possible they wrote the ideas themselves but used AI for things like grammar, which I believe is allowed. Also, I don't see why this conversation shouldn't be closed under WP:SNOW anyway. Wikieditor662 (talk) 02:30, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

• Support at a minimum. As far as I concerned an indef-block per NOTHERE is valid too: who's got time and energy for this? Drmies (talk) 23:53, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
• Comment - User:Horse Eye's Back says, above, that the main issue is bludgeoning and harassment. Yes. I haven't counted the posts either in this thread or on the talk pages, but it appears that more of them are by User:JaredMcKenzie than by anyone else, and I think that is what is meant by bludgeoning. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:31, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

  I think I should apologise for going back and forth. I merely wanted horse ti tell me specifically which edit is unsourced as they claimed WP: synth. They couldn't give me a straight answer. When they finally did, Aarron corrected them and said they were wrong on that as sources does support it. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1315826401&title=Talk:Political_status_of_Taiwa if my comments asking horse to clarify which edit is unsourced is called "bludgeoning" then I think that's a bit harsh but in the future - I would only ask this once and will not ask multiple Times if Horse or others refuses to give a straight answer. I think as a new editor still learning ropes, that's one lesson I am able to abide by and agree it's the best policy. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 00:38, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

  Final statement- also this report is me concerned about an administrator's handling of this issue, so I'm requesting review of the process, not the person. If an administrator believes my conduct needs improvement, I'm open to feedback - I only ask for specific examples so I can learn and adjust accordingly. I get Taiwan related articles are sensitive and I was willing to wait over a month to have issue resolved. all of my disputed edits were based on high-quality, verifiable sources - including Oxford Public International Law and The Conversation. They both support each other and have not found a single reliable source contradicting them. https://opil.ouplaw.com/display/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e1362 + https://theconversation.com/explainer-the-complex-question-of-taiwanese-independence-188584 I acknowledge that I became frustrated when others claimed my edits weren't supported by sources, even after I provided evidence and at least one editor Aaron also gave evidence.[194] However, my intent has never been to be disruptive - only to ensure factual accuracy based on reliable references. If any of my edits are genuinely found to lack source support or violate content policy, I'm willing to accept a topic restriction and learn from it. I only ask that the review be specific and fair. If my edits are in fact properly sourced and policy-compliant, I respectfully ask that this be considered before any topic ban is imposed. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 01:26, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

  (Non-administrator comment) If you're being accused of bludgeoning, it's not a good look if the majority of comments in the thread are from you.

  I realise this means a lot to you, but for your own sake put down the stick - if you haven't made your point by now then you're not going to be able to do it.

  I implore you not to respond to this post either, just let the process run and only respond if someone asks you a direct question. Blue Sonnet (talk) 01:33, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

• I think JaredMc is contributing with the purest of intentions (being here to improve coverage, not advance any particular viewpoint), I agree with with the spirit of the proposed change whose dispute got me into this discussion, and I believe that he participated at DRN in complete good faith/conscience, but his wordwordowordy communication style is extremely difficult to work with. It's all the reasons Bludgeoning is widely frowned upon, hence I am unsure if his good conscience and ideas alone are enough to keep him around. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:59, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

  Aaron is neutral and more familiar with my edits but I think they don't realise I am a quick study. I learned a lot on Wikipedia in only a month but I didn't know what bludgeoning is until looking it up just now. I wasn't previously aware that's a punishable offense if my intentions are of purest intent. But if I have pure intent then at least I have potential for good faith contributions. I recognize that my communication style on DRN + talk has caused bludgeoning concerns, and stepping back is appropriate to respect smoother community processes. All I want is a fair go - to demonstrate that I will not bludgeon in the future. I will fuller read up on this policy later tonight so there be no excuses, and try to adhere to it strictly henceforth. If I bludgeon again, I will accept a permanent topic ban. I only ask for a fair second chance. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 02:48, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

  Thing is, you've been told many times about communication before. For one, bludgeoning is a big theme of the concerns about you in this thread, and I find it hard to believe that the first time you've read how many people believe you should not make a whole lot of wordy comments. And I recall spelling this it to you myself on the Taiwan political status talk page. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:56, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

  My impression from you was that my intention were pure but I wasn't helping myself by making it harder for others to understand me. It didn't seem like a crime but more a unintentional failing. Despite the talk Page doesn't mention "bludgeoning" at all - I think I did read a link you sent me but skimmed it. I guess that's my bad and sorry I didn't read it thoroughly. I wish I could go back and take it seriously, but I assure you that I am now and fully aware. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 04:01, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

  The best way to demonstrate that I will not bludgeon in the future is to stop bludgeoning now. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:48, 8 November 2025 (UTC)½

• Support Tban at a minimum, but the continued bludgeoning, ICANTHEARYOU and poltical RGW (etc) is wholly tiresome. As Drmues noted, who's got the time? Also, then, I reiterate the medicinal qualities of an indefinite block. —Fortuna, imperatrix 10:09, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

• (Strongly) support Their AI-generated answer to the question "When did Taiwan lose their independence?" is admission enough, but diffs provided by another user showing 'McKenzie' (sure...) rambling to themselves in a Taiwan-related talk page and essentially claiming that 'no consensus/lack of response = consensus' solidified my vote. It appears that anyone who tries to raise issues with this editor is just spammed with messages (often on their own talk pages) until they are so tired from the borderline harassment that they move on from it. Even on this very page you can see continued bludgeoning -- even as the user is trying to walk back previous behaviour due to a strong community consensus that they should be topic banned... Aesurias (talk) 10:12, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

  Comment - Also want to make it clear that I would definitely support an indef block as mentioned by @Fortuna imperatrix mundi. Aesurias (talk) 10:30, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

  If you want a non ai answer. Any real scholar will tell you that Taiwan isn't legally or de Jure independent.[195] A big well known reason is that they don't recognise themselves as independent in their own constitution. But after meeting an admin who ask me loaded question like - (when did Taiwan lose independence). Except Taiwan wasn't de Jure independent at the start so it's a politically charged ignorant question that only shows I will definitely be topic banned if the admin really didn't like the answer (even if accurate) that I give. But it seems to not matter now. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 02:02, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

  Real scholars seem to disagree on this point and most point to ambiguity NOT certainty... There is a lot of nuance which I still don't think you're getting, its not a binary... For example the DPP's 1999 interpretation of the status quo (under that constitution) is “Taiwan is a sovereign and independent country. Its current official name is the Republic of China. Any change to the status quo must be decided by the people of Taiwan through a referendum.” Please also assume AGF about admins, I've had content disputes with heaps of them and they simply do not block people they are in content disputes with (its a point of honor, precedent, and policy). I think it would be helpful if you agreed to stop using AI, some would argue for a block or ban on those grounds alone. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:23, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

  Brah, this is exactly why I keep correcting you. I don't know if you are fooling yourself or being disingeuous but ROC Constitution indeed recognize itself as an independent country - but consisting of all of China including Taiwan plus the mainland. When legal experts [196] say it's not De Jure independent, they only meant not a state formally separated from the mainland - as long as ROC Constitution (its Legal framework) still claims the mainland as being its sovereign territory and not foreign.[197] Regardless correcting you even with right intent comes across as bludgeoning. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 05:01, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

  Yea ... this may be surprising but we do want non-AI answers in this thread about your behaviour.

  I second what @Horse Eye's Back has said, all accurate. Aesurias (talk) 02:46, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

• I agree with some of the issued raised about the orginal state of the article, although I was less convinced the proposed changes were the best way to go about fixing them. However, the discussions in question are never going to be able to work through the complexities of the topic either way, because of their sheer length and the constant arguments about procedures (and despite the appeal to sources as part of this there is a lot of interpretation in the discussion). The articles in question are definitely not the best topic space to learn about the way discussions and editing work. CMD (talk) 10:25, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
• Support - per WP:RGW, WP:BLUDGEON, WP:IDHT. Best for the topic & the editor-in-question, to be seperated from each other. GoodDay (talk) 16:17, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
• Support, they do appear to have made some unproblematic small edits to other topic areas so an indeff may be premature but a topic ban is well earned. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:01, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
• Suppport TBAN. I am not yet convinced that a indef is necessary but given the level of bludgeoning on the talk page and edit warring a TBAN is necessary to prevent disruption to the topic.GothicGolem29 (Talk) 01:37, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
• Support TBAN at minimum. TarnishedPath^talk 01:46, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
• Support TBAN at a minimum, with the blatant AI usage pushing me towards an indef. DoubleCross (‡) 03:26, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
• Support and Proposal, When the reality is that ROC Constitution claim Taiwan as part of a greater China and avoids declaring separation. And this lack of legal formal separation from "China" as an entity is what shows Taiwan as not de jure independent from the mainland under its own foundational law. My intent was only to reflect what credible legal experts and sources have written, not to promote a political stance. Source - (Oxford site opening paragraph plus chapter on (lack of statehood) and Ben Saul, subject expert) [198] [199] But can understand that this info can seem almost like blasphemy and adding it full on - still needed Consensus. So I propose a promise to never add this info in if most of you oppose its inclusion and also support a topic block for conditional 2 years (enough time to practise and prove that I am not an evil editor some of you make me out to be). I am willing to agree to compromise and prove my worth long term if my proposed 2 year Broad Topic block is permitted.JaredMcKenzie (talk) 05:05, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing by User:GabooRuls25

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

---

Need a longer block for GabooRuls25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), they came back from a week long block for disruptive editing and immediately resumed edits with the same edit summary over and over, template blanking, and no discussion on proposed template edits. Cards84664 20:16, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Is this some sock? I swear I have seen this exact same edit summary style on many other accounts, of just restating the article title. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 21:09, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

I compared to the usual suspects in railroad topics, this one seems to edit differently (so far). This one only uses mobile edits and mainly has a focus on Canadian rail topics. Cards84664 21:55, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm mainly just speaking in general, I've seen a lot of accounts who have their edit summaries be the article name rather than something more useful. But they could be disconnected, not sure. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 22:12, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

I've given them a warning. @Asilvering blocked them last time. ^SMason_Garrison 02:55, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

I've blocked them for two weeks.[200]^SMason_Garrison 05:30, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

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

User:ILOVEPRINCEGEORGE2000

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

---

This user, after being indef-blocked, is threatening to continue disruptive edits using bots using two simultaneous unblock requests (see this revision of their talk page as of this message). — Alex26337 ^(talk) 08:43, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Gosh, am I glad the username isn't referencing the other one jolielover♥talk 09:02, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

I assume "autobots07" is not referring to the Transformers characters? GarethBaloney (talk) 09:23, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

I haven't seen Transformers since I was a kid, but I have to admit I might watch again if there was a Decepticon that was a Wikipedia vandalism bot that could transform into, say, a Cadillac Escalade. "GOOD WORK, INFOBLAST, YOUR DIGITAL MISINFORMATION CAMPAIGN WILL TURN THE HUMANS AGAINST THE AUTOBOTS." CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 11:17, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

In the old IDW comics continuity, there was, no joke, one issue that included the punchline "you were right - vandalizing our Autopedia pages was a great idea!" - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:00, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

A range block will likely be required. GoodDay (talk) 16:29, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

TPA revoked, seems like the least we can do Mfield (Oi!) 06:10, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

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

WP:NOTHERE edits from Winnebaggo

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

---

I seriously have no idea what Winnebaggo (talk · contribs) is doing. I came across them when they inexplicably removed a perfectly valid image from Tri-City Pavilions.

Upon checking their edits, I found:

• Asking a random editor about department stores and what they look like

• "Why do you live in India? than America?"

• Multiple warnings dating back to 2023 for creation of unhelpful redirects such as FR3D or Alec "Smartalec" Baldwin

• Repeated rejections of the draft for Natalie Layne discography

The user was previously blocked in September 2024 for vandalism of this nature, followed immediately in 2025 by further warnings for creating unhelpful redirects such as Jeffroy and Winnebago Dave.

Since then, they have continued to create useless redirects that are unlikely to serve any purpose such as Tree Dollar.

I have not seen a single constructive edit by this user. They have not responded to the myriad warnings on their page. In short, I think this is a clear-cut case of WP:NOTHERE. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:46, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Should be blocked, as they seem to be only entertaining themselves. GoodDay (talk) 04:51, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

I have looked at their history briefly, and I concur with the OP. They are largely creating stupid redirects that are not quite stupid enough to be R3. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:24, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

I have blocked Winnebaggo as not here to build an encyclopedia. I am not sure if the issue is a lack of competence or an attempt at an absurdist breaching experiment, but that does not matter in the end. Cullen328 (talk) 07:01, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

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

Legal threat?

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

---

[201], see also their previous messages there. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:17, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Indeffed. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:26, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

I don't know what it's supposed to be, but in the basis of this [202] at AN3 (whatever that is), I've blocked them as not here to improve the encyclopedia. Acroterion (talk) 02:27, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

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

Undeclared paid editing

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

---

Information about the beatings and rapes of girls has been removed from an article about former race car driver Nikiasdfta Mazepin. A concerned editor who is deleting information is attempting to remove information from their conversation page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2025-32507-53 (talk • contribs)

You are indicating a violation of WP:UPE but have provided exactly zero reason to think this has happened. Nor have you provided diffs or links, nor have you notified the editor in question. You should expect this request to be speedily closed if you don't do these things. --Yamla (talk) 11:01, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

(I am the accused.) You cannot be serious. Reverting such blatant BLP violations is no indication of paid editing. MB2437 11:16, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

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

I have added some nonprinting characters to the name in the OP of this post so it will not Googlecide the person. jp×g🗯️ 12:26, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Clever! —Fortuna, imperatrix 12:39, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

TPA at User talk:Fready Sedy

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

---

Would someone be nice enough to yank talk page access here? With this personal attack, there is absolutely no reason to keep it around for this blocked sockpuppet to abuse. JeffSpaceman (talk) 17:21, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Pinging @Zzuuzz: and @Yamla:, who blocked and declined an unblock request here respectively. JeffSpaceman (talk) 17:23, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

 Done. Talk page access revoked. Cullen328 (talk) 17:53, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

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

Persistent unsourced edits by Jjdewikieditor5

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

---

• Jjdewikieditor5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User Jjdewikieditor5 is an editor who uses many identities and IP addresses to make unsourced edits in various articles. Sources are rarely added, if sources appear in their edits it's most likely to have been copied/pasted from the same article elsewhere. The person has been blocked a number of times in their previous incarnations, either temporarily [203] or indefinitely (JJdawikieditor, Jjdawikieditor103, Yinyangdraon). They can be identified by their similar or partially identical edits [204][205] (in Lion dance), similar user names or identical articles edited such as articles on wrestling or pets (e.g. Gimmick (professional wrestling), Spitz). The person appeared to have quieten down a bit after the last block, but is back again, still unwilling to add sources, which is making it difficult to verify the edits (often it is not possible to find any evidence or source for their edits). Hzh (talk) 14:35, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

• Blocked and tagged. Bishonen | tålk 18:52, 9 November 2025 (UTC).

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

Repeated TBAN violations

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

Previous violations and warnings include:

1. Erased a text including a reference to Hamas.
2. Warned on their talk page for the above violation.
3. Edit warring on Jerusalem Temple which they self reverted "pending clarification on CT restrictions".
4. Warned again on their talk page for the above violation.
5. Starting an AfD for a personality related to ARBPIA and removing material from the same article, later self-reverting the latter edit admitting a topic ban violation.
6. Logged warning by an admin (Tamzin) for the violations on the above page. Nehushtani (talk) 13:27, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

I do think the Nosair edits were tban violations, and I'd call for Iskandar to self-rv. Note that the other list items are from January and February. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:56, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

• Hmm. I am unconvinced, to be honest. I don't really see the link between an Egyptian-American who murdered an Israeli in the USA, and the Palestine conflict; and the edits did not refer to anything ARBPIA-related (indeed, they were very trivial edits). Black Kite (talk) 13:59, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

  @Black Kite - I fail to understand how an assassination of an Israeli politician known for extreme views on Palestinians by an Islamist with associations to Osama Bin Laden and taking part in a 1993 attempt to destroy the World Trade Center in NYC is not related to ARBPIA.

  @Firefangledfeathers - Why does it matter that the edits were a few months ago? The pattern of violating the topic ban is disturbing, and they have been warned several times. Additionally, since being topic banned in January, Iskandar323 has done all of approximately 700 edits, the vast majority in January and February. Since 1 March, they have done a total of approximately 300 edits, so another topic ban violation seems to be significant. Nehushtani (talk) 14:15, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

  I think it would be worse if Iskandar had violated the tban four times in the past week. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:19, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

  I don’t think the Bin Laden or WTC stuff moves the needle, but the assassin of Meir Kahane is definitely part of the conflict. Even if he’d only been the acquitted suspected assassin, that’s still sufficient association with the conflict, and Iskandar323’s edit highlighted at the beginning of this report touch on the assassination of Kahane in particular _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:24, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

  PIA covers the entirety of the Arab/Israel conflict, not just the Palestine/Israel conflict. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:46, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

• Aye, but there are limits IMO. Anyway, this is moot now. Black Kite (talk) 19:12, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish @Black Kite @Rosguill: Just a couple of days have passed since this post and now Iskandar323 is editing the article on Zoe Strimpel, a British Jewish journalist who frequently writes on Israel and antisemitism for the Telegraph and has this text on her page: "She has declared that she is a "pretty major fan of Israel" and wants "Israel’s case to be disseminated to the world". There have also been massive removals of content at criticism of the BBC, just as the outlet faces major criticism over its alleged biases, including anti-Israel bias (following a Telegraph investigation). The second case can be described as borderline, but clearly the first is clearly another violation of the topic ban happening just days after the edits to El Sayyid Nosair. Rafi Chazon (talk) 19:38, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

TBANs relate to editing content that is actually about the topic, not topic adjacent (by whatever reckoning). My removals of opinions and comments on the BBC sub-page are just that and bear no relation in any capacity to the relevant CTOP. As for the BLP you mention, an extreme minority of material mentioning a CTOP at best makes that portion of the content CTOP-related, unless I'm very much mistaken about how this works. However, this is an opportune time for me to clarify one nagging question that I'd like to put to any administrator who'd care to answer, in the interest of clarifying the limits of a TBAN, per WP:BANEX. If, for the sake of argument, a page exists with no CTOP templates of any kind but perhaps one mention of the name of a key countries central to a CTOP, does that preclude, for example, initiating an RM, XfD or other full page-level discussions on a topic? Iskandar323 (talk) 19:59, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Neither of those edits linked were violations from what I saw. Assuming that an article isn't tagged, or is tagged with the parts of this page template, you can edit any part of it that doesn't deal with ARBPIA. Using Jimmy Carter as an example, as long as you stay clear of the ARBPIA stuff you're fine. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:13, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello all. I wasn't intending to do anything riskeé on the criminal BLP. I saw some unusual sections, one single sources, and just went to improve the page structure without really thinking about the contents. Belatedly, I did take a double take and wonder it was too ARBPIA adjacent, but I checked the talk page and it had no template and I reckoned that it was because it was a US-Egyptian criminal bio first and foremost. I had only altered header levels, not content. I've self-reverted now given concerns that this was a TBAN violation have arisen. No funny business intended. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:40, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the self-rv. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:50, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

I propose an indef for “ riskeé ”. (risqué, risky) ~2025-31850-11 (talk) 13:00, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Fair. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:17, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Setti Warren

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

---

User:DCLawwyer has repeatedly added the claim that "This election was the first time in U.S. history that an African-American had been elected mayor under an African-American governor (Deval Patrick) under an African American president (Barack Obama)." to the page Setti Warren. Not only is the relevancy of this to Warren disputed, but the information is also incorrect. E. Denise Simmons predates Warren's tenure and also served under Patrick and Obama. Jon698 (talk) 17:52, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Per the NYT's incorrect claim: "its residents are the first to have elected a black mayor, governor and president." This statement is referring to the residents of Newton and not to Warren. Jon698 (talk) 17:55, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Content dispute. Aydoh8^{[what have I done now?]} 17:56, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Blocked 72 hours for edit warring courtesy of Cullen328. Aydoh8^{[what have I done now?]} 17:57, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes, that is what I did. Cullen328 (talk) 18:00, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

...and post-that-block. the OP continued their reversions past 3RR, so I have blocked them as well. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:31, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

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

Reddit ZooNews Comment

I discovered two subreddits: ZooNews and ZooNews2 Both these subreddits encourage redditors to add fake information into zoo articles on Wikipedia.

In the latest post: https://www.reddit.com/r/ZooNews2/comments/1osq2dr/mystery_solved_in_bird_paradises_penguin_exhibit/ challenging people to add the terms "silver gulls and Inca terns" into the article. This has been done here

I had started reporting this type of vandalism at WP:AIV when @Tamzin suggested I bring it here as it appeared complex.

Editors I had started reporting so far, I'll link their contribs as easier to see:

~2025-31176-48

Smock8

Legacy IP user 2605:59C0:6E06:2410:A065:65B0:99DF:ADB6

Legacy IP contributions

Legacy IP contributions

Legacy IP contributions

Andrew NZP GAMERZ

I'd reported these editors and requested page protection be added to Minnesota Zoo, Assiniboine Park Zoo, Singapore Zoo, Bird Paradise.

Apart from that, don't know what else to do. I'll keep an eye out on the subreddits and monitor those articles. Equine-man (talk) 20:48, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Looks like the same group also created r/WikipediaNews for non-zoo-related vandalism. Kdroo (talk) 21:40, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

It's not a group per se, rather just sockpuppets of a single individual. They also travel a lot, which explains why the technical data is all over the place. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 03:34, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Given current activity (or lack thereof), for the three pages I saw reported to WP:RFPP, I protected one, pblocked a user on a second, and did nothing for the third. Rereport to WP:RFPP if the currently unprotected ones get more activity. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:42, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Meena Kurian according to off-wiki evidence. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 23:09, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Blocked the relevant temporary account. Smock8 is pblocked from Minnesota Zoo and ANDREW NZP GAMERZ is apparently abandoned. @ChildrenWillListen:, you're saying these named accounts are socks of Meena Kurian? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:25, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

References

Report on User:Petertitus (page move vandalism)

Hello,

I am reporting Petertitus (talk · contribs) for disruptive page move vandalism on the article Samia Suluhu Hassan.

Here is the log of the disruptive moves from November 9, 2025:

• 11:33: Petertitus moved page Samia Suluhu Hassan to Samuya Suluhu Hassan
• 11:36: Petertitus moved page Samuya Suluhu Hassan to Rais Samuyaa Suluhu Hassan
• 11:38: Petertitus moved page Rais Samuyaa Suluhu Hassan to Samia Suluhu Hassan.

This series of disruptive moves was later reverted by Explicit at 14:40.

Could an administrator please review this user's behavior and take appropriate action?

Thank you, --Sidmanegda (talk) 16:13, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Is this actually vandalism or is it merely a different spelling/extra name or title? If it is the latter then it is a content issue that should be resolved on the article talk page. This user's edits so far don't inspire much confidence that that will work, but it should at least be tried before coming to WP:ANI. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:43, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Text generated by a large language model or similar AI technology has been collapsed in line with the relevant guideline and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

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

Hello,

Thank you for reviewing this. To answer your question: yes, I believe this is clear-cut vandalism and not a good-faith content dispute.

Here are the specific reasons, which go beyond a simple "different spelling" issue:

1. The Name is Unambiguous: The subject's name is Samia Suluhu Hassan. This is the established name used by all reliable sources and reflected in the corresponding Wikidata item (Q16193885). The variations being introduced have no basis in fact.

2. Persistent, Nonsensical Misspellings: This isn't a simple typo. The editor first changed "Samia" (a common Muslim name) to "Samuya," and after being reverted, they returned to edit-war with a new variation, "Samuyaa." This pattern demonstrates a persistent, intentional defacement of the subject's name, not an attempt to add a valid alternative.

3. The "Rais" Addition: The insertion of "Rais" is also disruptive. "Rais" is the Swahili word for "President." It is a transitory title, not part of her personal name. Adding it to her biographical name is factually incorrect and misleads the reader.

4. The Malicious Redirect: The most compelling evidence of bad faith is the attempt to create a redirect from "Samia Suluhu Hassan." (note the trailing period). This serves no legitimate navigational purpose and is a classic disruptive technique, clearly demonstrating that the editor is not here to build an encyclopedia.

Given that the article's subject is a high-profile political figure at the center of ongoing, contentious political events (such as the recent suppression of opposition parties and crimes against humanity), these edits are consistent with politically-motivated vandalism, not a good-faith disagreement.

As you noted, this user's edits do not inspire confidence. These actions, taken together, show a clear intent to vandalize the page rather than engage in a content discussion. This is why I believe administrative action is necessary.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sidmanegda (talk) 17:26, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Are you generating these replies with AI? That is strongly discouraged. Gnomingstuff (talk) 16:28, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Rahuluke and bolding

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

---

This is a very minor issue, but Rahuluke (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been editing a large number of articles today almost solely in order to add bold formatting to random words, in violation of the MOS:BOLD guideline. Examples: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11. I have left four warnings on their talk page which they have ignored. They are a fairly new editor and have never edited a talk page, so perhaps they are unaware that their talk page exists. Can something be done to get their attention? CodeTalker (talk) 18:28, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

They replied to the ANI notification on their talk page now. Nakonana (talk) 18:41, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Given that Rahuluke has committed to refrain from problematic bolding on their talk page, I recommend that this report be closed as resolved. Cullen328 (talk) 19:26, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

That's fine with me. CodeTalker (talk) 20:11, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

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

Borderline person attacks & Disruptive behaviour

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

---

User:~2025-32551-36 has continuously added long blocks of text to both mine and @Plasticwonder:'s talk pages. They claim that PlasticWonder called them a vandal, when in fact, all PlasticWonder did was reverted their edits for "unsourced" (which the specific edit that led to PlasticWonder's rollback was unsourced). When PlasticWonder removed the message from their talk page, User:~2025-32551-36 added rude replies to other comments on the page. The user then came to my talk page to tell me I should not have given PlasticWonder a barnstar. When asked to stop, this user ALSO openly stated that they would evade a block on their temporary account, in order to keep making these comments. – LuniZunie ツ_(talk) 22:58, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

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

Rude and disruptive behaviour by Vjm827

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

---

Vjm827 has been engaging in rude and disruptive behaviour on the WWE article.

First he reverted me two times when I added templates asking for more sources and more reliable sources.

First he dismissed my concern and removed the templates stating that there are already 400 sources in the article [206].

Presuming that his revert was in good faith, I explicitly explained that the problem wasn't that it had 400+ sources, but that many parts of the article were uncited or using unreliable sources like IMDb. [207]

Despite this, he reverted again and continued to dismiss my concerns and stated that I was only editing based on my preferences [208], causing me to warn him to first discuss the issue to the talko page and not to edit war since such templates should only be removed when the issues have been resolved [209].

Even on the talk page Talk:WWE, Vjm827 has started using rude and chiding language, makes unfounded accusations, despite attempts made by me to resolve the issue.

He calls my edits as lazy and thinking too highly of myself to edit it, instead leaving it to other editors who I think of as "lesser people" according to him [210]. I would have edited the article myself, but I'm busy with examinations.

I lost my cool and stated that he himself hasn't made any effort to improve the article. Though I avoided any personal attacks, Vjm827 has still made personal attacks and accusations, calling me snobby, lazy and basically implying I act entitled. [211]

I request the administrators to please step in and restrain him. His behaviour is completely out of line. Linkin Prankster (talk) 15:25, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Never said anything about Prankster personally...just told him how I see it when people slap templates on articles. Do I have an issue with the practice of just placing templates on articles - maybe. Do I have issues with any particular editors...no. Now if I wasn't clear on that, then I apologize, but to be clear, I have no problems with Prankster as an individual editor...just a difference of opinion regarding Wiki policy. Vjm827 (talk) 15:35, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

You explicitly characterized me and my edits as lazy and snobby. Linkin Prankster (talk) 15:41, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Again - not you personally, just the idea of slapping on templates as a whole. Now if it came across as going after you individually, it wasn't my intent, I was speaking in generalities about templates overall. Vjm827 (talk) 15:54, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

You explicitly said: "Snobby in that one likes to critique, and lazy in that one doesn't want to do the supposedly needed work themselves to fix it and dumps it off on others."

This wasn't just about slapping templates, although you'd still be characterising my actions (and thus me) as lazy and snobby even if that was so. You were explicitly condemning me. Linkin Prankster (talk) 15:57, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

You forgot the part where I said slapping on a template is snobby and lazy and I explained why...never once did I say Linkin Prankster is snobby and lazy. You're trying to turn a disagreement about policy into a big production about me going after you personally. Stop trying to make a mountain out of a molehill and adding drama to something which in the grand scheme of things isn't that big of a deal. Vjm827 (talk) 16:04, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes, you were insulting me for my actions there since I was as you say "slapping templates". The first and foremost thing to make amends is to accept your mistake and not make excuses. I've been trying to act with you in good faith, but it's obvious you don't have it. This is a fruitless discussion. Linkin Prankster (talk) 16:11, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Really...it is coming across to me that you can't take a disagreement over policy as just that, and trying to make it into something bigger than what it actually is. All this is, is business...you are the one trying to make it personal by making a big production out of it and going to these extremes. Vjm827 (talk) 16:20, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Vjm827, there is nothing inherently rude and disruptive about adding a maintenance template to an article, as long as the template accurately identifies a problem. That is why Wikipedia makes such templates available to editors. Arguably, it is more disruptive to remove a template without solving the underlying issue than to add the template in the first place. As for calling other good faith editors "lazy", that is way out of line. The context of your comments makes it clear that they were motivated by your disagreement with Linkin Prankster. You are obligated to assume good faith of your fellow editors, unless you can present rock solid evidence to the contrary. So, please consider this a gentle warning to correct your combative interactions with other editors. Cullen328 (talk) 17:21, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Vjm827, you should also be aware that professional wrestling is a topic area that has had a very large amount of disruptive and controversial editing over the years. Accordingly, administrators are less likely to respond to suboptimal editing behavior in a lenient way. So be careful. Cullen328 (talk) 17:45, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

(non administrator comment) but weren't they calling their actions (rather than the person) lazy? Wikieditor662 (talk) 17:44, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

What's the difference? It's still an accusation of me acting lazy. Are we really arguing over whether he meant I'm generally a lazy person or just being lazy in this instance? Linkin Prankster (talk) 17:51, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

At the end of the day, my intent criticize a Wiki policy blew up into something I wasn't looking for.

Prankster, I apologize for any misunderstandings that caused you to take offense. I was only looking to comment on adding templates in general - not you personally.

None of this is worth all of this hassle, so if Prankster is willing to call a truce, then I will do likewise and we can put this to bed. Vjm827 (talk) 18:17, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

I have no problem, this is not an issue that needs to dragging. But please avoid such comments in future, and focus on improving the article and discussing ways to improve it. Linkin Prankster (talk) 18:53, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Wikieditor662, yes, they framed their remark in a way that it was not an overt personal attack. In context, though, their intent to call the other editor lazy was clear. Cullen328 (talk)

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

Report on User:Petertitus (page move vandalism)

Hello,

I am reporting Petertitus (talk · contribs) for disruptive page move vandalism on the article Samia Suluhu Hassan.

Here is the log of the disruptive moves from November 9, 2025:

• 11:33: Petertitus moved page Samia Suluhu Hassan to Samuya Suluhu Hassan
• 11:36: Petertitus moved page Samuya Suluhu Hassan to Rais Samuyaa Suluhu Hassan
• 11:38: Petertitus moved page Rais Samuyaa Suluhu Hassan to Samia Suluhu Hassan.

This series of disruptive moves was later reverted by Explicit at 14:40.

Could an administrator please review this user's behavior and take appropriate action?

Thank you, --Sidmanegda (talk) 16:13, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Is this actually vandalism or is it merely a different spelling/extra name or title? If it is the latter then it is a content issue that should be resolved on the article talk page. This user's edits so far don't inspire much confidence that that will work, but it should at least be tried before coming to WP:ANI. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:43, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Text generated by a large language model or similar AI technology has been collapsed in line with the relevant guideline and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

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

Hello,

Thank you for reviewing this. To answer your question: yes, I believe this is clear-cut vandalism and not a good-faith content dispute.

Here are the specific reasons, which go beyond a simple "different spelling" issue:

1. The Name is Unambiguous: The subject's name is Samia Suluhu Hassan. This is the established name used by all reliable sources and reflected in the corresponding Wikidata item (Q16193885). The variations being introduced have no basis in fact.

2. Persistent, Nonsensical Misspellings: This isn't a simple typo. The editor first changed "Samia" (a common Muslim name) to "Samuya," and after being reverted, they returned to edit-war with a new variation, "Samuyaa." This pattern demonstrates a persistent, intentional defacement of the subject's name, not an attempt to add a valid alternative.

3. The "Rais" Addition: The insertion of "Rais" is also disruptive. "Rais" is the Swahili word for "President." It is a transitory title, not part of her personal name. Adding it to her biographical name is factually incorrect and misleads the reader.

4. The Malicious Redirect: The most compelling evidence of bad faith is the attempt to create a redirect from "Samia Suluhu Hassan." (note the trailing period). This serves no legitimate navigational purpose and is a classic disruptive technique, clearly demonstrating that the editor is not here to build an encyclopedia.

Given that the article's subject is a high-profile political figure at the center of ongoing, contentious political events (such as the recent suppression of opposition parties and crimes against humanity), these edits are consistent with politically-motivated vandalism, not a good-faith disagreement.

As you noted, this user's edits do not inspire confidence. These actions, taken together, show a clear intent to vandalize the page rather than engage in a content discussion. This is why I believe administrative action is necessary.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sidmanegda (talk) 17:26, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Are you generating these replies with AI? That is strongly discouraged. Gnomingstuff (talk) 16:28, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Rahuluke and bolding

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

---

This is a very minor issue, but Rahuluke (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been editing a large number of articles today almost solely in order to add bold formatting to random words, in violation of the MOS:BOLD guideline. Examples: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11. I have left four warnings on their talk page which they have ignored. They are a fairly new editor and have never edited a talk page, so perhaps they are unaware that their talk page exists. Can something be done to get their attention? CodeTalker (talk) 18:28, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

They replied to the ANI notification on their talk page now. Nakonana (talk) 18:41, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Given that Rahuluke has committed to refrain from problematic bolding on their talk page, I recommend that this report be closed as resolved. Cullen328 (talk) 19:26, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

That's fine with me. CodeTalker (talk) 20:11, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

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

Borderline person attacks & Disruptive behaviour

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

---

User:~2025-32551-36 has continuously added long blocks of text to both mine and @Plasticwonder:'s talk pages. They claim that PlasticWonder called them a vandal, when in fact, all PlasticWonder did was reverted their edits for "unsourced" (which the specific edit that led to PlasticWonder's rollback was unsourced). When PlasticWonder removed the message from their talk page, User:~2025-32551-36 added rude replies to other comments on the page. The user then came to my talk page to tell me I should not have given PlasticWonder a barnstar. When asked to stop, this user ALSO openly stated that they would evade a block on their temporary account, in order to keep making these comments. – LuniZunie ツ_(talk) 22:58, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

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

Rude and disruptive behaviour by Vjm827

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

---

Vjm827 has been engaging in rude and disruptive behaviour on the WWE article.

First he reverted me two times when I added templates asking for more sources and more reliable sources.

First he dismissed my concern and removed the templates stating that there are already 400 sources in the article [212].

Presuming that his revert was in good faith, I explicitly explained that the problem wasn't that it had 400+ sources, but that many parts of the article were uncited or using unreliable sources like IMDb. [213]

Despite this, he reverted again and continued to dismiss my concerns and stated that I was only editing based on my preferences [214], causing me to warn him to first discuss the issue to the talko page and not to edit war since such templates should only be removed when the issues have been resolved [215].

Even on the talk page Talk:WWE, Vjm827 has started using rude and chiding language, makes unfounded accusations, despite attempts made by me to resolve the issue.

He calls my edits as lazy and thinking too highly of myself to edit it, instead leaving it to other editors who I think of as "lesser people" according to him [216]. I would have edited the article myself, but I'm busy with examinations.

I lost my cool and stated that he himself hasn't made any effort to improve the article. Though I avoided any personal attacks, Vjm827 has still made personal attacks and accusations, calling me snobby, lazy and basically implying I act entitled. [217]

I request the administrators to please step in and restrain him. His behaviour is completely out of line. Linkin Prankster (talk) 15:25, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Never said anything about Prankster personally...just told him how I see it when people slap templates on articles. Do I have an issue with the practice of just placing templates on articles - maybe. Do I have issues with any particular editors...no. Now if I wasn't clear on that, then I apologize, but to be clear, I have no problems with Prankster as an individual editor...just a difference of opinion regarding Wiki policy. Vjm827 (talk) 15:35, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

You explicitly characterized me and my edits as lazy and snobby. Linkin Prankster (talk) 15:41, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Again - not you personally, just the idea of slapping on templates as a whole. Now if it came across as going after you individually, it wasn't my intent, I was speaking in generalities about templates overall. Vjm827 (talk) 15:54, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

You explicitly said: "Snobby in that one likes to critique, and lazy in that one doesn't want to do the supposedly needed work themselves to fix it and dumps it off on others."

This wasn't just about slapping templates, although you'd still be characterising my actions (and thus me) as lazy and snobby even if that was so. You were explicitly condemning me. Linkin Prankster (talk) 15:57, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

You forgot the part where I said slapping on a template is snobby and lazy and I explained why...never once did I say Linkin Prankster is snobby and lazy. You're trying to turn a disagreement about policy into a big production about me going after you personally. Stop trying to make a mountain out of a molehill and adding drama to something which in the grand scheme of things isn't that big of a deal. Vjm827 (talk) 16:04, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes, you were insulting me for my actions there since I was as you say "slapping templates". The first and foremost thing to make amends is to accept your mistake and not make excuses. I've been trying to act with you in good faith, but it's obvious you don't have it. This is a fruitless discussion. Linkin Prankster (talk) 16:11, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Really...it is coming across to me that you can't take a disagreement over policy as just that, and trying to make it into something bigger than what it actually is. All this is, is business...you are the one trying to make it personal by making a big production out of it and going to these extremes. Vjm827 (talk) 16:20, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Vjm827, there is nothing inherently rude and disruptive about adding a maintenance template to an article, as long as the template accurately identifies a problem. That is why Wikipedia makes such templates available to editors. Arguably, it is more disruptive to remove a template without solving the underlying issue than to add the template in the first place. As for calling other good faith editors "lazy", that is way out of line. The context of your comments makes it clear that they were motivated by your disagreement with Linkin Prankster. You are obligated to assume good faith of your fellow editors, unless you can present rock solid evidence to the contrary. So, please consider this a gentle warning to correct your combative interactions with other editors. Cullen328 (talk) 17:21, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Vjm827, you should also be aware that professional wrestling is a topic area that has had a very large amount of disruptive and controversial editing over the years. Accordingly, administrators are less likely to respond to suboptimal editing behavior in a lenient way. So be careful. Cullen328 (talk) 17:45, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

(non administrator comment) but weren't they calling their actions (rather than the person) lazy? Wikieditor662 (talk) 17:44, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

What's the difference? It's still an accusation of me acting lazy. Are we really arguing over whether he meant I'm generally a lazy person or just being lazy in this instance? Linkin Prankster (talk) 17:51, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

At the end of the day, my intent criticize a Wiki policy blew up into something I wasn't looking for.

Prankster, I apologize for any misunderstandings that caused you to take offense. I was only looking to comment on adding templates in general - not you personally.

None of this is worth all of this hassle, so if Prankster is willing to call a truce, then I will do likewise and we can put this to bed. Vjm827 (talk) 18:17, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

I have no problem, this is not an issue that needs to dragging. But please avoid such comments in future, and focus on improving the article and discussing ways to improve it. Linkin Prankster (talk) 18:53, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Wikieditor662, yes, they framed their remark in a way that it was not an overt personal attack. In context, though, their intent to call the other editor lazy was clear. Cullen328 (talk)

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

Cluster of rapid AfD nominations by CountryANDWestern without BEFORE

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

---

Raising a conduct concern about CountryANDWestern for a burst of AfD filings within minutes/hours on 30 Sep–1 Oct 2025 with weak or disputed rationales:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Olusola Jegede — closed no consensus.
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gabriel Adejuwon — closed no consensus.
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kehinde Alex Bankole — closed delete.
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nazmat Surajudeen Bakinde — closed keep.

The AfD threads and contribs log show a rapid cluster (creation, log listing, and creator notifications). At least one AfD explicitly notes that the nominator had not performed WP:BEFORE. This pattern looks like potentially disruptive AfD filing; requesting admin advice/remedy.

(Contribs listing for timestamps: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/CountryANDWestern&limit=500&offset=&target=CountryANDWestern)

Policies/guidance: WP:AFDHOWTO, WP:BEFORE, WP:CONSENSUS. ~2025-32243-47 (talk) 14:50, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

@~2025-32243-47 Per AfD Stats, of their 12 nominations, half have been deleted, three were kept, two were closed without consensus, and one is ongoing. Not great, but not terrible either. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:58, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

I see nothing disruptive about these nominations. The clusters of edits you mention are because they use a twinkle tool which creates the notifications. Spike 'em (talk) 15:02, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

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

Over-templating / COI + speedy templates to newcomers by CountryANDWestern

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

---

Pointing out newcomer-interaction concerns by CountryANDWestern on 10 Sep 2025 related to Draft:MyAllSearch:

• Multiple templated notices in quick succession (CSD A7, G11, and COI) on the same newcomer talk page:
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:C.James.P88
• Additional notices about speedy tag removal:
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:EngageMark

While tagging can be valid, over-templating/newcomer bite risks exist. Requesting admin input on whether a civility/mentorship reminder is appropriate. See WP:CIVIL, WP:BITE, and appropriate WP:UW usage. ~2025-32541-86 (talk) 14:56, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

I don't see the problem here? Two templates on one sock's talk page, one template on the other's. All appear to be legit, not in "quick succession" (the two comments are 30 minutes apart with another user's comment between), and all edits in question are from 2 months ago... - Adolphus79 (talk) 15:07, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

I don't have TAIV so can't investigate, but can someone take a look at User:~2025-32462-30, User:~2025-32541-86, User:~2025-32549-21, User:~2025-32243-47, and User:~2025-32541-86? These cluster of temp accounts, who have no previous edits, are all seemingly concerned about me today and reporting me to any and every noticeboard that they can. CountryANDWestern (talk) 15:09, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

I was just looking into that myself after seeing your talk page, they are all using proxys... I think someone just wants to play WP:BOOMERANG... - Adolphus79 (talk) 15:13, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Appreciate it. Not too surprised to hear. I'm kicking a bit of a hornet's nest with the UPEs that produce a bunch of these articles here and on Simple English where I'm primarily based. CountryANDWestern (talk) 15:24, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Blocked two weeks. Doubt that'll stop everything, as it looks like they have lots of addresses available. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 02:59, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

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

IP hopper keeps removing redlinks

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

---

Most recent anon username is ~2025-32416-04. They do a handful of redlink removals a day, which I generally revert. Today, I think, was the first time they restored one of their links. I've reverted that, warned them that such is disruptive and provided a link to the redlink essay on their talk page. Could someone else please take a look? - — Preceding unsigned comment added by UtherSRG (talk • contribs) 23:02, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

I don't see any edits since the warning although I did find one previous warning specifically about redlinks prior to yours. I've left an additional request for them to respond here and to stop removing redlinks indiscriminately. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 06:44, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Now as ~2025-32266-83? - UtherSRG (talk) 18:38, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Considering that a previous block for 1 week did not result in any communication and they immediately returned to the same disruptive editing, they are blocked for 1 month. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 19:14, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

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

Frachx75

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

---

Frachx75 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has got a talk page of nothing but warnings about adding unsourced content and block notices. They were blocked only a month ago, but upon being released from that block they’ve gone straight back to editing without sources: [218][219][220][221]. I feel like this may be somewhat of a lost cause here… Danners430 _{tweaks made} 21:51, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Even in the short time this thread has been open, I’ve reverted another three unsourced additions… [222][223][224] Danners430 _{tweaks made} 22:11, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Is someone able to have a look at this? Danners430 _{tweaks made} 00:02, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Just leaving a message to keep LCSB at bay until this can be looked at - although the user has been quiet since the end of October, so perhaps they've moved on... Danners430 _{tweaks made} 17:25, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Sorry for not getting to this sooner - it does appear that this is stale due to the editor not continuing to edit. If they pick up again, then please re-report (if this has rolled off the board by that point). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:47, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

No worries at all - it certainly hasn't exactly been quiet here of late! Happy to close as stale unless they reappear :-) Danners430 _{tweaks made} 09:06, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

@The Bushranger Can I have some of what you're using...? They've literally just returned...! [225] Whatever it is, I'm blaming you for bringing them back :P Danners430 _{tweaks made} 14:31, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Don't blame me, blame the demonic duck of some sort! I have indefinitely pblocked from articlespace for persistent additions of unsourced content with an invitation to come here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:16, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

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

Potential legal threat at Lighthouse (British organisation)

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

---

• Nofoolie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Lighthouse (British organisation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'm INVOLVED and not entirely sure whether it constitutes a threat, so please consider [226] I will send this to Stratford Magistrates Court by Nofoolie. At the very least it indicates they are way too conflicted to edit the article. SmartSE (talk) 21:04, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Definte legal threat. 331dot (talk) 21:08, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Just to make it clear, 331dot has blocked the editor for the legal threat (which I agree and support). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:16, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Barkeep49, why in the world would you support a legal threat? EEng 08:48, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

I think you should first ask the user to clarify what they meant by this comment. But out of context, it really does sound quite ambiguous. Is any compromising information about the organization being discussed in this thread? Solaire the knight (talk) 21:10, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

You should have read the hatted discussion on the article talk page first. I don't think this us a legal threat to WMF. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:58, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

The content was not hatted in the diff provided. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:53, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Nofoolie was saying that they would bring the other editor's comments to the attention of a court that is currently presiding over a case on issues related to the article topic. That is definitionally a legal threat. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:53, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

It seems that Stratford Magistrates Court has jurisdiction over Wikipedia content. Some people have a very confused idea of the law. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:01, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

I think the point was that they thought the posts were relevant evidence in the case, not that the court could do anything about the article itself. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:54, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Rather contempt of court - for a trial about a group that has harassed a journalist. The details of which are horrific and will no doubt be published by the BBC in due course. Just for clarification. Nofoolie (talk) 21:05, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing from User:Abdul Hamid Young Turk

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

---

Abdul Hamid Young Turk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Abdul Hamid Young Turk (talk · contribs) has repeatedly changed the number of deaths on the article about the attempted assassination of Abdul Hamid II, first from 21 (the sourced number) to 22 (diff), and now to 26 (diff; diff; diff). On my part, I've attempted to point out what the sources in the article say (diff) and to request they cite a source (diff; diff; diff). They have either ignored these and continued reverting, or responded by telling me to "stop the BS" (diff). They have also undone date formatting changes, against established use in the article, without explanation (diff; diff; diff). In addition to this behaviour, I also worry that their username indicates they not here to build an encyclopedia in this topic area. --Grnrchst (talk) 14:36, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

grnrchst is another wanna be administrator (Personal attack removed) who wants to accumulate ratings as dannyS712 or naleksuh tried as simple historical search points out to 26 casualties.. Abdul Hamid Young Turk (talk) 14:40, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

If it's so simple, then why can't you cite a source for it? Go ahead! --Grnrchst (talk) 14:42, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

@Grnrchst @Abdul Hamid Young Turk I reported them at the same time for WP:NONAZIS regarding their username. That report is to be found here. Aristoxène (talk) 14:42, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

No wonder newbies die fast on wikipedia JOKE OF "ENCYcLOPEDIA"... Abdul Hamid Young Turk (talk) 14:46, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Abdul not being civil won’t help your cause on here. Jp33442 (talk) 14:49, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

I've indefinitely blocked them. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:50, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

They kept making personal attacks, so I've pulled talk page access. Ready for closure. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:58, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

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

Slur and chatbot response from TA

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

---

~2025-32624-81 (talk · contribs) tripped an edit filter by leaving a chatbot response in [227], which they then removed [228] calling it a "typo". I reverted these edits [229] which they then reinstated and called me the r-word in their edit summary [230]. Can they please be blocked? Also, technical data indicates additional action may be needed. NicheSports (talk) 16:45, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

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

2a02:4540::/32

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

---

• 2a02:4540::/32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Too much vandalism from this range. --~2025-32834-19 (talk) 18:23, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

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

Repeated insertion of OR

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

---

AlexanderSumarokov (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) ~2025-32741-61 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The user and their previous temp account have made multiple reverts at Bodhidharma repeatedly restoring outright WP:OR content (which nowhere appears in references) and WP:SYNTH images without any explanation. Despite having let the user known that they should explain this or go to the Talk page, the reverts continue. The user was also informed that this is a contentious topic (WP:CT/SA) but that does not appear to have acted as any detterant either. I'm doubtful they will reply here. Asking for intervention against the user and at the article. Gotitbro (talk) 15:10, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Did you forget to post leave an {{ANI-notice}} on the editor's talk page? --Gurkubondinn _(talk) 16:09, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Gotitbro left a note under the "November 2025" heading. PhilKnight (talk) 17:48, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Oh, good. Completely overlooked that. --Gurkubondinn _(talk) 17:56, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Yep, it's OR (fun fact: the part about language was added by an admin in 2018, with "likely" in the edit summary). Across the account and TA, they crossed 3RR. Blocked for 24 hours. Fences&Windows 21:51, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

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

User:Yeremia Nayoan : WP:CIR, particularly in the use of plurals

Yeremia Nayoan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

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

---

I have been reverting a large number of edits by User:Yeremia Nayoan, many to do with the incorrect use of plurals (France 1, France 2 Portugal 1, Portugal 2, England, Netherlands) and failing to follow the WP:FOOTY guidelines on national football team articles. They also make huge amounts of WP:COSMETIC edits to tables on these and similar pages that do nothing but clog up edit summaries / watchlists. I have posted on their talk page (including [231]), but the only response was This is my country, you don't know my history country, shutt upp bro!!!. From other logged-out edits in similar vein, I believe this editor is based in Indonesia, which may explain a lack of a full grasp of English grammar, but this does not excuse borderline edit-warring over points they don't fully understand. Spike 'em (talk) 10:12, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

I have just looked at some of the diffs and genuinely believe this to be intentionally disruptive. It's so severe, particularly here, that I cannot believe it to be genuine error. The removal of square brackets around Harry Kane's name here for zero apparent reason is also concerning. Aesurias (talk) 10:41, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Also see: mass removal of content on the Italy page, later reverted by another editor. Aesurias (talk) 10:43, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

They are now reverting changes mentioned here with an edit summary of Don't editing again!! [232],[233],[234].

They have no idea what they are doing nor have the ability to edit constructively. I notice that since my first interaction with them that they have started editting on id.wiki, furthering the suspicions above.

I've moved on from assessing this behaviour as CIR to WP:NOTHERE. Spike 'em (talk) 14:44, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you. Also, they have reached WP:3RR at Belgium national football team. Annh07 (talk) 15:51, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

It's difficult to find simple examples in the morass. But in France 1, above, VN changed "eleven UEFA European Championship tournaments" to "eleven UEFA European Championship tournament", "host nation" to "hosts nations", and "The team's two titles" to "The team's two title"; which combined show an unacceptably poor grasp of English for copyedits. Narky Blert (talk) 16:54, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

And now I'm being told to "Shutt Upp". They can't even get angry in proper english. Spike 'em (talk) 17:25, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Edit summaries like Bro, what do you want? Every time I edit, you always interfere, whether you want to help or not, just keep quiet as long as it doesn't harm you, don't make me talk rudely to you, okay!! are definitely not helpful. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 19:33, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

[235], [236] a couple more breaking plurals. There are a lot of these scattered through; I'm sorry, but consistently breaking things this basic makes one manifestly unsuited to making these kinds of edits. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 19:38, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Blocked from Article space until they comment on this issue. Also given warning for this personal attack. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:02, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

I believe they are logged-out editting as ~2025-32748-82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Spike 'em (talk) 12:05, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Also Special:Contributions/~2025-32793-82. More quotes:

Look at this man he can't even stop me from doing anything, wow you are so pitiful, only for English wikipedia

I am a cyber who can do anything I want, what do you want to do to me, scare me?, threaten me?, block my account? Go ahead my friend, let's see who wins here.. Both of these come from the same underlying IP address, though I can't directly reveal it. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:41, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

That taunting answers the question as to whether the user is interested in following rules. Indeffed, and socks blocked. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:23, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

I’m not familiar with temp accounts but ~2025-32748-82 seems not blocked? Northern Moonlight 21:53, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

We sometimes take actions that block the account without the account itself being marked as blocked. This is a peculiaririty of temporary accounts. I'll mark it as blocked to make it clearer, but it was already blocked. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:16, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

They found a way around the block I set. Now thoroughly blocked. There's a learning curve with TAs and this one's a lesson for me, and probably some other admins. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:27, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

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

JEL123456789 - zero communication and poor sourcing

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

---

JEL123456789 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has throughout his brief time on Wikipedia amassed a rather long list of warnings and messages on their talk page. I've tried leaving notices, I've tried manually pinging them, but nothing gets them to respond to any concerns raised on their talk page. The primary reason is that they are adding content with either no sources, or using deprecated sources. Obviously this in itself is minor - a simple note on the talk page would normally sort this, but given this user is ignoring their talk page, this becomes impossible. It's not a WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU problem, as going by the edit tags they're editing from the web interface.

Is there any chance this user can be blocked from article space so they can respond to the concerns on their talk page? They are capable of making good edits, indeed many of their edits are... but the lack of communication means nothing can be done about the odd bad edit that they make. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 17:05, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

They're now adding a bunch of unsourced dates to tables... [237] Danners430 _{tweaks made} 17:19, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Danners430 - I've partially blocked the user from editing the mainspace for 36 hours while we wait for any communication from them. I also left them a notice and information on their user talk page, and instructed them to either respond here or on their user talk page. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:12, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks - I do hope they start engaging, as they do some useful gnoming :) Danners430 _{tweaks made} 23:00, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

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

Personal attacks at User talk:Dan Van Carloads

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

---

User:@Dan Van Carloads has been directing a number of insults at various users, including myself, after their unsourced essay was rejected in AfC. The user was warned by @11WB about potential disruptive editing here.

They have then said, among accusations that reviewers are "spamming" their "erudite work" (the draft they submitted for review), that "you would fail a comprehension test" and that "[y]ou haven't the capacity to review that content".

They replied to a message from @Reconrabbit by saying "Since I am a wortd [sic] authority on the subject and you're not and also if you claim my writing is an analysis of anything on wikipidea [sic] then put up or shut up."

Aside from this, I am unsure if WP:CIR has been satisfied. They are asserting that "mentioning" two people by name in the draft essay constitutes references and have pointed to a self-uploaded Wikimedia Commons image to prove that the essay should not have been rejected. Despite being a (self-described) "published academic writer and world number one on Google in over 10 categories", they are unable to grasp that submitting a draft for review will result in a draft being reviewed, going so far as to say that the review was "malicious and contrary to the ethos of Wikipedia".

Also see this discussion opened in the Teahouse where they claim that they were "blocked" by AfC reviewers "who have no ... qualifications".

They have exhibited similar behaviour in 2018, see this & this. In opening this discussion, I hope to essentially force the user to acknowledge that they are aware of what has been previously expressed to them, as they are unwilling to accept any feedback despite asking for it when submitting a draft. Aesurias (talk) 10:19, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

D'n'B has said it (at the Teahouse) better than I could have. If Dan took to heart the advice given on their draft and work several years before, they could be more suited to the expectations of a Wikipedia editor, but as things stand they would do much better getting published elsewhere if being published is their goal. -- Reconrabbit 12:07, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

As far as I can find -- presuming Dan Van Carloads is who he claims he is -- his basis for claiming that he's a "wortd" authority is his own self-promotion on social media and self-publishing websites. You can also toss in his barrage of insults back in 2018 here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stott's Theorem of The Pictorial Condition. It's not within our scope (or, I fancy, our ability) to make him acknowledge anything. As long as he fantasizes that Wikipedia's the proper venue to put himself over, however, I'd say he's WP:NOTHERE. Ravenswing 12:08, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

• I don't have time to engage with editors who are only here to troll. They are competent, they are just deliberately choosing not to be. My colleagues know that I am usually very fair to editors, even when they mess up, but this is pretty blatant WP:IDHT. @Dan Van Carloads, please stop wasting reviewers time and do something more productive offwiki. 11WB (talk) 13:10, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

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

Personal attacks and content blanking

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

---

Akram Khan86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) ~2025-32901-24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Blanking content at WP:CT/SA and WP:CT/IMH articles with PA edit summaries such as "Removed stupid indian hindu propaganda" [238], "Removed stupid unsourced hindu propaganda" [239], "Lol what??" [240]. When told not to do so, replies with "That's just stupid indian propaganda, the organisation is not Pakistani". Reverts other editors with "rv disruptive edit" [241], so likely an abusive sock. Clearly WP:NOTHERE. Gotitbro (talk) 07:01, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing and misrepresentation of sources by User:Graywalls

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

---

I'd like to report recent Graywalls' activity for a community review. The user makes a lot of edits, removing content immediately next to the weak citations mechanistically alleging inappropriate sourcing. As one would expect, many of such edits are helpful. I'm also slightly hesitant to bring it up here as their edits are seemingly made in good faith. However, it's my conviction that Graywalls isn't working to improve encyclopaedia and instead aims to pick unnecessary fights.

The problem with their edits is, Graywalls doesn't seem to read any sources on the subjects of the articles other than the ones cited inline next to the sentence being removed, assuming that other editors haven't read or misrepresented them, and resorts to edit-warring to remove anything they don't like and WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour/WP:OWNBEHAVIOUR on talk pages in the instances where their edits are contested, maintaining their position even whem better sources/arguments are presented.

Example one: Google Ads article

I encountered Graywalls for the first time when they removed seemingly random parts of the Google Ads article, which were explaining how bidding and conversion tracking on the platform works, including one paragraph that I wrote.

The explanation provided in the edit comments was removal due to WP:UNDUE, despite the editor themselves admitting that There is no conflicting information. I'm assuming they were likely thinking of WP:MINORASPECTS.

Thinking that Graywalls acts in a good faith, I attempted to bring up the secondary sources that would support the weight of the removed sections. This, however, didn't result in a discussion on substance and was instead countered by Graywalls by requesting that I rewrite the article after their edits (twice) without proposing phasing/sources themselves. Graywalls never explained what secondary sources are their dueness/balance arguments based upon and ignored a question posed by another user on NPOVN, asking what Graywalls own preferred sources support.

I assumed this being a one-off content discussion going wrong until I looked into the recent Graywalls' edit history, which demonstrated that this is a pattern.

Example two: 555 timer IC article

In 555 timer IC article, Graywalls edit warred to remove a part of the article alleging it's WP:OR not supported by WP:RS: 1, 2. Looking at most obvious secondary source on the matter, Horowitz and Hill's Art of Electronics, it took me one minute to find a passage identical in meaning to the one removed by Graywalls: At the short end, the minimum resistor value is limited by the maximum DIS current (∼15mA with a 5V supply) and the intrinsic speed of the 555. (p.460 of the 3rd Edition).

It completely evades me how this would be missed by someone who allegedly did spend time analyzing reliable sources on the matter and maintains that the removed material isn't present in any reliable sources and constitutes WP:OR. Similarly, Graywalls doesn't seem to explain on what research their assumptions that unverifiable content has been inserted into article were based in the first place.

(I'd have understood an argument that describing application schematics in WP articles about ICs at all might be excessive per WP:NOTGUIDE, but it never was brought up or sought consensus for - Graywalls seemed to remove a random part of the application description. Also, such general argument would probably need to be raised at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Electronics and not by edit-warring in obscure articles with a limited number of editors watching.)

Graywalls is currently in an edit war to insert Original research tag into the article: Special:Diff/1321565817, Special:Diff/1321629108.

Example three: multiple slow-running edit wars with Iss246

City College of New York: Special:Diff/1319402197, Special:Diff/1320317985, Special:Diff/1319728974, Special:Diff/1320285589, Special:Diff/1320763666, Special:Diff/1321253092 (despite apparent inclusion support by an uninvolved editor at Talk:City_College_of_New_York#Continued_addition_of_flowery_and_hagiographic_contents_based_on_CCNY.EDU_associated_sources)

Arthur S. Reber: Special:Diff/1319538042, Special:Diff/1320014161, Special:Diff/1320269211

While some of the Iss246's behaviour could've been questionable as well, it does seem concerning that Graywalls' edits were apparently motivated by acknowledged bad faith assumptions about the editor, targeting their contributions. I found an instance in ANI archives where similar behaviour by Graywalls was previously discussed and sanctioned. --PaulT2022 (talk) 19:47, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

These look like mundane content discussions. What specific behavioral issue are you hoping to get someone to act on? ~2025-32873-20 (talk) 21:00, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

1. Claims that secondary sources don't support balance of content in the article followed by refusal to provide secondary sources that led to such conclusion, followed by a refusal to discuss the right balance based on sources provided by other editors.

2. Systematically ignoring Whether or how quickly material should be removed... part of WP:BURDEN

3. Assuming bad faith/incompetence of other editors and wearing other editors down to maintain the article in a preferred state

I haven't actively edited for a while; my impression that such behaviour wasn't mundane in non-political articles a year or two ago when I did edit actively. If it is and there's a community consensus that this is normal, then seems like I'm indeed in the wrong for bringing it up and wasting people's time. PaulT2022 (talk) 23:20, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Where is there disruptive editing? These just appear to be content dispute. Aesurias (talk) 21:16, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Re your second example, the passage you've found, "At the short end, the minimum resistor value is limited by the maximum DIS current (∼15mA with a 5V supply) and the intrinsic speed of the 555" is not identical in meaning to the text Graywall removed, "Resistor $R_{1}$ requirements: The maximum current through $R_{1}$ must be lower than the maximum current rating of the internal transistor at the DISCHARGE pin, because this transistor "shorts" the DISCHARGE pin to the GND pin (per internal schematics above) to drain the capacitor. This is the reason why $R_{1}$ shouldn't be a very low resistance, such as when a variable trimmer or potentiometer is used instead of a fixed value resistor. The maximum power rating of $R_{1}$ must be greater than ${\frac {{V_{\text{CC}}}^{2}}{R_{1}}}$, per Ohm's law.

The text is being discussed at Talk:555 timer IC#Being a potentiometer has little to do with being a low resistance. where Graywalls wrote "Wikipedia article is not a how to guide." Eleven hours later, in this ANI posting, you wrote "might be excessive per WP:NOTGUIDE, but it never was brought up". Why? NebY (talk) 21:44, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

You've trimmed my sentence, which said "application schematics... might be excessive". I don't necessarily think that application schematics are needed (which probably should be discussed in relevant project and not in a specific article), but as long as they're present removing some parts of them alleging that they aren't present in the sources isn't right.

The passages are saying the same thing: that the minimum value of this resistor would be limited by the amount of current the open-collector pin can drain. PaulT2022 (talk) 23:07, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

I found the statement Though most bipolar timers don't state the maximum frequency in their datasheets, they all have a maximum frequency limitation of hundreds of kHz across their full temperature range. which appears to be a personal account by whoever added this sentence. So, that was tagged as possible original research. I also found frequency range which said 0.1 which was not found in the cited source after a spot check. So after finding these, I tagged OR. After it was removed, I added back with more thorough edit summary. Graywalls (talk) 23:28, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

@PaulT2022: on Google Ads where we've interacted, the other editor at NPOV asked if there are secondary sources. I then suggested that you add back what's in secondary sources. I also removed an entire section which another editor raised concern that it was written by AI all sourced to Google's pages. Beyond that and adding the tag it relies too much on Google sources, I haven't touched it. I left the table open for you to add back materials with secondary sources. I don't see you engaging further on the talk page, or making edits to the article. How did you like it to proceed? It's mostly written from the Google's page, so I feel the "This article relies excessively on references to primary sources." is reasonable and you or others haven't refuted it. How did you want it to proceed? How would I know if you're not participating further in the discussion? It comes across as if one editor wrote a huge section from the company's own page and another removes it, it's somehow on the editor who removed it to go find sources. If you have the expertise in this area, it would have been easier for you to find the sources for the contents you wish to retain. It was just a matter of you finding independent sources that supports what you wanted to retain and restoring it with those sources. I'm not grasping why you haven't just gone ahead and done so. Graywalls (talk) 21:47, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

To be clear, I think your other removals from Google Ads made after your WP:NPOVN post were positive and agree with them.

It's the ones before that I disagree with, because your opinion doesn't reflect the balance present in secondary sources, which I did share on the talk page, and you haven't explained what sources led you to the conclusion you've made.

Because of your responses on Google Ads talk page, it didn't seem to me that you were seeking to reach a consensus how this should be phrased or referenced as you used WP:UNDUE as a reason for removal and then posted on WP:NPOVN arguing that presence of these sections is somehow non-neutral. Assuming these concerns are genuine, it was clear that you weren't seeking to have these sections rephrased/better referenced but instead sought to remove them for some reason.

You quote WP:FINDSOURCESFORME essay, but conveniently ignore advice given regarding removals of poorly referenced content in WP:BURDEN and WP:PRESERVE, which are policy. The reason I brought this here is not to get anything 'actioned' but to get a sense of whether such mechanistic removals of content (that IMO go against abovementioned policy) and ordering editors around are acceptable. PaulT2022 (talk) 00:29, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

If not, then you must have had other motivations for removing some primary-sourced parts of the article and not the others, which you didn't disclose in the edit comments at your comment does not WP:AGF as if intentionally removed one poorly sourced contents while leaving the rest. Basically, you're upset I've removed something questionable as I noticed it, but not removing others I haven't noticed. When you look at WP:DUE and WP:ONUS (policy), those wishing to re-introduce contents need to establish consensus. You wished to re-include it, someone else asked at NPOV if secondary sources exist, and I think we're in agreement with restoring based on secondary sources.

It's reasonable to remove contents based nearly entirely on the article subject's sources as that's unduly featuring contents from the subject's perspective in excess prominence. Removal of questionable sources like Medium, blogspot, AbleCDP and other questionable sources is reasonable, but removing one at a time over time doesn't create an expectation that all of them be removed all at once in one edit or even the same day. I don't have access to WSJ, but if you do, why not just add back what can be sourced to it? This was suggested and you did not respond. Graywalls (talk) 01:14, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

I didn't respond because what you says confuses stated reason for removal (different balance in secondary sources) with the change you're suggesting to make (find more reliable sources even though you aren't challenging verifiability of what was deleted in this instance).

If the weight/neutrality is the issue then presence of the secondary sources on the talk page discussion should be sufficient to establish whether a certain subtopic warrants being covered in an article. You seem to be conflating something being supported by the available sources and something being supported the sources referenced in inline citations, which are a different matter.

Just because the citations reference primary sources and trade publications you refer to as 'questionable' (I introduced them in my edit because they were more up-to-date - can't speak for others), doesn't mean that the article is unduly featuring contents from the subject's perspective in excess prominence. I consider such statements a misrepresentation of available sources, in the light of the fact that they were provided and your admission above that you haven't read at least the WSJ one.

I'm upset because you have chosen to ignore existing sources and instead double down on the unfounded unduly featuring contents from the subject's perspective in excess prominence claim, claiming at the same time that it isn't perspective you're concerned but weak citations in the article text and you would've been content with better citations being used. It's a Wikipedia:Bring me a rock demand, not a 'content discussion'. PaulT2022 (talk) 03:31, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Example 1: content dispute. Example 2: content dispute, and your assertion of "edit war" because Graywalls reverted back from a threadbare reversion edit summary of "remove rampant harassment" is ludicrous. Example 3: some of Iss246's behavior "could" have been questionable? It's almost non-stop invective and insults, and if most of it was more recent than last week, it'd be blockworthy. This is a waste of our time; ANI is for problems considerably more serious than that you don't like Graywalls' edits. Ravenswing 22:17, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Having been aware of (but not involved in) editing on the City College of New York I do not see issue with the editing behavior there. Reasonable discussion was had on the talk page. Any more I could say is better said over there. -- Reconrabbit 22:42, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

PaulT2022, who is "the editor" you mean in Talk:Arthur_S._Reber#COI_tag_(October_2025)? The COI suspicion doesn't relate to Iss246. I came to this article in relation to CCNY page; then realized the article was created by a brand new account as their first edit who used sources authored by or co-authored by Reber very extensively and having minimal contributions aside from Reber, there was a suspicion of COI. However that suspicion isn't about Iss246. Graywalls (talk) 23:17, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

It did seem like you implied it by stating that Iss246 is too kind to the original editor's contributions. You also expressed a separate COI suspicion that was clearly directed to Iss246 at Talk:City College of New York - Wikipedia. PaulT2022 (talk) 23:26, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

When someone seems rather enthusiastic and flattering of something, asking if they have a COI/connection is a perfectly reasonable interaction. It's not an accusation. It's not a sin to ask if someone happen to have a connection/COI. Graywalls (talk) 23:33, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

• As others have said, these are content disputes that don't belong here. I suggest that the filer withdraw before their behavior is analyzed. O3000, Ret. (talk) 23:18, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

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

IP topic ban dodging and deleting other users assessments

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

---

IP editor User talk:~2025-31535-31/User talk:~2025-31256-01 was topic banned from editing in Draft space on August 20 by @Donald Albury: for persistent flooding of AFC with unacceptable quality drafts. See User talk:74.106.206.136. The editor has been using a dynamic IP to circumvent the topic ban which does not expire until Nov 20. They are now also deleting decline reviews of the subpar nominations, and altering comments left on the nominations, while fully ignoring all comments left on the IP talk pages.--Kevmin § 21:43, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I've taken a quick look at the only two articles that made it into main space, out of nearly a dozen. They're both stubs and here they continued to add empty sections after they'd been removed by another editor. Blue Sonnet (talk) 23:36, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

I've pblocked the TAs from draft space for 1 month. Fences&Windows 22:59, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

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

Legal threat by SaqlainQadir.live

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

---

SaqlainQadir.live (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

See this. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 02:03, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

SaqlainQadir.live has been posting repeated, bizarre, AI generated "legal notices" from some entity that is not a law firm. Accordingly, I have revoked their talk page access. Cullen328 (talk) 02:56, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

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

User:R2025kt

R2025kt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

User:R2025kt has been reported here in June, August and September. They were given a pass on WP:AGF for new editor in all three, but then blocked from new page creation and file uploads for a month on 9 October. Multiple warnings at their user talk about unsourced personal information in BLP's, and WP:OR, have been met with repeated responses like "Ok, I understand. I thought I was making things right." following a level 4 warning, "Ok. I thought I was doing it right" "OK, I'll do better", and"I was just practicing". If more diffs are needed, then I'll trawl through the slush pile for them, but I've spent this morning and some time yesterday clearing out unsourced birth dates, unsourced spouses, unsourced childhood experiences, unsourced claims about sexual orientation and inflated career claims from previous creations.
The problem as I see it isn't CIR, but WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT: several times they've explicitly said in edit summaries that they're determined to create a bio regardless of other editors' concerns about it, and to this end have used tactics like WP:GAMENAME for Sam Brock at Sam Brock (journalist), Draft:NBC News' Sam Brock, etc.. Their intention seems to be to use Wikipedia as a sort of "Where Are They Now?" for journalists, dodging policy and other editors wherever possible, and the abundant WP:OR suggests some sort of professional or personal connection to journalism the subjects of the BLPs bios. A week after R2025kt created Natalie Azar, a single-purpose account with that name was created to edit the article [242], suggesting meatpuppetry.
I propose either a long temporary ban on main space edits while cleanup resumes, or a topic ban on journalist bios. If they can learn to contribute well sourced bios in draft, then everyone wins. If they can't manage this, then they're WP:NOTHERE. Wikishovel (talk • contribs) 10:25, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Courtesy links to the mentioned prior ANI reports: June, August and September. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 11:36, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

• I'm the admin who temp blocked this editor from creating new pagespace content. Here's the discussion on their talk. R2025kt is here to create BLP pagespace related to local television stations. I'm all about that, provided subjects qualify for pagespace. Based on a quick read of their talk page I politely asked the user to refrain from creating new BLP pagespace. My concerns then (and now) are judgement and self-restraint. I asked (instead of warned) because the user has some technical proficiency and I don't want to discourage them from making an effort. I regretfully blocked them because they couldn't seem to restrain themselves. I'm delighted to see this thread (just days ofter the block expired) because to my eyes there's a real wikipedian in this user. I'd like them to awaken not leave. Their actual work to date seems adjacent to repeated BLP violation. TBANning this user from BLPs may be necessary, but I'd like to retain them if possible. BusterD (talk) 17:57, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

  (Non-administrator comment) @BusterD Might it be worth actively seeking a mentor to help guide them? I'm happy to ask around in some relevant groups to see if there might be a volunteer? Blue Sonnet (talk) 18:15, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked them from mainspace for the BLP issues and clear DE with the title gaming. However BLP would still be an issue even in draft, so I'm not sure how to remedy that. I think a mentor would be helpful if they're willing to listen. Star Mississippi 14:25, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Redirect

Wanted to redirect South Asia Terrorism Portal/South Asian Terrorism Portal (widely used terrorism database/tracker) to Institute for Conflict Management/Ajai Sahni. But looks like it was protected quite a while back (due to a disruptive user) with the protecting admins no longer active. Asking here for these to be created as RDs, thanks. Gotitbro (talk) 15:23, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

I've unprotected the first one. The second one doesn't seem to have been protected, besides a brief semi-protection back in 2009, and you should now be able to create both. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 15:43, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

LLM source misrepresentation and baseless accusations of same by User:Simon the son

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

---

At Talk:Golden_Age_of_Jewish_culture_in_Spain#Misrepresentation_of_the_Almohad_period_and_misuse_of_sources[243][244], user is engaging in LLM use, judging by the hallucinations and the WP:AIDASH, and making accusations that other users are misrepresenting sources including leaving bogus warnings[245]. Brazenly making claims that sources or policies do or do not say things contrary to reality in a rather LLM-like way after warning. Andre🚐 04:36, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Yeah that's AI; as another data point their draft Draft:Mahama (astronomer) has an invalid ISBN checksum (typical of LLM output). Gnomingstuff (talk) 05:23, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

I would like to clarify that all my contributions are based on published academic sources (e.g., Stillman 1979, Gerber 1992, Bennison 2016) and not on any AI-generated content.

The accusations made here (“LLM use,” “hallucinations,” etc.) are personal attacks that violate WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA.

I have consistently cited verifiable, peer-reviewed sources and engaged respectfully in content discussion, while the other editor has resorted to dismissive and insulting language.

I kindly ask administrators to focus on content accuracy and source verification rather than personal speculation.

If needed, I can provide the direct page scans from the cited books to confirm my statements. Simon the son (talk) 10:21, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

• Special:Diff/1315934033 – Muslim Astronomers in Yuan and Ming China does not exist.
• Special:Diff/1315988324 – Islamic Astronomy in the Service of Yuan and Ming Monarchs exists but the url linked to Method for generating die meshes for 3D FEM simulation of blade forging by Bezier surface. The Travel of Astronomical Tables from the Islamic World to Joseon Korea exists but had impossible page numbers (they start at 461) plus an incorrect date.
• Special:Diff/1321290301 – Science and Civilization in China exists, but the given page numbers in no way support the associated text. Overlapping Cosmologies in Asia exists but the ISBN doesn't.

Another instance of: editor disruptively uses an LLM, is confronted, lies about their LLM use (most often using said LLM). fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 12:22, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Simon the son Two different AI-checkers say this was written by AI. Are you currently using AI to write your responses? You've not addressed the problem with the invalid ISBN for example, and saying you might be using AI isn't a personal attack in itself, but I've seen AI say that it is.

How did you end up with those ISBN's and the sources given above? Blue Sonnet (talk) 12:25, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, and thank you for the follow-up.

Text generated by a large language model or similar AI technology has been collapsed in line with the relevant guideline and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

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

I would like to clarify that any technical or citation inconsistencies in my previous edits — such as broken links, incorrect ISBNs, or mismatched page numbers — were entirely unintentional and are the result of normal citation or formatting errors, not misuse of any AI tools or deliberate misrepresentation of sources.

Furthermore, the page in question is still in draft status, which means I am actively refining and correcting references as part of the normal drafting process. It is therefore expected that some citations may require updating or verification before final submission.

All the cited works (including Science and Civilization in China, Overlapping Cosmologies in Asia, and Islamic Astronomy in the Service of Yuan and Ming Monarchs) are genuine, verifiable publications from reputable academic publishers. Minor discrepancies in URLs or page numbering are common due to differences between editions, PDF reprints, or archive URLs.

I have always strived to base my contributions on peer-reviewed and verifiable academic material, and I fully welcome collaborative correction of citation details where necessary. I would appreciate if future reviews focus on the substance and accuracy of the cited scholarship rather than speculative claims about AI usage.

Thank you for your understanding and for maintaining constructive, source-based dialogue in line with WP:CIVIL, WP:V, and WP:AGF.

Simon the son (talk) 16:03, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Ok, if "Muslim Astronomers in Yuan and Ming China" is a real work who wrote it and when? Andre🚐 16:04, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Given the proliferation of reports about inappropriate LLM usage (not trying to state that all LLM usage is inappropriate) on this noticeboard, are we coming to the point where we need a separate user conduct noticeboard to deal with LLMs? TarnishedPath^talk 12:28, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Such a noticeboard exists, at Wikipedia:WikiProject AI Cleanup/Noticeboard (or WP:AINB for short). I assume only the ones that are being intractable would end up here. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:56, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

I thought the Wikipedia:WikiProject AI Cleanup/Noticeboard fit that purpose BrandNewSaint (talk) 12:59, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

AINB is currently for cleanup, not sanctions. We direct editors here if we think sanctions are required. NicheSports (talk) 15:20, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

• The user is denying the obvious AI use [246] [247] [248] and doubling down while refusing to acknowledge the hallucinations. This is an issue for ANI. This is disruptive. Andre🚐 15:36, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

  I have already clarified multiple times that my edits and responses are entirely based on verifiable, peer-reviewed academic sources. The article in question is still in draft status and I have been correcting and improving the references manually, as is normal in the drafting process.

  Your insistence on labeling my work as “AI-generated” without a single piece of verifiable evidence is inappropriate and unconstructive.

  Several other editors here (such as Alpha3031, BrandNewSaint, and NicheSports) have already noted that this is a matter of citation cleanup, not misconduct or sanctions. Simon the son (talk) 16:08, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

  That is broad mischaracterizaiton of what those editors said User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 16:14, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Beyond the aidash it also reads like AI and has arbitrary attempts at linking to wp:v etc but without the actual brackets to do the linking. Gptzero seems highly confident as well.

WP:AINB is a good place to crosspost if there is more of this as well. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 16:12, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Indeffed for disruptive LLM use. Any admin is free to lift the block once they commit to not doing exactly what they were doing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:13, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

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

Repeated missources and quote hallucinations from non-human AI from User:Eurostarguage

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

---

After a DYK nomination for a page I created, User:Rjjiii pointed out that quotes (Erasmus) didn't appear in source. I took a while to check because I was changing institution but now I realise that the quote was an amalgamation of several other sources and a book from Erasmus' career that do not discuss the subject matter at all. I was using generative AI not to write content but to find sources. Unfortunately, it seems the AI has indirectly fabricated sources. Some of my contributions, mostly my smaller contributions and stubs, are verifiable even after reading source excerpts and websites but I was too negligent in following the verifiability by correctly checking every source and now I'm removing the content that is not. I've come to learn that if there is no source, the AI will make up one for you and find a randomly titled article to pin it to.

To be frank, I'm an overly-enthusiastic undergrad studying content irrelevant to what I was contributing to. I was arrogant and I did not adhere to verifiability guidelines, and I committed what many institutions of higher education would call academic dishonesty. I'm hoping to be transparent about this and face admin action. In the possibility that the block might come to an end, I'll request a courtesy vanishing after cleaning up all the errors. I apologise to the community here. Eurostarguage (talk) 18:45, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Eurostarguage! Blocks are preventative, not punitive, so, since it looks like you now understand the issues and won't come to repeat them, I don't think there is much of a reason to block, if any. Editors aren't expected to know everything from the get-go, and learning is always a good thing!

If you want to help, I invite you to sign up to Wikipedia:WikiProject AI Cleanup and look at how we're going at it. Courtesy vanishing is of course possible if you want to, although don't feel obligated to do so just because you made a mistake. Good luck! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 19:05, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

+1. Eurostarguage, I don't believe vanishing is the correct thing to do here. Instead, clean up after yourself, and strive to do better. Messing up like this, though admittedly major, doesn't require you to leave the project. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 19:09, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

We appreciate people being honest and open. It's better for Wikipedia to have a contributor who improves than a contributor who leaves. The goal here isn't to punish, but to ensure better things in the future. You cleaning up your edits would be extremely helpful, and I hope that you stick around. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 19:09, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Your self-awareness and accountability is extremely welcome and admirable. Echoing others here, blocks are preventative and not punitive so there's really no admin action necessary here. The AI Cleanup project is definitely the place to go if you want to help clean this sort of thing up. Great job identifying one of the major issues with using AI to find sources. This really put a smile on my face. Athanelar (talk) 19:47, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

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

User:NotJamestack needlessly turning down protected edit requests

I thought it was just my request where they preferred to lecture about procedural incorrectness, and I was just going to let it slide because who cares about James D. Watson, but then I thought I'd better check that there isn't a pattern, and it seems that there is.

Diffs:

• [249]
• [250]
• [251] (I googled the name, which immediately showed RS of the death)
• [252] (requested change was clear and could have been done)
• [253] (clear request needlessly declined on formality)
• etc.

How many should I go through? Eyeballing, I'd say at least one in three of their request responses is a net negative for the project.

Imo, our objective should never be to send people through multiple loops of the same thing "just because". If a request is clear, be a mensch about it.

~2025-31522-63 (talk) 02:58, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Edit requests are for straightforward proposals to change X to Y. Those requests are no such thing. If you have a vague proposal, post it in a new section on article talk with no edit request. If you can work out what X and Y are, by all means post an edit request, with a reliable source. Johnuniq (talk) 03:06, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

agree with johnuniq, these edit requests are nonuseful. nothing to see here. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 03:17, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

regarding "procedural incorrectness", the procedure is what governs wikipedia. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 03:17, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

No it's not. The law is made for man, not man for the law. The purpose of Wikipedia is to write an encyclopedia, not sneer at people for not filling out their 27B/6 properly. jp×g🗯️ 12:25, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

The person assisting with changes should not have to do additional off-site research on a topic to meet another users requests. It's that simple. Aesurias (talk) 21:03, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm not needlessly turning them down. Simply put, they are not in a "change X to Y" format. Before you call someone out, remember to dig deeper. NotJamestack (talk) 03:27, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Most editors would decline these requests due to the lack of reliable sources, vagueness, or both of those factors. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 06:10, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

The last 2 diffs provided are a little nit picky and I think others may have accepted them, but the others are valid, and I do understand why @NotJamestack didn't do the last 2 -- it's not his job to learn about what is being asked so he can edit it, it should be clearly provided and formatted to make his job easier. Aesurias (talk) 09:00, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

It's important to remember that edit requests are intended solely for edits which someone would make themselves but can't because the article is protected and the situation is clear enough there is no need for discussion. They aren't intended to propose changes or simply to mention something needs to be updated and especially aren't intended to be used by editors who just don't understand how to update something; editors should just use ordinary talk pages posts for that. For that reason, an editor should be able to find the text they want to update (remember they can still view source and use sandboxes if needed be) and post properly formatted code for someone to update it. I guess you could say it makes it a little difficult for those who normally use the visual editor but there's no real way around that since most experienced editors don't use the visual editor. I think most editors would follow a request if it lacks the formatting anyway provided it has the other essential elements i.e. still says exactly what change is needed in the text and provides any needed references. Some editors might be more generous with edit requests and go beyond the minimum and make changes when they feel the edit request brings up a legitimate improvement, just as anyone seeing a talk page comment on something that should be changed may do so. But no one should expect it nor should we fault editors who don't. The denied edit request is still there just like the ordinary talk page comment it should have been for anyone to decide raises a valid issue. Nil Einne (talk) 09:22, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

I'd add that your original edit request that got you look into this does represent the problem. There was clearly an issue that needed to be fixed, but AFAICT your proposal was incorrect and not supported by anything. The 2012 date was clearly wrong, but as we can see so too was the 2011 date. Despite your claim, AFAICT, there was nothing in the metadata to suggest the photo was taken on 2011. We only ever knew it was uploaded to commons on 2011 so it predated 2012 but no reason to think it was from then since files can be uploaded to commons long after they were uploaded elsewhere. The solution was either to ask for removal for the date with existence since 2011 as evidence or perhaps to look into the source as someone did and suggest 2006 was the best date we had. Also it's always a terrible idea to add important parts of the question to the heading, since these aren't considered part of the signed post and might be changed if needed, plus plenty of editors just ignore them when reading a comment. Nil Einne (talk) 10:31, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: This debate has moved on, but I'll add that had I had editing rights to the article, I would have undone this good-faith edit which worsened the date from 2011 to 2012. On what basis would I have done that? Because I followed the breadcrumbs back to here where the same capture has an upload date of 2011, so 2012 could be reliably ruled out. I welcome the fact that someone was able to make an even more accurate determination of the date. Until that fortunate moment, in this instance, reverting to the status quo would have been the correct action. ~2025-31522-63 (talk) 21:00, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

No I'm saying there was nothing to support the change you wanted to make since there was no indication from the metadata the photo was from 2011 simply that it existed so then it was entirely reasonable for an editor to deny it since any editor making such a change is responsible for the correctness of what they are doing and what you wanted to do wasn't correct. If an article is already wrong it's not okay for me to make it very very minorly less wrong when I know what in doing is wrong. If you think is okay that's up to you but you won't last long as editor with that attitude. The correct thing to do is always to remove info you know is wrong or unsupported which is what your edit should have requested since neither 2011 or 2012 was supported by any real evidence, the only thing we knew was 2011 was the latest possible date. Nil Einne (talk) 21:13, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

To be clear, that means if you had made the edit yourself, I wouldn't have reverted you since this is also wrong. If I'd looked carefully enough, I would have removed the date since there was no evidence to support it being from then. As I said, the time of upload to commons should not be taken as an indication of anything other than the latest possible date for the photo, with the possible exception of files originally uploaded to commons. You having made an incorrect edit is no excuse for me to make an incorrect edit. By comparison when you're asking me to make the edit for you via an edit request, you're asking me to make a wrong edit which I obviously won't do. Nil Einne (talk) 21:19, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

By your reasoning, the article is still wrong as it stands right now, because once again, we have only confirmed that the image has existed in 2006, but it may have existed earlier. The page accessible via Wayback Machine simply states when the image was posted, not when it was taken. I checked exif, and the version we have from 2011 shows a modification date of 2013 (!). Internet archive seems to scrub exif, so we don't even have the date the image was scanned from the Ektachrome original as far as I can see. So to be thorough, following your own reasoning, you should remove the date (which, to remind you, I cannot). ~2025-31522-63 (talk) 23:05, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

No as that's the source of the original image, it might be reasonable for people to suggest it was taken around then baring clear evidence to the contrary. I'm not saying I agree or disagree with this stance, but it's a reasonable stance to take. As I acknowledged, you could take the same stance for images originally uploaded to commons too and I wouldn't dispute it in such a case. An argument could be made it's still not enough for someone to be willing to update it to 2006 by themselves but note I never suggested it was. In fact I said from the get go your best bet was to simply ask for the date to be removed. That said, it's still a very different thing since it's at least defensible whereas what you want to do is not. The time an image is uploaded to commons from some external website is fairly arbitrary and might often be a long time from when it was uploaded to that external website. Especially for something that old for someone who while extremely notable was receiving a lot less attention at the time. Therefore it's not reasonable to suggest the time of an upload to the commons in any way represents when the image was taken and so using it to represent the date of the photo is clearly wrong. At best you could say something like from 2011 or earlier not circa 2011. Nil Einne (talk) 04:25, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Many (maybe even most) edit requests have the same problem. It might help if someone put extra fields in the template to indicate exactly what should be changed to what, and where. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:45, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

It is kind of strange and inconsistent that all of these edits would be fine if they were worded exactly the same, just as regular talkpage edits instead of edit requests. (I looked at them fully expecting the usual WP:NOTFORUM junk, but all of these requests seem on topic and clearly related to improving the article.) Gnomingstuff (talk) 16:27, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

No one is deleting them. They're just denying them so they become normal talk page posts. A mistake was made by the editor posting them since they made them edit requests when they shouldn't have and so drew attention in a way not intended for random talk page comments which is what the denial is saying. But otherwise they're left be and any editor may see them and choose to followup like with any other talk comment. The only exception would be where ARBECR applies but in that case they wouldn't be fine even if the comment was reasonable, the editor was forbidden from making it. Nil Einne (talk) 20:45, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

I didn't say anyone was deleting them. Gnomingstuff (talk) 00:55, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Okay but what's your point then? Note the issue is not the wording. I'm fairly sure in 99.9% of the time or more, no one would say anything if someone had used the exact same wording but simply not used the edit request template. The problem is rather that editors were unnecessarily drawing attention to what were simple talk page comment by using the edit request template. While editors are wrong in that regard to misuse the edit request template, no one is suggesting editors be restricted for making them. I mean in theory if an editor keeps doing it even when asked not to multiple times. they might eventually be but I'm not aware it's ever happened and definitely no one has suggested such here. So how is it strange and inconsistent that we don't want people misusing the edit request template to draw attention to what are simple talk page comments, and will ask them not to but otherwise basically converted their template misuse into simple talk page comments for them? Note this means we do help these editors get to where they should have been in the first place we just also try to teach them the correct thing to do along the way. An editor made a minor mistake, it's corrected by a more experienced editor with generally some explanation of where the first editor went wrong, and we're done. Isn't that precisely how Wikipedia is supposed to work? We could debate whether that explanation was sufficient, but it's not clear if that's what you want to discuss. Nil Einne (talk) 04:32, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

All I said was that it's a bit of a hair-splitting distinction that "add X to Y" is treated differently than "change X to Y" (I would guess a lot of people leaving these comments never check the page again, having said their piece). I understand that this is the guideline as it is currently written and I don't have a problem with it being enforced as written. Gnomingstuff (talk) 06:06, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

I was thinking, along similar lines, that if someone creates an 'edit request' that's just a talk page comment, simply removing the edit request template and letting it stand as a comment might be less confrontational and more productive than a 'NOT DONE', which does sort of look like "You're wrong, and you should feel bad" and could be interpreted as a little bitey. JeffUK 13:48, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Blaming others/casting themselves as victim

I will just leave a notification here that I received a a message from that same user, User:NotJamestack, along with the following three observations:

• I wasn't particularly expecting to see an apology, and I don't recognise that any attempt was made.
• What I really, really was not expecting was that they would double down on their predatory conduct by moving on to casting themselves as the victim, and suggesting I frustrated them rather than the other way around.
• There seems to be zero acknowledgement here that NotJamestack could have been more collegial and constructive in any of these original exchanges, and that they had the option to not engage if they felt in any way uncomfortable with the requests. Never mind acknowledging a mistake and taking preventive action, this episode as a whole seems to rather display a lack of de-escalating or (as a minimal option) disengaging behaviours.

~2025-31522-63 (talk) 20:42, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

@~2025-31522-63 this is getting disruptive on your part. The message from notjamestack is polite.

Moving to ANI is always an escalation and to go there in your first ten edits suggest you may be Wikipedia:LOUTSOCKING.

Its time for a WP:BOOMERANG soon if you dont drop this. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 20:48, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

@~2025-31522-63 You seem to be using a rude and borderline hostile tone, so try calming it down a little bit. NotJamestack (talk) 22:20, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

If the temp account continues behaving this way, I would probably suggest a one-way IBan from that point. NotJamestack (talk) 22:23, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Why an IBAN? Those are tricky to enforce. Blocks enforce themselves. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:07, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Proposal: Permanently Block User:~2025-31522-63 as NOTHERE.

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

---

I would like to know what you think about my proposal. NotJamestack (talk) 16:18, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Conditional Support they have 14 edits and have spent half of them on ANI related things. Unless they apologize immediately and agree to drop, i see this all as an entire waste of time and needless badfaith attack on an editor. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 16:23, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

And some courtesy pings… @Johnuniq @Bluethricecreamman @JPxG @Aesurias @Daniel Quinlan @Nil Einne @Phil Bridger @Gnomingstuff @JeffUK NotJamestack (talk) 16:27, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Oh and @Robert McClenon too. NotJamestack (talk) 16:27, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

• Conditional support for IBAN two week block oppose indef block. I do not believe a indef block is necessary as a IBAN will prevent the disruption and badfaith shorter block first would A give rope and B should hopefully end the disruption and badfaith however, if they agree to drop this then a one way IBAN two week block will not be necessary but if they do not then I believe one is necessary as their actions here have been disruptive unnecessary and badfaith. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 16:36, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

  An IBAN with an TA? 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 17:03, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

  Fair point perhaps a short block will be better I will strike and change. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 17:14, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

  IPs and TAs aren't generally given restrictions such as TBANs and IBANs AFAIK. I checked Wikipedia:Editing restrictions, and there were two IPs listed there total. Plus, this TA will disappear soon enough, and only TAIPVs would be able to enforce any IBAN or TBAN, and they aren't a group designed to do that. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 17:20, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose. They haven't edited in almost 2 days. It's probably best to let the matter drop since they seem to have dropped the stick. Unless they resume the same behavior, no action is required. The productive response to a discussion that has already run its course isn't to prolong the discussion further. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 18:07, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
• Support an indefinite block on the TA. What is needed is a block of a few days or a week, and indefinite means indefinite for temporary accounts. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:55, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose any sort of interaction ban as a completely useless idea. The human will soon access the encyclopedia from a different IP address and get a different temporary account. Just block, and let them move on to a different temporary account. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:55, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose an interaction ban on a temporary account is a waste of time. I agree with what @Robert McClenon has said. Aesurias (talk) 20:54, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

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

SarekOfVulcan, why is this not a good suggestion for a temp account? The proposal is for an indef block, which were perfectly fine for TAs last I checked. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 21:30, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

The proposal was for a "permanent" block. The most you can get with a temp account is 90 days, and as Daniel noted above, they may have moved on anyway. (And with the number of different things being discussed here, that would have chewed up a fair amount of whatever's left of the 90 days anyway.)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:12, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Repeated recreation of deleted material

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

---

Patcha007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has been REPEATEDLY warned not to recreate tempaltes deleted at TFD yet they continue to ignore warnings.

The template at issue is Template:Pelé series which was deleted at this TFD. Patcha007 apparently did not agree with that so they have repeatedly ([254], [255]) recreated the page under various names.

Additionally, despite multiple reverts and warnings, the user continues to post on CLOSED TFD discussions pushing their own objections and agenda. See: [256], [257], [258], [259], [260].

Finally, when I attempted to use TWINKLE templates to warn the user about their behavior and editing their response was to call me a dictator. Please also review the entire section at User_talk:Patcha007#November_2025 where this user continues to simply not listen and push their agenda despite warnings and links to why their actions are wrong.

This editor clearly does not want to follow Wikipedia rules and policies. I request administrator intervention. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 16:59, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Patcha007 either does not understand how en.wiki works or does not care. I have no idea how their other edits are, but at the bare minimum I think blocking them from being able to edit in the template namespace will lower our workload in this endless whack-a-mole game. Gonnym (talk) 17:22, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Please also note User:Patcha007/sandbox where the user seems to be keeping a copy of this template to repeatedly recreate it. -- Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:51, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Not to mention that this user has repeatedly added the now-deleted template, which at first was removed when I added it to the article back in 2022, and later nominated and consensus was to convert it to a navbox. The user has added it multiple times again, after I removed it per that three-year-old Tfd, for some reason reverted it themselves, while reverted by a user not violating the original Tfd. After reverting the second user, the user in question added it again before being reverted by Zackmann. There was something a bit odd I found about the user's pattern of editing with the template on the Pele page, but in general when they have responded to other users on their talk page to the point for the first time I added a warning notice on a user's talk page. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:22, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

"Why can Maradona, Messi, Ronaldo build boxes? Or are you underestimating Pele? He's not an important person. You're the one who says it's nonsense." From their talk page after I added the first warning notice in the section linked above. Never called it nonsense. Their response is very hostile. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:27, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing by ~2025-32501-09

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

---

~2025-32501-09 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) engages in highly disruptive edits on a number of electricity-related articles, while refusing to talk about them or cease when reverted. They seem to use some kind of script that makes changes, all largely cosmetic and some problematic. Problems include:

• AC power plugs and sockets: breaking headings by moving unsubst'ed anchors and even "further" templates into them.
• CEE 7 standard AC plugs and sockets: edits that break anchors by replacing spaces in them with  .
• Europlug and other pages: replacing links that are redirects with their expanded version, violating WP:NOTBROKEN and MOS:NOPIPE.

When reverted, they tend to revert the revert or to just make a new edit with the same outcome. A number of people, myself included, have tried to engage with them on their talk page, but they never reply. Gawaon (talk) 11:45, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

• Shocking behavior. EEng 19:03, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

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

Repeated incivility and unilaterally clearing categories without reason

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

JWBE has displayed uncivil behavior, such as referring to tagging empty categories that he had created for speedy deletion as vandalism even though the categories had been empty for over 22 hours when they were tagged and multiple instances were he performed successive reversions of edits by the same user with the edit summary "rubbish", including two temporally proximate runs totaling 43 edit summaries of "rubbish". He appears to believe that users who do not have PhDs in organic chemistry should not have a say in the categorization of chemical articles, including typing multiple times that I should stop editing chemical articles.

Also, JWBE has repeatedly undiffused categories, often unilaterally clearing them of all members, resulting in them getting speedy deleted. This includes removing an article from a category in spite of admitting that it belongs in that category. I asked him to stop on his talk page, but he did not reply and instead removed Metofluthrin, Tefluthrin, and Transfluthrin from Category:(2,3,5,6-tetrafluorophenyl)methyl 3-ethenyl-2,2-dimethylcyclopropane-1-carboxylates without providing a reason less than nine days later, leaving it empty. Undiffusing categories without a reason is against Wikipedia's categorization policies (especially concerning that he has undiffused five categories into Category:Piperazines, which consequently has over 200 members now), but JWBE seems to believe that when a page on Wikipedia contradicts what he believes, that page needs to be rewritten, and he has typed, "Avoid any changes of my work. Just accept that I am doing right."

By the way, a longer draft can be found here. Care to differ or discuss with me? The N^th User 01:12, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

References

Care to differ or discuss with me? The N^th User 01:12, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

@JWBE: You don't have a monopoly on how chemistry articles are categorized, and even if you are correct and other editors are not, being right isn't enough. You must build consensus for your edits. If you can't do that, you will be blocked. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:35, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

On the content dispute itself, I would recommend getting a third opinion from a subject-matter expert. Someone from WP:CHEMISTRY might be able to help. Anne drew (talk · contribs) 03:35, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

I considered the normal dispute resolution process, but I decided that since he hadn't replied to my last two messages on his talk page and a third party can't make him listen any more than I can, getting a third opinion would be unlikely to help. Care to differ or discuss with me? The N^th User 05:15, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

43 edit summaries of 'rubbish', without slipping in an instance of the word 'dross' and the reason for being so generally curt on hard science articles, would be my question. Augmented Seventh (talk) 06:57, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

User:EZXP making a doxxing "joke" on my talk page, NOTHERE

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

---

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

A few minutes ago, I received this joke message on my talk page by user EZXP with the title "I know your address", with the actual text of the message reading "just kidding". Even if it was a joke, I think it should be obvious that anything relating to doxxing on Wikipedia, whether a joke or not, is not okay. Especially when I first noticed this message by refreshing my watchlist and all I saw initially was "(→I know your address: new section)". Not exactly something you want to read or see on Wikipedia, is it? And considering that this was shortly after I reverted one of their edits [261]... well, do I even need to say anything further? This is not what a competent editor would do in response to one of their edits being reverted. This is blatant WP:NOTHERE behavior.

And, with a further glance at their user page, as of this revision, it appears to just be a bunch of incomprehensible rambling filled with 'humor' that I'm not sure has a place on Wikipedia either. Do we really want an editor who proudly states on their talk page, "These stupid kids that actually fight back keep ragebaiting me, so I seriously think of installing a IP grabber and then i proceed to have violent and gorey thoughts", "My epstein era.👨🏿‍🦲", and "Asian eating KFC, Black eating Chinese, the turns have tabled"? A look at the revision history for their userpage will also show even more absurdity than this. Also, almost all of their edits to Wikipedia have been on their talk page adding this junk. They have only made three mainspace edits [262]. And one was adding unsourced material against talk page consensus (which is what I reverted). They also have a history of editing other peoples userpages [263] as well as spamming and insulting other's talk pages [264]. I'm not really sure what else I can put here but I think I've long proven that this user should either be blocked or given some sort of other warning/sanction per WP:NOTHERE. λ NegativeMP1 22:52, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

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

Cnsidering the racist content in some of their edits, is there any revdel-able content in their edits? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:59, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Not in their mainspace edits AFAIK. Their user page history may have a case to be revdelled in it's entirety, but I'm not an expert on that by any means. λ NegativeMP1 15:53, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

I found a possible RD3: a threat of violence against "NSFW artists" [265]. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:27, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Follynomics's "written manually" comments, now at AFD!

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

---

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

Replaced with the dot points

Follynomics (talk · contribs) has been making a number of additions to various economics related articles, that they insist on my talk page are written manually, and on multiple article talk pages (1, 2, 3), merely appear to be LLM generated due to use of em-dashes and following Pinker’s The Sense of Style (comments that could not possibly be LLM generated themselves of course, no sir). Far be it from me to discourage other editors from following a style guide, and being a bit of an em-dash aficionado myself (set closed though, of course, I'm not a heathen like the folks at AP), I of course fully endorse all of their reinser—

Oh... Their own edit summary mentions a "fake quote". I wonder who inserted that earlier. Oh dear.

I think, at this point, my fellow editors, there may be inkling maybe, possibly, perchance, that Follynomics might have left out the tiny little matter that the text doesn't reliably verify to the sources cited. No biggie of course, probably not even worth mentioning.

Now, I would love to send everyone here to pore over a(nother, maybe) couple of books (love books, who doesn't), as that will surely be a productive use of editor time. However, I consider this reply a bit of a statement of intent here, and it being much easier to verify that Brian [sic] Caplan and William Bartley’s posthumous English edition (impressive that W. W. Bartley III also manages to edit books some 30 years after his death) was not the one referred to in The Fatal Conceit, on account of that posthumous edition's apparent non-existence, at this point, I can (as mentioned) only assume the seamless blending of truths and falsehoods, with not a whit of indication which is which (in a non-LLM way of course) is fully intentional. To what end I cannot say.

Dunno about chronic, but it sure feels intractable, if their solution to people noticing their LLM use is more LLM use. I do recognise at this point I am probably too WP:INVOLVED to see the more favourable interpretations, so maybe this won't even get up to the strongly worded letter (i.e. formal warning) point, much less them been shown the door (mayhaps towards some creative writing site), but to be honest I just at this point I just want to hand the behavioural side of things to someone else so I don't have to deal with it. I will respond to them, of course, should they decide to write something that doesn't contain any obvious falsehood. Alpha3031 (t • c) 06:28, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

I want to clarify a few points for accuracy and fairness. The English edition of The Fatal Conceit was in fact edited by William W. Bartley III. This is clearly stated in every major edition, including the 1988 University of Chicago Press release on the front cover. Bryan Caplan’s contributions and commentary on that edition are also a matter of public record, and Caplan has tweeted this himself. My earlier “fake quote” remark was a tongue-in-cheek self-correction to note that I’d cited the wrong edition, not that the quotation itself was fabricated.

It’s become clear, that user Alpha3031’s conduct has gone way beyond content discussion and into personal commentary and sarcasm, including multiple accusations of “LLM use,” disparaging remarks, and mass deletion of sourced material across multiple pages that he clearly has not even attempted to verify or examine the citations for. These actions don’t align with WP:AGF or WP:NPA, and WP:INVOLVED.

I’m happy to have my edits reviewed on their merits, and I welcome any content-based critique supported by policy or citation. But at this point, I’d appreciate that future comments remain focused on the sources and policy compliance rather than tone or authorship speculation. If needed, I’m open to third-party review or moderation under WP:DRN or WP:ANI to ensure neutrality, but this is clearly outside of the above mentioned's wheelhouse. Follynomics

Follynomics has made a number of insertions to Wikipedia, and claims that said edits are not LLM generated. Given that:

• Their comments at AFD continue to mention editions of books that do not appear to exist (Brian [sic] Caplan and William Bartley’s posthumous English edition) even after it having been pointed out; and,
• the edition that does exist does not contain the words mythical misapprehension which they now claim it does ("mythical" appears once, on p. 136, "misapprehension", zero times; obviously, it is not possible to verify if a nonexistent book contains anything) instead of “magic fallacy”
  • The publication date, etc, of the real book can easily be found The Fatal Conceit, and all they really needed to say is a "oops, my bad, looks like I put in the wrong information for the book" instead of whatever they're trying to do...
    • He has said he ended up doing this by editing my comment here, thought it's not clear to me what he thinks he said. 02:48, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Given the mix of real and made up content in their comment, I don't think it's worth trying to find the purported “mystischer Irrtum” and “magisches Denken” in the German edition, Die verhängnisvolle Anmaßung, which does appear to actually exist.
• They also clearly know the hallucinations exist now, given they've taken the time to remove what they acknowledge in their edit summary is "a fake quote", which they inserted themselves.
• I don't know if they've simply convinced themselves and honestly believe the em-dashes are what is needed to "avoid censors", because they are going around and doing that.

I do think at least some of their talk page comments are also generated, but given the limited amount, and without any citations to hallucinate or other factual errors, I'd agree it's hard to distinguish to any level of certainty.

• The addition to Talk:Antisemitic trope misses or ignores the fact that Cdjp1 has already added back the section they removed last week, as they said they would in their edit summary. The section can be found at Antisemitic trope § Association with capitalism (diff).
  • It's possible they simply did not read the article before making the request though.

The more consistent indicators is to do with tone, and said tonal indicators are not as blatant as their response to the {{uw-minor}} on their talk page from last year... which, I don't think anybody cares if they respond to a template message with an LLM... The new talk page comments are non-obvious enough that I haven't {{cait}}ed any of it, the only reason I wanted to note any of it here is because I don't think anyone should need to waste their time responding to it. I don't think they're going to stop given their response, so I'd like someone else to take a look, mostly because they've more or less exhausted my ability to make decisions relating to them. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:14, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Based on a quick look, I think that all talk page messages from this user have been hand-written, however it's clear from other diffs provided that they've been using fake/hallucinated (likely AI-generated) sources. They have also used an IP account to edit (the IP added unsourced info to the Antisemitic trope article and said "sources...coming soon" 7 minutes before the user added sources on their 'main' account. Contributions from the IP are on similar topics and many have been reverted because of suspected AI-gen content.

Aside from that, I can't tell if the style and prose you have used to write the above paragraphs is meant to joke about the user mentioning The Sense of Style, but it doesn't make for easy & understandable reading, which is probably what you want when opening an ANI discussion. Aesurias (talk) 07:46, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Alpha3031 - I agree with Aesurias regarding the style and prose that you used when writing the information above for this ANI report. Many people around here will easily tell you that I often enjoy communicating with others in an informal, sarcastic, silly, and even ridiculous tone and prose. ;-) However, in this case, it does make understanding exactly what you're trying to report and express concerns about a bit more difficult. From what I'm understanding, you're reporting that Follynomics, both while logged in and while logged out, has added LLM-generated content, as well false and inaccurate content, and while also trying to cite references to publications or other sources that don't exist in order to falsely validate the false content being added. Is this correct? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:35, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

That's fair. I've dot-point-ised the post for readability. The books they cite mostly do exist, with the occasional errors to metadata, but generally the number of errors means that editors would probably have an easier time sourcing the statement from scratch than to attempt verification of the refs they use. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:12, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

To clarify, the English edition of The Fatal Conceit was edited posthumously by William W. Bartley III, which Bryan Caplan wrote a large section for. He and others at GMU have discussed this publicly, so this is not an error. My earlier “fake quote” remark was self-deprecating. The quote itself is genuine, but I had mis-cited the edition. Upon review, several months after the original edit, I appraised the entire original quote was a stretch, and changed it for a better one. That I joked it was fugazi is an error on my part, and I will try to stick to a more academic tone. My edits on the Antisemitic trope page aimed only to maintain stylistic parity and a balanced tone with the existing "Communist" section, not to introduce bias. The current "capitalist trope" section is asymmetrical and stylistic quite different to the "communist trope" section and I would like to see them balanced to maintain NPOV. I often draft edits in parts on the bus home and add citations when I get home and can check my bookshelf to make sure page #'s are correct, which isn’t unusual practice. that is probably why at times edits have been by IP and then an hour later on my home PC (main account) to flush out citations. I’d appreciate assuming good faith; these edits are sourced, policy-compliant, and made in the interest of clarity and neutrality. I'm again unsure what the criteria is for "proving" things are hand written besides appealing to vague stylistic preferences. To be completely frank, I am unsure what is meant by the citations having "meta-data" errors. You may appreciate, that since coming under scrutiny, I have went back and added exact page #'s for all citations instead of just referencing entire chapters. This should make verification rather trivial. Also, that I replied to someone who took the time to correct me, by being super over the top with my politeness and respect when I was new to the site hardly seems like a reason to censor me. Id rather err on the site of over formality than informality. How can you really be upset that I used terms like pedagogical and tried to walk on egg shells when I was new? This is how you have to talk to 90% of people within academia anyways! I will set aside more time this evening and over the coming days to respond to the other concerns while I try to juggle other obligations. I do not lament being held to a high standard so will try to respond more academically with citations in hand.

Follynomics (talk) 17:24, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Claiming things exist in sources when they do not, and engaging in what looks to be OR, providing your own analysis of primary sources to link them to topics, are not good. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 17:44, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Metadata errors are where you provide information for a book, such as edition, author, publication date, which are wrong, making it hard for others to identify specifically where you have sourced information from. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 17:47, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Your version of OR seems extremely spurious. I noticed that you removed all of the additions made to the Gabriel Bonnot de Mably which were all cited down to the exact page number from the reputable Benjamin Constant, and most of the additions were direct quotes from him and other French contemporaries. If the style I presented in is too "essay-ish," okay, it ought to be trimmed to the tightest version possible. But heavy handed deletions under the guise of pruning "OR" is clearly an overcorrection that diminishes verifiable historical context. Follynomics (talk) 18:22, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Please provide the page and quote the section in that page where the terms mystischer Irrtum and magisches Denken appear in the 1996 Mohr Siebeck edition of Die verhängnisvolle Anmaßung then. On OR, you need to provide sources that state that Marx and Engels in their works engage in Polylogism instead of claiming they do and citing pages in their work as evidence of them engaging in it. You do the same in Austrian economics articles, where you make claims of Mises and Hayek engaging in something, while citing their primary works, instead of citing works studying and analysing their works that say they engage in X, Y, or Z. Making such claims and citing primary documents is not verifiable historical context.

This is a repeated pattern across multiple articles. You make claims of a thing, cite sources supposedly providing that information, yet when multiple editors check the sources, the information you claim exists in them do not. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 21:22, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Also I don't know why you claim I removed all of the additions made to the Gabriel Bonnot de Mably which were all cited down to the exact page number from the reputable Benjamin Constant, as when we look at the entire edit history (less than 1,000 edits) of the article for Gabriel Bonnot de Mably, I have never touched it since its creation in 2005. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 21:54, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

I have replied to your arguments for the Antisemitic trope article on its talk page, but as you bring them up here. That you aimed only to maintain stylistic parity and a balanced tone with the existing "Communist" section does not achieve NPOV, seeking to create a mirror of another section, where the literature on the topic is not a simple mirror creates various issues. This is exacerbated by the fact that the core aspects in the supposed section on capitalism were your claims about the "magical fallacy" supposedly in Hayek's work, citing Hayek. The only texts you cited relating to Jews, Jewish history, and antisemitism, were used to argue in support of your claims about Hayek and the supposed "magical fallacy", and not actually use the information from said sources. This supposed section on "capitalism" mentioned capitalism 0 times, mentioned "capital" once, and where you mention "capital" you cite it to Poliakov 2003 pp.90–103, which makes no mention of capital, or capitalism, and like all the other sources that actually do have relevance, discuss medieval antisemitism, prior the development of capitalism, and prior to the phenomena that Hayek is discussing. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 22:06, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

I will take these one by one, and again drop the more pedantic scholastic tone to hopefully get the the human behind the screen.

I believe you drastically overstate the case that everything I cite is OR. A quote from Mises, per se, to give the reader direct context, followed up by what someone later in the tradition thought of it, such as Rothbard, Kirzner, Boettke, or even a mainstream economist who dismisses it entirely, is exactly the type of verifiable historical context that flushes out the original quotation. In the Polylogism page, you are quick to note that I quoted Marx himself, and then entirely dismiss the contemporary Marxist scholar I cited afterwards. The 2 combined give us a full picture, and it is improper to cite someone else about what Marx actually said himself; one cites a secondary scholar about what it meant. I cannot quote you and give someone else as the citation.

My apologies for directing my criticism towards you about the de Mably page. I inappropriately assumed it was you.

You again though in your third point are too willing to skip over that which is good to exacerbate that which may, to your credit as well as that of the other editors, be flawed. The section of the magic fallacy in regards to Jewish history was below the Jews as an idol of capitalism. These were separate sections yet you squish them together to score points in an argument. That Jews were both persecuted for being idols of communism and simultaneously for being idols of capitalism is a fact, and an interesting historical story, regardless of what you think of the magic fallacy. Follynomics (talk) 23:53, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

The section of the magic fallacy in regards to Jewish history was below the Jews as an idol of capitalism no it wasn't, as shown in the link previously provided you added it below a section on "Kosher tax". Why are you making claims about your actions that do not align with the logs we have in the article's history that show you did not take the actions you claimed? -- Cdjp1 (talk) 00:04, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

You yourself just admitted it was part of a different section? You contradict yourself. Was it a part of the Kosher tax section or was it part of the jews as an embodiment of capitalism section? Both your comments cannot be true at the same time/Follynomics (talk) 00:21, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

I never claimed it was part of either section, you are the one who has claimed it was a section on "The Jews as an embodiment of capitalism". -- Cdjp1 (talk) 00:24, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Cmon man. What are we really doing here? Yeah, I added a section about the magic fallacy on the antisemetic tropes page. This was separate from what I wrote about the history of Jews as a caricature of capitalism, which is really quite interesting when you consider that they were criticized for being both too capitalistic and too communistic! An odd quirk of history worth writing about imo. You say it was under a Kosher tax secction, and then you say it was under my own added section. And to source this you link to an edit where I added a citation about Jewish history? I just don't see what you're getting at Follynomics (talk) 02:21, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

This is in part my error, I was referring to the section on the "Magical fallacy" that you added, in a separate addition you added "Jews as embodiments of Capitalism". As you have now admitted to using an LLM to write the material on the "Magic fallacy", after spending months denying this, the formatting of the section "Jews as embodiments of Capitalism" suggests you also used an LLM. Then, based on the fact you have detailed not checking sources you used as references for other material, while I can't check the too relevant books you included at this exact moment, I am not filled with confidence that you have actually checked them. Finally, we see again the issue of OR, where you make claims about antisemitism in the Soviet union, cite it via URL to the homepage of a website about Soviet history (Seventeen Moments in Soviet History) that makes no mention of antisemitism, but based on the title you provide in the reference suggests you are using a primary source speech by Lenin to make this broad claim, instead of specifically attributing a specific case of antisemitism to Lenin. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 09:37, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

To clarify, the English edition of The Fatal Conceit was edited posthumously by William W. Bartley III, which Bryan Caplan wrote a large section for.

To clarify to everyone at ANI, I am skeptical of any claims that someone edited a book past their time of death (prior to 2021) because that is outside the range of things dead people are typically accepted as capable of doing. Alpha3031 (t • c) 23:42, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

You are being purposefully obtuse. The "2021" as I have already stated elsewhere, is when the PDF was uploaded. If I mistakenly cited the book as being published in 2021, that is obviously a scribal error, and should be corrected. The book was edited while Professor Bartley was alive, but after Hayek died, which is what posthumously meant in that context. It was edited posthumously (the author was dead) by William Bartley, and Bryan Caplan contributed a large sum to the work. I already clarified that elsewhere, yet you still brandish it like some slam dunk. Are you trying to win or are you trying to get at the truth? Follynomics (talk) 23:58, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

You are free to make any edits to your own comments you wish marking insertions with <ins>...</ins> and deletions with <del>...</del>. I would be proposing a CBAN at this point but to be honest I don't want the community to need to review the ban in 6 months.

It would be funny to know when Caplan had allegedly contributed a large sum to this fictitious work though, was this before or after he obtained his B.A.? Alpha3031 (t • c) 00:06, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

You think the Fatal Conceit is a fictitious work now? I really don't understand what you're getting at? Follynomics (talk) 00:13, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

No just the edition which both had contributions from Bryan Caplan and was edited by W. W. Bartley III. If someone else wants to join in on the creative writing exercise with a date, I wouldn't mind it either. This could be a shared universe. Alpha3031 (t • c) 00:25, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

The FA Hayek scholar who runs the @FreidrichHayek twitter account and manages his archives has publicly stated this several times, and used archival manuscripts to show which holes were filled by Caplan or Bartley. He also hates Caplan so its not like he'd make it up to curry favor. Boetkke has confirmed this on twitter as well. Hopefully we can put the smug twitter-esque dunks behind us and focus on the truth now.

https://x.com/FriedrichHayek/status/1866140635188912390

https://x.com/AustrianEn/status/1572273656407142403?s=20

https://x.com/FriedrichHayek/status/1137448220672479232

https://mises.org/mises-review/whats-wrong-libertarianism-jeffrey-friedman

In fact when searching for this I found this tweet from Caplan confirming himself that he made additions.

https://x.com/bryan_caplan/status/1138039974761308162 Follynomics (talk) 00:39, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

OK? I believe I asked for a date? Alpha3031 (t • c) 00:54, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

As I have stated several times now, 1988. 2021 Was just when the pdf I referenced was uploaded. I must commend you for doubling down in the face of irrefutable evidence, though. Follynomics (talk) 00:57, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Several times. Lol. Where did you do so now? Alpha3031 (t • c) 01:35, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Do you have an actual criticism that you would like me to address? No matter how much evidence I have presented to the contrary of your originally stated position you keep snipping at me with these catty remarks and I'm not sure if I'm even supposed to respond or not at this point Follynomics (talk) 02:13, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

You don't have to respond, no, I'm just surprised that you think saying a highschooler contributed a large sum to the work you wanted to cite helps you in any way. Alpha3031 (t • c) 02:52, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

The first point in your 95 theses is I: "continue to mention editions of books that do not appear to exist (Brian [sic] Caplan and William Bartley’s posthumous English edition)" Yet I proved Brian Caplan and Willian Bartleys posthumous English edition exists. That seems atleast somewhat relevant. Follynomics (talk) 03:00, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

I would like to point out that by all accounts Hayek died in 1992, which would make a 1988 book stretch the traditional definition of "posthumous". Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:08, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

You have not shown a formal edition of the book exists where Caplan and Bartley contributed or edited it. I am unable to find any record of such book edited by either or both. Some of the tweets you provided are accusations and confirmations that these individuals supposedly fraudulently added content to editions of the book. Other tweets you provided suggest this supposed edition as never been published, and instead is only a draft. In the former case this suggests whatever edition this may refer to should in fact not be used to build an article about things in Hayek's work, while in the latter it may be useable, but an unpublished draft edition of a book I would guess we'd treat at best like academic article pre-prints. What would be useful is instead of just saying the "x year edition" of the book, you provide the publisher, and ISBN, DOI, or other such unique identifier. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 09:52, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

As to the Mises institute link, its a post arguing that Hayek had no part in the writing of the book, and that it was instead entirely written by Bartley. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 09:53, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Neither mystischer Irrtum nor magisches Denken appear in Die verhängnisvolle Anmaßung from Mohr Siebeck published 1996, as claimed by Follynomics. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 16:27, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Yeah I didn't think so but I also didn't have a subscription to Mohr Siebeck like I did for the english version. Alpha3031 (t • c) 23:38, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

• I don't know if this user's talk messages are LLM-generated which means that (for ANI) it is best to assume they were human-written. However, @Follynomics: multiple editors other than Alpha3031 [266][267][268][269] have also noted apparent source-to-text integrity issues in your contributions. Can you please explain how these occurred? I'm particularly confused by the claim here [270] given that Cdjp1 indicates this information is not in the book you mention. NicheSports (talk) 21:39, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

  NicheSports if interested, I have now cast my opinion in the AfD, where I give a more thorough breakdown of the contents of the book related to the claimed terms. If anyone think it necessary, I can provide further break down, with quotes, for each occurrence of the words irrtum and denken. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 21:47, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

  Thank you for the analysis. I don't think that any more information is necessary here NicheSports (talk) 23:03, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

  I will paraphrase here what I said to Cdjp1, who I do not believe has actually checked the source material but just asked an AI.

  I will drop the formal tone and risk being a bit too lose rather too rigid thereby annoying everyone with pedantry, so please take this with a grain of salt. I’m more than willing to concede I may have made an error with the Fatal Conceit reference and its German version. I'm in the process of verifying by requesting a book transfer to my local universities library to avoid paying for a new copy. It is not available online as pdf or readable for free, so unless Cdjp1 already had a copy on his desk at home, I am tempted to assume he just asked an AI. I cannot dogmatically rule out that I did not attribute a secondary source to Hayek by mistake, and if so, I'll correct it. That could very well be in error and land solely on me as nothing but folly.

  Aside from that, there seems to be only one other editor who misunderstood the involvement of Bryan Caplan, Professor W. W. Bartley, and the editing history of The Fatal Conceit, thus mistakenly assuming reference to them was an entirely different book. It is unfortunate he made a whole talk page about it before catching his error, but this is not someone who has checked a source and found it wanting, just assumed in bad faith they knew more about its editorial history than I did, though I'm not sure why, as this too could have been easily verified. Apart from these specific points, no one has actually identified any other citation of mine that doesn't match the source. Many of the links (146-149) are not actual misquotes but people arguing the citation was overstated. But again, everything from the Marx quotes to Kuhn are traceable to a discrete page and easily verifiable. That people may think Kuhns inclusion on a page about polylogism (for example) is irrelevant, is a separate issue from the verification of the citation used when discussing it. Given there was a previous talk page topic asking whether to include Kuhn or not it seemed more than relevant. Follynomics (talk) 23:40, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

  It is not available online as pdf or readable for free except it is available as a PDF, both myself and Alpha3031 were able to easily locate digital versions of the book that could be accessed. Additionally, why do you need to request the book to check, when you claimed, in no uncertain terms, that specific terms occurred in an explicit edition of book? -- Cdjp1 (talk) 00:09, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

  Because I am a fallible human and need verification. I thought I remembered seeing those terms but obviously it may be incorrect. Follynomics (talk) 00:15, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

  So you are actively adding content to Wikipedia, and citing it to sources, that you are not checking but that you think you remember included such information? You previously claimed that you were providing specific pages to confirm content and aid in verifying. How does this square with your claims now that you are providing these edits from "memory"? -- Cdjp1 (talk) 00:18, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

  I don't think it should be THIS difficult to grasp. I tried to recall the exact German and may be mistaken. Does that mean every citation ever added is also wrong? Every other citation has since been updated to include the exact page number, and no one has found them wanting. I am not above admitting I make mistakes! I just dont see how it follows that everything ever cited is also one. Follynomics (talk) 00:26, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

  Except, in multiple cases, as many editors have pointed out, you have made the same and similar mistakes and claims with other sources across multiple articles. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 00:38, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

  All of the links people have brought forth are editorial in nature, not substantive regarding citations. Whether you think Marx or Kuhn should have their own quote for their own position people can disagree about, that is fine. I think it always adds to an article but its not up to just me! Follynomics (talk) 00:50, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Unless Follynomics can convincingly explain how they came to invent the term "magic fallacy" and apply it to Hayek, there's no option but an indef block. Making things up and then trying to obfuscate this is not something we can toleratw. Fences&Windows 22:09, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

I am not convinced the term is unique to me. I am not interested in pretending to be a great inventor or something (as if the term is that poetic to begin with). I just wanted to share a useful term I had heard before as I saw it was missing on wiki, despite being flourished a few times at conferences and in articles I've read. Although, given the fervor of the pushback, am I beginning to have self doubts that I may have accidentally misattributed a secondary scholars work to Hayek, which is lamentable. I have ordered the German copy I read back in the day to a local library on a book swap and intend to verify the quotation, as it is unfortunately unavailable online or in pdf form without coughing up a hefty fee. Follynomics (talk) 00:02, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

I think on general principles we should establish an expectation for someone to read the work they have cited before they put stuff from it on Wikipedia. Cuts down heavily on the "might have got it from a different work", or so I'm told. Alpha3031 (t • c) 00:14, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Fair enough! That is what editors are for, and it is good we all hold each other accountable and dont get lazy. I have since updated the page. Follynomics (talk) 00:16, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Hang on Follynomics, you don't (and didn't) have access to the book in English or German, despite confidently referring to the book? You think a "secondary scholar" used the phrase but you can't name them? I've got doubts you're capable of verified editing and telling the truth. I'm absolutely convinced you need an indef block now until you stop weaving fantasies. Fences&Windows 00:21, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

pg 99-105 in the English version contain the material of people superstitiously misunderstanding indirect exchange. It is the exact wording of "magic fallacy" which seems to have been incorrect. All of the other citations from Mises and later Austrians are verified. The error was in stating the term is attributed to Hayek, which has since been appropriately reworded. Follynomics (talk) 00:28, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

What of the errors across other articles, including your claims to have taken actions which are at odds with the records we have of your actions in the articles' histories? -- Cdjp1 (talk) 00:37, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Well, you already outed yourself by using a lie to win an argument and contradicting yourself above, as is plain for everyone to see, so I don't feel much obliged to have to defend myself from you. If you can bring evidence to bear thats one thing! But I will wait for that before investing too much more time. Follynomics (talk) 00:48, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

I don't know how or why you think you're the one who is victorious in this conversation. You've unskilfully dodged important questions by throwing accusations around and veering close to Wikipedia:BLUDGEONING with the sheer amount of messages posted here.

Once again: Who is this 'secondary scholar' and why would you be citing a book you don't have & have never read? Aesurias (talk) 00:56, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

To be fair, the thread has become a multi-headed hydra of criticisms that I have felt somewhat obliged to provide evidence to the contrary of for a balanced perspective. That my 2 primary censors have resorted to sarcasm, fibbing, and mocking makes it hard to take them very seriously. I have admitted the turn of phrase was inappropriately attributed to Hayek, and I appreciate the editors who caught that. The page has since updated its language to avoid that pitfall. That 2 people in specific still want to go back and fourth about various other editorial gripes on a handful of pages irrelevant to the topic at hand has made me worry people will assume their exaggerated and overstated criticisms are merited. To be frank I am not sure how many people reading this will actually check their claims themselves or just believe the narrative attached to them, given we all value our time. I will concede it was probably an error to try to reply to all of them. I do have the book in English, although I originally read it in German, and remembered the term "mythical misapprehension" appearing, which in idiomatic English flows best off the tongue as "magic fallacy." It turns out that exact coin of phrase was actually an amalgamation from several secondary scholars such as Will & Ariel Durant, Jacques Le Goff, Werner Sombart, Fernand Braudel, Max Weber, Joseph Schumpeter, and Niall Ferguson, who have all used various wordings of a misunderstanding/ mistake/ fallacy caused by assuming finance/ usury/ intangible production is either black magic, sorcery, sleight of hand, satanic, conjured-from-nothing, etc. That they all tended to blur together and I thought "magic fallacy" was the most cogent way to a native speaker to summarize the many different wordings seemed reasonable. I would be just as willing to retitle the article "conjurer fallacy" or "suspicion of magic in intangibles production," and use one of the above mentioned scholars as the primary citation. Follynomics (talk) 01:19, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

So, you are now stating that you read the use of a different term in German than those you previously claimed it was, and then go on to state that you engaged in SYNTH to build the phrase from multiple disparate sources. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 07:47, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Has book in English > remembers seeing a term in German that isn't in the English version > translates remembered term back into English > cites that term to the English version without checking either the English or German text.

Is that basically what's supposed to have happened here? Blue Sonnet (talk) 07:56, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Based on the sequential claims from Follynomics in response to challenges brought by various editors, that would seem to be the situation summarised for this particular issue. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 10:04, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Comment a couple of points that have come about, here Follynomics has now declared the use of an LLM when writing the article, after spending months denying this. Here on the polylogism article, Follynomics argues that after challenge and input they adjusted the text and added it back, yet looking at the article history, they repeatedly re-add the exact same text with no changes. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 09:11, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Also here (well, sort of): Diff/1321689220. --Gurkubondinn _(talk) 09:16, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Proposal: Indefinite block for Follynomics

Note: because Follynomics has been disruptively altering other editors' comments in this thread, I have temporarily blocked them from this page. I do this reluctantly, because it does impair their ability to respond to comments, although they have made plenty of comments up to now. Be aware, however, that if new issues are presented here, that until the 24 hour block expires or Follynomics successfully appeals the block, Follynomics has not had an opportunity to respond to the issue. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 03:10, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

For repeatedly adding unverified content to articles, likely via LLM, repeated dishonesty and obstruction when asked about this by other editors, and repeatedly casting unsubstantiated aspersions towards an editor in this thread, Follynomics should be indefinitely blocked from editing Wikipedia.

• Support per nom. This behavior is non-collaborative, wastes other editors' time, and violates one of our most important policies, WP:V. While it is very likely that the source-to-text integrity issues and seemingly invented information were generated with the assistance of LLMs, whether LLMs were used here or not does not impact my vote. NicheSports (talk) 01:18, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

• comment: I called one dude out for lying to score points and dunk on me like this is twitter. That still stands, and anyone can see above they contradicted themselves instead of pursuing a line of reasonable argument or criticism I could atone for. That is hardly "unsubstantiated aspersions." There was 1 single citation that was attributed to the wrong person. Every other link brought fourth to bear has been editorial in nature. Honestly I'm fighting for my life here because people post a dozen links and say "these are all lies" and they don't even link to citations, just passages they don't like and I'm not sure if I'm expected to go point by point and reveal the error or just let it wash over me. There has still been no citation brought fourth that was incorrect besides the specific term "magic fallacy" to Friedrich Hayek. If anything I have probably over explained rather than obstructed. I tried to reply to every single comment with care, and even got flak for being too formal and mechanical in my earliest replies. Until a few repliers started relying on rhetorical red herrings like sarcasm and out-right lies I was the utmost sincere. Follynomics (talk) 01:25, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

  Can you WP:LLMDISCLOSE? I think that would be a good start. --Gurkubondinn _(talk) 01:45, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, that is reasonable and I am remised that I did not know that existed until now. I used LLMs more when I was new and wasn't sure what type of prose was expected for Wikipedia. I don't believe there is anything under scrutiny here that involves LLMs as I primarily used it as an editor on the Ludwig von Mises page, which before I began adding to it seemed as if it was written by a non-fluent speaker so I had GPT do a pass over the early life and things like that, pretending it was a professional editor. No part of the magic fallacy was LLM generated, besides maybe as an editor for the "contemporary relevance" section which I worried was too biased on my first draft. Follynomics (talk) 02:00, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

  Follynomics: I want to give you some well-meant advice, because it seems like you may be a bit overwhelmed right now: log out from Wikipedia. If you have email notifications enabled for comment replies and pings, disable them (or set a mail filter to hide them). Think about something else, decompress, sort out your thoughts and come back with a clearer headspace in 24 hours or something. Nothing that can't wait is going happen in the meantime. --Gurkubondinn _(talk) 02:30, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

• Support - When I first saw this convo I was somewhat hopeful that the user could redeem themselves. The paragraphs and paragraphs they responded with have not inspired me, and if anything, have made me more sure of their wrongdoing. Aesurias (talk) 02:00, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

  What else could I have done? I tried to be extremely thorough in my responses to the paragraphs and paragraphs levelled at me, and always take responsibility for my mistakes. I have not tried to shy away from my fallibility here. Follynomics (talk) 02:09, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

  Please stop WP:BLUDGEONing the process by replying to every single message in an effort to persuade people. Aesurias (talk) 02:11, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

  Additional comment - @Rsjaffe's message revealing that Follynomics has been editing other peoples messages on this thread, essentially impersonating them, is disqualifying and has reinforced my position. Aesurias (talk) 03:14, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

• I would like it to be known that the editor is now making edits to my comments and therefore to not assume the integrity of anything based on the signature and timestamps unless confirmed in page history. Best of luck everyone! May we say God save the queen and all that. Alpha3031 (t • c) 02:40, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

  To your question that I edit conflicted with, the answer is usually 24 hours, but you can speed the timeframe up by doing things like editing other people's comments. Alpha3031 (t • c) 02:42, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

  I have temporarily blocked @Follynomics from this page. See my note at the beginning of this section. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 03:12, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

• Support per nom and NicheSports. Setting aside the potential LLM use (which I don't feel adequately qualified to analyse), their behaviour in this discussion alone strikes me as deaf to a rather absurd degree, to the point of coming across as malicious, much as I doubt it actually is intended as such. One thing is for sure: it certainly isn't constructive. Emma (chats ✦ edits) 06:05, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

• Support This [271] [272] is just flat-out unacceptable, as is rewriting someone else's comments. Creating citations/quotes/anything in an encyclopedia based on a memory you have of a book you apparently read at some point in the past shows a drastic misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works.

Then to accuse [273] someone who's investigating possible AI-hallucinations of using AI themselves, instead of addressing the fact that the sources don't match? It shouldn't have taken that long for them to admit that they didn't read the book they cited (for however many months or years it's been since they last looked at it).

I'm also concerned that they don't understand how OR works, since this is also apparently a factor - it's difficult to tell from all the bludgeoning. Then to repeatedly accuse others of lying to get their way when challenged.

It's difficult to trust their work on a community-driven project like Wikipedia, in view of everything that's happened here and on the AFD. Blue Sonnet (talk) 07:44, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

• Support CBAN Sorry to escalate but editing other users comments in this thread is behavior way beyond an indef block suggested above. That shows total disregard for community opinion or consensus. Mfield (Oi!) 08:05, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
• Support - An absolute necessity at this point. The conduct is so beyond the pale that I'd have a hard time ever trusting this editor again. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 08:35, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
• Support CBAN: Add me to the list of people thinking this has gone well beyond indef. Falsifying sources? Editing others' comments to make it seem supportive of them? Follynomics should never be allowed back. I don't give a damn that they're prohibited at this point from responding; we've heard enough already. Such despicable conduct is beyond the pale. Ravenswing 13:25, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
• Support CBAN per unverifiable edits in articlespace and editing other people's comments here. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:02, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
• Support INDEF and CBAN DE is DE regardless of the wikilawyering around source dates and LLM usage. The pivot to modifying other editors' comments here is just trolling on top. Star Mississippi 14:20, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
• Support CBAN to err is to be human or so they say. Once you start doubling down and lying about it in the face of irrefutable evidence, you're taking the mickey and insulting our intelligence. TarnishedPath^talk 14:24, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
• Support. Lacks basic honesty and collegiality required to edit here. Fences&Windows 15:17, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
• Support per above. Slop and lie somewhere else. DoubleCross (‡) 16:34, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
• Support CBAN. Lying and denying is unacceptable. Narky Blert (talk) 17:29, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
• Support CBAN. Apart from any other issues, changing other editors' comments in this thread shows a level of dishonesty that is entirely incompatible with a collaborative project. CodeTalker (talk) 17:46, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Prematurely closed by involved editor

false alarm, everything's okay after all Fram (talk) 11:46, 13 November 2025 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

@Rsjaffe: WP:CBAN discussions must be open for 72 hours, or at the very least 24 hours in obvious cases (like here). Closing it earlier, and by the one who proposed it, violates policy doubly. There was no reason not to wait a few more hours or to let someone uninvolved close it instead. We expect people to play by the rules (say, ECP restrictions), not to ignore them except when really necessary (IAR). Fram (talk) 10:45, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) To be fair, the CBAN was proposed by NicheSports (the ANI discussion itself was opened by Alpha3031). The indef block was set by Rsjaffe, but they didn't propose it. I believe that their first involvement here was when they stepped in and temp blocked Follynomics from the ANI page for 24h (for editing other editors' comments). Pedantically, --Gurkubondinn _(talk) 11:05, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Hmm, you may be right: the unsigned/undated state of the actual ban proposal, coupled with the first post under the ban heading being by Rjsaffe, may have misled me. If Nichesports indeed was the proposer, it would have been clearer had they signed "support as proposer" or "support my own proposal" instead of "support per nom" which gives the impression that they aren't the nom. Fram (talk) 11:17, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

I was partially basing this off memory, but the proposal was made by NicheSports, but they added their "Support per nom" message in the same edit, which included the signature: Diff/1321683745. So when Rsjaffe added their note on the temp block, that got inserted between the proposal subheader and NicheSports' signature: Diff/1321698768. --Gurkubondinn _(talk) 11:33, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

I waited 24 hours before closing the discussion, and, as per WP:INVOLVED, had interacted solely in an administrative role. I did not express any opinions on the merits of the case. I only stepped in to prevent disruption to the discussion. I placed my notice of the block at the top of the discussion to ensure that everyone knew that Follynomics was unable to participate for a while. Another admin can correct me if I am wrong on this. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 11:24, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Personally, I'd recommend Rsjaffe self-applies a trout firmly in the appropriate manner for making it look like he was the proposer with his post, and Nichesports does the same for not signing the proposal in the first place. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:27, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Andy correctly describes the situation. Everybody here is doing the right thing (except the community-banned Follynomics). BusterD (talk) 11:32, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

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

Temp account ~2025-31015-87 PA, failure to AGF, uncivil, unsourced edits, EW in a CTOP, IDHT, etc.

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

---

They asked me not to post on their talk page any more, so I guess I'm done trying to explain Wikipedia policy to them. Maybe someone else will do better.

Not sure if you're stupid or just trolling diff

Another PA: diff

They also called me informing them about Wikipedia policies "harassment": diff TurboSuperA+_[talk] 18:56, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Personal attack against LuniZunie. --pro-anti-air ––>(talk)<–– 19:06, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Removed attack on all of wikipedia their talkpage shane (talk to me if you want!) 19:09, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Blocked indef by Rsjaffe. --pro-anti-air ––>(talk)<–– 19:11, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

TPA needs to be removed like immediately shane (talk to me if you want!) 19:12, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

 Done. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 19:15, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you!!! shane (talk to me if you want!) 19:16, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Just revision deleted one of their comments that was beyond the pale, although I haven't looked at all of them so there might be others. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 19:24, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

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

Temporary account user edit-warring and sockpuppeting on pro wrestling page

~2025-33004-65 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) posted a Teahouse thread where they complained about their edits to the article Parker Boudreaux being removed. However, as is visible on their contribs page, their account actually hasn't edited that article at all. If we check the article's edit history, what we do see is ~2025-33039-43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) making an edit with the summary This is not editing warring you loser!!!! Stop editing good work. You must have 0 life you loser, Czelloisaloser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (already blocked for the username) making an edit with the summary Added content. Stop removing my valid work., ~2025-32829-77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) making an edit with the summary Fixed typo, whoever changes my work will get blocked by Wikipedia. It’s valid information. Whoever is changing it is simply, etc. Similar writing quirks like 'valid information' and 'profile' rather than article indicate that the users are all the same person. Combine that with the personal attacks and I think this user needs an IP-block flavoured boomerang. Athanelar (talk) 17:09, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Will block all those as same person. Not sockpuppetry, as the TAs were editing before @Czelloisaloser edited. TAs were cycling for same user. Not clear whether the cycling was intentional or not. In any event, will thoroughly block for disruptive editing and personal attacks. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:45, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

We're going to need to develop policy and practice around multiple TAs, but AIUI, they are cookie based, so anyone who edits (legitimately or otherwise) from more than one device (laptop and mobile; home and work/ school computers, etc.); or who routinely clears cookies at the end of a session, will have multiple TAs.

Many won't even realise their TA is changing. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:24, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

The user can manually deactivate access to their temporary account by ending their session, accessible under the user icon or by visiting Special:UserLogout, or by clearing their cookies. [[274]]. I have seen accounts where users are definitely purging the old cookie via one of these methods. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:30, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Those geniuses at WMF have sure done a great job of making sockpuppetry and block evasion easier than ever. Hats off! EEng 19:40, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Oh, so they gave instructions on how to evade scrutiny. Yay. Blue Sonnet (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

(nods grimly) Ravenswing 01:02, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

We can still block the underlying IP, so not really. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:29, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

But now only an anointed few can see IP addresses to put the puzzle together in preparation for blocking; before, anyone could. So really. EEng 10:27, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm sure we'd be happy to so anoint you... BusterD (talk) 10:34, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

I have a bucket of oil ready, @EEng, so go ahead and make my day. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:41, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

That's sounds so sexy! If someone wants to give me the IP glasses, I promise to use them only for good, never for evil. EEng 20:07, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

WP:PERM/TAIV is the way to IP enlightenment. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:54, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Not sockpuppetry, as the TAs were editing before @Czelloisaloser edited If multiple accounts are being created and used abusively, is that not sockpuppetry? I guess this is a philosophical question. With legacy IPv6's, for instance, the user probably did not have control over which IP in the /64 they had that day. By contrast, clearing your cookies or using private browsing after/during edit warring is an action most people don't do passively; likewise most people probably do not accidentally use multiple devices to further an edit war. tony 01:31, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

For better or for worse, TAs = IPs. It's only sockpuppetry if they get blocked on one and start evading the block. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:51, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

No, it's also sockpuppetry if they deliberately IP hop / TA hop to avoid scrutiny. There doesn't have to be a block, e.g. an IP which changes every time it gets to a level 3 warning is socking just as well. Fram (talk) 10:49, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Fram has a valid point. Temporary accounts are game-able exactly as Fram described. I saw it a couple times yesterday. BusterD (talk) 11:54, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Judging intentionality of the TA hopping can be difficult, since there are so many ways the TA can change, some of which are malicious, some of which are innocent. A pattern of warnings before hop is helpful, but it's not always so clear. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:44, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

And TA hopping is so easy as mentioned above… I think TA hopping should be treated similarly to IP hopping so TA hopping should be made harder but that's not really relevant here. Unfortunate that this is the way they decided was the best. ~212.70~ ~2025-31733-18 (talk) 13:21, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Attack page at Reynaldo Guevara, Creator being uncivil, and threats to get permissions "ganked" from admins.

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

---

• Joyner.scott (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Reynaldo Guevara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Joyner.scott (talk · contribs) has been being very uncivil at the talk page of the recently requested speedy deletion article,

Reynaldo Guevara (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) this article was created by the aforementioned user, Joyner.scott 2 times already and had already gotten speedy deleted by passing admins

Courtesy pings to admins who deleted the page:

@Isabelle Belato

@Maile66

and courtesy ping to other user trying to help

@TornadoLGS.

Joyner.scott has said and I quote: "if you get it deleted i will take it to deletion review and hopefully have your privs ganked.".

They have also said the same thing about any admin who deletes the page. then their shit will be ganked too..

If this behavior continues, I would propose a CBAN due to violations of WP:UNCIVIL, WP:ATTACK, and WP:BATTLEGROUND. Joyner is fighting with me and Tornado over the attack page, and its useless trying to explain again and again, Thank you for your time. shane (talk to me if you want!) 19:51, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

• I blocked as NOTHERE even before seeing this. I also salted. 331dot (talk) 19:54, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

User is now blocked but I will drop these there just in case this comes under further review: [275], [276], and [277]. I assume admins can see diffs on deleted pages. TornadoLGS (talk) 19:57, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

continued incivillity: diff shane (talk to me if you want!) 20:01, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Having editors on their userpage poking them isn't going to bring the temperature down any. Let them post another appeal if they wish and an admin can review. Everything else is just providing fuel for their fire.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:58, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

• I don't particularly think a CBAN is needed at this time. A standard indef is enough to prevent disruption. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 21:14, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

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

User:Woffio engaging in persistent uncivil behavior

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

---

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

This user has been engaged in uncivil, personal-attack type behavior for some time. I first encountered them at Talk:Star Wars Theme/Cantina Band specifically the edit comment "There, your damn references cuz y'all can't search it up yourselves.". Attempts to get them to discuss civilly were not successful.

They have been attempting to contribute in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships space, but I have noticed that rather than taking criticism on board (no pun intended) they have simply continued to create articles. For example, HMS_Sword_Dance_(T132) was created as a draft, then rejected at AfC, then immediately moved to article space without fixing the problems identified by the new article reviewer.

More instances:

• "I don't fucking know the instructions, just say it here, because I literally cannot find it"
• Stop being a bastard
• Silly boi you silly me ahh so scary

As attempts to resolve the situation on talk pages have been unsuccessful, I suggest a limited-time block would be a good first step. Oblivy (talk) 08:38, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Second this, and I will note that they also removed multiple maintenance & notability tags from this article without explanation, failing to resolve the issues. aesurias (talk) 09:11, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Worth also pointing out the tendentious readdition of copyright, and reverting addition (and removal) of templates, at RFA Uplifter, which was the subject of the "I don't fucking know the instructions" thread linked above. Wikishovel (talk) 09:19, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

• Blocked for 31 hours. Based on behaviors to date, I could see these blocks escalating to indef in no time. BusterD (talk) 10:54, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

  Good block. And yeah, we don't need that kind of attitude. If they can't be assed to find out and figure out what are fairly simple instructions, and lash out in consequence, they can go play somewhere else. (Never mind that we don't need homophobes around either: Im literally just asking you if you have contacted the peoplpe who have access, and you're being a bitch about it because you don't wanna go through all that effort, so I'll be writing this whole section and if you don't reply to this you are gay) Ravenswing 17:15, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

  I think that is like a common joke/slang of young people though… ~212.70~ ~2025-31733-18 (talk) 17:16, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

  As may be, but that doesn't make it the slightest bit less offensive and objectionable. Ravenswing 20:12, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

  That "gay" has become a term of abuse in the last few decades, just as "queer" and "poof" were in my youth, doesn't make it any more acceptable. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:46, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

  I'm also a bit worried that this editor's use of "boi" may be homophobic, but, then again, it may be that they simply can't spell. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:01, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

  Dat Boi is a (highly idiotic) internet meme, so considering the wealth of evidence of this user being a straight up jerk for no good reason I wouldn't rank that very highly as an issue. It does certainly contribute to a sense that this person can't be bothered to take anything seriously. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:30, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

  I'm rather concerned about fuck you bro [278] in response to a draftification. The creation of half-baked articles in mainspace isn't doing this editor any favors either. Seconding that was a good block, but I have no confidence this will change this editor's behavior in the slightest. Hoping to be proven wrong. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:28, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

• Comment: Here is their reply. BusterD (talk) 23:42, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

  The block should probably just be indefinite. 31 hours won't change this editor. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 23:54, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

  Upgrade block to indef as we're clearly getting nowhere with this editor. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:59, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

  You guys want a CBAN, they've made their first affirmative case. BusterD (talk) 00:01, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

  I personally would prefer an individual admin making the block indefinite, to allow any appeal to be made through regular unblock processes, but I wouldn't oppose a CBAN. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 00:07, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

The individual seems to keep avoiding starting their posts with a capital letter. Not blockable, but kinda annoying. GoodDay (talk) 00:11, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

• Given the response to the initial block makes it very clear they have no intent to learn anything from it, I have indef'd as being not compatible with a collaborative project. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:42, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

  They are abusing TPA. Please yoink. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 01:48, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

  Yoinked. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 01:56, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

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

Persistent addition of unsourced content by ~2025-31120-27

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

---

~2025-31120-27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Temporary account keeps adding unsourced content to articles (predominantly films stated to be released in 2026 to filmographies), continued after final warning and hasn't responded to warnings. Recent examples of addition of unsourced content: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Waxworker (talk) 15:39, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Blocked for 31 hours, next time FYI this report would be better suited for WP:AIV. Mfield (Oi!) 05:33, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

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

Jacky Kwong 550 refusing to cite sources

Jacky Kwong 550 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has made numerous edits to transit-related topics, primarily San Francisco Municipal Railway fleet, without providing any kind of reliable source. (Examples: November 4, November 11). The edits appear to be based on either employee information or personal observations. My messages on their talk page have gone nowhere; their latest reply indicates they don't understand WP:V and WP:RS, and probably a language barrier as well. While they're clearly editing in good faith, I think at least a partial block from San Francisco Municipal Railway fleet is needed until they can demonstrate an ability to consistently cite reliable sources. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 06:57, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

• This editor has significant firsthand knowledge, admirable enthusiasm, time to spare, and will continue to be a problematic collaborator around this topic, due to their cavalier approach to boilerplate editing requirements. Augmented Seventh (talk) 07:20, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

User:BodhiHarp and Breaching Experiments

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

This editor has filed three requests at Deletion Review that cause some of us to think that there are not here to contribute to the encyclopedia. The most recent one was Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2025 November 13, and it appears that they were diddling around with special characters to create a redirect to a user page, which wound up being a redirect from article space. They didn't say why they did this, but I concur with User:OwenX's comment: Endorse and open case against the appellant at AN/I. Between this one and their previous DRV, I get the sense that this user is here primarily to carry out breaching experiments at our expense. This needs to stop now, Yes. So this is the case here at WP:ANI. The two previous DRVs were:

• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2025 October 25, and
• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2025 October 17.

In each case BodhiHarp withdrew the DRV after receiving an unfavorable reception, but in each case they didn't give a plausible explanation of what they were trying to do.

Some sort of sanction is in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:27, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

• blocked for a week per my earlier warning and your warning, neither of which they chose to engage with. If they continue to be disruptive on return then that will be the end of them. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:33, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

  Thank you. Owen× ☎ 18:37, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

  Have noticed a potential sockpuppet at ~2025-33449-29 ~ oklopfer (💬) 01:05, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

  Sock blocked. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 02:23, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

  (Non-administrator comment) They've replied to say it wasn't them here... Blue Sonnet (talk) 02:26, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

  I'll talk to @BodhiHarp on their talk page to sort this out. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 02:29, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

  @Oklopfer, Rsjaffe, and Blue Sonnet: The suspected temp account sock has just also appealed the block here. Also would you guys be ok with filing a formal SPI since BodhiHarp claims that the temp account isn't them? – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 03:37, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

  I see @Blue-Sonnet is engaging with the appeal. I'll follow that as well. SPI investigations for TAs are as limited as they are for IPs, so the only help we'd get there is someone else to look at the behavioral evidence. I'd let the two conversations about the block continue--if we don't get clear answers I'll punt to SPI for more eyes on it. If we get reasonable answers I'm happy to unblock. Note that the blocks aren't that long to begin with. No indefs involved. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 03:44, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

  I have unblocked the TA. The responses make it seem more likely than not that the two accounts are unrelated. There are some residual concerns—IPA pronunciation has several LTAs lurking around that the TA could possibly be related to, but this does look mostly like an unlucky confluence of events that raised suspicions. Does deserve continued monitoring. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 05:08, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

  ~2025-33319-13 and ~2025-33371-63 followed similar patterns of activity earlier in the day, but I had only flagged the one here as it was editing particularly heavily on BodhiHarp's sandbox. ~ oklopfer (💬) 05:18, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, I reviewed those as well as the other editors who have written to that sandbox. My comment immediately above sums it up. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 05:29, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

  @Rsjaffe Maybe the intention of my reply was misunderstood. I agree that it was almost certainly a false flag on being an SP. I was just responding to your comment to document the TAs and similar activity for reference. ~ oklopfer (💬) 05:49, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

  It's also worth noting that ~2025-33319-13 did try to edit BodhiHarp's userpage but was stopped by the edit filter. Not saying that the TA is a sock, but seems relevant anyways. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 05:53, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

  @Spartaz, FYI--block log shows 72 hour block, not one week. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 02:24, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, that’s a script error but I’m going to leave it as it is. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:44, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

  Aside from the suspicious account, I do have some comments about BodhiHarp. While I have not been involved in the situations mentioned above, I don't think they speak for BodhiHarp's overall editing patterns. I think that these are honest mistakes.

  It is worth noting Robert's previous notice to them and Spartaz's reply; given the frequency in which I interact with BodhiHarp, I can only presume I am one of the two users they were most obstructive to that Spartaz was referring to, and indeed I have been willing to give them more time to learn. They have spent a lot more time editing in their sandbox, which I have tried to encourage over adding content not suited for mainspace.

  While I think that an AN/I report has been a long time coming, I can vouch for their acquiring competence. They are evidently still editing too boldly, and need to be far more cautious, but I do believe they can grow from this temporary block. They have shown to be learning how to engage in a more productive editing cycle, and the content that they do add is also improving at a notable rate. In my anecdotal experiences with them, I think they are learning how to be WP:HERE and doing so in good faith. ~ oklopfer (💬) 02:55, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

  Your patience is the reason he hadn’t been blocked before. I thank you for that. As you say, I thought he was improving but unfortunately, we need to put rails in sometimes. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:55, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

  I agree, and hope that they can learn from this. ~ oklopfer (💬) 13:36, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

• There's also Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy#Rfc: Proposing a way to discuss undeleting pages and several sections of similarly little merit towards the end of MediaWiki talk:Titleblacklist. I don't know that I'd call any of this disruptive; the impression I get from this user is that he's too enthusiastic for his experience and perhaps his age, and is mainly irritating because he stumbled into the meta part of the encyclopedia too early. —Cryptic 20:22, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
• There was also User_talk:Star_Mississippi#Deleting_revisions_on_User:BodhiHarp/Voiced_linguolabial_lateral_fricative in which they never made it clear what they were looking for, or what they needed me to do or why. I eventually suggested they go elsewhere, and hope this didn't result in the DRV issues raised here. If so, my apologies @OwenX @Robert McClenon Star Mississippi 02:57, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

  No apology from User:Star Mississippi is in order, thank you. The exchange on your talk page occurred after the first DRV trip and before the second, and the second and third trips had very little in common with the first except for who the appellant was. It sometimes isn't easy to deal with users who are overly enthusiastic and overly enthusiastic and don't use common sense and are overly enthusiastic. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:41, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

SolarKhan15, xenophobia, egregious personal attacks and making threats

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

---

SolarKhan15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Uzbeks and turks fucked ur mom

Also you have zero right to revert my edit you looser don't interfere.

Even vandalising an article to make insults (see also the edit summary); PERSIANS CAN SUCK MY DICK WITH THIER SUTPID FANATNSIES REMOVE THE TURKIC DYNATYIES EMPRIES FROM HERE THE ONLY GOOD EMPIRE U SLAVES HAD WAS SASSANIDS AND AFTER TOTAL TURCO-ARAB-MONGOL DOMINNATIONS U PEOPLE HAVE ZERO HISTORY ZERO ZERO ZERO ZERO ZERO UR EMPIES THE FIRST ONE AND THE MOST OVERRATED GOT CUCKED BY A 21 YEAR OLD GREEK BOY UR UR 2ND EMPIRE GOT CUCKED BY THE ROMANS AND UR OTHER ONE WON 1 WAR AGAINST ROMANS GOT CUCKED IN THE REST FINALLY OVERRAN BY SOME DESERT DWELERS WITH SANDALS AND THEN TOTAL TURCO-ARAB-MONGOL DOMINATIONS TOTAL POORSIAN DEATH 50,000,000++

This one is too long to fully quote, the threat "If you refuse to heed this counsel, you will regret it." amongst other things is included there [279]

WP:NOTHERE. --HistoryofIran (talk) 06:44, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Significant WP:OWN + that usage of “us” also suggests sockpuppetry of some sort. Borgenland (talk) 07:37, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

For clarification the usage of "us" is seen in diff 93 linked above, where the user said You are but an ant trying to contend with elephants and you will be crushed underfoot if you persist. Shall a petty editor such as you contend with us? Your empty boasts are not extraordinary; they only prove your lack of judgment. If you refuse to heed this counsel, you will regret it. ... Stay in your own lane, stop sabotaging what you do not own, and accept that your attempts to mingle with everything only reveal how insecure you truly are.aesurias (talk) 08:01, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

@SolarKhan15 should be indef blocked at a minimum, solely based on the wall of text provided above where they discussed "total Poorsian death".

Unrelated: rather odd to call Persians 'POORSIANS' given that they are, without a doubt, one of the most successful and prosperous groups in history. aesurias (talk) 08:04, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

I blocked SolarKhan15 indefinitely. Johnuniq (talk) 09:51, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks everyone! HistoryofIran (talk) 13:32, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

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

User:Ritchy1125 using AI for COI

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

---

• Ritchy1125 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This editor's history includes:

• Creating an article, Ace Wire Spring & Form Co., Inc., which included AI slop.
• Making Keep statements containing AI slop in the AFD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ace Wire Spring and Form.
• Double-voting in the AFD.
• Ignoring notices about conflict of interest.

The deletion of the article is now at Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Ace_Wire_Spring_&_Form_Co.,_Inc., and the appellant has not used artificial intelligence to file the DRV. The editor has a right to request Deletion Review, but has not yet responded to the COI inquiry. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:41, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

For further context, I also previously brought this user's edits up on Wikipedia:WikiProject AI Cleanup/Noticeboard § Ritchy1125 as their contributions to other articles were very problematic, clearly unreviewed, and LLM generated. Perryprog (talk) 18:00, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

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

Disruptive accounts

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

---

• ~2025-33505-15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

New account with three edits, all on List of British monarchs, all disruptive. Clearly not here to build an encyclopedia.

• ~2025-33495-83 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

New account with one edit on List of British monarchs which was a massive manual revert of encyclopaedia content.

I'm not familiar with this account format – is there anything that insinuates these are the same person? There is also ~2025-32018-27 (talk · contribs), whose only edit is a constructive edit to the same article. Please may I have some advice on this situation? Thanks, JacobTheRox^{(talk | contributions)} 17:25, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

See WP:Temporary accounts they are IP editors User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 17:28, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Per technical data, ~2025-33505-15 and ~2025-33495-83 seem to be the same person. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 17:30, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

I've blocked the two temporary accounts. I believe that will cause the underlying IP to be autoblocked, which should stop them creating any more for a bit, on that IP at least. The other account is a completely different IP, it just looks similar because it's following the standard temporary account format. Girth Summit _(blether) 17:38, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

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

What is this?

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

---

Hi,

So I've noticed an influx of these kind of users with the username of just ~2025 and a number combination, EX: ~2025-33602-28. In my time at Wikipedia I've never seen any user like this. Some of these users have made fairly decent edits while others are just making edits that go against rules discussed in talk page. What are these users supposed to be? HiGuys69420 (talk) 18:29, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

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

Possible return of a sockpuppet

By investigating all edits of ~2025-33246-89, it is clear to me that sock Halud Foressa returns, who mainly removes remake categories from Bengali-language film articles and returns everytime by using ip and socks after block. Please see the temporary account's contributions and compare them with Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Halud Foressa. I am not sure if sockpuppet investigations open for temporary accounts (because it is a new feature), that's why I have came here instead of filing new sockpuppet case. As they don't listen, it would be better to block them. Mehedi Abedin 21:47, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

• Comment I have noticed a lot of user accounts with the same first symbol and 2025 editing across a wide range of articles, particularly those tagged with the current events template this week. I think this may be a wider issue than one editor allegedly violating their ban. But it could be this one editor. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:40, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

  @WikiCleanerMan: these are temporary accounts, they've replaced IP addresses for editors not logged in. Seercat3160 (talk) 22:46, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

  I see. Thanks for clarifying. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:48, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

@The Bushranger: I think there is a misunderstanding. I didn't say that several temporary accounts are socks, I showed specifically one account. WikiCleanerMan said that. As the discussion is now closed without any action, I am confused a little bit. Mehedi Abedin 10:17, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Seconding this and reopening the discussion. The reasoning for closing only applied to WikiCleanerMan's subthread, but the original report was more specific. Regarding SPIs for temporary accounts, you can file them, but they will be evaluated behaviorally (same as IP-to-account SPIs) as to not reveal IP information to non-CUs. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:35, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Ah, my apologies, I mis-read that. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:19, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Unhelpful contributions

~2025-31746-15 (talk · contribs · logs) has continued to post unhelpful comments about their opinions on editors in article talk, and has been reverting good-faith edits too. I have asked them to desist but they have continued. By intervening unhelpfully in a slightly tense situation they have, I believe, exacerbated the situation. I request other eyes at Talk:Robert Black (serial killer) and perhaps a final warning on the unregistered contributor, who seems very familiar with Wikipedia syntax and procedures, raising my suspicion that this is a sock or logged-out editor. A semi protection of the talk page might also help. There may be other editors there who need mediation, and I am still looking at that, but discussing it at article talk is very unhelpful. Thanks for your time. John (talk) 10:33, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm really not sure I see an issue with the substance of -15's comments. They are quite rightly (if perhaps abrasively) advising another editor to maintain civility. They have been accused of being a LOUTSOCK of one of the editors involved in a dispute; maybe an admin can check the IPs as that would indeed be a problem, but if there's no sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry here then I don't think there's a problem?

You also omit the fact that you improperly removed some of their comments from the talk page because you felt like the comments didn't belong there, which as -15 pointed out is a WP:TPO violation which @LakesideMiners trouted you for. Athanelar (talk) 11:29, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

I was really tempted to leave a template message for him(John) until I saw he was an established editor. He absolutely knows better and that passive aggressive responseI agree. Even better if we can all remember to follow WP:TPG and keep this space for discussing improvements to the article. in response to me saying. Its better a few line tangent that gets resolved peacefully then a ANI post. Which was just more or less dragging the argument on.

I don't know how to feel about it. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 14:46, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

On reflection, I can understand if people are suspicious that Kieronoldham and I are the same, and if someone wants to check that, then fair enough. You will see we're not.

I have acted as I have done because I have been reacting to what I have perceived as WP:hounding of Kieronoldham by another editor (not John). I regret making that accusation. I haven't made it elsewhere. I have instead tried to focus minds on behaving with civility and focusing on the substance of the content disputes. However, it seems to me that one particular editor has been focussed on quite aggressively re-writing Kieronoldham's work on multiple articles. And while their re-writes have some merit - I do think they have at times overstepped the bounds of collegiate editing, leading to quite aggressive edit warring. I don't like to see that, and where I have felt Kieronoldham has been in the right on the substance of the issue (which hasn't been always) I have stepped in and said so.

Now, the issue of socking aside, I am really struggling to understand what I am even being accused of here. My posts speak for themselves. I don't think I have said anything unreasonable or improper. It's now being suggested I should be given a 'final warning'. For what, exactly? ~2025-31746-15 (talk) 18:03, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Where was it said you are being given a final warning? Because whoever is saying that needs a trout as well. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 18:21, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

See John's complaint above at 10:33, where, in his words, he "request[s] other eyes at Talk:Robert Black (serial killer) and perhaps a final warning on the unregistered contributor." ~2025-31746-15 (talk) 18:26, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

ah I missed that, thats, fucked. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 21:41, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Continued disruptive editing after block ended

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

---

Patcha007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User was blocked for recreating a template, under multiple names, that had been deleted at TFD (see: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Repeated_recreation_of_deleted_material). IMMEDIATELY after their block expired, they filed THREE separate requests at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion to restore the template and create it again. User is clearly not getting the message and needs a longer block.

@Voorts, Gonnym, and WikiCleanerMan: for your information. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:54, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

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

User:Egyptiankeng continues to inappropriately handle content disputes at Grand Egyptian Museum

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

my first ANI complaint about this user

a review of their one-week block at AN

This user has twice been blocked for argumentativeness and edit warring regarding the article Grand Egyptian Museum, and they're right back at it again after their latest block. They immediately re-added a bunch of content I'd trimmed during a cleanup edit, and then opened a talk page thread at Talk:Grand Egyptian Museum#Removing an entire paragraph is not a cleanup where their prior WP:OWNy and argumentative attitude continues, as well as them re-adding other content I removed without discussion because they don't understand what 'disputed content' means.

They've also now graduated to personal attacks, as when I said I'd be escalating this back here to ANI they said 'This discussion will be here, not ANI. Act like a grown-up for once.' This demanding attitude is reflected in the rest of the talk page thread, too.

This user has a major attitude and competence problem and at the very least needs to be pblocked from the Grand Egyptian Museum article if not at this point indeffed. During previous discussions about their behaviour they were repeatedly warned about their argumentativeness by multiple users and nothing has changed. Please take action; this is absolutely a chronic, intractable issue. Athanelar (talk) 13:13, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

I'll only say that you're showing them what you want them to see. You have a long history with me, repeatedly trying to prevent me from editing the article, creating problems out of the simplest things, abandoning the discussion page, and escalating matters. You're the one who needs to calm down and change your behavior. I won't engage in this nonsense weekly because of you. I've had enough. Go back to the discussion page and listen to the opinions of the other editors. Egyptiankeng (talk) 13:20, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

I'll only say that you're showing them what you want them to see. This is an open discussion. If you have specific examples of misconduct on my part you can link them here for people to see and for me to respond to. Athanelar (talk) 13:22, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

I did this last time, and someone told me to be more concise, so I won't do it again. Anyone who wants to see the truth can review the discussion on ANI and see how you've always tried to prevent me from editing the GEM and accused me of treating it as my personal property. I've tried repeatedly to be nice to you and let you repeatedly undo my old edits without reacting. Now you're sabotaging my edits, making personal accusations, and want to prevent me from editing the article again! You even have a problem with showing me some appreciation and respect as the top 1 editor on the page, and you've repeatedly told me you're not obligated to give me any recognition. Can you imagine? Instead of saying thank you, you write a whole paragraph saying you won't say thank you. And why are you doing this? You need to change your behavior and go back to the discussion page; it's not over yet. Egyptiankeng (talk) 13:29, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

I've presented my case, you're free to present yours. Athanelar (talk) 13:34, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

I think it's time Egyptiankeng edit something else here, rather than this topic which is clearly too personally important to them. Any edit apparently has to go through them to be acceptable to them and things like You even have a problem with showing me some appreciation and respect as the top 1 editor on the page, and you've repeatedly told me you're not obligated to give me any recognition are inappropriate and reflect Egyptiankeng's apparent belief they're in charge of the article. Egyptiankeng is the "top 1 editor" because after being unable to edit war in the changes they wanted to make a couple months ago, they decided to rewrite the entire article, with no discussion, the way they wanted it to read. This editor is either unable or unwilling to follow WP:ONUS.

The time out does not seem to have worked. Rather than use it as an opportunity to take a break and come back with a change in approach, Egyptiankeng used the time to go on about Star Mississippi's "abuse of power" even after the latter specifically asked for a Block Review to review the block [280]. If something doesn't change, I fear this is going to end up being a weekly ANI topic. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:29, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

They even said it themselves; I won't engage in this nonsense weekly because of you. One would think they'd question why their behaviour which they refuse to change keeps getting them taken to ANI, especially after two timeout blocks because of it, but alas. Athanelar (talk) 14:39, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

It has become abundantly clear that this editor cannot edit collaboratively on this topic, and no temporary block can change that. I could see an indef, but if we want to give them one more chance to prove themself able to collaborate, I would support a topic ban from museums (not just the GEM because Star Mississippi's block was based on disruption at British Museum). QuicoleJR (talk) 14:57, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

You are literally the same three editors who keep talking to me and blocking me for no reason. The same three names, lol. Other editors should be involved in this discussion. This is a biased, I will not participate in a biased and predetermined debate led by someone who blocked me twice for no reason. Egyptiankeng (talk) 15:37, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

@Egyptiankeng This is a biased, I will not participate in a biased and predetermined debate led by someone who blocked me twice for no reason.

I was the editor who blocked you. I did not and do not intend to participate here due to the concerns you raised on your Talk. Please do not cast aspersions at other editors involved in this debate for actions they did not take. For unfamiliar editors, this version of their Talk is helpful. Star Mississippi 15:53, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

(gazes skyward) Claiming that you were blocked for No! Reason! is the sort of response we'd see out of a child. There were reasons, and they were articulated to you. That you don't like those reasons is as may be, but they don't require you to approve of them. Ravenswing 20:08, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

In the British Museum discussion, I wasn't at fault. The editor who blocked me ignored the fact that adding sources wasn't my responsibility. After I was blocked, the museum page was edited as I'd wanted from the beginning, yet the block remained. Oh my God, how blind you are! Egyptiankeng (talk) 15:40, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Please do not resort to personal attacks, such as calling other editors "blind". Being right doesn't give you a free pass to break our conduct rules. Replies like this demonstrate why the blocks were necessary in the first place. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:41, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Is this some silly prank? Or do you just have time to waste? Why is everything here so sickeningly bureaucratic and dictatorial? You know I'm right, and the editor who banned me last time is the one at fault for ignoring a Wikipedia rule. Since you're mentioning the rules in your comment, you seem to care a lot about them. Is everyone here blind to the fact that this editor, Athanelar, is creating problems out of thin air? He doesn't even contribute anything to the article; he just adds broken links. Instead of putting the section on the sun's alignment with Ramses in the Design section, he deleted it and created a problem. He's also repeatedly started discussions in ANI. Is it normal for an editor to complain weekly? I'm not the one at fault here, and I've contributed more to this article than he has. All he does is complain constantly, and I won't say anything to appease a narcissist like him who thinks he has the right to remove anything from any article simply because, in his opinion, it's not good. Egyptiankeng (talk) 15:54, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Stop personally attacking editors, now. I don't know whether you are right or not because I don't know much about the history of that museum. I do know that civility is one of Wikipedia's most fundamental policies and that you will be blocked again if you keep posting personal attacks. If you are truly right about the content, then argue your position politely. If you can't come to an agreement that way, try the dispute resolution noticeboard, or an RFC if needed. Either way, the ad hominem attacks are disruptive and need to stop. Thanks, QuicoleJR (talk) 16:00, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Quicole as a nonadmin thanks, probably won’t stop him but thanks anyway. Jp33442 (talk) 16:02, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) @Egyptiankeng I get that you really care about this subject and that's admirable - everyone should have something they're truly passionate about.

It's also important to understand that the stronger these feelings are, the harder it is for us to view things dispassionately and objectively.

One of the five pillars of Wikipedia is to AGF. Accusing someone is having an agenda or being wilfully biased goes against a core aspect of this project. That means that you should be absolutely sure of what you're accusing the other person of, and bring clear and indisputable proof.

You also need to consider whether your feelings have coloured your view, which I think they have in this case - rightly or wrongly I can tell that you're getting stressed out.

Extra eyes are on you thanks to the recent ANI posts, so please remember that.

It doesn't matter if you're right - it's not what you do, it's how you do it that's important right now.

I don't know if this was brought to ANI prematurely or what, but you're inadvertently proving their point if you carry on like this. Try to be the better person. Blue Sonnet (talk) 16:06, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I'd like to give a word as an uninvolved party that this is a disappointing outcome from an editor that is absolutely capable of contributing to Wikipedia, but sadly falls into these sort of disputes. Being right isn't enough, I'd say applies here. BrandNewSaint (talk) 15:51, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

You were blocked mainly for your attitude and approach to collaborative editing, which remain consistent. People are basically just asking you to be more polite. ~2025-33617-29 (talk) 16:01, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

I cannot be more polite to someone who is wronging me. Stop being unfair, bureaucratic, and biased, and then I will be more polite, even though I only speak in a bad tone when the words are provocative. One of the editors unjustly blocked me, and the other cites that previous block as evidence that I should be prevented from editing because the ban is useless, completely ignoring that it is an unjust block, and all that matters to him is that I speak politely He completely ignores the core issue and the problem. Egyptiankeng (talk) 16:11, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Look, I'm not out to get you, and I don't like the idea of banning editors. However, if you cannot be more polite to other editors, you leave us no choice. Insulting editors repeatedly is one of the most common reasons for people to be banned here. If you want to continue editing here, you need to be more civil. This is your final warning. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:23, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Okay, QuicoleJR, please don't cite my recent ban as justification for preventing me from editing museum articles, because my recent ban was clearly unfair, is that okay? And please, someone tell editor Athanelar that he should open a discussion before removing important edits made by other editors, and that he should learn to say thank you instead of saying, "I don't have to appreciate your work." Egyptiankeng (talk) 16:30, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

I will refrain from mentioning that block again, if that would make things better. To be clear, Athanelar is fully within his rights to remove content, but you are also fully within your rights to revert the removals and tell him to discuss on the talk page per BRD. Also, please don't demand thanks from other editors. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:34, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

This is what I did: I reversed the deletions he made and opened a discussion, but he (during the discussion) restored the edits. Secondly, I didn't ask him for appreciation, and I don't care at all. This happened at the beginning of our acquaintance when he told me my article needed TNT. I told him it took 7 hours, and he told me he wasn't obligated to appreciate my work. This is the type of person I'm talking about here; incapable of saying thank you or please, incapable of discussion Egyptiankeng (talk) 16:39, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

In that situation, they were the one who made the first revert, so it was you who needed to gain consensus for the content being added, not them who needed consensus to remove. Also, it looks like they did join the discussion. That said, @Athanelar: you were also edit warring, and you should not have done that. Please refrain from making repeated reverts in the future. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:56, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

I can see how my edits might be edit warring in spirit, but I think I'm largely justified.

I made my cleanup pass while Egyptiankeng was blocked, immediately after their block they re-added everything I'd removed and opened a talk page thread. I responded on the talk page and reverted, and they then re-added some of the disputed content because they didn't realise it was also under dispute, so I once again reverted.

It's clear of the 3RR and i think is acceptable, because all I was doing was returning to status quo as Egyptiankeng misunderstood exactly which content was disputed and which wasn't. Athanelar (talk) 17:08, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

The Visitors section wasn't among the content you labeled "disputed." I added it this morning, but you deleted it while restoring the page to its previous version. Egyptiankeng (talk) 17:14, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

If you're referring to the info in this diff, I removed that intentionally also, because the article doesn't need to contain random excerpts of visitor figures; you've already listed the average daily figures, that's enough. Athanelar (talk) 17:21, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Who determines that is enough? Why you? Why didn't you open a discussion? And yes, you added the number of visitors after I alerted you to that, then I told you again that your link was not working and you told me that it was my problem, then you admitted your mistake and fixed it. Now what did I gain from all this wasting time? Do you know how much time we waste here because of you? Because of a paragraph that does not exceed 4 lines? Egyptiankeng (talk) 17:30, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Who determines that is enough? WP:NOTEVERYTHING

Why didn't you open a discussion? WP:ONUS the responsibility is on you to seek consensus for the inclusion of the content if it is challenged, not on the challenger to seek consensus for its removal.

you added the number of visitors after I alerted you to that, then I told you again that your link was not working and you told me that it was my problem No, let's be accurate here. I updated the daily visitor amount as an act of goodwill because I accidentally removed it while reverting your other edits. I directly copypasted the code for that edit from your edit here, where you added a broken link. You knew of course that the link was broken in this edit, because you fixed it in youd next edit. Despite that, you still put the blame entirely on me here, and despite knowing exactly what the issue was and how to fix it, you WP:POINTily demanded that I fix it. You even acknowledged this here. I ended up fixing the link, because I am here to improve the encyclopedia. Athanelar (talk) 18:10, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

because my recent ban was clearly unfair, is that okay? just noting for help of reviewing editors: while EK disagrees with the block, the block was endorsed. They were never banned, and to my knowledge no one proposed a ban Star Mississippi 16:36, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Athanelar has reversed the edits I restored (during the discussion). Isn't this a edit war? Why didn't you warn him like you do to me every time? Egyptiankeng (talk) 16:43, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant block Egyptiankeng (talk) 16:45, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

I think we've heard enough now from Athanelar and Egyptiankeng. Please avoid bludgeoning this discussion and let uninvolved editors decide what to do. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:53, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

I have blocked Egyptiankeng for one month for the disruptively combative and confrontational behavior on display here for all to see. Cullen328 (talk) 18:17, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Honestly, one month just means they'll come back in one month and repeat the same behavior because they appear to have no concept of why their behavior is problematic.

I think an indef and guidance saying they'll be unblocked when they can properly identify the reasons for the block and how they will avoid these problems in the future would be more appropriate. PositivelyUncertain (talk) 20:43, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

I agree. It's their third block for pretty much the same thing and their refusal to listen. No reason to presume this is different. If we indef then they have to convince the community that they understand what they are doing wrong to regain their editing priviledges. Remember indefinite does not mean permanent. And considering this was their last edit, I don't think they're planning on getting it any time soon. Canterbury Tail talk 20:49, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

+1 from me. They were blocked for 31hrs, they came back and immediately resumed their behaviour. They were blocked for a week, same thing. I see no reason to believe they won't come back in a month, complain that their block was unwarranted, resume exactly the same editing behaviour and waste our time all over again. Athanelar (talk) 20:51, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Please heed Phil's advice above - everyone can see what's happened and you've made your opinion clear.

If you keep posting then it could obfuscate things and even lead to a boomerang, which I'm sure you don't want right now.

Trust that others can see what's going on and judge for themselves, especially if it looks like things are going the way you want them to. Blue Sonnet (talk) 21:44, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Uhm I dont think leaving one comment about specific action taken is bludgeoning nor boomerang territory. Phil's advice above was good advice due to the back and forth further up the thread. But Athanelar weighing in on sanctions, especially when they are the person who filed this and will most-likely be dealing with Egyptiankeng upon their return, is not bludgeoning. PositivelyUncertain (talk) 22:06, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Agreed, I didn't word that very well - apologies for any confusion. Blue Sonnet (talk) 22:18, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

• To those editors complaining that I am too lenient, please note that I told Egyptiankeng An indefinite block is a real possibility unless your behavior changes significantly. Administrators know that it is quick and easy technically to block indefinitely once you have made the decision. The decisions can sometimes be tough. I did not "read the room" in the previous conversation as community consensus for an indefinite block, and I concluded that one month was the best outcome. Egyptiankeng has now called all of us "toxic" and hinted that they are leaving Wikipedia, so let's just see how things go in a month. Feel free to alert me if new problems crop up. Cullen328 (talk) 00:46, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

User:Pingbruise - Spam, CIR, etc.

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

This user has been repeatedly warned for spamming, UPE, etc. They continue to create promotional pages such as Aroma360 even after them being speedily deleted or nominated for deletion in other ways. The AI usage in everything they contribute and on talk pages may be indicative of WP:CIR. --Seawolf35 ^T--C 19:36, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi Seawolf35, spamming is absolutely not my intent, and I am simply trying to do what I have initially said I set out to do. I don't know why i might be flagged for AI usage, I assure you I am here typing and appealing on my own volition in my own voice. Promotion and spam are not my intention at all. I hope you understand this. Thank you., Pingbruise (talk) 19:45, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

I have page blocked them from the article, its Talk and the AfD. @Pingbruise if you are truly unconnected with Aroma360, this should be no issue. Please find something else to edit about.

Should the AfD close to retain the article, I question whether they should be left to edit the Talk or will continue to bludgeon it. Star Mississippi 20:06, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

From one of Pingbruise's edit summaries: Added citation about the company's fight against copyright infringement from copycat companies, showing that this company is the leader in this scent marketing industry. I'd say that alone was quite sufficient evidence for an indef block for blatant promotion. Wikipedia is not a provider of free advertising space. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:32, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

To add to the above, the citation is to an article clearly marked 'sponsored content'. Pingbruise is clearly not just promotional, but utterly clueless. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:40, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Proposal, Topic Ban Trade from BFDI, broadly construed

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

---

Does this look my user name?

(TL;DR: WP:BFDI for the long history of Battle for Dream Island on Wikipedia. Battle for Dream Island was recently allowed via DRV and a draft by established editors. There is no issue with any of this).

• Trade (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been around with some regularity and is generally a good editor except for BFDI, which is why I'm proposing a Topic Ban and not broader sanctions on their editing. Recent issues:

• Rather than wait for Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2025_November_9#Cary_Huang to conclude with a potential unSALTING of the Draft, which I offered if consensus supported it (see User_talk:Trade#Cary_and_Michael_Huang, which stemmed from this RFP/D they created Draft:Huang brothers. Why cant we just have a draft instead and other comments at the RfD show some of the same issues around BFDI
• They created some redirects including the clearly disruptive one discussed at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2025_November_11#Bаttle_For_Dream_Island which have no benefit to the community and cannot be seen in any other way.

They do not appear to be willing to go by community consensus and simply believe that the restoration of the article believe we need all the BFDI articles restored, which the community does not seem to be in favor of. NB: while I am in the protection logs of some of the BFDI related content, I hold no opinion on notability. That was purely as an administrative action in response to XFDs. Star Mississippi 23:20, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

I already told you the redirect was an accident. I dont know what more you can ask of me. At no point have i ever asked nor requested for a week long deletion request to discuss the redirect. I would happily have put the redirect up for speedy deletion if anyone actually made an effort to inform me of the issue and told me how to do so

Honestly it comes off as distasteful just to go directly for a topic ban without bringing up the issues with me first Trade (talk) 23:32, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

This is disingenous @Trade. You said Presumably because it looks identical, and not once before @voorts closed it per snow did you say you were OK with it being deleted or indicate it was an accidental creation.

(PS: Absolutely owning not notifying Trade. I had a notice typed, but navigated away and forgot to hit save. Before I did, Trade had posted here. I have not added it given that, but that was entirely my error and they have my apologies). Star Mississippi 23:48, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

He asked how it happened (first time anyone pinged me in that discussion) and i replied that the latin and cyrillig A looked identical to me which very clearly implies it was an accidental mistake on my part rather than intentional. It's self-explanatory that when a user calls the creation of their page a mistake that they dont insist on it staying up

At some point you have to look at the meaning behind what other users write rather than needing everything to be explained in a needlessly detailed, and explicit manner Trade (talk) 23:59, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Keep in mind at no point did Myceteae or any other user demand i explain what i meant or for me to elaborate what i said. Because it was self-explanatory and they (presumably) understand that even long-term users can make mistakes from time to time without there being something malicious behind it Trade (talk) 00:02, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

[281]

There was a message on your talk page about the discussion, you don't need to be pinged. You were notified, its on you to check on it LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 05:19, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

How do you accidentally type a obscure character? If on desktop you would need to copy paste the character or change your input layout. And mobile same thing, because at least on GBoard and I assume on the default iOS keyboard and really any custom keyboard, holding the 'a' doesn't give me an option to type that character. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 05:11, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

If it's a matter of Latin vs Cyrillic "A" vs "А", then in some mobile keyboards (like Microsoft's Swift Key which comes pre-installed on some phones) all you need to do is to accidentally swipe the space key to switch between scripts. As someone who uses both scripts regularly I find myself initially typing in the wrong script quite often tbh. Actually, even when typing on a regular computer keyboard I simply forget that I had switched scripts and then start typing without looking just to find myself having typed a whole sentence in the wrong script. And when deleting the sentence I've also found myself thinking to just leave the "А" or the "Е" or the "С" or some other letter from the "wrong" script because those Cyrillic letters are looking just like some Latin letters, don't they, so nobody would notice or care, right? Though, as a regular user of both scripts I of course know that they aren't actually the same, but I still wouldn't be able to tell them apart while typing, sometimes one might just miss to delete one of the "wrong" letters after an accidental keyboard switch. Nakonana (talk) 08:47, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

In addition i have never in my years created any drafts related BFDI or any similar subjects so that accusation towards me is just plain wrong Trade (talk) 23:33, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

• @MrPersonHumanGuy:--Trade (talk) 23:36, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
• I’m not seeing anything here to warrant a topic ban. A cursory glance at the history of Draft:Huang brothers shows it was not created by Trade leaving an allegation of comments at an RfD, an allegation of the creation of some redirects of which only one is indirectly identified and an allegation of unwillingness to 'go by by community consensus' for which no evidence is provided. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:44, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

  I don't think Trade's behavior (as reported here) seems bad enough to topic ban them over either, but I've been hesitant to say anything because they pinged me. If that ping was intentional and Trade hoped I would come to their defense, then they got lucky, so I'm a bit concerned that their (suspected) attempt to manifest an advantage might backfire no matter how much I argue against the proposed topic ban. Still, the request comes off as having been made out of spite. Whoever considers just one accidentally-created useless redirect to be "clearly disruptive" may be assuming bad faith and making a mountain out of a molehill. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 13:29, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

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

Repeated removals of pages in the process of being edited, and personal attacks on my talk page.

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

---

User:Allan_Nonymous has just nominated about 4 pages for deletion (while I was still adding refs) after previously deleting the pages without a consensus. He or she has also posted to my talk page with claims of me making personal attacks. I never attacked anyone here, but I feel like I am suddenly under attack in my editing and on my talk page. It should be noted that User:Allan_Nonymous has a large number of complaints for destructive editing and deletion without getting a consensus. Raybeezer (talk) 03:00, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

@Raybeezer specific diffs/articles and links to prior discussions are always appreciated. – robertsky (talk) 03:16, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

This comment and this comment don't seem particularly civil. I have to ask: do you have a conflict of interest regarding Nox Arcana? Woodroar (talk) 03:20, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Asking someone to be respectful? How is that uncivil? No. but it does seem that Allan Nonymous has a pattern pattern of removing content and conflict of interest. Raybeezer (talk) 03:32, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

@Raybeezer, please provide diffs of what you allege. Currently, you are just casting aspersions that Allan Nonymous has committed wrongdoings. You must provide evidence for that, or it will be considered a personal attack. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 03:53, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

I've never done this before, so pls bear with me.

• The very first thing he posts on my previously empty talk page is [aggressive and accusatory]. Then he says "You better lay off personal attacks". How? By adding refs to a page and cleaning up a poorly formatted tracklist?
• He literally posted a AFD a few minutes after I began editing. 1, 2,
• A month ago, I politely requested] a reinstatement of two albums that were redirected and deleted with no voting, so I could edit it to make it better. Since I got no reply, and the instructions said I could edit if there was no consensus for deletion, I did so today. It was AFD almost immediately.
• Then he AFD 2 more albums. Like it was a punishment. 1, 2.
• Allan also seems pretty intent on disrupting the first and final editions of a 5 part music series, but not any of the middle volumes.
• Allan Nonymous seems very aggressive and hostile towards me personally, and I have no idea why. He's making accusations of conflict of interest, removing pages started by other editors, without even a simple message. I get that he may have a lot more experience, but I feel like everything I edit is being stalked.

Raybeezer (talk) 08:40, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

@Raybeezer the personal attack was the part "I don't know you but you obviously have some personal beef." Criticizing someone's actions is fine, but it's the ascribing of motivations to their behaviour that they haven't told you that makes it a personal attack. Also, note that part of this complaint is about Allan_Nonymous's claim that you have a conflict of interest, but you retaliated by making the same claim in return here: Special:Diff/1322240237.

See this Wikipedia essay: Don't retaliate. In this case the complaint may be valid in that the subject of it is being unnecessarily aggressive with the AfDs and making an apparently unsubstantiated accusation of conflict of interest, but displaying anger and retaliating doesn't help your case. Stockhausenfan (talk) 09:12, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

@Raybeezer. Taking something to AfD is something anyone can do, and is simply a means of starting a (usually) week-long discussion about whether the article should be deleted. If people find significant coverage in independent reliable sources then it will be kept. And nobody is under any obligation to edit Wikipedia, such as nominating other articles because they nominated some. I would also have asked you about conflict of interest, because you seem to be intent on us having articles about the output of just one band. If you want to carry on editing Wkipedia beyond publicising Nox Arcana then I suggest that you rethink your approach and start listening. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:45, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Well, I feel that so many destructive edits in the space of like 15 minutes is personal. If I try to clean up a page, he tags it. I didn't create the pages. How am I supposed to do anything if refs are removed immediately? I do think he has a personal issue against this particular band. That's not retaliation, it's just really weird that every edit I make is followed and undone by this guy. Raybeezer (talk) 10:33, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

You are edit warring to add back Facebook links, I have removed them again, Facebook is NOT a reliable source for anything. Theroadislong (talk) 10:59, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

I only added back what was already there. Other pages contain news from official artist FBpages. I am so confused. Raybeezer (talk) 11:25, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

There are a lot of things that find their way into articles that per Wikipedia policies and guidelines, shouldn't be there. If someone removes them accordingly, they are doing what they should. This really shouldn't be that difficult to understand. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:30, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

That's not necessarily true, there's WP:ABOUTSELF, stufff like [282]. I haven't looked at the specific case. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:27, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

So, the FB posts that were removed are OK? They were nothing more than news from the artist each year a volume was released. Nothing flamboyant. More like, "Happy holidays, here's the new release." Those refs existed on several pages. I just moved them to support merging 5 volumes into one, since obviously no one was bothering to look at the musicbrainz or discogs refs. Plus a part got tagged "needs citation" when I removed the FBlink. Raybeezer (talk) 13:46, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

What is weird is your single-minded editing of pages about a relatively obscure band, not enforcement of Wikipedia policy by Allan Nonymous. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:38, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

What is weird is you stalking every Nox Arcana editor. Also, being on Billboard charts with 3 albums and having over 6M streams on the Legion of Shadows album and about 3M on The Haunted Symphony is no small thing for an indie band that doesn't play out. So what if some local paper doesn't reprint their announcements. I put more stock in what reviewers think who actually purchased the CDs. Raybeezer (talk) 13:32, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

I don't remember coming across any other Nox Arcana editor, or even having heard of them until today. You personally are welcome to put stock anywhere, but Wikipedia is based on published reports. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:00, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

You're completely free to do that, but Wikipedia doesn't. This is an encyclopedia so there have to be rules - it's a community-driven project and these rules have been decided over a long period of time because they work.

If there isn't a reliable source for a claim then (in the vast majority of cases) it can't be included in an article.

There may be reliable sources in the future, but this is an encyclopedia, therefore all but the most obvious common-sense claims need good, verifiable & independent sources to back them up. Blue Sonnet (talk) 14:01, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes, well, but WE place more stock in Wikipedia's notability policies and guidelines. Jumping all over us for abiding by them doesn't do you any favors, nor casting aspersions right and left. (Considering that your sole Wikipedia activity, over quite a few years, has been in promoting this band, you will perhaps forgive us for questioning your motives.) Ravenswing 21:40, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Purely for the purposes of coming up from the weeds, can I ask a direct question, forgetting everything else in this thread - are you in any way connected to the band Nox Arcana? Danners430 _{tweaks made} 13:50, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Raybeezer, you must answer Danners430s question fully and frankly. Cullen328 (talk) 19:32, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

No. Did you ask the same of Allan? And to Cullen, I was asleep, so sorry for taking so long to answer. Thanks for the warm welcome. Raybeezer (talk) 20:09, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

I asked you and only you. Thank you for confirming though. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 20:17, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Why would Danners430 ask Allan? Allan's made several thousand edits, a vanishingly small number having anything to do with this band. You've made 75 edits, all of them having to do with this band. Ravenswing 21:42, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

No. I made only 2 or 3 edits until I came under attack, then I tried to fix what was wrong. But hey, I have been bullied enough to stop editing altogether. Bye. Raybeezer (talk) 22:36, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

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

User:Tran tuan 2511 and WP:DISRUPTIVE

Tran tuan 2511 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Repeated addition of poorly sourced information (problems ranging from use of unreliable sources, breaking integrity, and a bit of synthesis.) Multiple warnings on their talk page and no responses on any talk pages.

For example, their latest edit to Sukhoi Su-27 (an article they have previously made poor edits to), Special:Diff/1322471834, demonstrates breaking integrity for the Ukrainian value (source is from 2019, not 2025), use of an unreliable YouTube channel source, and - at best - synthesizing the number of Su-27UBKs in Vietnamese service (FlightGlobal's WAFD 2025 combines Vietnamese Su-27s and Su-30s into one value (lists 41 "Su-27/30" on page 34.)

There's also a bit about using/uploading images that have copyright violations (I noticed it on List of equipment of the Vietnam People's Air Force, another focus of their attention) but apparently they have a history of such uploads on commons:User_talk:Tran_tuan_2511. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 15:22, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

:it:Utente:Trash Taco

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

---

Can an admin on the Italian Wikipedia please unblock me there? I promise i will never redirect Joe Biden to Potato again, and that i will make constructive edits. 🌮 Trash Taco 🌮 15:27, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

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

Possible WP:PUNITIVE / WP:OWN behavior across related pages

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

---

Hello, I am requesting administrator review regarding a pattern of removals affecting multiple long-standing articles. Over the past several days, substantial cited content—some of which has existed for over a decade—was removed from several related articles without clear explanation or discussion. The pattern suggests WP:PUNITIVE or WP:OWN behavior and may require neutral third-party oversight.

Affected articles: • The Wake of Dick Johnson • Alt Variety • Okapi

Concerns: • Removal of long-standing, properly cited material • Repeated edits across multiple related pages within a short timeframe • Lack of discussion prior to major deletions • The timing of these removals coincides with edits made to a different article involving a widely reported legal matter, which may warrant neutral administrative review. (No allegation of motive.)

I am not alleging motive, only that the timing and pattern raise possible issues under WP:PUNITIVE, WP:OWN, and WP:CONSENSUS, and may require admin attention to stabilize the pages and ensure proper editorial process.

I welcome any guidance or review by uninvolved administrators. Thank you. ~2025-34092-09 (talk) 18:04, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Diffs please. (And no, I'm not an admin. You don't have to be one to participate here. The broader community is entitled to see what admins are up to, and where appropriate, to participate in e.g. CBAN discussions) AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:05, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi @~2025-34092-09! I presume that the third article you meant to link is Okapi (band) rather than the animal. If either User:Yeggbum or User:Yeggman23 are your accounts, it can be more transparent to use one of them when making your reports (and/or to clarify the connection), as posting logged-off might otherwise be seen as avoiding scrutiny.

Regarding the articles themselves, they have been proposed for deletion. This is a tag that anyone can put on an article without discussion, and anyone can remove if they disagree with the proposed deletion. Once it is removed, showing that deletion is no longer controversial, the other path is opening a discussion about deleting the article, which will usually run for seven days.

You also state that the timing coincides with edits made to a different article: could it be possible to provide clarification on which article that is? Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:26, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Haven't been notified of this report despite it being about myself, only noticed this because my sockpuppet report has been updated:

This appears to be WP:LOUT editing relating to a small suspected sockfarm I've uncovered today after removing recent comments about legal allegations against Vince Gilligan, involving the creation of articles that revolved around an individual Luke H. Walker. See SPI: [283]

All the articles linked above were highly WP:PROMO in nature and filled with lots of unsourced claims that could quite simply only have been written by the same person (presumed to be Luke H. Walker themselves) along with allegations of mistreatment by various unnamed parties, which were made across a series of accounts all looking to be operated by the same person. After cleanup they were all PRODed by myself because essentially they lacked any reliable secondary sourcing.

Given the similarity in formatting here as the rest of today's spate of activity from other assumed sockpuppet accounts I doubt this isn't also them. Rambling Rambler (talk) 18:34, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

AI generated and no diffs provided. Someone please close this nonsense. ~2025-34063-21 (talk) 19:20, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Reports that turn into curved throwing sticks that return to their senders are useful here as well. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:46, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

SPI is open waiting for their response to TP warnings, so I've asked them to come back and address the concerns raised here. Blue Sonnet (talk) 19:47, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

NVM, SPI was quick today! Blue Sonnet (talk) 19:48, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Aaaaaand in a complete non-surprise, this TA and the named accounts at the SPI have all been blocked as the same person. Rambling Rambler (talk) 19:49, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

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

Harassment on my talk page by User:GM DoD rustler

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

---

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

---

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

---

• User:GM DoD rustler appears to have a problem with my position on the reliability of WP:DAILYMAIL. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:52, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

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

I think we have a bit more to do.

This appears to be in reference to the ongoing vandalism at Marek Kukula and GM DoD rustler appears to be a sockpuppet of that vandal. Not sure why I was singled out; multiple editors arrived at a consensus to remove the material sourced only to The Daily Mail and The Sun on that page. No reliable source covered it.

In my opinion, revoking talk page access and removing at least some of the existing comments (the accusations of crimes) from the history would be appropriate.

Alas, the vandalism has spread to Wikidata. See [284] for the same accusations sourced to the same two British tabloids. It seems to have been added with these edits: [285], with a really bad choice of what sources to cite

How do I deal with a BLP violation on Wikidata? --Guy Macon (talk) 19:09, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

I see that the TPA and history removal got done while I was composing the above, so we only have the Wikidata issue left. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:15, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

I removed the last personal attack on their Talk, I didn't clock that TPA had also been revoked but it was bad enough that I stand by it's removal.

I also suspect this is another in a giant conga-line of socks, would it be worth adding to the SPI or is it not worth the bother now it's blocked? Blue Sonnet (talk) 19:24, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

• @Voorts: You've (tried to?) archived this thread twice (1, 2), but it's still here. I've reverted the edits in the archive, but feel free to do it again properly. — DVRTed (Talk) 19:11, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

• In my opinion, archiving something the same time as as you close it is a bad idea. It leaves the person who made the report wondering what was done and why it disappeared. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:20, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

  The archiving was a mistake. I misclicked twice and thought I had aborted early enough. Thanks for cleaning it up. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:56, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

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

I strongly object to you closing this discussion while the Wikidata question is still unaddressed. It would have been OK if you had told me that we can't address that here and given me advice on where to go, but you didn't. You just shut it down with the question unanswered. Please undo your close and please stop doing that. You are interfering with my efforts to deal with a serious BLP violation across multiple projects. I am asking you to please step back and let someone else decide when this needs to be closed.

Oh dear. It's on Wikimedia too. [286] Given the two main reasons for our BLP policy (basic decency towards living persons and shielding the WMF from lawsuits) this material should not be anywhere on any project. I have no idea how to make that happen, and need advice.

In case anyone has any doubt, I have zero interest in suppressing material about actual sex crimes, but I have a huge problem when the ONLY two sources for the accusation are a couple of British tabloids that constantly lie about this sort of thing and who recycle each other's articles (looks like DM was first this time). No reasonable person would look at this so-called "evidence" and conclude that we know for sure that it actually happened but for some unknown reason no reliable source reported on it. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:11, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. I closed the thread because @asilvering re-blocked the editor. Go to Wikidata if you want help dealing with the disruptive editing there. We don't deal with cross-wiki abuse here. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:37, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

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

Voter intimidation

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

---

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

this vote resulted in this and this. Backstory, User:GeogSage is a very active participant at WP:VA as am I. He likes WP:GEOG content and has been very active in increasing the prioritization of geography subjects in VA and has been active in clearing out space for them by removing other subjects. When VA expanded to a 5th level a lot of my WP:WPVA work was included and then I became active at VA. I am probably viewed as a promoter and protector of WP:WPVA content. Obviously my vote that attracted the responses was protective of some architecture subjects, which are not far afield from visual arts and the intimidating votes were basically all opposing adding arts works or supporting adding geography works. GeogSage's first few votes clearly reference my vote defending architecture. I view the immediate response to vote against 30 of my nominations and votes based on one of my votes as voter intimidation. I do not feel I am the only one who has problems with this based on this discussion and think that if we condone this type of voting as OK it could be a downfall of productive discourse on WP.

I completely missed the Great Wall and Great Pyramids votes through no fault but my own, but this was also aided by the strategy to remove works by nominating them so that they don't appear in section titles as add or remove specific subjects in edit summaries as people vote. Also, instead of nominating to remove content, he nominates them to move to a lower level which muddles the subject line so that it seems like it is just rearranging the listings. -TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:37, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

As said on the project talk page, You can see a post above on November 11th calling for people to take a look at old proposals.

You literally said on the talk page "Since you stand by your votes, I have taken action at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Voter_intimidation." I told you I actually did vote my mind, was that entire post just a way to try and force me to reverse them?

I had planned to try and help with the backlog by going through the pages and voting on stuff I skipped. Previously, I had voted on some but not all of these, following vital article criteria. I was not voting on them because I was not sure of notability, but generally was uninterested. I admit I was definitely frustrated by your choice of words, specifically "I can't get over the things that are getting wiped out of VA3-VA5 so that it can get stuffed with geography terms. I missed the votes on the Great Pyramid of Giza and Great Wall of China. Those were more vital and deserving of VA3 than any of these subtopics of geography." Some of these proposals were almost a year old, I had seen them already, it was backlogged, so I based my reasoning on the same thing, what I wanted to see on the list. I apologized for quoting you, if I didn't think it was civil wording I shouldn't have used it in response. Vital articles are vote based, as you have made clear, we are interested in different topics, I just wasn't using that as my primary guide when voting. There was a reason I hadn't voted on so many proposals.

You and others have repeatedly disparaged my proposals:

• "In fact, the more that you come up with, the more pissed I am that so many modestly important cities were stripped because I think they would serve us better than a lot of them. However, if we are not going to readd those, I think geography should give spaces to other subjects. I'd rather see the 3rd or 4th most important painting by Monet or Lichtenstein get the slot than have a geography expert fill them up to the best of his ability."

• Dude, VA is all about ebbs and flows of preferences. To put new stuff in other stuff has to come out. For a while it was chopping down the city lists. Now it seems to be chopping out old bios that living folks don't remember that well. I'd prefer more sports related content, arts related content and specific places. You want geography concepts. The only way to put those things in is to prefer them to something else. This is not personal. This is not a personal disparagement. There are a finite number of spaces.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:50, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes, the list ebbs and flows. You have made it clear you are voting against my proposals largely because you are considering how they fit into the finite number of spaces. I was not using that as a primary guiding motive, but with the call to take a look at old proposals, it was not doing any favors to abstain from these votes. I have intentionally avoided many of your posts, in no small part because I was avoiding making you "pissed." However, a post I have spent over a year trying to get through is now unlikely to pass, and I was working to make some elbow room to get stuff lined up. If that isn't going to pass, I'd prefer other pages I'm more interested in be added. However, as stated by you previously, editors do not need a reason to explain their votes, they can be added for any reason. Voting to get old proposals closed is literally what we were asked to do, not doing so to clear out the lists was slowing things down. I'm sorry that I was a salty, pointy, curmudgeon, I should have voted on things more evenly and not brought energy from one proposal into another. I'm sorry to you and everyone involved, as stated I think some IRL stress is creeping into interactions, and a few other editors are particularly rough on me in vital over the past few months making me frustrated with the process. I intended to vote on as much of the list as possible to help with the backlog, and I do agree with my votes even if I regret the manner in which I cast them. This seems like a Wikipedia:Wikilawyering attempt to get them removed when I didn't capitulate and revert them, prevent me from voting on other proposals you're involved with, and possibly strategically remove someone who posts things you don't agree with. Telling me that you opened this notice because I stand by my votes, after I apologized and asked what you wanted me to do, really makes that feel like the case. Again, I apologize, accept being trouted by you or anyone else, and will endeavor not to bring energy between proposals in the future. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 20:34, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

• I can't believe I am supporting one of these.
• "I think you are in overdrive on getting geography topics included at VA. I think you are going too far."

I voted my mind, in a back log. Yes I was frustrated, and I apologize for that. I'll try to be more civil in the future in my reasoning for votes. I returned to previous proposals I had skipped and voted. Vital articles are vote based, not consensus. I've already apologized to you on the project page, but I legitimately think if you are voting based on what you'd rather see listed, then it is fair to do the same if I'm on the fence (which is why I hadn't already voted on those proposals, I scroll past them at least once a week). This feels like a strategy to permanently remove someone you find annoying. I believe many people have problems with stuff I propose because they like the status quo. Again, you literally stated you made this because I "stand by your votes." Your goal seems to be to get my opinion of your proposals removed/reversed, and ultimately get me to stop proposing things you disagree with. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 19:15, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

•  Comment: Just want to add a link to a relevant ANI post from September 20th involving a dispute between you and an IP editor on the vital articles here. Specifically, you stated "At VA, voting does not require reasoning. I could just add my signature and it would count as much as if I wrote a paragraph justification." @QuicoleJR stated: "That seems to be the current practice at vital articles, like it is in other parts of Wikipedia which operate on pure votes. Tony can vote oppose for any reason, and IP votes are seemingly not counted due to sockpuppetry concerns."

GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 23:48, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Both of you have had subpar conduct in this dispute, but I wouldn't say sanctions are warranted on either side. GeogSage, regardless of intent, that definitely looks like retaliation, and I'd prefer if you didn't mass-oppose proposals by one person in the future (or at least have more detailed rationales so it doesn't look like retaliation). Tony, it is also not a good look to bring a dispute like this to ANI after having yourself brought to ANI for doing something similar to an IP. Also, that "do you stand by those votes" comment ironically looks like the exact type of voter intimidation you accuse GeogSage of. Both of you need to move on, and I'm frankly disappointed that this is at ANI at all. This should be closed with a trout to both parties. QuicoleJR (talk) 00:08, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

To be clear, the mass opposing is IMO disruptive, regardless of who does it or why. GeogSage, please don't do that again. However, sanctions are not needed. QuicoleJR (talk) 00:16, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

I would accept a trout (I think the button works on talk page). Stress is likely starting to creep in from IRL, so probably not my best self. Again, apologize to all parties involved. I'll try to avoid bringing energy from other proposals into votes. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 00:17, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

• Was it WP:POINTY? Quite possibly so, yes. But "voter intimidation"? Good grief... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:35, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

  I was thinking much the same. I really am at a loss as to how -- editing Wikipedia under a pseudonym -- anyone could be "intimidated" by a pseudonymous editor from behind a keyboard Somewhere Unknown in the world. C'mon, TonytheTiger, you're a smarter editor than that. Ravenswing 04:19, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

  @The Bushranger and Ravenswing: So both of you think it is [ ] normal to express that you don't like how a person voted by sending a message of voting against 30 of his nominations and votes in response. Do you understand how voter intimidation works. It works by taking actions that are clearly in response to a vote that make it seem like the voter is better off not voting than voting and enduring the action. Let me know if you understand something different or if you agree that this is how voter intimidation works. So if I vote in favor of one thing in a disapproved manner and it results in 30 votes against things that are in my opinion good for WP, that would seem like textbook voter intimidation and behavior that should be discouraged. Are you both in favor of such responses to votes that you don't like?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:11, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

  Tony, every time you're at ANI or AN, you act as if digging holes was the sole reason you're there. If you keep doing this at a certain point it will have to be concluded that you're not compatible with a collaborative project. Neither of us said that, you know neither of us said that, and I at least would very much appreciate it if you would strike the insinuation that I did. I specifically said it was disrupting Wikipedia to make a point; what it is not is "voter intimidation" and the suggestion that it is illustrates that you see Wikipedia as a battlefield. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:17, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

  What are you saying you didn't say?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:21, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

  So both of you think it is normal to express that you don't like how a person voted by sending a message of voting against 30 of his nominations and votes in response.. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:22, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

  OK. You did not say that is normal...and you stated that voting 30 times in response to a vote is not voter intimidation? Do you think I am misdefining voter intimidation and think it is something different than I defined or are you saying that 30 responding votes does not fall under the definition I presented?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:28, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

  I said it is disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Which is what it is. It is not, by any definition, "voter intimidation" except, apparently, yours. I also note you have not struck your accusation towards me above. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:30, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

  Since WP is all about sharing knowledge and I apparently don't understand how to define voter intimidation, I would welcome a correction of my definition or just a suitable presentation of what it is.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:45, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

  Stop sealioning. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:13, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

  Nor your accusation towards me, in what is a breathtaking display of straw man arguments. Crack open a dictionary and take a good look at the meaning of the word "intimidation." (Or the relevant article, which holds "Intimidation is a behavior and legal wrong which usually involves deterring or coercing an individual by threat of violence ... Intimidation is similar to menacing, coercion, terrorizing and assault in the traditional sense.") Please do explain how it's remotely possible -- for instance -- for me to intimidate you to edit how I wish through threats of violence (or, really, by any other conceivable means), and how such a definition applies here? Ravenswing 05:47, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

  User:Ravenswing, doesn't the WP:LEAD of our article point out examples where violence is not the means. E.g. Political intimidation includes Embargo and the relevant kind of intimidation here is defined there as "Personal intimidation is considered to be a management strategy to signal/inform potential rivals that they may face significant consequences if they act against the person", which I think is what I am claiming 30 votes against my nominations is. I am claiming that the 30 votes is a "signal/inform... [of] significant consequences".-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:02, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

  Please enlighten us (a) what "significant consequences" the non-administrator was intimidating you with and (b) why you chose to partially strike your initial accuation against myself and Ravenswing in a fashion that changes it from "could be construed as a personal attack" to "'explicity one". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:16, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

  (a)significant is a WP:POV term so responding is a WP:HOLES. I have presented 2 sets of diffs that demonstrate a 30-fold consequence to an action. Intimidation is demonstration of consequences to action. Significance is a POV term that has no winners. I am here seeking an evaluation of a 30-fold response and asking the people here to assess "significance". Significance is not for me to define.(b) A set of words with a removed and unreplaced verb is meant to demonstrate my loss for the proper word, which should remove all perception of accusation. I mean to state that you have declared the action to be POINTY, which I infer to mean is in the range of normal actions. I am saying that you believe this magnitude of POINTY actions to be in the range of acceptable (normal) actions. I am at a loss for the proper verb to present above and am unsure what you think you are being accused of if you believe 30-fold POINTY actions to be acceptable/normal. Do you accept that you are condoning 30-fold POINTY actions? Maybe condone is not the proper word either. I am not here to have you test my vocabulary. I am here to accuse him not you, but you seem to assert a tacit permission to be POINTY in a 30-fold manner, but object to me associating you with this assertion incorrectly.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:56, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

  How is someone condoning something or given "tacit permission" when they've explicitly called it out as "Quite possibly so, yes" a violation of our guidelines? Nil Einne (talk) 13:24, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

  Still having trouble finding words. Condone may be a bit strong too. Maybe tolerate or are tolerant of this type of violation is the correct language. Not sure.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:06, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

  Tony, it was a violation of our guidelines, but it wasn't bad enough to warrant sanctions. The most this warrants is a "please don't do that again", which GeogSage has been receptive to above. Other than that, what do you want to happen here? QuicoleJR (talk) 14:38, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

  Did I misinterpret the 05:17, 14 November 2025 battlefield comment as saying I am at fault for looking for a fight.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:00, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

  (Non-administrator comment) Considering there are concerns (rightly or wrongly) about the definition of terms and dragging disputes out, it might be best for you to draw a line under what's happened so far. Either clearly explain if you want anything else to happen as a result of this thread, or if it can just be closed.

  Learning when to let things go is a valuable skill to have, it seems like this might be the time. Blue Sonnet (talk) 16:27, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

  Do you accept that you are condoning 30-fold POINTY actions? No, because the only person remotely implying this is you. I mean to state that you have declared the action to be POINTY, which I infer to mean is in the range of normal actions. WP:POINTY deliberately says "Do not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point" (emphasis added). Since it's blatantly obvious you are either deliberately misinterpretating things in this conversation, or are incapable of comprehending very basic things about how Wikipedia works, we are done here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:37, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

• I was thinking that if I am the subject of demonstrations of consequences, that I doubt I am the first. I am now under the impression that the onus of such a claim would be borne by me. I can't drop the claim of here or anywhere else and have investigators atttempt to detect anything unless others come forward. Is this correct?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:03, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

  (Non-administrator comment) I'm not 100% sure what you mean, but if a person makes a claim then the onus is on them to provide sufficient evidence. The more severe the claim, the higher the burden of proof.

  There's a saying they comes to mind: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

  The evidence you provided shows that the other editor needed a warning, but sanctions are not necessary at this time.

  If you feel that another editor's behaviour warrants sanctions, then the burden of proof is on you to provide evidence that the other person's behaviour is extreme enough to need that level of intervention. You also need to clearly explain what sanctions you are seeking and why they are necessary.

  In this case, your evidence didn't show that sanctions are needed at this time.

  It would be a good idea to just accept that and move on - continuing this debate past its natural end is only adding to existing concerns that you're not able to let things go.

  Prove them wrong and move on. Blue Sonnet (talk) 22:15, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

  Consider this case concluded.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:44, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Resolved

-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:44, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

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

Linkspam by User:MacBookz

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

---

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

Quite a spamming spree here, which is basically a form of linkspam designed to draw attention to the newly created article The Big Cases. Enough already. ♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:52, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

They've been warned, they've stopped. The additions seem rather excessive but quite plausibly good faith, I don't see a need for any sanctions here. If they start up again, ping me and I'll try to take a look. Rusalkii (talk) 22:38, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

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

Racist talk page post from an evident shared account

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

---

~2025-33138-00 (talk · contribs)

A user made a racist talk page post at Talk:Pakistan (that I'm pretty sure qualifies for RD2), and then another person on the same temporary account addressed the first editor, in violation of WP:NOSHARE policy. Both diffs together: [287]. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:04, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Looking at it, it's probably not another person, but just the same person roleplaying a reply to their comment. RD2 has been dealt with by @CoconutOctopus. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:10, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

They're back again at ~2025-33630-75 (talk · contribs). They also told me to kill myself. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:40, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Are IP rangeblocks still a thing? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:51, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

They are still a thing, although this specific case would be way too big of a range. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 01:31, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

I dislkike semi'ing a Talk, but that seems the sanest solution. If anyone feels the duration should be adjusted, feel free. Star Mississippi 01:33, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

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

Disruptive edits by ~2025-33636-81.

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

---

This user ~2025-33636-81 has been constantly making disruptive edits that editors have been reverting. Please ban this guy. HiGuys69420 (talk) 23:46, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

They got a warning an hour ago and haven't edited since. We try escalating warnings first unless vandalism or disruption is severe. Fences&Windows 00:25, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Ok. I will continue monitoring the guy and update if he tries anything HiGuys69420 (talk) 02:18, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

And WP:AIV is that way for not really urgent cases. – robertsky (talk) 03:16, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

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

Nonsensical edits by TAs

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

---

~2025-34030-59 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and ~2025-33724-98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) among many others, authors of the Teahouse threads WP:TH#Toilet and WP:TH#Yusaya. Their edit history across these and numerous other temp accounts are seemingly nonsensical insertions of 'Yusaya Takei' 'Thomas' 'Yusaya' 'Fuji-Q' etc across random pages. I suspect possibly a young, non-English speaking editor given apparent mentions of an affinity for Thomas the Tank Engine. They haven't made any attempt to respond to replies on their teahouse threads, so I think there's a WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU of a sort at play. Maybe an IP/range block is in order? For now their edits haven't been disruptive to articlespace or anything, but given the sheer number of TAs they seem to be (accidentally?) creating to continue this behaviour I think it's best we keep them away from the project. Athanelar (talk) 12:57, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Probably WP:NOTHERE. You are definitely right in assuming they are young, if we are to believe "(Redacted) 2012" as their real name and birthday... which is also concerning that they put it on there. Best to block them for their own safety honestly, GarethBaloney (talk) 13:05, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Be careful, I think your supposition here counts as a WP:OUTING violation, you might need to remove it. Athanelar (talk) 13:10, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Posting another editor's personal information is unacceptable, unless that person has voluntarily posted their own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia; my emph. But I agree, GarethBaloney, it might qualify for OS, and they aren't being particularly productive at this time. —Fortuna, imperatrix 13:22, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Dunno about the birthday but they appear to be a duck. (SPIs) Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:28, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Excellent identification Alpha3031, now both reported at SPI. —Fortuna, imperatrix 13:37, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

There's a lot more than those two accounts, FYI. There's at least two more visible in the thread WP:TH#Yusaya for example, and if you follow their contributions around you can see them replying to themselves in various places on different TAs, that's why I originally suggested an IP/range block here as they just keep popping up on multiple new TAs per day. Athanelar (talk) 14:00, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

I added a few more at the SPI. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 14:03, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

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

Disruptive edits

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

---

There appears to be a large number of user accounts beginning with ~2025 that are vandalising pages. An example of these accounts are on the revision history of the Cloudflare page where multiple accounts are vandalising the pages.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cloudflare&action=history — Preceding unsigned comment added by RLS 84 (talk • contribs) 14:34, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

These are Wikipedia:Temporary accounts, they've been in force for a little while now and have been discussed a few times on here. Blue Sonnet (talk) 15:09, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

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

Afd closure

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

---

Recently a user named Left guide closed two afds of Ahillya Harjani and Yeoh Kay Ee as redirects when there was at least one delete vote for each one of them. Can someone reverse this erroneous closure? The discussions could've been relisted once more. zglph^•talk• 07:03, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

The appropriate procedure would've been to either discuss on my talk page or raise at WP:DRV. But since we're here, I guess I'll say I fail to see what the issue is, as there is both quorum and unanimous consensus against article retention, and ATDs are preferred where suggested. If an uninvolved admin here really thinks the closes are that bad, they are free to unilaterally vacate it per WP:REOPEN. Left guide (talk) 07:18, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

I really think you should revert yourself and let an admin decide what to do in their capacities. Yes the closures you made doesn't make any sense at all. zglph^•talk• 07:21, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

This isn't really the proper forum for such a discussion, in this Left guide is correct, but since we are here, I'll give my opinion anyway. The closures per se are reasonable, in my opinion, but they probably should not have been closed by a non-administrator, because they weren't entirely uncontroversial. Salvio ^giuliano 08:10, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

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