Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1207

Disruptive IP user using multiple IPs to mass revert me, edit war, and evade blocks

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.

---

~2025-33939-27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

please check this out. This user won't stop https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:~2025-33939-27 Kpop777 (talk) 02:14, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

When you bring a report to ANI, you should bring specific diffs showing the problematic behaviour in question. The admins shouldn't have to go digging to find the problem you're asking for help with.

What mass reverts are happening? Where is the edit warring? Which block is being evaded? (Non-administrator comment) Athanelar (talk) 02:17, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

I linked it all on the IP's users talk page where I sent his other IP that got blocked previously and he's blocked evading. Here's some pages where's it happened. Afro-Haitans, Pan-Africanism, Black British people, Black French people, Afro-Grenadians Kpop777 (talk) 02:21, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

They are evading a block on Special:Contributions/~2025-33429-54. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 02:22, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

The sock puppet is also accusing me of being a sock puppet because another IP user is taking my side, and in his older edit summaries he's accused me of "White supremacist editing" for no reason. I've had to deal with this for almost a week Kpop777 (talk) 02:26, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

now he's edit warring in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:~2025-33939-27 can someone please do something Kpop777 (talk) 02:40, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Again, please link to diffs (links to specific edits) rather than entire talk pages; I'm not sure what 'edit warring' can even be happening on a user talk page.

Also, as discusssed at that talk page, please do not remove other peoples' comments on talk pages, as per WP:TPO. I understand it's frustrating if you feel they're making false personal attacks against you, but that's something that can be dealt with by admins. Athanelar (talk) 02:49, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Taking a look with TAIV, none of these TAs share an IP address or give any indication of being sock puppets. I haven't looked at behaviour but they are meat puppets at the worst. Ultraodan (talk) 02:47, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

I have indef'd that TA, and semi protected Pan-Africanism for a while. Mfield (Oi!) 02:49, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

@Ultraodan If they're not sock puppets why would multiple IP users mass revert me starting a week ago, with all IPs showing similar behavior Kpop777 (talk) 02:50, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

All I'm saying is that there's no technical evidence for them being socks. Behavioural evidence is entirely separate. Ultraodan (talk) 02:53, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

So how am I supposed to deal with the mass reverts on multiple pages, false attacks, and edit wars that are similar on each page Kpop777 (talk) 02:55, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

You can request page protection and report them to WP:ANI or WP:AIV (AIV only for obvious vandalism). If it's possible to do, I recommend WP:DENY. Ultraodan (talk) 02:58, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

@admin They also vandalized the article Black Japanese recently, again removing info related to slavery for no reason. Then another admin locked the page but in the wrong version. Could you or someone else restore the correct version https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Black_Japanese&diff=prev&oldid=1321999399 ~2025-34162-00 (talk) 02:56, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

I am not going to wade into that unilaterally without familiarity with the article, esp given other intervening edits. It's only ECP protected, best to bring this up on the article talk page where a regular editor of the article can restore it accordingly per consensus. Mfield (Oi!) 03:06, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

So Kpop777 appears to be blatantly socking as 2025-34147-62 and ~2025-34162-00 (this one is right above), and probably a lot of other of these IPs. Projection? ~2025-34192-59 (talk) 03:05, 17 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.

BLP issues and possible legal threats

• Peter Cumming (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• EAuth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'm bringing this article to wider community attention as a disinterested third party. From what I can gather, EAuth began editing Peter Cumming recently to remove content, some of which is negative, supposedly at the request of the subject of the article. Nil NZ reverted EAuth's edits and brought concerns about EAuth's conflict of interest up to their talk page. This appears to be spiraling into an edit war, and EAuth has made comments which could be interpreted as legal threats, such as here (I will be consulting with a legal professional on this matter.) and various mentions of libel on their talk page and in edit summaries (e.g., here). Discussion about the article may be better suited for its talk page or BLPN, but the legal threats and edit warring have nudged me to bring this matter up here. MaterialsPsych (talk) 05:45, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the report. It's a newbie falling into a black hole. My humble opinion is that the article takes too much space to report a January 2023 charge of drink driving for a very minor politician. I know editors get excited about CENSORSHIP, and drink driving is a significant problem, but I am uncomfortable with WP:ADAM editing and my vote would be for no action (maybe a page block if necessary), and a rewrite that focuses on the resignation. Johnuniq (talk) 06:11, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Attempted de-escalation here, hopefully it's just a new editor who's getting frustrated by accidentally running headfirst into some possible policy breaches.

The sun is coming up soon and I haven't been to bed yet, I'll check for replies later if someone else doesn't get to it in the meantime. Or, more likely, I get distracted and don't go to sleep for another couple of hours... Blue Sonnet (talk) 06:35, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Hanoi vandal active again on Wicked: For Good – The Soundtrack

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 month ago, WP:LTA/HANOI was active making disruptive edits to Wicked: For Good – The Soundtrack (ex. Special:Diff/1319858801). The IP range they were using was blocked by User:asilvering for six months (discussion on User talk:Toadspike/Archive 4), but they appear to be back now, having made the same disruptive edit from several sockpuppet accounts: User:~2025-33708-41(Special:Diff/1322236910), User:~2025-33410-13 (Special:Diff/1322266843). Tman8667 (talk) 20:04, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

This has been handled. -- asilvering (talk) 20:37, 17 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.

Malin the railfan back again 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.

---

• Malin the railfan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Previous ANI discussion which led to a temporary block: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1186#Malin the railfan WP:NOTHERE
• SPI page: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Malin the railfan/Archive

This editor is back calling a page move I did months ago (diff) WP:MOVEVANDAL (diff) because they disagree with article title convention for Australian locomotive articles to use the original builder name.

Repeatedly reverts page moves instead of engaging in discussion, failing to use processes such as move requests when I or others try to ask them to (see two previous diffs and their user talk page for a sea of warnings).

Please consider an indefinite block this time. I'm tired of their persistent WP:NOTHERE attitude, which included WP:NPA last time. Fork99 (talk) 19:49, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

I've blocked them from moving pages, since that's a large portion of their problematic editing. Another admin may choose to expand this, but I wanted to try starting here. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:03, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

The GT46C is supposed to be designated as an EMD locomotive and not a Downer Rail locomotive because it is based on an EMD locomotive. AND DO NOT BLOCK ME AGAIN OR YOU WILL BE TERMINATED, NOT ME! Malin the railfan (talk) 21:19, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

You will be blocked if it is necessary to prevent you from disrupting Wikipedia. I strongly suggest you strike the ALL CAPS bit there as it's violating WP:CIVIL. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:28, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

"YOU WILL BE TERMINATED, NOT ME!"

So you want to block the admin for blocking you? GarethBaloney (talk) 22:20, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

They have 70 edits & this is their fourth block in six months (EW, socking, personal attacks/harassment, threatening admin sanctions). I'm having trouble seeing how they are a net positive to this project, especially in view of their response above.

I always try to look on the positive side & see if there's any potential for development, but the last time they were brought to ANI was for comments like this one, and I'm not seeing any change in their behaviour since then. Blue Sonnet (talk) 22:29, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Indef this guy. His highlights include You can't tell me what to do, bitch! [1], the unimpressive "you will be terminated!!!1!!!1!!!1!!!!" on display above, and the previously described move warring. He's not interested in working in a collaborative environment, so let's show him the door. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:18, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

I also want to add this quote from their user talk page after being blocked previously for sockpuppetry, which was reverted by another editor, probably on the basis of WP:DENY: Hey! That is illegal! Unblock User:Burlington Northern U30C 5383, and me, or get fucked. Fork99 (talk) 01:01, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Also found these charming edits from an IP sock following an earlier block: DO NOT FUCKING REVERT MY EDITS, BITCH! IT'S NOT VANDALISM! DO YOU HEAR ME? IT'S NOT VANDALISM! and Fuck you!

This is from a second sock attempt where they pretended to be yet another person to support their case & got angry when blocked.

I've spent a while trying to find any apology or acknowledgement that this isn't ok, instead I'm finding more attacks and profanity the deeper I go.Blue Sonnet (talk) 05:16, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

or get fucked Is that supposed to be a bad option? JoJo Anthrax (talk) 14:20, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

I guess it depends on who's offering and whether it costs extra, but I digress...Blue Sonnet (talk) 18:47, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Now look, JoJo, that kind of cheap, tasteless humor is my job on this lousy ship. Stay in your lane. EEng 22:11, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

I have blocked Malin the railfan for 48 hours for personal attacks and harassment as a normal adminstrative action. The community ban discussion can and should continue. Cullen328 (talk) 08:32, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Propose CBAN due to persistent aggression and misbehaviour

In view of the previous issues raised at ANI here, the three previous blocks for personal attacks, socking & threatening admin sanctions in the last six months and, most importantly, the fact that this editor continues with the same aggressive behaviour, I feel that they are a detriment to Wikipedia and regretfully propose a CBAN.

The diffs provided by myself and others show there is a consistent pattern of egregious behaviour, which they have not acknowledged and do not appear to want to change.

Time-limited blocks have already been attempted but were not been successful in changing their behaviour. Unfortunately, I do not see any other way forward at this time.

Additional evidence

1. First block for personal attacks/admin threats
2. Second block for edit warring
3. Third block for sockpuppetry
4. Pretending to be another user to support themselves in a discussion
5. Admission of further sockpuppetry

• Support as proposer. Blue Sonnet (talk) 01:49, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
• Support: Diffs show a willingness to become a Clear and Present menace of an editor. Borgenland (talk) 02:54, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
• Support. Posting YOU WILL BE TERMINATED, NOT ME alone is quite sufficient grounds to show them the door, given previous behaviour. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:00, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
• Support per the recent differences regarding the editor's general behavior (including being unable to work with other editors) and sockpuppetry. sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:01, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
• Support - best to escort the editor-in-question, out the door. GoodDay (talk) 03:06, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
• Support - as the editor who brought this user here to ANI twice. Fork99 (talk) 03:12, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

  As per my original post, at a minimum indef. I also believe in second chances (or however many chances this editor has had now), but now is not the time. Their behaviour is appalling, a waste of time and honestly has made me not edit Wikipedia much recently. Fork99 (talk) 16:38, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

  Hostile, refuses to engage in constructive discussion and then socks to pretend to be someone else to back themselves up. Please show them the way out. Fork99 (talk) 16:50, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

  I've had some more thought about this. This may well be completely wrong, but I have a hunch that Malin may have an agenda to change article titles from the original Australian manufacturer (e.g. UGL Rail, Downer Rail/EDI) to American companies (GE, EMD) with less involvement in their manufacturing process. Wikipedia is not a battleground and editors with ulterior motives/agendas don't belong here. I came to this conclusion after re-reading the SPI case page, as I theorised there that the editor is probably American. Anyways, please forgive me if this theory is incorrect. Just some food for thought. Fork99 (talk) 17:19, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

  Also note slightly circumstantial evidence, but the IP is from the US, "railfan" in Malin's username is an American term not commonly used in Australia (equivalent would be "rail/train enthusiast", "trainspotter" or the slightly derogatory "gunzel") and Burlington Northern is a former railroad in the US, when the article in dispute is an Australian locomotive. Add "foamer" to the list of uniquely Australian terms for the American "railfan". Fork99 (talk) 17:40, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

• Support per my previous comments and those above. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:22, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose - I'm sorry, but what? This is a waste of time. Just indef them. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 03:31, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

  I can see your point, and I doubt anyone would have objected if an admin had stepped in with an indef. The advantage of a CBAN however is that it makes it clear that this isn't just the 'evil admin cabal' that wants railfan gone. A more effective message, hopefully, and if this is a youngster, as seems likely, maybe one they'll take in for the future. And presumably the people supporting the CBAN here don't think they are wasting their time. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:03, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

  That's a really good point, especially since this editor has had poor reactions to previous bans and created socks to try to show that other editors back them up & indicate a false consensus.

  This being a (legitimate) group consensus rather than "one mean admin" would ideally show them that the community as a whole agree that this behaviour isn't wanted and needs to change.

  I see a lot of block appeals where a single admin is blamed for a supposedly-unfair block, so at least that shouldn't happen in this case.

  I've said in other comments that I wouldn't mind an indef & considered adding it as a second proposal after Jauerback's comment, however the number of people who had already supported the CBAN made it feel a bit redundant.

  I'm a little sad that they haven't responded, but at the same time it must be overwhelming to be the subject of this discussion so I can understand why. Blue Sonnet (talk) 18:44, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

• Support - But slightly regretfully, because after I saw YOU WILL BE TERMINATED, my internal voice reading their edits made me think of 80s Schwarzenegger playing an unhelpful Wikipedia editor. COME WITH ME IF YOU WANT EXTENDED CONFIRMED RIGHTS!!!! CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 03:51, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

  Glad I wasn't the only one... Blue Sonnet (talk) 04:26, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

  Me three. Augmented Seventh (talk) 05:32, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

  The constant use of "bitch" reminds me of Freddy Krueger. King Lobclaw (talk) 14:38, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

• Support - Threatening other editors with being terminated is beyond stupid. Editor time is our most valuable resource and this editor seems to be intent on wasting it. TarnishedPath^talk 04:01, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
• Support - Seems to only be here to waste time. Ultraodan (talk) 04:34, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
• Support - Clearly he can't remember it wholesale that he isn't the last true editor; he's bought so wholly into his lying truths that he's made himself expendable. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 04:55, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
• Support Just indef them, they're not here to build an encyclopedia. Dr vulpes (Talk) 05:10, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
• A couple of thoughts:

1. The user name implies that being a rail fan is more important to this user than being a Wikipedia editor. That's all very well, but they might find a better home at Fandom.
2. I get the impression that this may be one of our younger editors. An indefinite block until they show a bit more maturity could be useful. I don't care whether this is framed as a CBAN or a normal admin block.

Phil Bridger (talk) 09:42, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Agree with #2 especially, this thought did cross my mind quite a bit when looking at their editing history but I didn't want to presume. I'm happy with any block/ban as long as they have to actively show a significant change in behaviour before they can return.

If this is due to age then it could take a good year or more before they grow out of this. If it's not, then I just hope they take this as an opportunity for self-reflection. Blue Sonnet (talk) 10:08, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose completely. A community ban is the strongest, most drastic measure we have, and recently we are getting too trigger happy with it. This editor is a minor league vandal ~ doesn't even have any interesting insults; are we really saying that they're the equivalent of...well, we have been through some pretty amazingly bad characters over the years and this one is nothing compared to some of them. Indef, per Jauerback ~ Lindsay^Hello 13:51, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

  We have had some amazingly bad characters over the years, and an unfortunate truth is the long history of coddling their antics. How many good and productive editors were driven away by the antics that (say) MickMacNee committed in the course of his two dozen blocks? It'll take years and the work of dozens of editors to untangle the mess Lugnuts made, at least. Any time we can stop that nonsense right up front is a win for the encyclopedia. Ravenswing 01:28, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

• Support with this behavior, doesn't seem fit to be editing Wikipedia as of now. Z E T A³ 15:52, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
• Support INDEF oppose CBAN. The behaviour has been very bad, but I'm not convinced that it's been so dreadful that a community discussion would be required to lift a block. (But should they be blocked as a normal admin action, be unblocked, and reappear here, my opinion could well be different.) Narky Blert (talk) 17:07, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
• Support obviously not willing or able to contribute collegially. AndyTheGrump makes an interesting point that a CBAN, while more onerous to reverse, may actually be perceived by new editors as fairer. In this case I'm comfortable saying it's well-earned either way. —Rutebega (talk) 17:34, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
• Support This editor sounds like a professional wrestling 'heel' from the late 1980's, not someone who's here to improve this project. Hiobazard (talk/contribs) 17:58, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
• Support per Blue-Sonnet above. They may need to see that there's a community consensus that their edits are problematic, and that not just one admin at a time is disagreeing. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:49, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
• Support per proposer. At what point is enough enough? XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 21:15, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
• Support CBAN - The evidence of the user's egrigeous behaviour makes me think that Malin the railfan is just a waste of time for other editors and not willing to change their attitude no matter what other approach instead of a CBAN is used. Enough is enough. ~SG5536B 23:13, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
• Support. Their actions including blocks and threatening editors here with termination shows that this measure is necessary as they are causing issues and wasting editors time with unacceptable behaviour.GothicGolem29 (Talk) 01:40, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
• Support: This user had been warned several times for WP:PMW, WP:PA and WP:SOCK, yet despite these warnings and temporary blocks, it seems that they haven't improved their behaviour; met some of the WP:NOTHERE traits including "A long-term history of disruptive behavior [sic] with little or no sign of positive intentions". Most outragiously, they claimed to have sysop rights (including blocking threats) when they are not an admin. EditorGirlAL07 (talk) 03:13, 19 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.

TheTruthIsFreeOfficial

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.

---

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

WP:PA and WP:IDHT at [2] and [3]. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:29, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Their edits uniformly paint the picture of a person incompatible with the pillars of Wikipedia. Indeffed. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 05:52, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

(non-admin post-closure comment) WP:OWB #72 strikes again. Narky Blert (talk) 09:45, 19 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.

request to lift the semi protection

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.

---

request to lift the semi protection so people can update the page and accurate information https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yi_Zhou — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2025-34493-19 (talk) 20:55, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

User is WP:FORUMSHOPING and spamming RFPP/D, and has been unanimously told in ALL places that their views and claimed sources are not reliable and are not supported by reliable sources, by multiple editors. Zinnober9 (talk) 21:06, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

For reference, this TA was edit-warring on Yi Zhou over a birthdate, as can be seen in the revision history. Protection was requested to stop the edit war and was granted. In addition, their position is getting a frosty reception on the talk page. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 21:07, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Based on technical data, it is my impression that ~2025-33856-53 and ~2025-34493-19 are the same person. Separately, ~2025-34386-82 and ~2025-34340-88 are likely operated by the same operator. Those latter two TAs and the first two TAs are possible and fairly likely to be all the same person. From my checks, I believe the other TAs in the edit war aren't this person. However, there could easily be WP:MEAT or something similar going on. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 21:51, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

This is not the place to ask about lowering the protection level of an article. There is no consensus on the birthday yet so it would just create an edit war that includes yourself. GarethBaloney (talk) 21:55, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Another point, the fact that all of your ( ~2025-34493-19's) edits have been about Yi Zhou leads me to believe you are NOT HERE. GarethBaloney (talk) 21:57, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

OP blocked for 31 hours for being disruptive, spamming the noticeboards, and not letting go of their position when faced with a contrary consensus on the talk page. Since the article is already protected, no need to do anything further currently, but if OP comes back and continues on this course, more can be done (e.g., pblocks from the page and its talk page applied to the appropriate IP ranges). — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:06, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

^{Do IP ranges still exist for temporary accounts? I think I have misunderstood something about the TA introduction here.} GarethBaloney (talk) 22:16, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

All accounts have IP information attached to their edits for 90 days. Checkusers have access to that info for logged-in accounts; admins and people with TAIV privileges have access for temporary accounts. A user can easily dump the cookie that confers the temporary account, thus gaining a new one. As this user seems to have run through multiple TAs, an IP block may be more useful in the long run than blocking the TA currently being used. Blocks on a TA do autoblock the IP for a day, so on this short block I saw no reason to do an IP block. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:45, 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.

Repeated disruptive edits despite numerous 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.

---

Alex.kundeus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Repeatedly removing content, inserting unknown parameters and other disruptive edits. User has been warned MULTIPLE times and continues to make disruptive edits with edit summaries that simply say "good" or "better". User has refused to respond to any notices on their talk page and is not communicating at all.

Sample of bad edits include: [4], [5] (which is a revert of my correction to the first edit), and [6].

I get the user is trying to be helpful, but their edits are causing more harm than good and their refusal to communicate and respond to messages on their talk page is a definite problem. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:32, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

The shoddy edit summaries do not give me hope. Neither does that fact that 20 out of their 50 most recent edits have been reverted. GarethBaloney (talk) 22:39, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

User has now reverted corrections to their bad edits with this series of edits... Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 01:15, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

It appears they have stumbled over the Sock-o-Meter's tripwire. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 03:46, 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.

Wikiman2230 and BFDI

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 don't want to do this but I believe this is appropriate. He's too disruptive in spaces regarding object shows. Diffs: [7] [8] Tankishguy 22:06, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

I fail to see how these diffs are disruptive? Sure, the community might not be inclined to accept object show-related pages, but he is acting in good faith. Z E T A³ 22:14, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

I know they are in good faith, however he keeps making articles and drafts that do not abide by GNG. Tankishguy 22:15, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Well most of his articles aren't object show-related and are fine quality- and notability-wise. The Inanimate Insanity draft wasn't made by him originally, and it's a honest mistake. Z E T A³ 22:17, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

He keeps making them and doesn't stop. Tankishguy 22:23, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

he keeps making them. Tankishguy 22:20, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

There is nothing indicating that either of these two edits are disruptive. You need to provide actual evidence here, not random diffs with no explanation. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:23, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

he keeps making the same mistake on GNG. Tankishguy 22:24, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

This isn't severe enough to warrant ANI, considering he has only created one BFDI article and submitted one object show draft (in which, removing LLM slop is commendable). Z E T A³ 22:27, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

You've provided no evidence for that. If you keep insisting that this editor is doing something wrong without providing evidence this will boomerang back at you. I suggest you either provide evidence of disruptive editing or withdraw this request. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:29, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

I don't see how creating an article about Michael Huang or removing AI generated article content (admittedly with quite a heavy hand) is really disruptive. GarethBaloney (talk) 22:25, 17 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.

Nayem Raja2

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 may be a sockpuppet of User:Singer Faruk Raj, they have creating these G11 articles User:Nayem Raja2/sandbox and Draft:Faruk Raj and their username may be promotional. The reason we shouldn't salt User:Nayem Raja2/sandbox is because it's a user's page, so it won't be recreated like Draft:Faruk Raj, and therefore, we should block this user. - BᴏᴅʜıHᴀᴙᴩ (talk, contributions) 19:45, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Blocked. JBW (talk) 19:53, 17 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.

Concern regarding editor conduct in AfC and false claims about process

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.

---

Anastasios Moumtzoglou (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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.

{{subst:ANI warning}} Hello. I am requesting assistance regarding my interactions with editor qcne in the context of a declined Articles for Creation submission.

• **Issue 1 (False Claim about Process):** After a decline, I attempted to use the official Decline review process. In response, editor qcne publicly stated here that "No such thing exists on Wikipedia." This is factually incorrect, as the page and process are official and linked directly from the AfC main page. Misinforming a user about official processes is harmful.
• **Issue 2 (Unsubstantiated Source Labeling):** The draft was declined in part because qcne labeled my source, IGI Global, a "vanity publisher." When I asked for the specific policy supporting this, they stated they "see consensus" and suggested a "Google search," but cited no policy. I cannot find an official policy or RS list that supports this claim.
• **Issue 3 (Uncivil Tone):** The same response referred to my actions as using a "shitty AI chatbot."

My concerns are: 1. An editor is falsely denying the existence of an official Wikipedia process to a user seeking review. 2. An editor is applying severe, damaging labels to sources without providing policy-based evidence when directly asked. 3. This is combined with uncivil language.

I believe this conduct is disruptive. I seek clarity on the proper venue for a decline review and a review of the unsubstantiated "vanity publisher" claim. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anastasios Moumtzoglou (talk • contribs) 16:57, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

I have nothing to add other than, shitty AI chatbot continues to be shitty. qcne (talk) 17:01, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

As do self-promotional autobiographies. If the autobiographer finds our response to his autobiography less than welcoming, I'd suggest that is because he failed to do a little research on what Wikipedia is first. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:09, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Misinforming a user about official processes is harmful. Yes, this is exactly why you shouldn't be relying on a hallucinating chatbot to teach you how Wikipedia works. jlwoodwa (talk) 17:16, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

I have blocked this editor. Compence is required and the reliance on AI to the point of following completely fictitious Wikipedia processes shows they do not have the requisite skills to edit here. Enough editor time has been wasted answering to this editor's chatbot. -- Whpq (talk) 17:26, 17 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 suspect I am the victim of WP:hounding by another editor

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 wish to report I strongly suspect another editor is following me around successive articles I am editing/working upon. This has been occurring since earlier this month, and has led to several instances of edit warring between us (on two successive articles in particular), but has now begun upon a third article. You can see in edit histories of this article and this article (and upon one particular talk page here) the friction this has caused. Yes, you can argue editors are stepping on each others' toes (which is inevitable from time to time for us all); however, my issue ultimately lies in the fact this particular editor - Hippo43 - has seemingly followed me across successive articles despite the friction between us and, as another editor has pointed out on this noticeboard previously, is seemingly wp:hounding me (or at the very least following me around just to focus upon what I am editing following the unfortunate previous friction between us). He is claiming it is a coincidence (and now asking me to leave him/her alone), but I do not think it is a coincidence anymore (not by this stage). I have informed this editor I think he is following me and please to stop.

The issues of the friction between this editor and myself has been touched upon in a previous topic on the noticeboard just two days ago (in the 'Unhelpful contributions section'), which is still open on here as I type. And no, the anonymous user in the top-left of that section is not me, as can be or has been verified. Also, the actual edits as per "undoing" (and some edit explanations) you can see in the Robert Black and Martin Allen between us both can speak to civility and who overwhelmingly wishes to compromise. It has now over-spilled to the Morgan Nick article. I will say again that my issue lies in what I am 98% certain is one editor specifically following me across successive articles despite the track record of friction between us. (Please look at the timing of the beginning of Hippo43's focus on this article as opposed to my editing upon it following our ongoing dispute upon a previous article as an example of what I can no longer believe is a coincidence.)

I don't think I have never reported an editor on here before (I always try to avoid it), but despite Hippo43 claiming it is just a coincidence he is recently editing successive articles I am devoting my own current focus upon (and after the extensive friction between us upon the first two), I do not believe this to be the case anymore.

Forgive me if this is slightly off-topic, but I also note from Hippo43's user talk history that he has been blocked at least three times for edit warring. In any case, I would like this issue to be resolved amicably. Thank you.--Kieronoldham (talk) 01:17, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

I replied to a message about this at my talk page. I am not hounding anyone. // Hippo43 (talk) 01:48, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

I will also note that @Kieronoldham said here that they have at least one of the mentioned pages on their watchlist. This may have created a false sense that they were being followed because they received notifications of new edits. aesurias (talk) 02:13, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

The timing is suspicious but given that these articles are all within the same general topic area, it's not unbelievable that you merely share the same interests. aesurias (talk) 02:09, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

@aesurias. That was in Hippo43's counterargument, the Nilsen article (which has nothing to do with the four articles I am referring to regarding the behaviour I am noting here and nor does the "these articles are all within the same general topic area" claim he or she has made (four successively and the chronological timing of inception, ext. editing/reverting from Hippo43 following our unfortunate friction on the first two in particular) cut much ice. We all have a watchlist we actively monitor and work upon. That edit has nothing to do with the likely behaviour I am referring to above. I have been on here since 2008; I haven't checked exactly how long Hippo43 has been on here. There is a chance he/she or I have edited an article or two over the years we have been on here with no friction (and certainly no edit warring or uncivil edit descriptions). My issue lies with chronological behaviour/"interest" outlined above re: he four articles in question and the reverting and (very likely following) friction between us.--Kieronoldham (talk) 02:32, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

See here for a comparison between your edits and theirs. aesurias (talk) 02:42, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Please check the actual edits I am referring themselves, and not the timing between them. I am referring to edits on the articles within the last month. I have been on Wiki. for 17 years. Best regards,--Kieronoldham (talk) 02:51, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

I am aware -- but clicking on the "timeline" section on that link will show you the timing between each edit, including the ones you mentioned, so you don't need to lay it out yourself. aesurias (talk) 02:54, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

I have outlined the content above for others and the behaviour/timing on the four articles as the reason for this report; data timing or stamping does not illustrate the actual content or reasoning. A data table holds very little beyond statistics which demonstrate very little as per a personal dispute. And everything I have outlined above needs human time and focus and not an artificial statistical intelligence report re: a dispute between two editors to come to a conclusion. But in any case, thanks.--Kieronoldham (talk) 03:03, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Have they followed you to any other articles outside that one topic or is it just those four articles?

If they follow you across lots of different subjects then that would be concerning, but if you both frequently edit about kidnappings/murders then you're going to end up working on the same articles at some point - it'd be strange if that didn't happen, honestly.

You're also inferring in your first post that the editor shouldn't be editing the same articles as you because there has been friction in the past - that's not really reasonable to assume or expect of another editor, unless there's an interaction ban in place. People have disagreements, this will be more likely if they work in the same area, since they'll logically interact more frequently than they would otherwise.

To boil it down to a single question - what specifically changes this from "Oh hey, it's that editor who works on the same stuff I do" into harassment? We're having trouble seeing the same thing you are and could do with some clarification. Blue Sonnet (talk) 06:44, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the automation. I am asking you- "we"- to look at the four articles in question. If you have a pre-determined conclusion then just say--Kieronoldham (talk) 06:56, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Blue-Sonnet provided you with no automation. Your continued non-responses to the reasonable questions presented to you about this can lead onlookers to the presumption that if there is a pre-determined conclusion here, it would seem to be yours. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:27, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

+1 aesurias (talk) 09:28, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you both - I spent 20 mins looking through the edit history before writing my post and genuinely didn't see any obvious stalking. I'm open to the fact that I missed something and asked for clarification, which I feel is good practice and a show of good faith. I would appreciate that sentiment being returned. Blue Sonnet (talk) 14:27, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

This may all be moot as it appears that Kieronoldham has taken his ball and gone home. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 16:58, 17 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.

Biased 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.

---

The user Tataral makes ridiculous edits all the time. Here they are ignoring a hidden note and talk page consensus to change Charlie Kirk to far-right and conspiracy theorist https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Charlie_Kirk&diff=1322556550&oldid=1322439078 Here they are inserting the label "anti-transgender activist" 3 times into a biography without any source https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tim_Allan&action=history They are continuously reverting talk page warnings, saying "trolling" or similar ~2025-34097-51 (talk) 22:30, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, right. This particular editor is probably coming from one of the Breitbart articles attacking Wikipedia, me and other editors recently. --Tataral (talk) 22:31, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

What the heck is Breitbart. This article is locked, how would I edit this? ~2025-34097-51 (talk) 22:44, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

This user does not seem to be interested in following guidelines regarding neutrality ~2025-34097-51 (talk) 22:39, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

For more context, see [9]. I may be mistaken regarding my initial suspicion regarding the drive-by IP editor; I'm starting to suspect it's rather a now-banned editor who was hounding me before, given their penchant for following me around to various articles. --Tataral (talk) 22:49, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for linking this too. Another edit by you that has nothing to do with neutrality. I almost forgot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2025-34097-51 (talk) 22:51, 16 November 2025 (UTC) I was never banned from this site

This is quite blatantly a sock of Tataral. GarethBaloney (talk) 00:14, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm confused? Are they not reporting Tataral? aesurias (talk) 00:25, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

I will just say right now, @~2025-34097-51, going to ANI within your first 15 edits may be evidence of you WP:LOUTSOCKING. NotJamestack (talk) 23:06, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

You cannot make any conclusions about how long a TA has been editing Wikipedia. First off, we haven't had TAs for long yet. Secondly TAs change regularly for a given person, either voluntarily or involuntarily (e.g., using a different device to edit). I can tell you that this editor has been editing for a while, voluminously. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 00:24, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

You know, there's a reason why I used the word "may" in my reply. I was not saying it is evidence, I'm saying that it may be evidence. NotJamestack (talk) 00:27, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

It's probably a little on the wrong side of WP:ASPERSIONS here to make an accusation of sockpuppeting without solid evidence. Athanelar (talk) 02:22, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

My account /temporary thing or whatever its called keeps changing every time I reopen the browser. I have no idea why that is but it did not happen when we still had IP's ~2025-34097-51 (talk) 23:12, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

This is what I've been saying, ever since ARBTRANS closed we have so many more IP editors coming in and arguing tooth and nail on things that've been settled by consensus like five times over. It used to be like one a month at most, and they were always very clearly a fresh face because they'd usually do exactly what we see here - bringing it to ANI the moment they can't get consensus and getting subsequently boomeranged. But now it's like five a day, and all of them are shockingly well versed in Wikipedia's policy and procedures. Snokalok (talk) 23:07, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

What are you talking about?! Consensus to insert whatever you want into someone's biography? ~2025-34097-51 (talk) 23:14, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

The edit to Charlie Kirk was entirely correct and removing it has the effect of censoring Wikipedia. The idea that we can't refer to unambiguously far-right figures as "far-right" is getting way out of hand. So long as the Reliable Sources say it then we can say it. There is no argument here only the appearance of one. The kvetching is transparently insincere. It's kayfabe. People who would laud Kirk for being far-far right in private far-right spaces pretend to be outraged by the description of him as "far-right" anywhere where the "normies" might see it. This is nonsense and we need to stop indulging it. We don't need to take every allegation of "bias" seriously. If there is any substance, then yes, but not this sort of thing.

Btw, I'm not sure how much this has to do with ARBTRANS, probably not nothing but I think it has more to do with the switch to temporary accounts. That has definitely emboldened people to pop up, cause trouble and then vanish into the aether with standard editors unable to tell that it is likely to be the same person when they pop up again. DanielRigal (talk) 23:58, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

What do you have to say about these edits? 1 / 2 / 3 --- ~2025-34097-51 (talk) 00:05, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

All of these edits are unsourced claims. SImple as. GarethBaloney (talk) 00:18, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

No, they're not. This is adequately sourced in the body of the article. He was even included in the category corresponding to the description before those edits, so these were pretty routine edits, not even introducing anything new that wasn't already in other parts of the article, only improving the summary in the lead to accurately reflect the content below. But the broader point is really how this IP editor, which is likely to be either one of the previously banned anti-trans editors, or some other editor with a beef, is going around to stir up trouble in multiple unrelated articles I happen to have edited. This is the same kind of thing User:Molikog did to me for months on end under various usernames. --Tataral (talk) 00:45, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Who is this random fucking guy that's been blocked since 2016 and how is he related to you inserting unsourced slanderous content to articles ~2025-34097-51 (talk) 00:57, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

... and that furthermore Tataral is editwarring on it. Ravenswing 00:59, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

@DanielRigal The issue with your argument is that there is a consensus to describe him as "right wing." I believe it is valid that people on Charlie Kirk's page in particular don't want him to be described as "far right" thanks to the consensus given. NotJamestack (talk) 00:25, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Kirk's article has been very actively targeted by the far-right globally[10][11] There are a bunch of hit pieces in Breitbart by a banned editor (as they admit) attacking various editors, including me. It's a very unusual situation. The article already includes the far-right description in the body with around 20 sources, as it should. Pretending in the lead that he, who promotes white-genocide conspiracy theory, is anything other than far-right makes no sense when the body already supports it. --Tataral (talk) 01:07, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

@Tataral Please check the reply I made concerning the consensus made by editors. It is just above your reply. (My signature has changed since that reply in case you are confused.) NotJamestack (✉️|📝) 01:25, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

That was meant more as a broader reflection on the ongoing backlash over Kirk-related coverage and how it impacts the article and editing environment. --Tataral (talk) 01:39, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Well, the talk page does state that there is a consensus to refer to Kirk as "right wing" in the first sentence. NotJamestack (✉️|📝) 01:43, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Look at your cookie settings. Ideally, you should be able to hang on to a specific TA label for 90 days if the cookies for this site are retained. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 00:25, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

The IP's question appears to be -- Does Tataral's edits have a politicial agenda behind them. GoodDay (talk) 01:08, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

• Note that the OP TA has been blocked for 24 hours for violating 3RRedit-warring (against Tataral, for the record) on Tim Allan. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:28, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

  OP is now blocked for two weeks. Details: OP later edited as User:~2025-33803-70, and the /64 range then got blocked for block evasion for two weeks. — Chrisahn (talk) 10:37, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Describing the far right as far right, or anti-trans organizations as anti-trans, is not having a "political agenda." We need to protect website integrity and stop attacks against editors by drive-by accounts and campaigns organized by the Trump movement, as seen in the Breitbart attacks recently against me and others. --Tataral (talk) 01:26, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

It's not that simple. There are no objective criteria for these labels. We go with what reliable sources say, and they are often not conclusive. For example, Sex Matters (advocacy group)#History says: Sex Matters has been described variously as "anti-trans", a "human rights charity", "gender-critical", and a "women's rights group". Makes it difficult to choose a succinct label for the lead. — Chrisahn (talk) 11:39, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

This edit was discussed here: Talk:Sex Matters (advocacy group)#Description in first sentence. --Tataral (talk) 15:05, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

But, does everything have to be labelled as "anti-...". For example (in another topic area), do we go with "pro-life" or "anti-abortion". Anyways, good to see that the IP has been caught & blocked for socking. GoodDay (talk) 16:25, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

We go with what RS go with. In that case, anti-abortion, presumably because pro-life is a euphemism and unclear. Anti-abortion is clear. OTOH, many people who say they are pro-life are also for capital punishment. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:33, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

• This is a content dispute at this point. Take it to the articles in question, where it's been extensively discussed. But the easy answer (and sufficient to obviously render it not a conduct issue) is that we cover things the way the best available sources do. --Aquillion (talk) 16:41, 17 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.

Skitash's indiscriminate reverts and non-collaborative attitude

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 complain about Skitash's total reverts and uncollaborative attitude. Indeed, two of my contributions to two articles have been reverted without explanation in the talk-page :

1) The first revert was to the article on Béjaïa [12], under the pretext of "Rv per MOS:LEDE and WP:NOR". The removal is unjustified: if the problem is WP:LEDE, the content could have simply been moved. Furthermore, the entire "Urban planning" section was deleted at the same time. The revert is completely unconstructive in this case and constitutes a WP:OWN and a kind of "show of force" far removed from any spirit of collaboration. The large number of characters in the revert (−5.097!) completely invalidates the hypothesis that Skitash failed to realize he wasn't simply removing a second noun from the first sentence. The revert was massive and indiscriminate, and does not constitute an improvement.

2) A second reversion concerns the article on Algiers [13] on the grounds: "WP:UNDUE and not an improvement." The addition of the hypothesis of a Berber origin for the name is WP:NPOV compared to the Arabic origin. However, Skitash reverts two pieces of information: 1) the name in Berber and its spelling (first piece of information) and 2 ) the origin (second piece of information, which he considers UNDUE). Here again, the reversion concerns both pieces of information, without distinguishing between them.

3) Deleting a page without discussion or community approval: [14] by deleting the content and adding a redirect to another article. This action contradicts the principles of redirection WP:POFR and the principles of editing/deleting pages WP:EDITATAFD.

Considering Help:Reverting which states, Rather than reverting entirely, consider improving the edit to enhance the article's quality. If only a portion of the edit is objectionable, a partial reversion may be more appropriate; complete reversions should be used sparingly and are effectively executed using the undo tool.. This behavior is contrary to WP:PRESERVE. Skitash could also have asked for clarification on the discussion page, but he did not, preferring an abrupt approach. I hope you will take into account that this kind of behavior does not contribute to establishing a calm dialogue and contributions. Monsieur Patillo (talk) 19:50, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Have you talked to each other about this on the article Talk pages or their own? I can see you brought the first edit to Talk but not the other two.

There's been nothing on the Algiers Talk page for nearly a month and the Kutama page for five years so I'm having trouble finding any prior discussion of those. It does look like they respond to messages on their own Talk page when they're left.

If you have tried to talk about this with them before and I've just missed it, can you please add diffs? I can't really see anything on their Talk page either.

Content disputes don't really belong on ANI unless all other avenues have failed, there's a clear pattern of behaviour where one editor won't respond to concerns that are raised about their editing, or the editing behaviour is egregiously poor and needs immediate intervention.

Again apologies if I've missed anything, but I'm not seeing the lack of collaboration that you're alleging. Blue Sonnet (talk) 20:10, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

See WP:BRD. If you don't want all your changes to be reverted at once then don't make them all at once. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:14, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

@Blue-Sonnet I forgot to mention it, but I've already had an editorial disagreement with this contributor, and a more collaborative attitude was expected from both of us. I'm simply asking that the discussion rule be applied before reverting or deleting an article.

Deleting an article without a community decision (point 3) isn't a simple editorial disagreement. This is a procedural point. The person who wants to delete an article must initiate the discussion. (WP:GTD: In all other cases, a "deletion discussion" takes place. This article deletion process is known as "articles for deletion" (AfD). Non-article deletions have similar processes.)

@Phil Bridger. WP:BRD-NOT. BRD is never a reason for reverting. Thank you for your advice. However, it does not apply to the second case: the modification is quite small, and the revert concerns both parts of the modification, whereas a partial revert would have been easy to do. Monsieur Patillo (talk) 20:51, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification, but I'd still like to ask why this couldn't have been discussed on Talk pages before being brought to ANI?

It's possible that they could have gone "Oops you're right, I misunderstood that policy - let me fix it" or "Thanks for letting me know, here's why I did that."

ANI is a pretty big step, you're bringing them to a very popular noticeboard where dozens of editors are going to be looking at everything they (and you) have done. It should really be a last resort. Blue Sonnet (talk) 21:26, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Skitash's behavior bypasses existing or planned discussion channels:

1) He deleted the content (point 3) of an article without initiating the proper procedure (including a discussion).

2) He massively reverted the content of the article Béjaia without participating in the ongoing discussion ([15]). The user, who presents himself as experienced, is placing himself outside the established discussion framework... The revert is therefore intended to "provoke" an edit war, in violation of the guidelines for preventing conflicts. I did not contact the user again on his talk page because the last few times he simply ignored my messages, including when I suggested DRN: [16].

I am not asking for a major decision, but simply that the contributor in question be encouraged to behave with more consideration towards other contributors. Monsieur Patillo (talk) 21:33, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Your point 3 is entirely within community norms; please see WP:BLAR. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:22, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

@Monsieur Patillo. What outcome are you seeking from ANI that couldn't be achieved by simply talking to the other person? Blue Sonnet (talk) 04:52, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

@The Bushranger It is good practice to notify the article creator or significant contributors using {{uw-blar}}. In what way was this specific provision applied to this page? Does this mean I can also restore the page to its original version because I disagree.

@Blue-Sonnet The other person must also engage in dialogue instead of adopting a confrontational attitude and almost systematically rejecting my edits. A recent example is the deletion of an article on Punic genetics from a dedicated article, specifically a paragraph on Carthaginian's colonization ... [17] claiming "Also, this genetic study adds no value to the article." The argument is at the limit of WP:AGF. Monsieur Patillo (talk) 22:33, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

I think you're misunderstanding Wikipedia:BRD. You edit, someone reverts, if you disagree with the revert then you take it to the Talk page.

You've done that in the link you provided and that's exactly how it should work. They felt a source added no value to the article, removed it and now you're discussing it like two respectable adults. I don't see any personal attacks or disparagement in that edit summary.

I'll ask again, what exactly are you wanting to happen from this ANI thread, what do you want the admins to do? You say you want them to be open to collaboration and you've presented evidence that they're doing exactly that so it looks like you got what you wanted. Blue Sonnet (talk) 22:50, 17 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.

How do I get sanctions lifted?

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.

---

Some years ago restrictions were imposed on me regarding new article creations and Articles for Deletion discussion participation. How do I go about requesting they be lifted? Thanks. FloridaArmy (talk) 21:08, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

FloridaArmy, see WP:UNBAN. The correct venue to appeal is at the admin noticeboard. Best, 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 21:15, 20 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 to Brandon Hobson

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.

---

• Brandon Hobson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A temporary user (~2025-34913-78 and ~2025-34719-48) keeps removing the image from Brandon Hobson with no explanation. A registered user User:Sunnie05 did the same thing so I suspect they are all the same person. Can the article be semi-protected and the registered user warned? Thanks. Nv8200pa talk 00:24, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

The registered user says he is Brandon Hobson and does not want that photo used. I requested he supply a photo or to leave the image intact Nv8200pa talk 00:30, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

If User:Sunnie05 is Brandon Hobson, he is editing his own article, but nothing extensive. Nv8200pa talk

Judging from the user talk discussion, you've already sorted this out with him uploading images. Also, you must notify someone when you start an ANI discussion involving them, I've done this for you. Ultraodan (talk) 01:38, 20 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 ~2025-33566-40

The user @~2025-33566-40 (talk) has been edit warring on the 2026 Supercars Championship page despite being warned that their edit is unsourced and disruptive, reverting anyone who changes their edit. It seems that they are doing this on multiple pages as well, such as the Adelaide Airport. QWisps (talk) 23:54, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

(Non administrator comment) I'm looking at this and it seemed that you and @HoldenFan1104 have also been either edit warring, or at least getting close to it. Remember, even if you're right, you shouldn't constantly be reverting the same edits over and over again (with potential exceptions). Wikieditor662 (talk) 06:14, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Also, @QWisps, your report should probably go in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring instead. Wikieditor662 (talk) 06:15, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

My bad, thank you for the redirect! QWisps (talk) 12:25, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Of course! Let me know if you need anything else. Wikieditor662 (talk) 19:53, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Suspicious edits

The user Marxsafe has been warned over and over again on their user page and I've recently seen them making more suspicious edits, such as this one [Sheikh Hasina: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia]. Wikieditor662 (talk) 12:20, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

That was removing a red link. What is suspicious about it? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:23, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes - especially as it's a red link because the article was deleted, so it's not as if the redlink is denoting that the article should be created. Black Kite (talk) 12:26, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, I saw that they didn't have an edit summary, and that they just removed this part without reason, usually I was told that just because it's red that isn't a good reason to remove it, but overall I think misunderstood what it was about. And sorry for having notified them yet, I'll do that right now. Wikieditor662 (talk) 12:32, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

I've just removed another six links to deleted page 2022 Bangladesh protests. A gnome's work is never done. Narky Blert (talk) 12:52, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Beyond that, while edit summaries are very strongly recommended, they're not yet mandatory, and failure to leave one not remotely cause for taking someone to ANI. Ravenswing 16:25, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Some of their grammar is a bit questionable - see their latest edit. I'm afraid I'm not able to fix this right now so I'd be really grateful if someone could take a look for me? If not, I'll come back to it later. Blue Sonnet (talk) 16:37, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Wikieditor662, you also have to tell them that you started a discussion about them here. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:29, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Personal attack

I've identified the article as containing false information with multiple references that followed the WP:RS Guidelines in Talk:Dance in Thailand#True etymology of terms Rabam, Ram which is not of Khmer origin. The editor @MoonsMoon who edited the article was hostile in response, accused me of cherry-picking and personally attacked me on my Talk page as being disrespectful to other editors. [18] As I told the editor about my personal experience in the article, "I'm not surprised, as the behavior I've witnessed is consistent with that of Cambodian editor with whom I've had previous experience in war-editing." That's the incident about my personal experience where the editor @Bolatio used to personal attack and racially abuse me during April-May, 2024. [19][20][21]

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

@Quantplinus have you notified the other editor about this post here? It is required. – robertsky (talk) 08:38, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

@Robertsky Yes, I have done. [22] I'm sorry for forgetting to inform the editor earlier. Quantplinus (talk) 09:06, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Okay, I'm not really sure how to do this. So here goes nothing.

As of this post, I haven’t edited Wikipedia since I believe Friday evening. Quantplinus apparently brought this here around the same time as their latest reply to me on the Dance in Thailand Talk page, which I still haven't read. So basically they didn't even give me a chance to read and reply to them, or edit the Dance in Thailand article, before taking it this far.

Quantplinus had started a confusing (to me) topic in Dance in Thailand Talk which in part said a source I brought over from an old version of the article didn't meet Wiki standards. I begrudgingly said "got it" and accepted that the ‘Learn Thai’ reference is unreliable as a source for Thai language, I just disliked the implication that I deliberately used an unreliable source, as well their use of the word "ideology" (what ideology?) for my edits. Furthermore, Quantplinus included what appears to be their own personal thesis about the source for the origins of the words 'rab/rabam' which I guess they’re demanding I accept and use…? I don’t know, I thought that was original research. So I replied, “So a site called ‘Learn Thai’ is wrong and unreliable, but you're correct and totally reliable? Got it. ETA- Mine are just the two, not sure where the rest came from.” It’s one of the reasons for the no original research rule, not "personal attack" on them like they've characterized it. The ETA reflects my confusion over what the thesis is and where all but two of the references (the ones I brought over) come from.

In response, @Quantplinus doubled down and again mentions my “ideology” (?). Out of nowhere Quantplinus targets Cambodians, specifically "Cambodian editors" (plural, not singular as they claim above) with whom they’ve apparently edit-warred, and also assumes I’m Cambodian because its "consistent." Then accused me of “exposing" myself when I “spread this kind of behavior.” So Quantplinus's post above misrepresents what they actually said. They didn't claim an editor personally attacked them. Not at all. It was an attack out of nowhere on Cambodians.

I was tired of the attacks and accusations, plus now they've brought up ethnicity. I replied I’m just an American who isn’t Thai or Khmer ethnically, I just have interests. I also quickly edited out a snippy comment I made in response to their snippiness, which you can see in the edit summary. Plus I had overlooked that Quantplinus had asked, “How can you trust this information more than dictionaries or linguists,” presumably referring to the thesis they posted. So I answered, “It looks like a bunch of original research you cherry-picked to land at the answer you wanted.” That’s where the “cherry picked” comment came from. Again, I’m still not sure what exactly Quantplinus wanted me to do with their thesis or whatever it is but it sure seems like they were trying to bully me into using it. To reiterate, I voiced that I thought it was original research.

I also didn’t “personally attack” Quantplinus on their Talk Page. I placed an “assume good faith” template message there in response to their accusations. They’ve deleted it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Quantplinus&diff=prev&oldid=1320970198

Finally, the edit was never important to me, to warrant all of this. I can insert a different source, or we can discuss deleting it all, whatever. I didn't say I wouldn't edit the article. I certainly wasn't going to pause my weekend for it though. MoonsMoon (talk) 07:57, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

You responded to me twice in that thread, accusing me of cherry-picking and then left kind of msgs on my personal talk page without any evidences, which occurred after I created a new talk topic. I'd like to point out that my sources are secondary. This shows that you didn't check the references in the list I cited, which has over 40 references in there. It's not original research, as you might think. (FYI: Original research: Research#Original research)

I'm not saying you're a XYZ national as claimed, but I'm just saying you have the same behavior as a Cambodian editors with whom I've had previous experience in war-editing, along with evidence.

Additionally, the fact that I missed one letter "s" does not negate the validity of my argument. There are also others, such as "Pierrevang3," "Mimihuang07," and "Oksana Champoo," associated with "Bolatio" esp., "Pierrevang3" whom experience in war-editing with. Because English is not my first language, even my first language makes typos often so please understand the foreign editor here. Quantplinus (talk) 05:10, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

I was restoring content lost in an edit war. In doing so I inadvertently brought with it an unreliable source - and you pointed it out, which would have been good enough. Instead, you framed it as a deliberate choice on my part, violating the “assume good faith” policy. Confusingly, you also included a thesis(?) on the topic; it seemed you were attempting to dictate that I accept your conclusion and that I may only lift references from your thesis to replace the unreliable source.

I noted the irony of presenting your thesis(?) when it’s apparently original research, and begrudgingly accepted that ‘Learn Thai’ is an unreliable source for learning Thai, saying “Got it.” You come back repeating how the one source is unreliable but mistakenly believe the second source was meant for the etymology ram/rabam (it wasn’t). You refer to my “ideology,’ again violating the ‘assume good faith’ policy. Then you inexplicably began editorializing about my “behavior.” You say it's “consistent” with “Cambodian editors” (plural) with whom you’ve edit-warred. First, why are you telling me any of this…? Second, unless you wanted to make Cambodians a target and believed that I’m Cambodian, there was zero reason to even mention ethnicity. I offer that it was racism on your part.

What’s more, you’ve completely misrepresented what you said to me on the Talk page. No, you didn’t mention experiencing “racial abuse.” The “behavior” you mentioned was edit wars. You also said “editors” (plural), but here you name one specific person. I know you understand that ‘s’ changes the meaning, and also that it wasn’t a typo or an issue with English. Want to know how I know you know ? Because I see in your OP that you’ve reproduced your original message from the Talk page in italics, except now it says ‘editor’ - singular. You changed the narrative in order to come here accusing me of a “personal attack,” and now “Cambodian editors” wouldn’t make sense.

Furthermore, this is how you ended the reply: “The more you spread that kind of ideology, the more you expose yourself. And, the article is also seriously damaged, full of fake, unreliable, and non-existent references since I've identified massive fake references. Enjoy your editting and good luck!”

Why are you telling me this? What do you want me to do with that information? Seriously. If you think the article is “damaged” and whatnot, edit it and/or start another topic, I don’t know what to tell ya.

Because you made more bad faith comments, on top of the cryptic accusations against me, I added an “assume good faith” message on your Talk Page, which you then deleted. It isn’t a “personal attack,” nor is saying your thesis looks like “cherry-picked original research” when you asked how I trust “this information more than dictionaries or linguists?” I don't, you just won't accept anything other than a conspiracy to use unreliable sources for some reason.

On top of deleting my ‘assume good faith’ message and bringing this here around the same time as your final reply which I hadn’t yet read (still haven’t), you implied that I refused to edit the article, saying you can't address the issue "because the editor disregarded those references that followed the WP:RS.”

So I guess that not accepting your thesis and your conclusions, then not immediately editing the article on a Friday night, means I wasn’t going to fix the issue. I know you thought I’m Cambodian and thus in your timezone but I'm a white American and 12 hours behind you. When you posted Saturday morning, it was Friday night for me. Am I required to spend weekend nights editing Wikipedia? Am I required to pick a source from your thesis? I still haven’t edited the article though because of this.

I saw you accused me of being editor 36.37.219.63, without informing me to boot, for whom I stuck up when Hotgas manually reverted and lost their legitimate edits. Trying to cast suspicion onto me and make me a target, just like when you mentioned that the editors were Cambodians despite ethnicity having freak-all to do with it. Another bullying tactic on your part.

Or, how about you show us those "similarities" between my edits and those of 36.37.219.63? How are the “writing styles” consistent?

I’ll wait. MoonsMoon (talk) 03:53, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

1) It's just typo. The rest is up to you to think anything that is self-centering.

2) Don't forget that you first accused me of cherry-picking and left a message saying that I disrespected other editors. I was simply sharing my personal experience by stating, "I'm not surprised, as the behavior I've witnessed is consistent with that of Cambodian editors with whom I've had previous experience in war-editing." I did not express whether this behavior was good or bad, nor did I give it any negative connotations. And I didn't even mention your username specifically. Importantly, it's not yet been said what kind of behavior is.

3) Made more bad faith comments? You added this "even the Thai words for dance (ระบำ or rabam and รำ or ram) come from the Old Khmer," which is false according to the information I have detailed. Additionally, I have not received any responses on that topic in almost a week. I have not yet received a conclusion from you, i.e. Ety. of Khmer terms "Ram" "Rabam," their roots, and where those terms derived from.

4) I've not disclosed your nationality to you, nor have I asked about it. Please quote my message where I state or reveal your specific nationality. But it seems like you often emphasize your own nationality to others even though no one has asked.

5) I'm simply providing references to support my research and do not expect you to solely rely on my sources.

6) Regarding your war-edit involvement with HotGas and 36.37.219.63 in the past, I also have questions about these three editors. I'm simply suggesting further investigation, and I am not implying that you are at fault. Is that against rules for just concerniing? I'm sorry that this is my ANI case "Personal attack." If this's regarding different issues rather than rge NI, I may choose not to respond further. Discussions about reference sources should be directed to the Talk page at: Talk:Dance in Thailand. Quantplinus (talk) 11:06, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

• It’s not a typo. You’re forgetting that we can still see your original message on the Talk Page. You copy-and-pasted it from there but made sure to remove the ‘s’ because the new narrative you were spinning required mentioning a single person. You lied and got caught.
• Yes, I said your cherry-picked original research is cherry-picked original research. What of it? You asked, I answered.
• I’ve explained twice now how you continually violated ‘Assume Good Faith.’ I also added the ‘Assume Good faith’ message to your page which you deleted, lol!
• You wanted to make Cambodians a target and assumed I’m Cambodian. That’s why you mentioned ethnicity when it wasn’t needed.  It's racism on your part.
• I didn’t need your thesis and certainly didn’t ask. Understand?
• I don’t really care about your opinion on Hotgas edit-warring with 36.37.219.63 and me. You weren’t involved. You were attempting to cast suspicion onto me since your other bullying tactics didn’t work. Just like you did to Cambodians by mentioning the ethnicity of editors with whom you’ve edit-warred.
• Still waiting for you to produce those “similarities” between myself and whomever you’re saying I sockpuppet.  
• LOL, I don’t care if you don’t respond here. Then don’t. I never wanted you bothering me anyway.

MoonsMoon (talk) 22:11, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Wanted to share my two cents about Quantplinus, as a novice editor I've been on the recieving end of their bullying tactics.

See our unproductive discussion Talk:Songkran#Back-and-forth, this was concerning etymology where Quantplinus was unwilling to accept what other editors were discussing, they were being uncooperative and even included some notion about jails being open 24/7/365 in one of their responses (personal attack?). I'd assume that given some time that they would've outgrown their behaviors but unfortunately that doesn't seem like the case here.

See also Talk:Steamed curry#Note for sources removal MosheeYoshee (talk) 18:15, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Appreciate your response and the info, thanks. Relief to know I'm not the only one. MoonsMoon (talk) 22:12, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Just for clarity, ''Bolatio'' is a sockpuppet account of @Pierrevang3. A look at the sock-puppeteer's edit history shows near-identical topics and a disproportionate amount of talk page contributions. CheckUser may be useful Aesurias (talk) 10:01, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

@Aesurias I'm interested in this matter as well. As per Dance in Thailand: Revision history. In my personal observations, the edit history raises suspicion due to similarities between the edits made by IP 36.37.219.63 and MoonsMoon around the same time. The writing style also appears to be consistent among these three individuals during the War-edit event between Hotgas, MoonsMoon, and IP 36.37.219.63. It is possible that these individuals IP 36.37.219.63 and MoonsMoon are the same person. I sugggest checking out the contribution history of both of these people. Quantplinus (talk) 10:46, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

@Robertsky As you can see, @Quantplinus also decided to accuse me of having sockpuppets, without informing me. To reiterate, I haven't been on Wiki since Friday so I've yet to even see their latest reply on the Talk page or had a chance to edit the article in question. This is on top of Quantplinus coming here before I got a chance to reply or edit the article which I still haven't done because I want you to see.

@Aesurias Yes, please do check the IP of 36.37.219.63 and myself! You'll see that it isn't me. I'm in the Detroit area and that person is likely in Thailand. Quantplinus is misrepresenting what went on in that edit war, which is that Hotgas kept reverting the legitimate edits from myself and 36.37.219.63 without explanation, and had re-added recently-removed fake references. The misrepresentation is likely the reason they didn't ping me right here. Quantplinus has been behaving like a bully.

To reiterate, please compare our IP addresses. MoonsMoon (talk) 21:40, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

@MoonsMoon:, Aesurias cannot check your IP; they are not a CheckUser. And even if they were, it is prohibited for CheckUsers to reveal whether or not an IP address is linked to a named account technically. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:54, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

The entire point is that I'm not anonymous editor 36.37.219.63, whom @Quantplinus has accused me of sockpuppeting, and I'm just trying to exonerate my bemused self, lol. It doesn't matter whether it's via IP addresses or what. MoonsMoon (talk) 01:42, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

I don't think they explicitly said that. They said "it's possible" and I agree solely on the similarity between your contributions, not your behaviour. I am equally concerned about OP's conduct. Aesurias (talk) 21:07, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm still waiting to see those similarities... MoonsMoon (talk) 23:04, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) @MoonsMoon It'd be a good idea to step back from this discussion unless you're asked a direct question - you don't want to be seen as bludgeoning. Everyone can see what's been alleged and the evidence that's been provided.

Trust that others can read through the thread & judge for themselves - adding more posts will just make that more difficult and could possibly sour perception.

I'm not saying that's happening now, but there have been several cases of late where editors have inadvertently dug themselves into a hole because they tried to reply to every post. For your own sake, try to take a step back & see how things pan out. Blue Sonnet (talk) 02:00, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

You're absolutely right! I was already getting caught-up trying to defend myself. I'm sorry, thank you so much for pointing this out to me. MoonsMoon (talk) 02:58, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Got more personal attack from temporary accounts "~2025-32267-51" [23] Quantplinus (talk) 09:56, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

MoonsMoon, I would advise you not to leave disparaging remarks/personal attacks about other editors, as you did here towards me. I was actively trying to help you in good faith, and you decided to cast an aspersion towards me, rather than be patient with the collaborative process. Diff: [24]. I placed a gentle warning on your user page[25], then without even responding to me on the article talk or your user talk you then, copy pasted part of my warning on @Quantplinus' user page, which you did not even sign.[26]. A bit like a game of hot potato? I had also noticed you frequently imply others are nationalists in your edit summaries. It would be wise to look at your own behavior, as well as others, and find a way to work with others collegially. Netherzone (talk) 14:55, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

I couldn't locate the template source for the "gentle warning" for 'Assume Good Faith' you put on my Talk Page when I needed to add one to @Quantplinus's page after they continually violated that policy in their exchanges with me. So I just copy and pasted from the one you left, which they deleted. I didn't realize you had to sign it. I had never even seen it before. Aren't you violating the policy right now by assuming the worst?

Also, I wasn't aware that if an editor leaves a message on somebody's Talk page, they're required to immediately speak to them. My mistake, now I know. I've replied to you.

I only started using "nationalist" because I saw other editors using it to refer to a certain kind of troll and content. But now I know that when I see it, I'm supposed to bring it here. MoonsMoon (talk) 00:07, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

An absence exists from your response...please explain why you think I was being "condescending" when I was actively trying to help you. I did not appreciate that remark directed personally towards me; I thought we were working together on article improvements. Netherzone (talk) 00:19, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Do I reply here? MoonsMoon (talk) 00:59, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Okay, I replied again on my Talk Page cause I'm not sure where to do it. MoonsMoon (talk) 01:28, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

@MoonsMoon, Could you please explain this remark [27]? And also please explain how I am violating policy right now? Netherzone (talk) 02:30, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Sure.

I reiterated a question it appeared you'd mistakenly overlooked days before. I never demanded an immediate response. I never even requested that you reply in a timely manner. I just asked so you'd see it:

"So what about the above quoted excerpt? Paul Cravath's work in particular is discussed among scholars, and Kent Davis is an author and researcher." MoonsMoon (talk) 05:57, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

This was you biting my head off in response:

"@MoonsMoon, I'm busy in real life at the moment, please I am a volunteer editor, like 99% of us here, please don't expect an immediate response. I will respond in the next few days after I have the time to look into the source(s) and review the article." Netherzone (talk) 13:06, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

I didn't appreciate this remark from you either. Did I demand you give an immediate response, or even imply I expected it? Did I ever give the impression I didn't think you're a person with a life? Did I even mention you in your real life? Did I suggest in any way, shape, or form that you're paid to edit Wikipedia? Is there something, anything even remotely close to the implication that what I was saying at that time was an attempt to force you to stop what you're doing immediately and come respond to my little post on Wikipedia?

"And also please explain how I am violating policy"

Please explain to me where I said that? Once again, you're responding to something I never said. I never said you were violating policy. However, what I did do is *ask* if you were violating policy by not assuming Good Faith on *my* part for adding the 'Assume Good Faith' message to @Quantplinus's Talk Page. You don't even consider that I did it because I believed it, you thought I was playing a game of 'Hot Potato.' Is that not failing to Assume Good Faith? Or is it only when I do it, but you and Quantplinus are allowed...?

Meanwhile, this user spent two posts trying to bully me into accepting their own personal original research essay, accusing me of deliberately using an unreliable source in addition to other cryptic accusations when all I did was bring back content that was lost in manual edits by a user that is now blocked from editing the article. Therefore, after giving them a chance after failing to Assume Good Faith in their initial post, just for them to big, fat do it again anyway in their second reply, I decided to put an 'Assume Good Faith' message on their Talk page so they'd stop. Just like you did when I failed to Assume Good faith. Which they deleted, and also didn't respond to, but I guess only I'm required to keep it on my page and respond to it.

Would you be treating me the way you're currently treating Quantplinus if I had deleted your message from my Talk Page??? What if I made things weird by bringing up the ethnicity of editors with whom I've disagreed and assumed you're of that ethnicity to where you have to explain yourself??? You'd probably be saying something to me right now and rightly so, it's racism. You certainly wouldn't be scolding somebody on my behalf. How about if I went in after your edit in the Cambodian Dance page and accused you of trying to "spread your ideology" by deliberately (cause I decided it's deliberate) using an unreliable source, then adding that "the more you spread that kind of ideology, the more you expose yourself"?

Is my understanding of 'Assume Good Faith' not correct? Is there a double-standard I'm not aware of here where a policy is for some but not others? Are only certain people allowed to call out failing to Assume Good Faith? MoonsMoon (talk) 04:01, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

There is quite a lot to unpack in that response; it will take me a bit of time to go through it and respond later today. Netherzone (talk) 16:25, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

It might be helpful to read from the top of this thread. I explained to @Quantplinus three times that adding an 'Assume Good Faith' message to their Talk Page isn't a "personal attack," it's because they accused me of deliberately using an "unreliable source" in both of their replies to me, on top of referring to my edits as "ideology." Now I'm explaining for a fourth time more than a week later than I originally did. I also explained that it's not a "personal attack" to refer to their personal thesis they're attempting to bully me into accepting (and now has apparently continued their bullying campaign by recruiting somebody to rehash the same points), as "cherry-picked" and "original research." Don't take my word for it. Go into the Dance in Thailand Talk Page where another editor has also called Quantplinus's personal thesis "original research." MoonsMoon (talk) 21:54, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Clearly, we are having a misunderstanding. For context, I participated on the article talk thread because it is on my watchlist; my WP editing interests include art and cultural topics related to Indigenous peoples. The title of the talk page thread was: declining numbers of ballet dancers in Cambodia (consensus) so I took that to mean it was a discussion to achieve consensus from interested editors. I offered my thoughts that there was not consensus for some content that seemed undue and lengthy quotes. I also felt that the tone of your contributions sounded like making an argument based on your preferred version, rather than being worded in a neutral encyclopedic tone.

I’d also like to clear up that I have no interest in nor involvement with your content dispute with Quantpilnus whatsoever. I’ve never had any interaction with them. So it is perplexing why you would say this: Would you be treating me the way you're currently treating Quantplinus. How am I treating Quantplinus in some specific way when I’ve had zero interactions with them? I am not interested in becoming involved in your content dispute with them.

I’m equally perplexed why you consider my comments that I’m busy in real life as biting my [your] head off and “condescending”. I was in the midst of trying to find a searchable copy of a book to help you, but my efforts were taking too much of my spare time at the moment, and I needed to pause.

Even more perplexing... are you implying that I am being somehow racist: You'd probably be saying something to me right now and rightly so, it's racism.. I never brought up race or ethnicity - at all. I did not say any of the things you are implying in that paragraph, nor have I added any sources (rather I was trying to help you find sources!) nor have I used the word "ideology", and I have absolutely no idea what you mean by claiming that I said " "the more you spread that kind of ideology, the more you expose yourself". In fact, I never said anything like that whatsoever. I think you may be conflating/confusing me with Quantplinus.

To reiterate, we are having a misunderstanding. The content discussion should take place on the article talk until community consensus is reached. There are vehicles for that on-Wiki. The reason why I posted here is because I do not appreciate being called insulting names, and I found some of your edit summaries – towards other editors - offensive by implying they were “nationalistic”. Insulting others is a behavioral issue, and has nothing to do with disagreements over content. Netherzone (talk) 23:13, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

@MoonsMoon I understand that you're getting really stressed out so it would be a good idea to step back for a bit and take a breather.

From Netherzone's comment it looks like you might be conflating two different editors, but you're also making some quite strong allegations. Can you please provide diffs if you're going to accuse someone else on a public noticeboard of targeting your race/ethnicity or other misbehaviour?

You've written an awful lot but not provided any links, so it's not fair to expect others to have to trawl through your entire edit history to see whether there's any context missing or if something needs to be done about it. If you don't provide evidence then it could look like you're just attacking other people and the rest of us can't tell what's going on.

Step back, take a deep breath. Write calmly and clearly, providing proof of what you're saying. Think about the other people who have to read what you've written.

If you don't, then this won't get resolved and you'll only get more stressed out. Blue Sonnet (talk) 04:43, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

For the record, aside from the one gentle warning I left on MoonsMoon's talk page, these 10 edits are the only interactions I've had with them: [28] - ten edits on the talk page of Royal Ballet of Cambodia regarding the thread I mentioned above: "declining numbers of ballet dancers in Cambodia (consensus)".

@MoonsMoon if the fact that I assumed you were a newer editor offended you, I'm sorry for that, and thanks for mentioning that you used to edit as NeoApsara. It was an honest mistake on my part to think you were new based on your edit count at the time, however, it does not warrant all of the aspersions and false accusations you have cast in my direction above. Netherzone (talk) 14:08, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

They targeted Cambodians but also assumed it’s my ethnicity. Some content I restored contained an unreliable source but I didn’t realize. Quantplinus posts in the Talk Page assuming bad faith off the bat. Then in their first reply back starts editorializing, saying it's not surprising as it’s “consistent” with “behavior” of “Cambodian editors with whom I've had previous experience in war-editing.” Ethnicity had nothing to do with anything, their sentence still conveys meaning without it. They assumed I'm Cambodian and made this about ethnicity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dance_in_Thailand&diff=prev&oldid=1320869444 MoonsMoon (talk) 19:04, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

So here’s Quantplinus’s post in Dance in Thailand Talk Page addressing the content I restored. At the bottom are two sources contained in some of the content I restored. I did not intend to use an unreliable source (I’m no longer sure they’re even unreliable so I asked on the page in the discussion) but they insist I "chose" to, which goes against Assume Good Faith, and describes an “ideology” which is weird and accusatory. With this they included their own personal thesis of original research they treat as fact -

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dance_in_Thailand&diff=prev&oldid=1320854836

My very confused reply -

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dance_in_Thailand&diff=prev&oldid=1320861591

They replied with the post I shared with you containing the mention of ethnicity.

With this and then them still assuming bad faith in their reply (where they targeted ethnicity), I added the ‘Assume Good Faith’ message, which Quantplinus removed and falsely calls a “personal attack.” I don’t understand why people are having such a hard time with this that it’s brought back up a week later. I do not know what else I can possibly do or how long I’m going to be punished for it.

What I don’t understand: Quantplinus is allowed to delete the ‘Assume Good Faith’ message I posted without even replying, then run over here claiming it’s a ‘personal attack.” But Netherzone posts the message that I don’t delete then runs here 11 days later saying I didn’t give them the reply they’re entitled to (which I didn’t know) and accuses *me* of a personal attack. MoonsMoon (talk) 22:43, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

What is the misunderstanding? Why are you bringing things up from nearly a month ago that was already addressed? I told you the article already presented the French Nationalist Construct as fact when it wasn’t, hence the tone of my initial edit. It ended up being reworded anyway. So I guess you're just trying to humiliate me.

Why are you mentioning that I put the ‘Assume Good Faith’ message on an editor’s Talk Page? Why are you likening it to ‘Hot Potato’ when I explained three times in the very section you’re posting that I added the message because an editor was failing to assume good faith in a discussion? I genuinely do not understand.

A week after I explained three times that I put the ‘Assume Good faith’ message on their Talk Page because they failed to ‘Assume Good Faith,’ you come here to rehash the issue from their perspective. Why else would you do it when you weren’t involved and, to reiterate, I already explained three times why I left the ‘Assume Good Faith’ message on their Talk Page?

I didn’t suggest you wanted to become involved in my “content dispute.” I’m just wondering why you chose to become involved with my ‘Assume Good Faith’ dispute when I already explained three times why I left the ‘Assume Good Faith’ message on their page.

I didn’t say you were racist, I was referring to the actions of the editor whose battle you’ve resumed.

You’re absolutely right that your attitude wasn't "condescending," it was actually patronizing. I reiterated a question to you because you responded without addressing the issue. I just wasn't sure if you overlooked it so I was trying to be helpful. Here's my post-

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Royal_Ballet_of_Cambodia&diff=prev&oldid=1320524364

Your reply -

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Royal_Ballet_of_Cambodia&diff=prev&oldid=1320559732

• I never said I “expected an immediate response,” you decided that on your own
• I never suggested you’re paid to edit Wikipedia, you decided that on your own
• I never suggested “99% of” you were paid to edit Wikipedia, you decided that on your own
• You decided to take time out of your life to respond to my comment when you did, not me. The post wasn't going anywhere

So why are you saying this? What was it that made you decide I needed to be taught, by you, that editors aren’t employees? Do you think I expect to get paid? Why did you think I thought I expected an immediate answer?

I also didn’t call you a name, I described your attitude as condescending. But you get mad when I matched your energy

- I already explained that I started using “nationalist” because other editors in Dance in Thailand were using it to describe a certain tone/editor/content. I’m not going over there to sift through edits going back to summer so I can narc on well-meaning editors, so fine. You got me. You win.

- This was 11 days ago and you just happened to bring this here now. I don’t even remember the last time I interacted with you.

It's looking to me that describing somebody's attitude as "condescending" is treated as worse than somebody making ethnicity an issue. It also appears we’re supposed to walk on egg shells as you treat and speak to people any way you please but run and tell if they stick up for themselves.

If I go back and undo all my edits and photos from the Cambodian Ballet page, then promise to never edit any article you edit, and on top of that volunteer to be blocked from editing anything for a week, will you please leave me alone then? MoonsMoon (talk) 20:35, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

This has been open for a long time now, and we've mostly just seen extended back and forth between involved parties. I see clear evidence that Quantplinus and MoonsMoon have failed to assume good faith. Both are interpreting comments in the worst possible light. Neither issue rises to the level of needing a sanction. If MoonsMoon wants to walk away from the dispute, then everything is settled. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:38, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Tag pages by TTT24 for speedy deletion.

Suggested by @Monkeysmashingkeyboards: all of these pages created by sockpuppets of TotalTruthTeller24 and oblivious proxies of TTT24 (mainly Golem08, Plutus, and LR.127) acting via WP:AFC/R before TTT24 creates pages at the redirects herself via sockpuppet IPs, TAs, and more puppet accounts, and moves pages; all of them need to be tagged for speedy deletion (CSD G5). ~2025-34027-20 (talk) 00:29, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

List of articles

• Gwen Stacy: Beyond Amazing
• The Ambassadors (Image Comics)
• Spider-Gwen: Smash
• The Amazing Spider-Man: Family Business
• Amazing Spider-Man: Family Business
• Spider-Man/Red Sonja: Sword of the She-Devil
• Spider-Man/Red Sonja
• Spider-Geddon: Ghost-Spider
• Dog Days Are Over (Spider-Gwen)
• Dog Days Are Over (Ghost-Spider)
• Spider-Gwen: Dog Days Are Over
• Ghost-Spider: Dog Days Are Over
• Spider-Gwen: Ghost-Spider
• Party People (Spider-Gwen)
• Spider-Gwen: Party People
• Ghost-Spider: Party People
• Gwenom vs. Carnage
• King in Black: Gwenom vs. Carnage
• Spider-Gwen: Gwenom vs. Carnage
• Into the Unknown (Spider-Gwen)
• Spider-Gwen: Into the Unknown
• Gwenverse
• Spider-Gwen: Gwenverse
• Spider-Gwen: Ghost-Spider
• Smash (Spider-Gwen)
• Gambit (2012 series)
• Gambit (2004 series)
• Gambit (1998 series)
• The Last Hunt: Predator
• Predator: Day of the Hunter
• Predator: The Preserve
• Silk: Age of the Witch
• Silk: Nightmare Boulevard
• The Amazing Spider-Man & Silk: The Spider(fly) Effect
• Amazing Spider-Man & Silk: The Spider(fly) Effect
• The Spider(fly) Effect
• Silk: Threats & Menaces
• Silk: Threats and Menaces
• Threats & Menaces (Silk)
• Threats and Menaces (Silk)
• The Clone Conspiracy (Silk)
• Sinister (Silk)
• Spider-Woman: Shifting Gears
• Spider-Girl: Legacy
• Like Father Like Daughter (Spider-Girl)
• Spider-Girl: Like Father Like Daughter
• Avenging Allies
• Spider-Girl: Avenging Allies
• Spider-Girl: Turning Point
• Spider-Girl: Endgame
• Too Many Spiders!
• Spider-Girl: Too Many Spiders!
• Spider-Girl: Betrayed
• Spider-Girl: Duty Calls
• Spider-Girl: Secret Lives
• Season of the Serpent
• Spider-Girl: Season of the Serpent
• Spider-Girl: Marked for Death
• The Games Villains Play
• Spider-Girl: The Games Villains Play
• When Destiny Calls! (Spider-Girl)
• Inside the Beast (Spider-Girl)
• Shadows from the Past! (Spider-Girl)
• If Death Be My Destiny! (Spider-Girl)
• Mind Games (The Amazing Spider-Girl)
• The Amazing Spider-Girl: Mind Games
• Amazing Spider-Girl: Mind Games
• Brand New May
• The Amazing Spider-Girl: Brand New May
• Amazing Spider-Girl: Brand New May
• Maybreak
• The Amazing Spider-Girl: Maybreak
• Amazing Spider-Girl: Maybreak
• Who Killed Gwen Reilly?
• Spectacular Spider-Girl: Who Killed Gwen Reilly?
• Spider-Woman: Origin
• Spider-Girl: Family Values
• Alien: Echo
• Aliens: Infiltrator
• Spider-Gwen: Most Wanted?
• Spider-Gwen: Most Wanted
• Greater Power (Spider-Gwen)
• Spider-Gwen: Greater Power
• Weapon of Choice (Spider-Gwen)
• Spider-Gwen: Weapon of Choice
• Long Distance (Spider-Gwen)
• Spider-Gwen: Long Distance
• Sitting in a Tree (Spider-Gwen)
• Spider-Gwen: Sitting in a Tree
• Spider-Man/Spider-Gwen: Sitting in a Tree
• Predators (Spider-Gwen)
• Spider-Gwen: Predators
• Spider-Gwen: The Life of Gwen Stacy
• Alien: The Cold Forge
• Alien: Echo
• Alien: Prototype
• Alien: Into Charybdis
• Aliens: Infiltrator
• Alien 3: The Unproduced Screenplay
• Alien: Colony War
• Alien: Inferno's Fall
• Alien: Enemy of My Enemy
• Alien: Covenant – Origins
• Alien: Cult
• Aliens: Vasquez
• Alien: Seventh Circle
• Aliens: Bishop
• Alien: Uncivil War

~2025-34027-20 (talk) 00:29, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Note that this editor has an active block under TA User:~2025-34356-16. Blue Sonnet (talk) 02:45, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

I suspect this is just TTT24 trying to abuse WP:AFC/R some more given the relevant IP they've been popping out on. Izno (talk) 03:08, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

I was suspecting the same, having first encountered this user while doing RC patrol. If there were any merit to the TA's allegations, this would be better handled at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TotalTruthTeller24 anyway. They're basically alleging that legacy contributor 74.94.190.241 is a sock of the LTA but without spitting that out for some bizarre reason. PCHS Pirate Alumnus (talk) 03:14, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

WP:CT/CASTE based disruption

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

The user was served an explicit notice that to edit caste-related articles in the WP:CT/SA space:

Additionally, you must be logged in, have 500 edits, and have an account age of 30 days in order to make edits related to two subtopics: (1) Indian military history, or (2) social groups, explicitly including caste associations and political parties related to India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal.

And another specific message by Bishonen:

Hi, Stoopystop. Since here's so much for you to read above, I want to draw your attention particularly to the restriction "you must have 500 edits, and have an account age of 30 days in order to make edits related to ... social groups, explicitly including caste associations and political parties related to India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal". This applies very much to you, since you have currently only 64 edits. That means you're not allowed to edit about social groups or castes. The restriction is new, so I don't blame you for editing about castes before, but you must not continue to do so.

No heed has been paid to these notices, so much so that articles for gods, e.g. Pushan, have also been inundated with caste-based nonesense. The user is simply WP:NOTHERE. Gotitbro (talk) 02:24, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Just to expand so that there are diffs, [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], their seven most recent edits, are explicitly about caste; there's no blurred line being gently crossed here.

Stoopystop also explicitly acknowledged that they understood the restriction, and would "adhere to the policy." It only took them until their fifth mainspace edit after acknowledging the restriction to blatantly edit about castes [36]. I believe this is so clear-cut that it would be a needless expenditure of time to bug AE about this. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 03:32, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

I believe the restrictions applied only to editing caste-related pages. The edits I made were not on any caste pages. Stoopystop (talk) 08:02, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Regarding the list of edits mentioned by CoffeeCrumbs, I would like to clarify two points. First, none of those pages are caste-related pages. Second, I did not add any new information. The caste-related details were already present on those pages since they were originally created. I only restored information that had been arbitrarily removed by newly created accounts, without adding anything of my own.

I am still fully adhering to the rules that were communicated to me, and my edit history shows that I have not edited any caste-related pages even once. Stoopystop (talk) 08:08, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

And if the restriction also includes pages that are not caste or social-group pages but contain even the smallest mention of a caste, then I will make sure not to edit those pages as well.

Thanks Stoopystop (talk) 08:20, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

As the notice clearly says, you may not make "edits related to...social groups, explicitly including caste associations" (emphasis mine). That in fact does mean that you cannot make any direct edit that's related to castes or any social group in South Asia (which has also been interpreted by Wikipedia to also include ethnic groups, tribes, or religious groups in addition to castes and political parties). CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 09:02, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

In addition, Bishonen's message to you, which you indicated at the time you understood, said That means you're not allowed to edit about social groups or castes, makes it very clear that you weren't allowed to edit the topic, not simply the articles that are specifically focused on the subject. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 09:05, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

If that is the case, then I believe there was a misunderstanding on my part, and I now understand the restriction more clearly. I assure the administrators that I will keep this in mind and strictly follow the rule while editing articles in the future. Stoopystop (talk) 09:35, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm not happy. Considering the notes you received, which were IMO both of them (the formal warning as well as my own note) extremely clear on this point, this seems like a wilful misunderstanding or astonishingly careless reading. I feel I might as well not have bothered to write to you. But I'll leave any sanction to other admins. Bishonen | tålk 11:19, 18 November 2025 (UTC).

(edit conflict) Perhaps a logged warning as a real last chance will be enough but I expect many of are going to be concerned your assurances aren't good enough because you said something very similar last time so it's unclear whether you will truly follow the restrictions. It's significant here that this wasn't simply the standard CTOP alert but that an editor had already said it to you "That means you're not allowed to edit about social groups or castes" with the word articles or anything similar never coming in to it. E.g. how can we be sure you won't start to participate in talk page discussions and say 'oh I thought it only applied to main space edits' or whatever? We can't outline every possible area of confusion where you somehow read something into what you were told that was never said. It's your responsibility to understand and follow the restrictions, so you should be asking beforehand if there is any confusion. Nil Einne (talk) 11:22, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Hey @Stoopystop, if anyone leaves you a Talk page notice or post and there are any blue links, you should always stop whatever you're doing and read every page. If it's linked, it's important for you to read in order to understand what's going on.

If someone manually wrote a message to you, read it slowly and more then once. Manual posts take longer than automated templates, so give them the attention they (and the original author) deserve.

If you're not sure whether something is ok to do, ask first - especially if you've been warned about it previously. You can ask in the Teahouse, pop a message on the Talk page of the article or even the person who sent you the original warning.

The problem here is that you made an assumption, and there's a well known saying about that happens if you do that.

Whilst being bold is generally a good thing, it's not necessarily so whenever a topic has sanctions imposed. Blue Sonnet (talk) 11:30, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

@Bishonen,@Bishonen,@CoffeeCrumbs,@Gotitbro,@Nil Einne

Actually, the new rule about contentious topics was explained to me during an ongoing edit discussion on a social group/caste article with senior Wikipedia admins. Because of that context, I assumed that the rule applied only to social group/caste pages. That is also why I have not edited any caste/social group pages, which you can confirm from my edit history.

Now that I understand the broader interpretation of the rule, I guarantee that I will keep this in mind and will not repeat the mistake. Stoopystop (talk) 12:06, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Can you please link to where this "ongoing edit discussion on a social group/caste article" took place, Stoopystop? Or, if you have difficulty creating links, just say which article it was, and I'll find the discussion. Bishonen | tålk 12:24, 18 November 2025 (UTC).

The edit debate was related to the Gadaria caste page (Gadaria people). After that discussion, I went to Ekdalian’s talk page (here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ekdalian#Regarding_Pala_Empire.) to discuss the matter in more detail. We were talking specifically about those edits, and during that time I received a message on my own talk page about the new rule regarding extended confirmed user requirements for editing contentious topics (here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Stoopystop#Introduction_to_contentious_topics). Stoopystop (talk) 12:56, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

So you willfully chose to ignore that to make substantial violations of the policy at other articles. I can't see it anything other than trying to game the rules and sanctions. Gotitbro (talk) 13:16, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by saying "the new rule about contentious topics was explained to me" on Gadaria people. You haven't edited that talkpage at all, let alone discussed it "with senior Wikipedia admins" (who?). As for Ekdalian's talkpage, there you also ignored this edit by me, and ignored where Ekdalian also emphasised to you that it was not only a question of caste pages: "please note that you are not even allowed (considering your current edit count) to discuss on castes here (talk page) as per the new rules". Your excuses are a crock; the rule could not possibly have been explained to you more clearly and explicitly. And, FFS, repeatedly! Bishonen | tålk 14:17, 18 November 2025 (UTC).

As an arbitration enforcement action, I've given Stoopystop a logged warning about ECR. As an individual admin action, I've granted and revoked EC permission from their account, meaning they will not become extended confirmed automatically. They'll need to apply for the permission once they cross the threshold. I share some skepticism of Stoopystop's explanation of the issue here, but I'm willing to go extra far on AGF when it comes to ECR, which is so frequently misunderstood. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:20, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Report on Disruptive Editing by User User:Meowingg in Pagpag Article

User User:Meowingg has repeatedly engaged in disruptive editing behavior on the Wikipedia article for Pagpag. Even after getting several warnings from other editors and a temporary block, this editor continues to revert sourced content and replace it with their own edits without proper discussion. The edits insisted upon the article also show indications of being generated by an LLM or A.I. This ongoing pattern ignores the need for editor consensus and undermines article quality. Please review these actions and consider further steps as appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TruthfulScribe (talk • contribs)

Please try to reach consensus at Talk:Pagpag. That page hasn't seen a substantial edit in 9 years. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:36, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

What the editor is doing is removing large amounts of sourced content without providing a reasonable explanation. This is disruptive and damages the content of the article. I believe the History section should be frozen until proper consensus is reached. The edit also included LLM communication intended for the user "Here are the top provinces of origin for squatters in Manila", which further damages the article and is not verifiable. All of the content added by the editor is not sourced nor verifiable. TruthfulScribe (talk) 14:21, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

It might have helped to make things clearer if you'd included some diffs, as per the notice at the top of the page. Without these, others are left to guess what you mean and you risk misunderstandings like this. Blue Sonnet (talk) 15:43, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

This is my first time posting to AN/I. I'm sorry for not being clear. TruthfulScribe (talk) 17:27, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

What exactly was added? GarethBaloney (talk) 16:36, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

These are examples of content that cannot be verified, lacks proper sourcing, or appears to rely on original research. The editor is trying to replace the well-sourced material on the article for several times.

You can check the changes here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pagpag&diff=prev&oldid=1322424879

"... According to the Democratic Research and Development Foundation (DRDF) survey in 2015, squatters in Metro Manila come from various provinces in the Philippines. Here are the top provinces of origin for squatters in Manila, Bulacan (23.1%), Pampanga (12.5%), Laguna (8.5%), Quezon Province (6.3%), Rizal (5.6%), Bataan (4.9%), Nueva Ecija (4.2%), Tarlac (3.9%), Zambales (3.5%), and Aurora (3.1%). Over time pagpag became popular in Tagalog areas. Some vendors sold it for 20 pesos per pack in plastic bags. Eventually, it evolved into what is now known as “Monok”..."

The edits clearly show signs of using an LLM, but they don’t include any reliable sources to back them up. This looks like fabricated survey data that has no connection to the history from Martial law era like Negros Famine and features abrupt shifts in topic, such as from provinces to 'Monok,' without sources. TruthfulScribe (talk) 17:24, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Why on earth does an article for a food need a section on squatters in Manila? (Well Pagpag is not the average food but my point still stands) GarethBaloney (talk) 17:29, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Welp, every single alarm bell for AI went off all at once and now I've got a headache... Blue Sonnet (talk) 18:57, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

@TruthfulScribe Just realised they weren't notified of this discussion, I've done so here and added a second AI warning (lvl 2). Blue Sonnet (talk) 21:23, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for notifying me and for updating the discussion. TruthfulScribe (talk) 13:46, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

And TruthfulScribe, if possible you may wish to consider changing your username. I can see no evidence that you're doing anything wrong, but historical evidence shows that names with "truth" in them are usually anything but truthful, leading to prejudice. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:02, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

The 72nd entry in "Observations on Wikipedia behavior" comes to mind. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 14:17, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

I chose this username because in Filipino/Tagalog, "truthful" translates to "tapat," which carries a rich cultural meaning beyond just "facts." Linguistically, it also expresses "faithful," "sincere," "honest," "loyal," "legitimate," "normal," and "regular." People may interpret it differently depending on their worldview or life experience. And I thought “truthful” was the closest fit. I recently changed my username from MysticWizard about six days ago. Thank you for informing me. I will take your concern into consideration. TruthfulScribe (talk) 17:42, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Sammi578 problematic edits and failure to communicate

I came across some of Sammi578's contributions in NPP and promptly draftified them for their poor writing and awful sourcing. I then noticed the collection of warnings on their talk, including four warnings (Cc User:Wikishovel) from this month about edit warring to remove maintenance templates without addressing the issues prompting their addition. We've also got numerous warnings for unattributed translations. The history of warnings goes back to January and not once has this editor deigned to reply on their talk page, but they're clearly aware the talk namespace exists. Please apply an indef block to force communication at a minimum, though I don't think they should be allowed to create anything more in mainspace given the numerous issues with their editing. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:25, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Some more diffs would be helpful but it appears (from the few edits I've looked at) that this user may not be fluent (or even competent, and I do not mean this in an offensive way) in English. Indonesian Wikipedia exists and may be a good alternative @Sammi578. aesurias (talk) 23:27, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

It's difficult to provide diffs of someone not doing something, in this case communicating. That's the most pressing issue. If we can get this editor to at least talk to us then we can try and address the other problems. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:29, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

That being said, here's them disruptively removing maintenance templates: [37] [38] [39] [40] (in the last case making the grammar worse while removing the copyedit tag). Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:33, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Second diff is particularly concerning -- they removed the copy edit tag but the article reads The trip will time around 880 km (550 mil) in 15 hours 29 minutes for each way.

They also replaced "abbrevation" with "portmanteau" but didn't change "an" from "a" so the sentence now reads The name Matarmaja is an portmanteau of the names of the cities that this train passes through, namely Malang, Blitar, Madiun, and Jakarta.

If this were a rare occurrence, other editors could simply make these small edits, but seeing as this is rather large-scale, it's definitely concerning aesurias (talk) 23:47, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Sammi578's output has been an ongoing problem. Some of the articles they start are nearly unreadable (e.g. [41]), but some just need some cleanup. The latter examples may be machine translations, but I've not been able to identify a translation tool used. The complete absence of any response is a worse problem, along with their persistent immediate moves of draftified articles back to main space (unchanged), the absence of edit summaries, and the marking of all of their edits as minor. Restricting their edits to draft space seems like the obvious remedy for the WP:CIR and WP:OWN problems. Wikishovel (talk) 06:06, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

They're currently editing so I've asked them to come over to ANI here. Blue Sonnet (talk) 10:53, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

• Hours after receiving the ANI notice, they created another pretty-much-incomprehensible article, now at Draft:Kutojaya Utara as I've moved it there. We simply can't have this carrying on with no communication so I have blocked Sammi578 from articlespace until they communicate. Black Kite (talk) 12:12, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

  @Black Kite it looks like something might have gone wrong because there doesn't appear to be a block on the account and they have continued editing in articlespace since this message. ^LaffyTaffer💬(she/they) 13:53, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

  ToBeFree blocked @Sammi578 from mainspace. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:07, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

  Sorry about that, I have no idea what went wrong there. Still, it shows they don't read their talk page, doesn't it, because I placed the block message and they still haven't commented here... Black Kite (talk) 19:14, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Archon785’s- disruptive patterns, disregard for rules, and an unnecessarily aggressive tone that approaches personal attacks.

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

---

Moved from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

 – — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cinaroot (talk • contribs) 14:35, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Archon785 made this edit about Netanyahu arrest warrants by ICC which is clearly related to WP:CT/A-I There was an invisible comment in the section telling editors with fewer than 500 edits not to make changes. I reverted it. They opened a discussion, and before any response or consensus could form, they immediately reverted me again. [42] Another editor also reverted them, and they continued edit warring at the same location. [43]

I told them about WP:CT/A-I here. They refused to acknowledge it and continued making the same disruptive edits in this area. Talk:Zohran_Mamdani#Legal_response_to_arrest_threat Talk:Zohran_Mamdani#Legal_response_to_arrest_threat_Part_2

They also claim my revert is irrelevant because I didn’t provide an edit summary.

They consistently display a poor attitude and an unnecessarily aggressive tone toward other editors. Quoting some of the things they said.

- Go apply that logic to Political positions of Donald Trump and see how far you get. What you said has no basis in policy or precedent [44]

- do me a favor and avoid your snarky summaries telling me to avoid an edit war because we're in this situation because you reverted my edit without leaving any kind of summary Talk:Zohran_Mamdani#Legal_response_to_arrest_threat

- I wish you could just discuss this topic in good faith instead of just wikilawyering. Talk:Zohran_Mamdani#Legal_response_to_arrest_threat

- I don't know, maybe you're just pedantic, but this insane crusade over one edit where there is clear reasoning for why I said it, and changed it when someone didn't like it, is unbecoming. User talk:Archon785

- Go ahead and take me to admin, take your threats and "warnings" elsewhere User talk:Archon785

- Your warning is rejected. You don't know what you're talking about. User talk:Archon785

- Take your attention elsewhere and stop obsessing over my activities User talk:Archon785

- Please review WP:UNDUE to understand my concerns regarding the article in question before coming here with passive aggressive reminders of good faith User talk:Archon785

- I really have to insist you stop harassing me User talk:Archon785

There’s much more in their edits on other pages as well. I’m happy to document it if needed. Thanks. Cinaroot (talk) 14:05, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

What a ridiculous and unnecessary situation. At every single turn where this topic was engaged in good faith, I took it. All I wanted the entire time was to talk about this in good faith, but this Cinaroot has a strange obsession with me. Cinaroot is the very definition of unnecessarily aggressive. This person was apparently offended that I did not bow down to their extended confirmed status, and they have been aggressive towards any attempts I've made to discuss a non-controversial edit.

I really don't care what Mamdani's religion is and his tangential connection to the Arab-Israel conflict, my interest is in the legal analysis provided by legal experts relating to his claim that he could arrest a foreign head of state as a city mayor. Is that disruptive? Is it exacerbating issues relating to the Arab-Israel conflict? No, it's not. You're just trying to keep any criticism of him off his page.

This person already called an admin on me, and when told to drop the stick, immediately started crying that I was calmly and politely discussing the issue. I really have no idea what Cinaroot's problem is, but this person has deep issues with the concept of others having diverging views. The best evidence I can provide is that when I was engaged in good faith, I responded with the same respect. I have no interest in edit warring and no interest in conflict, but Cinaroot thinks they have some kind of authority over me and they really don't, and their aggression and wikilawyering towards me has been entirely unnecessary and disruptive.

I don't have that many edits across the site, but something I consistently do is seek consensus and compromise. But when I am unjustifiably attacked by someone who is trying to exercise their non-existent authority just so they don't have to discuss a topic in good faith, then that makes me all the more inclined to tell them to take their aggression elsewhere.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Zohran_Mamdani#Legal_response_to_arrest_threat_Part_2 Archon785 (talk) 16:11, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

As per Dr vulpes here:

"Archon785 and Cinaroot, knock it off. Just drop the stick and walk away this is not a good use of any of our time."

I think both of you arguing with each other 3 separate times is not ideal, but what do I know. GarethBaloney (talk) 16:19, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

I agree with this completely. I did not instigate any of the arguments, and whenever Cinaroot was willing to be civil and discuss the topic in good faith, I was glad to discuss it respectfully, like in that "Legal response part 2" link above. Unfortunately Cinaroot has been seeking a conflict at every opportunity. Archon785 (talk) 16:21, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

All I can say is that these arguments have come about due to your edits pertaining to American politics. It would be wise to drop the stick and edit some other less controversial Wikipedia articles for now. GarethBaloney (talk) 16:35, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

I have blocked Archon785 for one week for edit warring/disruptive editing across multiple contentious topics over the past several weeks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:36, 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.

New user evidently NOTHERE

Prince Joseph Ampattuparamppil (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Posted two AI-generated edits [45] [46] immediately went to the Teahouse to complain they hadn't received any 'community reaction' for their work. I replied to explain that their edits were unproductive and to tell them to expect no thanks, plus I put an ai1 warning on their talk page. They replied to neither of these, made another unproductive, promptly-reverted edit and made another Teahouse thread looking for a 'positive community reaction'

This editor has promptly demonstrated that they're not here to build an encyclopedia and are instead here to get kudos, for some reason. I would suggest a block, to be removed when they explain that they're here for the right reasons; or as a softer alternative, a temp block from article space to nudge them into conversing about the matter on their talk page/the Teahouse. Athanelar (talk) 00:00, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

A block strikes me as an overreaction to a user who wants to be thanked for their edits on Wikipedia. A desire to be recognized, while it is not likely to be fulfilled in the way this user is seeking, is not incompatible with being here to constructively edit the encyclopedia. CapitalSasha ~ talk 00:15, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

It's not merely the desire to be recognised, but the fact that that desire is motivating them to hastily and unproductively edit in the hopes of earning that recognition. I don't think this person needs to be indeffed and forgotten about by any means; just halted in what they're doing and encouraged to discuss a bit before they continue mainspace editing. Athanelar (talk) 00:18, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

The greater problem is the LLM use. The teahouse appeal texts may be the result of poor translation from the user's native language, as those may be responses to the reversions. I want to hear from @Prince Joseph Ampattuparamppil. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 00:35, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Just checked the timing of their posts. The first Teahouse appeal was before any reversions, so it is odd behavior. Still think we need to focus on LLM use. Eagerness is easier to deal with than competence problems. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 00:39, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

The "positive community reaction" stuff feels like it may be related to a class assignment or edit-a-thon or something similar. Gnomingstuff (talk) 04:29, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Have we told him how to constructively contribute to Wikipedia yet? Assuming good faith that he wants to help edit but doesn't know what is allowed and what isn't. ~2025-31838-26 (talk) 10:15, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

So their first request for (positive) feedback was at the Teahouse, where he got a reply seven minutes later explaining that AI is a bad idea. Athanelar also added a Talk page warning.

They apparently didn't wait for any replies and went straight back to make this edit around half an hour later.

They immediately returned to the Teahouse to ask the same question on their earlier post, but either didn't notice or understand the reply immediately above, which is a bit concerning for CIR purposes.

I can also see that both Talk page warnings were in place before this last Teahouse post.

So it's reasonable to presume that they saw other editors had concerns, at minimum on the Teahouse post they directly edited but didn't address this.

On the plus side, they haven't edited since so I'm not sure whether any action is needed yet? If they come back and continue to make problematic edits, then a short block to get their attention might be an idea. Blue Sonnet (talk) 10:43, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

I will note I merged the two sections. It was previously a new thread at the teahouse. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 19:25, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

That makes more sense, I wondered how they knew about formatting different headings. Blue Sonnet (talk) 19:32, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

That's part of why I thought it was an edit-a-thon or something. Not sure whether there's anything official going on. Gnomingstuff (talk) 20:53, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

LLM use by Shadow. 547

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 gave Shadow. 547 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) a level-4 warning on 15 November for use of LLMs at Draft:Ottoman conquests and invasions, which I draftified

Today, they have generated Draft:Siege of Erzurum, most of which has a 100% AI-generated result on GPTZero. Almost none of the "Aftermath" section is supported by the source cited, a hallucination common when LLMs are asked to generate articles - they generate what they think an article should have, not what the source actually supports. Many other details in the article (e.g. "Following the capture of Erzurum, Baycu Noyan did not leave a permanent garrison") are also fabrications.

I believe a something like a block from mainspace is now warranted. It is very time-consuming to have to go and verify the fabrications, especially here where the source is in another language. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:20, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Shadow. 547's talk page is a litany of warnings from a multitude of users, most of which they did not respond to satisfactorily. They have been to ANI twice before, each time resulting in a block: once for personal attacks and once for disruptive moves. They don't seem to take on any feedback; for example, they draftified a ten-year-old article [47] days after being warned not to do so [48]. As such, I am indefinitely blocking Shadow. 547 for persistent disruptive editing and ignoring feedback. Toadspike [Talk] 20:43, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

This is sad to see, I remember we had this exact problem with Shadow last year and I thought I'd finally got them to understand on Siege of Bamyan. I guess it was just easier to go back to using AI. Blue Sonnet (talk) 21:06, 20 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 evader using two temporary accounts to edit pages serially; underlying /64 needs a long 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.

---

So ~2025-34797-85 made seven edits to six pages, then shortly afterwards, ~2025-34744-11, which is on the same /64, made a further seven edits, touching five out of the six of the same pages that the first temporary IP had edited. In a valiant cleanup attempt, Mutt Lunker used rollback to undo the second TA's edits as block evasion by the long-term abuser Hoggardhigh (here's a reversion diff by way of example), leaving those of the first TA exposed, which I've just cleaned up. Please block the underlying / 64, which both temporary and legacy IP contributions will show has been editing for quite a while with the same editing pattern. I'm not sure notifications would be helpful here. This feels a bit too complex to explain for AIV, and it's not immediately time-sensitive, so I've brought it here. Graham87 (talk) 16:04, 19 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:Rambling Rambler – removal of long-standing sourced content and refusal to collaborate

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.

---

Rambling Rambler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The user has repeatedly removed long-standing, properly sourced material from This Is War, refusing to collaborate on the talk page. The material in question, concerning the album's critical reception, has been present in the article since 11 February 2014. It is supported by at least two sources considered reliable at WP:RSMUSIC, and two additional sources were presented during the discussion. The user has removed this material multiple times, each time restoring the same version:

1. 10:54, 9 October 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1300307546 by Earthh (talk) Having looked into the three sources used to support this frankly unusual wording, one is dead, one makes zero mention of how the album was rated other than the generic "lauded", and the third only mentions "critical acclaim" in the subheadline so isn't allowable WP:HEADLINES"
2. 13:57, 9 October 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1315927175 by Earthh (talk) Regardless, this is clearly an WP:UNDUE and WP:OR statement pushing THR as somehow more relevant than others. Per WP:ONUS you make the argument on Talk and see if people agree"
3. 15:23, 20 October 2025 (UTC) "Restored revision 1316899900 by Magatta (talk): Seek consensus per WP:ONUS"

Although this does not exceed 3RR within a 24-hour period, it represents repeated removal of sourced content, which continued after attempts to discuss and after being informed that further reverts would escalate the dispute. The user also attempted to delegitimize the sources: first by claiming one was invalid because of a dead link (even after an archive was provided), then by citing WP:HEADLINES without addressing the substance of the source, and finally by invoking WP:UNDUE. However, UNDUE does not justify removing material supported by multiple reliable sources simply because it differs from a single source; it requires representing all significant viewpoints, not prioritizing one over the others. They cited earlier removals by another editor and an IP as evidence of consensus, despite those edits being unexplained, not policy-based, and did not reflect discussion or agreement.

Attempts to discuss the issue and propose rewording were unsuccessful. The user stated that they were "not going to bother continuing past this point" and subsequently continued reverting, preventing progress toward consensus. The current version of the article does not reflect consensus but rather repeated removals. I am submitting this report now as I was unable to do so earlier, and I have refrained from further reverting to comply with WP:3RR. Earthh (talk) 14:56, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

This is a content dispute, which you are both discussing on the article's talk page. I don't think administrative action is required at this time. FWIW (saying this as an editor not an administrator), your revised wording is still rather problematic (see WP:DESPITE). Girth Summit _(blether) 15:26, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

This is an old content dispute, which both were discussing a month ago. This is not appropriate for ANI, and I'm concerned that Earthh thinks it is. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:45, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Well first off I'm going to suggest that the filing of this ANI about a content dispute that's been dead for a month was not the best place to start with this and to me has an air of harassment in nature.

If you'd actually like admin eyes on it however I will make the following responses that in fact during the dispute you showed multiple examples of inappropriate conduct, namely:

• At This is War you were re-inserting material challenged by multiple different editors on multiple occasions and rather than opening a dialogue were just dismissing anyone who'd removed it[49][50][51] and then when you belatedly did finally open a dialogue with me and there was no consensus you just waited a few days before re-inserting what you wanted.[52]
• Let's also discuss this isn't the only article where this happened at that time, such as at Tron: Ares where you kept restoring preferential to the film wording without reliable sources (at times falsely claiming no reason was given for removal) to the point you broke 3RR and then denied it ever happened despite diffs quite easily showing this to be the case.[53][54]
• Let's also talk about the fact that when you "attempted to discuss the issue" on both articles you deliberately started multiple talk sections entitled "Disruptive edits by Rambling Rambler" which immediately taints them as how I'm definitively in the wrong rather than anything neutral and about the content in question.[55][56]

Normally I'd just shrug this off but quite honestly given that you seem to have form for getting into disputes about Jared Leto, namely wanting to add positive spin to articles that are linked to him[57], and are clearly holding a grudge over this I'd consider floating the idea that you have a TBAN imposed in relation to Jared Leto because I think that would actually resolve the wider issue... Rambling Rambler (talk) 16:19, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

This does not look to me like a refusal to collaborate, but more like a refusal to roll over and do exactly what you want. This should be closed as a content issue, for which dispute resolution is available. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:06, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

I concur with others here that this is primarily a content dispute; furthermore, the WP:ONUS is on you to seek consensus for the inclusion of the disputed material. Go to WP:3O or WP:DRN and get outside opinions. If you still want to report this user for edit warring, the place for that is WP:ANEW Athanelar (talk) 19:52, 19 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 with copyright violation in a contentious topic

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.

---

Repeated addition of irrelevant copied pasted information from other articles. I've tried to discuss with this user but all he does is copying whole paragraphs from other articles and making the page about the genetics of Sintashta culture impossible to read.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sintashta_culture

Some examples: he copied this whole paragraph

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Steppe_Herders#Phenotypes

And also this paragraph from Lazaridis et al 2022.

"Blue eyes were not inferred for all 19 individuals of the Yamnaya cluster examined (Table S 4) and for 1/15 individuals of the Afanasievo culture. They were found at a higher frequency (~29-55%) at the later Middle-to-Late Bronze Age samples of the Srubnaya, Sintashta cultures and at Krasnoyarsk in Russia(5, 34, 52, 73, 74) and Kazakhstan (Aktogai and Maitan Alakul),(52) i.e., populations with elevated Anatolian/European farmer ancestry.(5) They were also present in Early/Middle Neolithic farmers from Central Europe including the LBK (first farmers of central Europe) and Globular Amphora culture,(75) and at the highest observed frequencies in farmers from Scandinavia and the Baltics (EBN Narva in Lithuania(76) and Motala in Sweden(5, 10, 35)). Similarly, blond hair was inferred for 1/34 individuals of the combined Yamnaya and Afanasievo cluster, but reached ~14-60% in the aforementioned later steppe groups. Interestingly, light pigmentation phenotype prevalence was nominally higher in the Beaker group than in Corded Ware than in the Yamnaya cluster (where as we have seen it was rare), in reverse relationship to steppe ancestry, and thus inconsistent with the theory that steppe groups were spreading this set of phenotypes"

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/instance/10019558/bin/NIHMS1873747-supplement-abq0755_HistoricalPeriod_Supplement.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tollenser (talk • contribs) 13:07, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Tollenser, which user was it, have you notified them of this discussion and can you ideally include specific diffs of the edits you're referring to? Blue Sonnet (talk) 13:45, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

@Blue-Sonnet after looking at the history the user is @~2025-31298-48 shane (talk to me if you want!) 14:24, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! Looks like they've just been reported on the edit warring noticeboard by another user here... Blue Sonnet (talk) 14:44, 19 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.

Ikhouvanjou14 and OTD

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.

---

Ikhouvanjou14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

For a couple of months at WP:OTD, Ikhouvanjou14 has swapped hooks in each day’s set. I double-check the sets to ensure each bolded article (also known as the “hook”) is eligible for the Main Page per the criteria and guidelines outlined at OTD. Ikhouvanjou14 often moves ineligible hooks to the set, so I replace these hooks with others I evaluate as eligible (examples: Nov 14, Nov 19, Nov 20, Nov 21, Nov 24).

After the checks, Ikhouvanjou14 swaps hooks again with vague edit summaries like "balancing" and "fix" . Their goal is to have exactly two births and two deaths in every set (explained here, here, here and here), disregarding other considerations outlined in the OTD criteria and guidelines. Editors have explained to Ikhouvanjou14 that this is not necessary and that there is no consensus for their preference (example here and here). I have asked them to open new threads at WT:OTD to gain consensus for their preference here but they never do.

Another editor, usually me, checks the new hooks to ensure they are eligible; if not, I replace the ineligible hooks, then Ikhouvanjou14 again moves new hooks to the set. This back-and-forth is time-consuming: I check upcoming sets every day to ensure that Ikhouvanjou14 has not moved ineligible hooks into it (examples of back-and-forth in the edit summaries of Nov 10, Nov 12, and Nov 14). Most recently, Ikhouvanjou14 has moved an article to the set when consensus for the switch has not been established.

I have asked Ikhouvanjou14 to stop swapping hooks after sets have been checked here and here. I also posted ways to improve their set-building on their talk page here, here, and here. After several months, improvements have been minimal with obvious mistakes, like moving hooks to the set with an orange banner. Instead Ikhouvanjou14 responds with battleground behaviour (in this edit summary, and at ERRORS) and WP:OWN behaviour here, creating an unpleasant environment. I am seriously considering taking a step back from OTD because of this.

I propose a topic ban for Ikhouvanjou14 from swapping hooks after a set has been checked by another editor. Instead, they can request changes at WT:OTD: ensuring an equal number of births and deaths will not be an acceptable reason. I think this topic ban is required to end disruption at OTD. If anyone has a question, please ping me. Thanks. Z1720 (talk) 15:35, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Oh wow, you are Musial or bust. Why are you insisting on adding Musial who was OTD in 2020 instead of Hogg who last appeared in 2017? Have you read WP:OWN? Musial is 105, Hogg's 190. Wikipedia:Selected_anniversaries#"On_this_day"_guidelines says "Give precedence to significant anniversaries (multiples of 100 get the top priority, followed by multiples of 50, while 25 and 10 can be considered equal)." Nothing about multiples of 5. You know what, you wanna update them all, fine. Ikhouvanjou14 (talk) 15:42, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

This has been a long simmering issue at OTD. I've made a few attempts to get Ikhouvanjou14 to change, but they persist in pursuing their own idiosyncratic "balance" at the expense of factors supported by existing consensus. The fact that they continue to do so while expressing hostility or disregard for the other OTD volunteers makes this untenable. We just can't have someone around OTD who won't fix a fixable problem and who insults those pointing them in the right direction. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:54, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

I should say I support an indefinite OTD topic ban, based on the above. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:11, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

• Support indefinite topic ban for Ikhouvanjou14 from OTD, at a minimum, based purely on their response above, which is dripping with ABF. If that is standard behaviour for them, the other contributors there deserve a break. Girth Summit _(blether) 16:09, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
• Support indef TBan from OTD per GirthSummit. Such a response as shown here makes it clear they do not intend to work on the area collaboratively. CoconutOctopus talk 16:13, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

  I am, but Z1720 insists on having his edits to come first. Ikhouvanjou14 (talk) 16:38, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

  Please do not ban me. I will take a break from this to do something else. Ikhouvanjou14 (talk) 16:39, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I also Support an indef tban from OTD. It does sound untenable. Note also, in case Ikhouvanjou14 should move their attentions to ITN and behave in a similar way there, I believe they should be briskly tbanned from that also. Bishonen | tålk 16:44, 18 November 2025 (UTC).

• @Bishonen: Is there any current conduct at ITN that should also be considered in this thread? Z1720 (talk) 16:58, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

• I'm not aware of any, Z1720 — I just thought the way OTD and ITN are managed is so similar it might be a short leap from one to the other. Bishonen | tålk 19:13, 18 November 2025 (UTC).

• Why are all of you defending Z1720? I followed the guidelines. I relented a few times (see 10 November), and yet it all seems pointless because all of you said that I only did harm for the topic. Ikhouvanjou14 (talk) 16:50, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

  Z1720 follows the guidelines, and understansds the guidelines as written, and understands why they are so written. You would have done very well to listen to them, but instead you have argued and snarked and given Z1720 a headache. Girth Summit _(blether) 17:04, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

  Not always, like I pointed out, he insists on adding Stan Musial even though it is his 105th birthday, when the guideline clearly stated "Give precedence to significant anniversaries (multiples of 100 get the top priority, followed by multiples of 50, while 25 and 10 can be considered equal)." I swapped Musial, who last appeared in 2020, for James Hogg, who last featured in 2017, his death will be 190 years ago, hence fulfilling that multiplies by 10. Also, last year he added Angela Lansbury for her 99th birthday. All in all, I am ready to learn more (having only been on OTDs for 4 months) to avoid being tban. However, on this one, it is better to have Hogg instead. I want to refresh OTDs, some of which between July and now were last refreshed in 2022. Ikhouvanjou14 (talk) 17:14, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

  It's not about that one case. The report here lists multiple issues with your editing. A good response would have been to try to get a better undertaking of other people's perspectives and to undertake to improve, but you just assumed it was about this one case (which you're still focussing on). I think the other contributors there needs some time with you elsewhere. Hopefully you can learn how to edit collaboratively, demonstrate that you've improved, and be welcomed back there after a while. Girth Summit _(blether) 17:52, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

  OK, I will take a break, maybe for one week? Ikhouvanjou14 (talk) 17:54, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

  I have already said that I think an indefinite, enforceable break would be a good idea. Try a different part of the project, learn how to edit more collaboratively, build up a track record of doing so that you can point to in an appeal, then apply for the ban to be lifted in six months - that would be my advice. Girth Summit _(blether) 18:10, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

  I will voluntarily not updating OTDs for three months, just do not block me, I will try to give inputs but not as main editor. Ikhouvanjou14 (talk) 18:12, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

  I mean, Z1720 is so busy with other projects, so I think this one they can refresh and I will give suggestions. Ikhouvanjou14 (talk) 18:15, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

  Ikhouvanjou14, it sounds like you don't know what we're discussing here, so please take a look at WP:TBAN. If this proposal passes, you will be required to stay away from OTD entirely. That means that you can't contribute there at all - not just 'don't edit it directly', but also 'don't edit the talk page', 'don't make suggestions about it on other contributors' talk pages', and 'don't mention anything about OTD to anyone on Wikipedia'. There won't be a technical restriction - your account would technically be able to make such edits - but if you were to do so, your account would be blocked. It's essentially a way of saying 'You have been disruptive in this topic area. We think that there is a chance that you could contribute constructively in other topic areas, so we are not blocking your account. Go and do something else'. You don't get to determine the period - Z1720 did not specify a time period in their original proposal, but everyone who has opined so far has said that it should be indefinite - so, you wouldn't be able to go back to OTD until the Tban was lifted. It would be lifted by you making an application at WP:AN. This isn't written in stone, but typically people wait at least six months before making such a request; I'll add that they are not usually successful unless the applicant can point to a positive body of work they have made in other arenas.

  So, if this passes, this is what you will have to do: do and find something else to do. That could be anything - write articles, fix up typos, improve sourcing, whatever takes your fancy. But whatever you end up doing, don't just rely on your interpretation of written rules - listen to what experienced editors tell you. Sure, our policies and guidelines are there to help people learn the ropes, but feedback from other editors is also important. However carefully we craft written instructions, there will always be more than one way to interpret them - if someone has been doing something for a long time, and nobody has complained about their actions, that is a good indication that they know what they are doing, and it is likely that they would be willing to help you if you speak to them politely. You're new - if someone reverts you, don't point them towards a policy document - ask them why they reverted you, and listen to what they tell you. You might be wrong. I have been wrong, many times. People being wrong isn't a problem - it's how you deal with it when it happens that matters. Ask questions, listen to answers, learn. Maybe, once you have more experience, you will even go back to the original policy documents and say 'I found this confusing when I was a newb - does anyone mind if I change it to this, which I think better reflects actual practice?'

  But that's all in the future - for now, focus on finding something else to do productively. Girth Summit _(blether) 20:34, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

  In short, nothing that I say will avoid me an indef tban. Is it really that necessary? Ikhouvanjou14 (talk) 22:28, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

  Apparently so. Ravenswing 23:50, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

  So all of my good contributions down the drain simply because a much more experienced editor disagreed and I stood by my idealism (too much of it, I think)? If I was tbanned, please not an indef (1 month would suffice), because I still want to do OTDs, since apparently so many qualified BLPs are overlooked before my time here, like Mahathir Mohamad, Lauren Bacall, Hannah Hampton and today's OTD with Rosalynn Carter. I did relent, many times. Special:Diff/1320762319 is one example, so what Z1720 implying is that I never listen, but I have. He removed Olga Kurylenko from Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/November 14, after being explained, I do not re-add it. Same here with Márton Fülöp. Here too. I credited him Special:Diff/1315259932. I also contributed with Gerda Arendt here. You see, I might be too stubborn, but not as bad as thought. Ikhouvanjou14 (talk) 04:58, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

  Ikhouvanjou14, you might not think it's as bad as thought, but clearly many other experienced editors do. That you think you're here simply for disagreeing with a more experienced editor and that this can all be resolved by you taking a simple break without conditions is one of the major issues here that calls for an indefinite topic ban. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 09:04, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

  @Ikhouvanjou14 One of the most important skills a person can learn, is the ability to look at a room filled with people who say "I think you're wrong" and be able to go "yeah, I might be wrong".

  Most people's natural instinct is to see this as an attack and want to defend themselves or avoid thinking about it further, so that's something we need to overcome. You'd be surprised how powerful and liberating it can be to say "yep, I screwed up there" and just accept it.

  It looks like you're probably going to receive a topic ban but that's not necessarily a bad thing. It doesn't have to be forever, so look at it as an opportunity to learn new skills or gain experience in another area of Wikipedia. Even though you didn't choose the TBAN, you can choose what you do next.

  There are great editors who've had some form of block/ban in their past and used it as a way to learn more about themselves and grow as an editor; the block/ban reset their viewpoint and forced them to change their behaviour, which turned out to be incredibly valuable - you can do the same. Blue Sonnet (talk) 17:00, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

• Support indefinite OTD topic ban. And while we are at it, give a formal warning that any remotely similar behaviour elsewhere is likely to result in a block (possibly indefinite), not a topic ban. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:18, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
• Support indefinite OTD topic ban per above. DoubleCross (‡) 21:11, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
• Support indefinite OTD topic ban. It is clear from Ikhouvanjou14's postings here that nothing short of that will stop the disruption. And such a ban is a surgical approach to the problem, allowing Ikhouvanjou14 a huge amount of room to do beneficial editing. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:10, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
• Support indefinite topic ban from WP:OTD. This is beneficial to both the encyclopedia, and, in the long run, Ikhouvanjou14. When someone gets fixated enough by a topic or area that a good-faith editor can act in a way detrimental to the encyclopedia, it's in everyone's interest that they take a break. The time for a voluntary one-week break, as they proposed, was something for them to do for themself, way before the issues go there. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 23:44, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
• Support: indefinite topic ban from WP:OTD. The big issue in my mind is Ikhouvanjou14's failure to grasp that Wikipedia is a consensus-run encyclopedia, that one must seek consensus with a contentious issue, and that failure to gain consensus for your POV requires that you lose gracefully and move on. Ravenswing 00:09, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
• Support topic ban with formal warning that an expansion in scope will not require another noticeboard discussion should DE resume elsewhere. The IDHT is strong here. Star Mississippi 04:12, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
• Please stop editing OTD pages while this discussion is ongoing, Ikhouvanjou14. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:11, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

  Okay, just one more. Ikhouvanjou14 (talk) 14:18, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

  Right now, we're only talking about a topic ban. Should we be discussing something broader instead? If you actually think this is appropriate, I have concerns that go beyond simply one topic. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:05, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

  Wait, no. Don't be so extreme. Ikhouvanjou14 (talk) 15:44, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

  I'm sorry, but as soon as it was clear that you were going to receive a topic ban, it appears that you hurried into this area to make more than a dozen quick edits for OTDs several months from now (after very rarely making OTD edits more than a week in advance) to try and get edits "under the wire" before your topic ban took into effect. And when an admin literally told you to stop doing it, you then said "OK, just one more."

  This, combined with the tenor of your comments during this entire discussion, gives me the impression that you don't take the concerns of the community very seriously. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 17:27, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

  How about you stop provoking us into thinking more extreme measures might be necessary? Ikhouvanjou14, let me make something very clear to you: your status as a Wikipedia editor is at risk here. Any one of the several admins chiming in doesn't have to wait for a consensus here to either block you on their own authority, or give you an indefinite block from the encyclopedia altogether. We can, as a community, likewise decide that a mere OTD ban isn't enough, and escalate the sanction. Trying to pull fast ones on us, at a point where your every action is under scrutiny, is the quickest way to make all this happen. The onus is on you right now to convince us of your good faith, and right now, you're doing a poor job of it. I'm about to revert those recent OTD edits you've made pending the conclusion of this thread, and you would be very well advised to keep your hands off. Ravenswing 18:23, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

  I have temporarily blocked @Ikhouvanjou14 from the Wikipedia namespace while preparing to close this discussion (another admin feel free to close if I haven't done so yet). Once that block is released, be aware that further disruption in other areas may cause a broadening of this topic ban. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:43, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

  NOTE: Since I !voted on this sanction I will not be the one closing the discussion and imposing the action. I have also retracted the block. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:51, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

• Support indefinite OTD topic ban: Beyond the excellent case laid out by Z1720, this suggests that there is absolutely no reason to believe that this editor is capable of collaboration. As said by others above, should advise them that anything even remotely resembling this sort of intractability anywhere else on the project will result in an immediate indefinite block. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:49, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
• Support indefinite OTD topic ban. Per Z1720, CoffeeCrumbs & Firefangledfeathers comments above. - Shearonink (talk) 19:06, 19 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 in a contentious topic

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

The user has received more than a fair share of reverts and warnings and CT (WP:CT/SA) alerts in the few months since the account was created to be aware that their edits are tendentious and disruptive. Was going to leave an ANI warning but seeing the edit history I realized this was futile and the user is simply WP:NOTHERE. The problematic stuff ranges from 1) scrubbing any mention of British rule in India (e.g. replacing British India with British Raj/Raj [also incorrect as the latter was the governmental authority not territory]); 2) dubious shoehorning of Maratha Empire (usually a trend of Hindu nationalist tendentious editing); 3) among other outright WP:OR and WP:HOAX problems. Some examples:

1) [58], [59], [60], [61]/[62], [63], [64], [65] (in the last one directly violates WP:INDICSCRIPTS despite the giant comment telling exactly not to do that, among other OR insertions)

2) [66], [67]

3) [68] (introduces completely made up terms like "Order of the Raj" and "Order of the Star of Raj" to replace Order of the Indian Empire and Order of the Star of India)

I haven't vetted the edits of the user for articles related to Indian cinema but wouldn't be surprised if similar issues persist there. Gotitbro (talk) 19:12, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Slightly unrelated but their username (Cheese Pizza = CP) doesn't seem as innocuous as it comes across. Trollish. Longewal (talk) 19:44, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

I apologize for my mistakes and disruptions that I've caused. From now, I will never spread Hindu nationalism or disruptive edits. Cheesepizzaaa (talk) 19:08, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Five minutes after posting this comment, this user made this edit which follows exactly the same pattern as their previous disruptive behaviour and falls within the WP:CT/SA restriction they've already been informed of. Athanelar (talk) 02:47, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Two minutes, actually. Blocked 31h for disruptive editing. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:32, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Can anyone just explain me the difference between British "Raj" and British "India"? Cheesepizzaaa (talk) 13:45, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

The British Raj was the rule of the British Crown on the Indian subcontinent, lasting from 1858 to 1947.

British India was the administrative divisions of British governance in South Asia. Collectively, they have been called British India. In one form or another, they existed between 1612 and 1947 Athanelar (talk) 14:15, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. Cheesepizzaaa (talk) 15:05, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

User:DangLeBaThinh

User:DangLeBaThinh is a proflific contributor to technology articles, but their edits are consistently unreferenced. This becomes a particular problem at their repeated unsourced overwrites of redirects, e.g. at:

• Huawei Mate 8 [69]
• Nokia 111 [70] [71] [72] [73] [74]
• Nokia 8000 4G [75] [76]

... etc. Multiple warnings at their user talk have been ignored, including a level 4 for this. I suggest a temporary block until they learn to communicate with other editors, and cease edit-warring additions of unsourced content. Wikishovel (talk) 13:07, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

They've never edited a user talk page, but have edited an article talk page once. Blue Sonnet (talk) 15:06, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

I, for now, will assume good faith. It is possible that he's just really into tech and doesn't realize that sources are required. If the edits are factual, I don't think it's that big of a priority. --DollarStoreBa'al^ConverseMy life choices 15:13, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

@DollarStoreBaal44: just wondering, what was it that brought you to this discussion? You've got 171 edits, with an account created in May. Wikishovel (talk) 15:33, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

I was perusing the Teahouse (as I often do), when I found a section that linked here. I decided to peruse this page (it's surprisingly interesting), and found this discussion. I felt I had something to add to it, and so I did. --DollarStoreBa'al^ConverseMy life choices 15:36, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

I'll see myself out (I'm assuming I'm not supposed to be here?) --DollarStoreBa'al^ConverseMy life choices 15:37, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

ANI tends to favour more experienced editors weighing in. That being said I would hardly call myself experienced with 700 edits. I even saw a TA on a discussion here today, presumably an experienced editor who is logged out somewhere.

Mostly these sorts of things (and Teahouse) are fun to read. GarethBaloney (talk) 16:13, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

It's not necessarily that, it's more that there is a lot of stuff going on here and everyone is constantly watching what everyone else is doing.

Since we're talking about things that can change someone's editing career, it's best to have some experience under your belt so you can properly understand whether anything else might be going on that isn't visible on the surface, as well as the appropriate actions that might be needed.

On the other hand, if you have direct experience of a particular editor and have new information that might help admins to make an informed decision, that's a different story and it's usually a good idea to pipe up. Blue Sonnet (talk) 16:14, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Back to the discussion at hand, while I assume good faith too, edit warring to make unsourced rewrites of redirects is disruptive, and not talking to other editors is also a problem. communication and competance are required. I would suggest either a temporary block or a partial block from mainspace. Chess enjoyer (talk) 18:35, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Update: They're still doing it. Chess enjoyer (talk) 18:23, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

I've queried possible sockpuppetry at their user talk page; no reply yet. Wikishovel (talk) 18:32, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

I mentioned before this got derailed a bit that I don't think they are using user Talk pages at all and only used an article Talk once - their latest edits are definitely unsourced, such as today's "This is the most powerful AI model from Google, replaces 2.5 Flash and 2.5 Pro.". I'd expect that to be sourced.

I don't think anything short of a temp block will get their attention. Blue Sonnet (talk) 22:20, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Or just an article space block , subject to removal once communication is achieved. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 22:25, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Article space suspension sounds good, but they've made zero edits to draft space so far, so they might interpret it as a block or ban. Difficult to judge, until they join this discussion. Wikishovel (talk) 22:40, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

The block notice can be modified in such a way that should clarify that it isn't a full block. For example, it could include directions to this ANI thread. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 22:45, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

I've just posted to their user talk again, with a User:Blue-Sonnet style polite request and direct link to this thread. Wikishovel (talk) 23:03, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Probably won't do anything. Again, I think a mainspace/article space block would be good until some sort of communication is established. It can always just be overturned once communication starts. Semi-unrelated, I speculated here, wondering if an account who had their edit summaries just be the article title was a sock. This account also has most of their edit summaries be just the article title, or something similar to it. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 23:19, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Likely instance of PGAME by Historynerd361

• Historynerd361 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Initially I brought this to AIV, but comments by Izno and Daniel Quinlan suggested/stated that it wasn't the right venue to discuss the issue (conversation can be found here [77], many thanks to them for the clarification). I'll be bringing this to ANI per the latter's suggestion.

Historynerd361 creates a new draft at Draft:Beth Aramaye. What should be mentioned is that Beth Aramaye is a redirect for an already existing article on Wikipedia, Asoristan, though this of course is not an issue. But in the edit history of the draft, one can find a series of edits from this [78] to the most latest edit at the time of writing this [79] showing change in only character/space of the draft. This series comes to a total of 26 edits in the span of 6 minutes. Accordingly, this appears to fit Example 1 of Gaming of permissions, which is the making of "unconstructive or trivial edits to raise your user access level". Prior to this draft, HN was at around 270-280 contributions, but after their most recent edits through this draft, they currently sit at 329.

Any and all input is greatly appreciated regarding this matter. Surayeproject3 𖢗 05:39, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

That definitely does look strange - @Historynerd361 can you please explain what you were doing and why? Blue Sonnet (talk) 06:18, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

I was attempting to add templates to the draft, but they weren’t appearing after saving. I began trying different approaches and just kept spamming it without realizing I was creating multiple edit version. This was a technical misunderstanding, not an attempt to gain permissions. If possible you can decredit me for those edits, I honestly don't mind it since it never part of my agenda to gain more edits. Gaining access to Kurdish articles is not part of my agenda. Have in mind on of the warning against WP:KURD was that I added a source mention the term Kurdistan in a linguistic article. Historynerd361 (talk) 10:46, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

If what you're saying is true, then I apologize for my previous comment. What templates were you trying to add to the draft? I can see that you were using the visual editor while you made those edits. You might have some success with the source editor. Chess enjoyer (talk) 11:01, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks you for the understanding and advice, I will definitely try source editing this time. I tried to add several templates but the one that kept me awake was ’’WikiProject Aram’’. For some reason It just wouldn’t show up on the article. Historynerd361 (talk) 12:27, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

@Historynerd361, I assume you meant WikiProject Aram (Suryoye). If you look at the history of the draft, you'll see that I was able to add it. However, WikiProject templates are supposed to go on the talk pages of articles (or drafts in this case), not the articles themselves. Chess enjoyer (talk) 14:16, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Amazing, thank you. I wasn’t aware of that. Historynerd361 (talk) 15:49, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I wanted to assume good faith, as while this definitely looks strange, it's not like Historynerd361 did this all the way to 500 edits. However, a look at their talk page shows that they were warned against violating the ECP restrictions of WP:GS/KURD about a month ago, with their most recent comment on the matter being Understood. Thank you for the final clarification. I will not make any further edits related to Kurds or Kurdistan until I am extended-confirmed. Based on this, I think it is likely that Historynerd361 is now trying to game ECP so that they can edit in WP:GS/KURD topics. Chess enjoyer (talk) 07:25, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

It's certainly a concern, but hard to be sure. Revoking XC seems extreme to me without more evidence, and is complicated by the fact they don't even have it yet. Given the assertion Gaining access to Kurdish articles is not part of my agenda, I wonder if a voluntary topic ban from WP:GS/KURD or Kurdish topics more broadly would be satisfactory. —Rutebega (talk) 17:49, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Gaming Check is a new tool in development that may (or may not) be useful for this discussion. Sean.hoyland (talk) 17:27, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Circassian bubuzuan

Circassian bubuzuan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hello, I am doing my own research on historical topics that this user created, however I do not find any evidence of the events happening. I searched historical documents and found zero evidence for them existing. I also googled them and still nothing. The draft articles also reeks of large language models. Felicia (talk) 14:47, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Please alert the user in question shane (talk to me if you want!) 14:51, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

@EditorShane3456: How do I do that, it is my first time. Felicia (talk) 15:00, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Do you know how to hi-light text? shane (talk to me if you want!) 15:01, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Done, I have notified them. Felicia (talk) 15:07, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Draft:Defeat of the Nogais and Crimeans (1576)

Draft:Circassian raid on Anatolia (1572)

Draft:Circassian–Golden Horde War (1498)

Draft:Crimean-Nogai raid on Circassia (1576)

Draft:Safavid invasion of Kumykia

Draft:Battle of Don (1646)

Draft:Circassian raid on Anatolia (1572)

Draft:Circassian–Golden Horde War (1498)

They do not give the page numbers of the sources they use in their articles, and they continued despite my last warning. [80][81] Kajmer05 (talk) 15:21, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

ngl this seems like there should be a indef ban shane (talk to me if you want!) 15:23, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

I presume you mean block, not ban. There is a distinction between the two. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 16:25, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

sorry shane (talk to me if you want!) 16:26, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Felicia777, you tagged several as WP:G1. Hoaxes are explicitly excluded under that. It should be under WP:G3. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 16:27, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

I have tagged every draft that wasn't tagged under G3 shane (talk to me if you want!) 16:30, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

I fixed the two that wasn't fixed to G3. Felicia (talk) 17:03, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

I declined a G1 and a G15 for Draft:Battle of Don (1646). The more I begin to look into a G3 for it the more I begin to think this may be some sort of alternate history project, or worse, propaganda related to the Russo-Ukraine war. Also, although I declined the G15, I can see why the speed of article creation may indicate that they are using an LLM. That said, the sources (at least the one cited on Battle of Don) do appear to exist, and I would prefer if someone who reads that language could take a look and try to verify if they say at all what the drafts say. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:43, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, I mistagged them. I should look into CSD more carefully. Felicia (talk) 16:54, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

As someone who reads the language I checked the source that was given for the lead paragraph, namely:

• Моков, Б.М. Кабарда второй половины XVI-XVII веков.

First of all, the link leads to a different paper from what the hyperlink text says. The paper to which the link leads is named

• Княжеская власть в Кабарде XVI - XVIII веков: проблемы исследования

The author of this paper is not Моков, Б.М. but Азикова, Ю.А.

As for the paper by Моков, Б.М. from the draft, the paper does seem to exist and is listed as one of the sources in Азикова's paper (source number 2). However, Азикова's paper only references a single page (i.e. 142) from Моков's paper and uses it as a source for a single statement. The statement is:

• Одни исследователи демонстрируют сословный статус пши, другие - стремятся описать именно его властные полномочия. У первых пши предстаёт как «феодал высшего разряда» [2].

This statement does not mention anything from the lead in the draft. It's not talking about the year 1646, it's not talking about the Don River (Дон), it's not talking about any battles, it's not mentioning Circassian forces or the Russian Empire or Crimea (Крым) or just anything from the lead.

Actually, Азикова's paper doesn't deal with any battles at all, it rather deals with the difficulties of studying and researching the power status of Kabardian princes of the 16th-18th centuries. Nakonana (talk) 17:55, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

I knew something was off with the citation. Felicia (talk) 18:08, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Just noticed that it is not only the lead paragraph that is sourced to Моков's / Азикова's but the entire draft. Unfortunately, I can't find Моков's paper to check its content. Nakonana (talk) 18:12, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you so much - that's one reason why I wanted someone who could read it, as I wasn't 100% sure I even had the right paper when I added the link. But the link I added does appear to cite the same paper as the draft? But you cannot find the actual paper? ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 18:50, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Ah I didn't realize that it was someone other than the creator of the article who added the link. OK that explains why the link leads to a different paper than the one referenced in the draft.

The paper you linked is by Азикова and yes Азикова's paper cites the paper by Моков which is mentioned in the draft.

I've found other papers that reference the Моков paper in the draft, and I found a doctor's thesis by Моков which is also on the topic of the history of Kabardia / Circassia. Therefore I think that the Моков paper, which is referenced by the draft, is real and actually exists even if I can't find it via Google search. It's possible that it's only available as a print version but not as a digital version. Nakonana (talk) 19:09, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

I did some more digging and checked whether there is an article on ruwiki about the Battle of Don, but didn't find one. What I've found, however, are articles on the commanders and leaders who are listed in the enwiki draft.

• There's on the one hand prince Pyotr Pozharsky (ru:Пожарский, Пётр Дмитриевич): there's no mention of any battles in 1646 in his article. The ruwiki article somewhat states that there are no records about him for the year 1646 at all.
• Then there's Mutsal Cherkassky (ru:Черкасский, Муцал Сунчалеевич). In his article there are indeed military conflicts mentioned for the year 1646 in the Don River region. So, it looks like there might have been 1-2 battles that might fit the content of the draft. However, what stands out here is that the prince who supported Mutsal Cherkassky was not Pyotr Pozharsky but prince Semyon Pozharsky (ru:Пожарский, Семён Романович). Semyon Pozharsky's article also mentions military conflicts in the Don River area in 1646.

I'd guess that the enwiki draft was created by LLM and the discrepancy regarding the princes is the result of some AI slope. The enwiki draft also shows some other LLM characteristics, like, pointing out the significance of the battle.

But it looks like some battle around the Don River actually took place during that time. Nakonana (talk) 18:58, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Based on their edit summaries, all in Russian, I think it is quite probable that Circassian bubuzuan does not speak English and is solely relying on AI software to write here. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:04, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes that appears to be the case. If I use Google translate on the enwiki draft to translate it into Russian it generates normal Russian sentences, while grammar in the English draft appears to be a little off? For example, it says in the lead Battle represented significant episode when it should actually say The Battle represented a significant episode, if my English serves me right (I'm not a native English speaker). So, it looks like they used machine translation and/or AI, and AI introduced some inaccuracies into the draft, like mixing up the prince's name. Nakonana (talk) 19:22, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

I couldn't find any sources in English. So I am still questioning the source. Felicia (talk) 19:52, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

There's an English language dissertation here that has some info on the actions of prince Semyon Pozharsky ^{scholary romanization: Semën Požarskij} in that region and during that time, for example:

• In response to the Tatar campaign, the Muscovite state resolved at the beginning of 1646 tolaunch a punitive expedition against Crimea and the Tatars roaming in the steppe. On the basis of Muscovite sources, Novosel’skij relates that After Aleksej Mixajlovič ordered the voevoda of Kursk Semen Požarskij to go to Astrakhan and assemble an army of Astrakhan musket-bearing troops and cavalry, some groups of pro-Muscovite Tatars, Great Nogays and Kabardians, Požarskij managed to collect at least 20,000 troops
• In June 1646, the nureddin Gazi Giray came to the environs of the Don River and attacked the Kabardian allies of the Muscovites. However, the Crimean army was forced to retreat by the arrival of relief troops of Požarskij’s reinforcements and the Don Cossacks.

Nakonana (talk) 20:58, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for providing an English source. Felicia (talk) 22:43, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

The language a source is written in is unrelated to its questionability. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:49, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

@Felicia777: Sources are not required to be in English. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:19, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

So it seems possible to salvage some of the articles, but if no one can step up correct them and provide the necessary sources, they are not going to survive in their current state. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 18:26, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

I don't read the language, but I do read a lot of AI text. Some of the drafts read as very obviously AI...

• Draft:Circassian_raid_on_Anatolia_(1572): "The successful raid highlighted the vulnerability of the Ottoman coast to seaborne attacks and demonstrated the continued military and naval capabilities of the Circassians despite pressure from the Ottoman Empire and its allies. The event contributed to the enduring image of the Circassians as a significant maritime power in the Black Sea region during the 16th century and represented an important episode in the long-standing Circassian–Turkish conflicts."

...while some are vaguely AI-shaped but don't really have the same grammar or verbiage, and have missing articles and such. I have zero proof of this but my gut is that maybe it was AI-generated in a different language and then non-AI-translated into English. That or AI-generated in English and then rewritten into grammatically incorrect English.

• Draft:Battle of Don (1646): "Conflict emerged from ongoing struggle between Circassian principalities and their powerful neighbors. In 1646, Crimean Khanate in alliance with Ottoman Empire launched substantial military campaign toward Don River, targeting Circassian territories and threatening strategic balance in region."

Gnomingstuff (talk) 05:02, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

This matches the behavior of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sadifan; I have made a report. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 01:14, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Sorry folks, I've been as thorough as I can be with this answer and I expect it's disappointing. It's kind of a mess. Happy to recheck any individual parts if someone doing a thorough behav finds some particularly suspicious edits. I think this is most efficiently going to have to be dealt with as a conduct issue for the three(?) individual contributors. -- asilvering (talk) 08:20, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

They created another new article. Circassian–Safavid War (1547) Kajmer05 (talk) 15:17, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

I've p-blocked them from article space pending an adequate response here, and also provided an explanation in Russian on their user talk page in case it helps. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:18, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

@Rosguill: They recreated it under Draft:Circassian–Safavid War (1547). Might as well revoke access to the draft namespace as well. Felicia (talk) 19:04, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

I believe that's the same page, moved to draft by another editor about an hour after they created it. It's not great that their only edit since was a brief word in Russian on my talk page (with a large dose of good faith, it could maybe be taken as an admission of fault) rather than responding here, but they have yet to continue editing article content since my block and warning. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:26, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, I did not notice that the page was moved. But I tagged it as G3 for the time being. If they make their case here, I'll remove the tag. Felicia (talk) 19:32, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

~2025-34491-59 adding non-notable entries to year lists after being sufficiently warned

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.

---

• ~2025-34491-59 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

See [82], [83], [84], [85], [86], [87], [88], [89], etc. They have added unsourced content as well ([90], [91], [92], [93], etc.) Report declined at AIV. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 00:22, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

 Blocked x 48 hrs -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:03, 21 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 a new user

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 reporting ongoing disruptive editing on the Rother Radio article.

Summary of issue:

- A new account, Chipshopcurry, was created on 19/20 November 2025 and immediately began editing Rother Radio. - Their edits repeatedly remove or revert valid content, including a properly cited reference to the Doncaster DAB Multiplex website. - Behaviour matches that of two previously blocked accounts (Ham&eggs123 and Ham&eggs2025) in timing, username style, and type of edits. - There has been rapid back-and-forth reverts (“undo cycles”) on the page between Chipshopcurry and other editors. - The account also made personal messages on user talk pages.

Evidence:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rother_Radio&oldid=1323239759 – shows removal of DAB reference https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rother_Radio&oldid=1323241350 – shows revert cycle https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rother_Radio&oldid=1323057275 – shows first edit immediately after account creation

Talk page evidence:

User engaging in personal attacks and disruptive comments on my talk page:

“Behave now and stop undoing all my edits…” – personal tone and accusation – https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mister_C_2024&oldid=1323248720

“So be a good boy” – personal attack – https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mister_C_2024&oldid=1323249464

My responses: I asked the user why their brand-new account was making repeated, rapid edits solely to the Rother Radio page and asked for an explanation of the changes. – https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mister_C_2024&oldid=1323249491

I’m choosing not to engage further here. I have reported the matter so that administrators can review the behaviour. - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mister_C_2024&oldid=1323252999

Request:

- I request administrative review of this account and edits. - Consider temporary or semi-protection of the Rother Radio page to prevent further disruption. - Investigation for possible sockpuppet activity given the pattern of behaviour.

Thank you for your attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mister C 2024 (talk • contribs) 17:49, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

@Mister C 2024, you've both been edit-warring on Rother Radio. None of your reverts meet the criteria for exceptions to WP:3RR.

When Chipshopcurry politely asked you on your talk page for a source for a specific piece of information, you reverted their post with the edit summary "Removed spam account message". You restored the information to the article with the edit summary "Undid revision, vandalism. No reference required. This is listed on the Doncaster DAB website", when actually, yes, a reference is required.

Chipshopcurry's behavior is no better, but neither of you are editing appropriately and neither of you are using Talk:Rother Radio to try to resolve your disputes. Schazjmd (talk) 18:13, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Schazjmd,

Thanks for your message. We did reference this in a future edit. We checked other radio station wiki pages that did not contain references to their frequencies so we did not believe this was needed. However a reference was added. We have been under significant stress with this as it's become a constant battle with disruptive editing including 2 previously blocked users over the past couple of days that added negative information regarding the radio station in question. Such as Rother Radio - Wikipedia. The pattern of editing was similar to recent blocked accounts including targeting the same information which is why we have been reverting it. Mister C 2024 (talk) 18:27, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

@Mister C 2024, are multiple people using your account? Why are you using "we"? Schazjmd (talk) 18:29, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

No, just 'me'. But I'm currently working in the office with my colleagues at the company in question. I used a royal "we" as the other managers are aware of these recent attacks to the page. Sorry for any confusion. Mister C 2024 (talk) 18:33, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

@Mister C 2024, so you have a conflict-of-interest and should avoid editing the article directly. I will add instructions to your user talk page to advise you on how you should suggest edits. Schazjmd (talk) 18:35, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

@Schazjmd Thank you very much for your prompt support and for advising on how to handle these types of things in the future. Mister C 2024 (talk) 18:39, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

In addition to Schazjmd's message above, it seems like this report was written by an LLM. This is more suitable for WP:AN3 or WP:DRN. Z E T A^C 18:16, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello @HurricaneZeta,

As I'm still learning Wikipedia and all it's policies, procedures and I've never written a report like this before, I did ask a LLM for assistance in the format and how I write one, but I have edited to ensure it was correct. I'm sorry if this was wrong. I came here for help and assistance as I'm not sure what to do now. Mister C 2024 (talk) 18:31, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

If you want to ask questions about how Wikipedia works you can do it in WP:Teahouse. GarethBaloney (talk) 18:56, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you @GarethBaloney that's really helpful :-) Mister C 2024 (talk) 18:58, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

This ANI report moved pretty fast so I've just replied on your Talk directly, hopefully it still makes sense! Blue Sonnet (talk) 19:11, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, I've just read and responded. Thank you. Mister C 2024 (talk) 19:15, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

I'll leave everyone to talk through the rest of this, but the reported account has now been blocked (with several others) as a sockpuppet. -- asilvering (talk) 18:36, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

@Asilvering @Schazjmd Do you know what I do about the taunting and use of personal names being mentioned here: User talk:Chipshopcurry - Wikipedia - thank you for all your support. Mister C 2024 (talk) 19:18, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Undone, an admin might want to revoke TPA but at least it's gone for the moment. Sometimes blocked editors like to act out a bit, depending on how bad it is we can just let them get it out of their system or remove access to their Talk page altogether. Blue Sonnet (talk) 19:49, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Yikes. No idea what that was about, but I've revoked TPA/email. -- asilvering (talk) 00:09, 21 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.

Sayaanakmalaysia92

Sayaanakmalaysia92 (talk · contribs) shows a consistent pattern of disruptive editing across articles related to Malaysia and Indonesia, specifically in Borneo. Their edits display a noticeable tendency to remove or minimise material associated with Chinese cultural or historical presence, including the deletion of images of temples and other East Asian related content (including translations) even when they are relevant (see Sarah Owen, Theravada, Bureaucrat, Labuhan Deli, Permatangsiantar and Medan (1, 2, 3 and 4), often without explanation.

Their own additions also appear to emphasise non-Chinese elements even when these are not central to the subject (see Demographics of Sarawak and Demographics of Sabah). This user has also attempted to have articles deleted (whether through WP:AFD or WP:CSD) simply because they are "Chinese" in origin, such as International Daily News and Pu Tuo Si Temple. There are also edits where the user simply removed significant amounts of sourced material, again without explanation, such as on Malaysian Indians.

Based on their edit summaries and limited talk page responses, they appear to have a weak command of English, with frequent spelling mistakes and awkward phrasing. This is despite the prominence of English in Malaysia as a former British colony and it may also point to a competency issue alongside their disruptive editing behaviour. Aleain (talk) 05:21, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

I will just add that I myself have warned this user before but got no response (Communication is required) and they do not seem to have heeded the warning or advice... Not sure the best course of action but some action does seem warranted. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 05:29, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

@Aleain In view of what Zackmann said, I've popped a section header onto the ANI notice to make sure that it stands out, if that's ok?

They've used their Talk page in the past so should be aware of it, but hopefully this'll help draw their attention and make sure they respond. Blue Sonnet (talk) 06:05, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

TA destroying a article

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.

---

~2025-34811-40 (talk · contribs) has been editing the No Lie (Sean Paul song) article, translating and destroying some citations and disrupting the formatting.

Possible troll, should probably indef block. shane (talk to me if you want!) 01:34, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

@EditorShane3456 WP:AIV is the correct spot for obvious vandalism. Z E T A^C 01:43, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

@Star Mississippi: Just an FYI: both the TA's on the article had the same underlying IP so nabbing that IP would have been a much more targeted solution than semi-protecting the article. And if you check the contribs of the underlying IP, you'll see that they just went and got a new temporary account to continue their editing pattern. But they stopped some time ago now, so ... meh. Graham87 (talk) 03:46, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Actually no they didn't have just one IP address ... an adjacent IP was also involved incidentally. A short sharp rangeblock might've worked too then. Or maybe a temporary account block along with the primary IP. Either way, this is an object lesson that a temporary account can cover more than one IP and an IP address can be covered by more than one temporary account. Graham87 (talk) 03:54, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

I haven't been super active in blocking since the TAs were implemented @Graham87 so I missed that and I've never been particularly good with ranges. If anyone feels there's a range block that would work, feel free to undo my semi which was just meant to stop the disruption. Thanks for flagging Graham! Star Mississippi 03:58, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Pretty cleanly a /24. Found a few IPs doing the deeds. I blocked one week. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 04:22, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

• Undid my close, which was PhilKnight blocked the TA, but there was another in the mix so I've semi'ed the article for a week, which is what Graham87 is responding to. Thanks Dennis for the range. I'm logging off and not 100% sure this is resolved. Someone feel free to unprotect if it is. Star Mississippi 04:29, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

There's a couple of articles involved, but I think the block will do the trick for now. I don't see a reason to change your protection on this one article. imho, the situation is resolved. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 04:43, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. Graham87 (talk) 10:25, 21 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:Shadow4ya

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.

---

• Shadow4ya (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

So im trying to add Govorment of National salvation as one of participants in Syrmian Front i asked editors who keep revering my changes to go to talk page so they can tell me if they have any problems with it, 1st guy asked me to put sources and i did, 2nd guy keeps reverting edits and claims that "sources are not valid" then said "sources are not for this event" even tho in arthicle and file i sent it clearly states that its about this.

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. ~2025-35016-91 (talk) 23:58, 20 November 2025 (UTC) User:Shadow4ya There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. ~2025-35016-91 (talk) 23:58, 20 November 2025 (UTC) User:Sadko

Sadko guy was one asking for sources, even tho he couldove asked in TALK page, Shadow4ya also ignored talk page. "Sources are invalid claim" cannot even be possible due to wikipedia using many Znaci.org and arhicles for their source of WW2 in Yugoslavia etc... ~2025-35016-91 (talk) 23:58, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

You must notify the other editor about this discussion (someone else has done this for you) and provide specific diffs for the edits you want to discuss, you can't expect other editors to go hunting through your history to find the ones you're referring to.

ANI is for chronic, intractable behavioural issues but this looks like a content dispute, those don't belong here. If there is a dispute that editors can't resolve, you should use dispute resolution. Blue Sonnet (talk) 00:12, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Okay thank you. ~2025-35016-91 (talk) 00:22, 21 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.

LLM slop in BLP

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.

---

WikiByRashmi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
WikiByNarayana (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
WikiByAbhi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Accounts are creating obviously unreviewed LLM BLP drafts which are moved into articlespace (and articles directly also). Examples: [94][95][96], G15'd examples: [97][98][99]. WikiByRashmi has had ample warning on their talk page, including bespoke guidance from Significa liberdade, but the creations continue. As these are all very obviously sock or meatpuppets, and the disruption is ongoing in the BLP space, I've elected to make a report here instead of at SPI. Most recent LLM draft as of this report is from 11:46, 20 November 2025. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 11:57, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

G15 batch-delete and three blocks please, barman. —Fortuna, imperatrix 12:09, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

I don't know that they apply for WP:G15 because after a spot check I didn't see any communication intended for the user or any obvious reference fuck-ups. It's obviously AI generated slop, many of the drafts still with markdown, but that's not in the criteria. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:29, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

If only I'd known they warrant G5 deletion instead. —Fortuna, imperatrix 13:12, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

From what I can tell it does not qualify for WP:G5 either. I see they have been deleted by Femke, what part of G5 were you looking at when you deleted them? Because from what I can tell it does not qualify for any of the points listed. They were created before the block, they were not topic banned, didn't violate extended confirmed restrictions or the like, with sock puppets it looks like it only applies if they created them after they were blocked for sock puppeting or to avoid restrictions on their main account. PackMecEng (talk) 17:39, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

That was a clear mistake on my part. Didn't look at the block dates carefully. The articles are AI slop, but not qualifying for G15 upon my sample either, so if there's no objections, I'd like to invoke IAR to keep them deleted and will pay more attention going forward. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:51, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Why keep them deleted? If they are properly referenced and a notable topic but just poorly written because of AI why keep them deleted? PackMecEng (talk) 17:57, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

I support this. I am working on a few potential additions to G15 criteria and one would cover this case - allow WP:AISIGNS as a sufficient G15 criteria for articles created by editors who have subsequently been sanctioned for certain types of misconduct (LLM misuse, UPE, sockpuppetry would apply, maybe a few others). Another will be a G15 version of WP:PDEL. Of course these haven't even been proposed, let alone accepted, so IAR would be the route here for now. NicheSports (talk) 18:14, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

But again, the question is why? If it is notable and referenced why deleted it because of poor writing? That is not a criteria used in any deletion discussion and because of that goes counter to IAR from what I can see since it does not improve the encyclopedia to delete. By nature, Wikipedia is an implied keep unless situation. You need to show itbshould be deleted, not that it should be kept. So what would the reason be, using our deletion criteria, that these should be deleted? So looks like G15 was tried and it didnt qualify, G5 was tried and it didnt qualify, and now IAR because... no idea actually. Nothing justifying thr use of IAR. PackMecEng (talk) 18:28, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Well by definition anything done under IAR can't be justified by existing policies. However, I referenced G15 and PDEL as I think Femke's deletion is (as an LLM would say) aligned with the spirit of those policies. Also to be clear I G15 nom articles fairly often and take a strict view of it when I do. I just think this is a reasonable invocation of IAR NicheSports (talk) 18:31, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Right but why? Being AI alone is not a reason to delete which has been discussed to death. We dont use IAR to go around community concensus on a specific issue. G15 was designed with that specifically in mind. So again I ask, what about these articles means they should be deleted? PackMecEng (talk) 18:42, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

While the references exist, the articles have about a 50% hallucination rate in the statistics from the sources. For instance, it claims that Anita won 41% of the votes, while the source say 49%. It'll be more time-consuming to fix all these hallucinations than to start from scratch. Keeping them also risks that further socks move them to mainspace. I'll restore however, as IAR only works if it's common sense to all. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:59, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

We're really been wrestling with how to deal with LLM content. Currently, the community consensus for "delete without formal deletion process (or other suitable community consensus process)" is WP:G15, and there are efforts to increase the scope of that. Personally, I'd love to nuke 'em all, but that's not consensus here (yet). — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:43, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

All the articles have now been restored, and all the speedy tags removed. Repeated fabricated statistics seems like one that could be added. Some of these articles had a single example of a non-existent reference (we need at least 2) + one fabricated stat. Seems like a waste of editor time to go through MfD; G13 might be the way to go now. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:18, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

I wish we could delete these as hoaxes, but unless the whole article was an obvious fabrication, the consensus was not to do it. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1118#Artificial-Info22 using AI to produce articles for a long discussion of the problem. I agree this is a waste of time, but the community, which is in charge here, isn’t fed-up enough yet with this stuff to approve anything simpler. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:03, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Couldn't they be deleted per WP:SNOW? --Gurkubondinn (talk) 22:08, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi User:Gurkubondinn. Snow applies when you have a discussion where people are all in agreement, and you want to close the discussion early as the result seems clear. In this discussion, there were two people objecting to my invokation of IAR and the deletion of these drafts, so it is not a SNOW situation. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 07:18, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

I believe IAR is not appropriate here. We have MfD, which can handle this cleanly, with all the articles bundled in one nomination for deletion. Getting them out of articlespace was the critical action. We can use normal processes for the rest of it. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:53, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

• ScottishFinnishRadish sorted it out with the CU tools. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:17, 20 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 threats by User:Tolly Talky and User:BHU-ALUM

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

---

Originally, User:Tolly Talky was removing content in Manoj Malaviya without any good explanation, so I've reverted their edit and gave them a warning. However, they responded by issueing legal threats and I've told them to view WP:No legal threats. Minutes later, a different user, this time User:BHU-ALUM, reached out to my talk page, saying a legal threat has been filed. I'm not really sure if I should report here oor what? But as far as I know, users who make legal threats should be blocked. And this is strange as they seem to be two of them so maybe socks? Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 18:38, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Also, on my talk page, one of them said "our client" so maybe paid editing is done here, too? Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 18:47, 21 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.

Domain squatting

See Special:Contributions/Thanh Long Viet. This is not a complaint against TLV. It is a notification about domains which have been squatted. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:38, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps it should be a complaint against them though. They e.g. removed a link to nopago.org with edit summary "Remove illegal online gambling website http://www.nopago.org/"[100]. Following the link leads to a "domain for sale" website ([101]), not some "illegal" page. Finding dead links is good, making allegations of illegal behaviour against what seem to be bona fide websites is not. Fram (talk) 14:52, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

I came across a couple of their edits earlier. I think they may just not be aware that the websites can be marked as |url-status=usurped. I let them know on their talk page. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:04, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Never mind "illegal where?" Hell, there are countries in which Wikipedia is an illegal website. Ravenswing 22:39, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Edit-warring by anon accounts

• Kelly Ripa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Battle of Lepanto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• ~2025-32240-12 (talk · contribs) has been indef blocked
• ~2025-34952-78 (talk · contribs) warned twice
• ~2025-31445-28 (talk · contribs) warned twice
• ~2025-32239-27 (talk · contribs) older account with only a single edit
• ~2025-34684-24 (talk · contribs)
• ~2025-35152-21 (talk · contribs)
• ~2025-35029-56 (talk · contribs)

Edit-warring in Kelly Ripa without providing a reliable source.

Edit-warring in Battle of Lepanto.

I'm unclear if AIV is the right place to take a situation like this. --Hipal (talk) 21:26, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

~2025-35029-56, ~2025-32240-12, ~2025-31445-28, ~2025-35152-21, ~2025-34684-24, ~2025-34952-78 and ~2025-35026-78 are all  Confirmed the same editor. Going to need an underlying IP block. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 21:32, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

In addition, ~2025-32239-27 appears to be  Unrelated. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 21:37, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

I think I've taken care of it. Blocked for block evasion (master is ~2025-32240-12). — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:39, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Note that abandoned TAs don't need to be blocked as they'll never (hopefully) edit again. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:40, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

• As this is a WP:BLP, I semi-protected for 90 days as I don't think blocking alone is going to stop the disruption. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:11, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

This is annoying. There is no indication of a block on these editors, so if I came across these edits I might warn them, or go to some board (SPI, AIV) to get them blocked, only to hear that the underlying IP is already blocked. Can we please also block the temp accounts and/or get an indication that the IP beneath it is blocked (but a Temp Account may be linked to more than one IP I believe?). Fram (talk) 11:23, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

I do agree with this – @Rsjaffe, it can be helpful for record-keeping purposes to block TAs even if they are likely abandoned, which would've been helpful in this case. It also means you can block the IP, then block the TAs, and come back to the noticeboard to report "they've been blocked" without explicitly linking the reported TAs to the IP you blocked. Toadspike [Talk] 13:54, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

We cannot state that the underlying IP has been blocked. See Wikipedia:Temporary account IP viewer#What can and cannot be said: This may sometimes mean that administrators need to be vague in describing IP blocks; for instance, if a TAIV requests that the IP underlying several TAs be blocked, the blocking admin should respond with something like "Resolved" rather than "Blocked underlying IP". I think this particular rule makes no sense, as it doesn’t make it any harder for someone familiar with what’s going on to figure out that the IP has been blocked by checking my block log.

I’ll go ahead and block them for record keeping. I’ll also note that the above rule mandating obscurity about IP blocks makes it almost mandatory to make the associated TA blocks as well, which permanently links by block timing the TA and IP which is the exact opposite outcome intended by the above-mentioned obscurity requirement. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 15:53, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

@Rsjaffe: We cannot state that the underlying IP has been blocked: The WMF policy says nothing of that sort, it only says not to put the actual IP address in the block reason or elsewhere. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 16:02, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

• I'm still figuring out how all this works, and I'm probably not alone. This Temporary Account system has a lot of rules that make it confusing when you are trying to determine what you should/shouldn't do or say. My guess is that the policy still has holes. I only protected here, but in other cases I've simply range blocked without worrying about the Temporary Accounts as they are just temporary, so the history isn't meaningful (to me). There is a bit of learning curve at this stage, so people need to be patient about it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:01, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Notice of possible block evasion by Fcgolgohar78

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’d like to bring to the admins’ attention a possible case of block evasion involving Draft:Ali Asghar Aarabi (Iranian footballer). The account ArakEditor was created on 1 November 2025 and globally locked on 6 November 2025 for disruptive editing and promotional behavior. A few days later, on 13 November 2025, a new account, Fcgolgohar78, appeared and resubmitted essentially the same draft, with no changes and no attempt to address the previous AfC decline. The content, formatting, and submission pattern all match what ArakEditor was doing. The draft had already been declined at AfC with clear feedback, yet the new account ignored all of that and simply reposted the same material. I have removed the draft from the AfC queue and added {{Undisclosed paid}} to it. I’m just raising this for administrative review, and I can file a formal SPI if needed. Vodnir (talk) 02:57, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

• Looks suspicious, but I'm not yet ready to pull the trigger. The "master" has been linked to Hamed Miran (no username here) on two different Wikipedia language wikis (FA. and SIMPLE.), and blocked for spam articles, ie: paid. A checkuser might be handy on ArakEditor, who is already globally blocked, and see if there is anything interesting going on. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 04:51, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

  {{checkuser requested}}, likely UPE. FWIW I think the accounts are similar enough to block outright, even without CU. Toadspike [Talk] 14:13, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

  These users are likely to each other. Blocked. Izno (talk) 17:20, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

  Hello again @Dennis Brown and @Toadspike, and thank you for your attention. I have marked several more drafts. One of them, Draft:Mahdi Sarbaz, was very similar to the previous case and was submitted to AfC by Fcgolgohar78 after the global lock of Pouriaepoursorkh.

  In addition, I have also tagged other drafts created by the same user, such as Draft:Abtin Mohammad Ali and Draft:Morteza Sajadi. Vodnir (talk) 14:54, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

  Well spotted. In future, this stuff is better handled at SPI, but since we're here we can wait for a CheckUser to take action. Also, I am subscribed to this discussion (as with most discussions I participate in), so no need to leave a message on my talk page when you reply. Toadspike [Talk] 15:15, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

  Thank you for your attention and guidance. Vodnir (talk) 15:22, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

  I've started Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ArakEditor. Izno (talk) 17:29, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Both of the user pages are clearly LLM generated. Izno (talk) 17:18, 21 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.

Complain against Skitash

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.

---

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

I'm reporting repeated talk page harassment and disruptive editing by Skitash. Since the 7th of November 2025, Skitash has edited the Isaaq Wikipedia page without clear rationale. I reverted the changes to preserve the status quo of the article. He then reverted to his favourite version again. I reverted again, and opened a new section on the talk page, asking him why he was making the change without any proper rationale, and requested that he keep the status quo until a consensus was reached: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Isaaq&diff=1322232293&oldid=1320944304.

This was ignored. Skitash continued reverting the page to his preferred version, providing reasoning I weak, essentially arguing that languages in the lead translation should only appear on the relevant Wikipedia page, which it already did. This back-and-forth continued despite me providing primary sources, a biography, and other strong sources, including a nation's constitution relevant to the issue. Skitash ignored these sources and remained firm in his position.

Not wanting to escalate into an edit war - per Wikipedia policy - I did not revert any further, instead taking all pertinent issues to the talk page, where civility and a chance to find consensus could be had. After my last revert, which was to preserve the status quo of the page until such a time as a consensus could be found, Skitash put an edit-war notice on my talk page; I felt this to be uncalled for and completely unfounded, since a majority of my edits were based on reliable sources, while the majority of his were not.

I tried to continue discussing the subjects in a civil manner, giving clear explanations, elaborated responses, and even referring to reliable sources, but nothing came of these discussions. In nearly every response, he suggested I may have violated a policy - possibly as a form of intimidation - which I consistently refuted, ultimately escalating to this larger incident.

Following my last detailed response, he misused the AI-collapse template, claiming I had 'clearly used AI' in my message solely because I used '----' to separate my final paragraph - a formatting technique I consistently use on other platforms to improve readability. An example is my use of dashes in this War Thunder Forum post (I’m TPS Hydra@live) to improve readability: https://forum.warthunder.com/t/malyshev-hit-t-80ud-478b-478du-478du1-478be-history-performance-discussion/260709. This does not indicate AI usage.

He also put a warning on my talk page: 'If you continue to unconstructively edit Wikipedia using a large language model (an 'AI chatbot' or other application using such technology), as you did at Talk:Isaaq, you may be blocked from editing'. I found this highly disrespectful since I take quite some time over writing each response with care, and none of the contributions were AI-generated.

I do use third-party sites to improve grammar, but every message is solely my own original writing. Based on my understanding, this is not a violation of Wikipedia policy. Therefore, I still consider that I have not violated the policy and my reason for reporting this user is valid. I feel this discussion has escalated into behaviours that border on targeting and harassment. I take his tone and messaging as an attack on me personally and unwelcome. Many of his messages came off hostile in nature and moved the focus from topic-at-hand to personal attacks against me later in the discussion.

Relevant sentences (ctrl + f to see):

• I suggest you refrain from edit warring or risk violating WP:3RR

• By WP:OTHER and WP:NPA I was referring to your "then why not change all of them" and "you appear to be pushing an agenda" remarks respectively

• then you should definitely familiarize yourself with WP:BRD and WP:ONUS

Relevant sections of talk page:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACqHydra&diff=1323265282&oldid=1322918922 (see November 2025)

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CqHydra&diff=prev&oldid=1322525008 (see 3rr November 2025)

CqHydra (talk) 23:31, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

@CqHydra, I read through the discussion on the talk page and all I see is a content dispute. I don't think your summary here accurately reflects the discussion there. You might have better results by following the steps at dispute resolution. Schazjmd (talk) 21:48, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Agreed, I don't see any personal attacks, just a disagreement over what to include/exclude. You should follow the dispute resolution process, this isn't a matter for ANI. Blue Sonnet (talk) 21:50, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

I don't think you have considered the important points of this matter. First, the AI-collapse template was applied when it shouldn't have been. I clearly explained why it was misapplied, due to my messages not being AI-generated. Yet, within minutes, the template was put back, and based on the very reason of use of third-party websites. I use third-party websites to correct grammar, for which messages cannot be collapsed under WP:LLMSIGNS.

This also ignores the several claims he has made implying I have breached numerous Wikipedia policies, as well as the fact that he wrongly placed an edit-war notice and an AI-chatbot warning on my talk page. One of these notices even included a direct warning that my editing privileges could be restricted, despite the fact that these claims were entirely unfounded - I believe they may have been used as intimidation tactics.

I'd say it is a personal attack via the accusations about personal behaviour. In this discussion, he has repeatedly said that I have been using AI-chatbots and issued repeated accusations of my posts being generated by AI-bots, most recently later in this same discussion, and then acted on those accusations when collapsing my posts and placing notices on my talk page. He also issued a completely baseless edit-warring notice and misused the AI-collapse template in a similar fashion. These actions are directed against me personally rather than against content disputes, consist of unproven accusations, and contain implicit threats against my editing rights; they thus match what WP:PA says constitutes personal attacks.

All I am asking is that he remove the AI-collapse template on my last message and stop misapplying such notices - or anything similar - on my talk page in the future. These kinds of actions do not feel appropriate, especially as this discussion has begun to move from the topic of Sheikh Ishaq onto attacking me personally as a person. CqHydra (talk) 23:15, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

he wrongly placed an edit-war notice [...] on my talk page You have re-instated the same disputed content into the article four times ([102], [103], [104], [105]). Frankly neither of you should have kept reverting as long as you did, but if you do not understand that reinstating the same disputed content four times in 36 hours is edit-warring then you definitely needed the warning. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:37, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

You are obviously using ChatGPT or whatever to assist with writing your messages here, so the claim that you didn’t do it there seems implausible (though I haven’t checked). ~2025-31850-11 (talk) 11:27, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Note that User:Skitash has chosen to remove the notice of this discuss from their talk page [106], so they are at least aware of this discussion. --Hammersoft (talk) 11:11, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

I removed the notice since another editor had already notified me before the OP did, so there was no need for a duplicate on my talk page. Furthermore, I don't see why a content dispute is being brought to ANI. I believe the issue is being resolved now that a 3O gave their opinion. As for the warnings, they were clearly not personal attacks but legitimate warnings for their edit warring (by repeatedly adding disputed content in violation of WP:ONUS) and their AI use, which is quite clear and evident on several talk page comments of theirs.[107][108][109][110][111] Skitash (talk) 11:26, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

@Skitash, you should know better than to edit war, which with five reverts you very clearly were doing here. (So was CqHydra, but that doesn't justify your actions.) The correct course of action would've been a report at WP:ANEW. Toadspike [Talk] 13:49, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes, there was edit warring at Isaaq, but it seems to have ended five days ago, so blocks or protection would by now be unwarranted. I don't see any personal attacks from Skitash here. CqHydra's "if you are going to change this singular Wikipedia page because you appear to be pushing an agenda" could be considered a personal attack, but a very mild one; I suggest closing this thread without action. Toadspike [Talk] 13:52, 21 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.

LLM use and suspected UPE/COI by WhiteFactLoom

WhiteFactLoom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been editing the page on George Jacob to remove details that are sourced but paint the subject in a negative light. While doing this, they also removed the paid editing maintenance tag at the top of the page, which is never a good look. In addition, they have been using LLMs to edit articles (example) and write edit summaries:

“ Updated and expanded article with independent, verifiable sources (DW, BR-Klassik, Süddeutsche Zeitung, The Canadian Encyclopedia, ResMusica). Removed self-published/non-independent citations, improved neutrality, and clarified education and awards per WP:BLP and WP:RS. ” — https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Julia_Rebekka_Adler&diff=prev&oldid=1317170635

At this point, they've been warned several times but show no signs of change, so it seems like it's time for some some sort of corrective response from administrators. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 19:06, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Welp, their response of "No comment" to the speedy delete of (likely AI-generated) Draft:Openly, Inc. doesn't bode well for the chances of a response here. Blue Sonnet (talk) 19:15, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Note that WhiteFactLoom has specifically denied both being a paid editor[112] and using AI "to create the references".[113] Then look at the references on Tarika Barrett (admin eyes only) and User:WhiteFactLoom/sandbox. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 20:57, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Hey guys,

Cool down. when I created these pages i didn’t know that Ai is not allowed so I’m scared my account might get blocked because of using AI, that’s why I denied it.

So you guys can let me know what to do now. Whatever you say I’ll accept it. Even if you block my account I can understand. I’ll try again with full neutrality. I appreciate it. WhiteFactLoom (talk) 23:56, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

It's good that you acknowledge that you've used AI and know not to use it in future. I'd also stay away from removing templates unless you sure of what you're doing.

Do you have any prior or existing relationship with George Jacob, Tarika Bennett and/or Openly Inc.? Blue Sonnet (talk) 00:37, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

No I dont know them. I just ask ChatGPT when I start, who is notable for page. It show some names Openly Inc Tarika Bennett I create article for them. Before that, I try for Ashneer Grover I think he is notable, but article rejected for paid article don’t know why. George Jacob also show in my suggestion to improve. So whatever my GPT said, I did. When someone revert my edit, I take it serious, because I’m just 19 year old guy, my blood hot, so I revert them asking whatever GPT said. WhiteFactLoom (talk) 00:48, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Ah ok - so AI/LLM/Chatbots are discouraged here because they can't write neutrally, which is incredibly important for encyclopedia articles. They also like to make things up, like entire sources.

If you keep using AI, it will create inappropriate articles that look like they're promoting people or companies - other editors will see this and think that you're being paid to promote them. We get a lot of undeclared paid editors who try to slip adverts in as articles, so it's a significant issue here.

It's really important that you stop using any AI, LLM or chatbots to write your articles, because they can't do it well. Click here for a page that explains all of the different problems it can cause in more detail. Blue Sonnet (talk) 00:56, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

I read that and I understand my mistake. I will write the full article again by myself. Just small help if you can? After I write it can you check if I did good and if it meets the credibility and requirements? WhiteFactLoom (talk) 03:15, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi again! If it's the Openly draft, then you can submit it via AFC for a proper review by someone who's experienced in assessing new articles.

I've found some links to useful resources to help you, keep them open in new tabs or bookmark them so they're always available.

Make sure to read Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) and Wikipedia:Verifiability as these will help guide you through article creation.

The NPOV tutorial and NPOV quiz are also really helpful, especially when you're looking to remove promotional wording that was added by an AI.

If you have any questions whilst you're working, then the Teahouse has someone available to help you at any time. An AFC reviewer will probably be in the Teahouse at some point and be happy to give you final draft a once-over before you officially submit it.

Good luck! Blue Sonnet (talk) 04:39, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Could you explain how you came to have written Draft:Ashneer Grover? GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 06:43, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

I am new on Wikipedia so I have one kind of curiosity to make a page I just wanted to learn how to create a proper page. In my sight, Ashneer Grover came first because I watch him on Shark Tank India and I like his show. So I asked one AI if he is notable or not and AI said yes. Then I tried to make the page, but it got rejected. After that I asked AI for other notable names etc. I don’t have any personal connection with him or anyone I only made it because I am new and was trying to learn.

Am i clear? Or still something left. WhiteFactLoom (talk) 08:55, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Which AI? Bots don't "know" anything, especially not Wikipedia policy, but some hallucinate worse than others. You are better off carefully reading our notability and verifiabilityguidelines yourself, and only adding content that meets these guidelines. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 12:52, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Chatgpt and I'll keep it in mind for future. That ai not allowed. WhiteFactLoom (talk) 15:31, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

To be precise, AI is strongly discouraged if you don't know how to verify its output, so yes, please learn to assess sources and write drafts yourself, and do not use AI at all. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 01:32, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

~2025-35515-69 inappropriate post-block user talk page reply

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.

---

• ~2025-35515-69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Already blocked but the reply after being blocked is completely inappropriate. Requesting revocation of user talk page access. --みんな空の下 (トーク) 02:23, 22 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:Bharatkrjha single-purpose account on National Broadband Mission

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.

---

• Bharatkrjha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• National Broadband Mission (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This SPA repeatedly submitted a draft of National Broadband Mission which was declined numerous times at AfC and rejected twice. Their talk page contains nothing but decline notices and speedy deletion warnings about this draft. Yesterday they unilaterally moved to mainspace without waiting for another review. I started an AfD but it was suggested that blocking the editor may be more appropriate, so here we are. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 02:35, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

I have reverted the move back into Draftspace, and Pblocked the account from National Broadband Mission indefinitely. Going to leave them a note that they will need to complete the process properly, and then ask for the pblock to removed once they succeed in getting the article created and moved into articlespace. Have also commented as such on the AfD that has now been closed accordingly. Mfield (Oi!) 02:56, 22 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 at user talk:TruthForKnowledge

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.

---

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

TruthForKnowledge posted a legal threat at their talk page, see here. If this persists then legal action may be taken for attacks on Islamic beliefs, something which I believe Wikimedia foundation would rather avoid when one of their editors is clearly spreading falsehood. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 02:14, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

There is also this edit summary, if so a formal complaint needs to be lodged. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 02:21, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

NLT-blocked, thanks. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:22, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) WP:OWB #72, again. Narky Blert (talk) 03:41, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Somehow, I've run into someone recently who isn't following #72. How wude. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:13, 22 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.

Ri456787

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.

---

Ri456787 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems to have a particular bone to pick with the article Dave Farrow. They're apparently going to file a formal complaint with the attorney general about the content of the article according to their talk page: 1323063673. Might just be AI-generated bluster, might be a threat.

See these diffs as examples of their work:

• 1317955617
• 1323357680

Snowman304|talk 03:57, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

A copy will be forwarded to Attorney General in 30 days time if action to protect public interest not implemented appears to be a clear legal threat. --tony 03:59, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Mm. The article IS a mess, but that's also an unambiguous legal threat. Ravenswing 04:00, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

... and I just took a hacksaw to it. Ravenswing 04:04, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

I have indef blocked user for legal threats, confused as they may be as to who they are accusing. Mfield (Oi!) 04:01, 22 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.

Behaviour of user:MotoFan9373 .

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

---

A user namely @MotoFan9373 is removing content from 2025 MotoGP World Championship when the context doesn't violate any wikipedia guidelines. The same user has done revision atleast 10 times in past 24 hours. He is doing edit wars but don't know what hurt his sentiments. Maybe you can do something about it. Thanks. Babarbashirtant (talk) 09:30, 22 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.

Anon rapidly adding racist 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.

---

~2025-35688-26 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Probably needs revision deletions. Adakiko (talk) 03:44, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

• Done. Thank you Adakiko (talk) 03:45, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

  It doesn't look like anything useful is coming from the IP underneath, perhaps a rangeblock is in order? 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 03:53, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

  The account is hard blocked. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:50, 23 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.

report

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.

---

@TornadoLGS is reverting speedy deletions. Cerohen (talk) 04:39, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

@Cerohen: Your edits have been reverted by multiple editors. You are the one being disruptive by blanking pages and misusing CSD templates. See [114], [115] , [116], [117], [118], [119]. TornadoLGS (talk) 04:43, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

You haven't given reasons for your speedy deletion tags. "Not notable" isn't one of the criteria. Have you read through the information that was linked in various messages on your talk page? Joyous! Noise! 04:45, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

no. Cerohen (talk) 04:46, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Then stop. If you don't understand how the deletion process works, don't use it. If you continue, you will be blocked. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:47, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Read your talk page messages, including the ones you removed. They actually have important information. If you aren't willing to communicate or cooperate with other editors, this isn't a good place for you. TornadoLGS (talk) 04:49, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Also, while it was prior to the warning from Voorts, Cerohen also attempted to blank several other articles, according to their filter log. TornadoLGS (talk) 04:57, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Checkuser blocked. This is Astrawiki3203. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 05:06, 23 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:Zzgfjfdj

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 block this LTA account ASAP? No response at WP:AIV and they're actively spamming my notifications. Thanks. Sugar Tax (talk) 23:53, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Also abusing edit summaries. GarethBaloney (talk) 00:00, 23 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.

Incivility and ABF by ~2025-31866-58

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.

---

For a few weeks a TA has been edit warring against consensus on Yorkshire over a minor issue of whether to say that Yorkshire is the same entity as the kingdom of Scandinavian York. There are three TAs involved but based on behavioral evidence I think they are all the same editor:

• ~2025-33893-81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ~2025-34133-58 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ~2025-31866-58 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

On 9 November User:Rupples opened a talk page discussion in which User:A.D.Hope also participated. Both editors have been discussing the issue with calmness and civility. The TA joined the discussion a couple of days ago with hostility, attacking other editors and assuming bad faith, making comments like "There's a clear anti-Yorkshire Anti British history pro England Supremacist bias here." and "what mental pro English Pro London Anti Yorkshire anti British argument are thee doylems gonna engage in?" and finally descending into death threats: "death to all southern English Saxon dogs up the Yorkshire and Celts and Irish Ulster isn't even a real place bro. I left a message on their talk page asking them to treat other editors with civility, and they responded with "Yorkshire Says No Surrender! Youll all be locked up in the English Death camps we'll turn blackpool pleasure beach themepark You racist and anti Yorkshire southern English rats". It seems clear that they have no intention of working collaboratively with other editors. CodeTalker (talk) 00:09, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Have they edited anything aside from Yorkshire articles? GarethBaloney (talk) 00:14, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

One or two, but those comments are way beyond something that could be addressed by a topic ban. Blue Sonnet (talk) 00:37, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

A TBAN for a TA? 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 00:38, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, I know they TA's can't have TBAN's so I should have added that - I presumed that was why the question over which topics the TA's had edited was being asked, but perhaps I misunderstood. Blue Sonnet (talk) 01:14, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

I will confirm that all three are  Likely to each other. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 00:30, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Blocked the most recent one as NOTHERE. The previous two are the same user but are abandoned TAs, as TAs do. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:32, 23 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:ДанилоБлажко and WP:RUSUKR

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.

---

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

All five edits of this user are edit-warring for replacing Russian language references with Ukrainian language. I have warned them that they may not continue this, they continued nevertheless. We need an indefinite block. Ymblanter (talk) 22:48, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

It is not apparent btw that they speak English, possibly they do not. Ymblanter (talk) 22:49, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

They indeed do not speak English meaning they are WP:NOTHERE. Ymblanter (talk) 22:51, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Blocked. I attempted to translate to Ukrainian. Feel free (anyone) to correct me in that effort. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:58, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

They are blocked as a sockpuppet of Durantas on ukwiki. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 22:58, 22 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.

Unconstructive and unwillingness of ILoveDogs1337

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.

---

• ILoveDogs1337 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Would appreciate some guidance on ILoveDogs1337 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who in a short amount of time has racked up a large number of warnings about lacking sources and insufficient edit summaries. When attempting to engage and guide them, their responses are kinda hand-wavvy -- [120] and [121] for example -- and they just continue on with their non-constructive behavior. This reply suggests perhaps WP:NOTHERE. Thoughts? --ZimZalaBim^talk 18:07, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

I swear that last response (the sensible part at least) is cut & pasted from a guidance or policy page that I can't be bothered to look up right now. This looks suspiciously like a young editor who doesn't understand how to edit & collaborate properly. If not, it's an adult who should know better & may already have a history here.

So many of their edits have been reverted that they're currently a net negative to Wikipedia, and I'm hesitant to engage with advice on their Talk page since they don't appear to take it seriously. Blue Sonnet (talk) 18:31, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

They're copy and pasting WP:SPS, which I'd suggested that they read in relation to using (apparently their own) Reddit posts as sources, a few days earlier. But it looks like they didn't read it. Belbury (talk) 19:18, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

They've done that in previous replies too, it feels insincere to have what you've just had repeated back at you - especially with this instance.

I don't know if they mean it that way, but it's coming off as condescending. It's so difficult to gauge intent over the internet, but their last response really doesn't help persuade me otherwise. Blue Sonnet (talk) 19:28, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

"How dare you give me a last chance? That's it. You're grounded grounded grounded grounded grounded grounded grounded for 10 decades!"

Is this a personal attack? Maybe not, but it does scream WP:NOTHERE to me. GarethBaloney (talk) 19:01, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

It does strike me as childish and inappropriate. This isn't 4chan, after all. Ravenswing 19:46, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Some data in case it helps anyone:

• Out of 336 total edits, a concerning 139 of those have been reverted.
• 38 of the remainder are Talk pages, leaving 159 live mainspace article edits.
• Overall, we're looking at a reversion rate of approximately 50%.

Blue Sonnet (talk) 19:08, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Adding Special:Diff/1323575732 as another example indicating WP:NOTHERE ~ oklopfer (💬) 21:47, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

And I don't know what this is. --ZimZalaBim^talk 21:57, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

• Whatever it is, it's clearly not to improve the encyclopedia. Blocked indef as NOTHERE. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:19, 22 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:John George III

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.

---

John George III (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

John George III has been an editor for one month and has made 729 edits in that time. Of their 324 article edits over 40% of their have been reverted.[122]

The many edits may be explained by their stated goal to get extended confirmed protection privilges by November 21st, 2025[123]

They have received numerous warnings about

• NPOV[124]

• unconstructive/disruptive editing[125][126][127][128][129][130][131][132][133][134]

• overlinking[135][136]

• formatting issues[137][138]

• gaming the system[139]

• renaming/moving articles[140][141][142]

• adding unsourced content[143]

• adding commentary[144]

• deleting other peoples' talk page comments[145][146]

and received general advice.[147][148]

In my opinion, the user is nowhere near ready to have extended confirmed protection privileges and they should be revoked, if nothing else. Hypnôs (talk) 21:26, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

I would say they are gaming the system Felicia (talk) 23:14, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

This seems to be a young editor. Lots of people have tried to reach out to help but I'm not sure they're ready to edit Wikipedia yet. I'll try reaching out too. Blue Sonnet (talk) 23:48, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

I've been trying (and trying). -- ZimZalaBim^talk 23:51, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Welp, I gave it one more shot - might be pointless but figured I may as well try too.

I definitely think they shouldn't have EC yet, just to make that clear. Blue Sonnet (talk) 00:08, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

I have removed extended confirmed. They're welcome to reapply for consideration when they have substantive edits beyond this clear gaming. Star Mississippi 02:21, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

They seem to have quit Wikipedia. Blue Sonnet (talk) 06:26, 22 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.

GangesCommander

Editor: GangesCommander (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · blacklist hits · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
Has anyone else come across this editor? There seems to be a continuous pattern of refusing to engage on their talk page after multiple warnings for multiple things (e.g., disruptive page moves). It is looking increasingly like a case of WP:NOTHERE. - Amigao (talk) 19:26, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

User:Ohyeainfo WP:NOTHERE

The user User:Ohyeainfo created this page (User:Ohyeainfo/sandbox) which is nominated for speedy deletion as pure vandalism and only consists of explicit images and the word "horny". This is the user's only edit and I doubt that this user is here to build an encyclopedia. RaschenTechner (talk) 21:41, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Ohyeainfo/sandbox. RaschenTechner (talk) 21:42, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Indef its pretty apparent that Ohyeainfo is WP:NOTHERE shane (talk to me if you want!) 22:23, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Disruptive edits by Smallpython

Smallpython (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) continued edit warring for lists of official scripts for Chinese characters, Arabic script and Devanagari. I removed this, this and that for Arabic script, while Remsense removed this, this and that for Chinese characters, because it is redundant unlike Latin or Cyrillic for example without using official scripts. So I made a discussion on Template talk:Infobox writing system#Official script for depreciate the use of | official_script = parameter. Absolutiva 05:29, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Hey @Absolutiva, if it's just edit warring, you can report that at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. It looks pretty quiet so you might get a quicker response. Blue Sonnet (talk) 08:15, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

@Absolutiva, Blue-Sonnet, Remsense, and Smallpython: Hey all of you. I - Shirt58 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki) - was going to add a quiet message at User talk:Smallpython to say, the reason your edits aren't constructive are because of this policy and that guideline and this part of WP:MOS, but I wasn't able to identify what they were getting not quite right here. Perhaps the next step here would be to actually explain what the problem is, and then go on to suggest ways to resolve it? Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 09:22, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

They've had disruptive editing warnings but nothing specifically for edit wars - I'm all for trying to resolve things before they escalate so feel free to give it a shot! I've done the same thing on the topic below this one, the worst thing that'll happen is I've chosen to waste my own time. Blue Sonnet (talk) 09:30, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Uncivilty on Kolomyja Uprising

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.

---

Suzuki "Kaesaru" Takako (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

After Jakub raised concerns about Kołomyja Uprising on the talk page being a hoax and informing the author, Takako became uncivil (example 1, example 2), which caused both parties to become harshly uncivil (imho bordering unacceptible comment by Jakub) and cast ad hominem arguments. Takako was reminded to stay civil (comment). Given the topic is part of WP:ARBEE this should be addressed.--A09|(talk) 11:44, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Good morning to you all,

I'm apologising for what I said last night. I'd had some drinks earlier and already had been having a rough day. I understand we were both uncivil and I greatly apologise for my behavior. I'd like to assume good faith in that the other editor was also having a bad day, I hope they did not mean any genuine trouble. I regret what I said and I'm sure the other editor does too, hopefully they'll reply to this thread.

I was wrong in insulting the other editor, repeatedly insulting their intelligence and doubting that they were qualified to write such an article. I understand that this is wrong. Anyone, no matter how amateur, enthusiastic, or professional, can write an article on Wikipedia about a subject.

I would like to keep to the facts in that I believe the article is a hoax, my reasoning detailed in the first thread on the article's talk page (with the same points on A09's and Takako's talk pages).

Thank you all.

TheRealJakub (talk) 12:16, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

I would like to also state that for most of the day, save for probably 1-3 and from 7-9 PM EST, I will be away from my keyboard and unable to reply to messages. Hope this doesn't hinder anything. TheRealJakub (talk) 12:21, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

I'd had some drinks earlier

That is why one should not drink and edit. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 12:24, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

An unfortunate mistake but a lesson learned. TheRealJakub (talk) 12:28, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

• The article has now been deleted as it was a hoax, and its talk page has gone with it. However, I have carefully read the text of the talk page several times. A couple of the comments by TheRealJakub were less civil than they might have been, but I really didn't see any serious problem with their posts. Suzuki "Kaesaru" Takako, however, was repeatedly seriously uncivil; I will post a note to their talk page explaining that this is not how Wikipedia functions. JBW (talk) 14:34, 23 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.

Abuse of Process and Trolling at AfC/RM/TR - Draft:Houshmand Dehghan

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 request an administrator review the actions of User:Tenshi! and User:Safari Scribe regarding Draft:Houshmand Dehghan. I have intentionally **not deleted any previous discussion** to allow administrators to review the full context. 1. **RM/TR Discussion:** Please review the full discussion at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests#Uncontroversial technical requests. User:Tenshi! used my technical request (due to unconfirmed user status) to derail the process, falsely accusing me of using AI to avoid the AfC process. 2. **Coordinated Decline:** While the contentious RM/TR discussion was active, User:Safari Scribe abruptly declined the draft via the AfC process (link available on the draft page), citing 'passing mentions' despite the presence of significant coverage in academic books (Prof. Handal) and specialized journals. This appears to be a coordinated attempt to preemptively nullify the technical move request and punish the editor. I ask an administrator to **overrule the decline** on procedural grounds and bad faith, and move the article to mainspace as originally requested, given the clear and verifiable notability of the subject. Thank you. Shatootesabz (talk) 14:27, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

I want to assume good faith but sorry this does seem AI-generated or at least assisted considering the markdown. At least one said that this was AI generated. Even if you did not use AI this is definitely not an uncontroversial move. You have to use Articles for Creation to submit the draft. You cannot bypass this. You also seem to be a single purpose account and/or undisclosed paid editor with a conflict of interest on Houshmand Dehghan. ~2025-31733-18 (talk) 14:48, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

This request is clearly AI-generated and also dramatizes the entire process. It is very unlikely that this was coordinated, rather that Safari Scribe was working through the AfC feed and came across this article. As the TA said above, AfC must be used in this case. overrule the decline isn't really a thing, you just submit the draft again (though it will be declined if you don't change anything). Z E T A^C 15:07, 23 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 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 friend, Please be fair! Can AI produce this: Professor Boris Handal, a Baháʼí scholar, dedicates several paragraphs in his book, “Quddús: The First in Rank,” to critically analyzing Dehghan's historical methodology and claims presented in Ganj-i Penhan (Handal, pp. 26-28). Handal acknowledges Dehghan as one of his historical advisors (Handal, p. ix). Handal relies heavily on Dehghan's work, citing his original findings from field research. These findings include Dehghan's firsthand account of observing the "mirror stone" during a trip to Kirmán (cited in Handal, p. 87, referencing Ganj-i-Penhan, pp. 60–61), as well as his detailed historical reports concerning the events leading to the Conference of Badasht and Quddús’s debate with Karím Khán Kirmání. Handal's work, although in the footnotes of his book, shows that Dehghan challenged some of the historical views of Fazel Mazandarani, the prominent Baháʼí historian, in the book Ẓuhúr al-Ḥaqq. (Handal, p. 90, where note 3 cites Ganj-i-Penhan, pp. 60–61). Handal also uses Dehghan’s account to corroborate details of Quddús’s martyrdom, thus aligning Dehghan's historical record with other notable accounts. Handal, Boris (2021). Quddús: The First in Rank (PDF). George Ronald. pp. ix, 26–28, 60–61, 83–84, 87, 90, 124, 129, 327, 329, 331. Shatootesabz (talk) 15:58, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Let's assume the entire Houshmand Dehghan article is the work of artificial intelligence. Let's assume I receive a hefty sum of money from Houshmand Dehghan Baha'i poor imprisoned banned writer. Let's even assume I am Houshmand Dehghan himself. Does the Houshmand Dehghan article truly not have the value for one of you dear administrators to briefly look at it and publish it yourself? Is artificial intelligence just an excuse to block the path of academic work? Does the Houshmand Dehghan article truly lack the necessary amount of notability and credibility? Think carefully and be fair. Thank you. 15:58, 23 November 2025 (UTC)Shatootesabz (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.

User:Aditya Bijarniya

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.

---

For over a year, User:Aditya Bijarniya has been repeatedly adding unsourced content, including some contentious claims, to Rudrol: [149], [150], [151], [152], [153], [154], [155], [156], [157], [158]. Many warnings, including three separate level 4 warnings, have brought no response at all at their user talk page. Not sure if this is a problem of WP:CIR or WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Wikishovel (talk) 18:31, 23 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.

Atsme seems to be making legal threats.

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

---

In light of the topic ban on American politics being reimposed, Atsme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)seems to be reacting poorly. When Doug had some words of advice for her, she lashed out and seemed to imply that she might in fact pursue (in my opinion completely meritless) defamation claims against wikipedia users. (1). Additionally, she has been throwing wild accusations at the wall against other users. --Insanityclown1 (talk) 01:34, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

I don't think there is a need for a filing here. She is likely to lose her TP access soon. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:45, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

She reacted badly when the ban was imposed and when people came to her page to attack her. She has since calmed down. Wikipedia:Don't poke the bear. Viriditas (talk) 01:46, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Please see my note here. [159] I should have gone to bed hours ago, and don't need this ridiculous crap. Insanityclown1, just drop it, there's no mad rush to deal with any of this, and if there's a 'defamation' claim in amongst Atsme's venting, it is so self-evidently absurd that it shouldn't be taken seriously. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:51, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

While absurd, it still a legal threat nonetheless. M.Bitton (talk) 01:54, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

I have reviewed the page and see nothing coming even close to a legal threat. Specifically, note Wikipedia:No legal threats#Defamation. People get upset when they have an adverse decision like she did. I see that, nothing more. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 01:54, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Upon advice from more experienced users, I'd like to retract this.--Insanityclown1 (talk) 01:53, 24 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.

TA ranting on their talk page about an admin who blocked them

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.

---

~2025-35686-69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has posted several rants on their own talk page about an admin "Микола сiм" (i.e. Mykola7) for being blocked by them. They use profanity which they censored with asterisks, and they also posted a thread on this noticeboard yesterday with the title "Оо" (which has been removed since) which had insults in it. In one of their rants they say that they never had an account here[160], but in a later rant they say that they might have an account here after all[161]. So that's kind of a loud sock? If not, then it at least looks like their IP isn't blocked and like they still might have an account here. I don't know who it is and what they got blocked for but if it was severe disruption then this might need some further investigation and thus I wanted to bring it to admin attention. If that's not necessary then at least their rants should be deleted from the talk page.
Note: All their posts are in Ukrainian and in one of them[162] they say that they wrote something negative about Russia and that the Russian security service (ФСБ / FSB) is not letting them post such things on here, so that might be what they got blocked for.
Note2: Am I supposed to notify them about this filing on their talk page despite them being a TA? And should Mykola7 also be notified about this filing? Just asking because I don't file reports often and am thus not sure about the correct procedure in this case. Nakonana (talk) 17:02, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

This might actually be Ukrainian wiki as the admin User:Mykola7 is an admin on UK. Secretlondon (talk) 17:08, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

My first thought was actually that it was connected to the User:ДанилоБлажко report above on this board because Mykola7 also appears to be an admin on meta who makes global blocks? See [163]. But the time line doesn't add up if I'm not mistaken: the TA posted their rants on 22 November between ca. 19:50 and 20:30, while User:ДанилоБлажко got globally blocked on 23 November. So, it must be a different user. But I suspect that it is about enwiki rather than just ukwiki, or rather that it's a case of a global block. Nakonana (talk) 17:14, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

The FSB rant leads to something like somewhere, sometime, on some Instagram or Facebook post, I may have written something against Russia... so they may have not edited ukwiki at all. That's why the likely explanation is that they're affected by some rangeblock. I don't have (G)TAIV so that's as far as I can go. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 17:17, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

• That temporary account has edited from 2 Ukrainian IP addresses, one of which has been blocked for cross-wiki abuse, shortly after the posts from that temporary account, so it seems probable that this is the targetted cross-wiki abusive editor, not collateral damage. That temp account has not edited any other project, but it seems that one or more other temp account on the same IP address has; I can't tell what other temp account(s) that may be. (It seems likely to me that posting to en.wikipedia may have been a way of evading a previous block from one or more other projects, but I can't tell.) JBW (talk) 22:19, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

  Mykola7 has advanced perms here and elsewhere so we can trust their judgement. Since the underlying IP is gblocked, this can be closed. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 22:46, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

  There's multiple underlying IPs. I've indef'd the TA. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:48, 23 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:Wikiinfra development

Wikiinfra development (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Vellore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This contributor has received multiple warnings for adding unsourced (and promotional) content to our article on Vellore, a city in Tamil Nadu - see User talk:Wikiinfra development. Despite the warnings, they have just done the same thing - an edit adding an entirely unsourced and promotional paragraph, along with a photo, with an edit summary reading 'Fixed typo'. [164]

Given this disregard for warnings and blatant dishonesty, I can't see them ever being of any benefit the project, and would suggest an indefinite block. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:22, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Agreed; even the user's non-WP:PROMO additions (see [165]) appear to be unexamined LLM glurge. Julietdeltalima (talk) 17:39, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Apparently the edit summaries are not dishonest but just an example of WP:FIXEDTYPO. Stockhausenfan (talk) 17:46, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

It might be 'apparent' to you. Given the warnings, and given that they aren't using the same edit summary every time though, I'd still go with 'dishonest'. More so, when you look at their editing history on the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:56, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm strongly veering towards CIR. Looks like they're using AI for the longer edits, the shorter ones are grammatically incorrect/unsourced or don't make sense in English, whilst the edit summaries are apparently chosen at random from the default list (if they're used at all).

I want to believe that they mean well, but that doesn't change the fact that they're causing damage as they blunder along. Blue Sonnet (talk) 18:21, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

(non administrator comment) perhaps use a short block, such as 24h, to see if it manages to capture their attention and get them to stop? Wikieditor662 (talk) 18:27, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Agreed at an absolute minimum - 50% of their edits have been reverted (the ones that haven't been reverted are short descriptions). Blue Sonnet (talk) 19:03, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

The editor is only active intermittently. Because of the seriousness of the concerns, I have preemptively blocked from Articlespace to prevent further disruption and pointed the user to this conversation. I await their reply. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 02:15, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

@Rsjaffe The editor has responded here. I've asked again that they come to ANI to talk about this properly. Blue Sonnet (talk) 03:09, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm following their talk page. Whether they respond there or here is not important, but they need to satisfactorily respond to the concerns raised in this report if they want to resume editing. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 03:23, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE behavior and talk page 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.

---

• Reth168 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I recently reported this editor for openly and blatantly threatening to edit war with other users, several times.

diff 1

diff 2

They were then blocked, and instead of trying to rectify their behavior, they continue with the same abusive messages

diff 1

diff 2

diff 3 (also very telling) Plasticwonder (talk) 07:59, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

I've got a feeling they're a(nother) younger editor so I've reached out with this post to see if it helps. Blue Sonnet (talk) 08:40, 23 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:Deamonpen – repeated BLP/source problems on Peter Thiel–related topics

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

---

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 report User:Deamonpen for a pattern of problematic editing on biographies of living persons (BLPs) and closely related organizations, especially around Peter Thiel, Thiel Capital, and associated figures. The conduct involves:

• adding factually false or highly implausible claims • misrepresenting what sources say • using marginal sources for serious allegations • engaging in synthesis/original research to create conspiratorial narratives

This is a BLP-heavy topic area (post-1992 U.S. politics and closely related people), which is a designated contentious topic.

---

1. Fabricated / unsupported claims about Jesse Michels and Thiel Capital

On the Thiel Capital article, the user added a passage claiming that Jesse Michels:

• “works as chief executive officer for Thiel Capital”; and • “has been noted for his diplomatic activities involving Kirsan Ilyumzhinov, the Vatican, Kalmykia, Albania, and Africa”.

The cited article does not say he is CEO of Thiel Capital, nor that he undertakes diplomatic activities on behalf of Thiel or Thiel Capital. There is no reliable source supporting this. This appears to be fabricated BLP content.

Diff(s):

• Addition of false claim that Jesse Michels is CEO of Thiel Capital

This is a serious violation of WP:BLP, WP:V, and WP:RS.

---

2. Misrepresentation and editorializing re: Döpfner / Kress.de line

The user added text claiming:

“Thiel’s and Palantir’s business and political connections with the Döpfner family in general attract a lot of attention in Germany.”

This framing does not appear in the cited Kress.de article and is editorializing.

Problems:

• Overstates and generalizes the source • Uses non-encyclopedic language • Appears to be WP:SYNTH or WP:OR

Diff(s):

• Addition of sentence misrepresenting Kress.de about Thiel, Palantir, and the Döpfner family

This violates WP:BLP, WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV.

---

3. Problematic “Charles Vaughan / Cambridge network” paragraph

The user added a long paragraph linking Thiel’s alleged political influence, Charles Vaughan, Curtis Yarvin, “anti-woke networks,” and Cambridge University.

Issues:

• Uses **student newspapers** and opinion pieces to support serious allegations about a living person • Attempts to connect Thiel → Vaughan → Yarvin → “race science” → Cambridge politics in a way not supported by sources • Includes loaded, non-neutral phrasing (e.g. “anti-woke network”, “crusade”, “illiberalizing”)

Diff(s):

• Addition of long paragraph about Vaughan and alleged Cambridge recruitment network with loaded language

---

Pattern of tendentious editing on Thiel and related topics

On their talk page and in discussions about the Marc Andreessen / Peter Thiel articles, User:Deamonpen has stated they are trying to expose networks around Thiel and the “new military industrial complex.” Combined with:

• repeated over-interpretation of sources • blending unrelated sources (“lossy compression”) • restoring contested BLP content

this creates a broader content and conduct problem.

Other editors (e.g. WeyerStudentOfAgrippa, Simonm223) have raised concerns about:

• weasel wording • attributing claims to entire publications rather than authors • degrading sourcing quality in BLPs

---

5. Prior warnings and related notices

On the user’s talk page there are:

• warnings about copyright/close paraphrasing • edit-warring notices (including a recent one) • a contentious topics notice covering U.S. politics and closely related people

This is not an isolated issue but part of a recurring pattern.

---

6. What I am requesting

I request that administrators:

• Review User:Deamonpen’s edits on Peter Thiel, Thiel Capital, Palantir Technologies, and related pages • Assess whether there is a pattern of BLP violations, source misrepresentation, and tendentious editing • Consider a **topic ban** (Peter Thiel / Thiel-adjacent pages or post-1992 U.S. politics/tech) • Or, if needed, a **block** to prevent further BLP damage

Thank you.

---

7. Attachments / Diff summary

• **Jesse Michels / Thiel Capital CEO claim**

 * Addition of false claim

• **Döpfner / Kress.de misrepresentation**

 * Misrepresenting Kress.de source

• **Charles Vaughan / Cambridge network**

 * Addition of non-neutral, synthesis-heavy paragraph

Submitted by: InquireMore Date: 24 Nov 2025

— Preceding unsigned comment added by InquireHere (talk • contribs) 08:04, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

You made one edit and opted to discuss this with the other editor on their talk page (which is a reasonable and appropriate move), but then brought this here within 15 minutes of your last edit to their talk page, without even notifying them of this discussion (which I have now done) or giving them time to respond. Is my reading of this timeline correct? --Kinu ^t/_c 08:52, 24 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.

Good morning.

@Kinu t/c: Your reading of the basic timeline is fair.

I made a corrective edit, raised the issues on the user’s talk page, and then opened the ANI thread soon afterwards. In hindsight, I should have explicitly pinged them to this discussion and left more time for a response before escalating, and I’m happy to apologise for that procedural misstep. Sorry!

What pushed me to ANI so quickly, though, wasn’t a routine content dispute but the nature of the specific BLP problems I was seeing. In this case that included:

-a plainly false statement that Jesse Michels is the CEO of Thiel Capital, which is not supported anywhere in the cited source or, as far as I can tell, in any reliable source; and

-language around “diplomatic activities” and network-building that goes materially beyond what the sources say — in clear conflict with WP:BLP, WP:V and WP:SYNTH.

I then saw that the same pattern has continued across tens (if not hundreds) of edits on this page alone. With respect to this specific edit, I tried to address the issues on the user’s talk page, where I laid out the concerns in detail and invited discussion. Despite that, the user re-introduced a claim that is, in my view, straightforwardly and verifiably incorrect about a living person’s role.

Because these additions involve multiple living individuals in a highly sensitive topic area (US politics, tech billionaires, alleged political networks), I felt this had moved well beyond a simple content disagreement. At that point it became, in my judgment, a live BLP issue that warranted admin attention sooner rather than later.

For context, this isn’t an isolated incident.

On the user’s talk page and on related articles (e.g. Peter Thiel) other experienced editors have already been raising very similar concerns. These include:

-reliance on marginal or weak sources for potentially serious claims about living people;

-repeated synthesis that strings together people (e.g. Michels, Vaughan, Moritz Döpfner) into a kind of implied “network” or “orbit” that the sources themselves do not actually link; and

-imprecise or misleading attribution, such as attributing viewpoints to an entire publication rather than the specific writer or cited source.

What especially concerned me — and what fits the broader pattern — is the treatment of non-public figures such as Charles Vaughan and Moritz Döpfner. These are individuals with little or no independent coverage, and the user’s edits often elevate scattered mentions into a veneer of coordinated political activity or conspiracy-adjacent “networking”. In some cases this is done via student newspapers or commentary pieces, which are not appropriate for contentious BLP assertions. In others, the synthesis suggests connections or significance that the sources themselves never assert.

That recurring “network construction” pattern around non-public people in a political context is exactly what WP:BLP, WP:SYNTH and WP:UNDUE are meant to prevent.

To be clear: I am not claiming the user is a vandal, or that they haven’t made constructive contributions elsewhere. My concern — and the reason I brought this here — is that in this particular cluster of articles involving living people and post-1992 politics, there is a repeated pattern of adding or restoring material that is not supported by high-quality sources and that crosses important BLP boundaries.

If the consensus is that I should have waited longer before opening the thread, I’ll absolutely take that on board. But I do still believe the underlying BLP issues were sufficiently serious, recurring, and tightly clustered that ANI attention was appropriate.

I have also gone into significant detail on the user’s talk page. My apologies again on the timeline. InquireHere (talk) 09:25, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Fabricated what?

I reposted and remixed the replies on my Talk page here:

This is the previous version, as largely edited by me, before being changed by InquireMore.

Re: Jesse Michels:

CEO is probably a mistake, but not a reason to remove the whole sentence (and initially, without giving a single reason).

The sentence does not claim that Michels is doing diplomatic activities on behalf of Thiel Capital.

The reference article on Michels does mentions Thiel Capital, and also Michels' private business, American Alchemy:

"The visit began at the Vatican, where Michels, an investor with Thiel Capital and the Thiel Family Office, accompanied Ilyumzhinov to the 60th-anniversary commemoration of Nostra Aetate, the landmark Second Vatican Council declaration reshaping Catholic relations with other faith traditions."

"The conversations between Ilyumzhinov and Michels — and those soon to be aired on American Alchemy — suggest that themes long dormant in public life are returning: spiritual authority alongside statecraft, new sovereign ambitions, ancient cosmologies, and emerging questions about intelligence and meaning."

No matter whether Michels does politics on behalf of Thiel Capital or not, it is clear that when he "accompanied Ilyumzhinov to the 60th-anniversary commemoration of Nostra Aetate", others see him as an investor from Thiel Capital, so what is the problem with mentioning Thiel Capital?

---

A previous sentence (in my version, mentioned above) only says that some current and former Thiel Capital employees are notable for politics, which are sometimes controversial. No where it is stated that this is orchestrated by Thiel Capital.

Certainly Kurz, Kratsios, or Harrington do not recognize that they do any political activities on behalf of Thiel Capital, but the press suspects that there is some linking (only in the case of Kurz, the suspicion is mentioned in the Wikepedia article bcause it was a fairly important EU official who said that).

In the case of Vaughan, I have included materials that argue again the case that there is a conspiracy. Obviously, Vaughan did something in the UK, but whether there was political networking on behalf of Thiel, or there was a race science conspiracy or any conspiracy or not.... is another matter.

Re: Moritz Doepfner: "attracts attention" is already a more neutral way of talking about it/

Kress

"Der Springer-Chef hat drei Söhne aus seiner Ehe mit Ulrike Döpfner (und einen weiteren Sohn mit Julia Stoschek). Sein Sprössling Moritz arbeitet als Chief of Staff für Investor Peter Thiel, hielt der gewöhnlich gut informierte US-Medienjournalist Ben Smith bei „Semafor“ zuletzt fest, um seine These zu belegen, dass Döpfner enge Kontakte „in die kleine Welt der neurechten Leader“ pflegt. Bereits im August vergangenen Jahres hatte das „Handelsblatt“ geschrieben, Moritz Döpfner leite die Investmentfirma Thiel Capital „des libertären Vordenkers und gefürchteten Strippenziehers Peter Thiel“."

On the manager-magazin, Thiel is reported to be helping Moritz to become "Ein deutscher J.D. Vance", and certainly Thiel and the Quantum System deal (that Moritz brokered for Thiel) are seen as controversial

On tagesspiegel:

"Schon immer hat der Springer-CEO die Nähe zu den US-Tech-Unternehmern gesucht. Sein Sohn Moritz Döpfner arbeitet als Chief of Staff für den umstrittenen Trump-nahen Investor Peter Thiel."

These are popular German magazines. So how do you want the whole thing to be written? "Thiel's alleged political and business links with the Doepfner father and son cause a lot of debates?"

---

Also, I repeat that you should stop throwing around inappropriate tags like WP:WEASEL. I am doing a lot of edits on Thiel-related articles, so naturally there are disagreements sometimes. But generally, the debating environment is good and productive, and people have also thanked me for what I have done, as you can see here (Peter Thiel Talk page) or here (Kevin Harrington Talk page). And if you pay attention, the previous times I got accused of being biased or having special interests or whatever, it was because they thought I was unfairly in favor of Thiel or something. But I can say that usually we can work out a compromise. Only in this case (an user who has some connected with General Matter) thinks that I include too much critical information on his firm, but I say that we have been good at working out a compromise as well.

I am willing to talk, so please be constructive, and don't throw out labels like there is no tomorrow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deamonpen (talk • contribs) 09:20, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

• Let's start with this, both of you: cut back sharply on the walls of texts. Quite aside from that the OP reads like a legal filing written by a LLM, it's pretty much guaranteed to be ignored in the TL;DR vein. You both should also be signing your posts. Ravenswing 09:21, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

  Sorry. Will sign posts from here on out. InquireHere (talk) 09:26, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

  I will keep the messages shorter. I didn't realize that was an issue. @InquireHere InquireHere (talk) 09:28, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

  Given that the original post was clearly LLM generated (or, assuming good faith, heavily LLM assisted), I have hatted it. InquireHere, please use your own words instead of an LLMs. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 09:30, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, User talk:Ravenswing. In short the other user is trying to change the Thiel Capital article largely written by me. See edit history of that page. Here they seem to think that I am somehow biased *against* Peter Thiel or Thiel Capital (while some others have accused me of being the opposite, like what you will see on the Talk page of Peter Thiel.

Again, User:InquireHere has removed the Jesse Michels part, this time with the reason that Michels is not doing any diplomatic activity

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thiel_Capital&diff=prev&oldid=1323889695

But the referenced source clearly claims that:

American thinker Jesse Michels led a quiet diplomatic and spiritual initiative through the Vatican and Albania, marking the public return of former Kalmyk President Kirsan Ilyumzhinov, whose separate visit to Mongolia added a personal cultural note to the wider effort.

[...]

Rome: A return to symbolic ground

The visit began at the Vatican, where Michels, an investor with Thiel Capital and the Thiel Family Office, accompanied Ilyumzhinov to the 60th-anniversary commemoration of Nostra Aetate, the landmark Second Vatican Council declaration reshaping Catholic relations with other faith traditions.----Deamonpen (talk) 09:35, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Per my reading of what is going on, this appears to be a content dispute. Since ANI doesn't weigh on content but on conduct, it appears this should be closed, unless there are behavioral issues that haven't been presented. InquireHere, please follow the dispute resolution process rather than going to ANI immediately. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 09:45, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Understood. Thanks! InquireHere (talk) 10:40, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Regarding LLMs: this text was not generated by one. I am a technical editor by trade and I do use LLMs occasionally to check grammar or clarity, but the substance and wording are my own.@Ravenswing

Regarding the “diplomatic initiative” wording: the fact that Billionaires.Africa described it that way does not, by itself, make the trip diplomatic in any formal or substantive sense. This is the issue. @Deamonpen

I will move this now to the Talk page.

Thank you, All, for your time, direction and understanding. InquireHere (talk) 10:50, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) To me that clearly looked like it was LLM as well, so I would recommend avoiding it, even for grammar or "clarity". Wikieditor662 (talk) 17:37, 24 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: ~2025-36170-85 legal threats

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

---

Legal threats and disruptive editing by ~2025-36170-85 on this article Itsziggyp (talk) 12:26, 25 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.

Skitash prevents any search for compromise

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.

---

Skitash is preventing the resolution of an editorial conflict.

1) I'm discussing the Algiers page with M.Bitton to discuss his revert [166]

2) Faced with a discussion that's stalling, I decided to request a third opinion 18:27, 25 November 2025;

3) Following this (WP:HOUND ?) Skitash posted a very brief message after my request for mediation. 18:47, 25 November 2025

4) He decided to delete the mediation request himself! 18:48, 25 November 2025 claiming to have been involved in the discussion (where he only became involved after my request for a third opinion).

This practice violates the rules of WP:3O If you are a party to a dispute and another party has requested an opinion, it is improper for you to remove or modify the request, even if the request does not meet the requirements for a third opinion or because you do not want a third opinion. If you feel that the request does not meet the requirements for a third opinion and should be removed, post a request on the Third Opinion talk page to be evaluated by an uninvolved volunteer..

5) Skitash, in addition to having arrived after my request for WP:3O repeats almost word for word [167] Mr. Bitton's argument [168]. or WP:3O stipulates: 3O is usually flexible by allowing a few exceptions, like those involving mainly two editors with an extra editor having minimal participation.. Therefore, the request did not have to be unilaterally removed based solely on Skitash's late and minor contribution (redundant with M.Bitton).

Not only does Skitash not participate in conflict resolution, not respond to messages, and prevent the use of conflict resolution tools, but he also systematically reverts me to discourage any further contributions by using WP :HOUND. Monsieur Patillo (talk) 20:26, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Once again, you're trying to turn a content dispute into a conduct issue. I commented in Talk:Algiers because I'm one of the two editors who reverted your contested addition, and I'm planning to expand on my reasoning when I have time. WP:3O is only appropriate when there's a deadlock between two editors. Once a third person weighs in, it's no longer eligible, and that's why I removed the request (as explained in my edit summary). I find it disappointing that instead of assuming good faith and being collaborative about your disputed additions, you'd rather engage in WP:FORUMSHOPPING and open numerous reports against me on this noticeboard, most recently just over a week ago (and closed for similarly being about a content dispute). Skitash (talk) 21:05, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

There is indeed a problem with your conduct:

• You intervened (first time) on the talk page just one minute before my request was deleted on WP:3O. When you realized (at least upon reading this request) that you were not respecting the guidelines (post a request on the Third Opinion talk page to be evaluated by an uninvolved volunteer) you haven't reversed this irregular deletion. This is a behavioral issue, not an editorial one. Not only did you improperly close my request (exceeding your editorial rights), but you also failed to offer an alternative way to resolve the conflict or wait for the third opinion (yours repeats M.Bitton's word for word, which is covered by WP:3O).
• There is also a phenomenon of tracking and monitoring my activities. Two examples: fr:Discussion:Tribus arabes d'Algérie/Admissibilité was launched on the French-language project by myself between October 10, 2024, and October 18, 2024. On October 12 at 3:54 PM, Skitash created the English page from a translation of the French [169], just a few hours after my blocking earlier that same day at 2:46 AM (overturned by appeal the following day) [170]. The timing of the creation of this article (copying the same manipulation of primary sources as the French-language project) is highly improbable without monitoring my activity.
• Same here [171] where Skitash appears after my participation [172] on a discussion page. How can this be explained and not perceived on my part in the case of The important component of hounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or disruption to the project generally, for no overridingly constructive reason. (as good faith for me). The problem is that we are seeing the escalation (cancellations, monitoring of my history, disputes, ignored remarks...) but never any solution or helping hand extended to resolve the disputes from Skitash.

Monsieur Patillo (talk) 22:21, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

1. The article never needed a 3O in the first place. I was the one who reverted your edit first (so I’m already one of the editors involved). The page is on my watchlist, so when I noticed that the discussion was stalling, I came to present my own view, being the third opinion. That's why the request was ineligible and I removed it.

2. Your allegation that I'm monitoring you is utter nonsense. The Arab tribes of Algeria is a big interest of mine (I created Zughba, Riyah, Hamyan, etc), and I'd been planning to translate that article for months. Again, more of the same assumption of bad faith.

3. It's not hounding if those articles are on my watchlist and I've edited or discussed them long before you did.

4. The only escalation here is your WP:FORUMSHOPPING and repeated reports about content disputes. Ironically, the indefinite block you mentioned[173] was literally for "using Wikipedia as a battleground by persistently unnecessarily personalizing content disputes." Skitash (talk) 23:53, 25 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:Phlip Plumlee

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.

---

Phlip Plumlee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User talk:Phlip Plumlee has been quite uncivil in the interaction between me and apparently some other pages/ editor as well. His summary on topic seems to violate edit summary do and don't and possibly ownership issue. Discussion on User Talk has been sweep under the rug (deleted). Doesn't seem incline to change the way he conduct himself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magiciandsrk (talk • contribs) 16:07, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Magiciandsrk, can you please provide some diffs (specific edits) for each issue so we can see what the problem is without having to dig through their history?

Please see the notice when posting and at the top of the page, which explains that you need to provide diffs when submitting a report. Blue Sonnet (talk) 16:33, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi my apologies. missing links as attached

[174] Summary that has possible issue

[175] deleting the discussion G Zhong 16:48, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Hmm, on second thought they only have 140 edits so it's not too bad.

First concern is this edit summary: "add line from book which is not original research and which deflates hate speech. Those who did not read the book may not edit, revert, or comment".

They reluctantly provided a citation after being pushed, but on their Talk page. They initially refused and insisted the person challenging the unsourced statement do it themselves.

They've also been warned re. WP:OWN.

Warnings were removed with the summary ”remove script kiddies defending hate speech”

This could be considered a personal attack against someone who warned them for this charming entry: "only someone who supports the murder of Muslim babies to steal their land would take out the last edit.” Blue Sonnet (talk) 16:50, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Its worth noting that a fair amount of this incivility appears to be within the WP:PIA topic area. I personally see no reason they shouldn't be indef'd. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 17:01, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

I think if they showed some real willingness to adjust their conduct, a warning would be sufficient, but they've shown nothing such either on their talk page or here yet. Their attacks on other editors were vile enough that I think they have to actively address their actions; an ANI Flu mulligan should not be in play here. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 20:02, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

• Due to the combination of personal attacks, ownership behavior (see edit summaries on Yanomamö: The Fierce People) and appeals to WP:DONTYOUKNOWWHOIAM, I have blocked Phlip Plumlee indefinitely for disruptive editing. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:41, 25 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 promotional content and disruptive 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.

---

Irina Aylen Quiroga (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I literally don't know where to start.

• User has been repeatedly adding promotion content to Marcello Rodriguez Pons in violation of WP:PROMO
• User has been warned by User:Monkeysmashingkeyboards, User:Ivebeenhacked, User:ClueBot NG, User:Aydoh8 and myself but has ignored all warnings and continued their promotional editing.
• User has repeatedly reverted corrections and removal of their promotional content as well as corrections to the many templates they have broken.

There are quite honestly too many relevant diffs for me to list them all here. I would instead point to the page history for the relevant page found here as the issue revolves around their edits to this one page.

I would also point you to User talk:Irina Aylen Quiroga where the multiple warnings have been posted and ignored.

This user is quite clearly WP:NOTHERE and needs admin intervention. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 06:21, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

I think they're using AI too, I can see the usual markers (curly quotes, em-dash, verbose edit summaries). Blue Sonnet (talk) 06:30, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

P-blocked for 1 week. Any other admin may increase or alter the block of desired EvergreenFir (talk) 06:32, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: Appreciate you getting right on it! Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 06:38, 25 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.

Need help and support and feedback

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.

---

Gurjot S. Kaler Stop culprits (talk) 05:30, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Request for wider input regarding removal of well-sourced legal information

I am requesting assistance from additional editors because there is an ongoing content dispute on this article, specifically concerning the inclusion of a well-sourced legal matter that has been reported by multiple national, independent reliable sources.

Despite multiple attempts to discuss this on the talk page, one editor continues to remove the material without identifying any specific sentence in WP:BLP, WP:BLPCRIME, or WP:BLP1E that prohibits mentioning an ongoing legal case when written neutrally and supported by high-quality RS. Instead, the removal is justified through interpretation rather than explicit policy wording.

I am not seeking to “push” any narrative. I am seeking consistent application of BLP policy, because similar legal matters appear in many other BLPs when reliably sourced and neutrally written.

To ensure fairness, neutrality, and proper policy application, I would appreciate input from uninvolved editors on:

Whether well-sourced, neutrally worded information about an ongoing legal case may be included under WP:BLP and WP:BLPCRIME.

Whether repeated removal without citing an exact policy clause is appropriate under WP:BLPREMOVE.

How similar cases have been handled on other biographies of living persons.

I welcome any third-party review and guidance so that consensus can be reached based on policy, not individual interpretation.

Thank you. Stop culprits (talk) 05:36, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Here's a sentence from WP:BLPCRIME: "editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, is suspected of, is a person of interest, or is accused of having committed a crime, unless a conviction has been secured for that crime." Until the case you're trying to insert has come to a conclusion I would strongly advise you to stop trying to edit-war it into the article. Daveosaurus (talk) 05:45, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) ANI is for behavioural concerns, it can't assist with content disputes. You would be best using the dispute resolution process. I also suspect that one or both of you may be using AI/LLM, please see Wikipedia:LLMCOMM if I'm correct. Blue Sonnet (talk) 05:46, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

+1. Per the banner at the top of this page, This page is for urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems. This doesn't appear to be urgent, or a behavioral problem. Since admins don't have a greater ruling on content than anyone else, posting here isn't where to go. Instead, follow the instructions in the dispute resolution process (posting link again since Blue-Sonnet you linked to the dispute resolution noticeboard, rather than the specific process page). 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 06:00, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

There is a behavioral issue, and you, @Stop culprits, are the one causing a problem. Including those allegations related to the suicide is a violation of WP:BLPCRIME, and you have been wikilawyering on that talk page in an effort to reinterpret that policy in a way that it does not support. This is the only thing you have been trying to do since you started editing on Wikipedia. Drop it now or you may be blocked: from that article at the least. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 06:01, 25 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.

Change visibility of some non-constructive talk page addition?

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.

---

These four edits left on my talk page by temporary-accounts make me uncomfortable. I will delete them. But would it be OK for somebody to change their visibility? One of the IP users also left this edit in a similar vein on another editor's talk page. -- M.boli (talk) 01:47, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Yech! Blocked. Rev-del'd. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 02:25, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! -- M.boli (talk) 02:27, 25 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.

Unconstructive editing and 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.

---

Harshtrivedi0001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User has repeatedly inserted unconstructive edits into Ekdil:

• [176] (rolled back by ScrabbleTiles)
• [177] (Logged out and again reverted by ScrabbleTiles)
• [178] (Reverted by me)
• [179] (Again reverted by me)

Despite numerous warnings and attempts to communicate on their talk page, the user has failed to communicate.

The final straw was after my first revert, the user chose to vandalize my user page. CLEARLY NOTHERE. Failing to communicate and in need of admin intervention. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 08:11, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

I want to assume good faith about some of their additions, despite being unsourced and of dubious encyclopedic value, but given their attempts to insert themselves into said article, I've blocked them from editing Ekdil. I will defer if anyone else believes further sanctions are appropriate. --Kinu ^t/_c 09:00, 24 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.

Undisscused move

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 page Barry Tinsley was moved by @1isall without any move discussions just 2 hour after the move request was submitted. Destinyokhiria 💬 12:00, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

The thing is that it's largely uncontroversial, because it just involves removing an unneeded parentheses/other disambiguation. What do we do here? Thanks, 1isall (he/him) (talk | contribs) 12:02, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

It's completely uncontroversial as far as I can see, because AFAICS no other Barry Tinsley has ever had an article here. I'd close the move request as done tbh. Black Kite (talk) 12:05, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

So, are you saying that it should be treated like a technical request? Thanks, 1isall (he/him) (talk | contribs) 12:11, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

The move was everyday gnoming, and Barry Tinsley (artist)Barry Tinsley (artist) was correctly tagged as {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}}. No discussion was needed. Narky Blert (talk) 12:42, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

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

User:~2025-36436-66

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.

---

• ~2025-36436-66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Revoke TPA --みんな空の下 (トーク) 07:24, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Edit history from the temporary account should be removed/hidden as well. Magitroopa (talk) 07:28, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

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

Harassment from a new 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.

---

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.

---

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

I'm reporting EliteBossman (talk · contribs) for harassment. The account is a few hours old.

Their first three edits were comments in an ongoing discussion, each of which targeted and insulted another user, @Sharky000::

• "you’re clearly a charlatan",
• "clearly a troll", " useless edits",
• "you really are acting like a scum".

I reverted these changes citing WP:NPA and EliteBossman received a warning on their Talk page from @Sir Sputnik:: [180].

Since then, EliteBossman has entered various other articles and Talk pages engaging with Sharky000 and their edits. They are clearly looking to harass Sharky000. Sharky000 has responded civilly.

In EliteBossman's most recent change, they again insulted Sharky000: "Your behaving like a filthy rat.".

EliteBossman seems to be WP:NOTHERE. Robby.is.on (talk) 23:02, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

I've indeffed them. Their edit history is primarily personal attacks, and they've deleted two warnings about attacks, so they're definitely aware. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:10, 23 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've got a lot of pings this morning from EliteBossman and Sharky guy to see it lead here? Too many venues for me, I've just read crap on WT:FOOTBALL, Talk:Brandon Austin and now here, Sharky000 also needs to take some responsibility, I'm watching a slow edit-war on the Brandon Austin article, spill over the to football talk page project. Whoever EliteBossman is, I wouldn't be surprised if that's a WP:DUCK account, maybe a quick sock-puppet check wouldn't be out of the question?? Govvy (talk) 10:07, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Surprise! Bossman is Sharky. -- asilvering (talk) 02:32, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

@Asilvering: So, I was basically stuck in the middle of one man circus! lol, I am off to work now. But hey, I felt like I got an early morning laugh. Cheers. Govvy (talk) 08:55, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

@Asilvering: Would it be prudent to append the block with a checkuser tag? — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 20:28, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

I don't think an unblocks admin is likely to be so foolish they need the big DO NOT TOUCH sign, so I didn't bother. -- asilvering (talk) 21:01, 25 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:Finnashz

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.

---

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

I would like to pinpoint the said user's actions. They have been showing very unconstructive behavior in the article of Alevism, which is a hotspot for the Islamist vandalism. I tried to mitigate it by creating Talk:Alevism#Improvements and explaining my edits but it has proven no avail.

Their actions prompted me to check their Special:Contributions/Finnashz page. It seems that this is not the first nor the last of those disruptive edits. They have been pulling the exact same attitude in very sensitive topics such as Women in Islam or Rape in Islamic law or Religion in Bangladesh and many more. Actually, they had some feedback about this behavior (refer to User talk:Finnashz).

I would recommend you investigate their presence here on Wikipedia. I suspect they are on a hardliner agenda and effectively trying to manipulate or block the flow of information.1337.d4nd135 (talk) 20:50, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi @1337.d4nd135, you both appear to be edit warring and two different editors have reverted you on that article.

Secondly, can you provide specific diffs of the behaviour you're alleging? It's not fair to expect others to dig through their history to try to find them. Blue Sonnet (talk) 21:32, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I am not here because of an edit war rather this edit war is uncovering something much bigger. For example;

• In the Alevism page, even though I am using reliable sources, they are still reverting my edits because they are clearly on an hardliner Islamist agenda and WP:JDL. Again, this topic is a hotspot for them. If you can check the Alevi history page, we have been facing persecutions from their kinds for centuries.
• Again on Alevism they're trying to block the information that was added by another user and then when they fail to do so here they clearly manipulate delicate information, which was way before our spat.
• Here in this edit they have been edit warring about a very delicate issue and if you go to their talkpage, you'll see that they commented: 'Rape is known as forced zina (adultery) for a reason so its based on consent' on this issue, which is another proof of hardliner misogynistic Islamist perspective. Basically, blaming the woman for the rape.
• Here again they said 'Rape was known as forced sex which is based on consent'. What the actual? Forced sex on consent? Again, a clear indication of an misogynistic Islamist agenda.
• Here they state that 'You can't use a hadith as a source' whilst here they use the exact same hadith site as a reference because now it fits their hardliner agenda. What a dilemma.
• Here again they have removed referenced content without a reasonable explanation, possibly to assert their own perspective.
• Here and here again we see a clear effort to change narrative.

You will see plenty more stuff in their contributions. They are clearly on an Islamist agenda. He claims that he is not edit warring and yet he is on a clear edit war with @User:NGC 628 in multiple articles as well. 1337.d4nd135 (talk) 20:15, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Those weren’t edit wars, and the issue was resolved on the talk page, which you failed to follow. Now you have diverted the topic to this.Additionally, that user was copying and pasting the same content about rape—from Women in Islam to Rape in Islamic Law and across multiple wiki articles—which was removed because rape is recognized in Islamic law as an offense based on consent; otherwise, it would have been classified as zina.How is that “hardliner”?Also, hadith cannot be used as a source I posted the hadith under the hadith section, which was about scriptural texts, not randomly inserting it into the wiki article. Finnashz (talk) 22:57, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

I think I didin't 'fail to follow' on noticing that your actions against that user encompasses MULTIPLE articles as if you were on a personally motivated pursuit of countering their edits. Also, you're still dilemmatic; if a hadith is not 'usable as a source' or let's say questionable, then why are you adding it in the first place? Your overall actions are WP:POV and WP:JDL. 1337.d4nd135 (talk) 22:29, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Because that user did make make claims that were wrong and other users did point out his edits to besides me and I haven't reverted sll his edits only certain ones that go against the sources.

Because those particular sections were quoting scripture which is why they were added Finnashz (talk) 22:50, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Finnashz, Instead of making repeated stereotyping statements about the information you claim to be false and then reverting it, you should present your sources, open a broad discussion, and draw my attention to it. NGC 628 (talk) 06:42, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

So this thread isn't getting a lot of traction because most of it relates to content disputes & the rest of the evidence apparently isn't strong enough to garner much attention over the past few days. Sometimes that happens at ANI.

Content disputes can be resolved through discussion via article Talk pages and by using dispute resolution, so I'd like to ask that this aspect of the argument be taken there.

The sock issue is resolved and this is becoming a long thread that's just the two of you arguing amongst yourselves, so can I please ask what is the specific outcome you're seeking from admins that can't be resolved using other procedures? If we have a clear, achievable goal then we can go from there. Blue Sonnet (talk) 00:55, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

I am fine with the edits since he has explained them and I agree my issue was he didn't want to discuss them but did with another user and I largerly agree with him. Finnashz (talk) 09:27, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

The third editor that you mentioned as 'who reverted me' is appearantly also them. They have admitted using a sock account below. 1337.d4nd135 (talk) 23:21, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

To stop you from constantly reverting and use the talk page Finnashz (talk) 23:31, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

You refuse to talk in the talk page and gain a consensus and your still edit warring you made many changes without explaining them and you still do

Also whats wrong with my edits in the other pages women in islam if you check the talk page another user by the name of briton also noticed the edits being made by the other user were an issue and there was no edit warring and the same user did the samething in rape in islamic law which was again dealt with?

Same with religion in bangladesh there was no edit warring? Finnashz (talk) 22:30, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Drop the BS. Here you are saying that 'Added context should not be removed' yet you are removing my reliably referenced and well-structured content because it just doesn't fit in your agenda. Such double standards, of course, only when it suits you...1337.d4nd135 (talk) 20:17, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Drop the attitude. Casting aspersions at another editor is not allowed here. You are no more of a mindreader than any other of us, and constantly claiming that Finnashz has some sinister agenda -- above and beyond that you don't like their edits -- is a violation of the rules. Try arguing what precisely is wrong with those edits in a neutral voice, without putting it in our heads that you have an "agenda." Ravenswing 22:42, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Claiming? It is clear as a day, check above. I have already given enough leads for a WP:DR, without any 'aspersions'. Feel free to check my contribs. They are not concentrated on the articles related to only one topic (Islam) unlike theirs. 1337.d4nd135 (talk) 22:45, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Yours foucused on turkish issues with alevism being one of them? Finnashz (talk) 23:02, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

OMG can somebody check this edit? User:Noxapollo is their WP:SOCK account, which was also active on Talk:Alevism. They have replied to this topic mistakenly using that account and then quickly reverted.1337.d4nd135 (talk) 22:54, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Thats my account how is that a issue here? Finnashz (talk) 22:59, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Quote from the Talk:Alevism: '@Finnashz @1337.d4nd135 Both users are edit warring cool it down. Noxapollo (talk) 19:50, 20 November 2025 (UTC)'

So you admit that you have two different accounts and you're acting as somebody else to gain advantage? 1337.d4nd135 (talk) 23:03, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Because you weren't listening after you made mass amount of edits and refused to engage on talk page after being warned plus thats my older account that I stopped using due to the name change until now Finnashz (talk) 23:06, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Finnashz, please read Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry. In particular, you should now clarify on both your sock's userpage and your main account's userpage that the two are operated by you. Please do not misuse multiple accounts to deceive editors again. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 02:20, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

This is a clear violation of WP:SOCK. I have applied for Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Finnashz as well. They pretended to be another person, only admitting that they actually have the account until I notice it. 1337.d4nd135 (talk) 06:48, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

I've blocked Noxapollo and warned Finnashz about non-legitimate useage of alternative accounts. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:35, 22 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 bot account, disruptive

User:~2025-32582-69 appears to be a bot account, created recently, with no edits besides reverting edits on the Communist Party USA page without explanation or citation. Attempts to reach them on their own talk page have yielded nothing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PequodOnStationAtLZ (talk • contribs) 17:13, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

(non admin comment) it seems that their warning was over edit warring. Have you considered reporting this to the edit warring noticeboard instead? Wikieditor662 (talk) 17:40, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Doesn't look like a bot, but there has definitely been some edit-warring going on from both sides here (yes, edit-warring is a two way street, even if the other person is an unregistered account that hasn't provided an explanation). Based on IP information,  Possilikely (a mix between possible and likely) to User:~2025-31874-43. Fully protecting the page for three days (and inviting all of you to discuss it on the talk page), I'll let another admin sort out the blocks. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 19:38, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Both TAs blocked for a week, they've both got relevant contributions past the past couple days. Probably could have been a partial for each. Izno (talk) 00:22, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Actually, I'd support making them partial blocks, since the purpose of the full prot was to get everyone to discuss it on the talk page, which isn't really possible if they're blocked from it for the duration of the full prot. WP:3RR is a bright line, and enforcing it on one side but not the other isn't ideal, even if Pequod is likely right on the substance (as the source didn't make mention of "22 thousand"). Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 11:33, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

This is a temporary account, the replacement for IP editing. Gnomingstuff (talk) 00:11, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

User:Taghavishr - edit warring without communication, unsourced additions, and off-wiki copyvio

Taghavishr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been persistently editing Varesh Airlines - initially by adding copyright violation images to the infobox (namely this logo, which was deleted by User:Yann and almost instantly re-created by the user - they've now been blocked on Commons), and now by edit warring the addition of unsourced content - [181][182][183][184]. They've received numerous [185][186][187] warnings on their talk page, and have even been pinged on the article talk page [188] yet no reaction. We know they are able to use talk pages, because they previous responded to an unrelated matter on their user talk. Given I'm now at 3RR in trying to deal with the unsourced content in the article, and they're ignoring every attempt to make contact, is there any way they can be blocked from article space until they start communicating? Danners430 _{tweaks made} 13:21, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

They’re back again, still making undisccussed changes - and I still can’t get them to respond on their talk page. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 12:49, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

They’re finally responding on their talk page… however @Taghavishr, one question - what’s your connection to Varesh, as it’s the only thing you’ve been editing? Danners430 _{tweaks made} 09:27, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

And still, after I've lost count of how many warnings, they're still adding unsourced content. I've reverted this particular edit of theirs at least twice before now, I've told them to stop adding unsourced content (they're on a level 4 warning on their talk page), and yet they still continue doing it. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 11:26, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

I've asked a third time for them to please come to ANI, I'm also seeing signs of possible AI use in their responses so they might not fully understand what's happening. Blue Sonnet (talk) 13:40, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I have to admit their bulleted response does scream LLM... but I'm trying to assume good faith for as long as I can - however frustrating it may be! Danners430 _{tweaks made} 13:42, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

And still, more unsourced changes. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 07:29, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

They’re still continuing to edit war, restore unsourced content, and have for the third time created a copyvio image on Commons and had it deleted - how much longer are we going to let this carry on for? Danners430 _{tweaks made} 15:36, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

One more try. I guess this isn't getting attention because it's at the top of the page now? Blue Sonnet (talk) 18:44, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

you can see that this logo is in https://fa.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D9%87%D9%88%D8%A7%D9%BE%DB%8C%D9%85%D8%A7%DB%8C%DB%8C_%D9%88%D8%A7%D8%B1%D8%B4#/media/%D9%BE%D8%B1%D9%88%D9%86%D8%AF%D9%87:Varesh-Airlines-Logo.png and free to use. on the other hand i'm working in varesh airline Taghavishr (talk) 11:37, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

You’re creating problems on that article:

1. You are repeatedly and constantly adding unsourced content to the article, despite now five warnings and umpteen messages on your talk page
2. You’re edit warring other things such as flags, and again ignoring attempts to discuss and simply restoring your version

And as for the logo - it’s been deleted three times from Commons. Why do you think you can simply re-create it every time like nothing happened? Danners430 _{tweaks made} 11:51, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

So looking at the edit summary (these are really helpful for other people to understand what's happening so please try to use them) the logo was deleted due to copyright violations as shown here and on the original file page here. Just because it's been uploaded again or on a different language Wikipedia, doesn't mean it's automatically ok to use.

Please read Wikipedia:BRD too - if someone reverts (removes) your edit and you disagree with them, you must go to the Talk page to discuss your reasons. You cannot just put it back, unless it's obviously wrong (such as vandalism).

We must talk to each other, otherwise Wikipedia cannot work, ok? Blue Sonnet (talk) 12:11, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Just commenting to keep the topic open, as they've not edited for a couple days (which is a normal pattern for them) Danners430 _{tweaks made} 12:28, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Harassment Report

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

---

I've been told to "kill myself" on my own talk page; it seems pretty actionable to me. User seems to be upset over me reverting a single edit, which was pretty blatant vandalism.

Edit: As I was writing this, an uninvolved editor has reverted the message left by the upset vandal. Upon seeing their edit was reverted, they posted the following message: "I hate you and you should go cut yourself".

TheInevitables (talk) 04:53, 27 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:Ajrun Amir'za-da

Ajrun Amir'za-da (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hi. User:Ajrun Amir'za-da has made 2,079 edits in total, many of which are counterproductive. For example, their last edit changed and added content without providing sources and also changed a grammatical phrase into an ungrammatical one ("which later became" => "which later becoming"). This is representative for most of their edit history. Some other examples: [189], [190], [191], [192], [193], [194], [195]. Most of these are not very extreme in and of themselves, but taken together it still amounts to ongoing disruptive edits that have to be manually reverted by editors one by one. Out of his last 500 edits, 98 are tagged as Reverted. He's also made an article that was speedily deleted as a "hoax", and he tried to prop that article up by responding with an intimidatingly long list of sources, which I seriously doubt really contain the info which he's claiming they contain (but haven't checked so who knows).(1) Other articles he's made were moved to draftspace and he was warned about edit warring. What doesn't help is that it seems difficult to enter in a discussion with him, because either he doesn't respond (for example to the edit war discussion, to others who pointed out his bad referencing, or to my own post on his talk page); or he makes vaguely aggressive statements like this edit summary; or he goes on an incohesive tangent like his response to a suggestion to investigate him for sock puppetry. After my post to his talk page, he also simply re-reverted the disruptive edits I had reverted a few days before. Can an administrator please look into this? The problem is persistent and it's clearly hard to convey the issue to him, so it might not be too draconian to block this user at least for some period of time. LongueDurée (talk) 20:55, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for welcome me again, but Sorry to say seems like you question on my entire wiki career existence, what i do and how i do edit and form a articles, and yes many of your statments are true, however, the way you allegation about your claim that i makes vaguely aggressive statements is logical fallacies, however if you sincerely go and checking my user pages many of details about me you can find, but when you talk about contents i create, most of categories are those parts of collective histories and most of were related to sources that if i given or, others given, and if any mistakes i made i first analysing then i didnt interrupt to edits or, reverting because of some mistakes, the way you claim sockpuppetry is to way higher much of allegations that equals to legal cases, i actually saying to way if you can't give me sources then dont edit on pages to giving wrong informations others, which is very doubtful that you already come here to discuss about on your previous some half-bias points, well i m not a regular editer but semi-editer or, short times edits for contributions on collections of histories, which is my one of favorite subjects, thats is might be the reasons for me that why i m very lose to responsing others, very small times i got to become regular editor, however you cannot show me one single vandalism about me that i do some conflictions, without reasons, can you tell me about yourself something more ? you may come and editing, enjoying Wikipedia being user, and i would suppose to say first find any vandalism or, bad conflictions which i m really aggressive and about my bad representations anyone can correct my edits, its never significant for me to revert, but you may come to showing your insincerities, and the reason i revert because you continuesly 2 or, more times you little discontributing the pages by removing many of words in first lines of the pages Barlas, [tell you give any sources about you reverting for sources], instead giving any reasons you continues on your stance about reverts, i dont know if you check any of references ? or, not ? Ajrun Amir'za-da (talk) 21:37, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

(1) EDIT: after a closer look, it turns out he simply copy-pasted the entire bibliography section from a Catalan wiki article

I have blocked Ajrun Amir'za-da from article space and suggested that posting satisfactory edit requests would be his fastest route to an unblock. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:32, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Range block request

My apologies if this is the wrong venue for this request. I believe a single user has been hopping around IP addresses over the last couple weeks, make unconstructive edits to articles such as List of Japanese movie studios, Media Home Entertainment, and several others. Anyone with TAIV can verify this. I see that some individual IP addresses have been blocked and pages have been protected, but I would ask that an administrator consider a rangeblock on the /16 range (or a different range, if you feel it is more appropriate) underlying these temporary accounts (e.g., ~2025-36076-48, ~2025-35740-91), as that may be more effective at preventing further disruption. MaterialsPsych (talk) 07:10, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

It appears some of the IPs, if not the whole range, are proxies. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 07:18, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

IP range calculator said the /18 would be the range that would cover these TAs. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 07:23, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the additional info, 45dogs. If these are indeed open proxies, they should definitely be blocked, especially if they are being used for abuse. I still feel a range block would be more effective than playing whack-a-mole when a new IP/temporary account pops up, but it doesn't look like a range block has been applied yet. I will continue to wait and see what happens. MaterialsPsych (talk) 02:51, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Admittedly that proxy assessment was based on a spot check, but it appears to be accurate upon reviewing it again. The range appears to have two types of proxies. I don't think there is collateral in that range, but I'm not fully sure. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 03:32, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

IP editor showing WP:OWN and engaging in personal attacks at Kisii people

• Kisii people (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The Kisii people page has been edited for a long time by an IP editor who is showing a level of WP:OWN. The talk page is just a mess. For reference, just scan the archive Talk:Kisii people/Archive 1 23,000 words, I suspect largely by the same editor, as the style of comments are very similar going back several years, as well as the current talk page Talk:Kisii people. The IP engages in frequent personal attacks which I warned against when I arrived. [196] I was attempting to understand the content dispute and provide some mediation here [197], but one party to that dispute has not interacted since, while the other is the IP who has edited much of the page, and continues to chop and change it.

Despite the plea and warnings, the IP has continued to engage in personal attacks, including these today: [198] [199] [200]. I have also previously warned the user about making personal attacks here: [201].

The user has made good edits to the page, although there is also probably something of a neutrality issue here. Another editor added a neutrality template,[202]] which the IP immediately removed (as they do for any templates).[203] I'm not convinced it merits a neutrality template, and thus didn't take this to the NPOV noticeboard. I agree with the IP that the theories of Ochieng are somewhat fringe and should be mentioned as an oral tradition, but with that caveating. However, the removal without discussion shows the OWNership behaviour. Any templates are removed, and edits by others are edited away, and the page is a moving target. Another example of the OWN behaviour is seen in their preferred denonym for the Kisii people — Abagusii — and they have edited the page to use only that term. They do show knowledge of the matter, mind. I am concerned that they are following one source rather closely, but sources do seem to use Gusii more than Kisii, and the page is ripe for a move discussion. Nevertheless, I am afraid to start the move discussion while the talk page constantly devolves into this mess of name calling and new sections that go nowhere every time this editor edits. Note that Abagusii means "Gusii people", and English language sources prefer "Gusii people".

Admin action: I am not sure what to ask for here. The personal attacks need to stop. It is driving editors away from the page and allowing the IP to take ownership of it. That needs knocking on the head firmly. But beyond that, I am hesitant to lose the editor altogether. They have knowledge that could be useful. They have edited the page for a long time. They need to be more collegial, and to be more succinct at the talk page, but they do want to write about this subject for the benefit of others. I am partly hoping that posting here will also flag this page for the attention of other editors. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:39, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

This'll be a bit tricky since Temporary Accounts are now a thing.

The original IP also won't see any new notices on their old Talk page unless they actively go searching for it (unlikely).

If they're still editing, they'll have a TA & new Talk page - except an admin won't be able to publicly link a TA the IP (I think they can in extreme cases). If an admin actively searched for a current TA for the IP, that could maybe be considered fishing?

Otherwise, I suppose an admin could block the underlying IP if they're continuing to be disruptive.

Has there been any disruption since the IP's last edit on 19th Oct - so is it still an ongoing issue with any TA's?

If not, it might be best to wait and see if a TA causes problems and deal with those as they arise. Otherwise, I'm not sure what can be done right now. Blue Sonnet (talk) 12:47, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. So I don't want to get into the weeds of the content, but this edit today [204] removed material I had flagged, but the second paragraph was not, in fact removed, but inserted with minor changes and the template removed. I had added a template to discuss Akama, and opened discussion (twice) on the talk page, stating my concerns. I specifically asked them not to remove Akama as a source, but to discuss, because there are issues with Akama, but the material he is used to support is probably correct. But as usual, the edit removes material summarily and deletes the template (whilst still keeping Akama as the source!)

More to the point, these three edits [205] [206] [207] (cited above) were all today. That is a series of personal attacks. I understand the difficulty here though. In the age of temporary accounts, I don't see how we defend a page from a persistent WP:SPA engaged in such behaviour. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:39, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

The relevant policy is here, and this is a case where it most likely isn't needed. Publicly linking TAs to IPs purely through behavioral evidence is perfectly acceptable, after all. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 13:45, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Like linking IPs and named accounts through behavioral evidence ~2025-31733-18 (talk) 14:51, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Good to know, thanks! Still getting used to the whole TA thing... Blue Sonnet (talk) 19:53, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

• There is some leeway provided for this via Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Horn of Africa, although I am uncertain if it’s enough to put the article under CTOP designation. Given the problem though, it may be worth looking into. ~2025-35893-32 (talk) 16:53, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
  • WP:CT/HORN covers Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes. This article is about tribe in western Kenya, and doesn't appear to be related to any disputes in those countries, so it doesn't fall under the CT. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:54, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
• The edsum of this edit [208] is another attack - calling my edits vandalism when flagging unsourced content (and removing the templates). Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:05, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

User:Normal rookie

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.

---

Continuation from IncidentArchive1182 where I was the same person reporting User:Normal rookie

• Normal rookie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Anwar Ibrahim cabinet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

On the article Anwar Ibrahim cabinet, I believe I was constructively editing a table, but my efforts were reverted without explanation. In the previous incident here, I raised concerns regarding WP:OWNBEHAVIOUR, but since no administrative action was taken, I am bringing the matter up again.

My edits to the article Anwar Ibrahim cabinet were scattered on the accounts below with consistent behavior and editing style:

• User:~2025-32972-59,
• User:~2025-34307-21, and
• User:~2025-34494-19, as well as IP addresses:
• Special:Contributions/183.171.113.224
• Special:Contributions/183.171.112.211 and 118.101 ranges.

In almost every case, my changes, which I took care to explain in detail, were simply reverted without explanation. ~2025-34742-01 (talk) 05:53, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

So, I agree that Normal rookie's reverts without edit summaries were unhelpful, and I am fairly close to partially blocking them from that article given that they have been warned about this before. What would be nice however is an explanation of what you are trying to achieve. You are using edit summaries, which are kind of helpful, but they don't really explain what you're doing or why you're doing it. Normally, we point people to WP:BRD, which boils down to the fact that anyone can make a Bold edit, anyone can Revert it, and they are then expected to Discuss the changes. I'm seeing your Bold edits, and Normal Rookie's unexplained Reverts, but no discussion. The article's talk page has had a total of 7 edits, with the most recent being from January 24. Can I suggest that you go there, explain the changes you are going to make, why you think they need to be made (with pointers towards relevant policies, guidelines, MOS instructions etc where appropriate), and then if Normal rookie reverts you again without any explanation, come back here.

@Normal rookie: it is clear that this IP editor is not attempting to vandalise the page. If you continue reverting them without any explanation, you should expect your account to be blocked from editing the page altogether. If you disagree with what they are doing, explain yourself on the talk page and engage in discussion. Girth Summit _(blether) 11:01, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: Just to point out that this might not be useful, as Normal rookie, who has 23,000 edits, has never used an article talk page, and indeed has never edited any talk page other than to answer a few posts on their own usertalk. Black Kite (talk) 11:37, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Interesting. I also note that they were not informed of this discussion - unregistered editor currently known as ~2025-34742-01, you must notify people when you report on their editing here. I've done it now. Girth Summit _(blether) 12:17, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

I reverted this user (~2025-34742-01) in Anwar Ibrahim cabinet due to I want keep everything unchange and I think the older version is suitable. Normal rookie (talk) 12:44, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

WP:IJDLI is not a justification for a revert. Please explain what was the actual problem with their edit. Ultraodan (talk) 12:48, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Normal rookie, in the discussion on this board back in March, you were told that this unregistered editor was permitted to edit the article, and you were not the sole arbiter of what goes into the article. I see you doing similar things over at Tengku Zafrul Aziz. Why would you keep reverting someone else, and never bother to explain what you are doing on the article's talk page? I could understand reverts without edit summaries if they were vandalising the article, but I don't see any evidence that that is the case. If you continue to just revert people without explaining yourself, you may end up blocked for disruption. Girth Summit _(blether) 13:28, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

I ready state that keep the older version Normal rookie (talk) 13:50, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

"I ready state that keep the older version" does not mean anything. Are your English language skills good enough to have a conversation on a talk page? If the answer to that is 'no', you should not be reverting other people's contributions at all. If the answer to that is 'yes', I would be grateful if you would explain yourself properly. Merely saying 'older version is suitable' doesn't really cut the mustard. Girth Summit _(blether) 14:34, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Fairly sure the OP meant something like 'I already stated that I prefer to keep the older version' i.e. was referring to their older comment "I want keep everything unchange and I think the older version is suitable". This is fairly similar to what they said last time [209] "no need change on the article, is perfect" and [210] "no need improvement". English aside the OP seems to have an unfortunate belief that articles don't need improvement which doesn't even apply to an FA let alone some random article. Nil Einne (talk) 10:05, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

@Normal rookie Please remember that every time you revert an edit, you're undoing someone else's hard work - you need a good reason to do that, one that you can explain clearly to others and should meet specific policy guidelines that you can ideally cite when challenged. Blue Sonnet (talk) 13:43, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

I am aware of WP:BRD and attempted to Discuss this matter here. However, instead of engaging productively and explaining their actions, they merely attacked my status as an editor and provided vague, evasive responses.

Their behavior also extends to other articles as well, such as here, where my edits (same IP range 183.171):

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anwar_Ibrahim&diff=1280083864&oldid=1279572063 I will provide more examples later if needed.

~2025-35090-38 (talk) 02:18, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Pointing out: Normal rookie rarely uses edit summaries, even on their non-reverting edits, and this sometimes makes it hard for other editors to scrutinize changes. ~2025-35090-38 (talk) 03:13, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

I thought I should add some background on previous issues from the multiple warnings on their Talk page. I've only gone back to 2023 but there are warnings before this, (including recreating a deleted article & removing AFD tags) and some minor warnings between the ones below:

• Reverting a move without explanation
• Agreeing to use edit summaries in 2023 after being warned
• Unexplained content removal at Anwar Ibrahim Cabinet
• Warning re. ownership of Anwar Ibrahim Cabinet
• Reverting an edit so a politicians Facebook and Twitter are included in their article
• More unexplained reversion
• Two warnings about difficult/hard to read formatting
• Two warnings about cut & paste moves.
• Multiple warnings about adding icons to articles.
• Disruptive requests at RFPP
• Another Anwar Ibrahim warning re. edit warring

Blue Sonnet (talk) 14:20, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Note that while this ANI has been in progress, they performed 10 reverts on the page Shaziman Abu Mansor within the space of a few minutes (starting with Special:Diff/1323394985), so they should at the very least receive a temporary block for edit warring. Stockhausenfan (talk) 10:35, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

@Normal rookie, stop acting like you have ownership of the article, just because you dont like it doesnt mean you have to edit war over a article which can change every day. shane (talk to me if you want!) 14:22, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Shane, this has already been covered by the responses above. Please refrain from restating points already made, as it can feel like dogpiling. South of the Tongass (talk) 23:20, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

I stated this at 9:22 am, when there were were 9 responses shane (talk to me if you want!) 13:19, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Proposal: 0 revert rule for Normal rookie

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.

---

Normal rookie's response 'I ready state that keep the older version' and failure to engage further with the thread indicates that they haven't taken on board the feedback, so I propose a community-imposed zero revert rule for Normal rookie. Stockhausenfan (talk) 13:34, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Support User has repeatedly shown signs of ownership, not liking the edits people are making, and now possibly even icanthearyouitosis. I would even go for a TBAN if it were needed, shane (talk to me if you want!) 13:38, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

• I'd be inclined to support this. They have failed to respond substantively to this discussion, and the last discussion, and the example of them telling an IP editor to stop editing a page linked above is just not on. If they aren't willing to discuss their reverts, even when challenged about them at ANI, they should be prohibited from performing reverts. Girth Summit _(blether) 18:23, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose a complete ban on reversions seems a bit heavy, for a user with no block history, and I don't see any other previous punishments. Perhaps a 1RR? Nfitz (talk) 21:21, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

On second thoughts, I just realized that User:Normal rookie has been editing heavily for the last couple of days, while completing ignoring this discussion. That is unacceptable. I withdraw my opposition. Nfitz (talk) 21:26, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Support with no acknowledgement of this process by User:Normal rookie despite editing for each of the last 3 days, I'm now supporting. And quite happy to upgrade to a block to get their attention. Nfitz (talk) 18:05, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

• Support Editor is continuing to edit and hasn't been able to provide any policy-based reason for their reverts. I'm also concerned over their WP:OWN behaviour of the Anwar Ibrahim Cabinet article over several months (see my post above) and would support an additional TBAN for this subject. Blue Sonnet (talk) 23:27, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
• Support as they have clearly demonstrated OWN behaviour and their reverting has only been justified by WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. Their refusal to properly participate at ANI while still editing elsewhere makes it hard to see a lesser alternative. Ultraodan (T, C) 01:53, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
• Support - Since Normal rookie has given no real indication that they understand the problem nor that they intend to improve their conduct in the future, this is the lightest sanction that's likely to have any effect whatsoever. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 08:00, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Support had no prior knowledge of this or previous interactions with this user until they inexplicably reverted my edit to remove a deleted template (see here). User clearly needs sanctioning. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 07:35, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

• Support Truly, I think it's likely simply stage one of what will shortly be a TBAN, but it's worth imposing the limit and seeing if it works well, or if it's WP:ROPE. Hiobazard (talk/contribs) 16:47, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Support. They have not been able to justify their reverts only saying they don't want any changes to the article which is not enough. Given they keep reverting with no edit summary and no explanation a 0 revert rule is needed as this is disruptive.GothicGolem29 (Talk) 17:25, 25 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.

Disruptive IP

• ~2025-36522-73 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Can someone block this IP editor who is on a revenge reverting spree? Thanks in advance. Mellk (talk) 11:21, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

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

Reverting clear vandalism does not constitute a revenge spree. The consensus on your edits is clear in the talk sections of the reverted articles. You are clearly erasing mentions of Ukrainian identity and ancestry without justification. ~2025-36522-73 (talk) 11:25, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Check what vandalism is first of all. There is clearly no consensus for this change and this is clear POV-pushing (not to mention that the quote was falsified). Mellk (talk) 11:33, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

There's now a conversation on my talk page about this as well: User talk:Gurkubondinn § Vladimir Horowitz. I've made some edits to the Vladimir Horowitz, with the intent to hopefully prevent any edit warring. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 12:44, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Chronic abuse

Poopdecktheoverlord has, over the months, repeatedly gone to the final warning. Here are the instances of this:

• User talk:Poopdecktheoverlord#April 2025
• User talk:Poopdecktheoverlord#June 2025
• User talk:Poopdecktheoverlord#October 2025
• User talk:Poopdecktheoverlord#November 2025 (note for this one, I may have been mistaken in one of my warnings, but other users warned for other reasons, so it still made it to the final warning.)

They recently made their 10,000th edit and I would discourage a permanent block, I just want to make sure that they're being productive and not getting into trouble. What can be done about this? Thanks.

Wikieditor662 (talk) 00:49, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Please provide diffs of specific disruptive edits. Saying "this editor has been warned a lot" is not sufficient evidence. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:22, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

April:

Diff that probably got warning 2: Ian Hanlin: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia

Warning 3 diff: Féodor Atkine: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia

Warning 4 diff: Spliced (TV series): Difference between revisions - Wikipedia

June:

Warning 1: Anna Cieślak: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia

Severe Warning: Le Petit Nicolas (TV series): Difference between revisions - Wikipedia

October:

Warning 1: Pakdam Pakdai: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia

Severe Warning: edit warring in October of this page Zig & Sharko: Revision history - Wikipedia

November:

Warning/severe warning: The Adventures of Kid Danger: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia

Severe warning: The Adventures of Kid Danger: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia

Severe warning: The Adventures of Kid Danger: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia

Also: The Adventures of Kid Danger: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia

Most of these were either unsourced, and / or edit warring.

Wikieditor662 (talk) 01:34, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

An apology from Poopdeck

Hey everyone. It has been brought to my attention that in the year or so that I have been present with this account, over the past several months, I have repeatedly made unsourced and/or edit war-adjacent to several pages that I have come across (namely those listed here).

Before I continue, I want to make it clear that I have never intended to vandalize these pages in any way, shape or form. All of these edits were made in the name of improving them for people to read and making them not feel outright incomplete; something that I have confused with an excuse to flimsily add in claims that are either uncited or outright false; my contributions in April, June, October and November of this year especially reflect this the hardest.

Of note, I was particularly belligerent towards editors such as Waxworker and Magical Golden Whip (two editors who I will openly admit have occasionally gotten on my nerves in the past, although I do not wish them any harm), consistently reverting their edits to Wikipedia pages on the basis of them doing so for mine under the basis of being "unsourced" (and often without providing proper explanations for doing so in return) and refusing to back off when warned by them. Even when taking my previously-stated grudge against them, me escalating the situation without relenting or trying to relent was wrong and unjust. I just came off as a petty jerk à la the now-disgraced LukeJolly3 who cared far more about the virtues of inserting boneheaded claims into pages without citing sources so whoever reads this doesn't think I'm a rambling nutjob than actually contributing and citing sources, at least ones that were verified and not prone to fancruft or unfair, blatantly ignorant errors, even when I disagree with the claims they insert.

Despite my negative and harsh behavior in some of the things I do in this wiki, please note that I intend to try and battle these faults and help others help me make this wiki a better place rather than needlessly antagonize people. I am truly sorry and remorseful that I have been inadvertently engaging in such unacceptable behavior on a space meant to discourage such emotional unintelligence and hearsay-spouting for perennial periods of time. It was inconsiderate of me to do so (me being unaware of the harm I was causing while engaging in this may be taken as an explanation, but not an excuse), and I strife to do better in the future.

Believe me when I say that I am more grateful than words could possibly express for the opportunity of joining this wiki and contributing in meaningful ways to its library's worth of information. It hurts me to realize the kind of inconsiderate actions I was partaking in for so long without listening to criticism, but you have my word when I say that I never want to engage in that again. If by any chance I manage to do something as unproductive and troublesome as this string of "edits" again, I am deeply sorry.

Sincerely, Poopdecktheoverlord (talk) 02:28, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Poopdecktheoverlord, it strikes me that most of your edits are correct, but that is not enough. They seem to suffer from a lack of communication, as do many edits from people with any form of autism (of whom there are many here), however mild. Please note that edit summaries are expected, and especially that sources are not optional. Article talk pages should be used if anyone disputes anything, even if you are sure you are right, in preference to reinstating an edit. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:20, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

User:Haydi123

• Haydi123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I've filed two complaints about this editor, but both times the bot archived my requests. Will any action be taken against this editor? If not, please let me know, otherwise, the bot keeps archiving it, and I'm left unsure about the status of my request. Thank you! ^^

1. First request 2. Second request

Barseghian Lilia (talk) 16:40, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Did they repeat the behaviour from the last ANIs? If not, I don't see what the point of this is. Stockhausenfan (talk) 17:13, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

This is the same ANI, created three times because the bot archives it quickly. Barseghian Lilia (talk) 18:27, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Fur future reference, archival happens after three days of no comments, so if you simply reply to yourself every two days, it will prevent the section from being archived. This would be preferable to recreating the section every time. For third parties, the issue according to Barseghian Lilia is that the editor is POV-pushing in the Armenia-Azerbaijan contentious topic, and some of their edits in that area also seem to have sourcing and copyvio issues. I have not come to a conclusion yet on the merits of the case, I am simply providing a summary of the accusations so that other editors aren't required to look through the archived threads. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:42, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the info ! Barseghian Lilia (talk) 08:14, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Barseghian Lilia (talk) 19:15, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

@Barseghian Lilia You may have more luck posting this at WP:AE. Posts there do not get archived until they are dealt with, and it is better suited to dealing with complex topics. This user is aware of the contentious topic and thus their edits after that notice can be discussed at AE. Toadspike [Talk] 01:34, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

My initial complaint wasn't related to the contentious topic. But if no resolution is reached, I'll forward it to AE. Thanks for the advice! Barseghian Lilia (talk) 08:08, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Barseghian Lilia (talk) 14:10, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Dormant autoconfirmed account awakens to rewrite a semiprotected page with persistent sock issues

• Coshua23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Husain Al-Musallam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive373#Husain Al-Musallam (for further context on IP edits)

This article has been persistently edited by various sockfarms, including, but not limited to, WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Exploreaniii. These edits usually remove the Controversies section.

Recently, some IP editors did that. Daniel Case semiprotected the article after I filed an RfPP. Not even two weeks after that, an editor (registered in 2023, but with no activity for nearly a year) replaces the article with LLM text (which includes none of the information previously in Controversies), with the edit summary falsely claiming that they [a]dded verifiable references and expanded biography details. It is hard to believe this is not undisclosed paid editing. Janhrach (talk) 17:27, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Disruptive editing at Rent Regulation

I am requesting admin attention regarding user Special:Contributions/~2025-35140-62, who has repeatedly removed well-sourced and long-standing content from the Rent regulation article without providing a policy-based rationale and without engaging on the talk page.

The disruptive removals:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rent_regulation&oldid=1324238027
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rent_regulation&oldid=1323550785
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rent_regulation&oldid=1323292074
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rent_regulation&oldid=1323207797

This content has been stable, sourced, and previously discussed. The user is repeatedly deleting it entirely rather than proposing improvements or discussing concerns, contrary to WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS.

I have warned the user on their talk page, but they have continued to revert without explanation. They have not attempted to use the article talk page or respond to discussion prompts.

StalkerFishy (talk) 17:51, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

I've partially blocked them from the article. Star Mississippi 17:53, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Hate creating hostile environment towards Indians and Hindus in 2025 India–Pakistan conflict talk page (2001:BB6:1870:5500:94B7:200A:E293:6818)

Bear in mind also the Streisand effect. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:33, 26 November 2025 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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- I noticed that an editor wrote in the Talk Page of the "2025 India–Pakistan conflict" article "This article is being raided by Pajeet bots " https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2025_India–Pakistan_conflict&diff=prev&oldid=1289279335 "Pajeet" is a hateful slur targeting Indians and Hindus. The usage of such a slur in this article's Talk Page creates a hostile environment for Indian and Hindu Wikipedia editors here. Hate is disruptive editing WP:HATEDISRUPT WP:HATESPEECH WP:HID Usage of slurs like this promote racism WP:NORACISTS Use of slurs and epithets are among Wikipedia's Zero Tolerance edits WP:ZT WP:0T Needless to say such edits also violate Wikipedia guidelines of WP:TALK#POLITE. While the user in question is a fairly inactive account (their only other edit here states that the Talk Page was "laughable") out of an abundance of caution, and to bring light to the issue of anti-Indian hate and Hinduphobia on the site, I am posting this here. I believe that Wikipedia's policies should be enforced where there are clear violations, and I think that this violation is clear. An environment free of hate and personal attacks is necessary for debates and open/free discourse. We cannot think critically when we don't feel safe. I notified the user they are being discussed here on their talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:2001:BB6:1870:5500:94B7:200A:E293:6818 — Preceding unsigned comment added by IronKeyboard (talk • contribs) 21:59, 26 November 2025 (UTC) Thankyou — Preceding unsigned comment added by IronKeyboard (talk • contribs) 21:55, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

While it is regrettable that hate speech sometimes makes its way onto Wikipedia, many editors watch out for and report or remove these comments when they appear, and we do block accounts as appropriate. The edit you linked to was posted six months ago, has long since been removed, and was made by a legacy IP user who we cannot effectively take action against so long after the fact. It's not necessary to "raise awareness" - we all know, and we do the best we can. Please only report current and ongoing incidents to this noticeboard. Thank you. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:03, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

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

KILLGOESE

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.

---

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

Not quite sure what's up with this editor. They keep removing referenced content from Happy Merchant, asserting that it makes no sense [211] [212] or rewriting it according to their own ideas [213], or asserting that the reference isn't valid since it's a book and not online [214]. Meanwhile they're constructing a hypothetical presidential election in their sandbox featuring Nick Fuentes as president. These two things together are not encouraging. I've reverted enough. Acroterion (talk) 03:16, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Check out Groypers, this is a group that likes to use memes and a trolling as a means of spreading white christian nationalism. Nick Fuentes, a meme about Jewish people, obvious trolling on their talk page. It's just another nazi. Groypers are a growing problem on this platform. ~2025-36457-00 (talk) 03:51, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Could it be that they're just new and confused? I'm not saying that what they're doing doesn't raise flags, but I think we should still assume good faith.

That said, I'm not against starting with mild sanctions to make sure that they're understanding the rules and stay on the right track. Wikieditor662 (talk) 03:59, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm not hugely worried about their sandbox since it's also got Bernie Sanders on it & looks like they're just messing about a bit.

Since it's a fictional list of presidents that would never be suitable for inclusion on mainspace it would probably violate Wikipedia:NOTWEBHOST, but the content doesn't strike me as concerning on its face.

The rest of the problems definitely need addressing though.

@KILLGOESE I see that you're continuing to edit as I write this, can you please come to this discussion & we can try to sort this out before it gets too far? Blue Sonnet (talk) 04:38, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

They’re too busy making trivial changes using the MoS as an excuse since Buidhe made them aware of its existence. Acroterion (talk) 04:41, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

I am aware that edit waring is bad. KILLGOESE (talk) 04:43, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

I've blocked them from article space until they constructively address their mass edits on their talkpage or at ANI. Between the userrspace sandbox, the interest in Happy Merchant, the idea that printed books can't be used, and the apparently oppositional mass MoS-justified changes after another editor made them aware of the MoS's existence, I don't feel hopeful about their ability to edit constructively.. Acroterion (talk) 04:56, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

I thought it said "do not change U.S. to US" only in Canadian and English articles, so i only changed American articles.

How am i supposed to fact check something with no source? KILLGOESE (talk) 05:02, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

That's good, but there are other problems with your understanding of reliable sources and verifiability.

Can you please read the two pages I've linked, then check the edits that Acroterion has linked to above, then explain what the problem was and what you'd do differently next time? Blue Sonnet (talk) 05:01, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

where did you link? KILLGOESE (talk) 05:07, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

You can click on the blue text to find the policies you need to read Blue Sonnet (talk) 05:27, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

I think i made a good edit to a very strange part of the "Happy Merchant" article.

I only use the sandbox to understand wikipedia editing, i didn't realise what i put there was a problem for other people, as long as i didn't violate copyright, threats or defemation (which im pretty sure i didn't)

I didn't realise i wasn't supposed to enforce the US rule on old articles KILLGOESE (talk) 05:11, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Re. the sandbox, it's meant for test edits that would be appropriate to add to an article, essay or draft. Since the stuff you added to your sandbox could never become one of those things, it wasn't really appropriate. Sandboxes has fewer rules than the "live" pages, but it's still only really meant for encyclopedic content.

There could also have been a bit of an issue with the fact that you were writing about real, live people. Your sandbox is publicly visible to anyone, so creating an article that talks about when they might die in the future is skirting the line on our living persons (link) policy. Blue Sonnet (talk) 05:56, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

KILLGOESE, please be aware that there is no requirement that cited sources be readily available online, and many of the very best sources are not available online or are behind paywalls. Brick and mortar libraries still exist. Specifically, books published by university presses are usually quite good, and Indiana University Press has published many books about Judaism and the Holocaust, so their expertise regarding antisemitism is not in dispute. Cullen328 (talk) 06:34, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

But what i removed makes no sense. I doubt much thought was put into the sentence. It clearly misses a ton of context. Also just because someone might have a few good sources on some things. It doesn't mean they might not be completly wrong about something else. KILLGOESE (talk) 06:40, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

@KILLGOESE It's the MEME that endorses or reflects the mentioned idea, not the image itself. What you removed does make sense. David10244 (talk) 07:37, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, i agree. KILLGOESE (talk) 18:33, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Given the context, I'd like to raise the question of whether 'Goese' is meant to be read as 'Jews'. ~2025-36568-92 (talk) 11:41, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I had that same question myself, but I wasn't sure enough to bring it up. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:05, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

The KILL part certainly raised my interest in the user, and if I had any level of actionable certainty about the rest they'd have been indeffed from orbit. As it is, I see serious competency issues, leaving the username aside, and as another editor has observed, there is some sort of Groypers thread running through their edits. Acroterion (talk) 14:10, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

I was thinking more like it was intended to read "Kill Gays," once I heard the Groyper reference. Ravenswing 15:05, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Hardly an improvement. Acroterion (talk) 15:11, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Not in any way, shape or form, no. Ravenswing 20:33, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

• Having looked at the edit history: NOTHERE. Nick Fuentes elected president in 2036 [215] is as clear an indicator as anyone could ever hope to see. Trollish Sealioning on an anti-semitic meme is another. And then we have our username, which really isn't too hard to decode, given all that. Carrite (talk) 17:12, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

  I believe you are practically proposing a community ban. I second this. I think a straight-forward administrative block is insufficient. --Yamla (talk) 18:39, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

  What did i do to get banned. What rule did i violate KILLGOESE (talk) 18:50, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

  WP:HID, WP:NONAZIS, WP:USERNAME. --Yamla (talk) 18:52, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

  The reason they propose this is because of WP:NOTHERE. Wikieditor662 (talk) 18:52, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

  What specifically did i do wrong? I can't catch anything here. KILLGOESE (talk) 20:35, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

  Did you read that article? Wikieditor662 (talk) 21:38, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, please say specifically what i did wrong. KILLGOESE (talk) 21:48, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

  What is the meaning of your username? – Muboshgu (talk) 21:58, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

  It has no meaning. "Goose" is a bird which is where i got it from. KILLGOESE (talk) 22:04, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

  So goese is supposed to be a goose, and the word right before is "kill", so it basically says to kill a goose. Why are you named after wanting to kill a goose? Wikieditor662 (talk) 22:12, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

  No? It has nothing do with Killing a goose. My username is "goese" so if anything its "Kill Me" KILLGOESE (talk) 22:28, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

  Would you be open to changing your user name? Mikewem (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

  Why, that just seems unnecessary KILLGOESE (talk) 22:35, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

  But you saaid "goese" means "goose", which would make it "kill goose". How did you get to "kill me"? And I'm not sure that "kill me" is appropriate either... Wikieditor662 (talk) 22:32, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

  It's a username not a message. goese doesn't mean goose. That's where the name comes from. KILLGOESE (talk) 22:35, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

  Well, the users are claiming that you're not actually here to improve Wikipedia, but to troll. Wikieditor662 (talk) 22:13, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

  Well they are wrong. And i don't know who these people are. KILLGOESE (talk) 22:27, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Due to their refusal to entertain changing their user name, I support an indef block as NOTHERE, along with all the other policies that have been cited Mikewem (talk) 22:46, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

What? Is that allowed? Also i already apologised for the mistakes earlier. I try to not repeat them, im a new user.

Can you ban someone for not wanting to change a username? Can you cite the rule that says this?

Thank you. KILLGOESE (talk) 22:51, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

They cited a rule in their reasoning and I've shown you earlier what it meant... Wikieditor662 (talk) 22:53, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! Can you link it? Or say what it is here? KILLGOESE (talk) 22:55, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

This is a waste of contributor time. It is expected that a user that writes things like 'Nick Fuentes elected president in 2036' would proceed to deny anything. INDEF & WP:DENY. Viva la horde, ~ GoatLordServant^(Talk) 22:58, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! I agree im not sure what i am being "blocked" for KILLGOESE (talk) 23:07, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Did you misread what they said? Because you say you agree with them but you also say you dont know what you are being blocked for and they are saying you should be indefinitely blocked. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 23:15, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Can someone explain why people want to block me? What rules did i break? I already said the edit war thing and "U.S." thing was a mistake. Are people not allowed to make mistakes and learn from them? KILLGOESE (talk) 23:18, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Blocked indef for disruptive editing. I didn't quite want to call it NOTHERE, but it was a close call. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:20, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

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

Against-consensus editing/edit warring by user at Glitch Productions & other related articles

• ~2025-34787-74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The TA user ~2025-34787-74 (who has also edited via the temp accounts ~2025-31222-35, ~2025-32378-51, and the IP account 188.163.109.136), has, over a protracted period of time, engaged in edit warring, against-consensus editing, and other disruptive/non-constructive editing. Specifically, this user has been contesting the labeling of web series created by the animation studio Glitch Productions as being "adult animation". This is despite a broad consensus arrived at through multiple talk page discussions in favor of this labeling, in addition to being supported in all of the series articles with reliable sourcing/citation. (The user's focus has primarily been with the series Murder Drones, but also to lesser extents The Amazing Digital Circus and Knights of Guinevere. For the consensus with that series in particular, see the discussions Talk:Murder Drones#Murder Drones, Talk:Murder Drones#Is Murder drones an adult show?, and Talk:Murder Drones#Third time this is being addressed. For The Amazing Digital Circus, see the two discussions found under Talk:The Amazing Digital Circus/Archive 1#Adult animated?.)

This user has largely failed to constructively participate with talk page discussion over this issue, simply asserting that they are correct & continuing to edit war, rather than meaningfully attempting to engage with the consensus or with points raised by other editors. They have also at times resorted to personal attacks (such as [216] and [217]), along with the removal of discussions/other editor's comments (such as [218] and [219]). This behavior previously led to the user receiving a 1 year block from editing the Murder Drones article. However, this user has continued edit warring on other related pages, primarily the Glitch Productions article, where they have repeatedly attempted to remove the page from the "Adult animation studios" category. This user has received several user talk notices/warnings ([220] [221] [222]) regarding their editing of the Glitch Productions article, but has nonetheless continued their editing behavior. — Jamie Eilat (talk) 18:00, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

I have also interacted with this editor. Semi-protection on the whole slew of targeted articles might work. Viva la horde, ~ GoatLordServant^(Talk) 22:32, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Note: the IP was used before TAs were a thing, so the clear behavioral evidence makes it OK to match with the TAs here, and as noted their IP was pblocked from Murder Drones for one year back in July for exactly this behavior, after they were fully blocked for three months last March. Given this has not resolved the issue and it appears to be spreading, I have blocked the TA for disruptive editing. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:40, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for finally resolving this long-term disruption. I kind of agree with GoatLordServant that semi-protection to some of the articles should be merited. Thanks, 1isall (he/him) (talk | contribs) 01:46, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

If the block doesn't help, semiprotection would be the next step, but if it can be avoided that is preferable. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:57, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

I guess we'll settle for that plan, then. Thanks, 1isall (he/him) (talk | contribs) 02:59, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

~2025-34735-13

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:~2025-34735-13 is a single-purpose account that continues to engage in COI editing, removing sourced content etc. Greenman (talk) 18:06, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

User is now engaging in vandalism, see this edit. Greenman (talk) 19:08, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

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

Removal of another editor's edit in a 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.

---

750h+ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) reverted my own edit on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring page.[223]. That is never allowed on Wikipedia except in rare cases such as removing personal information about an editor. I'm notifying this board since this seems to be its own infraction (in addition to the edit-warring and 3RR issues). Israell (talk) 05:26, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

The relevant guideline here is WP:TPO. 11WB (talk) 07:08, 27 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 Vandalism by ~2025-32314-67

User:~2025-32314-67 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/~2025-32314-67) repeatedly adding misinformation (despite several reverts) in 2 articles. Articles include 1000 Crore Club and List of highest-grossing Indian films in overseas markets.

4Pas (talk) 20:06, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

@4Pas You need to notify the editor of the discussion and provide specific diffs of each edit as per the notice at the top of this page and when you submitted your report.

I'll notify them for you, so can you please provide diffs, this way we don't need to go hunting to find out what you're referring to? Blue Sonnet (talk) 02:42, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

@Blue Sonnet Thank you. The editor has been constantly increasing the box office figures of Pushpa 2 in both articles to 1.5-2 times the actual figure mentioned by the source, and is also increasing the figures for every country in the overseas article.

I don't seem to have access to their talk page. 4Pas (talk) 04:36, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Here you go! Blue Sonnet (talk) 13:49, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

User:Mig267$s

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

---

Mig267$s (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This users entire presence on Wikipedia consists of unsourced and/or undiscussed changes to genres of specific albums and songs. I don't feel the need to cite specific revisions here as their entire contributions page is genre edits [224]. Any and all edits there will back up what I am saying here. Although if you do want the specific edits that brought me to reporting them in the first place, it's those to I Brought You My Bullets, You Brought Me Your Love and it's songs Demolition Lovers and Skylines and Turnstiles. They also continue this despite multiple warnings from editors in the past (see the user's talk page). Per WP:GENREWARRIOR, I believe that this user is WP:NOTHERE and should likely be blocked. λ NegativeMP1 20:29, 27 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.

New user adding made-up / machine generated content and refs to articles

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.

---

Steve Maldonado Barros (talk · contribs · count) has made 3 recent edits, adding similar but fake content to 3 British footballers. Each uses fake quotes and fake refs that each has apparently made about a fourth player (Dean Huijsen). They purport that he (Huijsen) has played for teams that he was never a member of and use references that do not exist. All of the content / refs / edit summaries come across as machine generated / automated. Not sure of the veracity of the content added in their first, unrelated edit, but that again used a fake reference. Spike 'em (talk) 10:23, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

The overly-verbose edit summaries that look like a reply from AI, plus the use of and em-dashes are raising red flags. Unfortunately the text is too short to reliably analyse and I'm getting conflicting results from checkers...

I'm also suspecting AI because the last quote mark is missing, which would happen if you're cutting and pasting without paying attention. Blue Sonnet (talk) 14:14, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Whether AI is involved in this seems irrelevant to me. If the sources are fake, this is outright vandalism, and needs to be treated accordingly. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:41, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Oh yeah definitely - I agree that they're NOTHERE & seem to be creating some sort of fanfiction, almost. Blue Sonnet (talk) 16:01, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, my biggest concern was the outright fakeness of the content. Whether it is an AI project or just a flight of fancy, the end result is the same. Spike 'em (talk) 16:13, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

• Indef'd as WP:NOTHERE. A very good explanation would need to be given to be unblocked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:44, 27 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.

Chungli Ao language phonology charts

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.

---

• Chungli Ao language (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Oklopfer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Kwamikagami (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

These users continually strongly insist that we legitimately base the phonological charts of this article off of a source that is a bit dated and also poorly written when it came to the articulation of the palatal consonants, and also a had listed a supposed "retroflex lateral fricative" that is clearly non-existent according to the newer sources. They keep insisting we literally base the chart off of the old source's word-for-word description of the palatal consonant sounds (which they insist is a pure-palatal stop /cç/, /si/ allophone being a pure-palatal fricative [ç]). When meanwhile, newer sources (like Temsunungsang, 2021; Bruhn, 2010) list the sounds as palato-alveolar /tʃ/, [ʃ], and the supposed "retroflex lateral fricative" actually being an alveolar approximant /ɹ/. But yet any newer source I point too, they immediately criticize and delegitimize, just because the sources are not written like they would be as a phonological-description, like the main source they keep pointing to (Gowda 1972). Sure it would be much better if the newer sources were a phonological-description, but the more I imply that we should "work with what we have at the moment", the more they get pedantic and resistant and continue to promote the transcriptions of the older and poorly-written source. I have listened to several different speakers of the language, and based off of the audio, their pronunciation exactly matches what the newer sources state, rather than what the older sources state. Any assistance from an admin here would be quite helpful to solve this conundrum. Fdom5997 (talk) 19:32, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

I highly doubt this report is in good faith considering this was the last message the reporting user left on the talk page: Special:Diff/1324214591

They were previously blocked for similar belligerent behavior whenever any of their work has been challenged. Dr Temsunungsang has been reached out to directly to get clarification, but this user is instead stirring the pot, rather than being patient. This to me seems like it should have been a request for comment to resolve the dispute, not an AN/I. Overall, they do not appear to be here for consensus building.

Also has continuously tried to 'win' through exhaustion, consistently saying things along the lines of "concede already":

Special:Diff/1324018092

Special:Diff/1324019982

Special:Diff/1324030589

See the previous AN/I report for other examples of the reporter hounding, both from myself and other users. ~ oklopfer (💬) 19:50, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Also, the sources use palato-alveolar symbols, but remain describing them fully palatal. Sources are being misrepresented in this very report to try to make a point. ~ oklopfer (💬) 20:13, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Also, total lie. Those sources do not describe them as “purely palatal”. And if they write the symbol, then that gives more of an answer as to what the sounds are. Fdom5997 (talk) 01:20, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Temsunungsang (2021) calls it a palatal affricate, not palato-alveolar. The top of International Phonetic Alphabet#Description explains why you're incorrect about symbol usage. ~ oklopfer (💬) 01:32, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

This just screams of being a content dispute. BrandNewSaint (talk) 20:32, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

So should we move it to DRN? Fdom5997 (talk) 20:43, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

To think I actually enjoyed studying phonology as part of an undergraduate degree in linguistics in the 1970s. It doesn't look as if anyone could enjoy it now. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:05, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

A real shame. My exact point. Here, it's like everything has to be right-by-the-book, without any other interpretations or ideas. Why can't we just relax and work with what we also have for sources? Fdom5997 (talk) 21:44, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

WP:ENC. With this comment, combined with the examples I provided above of your behavior, you seem to be showing you are WP:NOTHERE. ~ oklopfer (💬) 23:15, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

I think you need to keep quiet and let the past be by-gones. Fdom5997 (talk) 00:24, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

I recommend you stand by your own words then. You are showing your blatant incivility on the worst page to be showing it. ~ oklopfer (💬) 01:33, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Yup, I'm wondering how long before it becomes a contentious topic, considering how often phonology disputes are brought to ANI.

@Fdom5997 this really does look like a content dispute and not a long-term, chronic behavioural issue that can't be dealt with at another forum such as requesting a third opinion or dispute resolution.

ANI can't help with content disputes and it looks like you have those quite often. Blue Sonnet (talk) 02:34, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

OP has made a duplicate post at AN and continues the dispute over there. I've reiterated my post above re. appropriate dispute resolution methods. Blue Sonnet (talk) 16:50, 27 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:MWFwiki

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.

Report concerning user: MWFwiki I am requesting administrator attention regarding ongoing disruptive editing by User:MWFwiki on the Las Vegas City Marshals article. Over the past several days, the user has repeatedly removed large sections of well-sourced content, including material supported by reputable news outlets and local media investigations. Multiple editors—including registered users and long-standing IP contributors—worked on the article prior to this user’s involvement, and the removed content had been stable and properly cited. Although the user has responded on the article’s talk page, he has not addressed the concerns raised by other editors and continues to restore his preferred version of the article without consensus. The edits demonstrate a clear pattern of disregarding policy-based objections and treating the page as though it may be edited solely according to his personal viewpoint. Additionally, the user’s own user page openly states that he is currently employed in law enforcement, which creates an apparent conflict of interest, given that the article concerns a law enforcement agency and that his edits consistently remove content reflecting negatively on the department. His edits show a persistent pattern of inserting or restoring pro-agency bias and removing reliably sourced criticism. Because of the ongoing disruption, repeated removal of sourced material, apparent conflict of interest, and refusal to follow consensus or engage constructively, administrator intervention is requested. Several editors and IP contributors had worked collaboratively on this page before this user began editing, and the disruptions are now preventing normal article development. Thank you for reviewing this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2025-36886-64 (talk) 22:34, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

1.This editor has failed to notify me of this report, as required.
2. I was preparing my own conduct report:

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

3. As extensively laid-out in the Talk page, I was addressing non-neutral langauge, WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS concerns, etc. I readily admit I should not have gotten into the legal arguments.

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

Happy to provide more information if so requested. Cheers

5. I would request appropriate conduct sanctions and a reversion to this diff + low-level, short-term protection for the article in-question. (Protection has been requested seperately, FYI! linky)

MWFwiki (talk) 22:42, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Prior to your edits, there have been no biased content added to the page. Every single paragraph on that page had at least one reference to a reliable source. Many of the paragraphs had upwards of five sources, all saying the same thing to reference the paragraph. On the talk page, you delve into your own legal conclusions and as a law-enforcement officer, you have taken the position that the City is going to win all of these lawsuits that are filed against it. With that in mind, you removed a significant number of the paragraphs containing sourced content. While I agree that the article is overwhelmingly negative against this particular law-enforcement agency, that is what the current situation of the department is. There isn’t very much positive content about the department. If you go to any of the local news stations and search for the department name, all you will find is negative content. The article reflects exactly what the reliable sources are saying. You have done your own legal research and you have stated on the talk page that you did your own research into Nevada laws and drawn conclusions on why you think that the News organizations that have reported on this law-enforcement agency are wrong. You’re basically conducting your own legal research and original reporting, and combining it with your own pro law enforcement bias in an attempt to remove all negative content about the article and inject positive content into the article. You then are filing false reports like this one and the one that you have filed to request page protection to keep the many other IP based editors from restoring the article to the original state that it has been in. The article has remained mostly the same for over six months of this year, and then you showed up and started making massive edits to the article and removing all of the properly sourced content in favor of your own conclusions. ~2025-36886-64 (talk) 22:50, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

You have done your own legal research and you have stated on the talk page that you did your own research into Nevada laws and drawn conclusions on why you think that the News organizations that have reported on this law-enforcement agency are wrong. Could you provide some links to diffs of this?

@MWFwiki Is this true? WP:No original research is a very important policy. Athanelar (talk) 22:52, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

No, absolutely not. As I explained in my response above, I engaged in some legal discussion on the Talk page (where I admitted several times that I felt the plaintiffs had a good case in SOME regards and that I believed the agency was "rotten") and I acknowledge I should not have done so at all. However; My opinions on the legal cases had absolutely no bearing on my editing one way or the other. If you'll note, the diff I settled-on still mentions the cases, sans non-neutral language and unnecessary opining. MWFwiki (talk) 22:57, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Please see the article talk page. This user has engaged in a lengthy discussion where he states what he thinks that the “primary” and “general” jurisdiction of this law-enforcement agency is. None of that is backed up by any sources. The user has also stated on the talk page that he is convinced that recent lawsuits against this police department will be resolved in favor of the department. He is also removed significant amount of content about those lawsuits from the page, despite some of those lawsuits, having as many as five different news articles cited as sources. ~2025-36886-64 (talk) 22:58, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

So the substance of this is a content dispute, then, not a behavioural dispute. If that's the case it doesn't belong at ANI, and you should instead post at the WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard or WP:Third opinion forum to seek outside opinions to settle the content dispute. Athanelar (talk) 23:07, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

May I have my reply above this serve as my own conduct dispute report or would you prefer I create a new one, Athanelar? MWFwiki (talk) 23:11, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

If you have your own conduct complaint to make then yes, file it separately, as if no admin/other editor comes along to comment on this one in due time then I'm going to close it as a content dispute. Athanelar (talk) 23:15, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Will do, cheers, thank you for your time on this auspicious of evenings, lol. MWFwiki (talk) 23:17, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Just for the sake of rubber-stamping this neatly, let me also properly remind both you and @~2025-36886-64 to be mindful of edit warring. Seek a third opinion at WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard or WP:Third opinion and refrain from arguing and edit warring in the meantime until you get some input from an uninvolved editor. Athanelar (talk) 23:21, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

You have filed a report against me on WP:RPP and stated that you were going to file one here. You attempted to do that and found where I had already filed one. My suggestion is to close both reports in both places, and take the discussion about the edits to the talk page where it belongs. My short-term solution to this edit conflict is to leave all of the properly sourced content on the article as it is, and since you seem to want to introduce positivity to the article in favor of law-enforcement, I have no problem with you finding more positive, law-enforcement, friendly content that you can add to the article to balance out the sentiment of the article. But, I would have already done that if there was any such content. This article is the way it is because there just isn’t anything positive that has been said about this police department. ~2025-36886-64 (talk) 23:21, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

This user has attempted to request page protection multiple times for the page in order to keep IP users from editing the page. It appears that this is being done to silence. The other voices who are constructively editing the article and using reliable sources. If he succeeds with this, he will effectively be removing all of the properly sourced content so that his edits are the only ones that will be able to be made, and the article will be completely biased as his edits have shown. The request for page Protection is not to be abused in this way in order to silence a collection of edit conflicts. I believe that all of the content that the page currently has is proper and is well sourced. Although it is negative, that does not mean that it should not be on Wikipedia. I have encouraged this user to add his own content and find sources that balance the page out instead of simply removing all of the properly sourced negative content, and then adding his own positive content, and then attempting to have the page protected in a wrongful way to silence anyone else from adding negative content to the article. ~2025-36886-64 (talk) 23:04, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

This appears to be a content dispute dovetailed into an edit war. The sourced criticism seems overly detailed. wp:dropthestick Augmented Seventh (talk) 23:15, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Have you been interacting with this matter on any other temporary accounts? The TA you're currently contributing from seems quite fresh. This would be useful to know so we can assess the situation in full. Athanelar (talk) 22:47, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

I have only been interacting with the article today. But I see that several other IP based users have been interacting with the article also. ~2025-36886-64 (talk) 22:53, 27 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:Hansen Sebastian and long-term violation of MOS:NOPIPE

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.

---

• Hansen Sebastian (talk · contribs)

Violation of MOS:NOPIPE (including WP:NOTBROKEN, and WP:NOPIPEDLINK) since 2019 at least. Recievied several talk page messages and warnings during all these years: January 2019[225], October 2019[226], October[227] and November 2022[228], May 2023[229], and Februray 2025[230]. Never replied to any of those messages.

Recent examples of MOS violation: [231][232][233][234]

The odd thing is that he is aware of redirects[235], and he himself created 1000+ redirects.[236] But he still converts working and fine redirects to unnecessary piped links. Farming redirects but ignoring MOS?! His behavior is disruptive and WP:CIR especially because he is not an inexperienced user (21,000+ edits and registered user since January 2012). He just ignored all those messages on his talk page, and he always ignores edit summaries by other editors who revert his edits. --Mann Mann (talk) 18:36, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Seems like he's been blocked from article space, hope he responds through here. BrandNewSaint (talk) 19:52, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in reporting here. I have blocked this editor indefinitely from editing article space. This is a result of their disruptive editing, specifically repeated violations of MOS:NOPIPE despite being advised and warned at least six times per this WP:ANI report. In order to be unblocked, they will need to explain their understanding of the Manual of Style guideline and make a commitment to follow it. They have been advised to read the Guide to appealing blocks. Cullen328 (talk) 21:07, 27 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.

Citation bot unblock

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 that citation bot should remain blocked in article space, but should be allowed in user space. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:39, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

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

Remove TPA

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 truth about artificial intelligence (talk · contribs · count) is an LTA, needs TPA removed. Z E T A^C 16:11, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

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

~2025-37425-75 seems to be WP:NOTHERE

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

---

this IP Address is making again and again disruptive edits in Political Globalization. I think I don't need to refer diffs. All edits (or more recentes) are in the page. PixelWhite (talk) 21:11, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

They've made a total of 2 edits, both look like editing tests, and both were reverted. Thanks for the report, but this is a long way off from needing admin attention. In the future, simple vandalism should be reported at WP:AIV for a faster response. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:10, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: Okay, thanks. PixelWhite (talk) 22:22, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

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

Anon user, possible vandalism

user:~2025-32626-56 appears to be engaged in chronic, low-level vandalism, such as deleting the stress from the pronunciations of words or otherwise changing the pronunciation to be slightly incorrect. Not reporting them at AIV because I'm not sure it is vandalism rather than incompetence. They've been warned several times; their response to my warning was just "you're a loser," then posting a thread on my talk page asking "Have you ever played Chess -- Cause I've played Chess." — kwami (talk) 05:52, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

See also [237] and the accounts/IPs associated with that. The relevant range has been blocked a few times. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 06:48, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Priyankaarya2025

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.

---

Priyankaarya2025 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · blacklist hits · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

The user has been observed replacing dead links/pages, however, the majority of the substitute links provided/replaced appear to at fault. The edits suggest that the user is selecting the nearest available link rather than conducting adequate research to ensure the validity and relevance of the replacement URLs/article before insertion into the articles.

[238] Original article is about Croatian military 5th Guards Brigade (Croatia) -> 5th Guards Tank Brigade Russian military unit

[239] Original article is about Australia military Southern Command (Australia)| -> Southern Command (India)| India military unit

[240] Original article is about Australia military 6th Field Regiment (Australia) -> 6th Field Artillery Regiment USA military unit

[241] Added link directly onto articles

[242] Music Society of Victoria -> Music Victoria

[243] Salaam Network -> website linked directly onto Salaam Network

The disruptive editing pattern persists across most articles user has contributed. I hope that the user will engage in discussion on this noticeboard to resolve the issue collaboratively. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GZhong (talk • contribs) 17:07, 27 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 attack by ~2025-36275-81

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.

---

At this diff (Special:Diff/1324063730), this temp account called another editor a "shitalian". The personal attack is still on the talk page and is this account's only edit. RaschenTechner (talk) 13:43, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

OK, well, you can remove the comment since you've pointed out that it's still there, then then warn the editor. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:15, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

User warned. RaschenTechner (talk) 14:22, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

I also removed the PA from the talk page. RaschenTechner (talk) 14:28, 28 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.

Suspected outing violation

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.

---

Is this an outing violation? ~2025-37089-43 (talk) 15:29, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Have you notified the user(s) of this ANI report?

I don't get it. Are you saying that VFP is outing someone by suggesting that userX@platformA is the same as userY@platformB, where both platforms are off-wiki? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:41, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

I don't see how it could be, our outing policy concerns revealing personal information of a Wikipedia editor, and I don't see one named there. You're not using a temporary account sock to participate in project discussions, are you? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:21, 28 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.

Long-term targeted vandalism and defamation of The Vacant Lots and Jared Artaud pages by “Zane Dyer” and multiple temporary/IP 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.

---

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.

The pages The Vacant Lots and Jared Artaud have been targeted for over six months (May 2025–present) by a series of temporary accounts, IPv6 ranges, and now the registered account Zane Dyer. The pattern consists of:

• Removal of sourced, stable biographical content • Inserting unsourced or defamatory claims • Personal attacks against the subject and against good-faith editors • False “fact-checking” summaries used to justify disruptive edits • Repeated blanking of content • Hostile commentary (“biased”, “shady”, “not a poet”, etc.) • Defamatory claims (“Jared Artaud is posing as alias Cannery Row”, “spreading disinformation for personal gain”) • Ignoring warnings and repeated reversions by multiple editors

The same behavior has continued across **Zane Dyer** and the following temporary/IP accounts:

• 2A00:23C6:2B34:D001:36:2F15:3385:9A2 • 2A00:23C6:2B34:D001:D35A:B0D1:86ED:FC53 • 2A00:23C6:2B2C:5901:2713:A3C3:D035:E523 • ~2025-33757-96 • ~2025-33807-74 • ~2025-31273-04 • ~2025-37155-56

All of these accounts targeted **the exact same two articles** in the same way, across many months, with escalating hostility in November 2025.

Examples of repeated behavior:

• November 2025: ~2025-31273-04 inserted defamatory claims (“Jared Artaud is posing as alias Cannery Row”, “spreading disinformation for personal gain”), removed sourced descriptors, and attacked editors. • October–November 2025: temporary accounts repeatedly removed the sourced occupation “poet” despite multiple reversions and warnings. • May 2025: 2A00:23C6:2B34:D001:36:2F15:3385:9A2 made multiple hostile, unsourced edits on both articles, all reverted by multiple editors. • June 2025: A prior SPI case involving this pattern was confirmed.

The newly registered account Zane Dyer has now continued the same pattern by blanking sourced content and removing large sections without explanation, matching the behavior of the previous temporary/IP accounts.

Evidence

• Zane Dyer contributions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Zane_Dyer

• Temporary/IP accounts continuing the same pattern: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2A00:23C6:2B34:D001:36:2F15:3385:9A2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2A00:23C6:2B34:D001:D35A:B0D1:86ED:FC53 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2A00:23C6:2B2C:5901:2713:A3C3:D035:E523 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/~2025-33757-96 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/~2025-33807-74 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/~2025-31273-04 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/~2025-37155-56

Request

• Administrative action for long-term disruptive behavior, potential defamation, and evasion through rotating temporary accounts and the registered account “Zane Dyer”. • Consider semi-protecting The Vacant Lots due to ongoing targeted misuse. • Any additional enforcement deemed appropriate.

~2025-37392-47 (talk) 11:13, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Firstly, are you related to the band and person? If so, then you have a conflict of interest and therefore cannot be neutral on this topic. Secondly, did you use any Temp accounts before? Thirdly, this report seems to be LLM generated. Please write with your own words and provide diffs because no one is going to dig through every contributions list here. Some of these IPs did barely anything and Zane seems to be doing some trimming to the article. Some of these TAs are seemingly completely unrelated to The Vacant Lots. Did you use the temporary account ~2025-37155-56 before?. I see you haven’t notified Zane Dyer. That is required. ~2025-31733-18 (talk) 11:52, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

The reporter is obviously Cannery Row (talk · contribs), who was indef'd for Ignoring questions about paid editing, repeated improper reports, eg vandalism sockpuppetry etc. Pinging @Rsjaffe. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 13:02, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

I have notified then for you. ~2025-31733-18 (talk) 11:55, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

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

Poopooeer revoke TPA

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.

---

Poopooeer (talk · contribs · count) has been blocked for vandalism and clearly is not doing anything constructive on their talk page. --みんな空の下 (トーク) 07:52, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm not an admin but I reverted that last edit. Hopefully they'll be distracted by something shiny and go do anything else. Blue Sonnet (talk) 13:55, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

I've removed TPA. Secretlondon (talk) 15:10, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

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

Revoke TPA for Critical AI Review

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.

---

Critical AI Review (talk · contribs · count) has been blocked for vandalism and clearly is not doing anything constructive on their talk page. TornadoLGS (talk) 03:33, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Number 2 with no TPA lmao Tankishguy 03:34, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

but it's an lta Tankishguy 03:35, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

TPA revoked by Hammersoft. TornadoLGS (talk) 03:36, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

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

User:Guest88

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.

---

Guest88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Overall, the user makes obvious mass vandalistic unsourced edits that look like fantasy and/or misinformation ("Both Ali Khamenei and Masoud Pezeshkian was killed by bomb", Pro-European New People position and its even membership in ALDE). But what prompted me to write here is their weird behavior regarding other users, including myself: constant tagging of random editors with some strange goals (1, 2, 3, 4) (I honestly can't understand the user's goals because of their poor English). I personally asked this user not to ping me, but it looks like I was ignored. User was warned about the edit war two days ago, and warned many times not to tag random people.  PLATEL  (talk) 15:53, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

I have also had issues with this editor. Aside from edit warring, not understanding how consensus works (despite me linking the policy to them), not understanding how sourcing works, having very poor English, and using (incorrect) speculation about the future to push for ideology changes, if nothing else this user suffers from significant WP:CIR issues. — Czello ^(music) 16:03, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Not sure if this is a WP:CIR or WP:NOTHERE issue (or maybe both), but all I've ever seen them do is add unsourced and somewhat dubious claims on party ideologies and positions. I'd support a topic ban from politics at a minimum but an indef is possibly justified given they've ignored repeated warnings and requests to stop. Number 57 16:15, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

A TBAN would have to be built on community consensus and would frankly just be a waste of time. I don't think this person has the competence to involve themselves in this project. I could easily see NOTHERE as well. See their posts on my talk. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 16:21, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Also their poor English skills and apparent inability to articulate their points on discussion pages certainly qualifies as WP:CIR in my opinion. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 16:26, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Agree there's a significant CIR issue, sadly I can't see any way they can become a competent editor no matter how much assistance or coaching they may get (e.g. mentor). Every single article edit has been reverted, not one was suitable for inclusion so a TBAN would be pointless. They're also using Talk pages as a discussion forum. Blue Sonnet (talk) 16:39, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Support CIR block, and the user is also not here to build an encyclopedia but to immerse themselves in fictitious narratives concerning politics and ideology. —Alalch E. 16:59, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

+1 Please indef. They're wasting their own time and (probably) getting stressed out because they don't understand what's happening, as is everyone else who has to clean up after them. Blue Sonnet (talk) 17:15, 29 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 unsourced additions, failure to communicate by Ryyu0907

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.

---

Ryyu0907 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

For just over a year, Ryyu0907 has persistently introduced unsourced materials to various Shinkansen-related articles (set 1, set 2, set 3, set 4). The first set of revisions comprises 18 (!!!) consecutive edits. I've issued warnings for many of these, but they have not responded to any concerns about their editing. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 14:33, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

They've never used a talk page of any sort and have only ever edited that one page in the past year. Perhaps a block from that article to get their attention may be warranted? Blue Sonnet (talk) 14:42, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

I've partially blocked them from article space and will leave a longer note on their Talk. They edit too irregularly for a time delineated block to be helpful. Star Mississippi 17:31, 29 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.

Conduct concerns regarding 331dot and Helpful Raccoon in AfC 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.

---

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 requesting administrative review of conduct by 331dot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and, to a lesser extent, Helpful Raccoon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) during a discussion at Draft:Solstice (1993 film) and the associated AfC Help Desk thread.

The original discussion concerned whether WP:NFILM or WP:GNG applied to the draft. My goal has been to ensure that the correct subject-specific guideline was being used. Unfortunately, the discussion escalated into repeated personal accusations and disruptive conduct.

I have attempted to remain calm and policy-focused throughout.

Below are specific issues, with diffs:

---

1. 1. 🔴 1. Unfounded accusations of undisclosed paid editing (331dot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log))

331dot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) repeatedly asserted, without evidence, that I was an undisclosed paid editor in violation of the Terms of Use, despite my COI disclosure being visible on my user page and despite clarification.

1. 1. 1. Examples (diffs):

• • a. Accusation of undisclosed financial stake**

> “The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial > stake in promoting a topic...” DIFF: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BruceKing36&diff=1324725248&oldid=1324661596

• • b. Directive to stop editing**

> “Please do not edit further until you answer this message.” DIFF: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BruceKing36&diff=1324725248&oldid=1324661596

• • c. Claiming my edits constitute a Terms-of-Use violation**

> “Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies … and is akin to black-hat SEO.” DIFF: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BruceKing36&diff=1324725248&oldid=1324661596

These statements appear to violate: • WP:NPA • WP:AGF • WP:HARASS • WP:PAID (misuse of paid-editing accusations) • WP:OWN (attempting to control another user's editing)

I am not receiving compensation of any kind, and I have complied with WP:COI.

---

1. 1. 🔴 2. Escalation and personal accusations by Helpful Raccoon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Helpful Raccoon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) further escalated the situation at the AfC Help Desk by making personal accusations and asserting incorrect statements about guideline content.

1. 1. 1. Examples (diffs):

• • a. Accusation of “using AI” to communicate**

> “Please stop using AI to talk to us...” DIFF: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&diff=1324724843&oldid=1324709848

• • b. Incorrect claim that the NFILM guideline does not contain language I quoted**

> “The page Wikipedia:Notability (films) does not contain anything close to the phrase ‘had a national broadcast on a major television or cable network.’” DIFF: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&diff=1324724843&oldid=1324709848

These behaviors appear inconsistent with: • WP:AGF • WP:NPA • WP:CIVIL • WP:DISPUTE resolution norms

---

1. 1. 🧩 3. Context

My involvement has been limited to ensuring that WP:NFILM — the relevant guideline for film notability — was correctly applied. The language in question is:

> “A film is presumed notable if it had a national broadcast on a major > television or cable network.”

The escalation into personal accusations and paid-editing allegations occurred only when I attempted to clarify policy.

---

1. 1. 📌 Request

I respectfully request:

1. Administrative review of 331dot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)’s repeated paid-editing accusations and directives to stop editing. 2. Administrative review of Helpful Raccoon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)’s escalation and personal accusations. 3. Guidance to prevent further misuse of paid-editing allegations in content discussions. 4. Clarification that regular editors may not instruct others to cease editing.

Thank you for your time. BruceKing36 (talk) 07:24, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Using an LLM to respond to accusations of using an LLM is not a good idea, to put it mildly. You have either used an LLM that has misinterpreted WP:NFILM, or you have misinterpreted NFILM. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 07:35, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

I have notified 331dot and Helpful Raccoon of this discussion, which is what you were supposed to do. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 07:40, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

I have collapsed the LLM-defecated posting per WP:AITALK. DoubleCross (‡) 07:44, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Interested readers may wish to take a quick look at the complainant's talk page. TL;DNR = user has declared COI, saying they work at the behest of the film's production company, but refuses to disclose PAID. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:45, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

And here's the AFCHELP thread. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 07:49, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Paid aside, I think it's fair to say if someone with a COI in trying to get their article on Wikipedia, claims one of our guidelines says something it doesn't and when challenged on insists it does and cites a section which doesn't even exist, they're WP:NOTHERE. Editors shouldn't have to waste time with that craziness. We've spent more time on this than the editor has spent actually reading the guideline they or their LLM keep citing. Nil Einne (talk) 08:47, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

On their user talk page they state "This account, Bruce King, is used by an editor acting with explicit permission from Nitestar Productions, Inc. regarding the 1994 film Solstice." They either are a paid editor or have a very strong COI here. 331dot (talk) 09:26, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

The misconduct by BruceKing36 in this matter is wide ranging. Perhaps most serious is that they (or their robot writing assistant) have hallucinated a notability guideline tailor made for their pet project. They have argued forcefully for approval of what is a very poorly referenced draft. They have an admitted conflict of interest and apparently had some professional role in making this film which has been re-released a number of times over the years. Instead of simply making the WP:PAID disclosure, they have chosen the path of incompetent wikilawyering and casting aspersions against the uninvolved, highly experienced editors struggling to protect the encyclopedia from promotional dreck. Unless this editor engages in a major course correction immediately, I suspect that an indefinite block will be the outcome. Cullen328 (talk) 09:35, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

They have indeed been indefinitely blocked by Toadspike. ~2025-37150-11 (talk) 10:12, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

• Comment: @331dot and @Helpful Raccoon are exceptionally experienced editors on the project and in this instance have done absolutely nothing wrong. In fact, I respect their patience despite having to repeat themselves so many times over at the AfC Help desk discussion. This AN/I is pretty ridiculous and reflects badly on the filer, not the accused. 11WB (talk) 10:09, 29 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:HarvxstBitter

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.

---

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

My first interaction with this new contributor was in relation to the Morality article, where they had added a section entitled 'the physics of morality', [246] which though it cites a few sources, certainly isn't summarising them, instead consisting of some sort of personal narrative/lecture to the reader (e.g. morality undermines physics (and you are morally “responsible” for your reading this.). Much of it makes no sense whatsoever (e.g. Lifting the dancing ban would have to be the work of a “leave the lab” super-physics, but not just any hypothetical leave-the-lab super-physics, but a bona fide “shut up and calculate” outside the lab, functional “on the fly,”. Needless to say, I reverted this bizarre edit, and informed HarvxstBitter that None of it is even remotely compatible With Wikipedia's policies, guidelines, or objectives, on the article talk page.

On said page, HarvxstBitter had already started a thread, bizarrely entitled We (g%ds) are actively self-determinate, (actively) constituting our morality from the non-negotiable interpersonal constraints thereof; <$>live</$>: [247] which asks not to be reverted. Though this starts off in a conciliatory manner, it soon devolves into what I can only describe as an apparent contemptuousness towards the very idea of a cooperative project, based around the summarising of sources: I am going to make an edit to the entry, though, ultimately, I would love to see a massive re-writing of Wikipedia! The church of scientism has taken the term “encyclopedic,” but encyclopedic never inked any exclusivity deal with the church of scientism. Fair fights: the church of scientism loses fair fights. I would love to co-offer a personalist Wikipedia to the world!! In fact, it would be a real tragedy if we take no drastic personalist turn, soon. Wikipedia does not have to adopt physicalism to remain reasonable, reliable, scientific, and encyclopedic. Personalism is all of those, but more. It goes on later with more of the same %We would like to re-write Wikipedia through a process of fair fighting. Fighting: for <$>the dignity of the person</$>. (Or at least: “sup? (to the era of future history that that sentiment is popular with?)) In morality, people deserve reverence a priori. How should each entry reflect that a priori reverence?.

HarvxstBitter's response to my post where I repeated what I'd said in my edit summary None of this is even remotely compatible With Wikipedia's policies, guidelines, or objectives. See WP:NOTFORUM and start a blog somewhere. You WILL NOT be permitted to edit the article in this manner. was a simple diff link to my revert, labelled 'Heard'. Given this rather dismissive response, I posted a longer version of my comments on HarvxstBitter's talk page, which had precisely the same response.

As should already be apparent, in addition to apparently wishing to rewrite Wikipedia entirely to suit a personal philosophy, HarvxstBitter seems to have similar objectives for the English language, scattering bizarre pseudo-markup liberally amongst edit summaries and talk page comments, with utter disregard for readability. Perhaps the worst of this can be seen in edit summaries however, which seem to be written as some exercise in cryptoanalysis for the reader, when they don't consist of random links to YouTube videos. If this isn't intentionally disruptive to communication, it is a demonstration of contempt for those who are obliged to try to make sense of it, displayed through almost the entire editing history. [248]

Given this contempt for the essentials of a cooperative project - which start with communication - I started a second thread on HarvxstBitter's talk page, [249] informing them, after a bit of too-and-fro discussion (on my part) and gibberish (on HarvxstBitter's) that if I see any more of this crap in edit summaries, on talk pages, or anywhere else where other contributors might reasonably expect to read it, I am going to bring up your behaviour (not just this, but your more general attitude towards Wikipedia, which seems to involve thinking you can somehow impose your will on the entire project...) at WP:ANI. Which was responded to by HarvxstBitter with Physics can’t defy G%d’s will, but m3n remain free to do so. - not a conciliatory response under the circumstances, if it can be considered an actual response at all.

Cutting to the chase here, I see nothing in HarvxstBitter's responses that remotely suggests any intention to use Wikipedia as anything but a personal soapbox or plaything, and in my opinion, the most productive option is to summarily indef per WP:NOTHERE. Communication is required. Adherence to core Wikipedia polices is required. Since HarvxstBitter seems entirely averse to either, I think we can manage well enough without this 'contributor'. AndyTheGrump (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:18, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Indeffed as disruptive. Even minor edits have disruptive edit summaries, e.g., Special:Diff/1324296311. And major edits are in themselves disruptive; pushing a particular world view. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:07, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

HarvxstBitter now needs talk page access removed IMO, since they are using it as a soapbox, rather than to appeal the block: Billions of people benefit "if" my content is sound, but you claim you have no obligation to think of them, either. It’s pathological. Priorities all out of order. My ideas are indeed meretricious. And if Wikipedia could have debunked them it* would have.[250] AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:14, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

I've revoked talk page access. PhilKnight (talk) 15:22, 29 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 Banner and being "wrong"

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 week ago, I had added content with citations to the page, Euthanasia device (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and had removed {{citation needed}} tags, The Banner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) had then reverted these, with the edit summary: "Revert: not an improvement". I bring the topic up in this section to TB's talkpage and subsequently try to resolve this leaving the "uncontroversial" edits in the page, such as clear grammatical error and style fixes but re-placing the fact tags (assuming this was the issue, considering the vague complaint). TB says, verbatim, right from the start, that "You are wrong" which is already being combative, and TB then proceeds to revert again citing that I had "remove[d] sources" in the edit summary. That "removal" of sources may be my "removal" (I removed the sources I had added beforehand), so one would assume TB's revert would have the "sources removal" TB says it did, but there is very apparently none. TB restored a version without any of the sources added. It was directly due to the wholesale reversion and vague reasoning that I removed sources, but there is, again, no source removal present in TB's revert as you can again see evidently here so it very obviously doesn't make sense as a revert rationale and TB's flawed explanation only proves that TB edit-wars without an overview of the changes; i.e, being combative and simply disruptive for the sake of it. And again, today, TB decided to revert revert changes made, without discussion and with the same exact edit summary, clearly trying to make a Wikipedia:Point. And after this and pointing TB to the article talkpage where I provided sources, TB reverted unilaterally again, with the same edit summary, only further showing TB's inability to drop the stick. I had brought this up in the article talkpage with sources and TB justifies this reversion by saying it is "WP:OVERLINKING" which is a lame excuse but it can easily be fixed if it were the case by removing a few links instead of reverting (worth noting TB admits fault by partially recovering said link after a few dozen minutes, after the "editwar" went stale, because, again, TB only wants to prove a point or win some game) and saying "no sources required in lead" (lazily ending his message with "etc."), which is fair enough (but my reasoning for adding them were that the article itself is very short and does little to justify in it's own merits in defining what a euthanasia device really is, without reference to examples of euthanasia devices and Wikipedia:Popular culture references), and so I had removed those but kept the kept the contested areas of the article, and yet again TB completely reverts by only mentioning "overlinking and superfluous source requests" (and not other affected areas in the revert), instead of resolving issues when given an avenue at the talk page to where TB still doesn't hear it and instead of addressing disputed content, TB says childishly that scare tactics won't work on him. I'm sure by now, you could tell TB can care less if the article had any issues or if he wanted to remove unconstructive edits, TB is very obviously just holding a grudge (simply as a demonstrative example, see this message; see what TB refers to me, which I'm not going to comment on, in this message TB also says TB was going to quit it with the reverts, as in drop it only to step back on his words and continue to have a tussle for no reason) from the previous altercation a week ago, evidenced by this warning given to me acknowledging that TB is willingly editwarring but trying to dodge anything by Wikipedia:Boomeranging using the {{uw-disruptive2}} warning to me and doing so knowing full-well that TB is the one reinitiating the dispute. Another time he held a grudge was a month ago when he left comment left by TB the day after the block expired, showing frustration at Danners430, when Danners430 offering a way to let bygones be bygones (TB does not keep bygones bygones and will dig up anything). TB then tried to retaliate by requesting on RFPP to increase protection of the Euthanasia page, with little to no reason, and in the process, which just showing TB's Wikipedia:Pointy behavior, to "win" a situation. Of all things TB likes to argue on, ironically (see edit summary), is minute things (that changing quotes, is a "big nono"). This is textbook-level edit-warring with sustained Wikipedia:OWNy behavior and TB is not new to this by any means; far from it, TB is actually only a month "clean" of disruptive editing after being [251] by Cullen328 for one month before because of unwarranted assumptions of bad faith, but more importantly for my case: On the article Marc Van Ranst (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) over a semicolon with an IP user, only to have an administrator come in and settle the dispute, by simply letting the semicolon as it is, and having TB blocked for 24 hours. I may have definitely had my fair share of incivility as I'm sure I will be scrutinized as well (Wikipedia:Boomerang) but they were only flung when TB said something incendiary first such as when TB explicitly stated I am the one in the wrong and when it is clear to me that TB only wants to cause Wikipedia:Disruption to make a Wikipedia:Point (see this snarky comment not explaining why TB had reverted my edits). Throughout all of this, I tried to fix any issue I might have had by self-reverting where appropiate, and I will not lie and say that my changes were completely uncontroversial, they definitely weren't, but TB is not afflicted by the same self-awareness and continues on TB's Wikipedia:Battleground mentality and admanantly deflecting and shifting blame to the person at hand (saying "You are wrong" "Watch out for the boomerang" (Diff); "[I cannot] understand why a minute punctuate change has made you this disruptive and aggresive" (Diff), casting a good few aspersions ("POV-pushing") in the way: (Diff 1, Diff 2) – which he promised not to do as Hammersoft summarized (see next part of message). And it is not TB's changes being what prompted this ANI report, it's TB's behavior to said changes here, even when given avenues to settle disputes and properly communicate rather than making juvenile back-and-forth attacking comments. @Hammersoft (in TB's block message; paraphrased) said that TB has had a long history of this behavior getting repeatedly blocked and after each time, not dissuaded enough, TB got another block. TB had even promised to not do the same behavior of Wikipedia:Casting aspersions, but TB just simply hasn't gotten it, even now. I also see that in a similar right-to-dying page, Jack Kevorkian (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), he got his first block, so clearly he does have a sense of pretending that he Wikipedia:OWNs some pages. I agree with Hammersoft's statement almost to a point where I would've said that if I hadn't known TB was blocked for the same but different reasons over trivial issues. In the same blocked message, Hammersoft also suggests that he would personally take TB to ANI and get TB Wikipedia:Cbanned (which I do not agree with nor oppose to, but the community needs to see and evaluate the conduct here) if TB regressed to TB's previous demeanor, which as you can see, TB still hasn't left. It is rather pointless to me to be on this dramaboard as I do not care about content-related anything on Wikipedia, but quite frankly the editor in question has shown a history of disruptive editing and the same kind of conduct exhibited as only a month prior and yet, even today TB still does not learn from the long history of mistakes made, from the many years and edits racked up, momentarily causing the same problems and exhibiting the same behavior from years ago: being unreasonably combative and having for some reason (on Wikipedia, of all places) a battleground mentality (see this block log entry) on WP, and TB's foremost issue of not admitting being wrong, instead deflecting blame. ~2025-36614-40 (talk) 20:14, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

WP:WALLOFTEXT Rambling Rambler (talk) 20:17, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

This is my first and the only one time I'm making a report on the Wikipedia:Dramaboard, and also you are on the dramaboard, so you can't expect much less. ~2025-36614-40 (talk) 20:21, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

No, we can - WP:TLDR. Be concise or this will be closed. GiantSnowman 20:22, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Only thing I took from this badly edited stream of consciousness dump was "It is rather pointless to me to be on this dramaboard as I do not care about content-related anything on Wikipedia, but quite frankly the editor in question has shown a history of disruptive editing". So you don't care about the content of anything, you just want The Banner banned. If that is the case then you're very much in the wrong place and some could see you in the same light as a copyright troll where you're being offended on other's behalf and trying to get someone in trouble for something that has nothing to do with you just because. Canterbury Tail talk 20:40, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

I am no friend of The Banner, but I must say here that Rambling Rambler and GiantSnowman are rignt. Any case can be made with a few percent of the text posted here. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:48, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Well I read the whole thing, and that's ten minutes I'm not getting back. Could you edit this down to just what your current and specific complaint is? We don't need you to rehash the entire history of complaints against The Banner, all that matters here is what specific disruption you think needs administrator attention right now, and after reading this whole thing I have no idea. My guess, based on "I do not are about content-related anything", is that you're only here to settle a vendetta, and if that turns out to be the case then we will add your picture to WP:NOTHERE. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:50, 28 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

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.

---

Disruptive editing at page of Handan Sultan by User:Phso2 and User:Aciram who kept reverting page to their own opinion about Handan Sultan being “consort” rather than spouse of Mehmed III which was stated in book "Queen mother at work: Handan Sultan and her regency” by Gunhan Borekci (2020) at page of 54 as following

• ”Handan was one such concubine. She seems to have joined the harem of her future husband

User Phso2 seems to ignore last sentence and decide to push his own narrative. in addition to this problem user Aciram reverted some sourced content on page in revisions on 22 November with no source backing their claims. ~2025-37013-93 (talk) 10:05, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Note that ~2025-37013-93 has been able to engage in ANI procedure, but has not been able to find the article's talkpage to engage in discussion, and has started to editwar instead.--Phso2 (talk) 10:43, 28 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.

New editor not taking WP:COPYLINK seriously

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

---

Please see this discussion: User talk:Algirr#Linking to copyright violating sources. Their responses don't inspire confidence the behavior won't be repeated. The COPYLINK was in an edit summary but I'm not sure if it needs revision deletion. (t · c) buIdhe 03:53, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

For everyone's reference, please note their response when being asked to take this seriously. Mathglot suggested that they apologise, only to have their exact words parroted back at them in an (I'm afraid to say) rather immature manner.

They've said that they do not feel like checking their edits and prefer to make an assumption even if this results in a copyright violation, because it's "easier" that way.

Their response to the ANI notification was, and I quote, "nice." Blue Sonnet (talk) 06:42, 28 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 user unsourced edits/edit-warring across many articles

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.

---

• 185.231.238.75 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ~2025-31176-11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ~2025-36451-70 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ~2025-36513-34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I was initially going to report ~2025-36451-70 for edit-warring, but they seem to be editing at ~2025-36513-34 now (see Hussein Dey example below). It seems that they've IP-hopped at least one more time before that, editing as 185.231.238.75 and ~2025-31176-11 in early November (straddling the transition to the new temp account name system), got blocked then ([252]), before returning with ~2025-36451-70 this week. Throughout that time, they have received numeros warnings from multiple editors about non-constructive editing at each temp/IP account (see each user talk page) for making unsourced or poorly-sourced edits, engaging in long-term edit-warring, and rarely/never using the talk page in multiple articles (all around topics of Algerian history/ethnicity, Greek or other European diaspora communities in Algeria and France, etc). Here are some examples of the edit-warring via various temp/IP accounts:

• Hussein Dey, edit-warring via 185.231.238.75, ~2025-36451-70, and ~2025-36513-34 up to today:
  [253], [254], [255], [256]
• Pieds-noirs, early November edit via 185.231.238.75 followed by recent edit-warring via ~2025-36451-70:
  [257], [258], [259], [260], [261]
• French Algeria, edit-warring up to one or two days ago via ~2025-36451-70:
  [262], [263], [264], [265]
• Odjak of Algiers, early November edit-warring via 185.231.238.75 and ~2025-31176-11:
  [266], [267], [268]
• Turks in Algeria, also early November edit-warring via 185.231.238.75 and ~2025-31176-11:
  [269], [270], [271], [272], [273]
• Plus similar examples to be found at Greeks in France, European settlement of Algeria (including a personal attack [274]), and maybe others.

The number of articles concerned seems to make requesting semi-protection too onerous, so I'm hoping we can block an IP range that can stop them from just returning with another temp account(?), but any solution that works is fine by me.

PS: I wasn't sure if this should go to WP:SPI, but as far as I can tell the IPs/temps do not overlap and I'm not aware of any evidence of block evasion, so I assume that the scope fits this ANI rather than SPI. Please direct me elsewhere if not. R Prazeres (talk) 01:30, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Courtesy ping to M.Bitton, who is one of the editors that has dealt with them recently the most, I believe. R Prazeres (talk) 01:38, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

~2025-31176-11 and ~2025-36451-70 are  Possilikely (a mix between possible and likely) to be the same person, though ~2025-36451-70 is on proxies. ~2025-36513-34 is entirely  Unrelated, and is an LTA. No comment with respect to the connection between these TAs and the IP. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 01:59, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

How do we stop (ideally prevent) their disruptiveness? M.Bitton (talk) 13:03, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

@45dogs: please do not use the checkuser finding templates if you are not a checkuser. There is more to a checkuser investigation than comparing IP addresses, and you do not have access to the checkuser tool. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:25, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm also going to quickly remind everyone that a temporary account's IP address is private information. If you are a temporary account viewer, you are not permitted to disclose the IP address of any temporary account that you discover through use of your userright. Non-admin TAIVs may have their privilege revoked for misuse of the tool, and my understanding that this is a bright-line desysop offence for admins. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:32, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

For what it's worth, ~2025-36513-34 (talk · contribs) is indeed  Unrelated to the other temporary accounts, although they had more temporary accounts of their own. They're an old LTA I'm familiar with who messes around with climate templates, and happened to be screwing around with one where the others were editing.

~2025-36451-70 (talk · contribs) is a user who was blocked on their legacy IP right around the time of the temporary account transition, close enough that they may not have seen the block message. They are using a different device than ~2025-31176-11 (talk · contribs) but that's to be expected for temporary accounts; they're also both editing from the same country but not near each other in that country, and that country is known for unreliable geolocation. At best I would call them  Unlikely. 31176-11 also hasn't edited at all in three weeks.

IMO this should be handled as a complaint about disruptive editing by ~2025-36451-70 alone, without regard for the other accounts and the legacy IP. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:12, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. Since ~2025-36451-70 disruptiveness shows no sign of abating, can they be blocked until they start communicating? M.Bitton (talk) 15:26, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

I have blocked the temp account for suddenly going on a personal attack spree. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:59, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Yup, they definitely communicated... It didn't go well so TPA got yoinked.

Mathglot and I tried to reach out in the spirit of AGF, but they're clearly not interested. Blue Sonnet (talk) 16:28, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

As of this writing, ~2025-36451-70 (talk · contribs · count) has 38 44 total edits and 38 44 reverts by other users. Mathglot (talk) 04:57, 28 November 2025 (UTC) updated 10:41, 28 November 2025 (UTC) by Mathglot (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.

Persistent personal attacks and disruptive conduct by Badakhshan ziba

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 consultation with Anne drew, I am reporting Badakhshan ziba for multiple ongoing misconducts. These include personal attacks, accusations of dishonesty, assertions that I fabricate arguments using generative AI, and additional behaviour that violates WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:AGF, and WP:DISRUPTIVE. This pattern has continued over 3 months, despite multiple warnings from uninvolved editors. The repeated personal attacks and bad-faith accusations make constructive content discussion nearly impossible. Below is an extensive, but by no means complete list of all misconducts I could reconstruct of the most serious instances, since I lost count at how many different pages we discussed already.

Diffs. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:33, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Accusations of sympathizing with Taliban/terrorist views:

• 20:46, 16 August 2025 (UTC) "Stop making fake and false statistics in favor of the Pashtun people. We know that this is part of the Pashtunization policy that the Taliban government and the Pashtuns are currently implementing in Afghanistan. Wikipedia is not a place to publish information in line with the Pashtunization policy."
• 09:13, 1 September 2025 (UTC) "Perhaps, in your view, sources from the Taliban era are more reliable than those from the United States and the United Nations."
• 10:31, 18 September 2025 (UTC) "Please take a look at these five links related to the history of the article. 1[-]19 April 2021 = before Taliban attack [on August 15] and come in to the power in Afghanistan.There is practically not much text. [...] :5[-]1 September 2025 = A surprisingly large amount of content and text was added on September 1st ." (subliminally implying I'm a Taliban or at least a sympathizer)

Accusations of dishonesty/manipulation/bad faith/bias against me:

• 20:36, 11 August 2025 (UTC) "you extensively vandalized the ethnic data of Afghanistan, in favor of the Pashtuns ethnic group. First, you need to explain why you biasedly changed the ethnic information in June 2023 For the benefit of the Pashtuns"
• 18:05, 13 August 2025 (UTC) "You also had no right to delete all previous statistics and manipulate all ethnic statistics of Afghanistan in June 2023. [...] Do not give false information, otherwise you are the one who should be banned from editing Wikipedia."
• 18:45, 13 August 2025 (UTC) "The June 2023 information has undergone extensive changes in favor of the Pashtun people compared to the April 2023 information."
• 20:46, 16 August 2025 (UTC) "I was not aware that you had manipulated the statistics in June 2023 and I have just found out about this. [...] A review of the changes you made in June 2023 clearly shows sabotage and deliberate manipulation to change the ethnic statistics of Afghanistan. Stop vandalism. Stop making fake and false statistics in favor of the Pashtun people."
• 10:08, 1 September 2025 (UTC) "Please do not manipulate the article unilaterally until the differences and disputes are resolved."
• 22:34, 9 September 2025 (UTC) "Please do not add one-sided content to the article."
• 20:54, 25 September 2025 (UTC) "If an editor [=SdHb] insists on using low-credibility biased, poor sources ,or unreliable sources to promote a specific agenda, such as inflating the statistics of an ethnic group, this violates multiple Wikipedia policies."
• 23:50, 26 September 2025 (UTC) "[I] feel maybe some editors [=SdHb] has selectively gathered Wikipedia:Disruptive editing#:~:text=sometimes an editor,project in frustration to promote a specific agenda to show unusually high percentages for Pashtuns while minimizing other ethnic groups, This violates multiple Wikipedia rules."
• 20:44, 14 October 2025 (UTC) "Read your argument for removing data related to Zahir Shah while you yourself intend to remove 1% and above ethnic groups from the table and mix them in others' columns. i think it is somehow downplaying and minimizing this small ethnics. We are not allowed to ignore the Arab and Sadat ethnic groups who is around 1% of afghanistan and remove them from the table."
• 18:56, 9 November 2025 (UTC) "These provinces disproportionately belong to different ethnic and geographic groups, and excluding them would probably create systematic bias and violate your impartiality."
• 21:24, 9 November 2025 (UTC) "[I]t is a violation of Wikipedia rules to intentionally include incomplete and systematically biased data in an apparently complete table."
• 21:24, 9 November 2025 (UTC) "The systematic omit of three specific provinces that have a specific ethnic and geographical composition creates a Systematic Bias in the data. Presenting this incomplete data as "national data" gives the reader a distorted and unbiased view of reality. Seeing this situation, I think @Xan747 is not neutral and supports you. [...] [I] think you are injecting your own personal analysis to justify using incomplete and defect data."
• THIS ENTIRE ENTRY ON THE NPOV NOTICEBOARD which was removed quickly
• 23:14, 14 November 2025 (UTC) "The editor @SdHb is doing original research to justify his mistakes."
• 19:22, 16 November 2025 (UTC) "[T]here is sufficient evidence that you are not neutral about the pashtun ethnic statistic."
• 18:44, 18 November 2025 (UTC) "[A]nother editor [=SdHb] (probably with the help of artificial intelligence or chatGPT) insists on hiding this issue by making wrong arguments."
• 23:47, 18 November 2025 (UTC) "You are deliberately ignoring pages 39 and 40 and trying to advance your position."
• 01:34, 19 November 2025 (UTC) "Another editor [=SdHb] is trying to increase the Pashtun ethnic percentage to over 50%. [...] For now, I try to prevent the deliberate increase of the percentage of Pashtuns."

Accusations of dishonesty/manipulation/bad faith/bias against others:

• Against Xan747: 23:44, 3 November 2025 (UTC) "Incidentally, I have a complaint that you uploaded an incomplete and highly controversial and dispute table to the main article . I did not take any action for 10 days when you were offline. But after I was offline for a short time, you tried to insert the controversial table into the main article without asking me for my opinion."
• Against Xan747: 14:45, 6 November 2025 (UTC) "I hope that now you will also observe your impartiality and correct any mistakes that may have occurred."
• Against Xan747: 21:24, 9 November 2025 (UTC) "The systematic omit of three specific provinces that have a specific ethnic and geographical composition creates a Systematic Bias in the data. Presenting this incomplete data as "national data" gives the reader a distorted and unbiased view of reality. Seeing this situation, I think @Xan747 is not neutral and supports you. It was supposed to be removed from the table if it was proven that the data was incomplete and did not cover the entire territory of Afghanistan. But now, according to your claim, he thanked you and implicitly took your side."
• Against Xan747: 20:27, 10 November 2025 (UTC) "[...] I ask you to please be neutral and not participate discussion." (Implying that they haven't been neutral)

Accusations of making up arguments using generative AI:

• 20:53, 12 October 2025 (UTC) "I want to say that you can get advice from chat GPT, but do not copy and paste all its content. Because artificial intelligence also has incorrect information among its content."
• 18:44, 18 November 2025 (UTC) "[A]nother editor (probably with the help of artificial intelligence or chatGPT) insists on hiding this issue by making wrong arguments."

Additionally, the user repeatedly attempts to emotionalize the discussion, appeal to the protection instincts of other users, and derail the debates about content, e. g. by using inflammatory terms such as "manipulate", "terrorists", "propaganda", "protect the minorities", "kill" or similar attention-grabbing catchphrases. This has been a pattern over several months and contributes to the overall WP:DISRUPTIVE environment.

Inflammatory rhetoric/off-topic/emotionalization of discussions:

• 18:05, 13 August 2025 (UTC): "I am from Afghanistan. Unfortunately, in Afghanistan, the Pashtuns and the Taliban government are trying very hard to show themselves above 50% by manipulating ethnic statistics."
• 09:13, 1 September 2025 (UTC) "It is interesting that you do not accept the results of Afghanistan's free parliamentary elections, which were held under the supervision of the international community, the European Union, the United States, and the United Nations. Instead, you cite unsubstantiated and questionable statistics from the Taliban era [link to "Taliban propaganda"]."
• 10:15, 10 September 2025 (UTC) "[M]ost Afghan governments, before the presence of the United States, the United Nations, and the international community in 2001, were mostly in the hands of the Pashtuns, and the Pashtun governments always tried to minimize the statistics of other ethnic groups or ignore the statistics in order to maintain their power. [...] [T]he governments lacked democracy, and every ethnic group that came to power in Afghanistan tried to suppress or kill other ethnic minorities and religious minorities."
• 11:34, 10 September 2025 (UTC) "For most of Afghanistan's recent history, governments were not democratic and were mainley dominated by a single ethnic group. These governments had a strong political motive to manipulate population numbers to maintain their power. They often downsized the numbers of other ethnic groups in official reports."
• 11:25, 11 September 2025 (UTC) "I would like you to know that the issue of ethnic percentages in Afghanistan is a very vital and important issue. [...] This issue is very important for the people of Afghanistan and also for the ethnic minorities in Afghanistan. [...] The Taliban and the majority governments have always tried throughout the history of Afghanistan to suppress them by making fake percentages and reducing the percentages of other ethnic groups. If you look at the cabinet of the Taliban terrorist government, near 90%-95% of the Taliban government are all from the Pashtun tribe. [...] I hope that the rights of other ethnic groups will not be lost."
• 22:48, 4 October 2025 (UTC) "In 1996, a newspaperman wrote a report for the New York Times news during the Afghan war the first Taliban terrorist emirate [...]"
• 20:13, 10 October 2025 (UTC) and 20:26, 10 October 2025 (UTC) "Zahir Shah tried hard to destroy or eliminate the languages of non-Pashtun tribes in Afghanistan, but he did not succeed."
• 21:37, 14 October 2025 (UTC) "This does not mean that we should ignore the rights of sadat and arab ethnic who are make up the 1% and higher in afghanistan."
• 23:25, 16 October 2025 (UTC) "The rights of the ethnic groups that constitute one percent or more of the Afghan population should not be ignored. We are not allowed to ignore the Arab ethnic group of Afghanistan."
• 21:03, 31 October 2025 (UTC) "I should also say that please observe ethical issues [...]"
• 20:43, 18 November 2025 (UTC) "The percentages assigned to each group can have significant social and political consequences. The Taliban terrorist group and its leaders from the Pashtun ethnic group, and of course there is a lot of evidence that various Pashtun governments in Afghanistan have always tried to drastically reduce the population of other ethnic groups or make them look small for the past 60 years. They are trying very hard to make themselves look above 50%. [...] Even a one to two percent increase or decrease in the population percentage is sensitive in Afghanistan."
• 01:34, 19 November 2025 (UTC) "Unfortunately, according to the information in this table, the Taliban terrorist suppress other ethnic minority groups or deprive them of representation in the government."

Miscellaneous disruptive behaviour regarding WP policies:

• Appeal to authority and straw-man argument: 18:05, 13 August 2025 (UTC) among others. There have been so many statements where Badakhshan ziba said things as if they were undisputed knowledge, referring to himself being from Afghanistan and his knowledge because of this, that this list could contain almost every single statement they made in in those 3 months. Just a little taste: 20:44, 14 October 2025 (UTC), 21:37, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
• 20:16, 16 August 2025 They deleted my comment answering to all the accusations.
• Ignoring/misinterpretation/misuse of WP:RECENTISM: 08:14, 1 September 2025 (UTC), 10:15, 10 September 2025 (UTC), 11:34, 10 September 2025 (UTC), unsigned comment here, unsigned comment here, 23:13, 10 October 2025 (UTC) among others
• Ignoring/misinterpretation/misuse of WP:SYNTH and WP:CALC: 3:09, 1 September 2025 (UTC), 09:13, 1 September 2025 (UTC), 12:44, 11 September 2025 (UTC), 13:48, 11 September 2025 (UTC), unsigned comment here, "others"_column_for_the_smaller_ethnic_categories? 21:16, 6 October 2025 (UTC), "others"_column_for_the_smaller_ethnic_categories? 20:01, 7 October 2025 (UTC), 23:13, 10 October 2025 (UTC), 19:16, 14 October 2025 (UTC), 20:44, 14 October 2025 (UTC), 21:37, 14 October 2025 (UTC) among others
• Ignoring/misinterpretation/misuse of WP:BRD by doing big reverts: 17:24, 1 September 2025 (UTC), 20:17, 1 September 2025 (UTC), 22:12, 9 September 2025 (UTC), 21:18, 16 November 2025 (UTC) among others
  • Refusing to correctly WP:SELFREVERT, provoking WP:EDITWAR: 10:56, 10 September 2025 (UTC), 19:19, 10 September 2025 (UTC) among others
• Ignoring/misinterpretation/misuse of WP:NPOV: 00:58, 2 September 2025 (UTC), 20:46, 3 September 2025 (UTC), 20:52, 9 September 2025 (UTC), 19:24, 10 September 2025 (UTC), unsigned comment here, unsigned comment here, 22:36, 30 September 2025 (UTC), 20:13, 10 October 2025 (UTC), 23:13, 10 October 2025 (UTC), 21:24, 9 November 2025 (UTC) among others
• Ignoring/misinterpretation/misuse of WP:V: 20:46, 3 September 2025 (UTC), 20:52, 9 September 2025 (UTC), 22:36, 30 September 2025 (UTC), 23:13, 10 October 2025 (UTC), 20:54, 9 November 2025 (UTC) among others
• Ignoring/misinterpretation/misuse of WP:PRIMARY: 20:53, 3 September 2025 (UTC) among others
• Ignoring/misinterpretation/misuse of WP:RS: 20:52, 9 September 2025 (UTC), 10:15, 10 September 2025 (UTC), unsigned comment here, 22:36, 30 September 2025 (UTC), 22:06, 10 October 2025 (UTC), 23:13, 10 October 2025 (UTC) among others
• Ignoring/misinterpretation/misuse of WP:COPYRIGHT: 20:52, 9 September 2025 (UTC) among others
• Ignoring/misinterpretation/misuse of WP:UNDUE: 19:24, 10 September 2025 (UTC), 20:13, 10 October 2025 (UTC) among others
• Ignoring/misinterpretation/misuse of WP:CONSENSUS: 14:26, 6 November 2025 (UTC) among others. See further down at "Previous warnings/requests by other users".
• uncountable times when Badakhshan ziba repeated himself, claiming the same thing over and over again (WP:ICANTHEARYOU): see further down at "Previous warnings/requests by other users" among others.
• Ignoring advice to make discussions more readable: 14:37, 19 September 2025 (UTC) among others
• Ignoring warnings of misusing WP:OTHERSCOMMENTS: 22:16, 19 September 2025 (UTC) among others
• Ignoring/misinterpretation/misuse of WP:NOR: 22:36, 30 September 2025 (UTC), "others"_column_for_the_smaller_ethnic_categories? 21:16, 6 October 2025 (UTC), 20:54, 9 November 2025 (UTC), 21:24, 9 November 2025 (UTC), 23:13, 10 October 2025 (UTC), THIS WHOLE FAILED CASE since 6 independent users agreed that the case isn't OR, among others
• Ignoring/misinterpretation/misuse of WP:COMMONSENSE and othe ominous "Wikipedia rules": 20:25, 14 October 2025 (UTC), 01:04, 14 November 2025 (UTC) among others
• Deleting comments where stroking was appropriate: 21:14, 14 October 2025 (UTC), 23:07, 19 November 2025 (UTC) among others
• Ignoring/misinterpretation/misuse of WP:FRINGE: 19:19, 7 October 2025 (UTC), 22:06, 10 October 2025 (UTC), 21:16, 4 November 2025 (UTC) among others
• Ignoring/misinterpretation/misuse of WP:CHERRYPICKING: 22:06, 10 October 2025 (UTC) among others
• Ignoring/misinterpretation/misuse of WP:LETITGO: 21:18, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
• Ignoring/misinterpretation/misuse of WP:NOTTRUTH: 20:11, 17 November 2025 (UTC), 01:22, 19 November 2025 (UTC) among others
• Ignoring/misinterpretation/misuse of WP:NOTBURO, WP:SNPOV, WP:NOTCENSORED, WP:SNOW, WP:GETOVERIT, WP:DTS, WP:DEMOLISH, and WP:WORLDSEND: 01:22, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Previous warnings/call-outs/requests by other users:

• Asking to AGF and refrain from PA (regarding the WP:FRAMING of me being a Taliban member/sympathizer): 23:00, 29 August 2025 (UTC) and 16:01, 30 August 2025 (UTC) by Xan747
• Asking to familiarize with WP policies: 20:46, 3 September 2025 (UTC) by Xan747
• Warning to open a WP:ANEW case if self-reverting doesn't happen: 22:11, 5 September 2025 (UTC) by Xan747
• Calling out of disruptive behavior, ignoring WP:CONSENSUS, #1: 22:45, 9 September 2025 (UTC) by Xan747
• Asking to refrain from big reverts: 23:22, 9 September 2025 (UTC) by asilvering
• Calling out of disruptive behavior, ignoring WP:CONSENSUS, #2: 19:19, 10 September 2025 (UTC) by Xan747
• Calling out of disruptive repititions of the same claims/generalizations over and over again, #1: 16:05, 10 September 2025 (UTC) by Xan747
• Calling out of disruptive behavior, ignoring WP:CONSENSUS, #3: 19:40, 10 September 2025 (UTC) by Xan747
• Calling out of wrong use of WP:RS: 20:12, 10 September 2025 (UTC) by asilvering
• Calling out of disruptive repititions of the same claims/generalizations over and over again, #2: 22:40, 10 September 2025 (UTC) by Xan747
• Warning to not reinstate non-WP:CONSENSUS content into the live article: 23:13, 10 September 2025 (UTC) by asilvering and Xan747
• Calling out of being WP:INCONSISTENT and having double standards: 12:57, 11 September 2025 (UTC) by Xan747
• Calling out of misusing WP:SYNTH: 13:15, 11 September 2025 (UTC) by Xan747
• Warning against misusing WP:SYNTH: 13:58 11 September 2025 (UTC) by Xan747
• Calling out of ignoring WP:OTHERSCOMMENTS: 22:16, 19 September 2025 (UTC) by Xan747
• Calling out their WP:FORUMSHOPPING and WP:CHERRYPICKING: 23:22, 4 October 2025 (UTC) by Xan747, and showing their annoyance by asilvering and by Xan747
• Asking to stop repeating the same WP guidelines over and over again to experienced users, #1: 22:37, 6 October 2025 (UTC), 19:44, 7 October 2025 (UTC), and 21:13, 7 October 2025 (UTC) by Xan747
• Calling out of of bad faith of experienced users: 19:44, 7 October 2025 (UTC) by Xan747
• Cautioning the use of WP:COMMONSENSE as a hard rule: 20:38, 14 October 2025 (UTC) by Xan747
• Warning to stop reverting and calling out frustrating behavior: 19:16, 3 November 2025 (UTC) by Xan747
• Calling out the possible lack of WP:NEUTRALITY and objectivity: 18:12, 5 November 2025 (UTC) by Xan747
• Calling out of basing arguments on perseonal knowledge: 22:36, 7 October 2025 (UTC) by Xan747
• Calling out of unreasonable objections: 21:01, 10 November 2025 (UTC) by Xan747
• Asking to stop repeating unjustified objections: 08:53, 13 October 2025 (UTC) by Xan747 and me
• Asking to stop misusing WP:FRINGE, WP:UNDUE, and WP:RECENTISM: 23:35, 10 October 2025 (UTC) by Xan747
• Asking to stop repeating the same WP guidelines over and over again to experienced users, #2, being at a loss of words how to describe the correct use of WP guidelines: 18:54, 14 October 2025 (UTC) by Xan747
• Cautioning against WP:SYNTHesizing unsourced claims: 19:07, 14 October 2025 (UTC) by Xan747
• Calling out of miuse of WP:OR: 16:22, 15 November 2025 (UTC) by Anne drew
• Warning that continually violating WP:AGF results in sanctions: 16:22, 15 November 2025 (UTC) by Anne drew
• Asking to stop repeating the same WP guidelines over and over again to experienced users: 20:01, 18 November 2025 (UTC) by BetsyRogers
• Calling out of miuse of WP:NOR: 16:00, 14 November 2025 (UTC) by Xan747
• Cautioning against doing big reverts unilaterally: 15:23, 17 November 2025 (UTC), possibly escalating it to an WP:ARBCOM case: 15:28, 17 November 2025 (UTC) by Xan747
• Calling out misuse of WP:RS: 19:20, 18 November 2025 (UTC) by Novellasyes
• Calling out misuse of WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, or WP:NPOV: 23:40, 18 November 2025 (UTC) by BetsyRogers
• Calling out ignoring/misuse of WP:NOTBURO, WP:NOTTRUTH, WP:SNPOV, WP:NOTCENSORED, WP:SNOW, WP:GETOVERIT, WP:DTS, WP:DEMOLISH, and WP:WORLDSEND: 01:22, 19 November 2025 (UTC) by Bernanke's Crossbow

Given Badakhshan ziba's ongoing pattern and failure to respond to warnings, I believe administrative action such as (at least a temporary) topic ban, interaction ban, or other appropriate measures is long overdue. Thank you. SdHb (talk) 14:00, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

@SdHb: ANI Stalker here. Please make your report more succinct. With the length it currently stands at, it is completely impossible to reasonably evaluate. Viva la horde, ~ GoatLordServant^(Talk) 14:07, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

I think there's some broken telephone happening here regarding an arbcom case - I surely said (or meant) that you could bring the matter to WP:AE, since you're working in a WP:CTOP. There's certainly no need to go to arbcom with this since I think it can easily be settled here. But it's also fine to bring it here. I disagree with @GoatLordServant that this needs cutting down - it's quite clear enough, and there really is this much volume. It's unending. @Xan747 tried, I tried, @Robert McClenon tried, evidently others have tried: nothing has worked. This editor is not able to contribute collaboratively with others.

I cannot take administrative action here because I became editorially involved trying to help unstick the dispute at Ethnic groups of Afghanistan after Xan747 struck out. Someone else will have to evaluate this and set a tban from Afghanistan, SA social groups, or maybe more narrowly "ethnic groups in Afghanistan" (the topic, not the article). Or just indef. This isn't going anywhere else. -- asilvering (talk) 14:15, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Apologies. Was looking at all the diffs and this report's liberal use of bolding, and immediately questioned what volunteers would really absorb it all. After some time looking through all these though, the throughline is there; I agree. Viva la horde, ~ GoatLordServant^(Talk) 14:20, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

I've alerted him to the contentious topic, so if he doesn't get indeffed now, the CTOPS options are in play. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:23, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

@SarekOfVulcan, they're aware, just not with the fancy banner. A very quick skim for likely diffs above got me [275], which isn't as clear as I'd like, but I find it hard to believe we got through a 3O, a 4O, and some dozen rounds of DRN without the CTOP ever being mentioned. -- asilvering (talk) 14:29, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

There's aware, then there's WP:AWARE. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:38, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Indeed. Not sure why I didn't hand out a /first when I showed up to the first edit war report, since I normally hand them out like candy. Perhaps it was just that distractingly bad already. -- asilvering (talk) 14:43, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

I agree with Asilvering; I closed this discussion, which seems one of the loci of the dispute, and while I merely weighed the arguments, the behaviour highlighted by the OP was very apparent. (Specifically, the unholy trinity of WP:BATTLEGROUND, WPBLUDGEON and WP:IDHT) —Fortuna, imperatrix 14:29, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

"Below is an extensive, but by no means complete list of all misconducts"

Given how excessively long this list already is, I'm very concerned as to what ISN'T on this list. GarethBaloney (talk) 14:26, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

• Support indef/CBAN If they cannot collaborate with others to this extent it's gone beyond a TBAN, and I can see barely any edits outside the problematic areas.

Blue Sonnet (talk) 14:29, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Changed to CBAN - see here. Blue Sonnet (talk) 22:23, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

• I've blocked them indefinitely as a response to the incessant personal attacks and inflammatory rhetoric, without having fully tabulated every other offence included here. No prejudice to the community deciding to further consider at WP:CBAN. SdHb, for reference, at WP:AE word limits for case filings are 500 words and 20 diffs, to give you a rough sense of the level of documentation normally needed for the adjudication of conduct issues, in case you ever have cause to file another report. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:06, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

  They are now appealing the block on their talk page with a statement that is contrite. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:55, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

  The first half is probably AI but the last paragraph seems genuine enough - they probably only used AI to get their thoughts together. I'm happy with TBAN on that basis. Blue Sonnet (talk) 20:19, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

  „please excuse me, I was wrongly thought that my behavior was probably normal.“ After over 3 months and literally dozens upon dozens of suggestions, askings, call-outs, and warnings, IMHO this one statement can‘t possibly be taken seriously, and at least shouldn’t be enough to justify mitigating circumstances when he had the chance to better himself every single time during the whole period. SdHb (talk) 20:59, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

  I am inclined to agree with this assessment. The turnaround time for this apology following the block is rather surreal considering the prior history and staggering amount of examples of both problematic behavior by them and attempts by others to warn them. To be honest, I'm not sure I've ever reviewed a behavioral conduct case with this much evidence available. My inclination is that we're in WP:SO territory as far as paths back to editing go, although I don't think it's out of the question to consider converting the indef block into an indef tban from Afghanistan. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:02, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

  Indeed. Saying „I […] sincerely apologize for my recent behavior“ also doesn‘t help their case since it makes it seem like they haven‘t even recognized or acknowledged the misdemeanor they’ve shown the whole time since August. SdHb (talk) 21:22, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

  Sigh. I really wanted to believe they were taking this seriously but my AGF glasses are obviously too rose-tinted today. Perhaps a CBAN is justified after all, then they would need a full assessment of any appeals by the community following SO. Blue Sonnet (talk) 21:43, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

  Just adding a bit of information here. Although it definitely doesn't excuse the behavior, I think there's a bit of a language barrier here, so the content that seems like AI might actually be the result of a translation app/algorithm. This did make it difficult to follow some of the discussion, but it's still very clear that the user has become very hostile and making really strange, inappropriate accusations. This seems to be a very personal/triggering issue for them, and I do sympathize. But their accusations here are inappropriate. If anything, their dispute is with the authors of an article/report -- from a reliable source, i.e. the ABC News report they've mentioned (which is actually an ABC/BBC collaboration). The authors presented the data in a perfectly acceptable manner, but either way, they're the publishers of the data in question. BetsyRogers (talk) 22:30, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

• Support CBAN in order to require an appeal to the community. —Fortuna, imperatrix 15:10, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Support CBAN per @Blue-Sonnet and @Fortuna imperatrix mundi shane (talk to me if you want!) 16:41, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

• Procedural note: I'm not trying to talk anyone out of their cban !vote (which I interpret to mean a site ban), but I would like to remind everyone that the community can set a topic ban here, and since the editor is already indef'd, they will have to get through an unblocks admin to return to editing in any case. Unless I'm much mistaken, we don't presently have any evidence that they would be disruptive outside of this topic area yet - it's all they've ever edited about - so a community-applied tban of some kind would likely be enough to stop the disruption. -- asilvering (talk) 17:31, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Indeed they would. But the whole point of the C[ommunity]Ban is that it isn't within the remit of a single "unblocks admin" to unblock; it would have to come back to the community. And if the result of a tban is the same as a cban—because of their narrow editing are—then there's no real reason to go with a lesser sanction that would allow for similar behavior in a different topic area. (A Tban does not speak to the above-mentioned unholy trinity, for ex). Cheers, —Fortuna, imperatrix 18:45, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Jeez, my mind keeps changing! My original concern was that they seem to be almost an SPA, it's hard to judge a TBAN because I have no idea whether they'd continue their disruption elsewhere - they say they enjoy mountains, so would they have the same problems if someone pushed the right buttons on an edit about mountains?

The fact that they wouldn't listen to so many other people is definitely concerning, so they apparently have difficulty in editing objectively if they feel passionately about a subject. It'd be easier if we had more to go off, but we don't.

Yes, we have an indef, but are we voting to downgrade that to a TBAN or TBAN only after a successful indef appeal? Or CBAN with subsequent TBAN?

I ask because the whole "TBAN on appeal" part feels moot since that's what would probably happen on appeal anyway - I'm a bit worried that it'll get confusing if we're not clear on the suggested options.

Should we add separate proposals so it's clear, or am I thinking about this too much? We don't even know if they'll appeal or if it'll be successful yet.

If we ignore the possibilities of any theoretical successful appeals, then the options would be:

1. Keep indef
2. Upgrade to CBAN
3. Downgrade to TBAN

Blue Sonnet (talk) 19:46, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

A TBAN based on community consensus here wouldn't be quite the same as a TBAN upon appeal from an indef. I believe the difference is the level needed to repeal; a TBAN as part of a conditional unblock could be repealed by a singular administrator (per WP:CONDUNBLOCK), though it would have to be from the unblocking admin. A TBAN imposed here could only be appealed to ARBCOM or the community. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 20:24, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

That explains it, thank you! Unfortunately it turns out their appeal isn't very good. I wanted to AGF but it is pretty basic considering their overall behaviour & I can see why everyone's concerned still. Blue Sonnet (talk) 21:36, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

• Support TBAN - with the indef, a CBAN is unnecessary. A TBAN as well, will give them the chance if they appeal the indef to contribute in other areas without diving straight back into the CTOP. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 18:12, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
• Support TBAN.There is clear evidence they are disruptive in this topic area so a TBAN is needed to prevent disruption and give them some time outside the topic area to show they can edit productively if they appeal their indef. I do not support a CBAN as it is unnecessary as they are already indef'd.GothicGolem29 (Talk) 18:39, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

• Support TBAN ABAN at least to begin with). Full disclosure, I've never voted on an issue of banning before because I really try to Assume Good Faith, except in blatant vandalism. In reality, "good faith" is in the eye of the beholder, and I try to be sympathetic to anyone who appears to be going through some emotional stuff. But whatever this is that I've recently witnessed, I don't think it will resolve itself or fizzle out. For the sake of those being attacked (and for the sake of the attacker who probably would benefit from some time-off from this triggering topic), I would 100% support an ABAN TBAN, then see how that goes.

BetsyRogers (talk) 23:06, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Is there a reason this should be an ABAN instead of a TBAN? An ABAN would only prevent them from editing the article (and maybe the talk page). They could still disrupt the project outside of that scope. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 01:03, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

If you could clarify, in what other ways could they disrupt it? (Serious question, trying to make sure I understand correctly what an ABAN does and doesn't do.) BetsyRogers (talk) 02:11, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

@BetsyRogers, an article ban would stop them from editing a specific article or set of articles, say, Ethnic groups in Afghanistan. But they'd still be able to talk about the same concepts elsewhere. I expect that ban would be far too narrow. The dispute would just end up recurring somewhere else. -- asilvering (talk) 02:19, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

The most simple ABAN is one that solely blocks an editor from editing a page; it is akin to a partial block on singular page, just that it requires consensus to be undone. It does not stop the editor from being disruptive on the talk, or their user talk, or other pages. Most of the disruption in the report appears to relates to the talk page, and the No original research noticeboard, which aren't covered by the most basic ABAN. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 02:21, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

@ asilvering 45dogs. OK, thanks for the clarification. Maybe then a TBAN ban is better. Separately, I'm remembering now that the user said they planned to follow up with a new RfC on reliable sources (I guess trying to dispute ABC News as a reliable source?). I don't know if there's a term for "disruptive RfC's", but is there any sort of ban/warning that could address that? BetsyRogers (talk) 02:57, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

I would classify disruptive RfCs as just simply being disruptive. I would image doing such a thing, at least soon after being unblocked, would cause them to be reblocked as simply WP:NOTHERE. Depending on the contents of the RFC, it could violate a TBAN as well since TBANs are (to my knowledge) generally classified as broadly construed. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 04:12, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

• Support CBAN. Badakhshan ziba may be editing in good faith, but at a certain point competence is required. They've shown a distinct inability to listen to and comprehend points raised by other editors. There may be a language barrier at play here, but their personal attacks against other contributors are also unacceptable. Anne drew (talk · contribs) 01:23, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks for the links! That clears up a few things. BetsyRogers (talk) 02:59, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

• Procedural note: - I have declined a request to unblock (although they have already filed another), based in part on the fact that it is clear to me that the community wants to make the decision as to the outcome of this particular situation, rather than have an admin singularly decide. I won't opine of the merits here, as I've already handled the unblock request. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 03:55, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
• Support CBAN I always try to assume good faith to the final, tiniest shred, and I take the arguments presented for a TBAN instead very seriously. However, the poor conduct here is so extensive, beyond simply poor edits in a specific topic area, that I see this editor's approach to be fundamentally incompatible with a collaborative project such as this one. Their ethnic WP:RGW is extremely troubling, but I have zero confidence that this editor will react well to any kind of disagreement on any topic. While I have a great deal of confidence in admins, my personal belief is that with behavior this poor and with so many editors involved, the community has a responsibility to deal with it, and make it our problem; too often we outsource our headaches to admins. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 08:49, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
• Support CBAN: Yes, that's a massive wall of OP text. But it's also a massive tally of violations; we'd CBAN someone for a tenth as many of them and not even blink. It's a good indef, but I just don't see a way clear to ever trust this editor again. Dennis Brown called it in the first sentence of the first decline: "This seems too convenient, just 4.5 hours after you are blocked, you have an epiphany regarding a few months of abusive behavior." The fulsome apologies also just seem like snake oil to me: this degree of egregious behavior isn't a momentary spasm, or a "I was wrongly thought that my behavior was probably normal" (what, did this bloke not notice that no one else talks this way here??), or "I recognize that my strong personal connection to this sensitive topic caused me to communicate inappropriately?" No. Doing this for months is strong evidence that this is who this editor is. Ravenswing 09:48, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

  (Non-administrator comment) Thank you for your comment, I completely agree. If anyone here has still doubts that the "epiphany" the user suddenly had just might be real and they really want to change their behaviour all of a sudden, I want to pick apart the content of this comment and their second asking to unblock to show what their real intent might be IMHO.

  But I have greatly improved the content of Wikipedia on the page related to the ethnicities of Afghanistan. Don't you consider this? Just compare the content of the article 6 months ago with the current article in the ethnic composition table

  Let alone the fact that considering that would in no way excuse their overall behaviour...

  This is so incredibly out of touch with reality and a straight punch to my face that it's hard to comprehend. Firstly, because all of their already discussed destructive behavior in all of the months. But secondly and more importantly, they completely undermine my contributions to the content of the article. I by no means want to give the impression that I created the live page all by myself, I certainly didn't, but them to say they "have greatly improved the content [...] on the page" while it was me who sat on the page for months [276][277][278][279][280][281][282], trying to improve the whole content with the intent to bring it to WP:GOODARTICLE status [283][284] (which BTW was also honored and acknowledged by other users [285][286]), while all they actually did was complaining about the content or straightup reverting everything [287][288][289]. Even the current ethnic percentage table was mostly done by me and Xan747 [290][291]. And now, they are claiming all the improvements made by me for themselves? That just shows how incredibly self-centered, ignorant, and righteous they really are (keyword: WP:ICHY), and how they want to make this discussion about them.

  I believe I have fallen into a big trap to be permanently banned from participating in Ethnic groups in Afghanistan.

  The same person who has just filed a complaint against me threatened me a few days ago and say ( I will try to find a way to leave you out of the discussion completely )

  Now I just realize that he was gathering evidence against me. this is just one example from several case.

  They don't really feel sorry for their behavior at all, they just think I and all of the other users who warned them for months made a plot against them. This may fall in the psychological realm of siege mentality (or "me against the world") and is totally inappropriate for serious discussions. Edit: Conveniently for them, they left out that part of the "threat" (inflammatory rhetoric!) where I said:

  ... unless you change your way of cooperativness dramatically.

  I'm pretty sure this is called framing, WP:GASLIGHTING, or playing the victim card. SdHb (talk) 13:10, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

  I didn't really know three months ago that I was violating Wikipedia's rules of conduct.

  me and other editor who were involved in the discussion, both some times had an unfriendly tone. So I thought this was probably normal behavior and there was nothing wrong with it.

  More examples of being just blatantly oblivious to all the warnings that were presented to them for months and months.

  Is it justice that I can't even speak?

  The next example of inflammatory rhetoric/emotionalization of the discussion.

  This all shows that their responses are still framed by the same unproductive conflict patterns as before, rather than by a genuine understanding of the concerns that multiple editors have raised and tried to sympathize with. But as @Asilvering already said:

  It's unending. @Xan747 tried, I tried, @Robert McClenon tried, evidently others have tried: nothing has worked. This editor is not able to contribute collaboratively with others.

  I'll leave it at that. SdHb (talk) 10:42, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

  You were gathering evidence against them. Very comprehensively. Quite persuasively. Part of my support for CBAN comes from that they seem considerably more indignant that they're being brought to book than contrite about their appalling behavior. Ravenswing 11:18, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

  Exactly. There's no actual remorse about their behavior against me and others. Just this notion of having been wronged, of being the victim of some coordinated effort against them, rather than someone who has repeatedly and consistently violated core conduct WP policies. Their entire "apology" reframes the situation as a plot to silence them, not as the natural consequence of months of personal attacks, WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior, and refusal to collaborate. SdHb (talk) 11:51, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

• Support CBAN: If only administrators are allowed to vote, disregard this since I'm not one. I periodically weigh in on the OR Noticeboard where I encountered Badakhshan ziba. I don't know about all the other issues SdHb but based solely on the OR conversation, I felt like Badakhshan ziba, while seemingly well-meaning, just doesn't have the temperament or basic capabilities to carry on conversations to get to a reasonable conclusion (and was far from that) and that this was leading to many editors spending many hours of fruitless time. Banning this user would allow these many other editors to get on with their work. Novellasyes (talk) 16:01, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

  Admins are not the only editors allowed to !vote non admins can too and several already have(including me.) GothicGolem29 (Talk) 16:08, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

• Support community sanctions they still don't get it, despite extensive coaching and advice. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:21, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

  They've now stated that they are willing to volunteer for a TBAN, although they prefer to request a TBAN that allows them to edit Afghanistan geography and climate. Pinging editors who have supported more severe sanctions in case this affects their opinions: Novellasyes, ortuna imperatrix mundi, EditorShane3456, Anne drew, CoffeeCrumbs, Ravenswing _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:06, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

  One of the pings didn't work so I will add the ping @Fortuna imperatrix mundi. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 22:12, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

  I think in this case, I'm going to stand by my original opinion. Their conduct has been so poor over such a long period that I have zero confidence in their ability to collaborate effectively on any topic, the second they run into a disagreement with another editor. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 22:13, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

  I initially yo-yo'd between CBAN & TBAN following indef appeal (it's waaaay up the page).

  I realise I wasn't pinged here, but for the sake of clarity I will confirm I am going with CBAN - this was going on for literal months and they're now trying to argue that an editor who was understandably frustrated by their actions should also be sanctioned. Blue Sonnet (talk) 22:22, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

  Nope. My objections are to this editor's conduct and attitude, and I doubt their being unleashed on other topic areas will improve it. My statement calling for CBAN stands. Ravenswing 23:14, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

• Question: Has the scope of any potential TBAN been defined here/elsewhere? I assumed it would cover a broad range of topics. If it would only be specific to the general topic of the article, I don't think that would be enough. BetsyRogers (talk) 23:00, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

  BetsyRogers, GothicGolem29 and Cdjp1: what is the scope of the TBAN you are supporting? For instance, is it just ethnic groups in Afghanistan, broadly construed, or something like Afghanistan, broadly construed. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 00:02, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

  My preference, as has been the case in other bans, is to keep it as narrow and specific as is necessary. So "ethnic groups in Afghanistan" seems good enough to me, based on what was seen as at my last comment. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 00:07, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

  I support the TBAN including ethnic groups in Afghanistan broadly construed as that is where the disruption has taken place so that is the necessary topic area to cover Afghanistan as a topic broadly construed per their request for a voluntary TBAN in that area. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 00:35, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

  I don't know if this is possible, but I would support a TBAN that includes the topic of the article AND anything in the realm of contentious topics related to Afghanistan (ethnic groups, cultural debates, politics, etc.). But that might leave too much up to interpretation.

  The main reason I'm not voting for CBAN right now is that although the user did get warnings, the conduct was still allowed to occur for several months with no resulting blocks/bans as far as I know. This isn't a criticism, and it's nobody's fault in particular, but it's still the case. If warnings aren't followed up with consequences, then they're not sending a clear message.

  Also, I looked through the user's edit/contributions history, and it seems the problem behavior only started when they began editing the article in question. Before that, they had been editing for a couple of years, and their contributions were mostly about geography & topography of Afghanistan, and they were not at all disruptive. BetsyRogers (talk) 02:15, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

  I understand what you're saying, but I disagree with some of your reasoning. This is a community project run by volunteers, it's not our responsibility to correct or manage one editor's behaviour - that's their own responsibility.

  Blocks and bans should be a last resort and they're intended to prevent disruption, not to punish misbehaviour.

  I don't really agree with the idea that it's not the editor's fault because no-one disciplined them until now - multiple editors spent literal months trying to educate them, but it didn't work. They were blocked as a last resort.

  CBAN's aren't permanent, the Standard offer exists so an editor can work on another project for six months or so, then return with proof that they can edit productively and won't cause further disruption if they are unblocked.

  A CBAN means they the community as a whole can then review that history (or even a well-written appeal on its own) and decide whether that editor has demonstrated the competency needed to return to this community-driven project. Blue Sonnet (talk) 07:53, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

  I am still in favor of a CBAN. The determining factor for me is "ratio of massive amount of time-consuming coaching to any observed changes or uptake". It has taken a lot of people a lot of time to offer a very significant amount of coaching spread out over multiple places, and this does not appear to have resulted in uptake. I don't want to waste the future time of other editors. Novellasyes (talk) 19:23, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

• Changed support to CBAN (with the standard offer).

@Blue-Sonnet, I didn't mean to seem like I was saying that their behavior wasn't their fault. But you (and @Novellasyes & others) are right that this has taken up too much volunteer time/effort already. And a TBAN leaves room for further disruption, which is really unfair to other volunteers. I'd like to think this editor would be able/willing to get back to their nondistruptive editing style of the past (e.g., when they were making helpful contributions in geography and topography). But I guess the best place for them to demonstrate that is in a separate space. Like you said, there are other projects where this can happen.

- Giving more weight to the degree & duration of disruption that has happened (which has had a big impact on other volunteers), *and* the current uncertainty that a TBAN would actually prevent a similar scenario (which is again unfair to volunteers) , I wouldn't be opposed to a CBAN. BetsyRogers (talk) 23:11, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Don't worry about it, I just wanted to present my viewpoint to see if that might help put things into perspective, if that makes sense? It's difficult to gauge intent when you only have the written word to go from anyway!

They've added a new Talk post that I think they want carrying over to ANI - I'm not 100% sure so I'm double-checking with them first.

A few people (myself included) have recommended that they drop the stick, wait for a decision and/or work on editing elsewhere to prep for a standard offer appeal, but it doesn't look like that's going to happen for the moment.

That said, they're entitled to give us a response so I'll transfer it over when I get confirmation. Blue Sonnet (talk) 23:28, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Regarding other ways to participate, personally I've started dabbling in uploading cc0/open-access images to Wikimedia Commons. (Articles need photos or nobody will read them!). :-) BetsyRogers (talk) 23:56, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

I just saw This reply from earlier. If this type of reply had happened days ago (instead of the denials and refusals to take feedback), I'd probably still support a TBAN alone. The best advice they got was to step away for a few days, and they ignored it.  :( BetsyRogers (talk) 03:12, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

• One look at the user's talk page says it all. Will an admin please close this, imho, it's gone on long enough. I can't since I declined the unblock. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 06:37, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Copied over from user Talk page

"Last words. Hello everyone.

@Blue-Sonnet, @Rosguill , @Cdjp1 , @GothicGolem29 , @Dennis Brown , @BetsyRogers , @45dogs , @asilvering, @SarekOfVulcan , @Anne drew , @ClaudineChionh

I request a final vote. C-Ben. T-Ben. No comments. 11 person.

I have to say that I see ANI as a courtroom. And this reminds me of the famous movie 12 Angry Men.

I ask the Wikipedia community why you think I am going to do something destructive again? I am human. I have brain. I understand that if I do something disruptive again, I will be punished more severely. For this simple reason, I will do my best not to commit another wrongdoing. why you dont believe me?

Why are you going to punish me in the harshest way? Is it fair that the harshest punishment should be given to me , while the first time I get blocked?

To be honest, being banned is very, very unfair and harsh for anyone who is the first time blocked and has little experience.

To gain the trust of the Wikipedia community,

1- I pledge to voluntarily implement a ban on topics related to Afghanistan. 2- I pledge not to engage in disruptive behavior because I am human and understand that if I make a mistake, the greatest punishment awaits me. 3- I pledge to consult Teahouse whenever I encounter a problem or have a question so that I do not cause problems again. 4- please Tell me, what other commitment should I make?

I ask the Wikipedia community to pay attention to my useful and non-disruptive history before entering into the discussion of Afghan ethnicities.

And I like to say again that this situation reminds me of the famous movie 12 Angry Men. The decision is yours. There is nothing more I can do for now."

Copied by Blue Sonnet (talk) 01:09, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Fine, my heart isn't made of stone. I've struck my CBAN vote. Please don't make me regret it. Anne drew (talk · contribs) 01:15, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

As others have stated before I will reiterate that a sanction is not a punishment it is about preventing disruption. As for my !vote I will amend to Afghanistan broadly construed as that is what they have volunteered to do. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 01:18, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

I haven't actually officially voted, and I don't particularly have the time to review right now. I do believe either sanction would prevent disruption though. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 01:31, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

There is no change in how I feel about this situation. This isn't a trial, and the analogy to 12 Angry Men is inapt and raises questions about what this editor thinks their responsibility in this situation truly is (though not why I haven't changed how I feel). This editor was continually abusive to a fair number of editors over multiple months, and had no trouble ignoring a parade of increasingly stern warnings and pleas from other editors to edit collaboratively. The sudden toneshift from hostility to contrition only came with the realization that there would be consequences for their actions. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 01:59, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

The analogy to 12 Angry Men is very inapt. In that movie, a jury originally voted 11-1 to convict but after their own examination of the evidence returned a unanimous verdict of not guilty. I fail to see the relevance. Narky Blert (talk) 05:08, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Hmm, I said there were 11 people voting for indef/CBAN and one unblock with TBAN at one point, plus they really want us to reconsider and change our decision - that's all I can think off the top of my head. Blue Sonnet (talk) 05:23, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

The latest [292] makes me feel stronger that a community ban is for the best. @Badakhshan ziba, you're not on trial and you're not being sentenced to death; you're being restricted from editing on a website.

You keep talking about Wikipedia rules needing to be spelled out for you, but you're not currently blocked because you ran afoul of some obscure Wikipedia rule or because you made some accidental mistake. You're here because for months, you didn't follow basic human interaction rules that apply to any collaborative project, not just Wikipedia. Nobody is happy having to have this conversation, but you're the one who brought us here as a result of your actions. I don't think I have anything else to say. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 01:36, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm still concerned that they could easily fall into bad habits if met with opposition over something they're passionate about - during their appeal they wanted (or strongly inferred that they wanted) sanctions against one of their opponents (the OP)[293], who had understandably become frustrated with their behaviour over the past 2-3 months.

They're active on Persian Wikipedia [294] (and Commons [295]) so I've suggested they edit over there for a while to demonstrate a long-term change in behaviour. They seem happy to do this. Blue Sonnet (talk) 02:26, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

If this user understood what the problem is, they wouldn't characterize the potential ban as "very, very unfair and harsh". It isn't. It's an action taken to protect the time and headspace of WP volunteers. As @CoffeeCrumbs: says, up until now, you "had no trouble ignoring a parade of increasingly stern warnings and pleas from other editors to edit collaboratively". If you're not blocked now, then this whole exchange will be just another in a series of increasingly stern warnings that won't achieve the intended result (protecting WP volunteers). Novellasyes (talk) 03:03, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm addressing this directly to Badakhshan ziba if that's okay:

Regarding "please Tell me, what other commitment should I make?" Some suggestions that I hope you'll take seriously:

1. Follow through on your commitment to consult the Teahouse FIRST, rather than escalating to a formal dispute.

2. Pay attention to the good advice you're given. So many people DID take the time to give you feedback, and they DID warn you that your hostile and rude behavior could result in a block/ban, and you ignored it.

3.  Several times after the block was in place, you said you weren't familiar with the guidelines for expected/prohibited conduct. But there are numerous pages of help articles to assist you with this! It's your responsibly to educate yourself on this. If you haven't read through the introductory pages yet, you should. Here are a few you can start with:

• Help:Introduction to Wikipedia
• Help:Introduction to policies and guidelines (see Conduct)
• Civility; WP:AGF; WP:NPA; WP:OWN

4. When in doubt, ask yourself how you would want to be treated or spoken to. Would you like to be repeatedly accused of the things you have accused others of? (especially SdHb). I assume you wouldn't. So please don't do it to others.

5. I looked through your contributions from when you first started editing here, and you made some very helpful contributions on a topic you clearly like. My suggestion would be to focus your efforts on topics that bring you enjoyment. Avoid topics that are emotional or stressful. It's not worth your time, energy, and emotional health to get caught up in a lengthy dispute, especially on an article that anyone else could come along and edit later anyway. (See WP:OWN)

- Changing my vote back to TBAN, but I'm not sure it will help. Your comparison to "12 Angry Men" is implying that not everyone here is acting in good faith. That was not a good choice. You might have swayed a few more votes from CBAN to TBAN if you had kept that to yourself.

... I think I'm done commenting here. I know everyone here has thought about this carefully and honestly. As a more-or-less newcomer to this process, I'm incredibly impressed by all of the effort you all put into this. BetsyRogers (talk) 06:28, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

• Support Tban from Afghani politics/culture/ethnicity. Oppose CBAN.

I don't think a CBAN is the right answer. This seems like ignorance, possibly someone who should have been pblocked from Ethnic groups in Afghanistan months ago, as what I feel like I'm seeing in the fast about face is not necessarily disingenuousness but possibly a failure to have read the room followed by the horrified realization that "Oh, shit, they're serious".

Yes, they ignored multiple warnings, but again that could be ignorance since apparently nothing ever happened? They're in a dispute with people with whom they profoundly disagree, they think this is how things are done here -- people trade insults and warnings and pound their chests, but it's all just posturing -- because nothing has ever actually come of it.

So now we're looking at the accumulation of stuff no one did anything about and we're talking about a Cban? Feels like overcorrecting. Valereee (talk) 12:22, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Comment - I agree that something should have been done way earlier than this. GarethBaloney (talk) 22:19, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

I’m not opposed to a tban solution, but I do think this read skips over some concerning elements displayed here: there’s the ABF responses to editors uninvolved with the dispute and their advice, and there’s also the responses to me in their attempts to appeal the block, where they seem to repeatedly misunderstand my suggestions. Even when they’re clearly trying to comply with my recommendations, they ended up missing what I’m actually asking of them. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:22, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

• Support CBAN with the standard offer. I think this editor has been warned many times about possible editing restrictions if they do not stop with the continuous disruptions, which have gone unheeded. A CBAN, in this instance, is to protect the community and maintain our collaborative editing and collegial atmosphere. They do not seem capable of relating to this type of editing. This is not about punishment. If they become serious about editing on Wikipedia they can contact an administrator or experienced editor after six months per the Standard offer.---Steve Quinn (talk) 06:36, 28 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.

Repeat TA hopping user disruptive 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.

---

• ~2025-37336-09 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ~2025-36935-40 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ~2025-37450-39 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ~2025-34162-00 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ~2025-37001-49 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ~2025-37405-16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Abusively using multiple TAs to reinstate personal attacks. See here where he was warned about it 5 times including by an admin. On ~2025-37450-39 he then reinstates his personal attack.[296]

You'll also notice ~2025-37450-39 was only active for 13 minutes before the owner switched to ~2025-36935-40 to make a revert (related to the whitewashing of the term "neo-nazi" on Grokipedia which he originally did on ~2025-37001-49)[297], to avoid scrutiny. He has also made additional talk page personal attacks despite all of the warnings.[298] BMWF (talk) 19:08, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

See this prior discussion that BMWF deleted https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BMWF&oldid=1324937357 as well as the current one regarding their conduct. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#WP:SLEEPER,_WP:PGAME,_edit_warring_on_locked_topics

This person has never made a productive edit ever and is not here to build an encyclopedia. How he avoided a ban this long is a mystery to me ~2025-37405-16 (talk) 19:19, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

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

~2025-37431-22 and Richard Reid

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.

---

Status:     No further action currently required

~2025-37431-22 (talk · contribs) is posting pretty severe BLP violations on the Richard Reid page ([299], [300], [301]) , on Abu Hamza al-Masri ([302]) and anti-islamic comments on [303] Finsbury Park Mosque. They do not appear to have made any constructive edits (at least not under that temporary account) Nigel Ish (talk) 10:25, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

I noticed the temp's vandalism at ADX Florence and blocked them for 31 hours. I need to get some sleep now but if another adminstrator thinks a longer block is in order, I do not object. Cullen328 (talk) 10:30, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

I for one would definitely advocate stricter sanctions here - I don't think it would be unreasonable to block the underlying IP given the obscene and blatant nature of the vandalism. Athanelar (talk) 19:53, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

They're definitely Wikipedia:NOTHERE and I can't see them adding anything of value. If they mature in the future they can create a proper account. Blue Sonnet (talk) 21:03, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

This edit tipped me over the edge. Hate is disruptive. Indeffed. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 00:07, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

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

User:~2025-36898-64

Do not feed the trolls (non-admin closure) SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 01:59, 2 December 2025 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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.

---

He is currently adding unsourced material see Special:Contributions/~2025-36898-64 ILoveGeography123456 (talk) 19:58, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

1. Try warning them on their talk page using the {{uw-unsourced}} template and see if they respond or stop their behaviour. You haven't even told them they did anything wrong before coming right to ANI.
2. When reporting at ANI, please include specific diffs (links to specific edits) demonstrating the problem.
3. When reporting at ANI, you are required to notify the person you have reported using the {{ANI-notice}} template.

I'm going to close your report as it's premature and without specific diffs. Please open a new report if the problematic behaviour continues after you've appropriately warned the user, and if in the future you do open another report, include diffs and remember to notify the person you're reporting. Athanelar (talk) 21:04, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

the reverted edits is 5/26 edits Imakeallflags (talk) 01:50, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

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

Update on User:Edit Wikiepdia 123

Do not feed the trolls (non-admin closure) SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 02:01, 2 December 2025 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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.

---

Edit Wikiepdia 123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) The User has not been globally locked. Imakeallflags (talk) 00:55, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Why would they be? THey've not edited any other language wiki and we don't globally lock accounts unless there is an actual need to such as cross wiki abuse. Lavalizard101 (talk) 01:00, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

I think that this is the only Imbackjj sock that hasn’t been globally locked. Imakeallflags (talk) 01:02, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Imbackjjj, we had earlier issues on another account (including an open text password on their talk page), and this is a taunting duck wasting our time. Nathannah • 📮 01:15, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Hey! Imakeallflags (talk) 01:23, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Then why did you remove a speedy deletion template? SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 01:25, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

I’m not a sockpuppet, I am a sock puppet of Crimea Republic :) Imakeallflags (talk) 01:27, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

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

Undisclosued LLM usage on talk pages

I added the latest comment by Stop culprits (talk · contribs) onto an LLM detecting website called GPTZero Dashboard. The following was the result:

• We are highly confident this text was AI generated
• Probability breakdown
• 100% AI generated
• 0% Mixed
• 0% Human

--Trade (talk) 08:17, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

I understand the concern. To be clear: I sometimes use AI tools only to help fix grammar and wording, but all the points I make are my own. If this is an issue, I will avoid using AI assistance on Wikipedia going forward.

I have no intention of causing disruption, and I am happy to follow whatever guidance administrators provide. I will not add any contested content to the article without consensus. Stop culprits (talk) 09:13, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Em dashes and that kind of quotation marks are a telltale sign of LLMs. Be advised that while using LLMs in discussions isn't specifically banned, if you continue to use LLMs to write rely (especially without disclosure), other editors will (and should) ignore your contributions, since you didn't actually make them. Cortador (talk) 09:35, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Precisely what policy violation is involved here? What attempts did you make to settle your dispute with Stop culprits? While there's broad consensus that the use of LLMs for articlespace edits is highly objectionable, there's not a whole lot for its use on talk pages ... except, as Cordator accurately points out, many editors will ignore them as illegitimate. Ravenswing 10:22, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

He was asked by other users to stop using LLM previously. It only seems to have stopped now Trade (talk) 10:45, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

The precise WP:PAG violation is WP:BLUDGEONing a talk page discussion so that an article violates WP:BLPCRIME Ravenswing. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:51, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm not massively happy about the stuff they're trying to shoehorn into that BLP, either; I may pblock them if they add that again. I see they've now taken their LLM-generated complaints to the BLP board instead... Black Kite (talk) 12:23, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

I’ve warned them. See last comment in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Need help and support and feedback. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 15:17, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

This is backward. WP:HATGPT (the talk-page AI guideline in question) has existed for quite some time now. We have only had an articlespace LLM guideline for roughly 24 hours. Gnomingstuff (talk) 14:44, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Yay, we do? (Seriously freaking overdue!) Where is it? Ravenswing 00:46, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

WP:NEWLLM. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 00:47, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Wow first I heard about this(I did particpate in an RFC on one I dont know if that is this one or not but I didnt know it had come into force either way) great news very overdue. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 18:16, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Temp account sockpuppeting to repeatedly reinsert BLPVIO content against consensus, refusal to DROPTHESTICK

• ~2025-30168-55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

So, some history. There was a barrage of rewrites to the page PinkNews in December 2024 and Feb 2025 during which since disputed content was slipped in with no one noticing, as often happens when a single editor makes 20 or 30 edits in a go and most of them are decent.

In April, though, Golikom noticed it in the lead, and deleted it.[304] Sweet6970 (Now banned) restored it,[305], and I deleted it again in agreement.

A talk thread was opened, during which it came out 2:1 against inclusion, and since it was a BLPCRIME issue, ONUS is very firmly on inclusion - at which point an IP came in, posted in the thread that they found the reasons against inclusion unsatisfactory, and unilaterally restored it, citing "WP:TALK" (remember that wording).[306][307] Which I removed again because again, no consensus.[308] Raladic (now banned) then noticed the information in the body, and removed it per BLPCRIME.[309]. Sweet6970 reinstated it.[310] Simonm223 then removed it again, citing BLP.[311] The IP then came back and restored it by simply saying it was well sourced and not a BLP vio.[312] Nil Einne reverted, citing BLPRESTORE.[313] IP restored it again because it was well sourced.[314] I then reverted again.[315] IP then edit warred it back in.[316], I reverted.[317] And then the following day, admins put in ECP protection on the page for Persistent violations of the BLP policy, and then a temp came along and restored it in November several months later, using the exact same arguments and logic as that IP, saying that it was Well-sourced part using Reliable Sources removed without proper explanation, nor seeking consensus on WP:Talk remember "WP:Talk"? Very specific wording.[318] And then when I reverted it, he said that he had reinserted content that had previously been in the article for many months.[319] This part is important, because when I said consensus was very firmly against this content and that he'd reinstated it like six times, he denied being that IP editor, saying that I was accusing him and then made the same argument as that IP of Consensus on Wikipedia, from what I have read, is not about how many people say "X", but the quality of the arguments for "X." So no such consensus exists for your position and that the content was okay because it was reliably sourced.[320][321] So I said fine. Okay, you're not that editor. But it'd be a very reasonable conclusion based on the fact that you're edit warring back in content from six months ago using the exact arguments and wording as the IP, making reference to page history from a year ago and saying you reinserted content from then, that you're the same IP; and I suggested he make an account to avoid any future confusion.[322] He got angry at this and went Also, "bro," can you not tell me what I should or shouldn't do? If Wikipedia wants everyone to make an account, it would force people to do so.[323] Anyway, we went back and forth for a bit longer, I repeatedly explained that consensus is not invalid just because he disagrees with it and that no one is obligated to WP:SATISFY him, he refused to hear it and started threatening to report me, so hi, hello, I'm here to start the party.Snokalok (talk) 16:38, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

I see that User:The Bushranger has now protected the page, which is what I would have done. Deb (talk) 16:38, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi! I made a couple minor edits. Sorry, I had multiple edit pages open at once because I needed to pull diffs, so I originally wrote the "remember the use of WP:TALK as a term" thing in the wrong place but it's here now. Apologies again, you know how these things can be Snokalok (talk) 16:40, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

I see no indication that the temporary account is connected to any other user. However, their history as a legacy IP user suggests that this is someone who shouldn't be anywhere near American politics. A small selection of their edits that weren't simple vandalism, that is. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:49, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

I think PinkNews is technically UK politics, they're a British publication - there's just a massive right wing resurgence in both countries right now so it's easy to get them mixed. Snokalok (talk) 16:52, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

What a time to be alive. I meant to make the point that they're not a new user, and have a history of pushing a right-wing POV in topics that attract right-wing POV pushers. They have participated in discussions about this same specific content at least twice (two separate discussions) in the past. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:09, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Either way, it falls under WP:CT/GG (not to mention WP:CT/BLP). I should note that the issue of socking using TAs can be muddled, given how they're, well, temporary. But a user who has clearly previously edited based on behavior who insists they haven't is not a good look for them. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:27, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

User:MaMemmi09

There's been a run of problematic behaviour by User:MaMemmi09 at the article 4 Elements (series). Disruptive page moves is the main problem: probably easiest to look at the article's history, rather than bomb this paragraph with diffs of that. Over the past week it's been back and forth from draft to main space, User:, Wikipedia: User talk:, moved to 4 Elements Thailand (series) and 4 Elements Thailand (TV Series), etc. Once it was nominated for AFD, MaMemmi09 moved it several more times, and yesterday removed the AFD template twice [324], [325]. Many warnings at their user talk, including three level 4 warnings from me, have met with no response. Took the blatant vandalism to AIV yesterday, but the report went stale, so I'm bringing it here. Wikishovel (talk) 12:16, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

rather than bomb this paragraph with diffs of that – I've less shame, logs: [326][327][328][329][330][331][332][333][334][335][336][337], and that's only the entires moving a main article into or out of articlespace, there's more shuffling between user, user talk, wikipedia, sandboxes, etc: [338][339][340][341], and more.

A user who's making this many nonsensical moves, including user talk: to draft: [342] and draft talk: to wikipedia: [343], shouldn't have move perms at a minimum. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 00:08, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

+1 to all this. I nominated this article for deletion and it's been moved multiple times since then in a very intentional attempt to dodge deletion. aesurias (talk) 00:39, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

• Performed an indef pblock from page moves until they explain what the snook they were doing. If they do so satisfactorialy, anyone can lift the pblock. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:39, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Johnpaulweller spam texting everyone at Paul Weller

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.

---

• Johnpaulweller (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Paul Weller (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

hello and thank you for your contribution I'm impressed with your comments you can text me directly on my personal whatsapp +1 (xxx) xxx-xxxx I have something to share with you JPW seems to be spam posting this on a bunch of comments. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 21:12, 29 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.

citation bot malfunctioning

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

---

I've just reverted an edit by citation bot to Retrograde and prograde motion. The bot appears to be malfunctioning. It replaced the title of a book with an unrelated journal article. Fdfexoex (talk) 22:34, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Several of us have reported similar bugs at User talk:Citation bot#ArXiv references getting completely messed up, the bot is being run on the draft namespace with no one checking the changes, it is difficult to spot as well because at least for my case, it is merging and mixing up information from other references. I have blocked it from making changes on my pages, but I worry about all the other pages not being scrutinized as much. Ajheindel (talk) 15:40, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Now the bot has reverted me and reintroduced the incorrect edit. Fdfexoex (talk) 01:10, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Fyi Smith609. Anne drew (talk · contribs) 01:19, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Please see stopping the bot from editing a specific citation. Isaidnoway (talk) 15:32, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

For months now the bot's maintenance has fallen to someone with little coding experience who can only change small things, and not fix any serious malfunctions; see User talk:Citation bot#Is anyone actually maintaining this bot?. So when the bot repeatedly introduces serious errors to citations with little hope of fixing it, I think stopping the bot from editing altogether should come into consideration, rather than playing whack-a-mole with the same error on all the articles where it recurs. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:59, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

I agree. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 18:16, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

The bot has been reverted at List of largest exoplanets for once again replacing titles with other random titles. How do we shut this bot down for good? Fdfexoex (talk) 00:40, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

It has also just been blocked from editing Union-closed sets conjecture for similar misbehavior. I suggest that it be blocked until its maintainers convincingly claim that these bugs have been fixed. (I wouldn't want to block it permanently if it is properly maintained; on the whole it does much more good than harm.) —David Eppstein (talk) 08:11, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Time to hit the funny red button? ~2025-31733-18 (talk) 13:51, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Does this need to be reported somewhere else or can it be resolved here? Not sure what the procedure for something like this would be. Ajheindel (talk) 15:44, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

If the maintainers were maintaining the bot the reporting mechanism would be to go to User talk:Citation bot and follow the instructions at the top of the page (click a button and fill out a form, starting a new bug report). —David Eppstein (talk) 17:57, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

• Blocked As there have been repeated concerns raised about the bot introducing errors, and the lack of avaibility of experienced developers, I have blocked the bot for 72 hours. As well as stopping any other errors from occurring, it may also bring attention to this thread from other editors. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:44, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
• For context, the phrase Feedback [required] from maintainers appears 100 times on that page—as noted above, going back over a year *minor facepalm* —Fortuna, imperatrix 17:16, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

This is rather unfortunate. If there is anything I can do to help (experienced professional software engineer) I would. Andre🚐 18:50, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

I'd contribute too if it weren't written in PHP. — DVRTed (Talk) 19:07, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Well, the code is at https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot, and AManWithNoPlan, while mostly inactive on-wiki, still appears to be reviewing PRs there. So I suspect code contributions would be welcome. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:39, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

I've been programming PHP for years (random example), but I don't think I can help as I don't know how Citation Bot is supposed to work. The last project I had a go at writing was an open-source replacement for SineBot and that stalled when the "real" bot came back online. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:29, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

• Let's ping the other maintainers: @Kaldari and AManWithNoPlan:. I'll also leave a block notice at User talk:Citation bot. –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:13, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

  I've opened an issue on github (https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/issues/4823) to help alert the maintainers as well. Redalert2fan (talk) 09:58, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

  So far the only action has been a small update to the "bot is blocked" error message. The current 72-hour block may not be enough, especially if the goal is to get the current significant problems fixed before unblocking and not merely to trigger someone to start paying attention. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:01, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

  I've lengthened the block to a indefinite block for now. Even optimistically speaking I don't think 72 hours was (or is) sufficient to address the concerns but given the inactivity of the maintainers, the chances of everything being fixed approach zero unless folks step up (I personally haven't looked deeply at the code, but might do so later) Sohom (talk) 04:34, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

  It is unfortunate that citation bot has to be blocked. But I agree these problems need to be resolved before removing the block. Also, I didn't realize that problems have been manifesting for awhile without any response. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:50, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

  72 hours was a starting point; enough time to add discussion to either decide the bot could be unblocked, or should remain so - the latter has now happened. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:07, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

  The same problem with {{cite book}} and {{cite web}} has been going on for months... since February, at least. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 19:03, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Citation bot is an important bot. I hope we don't loose its knowledge and solutions. Certain features could be disabled as being too ambitious and half-baked. But most of it is fine and mostly bug free (I think). Would like to see AI produce a spec of the features it contains. Then determine which ones are causing bug reports. Then ask AI to disable those features. -- GreenC 04:50, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm skeptical that it can be done as reductionistically as that, especially by an AI. I'm unfamiliar with the code, but it is uncommon for big pieces of code to be as modular as you suggest. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:28, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Of course it won't be as simple as flipping a switch somewhere, and will require testing, but disabling features is often easy relative to adding/repairing them. I've written two large bots like this and you are almost forced to modularize to maintain control of the code. If it's so bad where everything is a global variable and not isolated from everything else, it's probably not worth the time, but when I checked the code a while ago it didn't seem that way. Sometimes you get a clue by the length of the functions. Shorter the better. -- GreenC 16:25, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

• Keeping this bot blocked is disruptive. So it should be unblocked soon, possibly with some extra guidance for users on how to check for incorrect results. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:04, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

  @Graeme Bartlett, You are free to use the citation expander gadget to run the bot manually through your own account. The block does not block editors from using it with proper oversight. Sohom (talk) 00:21, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

  @Sohom Datta, unfortunately the gadget doesn't work (except on really small articles) and hasn't for quite some time, so the bot is the only way to use it reliably. Jay8g [V•T•E] 00:35, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

  It just uses Citation Bot which is blocked. Actually it does work to some extent. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:41, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

  I did some exploration of the gadget just now. Looks like the gadget calls either https://citations.toolforge.org/process_page.php or https://citations.toolforge.org/gadgetapi.php depending on what you click. So it is likely that whatever is wrong with the gadget is actually a bug in the bot's PHP code (rather than a bug in MediaWiki:Gadget-citations.js). –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:56, 29 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:LuffyDe Block Evasion

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.

---

It looks like @User:LuffyDe was first subject to restriction on editing topics related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, and that restriction was renewed after the user violated it. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it looks like those restrictions are indefinite pending extended confirmed status, and given that the user has not yet reached 500 lifetime edits, the restriction is still in place.

Today, the user blanked an entire section of Herzog Park, related to the proposal to rename the park from the former President of Israel to a young alleged victim of the Israel-Palestine war. I responded with a Level 3 talk page warning, noting the previous violations. The user's explanation is difficult to believe.

See also 1, 2, 3 three more edits in the last nine days related to the Arab-Israel conflict, out of only thirteen total edits in this time period before the Herzog Park edit. Ilvekset (talk) 19:27, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

I'll explain my rationale on the edits and why I don't believe I have violated A/I topic ban. For Jamaal Bowman edit, I think it was editorializing. I couldn't find a reliable source that says his competitor was pro-Israel, and therefore I removed the reference. Jamaal Bowman is largely American and his promixity to the A/I conflict is secondary at best. 2026 United States House of Representatives elections in New York article: Pure editorializing. No candidate has such a line and only Torres had that line. Not even attempting to be impartial, pure hatred towards a candidate towards his politics. I reviewed all districts and ZERO candidates had any form of that line. Also, the article is talking largely about US elections. Tucker Carlson article: Do talk requests count towards A/I topic ban? I am under impression they don't. Happy to be corrected. Thank you all. LuffyDe (talk) 20:13, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

This post on your Talk page says you can't edit about the conflict anywhere on Wikipedia when you were blocked last time - topic bans are also usually "broadly construed", which means you can't edit anything even tangentially related to the topic.

You were also told that commenting on the conflict is out-of-bounds here, well before you breached the ban last time. To most editors, this would indicate that you shouldn't be anywhere near the subject.

I don't get how you could think that a park that's going to be named after a victim of the conflict isn't a topic that's related to the conflict? Plus the part that you removed was specifically talking about the conflict and included a direct link to it?

You removed: "It proposes to rename the park after Hind Rajab, a five-year-old Palestinian girl from the Gaza Strip who was allegedly killed by Israeli forces during the Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip."

I'm not using hyperbole, I'm genuinely having trouble understanding your logic here. I also note this is the one edit that you haven't mentioned in your response, maybe because it's harder to defend.

In the other linked edits, you removed the words "by pro-Israel candidate”, "Torres is considered vulnerable to a primary challenge by progressives due to his pro-Israel views.", then created a Talk page section, titled: "Anti Israel or against Zionism" discussing whether Tucker Carlson is anti-Israel.

If you're not sure if something is related to your ban, stay well away from it. It doesn't matter if your edit is justified, you can't touch it. Leave it for someone else.

If you failed to adhere to your topic ban on two separate occasions - even after having things literally spelled out to you - you're not leaving the admins with a lot of choices in what to do next. Blue Sonnet (talk) 20:35, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

"Happy to be corrected"

On your talk page, here, @Cullen328 specifically warned you that talk pages were included in the ban. This is one of many things that you WP:CANTHEAR. Ilvekset (talk) 20:44, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Expanding on Blue Sonnet's comment, you should be aggressively analyzing any subject's connection to the conflict. "Secondary at best" touches on the conflict. TERTIARY at best touches on the conflict. Casual mentions of Israel or Gaza should be giant red flags to you to keep your hands off, even if they're as trivial or trite as speculation as to whether there's going to be a new halal McDonalds in Khan Yunis next year. You need to be acting as if you're at the mercy of the most kneejerk, hardcore admin on Wikipedia. Ravenswing 20:54, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

It also looks like the previous block was due to this substantive edit which was explicitly talking about the conflict, as were the added sources.

The title of the sources also mentioned the conflict.

This is another reason LuffyDe should have been well aware that "secondary" edits definitely count as a ban violation. Blue Sonnet (talk) 21:20, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

• Given (a) the blatant and unambigous violations of the ECR restriction on WP:CT/A-I, (b) the attempted Wikilawyering about whether or not they were violations, and (c) the fact the last block for this was for 14 days, I have blocked LuffyDe for a month. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:53, 29 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.

Vulgar personal attack on Doug Weller

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.

---

Proposal for CBAN

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.

---

Taunting ANY editor in such a despicable fashion, let alone someone as well-respected as @Doug Weller, is beyond the pale. Star Mississippi graciously invited me to open this back up again if I wished, and frankly, indef or no, I don't ever want to see the likes of Royal2Real on Wikipedia ever again. I'm therefore proposing a community ban on Royal2Real, and seldom was such a ban more deserved. Ravenswing 05:08, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

• Support Mess with the Weller, end up in the cellar. Support a CBAN and will be waiting with an oppose whenever they appeal. ~2025-37411-29 (talk) 05:56, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
• Support - The editor-in-question, needs to be kept away. GoodDay (talk) 06:41, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
• Support: I'll support this, though I can guarantee no administrator would have accepted an unblock request for the indef anyway. 11WB (talk) 06:54, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
• Support But I kinda do actually want some uniquely brave admin to invoke WP:IGNORE regarding the outing restrictions and just ruin this person's week Snokalok (talk) 06:57, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
• Support – make it clear this kind of behaviour is unacceptable. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 07:01, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
• Support as we cannot respond to anything like this with anything but the harshest sanction Ultraodan (T, C) 07:04, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
• Support The comment was beyond the pale. - SchroCat (talk) 08:08, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
• Support - Disgusting behaviour. TarnishedPath^talk 08:18, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

• Support Get rid, don't want. Urgh. Blue Sonnet (talk) 12:56, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

• Support Probably the most vile personal attack I've seen yet, and yeah... Good riddance. Codename AD ^talk 14:36, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

• Support both Ravenswing's reopening and an absolute never to this editor's return. The comment makes me wish we had an unappealable ban. Star Mississippi 14:58, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
• Support I can't even view what the attack was, and that is why I'm supporting. Making a revdel-level attack on someone like Doug means that you are someone who should never be on this site again. Indefinite is not infinite, except cases like this, where it most certainly is. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:26, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

  I just saw what it was earlier in the thread, and wow. That is one of the most vile sentences ever written in the history of the English language. Get this editor off the site. Forever. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:29, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

• Support. WP:CIVIL restrains me from saying what I think of this editor. Narky Blert (talk) 18:15, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

  I really don't think anyone would penalize you for it here, mate. Snokalok (talk) 18:22, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

• Support. Has anyone done a sock check? The conrib history looks sock-y. We could be playing whac-a-mole if there are other accounts. Viriditas (talk) 20:52, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

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

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.

Selim beg

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

---

I’m following this up from an admin talk who suggested opening an ANI, I wanted to notify them first as the blocking admin.

Selim beg was blocked by The Bushranger and later ended up being unblocked by Rosguill. Since the unblock and gaining extended confirmed status, Selim beg has demonstrated that they unfit to edit contentious topics such as AA, and I would even argue WP:NOTHERE given the number of highly concerning edits.

• First I caught a glimpse of an article outside AA, the Italo-Turkish war article, where they edit-warred and engaged in WP:OR to the point of unblocking admin cautioning them. The WP:OR didn't stop here as evidenced below and leaked into AA, hence the reason I'm here.

• Their edits later diverted to personal interpretations and tendentious editing on Armenian genocide related articles such as this — and in this example, they also use genocide denialist authors like Stanford J. Shaw (not the last time).

• Adding unsourced "revolt" to a genocide resistance article, no mention of a revolt anywhere in the article.

• Edit warring with their own WP:OR despite the source clearly stating what they tried to remove, twice: [344], [345]

• More "revolt" in another genocide resistance article, this time using the denialist Shaw again.

• [346] Adds a criticism section based on 3 controversial authors: Sidney Bradshaw Fay, Harry Elmer Barnes who wasn't even regarded as a historian by 1950s and who was a Holocaust denier, and Heath W. Lowry, an open Armenian genocide denier. The other 2 "criticisms" are memoirs of Djemal and Talaat pashas, two of the three perpetrators of Armenian genocide.

• [347] Adds author's own book as criticism of himself, WP:OR interpretation of WP:PRIMARY

• [348] Changes what was basically the summary of this featured article and genocide denial.

I believe their block should be reinstated given the evidence above. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 22:15, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

You keep mentioning AA. What's AA? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 22:36, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Armenia-Azerbaijan contentious topics, I’ve warned them about it months ago [349] KhndzorUtogh (talk) 22:41, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

@Erpert: - WP:CT/AA, and the community addition imposing WP:ECR, WP:GS/AA. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:37, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

A lot of these edits are at least look like they could have been made in good faith (although they have issues such as lacking context, not using the best sources, etc.), but the second to last one is undoubtedly WP:OR. Right now Selim is not a net positive, so I would like a commitment that the editor will avoid WP:OR and FRINGE citations in future, otherwise a some kind of admin intervention would be appropriate. Struck per my comment below (t · c) buIdhe 22:53, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

First, regarding the Italo-Turkish War article:

I don't think I've engaged in edit wars at all there. Instead, when I had a issue with somebody, I took the discussion over to the talk page (as shown here) instead of continuing to edit the article. I've never edited an article more than three times in a 24-hour period.

Second, on the use of Stanford J. Shaw:

I have chosen Shaw due to his credentials as an academically published historian. His scholarly works were published by many major academic institutions, including Cambridge University. I haven’t chosen to use him for his political position; I also recognize that authors who have controversial opinions should be approached with caution. I aimed to avoid endorsing any fringe viewpoint.

On the “revolt” wording in the Urfa resistance article:

The uprise refers to a form of a revolt and the site uses this term in its description of this particular event. The use of the term, "Urfa uprisings" indicates that this event was a localized form of a revolt. I edited this content for uniformity in terminology only and did not make any attempt to re-interpret the actual event that took place. If there was a different term the community would like me to use, I would certainly consider it.

Regarding the allegation of edit warring ([229], [230]):

Per the definition at WP:WAR, I did not exceed three reverts within a 24-hour period, nor did I repeatedly reinsert material after objections. If any of my edits were disputed, I am willing to discuss and defer to consensus.

"An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. A series of consecutive edits that undoes or manually reverses other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a single revert. Violations of this rule often attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Fourth reverts just outside the 24-hour period will usually also be considered edit warring, especially if repeated or combined with other edit-warring behavior. See below for exemptions."

I did not do three reverts within a 24-hour period.

On the Musa Dagh article and the use of Shaw again:

The page itself states, “…one of the leaders of the revolt was Movses Der Kalusdian…”, which is why I used the term “revolt.” A sourced term is preferable to an unsourced one. Again, Shaw was used because he is an academically published historian, not because of his political reputation.

Regarding the criticism section added at Ambassador Morgenthau’s Story:

Sidney Bradshaw Fay: "Sidney Bradshaw Fay (April 13, 1876, in Washington, D.C. – August 29, 1967, in Lexington, Massachusetts) was an American historian whose examination of the causes of World War I, "

Harry Elmer Barnes: Harry Elmer Barnes (June 15, 1889 – August 25, 1968) was an American historian who, in his later years, was known for his historical revisionism and Holocaust denial.

Just because Lowry is a denialist doesn't mean his book is bad. He compares Morgenthau's diaries and his own memoir and it's explicit that there are big contradictions.

The intent was not to validate these authors’ views, but to summarize published criticisms of Morgenthau’s account. Inclusion in a criticism section does not imply endorsement.

On the alleged WP:OR regarding Morgenthau criticizing himself:

My interpretation was different. I took quotes from Morgenthau's writings directly, which include expressively racist and stereotyped terminologies. My purpose was to provide sources with an example rather than to give you my opinion about it.

Page 108: "Specific instructions for carrjdng out this holy purpose follow. There shall be a " heart war " — every follower of the Prophet, that is, shall constantly nourish in his spirit a hatred of the infidel ; a " speech war " — with tongue and pen every Moslem shall spread this same hatred wherever Mohammedans live'; and a war of deed — fighting and killing the infidel wherever he shows his head. This latter conflict, says the pamphlet, is the " true war." There is to be a " little holy war " and a " great holy war " ; the first describes the battle which every Mohammedan is to wage in his community against his Christian neighbours, and the second is the great world-struggle' which united Islam, in India, Arabia, Turkey, Africa, and other countries, is to wage against the infidel oppressor"

Page 156: "I saw that it was causing him much concern. The Turk, as I have said before, is psychologically primitive ;"

Page 166: acquired dropped like a mask ; I now saw him for what he really was — a savage, blood-thirsty Turk. " They will not come back ! " he shouted. " I shall let them stay there until they rot !

Page 181 and 182: I was really witnessing a remarkable development in race psychology — an almost classical instance of reversion to type. The ragged, unkempt Turk of the twentieth century was vanishing, and in his place was appearing the Turk of the fourteenth and the fifteenth, the Turk who had swept out of his Asiatic fastnesses, conquered all the powerful peoples in his way, and founded in Asia, Africa, and Europe one of the most extensive empires that history has known. If we are properly to appreciate this new Talaat and Enver, and the events which now took place, we must understand the Turk who, under Osman and his successor, exercised this mighty but devastating influence in the world. We must realise that the basic fact underlying the Turkish m.entahty is its utter contempt for all other races. A fairly insane pride is the element that largely explains this strange human species. The common term applied by the Turk to the Christian is " dog," and in his estimation this is no mere rhetorical figure ; he actually looks upon his European neighbours as far less worthy of consideration than his own domestic animals.

" My son," an old Turk once said, " do you see that herd of swine ? Some are white, some are black, some are large, some are small ; they differ from each other in some respects, but thev are all swine. So it is with Christians deceived, my son. These Cliristians may wear fine clothes, their women may be very beautiful to look upon ; their skins are white and splendid ; many of them are very intelligent, and they build wonderful cities and create what seem to be great States. But remember that underneath all this dazzling exterior they are all the same — they are all swine."

These are straight up his own words, i did not put my own comment into this.

On the Iğdır Genocide Memorial sentence:

The reference to a "promotes the false view that Armenians committed genocide against Turks" is not something supported by the source cited. That phrase makes an evaluative statement that has no available source, which violates WP:NOR and WP:SYN. I made the necessary changes to keep the article neutral and accurate according to the cited source.

Finally:

It is important to me to be clear that my edits were not motivated by any political agendas. Also, I will make sure that I will always use the talk pages when making my edits as well as avoiding original research, editing with a good faith attitude, and working with the consensus of the community, especially in these kinds of sensitive areas. I am willing to refrain from making any edits to anything that I have improperly edited based on improper references or have a tendency to be controversial in nature. Selim beg (talk) 23:04, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Support TBAN or indef I was willing to extend some ROPE but you've just demonstrated here that you don't understand what fringe sources and original research are. (t · c) buIdhe 23:06, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

If the cited source does not explicitly use the word “false,” then calling lt "false" is editorial analysis. Not a summary Selim beg (talk) 23:08, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Support indef per Buidhe. I don't personally think we need to lower the rope to people who have already dug a deep hole into a dark place that I don't think Wikipedia should go, namely, using an author whose first sentence of his wikipedia bio reads, "an American historian who, in his later years, was known for his historical revisionism and Holocaust denial." If I ever use an author close to that, trout me wildly. Andre🚐 23:10, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

I did not know he was a holocaust denialist, and i only put him because he published a criticism of Morgenthau's book. Selim beg (talk) 23:15, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Support indef - You gave Morgenthau's book as a source then proceeded to analyse it, writing that they were negative and stereotypical.

Everything in this edit entirely your analysis. It wasn't a reliable source saying it was negative and stereotypical, you wrote that.

You could probably have found an RS that had analyzed the book, but you chose to do it yourself.

That's the very definition of original research - if you don't understand this fundamental tenet of Wikipedia (and I'm still not convinced that you do) I'm concerned about your ability to edit in general. Blue Sonnet (talk) 00:44, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Support indef law of holes mate, law of holes. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:08, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Independent of whether their block should be reinstated, I have removed extended confirmed due to their clearly problematic edits in contentious areas. @Selim beg does not have the experience needed to edit in these areas. Star Mississippi 23:39, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

I've AEblocked indefinitely in light of their explanation here and looking at contributions from the last 24 hours. Sennecaster (Chat) 02:11, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

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

Violation of editing restrictions.

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.

---

Normal rookie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to an editing restriction per a previous ANI found here. They were recently blocked for 48 hours for violating this restriction. IMMEDIATELY upon their block being lifted, they started reverting other editors edits with zero explanation.

For example see this revert where they inexplicably reverted my removal of a template that was deleted at TFD thus inserting a non-existent template into the article. This user clearly has not learned their lesson.

@Oshwah, Deepfriedokra, and Blue-Sonnet: who participated in the recent attempt by the user to get their block lifted. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 03:18, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

I already explained that is a technicak issue already. Normal rookie (talk) 03:19, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

You are subject to WP:0RR which AS YOU KNOW means a complete prohibition on reverts. You should not be reverting AT ALL. You are well aware of this as you have already been blocked for ignoring this restriction. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 03:22, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

What do you mean by a technical issue, more precisely? Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 03:22, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

User:Chaotic Enby per their explanation on their talk page, they seem to have "accidentally" reverted my edit while reverting at least 6 other edits. While the revert to my edit may be excusable as an accident, 6 reverts is not an accident and is a clear violation of the WP:0RR restriction. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 03:25, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I am looking for a more detailed explanation of what they mean by that, as "technical issue" might cover a variety of reasons and isn't a sufficient explanation. @Normal rookie, do you understand what the zero-revert rule means and what specifically is exempted from revert limits, and can you explain precisely whether or not your edits fell under these exemptions? Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 03:36, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

I already explained that is a technical issue already. Normal rookie (talk) 03:37, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

• Perhaps the 0RR should be modified to not have any exceptions, in order to get rid of situations like this. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 03:52, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

  User:45dogs what is unclear about a WP:0RR? This user should not be reverting edits, PERIOD. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 04:26, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

I don't really want this to get to a cban so I hope an admin will indef or some other long block as a normal action until Normal rookie can communicate with us and void violating their restrictions. An edit summary like "Undid revision 1324444975 by Wikiuser9876543212022 (talk undo first later I will come back)" after getting a 0RR isn't acceptable. (Why no CBAN? I think if they can justify to an admin they can communicate and comply with restrictions is enough for now.) Skynxnex (talk) 04:10, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

@The Bushranger: as the previous blocker of Normal rookie, wanted to make you aware of this new violation. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 04:27, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Sigh. The fact that they repeatedly were "how do I lift the ban" during their last block for violating it is also not encourgaing at all. I've indeffed until they can demonstrate they understand and will abide by the editing restriction. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:36, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Hopefully everyone can see how much help this editor needed to answer basic questions, it took several days to get them to even say what a 0RR was and another to explain how they violated it. I don't think they truly understand what's going on.

I may have held their hand too much in this case because I had to tell them where the question they had to answer was twice - both times I gave direct links plus directions on where to look on the page (up). Eventually I just cut and pasted it out of sheer desperation.

I'm pretty sad that I wasted all that time, but I don't regret trying to help.

This time, they need to appeal the block on their own without guidance. Blue Sonnet (talk) 04:40, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

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

Giovanni Potage EC 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.

---

Giovanni Potage (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) requested EC protection for Battle for Dream Island [350] shortly after a minor editing disagreement with another editor, after protection was granted they made a series of nonsense edits at their sandbox to reach 500 edits [351]. Requesting EC be revoked, and protection be reversed. The asserted disruptive activity has been overstated, is highly manageable, and protection is blocking out productive non-EC contributors at the article like RaveCrowny, Asex Twin, or JudeHalley.​ fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 19:49, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Their last edit has the summary: "I might actually add something productive later." That says it all, really.

Also mandatory plug for the Gaming check tool. That also says it all. Blue Sonnet (talk) 20:16, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Bishonen has revoked extendedconfirmed access. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:17, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I have, and I have told them they will have to appeal to an administrator if they want it re-added once they have made 500 non-gaming edits. Bishonen | tålk 20:20, 29 November 2025 (UTC).

and @Giovanni Potage should consider themselves lucky they weren't blocked for DE.

BFDI is more trouble than its worth. Star Mississippi 20:21, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

I don't understand why suddenly in the last month or so it's become such a hot bed of edit warring and disruptive editing. But also I think we should start handing out PBlocks on that article like candy. Canterbury Tail talk 20:48, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Because it didn't exist before. As WP:BFDI explains, it was already contentious, just it had been salted due to being contentious while not crossing the threshold for notability. It finally crossed that threshold unambigously, the article was rightfully created, and the disruption was off to the races. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:42, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Compared to when it was first created, the disruption now is negligible (no doubt thanks in part to semi-protection). Considering the demographic the topic appeals most to, I've been pleasantly surprised at how productive editing and discussion there has been. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 22:08, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

@Fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four it's not negligible. It has moved to at least two long running discussions on the Huangs, which I will not link to avoid canvassing concerns. A notable topic can still be an enormous waste of time. And @Canterbury Tail yes I wholly concur, and would not be surprised if this ends up at ArbComm, unfortunately. Fandoms are obsessive. Star Mississippi 23:34, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

BFDI is on the internet, has a young audience and went viral.

Wikipedia is on the internet and is the first or second search result for almost everything.

It's a perfect storm, really. Blue Sonnet (talk) 21:53, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

After taking a through look at the edit history, I think EC was a bit overkill. There hasn't been any disruption from an auto-confirmed account for almost a week. Giovanni Potage (talk) 00:29, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

@Giovanni Potage: Would you have said this if extended confirmed wasn't revoked from you? Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 00:34, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

@ChildrenWillListen: Yes. The reason why I requested EC was because I mistakenly thought the small number of disruptive edits were from auto-confirmed accounts. Once I took a look, realized that I EC wasn't going to fix any problems. I request that the page's protection be reverted back to semi. Giovanni Potage (talk) 00:38, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

an uninvolved, experienced editor is welcome to make that request. You'd really be best served by editing something else entirely @Giovanni Potage to show that you can be a productive editor here. Star Mississippi 00:41, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

I also made a request for the protection to be reversed in the initial report, and have no issue waiting for the protecting admin, Daniel Case, to review the request (they've been pinged). fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 00:47, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm not going to action it as I've had my fill of BFDI and friends, but have no objection to that from you or any other established editor, @Fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four Star Mississippi 02:35, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

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

Request for administrator attention

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 request administrator attention regarding repeated warnings left by User:DoubleGrazing on my talk page.

I am new to Wikipedia and still learning the policies. I understand that users may warn editors about COI or promotional editing, and I am trying to edit correctly.

However, this user has left three or more messages on my talk page, and the tone in these comments felt harsh and intimidating. Several of the messages included statements about being “very close to blocking” me and described my edits as “tendentious, disruptive and purely promotional.” As a new editor, receiving multiple warnings in this tone made me uncomfortable and unsure how to proceed without making further mistakes.

I am not trying to cause disruption. I want to learn the correct way to contribute and follow Wikipedia policy. I am requesting clarification and guidance from uninvolved administrators about the appropriate next steps, and whether the tone and repetition of these warnings is appropriate toward a new user.

Thank you. Saria116 (talk) 14:52, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

It looks like you are trying to publish an article about someone you have a connection with - maybe your boss? I think we are being patient considering you only seem to be interested in editing about this one particular person. Secretlondon (talk) 14:57, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the person I created the article about is not my boss, and I do not have that kind

of relationship with them. I am a new user and still learning Wikipedia's policies, especially about

COI and article creation. My intention is not to promote anyone, and I am trying to understand the

correct process. Thank you for the guidance. Saria116 (talk) 15:00, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

What is your connection to this person, then? You said on your helpdesk thread that you have 'disclosed relativity' to this person. Athanelar (talk) 15:04, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes we have the same family name . But our family is big we aren’t direct cousins if that makes sense Saria116 (talk) 15:07, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Ahmed Shatila, who lives his life with multiple sclerosis himself, has transformed his personal experience into a powerful force for patient encouragement. He is dedicated to disassembling the stigma and myths surrounding MS, working tirelessly through awareness campaigns, educational initiatives, and community-centered support programs to help others affected by the situation. How can you say, "My intention is not to promote anyone" and then give us writing like this? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:08, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

If you're not trying to cause disruption stop posting LLM stuff. We're not interested in hearing what an LLM has to say, only in what you have to say. Nil Einne (talk) 15:01, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

I said what I wanted to say . I am tired of being harassed here Saria116 (talk) 15:03, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Nobody's harassing you. You've clearly demonstrated you're not here to build an encyclopedia and are ignoring well-intentioned feedback because of your single-minded focus on publishing an article about this person despite their evident lack of notability. On top of that, you're now posting LLM-generated complaints about one of the people trying to steer you in the correct direction, and people are consequently understandably losing patience with you. Athanelar (talk) 15:09, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

@Saria116: this was a clever move, in that you've made me involved so I can't block you now. You probably have no idea how close you came to a block. (BTW, you were meant to notify me of this discussion.)

FWIW, I do believe you're not writing about your boss. I'm pretty sure I know what your relationship to this person is, but at the risk of WP:OUTING I'll keep my views to myself. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:08, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes stop harassing me Saria116 (talk) 15:10, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

• No one is harassing you. Given the ongoing disruption and clear IDHT, I have indefinitely blocked as Not Here. Spam works too. They're welcome to file a convincing unblock but it should include provisions against editing about their non direct cousin and LLM usage. Star Mississippi 15:17, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

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

Personal attacks from SPA

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.

---

Carlspackler75 (talk · contribs) has all the hallmarks of a promotional SPA. All of their edits have been to promote a Spotify podcast by Steve Comisar. I first encountered them while patrolling the AfC backlog with their draft Draft:Scam Junkie podcast. After looking at their other edits I saw they were pushing a variety of edits at the Comisar article to the point that another editor told them to stop bothering them about this topic [352]. Two of their first three edits were to create sandboxes about the podcast. Their following edits are all in the vein of trying to get others to add content about the podcast to Wikipedia [353], to post comments about Comisar on articles totally unrelated to him [354], and to randomly demand deletion of other articles on their talk pages [355]. They also seem to think we should be more like Grokipedia and posted a long rambling message about it at GorillaWarfare's talk page [356]. After I removed promotional language and stuff sourced to press releases and other unreliable sources from the Comisar article, they posted a rant on my talk page full of childish personal attacks. The also apparently were so angry they posted something that triggered the edit filter [357]. This editor is clearly WP:NOTHERE. - The literary leader of the age ✉ 03:27, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Without having fully evaluated this issue, I have initially blocked @Carlspackler75 31 hours for personal attacks like this one: Special:Diff/1324674877 to stop further disruption. Any admin can take further action without consulting me. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 03:39, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

I will also add the Comisar article has a long history of promotional editing to the point it's semi protected. The talk page archive contains comments from other editors who have been harassed by the article subject and multiple denied edit requests dismissed as lobbying [358] including several from socks of PediatricMD (talk · contribs). Furthermore, I believe Carlspackler75 is a sockpuppet of Maniamit (talk · contribs). Both have tried to edit the Comisar article in promotional fashion and use a very similar comment style on talk pages, claiming to need help and be new: Maniamit: [359], Carlspackler75 [360]. - The literary leader of the age ✉ 04:01, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

• Request indef. This user shouldn't be returning to editing after their short block expires.—Alalch E. 09:22, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

• Support indef Things really aren't adding up for me.

If we disregard all the user talk posts, then their first ever mainspace edit is on 17 Oct to Robert Downey Jr's talk page, which (surprise!) compares him to Comisar.

Then on 21 Oct we have these three (random ?) article talk page posts nominating them for deletion (obviously nothing happened).

On 26 Nov, for someone who apparently needs the level of support they're asking for, these two edits seems awfully precocious for the image they present here,, but maybe I'm misreading that.

They were made shortly before they started working on the podcast draft & feel like an attempt to show that they're not fixated on Comisar.

This post on their own Talk page is strange - they say they were assigned a mentor on their first day and given several articles to edit, but all they did that day was edit their sandbox and ask a question about you-know-who.

Most concerningly, I can't see any edits where they discussed a "list of articles" with a mentor.

I'm going to ask this in question the spirit of AGF - @Spbvj, if you are Carlspackler75's mentor (I have no idea who else they are referring to), did you give them a list of articles as they're claiming, or know what/where this list is?

(BTW this is indeed a bit creepy, please don't do that.)

Blue Sonnet (talk) 10:56, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello i'm randomly assigned to him and first of all he claims that this page was protected to edit from random user(edit protected)so he ask me to edit behalf of ((his/her(or they)) and i edited and added filmography tab and there is no reliable(sufficient) source to create separate article for podcast(scam junkie).

Because;he initially ask to create article about podcast ,but i only added some para and links to steve comisar article.then; i asked in teahouse for further guidance,because he constantly ask me to create and he even sandboxed article himself but he didn't know to move to mainspace without any source and necessity. Spbvj (talk) 15:04, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

it was archived Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1272 and 49th QA.Spbvj (talk) 15:06, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

So and finally;i didn't know single thing about him and please stop mentioning i was in part of some cult or group in edits or vandalizing.i asked to understand policy and guidelines in my talk page tabs ...

i didnt know what gotten into him about podcast article creation.@Blue-Sonnet and it is my responsibility(not fully) for every mentee's behaviour.after i guided them..hopefully i dont repeat it and will correct myself. Its in my talk page about all this drama.Spbvj (talk) 15:17, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

That's totally fine, I was trying to get to the bottom of what Carlspackler75 said.

They said that their mentor gave them a list of tasks to do, so I wanted to check if this was perhaps by email or if I'd missed some other discussion you might have had, because the history doesn't show that you gave them a list at all - all you did was make a couple of edits for them in good faith.

I'm not at all happy that they were almost using you as a shield, to make it look like they were following a mentor's instructions when that never happened in the first place. Blue Sonnet (talk) 15:59, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

You were acting in good faith. I believe you've been manipulated here by a sock farm who have been obsessed with promoting Comisar all over Wikipedia for at least 10 years. Have a look at the Steve Comisar talk page including the archives and archives and you'll see what I mean. The way this new account writes is pretty much exactly like previously blocked promotional sockpuppets. - The literary leader of the age ✉ 21:18, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

I wondered whether to request EC protection, but it looks like the socks only pop up every couple of years or so? Not sure if it's worth asking since the level of incidents is pretty low.

Because they're relatively infrequent, write & present themselves in exactly the same manner, are incredibly single-minded and use the same arguments over and over again, I suspect we're looking at one person (I wonder who it is) rather than a UPE farm, for example. Blue Sonnet (talk) 21:41, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

I've requested a sockpuppet investigation [361]. - The literary leader of the age ✉ 22:04, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

I just want to reiterate again @Spbvj, I'm not blaming you at all - I think this person exploited your help & mentorship and that's not ok at all. You didn't do anything wrong, ok? Blue Sonnet (talk) 21:47, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Ok. Spbvj (talk) 14:15, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Time-limited block is a minimum. Indef second. ~2025-37045-55 (talk) 12:52, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

ADMINS - This can be closed as they've been blocked as a sockpuppet here. Blue Sonnet (talk) 13:27, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Will do. You would have also been welcome to close this discussion yourself, as it has been superseded by the sockpuppet investigation result and no longer serves a purpose. — Newslinger talk 18:06, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

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

Edit warring

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, a dispute recently arose over changes to this page: Military strategy. I made an edit, backed up by a source from a military officer's website—an anonymous site, but therefore, an unreliable source, according to the rules. I have read articles from this website before, and I can say the site is not lying. However, I did not check to see if it cited any sources and decided to use it as a source anyway, which was incorrect. Then I cited another source, which also, while not verbatim, confirmed my words. However, my opponent decided this was not sufficient, or he had not properly looked into it at all. That is how the edit war began. Now, another conflict is brewing, here: Battle of Zama. All the edits were supported by reliable citations, but they were reverted with statement like: "your source of information is missing," and a completely inappropriate essay (not a guideline) is cited as an addendum. My nerves are not made of steel either, and I cannot take this calmly. What should I do? Kolya Muratov (talk) 07:45, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

You should not consider other editors as "opponents" - that's a mindset that needs to change. Secondly you need to stop edit warring. Don't force your personal preference if a change you make is reverted. Thirdly you need to discuss matters on article talk pages, calmly and in a measured way. - SchroCat (talk) 08:17, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Excellent advice, but it is very difficult when a fully cited change is reverted due to some absurdity. If you look at it from a human perspective, you will see the injustice. If the esteemed Gog de Mild does not respond to my reply within 24 hours, I will have to revert my edits. Kolya Muratov (talk) 08:27, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

No, that is continuing to edit war and I'll happily file a report against you for it. You're already blocked from editing one page, the possibility is a block on a second or a block on all pages. You haven't made any comments dealing with challenged material on the talk page. I opened a thread yesterday for you, but all you've done is complain about Gog requesting you follow WP:BRD. The "D" bit means you have to discuss what bits you want to change and why. Maybe try engaging with Gog in a positive and constructive manner on the talk page. You've been here for over 11000 edits - surely you know how this all works by now? - SchroCat (talk) 08:35, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

You're telling me the obvious, but nothing useful. And I left a comment. Kolya Muratov (talk) 08:53, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

What you should do is listen to the advice provided by more experienced editors before you are indefinitely blocked. Instead of trolling them with "Dear, do not you want to think that you are only interfering with the contribution to Wikipedia?" on a user talk page (diff), use article talk to ask what the problem with the edit was. Ask at WP:Teahouse whether WP:BRD should be described as "a completely inappropriate essay" in the OP above. Johnuniq (talk) 09:01, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

No, the point is, I already asked. But the main point of this edit is the assertion that the changes are not cited, but they are, as you can see for yourself. The dear Gog made a mistake, refuses to admit it, and so it is simply difficult to process this adequately. Please understand the situation. Kolya Muratov (talk) 10:40, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

This is a content question (and therefore unsuitable for this particular page). Post on the article talk page why you think your edit was appropriate and why you think it should be allowed. It's how consensus is built on pages. - SchroCat (talk) 10:47, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

I think you lost any case you may have had when you called WP:BRD "some obscure essays". Looking at it from a human perspective, the other editor is also human and you've treated them poorly whereas AFAIK all they've done is reverted some of your edits because they disagree with them. And reverted edits is a perfectly normal part of editing here which every editor needs to be able to accept with good grace. If those changes bettered the article, it generally shouldn't be that hard to convince others probably even the reverting editor of the merits of your changes. You need to be able to cooperate and discuss changes with other editors, instead of seeing them as the enemy or people you can't work with. If you can't do that, you're not likely to survive here as Wikipedia is a collaborative project. Nil Einne (talk) 11:17, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

This essay is inappropriate here because there is nothing to discuss. I have already written that Gog is wrong because everything has been cited, and there is no response yet. Kolya Muratov (talk) 12:08, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

If someone disagrees in good faith, there is pretty much never nothing to discuss. That's one of the points of BRD and why it's appropriate in nearly all content disputes. And your comments were left less then 12 hours ago, it's generally reasonable to wait several days for a response in something like this dispute which is decidedly no urgent. I haven't looked into your history but it's perhaps not surprising that there is that edit warring problem Fortuna imperatrix mentioned if you're always thinking there is nothing to discuss and expecting responses so fast. Nil Einne (talk) 12:19, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Just saying "I'm right, you are wrong" when multiple editors have reverted your edits is not the way to participate in this Wikipedia.

You need to discuss and not immediately revert back to your version, especially when you have an active block for edit warring. Discussions can take multiple days which is acceptable and normal. You need to be patient. TwoNineNineOne (talk) 12:26, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There is obviously something to discuss, which is why we're here. You made a Bold edit; it was Reverted; Discussion is the only way forward. You haven't really posted a decent comment putting forward why you think the edit should stand. You've spent a lot of time and energy posting here, and that would have been better spent on the article talk page putting forward arguments to open the discussion properly. - SchroCat (talk) 12:28, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

In addition to what others have said, being right isn't enough. We still expect you to discuss your content disputes appropriately even if you are factually correct. Athanelar (talk) 13:49, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict) WP:BRD is not some "completely inappropriate essay" but provides the answer to the question that you pose at the end of your original post here. What you should do is build a consensus on the talk page and, if you are still unhappy, to follow WP:DR, which does not include posting at WP:ANI. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:30, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

• (Uninvolved) It is disingenuous of Kolya Muratov to complain here about edit warring when they are already blocked for two weeks for edit warring on the Military Strategy article they have mentioned. Since they are a) an established, recidivist edit warrior with no intention of WP:LISTENing to other editors or of voluntarily dropping the WP:STICK, and b) attempting to weaponise this board to win a content dispute, I suggest that their current two week partial block be extended site-wide. This would prevent both further disruption to articles and editors having to waste their time on spurious reports such as this. —Fortuna, imperatrix 11:23, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

  Do whatever you want. Do not you think it is impolite to simply undo someone else's changes for some stupid reason, explaining this as a lack of sources, yet everything is quoted? How can you respond normally to this? These changes need to be discussed first. Gog was impolite, and he received impoliteness in return. Kolya Muratov (talk) 12:29, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

There was nothing impolite in either Gog's words or actions. The article in question is a WP:Featured Article, which means it's been through two community review processes and care needs to be taken when editing it. Try discussing it on the talk page - I can't repeat this often enough, but you don't seem to be listening to the advice being given to you by several other editors. - SchroCat (talk) 12:40, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

As I already wrote on the discussion page, is it really necessary to prove the credibility of these individuals (Spencer C. Tucker and Hans Delbrück) I cited as sources? What is our topic? History. Who are they? Historians, that is what was written on their page. It does not say they are journalists or writers, but rather that they're historians. I see that the material and citations on their wikipedia pages are sufficient to conclude that they are credible historians. I'm stating such obvious things now, as if I were teaching a child about life. Kolya Muratov (talk) 12:54, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

@Kolya Muratov, whilst it's just an essay, I really think you should take a moment to read Wikipedia:Being right isn't enough. It's not a policy, but it was written (and is used regularly by) very experienced and respected veteran editors. It doesn't matter how justified an edit is, if it's made disruptively you're still causing problems. Blue Sonnet (talk) 13:40, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

The block was placed by ToBeFree. —Fortuna, imperatrix 13:44, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

It's now sitewide and for a month. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:52, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Good block. I'd be the tenth editor to look over Kolya Muratov's words and attitude and say that he's out of line. Ravenswing's Fifth Law: "The nature of a consensus-driven encyclopedia is that sometimes you're going to be on the wrong side of consensus, in which case the only thing to do is lose gracefully and move on." Whatever his contributions, if he can't wrap his head around that "But I have cited sources!" isn't an automatic I! Win! card, he's a net negative to the project. Ravenswing 17:57, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

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

User:Pree bhat using artificial intelligence

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.

---

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

The only edits by this editor are three versions of AI slop about Art therapy, and we already have an article about Art therapy:

• Draft:THE ART THERAPY
• Draft:The Art Therapy (which I have tagged for G15)
• User:Pree bhat/sandbox

Robert McClenon (talk) 19:55, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Using AI isn't against any policies or guidelines in a way that warrants sanctions against a user. The only real relevant guideline is the fresh and still not-conclusive WP:NEWLLM which says not to generate articles 'from scratch' using AI. That's probably a good reason to reject these drafts (in addition to the fact that they aren't, well, Wikipedia articles at all, really) but not necessarily to sanction the user.

That said, there might be a WP:NOTHERE case here, and I certainly wouldn't oppose at least blocking this user from articlespace and page moves so they don't start dropping articles like these onto mainspace as soon as they're autoconfirmed. Athanelar (talk) 20:04, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Agreed, they did submit the article to AFC so I am concerned they'll try to create live articles when they're able. It doesn't look like they understand what's encyclopedic and what's just not appropriate.

Plus, they've made the article three times in an attempt to get it accepted - lower case, ALL CAPS and now sandbox. That makes me a bit concerned that they're so focused on creating a live article that they're not paying attention to silly things like rules and policies. Blue Sonnet (talk) 21:00, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Actually, they have made it 4 times total. Draft:The Art Therapy, Draft:The art therapy, Draft:THE ART THERAPY, and the sandbox. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 21:56, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

INDEFfed as spam, which it is regardless of the mechanism of creation. Star Mississippi 21:59, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

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

Gawaon disruptive editing in Aztecs

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.

---

Status:     No further action currently required

Gawaon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) user is obsessed with made disruptive edits about my own edits since past year due he commited a shameful mistake about archeological ruins, is obsessed with me since then. Now is restoring a revision due a no notations-map about Aztec Empire in the place of an Aztec calendar scultpure but this time he undid 7 REVISIONS! , I made improvements in technical language by hours and he just reverts me in that article. Please stop him. Difuarti (talk) 13:50, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Someone reverting your edits is not necessarily a reason for an ANI report. If you need outside advice to resolve a content dispute, try WP:DRN or WP:3O. If there's an edit warring issue (which there doesn't really seem to be) report at WP:ANEW. For general advice on solving content disputes see WP:DR. Otherwise simply discuss the dispute with Gawaon at Talk:Aztecs

If your only complaint about this user's conduct is them reverting your edits, there's no ANI case here. Athanelar (talk) 14:02, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Is a thing by one day, is horrific made a complaint about dispute resolution by just an apparent whim. Difuarti (talk) 14:08, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't understand what this means. Athanelar (talk) 14:11, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Well, then stop returning the version and I made your complaint tomorrow. Difuarti (talk) 20:45, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "I made your complaint tomorrow". You also can't tell another editor to stop reverting your edits if they have a valid reason to do so, that's the epitome of ownership and you've been told that's unacceptable already. Blue Sonnet (talk) 20:49, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Any admin viewing this should take note that the reporting user has demonstrated OWNy attitude about the article and undid Gawaon's fairly well-substantiated reversion by uncivilly and inaccurately describing it as 'vandalism' Athanelar (talk) 14:14, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Re "is obsessed with me", Gawaon's made 574 edits so far this month, of which about 1% have been interactions with you, half of those on their talk page because you posted there. You may not be as important as you think. Re "this time he undid 7 REVISIONS! , I made improvements in technical language", your word substitutions which Gawaon reverted were not only inappropriate but also poorly implemented, creating ungrammatical phrasing. Your description of Gawaon's edit as "vandalism" when you reinstated them is also inappropriate; do read at least the opening paragraphs of WP:VANDALISM. NebY (talk) 14:50, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

@NebY: That day I made edits later in other two articles and Gawaon today and other days return to the article until that 574 edits so far this month, Neby, explain me, what part are "inappropiate but also poorly implemented" of the gramatically corrections? Difuarti (talk) 20:24, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Difuarti, the problem is that it doesn't look like you are able to write in English to the standard required for an English encyclopedia. Even here, it's very hard to understand what you're trying to say.

It's good that you want to contribute, but you might be better working on a project on another language. You can find a list of them at List of Wikipedias. Blue Sonnet (talk) 20:55, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

No, is problem of your phone. [362] [363] Difuarti (talk) 21:14, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

You're really trying hard to find a reason not to listen to what I'm trying to say, to the point of digging through my edit history.

I was genuinely trying to help and I'm sorry that you can't see that.

In view of your unsubstantiated attack on my motivations below, I will not engage with you any further. Blue Sonnet (talk) 21:27, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

@Difuarti, I'm afraid that your edits were not an improvement to the article. The link you gave is to a reversion that I myself would have made, had I come across it. Also, you absolutely cannot tell someone else they can't edit an article. If you want to know why someone reverted an edit, ask them in the article Talk page.

If someone is reverting seven edits of yours, your very first thought should be: "maybe I did something wrong, let's try to find out". You are not assuming good faith by default, which is required at Wikipedia. Blue Sonnet (talk) 15:06, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

@Blue-Sonnet: Why you needs a citation in past nation's territories in Pacific and Atlantic coasts that covers territories like Soconusco and Tuxpan? Difuarti (talk) 20:30, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

The problem was the poor grammar and unexplained removal of an image. Blue Sonnet (talk) 20:44, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

@Blue-Sonnet:, have you a problem with the article?. Difuarti (talk) 21:08, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

The link you gave in your very first report here, was to an edit that was reverted.

You aren't happy that edit was reverted.

I'm saying I would have reverted it too, because the grammar you used was not an improvement - you made the article worse. Blue Sonnet (talk) 21:14, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Your attitude confirms your bias with that article. Difuarti (talk) 21:20, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

I've not come across that article before today, please don't make personal attacks like that. I'm only talking about that one edit and your grammar in that one edit. Blue Sonnet (talk) 21:24, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

@Blue-Sonnet: For the next time accordingly check you removed refs. Are much Aztec city-states in both American coasts in many maps, specially in the Atlantic coast, are very, very large territories. Difuarti (talk) 21:42, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm sorry I have to say this, Difuarti, but Blue-Sonnet and others are right that your English is not good enough for you to be editing the English Wikipedia. That's nothing to be ashamed of - unless you are Polish my command of your native language is worse than your English - but you need to understand it. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:44, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

@Phil Bridger: No problem, I don't understand what you tried to say. Difuarti (talk) 22:04, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Q.E.D. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:19, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

@Phil Bridger: I'm not wanted hurt you. ~2025-37439-25 (talk) 22:31, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Difuarti, please do not edit logged-out. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:36, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

P-blocked from Articles for English competence and article ownership issues. May make edit suggestions on article talk pages. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:32, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure that this can be considered an improvement. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:47, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

I agree. I was being a bit optimistic. Indeffed. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:59, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

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