Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1208

WP:CIR: @Unknown FG

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

---

Unknown FG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Disclaimer: I did post on their talk page on the 25th with a suggestion to withdraw from the upcoming admin election in December. Other than that, I have had no prior interaction with this editor before.

It is unfortunate I find myself posting here regarding this editor, especially when have recently nominated themself for the upcoming admin elections in December. I understand the precariousness of reporting a fellow editor to AN/I when they are a nominee for admin, however I believe it is necessary due to ongoing disruptive editing on the project.

---

WP:BLP violations: @Unknown FG added content that violated WP:BLP to Sumit Hridayesh, which was reverted in full by @Iiii I I I. The various violations were outlined here on the article talk page. They consist mostly of unsourced text, WP:NOTNEWS, unreliable sources and WP:OR. The content added by @Unknown FG can be viewed over numerous edits made on the 6 September 2025 here. They were warned on their talk page.

Unsourced content: An unsubstantiated link was added to Nagaland by @Unknown FG. Less than 3 hours later, the article was set to WP:ECP by admin @Yamaguchi先生 and another editor then had to locate a source which @Unknown FG failed to provide. They were given a notice on their talk page.

WP:EDITCON: @Unknown FG has been warned multiple times for their lack of edit summary use. 30 October 2025 by @Kautilya3. 9 November 2025 by @THEZDRX. As can be seen here, they have only used edit summaries in mainspace 1.3% of the time. That's over 6200 edits without a summary in a 12+ month editing period. This is a violation of WP:EDITCON which makes clear that 'all edits should be explained'.

Undisclosed multiple accounts: In December 2024, CU admin @Izno left a notice on their talk page regarding multiple accounts being used. @Unknown FG responded using the other account saying they had disclosed it. However, this is not evident as the user pages of both @Unknown FG and @Dr Hachi have not been created. I don't know how this was followed up unfortunately.

LLM generated text: The recently promoted guideline, WP:NEWLLM, along with the advice written at WP:AISIGNS, makes quite clear that AI should not be used to generate text for comments and definitely not for article text.

Unfortunately, @Unknown FG generated their entire Admin election nomination page using an LLM. Despite receiving multiple warnings about this on their talk page (1, 2, 3). They decided to ignore the advice given and respond using LLM.

---

On Wikipedia, competence is required to contribute in a positive way to the project and @Unknown FG has shown many times in a short period that they are unable to do this, despite many warnings and notices from fellow editors/admins. Some of the violations border on disruptive editing, however there is a definite CIR issue here. As the warnings and notices have not provoked any change in behaviour, I believe a short time block from article space may be required here. I would definitely encourage @Unknown FG to respond here without using an LLM at the very least. Thank you.

I will notify @Unknown FG about this AN/I discussion on their talk page immediately after posting this. 11WB (talk) 01:15, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Discussion

Just a comment, did you intend to ping here? Doesn't seem like the pings went through. Z E T A^C 01:29, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

I generally don't ping at AN/I due to the canvassing rule. 11WB (talk) 01:34, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

• Why wait for a response? This editor is obviously a CIR case -- the evidence being that they actually think AI-generated comments are going to fool anyone here -- and on that basis should be immediately indef'd. Zero tolerance. This will no only save unnecessary discussion here at ANI, but as a bonus will save further waste of time at the admin election. EEng 05:26, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

  I agree, however I try to assume good faith for as long as possible. If they respond without using an LLM, maybe an indef can be avoided. 11WB (talk) 05:39, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

  Good faith has nothing to do with it. Incompetents are often here with good intentions. And it really doesn't matter if they manage to answer without using AI -- the fact that they ever though AI could gererate useful content or comments shows they lack the skills to edit here, period. In summary, AI on WP must be destroyed. EEng 05:53, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

  I can't argue against what you are saying and I am definitely not defending this editor in any way. Based on my time editing, from what I've observed, an indef block is usually used when there is no hope, right? 11WB (talk) 05:57, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

  Reluctantly, +1 to this Z E T A^C 13:42, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

  Based on the fact they attempted to remove this AN/I thread, I will also support an indef block at this time. 11WB (talk) 15:21, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

  +1 aesurias (talk) 05:43, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

  It's obviously difficult to get through to this editor as the AI is almost acting like a wall between us and getting through to them. We're never speaking to them, we're speaking to ChatGPT and I don't want that to be an admin.

  So we've got an editor & prospective admin who isn't listening to community concerns.

  They've added fake and inadequate sources to BLP whilst also including completely unsourced information. This could also be due to using AI (not a justification, only an explanation since the end result is disruption).

  Not using an edit summary isn't great, but the fact that so many people have warned them indicates that there's confusion over the reason for their edits.

  Then we also have the undisclosed second account.

  You could possibly argue that each issue taken in isolation wouldn't be sanctionable, but taken together I've got serious concerns that we have an editor who is causing disruption and we can't communicate with them properly to try to resolve it.

  ChatGPT says it's taking our concerns seriously, but I'm not sure that the editor is. Blue Sonnet (talk) 06:30, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

• Considering all your concerns, I apologise to each one of you. I have no intention to vandalize Wikipedia, rather I wanted to benefit it. I am withdrawing from the election.Unknown FG (talk) 10:30, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

  While withdrawing from the election was something that needed to be done, you need to directly address the specific issues raised in this thread, because they would be highly concerning for any editor, not just an administrator. That includes your attempt to remove a discussion about you from an administrative page, which is blatantly inappropriate. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:22, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

  Thank you for your concerns, actually I was scared after I saw the misunderstood intvestigation against me. Unfortunately, I am still learning. Unknown FG (talk) 13:22, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

  Unknown FG, if the reason you entered the election was to receive feedback on how to improve as an editor, a better thing to do would be to ask a friendly-looking experienced editor or admin. One thing they'd certainly say is stop using LLMs. If the reason you're using LLMs is because your English isn't quite good enough, it'd probably be better to edit Wikipedia in your native language (see List of Wikipedias) Kowal2701 (talk) 15:24, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

  @Unknown FG I realise this must feel awful, you were excited for the election and got carried away, then realised you bit off much more than you could chew and now everyone's attention is on you.

  Admin elections are a big thing, there are notices to let everyone know that candidates are up for election and to go and take a look.

  It's actually good that this has come up now, you've got all these experienced editors and admins who can help you. The problems that have been raised are best sorted out here - it would have been awful to see dozens of people oppose your nomination publicly because these issues hadn't been fixed.

  I get the feeling you tried to delete this section because you panicked. Just make sure you don't do anything like that again - talk pages and noticeboards are where we express ourselves to others, so changing or deleting someone else's comments is like putting words in their mouth, or even taking them away completely.

  Look at this as a positive thing. @11WB has taken the time to look through your history and found areas where you need to improve. If you need help doing that, it's available - no-one would begrudge an editor who's genuinely wanting and trying to improve.

  How about you stay by looking at the problems in 11WB's original post at the top. Try to understand why there was a problem in the way you approached that situation, then learn how to do better next time.

  Honestly look at the concerns everyone has and try to explain what you'll do differently.

  Be open and honest about the problems and work hard at fixing them - that's all anyone can ask of you, ok? Blue Sonnet (talk) 16:50, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

  Thank you very much for your comment. Unknown FG (talk) 13:23, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

• Note for admins: I did post an AN/I notice to @Unknown FG's talk page, however they have now removed it. 11WB (talk) 15:07, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

  It appears they also attempted to blank this very AN/I discussion but were reverted. That is a major WP:TPO violation. 11WB (talk) 15:19, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

  Unfortunately, I lost my mind and thought I would be banned from Wikipedia. Unknown FG (talk) 13:23, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

• Support. I can see User:Unknown FG's refusal to WP:LISTEN to advice—however civily and repeatedly offered—is not limited to admin elections. I also note that, far from heralding the beginning of a new career in the administration, their removal of legitimate comments in their entirety, combined with a refusal to communicate—except through an LLM—might go someway towards bringing said career to a premature, if by now not unexpected, close. —Fortuna, imperatrix 18:08, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
• For God's sake, please will some admin put this thread out of its misery with an indef? Far too much time has already been wasted on a completely obvious situation. EEng 21:03, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

  EEng, you should be familiar with the concept of Bridger's First Law of Wikipedia by now: that the more obvious an outcome the more discussion is needed before it is carried out. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:12, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

  In all seriousness, there's probably something to that -- something like bikeshedding. EEng 21:16, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

  @Phil Bridger, whilst I'm not as direct as @EEng, I agree with them that this AN/I can probably be closed now. 11WB (talk) 21:24, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

11WB EEng did ask for this to be closed; but with a resolution, not without. Indef now.—Fortuna, imperatrix 21:55, 28 November 2025 (UTC)°

I supported that already. 11WB (talk) 21:58, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

I will reluctantly !vote for indef - user needs to show that they won't use AI/LLMs and will take advice (as well as the other violations, such as WP:TPO) to be able to competently edit on Wikipedia. Z E T A^C 22:38, 28 November 2025 (UTC) Switched to oppose per below comment. I still stand by what I said, that this user has to show that they won't use LLMs, won't violate TPO, and will take advice. Z E T A^C 22:53, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Yeah this should be closed with an indef. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 22:10, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

I am taking an oath that I will never edit in Wikipedia without giving a reliable source. Unknown FG (talk) 13:50, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

@Unknown FG - right after you made this comment, you made this edit adding an uncited sentence. I'm not sure if you've really learned or if you intend to uphold what you've said here. Z E T A^C 14:17, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

I truly promise to uphold now. Unknown FG (talk) 14:19, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

While that was in the lede section, this is in the body and also uncited. I'm not intending to pressure you on anything, but this behavior immediately after making these comments is concerning. Z E T A^C 14:20, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

I've just completed a reversion of unsourced content recently added by @Unknown FG. This is disappointing. 11WB (talk) 14:24, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

This is appalling and we shouldn't give this person any more of our time. Clearly they just don't care about Wikipedia. aesurias (talk) 22:02, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Question: Would an indef here count as a CBAN? I think a CBAN might be too harsh. Z E T A^C 22:40, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

If an admin at this point takes unilateral action in the face of obvious discontent, no. If this keeps racking up "this should be an indef" comments, that could be interpreted as a CBAN. Rambling Rambler (talk) 22:42, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes, it would, since it would be an assessment of community consensus and not a unilateral admin action, meaning a single admin won't be able to reverse it. For the record, I will oppose an indef by virtue of avoiding the chilling effect in administrator elections, as this issue came to light following Unknown FG's candidacy. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:43, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

They have withdrawn. 11WB (talk) 22:45, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

If it's going to be a CBAN, I've struck my !vote and oppose per that. We've been a bit too harsh on handing out CBANS as of late. Z E T A^C 22:50, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

@Chaotic Enby, I am slightly perplexed by your comment. No one in this discussion has explicitly mentioned a community ban until 20 minutes ago. I personally gave @Unknown FG the opportunity to respond without using an LLM before supporting an indef, however they unfortunately attempted to wipe the entire thread instead. 11WB (talk) 22:56, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

The wipe isn't the best thing that they could have done, but I have to agree that this whole ordeal might scare others from running for AELECT or RfA, even if they are truly qualified. A CBAN would be too harsh for this purpose - I don't think the AI usage is as widespread as previous users who have ended up here, and they do seem to have some good contributions and some intention of bettering the encyclopedia, even if misguided. Z E T A^C 23:05, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Given the circumstances surrounding this I am not quite sure this will scare other qualified candidates away but I do agree a c ban is too harsh and given this would be considered a C BAN not an indef I will strike my comment like you did. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 23:14, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Per WP:CBAN (following this 2017 RfC):

Editors who are indefinitely blocked by community consensus, or remain indefinitely blocked after due consideration by the community, are considered "banned by the Wikipedia community".

Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:08, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I brought it up since I saw another CBAN proposal earlier where the user was CBANned despite that word never coming up in the proposal. Z E T A^C 23:15, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

An indef before the 24 hour mark (at the time of your comments) and without a formal close of the discussion cannot be a CBAN, it's plainly against the letter of the policy. Any doubt would be cleared up by a note saying "Indef'd as an individual admin action". REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 13:57, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Zeta, I agree. CBANS seem to be used as a cop-out for admins to avoid taking unilateral action. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:36, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Chaotic Enby, wouldn't your approach amount to immunity from blocking for admin candidates? I don't think we should give anyone such immunity. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:30, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

That is a good point, and, if their conduct had proved to be problematic (to the point of justifying an indef) beyond the admin candidacy, I would have supported blocking them. I don't think that this is the case, as they were already warned for the previous issues, and the new material presented here specifically relates to their candidacy (which they have since withdrawn). Given how RfA or AELECT can be a very uncertain (and stressful) experience for the candidate, I am willing to give them more latitude there, though not an unlimited amount. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:52, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

I have decided to withdraw my support for an indef and I will return to the original proposal in my opening message: 'As the warnings and notices have not provoked any change in behaviour, I believe a short time block from article space may be required here.' 11WB (talk) 00:32, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Well that's a bit more lenient - I would support for a month or so, weak support for longer. Z E T A^C 00:42, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

I would support that as well to hopefully change the disruptive behaviour. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 00:49, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Responding to above and below, I am fine with a period of one month. 11WB (talk) 01:25, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

They have been problematic beyond their admin candidacy. Some diffs were provided in the original message and their talk page is full of various warnings for NPOV language and unverified additions to articles, including BLPs. They also tried to remove this entire ANI discussion! If this editor knows/cares so little about Wikipedia guidelines to use AI to write their candidacy statement (and use AI to reply to concerns about AI usage), who knows what horrors will be found when examining their 6,500 edits?

I think removing their permission to edit mainspace articles is a good alternative that addresses your concerns. aesurias (talk) 00:37, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

As the issues mainly affect article space, this seems reasonable, with the condition that they improve the way they communicate (no more LLM use), providing reliable sources and working to improve competence generally. This is a good suggestion. 11WB (talk) 00:42, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

I don't think it should be a perma-pblock though, just enough to ensure that they will communicate and avoid LLM use in the future. The LLM usage in this case isn't as severe as some other cases I've seen on this noticeboard and AINB. Z E T A^C 00:46, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose either an indef or CBAN. I hate LLMs as much as the next person but this is extremely harsh for no reason. ^EF⁵ 23:07, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
• Comment: Thank you @Chaotic Enby for the clarification. I am very confused as to how to assess this discussion now. I think I will take a step back for the moment and use this as a learning opportunity. 11WB (talk) 23:13, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
• Support indef. Unfortunately they've shown that they're simply not competent enough to continue editing. DoubleCross (‡) 07:04, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

  I promise from now on to

  1)Fully cite my news

  2)Not to make foolish decisions

  3)Not use external help Unknown FG (talk) 13:47, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

  Yet a mere 20 minutes after you made this promise, you broke rules 1 and 2 here! aesurias (talk) 22:04, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

• Stupidly long comment Taking the AGF view (and offer a defence for them in their absence), my instinct is that we've got an editor who got themselves all excited over possibly (yeah, I know) becoming an admin, learned about AI around the same time, and jumped in far, far too deep. They then panicked when they realised this was an incredibly bad idea and made things worse by trying to delete everything.

The issues raised outside this might not warrant an indef or other sanction, so do we look at the admin incident as a one-off? If I'm right and this is what happened, I'd imagine that the shock of seeing this all play out so publicly would be deterrent enough. I think we've all done something spectacularly stupid in the past and watched it snowball down the hill into a crowd of people.

They've only made one edit since and I'd be surprised if we see them again (although I hope we do, stuff still needs sorting out).

Honestly, I just want them to come back and discuss the other issues (and promise not to use AI). The question is what we do if they don't? Does their editing to date justify an indef or is that too harsh and we should see how they respond?

Time-limited indef I'm not so sure on. I get the feeling they're going to contract ANI-flu, which is time away from Wikipedia anyway. It wouldn't be unexpected to have them stay away until the heat has died down.

If they don't respond, do we indef until they do respond to our concerns, or just wait and see & hope they've learned their lesson? I wonder if we've got a bit of a lack of maturity, considering the way this has all played out. I hate AI almost as much as EEng, but it feels like a smaller piece of the puzzle here.

I know I'm making massive presumptions about some of what's happened, but I wanted to present this as a possibility. I haven't voted on an outcome because I'm genuinely not sure what the best outcome would be.

EDIT- Ok I've written all of this out and my brain has just veered towards the "indef until they respond" option. They have caused a lot of disruption by virtue of how much time we've all spent on this. There are long-running CIR issues and you could easily argue that this, even ignoring the adminship part for the possible chilling effect, definitely needs addressing. We can't do that if they don't respond. That said, it's been less than a day since they last edited so I'm not sure I'll vote for this yet. Blue Sonnet (talk) 08:26, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Some supported my proposal for a short-term partial block from editing mainspace. Whilst others are still supporting a full indef, which would be a community ban. Only one of these outcomes allows for quicker rehabilitation back into the project. 11WB (talk) 10:29, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

An indef is not a community ban. Indefinite is not infinite. Temporary blocks do not usually lead to rehabilitation. Only an indef allows for rehabilitation. Rehabilitation will be as quick as it needs to be. —Alalch E. 11:13, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

That contradicts this if that is the case. 11WB (talk) 11:24, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

It depends on how an admin executes the block, i.e., whose decision it is. If the admin closes this discussion as having created a consensus decision to indefinitely block, that would count as equivalent to a cban, but it is still very much possible for an admin to block as an individual action, by their own decision. —Alalch E. 11:36, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Ah, that's an important distinction. Based on what was said yesterday I assumed an indef would be a community ban under any application. For this editor, an indef block, whilst "indefinite" doesn't actually mean forever to my knowledge. If they begin to attempt to change how they edit, then maybe some good can come from this discussion. 11WB (talk) 11:42, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes, Alalch E., an indef does not have to last more than 5 minutes. I would go further and say that all blocks (apart from cool-down blocks which we are not supposed to do anyway) should be indefinite. There's no reason to remove a block if the editor has not learnt anything, and there's no need to leave someone blocked if they have. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:47, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Yep, this is why I'm steadily leaning towards an indef until we get a good explanation. I want to make sure I'm objective in my decision - for some reason I feel pretty strongly about this case, probably because I've done some stupid stuff in my time then dug myself into an even deeper hole (complete with an audience).

I'm going to give it a few more hours - if they've been offline for a full 24hrs without a response, I think that's a good time for me to reevaluate & I'll probably go with indef.

Everyone screws up, it's what you do next that's important. Blue Sonnet (talk) 11:56, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Well, this is a shame. I believe an indef/CBAN is too heavy, so I am going to oppose. 11WB (talk) 12:23, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Well they've responded, so I'm reconsidering :) Blue Sonnet (talk) 13:25, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

I've opened a new section for this underneath the discussion. I believe AN/I discussions like this are kept open for 72 hours, so that gives everybody a day to formalise a decision and leave it below. 11WB (talk) 23:23, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your concerns, actually I could not see your messages as I am busy in real life.

Unknown FG (talk) Unknown FG (talk) 13:19, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Agree with indef till response. "Assuming" they have learnt their lesson is only an incentive for them (and others) to continue such behaviour because they don't fear reprehension or consequence for being disruptive. They have clearly seen this conversation (as evidenced by their removal of the ANI notif from their talk page) but are now as silent as a mouse! If they don't want to explain themselves, so be it. I support an indef or article space block, both essentially do the same thing which is trying to get them to talk and explain. aesurias (talk) 11:31, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

I also think a thread needs to be opened to look at this persons 6,500+ edits, especially created articles. If the OP comment has found multiple issues just from a quick look at contribution history, I think we can expect to find a few more issues that need to be rectified. aesurias (talk) 11:32, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

I am also concerned about all of this user's edits, as changes were clearly made to articles by someone who did not understand what changes they are making. —Alalch E. 11:39, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

• Support CIR indef for accumulating this many edits and not knowing not to remove the ANI topic about them, which, combined with the misuse of so-called AI, means that all this time, this user lacked awareness of what they were doing, and has not been learning in the process. Strongly oppose on principle that we should fear a chilling effect regarding the admin elections.—Alalch E. 10:26, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

  I promise from now on to

  1)Fully cite my news

  2)Not to make foolish decisions

  3)Not use external help Unknown FG (talk) 13:47, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

• Reluctant support. I am not happy to cast this vote, but this is someone who is just not willing to listen. The AI-generated RFA was bad enough (and, as stated earlier, an insult to anyone willing to ask questions and to the community at large who expects a person to be running, not ChatGPT), then you add the removal of this thread to which someone who has been around long enough should know better, I just do not see this person as fit for Wikipedia at this time. Also, the fact that they have been receiving BLP and disruptive editing warnings as recently as this month just adds to the number of issues. Lynch44 13:10, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

  Thank you for your concerns, if you want me to be thrown out of Wikipedia, there is nothing I object. I guess I deserve it. Unknown FG (talk) 13:17, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

  @Unknown FG, this is the moment you need to write a response and tell us how you are going to improve on the project. No AI, in your own words. This really is the time to do it whilst editors are still discussing this in a public venue. 11WB (talk) 13:20, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

  Exactly this - a lot of people just want to see you address the concerns raised and only wanted a block to be in place until you responded.

  Since you're responding here, it's recently the right time for you to talk about what happened and what you've learned.

  People who've already voted can change their decision if they feel you've responded well enough, nothing is set in stone. Blue Sonnet (talk) 13:28, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

  When I restored this thread from Davy Jones' Locker after Unknown had blanked it, I thought it'll only be a moment or two until an indef is imposed. Yet here we are !! - Walter Ego 13:35, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

  @Unknown FG, I can see you've gone back to general editing in mainspace (without providing reliable sources I might add). I would seriously recommend directing your attention to this AN/I. 11WB (talk) 13:39, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

  I am really sorry. From now, I promise to cite reliable sources. Unknown FG (talk) 13:48, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

  I promise from now on to

  1)Fully cite my news

  2)Not to make foolish decisions

  3)Not use external help Unknown FG (talk) 13:46, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

  @Unknown FG How will you keep your promise "not to make foolish decisions"? Presumably you didn't think blanking this discussion was foolish when you decided to do it.[1] NebY (talk) 16:48, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

  This made me do a double-take, I could have sworn I replied but I've just seen this is a double-post! Blue Sonnet (talk) 17:09, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

  I promise from now on to

  1)Fully cite my news

  2)Not to make foolish decisions

  3)Not use external help Unknown FG (talk) 13:46, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

  @Unknown FG Please, in your own words and without external help, explain what "fully cite my news is". As part of your explanation, explain also what "news" means. —Alalch E. 14:30, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

  @Unknown FG It'll be much easier if you look through your own Talk page and find the warnings you've been given. Click on every blue-linked page to see what they say you should have done instead, then come back here and answer this question, ok?

  We just need to see that you understand what the problem is and know exactly what to do next time. The answer is definitely linked on your Talk page so you just need to find it. Blue Sonnet (talk) 16:11, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

  @Unknown FG You just said that you would cite the source, but some of your edits has already been reverted because you didn't cite any source there.

  It is important to always provide a citation when making such edits otherwise it could be called as original research. Additionally also when editing, it is advisable to give at least a brief edit summary describing what changes were made. THEZDRX _{(User) | (Contact)} 16:11, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Proposals: CBAN (Indef) or PBLOCK (Short-term from article space) or no further action

It has been almost 48 hours since this AN/I was opened and editors are supporting either an indefinite block which would be a CBAN or a short-term block from editing article space (a 1 month PBLOCK).

@Unknown FG has responded here and has said, however briefly, they will cite reliable sources. They have also apologised for causing trouble.

For the benefit of the administrators, I believe it is now the appropriate time to ascertain exactly what the outcome of this should be and whether UFG will be able to stick to their commitments for the long-term. Are we in support of a CBAN (indef) or a short-term PBLOCK from article space or no further action? 11WB (talk) 22:10, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

• PBLOCK: I support the latter despite my reservations. If UFG can take some time to assess the way they edit and return with a clear focus then I believe they should be given the chance to do that. 11WB (talk) 22:13, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

  I held out hope that they would take note, however they continue to make edits even now without providing a reliable source. Due to this, I am switching my support to an indef PBLOCK from editing article space. 11WB (talk) 01:14, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

• PBLOCK for 1-3 months per what I said above in my original indef !vote and the following comments. Z E T A^C 22:16, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

  Yeah, per 11WB's comment, they're still continuing to add unsourced information. After reading the previous !votes as well, I would support an indef PBLOCK from mainspace or a unilateral indef that may be lifted by any uninvolved administrator. Z E T A^C 01:17, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

• PBLOCK for 1 month for the reasons I mentioned in my comments above and below. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 23:08, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

  Sadly,per 11WB's comment, I am changing my !vote to an Indef PBLOCK as despite this ANI thread and multiple concerns raised to them they are still continuing to add unsourced content to articles. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 01:22, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

• INDEF Despite the editors assurances that they would use reliable sources, their edit history shows they have continued to add unsourced information to Indian political articles. I have zero confidence in their ability to listen and abide by Wikipedia guidelines and I don't think a 1-month PBLOCK would be effective. They'll just go offline for 1 month before resuming the same disruptive editing patterns. aesurias (talk) 23:31, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
• Indef (same as my recommendation above). I still strongly suggest an indefinite block, because I am not satisfied with the assurances given, particularly the one worded as I promise from now on to ... Fully cite my news. You see, the starter of this section stated that Unknown FG committed ... to providing reliable sources, but Uknown FG only said that they would cite "their news". Immediately after making this assurance, Unknown FG went on to make further unsourced edits. You can't pull their incomprehensible statement through the filter of Wikipedia jargon to cause it to become a legitimate assurance that relevantly attaches to Wikipedia policies. We need to be open to the probable reality that Unknown FG does not understand anything about Wikipedia and does not know what sources are, let alone reliable sources. Unknown FG does not have the faintest notion of any Wikipedia policy. They don't know what they are doing at all. They are using AI and don't understand the text the AI gives them to put in the articles. They should be blocked until they are able to deeply reflect on their past period of editing and explain how absurd it has been.—Alalch E. 09:11, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

• Indef I hate doing this, but we've asked them to provide a decent explanation and I've gone into detail about how to do that.

Despite this, as Alalch E. has pointed out, they're continuing to make problematic edits that had to be reverted and did not respond to our further questions and concerns.

A time-limited block won't fix that, they need to be stopped because they won't stop themselves.

They should be unblocked only when they can adequately prove that they won't cause further disruption. Blue Sonnet (talk) 12:52, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I'm not voting for CBAN because that would be excessive - just an indef until a proper appeal/explanation is given & they can show they understand sourcing etc.

An indef block from article space, where they have to submit edit requests through Talk pages is my second choice.

Definite no to timed blocks, I don't think that would be helpful in this case. Blue Sonnet (talk) 18:24, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

As it's been over 24 hours, an indef would be considered a CBAN as discussed above. Pinging @Chaotic_Enby to confirm. 11WB (talk) 18:26, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

I was a bit fast-and-loose in my earlier assessment, assuming that "an indef" referred to the discussion being closed as a consensus for "indef" rather than an admin preempting it before the time limit for discussion closure. However, unlike with other sanctions, the limit for CBAN discussions is 72 hours, not 24 hours (except if there has been no meaningful opposition, which isn't the case here).

As there have been !votes for sanctions before a separate proposal section was created, I am not sure which one should be counted as the start of the 72 hours, and I will defer to editors more experienced with that matter. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:42, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

However, a sanction which (I believe) hasn't been explored yet would be an indef by community consensus, but where the consensus is also that an uninvolved administrator can lift the block after a proper appeal. I don't think we have any formal procedures for that, but it makes sense as a concept, and, of course, we're not a bureaucracy. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:55, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

TBH That's what was in my mind when I originally voted Indef - I got a bit confused over what we're voting for after things got shuffled around! Blue Sonnet (talk) 18:59, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Indef pblock at least, no objection to more. Their assurances aren't meaningful and show they don't understand the nature of the encylopedia ("Fully cite my news"?), and then they've edited in contravention of their own commitment. A time-limited block's no good; there's no reason to think their approach will have improved in that time. A pblock to allow for talk-page edit requests might let them learn but they'd need to be told from the start, very firmly, that if they waste any more of the community's time, they're out. NebY (talk) 13:05, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

• Support indefinite PBLOCK. Oppose timed PBLOCK block or CBAN. I think a CBAN is a bit too far at this juncture. I also don't think a timed partial block is appropriate because the conduct has been severe enough, and goes much farther than an extremely poorly considered admin election issue, that just letting this editor take a couple months off without demonstrating knowledge of how sourcing works is unacceptable in my view. If this editor can demonstrate an understanding of sourcing with their edit requests over the next six months or a year, only then would full removal of their restriction be appropriate. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:27, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose pblock of any duration, as much of their problenatic behavior wasn't confined to article space. In any case, editng articles is literally what we're here for; an ediotor ubale to be trusted to do so is unlikely to be helpful elsewhere. —Fortuna, imperatrix 14:35, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Support indef Let this editor go back to editing when and only when they've demonstrated that they've actually learned from their mistakes. There's absolutely no point in enacting a timed block on somebody with this level of WP:ICANTHEARYOU because you're then just hoping they'll learn during the block time but not requiring them to prove anything. Athanelar (talk) 18:49, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

• Support indef block that an uninvolved administrator may lift after a proper appeal that addresses the identified shortcomings in Unknown FG's edits. CBAN seems unnecessarily harsh. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 19:30, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

  I could get behind this if it isn't a CBAN Z E T A^C 19:47, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

• Support indefinite PBLOCK. Oppose timed PBLOCK block or CBAN. As soon as they made that comment, they immediately made some unsourced edits. Despite having so many warn templates on their talk page, they kept making edits without edit summaries and citations. A PBlock seems appropriate because a Cban would be a bit too harsh. THEZDRX _{(User) | (Contact)} 01:19, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

• Support indef PBlock as per ZDRX. UFG's disruptive behavior on the articles they edit is very concerning. sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:21, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
• Support indef/CBAN trying to bludgeon other users with their 3-step boilerplate promises then proceeding to break them is just plain trolling. Borgenland (talk) 02:02, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Other comments:

• If you're going to use this unusual survey format (at ANI, usually one subheading = one sanction, so you would want to have a subheading for PBLOCK and a subheading for CBAN), there also needs to be an Option C - no sanction. And also, anybody !voting for CBAN may also want to say that they would also support a PBLOCK if the CBAN doesn't pass, since I think most CBAN folks would intend this, but not saying it might confuse the closer. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:38, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks @Novem Linguae. I'll make those edits! 11WB (talk) 23:41, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

  @Novem Linguae, is this acceptable? (This is my first time formatting something like this, so I appreciate the help a lot!) 11WB (talk) 23:45, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

  The wording of your opening statement in the section you've created is poor, because you misstated what Unknown FG wrote. You only highlighted their assurance and also changed its language to make it more appealing to editors commenting here. You pulled it through your own filter and prettified it. You link to Unknown FG saying "my news" and translate that to "reliable sources". And then: you did not say that the editor immediately after making the assurance made further unsourced edits. By reengineering their case for them in the opening statement of the section where a decision may be made you have introduced a lot of bias. —Alalch E. 09:22, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

  They have littered a lot of comments in the discussion. The effort on their part is weak, but I'm happy to either strike through, reword or remove that part entirely. They did mention citing reliable sources here. I understand it reads as biased, but we both know I did not intend it to be biased. 11WB (talk) 09:26, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

  I have reworded the new section statement and changed the link to the correct message. The original AN/I opening message stands and I have not defended their behaviour in any way. I disagree with your perception of bias but I'm willing to edit the new message accordingly, @Alalch E.. 11WB (talk) 09:33, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

  Of course, I don't think you intended it to be biased. Also, it might be best not to change anything now. But in the future, you might be careful not to paraphrase important statements where the devil may be in the details. You have now linked to their reply containing "reliable sources", but that was a reply to you who effectively signalled to them to use this term, as you had included this term in your reply, whereas they had originally, writing in their own words, not been showing any cognizance, let alone comprehension, of the reliable source standards on Wikipedia, and have only referred to "my news". —Alalch E. 09:34, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

  Well I can't argue with that, you are absolutely right. I realise I've essentially helped them by how I paraphrased it, which is the opposite of what I should be doing... I apologise. 11WB (talk) 09:40, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

  Don't worry about it. —Alalch E. 09:45, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

• Comment: I messed up the formatting for this section. I give consent to any editors who are regulars at AN/I to edit these into the correct format. 11WB (talk) 23:54, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

  Courtesy ping to @EEng, @Alalch E., @Lynch44, @Chaotic Enby, @Blue-Sonnet, @Fortuna imperatrix mundi to leave their support for one of the options above. (I've only pinged those who've already participated in the discussion and expressed support for either an indef or CBAN.) 11WB (talk) 07:30, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

  Would suggest pinging all !voters. For example EF5 who !voted oppose. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:48, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

  Is there a way to do it en masse? 11WB (talk) 07:50, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

  @EF5, @DoubleCross per above. 11WB (talk) 08:28, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

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

~2025-37197-04 serial reversal of correct tags

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

---

This user has been reversing my edits as of the last hour or so. While there were a good bit of ones I understood why they got reverted, there were several that were blatantly correct but still reverted such as Ursula, Sharktopus, Pluribus, and Displacer Beast. I have told them multiple times that these were obviously fine, but the user keeps reverting them. I also suspect that the user is sjones' sockpuppet/alt as they made the talk page for this very new user that had their very first action in my section of this page, and through out my question on their talk page. I want them to stop wonton reverting, and only revert iffy pages — Preceding unsigned comment added by ConanHighwoods (talk • contribs) 06:35, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Please see the above thread named "ConanHighwoods".

Tl:dr, this is a basic WP:1AM situation.

You are required to notify @Sjones23:, which I see you have failed to do. ~2025-37197-04 (talk) 06:58, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

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

User:Moonsun147258

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

---

The above-mentioned user keeps reverting changes to File:Europe-blocs-49-89x4.svg. Even though I have posted on the file's talk page and on their talk page in hopes of engaging in a discussion, but have not received a response. Assadzadeh (talk) 05:28, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

These reverts are happening at commons so I don't believe there's anything to do on enwiki. ~ Matthewrb ^{Get in touch · Breadcrumbs} 06:17, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Why can't the user be blocked? Assadzadeh (talk) 06:23, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Because Commons is a different project with different administrators. A block on en wiki doesn't change anything on Commons. I might recommend commons:Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems. ~ Matthewrb ^{Get in touch · Breadcrumbs} 06:32, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

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

New user not communicating

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

---

[2] and [3] say it all. It seems unlikely that Byron Comp 3 (talk · contribs) is aware of talk pages, and if they are, then they refuse to communicate. I'd suggest pblocking from mainspace in the hope they start communicating. lp0 on fire () 19:09, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Noting they have two sleepers at Byron Comp II and Byron Comp III, all created within the same week. Anyway, they have made 401 edits, none of which include sources, and most of them have been reverted. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 20:02, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

I've attempted to communicate with them through edit summaries, since talk page messages have proven ineffective. Their edits thus far appear to either have been MOS violating or copyright violations. Maybe a partial block from article space would be effective until they communicate (and obviously understand copyright, reliable sourcing, etc)? Jellyfish (mobile) (talk) 21:04, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Something is very...not right with those edits. I went with a layered block approach here; a 72-hour article space block to draw Byron Comp 3's attention to their talk page and this report. I also partial blocked them from creating pages for one month as they're edit warring and creating way too much work for others. Either of these blocks can be lifted if progress is made in communicating and they demonstrate an understanding of how article creation works. Note that if they start using a new account a site-wide block would be more applicable.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:55, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

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

@Ponyo: They're socking as Angela Comp now, with a sleeper at Angela Comp 66. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 16:27, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

I have created Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Byron Comp 3. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:14, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

This editor returned to their disruptive editing pattern, with no communication, after the three-day block expired. The SPI case has been closed with no action to block this apparent sockmaster. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:53, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

I'm now in favor of an indef - multiple edit summaries pointing them to their talk page and still nothing. Jellyfish (mobile) (talk) 04:23, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

I would also support an indefinite block. sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:26, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

• Support indef They're right back at it after socking. [4][5]

Blue Sonnet (talk) 09:22, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

• Support indef. I don't see a choice when they won't engage. I initially tried to give the benefit of doubt, as some of the additions were/seemed useful, e.g. adding genus and species numbers for sections where these were missing. I also thought that the changing of the numbers was a misunderstanding of the articles purpose (updating to current thinking rather than what was in the books), but my edit summaries should have clarified this. They keep introducing erroneous material and won't engage, so even without the sockpuppetry, a ban seems the only option.  —  Jts1882 | talk  09:30, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
• Support indefinite pblock. Seems highly unlikely they'll ever start communicating, but if they do there's no point having them blocked from talk pages. lp0 on fire () 09:55, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Support indef PBLOCK. They have shown no sign of communicating and have continued to edit war even after this discussionn opened so a PBLOCK is necessary to prevent disruption to article space but a indef is not necessary as their disruption is limited to article space. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 18:40, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Personal attacks by BobSmithME

• BobSmithME (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) They have been warned twice on making such attacks, and they state they aren't personal attacks.

"because you write at roughly a fourth-grade English level" (...) "Which you would know if you read it." They are then warned about this behavior, twice. Responds with "A non-admin certainly cannot drop a block threat. This is ludicrous", in response to a redwarn. Then states

You do write at roughly a fourth-grade level. That's not a personal attack. It's a very simple observation. You can't seem to understand that your concessions have been granted. All of your additions would have had to been rewritten anyways. In fact, a look at your edit history shows that significant numbers of your edits have been reverted for improper grammar usage. Also, literally none of what you just wrote would border on personal attacks. This really only furthers my point that you have a very limited grasp of reading comprehension. Interacting with this person is impossible, they are clearly WP:NOTHERE. Des Vallee (talk) 10:08, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

OP, you don't need to post their comments word for word. A link to the relevant revision is acceptable, preferable in fact. guninvalid (talk) 10:15, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Noted I just thought it is easier to look at instead of having to open plenty of links. Des Vallee (talk) 10:17, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

I never once attacked the editor personally. Review of the extensive conversation at the aforementioned article would show that I am not exactly mistaken. I did in fact engage with the editor for an extended period of time, after which I noted that the editor was clearly failing to understand the sources they were referring to. A look at the editor's writing shows that it is of a low writing standard, and one should note that, as I stated, this editor has had a significant number of edits reverted due to poor grammar.

In fact, while I could have accused the editor of acting in ill faith, I did not. I simply attributed it to the belief that their English was not up to snuff. In fact, a look at this edit in particular shows that the editor went out of their way to insert incorrect grammar. That was literally the only edit made. Either the editor was deliberately sabotaging the page by inserting incorrect grammar to prevent auto-reverts, or they truly believed that was the correct grammatical structure. I proceeded to continuously engage with the editor despite the fact that some of their comments were almost incomprehensible. Out of frustration, I pointed out that the editor's grasp of the English language was clearly tenuous and they struggled to comprehend the correct meaning of the sources even though sometimes I inserted things that this editor themself wanted to be added. BobSmithME (talk) 10:22, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

I proceeded to continuously engage with the editor – You mean continually, Mr. English Expert? EEng 11:14, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Go through the edit logs. It was quite literally continuous. I don't think there was a letup for several hours, which both of us have already admitted we were in the wrong for. Your point? BobSmithME (talk) 13:11, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

No, it was not quite literally continuous but continual. If you want to set yourself up as the language police then you should learn the difference. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:18, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

@BobSmithME: English is my first language, I was born and raised in Indiana, your clearly making gross personal attacks in this and I don't understand how you don't see that. Do I need to genuinely explain to why comparing someone to a fourth grader is a personal attack. Des Vallee (talk) 10:37, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Well, my sincere apologies for assuming otherwise. I also never compared you personally to a fourth grader. I said your writing was. If you took offense to that, my apologies. That doesn't change the fact that I couldn't understand most of what you were writing. BobSmithME (talk) 10:41, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

@BobSmithME, you were brought here specifically because of your personal attacks. Please stop casting WP:ASPERSIONS regarding their reading comprehension. This is ANI so I'm not going to template your comment myself, but please stop, for both of our sakes. guninvalid (talk) 10:28, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

I am defending myself, which I believe I have a right to do. I am not going to cast any further aspersions regarding their comprehension skills, but I do think it is ludicrous that I am being brought here for something that is not in any way a personal attack. I provided specific sources where the editor clearly made mistakes. That is all. Many editors here do not have sufficient language skills, since English isn't the first language for many. That's not a personal failing. I fail to see how pointing out the difficulties of engaging with this editor is a personal attack. And I don't think anybody can reasonably or objectively say that large chunks of that thread were of the writing standard that would be included in an encyclopedia. BobSmithME (talk) 10:33, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Bob, if I am honest, your response in general here feels disingenuous. And for your own sake with regard to longterm engagement with the project, I kind of hope it is, because otherwise you are dangerously close to demonstrating a basic social competency issue here, compounded by WP:IDHT. Is it sometimes necessary to make reference to another editor's limitations with the English language? Yes, of course. But the manner in which you went about that here was clearly juvenile, provocative, WP:disruptive, and, frankly, obnoxious. Any time you find yourself providing your own personal assessment of another person's capacities in terms of elementary grade levels, you have crossed the threshold between valid criticism and, ironically, grade-school pettiness.

Furthermore, every iteration of your sorry-but-not-sorry above conveniently leaves out how that particular comment was also threaded with multiple, inaccurate accusations of WP:vandalism. I appreciate you only have a couple of months of experience here, but I must inform you that you need to better familiarize yourself with that policy before you can reasonably consider yourself in a position to use it so aggressively, because frankly, your understanding is fundamentally flawed. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 09:09, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

After taking a couple of days to think I have posted a better response below. It was also posted before you made this extensive response. I also don't really know how my response is disingenuous when I have not argued a single time with my punishment for my behavior. If full acceptance and an apology isn't good enough, then I'm beat. BobSmithME (talk) 11:17, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

As a (mostly) uninvolved third party, I think the best practice here is a 30 day page block for both of these users on 2024 United States presidential election in Hawaii. They are well past the WP:3RR there. guninvalid (talk) 10:25, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

@Guninvalid: 3RR was never broken, but yet there was a long out edit war. I shouldn't have kept editing the article, although I tried to add sources or change the information if I ever made revert. If that's what is done, it's that I guess though. Des Vallee (talk) 10:33, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

I acknowledge that I got heated and should have brought in a third party when it became apparent that discussion was pointless. I have no issues with this. BobSmithME (talk) 10:35, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

How can you say this when deny making any personal attacks, and there was an RFC I opened. Des Vallee (talk) 10:42, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Please refrain from continuing this argument (at least that's what I think you're doing) and allow other editors to decide. Nothing more is going to come from throwing barbs at each other. BobSmithME (talk) 10:44, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

One thing I've learned here is that we need to take additional care when communicating with each other on Wikipedia (and online in general). There are important contextual, non-verbal cues that are missing when we talk to each other through text alone.

I find it valuable to ask myself whether my post could be taken negatively by someone who's in a poor situation or frame of mind, because that's entirely possible. There's no way for you to know the personal circumstances of the editor you're currently talking to, so it's reasonable to take care when doing do. You don't know what's happening on the other side of the screen.

Ask whether the claim you're making or comment you're writing is absolutely necessary, or if you can still communicate the core of your argument without it.

As an example, was the "fourth grader" comment really necessary? Did you have the ability to put your point across without that statement being included?

I'm going to be far more receptive and inclined to accept someone's argument if they can make their case by sticking to the facts rather than their interpretation of them, especially if there's any possibility that interpretation might be considered as a personal attack.

Instead of giving your opinion as to someone's level of education, it would have been preferable to say "you did X and that's bad because Y".

If you're not able to do this, perhaps a community-driven project like Wikipedia isn't for you. Blue Sonnet (talk) 14:02, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Fair enough, I'll toss a barb then. Do you see anyone agreeing with you here, BobSmithME? Like several others, I find it tiresome and disingenuous for people to weasel-word plain personal attacks. If you're incapable of understanding that a crack like the "fourth grader" business constitutes a personal attack (or, as I believe more likely, you think that your deflections constitute a get-out-of-jail-free card), then I agree with Blue Sonnet: you're a poor fit for Wikipedia. Ravenswing 15:00, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

It is absolutely tiresome to hear people attempt to defend their personal attacks by saying "That's not a personal attack. It's a very simple observation." [6] If that were somehow allowable, anybody could say absolutely anything about anyone and just claim it's an observation. I could just as well say "<insert editor name> is a <insert pejorative>" and claim it's ok because it's an observation! @BobSmithME: it is deeply troubling that you are taking this stance. WP:NPA is unequivocally clear when it says "Comment on content, not the contributors." There is no circumstance under which saying "you have a very limited grasp of reading comprehension." [7] would qualify as commenting on content. In that diff you are unequivocally commenting on the editor. Further, stating that a non-admin can't place a warning note [8] is absolutely false. Wikipedia is comprised of a body of over 260 thousand active editors. Only a small fraction, ~500 of them, are active administrators. It is impossible on the face of it for 500 administrators to patrol the 7 million plus articles on this project. If you still insist that only administrators can give you warnings, then let me make this warning to you, as an administrator: If you persist in personally insulting people you will be blocked. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:42, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

How about we indef BobSmithME but it won't be an indefinite block but instead simply a technical measure to stop them making further personal attacks? Nil Einne (talk) 15:20, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

That seems premature. tony 15:28, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

For an indefinite block sure. But since we can just call it something else and then it somehow isn't what it clearly is, it should be fine at least according to BobSmithME themselves. Nil Einne (talk) 15:32, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Ah, an enforced editing hiatus of unspecified duration. Touché. Blue Sonnet (talk) 15:56, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

• I have p-blocked both indefinitely from 2024 United States presidential election in Hawaii which does not require 3RR to be broken. Either is welcome to make a convincing argument that the conduct won't resume in 31 days, which is why a time limited one won't be helpful. This does not preclude any further actions here but simply stops the ongoing disruption. Star Mississippi 16:48, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

I think that for someone who is blatant in making personal attacks, taking zero actions on this is kinda disgusting. After they have battlegrounded so heavily they tried to remove dubious tags leading to the talk page because it "Initiating editor has not begun a discussion on talk," when there was obviously a discussion on the page, and when after I stopped making changes or reverts to the article and committed myself not to change the article. This doesn't stop this behavior and they will act like this on other pages not least as they haven't admitted to anything wrong and are likely a sock. I think taking no action on blatant personal attacks, awful behavior, ownership of the article, battle grounding constantly, while saying they did nothing wrong doing while provided reasons it's wrong is wild to me. Anyway the decision was made, and after this experience I am taking a permanent break from Wikipedia. Hope everyone has a good day, thanks. Des Vallee (talk) 19:11, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

• Buttinsky here. BobSmithME adduces this as an example of Des Vallee writing ungrammatically. It's a revert by BobSmith, with the edit summary You literally went out of your way to insert improper grammar here. This itself is vandalism. (a clear aspersion with the assertion of deliberate degrading of the grammar). Yet in the edit, BobSmith has changed "Despite this Hawaii is usually ranked as one of the most progressive in the country." to "Despite this Hawaii usually being ranked as one of the most progressive in the country." That's both bad syntax and a sentence fragment; "is" was perfectly correct. BobSmith's edit is a straightforward revert of Des Vallee's previous edit; the disimprovement is BobSmith's. Des Vallee, who's just said they are taking a "permanent break", is owed an apology here. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:48, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

@Des Vallee: There's a reality in any large project of any kind, including Wikipedia, that things will not always go as you hope and expect them to. I have been disappointed over, and over, and over again. I was once told that I was the "most ignorant and disrespectful editor", along with a number of other personal insults by the same editor. In response, I was told it wasn't a personal attack, and I needed to calm down. This is also hardly isolated to me nor to many people on this project. the WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL policies are routinely ignored. I don't ignore them, which is why I made my post above. I will block BobSmithME if he issues another personal attack as they did towards you. Their actions are intolerable. I'm sorry you've decided to leave this project, but please understand this; in my opinion it isn't a good reason to leave. I hope you stay. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:57, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

@Hammersoft: Thanks that means a lot. Des Vallee (talk) 22:49, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Seconded - I recently left for six months or so after being bitten by an admin who's no longer here (I believe they left due to other, similar incidents).

That one incident completely deflated my passion for the project, even though it was a single comment and others completely disagreed with what was said.

I'm a little sad for the time I lost here, but I'm really glad I returned!

Don't let the actions of one single person affect your decision to stay or leave - although it's much easier said than done, so no-one would begrudge you taking a break if that's what you need right now.

BTW These discussions take a bit of time - we first talk about the history and merit of the case, give the editor a chance to respond appropriately, then someone will usually suggest an appropriate action (sanction, close, etc.). Right now we're in the middle of this process & I'm not currently seeing anyone taking BobSmithME's side.

Just to reiterate, this just isn't acceptable behaviour and Wikipedia editors should be able to enter into a civilised discussion without needing to be petty. Blue Sonnet (talk) 01:51, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

I can see from observing the comment thread what people's issues were with my statements and after taking the time to step away and observe I agree fully. I do believe that I deserve a chance to explain myself without being snidely piled on by a dozen different people, but I will not argue pointlessly until I am asked to "respond appropriately." I don't know how to respond without it being taken as a personal attack (calling somebody a fourth grader is an insult, but I don't think anybody that has read the logs would say that the other editor's statements were comprehensible at several points in the conversation). I have already admitted that several of my barbs were in the heat of the moment and accepted responsibility.

My main defense is that I did not try to edit war with this editor, I only removed information that was objectively not backed up by the sources. For the information that was backed up, I not only left in the article but took the time to make the article more legible. In addition, when the other editor voiced concern to a source that I had not inserted (in fact, none of these were my edits and I only came across the other editor's edits randomly), I conceded and removed that citation as they had asked.

During this time, the editor not only reverted edits I made that were agreeable to their position, but repeatedly flung insults at me, which is undeniable. I flung them back as well. I do not remember nor am I going to assume who started it, but I do take offense at the idea that I was verbally assaulting an innocent editor who was being completely reasonable. Said editor was objectively throwing POV attacks at me as well, as a view of the edit descriptions and talk page logs will clearly show. In fact, in this very discussion the other user has accused me of being a sock, which doesn't even make any sense. I took time away to let this thing run its course, but I'm only putting this here because I just read it and I don't enjoy being singled out for egregious behavior that both of us engaged in (and one of us is still engaging in despite the fact that I very respectfully told them to let the others decide). I don't even know who I would be a sock for. This article doesn't appear to have an extensive edit history to me, and my history will show that I have spent a lot of time making very helpful edits that nobody else would have made. BobSmithME (talk) 08:23, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

I don't think anybody that has read the logs would say that the other editor's statements were comprehensible at several points in the conversation is a personal attack, when other editors here such have read the edits and have stated here it was "comprehensible," but you still insist otherwise and still say your behavior on saying. My main defense is that I did not try to edit war with this editor is objectively false, you removed dubious tag from the article which is supposed to create a discussion during a dispute, for an obviously false reason of "no discussion." That is one of the most blatant examples of battlegrounding I have ever seen. I also don't really know how my response is disingenuous, when editors such as @Yngvadottir:, @Blue-Sonnet:, @Guninvalid:, @Nil Einne:, @Ravenswing: and @Snow Rise: have all described the way you are interacting with people as wrong. Again you are taking no responsibility for your actions, or responsibility on edit warring. You apologized (after long refusal on ANI) for calling my writing level that of a 4th grader. But you still can't admit the fact you were edit warring, or see the issue with your comments, and if you don't your just going to behave like this in the future. I think BobSmithME should at least be given a block for a limited amount of time for this behavior. Des Vallee (talk) 20:53, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

No, there was no discussion for the dubious tag, unless you're referring to the RFC that was closed by an administrator that proceeded to say the topic should be discussed on a different page.

And if I was edit-warring, I must be pretty terrible at it since I conceded to nearly all of your proposed edits. This is edit-warring how? BobSmithME (talk) 23:12, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Des, I largely endorsed the argument of your report in a response to Bob above, but now I have to take a moment to question your own approach to the conflict here. Do you have specific, concrete reasons to suspect them of socking. If so, you can share them here or at WP:SPI. But if you do not have enough to support a colourable WP:DUCK argument in one of these spaces, and are working more off supposition and "vibes", you would do better to say nothign at all. Otherwise, you are just running afoul of WP:ASPERSIONS yourself (and possibly committing a WP:BEANS error at the same time. You are clearly coming off as the more aggrieved and reasonable party here for most people who have reviewed the dispute, but you waste that good will when you engage in unsubstantiated accusations. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 09:22, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

@Snow Rise: I think they might be this person who I interacted with and was blocked a long time ago, Skellyret. They have a similar editing pattern, similar article interests, similar writing style. Similar approach to conflict resolution and have the same tendency to state personal attacks. Their first edits seem like they already have experience with editing Wikisource. Des Vallee (talk) 20:16, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

You can take that to WP:SPI. For what it's worth though, from a cursory glance, the writing style is different enough that if the checkuser comes up clean, it's probably nothing. guninvalid (talk) 23:29, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with guninvalid here. These two editors do not seem to be the same person. Although I hope you come back to contribute here. Kvinnen (talk) 18:49, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

~2025-31252-28

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

---

~2025-31252-28 (talk · contribs) received numerous warnings not to add unref info, continues doing so on a massive scale. I am currently reviewing. --Altenmann >talk 00:15, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Some diffs of adding material without sources after a final warning: [9][10][11][12] fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 01:18, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

@Altenmann: They've also added the Category:Russian people of German descent to quite a few pages without a reliable source. At this point, I think administrative action might need to be taken. I've already asked an uninvolved administrator, Sergecross73 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (who, like myself, is also a long-standing user for nearly two decades), for their input. sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:32, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Looks like pretty standard unsourced editing. Have they done it again since their final warning? Sergecross73 msg me 14:03, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

At the moment, they haven't edited anything even after I gave them a final warning not too long ago. sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:33, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Okay, if that's the case, then I think we're good for now, but I'll issue a short block if it happens any further. Just shoot me a talk page message if that's necessary. Sergecross73 msg me 18:09, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Will do. Closing this topic for now. sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:06, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

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

User:Consumersapproach

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

---

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

Promotional username with promotional edits on one page (Draft:Jack’s Building Materials) that is extremely promotional. The use of replacement templates suggests that it may be AI-generated. This page was previously deleted, but was then recreated by the same user. They seem to be WP:NOTHERE. ~2025-31416-56 (talk) 17:49, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

You are required to notify the user of this discussion with {{ANI-notice}}. I have notified them for you. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 17:57, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

I apologize. I did notify them; I forgot to add a header. ~2025-31416-56 (talk) 18:20, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Oops, I didn't see that! Thanks for

pointing that out. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 18:22, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

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

OceanSplash - LLM Use on Articles and User Talk Spaces

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

---

OceanSplash (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) recently made a series of problematic edits to Ali Sina (activist), which I reverted. I identified the various issues with his edit in my edit summary, on the talk page of the article, and on the user's talk page. While his additions to the article seemed to be AI-generated, I did not raise the issue immediately because I wanted to focus on the fact that he was altering/removing sourced content and introducing a large amount of material that violated WP:BLPSELFPUB. He then began making numerous LLM-generated talk page posts:

• 04:56, 29 November 2025
• 07:03, 29 November 2025
• 00:04, 30 November 2025
• 05:02, 30 November 2025
• 09:55, 30 November 2025
• 23:01, 30 November 2025
• 03:48, 1 December 2025

I asked the user multiple times to cease the LLM-generated posts: 1, 2, 3, 4. However, he has continued. I ask that an administrator familiar with LLM-generated writing please review this matter. Snuish (talk) 06:00, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

This isn't the first time that they've proven problematic either; talkpage comments from the 2000's show that the account also participated in edit warring and calling random users Muslims without any sources. GrinningIodize (talk) 13:57, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

And also: You give power to a Muslim: he will abuse it., and [13]: there is nothing extraordinary in Muslims issuing death threats., [14]: He is a militant cyber jihadi [...] If we let these militant Islamists become administrators, you might as well kiss goodbye the Wikipedia. [15]: The problem in dealing with Muslims is that they gang up and back up each other. [16]: Muslims’ abuse of power in Wikipeia has gone too far. Fortunately, they were indeffed over all this, but some admin decided to unblock them to try to "mentor" him, which, of course, never happened (the real reason they were unblocked was likely because of this.) They then went on to say stuff like [17]: There is definitely a cabal to uproot any criticism of Islam. It is no secret that Muslims do not like their faith critiqued and they have killed those who dare to., [18]: ...so the argument to remove the article because the subject is hated by Muslims [...] Is there any personal reason that you’d like to share?, while promoting Ali Sina (activist) and his advocacy groups for over fifteen years (examples: [19], [20], [21]). They are clearly WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 14:47, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Wow. The writing style in this complaint to Jimbo Wales gives me some pause. If interested, an administrator may contact me about COI concerns. I will avoid posting additional details here. Snuish (talk) 16:20, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Indeffed; hate is disruptive and not here to build an encyclopedia. Just reading their talk page: How could that be tolerated for 20 years? — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:46, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Just fell through the cracks, seemingly; fewer than 500 edits over twenty years. Possibly he kept misplacing his tin foil hat. Ravenswing 18:11, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

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

User:~2025-31531-99

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

---

• ~2025-31531-99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This is a user who is being very combative, and with their responses being very sub-par of conduct, such as this incivility: [22] and more examples of accusing a fellow editor of advocating racism and xenophobia, that is clearly aspersions: [23] And with a WP:IDHT attitude in the article diffs, such as this:[24] and this:[25] and this: [26]. This is very unhelpful behaviour, and with possible edit warring. Codename AD ^talk 19:18, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

I've just requested an WP:RFPP on Italian Canadians to prevent any persistent disruption. sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:59, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

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

Andro124

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

---

Andro124 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I nominated a template for deletion on November 30. Tfd here. I responded to the user to their keep vote and addressing why I believe the template should be deleted. After responding, user has engaged in PA's and has escalated their hostility after my second reply.

After I replied citing a MOS over why the template should be deleted, they responded "The astute reader will notice that the WP you linked is basically a non-sequitur that doesn't have much to do with the content of your argument at all, a favourite of oldhead wiki editors desperately looking to drive away any engagement from anyone not in their clique." That sounded like a PA to me. My reply was "It actually isn't. Considering how many sidebars exists and continue to be created for almost every subject does not mean one is needed in the first place. This sidebar fits into that. Your comment is coming off as a PA. And my linking of a manual of style is not an act of driving away any engagement." Perfectly explaining why MOS was relevant to the discussion and nomination.

Then they went further "Again, you refuse to engage in any discussion and your entire argument is that you personally don't like the template and that we should somehow trust you as the sole arbitor fit to judge if templates are needed or not per the intentionally vague WP guidelines. Also somewhat unclear why you seem to think this doesn't come off as at minima somewhat arrogant and at worst, actively unpleasant."

None of this is true. I replied in a nice manner offering my reasons for my nomination. 1) That is not refusing to engage in any discussion. 2) Nomination is not based on personal reasons or feelings. 3) Not acting as sole arbiter. 4) Not a vague guideline was cited. 5) Not sure how I came off as arrogant and unplesant.

I do not believe this user is here to engage in a calm manner. Their userpage states "So-called "people" that put those "this user stands for X" userboxes on their user pages are mouthbreathing morons. Interested in improving Wikipedia, not participating in the nightmarish office politics most high edit count users so enjoy." That is an insult directed at a lot of users. Going back to 2016, their reply to another user who denied their article submission is very telling. And the reply in response from the user they attacked nine years ago.

This came out of nowhere to my surprise and really unnecessary. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 02:11, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

So go post a warning on his user talk page. He's got a history of overt vandalism and several other warnings for incivility. So start at {{uw-npa3}}, I guess. Then if he goes on some uncivil rant again, post here or on my user talk page. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:03, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Id argue a 4im is better, he isn't a "new" editor. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 03:12, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

I presume they will even in response to my ANI notice on their talk page. Don't see what good it will do. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 03:14, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Civility is policy here. I've warned Andro124 they'll be blocked next time they poison the air like that. Bishonen | tålk 11:56, 1 December 2025 (UTC).

All I'll say is that OP is being so civil that he nominated articles i've worked on for deletion lol. Andro124 (talk) 12:57, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

If that's all, it's nothing. Nominating articles for deletion is a normal Wikipedia action and there's nothing intrinsically uncivil about it. Do you have any reasonable cause to consider those nominations to be aimed at disobliging you? Bishonen | tålk 13:48, 1 December 2025 (UTC).

On a side note, user's userpage also seems to indicate little interest in civility. Coupled with the comments on this ANI thread, it doesn't seem convincing that anything will change without clear procedures explaining how behavior will be reformed. asoundd 14:14, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Agreed - referring to editors as "mouth breathing morons" is pretty much the definition of a PA. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 19:36, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

The template nominated was never edited or created by this user. The user is always hostile toward other editors. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:45, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

... because you think the definition of "civility" is to treat any article you've deigned to edit as invulnerable? (Amusing, seeing as the only AfD you ever participated in you advocated deletion. [27]) Seems right up there with your definition of "arrogant," as phrased in the TfD. Ravenswing 18:25, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Well, he hasn't changed and certainly is not listening. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:28, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Blocked 31 hours per Bish's previous warning. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:39, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

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

ActiveContributor2020 and violations of MOS:NOPIPE

Status:     No further action currently required: ActiveContributor2020 blocked from mainspace for failure to communicate, thread waiting for a response from them. Rusalkii (talk) 22:57, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

ActiveContributor2020 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been repeatedly warned about not piping links, see User talk:ActiveContributor2020#August 2025, User talk:ActiveContributor2020#September 2025 and a further plea today at User talk:ActiveContributor2020#Pipe linking - again. The September warning resulted in them logging out to avoid scrutiny (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ActiveContributor2020/Archive) resulting in a one week block. Since today's plea they have made this edit, yet again piping a link needlessly. FDW777 (talk) 18:04, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

In more than 3,600 edits spanning five entire years, I can't see a single Talk page edit - user or article.

I'd be very surprised if we hear from them, but hopefully I'm in for a shock. Blue Sonnet (talk) 18:39, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

I see the lack of talk page edits as much more concerning than breaching the MOS. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:03, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Since creating their account just over five years ago they have made exactly one edit to an article talk page that was not the result of a page move, and exactly zero edits in the user talk namespace. I am blocking them from the article namespace until they start communicating. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:23, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Aw, I missed one... Blue Sonnet (talk) 08:53, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

I have blocked them indefinitely from articles, left them an explanation, and invited them to comment here. Hopefully they will. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:36, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Batchofcookies220

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

---

• Batchofcookies220 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Revoke TPA access --みんな空の下 (トーク) 01:12, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

 Done by Hammersoft. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:12, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

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

Persistent violation of MOS:CALLIGRAPHY and WP:NOTCENSORED

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

---

Wikieditor969 (talk · contribs)

This user has repeatedly replaced Islamic imagery of prophets with user-created calligraphy such as File:The Prophet Isa (Jesus In Islam).png (uploaded by a third-party user), in violation of the guidelines at MOS:CALLIGRAPHY regarding Islamic honorifics and calligraphy. They complained about this at Talk:Jesus_in_Islam#False_illustration_of_Jesus on November 20; and I found a warning about an edit war at Jacob in Islam on August 5, beginning at Special:Diff/1304366099. Where they give a nontrivial edit summary or justification, it is because they consider depictions of Islamic prophets to be blasphemous (against WP:NOTCENSORED).

Anyway, after following up today on the Jesus talk page comment, they replied dismissively to a level-4 disruptive warning, and then they went on an editing spree replacing images of prophets with calligraphy. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:36, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Also, I noticed that they are continuing discussion at the Jesus page, not here. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:51, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I think I've reverted all of the image changes. @Wikieditor969, I strongly suggest you not change any more images without getting consensus on the talk page of the relevant article. Chess enjoyer (talk) 08:31, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Wikieditor969 appears to have stopped adding the problematic images and is engaging in conversation. If the disruptive behavior resumes, let us know. To other admins: nothing to do right now. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:03, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

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

BASLAMIC VINEGAR

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

---

BASLAMIC VINEGAR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Revoke TPA access --みんな空の下 (トーク) 07:12, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

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

Temporary user IP range continuously adding unsourced changes despite multiple warnings

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

---

The /64 range associated with the temporary account ~2025-37183-74 (talk · contribs) has been continuously adding unsourced changes to articles, particularly changing the names of fictional characters, without leaving an edit summary to explain these changes, over the past month. This is despite multiple warnings to stop from multiple users across multiple other temporary accounts. In some cases, these accounts have been blocked, but the underlying IP range has not. At this point, I believe a range block, or at least a partial block on the pages that they are targeting, is warranted.

The main targets of unsourced changes for this range include (in no particular order):

• Moe Syzlak
• Comic Book Guy
• List of Monica and Friends characters
• Bug-a-Booo
• Apu Nahasapeemapetilon
• Phillip J. Fry
• Lionel Hutz
• Krusty the Clown
• Groundskeeper Willie

- Umby 🌕🐶 (talk) 03:58, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

 IP blocked for a month. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:28, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

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

Sneaky vandalism, Obvious vandalism and hidden misinformation.

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

---

Hello, Hope all is well. User:~2025-36829-81 has been recently engaged in several articles surrounding the NFL however I am concerned by their activity and I was directed to this noticeboard by AIV, as undoing their vandalism may be a bit of a complex task.

Some of the edits, such as this one are obvious examples of vandalism, with un-cited allegations defaming an NFL player, in a section and manner which would be inappropriate to mention even if true.

However some of them are more subtle, such as this edit, in which the user changed the score from 10-1 to 11-1 in the 2018 season. Now according to this website the LA Rams won 10-11, leading me to believe this user is subtly putting misinformation into various articles in an attempt to vandalise without it being instantly reverted.

What makes it complicated is they have made some legitimate edits, such as the follows

• here, in which they added the full name of Akili Smith Jr. (which I mistakenly reverted based off his instagram and espn, now corrected)
• here, in which based off my research seems to be the correct score, and whilst un-cited doesn't seem to be a bad-faith edit.
• here, where again, the edit is un-cited and possibly too emotive with language, however it doesn't appear to be an intentionally bad-faith edit.

Other edits such as here and here and previously mentioned here are more obvious examples of vandalism and disruptive editing.

I believe the user generally has an understanding of the NFL, and whilst they initially were editing the Wiki with good faith, has decided to start vandalising the wiki, in sometimes subtle ways. I believe this user should be blocked to prevent subtle misinformation being spread in the NFL wiki pages, which could take up a significant amount of time to rectify. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by InterestGather (talk • contribs) 12:33, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

• Indeffed and reported to Trust and Safety. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 12:53, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

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

User:Nhtpaf

Nhtpaf (talk · contribs) 100% meets the description in the introduction of Wikipedia:Nationalist editing: a WP:NOTHERE single-purpose account that focuses exclusively on the Mosquito Coast region, increasing its importance and promoting its sovereignity (see e.g. 1, 2, 3, 4). They cherry pick what sources say for content to promote and spread their historical narrative. Their edits long-term lack a neutral perspective, they do not recognize consensus (Talk:Mosquito Coast#Nationalism alert, Talk:Golfo de los Mosquitos). In addition, they are currently involved in an edit war and violated 3RR rule (despite being warned once recently). They are also a suspected sockpuppet. I thought it would be enough to wait for the investigation to be concluded, but their disruptive editing and inappropriate behaviour has increased recently and I think it should be stopped. FromCzech (talk) 14:14, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

LLM-generated comment collapsed per WP:AITALK

@FromCzech: The characterisation presented here is inaccurate and misapplies Wikipedia policy. My editing history shows engagement with a broad range of pages—including geography, history, legal frameworks, and sourcing discussions—not a single-issue promotional agenda. All edits have relied on published academic, journalistic, or historical sources, and none have introduced personal views or unsourced claims, and if they are I try to get them fix. Raising underrepresented scholarship or correcting outdated material does not constitute “nationalist editing” under WP:NATIONALIST, especially when the content is verifiable and grounded in reliable sources.

The accusation of cherry-picking also misrepresents the talk-page record. In every dispute, I have provided the full context of sources, responded to counter-arguments, and asked for third-party input. Disagreements over interpretation are part of normal content development and do not amount to refusal to recognise consensus—particularly when the discussions are ongoing, non-closed, and involve multiple editors presenting differing viewpoints.

Regarding conduct, I have not engaged in intentional edit warring; edits were made in good faith while attempts at discussion were underway. Any inadvertent breach of 3RR was addressed promptly upon warning, and I have followed dispute-resolution steps since. As for the sockpuppetry allegation, that matter is already under formal review, and I will fully cooperate with the SPI process. It should not be prejudged here.

In sum, my edits have consistently aimed to improve accuracy, update scholarship, and ensure that Central America’s history—like any other regional topic—is represented with balance, proper sourcing, and adherence to policy. Nhtpaf (talk) 14:28, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

@Nhtpaf, please do not use LLMs to communicate on talk pages, see WP:AITALK NicheSports (talk) 14:47, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

• Note Nhtpaf has broken 3RR on Gulf of Mosquitia and so I have temporarily partial-blocked them from that page only. This should not pre-empt any other action that may be taken. Black Kite (talk) 14:45, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Several edits also appear to be AI-generated, including their talk page posts. Example 1, example 2, example 3 visible above, just a lot. Gnomingstuff (talk) 14:46, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Nhtpaf has written several articles and edited existing articles to promote an activist interpretation of Moskitian (Nhtpaf currently prefers "Mosquitian") identity that is allegedly based on the Mosquito Reservation polity and its antecedents, and allegedly transcends ethnic categories (compare Miskito people, Afro-Nicaraguans, and Miskito Sambu). See this article for some context on such "radical world-building". Besides creating the Gulf of Mosquitia POV fork, other problematic behaviours include:

• Attempts to erase references to Nicaragua from articles related to the Mosquito Coast, and to convert present-day Spanish names to historical English names under the pretext that the Spanish names are "misspellings" or "incorrect", e.g.:
  • deleting references to Nicaragua in Miskito Cays [28], Cabo Gracias a Dios [29] and the lead of Rama people [30]
  • changing "El Bluff" to "Bluefields Bluff": [31], [32]
  • moving "Escondido River" to "Bluefields River": [33]

• Attempts to legitimise a revisionist narrative of Mosquito Coast history by creating articles on legal documents that cite no sources except the document in question. See, e.g., Treaty of Cuba and Regency Commission. The documents themselves appear to be genuine, but I can't find any reliable sources that actually discuss their content and significance. For the so-called "Treaty of Cuba", I cannot even find any source that calls that document by that name.

• Attempts to disguise their revisionist reinterpretation of Moskitian identity as mainstream by creating an AI-generated article on Mosquitians. Citations are not provided for most statements, and the few citations that are provided do not actually support the claims made. When challenged to provide sources for specific statements, Nhtpaf simply inserted a different AI-generated version of the article with the same problems. See Talk:Mosquitians for further details.

• Ongoing activity at Mosquito Coast to reframe that article in accordance with revisionist notions of "Mosquitia", as documented at Talk:Mosquito Coast#Nationalism alert. For example, one paragraph discusses an "Organic law of the Moskitia Community Nation" and its purported significance to Mosquitian communities, but other than a link to the law itself, none of the citations in that paragraph actually refer to said law or discuss its significance. Cobblet (talk) 15:40, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

The issue of renaming sites in Panama extends beyond the Golfo de los Mosquitos. From what I've seen, he created King Buppan Peak to bolster a possible expansion of the Mosquito kingdom into Panamanian territory (and that could include Costa Rica in the process). However, the mountain's name doesn't appear on current maps, and only appears on some 19th-century maps. I've requested the name change, since, based on the coordinates and description in old reports, there is indeed a mountain, but it's named after the Ngäbe people, indigenous group that lives in the area, and it doesn't have an English name. Taichi (talk) 18:44, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

LLM-generated comment collapsed per WP:AITALK

The claim that I created “King Buppan Peak” to promote territorial expansion is an assumption about motives, not an assessment of the edits. I used a historically attested name found in 19th-century sources; documenting historical toponyms is normal on Wikipedia and carries no political implication. If the mountain has a different modern indigenous name, I have no objection to using that as the title, with the historical name mentioned as an alternate. This is simply a naming and sourcing question—not evidence of advocacy or reinterpretation of borders. Nhtpaf (talk) 13:38, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

By presenting both historical and locally used names, the edits aim to reflect the linguistic and cultural reality of the area, in line with Wikipedia policy. This approach was intended to find a neutral, verifiable position—not to rewrite, erase, or impose a political interpretation.

Creating pages for historical or legal documents is also standard practice. If secondary coverage is insufficient, the remedy is content-based—improve sourcing, merge, or discuss notability—not accusations of agenda-pushing. Nhtpaf (talk) 14:03, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

You realize that the more you use ChatGPT to write your responses for you, the less people are going to pay attention to them? Ravenswing 14:51, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Legal threat?

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

---

~2025-37884-57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

This TA said to include their name in a wikipedia article otherwise they will have to sue people. Here is the comment. NotJamestack (✉️|📝) 13:14, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Sorted. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:19, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

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

~2025-34731-06

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

---

A user by the name of ~2025-34731-06, keeps constantly going around to every single heratige railroad article and he keeps spamming the status section with unsourced information. He has done this twice already and yet he continues to spam the article with unnecessary and disruptive edits.

Here is his Contributions history: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/~2025-34731-06 ~2025-37514-40 (talk) 17:01, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

One point. Can you point out where this account self-identified as male? Please don't assume the gender and identity of editors. Canterbury Tail talk 21:33, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

There was only one (mild level-1) warning on their talk page; I've added a final warning. If they persist, I can report them to WP:AIV. Btw, thank you for doing the tedious work of reverting their unsourced changes. Schazjmd (talk) 17:24, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

(non-admin reply) Please notify the account that you are talking about when going to ANI next time. I did it this time, but just be aware. NotJamestack (✉️|📝) 01:03, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

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

Possible legal threat

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

---

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

Blocked. They can't be editing about castes at all, either, it's a CTOP under a 30/500 restriction. 331dot (talk) 17:53, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

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

Paid editor refusing to communicate

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

---

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

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

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

CGreen7777 has been blocked. This matter can now be closed. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:56, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

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

User:Irisyourmoondino and User:PetephetsungneonSWN3Dinoirisbrother (Evident case of WP:IDONTHEARYOU and suspected case of sockpuppetry)

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

---

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

Both editors have been blocked at SPI. Blue Sonnet (talk) 16:57, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

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

Temp account evidently WP:NOTHERE.

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

---

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

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

User:NotJamestack, WP:AIV is that way. Drmies (talk) 14:05, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

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

Disruptive edits from CJK17205

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As for the diffs here you go:

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

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

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

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

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

Update: The user has agreed to stop his disruptive edits on the Weapons movie. HiGuys69420 (talk) 19:57, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

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

ZWrld and WP:NOTHERE

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See [208]
— User:45dogs

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

Gurkubondinn yes, it would appear I didn't know how to properly use the diff template. That diff is the one I meant to show. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 17:23, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

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

User:Non-Veg_Craft: unreviewed LLM-content on mainspace

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See the dramatic drop in english proficiency? We're sure there is a Wikipedia in your home language! Try finding it, edit there until we see decent english proficiency if you come back, no block here. OK? Tankishguy 21:05, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

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

FPSfan3000

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

---

FPSfan3000 (talk · contribs) continues editing, despite having already said twice that they would leave the site for good. Their edits continue to include original research, references to primary sources (not even taking the time to include in-line citations), and also misuse of parameters.[38][39][40] I honestly don't know what other measure besides an indefinite block should be taken before waiting a third "voluntary departure" on the user's part. Xexerss (talk) 18:49, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

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

Obvious undeclared paid/COI account making edits to Nancy Mace

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

---

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

Blocked for the username violation and obviously promotional edits. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:06, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

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

User:LAyub12

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

---

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

Blocked them and their socks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:52, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

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

Abusive language by IP

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

Suspected socks and IPs:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

It is a content dispute. Lavalizard101 (talk) 14:58, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

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

Conduct concern regarding User:TarnishedPath on Talk:Daniel Andrews

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

1: Collapsed my comments without consensus

(Violates WP:TPO)

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

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

2: Made personal accusations about AI tool misuse

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Summary

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

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

Vinluna, usage of ChatGPT and lying about it

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

Editors, please refer to:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For completeness regarding User:TarnishedPath

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

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

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

Inappropriate uses of user talk pages

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

---

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

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

Heads up, you have to let users know when there is an ANI discussion involving them (also, AIV was probably a better board for this). jolielover♥talk 06:42, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

And please not-vote once, not once for each paragraph. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:23, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

Per the policy under WP:DOB:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This can now be closed, Was-a-singin has been indef'ed following ANEW report. Rambling Rambler (talk) 21:39, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

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

~2025-37917-21

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

---

~2025-37917-21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Hello, administrators! I think he's pushing me for an Edit warring [53]. I don't want to start edit warring. Thanks.--СтасС (talk) 18:26, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

That account has only made one edit, and that's to properly remove the flag from the infobox per MOS:INFOBOXFLAG. Schazjmd (talk) 18:30, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

---

Ethiopian Epic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

The first account listed went dormant on 17th February 2025, and since 18th November 2025 until the time of writing of this topic, the user has made 218 edits to gain extended access, in order to bypass extended protection that was recently placed on an article to continue an edit war.

The second account listed went dormant on 13th of June 2025, shortly after a topic ban. Resurfaced again on the 28th of November making some edits, before engaging in a few edit wars.

I believe both events may be tied to one another, as well as in few other pages and may file an SPI following the outcome of this. I do have evidence of an individual's offsite activities influencing these behaviour, but I would like some advice on how should I go about this. Shincerity (talk) 14:13, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

I'll leave it to an admin/CU to comment on the rest; but please do refrain from discussing either of these users' offwiki activities as it would likely violate WP:OUTING Athanelar (talk) 14:17, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Shincerity (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is very obviously not a new user and appears to be using these TAs:

~2025-37405-16

~2025-37336-09

~2025-36935-40

~2025-37450-39

~2025-34162-00

I've recently filed an AIV report on this. He repeatedly resets his TA account to reinstate his personal attacks as well as avoid scrutiny on his edits. He engages in POV editing such as trying to whitewash the term "neo-nazi".[54] BMWF (talk) 14:44, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

That's not me, make an IP check if you want ~2025-37405-16 (talk) 14:47, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

This style of retaliatory attack is getting stale now, the onus is on you now and why you're engaging in an edit war in a locked topic and that topic specifically after dormancy. Shincerity (talk) 14:52, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

And now BMWF is getting involved in a page that EE partook in, right after EE got partially blocked. Shincerity (talk) 14:58, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Shincerity just exposed himself below.[55] BMWF (talk) 16:22, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

yes, this article as well as Jamaica has been a complete mess the last couple of weeks, see also the discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Black_Japanese#Extended-confirmed-protected_edit_request_on_16_November_2025 and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jamaica#Large_chunk_of_info_was_removed several users who have never edited these articles have popped up out of nowhere to restore vandalised versions. In both cases content related to slavery was removed. ~2025-37405-16 (talk) 14:45, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

• The OP created their acount eleven days ago, seemingly just to file this report (and, perhaps ironically, comment at an SPI): {Checkuser needed} —Fortuna, imperatrix 14:58, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

  I'm open to one, if it clears my name. Shincerity (talk) 15:00, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

  You are obviously the owner of these TAs regardless. You posted here very quick on ~2025-37405-16 despite no notification. BMWF (talk) 15:10, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

  Take it to SPI then. Shincerity (talk) 15:12, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

  Same, I have nothing to hide ~2025-37405-16 (talk) 15:11, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

@Shincerity I'm thoroughly confused, I'm not seeing any gaming on Ethiopian Epic's part to get EC status. You've not given any on-wiki behavioural evidence that these are the same user.

• Have you got any on-wiki evidence that can be assessed at ANI?
• Can you also confirm if any TA's (or previous accounts) are yours?

Blue Sonnet (talk) 15:03, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

1. I'm basing this off of irregular activity post dormancy, TAs making edits only for EE to revert them and then posting a template to those TAs to inflate edit count and the fact that the account engaged in that protected article after gaining extendedconfirmed.

2. No, I do not own any TAs nor previous account, but I do have a general idea of how Wikipedia works. Shincerity (talk) 15:09, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

I am involved in the dispute at Jamaica, and have already done more than I should have, so I will recuse myself here, but there does appear to be some sort of coordinated editing there. Donald Albury 15:08, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Suggest a boomerang on Shincerity for being a WP:NOTHERE attack account who clearly isn't new, as well as the fairly obvious owner of a bunch of TAs. BMWF (talk) 15:14, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

BMWF's extended edit history is insane. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/BMWF&target=BMWF&offset=&limit=500 I've never seen a more obvious case of NOTHERE than this ~2025-37405-16 (talk) 15:42, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Have you tried looking at? Shincerity (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Or alternatively the rest of your history while you keep hopping across TAs.

~2025-37336-09 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

~2025-36935-40 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

~2025-37450-39 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

~2025-34162-00 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

~2025-37405-16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) BMWF (talk) 15:54, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

I have no idea who Sincerity is and could care less a out what happens to them. I want you and your group to stop vadalising articles ~2025-37405-16 (talk) 15:57, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Strange that you went mostly stopped posting on Shincerity after you started posting more on ~2025-37405-16. BMWF (talk) 16:01, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

I saw the notification he posted on your talk page ~2025-37405-16 (talk) 16:07, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Temporary accounts cannot watch pages. You just exposed yourself. BMWF (talk) 16:14, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Never said I did. I have been in discussion with you on your talk page this whole day basically and saw the note ~2025-37405-16 (talk) 16:18, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Obviously this report is likely bad-faith, but worth noting there was consensus to indef BMWF here that was never enacted, and lots of people raised concerns about meatpuppetry. Koriodan, who's involved at Jamaica, was also discussed Kowal2701 (talk) 15:40, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Indeed, Kowal2701; I more or less 'led the charge' against BMWF on that occasion, and it was annoying that the thread got archived because no admin felt it necessary, or perhaps convenient, to enact a crystal-clear consensus. Sigh. —Fortuna, imperatrix 16:19, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Koriodan was someone I also expected to be involved with the group. I actually have a list of around 15 accounts, all of which I'm positive are related to one another. I don't know if I should bring this to SPI, documenting all this will literally take me days ~2025-37405-16 (talk) 15:53, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

You might be able to ask Tamzin for help in filing the report concisely (she's not an admin atm) but yeah, it's a time sink for all involved, and I don't envy the SPI admin who'd have to deal with that Kowal2701 (talk) 16:00, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

From what I've gathered reading up on earlier discussions and SPI reports it seems that they're different users working in tandem, so I'm not sure a checkuser would even achieve anything. If it continues I will probably be forced to write a veeery long report though ~2025-37405-16 (talk) 16:06, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Editor Interaction Analyzer Kowal2701 (talk) 17:18, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Obviously this report is likely bad-faith, but worth noting there was consensus to indef BMWF here that was never enacted, and lots of people raised concerns about meatpuppetry. Koriodan, who's involved at Jamaica, was also discussed

Those accounts are still at it? The fact that a number of accounts from the endlessly stupid edit-warring over video games that have become culture wars are now for whatever reason suddenly all fighting on the article for Jamaica should be proof in being of both WP:NOTHERE and quite clear engaging in off-wiki organising and it's causing us nothing but grief. We've spent too long on this.

BLOCKS ALL AROUND Rambling Rambler (talk) 16:22, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

• For what its worth, with what I saw from TAIPV, ~2025-37336-09, ~2025-36935-40, ~2025-37450-39, ~2025-37405-16, and ~2025-34162-00 are all probably the same editor; all are within a singular large range. Within that, ~2025-37405-16, ~2025-36935-40, and ~2025-37450-39 are all very likely to each other. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 16:21, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

  yes that's me, I don't claim anything else ~2025-37405-16 (talk) 16:23, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

  ~2025-37405-16, just to clarify; are you saying ~2025-37405-16, ~2025-36935-40, and ~2025-37450-39 are all you? or is the complete list of TAs you. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 16:26, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

  I'd rather you make your own account if you're planning to engage here. All you're doing is muddying the waters and frankly, being a nuisance. Shincerity (talk) 16:29, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

  Shincerity, "I don't claim anything else" is a lie because you have even more TAs.

  ~2025-34434-85 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

  ~2025-34261-18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

  ~2025-34148-16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) BMWF (talk) 16:41, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

  Like I said, take it to SPI. I do not know those TAs nor do I need them, and given their join history, who's to say there's not bad actors? Do not attempt to derail your wrongdoing by nailing unrelated topics onto me. Shincerity (talk) 16:44, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

  You just admitted to watching a page to see your ANI notification, only TAs cannot watch pages. You're very obviously actively using multiple accounts in this very discussion. BMWF (talk) 16:57, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

  What the TA does have got nothing to do with me, if you're so adamant about it, like I said, take it to SPI, otherwise it's nothing but flimsy hearsay.

  What you're doing is nothing but derailing the topic, and up until now, you have not explained yourself on how you went from dormancy straight into that edit war. Shincerity (talk) 17:04, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

  I'm not confident these TAs are the same editor as the other batch of TAs, but I don't think it would be impossible. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 16:48, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

  Actually, its quite unlikely for these TAs and the previous batch of TAs to be the same editor. They are in different countries. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 16:51, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

  It's the same person and they just accidentally exposed that they have a named account.[56] Very obviously Shincerity. BMWF (talk) 16:24, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

  Not necessarily, it's possible they just clicked the link next to your sig, had a tab open, etc. It's usually one of the first things I do when considering an ANI case.

  I'm not saying you're wrong, I am saying this isn't really proof of anything other than someone looking at your Talk page. Blue Sonnet (talk) 17:35, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

  Yup. Normally I wouldn't rule out coincidence if Shincerity weren't suspicious but the first TA group is the only one to interact with both editors mentioned by Shincerity. And Shincerity is so obviously not a new editor and is a WP:NOTHERE attack account regardless. BMWF (talk) 17:55, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

  Casting aspersions much? ~2025-31733-18 (talk) 18:05, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

  BMWF, we've now been advised that at least two of the TA's you believe are Shincerity logged-out are actually in different countries. As you know, accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence are considered personal attacks, and further, that serious accusations require serious evidence. SPI, as they say, is thataway. —Fortuna, imperatrix 18:19, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Might be a good time to drop the stick. Blue Sonnet (talk) 18:34, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

I don't mind filing at SPI. Thank you. BMWF (talk) 19:10, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Next steps

• I have blocked Shincerity for DE as it's clearly an inappropriate use of an alt account. Picking up Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1191#Indef_proposal is there consensus now for an indef or other action against BMWF? Time for that discussion. Star Mississippi 19:14, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

  Indef them - As I've said above, I think those from the previous ANI who are now causing issues as Jamaica should also be Indeffed (which includes BMWF & Koriodan, but possibly others as well). We can all tell there's some level of off-wiki coordination going on between those accounts, and they seem to be here to partake in POV-pushing edit wars on topics where there's been some sort of culture war issue. It's frankly WP:NOTHERE and it's been going for months. Rambling Rambler (talk) 19:34, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

  +1 Kowal2701 (talk) 19:37, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

• Support indef, and thanks to Mississippi Star for their willingness in reopening the discussion initially proposed by ImaginesTigers. My reasoning in the other thread applies here: particular brand of aggression, bludgeoning and gaslighting—evidenced by their every reply to these threads—is unconducive to an atmosphere of collegiality. The fact that they are still exhibiting much the same traits (albeit perhaps the gaslighting has been replaced by aspersions!) suggests they are behaviorally unsuited to a collaborative project. If they'd demonstrated a pattern of civil participation over the months since I might view the current situation with less... jaundice, shall we say, but no; they were topic banned on 3 June, went dark and have literally only became active again two days ago, getting almost immediately into an edit war on Jamaica. Apropos, WP:INCORRIGIBLE should probably redirect to WP:RECIDIVISM... —Fortuna, imperatrix 19:58, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
• @Star Mississippi, Rambling Rambler, and Fortuna imperatrix mundi: The accounts in that June ANI discussion which all appeared and all !voted to oppose the blocks of the tag-team edit warriors included Symphony Regalia (talk · contribs), Bladeandroid (talk · contribs), Wyll Ravengard (talk · contribs), and NutmegCoffeeTea (talk · contribs). I documented the links between those accounts a couple months ago, see my comments here.

This is an extensive case of sock/meatpuppetry. The accounts are likely using a residential VPN to avoid CU blocks. Wyll Ravengard is still unblocked, despite being TBAN'd for tag-teaming in that June ANI thread then appearing out of nowhere months later to engage in a tag-team edit war (which I will hat to avoid clutter).

Extended content

• There was a tag-team edit war about a redirect template on Austin Metcalf [57] [58] [59] [60]

• The template related to a redirect which Symphony Regalia had tried to blank and delete [61] [62] and the Metcalf article is one of Symphony Regalia's most-edited

• The first account in the above edit war, Ryuudou (talk · contribs), had previously been inactive for 9 years before jumping into the Metcalf talkpage and !voting the same way as Symphony Regalia [63] [64]

• The other account involved, Wyll Ravengard (talk · contribs), returned after 3 months of inactivity to continue the edit war after Ryuudou had made 3 reverts

The accounts generally edit articles that are controversial so there seems to be community fatigue regarding all of it but this needs to be given real scrutiny as LTA sockpuppetry. New/dormant accounts seem to pop up whenever one of the others is blocked or banned. NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM (talk) 20:51, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

While we're at it, here is the rest

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Wyll_Ravengard
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Koriodan
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/BlackVulcanX
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Bladeandroid
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Axiom_Theory
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/EkkoJinxZaun
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Ryuudou
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Hardik.patil23
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Ethiopian_Epic
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/DragonBrickLayer
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Bagel7

~2025-37405-16 (talk) 21:10, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

I am neither new (my first edit was in 2021) nor dormant (my last edit before getting involved at Black Japanese was on the 20th) and, frankly, I dislike being attacked simply because I disagree with you in what feels like an attempt to cause a witch hunt to freeze out dissenting opinions. I responded to the RFC as I was courtesy pinged to give my opinion by @NotJamestack and my only involvement in that edit war was a single comment trying to understand a claim another TA made against another editor. I left some minor edit suggestions (outside the edit war and applicable to both versions) on the talk page and gave my opinion on which version of the page I considered better and why. That is the full extent to my involvement in this matter. DragonBrickLayer (talk) 00:37, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Duck 1, 2 ~2025-37405-16 (talk) 08:34, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

So, let me get this straight. You attacked me twice during an RFC on a contentious topic, violating Wikipedia:AOBF in doing so, linked to those attacks here where plenty of Admins can see, and think that because this BMWF fellow correctly removed your attack (hours after my last comment, I having went to work long before your second attack) that we're the same person?

Folks, I welcome you to compare my IP and edit history to @BMWF or any and all of the other named and TA accounts involved here. In the interest of openness, I think I may have interacted with @Ethiopian Epic once on Talk:Yasuke, but I'm not sure. I can tell you I'm not a puppet nor do I have any puppets, nor do I know or interact with any of these people offsite or in meatspace. My interest has been, and has always been, in making Wikipedia better and I feel my edit history will bare that out as well. I came across Black Japanese from the recently edited articles list and took notice as it falls into a subject I have passing familiarity with and interest in, but I have had limited interaction with it, as I mentioned in my previous comment. DragonBrickLayer (talk) 12:19, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

• Support indef: I agree that there is extended meatpuppetry going on. Since the three editors have been topic banned from editing video game articles, Koriodan, BlackVulcanX, and Bladeandroid, all of which voted in the ANI thread to support BMWF, had taken up the baton of WP:TAGTEAM at Dragon Age: The Veilguard and Forspoken (both ended up with long RfC threads in their respective talk pages) (Evidence for TAGTEAM at Veilguard: [65][66][67]; Forspoken: [68][69][70]). This comment from Axiom Theory also suggested a similar line of thought at BMWF's (who accused everyone who opposed them as some kind of racists/bigots, essentially). I know it was previously suggested that they are not direct sockpuppets of each other according to @Tamzin:, but I do not believe that it is a coincidence that multiple newbies editors crossed paths like this, from voting in the same ANI thread to displaying the same type of behaviours across the same set of articles .

Even if they are not banned for meatpuppetry, I will also support banning them on civility ground, mainly for weaponizing the consensus-building process and bypassing WP:BRD every single time through REPEATED tag team editing/gaming the system to push an agenda. They should also be banned for WP:TE and WP:NOTHERE simply because it was essentially impossible to build any consensus through local talk page discussion without a drawn-out RfC). I will have to say, I tried very hard to really engage them in discussion, but they really are here to exhaust every one's patience. They contributed nothing to the project, their entire purpose here is to argue, and all they did is to frustrate and irritate several experienced editors. OceanHok (talk) 14:17, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

I had to decline a lot of SPIs because no one could provide any evidence that any one specific person involved in this was a sock/meatpuppet of any other person involved. I maintained throughout that something fishy was clearly going on, and that blocks were probably needed, and I ultimately indeffed three of the users for non-socking user-conduct issues. (In all three cases, as it happens, for spurious accusations of sockpuppetry... Although that just confused me more. You'd think that, if they were all puppets, after the first or second indef they'd get the message that "actually 'tis you the sock!" is not a winning strategy.) Anyways, yeah, there's clearly coördinated editing on that side of this particularly lame culture-war dispute, and seemingly also at least some on the other side (although not necessarily any of the specific unsubstantiated claims of coördinated editing that I blocked over). Overall, I'm pretty inclined just to start treating anyone who shows up to these culture-war flashpoints on obscure pages as WP:NOTHERE, whether or not they're per se a sock/meatpuppet. So, I'd support a ban of BMWF, and pretty much anyone who keeps showing up in the same threads as them agreeing or disagreeing with them. God, this all feels very... 2006, no? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 14:42, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

I agree to this if we limit it to new, WP:SPA accounts. OceanHok (talk) 17:09, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User Tioaeu8943 - Repeated failure to WP:AGF and suspected WP:CPUSH in relation to Contentious Topic WP:CT/A-I

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

---

Tioaeu8943 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Above user quite simply can't seem to help themselves but make repeated assertions of bad faith on the part of other editors that don't agree with them in relation to the Contentious Topic area noted above (in particular in relation to the Israel-Gaza War), instead they have a tendency to treat the subject as a WP:BATTLEGROUND in talk discussions. Just some recent examples include:

• Thank you, nevertheless, for the reminder via that link that you've been laboring mightily to mischaracterize the problems at the BBC so that they appear less serious than they are.[76]
• At any rate, @Queens Historian, you see what you'd be up against. The editors who WP:OWN this page assume that Israel's perspective is inherently WP:UNDUE and WP:MANDY. They're also evidently allowed to violate any policy they like, starting with WP:CIV.[77]
• A long discussion at Gaza Genocide where they stated Thank you again for clarifying that you're applying standards to this item that you're not applying to the rest of the article... Truly, I prefer your candor to their gaslighting. and On the contrary, I'm commending you for telling the truth. I've suspected all along that editors were targeting this item with hostile scrutiny that they weren't applying to the rest of the article. It's validating to read it in so many words.[78]
• A further comment at Gaza Genocide where they stated Real talk: Because the authoritarian leftists who patrol this page are trying to establish their narrative as reality.[79] which they struck only to then state Suffice it to say that that pro- and anti-Israel claims are not being held to the same standards[80]
• And this comment on a discussion at the Reliable Sources noticeboard where they stated about other editors that As demonstrated at Talk:Gaza genocide, anti-Israel activists are disappointed that pro-Israel perspectives exist. They won't be satisfied until the BBC is as bereft of pro-Israel perspectives as that article.[81]

They have been asked by several people to adjust their tone or stop assuming bad faith[82][83][84], including an admin[85], yet it has persistently failed to stick.

Even outside of just ABF they are also engaging in a WP:CPUSH, such as:

• WP:SEALIONING, such as here where they just endlessly fail to understand why you can't use a GUNREL source for Israel-Palestine topics to cite criticism of an organisation's coverage of Israel-Palestine[86]
• Threatening WP:POINTY behaviour to get their way[87]
• The use questionable and unreliable sources Pro-Israel to make claims, including regarding BLPs[88]

At this point I think there's a clear case that this editor should receive a TBAN from CTOP WP:CT/A-I as a minimum. Rambling Rambler (talk) 19:17, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Edit: As a further example of ABF, they are also now accusing myself of operating sockpuppets (or more accurately undertaking logged out editing)[89] Rambling Rambler (talk) 19:19, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

I've had my eye on tioaeue showing up in various ctop areas as well.

• their edit history seems to show possible WP:GAMING to reach 500 rapidly as well within the course of 4 days, easily hitting 500 after a series of edits, most of which <50 bytes. Most substantial edits are in A-I area, or other ECR areas as far as I can tell.
• a suggestion that a third party attack by an external right wing news source suggests that an editor is automatically guilty in the topic area. [90] this diff was galling to me Editors involved in the canvassing effort described by PW have a COI with respect to this RFC. and [91] If Huldra is not one of those editors, then no harm done. But she denies that she is pro-Hamas, not that she was involved in the activities described in the link she provided. If that reporting is accurate, then she's not a disinterested commenter in this RFC.
• another editor in that section said it best I think it's remarkable that Tioaeu8943 is able to look at Pirate Wires literally manufacturing a conspiracy theory about our colleagues on Wikipedia and instead of saying "that's pretty clear evidence that Pirate Wires is unreliable" instead tells those people who were subject to this conspiracizing that they should keep their mouths shut. This is clear proof of Pirate Wires' unreliability. This is all that we see here. - a quote of a participant in that rfc.
• the Begin-Sadat talk section that Rambling Rambler took quotes from shows that Tiouaeu contributed more than others

wordcounts from wordcount tool, collapsed for convenience

Tioaeu8943: 1,556 words, 37 comments
Alexandraaaacs1989: 1,048 words, 22 comments
Butterscotch Beluga: 924 words, 10 comments
Bobfrombrockley: 863 words, 10 comments
Cambial Yellowing: 732 words, 7 comments
Cdjp1: 656 words, 18 comments
Metallurgist: 565 words, 4 comments
Darouet: 540 words, 2 comments
EvansHallBear: 360 words, 10 comments
Iljhgtn: 330 words, 13 comments
Rainsage: 207 words, 4 comments
Shrike: 114 words, 3 comments
Buidhe: 112 words, 3 comments
Gjb0zWxOb: 111 words, 1 comment
Chrisahn: 82 words, 1 comment
QuicoleJR: 62 words, 1 comment
ScottishFinnishRadish: 52 words, 2 comments
Bluethricecreamman: 33 words, 1 comment
Objective3000: 20 words, 1 comment
Stephan rostie: 15 words, 1 comment
David A: 5 words, 1 comment

User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 19:27, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Discussion segment initiated by comment in violation of extended confirmed restriction in Arab–Israeli conflict contentious topic — Newslinger talk 16:21, 29 November 2025 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

@Alalch E. You do not look clean yourself. You were previously blocked by the ArbCom for sockpuppeting while making a rapid succession of copyedits in random articles in the early days of your account mimicking EC gaming itself. On the same basis as the filer argues you are no better than the accused user. ~2025-37183-96 (talk) 12:04, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

That doesn't have any bearing on the current post and doesn't invalidate their opinion. People can change and you should not hold someone's past against them.

Can you please stop casting aspersions on everyone who says something you don't agree with?

You're very focused on defending this editor using any means possible.

You've had your say so please stop bludgeoning. It's not going to work. Blue Sonnet (talk) 12:50, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

People can change and you should not hold someone's past against them. Quoted for truth. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 13:45, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

I do sincerely believe this - that's why I've voted for TBAN & not anything more severe. I want to see you produce great edits in other areas of Wikipedia, then in the future you can present that evidence to show that you can edit without conflict.

We've all got things that we're so passionate about that it's hard to think clearly sometimes, or we might be a bit sharper then we would usually be when we're pushed.

Passion and really caring about something is admirable, but so is the ability to go "hang on, I'm having a bit of trouble staying objective when I'm doing this - perhaps I should step away for a little while". All that's happened in your case is that other people are having to make that decision for you.

Everyone screws up, but what's important is how we choose to deal with it. Blue Sonnet (talk) 14:29, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

That block was 3 years ago that should not be held against them today and as mentioned by Blue Sonnet is not relevant to this discussion anyway. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 13:22, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

That's a not a correct description of why and how I was blocked. I was not blocked by ArbCom but unblocked by ArbCom. I was instead blocked by a CU for block evasion after having been indeffed by an individual admin, for disruptive editing, which was a little particular in nature and was not related to this topic area. While I did subsequently evade my block, the edits I made which you describe as a "rapid succession of copyedits" is simply my editing style, as I do indeed often make a series of smaller edits in an article, because I like it when each change is separated out in its own edit, and I still edit like that most of the time (I'm an adherent of WP:FEET). In addition, I still edit what to most people would look like "random articles". Many of the articles I edit I open from recent changes, or similar channels that don't group articles in a topically coherent way. That pattern of editing (a rapid succession of copyedits in random articles) was not at all deceptive. Ultimately, I don't care about Tioaeu8943 alleged early gaming of permissions. The reason why I recommend a topic ban is the overall WP:BATTLEGROUND approach and an apparent lack of interest in regular dispute resolution. —Alalch E. 14:20, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

This is my first (and I hope last) time responding to charges on ANI, so I'd appreciate guidance if I'm supposed to respond or not respond in a particular manner here. Apparently some of my remarks have been taken as rude. I apologize for that. On the other hand, I've been subjected to some surprising comments, including one editor who told me, In polite society, you would have your throat split open with a rusty butterknife and then filled with laxatives. I certainly haven't posted anything like that. Allow me to reply to the above criticisms in a manner I hope is at least somewhat exculpatory.

• the Begin-Sadat talk section that Rambling Rambler took quotes from shows that Tiouaeu contributed more than others Indeed, I introduced the related item - a 2025 report on the topic by BESA - to the page, so naturally I had things to say about it. At one point, two sentences of claim had six sentences of qualification attached to it. I said something POINTY. I should not have, but that's how I learned about POINTY and I said nothing like it again. More neutral editors observed that the qualifications were too much. Someone shortened them. I said it was satisfied with it.

• Then another editor blanked it, called it shit public relations bumph and similar, repeatedly, at length. I thought this was an obvious case of WP:JUST and repeated kicks in the shin of WP:CIV, but no one objected, so I rolled with it, politely. This was the source of Thank you again for clarifying that you're applying standards to this item that you're not applying to the rest of the article and so on. When told to knock it off, I knocked it off.

• But it was on that basis that I said on another TP item, a proposal to include Israel's perspective on the topic, that The editors who WP:OWN this page assume that Israel's perspective is inherently WP:UNDUE and WP:MANDY. They're also evidently allowed to violate any policy they like, starting with WP:CIV. Deficient in AGF, I admit, but I was speaking from recent experience, and nobody said I was wrong. I haven't edited the page since early October anyway.

That ought to convey the gist of what's gone on with these exchanges. Editors who have pointed out policy violations to me sensibly, I have heeded and abided. Editors who seem like they're on some kind of a trip, not so much. Rambler accuses me of sealioning, but even Bluethricecreamman was not convinced that their application of BLP was correct regarding the item we were discussing.

That I accused Rambler of sockpuppetry is not true; I asked them if they were socking, because, per WP:SOCK, there are some valid reasons for maintaining multiple accounts, and I was assuming good faith. To Most substantial edits are in A-I (I assume P-I) area, or other ECR areas as far as I can tell, I read a lot of Jewish and Israeli news and edit accordingly. I consider my most substantial edits to be the pages I created on Ghazi Faisal Al-Mulaifi, Ayelet Rose Gottlieb, Ravid Kahalani, and Neta Elkayam. Some of the musicians seem to remember that humans are good and peace is possible. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 04:14, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Editors who have pointed out policy violations to me sensibly, I have heeded and abided. Editors who seem like they're on some kind of a trip, not so much.

Yeah, this attitude right here is ABF and why I felt it necessary to bring this matter here. You seem to decide that simply disagreeing with you is people on a "power trip" and use that as a justification for your lack of WP:CIV. Also there seems to be a pattern where your politeness only emerges when you're given a templated warning about your conduct as shown by your repeated warnings about BLP violations.[92][93]

Funny how in that second example you state "I will invite you to go threaten someone else on their talk page" only to do a quick about face and move to "Okay, thank you for that" after they mention you're heading towards a TBAN or CBAN. Rambling Rambler (talk) 09:18, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

You're misrepresenting what happened in that second example. That editor opened with a threat, then cited policy. The thanks was for citing policy. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 12:27, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

You seem to decide that simply disagreeing with you is people on a "power trip" and use that as a justification Asking for guidance here: Does AGF also apply to this discussion, or is it taking place in a meta-realm of discussion about discussion that runs according to other policy? Tioaeu8943 (talk) 12:40, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. Necessary and proportionate measure to stop further disruption. The evidence by the OP suffices.—Alalch E. 10:08, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

• Support TBAN This isn't a one-off issue brought by a single editor. If their feelings about a particular subject makes it difficult for them to collaborate with others in a collegial manner, they should be focusing on other topic areas where they won't inadvertently cause further disruption. I believe that they don't think they're causing problems, but that doesn't change the effect they're having. Blue Sonnet (talk) 12:07, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Discussion segment initiated by comment in violation of extended confirmed restriction in Arab–Israeli conflict contentious topic — Newslinger talk 16:24, 29 November 2025 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

• Other users who conflict with the accused user have engaged in similar behavior as well. Would you propose a TBAN for some of them as well? Rules need to be applied equally. ~2025-37183-96 (talk) 12:22, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

  I'm looking at the behaviour of this one specific editor based on the evidence presented.

  Besides, just because one editor is disruptive (and I'm not saying they were), it doesn't mean that I should ignore another.

  If you have (valid) concerns about another editor then please raise them separately, with specific diffs as evidence. I'm not going to dig around their history to try to find proof, if you're making an allegation please do so with evidence, so it can be fairly considered. Blue Sonnet (talk) 12:41, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

  If you appear to be considering evidence selectively, then it is reasonable for some uninvolved parties to have the perception that the accused user is being targeted for their views. ~2025-37045-55 (talk) 12:51, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

  No, you've alleged that another editor has engaged in disruptive behaviour, I asked for evidence of that which you still have not provided.

  I can't see much history for your account so I'm presuming you're new - if you want someone to consider your car at ANI, you must present diffs. A link to the OP and a vague allegations tells me nothing of use.

  If you genuinely feel I've not taken something into account, please tell me what I've missed (with diffs) so that I can consider it.

  I'm not going to hunt around @Bluethricecreamman's entire edit history to try to guess what you mean.

  If I've genuinely missed something that changes my decision, I'll be happy to reconsider - I have in fact done that very thing recently on this same page.

  But you're inferring that I'm purposefully focusing on evidence and ignoring other evidence because I'm out to get this editor who (to my knowledge) I've never once interacted with in a topic area I don't usually touch.

  You're apparently making this allegation on the basis of us having differing opinions, and that's awfully close to a personal attack. Something you're also close to doing with other editors in this same thread. With all due respect, please knock it off. Blue Sonnet (talk) 13:03, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

  I'm also replying on the basis that @~2025-37045-55 and @~2025-37183-96 are the same person. Whilst it's possible they aren't, I don't have access to check and am making this assumption based on behaviour. Either way, neither account has Extended confirmed status and probably shouldn't be part of this discussion. Blue Sonnet (talk) 13:34, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Discussion segment initiated by comment in violation of extended confirmed restriction in Arab–Israeli conflict contentious topic — Newslinger talk 16:21, 29 November 2025 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

• Oppose TBAN Overkill. An AE warning will suffice. The filer, just many other butting heads with the accused user, also has a strong POV on the topic area and engages in similar (battleground) behavior as shown by their own evidence. This report appears retaliatory. Rules should be applied equally. Using AE or ANI to try removing opponents ought to be advised against. Whenever content disputes arise, civil discussions are the key to resolution, not seeking to get every opponent removed and let themselves win. ~2025-37183-96 (talk) 11:58, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

  "...civil discussions are the key to resolution, not seeking to get every opponent removed and let themselves win."

  Good advice. Please follow it. Blue Sonnet (talk) 12:52, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) I don't think these TAs should be commenting here. Virtually the entire thing is about the A-I area so ARBECR should apply. Nil Einne (talk) 13:21, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

  Thank you so much, I was about to ask that question then RL stuff happened. Blue Sonnet (talk) 13:29, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Support TBAN its possible to lift it given time and good faith effort. currently, they mostly seem to be treating the topic area as a WP:BATTLEGROUND, or at the very least accusing other editors of having it out for them. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 14:53, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

I do wonder how you came in at the end of this exchange and concluded that I was battling, but the editor baselessly characterizing the item I tried to introduce as shit public relations bumph was not. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 23:32, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

<- Re: Bluethricecreamman's comment their edit history seems to show possible WP:GAMING to reach 500 rapidly as well within the course of 4 days, easily hitting 500 after a series of edits, most of which <50 bytes. Most substantial edits are in A-I area, or other ECR areas as far as I can tell.

• Is it the case that the edits show possible gaming? Yes, that appears to be the case, although it was 14 days with edits rather than 4. See Gaming Check, a new tool in development. Sean.hoyland (talk) 14:21, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

  Amazing tool. I said 4 days cuz I looked at the user's edit history the old fashioned way [94], they hit 500 edits on May 11th, if i look at the oldest 500 edits, about 4 days after they start their first edit. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 14:31, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

  Right, but EC wasn't granted until 2025-07-01 after 679 revisions. For fun, you can estimate the probability of survival using this survival analysis for extendedconfirmed accounts. It took them 55 days from registration to EC, and the account age is 151 days, so the average probability of survival is about 74%. The shorter the EC acquisition time, the lower the survival rate => the higher the probability of being blocked. Sean.hoyland (talk) 15:06, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

• Support TBAN. The evidence shows a lack of WP:AGF if not WP:BATTLEGROUND and is disruptive so a TBAN is necessary to stop the disruption to the topic area. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 15:04, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

  Support TBAN due to evidence cited. If you write this you have no business near this topic area. (t · c) buIdhe 16:57, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

• Support TBAN bearing in mind that TBANs can be lifted given good faith engagement. The topic can be very frustrating to edit in, but enough comments were disproportionate lapses in AGF that some sanction is probably the best way forward. There was some outreach about temperature, but it quickly fell away to a content dispute which wasn't great in AGF either Placeholderer (talk) 23:11, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

  I'd encourage @Tioaeu8943 to take a voluntary break from the topic, respecting their contributions but also worried in good faith about temperature Placeholderer (talk) 23:17, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

  How does that work, do I just announce that I'm taking a voluntary break from the topic here? Tioaeu8943 (talk) 23:35, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

  As far as I know that's how it works Placeholderer (talk) 23:48, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

  If the goal of this exercise is to foster a productive editing environment, and not to shackle a perceived enemy editor, it seems like that should have been mentioned at the outset, and not 2000 words or whatever into the process. I'm not criticizing you, Placeholderer, on the contrary.

  Could another editor kindly confirm what Placeholderer is saying here? Tioaeu8943 (talk) 12:54, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

  Yep, you are absolutely able to step away from this topic voluntarily.

  It's not an "official" process AFAIK but it does happen. You're basically saying "I see why everyone feels this way, I'm making this decision of my own free will because it's obviously necessary". People who've voted may change their minds if they see that you've taken a voluntary TBAN.

  Just be prepared for the possibility that it might still be deemed necessary to put a formal one in place (I don't want to second-guess what an admin might decide to do).

  Either way, it would show a willingness to take the communities concerns to heart and only count in your favour, no matter the eventual outcome. Blue Sonnet (talk) 13:36, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

  @Blue-Sonnet @Placeholderer personally I think given the protracted nature of the disruption and issues, as well as the demonstrable repeated unofficial warnings that've gone unheeded, this will have to end with a TBAN being imposed as quite simply they have shown themselves incapable of voluntarily walking away.

  As we know TBANs don't prevent them from engaging elsewhere on the project and can down the line be appealed with a demonstration of why they can now be trusted to edit in the previously problematic area. That's the best situation for all parties rather than a nebulous "voluntary" withdrawal that doesn't have any safeguards in place and is quite frankly likely to lead to further editor time being wasted given prior conduct. Rambling Rambler (talk) 13:47, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

  That was definitely a concern, which is why I thought I'd better make it clear that the TBAN could still be placed. Considering the number of votes and area involved, I do think a formal TBAN is likely. Blue Sonnet (talk) 13:51, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

  It depends on whether or not such a voluntary thing seems like a sincere enough commitment to address the concerns of the people !voting here. Obviously it shouldn't be a mechanism to escape a clear track to sanctions via a nebulous pinky promise, but ideally it's an outcome that involves, again, a sincere commitment.

  Basically invoking WP:ROPE. Though one point there is not to give leniency when the user is not giving any indication that they even feel they did anything wrong. But WP:ROPE is more about unblocking after sanctions have been imposed; maybe it would be better in terms of not bypassing this discussion to put up a TBAN and see how an appeal goes Placeholderer (talk) 17:49, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

  If we are at a point where voting on tban starts, i see no reason not to have a tban and voluntary retreat from topic area.

  if they are truly sincere on taking a step back, the tban should not matter. And they should be able to do work to justify removal of tban when time comes User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 18:32, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

  Very well. In recognition of Placholderer's superior decency, I hereby pinky-promise to them to undertake a voluntary TBAN on PIA and associated talk pages for three months, with sincere apologies to anyone offended by my prior remarks. In return, I drop my concerns about the nominator's 1RR violation and subsequent chicanery that immediately preceded the nomination. If that's acceptable to you, @Placeholderer, please say so and let's see if the eventual closer agrees. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 14:48, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

  I'm a bit uncomfortable making that call myself. I don't have any special authority here, and have relatively little ANI experience Placeholderer (talk) 18:10, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

  That's why I trust you. But fair, and no pressure. I stand by your superior decency and the pledge remains to whom will accept it. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 18:44, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

• Support TBAN: Clear repeated instances of ABF and WP:BATTLE. Not sure why the OP classified Tioaeu8943's behaviour as CPUSH as there is nothing civil about their behaviour. This topic area needs less heat, not more. TarnishedPath^talk 00:13, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
• Support TBAN This topic area is filled with disruptive POV pushers. The less we have in there, the better. Tioaeu's behavior is not only POV pushing, but also uncivil in parts, and generally not conductive to the creation of the encyclopedia. Therefore, it would be a net positive to Wikipedia if he did not continue to edit in that topic area. He's not the only editor who could use a topic ban, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't enact one. I would have no objections to an appeal once he has shown that he can be a productive editor in other areas of the site. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:34, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose TBAN - I'm of the impression that the evidence adduced to propose a topic ban here is insufficient. None of the examples presented point to User:Tioaeu8943's edits being problematic. All accusations of the "POV pushing" stem from their responses on Talk Page comments.

I have come across a number of editors who employ a little bit of a combative attitude in their Talk Page responses. Often, they are advised to cool down for some period of time. Tio might just need to touch some grass, not be banished.

A warning should suffice in this specific scenario, in my opinion. A T-Ban sanction here is grossly disproportionate for a few brusque comments, considering Tio thmeself has been a recipient of such comments. Kvinnen (talk) 19:05, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Do you think this is acceptable on a BLP? (t · c) buIdhe 22:05, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

CTOPs cover talk pages, not just edits in mainspace. That their disruption has so far been contained to talk pages is no mitigation. TarnishedPath^talk 23:36, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Consideration of CBAN beyond a TBAN for Tioaeu8943

I was willing to leave this at just a TBAN (for which there is clear consensus above), but quite frankly this latest remark by Tioaeu8943, where amongst a general lack of genuine contrition they have now further repeated accusations that I'm operating sockpuppets/undertaking inappropriate logged-out editing[95] despite being told four days ago this is inappropriate[96], leaves me with no impression other than they are quite simply incapable of civil discussion and collaborative editing despite repeated warnings over WP:NPA, in particular WP:ASPERSIONS. Rambling Rambler (talk) 15:09, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Support CBAN as proposer. Rambling Rambler (talk) 15:09, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

And here I was, thinking that I was helping this along toward a reasonable conclusion. Oh well. For the record, "subsequent chicanery" mentioned at Rambler's link should be understood as "chicanery occurred," not "Rambler committed chicanery," which I do not mean to imply and of which I do not accuse them. I attest that my contrition is genuine. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 15:28, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Oppose - aren't there yet. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 15:33, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Oppose - I am happy to presume this is a misunderstanding unless it's really obviously malicious and/or continues. I want to see how a TBAN will go first. Tioaeu8943, it's probably best to read everything you post twice and make sure it can't be taken the wrong way, especially since you've got so many eyes on you at the moment. Blue Sonnet (talk) 15:53, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Understood. Trying to de-escalate; sorry for the editorial mishap. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 16:04, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

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

Btf26482 wikihounding and uncivil behavior

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

---

I warned @Btf26482 about uncivil behavior towards two editors here [97] after our interactions on Moms 4 Housing and Carroll Fife. While it was curious that Btf26482 showed up to "clarify" the very section I edited on this unrelated page [98] the harassment became apparent when Btf26482 again appeared at the relatively untravelled Election interference page for the first time to delete content and sources I recently added [99]. I reverted them, and posted a warning on their talk page about WP:HOUNDING [100] after which Btf26482 went back to change the page to their preferred version. @Meters has also given Btf26482 escalating warnings about their personal attacks and accusations, [101], asking Btf26482 to retract them, but instead, they doubled-down [102] saying to Meters that they "will be following every contribution you make going forward". BBQboffin^{grill me} 18:32, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

• Support indef In that last diff they're telling Meters they're spreading false information because they made a mistake that they admitted and corrected. Despite that, they're threatening to hound, follow and get Meters blocked because of one template and one mistake.

Yes, you could argue that Meters was a bit bitey but I can see why, and their response is not acceptable under any circumstances.

If that single post isn't the epitome of Wikipedia:BATTLEGROUND, I don't know what is.

They're also taking templates as specific threats and attacking the person who left the template. Everything is a battle and taken personally.

Even ignoring the issues with their editing, they are openly committing harassment and don't seem suited to a collaborative project like Wikipedia.

I always prefer to AGF, unfortunately I'm not seeing any "G" that I can grab onto in this case.

Blue Sonnet (talk) 09:09, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

• Support indef. The user is not collaborative.—Alalch E. 10:11, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

  Replying to avoid auto-archive of topic. BBQboffin^{grill me} 15:54, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

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

I dislike placing an indef with so little discussion here, but attempts to engage on usertalk seem to be notably useless. :( Blocked until he can convince another admin that he can edit collaboratively without all the personal attacks and the editorializing in edit summaries. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:52, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

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

Users Smallangryplanet and Raskolnikov.Rev: persistent disruptive editing

Smallangryplanet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Raskolnikov.Rev (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

On 21Nov2025,14:36, I made a fairly surveyable edit in the lead section of article Hamas, with a careful motivation placed on talk page. This edit was reverted a day later, by editor Smallangryplanet, who appeared not able (neither in edit summary 22Nov,15:17, nor on talk page 15:33) to give any valid reason for his reverting. Alaexis re-reverted that revert (21:37). That version was again reverted, by Raskolnikov.Rev (22Nov,21:43), who also did not give (neither in edit summary, nor on talk page 22:12) any valid reason for his reverting.
I strongly object against these practices, and request the administrators to act against these practices, by warning these two contributors. As for ‘first dealing with their incivility myself’: I’ve often and extensively warned Raskolnikov about this type of actions of his, for example here on 16Oct2025, but he does not yield an inch and only throws mud in my direction. Also Smallangryplanet has often been addressed by me about his strange discussion posts and dubious editing, most recently in this talk posting (3Nov2025), but also Smp seems to simply ignore messages that displease him.

The central and indispensable element in the Wikipedia logic and philosophy is that editors openly and fairly explain their motives for their edits. Without editors being clear in their edit summaries about their motives and reasons and respecting the careful work of colleagues Wikipedia can’t possibly function well and prosper, but is doomed.
You can find my analysis of these two in my opinion invalid, thus disruptive, reverts in talk-page-subsection Talk:Hamas#Criticism on the revert summaries and (absent) revert motivations of Smallangryplanet (22Nov,15:17), Alaexis(22Nov,21:37) and Raskolnikov.Rev (22Nov,21:43), which is a subsection of Talk:Hamas#Motivation for edit lead section (‘1967 borders’) date 21Nov2025. --Corriebertus (talk) 22:51, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

I responded both in my edit summary and in the talk explaining why your edit did not align with standard Wikipedia policy and you need to obtain consensus for it. You did not reply on the talk page, and instead brought the case here while presenting the dispute in a way that does not accurately reflect the core issue. To start with, @Corriebertus has for years attempted to change the Hamas page in order to remove references to what the consensus in RS states: that Hamas has, on multiple occasions, accepted the 1967 borders, and that this is understood by those sources as consistent with the two-state framework. Corriebertus disputes this interpretation, arguing that such statements from Hamas are inherently unreliable, and that any RS including the widely recognized scholars of Hamas stating otherwise are merely repeating Hamas propaganda.

Editors have raised concerns regarding this, noting that it does not align with Wikipedia policy: we follow what the consensus among RS is, and we do not dismiss sources based on personal assessments that they are "spreading Hamas propaganda". Some of the earlier discussions on this point are linked in my recent talk reply, and @Smallangryplanet provided further links in their responses here and here.

There is a more fundamental issue with Corriebertus' edit as noted in my reply to him on the talk page. The content of the edit was entirely redundant and unrelated to the argument provided for it:

The content of your revision is virtually identical to what was already stated before. You changed: "It began acquiescing to 1967 borders in the agreements it signed with Fatah in 2005, 2006 and 2007" to "As of 2005, in agreements with Fatah, Hamas has expressed willingness to accept a state in the 1967 borders."

I don't understand what the purpose of this edit even is per your own reasoning. It is entirely superfluous.

Another editor, the one who had restored the edit, also defended the edit based on the same argumentation that has nothing to do with the actual content of the edit! And just now Corriebertus has reprimanded him for doing so and being off-topic. So it's a very strange situation where an argument is being made to justify an edit which content-wise doesn't have anything to do with the argument being made for it.

This has been a recurring pattern in interactions with Corriebertus. I encourage other editors to review the posts of his he linked on the Hamas page, as well as the discussions on Talk:2017 Hamas charter, and consider whether the explanations provided are clear or actionable. As other editors have pointed out, he keeps posting elaborate walls of text that are inscrutable, then making contentious edits on the basis of them, and then when it gets challenged he responds with more walls of text, and when that inevitably does not lead to the consensus he desires he becomes frustrated, leaves talk messages on my and other pages with further walls of text, and then after a period of quiet the same cycle repeats itself. This is going back years now on those two pages with many editors.

This is why I and others have repeatedly advised @Corriebertus to follow WP:DROPTHESTICK and not WP:STONEWALL when they are unable to obtain consensus for their desired edit. Unfortunately, this has not resolved the issue and the cycle continues. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 23:33, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

This should probably be at WP:AE. (t · c) buIdhe 03:56, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

+1 M.Bitton (talk) 14:29, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Probably, but it's here now. TarnishedPath^talk 06:18, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

+1 Smallangryplanet (talk) 17:53, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

There are RfCs. Trying to do something other editors find contentious, especially to a lead section, without gaining consensus in the topic area is a great way to start fires and get topic banned. Sean.hoyland (talk) 04:20, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

• Warn Corriebertus for falsely stating that Raskolnikov.Rev did not explain his edit, against evidence which they themselves have brought up. Corriebertus possibly does not comprehend this evidence (the diff) and therefore does not understand that Raskolnikov.Rev did explain his edit, which is a serious competence problem. Corriebertus did not follow the minimum level of good practices in collaborative editing and dispute resolution.—Alalch E. 10:38, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

• I also believe at least a warning is in order – I have explained myself many times, ad nauseum and at length and Corriebertus continues to cast aspersions rather than reply to my questions or comments. Smallangryplanet (talk) 17:32, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Quotes from WPO

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

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

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

User:Ninemay1994

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

---

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

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

Blocked them from the AIV report. Closed the SPI - they are  Confirmed. PhilKnight (talk) 11:46, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

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

User:ClueBot III is malfunctioning: Talk page archiving

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

---

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

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

Yes, that's what would've caused it and your fix will work. I've moved the incorrectly archived discussions to the right place. Graham87 (talk) 02:21, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

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

Requesting page creation block of User:Harold Foppele

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OK, I have looked at page creation history and the user's talk page (most of which user had deleted). Harold has been thoroughly warned over the months about this issue but persists, and has not been producing useable new pages. Blocked from page creation. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:04, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

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

Potential MEATPUPPET situation?

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

---

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

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

I may be misreading this, but all I see is a report that some vanadalism may or may not have been by some particular reddit user. I'm not seeing either tag teaming or canvassing here. Dalai Lama has been protected already by @ToBeFree and Altan Khan had a few bad edits over a week ago, all of which have been reverted. I'm not seeing any need for action beyond what has already been taken. Rusalkii (talk) 21:16, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

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

Newsjunkie part 6

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

---

Moved from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard § Newsjunkie part 6

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Complete list of previous ANI filings:

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

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

3. Result: Stalled, archived

4. Result: Final warning

5. Result: Stalled, archived

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Indeffing but explicitly not making this a community siteban. The repeated bludgeoning and warnings around sourcing. I want this person to return productively, without the bludgeoning and disruption. Sennecaster (Chat) 21:11, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

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

AverageSkiptar

There has been many issues regarding the Averageskiptar:

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

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

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

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

He is also known for acusing editors for sockpuppetry if they don't agree with him same goes with saying they're not some nationality because they don't agree with his claims: [133][134][135]

-Vandalism and POV: [136] (he did same edit on same article multiple times) Wikicommonsfan134 (talk) 08:22, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

The edit warring between Wikicommonsfan134 and AverageSkiptar has been disruptive for a while now and has continued despite multiple warnings and a 24 hour block.

• I reported both Wikicommonsfan134 and AverageSkiptar to WP:ANEW on 21 November after they continued edit warring at Yugoslav offensive in Drenica (1999) after warnings and multiple 3RR violations, which resulted in a 24 hour block for both of them [137]. Since that block expired, they have both continued edit warring on Yugoslav offensive in Drenica (1999) [138] [139] [140] [141] [142] [143] [144] [145], as well as on Drenica massacres [146] [147] [148] [149] [150] [151] [152] [153] [154] [155] [156] [157] [158] and Yugoslav September offensive [159] [160] [161] [162] [163] [164].
• Their interactions at Talk:Yugoslav offensive in Drenica (1999) in particular, as well as on each others' talk pages, on the ANEW report above, and elsewhere, seem to demonstrate WP:BATTLEGROUND editing from both parties and an inability to drop the stick. They obviously both also have a habit of repeatedly calling each other vandals and sockpuppets. I agree that AverageSkiptar’s comments questioning Wikicommonsfan134’s nationality 2, appearing to dismiss a source based solely on its nation of origin and resorting to a “they started it” argument to justify edit warring are particularly concerning.

Finally, it also seems to me that there is some kind of meatpuppetry or coordinated editing going on here with Wikicommonsfan134. See the evidence in the SPI report I made a few days ago at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SpeedyHaste. I’d also note the checkuser comments and the evidence presented by @Demetrios1993 regarding AverageSkiptar on the SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Albanian atdhetar. MCE89 (talk) 10:17, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

I didn't violated the 3 revert rule on September offensive neither on Drenica massacres and i explained in my tp why i moved SpeedyHaste article to mainspace and why i later put it back to draft and reason why i edited some of the articles speedy created was because of vandalism by other users you can also see i was removing vandalism on other articles as well also i think Skiptar isn't sockpuppet of Albanian Adhetar but rather an sockpuppet of user called Kachak who was reported in January this year Wikicommonsfan134 (talk) 10:33, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Whilst I haven't counted the many, many diffs above, you don't have to violate 3RR for it to count as edit warring. It doesn't matter if you're right, edit warring isn't acceptable.

Just looking at the edit history on Yugoslav offensive in Drenica (1999) is concerning. Barely anyone else is showing up on the recent edit history, it's just the two of you fighting. Even if you don't hit three reverts per day, it's edit warring in spirit and it's clearly not stopping. Blue Sonnet (talk) 13:59, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

i haven't edited that article since 23 November Wikicommonsfan134 (talk) 14:10, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Ok, but now I've had time to look I can see that you reverted the Drenica massacres article three times yesterday and once every day since you were unblocked.

You also reverted the Yugoslav September offensive article three times yesterday too.

Whilst you're trying to stay under three reverts, you're still edit warring in spirit like I said earlier.

I'm seeing AverageSkiptar more than you, but you both need to do better.

There are dispute resolution and third opinion processes that both of you could (and arguably should) be using long before it gets to the point where you have to be blocked. Blue Sonnet (talk) 14:41, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Ok but what about my report about Skiptar? Wikicommonsfan134 (talk) 14:56, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

That needs dealing with also. I can see they're currently editing and I've reminded them that they should participate. Hopefully they'll respond soon so we can address everything properly. Blue Sonnet (talk) 15:02, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Stop accusing me of vandalism, i stated the Reasons in the TP of the Yugoslav September offensive, that‘s just coping. Also you can‘t accuse me of vandalism when you edited my My first article and added Yugoslav victory with a totally unrelated source. AverageSkiptar (talk) 15:04, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Granted it's not necessarily vandalism, but you're still edit warring after coming out of a block for edit warring. Can you please read through @MCE89's post and address the concerns raised? You reverted the Drenica massacres page four times alone yesterday. Blue Sonnet (talk) 15:12, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

I tried to add additional information to the Drenica massacres page, but User:SpeedyHaste and User:Wikicommonsfan134 kept reverting my edits for no reason and never stated the reasons in their edit summaries. AverageSkiptar (talk) 15:17, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

That's still edit warring and you should know better by now, since you've been blocked for doing exactly that only a few days ago and given links to explain why in the block notices. You both really should read WP:BRIE. Blue Sonnet (talk) 15:19, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

It is not my fault, i didn‘t start the edit war. They‘re blaming me for something they started, AverageSkiptar (talk) 15:27, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

You are participating in an edit war. You are under no obligation to do so. Accordingly, yes, what you do is your fault, and regardless of what anyone else is doing, you may be blocked for it. And the next block is likely to be a lot longer than the last. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:32, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Just like Andy said, it doesn't matter whether you started it - you chose to participate in and continue it. You could easily be blocked since you've clearly edit warred past 3RR yesterday.

Please read the WP:BRIE link I've given you - what you've said is specifically given as an example of what not to do. Blue Sonnet (talk) 15:55, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

@AverageSkiptar "It's not my fault, I didn't start it"... That sounds very childish. These very experienced editors have told you several times that it doesn't matter who started the edit war -- you must both stop, or you risk a longer block. David10244 (talk) 05:14, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Will anyone see other reasons why i reported him? Yeah edit warning and wars are really bad but there are other problems with this user Wikicommonsfan134 (talk) 05:31, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

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

I haven't looked into the matter and lack the energy to do so, but am puzzled as to why we seem to have two articles about the same ethnic group. Narky Blert (talk) 17:15, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Because Shqiptar is meant to be only about the endonym for Albanians. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:28, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Maybe because i am a Shqiptar? AverageSkiptar (talk) 17:58, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

And an average one, at that. Folks, a user's ethnicity is irrelevant to an AN/I discussion. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 00:13, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

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

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

Report of user @Phoenixxfeather

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

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

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

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

• diff1
• diff2

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

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

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

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

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

I will not engage further in this exchange.

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

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

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

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

User:AydenOD

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

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

Analyst246

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hostile and threatening behavior

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

---

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

Probably best to report to AIV since their edits are pretty clear vandalism. Blue Sonnet (talk) 17:44, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

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

Report of user @Phoenixxfeather

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

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

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

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

• diff1
• diff2

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

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

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

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

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

I will not engage further in this exchange.

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

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

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

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

User:AydenOD

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

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

Significant content dispute/edit war in Jamaica

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Repeated sourcing issues from User:Kalpesh Manna 2002

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

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

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

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

Malicious reverts despite asking for explanation

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello, Deuwberst,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Andy Dingley's conduct

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

from the source and the article, respectively.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Full paragraphs:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  With regard to [204]. AD says

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Please don't concern yourself with what embarrasses me.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Enough is enough. I've indef'd Andy and revoked AP. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:37, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

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