Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

• Before posting:
  • Consider other means of dispute resolution first
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • If the issue concerns use of admin tools or other advanced permissions, request an administrative action review
  • Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly
  • Still not sure what to do? Seek advice at the Teahouse
• Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.
• Accounts in the format ~2025-12345-67 are temporary accounts.

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

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

---

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

Start a new discussion

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

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

---

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

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

Based on this comment at the associated filing at WP:AINB, it looks like there is a language-related CIR issue here NicheSports (talk) 00:09, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Oshwah Ping incase you saw my DM Tankishguy 00:12, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

@NatHaddan You said that you used a tool to suggest sources for you in this post.

Can you let us know the exact tool that you are using, as there are concerns over inaccurate sourcing? Blue Sonnet (talk) 00:22, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Ah, they're not happy Blue Sonnet (talk) 00:25, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

IDK why they gave us a reason Tankishguy 00:27, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

I use combination of Scribbr by chrome and mendeley. In some rare situation I use citethisforme.com platform to generate APA and Harvard compliance references NatHaddan (talk) 00:32, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Visual editor lets you do it Tankishguy 00:35, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you so much for coming over. When you generate the references/sources, do you go into each one to check they say what they're supposed to say?

When you submit an edit, you're responsible for checking that it's accurate - sometimes tools get it wrong so it's really important that you always double-check before you publish your edit. Blue Sonnet (talk) 00:36, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

I do systematic check through mostly the validity of the references as my top most priority, Sometimes I may not run through every pieces of reference articles/essay most especially when it relates to lenghten research thesis. But I have never relent in any of my edit to follow up with immediate carrying-out thoroughly cleaning up after publication to ensure the references say what I said and meet relevant publication guidelines. NatHaddan (talk) 00:56, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

@NatHaddan: Do you use some kind of spell/grammar checker when you write article content? Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 01:13, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes. I use Visual Studio Code studio for my edit with "Grammar checker" extension feature enable. NatHaddan (talk) 06:57, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

@NatHaddan: Do you, by any chance, use the Copilot feature in Visual Studio Code? Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 07:01, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

To be honest, I may have to go through my active features to know if it's enable, I am a web developer and have several features enable for purpose of smooth coding work. I don't remember purposefully enable any AI features for wikitext markup article or project. Thank you for this intelligent and helpful observation! NatHaddan (talk) 07:14, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

@NatHaddan: Per this comment, you are clearly using AI tools, whether you realize it or not. The only way to get unblocked would be to come clean. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 07:18, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Even the most egregious of "grammar checkers" will not result in the output seen in those diffs, it would be impossible to not notice a model generating output whole, or transforming it so dramatically.

My advice for any unblock requests: wait a while, then come fully clean about grammar checker use, address the disruption caused citing WP:NODISRUPT, why it is disruptive, and how it will be avoided in the future citing WP:RESOLVE. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 07:39, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Once again I repeat " I am not internationally using any LLM tool." Be it you believe me or not, I said to you as it is, and nothing anyone does or said will ever force me into saying otherwise to the truth. From the first admin warning I received, I politely made this very clear and known to the admin and at second warning from same admin, I repeatedly said the same thing and even ask for a help in figure-out the issue with my edits and he never give me such attention as you are doing now. I have no reason to said otherwise when it's obvious isn't. If I am wrong I have no right to be angry and put up defend, if am right I have no reason to be angry over anyone disbelieving me. The decision you or anyone would take are completely your choice not mine and burn to your interest and the interest of the entire community. Why should I fake saying anything, when my did is volunteering not burn to a personal interest or reward. I committed my time and resources to come up with some articles and you things I will just burn my hard earn resources to put up jargons for fun. C'mon! With due respect, I believe an admin have me blocked already, If am not be disrespectful, I don't think this conversation is necessary anymore! I am sorry if my statement or action are by any means disrespectful or arrogant.🙏 I can't said otherwise to what it is. NatHaddan (talk) 07:45, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

@NatHaddan: We're not accusing you of lying, I'm so sorry if you have taken it that way. What we're trying to say is that there may be some miscommunication about your potential use of LLM tools. Large language models include ChatGPT, Google Gemini, Claude, Grok, Meta AI, GitHub Copilot, and several others that generate text for you based on a prompt that you give it. This comment you made a few days ago cited a policy that does not exist (WP:NODELAY), so we think it may have been written with the help of an AI tool. I would suggest thinking about how you wrote that comment and any tools/features you may have used to draft it for clues. If you don't remember writing that comment, it is possible your account is compromised. Again, we're not accusing you of anything, we're trying to help you and ourselves get to the bottom of this situation. If you need any help with any of this, feel free to ask. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 08:14, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

We're not accusing you of lying – To be clear, while you are not, I did in the comment you linked to. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 08:21, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

If you'd takes your time to go through the argument we had at the time that results in that comment. I sense it's obviously wrong that group of editors are for unknown reasons or personal interest denying an existing event and facts from the comfort of their keyboard at home or where ever they may be. I am a field researcher and web developer with almost two decades of working experience. For instance, before coming up with article about "Akpanta killings," after heard about the injustice happening in the region, I did travelled down to the community in person and the entire Apa/Agatu region with aim of giving voice to voiceless and helpless people, (you can reference my upload of snapshot from the community to Wikimedian common for your perusal, I used mobile phone to take those images with a serious protection of police). Do you have ideas how much of my hard earn money and life risk go to that movement to to make up that article? After days of intensive work, I then comes up with article with verifiable sources evidents that are notable about the event, an editor is trying to denied it existence even threatening deletion and block to my account as if he paid me to make gig for him, more annoying, tagging it as LLM generated content. Even at this discussion, an admin is still busy flagging the Akpanta, Nigeria article as LLM. This is my argument, why not first hand engage creator in polite conversation and possibly give advice through user talk page instead of completely condemning and sentence? For what purpose is "User Talk page created?" Why not try having a meaningful and helping conversation about this first and observe if an amendment is necessary and will be immediately follow up or not, most especially considering the fact the contributor is new in the platform and is making a notable and factual articles and not engaging in vandalism.

In reference, the Article that brought about the discussion on possible deletion wasn't created by me, it was new and an editor nominate it for deletion. With my field experience of the happening, I believe the user have a point maybe in a wrong context, it's my opinion the article need some meaningful contribution to help it meet relevant guidelines instead of deletion, An editor tagged the article as "Accusation sole on Trump comment" and I was only try to give reasons to the editor that the article meet notability, verifiability and maybe having challenge with neutrality but to my best knowledge it meet neutrality and should be allow to stay if some amendment can be done to help the article comply with relevant Wikipedia policies. What's my offence? An editor then attacks me directly and threatening reporting my account despite clarified in my comment "I am not the creator of the article neither do I know the creator in person", I am only working to improve the article. The editor went on to dogged out my Wikipedia edit history in bid to witch hunt me, stating in his comment that I have been "formally warned against using LLM", another admin follow suite started flagging all my comment in the discussion forum as LLM generated.🤣 On the Article "Akpanta, Nigeria" they're referencing to, was an inconclusive inclusive conversation I had with the admin that flagged "Akpanta Nigeria" article for possible use of LLM, of which the admin advice me to leave the article for other editors and admin to have a review and I obey and abandon the article awaiting decision, of which several editors have make adjustments to it and many others are still making adjustments to the article mostly on daily basis. Why coming up with such direct attack on me instead of focus on the deletion debate. In no doubt I was on very tense mood responding to the opposing editors voting for deletion instead making relevant contribution to help build the article to meet Wikipedia neutrality, verifiability and notability policy as results of of the unnecessary provocation, most especially the veryone that attempt directly attack me. At all cause I still abandoned the deletion debate to focus on what's important. I have couple of intelligent video and snaps live capturing atrocities of this terrorists against the Christian Communities and worshippers that I personally took using fly drone and hidden cameras and there are load of numerous reports of this event out there on daily basis both by notable local and international medias, certainly i can't upload such kind of video to public domains, else I would have done so. To be honest, I recalled be obsessed with an editor who went on to tag my article not existing an LLM generated content. It's crazy that I spend my hard earn resources to conduct a finding with clear notability both in national and international newspaper with valid references and someone sitting at comfort of his/her zoom with keyboard tag it "not existing and LLM generated." Of course I may have made mistake quoting non existing policy because I was obsess. I believe I quoted several valid existing policies too with notable references to back my argument. Why single out one wrong quote to conclude my content as LLM generated? That's harsh! I believe this is community of well knowledge and like-minded people with a common goal not a judgement court. It's obvious Wikipedia is now more an enforcement and judgement court by self acclaimed "perfect editors" instead of a community of like-minded people working towards achieving one goal through open contribution. Even a peer-review journal have room for writers and editors to make adjustments to manuscript.

The decision to block and unblock me is completely at your sole description. Whatsoever decision you take won't cause me to say things otherwise to please you or anyone. I have said the truth as it's, you believing it or not are completely your choice.

YOU'RE CERTAINLY FREE TO EXERCISE YOUR POWER AND RIGHT AT BEST DESCRIPTION!

The decision is taken already, what do you want me to do? I should plead and appeal to be unblock?

NO, I WON'T!

I have paying gig need my attention too.

"Where I am not welcome, I don't force my way in" NatHaddan (talk) 10:34, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

You ask what we want you to do - I'd like you to answer my question here [1].

Other editors would also like you to explain why you added sources that don't exist.

We're getting concerned that you're making a lot of posts, but you're not going into any specifics when challenged.

We keep asking but you still aren't answering.

Everyone must be able to justify specific edits with the community raises concerns, we're all treated equally in that respect.

We don't care about your background or who you are, we care about what you're doing.

If you don't want to edit Wikipedia anymore then that's fine, but if you want to stay you're going to have to take responsibility for your actions and properly explain why you've been adding multiple non-existent sources on several occasions.

Please answer my question. Blue Sonnet (talk) 11:46, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

I understand AGF and giving second chances but we are wasting our time here. There is a 100% chance that this editor has repeatedly used LLMs in article space given the vast gap in English language fluency between their article and talk space contributions. The editor has repeatedly denied doing so, including after this ANI thread was opened, which means the only two possible explanations are 1) they are lying 2) they don't know they are using LLMs. I don't know which it is, but either one requires an indefinite block per NOTHERE CIR or both. We cannot afford to waste our time on black and white cases of LLM abuse like this. NicheSports (talk) 01:14, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Yeah I might be wasting my time, but I don't mind asking a couple of questions if it helps get to the bottom of what's actually going on here.

On a couple of occasions it's helped the editor to understand what they're doing wrong, but they need to give clear answers when challenged for that to happen. I'm not sure we're there yet because the answers don't explain what we're seeing. If an admin sees enough to block then at least we've given them a fair shot. Blue Sonnet (talk) 01:20, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

I agree, re the Kwararafa edit, 7/14 refs are fictional (and that’s before checking whether the real ones verify). They say they’re systematically checking every ref, that simply can’t be true. They’ve been given 4 (?) chances to own up and denied obvious use every time Kowal2701 (talk) 01:30, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Their user page is fairly solid evidence as well. Is there a editor who would legitimately describe themselves as "dedicated to advancing the quality, structure, and integrity of articles within the Wikimedia ecosystem"? (At least they wisely removed the word "senior" from the original generated text.) It's typical AI junk (and gets worse as you keep reading, quite frankly), especially in comparison to the level of English fluency seen in (what are presumably) the comments they've actually written. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:48, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

The 'editorial standards' heading with a list of policies they comply with gave me a good chuckle. Athanelar (talk) 18:31, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

@NatHaddan Can you take a look through the warnings on your Talk page to try to understand what happened? Because there are a lot of instances where other people can't find the sources you're adding. You're saying you check them but that's not what we're seeing here and we need to figure out what's going wrong.

It really does look like you're using AI/LLM/chatbot tools & not checking the information they're giving you - you're saying this isn't right, so everyone is very confused over what you're doing & how to stop these invalid sources from showing up in your edits.

1. In this edit you apparently replaced one source that didn't exist with another source that didn't exist.

1. In this example you added more sources that don't exist.

Can you explain how you found those sources and the exact steps you took to verify their authenticity? Blue Sonnet (talk) 01:14, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

• There is conclusive evidence of LLM use. Every reference in Special:Diff/1320039380 is hallucinated alongside pervasive markdown, Special:Diff/1319055226 contains LLM-specific unprintable character sequences like 0 and 1, Special:Diff/1323328155 hallucinates policy (WP:NODELAY) in a deletion discussion (see also their other contributions to the discussion), etc...

Despite this the user has lied about their LLM use:

• Here
• At their talk page: I am not in use of any AI or LLM generated content tool ... I AM NOT USING AI OR ANY LLM GENERATED CONTENT TOOL! [2], In my years of experience ... I always commit my time and resources visit the geographic region for self observation for inspirations not using proxy resources or LLM machines. [3], and I am not using ai chatbot [4]...
• and at LLMN: not AI generated content [5]

This is an immensely disruptive behavioral pattern that is incompatible with a collaborative encyclopedia. Asking that an admin indef them as an independent action so we don't need to waste time with a CBAN. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 02:30, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

I was looking at this user earlier, and while I would like to assume good faith, AI was definitely used here, sorry. An indef might be too harsh, but time shouldn't be wasted on a CBAN here. Z E T A^C 02:39, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Persistent dishonesty leaves no other viable option to prevent future disruption. Behavior cannot be corrected if it is not acknowledged, and acknowledgement at this point is too little too late as they have given every reason not to trust them. Indef isn't infinite anyways, they would be able to demonstrate understanding via an unblock request in the future. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 02:49, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

I really hope they can properly look at and address the hallucinated sources - right now we're getting vague non-answers that infer they're doing the right thing, except we can see that they aren't. Blue Sonnet (talk) 02:53, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Given their denials of obvious LLM use, I have indefinitely blocked NotHaddan from articlespace. No prejudice against a full block if it is deemed necessary. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:04, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

No CBAN consensus? Close. Tankishguy 05:10, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes cban consensus? close idk Tankishguy 05:12, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

There is very clearly no consensus for a CBAN. In my opinion, there isn't a necessity to close either. Threads can get archived either way, even without a closure. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 05:32, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Their wording Was confusing to me. Tankishguy 15:54, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, I am not given you answer because I was obviously sleeping. As at times the talk was launch it was a middle late night hour here in Nigeria, I made couple of few response before sleeping off. It wasn't intentional silent. NatHaddan (talk) 07:19, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

@The Bushranger Simply banning them from article space may be ineffective, as they also use LLMs on discussion pages. This message that I left on the talk page of @NatHaddan on 22 November may provide some additional context:

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

Hu741f4 (talk) 14:37, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

“they don't seem to read the discussion; they just copy-paste responses from an LLM, so the discussion never ends”.

Yep, that’s what it looks like, but not the standard AI. I speculate that they are using AI drawing specifically from Wikipedia talk namespaces, which is why some posts look like typical newcomer bad arguments, worse than expected from usual AI. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:11, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

• Support Indef/CBAN - The AI clean-up noticeboard have had to create a subpage specifically for NatHaddan and they still haven't given a straight answer to any of our questions about specific edits & sources.

Other editors are having to spend time fixing NatHaddan's mistakes and they won't provide the information we need to find out why this occurred and how to stop it from happening again. We're left with AI as the most likely explanation because there's absolutely no evidence to prove otherwise, and only NatHaddan can change that.

We're only getting generalised platitudes and I've spent quite a lot of time trying to guide them into giving a proper explanation, unfortunately I'm getting nowhere. The explanation given doesn't adequately account for what we're seeing.

Every editor should be able to explain why they've made an edit if challenged, or admit they've made a mistake. We're all human and we all screw up.

We also need to work together on Wikipedia - we can't do that without open and clear communication.

I've given them as much of a chance as I can (hopefully everyone can see that here and on their Talk page), but my AGF well is running dry.

Here they say they check almost all their edits, but we know that's not the case.

Here and here I ask them to explain how and why specific sources were added, but whilst my other questions are answered these two are completely ignored.

They've been asked repeatedly to explain the diffs in the original post but have yet to do so. Instead, they're focusing on the fact that people have said that they think they're using AI and completely ignoring the reasons why we have those suspicions. I can only see two possibilities:

• They didn't use AI and should explain how they managed to create multiple non-existent sources repeatedly on several articles, or
• They did use AI, in which case they need to admit it and promise they won't use it again.

This isn't a witch-hunt, persecution or bullying. I just want clear answers that make sense, that's all I ask.

If NatHaddan can give us an adequate explanation for the non-existent sources that have been presented at ANI, I'll happily reconsider. Otherwise, I can't see how we can trust that any of their edits will be accurate, since we have no idea where they're getting their information from. Blue Sonnet (talk) 15:43, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

They are already indefinitely blocked from articlespace [6], there is no need to spend any more time on this. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 16:44, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Ok, if you feel that's sufficient then that's totally fine with me. Blue Sonnet (talk) 16:52, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

I agree with fifteen. I think CBANs for LLM use should be reserved for more complex cases. This one is as black and white as it gets and the necessary block has already been applied by an admin NicheSports (talk) 17:16, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

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

The ironic thing here is if they genuinely are somehow hallucinating references without using a LLM that's worse. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:53, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

I singled out what looked to me like an obscenity in British English (wikt:tool #6). I of course agree that fake citations are unforgivable, however they arise. (It once took me the best part of an hour to expose a years-old WP:HOAX. My admiration at the skill and my fury at the deception increased together.) Narky Blert (talk) 17:01, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

• This is yet another case of the community falling all over itself to salvage the unsalvageable. We are now being flooded with people who completely lack the skills needed to be productive editors, but think AI their open sesame. Block indef and move on. EEng 21:11, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

  Unfortunately, some people here don’t like the idea of banning AI and argue at every oppurtunity that ‘there are uses for AI!’ or some other refrain. That is why WP:NEWLLM barely even became a guideline. ~212.70~ ~2025-31733-18 (talk) 05:43, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

  Support full indef: The problem with an incrementalist system like Wikipedia is that a vast number of editors are staunch defenders of the status quo, no matter how little it serves us nearly a quarter century in. I expect that most of the pro-AI types aren't involved in cleanup, aren't on the noticeboards, aren't on vandalism patrol, aren't on new page patrol, don't deal with copyvios, and are fanatic believers in Geek Social Fallacy #1: Ostracizers Are Evil. For my part, I'm right with EEng on this one: LLM Delenda Est. Ravenswing 12:04, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

• Support an indef An article space block won't stop them dropping AI-slop on discussion space, which has been clearly demonstrated already. There shouldn't be anybody writing hallucinated references. An decent editor would check the reference when it was being written to be sure is genuine and satisfies WP:V. It is absolute core of Wikipedia. And not checking them, assuming the AI is going to do it, is an absolute WP:CIR issue on its own. It is incompetence plain and simple. Another reason to block them. It is sloppy and crass editing. They are making assumptions that don't exist at our expense. This isn't salvagable. scope_creep^Talk 01:38, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
• Support indef NatHaddan is tending to be not here to building an encyclopedia. They also can’t hear us and are using AI, a sign of not meeting the competence levels to edit this encyclopedia. ~212.70~~2025-31733-18 (talk) 04:42, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

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

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. 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): [7],

-Nationalistic editing probably Anti-serbian type of editing, saying things like that serbian source aren't reliable and how Serbian sources are propaganda: [8][9][10][11][12][13]

-OR editing, adding sources in wrong context and unreliable ones also failed to provide his claims: [14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22]

Other users including myself send him warnings which he deleted calling them fake accusations: [23][24]

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: [25][26][27]

-Vandalism and POV: [28] (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 [29]. Since that block expired, they have both continued edit warring on Yugoslav offensive in Drenica (1999) [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37], as well as on Drenica massacres [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] and Yugoslav September offensive [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56].
• 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)

I wanted to note that Wikicommonsfan134 and AverageSkiptar have continued edit warring while this thread has been open. See the history on Timeline of the Kosovo War, where they have both just breached 3RR again: [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66]. There was also edit warring between them on Drenica massacres on 1 December (although no 3RR violation). AverageSkiptar has also continued to justify edit warring by saying that Wikicommonsfan134 started it [67], and they have both continued to call each other anti-Serbian/anti-Albanian at Talk:Drenica massacres#Reliability of sources. And there's also the... odd conversation at User talk:AverageSkiptar#Blud. MCE89 (talk) 17:24, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

The conversation titled "Blud" is largely just quoting Zoomer/Gen Alpha memes at each other, to decipher. Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 17:31, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Skiptar also refused to reach consensus and to add additional sources for some claims like the one that KLA recaptured most of territory they lost during Yugoslav offensive and when i said that one BBC report isn't enough for such claim and that it needs more sources he said that he doesn't need to add and said something like "quality>quantity". There hasn't been a single successful consensus reached with him because he isn't willing to reach it and instead starts arguing and after some time stop talking leaving consensus without result which i see it's very useful for him because his edits stay. And what to do then? Admins aren't willing to revert it, he isn't willing to reach consensus and would do edit wars until he gets blocked and when i report him nobody is willing to take action or anything, I'm kinda disappointed:/ Wikicommonsfan134 (talk) 23:18, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

One source is already enough. Quality > Quantity. AverageSkiptar (talk) 10:42, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

@MCE89 you see what am i talking about? Wikicommonsfan134 (talk) 13:22, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

You were literally re-adding wp:or, "the KLA re-established control in "some" of its lost territories", that‘s not what the source says. Re-adding the fact that """some territories""" were regained, is both WP:OR and WP:JUST. AverageSkiptar (talk) 14:41, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Orlando Davis: LLM use, dishonesty, generally NOTHERE

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

---

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

---

Orlando Davis (talk · contribs) has been misusing LLMs, repeatedly lying about it and other things, and is in general NOTHERE: see the original filing at WP:AINB § Orlando Davis for diffs covering these claims. Their conduct at AINB has been egregious, bizarrely stating at least three times - [68] is the most recent - that their edits did not contain any WP:V issues, after multiple editors had already documented such issues [69][70]. They have lied about using LLMs; see @Jlwoodwa describing [71] one claim [72] as insultingly dishonest. They have made strange comments about their abilities [73][74] (from first diff: I have been, perhaps, one of the greatest Wikipedia contributors...). In the meantime, they repeatedly reintroduced promotional content to Mastercooks of Belgium - see [75]. The last straw for me came after @Valereee gave them these final-ish warnings [76][77]. OD then promised [78] to no longer use AI (good!) but then immediately went and added this LLM-generated comment [79] in support of maintenance tags they placed [80][81] - apparently in retaliation (?) - to articles that valereee and another involved editor @Theroadislong had created. NicheSports (talk) 22:59, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

I've got a feeling OD's issues could be disruptive editing to illustrate a point, which isn't tolerated. sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:04, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

OD's issues are everything he does. We don't have to look for a convenient application of some single guideline to this case. The AINB thread speaks for itself. —Alalch E. 23:19, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

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

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

There is no Wikipedia policy requiring disclosure of LLM use. WP:LLM is an essay reflecting community discussion, not a binding rule. Editors may choose whether to disclose such use, just as they are not obligated to reveal personal identity or editing tools.

All of my edits comply with WP:V: they are verifiable, accurately sourced, and written neutrally. My removal of the promotional tag on Mastercooks of Belgium was a good-faith effort to reach consensus, as I immediately made numerous edits to improve the article and address any promotional content before agreeing to take the tag down. The edit history clearly demonstrates these improvements, showing that my actions were aimed at enhancing the article’s neutrality and reliability.

I also agreed to edits made by PolyGnotus and TheRoadIsLong after brief discussions, reflecting my willingness to reach consensus when reasonable improvements are proposed (see: Talk:Mastercooks of Belgium).

Similarly, the tags I placed on articles created by Valereee and TheRoadIsLong were good-faith efforts to improve Wikipedia, not acts of retaliation. I assume that editors such as Valereee and TheRoadIsLong acted in good faith when making edits or adding tags to my contributions. Reviewing the article histories prior to tagging shows that the justification for the tags I added was well-founded and consistent with maintaining verifiability and neutrality.

Orlando Davis (talk) 23:35, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

after brief discussions? Polygnotus (talk) 02:29, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

In reply to the collapsed message: some of this users edits use [oaicite:3] instead of a citation, which isn't a real thing and is only generated by LLMs. Drafting an article with LLMs and then verifying it yourself is not a massive issue (although it's obviously not ideal), but the only way that [oaicite:3] makes its way into an edit is if a human did not proofread said edit. That is unconstructive editing, and editors can be blocked for it. aesurias (talk) 23:51, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

@Orlando Davis ChatGPT forgot to tell you about WP:AITALK, I see. Four AI detectors came up positive. (Sorry everyone, template went wonky when you replied originally). Blue Sonnet (talk) 23:54, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

I told them about it [82] a week ago, and their response was to tell me to stop harassing them. They have also re-added the message, including the truly brazen falsehood about their edit history not containing any WP:V issues. NicheSports (talk) 00:15, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

• I'll take issue with accurately sourced. I have had exhausting discussions at Talk:Mastercooks_of_Belgium/Archive_1#3 best for notability? and Draft_talk:Michael_Katz_(chef)#Best_3_sources during which I tried to explain that someone calling a chef renowned in a 25-word mention did not constitute significant coverage and OD saying 'that's just your opinion'. Over and over. Literally I told them to go to wt:n to see if I was blowing smoke up their ass and they told me they had better things to do, like asking why I had deleted crap sources at an AfD. Valereee (talk) 23:51, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

  I agree that my tone in the conversation could have been better, and I will take care to be more professional in future discussions. That said, having a difference of opinion is entirely normal, and there is nothing wrong with it. Wikipedia is full of topics where gray areas exist, and reasonable editors can—and do—disagree on interpretation, sources, or neutrality.

  For example, I have a difference of opinion regarding neutrality in the Police Abolition article. That does not mean I make personal judgments about other editors’ intelligence or intentions. Similarly, it’s important to recognize that article acceptance and rejections are part of the creation process: some articles I work on may be rejected a few times before sufficient sources are found.

  I also want to acknowledge and appreciate the time and effort other editors put into discussions and reviews. Even if we disagree on certain points, I value the input and engagement from other editors. Orlando Davis (talk) 00:20, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

  If you're bringing up your tagging of Police abolition because you think I care, you are barking up the wrong tree. I created it because it was in the news and we didn't have an article. As of today my contributions are less than 14% and my last was 5 years ago. If you're trying to get my attention, go throw a tag on Cincinnati chili lol. Valereee (talk) 00:37, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

It appears that one of my posts was deleted. Just as Wikipedia has the right to enforce rules, I also have the right to defend myself. Removing my post without discussion feels like censorship.

There is no Wikipedia policy requiring disclosure of LLM use. WP:LLM is an essay reflecting community discussion, not a binding rule. Editors may choose whether to disclose such use, just as they are not obligated to reveal personal identity or editing tools.

All of my edits comply with WP:V: they are verifiable, accurately sourced, and written neutrally. My removal of the promotional tag on Mastercooks of Belgium was a good-faith effort to reach consensus, as I immediately made numerous edits to improve the article and address any promotional content before agreeing to take the tag down. The edit history clearly demonstrates these improvements, showing that my actions were aimed at enhancing the article’s neutrality and reliability.

I also agreed to edits made by PolyGnotus and TheRoadIsLong after brief discussions, reflecting my willingness to reach consensus when reasonable improvements are proposed (see: Talk:Mastercooks of Belgium).

Similarly, the tags I placed on articles created by Valereee and TheRoadIsLong were good-faith efforts to improve Wikipedia, not acts of retaliation. I assume that editors such as Valereee and TheRoadIsLong acted in good faith when making edits or adding tags to my contributions. Reviewing the article histories prior to tagging shows that the justification for the tags I added was well-founded and consistent with maintaining verifiability and neutrality. Orlando Davis (talk) 00:03, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

@Blue-Sonnet, this is a bit meta. Let's leave the LLM responses in place while we discuss LLM responses. Valereee (talk) 00:21, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

I only tagged one of them, then things got messy and the second was tagged whilst I was writing a reply. Not sure who did that one... Blue Sonnet (talk) 01:00, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

I think it would be helpful to review the guidelines. You are not an administrator yet, and I respect that you may be someday. Please do not delete my comments; if an administrator does, they will provide justification for doing so. It is best to let an administrator handle such matters. Orlando Davis (talk) 00:24, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Blue-Sonnet, please don't take this bait. Valereee (talk) 00:26, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

I agree with Valereee there definitely seems to be a problem with OD's edits, judging from the recent evidence and LLM. How long would a potential block be in this case? sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:36, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

We generally don't make a block longer because a case is more problematic, as that's punitive, which isn't what we are going for. What we want is for the editor to improve, and in many cases that can be immediate. An indefinite block very often means: until they convince an admin they get it. It might be five minutes. Valereee (talk) 00:42, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

I see. While I'm only trying to help (as I usually do), maybe we can try asking the user to remove the AI tools where necessary? sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:49, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

sjones23, I appreciate what you are trying to do but this user has been given enough rope to rig the HMS Victory and has wasted literally dozens of hours of editor time. The repeated falsehoods about their editing history not containing WP:V issues (now stated 5 times) is the most brazen falsehood I have encountered here, as this user has extensively rewritten multiple articles after being informed of these issues. They absolutely know that claim is not true. The LLM use and lies are intractable. They will likely be fortunate to avoid a CBAN NicheSports (talk) 00:56, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Hmm, you may have a point, NicheSports, given the evidence. sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:05, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

No worries Valereee, I can see what's happening :) Blue Sonnet (talk) 00:58, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

• I have blocked Orlando Davis for one week for disruptive editing, which has continued throughout this thread. The LLM usage is incidental as the behavior is the issue regardless of which tool is used. Star Mississippi 00:49, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

  I think this is insufficient Star NicheSports (talk) 00:57, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

  @NicheSports @Deepfriedokra I have no objection to it being increased. This was purely to stop the current disruption and it was my opinion that an INDEF was too long. They don't necessarily need to be unblocked if a cban is proposed, Niche. They can respond on their Talk and someone can carry them over. Star Mississippi 02:15, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

• I've already commented on model use at the large language model noticeboard, but something I did not mention there is Davis's persistent please-and-thank-you battleground behavior/incivility and repeated failures to assume good faith. Some illustrative diffs: [83][84][85][86][87][88]^{(edit summary)}[89][90][91][92].

These are only from discussions on user talk pages, and are non-exhaustive, this pattern continues elsewhere at AfDs [93][94][95][96], noticeboards [97][98], etc... fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 00:51, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Considering that this pattern dates back to May 2023, and continued through a year long editing gap, I have little faith a one week block alone will be adequate in preventing future disruption. Currently considering proposing a cban. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 00:59, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

So I stayed away once the baiting started, now I'm back this doesn't look like something a short block will fix.

If they were away for an entire year and their behaviour didn't change during that amount of time, IMO a week definitely won't be enough. Blue Sonnet (talk) 01:14, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

@Blue-Sonnet, this comment from OD is not correct. You acted in good faith to close AI-generated comments. Being an admin doesn't matter, I've collapsed such messages myself. 11WB (talk) 01:20, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Honestly, I barely skimmed that post once it became clear what was going on so it's fine!

I definitely only collapsed the first one though, the other seemed to be collapsed when I was writing my reply? Either someone else did that one, or it was a really weird glitch.

Think I'll play it safe and avoid anything that could be seen as admin-related, and just write posts going forwards. Blue Sonnet (talk) 02:15, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Would support, this must be considered at this point. OD should also presumably be unblocked if a CBAN is proposed? NicheSports (talk) 01:50, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

After reading this thread, I think a one week block is overly optimistic, but we generally start low and work our way up for recidivism. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:53, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

I think a cban is overkill. This editor isn't ill-intentioned. They just need to start listening. Valereee (talk) 02:17, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

@Valereee The problem is that they are a net negative. Other people have spent a hell of a lot of time and energy cleaning up the trash and debating an LLM. while they refuse to read PaGs when requested to. Then when they started clearly editing in bad faith it is time to part ways. Polygnotus (talk) 02:27, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Proposal: Orlando Davis blocked for 1 year

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

• As proposer. I hope an indef can be avoided this way. We need a meaningful length of time to give them a reasonable chance to improve. Polygnotus (talk) 02:35, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

  Change to indef. Plenty of rope. Polygnotus (talk) 14:07, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

• Support - I agree with Polygnotus's observations on this situation, as an indef block is too much at this point. I would also consider a block for no more than six months as per the relevant WP:STANDARDOFFER. sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:48, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
• Support my preference in these cases of intractable LLM misuse is an admin-administered indef, so probably not more than 6 months per the WP:SO, assuming a compelling unblock request. Given the additional considerations here - repeated and frankly egregious dishonesty, long-term incivility as outlined by fifteen's diffs - I think a one year block is reasonable to protect the community's time and give the editor a chance to adjust their approach. I also obviously support the ban on LLM tools as an unblock condition NicheSports (talk) 02:52, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

  Change support to indef due to the continued battleground behavior on the user's talk page NicheSports (talk) 21:32, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

• As the admin who implemented the current block, I'm not going to take a position here. Just noting the standard-I have no objection to my block being amended by another admin, community consensus or both. Star Mississippi 02:59, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
• Support following my interactions with them above. Blue Sonnet (talk) 02:58, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

  Change to indef in view of their continued attacks on other editors. I don't think time will ameliorate this behaviour, they need to actively prove they've changed before they should be allowed to return Blue Sonnet (talk) 14:04, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

• Just indef them. There's no reason to time-limit a block like this. Worst-case scenario is they come back in a year and resume disruption, which they've already done once. Much better to indef them and let them come back only when they demonstrate they've learned a lesson. Athanelar (talk) 03:06, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
• Support the one year proposal, would also support the idea raised about the six month ban to make it align with WP:OFFER. Also explicitly a ban from using LLMs for any purpose on Wikipedia, so that we don't have to haggle about that after six months or a year. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 04:14, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Oppose - I'm either opposing as moot if an indefinite block has been given by an admin at the time the consensus is evaluated or opposing in favor of a community ban if no indefinite block has been given by an admin. Their recent contributions to this discussion make me far less hopeful that a timed block will be effective. I now don't think this editor ought to get their editing right restored until either an administrator or the community actively believes it will benefit the community. I don't care which. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 20:56, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

• Support: Somehow we will have to survive without the greatness and amazingness of this fellow's stupendous 1800 mainspace edits. (We'll also manage to survive without this guy using ChatGPT to write his ANI responses, which is just headshaking.) Ravenswing 09:40, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose as overkill. I'd support a pblock from article space to try to convince them to listen to experienced editors here. If that doesn't work, we can revisit. Valereee (talk) 11:14, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

  The problems extend beyond article space, so I'm not sure a partial block would be sufficient. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:36, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, I understand that there are issues in talk, too. I just think being pblocked from article space would be a powerful motivator to start taking advice on board, which to me is the root of the issue here.

  A cban like this one -- a full year with no realistic chance to appeal, no chance to prove you've learned -- is something people often don't recover from. And if they do return, they still haven't proven they've learned. This is why we don't generally like time-limited anythings: they aren't really productive. Valereee (talk) 20:41, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

  After OD's response on their talk: sigh. Okay, support indef. It sucks that this is a community indef, but maybe OD can go to another project and start listening. At least an indef requires appeal rather than simply waiting it out. Valereee (talk) 00:56, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

• Support: LLMs aren't responsible for the bad attitude here, that's all on them. Gnomingstuff (talk) 14:54, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

  Touché -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:26, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

• Support, but I worry that it's just going to continue after 1 year.—Alalch E. 15:27, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

  Which is exactly why time-limited restrictions are so useless and exactly why most experienced admins prefer indefs: the editor has to convince us they've changed. They don't just have to wait it out. Valereee (talk) 20:43, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

  Right, a normal indef would have been my preference, but no admin seemed willing to apply one. So that wasn't an option for the community, unfortunately. This is a reasonable proposal given that constraint. I assume you prefer it to an indefinite CBAN? NicheSports (talk) 21:33, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

  I'd have preferred an indef full block imposed by a single admin to a community-imposed time-limited cban, which is the worst possible outcome for the editor. Valereee (talk) 22:54, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

  Indef full block imposed by a single admin is what I was hoping for when filing, but it never came. A long, community-imposed, time-limited block may be bad for the editor (although I think an indef CBAN would be worse) but it is a very reasonable outcome for the project, given the level of disruption and how much editor time was being wasted. I think there is a gap between the community and admins in how to handle this type of conduct; I hope that that gap comes down bc single admin action is preferable in most cases imo NicheSports (talk) 23:04, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

  An indef cban is worse for the editor, but time-limited is worse for the community because the editor never has to change. They just have to wait it out. Valereee (talk) 01:00, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

• Support per Deepfriedokra. —Fortuna, imperatrix 15:33, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
• Give them a month off for the holidays, and then subtract a couple of days for good behavior..., and thank them for pointing out that it is not required to list or defend a user's AI use on their user page. Shouldn't it be? Maybe Orlando (who starts off their user page with a pretty good joke and that's worth good behavior points) can help lobby for or organize MOS to include such user page clarification. I'm personally anti-AI use in writing, and have never asked AI anything on purpose or not yet given it a request to create an imaginary painting although that might be fun, and intend to keep away from it for any writing whatsoever ("OK! Boomer!"). It'd be nice to further limit its use as a tool for writing on Wikipedia, and Orlando, if you used Chatty or whatever its called to write ANI replies, that's just weird, but Orlando should not be given an entire year in solitary for pretty much roughhouse playing within some badly drawn lines. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:47, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

• Support per nom, Orlando Davis has demonstrated WP:ICANTHEARYOU behavior from the diffs provided; a ban of 1 year would be lenient, but I believe it is justified in this case. Support indef. ~2025-30597-01 (talk) 01:17, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
• Support indef, support one year if consensus for indef is not met. In an above comment I provided diffs illustrating what I believe is battleground behavior, since then and in response to this report, Orland Davis has continued this pattern of behavior on their talk page in #Response to the CBAN Proposal and #Further Response to CBAN (MasterCooks of Belgium). I believe future disruption is highly likely, and believe an indef, which would require an unblock request, is the best remedy. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 19:48, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Support indef per 15224, appealable to any admin rather than the community if that's allowed Kowal2701 (talk) 20:15, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

@Kowal2701 a community-imposed ban will need to be appealed to the community. (Unlikely consensus, WP:NOTBUR and WP:IAR invocations aside) fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 20:38, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

• Support per nom, massive time sink, WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Theroadislong (talk) 21:42, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
• I don't see how blocking for a year isn't just passing the buck to whoever is monitoring this page in a years time. Make the block indefinite, then it can be shorter or longer than a year depending on their future behaviour. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:59, 3 December 2025 (UTC) P.S. I was racking my brains thinking who Orlando reminds me of. It just came to me - it is Ignatius from A Confederacy of Dunces
• Support indef as first choice. Support proposed one year block as second choice per Phil Bridger above me. Per all the problems documented above.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:20, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

  The persistent LLM use is only a part of the disruptive behavior. Of course the LLM use added inappropriate content to the encyclopedia, but the worse problem is the refusal to acknowledge they were using an LLM, their refusal to acknowledge that the LLM use was causing problems, the denial of obvious LLM use, the personal attacks battle grounding and incivility. Then there is the inability to take in constructive criticism and attempts to inform them that their editing was disruptive and act upon this constructive criticism. They promised to not use LLM's and yet continued to do so. More, they did bizarre things apparently in retaliation like adding inappropriate maintenance tags. There is a chronicity and repetitiveness to their behavior that indicates they are not compatible with a collaborative project and not capable of following the rules and then insisting upon rubbing other people's noses in the rules incorrectly. (There may be more that I did not see in the thread above.) This all rises to a level of "severity" requiring a block with no set time limit so that they must fully and convincingly address the reasons for their block in order to be unblocked. The perpetual wikilawyering and lecturing in no way is convincing that they do not need a block. Perhaps they should reread the portion of the guide to appealing blocks where it talks about addressing one's own behavior by acknowledging the behavior and describing what they will do instead of returning to that behavior. Thanks. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:14, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

  To further elaborate on my rationale, the "further comments" section carried over below by Blue Sonnet illustrates appellant's inability or unwillingness to recognize the problems with their behavior and their inability or unwillingness to change that behavior.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:26, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

• support indef because otherwise they’ll just come back and do it again after a year.

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

Poppip10, how did you find this noticeboard? 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 17:43, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

i stumbled across it while reading the teahouse and thought it was interesting enough to participate in Poppip10 (talk) 17:52, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

It is NOT mentioned at the Teahouse? Theroadislong (talk) 18:01, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

this is the comment that linked me here. Poppip10 (talk) 18:11, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

• Just indef and move on The below responses by OD here have shown either WP:CIR, WP:NOTHERE or straight up wikilawyering which is certainly not fit for any environment and doesn't seem like something that will be resolved with time. ~212.70~ ~2025-31733-18 (talk) 18:10, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

@Theroadislong The template you were looking for is called Template:Single-purpose account Polygnotus (talk) 18:12, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

• Support indef - unfortunately it looks like the problem will just move to Simple WP, but I'm sure they have experience dealing with such things. ~2025-38852-98 (talk) 23:16, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

  Indeed -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:39, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Orlando Davis response

• My on wiki time is limited, but I agreed to link this. Please see User_talk:Orlando_Davis#Response_to_the_CBAN_Proposal and feel free to reformat this or fully transfer the text as needed. cc @NicheSports: Star Mississippi 13:23, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

  OK, this should be an indef. Every time I am too nice I get reminded of why I shouldn't be. Polygnotus (talk) 13:25, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

  They've also now added User talk:Orlando Davis#Further Response to CBAN (MasterCooks of Belgium) which adds theroadislong to the attack list, and User talk:Orlando Davis#A response to the diffs presented by fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four Athanelar (talk) 13:42, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

  While I disagree with that response to my comment, I don't feel attacked, but all their responses taken together further illustrate the battleground behavior I had mentioned. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 19:38, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

  I don't know why OD asked this to be moved here after Star warned them what it would lead to. I don't think it is helpful to copy the text, if anyone wants to read they can follow the link. And I would ask an admin to do so. The community is struggling to deal with an editor who has now at their talk page demonstrated they are currently incompatible with a collaborative project, and we really could use some admin support here. NicheSports (talk) 17:37, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

  They probably thought they knew better than the newbie Star Mississippi who has only... 17.5 years of experience as an admin. They also seem to have misinterpreted the word incidental in this comment. Polygnotus (talk) 12:59, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, it's true. We new admins have much to learn. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:31, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

  Aw, it'll take decades for me to become a proper admin then... I didn't even know I wanted to be one. Blue Sonnet (talk) 15:55, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

• Further comments (it's relatively short so copying in full):

"Perhaps voters should take a look at Wikipedia:Blocking policy when they vote.

It says that when considering the duration of a block, the "severity" of the behavior should be considered.

So given that the LLM use was incidental, we should focus on my behavior only. I have never in my time in Wikipedia engaged in behavior even close to being severe enough to warrant being blocked. It would be a critical misjudgment to vote that way." [99]

Copied over by Blue Sonnet (talk) 07:02, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

• Even more comments

"Please take a look at Wikipedia:Blocking policy (WP:BLOCK), “Blocks should not be used" on Wikipedia "to retaliate."

Given Polygnotus's long-term pattern of edit warring, canvassing, and bludgeoning (as initially referenced in my first C-BAN response), doesn’t the community recognize that Polygnotus's current one year C-BAN proposal could be seen as a potential continuation of that pattern?" [100]

Copied over by Blue Sonnet (talk) 17:06, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Should they still have TPA if they continue to attack the conduct of other editors and harm their own case like this? They're also inferring that anyone who voted for a CBAN has either misunderstood the blocking policy or not bothered to read it first. I know they are entitled to plead their case, but it doesn't feel like this is what's happening here. Should I keep copying these over? Blue Sonnet (talk) 17:17, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Yes please... and note that they are busy removing other editors comments from their talk page, which of course they are allowed to do, but it looks disruptive and is not helpful. Theroadislong (talk) 17:21, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

That 1 year cban is not actually my current proposal. That was me being too kind. Now its indef. Polygnotus (talk) 17:58, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

• Comments continue

"Wikipedia:Banning policy: This says that a ban should only be used as a last resort:

“Editors are site-banned or topic-banned only as a last resort, usually for extreme or very persistent problems that have not been resolved by lesser sanctions…”

The community has not given the one week block a chance to see if it is a sufficient deterrent. It looks like this guideline has not yet been looked at by voters." [101]

Copied over by Blue Sonnet (talk) 18:02, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

• "Actions I plan on taking"

"Here are the actions that I plan on taking:

• I will avoid using AI in either articles or talk pages

• I will refrain from being excessively argumentative and work on giving concise responses

• I will value and seek more input from other editors

• I will take a step back in heated conversations

I am committed to making the necessary changes to never be in an ANI again." [102]

Copied over by Blue Sonnet (talk) 19:14, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Not the first time I saw an AI generated promise to stop using AI.

I wrote:

Apparently you fed the ANI post into ChatGPT and this is what it told you to say, but what do you say? Without an LLM? And why do you trust ChatGPT but not all the people who tried to help you? It is kinda difficult to believe that 18:55 Orlando Davis is very different from 16:46 Orlando Davis who lashes out or 14:59 Orlando Davis who tries to hide his misdeeds or 14:37 Orlando Davis who (again) lashes out.

If this sudden change of heart is to be believable, then we gotta get some backstory on what changed, other than the fact you realized that being community banned would mean you would have to stop promoting Michael Katz. Polygnotus (talk) 20:14, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

and they deleted it without answering. Polygnotus (talk) 20:20, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

This is a very quick turnaround considering all the time and effort spent on their earlier posts. I'm concerned that they might only be saying what we want to hear, now it's clear that their original approach wasn't working.

I want to believe this is genuine contrition but I'm having a lot of difficulty doing so.

Valereee tried really hard to help after Orlando said they were "glad to go over each and every point", but got this response in return.

Hang on, we have another post I need to add here... Blue Sonnet (talk) 20:40, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

• "Requesting Polygnatus to stay of my page"

"If I get banned, then I will have to accept that. Even though I disagree. In the end, there are other places on the internet for me. But Polygnotus is informed that I wish to disengage from him now, and forever. Just so you don't think I'm making this stuff up. And I was advised to send this up to ANI, and I didn't. I now regret that.

See here:

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Coordinating_Committee/Cases/2025/Polygnotus" [103]

Copied over by Blue Sonnet (talk) 20:44, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Sigh. I dropped them a note that this is going to lead to their TPA being revoked if it continues. Polygnotus, I know you described yourself as being as stubborn as a dead mule (ha) but I think your interactions with OD have been quite constructive (at AfD, at Mastercooks, at your talk page), and I am sorry they have singled you out this way, I have seen no indication that any of this was deserved. I'd suggest disengaging here though, it should be resolved soon. NicheSports (talk) 20:56, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

@NicheSports Thanks. It is a common crybully tactic, nothing I haven't seen before. simple:User:Polygnotus/tmp may be of interest.

If this takes much longer we may have to start randomly pinging admins because this is gone far enough. Polygnotus (talk) 21:01, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra sorry for the ping but they did not take my advice and have continued [104] to dig up unrelated stuff about Polygnotus. This is the 4th time they've done so at their TP since being blocked by Star, can someone please revoke their TPA? This needs to stop. NicheSports (talk) 21:02, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

I suggest everyone disengage, there is nothing to be gained by providing more rope. Continuing to reply will only use up more editor time with no benefit. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 21:07, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Noted. Will do so. Thanks fifteen NicheSports (talk) 21:09, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

I'll continue to carry over comments that are clearly intended for ANI, but I've avoided specifically responding on their Talk page since other editors haven't found this to be productive.

If anyone feels this is no longer necessary or appropriate, please let me know. Blue Sonnet (talk) 21:16, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

@Blue-Sonnet Meh, I wouldn't bother. Its not like they can still climb out of this hole. Polygnotus (talk) 21:20, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I was going to stop soon anyway because it's getting late, plus their recent posts are all replies to editors so there not much point carrying those over - anyone can see them by viewing their Talk page directly. Blue Sonnet (talk) 21:31, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

I suppose you're right, 15224. It's difficult, but I've bitten my lip, and I'll try to keep it bitten. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:47, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Agreed - whilst they can't dictate who can and can't participate at ANI, they're only going to continue responding & I think the currently available evidence speaks for itself.

The Law of holes applies here, let them dig if they wish. Blue Sonnet (talk) 21:04, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Admins appear to have taken the day off so I'll just ping the most recently active one. @Wbm1058: Would you be so kind to implement the community consensus above? Thanks, Polygnotus (talk) 13:43, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Responding to ping requesting administrator action in an area which is not one of my active domains. This editor has not consistently caused problems in the areas I patrol, so I'm unfamiliar with their editing. I'm uncomfortable with imposing sanctions based simply on assessing community consensus in a !vote that on the surface looks a lot like a vote. There are a lot of diffs to wade through, given in the discussion above. I've just taken a look at one of them. He asked an editor for help with Guillermo Rojas Bazan, an article he created on 16 April 2023, in May 2023 – 2 1⁄2 years ago. revert, response. I don't really see the problem. Orlando Davis is responsible for 86% of the content of that article. I wouldn't expect to see so much of their contribution sticking, if it was that problematic. Maybe someone can point me to the diffs showing the two articles with his worst recent behavior, to save me time wading through more weak allegations of troublemaking? Don't rehash them here, just give me quick diffs showing the entrances to rabbit holes. Thanks, wbm1058 (talk) 15:48, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

@Wbm1058 You might enjoy Mastercooks of Belgium, which led to discussions on a handful of other pages. The rabbit hole is pretty deep. Polygnotus (talk) 15:53, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Wbm1058, I'd recommend looking at these three:

1. This post on the AI clean-up noticeboard. They denied using AI despite the existence of AI tags in the sources themselves and committed to not using AI in future.

1. AI-written responses then continued, including this current ANI discussion.

1. Orlando's Talk page. After being blocked, they've had TPA removed as they persisted in attacking other editors instead of addressing their own behaviour, even after several editors and admins warned against doing so.

We initially considered a time-limited block, but consensus changed to indef following continued battleground behaviour both here and on their Talk page. This is a long thread as a direct result of this same behaviour. Blue Sonnet (talk) 16:45, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi all, I posted at AN yesterday asking for a close here as well as action at OD's talk page. @Sarek Of Vulcan handled the latter, and I think someone who is familiar assessing CBAN proposals will be along to close this. NicheSports (talk) 16:52, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Are you referring to THIS REQUEST to close a discussion started back in August about LLM/AI generated proposals? That's the only thing I see there relating to LLM use; I don't see this specific discussion listed there. I need to run an errand now, but can look deeper into this later today. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:18, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Don't worry, probably best if we ping another admin. They were referring to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#ANI_case_needs_action. Polygnotus (talk) 17:22, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

We've got over 24hrs until the block expires so you can leave it for a little while, especially since it's already posted at AN. @wbm1058 this is a messy one, so it's understandable if you prefer to leave this for another admin. Blue Sonnet (talk) 17:25, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Hey, just had an edit conflict with you & agree that this might be better with someone who's more familiar due to complexity - am I right in thinking the ban doesn't expire for another two days? Blue Sonnet (talk) 16:57, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

@Blue-Sonnet Expiry (UTC): 2025-12-08T00:48:00.000Z -- Time remaining: 1d 7h 47m. Polygnotus (talk) 17:01, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks - I was looking at the TPA removal tag that expires on the 8th & today is the 6th! Should have done the maths... Blue Sonnet (talk) 17:12, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

I forced a computer to do math, which makes me some kind of war criminal when the machines finally take over. Polygnotus (talk) 17:21, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

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

I feel like the prophecy foretold above has come to pass now. [105]. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 00:11, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

Background

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

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

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

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

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

Attempts at dispute resolution

Here are the steps I have already taken:

• Talk page discussion: Talk:Brant Pinvidic#Clarification on Lead and Awards section edits
• Third Opinion request and result: 3O by User:MWFwiki who restored my version as neutral and sourced
• Attempted dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN), which was closed procedurally.

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

Current concern

The issues I am asking admins to look at are:

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

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

What I am requesting

I am requesting that administrators:

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

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

Are you sure you didn't use an LLM to write this? You also need to provide evidence of what they have done wrong by showing diffs. GarethBaloney (talk) 13:30, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Using an AI chatbot to submit a complaint like this is both against best practices (WP:LLMCOMM) and also a guaranteed way to immediately make people take the other side. It's not a very good sign if you can't even summon the effort to write your complaint in your own words. Athanelar (talk) 13:31, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

@Jadu23: You are required to notify the person whom you are reporting. See the instructions at the top of the page when you edit this page. The sections you added are unnecessary here and have been removed. Please remember to sign your comments. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:33, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

The reporting user has bwen using AI to 'fix' articles with maintenance tags, as confirmed at this diff where they directly added the [oaicite 1] tag indicating text copypasted from ChatGPT without any human review. Athanelar (talk) 13:34, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Understood. I’ll avoid Grammarly assistance for article edits going forward. The issue here is simply the repeated reverts without discussion even after starting a section on the talk page. Sorry for the misses, still reading and learning here. Jadu23 (talk) 14:02, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Did you use any AI assistance to find sources for or to compose your edits to Brant Pinvidic? That might explain Mortdav's engagement with you.

I'd encourage you to read over this very good essay on why AI chatbots are bad at helping with Wikipedia things. Athanelar (talk) 14:08, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Just to toss my two cents in; @Jadu23 did not appear to utilize an LLM prior to this, though I also did not see any reason to scrutinize for such. Secondly, the editor-in-question also has not engaged with me, either, the WP:THIRD. Regardless of Jadu23's conduct, I would say that the accusations made by Mortdav still warrant at least a warning. I think the content dispute can be resolved separately, however, likely by a proper re-filing of the DRN. MWFwiki (talk) 19:30, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

UPDATE: Drmies pointed-out several things to me which leads me to question my sanity... but I must withdraw all support for Jadu23, unfortunately. I am quite embarrassed to say that I believe I may have been looking at the wrong diff. Suffice it to say; The fact that I missed something so obvious means my opinion must be discounted for this issue. I would welcome a check regarding the possibility of an association with the other editor (as well as me against Jadu23 and Karieol51, to be clear). MWFwiki (talk) 21:08, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

FYI, a checkuser revealed no connection at SPI. Athanelar (talk) 22:02, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

@Athanelar; Sorry, just for my sake (and others'); No connection between me and the two listed editors (which obviously I know to be a fact, haha)? Or no connection between all three? I'm assuming the latter MWFwiki (talk) 22:54, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

No connection i.e., Jadu23 and Karieol51 are not confirmed to be sockpuppets by the CU. Athanelar (talk) 22:56, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

I still don't understand why i am being dragged to the previous edits made by some other users? I only edited the page because i thought i can fix it and that's what i have been doing with other articles learning and editing. I don't know why i am being connected some other issue on the page, i only opened this because after 3O i was confident that my edits are right. Even if my edits are not right i didn't asked for anything just the right direction how it should be and that's how one learn.

Also, since you have already checked i am not associated with any editor. I still not sure why Mortdav & Drmies both had similar views for me? Do they have some sort of evidence on me? Because i never did anything with the Paid tag, simply had edited the page and removed the promotional stuff as per my understanding. Even though i didn't had any relation to anyone, infact i don't even know exactly how the stuff works here. These allegations makes me think are they both related to each other or connected and working towards same goal? Because as now i can see it's just Drmies coming to picture and no words from other editor. Jadu23 (talk) 08:24, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

The filing party writes: I have tried to work through discussion and formal processes before coming here. It is always a good idea to work through discussion and formal processes. However, the filing party did not discuss at the article talk page before filing at DRN, which is why I closed the DRN procedurally. Please don't say that you have tried to work through discussion if there is little or no evidence of attempts at discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:18, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

To be entirely fair, @Jadu23 did tag Mortdav 4+ days ago and they still have not responded — Talk:Brant Pinvidic#Clarification on Lead and Awards section edits — Only sought a 3O after two days and filed their DRN after three days. If the argument is that they don't wish to engage Jadu23 because of their (now-admitted) LLM use, they don't have the same argument with not engaging with me. However, I do 100% cede that they did file the said DRN improperly, and obviously I defer to you in that regard entirely. MWFwiki (talk) 21:30, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

I get the concerns. Just to clarify I did not use any AI tool to write the actual article edits or to find sources. I only looked things up online while trying to understand how stuff works here and maybe that affected the tone without me realizing. I’ll make sure anything I write from now on is in my own words.

About the dispute; I did start a discussion on the article Talk page, but the other editor didn’t reply at all even after a few days and That’s why I went for a Third Opinion next. I understand now that my DRN filing was done the wrong way. I’ll reopen a new DRN properly this time and my only goal is to fix the content issue the correct way and learn the proper step as i learn and remove the allegation made on me by the editor. Jadu23 (talk) 08:00, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

If that is the case, then in this edit what made you decide to include the text :contentReference[oaicite:1]{index=1}?

Using AI isn't necessarily forbidden. Using it and being dishonest about it, as I currently suspect you are (because there is, to my knowledge, no way the text above could have appeared except by you copypasting text directly from the output of an AI chatbot) most certainly is. It's hard to take seriously your promise that 'anything you write will be in your own words' if you're not transparent about what you did before. Athanelar (talk) 10:10, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

I did not use any AI tool to write the content or sources. I only used online help to understand how to do citations, references and templates which might be the reason of this. Jadu23 (talk) 12:45, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

I did not use any AI tool to write the content or sources – This is not true, :contentReference[oaicite:1]{index=1} is an error specific to OpenAI's AI technology, most commonly ChatGPT.

Disruptively using AI then being continually deceptive about it should lead to an immediate indef. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 20:15, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Please see my comment again Sir, i am not denying learning online and taking help, have clearly mentioned " I only used online help to understand how to do citations, references and templates which might be the reason of this" means have been learning to do citation and references online so while copying the commands it might be possible it got copied. Thank you! Jadu23 (talk) 08:29, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Just to clarify, you asked AI to find a source for you then cut & pasted the result into Wikipedia? Blue Sonnet (talk) 17:05, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Not to put words in their mouth, but my interpretation was that they utilized an AI to build the citation itself, or to at least guide them in doing-so. MWFwiki (talk) 22:52, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

• As far as I'm concerned AI is the least of the problems here. CU revealed no match with the previous COI editor in the article, but CU is not the final answer. I thank MWFwiki for their note. FWIW this is the second time that I get pulled to this article in the same way--by seeing an editor file administrative reports to get rid of Mortdav; last time it was User:Karieol51, who went to RPP and AIV (so let's see if Jadu also starts editing M Lhuillier). And at first glance Mortdav does indeed seem like the disruptor--they certainly act like a very questionable editor--but on closer inspection they are dead on. Drmies (talk) 22:34, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

LLM use and COI by User:Thetransitguru

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

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

AI generated content

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

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

• New York–New Jersey Metropolitan Rapid Transit Commission
• Tri-State Regional Planning Commission
• Metropolitan Regional Council
• New York-New Jersey Transportation Agency
• United States Trust Co. of New York v. New Jersey

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

Conflict of Interest and attempted socking

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

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

Procedural Objection — Off-Wiki Outing and Harassment

I cannot participate in a good-faith discussion with this editor because they are currently engaging in severe off-wiki harassment against me.

User Cards84664 has contacted my real-world employer via email to "out" my identity and attempt to disparage my professional reputation.. This is a direct violation of WP:OUTING and WP:HARASSMENT.

Because the evidence of this violation contains my personal information, I cannot post it here. I have forwarded the email and proof to the Arbitration Committee and the Oversight Team via email. I request that this thread be paused or closed until ArbCom has reviewed the evidence of the Original Poster's off-wiki conduct. Thetransitguru (talk) 16:29, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Is this LLM? Also that is some serious allegations you’re throwing here… ~2025-31733-18 (talk) 17:28, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Without weighing in on any possible off-wiki activity, and whether or not it would be/was inappropriate, the issue raised remains valid. This diff is strong evidence not only of LLM use, but of an effort to avoid the detection of that use ("Key changes to avoid LLM detection:**"). Do you have an explanation for this? BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 17:43, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

You've tagged multiple articles for speedy deletion as unreviewed LLM, on the basis that they have nonsensical cites, but you haven't said which of the cites are nonsensical. I'm not saying that they aren't LLM-created, but some more info is necessary to support a speedy delete, since the articles aren't, on a quick read, obviously LLM cruft. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 17:29, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

This edit is particularly damning: Not only is it direct proof that Thetransitguru is using LLMs to write articles, it indicates they were deliberately attempting to hide that usage. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 17:30, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, that's very clear. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 17:35, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Support indef based on this diff and the other blatantly obvious LLM use. Indefinite is not infinite, of course, but this editor cannot be allowed to continue editing when they're engaging in blatant deception and misconduct. Their extreme, evidence-free allegation against Cards84664 is not a shield to protect them against their own misconduct. Not to mention you cannot cry "outing" when you've self-disclosed your real life name and job on your userpage and it was publicly viewable until yesterday. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:43, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Partially striking my comment in the light of Arbcom taking action against Cards. I was mistaken in what I said previously. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:02, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

I've actually already p-blocked Thetransitguru from article space indefinitely, so an indef full block might not be needed. And it looks like Arbcom wanted to have a word or two with Cards, so I don't think referring to the accusation as "evidence-free" is accurate. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:49, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

In my defense, there was no indication within this thread that Thetransitguru had been blocked until your reply just now. I'd prevously read this discussion on mobile, which I don't edit from, so the tool that shows if editors are blocked wasn't active for me. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:07, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

And I should have mentioned it earlier here. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:14, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

I've pblocked Youalmosthadit to match Thetransitguru's pblock. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:39, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Support this block, Special:Diff/1319184372 is egregious, highly disruptive editing pattern. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 19:28, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

A couple of updates, not on behalf of the Committee (but rather as an individual admin), but just to update this thread:

• Cards84664 has been blocked by the Arbitration Committee.
• Following a request to the oversight queue, Thetransitguru's userpage has been deleted per WP:CSD#U1. As I made very clear in my message here, this deletion does not absolve the editor of meeting their disclosure obligations under PAID moving forward, which they should do as soon as possible.

I'd encourage the community to give Thetransitguru a day or two to sort out these disclosures before taking any further action — but to be clear, nothing relating to the Cards84664 issue should be seen as precluding the community from taking whatever on-wiki action it deems necessary to resolve potential breaches of our editing policies (LLM, PAID, COI etc.) by Thetransitguru. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 16:19, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 16:48, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

I've tagged this thread with a Do Not Archive Until tag for 7 days to let this get sorted out. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 12:12, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. I updated my User Page with the {{User COI}} template to fully disclose my affiliation with City Club of New York.

Clarification on WP:PAID status: I'm not paid for this position. Therefore, I strictly fall under WP:COI rather than WP:PAID. To be clear, and to ensure full transparency per the administrators' requests, my User Page now prominently displays my affiliation using the Conflict of Interest template. I will also include disclosure of my other account, Youalmosthadit. Thetransitguru (talk) 17:44, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Persistent MoS violation and failure to communicate

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

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

Well, have you ever communicated your concerns to this person? And I don't mean "please stop violating WP:ALLCAPSBLUELINK". I mean writing out exactly what your concern is in easily understandable English without all-caps jargon randomly littered throughout. If not, maybe that would be a good first step. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:40, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

I will note that, despite a pile of notices and warnings, Xtools suggests they've only made one edit to talkspace - said edit was to reply to a block that explicitly called on them to be more responsive to feedback. nothing since. I'm not entirely convinced that they'll take note of any concerns... Rexo (talk | contributions) 01:01, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Throwing my opinion in here because I have stumbled upon their edits in multiple articles and thought they were odd, to say the least. This is Croystron’s 3rd ANI discussion and they have never responded to them. The only time they responded to their talk page was because they were temporarily banned. They have been editing pages since the notification for this ANI discussion was posted on their talk page. Maybe another short block will get their attention and they will finally respond. Afheather (talk) 09:16, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello again guys, right now, while I'm pretty sure Croystron's violated MOS:INFOEDU an awful lot of times, I'm not indeed sure if they've also violated MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE; so I've opened a discussion on WT:MOSIBX. Regards, Thedarkknightli (talk) 18:33, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Disruptive temp

I got the User:TeamMace account indeffed for blanking material critical of Nancy Mace from her article for what should be obvious reasons. Shortly after that, this IP which is very clearly a VPN started editing her page while making personal attacks against me elsewhere.[106][107] and has since repeatedly edited my comments[108][109][110][111] since then on the grounds that putting "trans rights" at the bottom on a legitimate ANI notice is 'abusing Nancy Mace'.[112] I verified that it was the same address in all of these cases using the temporary IP viewer, though they deny being the same and mischaracterize my addition to the ANI notice as something added after the fact and not something that was included in the original notice (which it was).[113] Anyway, I'm almost certain that it's just User:TeamMace because of the very obvious everything.

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

I'm not on a VPN. Removing unsourced material [114] is not a personal attack on you. You are being deliberately tendentious and trolling in adding unecesssary commentary to a legitimate ANI notice. This is intentional shit stirring and you know it.

Don't put 'abusing Nancy Mace' in quotes when I've said no such thing. ~2025-38455-28 (talk) 13:25, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Direct quote from your comment: It's pretty gratifying to know that Snokalok will be using up his time jumping at shadows and IP checking every temp account he comes across from now on.. You know I can see that it's the same IP, right? Snokalok (talk) 13:27, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia always assumes good faith. GarethBaloney (talk) 13:27, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

* Support Block Obvious Sockpuppetry by TeamMace. Tankishguy 14:04, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

I think TeamMace is just a COI/UPE editor, while the temp account looks like they've been around for a bit. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 14:17, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Update: Tagging @Drmies and @Sarek Of Vulcan.

So, I used IP viewer, and it turns out the user that'd been edit warring extensively using multiple sockpuppet temps that they claimed were different people on Girlguiding,[115][116][117] a page I had recently contributed to, and who later filed a motion to get an article I had created deleted at AfD and then logged in as a different temp and added "Delete" to inflate the number of deletions in bad faith[118][119], traces to the same location as the user this thread is about. Combine that with their prior comment of It's pretty gratifying to know that Snokalok will be using up his time jumping at shadows and IP checking every temp account he comes across from now on.,[120] and I think we may have a bigger issue on our hands. I don't think they're TeamMace anymore, I think they followed me there. Snokalok (talk) 23:40, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

That's entirely possible. Another range blocked. Drmies (talk) 15:55, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

And here [121][122][123]

And back on Girlguiding against because somehow that protection lapsed in a minute [124][125][126][127][128] Their latest game is to just take anything I add in, say the source doesn't support it when it directly does, and that it's undue, and revert as many times as they want, along with throwing any other policy words at it to make it stick. Also going to document the personal attack Drmies kindly deleted here, just for posterity.[129]Snokalok (talk) 16:22, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Because the source doesn't say what you claim it does synther. ~2025-38916-27 (talk) 18:40, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

And now they're going and removing any sections I wrote from other pages as well. Not even bothering to come up with a fake reason anymore. Anyway, I'm coding a bot to just auto-revert them. [130] Snokalok (talk) 19:07, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Now they're reverting admin restorations as well.[131]. At this point, I'm deploying the robot. If anyone objects, speak now or forever revert this disruptive individual in my stead. Snokalok (talk) 19:25, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

[Attack redacted] — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2025-38995-58 (talk) 19:33, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Wow what a an aspersion! How did this stalker not get their IP rangeblocked yet??? Is this an LTA?~212.70~ ~2025-31733-18 (talk) 19:39, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Don't spoil the fun buddy! I'm still wating for this robot! ~2025-38824-05 (talk) 19:51, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

And now we're onto slurs [132] Snokalok (talk) 19:55, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Anyway he’s back, edit warring the same content on Labour Women’s Network. He waited out the page protection and went the moment it was down. Snokalok (talk) 13:56, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

And at Lesley Stahl, now.[133] Snokalok (talk) 14:07, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Anyway, while they continue their harassment campaign on my page,[134], I shall affidavit here that given that they are a several

-times banned IP user who explicitly said they were doing this to cause me distress on the grounds of me being a “tranny”, I am allowed by wikipedia countervandal regs to continually revert him on the simple grounds of him being a banned user and a vandal - and I shall continue to exercise that right for as long as I see fit. Snokalok (talk) 14:57, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

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

I'm not saying they weren't correct in that diff, they were, just that they started editing immediately after TeamMace was banned. Also, check the IP, they're all the same location. Snokalok (talk) 14:24, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

We got it. Drmies (talk) 14:39, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Support Block Standard whack-a-Mace trollery. King Lobclaw (talk) 14:45, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

• UPDATE: I have reported several users on the above mentioned article at WP:AIV. Plasticwonder (Cat got your tongue?) 19:13, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Cambial Yellowing on Scientology

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

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

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

Those directed at me:

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

To participating editor Gitz6666:

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

To another participating editor, Kvinnen:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Are there issues with their editing outside of scientology? If not, I'd suggest a topic ban from scientology, broadly construed. Either way, the incivility and bludgenoining are entirely inappropriate and I may block over those. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:18, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Yes. Based on my rifling through their user talk page and ANI history, yes. However I don't participate in those and this ANI was lengthy enough to focus solely on this topic area in which we intersect, the nearest time frame, and a little historical background.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 21:50, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

I think I read somewhere they had gotten some other topic ban, and I see three page blocks on their block log.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 21:57, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

This isn't Cambial Yellowing's first rodeo:[135]

Most of the disruption involves Scientology, but this editor has also been a lesser problem on other pages. Comments like this[136] are not helpful whether or not the editor is correct on the facts. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:56, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Are there issues with their editing outside of scientology? Yes, Cambial figured in exchanges for which I was recently TBANned on another topic, but I'm unsure whether I can share the details without violating said TBAN. Any guidance would be appreciated here. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 15:52, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

I think I might have already linked to it in my vote. Blue Sonnet (talk) 17:01, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Oof! Yes, you linked to another Cambial incivility on Talk:Gaza genocide, and I see there several other insults directed at Tioaeu8943 on that thread, reminiscent of Cambial's remarks on scientology-topic talk pages. I wonder how many other editors have received sanctions because of "reacting" to Cambial's insults directed at them, or because Cambial repeatedly derailed discussions into multiple spinoff debates instead of staying on topic. The result is that editors get pulled in all directions, creating the appearance of disorder and noise. (That's based on my own observations and experiences of Cambial's disruptive effect in discussions.)   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 18:32, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Tioaeu8943 was TBANed for conduct beyond their interactions with Cambial. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:04, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

This is true, and I take full responsibility. There's nevertheless some truth to what @Grorp is saying in the prior comment. I was "reading the room" in a way that I shouldn't have. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 19:12, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Cambial has been misrepresenting sources on Breakbeat hardcore also, namely to repeatedly add an artist/song to a list that doesnt have notability. ~2025-39064-65 (talk) 23:29, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

I'm glad Grorg started this thread. I don't know much about Cambial's editing outside this topic, and I also know very little about past discussions on Scientology, since I've only started editing the article less than two weeks ago, but I've already had my fair share of uncivility, failure to AGF and also tendentious editing, including restoring WP:SYNTH and misrepresented sources. I plan to post more diffs tomorrow or by Saturday at the latest, as soon as I get them pulled together. In the meantime, I think this thread is relevant. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:45, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

I've tried to be as brief as possible, and to select diffs not already covered by Grorp. My concerns relate to 1) WP:CIVIL, 2) WP:DISRUPTIVE, 3) WP:TENDENTIOUS and WP:ADVOCACY.

1. As the diffs and quotes provided by Grorg and PARAKANYAA clearly show, WP:CIVIL is a real issue. I was particularly struck by the following episode. I discovered that between 2019 and 2020 Cambial had made a few edits containing WP:SYNTH and misrepresenting sources [137][138][139], and on 1 December 2025, with eight consecutive edits, I removed six sources from Scientology with detailed edit summaries. Cambial reverted only one of my edits, restoring one source, with the rather annoying edit summary Source removed on fabricated grounds [140]. Having managed to verify all but one of the sources used in Cambial's edits, I went to their talk page to highlight the issues and ask them to help me verify the missing one (Edge 2006). A lengthy discussion ensued, during which I repeatedly asked Cambial to provide a quote from Edge (1, 2, 3 and, on the article t/p, 4). They never responded. They could easily have said, "I'm sorry, I don't remember Edge, it's been a long time", or even, "Thank you for correcting my mistakes". Instead they hid behind accusations and long, resentful comments (not only your own groundless opinion, but frankly laughable ... I have no interest in discussing your highly partial personal views ... your failure to grasp fundamental elements of content policy ... your illogical double talk, facetious claims, and pointless sophistry in attempts to defend your misrepresentation of sources) without ever mentioning Edge.
2. Apart from incivility, in the short time I spent on Scientology and Church of Scientology, I noticed two occasions where Cambial deliberately restored misrepresented sources and unsupported text (SYNTH and OR). I say "deliberately" because I had already explained the issue affecting sources and content in detail, either with edit summaries or on the talk page. Note that what follows are not content disputes: this kind of editing clearly falls under WP:DISRUPTIVE.
   • Firstly, this revert [141] restores, along with several outdated primary sources, the source Hunt-de Puig-Espersen 1992, which is incorrectly described as European Council, Recommendation 1178: Sects and New Religious Movements, whereas it's actually a Danish politician (Espersen) giving his views in a 1992 debate at the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. I had already highlighted this misrepresentation in my edit summaries [142][143] and then, after Cambial's revert, I opened this thread - to no avail.
   • Secondly, these four consecutive edits [144] restore two misrepresented sources (Flinn 2009 and Urban 2021) and unsupported text/OR (advocates [of Scientology] engaging in lying), while also adding a further misrepresented source (Hammer-Rothstein 2012). Details are provided in this thread, plus verbatim quotations from sources in my sandbox here and here.
3. There is also a pattern of tendentious editing. Some of what follows is borderline, as it touches on genuine content disputes where reasonable disagreement is possible, but overall it reveals, in my view, a case of WP:POVPUSH. The last week is only indicative of long-lasting problems: note how much Scientology has changed and lost balance from the 2019 version prior to Cambial's first edit, to the current version. With 22.6% of the characters and 626 edits, Cambial is the first author of that article.[145]
   • 27 November 2025 restores a business, a cult, a religion, or a scam (instead of "a religion, a cult, a business, or a scam") from the opening paragraph of Scientology. In the edit summary and on the talk page, Cambial explains that the sentence should follow alphabetical order.
   • 27 November 2025 restores ridiculed.
   • 28 November 2025: given that the overwhelming majority of NRM scholars classify Scientology as a new religious movement (which is frankly obvious and almost non-controversial), Cambial argues that NRM studies are a relatively insignificant sub-discipline of sociology.
   • 2 December 2025, I had removed a UK minister's anti-Scientology statement from a 1992 House of Lords debate, which was misrepresented as supporting a list of high-level findings. Cambial restores this irrelevant/UNDUE primary source and adds in parliamentary debate to the article.
   • 2 December 2025 restores ridiculed.
   • 2 December 2025 restores nonsense.
   • 2 December 2025 restores invented.
   • Cambial describes Scientology's Dianetics in ways that express animosity and contempt, contributing to a battleground atmosphere and discouraging participation from good-faith editors with differing points of view: pseudoscientific bullshit (31 October 2025); bunk science, hogwash, and systems invented by the mentally ill (22 November 2025); pseudoscience worthy of ridicule (28 November 2025).

Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:59, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

I was pinged into the discussion -- I don't see a huge problem with the actual editing or speaking poorly of the book Dianetics. "Ridicule-worthy", "nonsense", "bullshit", and "pseudoscientific" are all fairly mainstream opinions for a "science" book that suggested talk therapy might cure leukemia. Hubbard was widely-alleged to be mentally-ill. But persistent incivility to other editors is always a problem. It doesn't matter how "silly" or even "dangerous" we find a person's beliefs: EVERYONE deserves respect. Feoffer (talk) 18:07, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

I can attest to the fact that Cambial Yellowing's general behavior has put me, at least, off from editing in the topic area. In a topic area such as this, it is natural that there will be disagreements, but most of the other editors I have noticed in the topic area, e.g. North8000, Grorp, Feoffer, even if I have disagreed with them at times, conduct themselves appropriately and all resolve the matter like reasonable adults.

Cambial Yellowing does not. They treat the whole topic as a battleground. It has made the editing experience in the topic area so unpleasant I have chosen to give it a wide berth with only limited exceptions, even if there are articles I would like to improve in it (e.g. about the many interesting books about Scientology). But when I asked myself: is it worth it? Is it worth dragging myself into this nightmare of a topic area? I found the answer was no. I saw the dispute on the Scientology article this week, wrote up a response, and decided it was not worth it. I assume the other editors who have quit the topic area have asked themselves similarly. Putting forward a point of view is one thing but the bludgeoning, the insults, it is not appropriate.

Also that insult towards Doug Weller is just disgusting, even if it was some years ago. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:46, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

@PARAKANYAA Where have I been uncivil to you? Cambial — foliar❧ 01:43, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

You have not, at least to my recollection, because I have elected to limit my involvement to prevent myself from getting dragged into this mess beyond what I consider necessary. My opinion comes from seeing how you have treated other editors in this topic area. I watch a lot more discussions in this topic area than I participate in for that reason. Walking on eggshells is an unpleasant experience. It can't even be said to be born of past resentments, because the things you said to Gitz, an editor new to this topic area who you had never interacted with before, are incredibly uncivil.

This entire exchange is ridiculous [146].

"that level of awkward unselfconsciousness is pretty astounding. Either you are pretending you find that comment uncivil, because you wanted to tell someone off to make yourself feel important"

"It's amazing that you recognised that repeating the same misrepresentations that you made in earlier responses is a waste of time, and then proceeded to waste time doing so anyway."

"I didn't claim you did so intentionally, I said it is difficult to understand how you misrepresented it so egregiously after, one naturally assumes, having read it. Did you read it?"

This is not an acceptable tone when speaking to other editors, and this was all in the past week. That there may not be individual "insult words" that you can single out and point at as some bright line does not mean that it is not a problem, the general tone is incredibly hostile. You can use polite or formal words to be uncivil, it is the meaning that matters, and it is obvious what you mean. You have continued this behavior for years, e.g. your comment to Doug Weller. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:00, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Let me start off by saying that this is going to be a toxic topic area whether or not Cambial Yellowing is around... But I've commented before that they seem to lean into/feed off of that toxicity rather than resist it. I've stepped away from the topic area for the most part for a while now but I am disappointed to see it continuing to spiral out of control (nobody drove me away, its just not a topic area with a good effort-result ratio). I would hope that a formal warning could bring them around, but barring that being successful I don't think that I could in good faith oppose at least a temporary topic ban. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:59, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Driving off multiple editors from a topic for months or years just isn't acceptable. Wikipedia runs and thrives on collaboration, if that process can't happen then everybody loses - editors, readers and the project as a whole.

Time-limited sanctions don't seem appropriate for long-term behavioural issues, and there is evidence of similar behaviour in other areas. If a TBAN were put in place, I suspect it's highly likely that the behaviour would escalate elsewhere.

I'm not voting for this yet as there's a lot of history to read through and this is a major sanction, but right now I'm having a hard time seeing any alternative to a CBAN. Blue Sonnet (talk) 01:13, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Grorp has an extremely long history of attacking me on article and project talk pages. I've lost count of the number of times I've asked them to keep discussion on article talk about content, in response to yet another accusation of bad faith from Grorp. That's the context for the seriously truncated - to the extent it mispresents the content - first quote. I will delineate that lengthy history, alongside some pretty serious and flagrant misrepresentation of sources, when I have some time in the next couple of days. I will also respond to the two diffs, presented as four, on my talk page in response to Gitz6666's posts there. Grorp also truncates these and strips them of context to misrepresent them.

My response to Kvinnen was intemperate. Kvinnen accused me of "continuously misunderstanding the intention" of a proposal. I have never commented on anyone's intention behind that proposal, nor ever mentioned intention - as I pointed out to Kvinnen - so will admit I found this quite annoying, putting not merely words but a whole topic in my mouth, that I've never written a word about. My response was not appropriate. That said, Grorp's claim that an edit summary template - with reference to a misleading summary - was "picking" on Kvinnen, is not correct, and there's no grounds for that characterisation. I was clear to Kvinnen that the issue was that the edit summary, not the edit content, was misleading, when they asked what was misleading about improving the wording of the article.

For now I will briefly note the first such exchange from Grorp: on Karin Pouw, Grorp notes that the sources are trivial mentions and the subject may lack notability. Noting Grorp's comment, I propose the article for deletion. Grorp deprods and indicates his reasoning on Wikiproject talk for this and a couple of other articles (minor books). I respond stating I don't think the redirects are that useful but I'll not dispute them, but I'll seek deletion of Karin Pouw based on the the lack of notability Grorp raised, and a related list article. I ask for his input the latter, and indicate the results of a search for indications of notability. Regular discussion so far.

Grorp posts this odd response, writing Jesus Fucking Christ! and expressing "exhaustion". I write that I'm happy to dig further in the literature and that I find the (non-content) part of the response bizarre.

Grorp responds by accusing me of gaslighting "your little gaslighting attempt looks bad on you." Then accuses me of "heavy POV-pushing" and "destructive edits." He claims that I "tried to push your POV by categorizing Hubbard's Scientology books as fiction and added pseudoscience" (this despite the well-known understanding they are pseudoscience). Grorp accuses me of this bad faith POV-pushing despite the fact that in response to his comments on the wikiproject on that issue, I acted in acccordance with his concerns and moved them to a different category. He writes "So if you really are clueless, then it's time to get a clue. And if you're not clueless, then you're doing all this deliberately. Either way, it's untenable, disruptive..." He cites not a single diff for these naked accusations of bad faith.

Later attacks on article talk follow a similar pattern, with increasingly aggressive accusations of disruption and bad faith e.g. accusing me of "sneaking in" content (by making well-sourced public edits to an open wiki (?)). I'll lay out that history shortly - Far more project-damaging than the naked accusations of bad faith are the claims about sources that are directly contrary to the facts.

I maintain that describing an argument that someone makes on article talk as "ridiculous" is not a personal attack. It is a comment on the quality of the argument, and plenty of similar comments have been directed at arguments I have made here. I never considered them uncivil, nor do I think editors saying "that's a silly/ridiculous argument" is considered uncivil generally. (As an example, Kvinnen writes that claiming that this word-change is not adherent to reliable sources is simply preposterous). Strongly worded, sure. But to argue that saying you think the point someone makes is "preposterous" or "ridiculous", is an attack or is uncivil, is reaching and has the appearance of WP:SANCTIONGAMING.

"Please refrain from groundless and absurd claims of incivility" is an appropriate response to an accusation of incivility by Grorp for the words "There is evidently a disconnect here" which are part of a discussion about seeking neutrality, are not an attack, and are not uncivil.

The talk pages that Grorp links to, ostensibly to show tendentious editing, do not indicate tendentious editing (Notability/Rename proposal/Archive page 33). I laid out my concerns with the article and aims for editing it here. At the time Grorp wrote that he agreed, but his subsequent edits, such as deleting whole article sections without leaving a summary, suggest he no longer agrees with those aims. Cambial — foliar❧ 01:30, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Cambial Yellowing, instead of making counter-accusations against other editors, can you explain the evidence compiled about how you respond to other editors? That would be helpful to read. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:39, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Agreed - @Cambial Yellowing I'm looking at your behaviour right now, Grorp isn't the only person who raised concerns over the way you interact with other editors.

Wikipedia is all about collaboration and working together, except multiple people have been unable to work with you to the point that they feel driven away from an entire topic area.

This has been happening over a long time and, being frank, it can't be allowed to continue.

Taking a comment from the thread that I'm currently reviewing, this is not how I would expect to be treated by another editor.

You were condescending and confrontational during the entire exchange, strongly inferring that the other editor lacked the ability to understand what was going on and you constantly talked down to them.

This is a continued pattern throughout your edit history.

On a collaborative project like Wikipedia, we should invite and welcome input from other editors. Even if we don't agree the merits of their argument, we should still respect the person making said argument.

I really want to advocate a topic ban rather than anything more severe, but I'm not sure I can do this unless you directly address the concerns raised above

Blue Sonnet (talk) 03:43, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello all, Thank you @User:Grorp for starting this discussion and mentioning me here. After my (few) exchanges with User:Cambial Yellowing, I stopped enjoying editing Wikipedia, and suddenly felt burdened logging in to find talk page bells with notifications. I mean no offense when I say this, but I would dread opening notifications if they were from Cambial and contemplate about ignoring them to retain my peace. Thankfully, I quit editing Scientology and this sad spell did not last long.

Scientology is a topic that I recently became interested in after listening to former Scientologists and their quitting journeys on Youtube. Naturally, as anyone using the internet would, I came to Wikipedia to find out more about this cult-like-religion.

I admit, I am not an experienced editor compared to some of the editors commenting here, but words like "nonsense" and "ridicule" right in the lead of an article that is supposed to briefly describe a subject seemed to fly in the face of WP:NPOV. This is a non-negotiable requirement for an article, even if the subject of the article has the reputation of being a destructive cult/religion. From the beginning, if someone wants to verify, this is all I had tried to correct.

Cambial Yellowing has also warned me in my talk page for using "misleading edit summaries"

Let me present the changes here:

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

I had replaced "rejected and ridiculed" with "broadly rejected". In my mind, this seemed to accurately and neutrally represent scientific consensus on rejecting Dianetics as anything approaching science, rather than a word like "hahahah" ridicule. And my edit summary was "Readability improved from sloppy sentences”. Please feel free to compare how that sentence read before and after I changed it. This is an edit, I assumed, Cambial would appreciate, as I believed I was helping the lead have some fluidity when readers attempted to read it.

As for Cambial Yellowing complaining that their comments being misrepresented, they have proceeded to the same to me. I do not understand how I put "a whole topic" in their mouth.

Cambial, in this discussion spoke as though the other editors and I were unwilling to call Dianetics what it is, pseudoscientific. The disagreement there was not about Dianetics being pseudoscientific. But rather, whether or not, the claim 'dianetics is pseudocscience' should be attributed to "experts in the field" or say so plainly with no descriptor to add strength to the non-neutral-sounding claim. I had opined that adding "expert opinion" or something in those lines would conspicuously draw attention to the fact that "Dianetics is pseudoscientific".

Cambial Yellowing: My response to Kvinnen was intemperate. Kvinnen accused me of "continuously misunderstanding the intention" of a proposal. I was merely pointing out the discrepancy between what User:Grorp tried to convey (they can confirm if I had understood their intention correctly) and what Cambial Yellowing had continued on to comment over there. I assumed good faith on Cambial's part, but considering the evidence above and how they communicate in general, it seems as though derailment of conversations and intentionally misconstruing others' words seem to be their MO.

I am shocked to see the horrible disfiguring of Doug's signature. I had recently come across their health-wise struggle somewhere and was moved to tears out of sympathy for them as I have lost my grandma to similar circumstances. Aren't they supposed to be experienced enough to know better than to desecrate someone's signature? This is the type of vandalism I revert on a daily basis. Disappointed to see this done to an editor I deeply respect by an editor who is supposedly civil and accusing others of incivility. Kvinnen (talk) 11:32, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

OK they're from 2022, but these two edits by CY, already linked above 1 and 2, need a lot of explaining away. Narky Blert (talk) 17:15, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

Proposal: Topic ban (Cambial Yellowing)

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

Support per all of the above. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:01, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

I'm also open to an uninvolved admin issuing up to a 2 week block for the incivility on top of a TBAN. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:06, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Per below, Cambial should be blocked for the blatant 3RR violation. Given their continued behavior in this thread, I think a 1 month block for incivility and battleground behavior should be imposed on top of the TBAN. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:31, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

3RR rule is about not doing more than 3 reverts in a 24-hour period. In what sense then are three edits, no two of which are within 24-hours of each other, a "blatant violation" of it? Indeed any violation of it. Cambial — foliar❧ 00:32, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

You're right, it's not a 3RR violation. You should still be blocked for edit warring. Doing so during an ANI thread about you is not a good move. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:55, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

• Support. This specific contentious topic area needs a reasoned and patient approach to collaboration. Augmented Seventh (talk) 04:03, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

  Scientology is not a CTOP. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:10, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

  noted. Augmented Seventh (talk) 04:27, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

  I'm sure that if CTOPs had been defined in the noughties then Scientology would have been designated one. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:27, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

  WP:ARBSCI did allow for discretionary sanctions, but they were lifted by motion a few years back for lack of use, iirc. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:28, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Support: It's really telling that Cambial started with deflection rather than an explanation. IMHO, a topic ban is damn mild faced with that level of incivility. Ravenswing 04:10, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

• Support topic ban and short block: In my opinion, the topic ban alone is too mild. A short (maybe a week?) block on top of the topic ban with a promise of longer blocks if the behavior persists will give Cambial Yellowing a clear message about what the requirements for editing Wikipedia are. I am especially concerned with the "It's OK to abuse other editors because of User:Grorp" argument. It has been my experience that Gorp treats everyone well, and in general is gentle and diplomatic with people who strongly disagree with them. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:24, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

  This is an unambiguously involved !vote by Guy Macon; tagging.[147][148][149] Cambial — foliar❧ 18:46, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

  You're not helping yourself by going on the offensive instead of responding to the concerns raised by many editors and committing to changing your conduct. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:04, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

  I'm not "going on the offensive" by tagging an involved !vote. The policy states to do so. This section runs to ~5000 words, the vast majority of which was posted while I was asleep or at work. Grorp evidently spent a significant amount of time putting his post together. Two admins, Liz and Blue Sonnet, have specifically requested I respond to the individual claims. Obviously a lengthy task, by which time I imagine this will already be decided anyway, so any effort to do so on my part will likely be wasted. But I assure you I'm not on the offensive. Cambial — foliar❧ 19:23, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

  Blue-Sonnet is not an admin. I am, though, and my warning was meant to redirect you to addressing your comments, rather than the !votes. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:29, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

  conduct, not comments voorts (talk/contributions) 19:29, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

  Yep, not an admin but a concerned fellow editor. An admin won't take action until there is a clear community consensus, and editors who've submitted a vote may well change their decision based on a well-reasoned and argued response.

  Unless you refocus and address the core issues of this complaint (your own conduct, not the conduct of others) then the outcome is pretty much set.

  Being completely honest, the time you spent writing about Grorp would have been better served addressing the points they raised instead - try to focus on the argument, not the arguer. Blue Sonnet (talk) 03:59, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

  So? This is a community discussion, not an admin action. WP:INVOLVED has nothing to do with it. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:24, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

  I haven't cited WP:INVOLVED, and Guy is not an admin, so you're right that it has nothing to do with it. I linked to CBAN which refers to " a consensus of editors who are not involved in the underlying dispute" and involved !votes can be tagged. Cambial — foliar❧ 19:34, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

  Ok, fair enough, thanks for the pointer. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:50, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

  I freely admit to being biased in favor of science and biased against pseudoscience (including Dianetics), and the closer should indeed take that fact into account. I even wrote an essay on it: WP:YWAB. I would also note that I have never advocated banning anyone for disagreeing with me, and in fact have praised Scientologists, UFO Believers, Homeopaths, ect. for presenting their positions in a calm. reasonable, and civil fashion. and opposed the tendency of some to gang up on them. I wrote an essay about that, too: WP:1AM. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:23, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

  Guy, it's good to have you back. EEng 03:34, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

• Support topic ban, oppose short block at this time. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:29, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

  Support block for edit warring during ANI discussion. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:59, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

• Support - I'm still concerned about their behaviour in other areas, including CTOP's, but we've had a few CBAN's recently so they should take this as both a warning and an opportunity to learn what is and is not acceptable on Wikipedia.

If they continue to be condescending and make things unpleasant for other editors, the line should be drawn then and there.

@Cambial Yellowing, I'm certain that you don't see things in the same way that we do. You feel that you were justified in speaking and acting in the way you did, otherwise it wouldn't have carried on for so long.

Please try to remember that you're talking to other human beings. Everyone deserves to be treated with respect, Wikipedia cannot function unless we talk to each other civilly and work together to come to a collective decision. One person alone isn't a consensus.

It's easy to assume the worst in others or go on the attack. It's much harder to be open-minded and welcome the input of those who have a different point of view to ourselves, even if we disagree with their reasoning. It takes skill and effort to be able to do that, for the sake of everyone involved (including yourself) please try to learn.

You can't keep treating people like this and it has to stop - the question is whether you choose to do so of your own accord, or have the decision made for you. Blue Sonnet (talk) 14:54, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Support additional block as per Voorts' comment. Blue Sonnet (talk) 00:50, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

• Support - as someone utterly uninvolved, and after looking through the various diffs presented, this feels pretty cut-and-dry to me. Honestly I'm inclined to agree with Ravenswing: a topic ban alone seems like a slap on the wrist by comparison. Emma (chats ✦ edits) 06:00, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
• Support: (I am the nominator; 72-hour update) Instead of addressing the incivility issue here, or improving civility on wiki, Cambial has simply stopped discussing but hasn't stopped disruptive editing. Since this ANI was posted, and after Cambial responded, they made two further reverts (second, third) to the same sentence they had first reverted, which led to a discussion between Gitz and Cambial before this ANI. Though I reverted their second revert saying Resolve this contested wording on the talk page, Cambial did not discuss, and made their third revert just today. Though incivility was a large part of how I framed this ANI report—because it was the most conspicuous behavior and the easiest to understand—the disruptive editing and edit warring aspects cannot be resolved by Cambial abstaining from all dialogue. The subsequent repeat-reverts indicate that this development (silence) is not a hopeful sign of willingness to resolve and collaborate.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 08:49, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

  I note that you included diffs for every edit to which you refer, except – if you wanted to give force to your claim of disruptive editing – the one that matters: "their third revert". That edit is not a revert. It rewords completely, and does not even reinsert the word "lying", previously used as a synonym for the source's word "dissimulation". This is exactly the kind of misrepresentation of facts, editor actions, and sources that we'll need to discuss at greater length either here or at AC. Cambial — foliar❧ 18:54, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

  No, what you need to discuss here is your aggressive editing that has forced people to leave the topic area. Threatening to go to ArbCom over this is not going to help you and I find it highly unlikely ArbCom would take a case from you at this point. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:09, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

  Cambial: Per WP:3RR, 'reverts' are further defined as "[...] edits that undoes or manually reverses other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a single revert". Since you've been to 3RRN twenty times, one must expect that you have read that. Plus, you had previously participated in a still-ongoing discussion about this very sentence on the talk page.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 20:29, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

  The edit doesn't do that. It doesn't reverse anything back to how it was prior to your edit. You had also participated in that discussion prior to your edit. Cambial — foliar❧ 20:52, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

  My point was that by you participating in the discussion earlier, it meant you were already aware that the sentence was contended and being discussed, but you made unilateral changes to it anyway (a revert) without further discussing it. That is edit warring, and is what 3RR & 3RRN are about. Facepalm .   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 22:14, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

  Just as you were aware it was contested when you unilaterally changed the first part to "some information", despite that the source says "a great many aspects". That edit isn't a revert - it didn't reverse anything. Cambial — foliar❧ 22:29, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

  This subthread is another demonstration of how Cambial derails discussions and provokes conflict; the essence of responses being (a) no it's not, (b) I don't understand that, and (c) it's all your fault. Getting sucked into these discussions is easy for someone assuming good faith because you want to answer someone's questions or clarify where it seems they have misunderstood what you wrote. But these exchanges never resolve, and engaging further becomes stressful and a huge waste of editor time — not because the points cannot be explained, but because the dialogue itself doesn't progress, unfortunately.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 23:14, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

  Please see my comment below, starting with the words "Rather than your current behavior..." where I address the above concern. In that comment I say "Whether or not you get topic banned will [...] hinge on whether you can show us that you understand why multiple editors are unhappy with you". It is highly improbable that everyone who disagrees is wrong and Cambial is right, 100% of the time. Most of us are right sometimes and wrong sometimes, not always wrong or always right. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:28, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

  Grorp actually included that diff - it's between the parentheses (second, third) - and that diff is clearly a revert, since it partially undoes Grorp's revert [150]: Some information ... is kept hidden becomes core texts ... are kept hidden. So they are correct in saying that that was you third revert: 02:23, 4 December 2025, 18:49, 6 December 2025, 23:43, 7 December 2025 Gitz (talk) (contribs) 20:42, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

  Does someone want to block for the 3RR violationedit warring (added 04:31, 9 December 2025 (UTC))? voorts (talk/contributions) 21:55, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

  I would definitely second the motion.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 22:13, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

• Support They have been very rough on other editors and have chased away editors. (disclaimer.....Overall I've had a lot of involvement at those articles but haven't looked at them lately due to a overall lower level of activity) I'd like to see them evolve in this regard. Maybe put an autoexpire on the first topic ban. North8000 (talk) 19:32, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

  I disagree on time limiting this. There's no indication that Cambial is going to change their ways and they should have to appeal when they want to try editing in the area of scientology again. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:35, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

I am no defender of Scientology. My bias is very strongly anti-Scientology -- I personally think that the leadership should be in jail for child labor trafficking and for denying children even a basic high-school education in order to get more work out of them -- but I wouldn't want Wikipedia to contain an article that reflects my personal bias. I want our coverage to be a NPOV encyclopedia article, not an editorial that I agree with.

That being said, User I am Grorp wrote something above that I strongly agree with:

"Over the last few years, I have watched Cambial edit the Scientology article by incrementally "bubbling up" derogatory material from lower in the article and into the lead until it has become so bloated with disparaging material that it no longer provides readers a simple explanation of Scientology (as it did in the pre-Cambial 2019 version, as pointed out by Gitz above). There have been numerous discussions about this, and in February 2025, an editor tried to move out some of the bloat from the lead. In my observations, a general pattern is that when another editor makes an edit, Cambial's response has been to either revert it or move derogatory material above the new content, pushing the new content further down the page. Numerous discussions about bloat or NPOV in the lead and article body have not resulted in any [lasting] change."

When I read that it pretty much matched my experience, and is one of the reasons I edit so little in this area. I don't see any answer other than an indefinite topic ban, leaving it up to Cambial to change their ways and convince us that they have in an appeal. I would like to see an experienced admin make a decision and close this. I just saw another wall of text on the Scientology talk page and I don't see this one resulting in any better result than the last 20 or thirty "discussions". --Guy Macon (talk) 02:08, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

That’s not a wall of text. At a guess I wrote about 100 -150 words. Grorp stated that he had no access to the source to see the paragraph/context from which a quote is taken. I quoted the relevant paragraphs either side. Cambial — foliar❧ 03:03, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Rather than your current behavior (wikilawyering pretty much every comment) I would much prefer to see an answer to the following, which was posted by Blue Sonnet on 14:54, 5 December and which you ignored.

Whether or not you get topic banned will not hinge on whether or not a particular post is or is not a wall of text. It will hinge on whether you can show us that you understand why multiple editors are unhappy with you. Here is the comment I want you to respond to:

"Cambial Yellowing, I'm certain that you don't see things in the same way that we do. You feel that you were justified in speaking and acting in the way you did, otherwise it wouldn't have carried on for so long.

Please try to remember that you're talking to other human beings. Everyone deserves to be treated with respect, Wikipedia cannot function unless we talk to each other civilly and work together to come to a collective decision. One person alone isn't a consensus.

It's easy to assume the worst in others or go on the attack. It's much harder to be open-minded and welcome the input of those who have a different point of view to ourselves, even if we disagree with their reasoning. It takes skill and effort to be able to do that, for the sake of everyone involved (including yourself) please try to learn.

You can't keep treating people like this and it has to stop - the question is whether you choose to do so of your own accord, or have the decision made for you." -- Blue Sonnet

There once was a drunk driver who was driving the wrong way on the freeway. Upon hearing on the radio (over the honking horns) that there was a drunk driver who was driving the wrong way on the freeway, he peered through his windshield, noticed all of the headlights heading toward him, and exclaimed "My God! There are DOZENS of them!!" --Guy Macon (talk) 04:14, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

• I ask that closer examine the claims of 3RR violation during the ANI discussion, seemingly taken at face value, and the claims of edit warring also taken at face value. I made one partial revert on the 6th, adding the relevant quote in the citation, and one edit on the 7th to add exactly what is described by the source as being “hidden” and use the source's word; nothing was reversed in the latter edit. Cambial — foliar❧ 03:03, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

User:Ahmeddahir1

• Ahmeddahir1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

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

• Jarar Zone (history) shows several users reverting their unsourced edits.
• List of districts in the Somali Region (Diff ~1320059957) used the "fixed typo" edit summary.
• Talk:Misraq Gashamo (Diff ~1321987624) is not helpful.
• The user came to my attention due to DoorDash Girl controversy (Diff ~1325846215) which makes literally no sense whatsoever.
• I'd rather not list every single one of their edits.

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

After reverting some more unsourced questionable edits, only 3 out of their 58 edits remain live. I suppose Somali Region (Diff ~1323975493) and the two follow-up edits to correct that list entry are constructive. Every other edit they made has been reverted. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 19:13, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with this user besides the edit I reverted this morning, but having looking at the other diffs linked here and their gibberish edit summaries, I'd also second everything said here. Definitely seems that this user is WP:NOTHERE. Katniss May the odds be ever in your favor ♥ 22:28, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

It appears this user is also using multiple accounts to make their nonconstructive edits. They reached out about the edit from the diff linked above on my talk page this morning as Aimirjan, and they indirectly confirmed in their message that they are using multiple accounts. Katniss May the odds be ever in your favor ♥ 13:08, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

KatnissEverdeen, Aimirjan doesn't seem related to me. See Talk:Abd al-Wahab Mirjan#Mirjan or Murjan, Abdul or Abd al. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 19:01, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

I just want to say I am so sorry. This was totally a mix-up on my part, and you are correct that Aimirjan has no relation to this situation. I mixed up the two situations and mistakenly assumed the user reaching out this morning was the same as Ahmeddahir1. It is clear that my sleep deprivation has affected my editing, so I will be taking an edit break until I can get my personal life sorted out. I am mortified that I reported the wrong user and just want to apologize again for the mishap. Katniss May the odds be ever in your favor ♥ 20:40, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Looks like this is still happening. [151] Sugar Tax (talk) 20:05, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Blocked from mainspace until they satisfactorily respond to the concerns. I invited them to respond. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:17, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Persistent incivility, personal attacks, and disruptive editing by user Hogshine in ACAS topics

I am reporting user @Hogshine for a sustained pattern of uncivil conduct, personal attacks and disruptive editing which is poisoning discussion and preventing constructive work on articles related to (ACAS) subjects. This follows from an earlier ANI where both of us were warned by Asilvering. The warning notwithstanding, Hogshine's behavior has continued to escalate, now drawing another editor into conflict and making consensus impossible. The immediate context is the dispute at Jacob of Edessa talk page, but the core issue is his conduct.

1.Personal Attacks and Incivility

Hogshine takes the course of personal insults, without any discussion on content. This creates an environment that is hostile to collaboration. He has accused me of being:

- "intentionally dishonest"

- "serious case of lack of competence”.

- repeatedly insinuated that I am part of a "meat/sockpuppet network”.

- Engages with backhanded, uncollegial remarks "I'm being charitable towards you (again), try to be charitable back for once” (1 & 2)

- ''Your contributions to this project are minimal'' and "gaming the system to rack up edit counts”

- "I don't think you're here to build an encyclopedia"

2. Disruptive Editing and "Ownership" of Articles. 

Hogshine's method seems to be article content control and disregarding other editors a true cause of edit warring and stagnation. When editor @777network made a good faith correction to fix a citation, Hogshine reverted them and dismissed discussion with "I'm all out of ways of telling you need to discuss such edits...”. (see diff)

This set off a revert war (see this 1 & 2). Hogshine's continued insistence on his version, while making token concessions, reveals a pattern of WP:OWN style article ownership, where edits from others are viewed as intrusions to be reverted.

This has resulted in a poisoned collaborative atmosphere. Simple tasks such as correcting a citation error, exploded into multi-editor conflicts. Discussion threads become mired in personal friction, and policy-based arguments such as 777network's correct point about WP:OR are met with defensiveness rather than collaboration. This made me no longer engage in the talkpage since zero productivity was meet.

I tried my best to have an adult and respectful dialog with Hogshine but unfortunately he made it impossible due to his behavior. This pattern of conduct is the biggest single factor preventing improvement of the article. I therefore ask the administrators to review this pattern and take whatever appropriate measures to curb the incivility and disruptive editing, so that constructive work can proceed. Historynerd361 (talk) 15:13, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

@Historynerd361, This is your second ANI against me in less than a month. Old one here: [152]
Let's take a look at each accusation, shall we?

without any discussion on content This is simply not true when I have contributed more than anyone to the discussions. It is actually you who consistently ignored my requests despite being tagged. [153]

- "intentionally dishonest" / - "serious case of lack of competence”. You have:
• Completely missed the fact that a citation was wrong, only realizing after much time & replies [154]
• Failed to notice the new citation in Jabril ibn Bukhtishu, which resulted in a violation of your warning [155][156]
• In the previous ANI ([157]), you made the following statements: The two sources added by Hogshine does not support the terminology of the term Assyrians // Add to that the whole section was not even supported by the source // The first source has been added wrongly, only a quote is visible not where the source is form — all are demonstrably false.
How else would you objectively explain these inconsistencies if not WP:CIR and/or WP:DISHONESTY?

Engages with backhanded, uncollegial remarks relevant user has threatened me and called me a shit-talker before [158]

repeatedly insinuated that I am part of a "meat/sockpuppet network”. And I will do it again: your edits are identical to theirs, on the same articles, utilizing the WikiProject of the puppetmaster, and you were indicted with a "Possible" in the relevant SPI (twice) [159][160]

gaming the system to rack up edit counts I will simply leave these here [161][162]. Twice I reminded you to reply to this comment [163] asking you to voluntarily declare that you won't edit WP:GS/KURD articles, and you ignored it. [164][165]

When editor @777network made a good faith correction to fix a citation, Hogshine reverted them and dismissed discussion with "I'm... That's not what happened (see my point about competence/dishonesty? Which is it now?). The talk page post "I'm all out of ways..." came after this [166] revert, not the "good-faith" citation fix. 777network took it upon themselves to edit the page when consensus has not been reached. In fact, we're still waiting on them to reply here [167].

The rest of the above post can be simply refuted by the fact that I have faithfully engaged in the dispute resolution process on the talk page (unlike either user, HN and 777). [168].

@Historynerd361 clearly has a personal bone to pick with me, given the false nature of these accusations and how this is the second ANI in less than a month. Presumably, they're not satisfied with my objections to their consistent POV‌ edits and want me out, despite my contibution history showing I've been both faithful to the sources and constructive. HN's contribs, meanwhile, recently constitutes a bunch of dummy edits to their draft. ~ Hogshine (talk) 20:48, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

@Hogshine: (Non-administrator comment) On that last point (and nothing else, I haven't read the full discussion yet), Historynerd361 was brought to ANI less than a month ago here because of those edits. Personally, I think that they were just having technical issues. Since that discussion, all of their edits to the draft have been constructive. Chess enjoyer (talk) 21:20, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

I just saw that you already linked to the discussion. I maintain that it was probably an honest mistake. Chess enjoyer (talk) 21:31, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

I don't really buy that it was a technical issue. Adding a WikiProject banner does not produce/delete spaces, showcased by your own edit. [169].
Moreover, I don't believe that such insignificant edits seconds/minutes apart are particularly constructive [170][171][172][173][174]... It's best to see the page history rather than I link each one [175] ~ Hogshine (talk) 21:33, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

@Hogshine: Yeah, I was a little confused by the spacing thing, but I just attributed that to them having issues with the visual editor (which I admittedly don't use much). I get where you're coming from about the consecutive edits, but different editors have different ways they prefer to edit a page. There's nothing wrong with making small edits over the course of multiple edits as opposed to making one large, sweeping edit. None of the edits since the ANI report were dummy edits. Chess enjoyer (talk) 22:06, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

@Hogshine, please stop accusing me of threatening you; this is clearly not the case. You linked to a discussion on @Asilvering talk page, but that discussion actually proves my point. I specifically asked Asilvering if saying "this is the last time I am saying this" was considered a threat, and they confirmed it was "perfectly fine." Please stop misrepresenting the situation and slandering my name. 777network (talk) 21:58, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

It is not actually perfectly fine when combined with the talk page discussion that went on. You can ask me to stop, but with this [176] implying that if I don't you'll report me, that's where the threats are from. Moreover, I am under no obligation to actually stop pointing your disruptive behavior if it's ongoing; in this case the use of LLM to write articles for you that contain copyvio [177] & bogus citations [178]. What is the endgoal of the discussion if you won't acknowledge that your sources were mis-cited due to ChatGPT mixing them up? ~ Hogshine (talk) 22:27, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Yes, me asking for advice on how to go forward with these accusations and attacks was to Asilvering, not threats to you.

And I'll also say this one more time to not further BLUDGEON this report, I have not used AI, when I was notified about it, the admins/editors pointed out that they think I had taken the text as-is from the source and worked from there, but not changed it up enough, which is the case. Regarding the mixing of citations, I've answered it further below. I've told you numerous time; I have not used AI. 777network (talk) 22:34, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

I can see no connection to the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service, so what do you mean by "ACAS"? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:39, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

@Phil Bridger here WP:GS/ACAS. Rambling Rambler (talk) 21:44, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:58, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

I was meant to bring this up in another venue (WP:AE), but since I noticed there is already an ANI filed against him, I thought I could include it here.

Accusations/personal attacks Hogshine seems to throw accusations and aspersions so constantly that it is starting to look like personal attacks. In every response he made on Michael the Syrian’s talk page, some accusation was dropped: not in good faith, POV, rule-breaking, gaming the system, AI.

He has said things such as:

"I don't think real 'scholars' as you self-proclaimed wholly use ChatGPT to write their works."

"You want include poorly written AI-generated niche opinions."

"Good faith was assumed and handed to you on a silver plate, but you've proven otherwise."

"This is what happens when you use ChatGPT to write your articles for you."

"It is you who wants to shoehorn poorly-written AI content."

At this point, I told him to stop the accusations: "Enough with the AI slanders."

However, he did not stop and instead told me that Wikipedia might not be for me: "It is not my concern what you tolerate when it's true, you keep doing it, and you keep saying it to me. If you're going to get emotional with every single disagreement, maybe this place isn't for you." He then ended the sentence with "Take it or leave it" in a discussion about consensus.

I then told him a second time to quit his allegations: "Stop with your allegations, I've told you twice now. Also, don't say 'when it's true..."

He kept doing it, adding more fuel to the fire, and again told me to stop being emotional: "I'll stop when it stops being the case, @777network. I'm not bashing you with these; you need to learn how to be less emotional in these discussions."

I answered: "As for the allegations, this is the last time I’m going to tell you to stop with them. You don’t get to throw them every response you do and claim they’re true and that you’ll stop when 'it stops being the case.' It’s not about being emotional, it’s about knowing where the line is drawn. Also, if I am emotional about it, I have every right to."

He then twisted this and responded that I was being threatening: "Being threatening is not a good look (see WP:THREATEN)."

After I explicitly laid out what the sources state and what the text added to the article says (which is completely supported), he ignored it, waited 10 days, and reverted, saying no consensus had been reached. I did not expect a consensus to be reached when one party seems to be pushing a POV against something that goes against his POV. Note that he has been warned about this before. He used to create multiple source-text integrity issues, rendering Syriac in the source as Assyrian, and when it was fixed, he kept reverting. Since the warning asilvering gave, he has stopped doing that, but he has not stopped pushing POV and objecting to everything Aramean.

I will admit that I’ve called him out for pushing a POV, but to be clear, I explicitly stated in a reply to him that I believe all editors have a POV. Given that he had already been called out on this by admins and other non-involved editors, I felt that my suspicions were validated.

More recently, he involved himself in a discussion I was having with asilvering that was completely unrelated to him. He joined in, threw allegations that I had broken my warning (I hadn't), and referred back to the 'threat' issue I mentioned above. He also claimed I called him a shit-talker (where?) and even ended by casting aspersions on asilvering, claiming they had given me the 'blessings' to do so: "You've already threatened and called me a shit talker with Asilvering's blessings before, let's not stoop that low again."

POV objection to sourced content:

His first objections to the Michael the Syrian and Bar Hebraeus material were for copyvio reasons. After the copyvio was fixed, he then opted for the "no consensus" and WP:BRD reasons, despite WP:BRD-NOT saying otherwise. His POV has been noted by others who joined the discussion on the copyvio reasons, stating:

"...obviously Hogshine wants it removed for another reason. It's transparent that they cite WP:CVREPEAT in a first time warning because they are itching to eject an opponent from the topic area." [179]

He denied this, accused the person of throwing aspirations, however an admin then stepped in and stated:

"...is so transparently true I would strongly caution you about implying that anyone else is casting aspersions here..."[180]

I've left a complete break down on the content in the article of Michael the Syrian and compared it to the sources used, to outline and demonstrate as clearly as possible that it's fully supported, I've since been left with no reply and his version is still standing on the article. He also objected to the inclusion of content on Michael the Syrian and Barhebraeus, making the sections WP:UNDUE. I lifted this multiple times:

"If your “neutral” version omits the Aramean material entirely, that itself creates WP:UNDUE weight. The aim is WP:DUE: include all significant, well-sourced viewpoints."

"Your version basically want to eliminate him being Aramean and him not proving an Assyrian identity of his time. We must present all significant viewpoints, please see WP:DUE. If you think there is WP:UNDUE, please state what you think we should give more weight to."

His reasons to not include the content was because of different opinions on Assyrian continuity to which I replied with: "Assyrian continuity is not the topic here; we are discussing Michael’s Chronicle directly."

He did an edit on Jacob of Edessa, where he first removed a sentence that is supported by sources and has been in the article for years. The sentence included the word "Aramean." [181]

After he was reverted on that part, a new section about identity was created in the article. Everything was believed to be sourced. [182]

He then labeled a change he made as a "rv uncited info,". Regarding the Aramean part that had been in the article for years, after noticing he could not get rid of it, he moved it from the lead all the way down to veneration.

He was again reverted on this, but his changes to the language section were kept after the concerns he raised on the talk page. This, too, was reverted yet again by Hogshine, who stated it was still not cited.

After I made one revert, which was also my only revert on Jacob of Edessa, he reverted it, claimed I was edit warring, and proceeded to give me a warning on my talk page. [183] This is not the first time he gives out warnings of this kind for ungrounded reasons, remember the WP:CVREPEAT warning he had given me as a first time warning. I let his version be.

A discussion then took place on the talk page of Jacob of Edessa, where it was shed to light that I had confused two sources under the same title (The Syriac World), after the source had been source-article checked for verifiability on the talk page, I proceeded to restore the version, but this time with the correct source. I also added new information, with the correct references attached.

Hogshine then comes in and again changes the Identity section. He moves the sentence "He is considered to be one of the most important scholars of the Christian Aramean tradition." from the lead to the veneration and legacy section, which I assume is for POV-related reasons. He also engages in WP:OR by trying to break the link between “Syrian” and “Aramean” and “Arameans in Syria”, even though the source explicitly states that "‘Syrian’ and its synonym ‘Aramaean’ could specifically denote the putative descendants of the biblical figure Shem or his son Aram...". He removes the new sentence and supporting reference that Jacob saw his people as descendants of Aram, again for what appear to be POV-related reasons.

I reverted this because it lacked a valid rationale and instead introduced WP:OR and removed cited material that had not been discussed on the talk page. Hogshine then reverted back to his version. On Michael the Syrian, Hogshine reverted my version on the grounds that new material requires prior consensus. On Jacob of Edessa, however, Hogshine is now insisting that Hogshine’s own version, which lacks consensus and departs from the discussed text, should not be reverted and is telling others “do not revert just because you do not like it,” even though that version has been challenged as WP:OR.

Case A: When he wants to BLOCK content (Michael the Syrian), he enforces a strict interpretation of WP:ONUS and consensus. He reverted my version on the specific grounds that new material requires prior consensus.

Case B: When he wants to KEEP his own changes (Jacob of Edessa), he completely exempts himself from the standard above. After he introduced disputed changes that altered long-standing text (without consensus), he refused to revert. Instead, he is now telling others “do not revert just because you do not like it,” insisting his version must stay while under discussion.

Contradiction: If the standard is "you need consensus before changing the article," then Hogshine’s version on Jacob of Edessa is a violation and must be reverted.

If the standard is "do not revert just because you do not like it," then my sourced version of Michael the Syrian was wrongly reverted and should be restored.

He flips between these rules solely to maintain control over the narrative: invoking "consensus" to block others, but ignoring "consensus" to protect himself. 777network (talk) 21:50, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

WP:WALLS

Accusations/personal attacks These were not attacks. They were objective facts pointed out to you. Were you not using AI? You proceeded to WP:THREATEN me with reporting me if I don't stop. Won't you stop using LLM to write articles for you, which caused you to copyvio [184] and insert fake citations [185]?

objecting to everything Aramean‌ I literally agreed to your version on Jacob of Edessa [186]. You are throwing aspersions.

claimed I called him a shit-talker (where?) Here [187], as I pointed out above. The rest of the linked threat tackles the other objections in the paragraph.

His POV has been noted by others [...] an admin then stepped in And both the accuser and admin were wrong about this, as I explained [188]. It was an aspersion with no evidence, and the admin quoted the wrong part of my reply.

For Michael the Syrian, I followed the regular consensus/lack thereof process. No consensus was reached, you were reverted a week later after constantly repeating yourself.

For Jacob of Edessa, you published your edit before consensus was established, which caused all these issues. I was well within my right to revert you. Otherwise, I demonstrably followed protocol to the letter, and in fact we're still waiting for your reply, which you keep ignoring. [189]

For non-involved users, it's good to see the previous SPI where both users were implicated as "Possible", and now they — like the banned puppets — are pushing the same content verbatim, on the same articles, and tag-teaming for consensus. ~ Hogshine (talk) 22:14, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Hogshine, you keep proving my point. I never said anything about what I would do if you did not stop accusing me, I simply said it is the last time I'll mention it. We already have had an admin saying me saying so was perfectly fine, here you go: [190]

And like I said on its talk page, no, I did not use a AI, me citing the wrong source was a genuine human mistake on my end which I took accountability for. I explicitly said that I probably had read the correct source on archive.org, and when going to use the source as reference, I googled for the Google Books link, first result is the other "The Syriac World" book, to which I must have used.

I am not part of a sock-network, stop it. I am not sure how everyone but you can be wrong, allegedly both me and Historynerd361, the non-involved copyvio-helping editor and an admin have been wrong according to you...

As for the double standard I noted, we can let non-involved editors see for themselves. 777network (talk) 22:29, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Just going to let you know that it's blatantly obvious that you used AI‌ to write it for anyone with eyes to see. All the tells are there.

I am not sure how everyone but you can be wrong I've explained it without pushback from either admin or accuser. They were wrong and that can be seen.

Also, in that same thread, you were repeatedly told to undo & engage in talk page discussions first, which you haven't done. In fact you proceeded to undo the reversion. [191] ~ Hogshine (talk) 22:35, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

@Historynerd361, @Hogshine, if you do not get a resolution here (and I expect you may not), and this is archived without action, I recommend filing at WP:AE. -- asilvering (talk) 03:13, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Donation

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

---

I've noticed there's a banner at the top of the page asking for donations. It states that you "haven't yet hit your goal" during your latest fundraiser. I am a gentleman of reasonably HNW who would be willing to help you out, but there would be certain strings attached. Happy to discuss further. ~2025-38989-48 (talk) 15:49, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

You can donate here, although the Foundation will very likely not accept donations with "strings". • a frantic turtle 🐢 16:03, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, I will contact them directly. I suspect they will want to hear me out. ~2025-38989-48 (talk) 21:00, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Firstly you're asking in the wrong place. Wikipedia editors and administrators write the encyclopedia, but have nothing to do with donations. If it was up to me I'd say "fuck off" to anyone who asked for any strings to be attached, however H their NW. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:09, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Well then if it were up to you, "Phil Bridger", I doubt the WMF would be receiving a single solitary cent. ~2025-38989-48 (talk) 20:59, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

As it says at the top of the page, This page is for urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems so unless you're a chronic troll, you're in the wrong place. NebY (talk) 16:40, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

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

• HNW = Haughty Narcissistic Wealthy? Has Numerous Wines? EEng 20:54, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

  Provided you're not asking in jest, I assume that would be High Net Worth. I've tried to come up with some other funny backronyms (W for Wikimedia, maybe?) to make it worth your while to click on this in case you did know what it means, but I've failed, so sorry if that's what happened. JustARandomSquid (talk) 21:36, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

  Oh no, don't apologize. I actually did not know what HNW means, and it was just by complete chance that I came up with those phrases that relate to wealth and its costly hobbies. EEng 03:36, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

  In today's world, there seems to be a new abbreviation to make you go WTF every time you turn around, and if you don't figure out what they mean PDQ you can easily find yourself SOL. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:52, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

  I had 'humorous naughty witticisms', but that was moreso to appeal to EEng's interests than any serious guess as to the meaning. Mr rnddude (talk) 20:48, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

  Good one. EEng 22:21, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Vandalism by Chrisahn

Few days ago, one RFC discussion was closed by one of the administrators, with the majority of participators voting for option A.

But User:Chrisahn claims that the RFC was illegitimate, and that the consensus wasn't reached. Thus he started en mass undoing of already implemented changes. As of now, i think he undid pretty much every single one.

Please help to establish, was the RFC closed or not? If it was, I urge the administration to restore changes and take action to punish this user. Gigman (talk) 18:46, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Several editors have expressed their concerns with the RFC close. See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Baltic states-related articles#Consensus still needed?. Until there is actual consensus, mass changes are not justified. — Chrisahn (talk) 18:50, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

I asked Glebushko0703/Gigman to stop, and another editor did as well. See User talk:Glebushko0703#Stop mass-changing Baltic birth places. Unfortunately, G doesn't seem to care what others think and instead says "I'm free this saturday, and got plenty of time". Sounds like G doesn't really want to collaborate. — Chrisahn (talk) 18:55, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

I stopped right after you asked me, but i've made some changes before this. Gigman (talk) 18:56, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

You didn't actually stop. You went ahead and reinstated your mass edits. — Chrisahn (talk) 19:00, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

And in that exact topic you sent, Rosgull (admin) tells you that the result is legitimate for now, but you ignore him and undo changes anyway. In my opnion you have earned yourself a ban. Gigman (talk) 18:55, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Rosguill wrote "if the close stands". Note the word "if". Other editors also responded to Rosguill and voiced concerns. — Chrisahn (talk) 18:59, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

They are not "other editors", they are your friends you bring to battle for you country LOL.

Neutral opinion must establish is RFC worth revisiting or not, but until then the consensus rules. Gigman (talk) 19:12, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Please do provide some evidence that Chrisahn (who I have never interacted with to my knowledge) brought me or anyone else who responded to "battle". Otherwise please strike this. Thanks. LordCollaboration (talk) 23:36, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

@Glebushko0703: I understand that you are frustrated, but please do not cast aspersions, such as accusing editors of colluding to battle for [their] country. Remember to assume good faith, and if you really think they are working together, find some evidence. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:05, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

We don't punish editors. Anyways, the basic question is - Should a RFC result be implemented or not. GoodDay (talk) 18:52, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

There is no RFC result. There was a vote count, but that's not how Wikipedia works. — Chrisahn (talk) 18:56, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

There is the RFC result. The result is A. You had your vote. Gigman (talk) 18:57, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

You obviously don't understand how Wikipedia works. "You had your vote" — that's not how it works. — Chrisahn (talk) 19:01, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

I know that wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and I know the infobox formation rules. And now thanks to RFC i also know that the majority of people here (except you) knows that too.

It's literally you and couple of your friends vs everyone. Wiki is not a place for your anti-soviet pov push. Leave it for reddit. Gigman (talk) 19:06, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

That last sentence is not an appropriate response and I suggest that you strike it asap. Blue Sonnet (talk) 19:16, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for rewriting that, although you should usually strike comments and not rewrite them after someone's replied - it now looks like I'm overreacting a bit when the original version was different to this one. Blue Sonnet (talk) 19:26, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Will anyone do something about the situation we have here? Or is it just a place for commenting on my crude humor? Gigman (talk) 19:29, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Chrisahn, the correct way to challenge an RFC closure is at WP:AN, rather than mass reverting changes. See WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 20:13, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

P.S.: Of course, the "vandalism" accusation is nonsense, but never mind. Glebushko0703 doesn't seem to know (or care) how Wikipedia works, and what words like "vandalism" and "consensus" actually mean. — Chrisahn (talk) 19:05, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Apparently, Glebushko0703/Gigman wants to start a "war" against me. Special:Diff/1326041480. — Chrisahn (talk) 19:34, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

You did it first when you ruined my notifications with your undos for no reason. But you can apologise anytime you want and i'll throw you a peace proposal. Gigman (talk) 19:57, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Input from @Beland: (the RFC closer), would be helpful. GoodDay (talk) 19:55, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Folks, we're required not to make personal attacks as is happening above. Please focus your comments on the procedural questions rather than personalities, and keep things civil.

Sorry for the confusing close message, but to clarify, yes, consensus was reached for option A. Editors should feel free to implement the consensus obtained in the RFC. As far as I know there's no rule against doing so even if the result is being challenged, if you don't mind your work potentially being undone later. (You can judge the likelihood of that for yourself.) I pointed out there's a possibility of a future discussion getting consensus to add a footnote to the chosen format. That's optional, can easily be added later, and discussion or non-discussion of that shouldn't prevent conversion to the preferred format.

In the interest of having one discussion and not four, I will discuss the rationale for the close at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Baltic states-related articles#Consensus still needed?. -- Beland (talk) 20:30, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Does this incident qualify as Vandalism from Chrisahn's side, and can changes he reverted be restored? Gigman (talk) 21:10, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Vandalism is when someone makes disruptive edits with the intention of being disruptive. Edits made with the intention of improving Wikipedia, whether the edit is in fact helpful or not, are not vandalism. QwertyForest (talk) 21:21, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

His edits weren't helpful, he just undid a bunch of correct edits for no reason. Gigman (talk) 21:57, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

It is useful to remember that blocks are intended to be preventative, not punitive. It appears the mass reverts have stopped, so there isn't particularly a reason to block. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 22:06, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it looks like the edit warring hasn't stopped [192], nothing has been prevented or learned. 21:23, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Evidence of socking

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

---

A new editor (@Koduka55:) joins Wikipedia & attempts to revert Boland's closure? Something isn't right. GoodDay (talk) 22:33, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. It looks like an obvioous sock. Perhaps a checkuser would sort this out. Toddst1 (talk) 00:25, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Now at SPI. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:38, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

It seems they have decided to counter that with an SPI of their own. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 01:25, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Indeed. GoodDay (talk) 02:01, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Honestly, if Beland had actually been able to juggle seven distinct identities for two decades and more than three million edits, while maintaining multiple independent admin sockpuppets, I'd be extremely impressed and in awe of that level of ability and stamina. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 02:39, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

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

Bad-faith edits from Horse Eye's Back... again

Horse Eye's Back (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Back in July, Horse Eye's Back (talk · contribs) was brought to ANI for a pattern of bad-faith editing. User @Salvio giuliano: closed the discussion as a "final warning".

My encounters with HEB began in July 2025 when they tagged U.S. Route 131 with {{primary sources}}, then went on a tirade across various Michigan highway articles with similar tags. This included both of the discussions seen here, where @LilianaUwU: called out HEB for drive-by tagging; HEB claimed the tags were "self obvious" and didn't need a discussion.

Further down the page, they also challenged my removal of their {{More citations needed section}} from the exit list. Again, U.S. Route 131 is a featured article. I have never seen a highway article require citations at the junction list, unless it's for cases like an exit being removed or added or, in the case of this particular highway, a recent rename of a crossroad. When I asked what needed to be cited, they responded literally everything else and I've never seen anyone cite a road. When I pointed out the incredulity of their argument, and questioned what citations would satisfy their needs, they just shrugged it off with Thats not my problem. There is no special standard for this unless I am mistaken... That it can't be done without OR is not an excuse for OR. This alone is absurd, but it goes way deeper.

On Interstate 275 (Michigan), also an FA, they put the same tags on. In the discussion, where they continued to dodge the question and claim the tags were "self obvious" and didn't need clarification. This just led to more circular arguments before I gave up.

By my count, HEB tagged about 20-30 Michigan highway articles (every single one of which is GA- or FA- class) for {{primary sources}} in July 2025, all of which have since been removed.

All of this fed into HEB's claims that maps are primary sources and should not be used in highway articles to verify things such as highway alignment. They tagged multiple Michigan highways, almost all FA- or GA-class, with {{primary sources}} and/or {{notability}}, not once touching discusison pages unless another editor such as myself stepped in first. From what I witnessed, all other editors (see LillianaUwU's edits too on U.S. 131) were met with the same responses: confrontational badgering or ignorance.

On July 15, another editor (@Guerreroast:) called out HEB for their tagging, where HEB claimed that the previous GA nominations were improperly done, and that "five years ago" the community decided maps are primary sources. I was unable to find what discussion this was in reference to. @The ed17: joined the discussion and likewise claimed HEB should gather consensus before mass drive-by tagging articles, to which HEB tried to pull the old "I am rubber, you are glue" argument by saying If you are not willing to have a discussion of each edit then aren't you the one doing drive by editing? I also joined this discussion by pointing out again the frivolity of their "primary sources" argument, which led to the same waffle about "you can cite a map" even though they had previously claimed doing so at all is OR of a primary source. They then tried to go after Ed17 again with the same "no, YOU're the one mass drive-by editing!" argument.

At Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Using maps as sources, unless I am misreading this extremely long discussion, it seems there is a consensus that maps are being used appropriately as sources on highway articles and there are no concerns with original research, synthesis of ideas, or other impropriety as a source.

In the past couple days, HEB returned to reinstate a drive-by {{primary sources}} tag I removed, and reinstate one at the GA-class M-218 (Michigan highway) around the time JustARandomSquid (talk · contribs) filed a GAR for similar "are maps OR?" concerns as HEB. Naturally, HEB has tried to weaponize this as proof they were right, although as far as I can tell, JustARandomSquid is acting in good faith and was unaware of HEB's concerns.

Since then, they have:

1. Repeatedly gone around and reinstated tags that got removed. When I politely asked them to stop, I was met with the same haranguing and bad-faith arguments as usual.
2. Randomly jumped into the M-218 GAR with [Using maps as a source] isn't valid in any of those Featured Articles either, those all predate the modern standard... So none of those actually meet the good or featured article criteria, hence their reassessment. If you could list those dozens of articles it would help us clean up this mess quicker.
3. Further claiming in the M-218 GAR that A majority of editors agreed with me in community discussions. The way you want to use maps is in fact OR. Please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Using maps as sources which established the standing consenus on the issue. As I understand it, the RFC in question says the opposite: that using maps as a source in an article on a highway is perfectly acceptable
4. Pinged me three times on Talk:M-65 (Michigan highway), asking me to explain my tag removal
5. Pinged me, The ed17, and @Imzadi1979: on Talk:F-41 (Michigan county highway), asking us to explain our tag reomvals (note: F-41 was put through GAR for these concerns but ultimately kept as a GA, indicating there are no obvious issues with sourcing here)
6. Posted on my talk page, claiming that you don't appear to be trying to get consensus for the disputed content you want to include, whatever that means
7. Reverted The ed17's removal of dubious drive-by tags
8. And of course, started a thread on WP:RSN regarding whether or not maps are a primary source. Since this thread has started, HEB has posted over fifty times in response to other editors. Some of the highlights:
   • I find such tags useful because they let me know about an issue without having to analyse dozens or hundreds of sources. I'm not aware of any negative impact that such a tag could have, what am I supposed to be weighing the beneficial impact of a valid tag against if there is no harm? So far the only argument made against the tags is that they are inaccurate because DOT maps aren't primary sources... Hence this discussion, its a bit of a chicken and egg issue after all...
   • So the DOT source is not primary, secondary, or tertiary its not a source at all?
   • If the article is based largely on primary sources then the use of primary sources is excessive... But it can still be problematic even when the article is not largely based on them.
   • When I pointed out the "not my problem" quip on U.S. 131, they somehow thought I was referring to a discusison from 2007 in which neither one of us was involved; a clear bad-faith whataboutism argument if I've ever seen one. They also claimed to not know what I was talking about because I didn't use the word "primary", which is blatant WP:IDHT if I've ever seen it.
   • A claim that the editor in the M-218 GAR invalidated my argument that almost no one agrees with HEB's assessment
   • A claim that I was approacing HEB with "hostility" and telling them to "shut up and go away" when all I said was drop the damn stick and walk away from the dead horse.

Again, HEB has responded in their own thread fifty times since beginning it, making the same whataboutism, bad faith, and otherwise confrontational unhelpful edits since I first crossed their path in July.

The last ANI had only one passing mention of HEB's issues with highway articles, which might be why nothing came of it. But the issues here are extremely obvious: WP:TEND, WP:IDHT, WP:SEALION, WP:BLUDGEON... shall I continue?

It's clear that HEB has been a problematic editor for some time, but I feel like focusing on one problem at a time will help to address their edits and prevent the headaches they're causing other editors such as myself.

My proposal would be to initiate a topic ban against HEB, preventing either all edits to highway articles, or at least preventing addition of maintenance tags to them (comparable to Jax 0677's topic ban against maintenance templates). Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:25, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

'A claim that the editor in the M-218 GAR invalidated my argument that almost no one agrees with HEB's assessment' I mean, that's not particularly egregious? But yeah, FWIW, I was acting in good faith, I'm genuinely not amazed by the way these articles are sourced, but of course that's outside the scope of ANI. If there's consensus that these maps is ok, effectively edit-warring with maintenance tags is not acceptable. Sorry for contributing to this can of worms, I guess.

P.S. You forgot to close a wikilink. JustARandomSquid (talk) 20:38, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

@JustARandomSquid: Don't worry, you didn't do anything wrong. This is strictly about Horse Eye's Back's behavior. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:40, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

These days there are only a few editors I can think of on Wikipedia who are inevitably a drain on the patience of anyone else participating in a discussion with them, but whom the community has been unable to get its act together and ban. When I started editing, this sort were ubiquitous, but thankfully we've mostly all agreed that people who are chronically impossible to deal with should find other hobbies, because the cost on editor resources from others having to argue with them and burning out in frustration is greater than whatever benefit they provide. I don't really understand why an exception has been made for HEB several times over now—unlike some past unblockables like Eric Corbett or BrownHairedGirl, they don't strike me as someone who brings anything irreplaceable to the table—but if that "final warning" for "a pattern of incivility and uncollegial behaviour" is to mean anything, there's only one way for this to go. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 20:43, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

I am in general agreement with Tamzin about this matter and think it is worth remembering the specific wording of the late August warning: there is consensus that Horse Eye's Back has engaged in a pattern of incivility and uncollegial behaviour. Therefore, further instances of subpar conduct on their part should lead to escalating blocks. The continuation of the "incivility and uncollegial behavior" is well-documented in the diffs presented above. From my perspective, the issue now is how long a block ought to last. I think that disregarding a clear warning, failing to course correct, and immediately continuing the problematic behavior pattern is a serious problem. I recommend a one month block with a warning that block lengths will double each time if the misconduct continues, and that an indefinite block is very possible. Cullen328 (talk) 21:12, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

It's actually troubling that this isn't an indef, which would require discussion instead of waiting it out. It's a problem that we'd consider it something that should get lengthier time-limited blocks on each further behavior issue. With most editors, it would be an indef from the start. Valereee (talk) 22:26, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

• I have blocked HEB for one month, and I'll expound upon it on their Talk. The short version is the behavior has to stop, and they show no willingness to stop themselves. The reason for the duration is that while they have not been blocked, it's not as if they're unaware of the issue. Star Mississippi 22:12, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

  @Star Mississippi: Do you feel there's merit to HEB facing a topic ban, or would that be left up to whatever happens after the block? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:13, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

  Hi @TenPoundHammer

  There's no harm in opening that discussion here to determine whether there's consensus for it in addition to the block/should they be unblocked/etc. I have no personal opinion on a topic ban as of yet. Star Mississippi 22:28, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

  What topic would that be? M.Bitton (talk) 00:10, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

  As I proposed, topic-banning them from adding maintenance tags and/or editing highway articles. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:17, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

  Why "maintenance tags and/or editing highway articles"? Is there a pattern of disruptiveness in those areas? M.Bitton (talk) 00:22, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

  ...did you not read the thread? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:30, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

  My view is that Horse Eye's Back regularly engages in uncollaborative editing behavior in a wide range of topic areas, so topic bans would not be useful tools for correcting this editor's behavior. Cullen328 (talk) 00:35, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

  I did and I understand the reason for the block, but the "maintenance tags and/or editing highway articles" issues are all recent and related (that's why I asked whether there is pattern of disruptiveness in those areas, which to me means something that they usually do in those specific areas). M.Bitton (talk) 00:35, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

  Recent? They caused the roads editors to fork back in 2023 for the exact same behavior. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 01:44, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

I can't really emphasize enough how this discussion starting a few comments in (and in particular this post from me) exemplify how conversations can go with HEB. They're aggressive and overwhelming. You will feel defensive and badgered, and you may have to explain (in triplicate) our basic editing policies and practices for some reason. It is legitimately exhausting to engage with HEB.

HEB knows that these are issues; for example, about two years ago, they said that they'd take concerns "to heart". Since then, they've been admonished and given a final warning over their behavior. Star Mississippi's block is long overdue, in my opinion, and I don't have much faith that HEB is capable of channeling their energy into more collegial editing after it lifts. I hope I'm proven wrong. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 04:17, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

I don't immediately see what is wrong in that discussion you linked. Is there a specific comment where you think things went awry? It looks like HEB is trying to discuss content and specific concerns with individual articles, which seems constructive to me. (t · c) buIdhe 16:17, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Like others above I think that HEB's bad edits are in a wide range of topics, so I don't see that point of banning from only one of them. For example what topic ban could prevent this example of assuming bad faith, after I had the temerity to ask for abbreviations to be expanded? Phil Bridger (talk) 09:56, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Because I feel like previous efforts to discuss the matter got bogged down by everyone pulling in a different direction, which is often how discussions go anymore if anyone discusses anything at all. And by focusing on just the ones I was privy to, I feel like we got a bit more momentum. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:27, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

That seems like a reasonable response. I suppose banning from one topic is better that banning from none, although I would prefer to see a general ban come out of this. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:43, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

 Comment: I just want to state that the way maps and spatial data are handled on Wikipedia is pretty problematic in my opinion. The roads issues here are silly, a valid reliable source is a valid reliable source, however broadly the way we handle the discussion of spatial information and the creation of maps on Wikipedia likely needs serious review. I believe the road issue is broadly an issue of the policy not being broad enough to give a clear way to handle the question of citing "where" something is, without relying on OR or Synthesis. There are a lot of places on Wikipedia where we aren't even using a reliable map as the source for where something is, including many of the locator maps on the pages for countries. This has caused problems with updating maps, deciding on which set of borders to use, and the lack of a clear MOS for maps has lead to massive swaths that the most polite literature would describe as "misleading." I regularly use Wikipedia maps in my introduction GIS class as examples of what not to do by having students dissect them based on the current weeks reading, it should not be easy for people with three weeks of training to roast a map here. I hope this discussion and others can eventually lead to this being addressed. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 21:32, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Why keep knowledge secret and known only to an elite? Why not help democratize the knowledge needed to make good maps on Wikipedia? Viriditas (talk) 00:34, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Folks, ANI is for discussing edit conduct, not for discussing wider policy/practice. Please continue this discussion at a more appropriate venue like the Village Pump. Toadspike [Talk] 00:42, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Here because of the previous AN/I issue. There is continual, incessant low-level incivility here...occasionally sufficiently severe enough to be noticed, but never (until just now) reaching levels requiring active intervention. HEB has been allowed enough rope to rig a clipper ship. I just don't know how many more capable, well-meaning, and polite editors need to be scorched before it becomes obvious enough to us that the community must take more serious long-term action. I would support an indefinite block, or, indeed, a CBAN, until this editor demonstrates that they clearly understand, and in the future eschew, the problems they are, deliberately, causing. Hiobazard (talk/contribs) 18:14, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

I'm partially-involved with respect to HEB (but not regarding any specific incidents mentioned in this thread; see e.g. our interactions at WP:RSN#Flightconnections, Flightradar24 and FlightsFrom - reliable to verify airline routes? and I know I've also been less than impressed with his behaviour in other discussions (but I can't bring the specifics immediately to mind), but I think there is a clear consensus here for some action. What I'm not seeing is a clear consensus for what action. Personally I don't think a simple topic ban is going to be effective as I almost never edit articles related to US roads and so the behaviour with which people have issues is clearly not restricted to just that area. I'm reluctant to recommend full site bans, but given the evidence here and in previous times he's been brought to the attention of noticeboards, I'm unable to articulate a clear reason to oppose one here. Thryduulf (talk) 21:02, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

I'm with you. I'm currently involved in a content/policy dispute with HEB and am thus reluctant to comment on specific actions. But I feel some action must be taken. Several editors (including below) have pointed out that the last warning was final and the behavior has not changed. Toadspike [Talk] 00:31, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Same boat. Have had more than one dispute with HEB in the past, I've avoided them since, and otherwise had enough to say in the previous ANI to not need to repeat that here. Tamzin sums it up well at the beginning and the block by Star Mississippi has somewhat restored my faith in the system for now. CNC (talk) 22:37, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

In the ANI thread from August, linked at the top of this thread, that led to the "final" warning, I expressed the concerns I have had with HEB, and I provided a bunch of specific diffs, which anyone interested can find there. The consensus there was for a "final" warning, not some lesser sort of warning. I hope that "final" means something here on Wikipedia, and I'm not a fan of serial, successive, final warnings. Looking at his talk page, it doesn't look to me like he understands other editors' concerns or is serious about changing. I don't think this is about any particular topic area. If someone wants to propose a site ban, I'll support it. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:12, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Also would support. At a certain point an editor, no matter how much good-faith they may have in their contributions to the project, becomes a time-sink when it comes to dealing with other editors, and HEB has long since, unfortunately, become that. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:21, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

I was one of the people who believed that the next incident involving HEB should be a cban. I'm not convinced this is that next incident. To me, this looks like the latest in a long string of efforts by editors in the roads and highways topic area to play by their own rules and bully their way into getting what they want. I believe that HEB should have taken this to a different venue or handed it off to the broader community to discuss, but it's hard for me to say with confidence that he's the problem here. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 02:38, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Saying that roads editors play by their own rules and bully their way into getting what they want is a personal attack, or very close to it. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 05:04, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Proposal: Indefinite block + standard offer for HEB

There is clear consensus that HEB has acted in an uncivil manner, crossing a line that the prior "final warning" meant to be inviolable. There seems to also be early consensus that a significant block or ban is the appropriate response. The last AN/I discussion dangled and dawdled and moldered, but the one true takeaway was: "final." I do think that a CBAN is a tiny bit too much, though. Six months (+) is a good chunk of time to make adjustments, and make changes; the standard offer's requirements of clearly understanding the problems, and clearly guaranteeing not to compound those problems in the future means that failure to communicate is failure to be unblocked...which also seems to be consensus, or close to it, so far. I think anything less makes a travesty of all the effort put forth in the most recent AN/I decision. Hiobazard (talk/contribs) 22:23, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Support - I was about to comment suggesting a CBAN. Not being involved in the August discussion but having seen it at the time, the fact is a final warning has to be exactly that. If there had been at least a year between that and another good-grounds filing then I'd argue that it's enough time to have another issue without a block, but the fact is it's been less than four months. This is exactly the chronic behaviour that ANI should be blocking over. Rambling Rambler (talk) 22:26, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Support - I guess I should formalize this as proposer. I would also support a CBAN if that is preferred, but somewhat reluctantly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hiobazard (talk • contribs) 22:31, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

An indefinite block placed by community consensus is a CBAN, even if you say it isn't. 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". Toadspike [Talk] 22:37, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

That is a subtle difference (to me) that I, of course, overlooked. I guess if the community decides, administrator discretion no longer applies. My goal would be a 6-month hiatus, with a 'standard offer' way out if proper behavior is promised and lived-up-to. Does anyone have a suggestion that would fit with that, or are we looking at a CBAN as the only realistic option? Hiobazard (talk/contribs) 23:36, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

If there is an explicit consensus at the time of the block that a single admin may unblock when certain conditions are met, then, if those conditions are met, a single admin may unblock. In this case the proposed conditions are those listed at Wikipedia:Standard offer, explicitly including clearly understanding the problems, and clearly guaranteeing not to compound those problems in the future and the understanding that failure to communicate is failure to be unblocked. The block would technically be a cban, but it would be a cban that can, by explicit consensus, be overturned by a single administrator. Thryduulf (talk) 00:02, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

• Support indef, wth conditions as detailed by Thryduulf. As I mentioned above, HEB has become a community time sink. Editors who become time sinks for the community are, no matter how much good faith their contributions are made with, not compatible with a collaborative project. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:05, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
• Support as second choice to an outright ban. As proposed, this would work as Thryduulf has described, and I realize that this is what Hiobazard initially intended, but I disagree with it. I'll support this, as better than nothing, but I would prefer the more rigorous kind of consensus needed to appeal a community site ban, instead of what could be a single admin's decision. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:30, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
• Support as second choice to CBAN. HEB habitually wastes the community’s time, they have been warned and chosen not to heed that warning. ~2025-39355-07 (talk) 00:49, 9 December 2025 (UTC) This editor appears to have made 1 (one) contribution to en.wp. (This one.) -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 02:19, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
• Support indef I reported only on the road and highway related content as it was the only time they crossed my path, and I felt bringing up anything else would cause the discussion to lose focus. I'm glad to see that wasn't the case here and that there is a degree of consensus. I think the fact that their problematic edits extend beyond roads and highways is enough to warrant a total block and not just a topic ban. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:35, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
• Support indef The number of times I check ANI for an issue not related to HEB and then find a post about HEB is alarmingly high. Qiushufang (talk) 04:18, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
• Support. Per Thryduulf, this technically is still a CBAN, just a CBAN that optionally delegates the unban conditions—essentially inverse discretionary sanctions. I'm not sure I see that special-casing as necessary here, but I also don't see it as likely to cause much harm, so, support with or without. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 14:24, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
• Support CBAN. I'm not involved in this particular dispute, nor the previous, but I've had opinions in both in case that makes me involved. I'm otherwise not seeing the need for tailored conditions, this looks like a straightforward case that can follow the usual proceedings. We don't need to be adding any potential leverage for former unblockables here, nor do I think a CBAN is too much. I haven't read why it would be overkill, only why it'd be unclear to oppose. Feel free to enlighten me if I missed something. CNC (talk) 15:04, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Anjukkanju777

Regrettably bringing this issue to ANI after @Anjukkanju777 has failed to listen to the (minimum of) 10 warnings on their talk page from various editors over the span of two weeks.

Many of the warnings are for LLM usage: [193] [194]. Others are for page hijacking [195], apparent COI [196], removal of AfD templates [197] and maintenance templates [198], not to mention dozens of declined drafts, almost all of which note LLM usage. The editor replied to separate warnings from myself and @Pythoncoder [199] claiming that they would no longer be using LLMs, but that was clearly untrue [200].

Also see this decline notice [201] where the reviewer (@Wikishovel) noted that just minutes before the draft was created, another user created the exact same page, which was speedily deleted. Additionally, they've been adding batches of content to various articles mentioning "Researcher Devdas Menon" (aka the BLP above which was written with an LLM) – [202] [203] [204] which is questionable given Menon's lack of notability as a researcher (based off a search). aesurias (talk) 00:07, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

• Immediate indef, no questions asked. AI must be destroyed. EEng 03:40, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

  Editor has now accused admins of promoting racism and claimed that "articles create by some countries are targeted by certain editors"

  Funnily enough, these messages are written in a completely different manner to their articles, essentially confirming their AI usage (as if statements like "The following publications have been reported in publicly available academic indexes (as indexed in academic databases; not a comprehensive list)" weren't enough) aesurias (talk) 03:52, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

  @Aesurias: Instead of responding here, Anjukkanju777 has also attempted to report you for harassment (at the wrong venue). ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 04:08, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

  I have created pages and followed asn replied politely to all respectful comments and suggestions.

  However the tone of aesurias is in such a way that it is making fun of me. Everyone may not be as good as aesurias in English. But you can't make fun of a person for that.

  My intention in Wikipedia is to create quality pages and make it as Encyclopedia database as it is meant to be.

  I'm quitting myself my my creating any new pages. Anjukkanju777 (talk) 06:22, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

  I do not see any problem with Aesurias's tone here. You do not need a perfect command of English, but your English does need to be good enough for you to communicate with other editors, to read and understand Wikipedia's main policies and guidelines, and to write comprehensible English without needing help from a chatbot. You said that you would stop using AI, then you continued to use it, so it's hard for us to believe you now. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 06:32, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

  I repeat again I haven't used chatgpt. I am using MS word create articles and copy paste the same in Wikipedia. MS word has inbuilt grammar suggestions I follow sometime that. Anjukkanju777 (talk) 06:37, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) Those grammar suggestions in MS Word that you mention use Microsoft's LLM tool, Microsoft Copilot. I would strongly recommend that you turn Copilot off in MS Word. I'm happy to help with that if you like. Wikishovel (talk) 06:41, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you . Yes please Anjukkanju777 (talk) 06:44, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

You said at User talk:Anjukkanju777 § December 2025, twice, that you would not use a large language model any more, which means you were admitting that you had been using one before. You are giving us contradictory responses here and on your talk page. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 06:43, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

I have said that I will not LLM. And I said apology as some one pointed out there was LLM. And why should I argue? Am I getting paid? Am I I getting any special privileges because I'm editing wiki. So as I said my intention is to create good pages and knowledge sharing. You can do whatever feel. I have responded politely people who did same with me. I don't have much time to waste as I was spending quality time in editing and drafting pages. So I'm stopping myself. Anjukkanju777 (talk) 06:51, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

It's fairly apparent that you continued to use a large language model when comparing your writing in this thread to your articles, including the ones written after you promised twice not to use them anymore.

Aside from this obvious issue, would you care to explain why/how you recreated an article on an individual minutes after the same article was created by another editor and speedily deleted? [205] [206] aesurias (talk) 21:28, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

I created wikipdea account with an intention to contribute meaningful articles. I have created 16 pages and out of that 14 I believe help people.

I am not an employee and not receive any payment for doing so.

I invested my precious time to do research and created articles.

Now whats going on here?

You are conducting a trail as if I have murdered someone? Putting forward evidences and arguing.

Okay. Award me death penalty.

As I mentioned earlier I'm deeply hurt by your previous remarks against me. The hidden undertone of the language making fun of me. Particularly pointing that I am poor at English not like you.

I admit that I'm not native speaker.

I deeply hurt and depressed  by your behaviour and decided  not to create any pages in Wikipedia.

It's palce for great people like you and not for dogs like me.

So continue your trail and award death penalty to me .

I repeat again you made fun of me and I'm hurt and depressed .

And wikipdea editing is not the end of my life. Anjukkanju777 (talk) 01:26, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

dont make fun of me for typos again . Trial etc

If you do so I don't care. Anjukkanju777 (talk) 01:28, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Nobody made fun of you. Aesurias was pointing out how very different the LLM writing is from your ordinary writing when not using an LLM as evidence of your LLM use.

And saying you have English fluency issues is not meant as an insult, but an expression of a very real problem: this is an encyclopedia written in the English language for people who read English. Just like a lawyer needs to have a law education, a baker must know how to bake, and a violinist needs to know how to play a violin, an English Wikipedia editor, especially one trying to write prose, ought to have at least a moderate ability to write effectively in English.

If the content on Wikipedia is written by LLMs, then there's no point to having Wikipedia. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 07:48, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

• Should be an admin-administered indef. This is the most straightforward case: unambiguous LLM misuse by a non-native English speaker persisting past multiple warnings AND false denials of LLM misuse. Filing a complaint about aesurias for harassment - where they again falsely denied LLM use [207] - puts this beyond any doubt. They can always be given another chance if they can write a reasonable unblock request in their own words. NicheSports (talk) 19:01, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Orange Jones continued AI edits after several warnings

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

---

Orange Jones (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Multiple users, including myself, @Hqb, and @Seercat3160, have given Orange Jones warnings about AI use. Unfortunately, they have continued to make rather obvious AI-generated edits -- in fact, basically all of their edits (including talk page posts) appear to be AI-generated. Jay8g [V•T•E] 00:10, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

• I agree that Orange Jones edits are generated by LLMs, despite them denying it. Ca ^{talk to me!} 00:39, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
• Immediate indef, no questions asked. AI must be destroyed. EEng 02:17, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
• Can we delete his userpage too? It's obvious AI slop. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 02:38, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
• 24 November – ... I clearly made an error by trusting references generated by an LLM without independently verifying them ... Going forward ... I will avoid using LLMs for content generation on Wikipedia.

28 November – **German chamber department** ... **Lithuanian chamber department**

6 December – **Animals** ... **Birds** ... **Elements** ... **Fish** ... etc. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 04:20, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

• I'm not an expert here, but honestly, all the contribs I've viewed, and their use page, look indistinguishable from LLM generated slop with little or no cleanup. The fact that they are denying this only makes it worse. Their claim of 30 years of "communications" on their userpage? I don't know, it seems their contribs are not worth the effort of policing them, making them a net-negative for the project. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 04:27, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Would someone mind having a look at this edit to see if the sources have been accurately rearranged? Or have hallucinations been introduced? -- asilvering (talk) 07:04, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

No, you know what, nevermind. I've indeffed, and we should simply roll back everything. -- asilvering (talk) 07:12, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

• And now there's a mindless AI-generated unblock request. Remove TPA and good riddance. EEng 15:16, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

  First unblock request declined, so now their machine has posted a second one. Narky Blert (talk) 15:50, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

I'm not convinced the latest unblock request is LLM generated. I've left them some sternly worded guidance. Hopefully it makes an impact. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:21, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Among other things, the angled apostrophes are a dead giveaway. EEng 18:46, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

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

User:Maazoz English CIR issue & problematic page creations

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

---

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

The first bullet point of WP:CIR is the ability to read and write English well enough to avoid introducing incomprehensible text into articles and to communicate effectively., and unfortunately I think this editor does not meet that.

I first found this editor through their comment on an AfD thread which reads KeeeepBold text sirr Vikram Solar 20 years old, share market listed company, why why deletion.[bare URLs redacted] [sic].

So I looked at their contribs and found this diff of them blanking their talk page. Reading through the removed material, we see comments like I understand it now sir, i taking chatgpt help,, gtp was showing his dob, this is not corect dob i am removing this (an immediate WP:LLMCIR issue) and Sir no help long time my draft not processes Pardon me no draft in future they always waiting. sir canu revie[[Swahid Kanaklata Barua State University|w Swahid Kanaklata Barua State University

Now, what's notable in this series of removed talk page messages is that the user;

1. Promised they wouldn't use ChatGPT anymore sir please forgive me no gpt in future[...]
2. Promised they wouldn't create unfinished articles directly in mainspace anymore and would stick to making drafts. Pardon me sir no review request in future. I promise only draft

The latter of those two promises is signed on the 20th of November. On the 25th of November, this user proceeded to create the article Swahid Kanaklata Barua State University directly into mainspace. That article looked like this when they created it. Another example of one of their direct-to-mainspace articles is Horaga takanamii, which looked like this, which was however posted prior to their promise.

At the bare minimum this user needs to be blocked from page creation indefinitely until they show that they know what a Wikipedia article needs to look like when it's created; but given that they unfortunately also don't seem to have the English language skills necessary to understand and appropriately act on feedback when it's given to them, I think the most prudent action would simply be to block them and direct them to the wiki for their native language. Athanelar (talk) 01:42, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Rereading this, I just now noticed that Sir no help long time my draft not processes Pardon me no draft in future they always waiting. seems to be them going back on their promise to only make articles in draft because they don't want to wait for drafts to be reviewed, which would explain why they then published SKBS University to mainspace. Athanelar (talk) 01:47, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

INDEFfed LLM, CIR. I went with DE which encompasses both. Star Mississippi 02:03, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

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

Livelikemusic's long-term history of biting newcomers and WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior

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

This is a user who has been warned in February 2024, then in March of this year, followed by another warning in July, again in August as well, and now recently has been warned again, all of these for clear misuse of WP:AIV and BITE-y behavior towards new editors. Related to the AIV misuse are this ping, as well as this one, and this ping at AIV from three different declining administrators trying to help them out on what AIV is properly used for. Upon further taking a look through their talk page, considering how chronic of a problem this seems to be, I also found this in October where they are warned about approaching the three-revert rule, and a block in mid-November for edit warring. If that isn't enough, this edit, while the removal is allowed under the talk page guidelines since it is assumed that they read it, also contains an edit summary which appears as though they are claiming they are exempt from the bold, revert, discuss cycle because they are an established editor. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 04:20, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

In regard to this edit, it had to do with the user telling me about the BRD in the manner in which they did (No further edits without Talk page.), not my saying I was exempt from it (as I did not view it in bad faith and still do not), as I have participated in several BRD situations on varying talk pages throughout my time on Wikipedia, including some that were a continuous back-and-forth with one or two editors within those discussions (I am not saying it is specific, but I am stating it has usually been a back-and-forth type of situation). As for the reports, it is in human error, as per WP:VANDAL, especially under the grounds of verifiability and no original research, is a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia, which is how the edits are viewed from my perspective, especially when the edits are made on a continuous basis by member(s). Clearly, administration viewed such edits as non-vandalism, which is all well and fine. However, prior to my recent block, which I accepted, I had not received a single block from Wikipedia since April 2021, a block I also accepted. All other blocks were either misdone or remedied between myself and the blocking admin via discussion. Following this ping, I properly came to ANI—following the recommendation of the responding party—and filed a report, which did result in the user being blocked from the encyclopedia.

In response to this situation from October, I did point out to the user which edits were in conflict (who, despite being labeled as a newcomer, was not in fact a newcomer and had been editing since 2022⏤nor am I saying this would be an excuse or reason, regardless), which had been beyond rude and attacked me, which then led to the user receiving a block. With this edit, the message did in fact state If the user continues to vandalise after a recent final warning, please re-report them, and I even issued a response (and had a subsequent conversation with the administrator, and again, came to an agreement on the issue, again, via a talk page discussion (which lends itself to adhering in a way to the BRD essay)).

I do not claim to be perfect or above reproach; however, I believe my extensive history within the encyclopedia speaks for itself. I have consistently fought against vandalism, disruptive editing and sockpuppets, and I have made significant efforts to ensure that Wikipedia is as reliably sourced as possible. Am I guilty of sometimes taking the bait within the unfortunate heat of the moment instead of denying recognition? Sure. But that also should not eradicate the good I have also provided to the encyclopedia as a whole. livelikemusic (TALK!) 05:13, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

I’d also like to point out that you do have a history of bitey behavior especially to many newcomers on music related articles that I have witnessed myself. Many newer editors try to edit and a lot of times you will revert their edits and then follow it up by sending them a twinkle warning - which many at times you automatically send them a level 3 - when you're well aware you need to send them a level 1 first - if even needed. You also lack communication, when you send them these warnings it a lot of times does confuse them so they typically go to your talk page and ask you what they did wrong and almost always you revert it by stating to "Follow talk page rules" in your edit summary - that's not helpful at all - they're trying to discuss what they did wrong. A lot of times these users are editing on mobile version - myself included. I don't think you realize we cannot see any introduction message on anyone's talk page when editing on mobile - so we can't see where you state: "If I begin a discussion on your talk page, please do not continue it on this one; keep it to one talk page, to avoid confusion." I also strongly believe you should stop using your twinkle and if they're are any conflicts you should start an actual discussion directed to the users talk page or the articles talk page - this includes newcomers - because it appears you only start a discussion with editors with a history of editing. Pillowdelight (talk) 06:44, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

@Livelikemusic, you might need to take some rest and review what you have made. Please don't jump into level 3 warning. If you feel uncomfortable during editing, WP:BREAK might help you. Go find some fresh air and learn from mistakes. Ahri Boy (talk) 11:18, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

My one and only interaction with this editor was one where I got pinged in a discussion on their talk page and replied with my perspective on the matter. Livelikemusic, rather than replying to my message, simply just deleted it outright for seemingly not following talk page rules. I had to relay my message through the editor who called me in's own talk page. Obviously any editor is free to do what they want with the content on their talk page, including Livelike, but needless to say that didn't really leave a great impression (not one of anger but rather extreme confusion). Especially since to this day I have no idea what I apparently did wrong. λ NegativeMP1 17:33, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

I truly don't understand their commentary on always saying to "Follow talk page rules" specifically when being called out on their behavior. They're not just saying this to new and experienced editors - they're saying this to admins - admins who are trying to warn/help them out. How is that going against anyone's talk page? Although I have had a few run ins with this user - I don't think they're all bad - it's their behavior many users have issues with. The user shows many signs of WP:TWINKLEABUSE - at this time an admin should step in and revoke it - this has been going on far too long now, I think this is the stem of many issues. Pillowdelight (talk) 18:03, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

These behavioral issues are likely driving away good-faith contributors, especially newcomers. Multiple users (including several administrators) have attempted to raise these core issues: misuse of AIV for non-vandalism issues, overly severe warning template usage, and biting newcomers (especially by mischaracterizing good-faith edits as vandalism), with no discernable improvement over the last several years.

This is exacerbated by an unhelpful and alienating pattern of user talk page practices: quickly removing feedback, reverting questions from newcomers, and reverting anyone who attempts to join a discussion in progress. Being on the receiving end of this would be extremely discouraging to anyone. Given the variety of issues, it seems like a combination of editing restrictions may be necessary. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 08:11, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Although suggested by Ahri Boy, I did decide to take (prior to suggestion) a short Wiki-break for myself and focus on non-Wikipedia things, which has refreshed my state of mind, etc., and given me some clarity of mind, and that I need to break more from editing and not take it as seriously as I have, as truly it has not been as fun as I once found it. I checked my talk page message on mobile view, and it is visible. I am unsure if this is some kind of glitch with some devices, etc., so apologies if it is not seen. However, it is outlined (albeit in a bit more personal way than I wish for it to be) that it has to do with ADHD and OCD. And if someone opened up a new discussion on my talk page asking about this, I would have explained happily; however, I was never asked concerning this. As far as I was concerned, it was in keeping with WP:UOWN (as WP:BLANKING allows us to remove comments as we see fit). While I can see why this could cause some uproar, again, it was never meant with ill intent on an overall scale (but I can see why many would believe otherwise). Surely, I understand the concern and desire to revoke my use of Twinkle, which I would ask not to happen, but I do understand my actions—while not mal-intentioned, have come across otherwise. I am appreciative of the feedback and dialogue happening. I truly, truly am. Again, the self-imposed Wiki-break brought some much-welcomed clarity and relief in ways. livelikemusic (TALK!) 16:29, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

I do have autism. Remember, Twinkle on mobile has some issues and not everyone on mobile can always open sections of talk pages. Ahri Boy (talk) 17:09, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

I was not aware of that, so thank you for pointing that about (re: Twinkle). As for mobile view, I did test it, so apologies if my test was flawed. livelikemusic (TALK!) 17:34, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Proposal: Topic ban (livelikemusic)

livelikemusic (talk · contribs) is topic banned by the community from engaging in anti-vandalism patrolling, broadly construed. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:51, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Support per above evidence of persistently biting newcomers and misuse of AIV. I think this is the narrowest possible editing restriction to prevent disruption. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:51, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Support I don't think this is going to resolve itself without some form of action, and this seems like the best way to allow livelikemusic to continue to contribute constructively. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 00:50, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Support - Given the lack of communication towards newcomers, the instantaneous issue of level 3 warning without checking the contributions of newcomers would warrant a topic ban. Ahri Boy (talk) 02:27, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Support: Per above. KuyaMoHirowo • he/him (DM me on Discord at kuyamohirowo (DMs are open!)) :3 02:40, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Support - Due to this ongoing behavior this does seem the best fit for now. I would also recommend the admin to be broad on the topic as I've only seen the users behavior on music related articles, such as: Albums, Songs, Discographies and Concert tours. Pillowdelight (talk) 03:13, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Comment: I'm concerned that this doesn't address the user talk page issues. I'm also not sure whether the majority of this behavior happens during AV patrolling. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 04:03, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

What do you think the context is? voorts (talk/contributions) 05:02, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Well noting that the user has been warned countless times and recently was also placed on a 24 hour block and still fails to cooperate and communicate. I don’t find users telling other editors and admins to "Follow their talk page rules" to be communicative at all. Even in November when admin @Daniel Quinlan: placed a block on their account for violating 3RR - to which he also explained what they were doing was wrong, admin @CoconutOctopus: also tried offering explanation and guidance [208] to which Livelikemusic removed their comment with an edit summary stating: "While I am sure it is in good faith, please follow my talk page rules. Thank you." [209] - this is very obvious this is a user who doesn't like to communicate essentially when they're being called out on their wrongful behavior. This is now a total of 11 conversations that they fail to listen to due to their behavior. Sure, we all make mistakes but this is repetitive that's been an issue for over a year now. Maybe a 1 year block would be best in my opinion. Pillowdelight (talk) 05:25, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

@Voorts: The user's article edits are focused on soap operas, music, and television, and most of the problematic behavior appears to start with reverts and harsh templated warnings within those interest areas. I'm just not sure it's limited to the mode of looking for vandalism. My worry is that they will continue to encounter edits they treat as vandalism (even when the edits do not meet the definition on Wikipedia) through normal editing and watchlist monitoring. If that's likely, a topic ban on anti-vandalism patrolling may not address the core issues and we may be back here soon.

I'm open to a narrow remedy of some sort, but I've also considered whether a combination of measures (e.g., restrictions on warning templates, a partial block from AIV, restrictions on removing good-faith comments from their talk page, and maybe 1RR) may be more effective. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 07:19, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Daniel, If you're worried maybe ask a few other admins on their take on what the best option is especially if you're concerned the user is not going to listen and you'll be back here again. Pillowdelight (talk) 13:01, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Support: If I were new, getting a level 3 warning as the first warning would most likely drive me away; that's too harsh. There is a way to mix being firm with being gentle, and realizing that everyone was new at one time. David10244 (talk) 06:39, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Also, what @Pillowdelight said above around the issue where users are "trying to discuss what they did wrong" and the short, snappish response about following talk page rules (how are newbies supposed to know the talk page rules?) just seems, somehow, mean-spirited. It sounds like @Livelikemusic is mad at the new editors. David10244 (talk) 06:47, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

User report: Lack of competence and disruptive editing by Aradicus77

I'd like to bring to the attention of administrators a pattern of potentially disruptive editing behavior by user Aradicus77.

Summary of issue: Aradicus77 repeatedly shows a lack of competence in working with sources, often misrepresenting them or adding content that constitutes original research. This persistent inability to work carefully with sources disrupts the development of several articles, including Shoegaze, Post-punk, and, more recently Post-noise. The behavior persists despite corrections by other editors, including me and Echoedits67. Important note: Aradicus77 already has a history with original research, for which he was banned in 2023, but I personally don't think his editing approach has changed much since his account was reinstated in 2025 [210].

Evidence: Shoegaze article, which I've greatly improved since I joined Wikipedia two months ago. You can see how poorly this page looked before me [211] and after [212]. I'm basically the single editor who contributed most to this article, and it's reflected in the statistics [213]. When I joined Wikipedia, my goal was to bring this article to GA status, and I've been working really hard with reliable sources, trying to follow Wikipedia's basic principles of editing. But Aradicus77's latest edits made yesterday and today, containing basic incompetence in working with sources, were the last straw and prompted me to bring this to ANI.

On December 5, he added a cited sentence that grossly misinterpreted the original source [214]. Today, even new user Echoedits67 was quick to detect that the source was misrepresented [215]. I also want to note that Echoedits67 has also been having issues with original research coming from Aradicus77 on the post-noise article. Today (December 6), I even notified Echoedits67 that if he ever gets tired of correcting edits containing original research from Aradicus77, we can both bring it to ANI. And Echoedits67 acknowledged that he has "indeed had issues with some of Aradicus77's edits breaching WP:OR recently" [216].

Back to the Shoegaze article: recently, I've almost completed editing it in order to nominate it for GA status. I've described everything in a summary style, carefully working with sources. However, today, on December 6, Aradicus, as always, decided to "improve" the article's existing content by adding a redundant edit, which not only bloats the already concise Etymology section written by me, but also introduces basic errors, such as incorrect page numbers for citations [217]. This is easily verifiable.

Another thing that happened on December 5: Aradicus77 returned information that contained minority views on the early development of shoegaze music [218]. I explained to him why these pieces of information can't be in the article (according to undue policy) on the Talk page [219]. He didn't return this information again, but he accused me of "bullying" him and "hogging" the article [220]. The truth is, I never bullied him, but his persistent incompetence of working with sources properly suggests the second point in the examples of disruptive editing behavior tendencies.

Here's another instance where I explained why I removed his original research [221] from the Shoegaze article: [222].

Another instance of Aradicus's gross editing incompetence that I encountered happened on the Post-punk article. On October 19, he made a case that Bosnia [223] and Serbia [224] were parts of the Soviet Union. When I accidentally noticed this shameful mistake on November 11, I immediately corrected it, adding basically all Eastern European Soviet countries [225]. But Aradicus, in his imagination, decided that there were some other Soviet countries in Europe, so he added the silly phrase "… and others across Eastern Europe" [226]. I couldn't stand it and corrected this edit again, explaining to him that all European republics were already listed and that he should use Google to quit making such basic mistakes [227] On the same Post-punk page, he couldn't even give the correct title of one music article called "New Music" so the other editor Woovee had to fix it to the right one, and he also pointed out some other original research issues in his edit summary to Aradicus: [228].

The thing is, I already let Aradicus know to try always double-check his edits before making them, [229] since he usually makes many edits in a row, rarely even filling in the edit summaries to let other editors know what he changed. [230] But he didn't learn much, and even belittled his errors by saying that they were just "random typos" [231] and that Wikipedia is not the Library of Alexandria [232]. Yes, it's not. But Wikipedia also requires competence, which Aradicus fails to show.

Conclusion: I think that because this tendency toward original research and misinterpreting facts is persistent over time, and hasn't improved, I ask administrators to consider whether a site-wide ban or other significant sanction is appropriate to prevent further disruption by Aradicus77. P.S. I'm pinging user Ceoil just so he can be aware of the report. Buf92 (talk) 05:11, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

You need to notify Aradicus77 of this report on their talk page, like the banner at the top of this page says. closhund/talk/ 07:43, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

As I said in response to @Buf92 on my talk page,

I have indeed had issues with some of @Aradicus77's edits breaching WP:OR recently.

However, I've only been editing here for a short while, and don't know whether these edits are part of any longer-running pattern or not, so I've been trying to resolve matters through following the steps outlined in WP:DR, including initiating discussion on talk pages and waiting to get a WP:3.

In that light, I don't think I'm the right person to comment on any disruptive behaviour beyond what I've written on the Talk:Post-noise page regarding specific WP:OR edits. [...]

That being said, I can briefly summarise my issues with many of @Aradicus77's edits on the Post-noise page, some of which have also arisen on other pages (like the aforementioned Shoegaze page recently where a quote was misattributed to someone who didn't say it).

This is what the page looked like right before I started editing it: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Post-noise&oldid=1324897436 The majority of the edits had been by Aradicus77, and they also seem to have created the draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Post-noise&action=history&offset=&limit=500

Anyway, I had been researching the topic a bit myself, which is why I was surprised when I saw the article. The only source I've found which talks about the subject at length is prof. Stephen Graham's Sounds of the Underground. Yet, despite being cited in the bibliography and even being cited throughout the article a couple of times, the article didn't reflect what Graham says at all. Graham considers post-noise to be a noise music subgenre of which hypnagogic pop and hauntology are further subgenres. Yet the original article was essentially exclusively about a specific West Coast American hypnagogic pop scene whose artists are referred to as 'post-noise.' So the article didn't seem to be written by trying to represent the most reliable sources on the topic.

So I started adding paraphrases and quotations from Graham, as well from David Keenan, whose famous article about hypnagogic pop Childhood's end features some references to noise and post-noise. This was tolerated by Aradicus77, but there were further issues with the article: parts of the original article either consisted of uncited claims (such as ones about the scene's emergence and decline) or claims for which references were provided, but upon closer inspection, these references actually did not support the claims being made. For example, at several points in time, the article contained claims like "The terms "post-noise" and "hypnagogic pop" would be used interchangeably" (this was the original wording) with several references provided, but none of these references said anything like that at all.

This is where trying to improve the article started becoming more challening, because insofar as Aradicus77 had tolerated additions of new information to the article, they resisted their uncited or miscited information being removed or changed, or in fact any attention being brought to it. They would sometimes revert these removals, and when I started a discussion on the talk page and added an original research template to alert other editors/readers, they immediately removed the latter even though most of the issues with the article had not been addressed. (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Post-noise&diff=prev&oldid=1325320907 "Original research banner is unneeded, take that to talk page." I had in fact started a talk page discussion at that point. I added the template another time, but they immediately removed it again: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Post-noise&diff=prev&oldid=1325322320 "Not original research." I did not attempt to re-add the template again.)

In some cases, Aradicus77 did agree to remove uncited information, though not always happily, and once seemingly admitting that they had written some of the article without using sources (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Post-noise&diff=prev&oldid=1325234232 "Removing info that doesn't have sources yet. Sadly this article had some good faith edits that are accurate like the blogspot and internet thing but since there's not much coverage on the topic yet I'm gonna have to prune the unsourced info which will make this article really uninformative").

On the talk page, and on other talk pages like the shoegaze one, they have shown a willingness to have a reasonably civil discussion. However, several of their arguments for keeping specific information breached WP:SYNTH, all the while they don't seem to understand what constitutes WP:OR. "I'm just citing what the site says, WP:COMMONSENSE states you sometimes will infer stuff. That is not really original research. It's not like I'm saying post-noise was invented by this group of people or making this big long made up scribe. The source itself calls it a "twenty first century genre" what else does that mean but [that it emerged in the] 2000s. the only other decades you got is 2010s and 2020s and obviously it didn't start then given the artists mentioned in the body. That's not original research it's WP:COMMONSENSE but we can tag a third opinion if you want [...]" Echoedits67 (talk) 10:05, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

The interchangeable was because a page of the Graham source said "post-noise e.g. hypnagogic pop". This is again just another peripheral error framed as a larger issue. Aradicus77 (talk) 10:22, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

You also are misinterpreting what I said about removing "good faith edits" When I was my friends had helped add information. I won't tag them, but they revamped the page a bit too. This is why I don't get why you are framing this as if I created the page with my own POV, you have already said that I allowed everything you guys have done to change these articles. Why are you using words like "reluctantly". I removed the original research banner because none of the information on the article was original research, it was literally all quotes and paraphrasing. Aradicus77 (talk) 10:25, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Help:Maintenance template removal

You should not remove maintenance templates if any of the following apply:

1. You do not understand the issues raised by the template;
2. The issue has not yet been resolved;
3. There is ongoing activity or discussion related to the template issue;
4. The problem that the maintenance template flags is plainly and unambiguously required for a proper article under Wikipedia's policies and guidelines;
5. You have been paid to edit the article or have some other conflict of interest (some exceptions apply: see individual template documentation).

At least points 2 and 3 were still very much the case both times you removed the template. I had started a discussion regarding the WP:OR present all throughout the article, and the fundamental issues were still present.

It is not okay to remove maintenance templates until the issue flagged by the template is remedied first—that is, until the maintenance tag is no longer valid—unless it truly did not belong in the first place. Maintenance templates are not to be used to express your personal opinion.

"I removed the original research banner because none of the information on the article was original research, it was literally all quotes and paraphrasing."

The majority of the version of the article that I stumbled on was original research. Major claims had no citations for them, others incorrectly summarised claims made by the sources used. Echoedits67 (talk) 10:39, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Not true at all. When i saw your talk page I removed all the unsourced information. Aradicus77 (talk) 13:02, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

You had already removed the original research template twice by the time you removed that unsourced information. Echoedits67 (talk) 13:08, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

"You also are misinterpreting what I said about removing "good faith edits" When I was my friends had helped add information. I won't tag them, but they revamped the page a bit too."

As far as I can see, the vast majority of the edits to the draft were made by your account, and other accounts tended to make only minor edits. On the live post-noise page, the vast majority of the edits are either by me or by your account. When I say "your edits" I mean "edits made by your account." Echoedits67 (talk) 10:44, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

@Aradicus77 might be prickly sometimes, but the accusation of "lack of competence" on the articles they are editing is so ridiculous as to be a boomerang. I don't even want or need to read through all of the above to know that this is not a good faith complaint. CAVincent (talk) 22:39, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Buf92 conveniently leaves out the fact that the first edits of his I even noticed involved AI-generated references that had to be removed, which the system itself flagged as “possible AI-generated citations references removed” [233], and I reverted the earlier version because it looked like he was using an LLM to source material [234]. At the time I assumed this was some kind of vandalism, but we cleared that misunderstanding up. What he also leaves out is that he told me on my talk page that I should use AI to write articles [235], and another user even questioned him about making that kind of suggestion [236]. Buf92 joined two months ago and acts like he owns the place, insisting he is the sole contributor to shoegaze when I do not attack other editors for adding sourced content. I was not the sole editor of the older version of the page, so I have no idea why he keeps referring to it as “my” version. Here he made use of WP:OR to exert in his opinion that claiming a band as predating shoegaze would be helpful to newcomers even though he didn't cite a single source that made such distinction.[237]

His comment claiming that my December 6 edit was “redundant” is just further proof of him displaying clear WP:OWN behavior over the shoegaze page. From the start, every substantial improvement I tried to make was blocked or removed, and there is no reason the edit here [238] should be labeled redundant when it adds sourced critical commentary about the term “shoegaze” originally being pejorative and includes writers who challenge the term altogether by pointing to earlier bands who literally stared at their shoes. Rather than acknowledging this, Buf92 keeps isolating tiny mistakes from large constructive edits and repeatedly claims he is responsible for “most” of the shoegaze page, which is irrelevant and echoes the kind of statements described in WP:OWNBEHAVIOR like “I created/wrote the majority of this article,” as if that grants some sort of ownership or authority. I have contributed major work to several pages, including completely reformatting the Post-punk article and creating the entire Post-noise page, and I have allowed editors like User:Echoedits67 to add their own contributions because I may not have fully encapsulated every available source.

User:Buf92, meanwhile, has amplified peripheral mistakes such as slight pedantic grammar like "rest of Eastern Europe" rather than "European Republics" as proof of WP:OR and an excuse to rally another editor against me.[239] all while making it clear that his primary concern is inflating the shoegaze page rather than allowing it to grow with information from different perspectives.

He first threatened to report me to ANI for an edit that wasn't even mine [240] this was what I had added when I made the post-noise page [241].

The Library of Alexandria quote is taken out of context as well. At the time, I did not know the scans were available on Rockandrollsbackpages and had only seen Jon Savage mention the source on Twitter. Buf92 fixed the citation and I thanked him, but instead of moving on, he escalated things into trying to get me removed from the page over two editorial mistakes despite the fact that I had just reworked the lead, added the influences section, and added the regional scenes and related genres to Post-punk in good faith. This is my case on the matter.

The Bosnia and Serbia mistake was something I already explained as a language issue, yet he now tries to frame it as part of some larger “case” against me, which is extremely misleading. I was not banned in 2023 for original research, and whatever that old block was for has nothing to do with the work I am doing in 2025. There has not been a single edit war between us, and I honestly do not have the time for this drama, but at this point I think an interaction ban between me and Buf92 is appropriate, especially since he followed me from the shoegaze page to the Post-noise page that I created and then tried to involve User:Echoedits67 to build a case against me even though they pushed back on the idea [His comment claiming that my December 6 edit was “redundant” is just further proof of him displaying clear WP:OWN behavior over the shoegaze page.

Summary of issue: Buf92 has shown a clear bias and is displaying WP:OWN tendencies over the shoegaze page, and because of that he seems to have a problem with me contributing anything to the article. He has repeatedly focused on small peripheral mistakes that came from major good-faith edits and has tried to rally other editors on unrelated pages to report me, which feels like an attempt to push me out of the site rather than resolve normal editorial disagreements. Based on his tone, he doesn’t even want me editing the page at all, as shown by the way he labeled my constructive, well-sourced edits as “redundant” and claimed I wasn’t improving the article. Some of the edits he lists like bringing back “undue” info on shoegaze wasnt even originally information added by me. I spotted a user reverting that removed info so I did the same. Those weren’t sections I directly wrote. Buf92 misconstrues several edits as being by me but was information added by others.

Aradicus77 (talk) 08:16, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Note that Buf92 has also edited logged-out with reference to the same topic, proved here with this IP response to a talk page thread started by Buf92. The IP has been blacklisted by a DNS blacklisting service. The IP began editing on 9 October while Buf92 registered the username on 10 October 2025.

This report should result in a boomerang as Buf92 has competence issues and is not behaving in a collegial manner. Editing with the IP, Buf92 added an obvious copyright violation, using the same wording as the cited source. This edit by the IP reveals obvious signs of AI-generated text. Another edit by the IP introduced poor sourcing including an unreliable online magazine and a Wordpress blog. Certainly Buf92 has admitted to using AI[242] several times which I feel is a major problem. Anyone who can be trusted to research the topic and present a balanced summary of it will not need AI to write their prose. And anyone who allows AI to write their prose has already indicated that they are too lazy/rushed/incompetent to put the appropriate amount of time in making sure that the text does not include hallucinations or unbalanced viewpoints. I get the impression that Aradicus77 is actually researching the topic himself, adjusting the balance when new sources appear. Buf92 is continuing to employ AI and is also still violating copyright by closely paraphrasing sources: As one example among many, see this series of edits which adds the text

• • "The experimental art rock of the Velvet Underground has also been credited as a formative influence on the first wave of shoegaze bands in Southern England, along with the proto-punk of the Stooges and MC5, and the underground garage rock featured on compilations such as Nuggets and Pebbles.

The cited source says

• • "...the experimental art rock of the Velvet Underground, the jagged proto-punk of the Stooges and the MC5, and the underground garage rock found on the Nuggets compilations and the even more obscure Pebbles..."

This shows that Buf92 is not standing on solid ground when accusing others of being incompetent. I'm seeing a battleground style of interaction from Buf92. All of their edits should be rolled back. Binksternet (talk) 15:43, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

If that isn't WP:CLOP I'm not sure what is. Narky Blert (talk) 16:50, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Omg, Binksternet, I honestly didn't expect such strange (?) accusations from you. Yes, it's true that there were a few instances when I edited while logged out, but it was never with any goal to deceive anyone or anything – I just forgot to turn off my VPN, which I use for other things on the internet unrelated to Wikipedia editing.

Next, the important point: I never hid that I use AI as a search tool or to correct my own syntax. And I never blindly copy/pasted what the machine suggested and I still don't do so. If anything, I urge others not to trust AI blindly and to always double-check information [243].

And what is this about the copyediting violation? I always paraphrase the original sources I work with. You wouldn't believe how much time and effort I usually put in when preparing the text for the final edit. As I said before, all my edits are easily verifiable [244]. They're not taken from a chatbot, although I do use one.

The last thing, about "behaving in a collegial manner". I think I do usually work in a collegial manner (and I didn't have some problems with anyone, except Aradicus77). Buf92 (talk) 17:58, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

1) Buf92 conveniently leaves out the fact that the first edits of his I even noticed involved AI-generated references

Did you want me to mention this when I wrote the report? Why, if we already discussed this matter a few times, and you even now admit that "we cleared that misunderstanding up"? So what does it change that I didn't mention this in the report initially?

2) he also leaves out is that he told me on my talk page that I should use AI to write articles

It's a gross distortion of my words and the whole context. I never told you to use AI to write articles (that would have been absurd). I told you that "it can be helpful to use AI at times, as it can serve not only as a great search tool but also provide useful insights that you can verify yourself. I verified that 'the feelies' was a reference to Brave New World and that the term 'new musick' wasn't coined by Savage with AI's help" [245].

3) and another user even questioned him about making that kind of suggestion

Why do you leave out my explanation to that user? [246] As you can see, he didn't oppose the explanation. But you tried to play with his edits to "prove" the point about my "character flaw" in one of our arguments. Do you remember that awkward moment? [247]

4) Here he made use of WP:OR to exert in his opinion that claiming a band as predating shoegaze would be helpful to newcomers even though he didn't cite a single source that made such distinction.

Jeez, you don't see the source at the end of this sentence?! The source literally reflected my sentence that "Although the term didn't yet exist, the Scottish band the Jesus and Mary Chain laid the groundwork that would later define for the genre "shoegaze"." You'd better tell the audience how you opposed adding what this original source said to the article's body until I gave the full, exhaustive explanation on why it was justified. Remember this moment [248]?

5) every substantial improvement I tried to make was blocked or removed

Sorry, but I haven't seen much substantial improvement from your side on the page since I started editing the article. On the contrary, I've done considerable work removing original research related to shitgaze [249], and cleaning and organizing the citations (you added initially) in the Gen Z shoegaze revival section [250]. I also gave you a full explanation on the Talk page about why I trimmed the 1960–1970 section [251].

6) User:Buf92, meanwhile, has amplified peripheral mistakes such as slight pedantic grammar like "rest of Eastern Europe" rather than "European Republics"

It's not a "peripheral mistake" — it's a gross factual error, which could have been easily solved had you used Google before editing. And you're again distorting my original wording by saying I wanted you to use the phrase "European republics". I didn't say that.

7) The Bosnia and Serbia mistake was something I already explained as a language issue

I'll say it again: consciously adding Bosnia [252] and Serbia [253] as parts of the Soviet Union is not a language issue — it's an issue of basic education or simply the ability to use Google before making such silly edits. Wikipedia requires competence, and you're not some newcomer. Such basic mistakes clearly show the pattern of your overall editing style.

8) I spotted a user reverting that removed info so I did the same.

And did you notice that that user immediately undid his edit [254]? Maybe you should finally quit using your manipulative tactics, which I've just debunked.

P.S. Another strange editing decision of yours I just noticed. First, it's a very strange choice to explicitly mention Pinkard's name right in this sentence [255]. Half of the article is based on his book. So maybe you should start adding "writer Ryan Pinkard stated" to every sentence based on his book in the article's body, because otherwise it's somehow WP:OR by me, as you state in the summary? Buf92 (talk) 16:55, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

The statement was WP:UNDUE only Pinkard has ever made that assertation so I made it clear to showcase this is the opinion of 1 writer. Like others have pointed out, it is quite ironic you have tried to flag a fellow editor for "lack of competence" while you yourself have moments of being lazy enough to use AI to write articles, making use of closed paraphrasing and breaching copyright violations. All the while I have always told you I was never looking for trouble with you or even criticizing your form of editing, just at times making use of WP:BOLD and making some additions to pages. Like Binksternet has pointed out, it's possible a lot of your edits which you used AI heavily make use of weak sourcing or have other conflicting issues and could be rolled back entirely. Aradicus77 (talk) 02:26, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

This report might really be a total boomerang on the part of Buf92. Here is a grossly misinterpreted edit that I had to amend on the shoegaze page [256]. The original source says: "Spacemen 3 could be called a shoegaze band by the fact that we did not have any stage moves. ... It was all about the sound we were trying to create and not how we were trying to look." It is a statement made by a member of the band, while Buf's edit states: "Spacemen 3's rejection of stage theatrics and focus on sound itself anticipated the introverted stage presence later associated with shoegaze."

Your edit that states "anticipated the introverted stage presence later associated with shoegaze" is complete WP:OR. Where did you get any of what you wrote from that source? And most of your shoegaze edits contain material like that. I doubt any of it would meet GA standards. Your work is littered with copyright violations and WP:CLOP. People certainly have to look more into your "contributions". Aradicus77 (talk) 03:18, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

In your edit, you falsely accused me of WP:NOR [257], not WP:UNDUE – will you ever take any responsibility for what you say? I want the administrators to take note of this.

making use of closed paraphrasing

I actually didn't quite understand that notion raised by Binksternet. In my view, the two sentences he mentioned above are quite different (mine is obviously longer than the original). All they have in common is that the bands and the albums are mentioned in the same order. I don't see a copyright issue, but he might have a different view.

it's possible a lot of your edits which you used AI heavily make use of weak sourcing or have other conflicting issues and could be rolled back entirely

Based on what I've seen of your editing competence over these short two months, it's actually very possible that many of your edits contain a lot of original research, breaching multiple WP:V cases, even without using AI as a tool. Echoedits67's experience, which he has shared here, has only proven that this is not just my nitpick. And as I see in the article's edit history, you seem to have already initiated a gradual rollback [258]. How ironic, so much work – wasted. At least you now have a new paragraph with Greg Ackell dropping an F-bomb [259]. Are you going to nominate this article for GA or just play with it like you did with Post-punk until you get bored? Buf92 (talk) 05:04, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Very bizarre commentary from Buf here. Editing is not about nominating articles for GA. You do know that articles can lose GA notability over time? As new information emerges and perspectives evolve right? It feels like you are more concerned with gatekeeping the shoegaze article to fit your own biases and ideas of what should be standard, rather than fostering a collegial environment where other editors can present their own sources and perspectives and attempt to integrate them into the article.

What do you mean by "got bored" at Post-punk? I added information that seemed relevant to be in the article, and once that was done, I moved on to other pages. There are still many edits I'm looking to make there but people have real-world commitments. See also WP:THEREISNODEADLINE and WP:NOTOBLIGED.

Additionally, you referring to double-checking and revising information as "wasted" work, shows that you are more concerned with validating your edits as an ego-driven effort rather than contributing to building an encyclopedia, which directly conflicts with WP:NOTHERE.

Also, your phrasing of "it's actually very possible" is not evidence. On Wikipedia, you need to explicitly demonstrate issues with concrete examples. I have already provided instances where you wrongfully used AI to cite sources and make unsupported claims. I have also shown how you have misrepresented sources, giving your own spin on what the writers actually said—for example, attributing Spacemen 3 with anticipating the "introverted" look of shoegaze, which was never stated in the original source.

This will be my final statement, but thanks to Bink and Narky Blert for pointing out the obvious WP:CLOP. Ironically Buf here will be the one "wasting" time with this report.

The fact that you are rushing to get the shoegaze article nominated for GA and treating my contributions as an inconvenience demonstrates a lack of patience and a focus on immediate results over collaborative improvement or even verification on if what is being added is even right. Wikipedia explicitly warns against such haste in WP:THEREISNORUSH, which emphasizes that article quality is built over time through careful editing, sourcing, and discussion. Rushing to nominate articles for GA before they are fully vetted undermines the goal of creating a reliable, well-sourced encyclopedia and discourages constructive contributions from other editors. Aradicus77 (talk) 05:23, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

@Aradicus77,

"This will be my final statement, but thanks to Bink and Narky Blert for pointing out the obvious WP:CLOP."

You yourself, just today, moved text that I had written from No wave to Chicago no wave by copying and pasting it without attribution, which is required by the copyleft licenses Wikipedia user contributions fall under. Wikipedia:Section moving:

"When copying or moving content within Wikipedia, attribution is required. This is done by providing an edit summary at the destination page stating where the material came from and providing a wikilink to the source article. Here is a sample edit summary: Copied content from [[Source page]]; see that page's history for attribution. Please see WP:Copying within Wikipedia for more information." (emphasis mine)

With all due respect, you have no high horse here regarding any WP:CLOP by @Buf92's.

I acknowledge @Buf92's contributions and/or conduct may not be flawless either, but I urge the administrators not to turn a blind eye to @Aradicus77's persistent ignorance of and/or lack of comprehension of Wikipedia policies just because the messenger is flawed. Echoedits67 (talk) 08:33, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I was not trying to claim authorship or ignore policy. I originally thought that per WP:OWN nobody owns the information written here or the pages themselves. I now understand that editors retain copyright to their own wording, even though they do not own the article.

BTW WP:CIR is often misused. It does not mean “you made a mistake, so you lack competence.” It means “ongoing, repeated inability to follow core policies.”

A first-time mistake about WP:COPYWITHIN absolutely does not qualify as a valid criticism or irony of me being on a "high horse". There is no policy that says experienced editors must know every rule. Wikipedia has thousands of policies and guidelines, and it is normal to encounter a new one even after years of editing. When an honest mistake happens, the expectation is to acknowledge it and resolve the issue. The goal should not be to score a “gotcha,” for the sake of an argument. In essence that edit was done in good faith. I spotted that section warranted being added to its respective page, as the term "Chicago no wave" had no real relation to New York no wave as cited in sources outside of the name itself.

Buf is the one who brought in the report. The responses from other editors were pointing towards a WP:BOOMERANG. I never claimed to be a perfect editor like Buf is implying himself to be with this report, as he failed to make sure he didn't have his own skeleton's in his closet before going after another editor. I recommend Buf92 sees WP:CLEANHANDS and as Binksternet has mentioned WP:BATTLEGROUND. I also recommend WP:WINNING, given Buf's general attitude throughout this ordeal being incredibly antagonistic, when from the very first moment that we interacted I told him I was not looking for a fight and noticed he was beginning to start a grudge against me. [260]. Which is against WP:CIVIL as he has made various passive aggressive / sarcastic remarks (which I've done also in response). [261], [262] (comment on my age and then snarky remark about it), [263]

All these responses showcase someone who is obviously not here just to resolve a conflict amicably.

I have added (or will add) the proper attribution edit summary:

Copied content from No wave; see that page's history for attribution. Aradicus77 (talk) 09:01, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

All these responses showcase someone who is obviously not here just to resolve a conflict amicably

What all these responses really showcase is a deep frustration with an editor who can't even indicate a page number correctly for a source [264], and thus fails to satisfy the core WP:V policy. You added 3 new sentences, and none of them even have the right page number (I've checked it twice already, but I won't correct it). This is almost everything any reasonable editor needs to know about your editing pattern, in addition to other similar cases that I briefly described in my very first message in this report. I feel like I'm experiencing something similar to what Woovee experienced recently. I don't know the whole story, but from what I understand, your repeated breaches of the original research policy led him to revert your multiple edits until the situation escalated into edit warring on the Post-punk page and a few others. Now he doesn't contribute anything to that page, while you remain its only contributor [265]. I think this story will just keep repeating in cycles if the administrators decide not to do anything. Buf92 (talk) 16:43, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Another recent example (from today):

User added Phillip Crandall's I Get Wet as a source for the Chicago no wave page, summarising a passage from it as:

"In 2014, writer Phillip Crandall cited Andrew W.K. making "friends and enemies in Chicago's no wave scene"."[266]

This is a complete misquote and they clearly noticed right after, immediately correcting it to:

"In 2014, writer Phillip Crandall cited the band Couch finding "friends and enemies in Chicago's no wave scene"."[267]

Yet this is still a misrepresentation of the source. The wrong Couch are linked - the entire section is talking about the 1990s rock scene in Ann Arbor, Michigan:

"Ann Arbor’s musical history doesn’t begin and end with The Stooges’ debut album ..."

The band being talked about is likewise Couch from Ann Arbor. The band the user linked is an unrelated group from Germany. It's also evident even from the actual quote, which they improperly retyped:

"... Couch found both friends and enemies in nearby Chicago’s no-wave scene."

So both from the specific fragment and the broader context, it is clear, if one reads them carefully without rushing, that the subject is not a German band called Couch, but a band from Ann Arbor called Couch. It also doesn't make sense for this piece of information to be in the "legacy" section where they placed it, since the band were making "friends and enemies" in the scene when it was still active in the 1990s.

To me, this is certainly not a malicious misinterpretation of the source, but nonetheless clearly a careless mistake based on, let's say, something like looking up a keyword (probably "Chicago no wave") in, say, Google Books, then quickly rephrasing a snippet of information without reading the entire context.

If this was one mistake it would be no big deal, but the fact is that over the last week or so, I have corrected countless such careless misrepresentations of sources on the user's part, some of which I mentioned in my original comment about post-noise.

So the user seems to insist on adding large quantities of information to Wikipedia without stopping to double-check whether they have correctly summarised what the sources say, and much of the time, unfortunately they haven't. Echoedits67 (talk) 18:52, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Regarding page numbers. We might have different versions of that Pinkard book. My version cites page 86. I'm not sure what edition you have. If so that might be the issue there, would you like me to change the edition to my edition? Aradicus77 (talk) 20:12, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

What edition of his book do you have? Buf92 (talk) 20:24, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

You just again provided the wrong page number [268]. This time the number is closer but still incorrect. What are you doing Aradicus? Buf92 (talk) 22:04, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Shoegaze (Genre: A 33 1/3 Series) by Ryan Pinkard published by Bloomsbury Academic. G10 Aradicus77 (talk) 01:17, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

You seem to be completely warping the Woovee situation and twisting it for your own benefit. Another user explicitly said that Woovee was exhibiting WP:OWN [269]. That is the same behavior you are now exhibiting on the shoegaze page. Woovee was interaction blocked from me for a reason, and that reason was that he spent years monopolizing the post-punk and gothic rock pages. Binksternet even pointed out during the report that he was tired of Woovee chasing off every new editor who tried to contribute to those topics, and he said he was happy to see someone like me who was making consistent contributions across music articles finally get a chance to work on them.

What I am seeing now is that you are re-creating the same Woovee pattern on shoegaze. You are assigning yourself as the sole authority over that page and pushing everyone else out. You treat yourself as the only expert allowed to edit, and everything anyone else adds is automatically treated as inferior or unwanted. Aradicus77 (talk) 19:47, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

That's a lie about me WP:OWNing the Shoegaze page. If I removed something from you, I usually did so because the edits either contained WP:NOR or WP:UNDUE, or were simply out of place. I usually tried to provide a clear explanation of why such content was removed. If there are specific cases, you can remind me of them here. Buf92 (talk) 20:22, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

"The band being talked about is likewise Couch from Ann Arbor."

This is your own assumption. If it actually is Couch from Ann Arbor, then you need to verify that with evidence, not rely on personal guesswork.

Wikipedia also acknowledges that mistakes happen. See Wikipedia:Oops Defense. Even though it is a humorous essay, it still illustrates that even admins and experienced editors can make mistakes. Being a good editor is not about never making an error. It is about acknowledging errors and correcting them. Policies related to GA even state that information is always evolving and articles change over time. I have said this many times now.

See also Wikipedia:Be bold. It literally says: "Fix it yourself instead of just talking about it. In the time it takes to write about the problem, you could instead improve the encyclopedia. Wikipedia not only lets you add and edit articles. It wants you to do it!"

With WP:BOLD, the idea is not to tiptoe around articles or be afraid to add information just because someone might point out a mistake later. The guideline exists so editors can make good faith, constructive edits that expand articles. If something ends up being incorrect, we discuss it, reach consensus, and either remove it or integrate it. I am not “littering” articles. I add relevant information. I am not trying to add anything WP:UNDUE. I consult books and academic sources related to the topic and add what appears substantial. That is literally the point of building an encyclopedia. You research, you source, and you expand.

At the moment, I already pointed out a recent moment where Buf92 completely altered a Spacemen 3 source. I am only bringing it up now because of this report, but if I had seen it earlier, I would have corrected it and notified him.

I even congratulated him for his edits before this whole situation: [270] Instead of focusing on content improvement, he chose to count my slip ups and use them to try to frame me as a disruptive editor, while ignoring his own mistakes. This includes sourcing errors involving blogs and AI right here: [271]

Binksternet already pointed out that a lot of Buf92's work might need a heavy revamp because it becomes hard to know what is being misrepresented or what is not actually supported by the cited sources. The user does not seem concerned enough about accuracy to write without using AI, and he previously accused me of rushing edits. But he is the one using AI to push large amounts of text instead of taking the time to actually research, verify, and write content in his own words. So if anyone is actually rushing here, it is the user trying to get an article to GA as quickly as possible that he will use AI that I have told him can be heavily inaccurate. There might also be heavy copyright infringement in the case of using AI to paraphrase sources.

Some of his edits on that same page, like presenting TikTok as important to Gen Z as MySpace was to millennials without making clear it was the view of one individual writer, are his own biases. That is WP:OR. And unlike him, I am not condemning him for it. Mistakes happen. The point is to fix them. That is how editing on Wikipedia works.

I am not here to create problems. I add a lot of content to articles. When I see issues, I use maintenance templates like "original research" or "needs additional citations," which you saw on Chicago no wave. I come clean. And I even apologize (heh). I even told you on the post-noise talk page that I added a similar banner to No wave when I saw how weak the sourcing was and how incomplete the page was. Another user removed it and told me to take it to the talk page, so I did the same thing here. And realistically, the post-noise page is nowhere near as problematic as the No wave page was.

I have also seen editors say they think maintenance banners are "ugly"(not saying this is completely true just something I read recently), if that is true then it becomes unclear when banners should stay or go. It seems anyone can remove them, regardless of whether the underlying issue is fixed. There are pages overloaded with banners that should be removed and pages that need banners but do not have them because people are unsure when they should add or remove them.

From what I am seeing, both of you seem more focused on trying to undermine an editor who has been here for a long time, based on occasional mistakes that everyone makes. Neither of you has been editing for very long yourselves (not even six months!) and in that short time Buf92 has already made a series of mistakes while trying to paint me as a disruptive editor. It's a total WP:BOOMERANG.

Like I suggested before I recommend an interaction ban between me and User:Buf92. Since they are using WP:BATTLEGROUND tactics. If either of us break that interaction ban then I recommend a block. It's incredibly ironic to say I am "adding large quantities of information to Wikipedia without stopping to double-check whether they have correctly summarised what the sources say, and much of the time, unfortunately they haven't." When the user reporting me quite literally uses AI to do sourcing / write ups. This is unbelievable.

Aradicus77 (talk) 19:34, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

I recommend you both read up on some of the policies I listed and others as well, because you have not been here very long. This is not meant to be condescending, it is just to point you toward the basic ethos that Wikipedia actually runs on. This place is not about never making a mistake, which I have repeated multiple times. You are using WP:CIR in a completely warped way, treating it like a scorecard for counting an editor’s mistakes so you can push them off the project. That is not what WP:CIR exists for. It is meant to address editors who repeatedly break policies with no sign of understanding or improvement.

And I will say it again. Buf92 has also broken policies recently, and those issues could easily place him under WP:CIR by the same standard you are trying to use against me. His inaccurate AI generated edits are themselves grounds for a WP:CIR concern. Aradicus77 (talk) 19:38, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

@Aradicus77: "This is your own assumption. If it actually is Couch from Ann Arbor, then you need to verify that with evidence, not rely on personal guesswork."

No, it's not, sorry. It's very clear from the full context that the band is Couch from Ann Arbor.

"“We’d say ‘Oh, the Stooges suck,’ just to be assholes,” says Jim Magas, who, alongside Pete Larson, co-founded the band Couch.

Examine any scene and you’re bound to find a backlash. [...] Get distracted by some all-encompassing, planet-misaligning sound from the side and that’s where you’d find Magas, Larson, and—from all accounts—the tens of kids that kept Ann Arbor neighborhoods noisy in the 1990s.

“We never thought the Stooges sucked by any stretch of the imagination,” Magas clarifies. “It was really just a sense of making fun of everything and totally lampooning everybody, from the promising bands in Ann Arbor to the sacred cows.”" Echoedits67 (talk) 19:42, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Again see WP:BOLD. You yourself have said "this is certainly not a malicious misinterpretation of the source". Not much to say on this. I leave the rest to admins to look at both me and Buf92's mistakes and make their own decision. Aradicus77 (talk) 19:50, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

As WP:CIR says: "This principle should not be misconstrued to such an extent that good faith is considered all that is required to be a useful contributor; competence is required as well. A mess created in a sincere effort to help is still a mess that needs to be cleaned up." Echoedits67 (talk) 19:56, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

So much text and so little meaning. You could at least spare the admins' time by writing all this nonsense more concisely. I'm really tired of explaining to you what using AI as a search tool (or a syntax checker) actually is. Buf92 (talk) 20:39, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Linking the band "Couch" and it being a German band the page linked to instead of a band that doesn't have a page isn't a "mess". You seem to completely ignore WP:CIRNOT. Read this "It does not mean "come down hard like a ton of bricks on someone as soon as they make a mistake"."

And furthermore this: "Mistakes are an inevitable part of the wiki process. It does not mean perfection is required. Articles can be improved in small steps, rather than being made perfect in one fell swoop. Small improvements are our bread and butter." Seems to be what I've been repeating over and over right? As I've said before WP:CIR is for people who can't really edit Wikipedia at all. I have been congratulated numerous times for my big edits and contributions, and have resolved conflicts on here. [272] I do not qualify for CIR period. Aradicus77 (talk) 20:02, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Buf92 also pushing for a site wide ban is ridiculous, when I've been pushing for an interaction ban with him lmao. This guy is clearly here to shut someone off from a project. Again what I noticed very early on was big WP:OWN with the shoegaze page. This is his form of silencing other contributors. WP:BATTLEGROUND Aradicus77 (talk) 20:10, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Of course, I am not criticising you for making a single mistake. I'm pointing out a pattern of repeated misrepresentation of sources (like this example), inclusion of uncited information, and improper editorial synthesis (WP:SYNTH). In short, repeated breaches of Wikipedia's core policies WP:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research. Echoedits67 (talk) 20:11, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

You have not provided any actual example of WP:SYNTH in what you cited. Me, Bink and Narky have pointed pointed out clear breaches by Buf92, yet you keep circling back to ignoring WP:CIRNOT and using that as a defense. (Your original argument stated I cited information but it was not supported by what was being said or you said it was misinterpreting the source, which Buf92 has done numerous times) We are just going in circles at this point. The entire point of that policy is that mistakes happen all the time and they are not grounds for treating an editor as incapable. I have also said that for the sake of argument I bring up these breaches by Buf but in the wild I am not the one to come down on him hard for it.

I do not know how else to explain the difference between an editor whose contributions consistently damage articles and an editor who is making substantial improvements that might need some ironing in. Again read "Mistakes are an inevitable part of the wiki process. It does not mean perfection is required. Articles can be improved in small steps, rather than being made perfect in one fell swoop. Small improvements are our bread and butter." Notice the plural on mistake.

You yourself thanked me for the work I did on the post-noise article. So what you are saying now feels contradictory to your own previous statements. Now this is definitely the definitive statement. I can't really add more to this Aradicus77 (talk) 20:17, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

"You have not provided any actual example of WP:SYNTH in what you cited."

I did, in the post-noise comment, and when I went to copy and paste it here, I noticed that you edited it and added something I never said. Here is how it currently reads (at the time of writing):

"However, several of their arguments for keeping specific information breached WP:SYNTH or uncited information (your original argument stated I cited information but it was not supported by what was being said or you said it was misinterpreting the source, which Buf92 has done numerous times), all the while they don't seem to understand what constitutes WP:OR."

I never said the "(your original argument stated I cited information but it was not supported by what was being said or you said it was misinterpreting the source, which Buf92 has done numerous times)" part. You added that, @Aradicus77, making it look like I said something I did not say. You did this here: [273]

As can be seen from that diff, the comment I actually wrote said "However, several of their arguments for keeping specific information breached WP:SYNTH, all the while they don't seem to understand what constitutes WP:OR."

Please do not edit my comments to make it look like I said something I did not say. I urge the administrators to take a look at this as this is yet another example of many of @Aradicus77 misrepresenting things other people say. Echoedits67 (talk) 21:18, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Yeah sorry about that, I meant to add that to my reply. Been working on something related to school. Aradicus77 (talk) 21:21, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

I have reverted @Aradicus77's edit.[274] Echoedits67 (talk) 21:22, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Break

The above is absurd in length. Everyone involved needs to make a far better effort at making their argument succinct. The above is impossible to follow. You'll never get an admin to intervene (the way you want them to) at this rate. Sergecross73 msg me 01:26, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Binksternet's bit on Buf92's edits pretty much summarize my issues: "Buf92 has also edited logged-out with reference to the same topic, proved here with this IP response added an obvious copyright violation This edit by the IP reveals obvious signs of AI-generated text. Another edit by the IP introduced poor sourcing including an unreliable online magazine and a Wordpress blog".

"Buf 92 admitted to using AI[275] several times which I feel is a major problem. Anyone who can be trusted to research the topic and present a balanced summary of it will not need AI to write their prose. And anyone who allows AI to write their prose has already indicated that they are too lazy/rushed/incompetent to put the appropriate amount of time in making sure that the text does not include hallucinations or unbalanced viewpoints. I get the impression that Aradicus77 is actually researching the topic himself, adjusting the balance when new sources appear. Buf92 is continuing to employ AI and is also still violating copyright by closely paraphrasing sources, see this series of edits This shows that Buf92 is not standing on solid ground when accusing others of being incompetent. I'm seeing a battleground style of interaction from Buf92. All of their edits should be rolled back".

WP:CLOP is a serious copyright violation, taking edits from the Ryan Pinkard book, feeding them into AI, and having it paraphrase Pinkard's writings is a problem. Here's what others in this thread said: [276], [277], [278]

Here is a complete misreading by Buf92. The original source says [279]: "Spacemen 3 could be called a shoegaze band by the fact that we did not have any stage moves. ... It was all about the sound we were trying to create and not how we were trying to look." It is a statement made by a member of the band, while Buf's edit states: "Spacemen 3's rejection of stage theatrics and focus on sound itself anticipated the introverted stage presence later associated with shoegaze. Aradicus77 (talk) 02:30, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Okay, I'll try to make it concise (and then I can answer questions):

1. I admit there were a few instances when I edited logged-out. As I explained to Binksternet who raised this issue, it wasn't with the goal to deceive anyone. I just forgot to turn off my VPN extension. [280]

2. In that same message to Binksternet, [281] I also admit that I do use AI, but not for writing articles, which Aradicus77 keeps trying to accuse me of, even though he himself admitted in his very first reply to this report that we had "cleared that misunderstanding up". I never hid that I use AI as a search tool (just like I use Google). I also can use it to fix my own syntax. I can understand why a few cases of my "big edits at once" to the Shoegaze article may have looked to Binksternet, for example, as if I took chunks of AI-generated content and pasted them into a section. But that happens because of a misunderstanding of how I was preparing those edits. I want to stress that all of those edits are supported by reliable sources (two books and a few web articles). As I said in the report, I was preparing to nominate the Shoegaze article for WP:GA, so it was only in my interest for it to be good-quality.

Now briefly about my report:

I have a valid complaint about Aradicus's editing style, which in my view clearly reflects the second point of the examples of disruptive editor behavior. I provided several documented instances where his edits contained original research, repeated factual errors, or misinterpretations of sources. I strongly believe his current editing style doesn't help music articles (which he often edits) improve in quality and instead spreads misinformation that other careful editors then have to clean up. Aradicus has always claimed that his edits were made in good-faith, but as the WP:COMPETENCE policy says "This principle should not be misconstrued to such an extent that good faith is considered all that is required to be a useful contributor; competence is required as well.

I already suggested that Aradicus try to double-check his edits before making them. But when I noticed that the pattern of careless editing persisted, I warned him that I was seriously considering reporting him if his approach didn't change [282], but he ignored this, which eventually led to the current situation. Before this report, I suspected it was only a matter of time before another editor would encounter Aradicus's good-faith editing method, and it was Echoedits67, who shared his experience in the report. Some of Aradicus's new original research edits were even pointed out by Echoedits with links in real time during the discussion. Buf92 (talk) 07:08, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

As someone who's worked with Aradicus77 in the past – (I helped him appeal the 2023 indefinite block; and I have answered several different requests for help from him on my user talk page) – I wish I could say something more productive here, but I'm not really willing to spend my time wading through this thread when it's so chaotically disorganised and all over the place.

If there's one strong recommendation I have for both User:Aradicus77 and User:Buf92, it's please make correct use of indents. Whenever adding a new line to your message and that line is separated by one or more line breaks, it should also start with the same number of colons as the line before it. Don't use indents to illustrate quoted words - use the {{tq}}, {{tq2}} or {{blockquote}} templates instead.

And also, try to write down all the things you want to write down at once, and then click the publish button, rather than just writing down one paragraph and then editing that message numerous times over the next hour or so to gradually add to it. Doing so can lead to running into edit conflicts quite often, where you may end up unintentionally altering other people's subsequent comments. That other person may not be able to tell when you are finished with editing your comment, and may not be willing or even know to wait 30 or so mins before responding to your message. Hence, try to edit your discussion page messages as little as possible. Regards, — AP 499D25 (talk) 09:21, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Note: I just noticed that Aradicus has seemingly stepped away from the discussion, stating today on his user page that he is on an "indefinite hiatus". [283] However, after he left the notice about his hiatus, he still actively edited music-related articles. [284] This makes it unclear whether he intends to participate in this report or not. Buf92 (talk) 16:27, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Proposal: Block them. Block them both

Support: As proposer: This is absurd. Neither seems willing to step back. Give them both a time out to chill. King Lobclaw (talk) 02:20, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

You have only made less than 500 edits, and have been warned about appearing in ANI and not contributing to other pages. The latter source states "Closing ANI discussions should only be done by experienced editors and you have less than 500 edits at present." [285], [286] Aradicus77 (talk) 02:39, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Which is entirely irrelevant as this has nothing to do with closing ANI discussions. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:59, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppetry by User:JesusChristismySavior777

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

---

Suspected sock (User:Mahal ko si Jesus) openly admits that they are a second account of User:JesusChristismySavior777 at Special:Diff/1303978036 on their talk page. The accounts also share a pattern of editing Christianity-related pages, sometimes disruptively (see contribs), both have religious messages on their userpages and have religion-related usernames, which could also suggest that the two accounts are related. Because there appears to be obvious evidence of possible socking (like the user admitting to having a sock account) and WP:SPICOST, I am reporting this user at ANI instead of SPI. RaschenTechner (talk) 15:14, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Neither account has edited for months, and between them they've only got about 100 edits. WP:ANICOST is a redlink, but it's still a thing - come back if there is any ongoing disruption. Girth Summit _(blether) 15:32, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

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

ChronoEditor1 repeated use of LLM in talk pages, FORUM-y, legal threats?

User: ChronoEditor1 (talk)

First warning here

Use of LLM again, using talk page as a forum here

Use of LLM yet again, using talk page as a forum here Use of LLM yet again, this time with threats to "write an open letter to the Wikimedia Foundation’s CEO" here

Finally, FORUM-y post on talk page, maybe a bit of WP:ICHY here ~2025-30597-01 (talk) 16:24, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

It's not a legal threat to write to the WMF and demand they do something, nor to tell the public that's what they're doing. It most likely won't work, but it's not a legal threat. If they have a legitimate libel complaint, they should be directed to WP:LIBEL. 331dot (talk) 16:26, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

It may be an issue if there is a court case involved here- which some of their posts suggest. 331dot (talk) 16:36, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

pinging @331dot here, according to lighthouse, on october 18, they've "In full discovery and research mode here, as well as being in communication with Wikipedia and consulting lawyers.." per https://lighthouseglobal.media/lighthouse-daily-update-18th-october-2025/. ChronoEditor1's creation date was on the 17th of october, and their entry on https://lighthouseglobal.media/lighthouse-daily-update-16th-october-2025/ suggests that they haven't done anything yet. I believe that this means that ChronoEditor1 is WP:PAID ~2025-30597-01 (talk) 17:15, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

redacted~2025-30597-01 (talk) 17:31, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

@ChronoEditor1 Could you please clarify whether you are affiliated in any way with Lighthouse or Paul Waugh? Could you also please clarify if there are multiple people using your account? Your talk page messages contain statements like "we" did x, "we" sent x. Is your account being shared by multiple people? Athanelar (talk) 17:43, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

@Athanelar, ChronoEditor1's first post, creating a new section which they titled "Request for Review: Article on Lighthouse (British Organisation) – Conflict of Interest Declaration and Concerns About Accuracy", includes (emphasis theirs) "I wish to declare that I have a conflict of interest, as I am an affiliate of the organisation in question. ... I, because of my conflict of interest, will therefore refrain from directly editing the article myself, in accordance with Wikipedia’s Conflict of Interest policy." NebY (talk) 18:01, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

This impacts multiple people and others have tried to change things as their livelihoods are impacted. ChronoEditor1 (talk) 07:57, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Just a point -- none of these are instances of WP:NOTFORUM. NOTFORUM refers to general discussion about an article's subject, unrelated to the article itself. All of these comments are obviously, unambiguously requesting changes to the article, whether or not those changes are good or appropriate. NOTFORUM would be more like "I think Paul Waugh is awesome, anyone agree?" Gnomingstuff (talk) 23:43, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

oh, that's a good point!

could you give me a few more examples @Gnomingstuff? ~2025-30597-01 (talk) 00:11, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

"Paul Waugh sucks and the world deserves to know it!", "Paul this is your old high school sweetheart Jennifer trying to contact you please call me at [actual real life phone number]," etc.

Not that the comments aren't inappropriate for other reasons (WP:HATGPT being one), but they're at least about hypothetical changes to the article. Gnomingstuff (talk) 06:02, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

• The user seems to represent Lighthouse (British organisation) and doesn't want their organization described as a "cult"(which is well cited in the article) or at least wants the description qualified to say something to the effect of "according to the BBC...." as well as offering their viewpoint about their organization(not cited to independent sources, but to themselves). The article Paul Waugh is involved due to the leader of the organization sharing the same name as the British MP. 331dot (talk) 00:30, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Not the first trip to ANI regarding Lighthouse, see this from November. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:50, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
• Looks like a case of undeclared paid editing and WP:NOTHERE. The legal threats may not be as blunt as threats we quickly block for, but they are still designed to intimidate, which crosses the threshold imho. Righting great wrongs, etc, however you view it, this isn't someone here to improve the encyclopedia. They have a clear agenda, and are using legalistic threats, LLM and whatever to achieve them. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:40, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
  • I agree. They may not be explict legal threats per se, but they are blatantly intended to cause a chilling effect. Blocked indef as WP:NOTHERE. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:01, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

    @The Bushranger Could you please close the thread then? ~2025-30597-01 (talk) 01:00, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

  Admins should generally avoid closing threads in which they used the admin tools or participated in a material way. Another admin or highly experienced editor will likely close it after they review. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 06:00, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

User:SteeledDock541's possibility of using temporary accounts to evade their block.

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

---

Originally reported on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SteeledDock541 on December 1, it seems like they are using TAs to evade their block. The TA ~2025-36112-07 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) reverted back to an older sock TongoJelly43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)[287][288] and reverted User:Lumakid100's edits, adding their own preferred style of template, which is a common practice for them.

The TA stopped editing on December 1. — MysticCipher87(alt-account) (talk) 16:29, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

No comment on the TAs, but User:BrickChism was them. Blocked and tagged. I'll leave it to others to evaluate the behaviour of any TAs (and remind the OP that WP:SPI is thataway). Girth Summit _(blether) 18:08, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

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

Gross violation of WP:BLP policy on article talk page.

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

---

Killing of Lisa from Abcoude (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Amily6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The following was posted on Talk:Killing of Lisa from Abcoude by User:Amily6, regarding an unconvicted suspect: I without waiting for sentence, I will be saying he is rapist, murder and I'm disgusted of him and people that try to defend him This is about as blatant a violation of WP:BLP policy (which applies everywhere on Wikipedia, and not just in articles) as one might possibly imagine. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:07, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

I've suppressed it. 331dot (talk) 17:14, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Should the person who introduced the info to the article also be at least warned?[289]

(The person who added the info to the infobox has been blocked in the meantime[290]. And Amily6 actually restored one of that user's other additions after it was removed by someone else[291](original)[292](removal)[293](restoration and addition).) Nakonana (talk) 17:36, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Note that the Amily6 account was created on the same day (19 November) that the person mentioned above (User:Bildete) was blocked. A quick check of editing intersections [294] would appear to confirm obvious socking. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:51, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

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

Yup - SM closed this while I was tidying up - for the record, they were  Confirmed to those prior accounts. Girth Summit _(blether) 18:23, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

User:MetalGod80's

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

---

• MetalGod80's (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has been making many unsourced death edits like those made by blocked user LAyub12, can someone block this account for unreferenced content? 77qq 💬 contributions 17:49, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

For context, this was also reported at the Rest239 SPI case, and I found MetalGod80's to be  Unrelated to the Rest239/LAyub12 sock drawer - I am very confident they are a different person. I also saw no evidence that MetalGod80's is using multiple accounts. This report should therefore be evaluated solely on the merits of the reported account (unless anyone can think of another blocked sockmaster who does stuff like this). FWIW, while the edits are unsourced, the couple I looked at during the investigation checked out - the edits were uncited, but the information was accurate. Girth Summit _(blether) 17:55, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

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

Edit-warring at Fortran

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

---

Resolved

 – Reporting user blocked indef; talk page access revoked Daniel Case (talk) 04:01, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

There is an ongoing redo-reverse action on the Fortran wikipedia history page regarding a citation that an editor modified recently. Specifically, the user associated with account MrOllie, who appears to have a form of administrative powers on Wikipedia, has been insisting on reverting article changes that are based on the collective Fortran community's consensus. This behavior exhibited by @MrOllie is non-productive and discouraging to people who are genuinely interested in and experts on the topic, and who would otherwise contribute their knowledge to Wikipedia. This request is an attempt to resolve the raised conflicts between the collective community of Fortran experts and the Wikipedia bot @MrOllie. @MrOllie's abuse of their power, whether a bot or human, has already had repercussions outside Wikipedia ((Redacted)). Such aggressive one-sided behavior will ultimately work against the interests of Wikipedia. Thank you for your attention to this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philosopher13 (talk • contribs)

Nobody here gives a shit about what some random with a grudge posts on Medium. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:59, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

The page is indefinitely pending changes protected now to assist in defending against the off-site canvassing that is going on. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:06, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

• Daniel Case, indef PC is quite a knee-jerk reaction. There were a whopping two edits from new accounts over a couple of days. Something like semi for a week or two would make a lot more sense. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:18, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

  That can always be changed; I considered it advisable since some non-AC accounts were making constructive edits and we do not know how long this situation will last.

  As I suggested at my talk page, the best course of action to take would be getting more editors involved, preferably those with some subject-matter expertise. I trust MrOllie a lot from previous experience with his reports to RFPP and ANEW, and certainly my suspicions would be raised as well by a repeated effort to introduce a reference to a published book that had hitherto not been made in the article. But, since we must assume good faith until we know differently, the editors from the thread may well have a point about Modern Fortran Explained being an accepted source among users of that language. I cannot speak with any reliability on this myself, I see no indication that MrOllie has that expertise, and so we need someone who does. So I will be doing as I have suggested and soliciting input from more knowledgeable editors through WT:COMPSCI and WT:SOFTWARE.

  And, along those lines, profanely dismissing these concerns out of hand is unhelpful and BITE-y. Daniel Case (talk) 18:33, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

  It's not a couple of days. This was initially added by an account that had a rather clear COI with one of the authors, and after that COI was pointed out there have been edits about this from SPA named accounts and IP editors off and on for a year - I won't paste in a full list here since this is not SPI, but see for example 2A01:CB10:9147:FE00:7CB4:AC6D:FF4C:76D1/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) and GuillaumeFabbri (talk · contribs).

  If non-SPAs want to cite the book as a source, that's fine, I've been mostly reacting to the external coordination, which I find to be a problem. MrOllie (talk) 18:41, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

  In the last 6 months: 6 Dec 2025, 6 Dec, 5 Dec, 5 Dec, 25 Oct reverted 28 Nov, 24 Sep reverted 4 Oct, 11 Jul reverted 17 Aug, and more before then - I see some in early 2024. NebY (talk) 18:41, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

  Also @Philosopher13: MrOllie has no administrative powers and is also not a Wikipedia bot. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:11, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

  Yeah, that "don't understand actual humans" got an indef from me. I'm willing to consider overreaction, but... SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:30, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

  Block stands, in my opinion. There's behavioural evidence of the OP POV-pushing on TAs relating to the Fortran discussion, and I really wouldn't be surprised at all if they're affiliated with the absurd Medium hit-piece which alleges that MrOllie is a bot because 75% of his edits are 'semi-automated' (they're talking about Twinkle and AutoWikiBrowser, which the piece talks about as if they're some kind of nefarious tools of ultimate control) Athanelar (talk) 01:43, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

  Given their responses were to double and triple down on what got them blocked in the first place (winding up with the usual 'delete my account' demand as the cherry on top), I've revoked their talk page access. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:47, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

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

Is their talk page access actually revoked? I don't see the "cannot edit own talk page" in the block log for Philosopher13, just "account creation blocked". 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 04:25, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I'm seeing too. @The Bushranger:? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:24, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

I actually revoked tpa. Bishonen | tålk 15:16, 8 December 2025 (UTC).

That's weird. I was *sure* I'd ticked the box, but the block log only shows a "normal" block. Thanks for catching this. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:48, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Repeated removal of ill links and unresponsive to discussion

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

A new user who at Dhurandhar has made repeated removals ([295], [296], [297]) of {{ill}} links without explanation. Apparently the user doesn't know how they work or going from their edit summaries is removing them simply because they don't like it. Warned the user and started a Talk page discussion, the removals continued without any response.

Eitherway, a comptency or not here issue, the user needs to be told to stop this or engage in discussion.

PS: Haven't listed here the numerous unsourced/unexplained edits to film budgets/box office. Gotitbro (talk) 18:28, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Probably should just block untill they notice the discussion shane (talk to me if you want!) 18:30, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

[298] And surely enough Kentfate again disruptively removes the ill link after another user reverted them. Unlikely they are going to respond here or to the multiple messages that have been left at Talk pages or the user Talk. As I can see it now, this is clearly a not here issue. Gotitbro (talk) 04:50, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

I have blocked from mainspace until they respond. @Gotitbro, a friendly reminder to explain the problem clearly in talk page warnings, especially to new users. Explaining what the ill template does and what it looks like would have been more helpful. Toadspike [Talk] 09:10, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Falsehood and non-neutral editing at the Bonnie Pointer biography

• Bonnie Pointer
• An5j2mp (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• ~2025-38684-15 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• ~2025-38921-45 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• ~2025-36889-26 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• ~2025-36243-42 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• ~2025-35963-38 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Starting in August with this false inflation of chart success, An5j2mp has edited the Bonnie Pointer page multiple times both logged in and logged out. An5j2mp and the associated TAs have persisted in a false chart attainment of Pointer's final album,[299][300] which was a commercial flop and did not chart at all.

The other non-neutral part is that An5j2mp insists on portraying Bonnie Pointer as successful in her own right, more famous as a solo artist than for her role in the Pointer Sisters.[301] All of the obituaries emphasized that her solo career was smaller, that the Pointer Sisters enjoyed their greatest success without Bonnie, and that Bonnie did not take off as a big star.

I'm asking for page protection at the very least, to stop the violations of WP:MULTIPLE. I don't think the latest non-neutral changes by An5j2mp should stay on the page. It would help to have more eyes on the page. Binksternet (talk) 19:20, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

I have semi'ed the article but also p-blocked the named editor who will be autoconfirmed with two more edits. Star Mississippi 19:25, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Create User:Harold Foppele/Archive-2025

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

---

Please create : User:Harold Foppele/Archive Harold Foppele (talk) 19:29, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

This is not the right place to ask. GarethBaloney (talk) 19:36, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

That has to be just about the least helpful reply I've ever seen on Wikipedia. Luckily rsjaffe has both told the OP where would be better to ask next time, and has created the page. You will have noticed that the editor can't create the page himself because he is blocked from doing so. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:16, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

I have created the page. Next time, WP:AN may be a better location since this isn't urgent. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:57, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

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

Abuse of LLM by Paleorthodox

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

Paleorthodox uses WP:LLM. They have claimed on their own talk page that they check everything they write ([302]). Yet at Biblical archaeology I found a hallucinated source, a piece of hallucinated information (there might be more, though), and books WP:CITED without any page numbers or quotes.

The point is not having them sanctioned, but someone checking their past edits.

This source is hallucinated: Schiffman, Lawrence H. (2019). "The Significance of the Dead Sea Scrolls". Journal of Jewish Studies. 70 (2): 195–210. doi:10.18647/3413/JJS-2019. Introduced here: [303].

This claim is hallucinated: Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman argue that archaeological evidence often contradicts the traditional biblical chronology, especially regarding the patriarchs, Exodus, and conquest of Canaan. In reality, IF and NAS say those events never happened, not that those were wrongly dated.

Also WP:NPOV issues: glossing over the fact that much of the Bible got debunked by archaeology. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:44, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu I feel bad, I saw your post on their talk page (which is on my watchlist) and was going to message you about opening a case at AINB. I can help you with that. Although admins should expect we will probably be back here soon given that this user has continued to seriously misuse LLMs past my conversation with them a month ago, and also Special:Diff/1320364851 NicheSports (talk) 00:44, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Timing is a key aspect of comedy:

06:38, 4 November 2025 – **Lake Erie Jackals**, Collectively, these franchises reflect Erie's deep connection to the sport, from grassroots high school tournaments like the Burger King Classic to the city’s evolving presence in professional and semi-professional basketball.

06:50, 4 November 2025 – A question from NicheSports: do you do any review of the LLM outputs?

06:52, 4 November 2025 – A response: Yes, I do actually read what I post and edit accordingly.

07:13, 4 November 2025 – Taken together, Erie’s professional and amateur football history showcases both its enduring passion for the sport and its capacity to produce athletes who succeed at higher levels. The city’s combination of competitive semi-professional play, strong high school programs, and collegiate participation ensures that football remains a year-round fixture in Erie’s sports identity. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 01:06, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Here ([304]) Dever's harsh denial that the Conquest of Canaan happened, Collins' confirmation of Dever's view, and IF and NAS' denial that the Conquest and the Exodus happened, all got replaced with a more pro-Bible POV (getting the stuff about traditional chronology mentioned above). Correction: Collins commenting about Dever already disappeared at [305]. And also did Lüdemann, which makes the POV-pushing obvious: Paleorthodox was censoring the mainstream academic views from the article. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:26, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

No comment on specifics of claims in the first diff, but the prose fails to impress and is what I would expect of LLM output:

collapsed quotes

• Modern scholars pursue questions like: ... followed by a bulleted list of unsupported questions.
• The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1947–1956 further galvanized interest. These texts provided unprecedented insight into Jewish sectarianism, biblical transmission, and Second Temple Judaism. They bridged archaeology and textual studies, showing how ancient manuscripts could emerge from archaeological contexts.
• Albright's belief in a historical core to the biblical narratives influenced generations of archaeologists. He emphasized linking textual evidence to archaeological data, seeking harmony between the Bible and the spade.
• **Jewish interpretation** ... **Christian theology** ... **Islamic understanding**

fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 01:33, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Yup, an article which took archaeological WP:SCHOLARSHIP seriously was transformed into pro-Bible smooth talk. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:37, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

• Indef immediately, no questions asked. Hopeless. AI must be destroyed. EEng 10:28, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Idris Shirazi

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

Idris Shirazi was recently blocked for "Personal attacks or harassment". See the previous ANI thread for their bad behaviour [306]. Not much has improved since. They still violate WP:NPA, WP:ASPERSIONS, and WP:BATTLEGROUND.

1. "sneaky" try to relax okay just take a deep breath, right now you are edit warring on an impressive scale, props to you, it takes a lot of mental energy to have 15 tabs open at a time
2. thats just another arrogant remark from some chauvinist who knows nothing about iran as a civilization, and has the same understanding of iran as someone who watched that sparta movie 300
3. btw he is a chauvinist he thinks "yes i am so smart "persia" ended when islam came and then about 60 years ago "iran" was created.
4. LOL i need a academic citation for why that guy is an ignorant chauvinist too?
5. Still don't refer to yourself in the third person though thats a little weird. This was a response to me telling them for the dozenth of times to follow WP:CONSENSUS, they were more concerned about my "weird" wording (I also wasn't referring to myself in third person...)
6. i know you are my biggest fan and all, and you love stalking me
7. (historyofiran i know you are stalking

And now to the next part; They simply don't care about Wiki policies:

Idris Shirazi has been told dozens of times (at least 18 (!) times) to adhere to WP:CONSENSUS, not only by me, but also others [307] [308] [309] [310] [311] [312] [313] [314] [315] [316] [317] [318] [319] [320] [321] [322] [323] [324]

They don't care, they are still attempting to bruteforce their way through edit warring, perfectly shown in their own words when you were disregarding MOS:ETHNICITY at Rumi "you will not find a single soul who agrees with this BS that persian is irrelevant. its everything he is, his religion comes from khorasani mystique school, his language is persian, his blood is persian he is persian, so keep edit warring me if you want, ill die on this hill". They just got partially blocked for 2 weeks for edit warring at Shahnameh [325], but despite that, is currently edit warring at Daqiqi [326]. Not a single time throughout all this, have they bothered to create a talk page section and engage in a discussion. Heck, at Talk:Buyid dynasty, I had to do that for them [327], only to be insulted by them (which was when they got their first block).

1. rv, WP:GS. please provide 16.2 trillion sources per cubic centimeter of pixel space taken up on my talk page or it will have to be reverted unfortunately. (this was after another long attempt to explain Wiki policies to them, dismissing all of it with this "joke").
2. or you can just get some thicker skin ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ LOL i need a academic citation for why that guy is an ignorant chauvinist too? is my talk page gonna be reverted now? (This was after I advised them to not attack the user they accused of "chauvinism" without evidence (and in general be a bit nicer) after I had just told them for the dozenth of times to not add unsourced information, resulting in another "joke").

I could go into greater details, such as their removal of sourced information (eg [328]) or unsourced additions, but I assume this is more than enough. --HistoryofIran (talk) 01:24, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Out of context, framing me as a bad faith editor. I ask anyone to actually look at my edit history and judge for themselves. Idris Shirazi (talk) 01:27, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

He is mixing a lot of things up there, including from when I just created my account (which is the personal attack ban hes talking about)

I want to point out a pattern - every single one of this incidents involves HistoryofIran. It is not a persistent pattern across wikipedia, in my interactions with editors, but only a reaction to HistoryofIrans constant reversions of my good faith editing. And its no where near as unprovoked, extreme, or even what it seems by his characterization above. Idris Shirazi (talk) 01:31, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

If you take the time to look past his deceptive quote links, and just look at the edit history, you'll see what this really is. Im not saying I am justified to have been sassy like that, in fact, I've already apologized for that (I even apologized for it in some of the quotes he links to without quoting that part). What Im saying is all this is, is one guy offended by me and trying to get me wiped off the platform. Hes been trying this since the beginning.

Even my first ban for "personal attacks" was a reaction to his own insulting and condescending tone (the talk page where it all went down is all open) again, I got a 24 hour ban for that, i was brand new, and I categorically condemn that behavior, but all I said was "get a life" in response to him not leaving me alone, so I just want to be clear about that. Idris Shirazi (talk) 01:34, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

It's much, much worse with more context. Also, clearly not every single one of this incidents involves me (which doesn't really matter, disruptive is disruptive), as everyone can see in the diffs. Speaking of which, courtesy ping @D.Lazard:, since you're the one Idris accused of being a "chauvinist" thrice. HistoryofIran (talk) 01:36, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

To be clear @D.Lazard, HistoryofIran is referring to a thread on my own talk page, a largely sarcastic thread, where I also said "please provide 16.2 trillion sources per cubic centimeter of pixel space taken up on my talk page or it will have to be reverted unfortunately."

Thats obviously sarcasm and hyperbole. I don't think you personally are a chauvinist. Idris Shirazi (talk) 01:39, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

You're not fooling anyone. HistoryofIran (talk) 01:41, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Anybody can click those out of context links and see the reason why I was being mildly sarcastic or sassy towards you on my own talk page. Any time there is an instance of sassiness on my part, its always because you nuked my good faith edits. And specifically targeted my edits, using any excuse like "not WP:RS/this sentence is not cited" and you'll remove just my addition and leave the entire article which has like 0 citations in total. I genuinely believe any good faith person can see that, even back to when i first created my account, ive never gotten in fights for the sake of it. Its always in response to what I perceive as an abuse of power. Idris Shirazi (talk) 01:44, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

These are two good examples right here

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Derafsh_Kaviani&action=history

Here you can see him revert my change and then personally attacking me "You clearly dont care about WP policy", only to realize that I was literally reflecting the body. He didnt apologize for that, he just withdrew and waited for the next chance to revert me.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Turco-Persian_tradition&action=history

Here you can see him undo hours of work to create an infobox for no good reason. Idris Shirazi (talk) 01:48, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

If you look past his deceptive links, you'll find that this pattern of being targeted by this guy has gone on since I created my account. Idris Shirazi (talk) 01:49, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

In conclusion I restate that this is extremely out of context, I want to also emphasize that I only have problems with HistoryofIran, and not other users. He wants it to seem like my reactions to him are reflections of my editing quality. Which isnt the case. Idris Shirazi (talk) 01:51, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Comment: https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/context-3 Placeholderer (talk) 01:56, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

the context is that i was being unfairly targeted. thats it. Idris Shirazi (talk) 01:57, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

I think being sassy is fair game in response to someone being condescending to me.

Like the example i gave where he said "its clear you dont care at all"

Im not sassy to everybody, but if someone has a condescending tone towards me then I think its pretty justified ethically, even though Ive been trying to limit that Idris Shirazi (talk) 01:59, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

I admit my comment was impulsive (I just happened to check ANI and it popped into my head) and not super helpful, but a takeaway from the comic is that "context" only makes sense as an excuse if that context excuses the behavior. Even if you're being treated badly, that doesn't give you a blank check to treat other people badly. I'm personally in favor of some lenience when people are treated badly and rightfully feel upset, but that lenience only goes so far, and in my brief look-over of this thread I don't see examples provided of HistoryofIran (or D.Lazard) behaving badly to be a basis for that sort of lenience.

Though I'm not keen on getting too wrapped up in this issue Placeholderer (talk) 02:09, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

If it were the case that I was just bad behaved for the fun of it, I wouldn't have productive relationships with other editors (as visible from my edit history). Literally the only editor I have a problem with is historyofiran, and its solely a reaction to being targeted by him with aggressive reversions. Its an easy trail to follow, every sassy remark he quotes of mine, you only need to go back a few steps to find him completely nuking good faith contributions of mine with condescending messages. I gave some examples above, one where hours of my work was nuked.

And the reasons for reverting are irrelevant, he searches for any policy that allows him to remove my content. Like in the Safavid Iran article, it went from one thing to another to finally "actually you know what you are not even allowed to edit here because of WP:GSA". Idris Shirazi (talk) 02:14, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Is this the part where I also ping the two other editors you attacked in your previous report? [329] when you were ranting about "WIKIPEDIA VETERN POWERTRIPPING NECKBEARDS" in your userpage? [330]. Or is that taken out of context too? Also, please refrain from WP:BLUDGEONING this thread. HistoryofIran (talk) 02:18, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Are you talking about when my account was a few days old? Yeah, i guess this is the part where you feel like your argument is falling apart from examination so you try to go over things I already had an ANI for when my account was a few days old.

And you act as if what I did was so terrible, I just told you "get a life and leave me alone" because you were failing to engage in good faith Idris Shirazi (talk) 02:20, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

So clearly, your problem is not only with me. You have attacked me, G. Lazard, and at least two other users, probably more. And in the thread (the afromentioned Talk:Buyid dynasty [331]) where you told me to "Please get a life", I was trying to achieve WP:CONSENSUS since you refused to do it and only engaged in edit warring, which you still do. Your other claims/excuses are just as unserious, and clearly, everything is not falling apart for me, but you, hence you why you have resorted to WP:BLUDGEONing this thread heavily. I have nothing more to say to you unless an admin wants me to comment further. HistoryofIran (talk) 02:28, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Once again, you are bringing up my previous ANI from when my account was a few days old. I didnt even know how to make a sandbox on my own account back then. I already served the 24 hour block when i was noob. And my edit history now speaks for itself that it has only been you ive had an issue with. You can try to twist this any way you want.

And once again, I don't have beef with D.Lazard. Its actually hilarious how seriously you took a thread where I said "imagine giving birth to someone and they get shot the next day" as a metaphor for the pain of you reverting my edits as well as countless other obviously sarcastic comments (keep in mind, all on my own talk page) Idris Shirazi (talk) 02:31, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

If you're accusing other editors of misbehavior, you should provide specific links/diffs to problematic comments. It's not up to the people reading this to go and look through all of someone's edits to find what you mean Placeholderer (talk) 02:25, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

1. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Derafsh_Kaviani&diff=prev&oldid=1325651351

Here is an example of HistoryofIran nuking a recent change, and condescendingly saying "clearly you dont care"

When he realized he was wrong about that, he didnt apologize but rather waited for the next opportunity to nuke my edits. Idris Shirazi (talk) 02:28, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

1. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Daqiqi&diff=prev&oldid=1326258810

Heres what he did not show when he took the out of context edit message i wrote on the Daqiqi page.. the fact that he nuked it literal MINUTES after I added the poem, before I even had TIME to add the source Idris Shirazi (talk) 02:38, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

• I think @HistoryofIran has a point regarding Idris Shirazi's problems with WP:CASTING, and avoiding WP:ETHNICITY policy. in their last edits, they accused me of random things and bad behaviour, even though I have no idea how am I involved in any of this:

1. R3YBOl this u? You are once again interpreting it in the most Arabized way possible. I kept the citation and added a quote from the page you cited to the citation and I made the sentence reflect it
2. lede reflects body better, the body isnt great though and R3YBOl you are making it line up with a single Iraqi nationalist historian R3YBOl (🌲) 07:07, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

   Although I do not know User:Idris Shirazi well, my encounter with R3YBOl does back up their claim that R3YBOl keeps "interpreting" things in the most "Arabized" way possible. R3YBOl has a consistent bias towards the Arab POV that manifests in adding content supported by obviously exaggerated or dubious statements related to conflicts involving Arabs ([332][333][334][335][336][337][338]). Qiushufang (talk) 12:46, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

   Also note that R3YBOl is the subject of their own section on ANI where I've outlined problems with their editing behavior and past actions such as the use of racial slurs and socking. Qiushufang (talk) 12:51, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Proposal: Boomerang

No we don't take sanction motions from newly created accounts. TarnishedPath^talk 02:50, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Idris is obviously a good faith editor, and it looks like an edit dispute is happening. Looks like historyofiran has a history of bringing edit disputes here to seek a block instead of using dispute resolution techniques.

• Support As proposer. Smashed up benis as a soup (talk) 02:36, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

  Welcome to Wikipedia. Your first edit was 15 minutes ago; this is your sixth.

  I'll leave the SPI to someone else... Placeholderer (talk) 02:39, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

  What exactly are you proposing? A block for HistoryofIran? Aydoh8^{[what have I done now?]} 02:39, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

• Looks like historyofiran has a history of bringing edit disputes here to seek a block – And from a quick review of the archives, he gets them, too -- because he's usually in the right. EEng 02:43, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Alex132219georgia

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

---

@Alex132219georgia has received 9 talk page warnings this week. I first came across this user in the new pages feed, where they were creating some standard articles about historical figures – harmless, perhaps in need of copy editing (see William Bunting (mayor), one of their first articles which I gladly helped rewrite)

They've quickly turned to a much wider range of editing topics ... so wide that some may call it suspicious!

This began with Craig Loudon (Mechanic) and Randy (friend of Craig) just over a week ago, both of which the editor attempted to recreate twice after the first speedy deletion. Zero notability whatsoever.

From there, they created Cheerio (Opossum Of Craig), Craig's Beef Jerky and Craig's House Site twice, and were then warned here by @Win8x, here by @Lofty abyss and cautioned here by @Jiten D. They acknowledged the 2nd warning but did not change their behaviour.

They then began performing copy and paste moves, for which they were warned here. @HurricaneZeta declined Draft:Shaun Jackson (Doctor), an Australian scientist, and the editor later copy and pasted the article to Sir Shaun Jackson, which was speedily deleted. Both the decline & the speedy cited promotional language and a possible COI.

They received a warning here for vandalism at Michelangelo Agro, another article they created about a BLP with a lack of notability. Continuing on their path of copy and paste moves, they first created Draft:John Philipp (Einstein Etcher), then Draft:John Philipp (both originally in mainspace) before recreating the article with no changes at John Philipp. They also recreated Thomas Fettiplace at Thomas Fettiplace (Knight) without changes.

I saw Orchard Brokerage soon after it's creation, and noted that it was very overtly promotional and referenced Jon Bostocky (see two paragraphs below). I notified them that if they happen edto be receiving compensation for editing (a possibility I began to consider while still remembering WP:AGF when they began to use some crazy promotional tone; see below), but received no reply. The editor continued to perform copy and paste moves during this time, recreating the article as Orchard (Real Estate Company).

Just minutes later, @Seawolf35 moved Jon Bostocky to draftspace – the article is clearly promotional in nature and once again, the editor has completely jumped topics. They then created John Bostock (CEO) (deleted in this name but then recreated again), Jon Bostock and Jon Bostock (Buisnessperson), copy and pasting the content from the previous drafts and then blanking the drafts.

Even if there is no UPE in this situation, the sheer amount of vandalism (among other) warnings on their talk page warrant some sort of action; perhaps a block from article space so the editor will use AfC. So many editors have had to spend their time fixing related issues that the situation has now become WP:DISRUPTIVE. aesurias (talk) 04:28, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

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

Sirfurboy needs to blocked from editing the Kisii people article.

• Sirfurboy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Kisii people (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Sirfurboy should be blocked from editing the "Kisii people" article. The user's contributions are neither helpful nor conducted in good faith. It appears that they have taken a personal stance regarding the article, guarding it and reverting changes made by others to align with their own opinions. Based on discussions on the talk page, the user often references their own comments as justification for altering the article. Furthermore, they seem to engage in conflicts with other contributors on the talk to make discussions appear contentious. A review of the talk page indicates that they frequently converse with themselves, as their threads receive little to no response. Blocking this user from editing the "Kisii people" article would be beneficial, as their contributions do not enhance the article and tend to reflect personal bias. Recently, they have become the primary editor of the page, reverting others' edits without providing valid reasons. A review of this user's edits is recommended for more details. Thank you for your assistance. Sirikwa (talk) 06:42, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

This appears to be a content dispute, and I'm not seeing the lack of valid reasons for reverting. I would recommend against posting wall of texts like you did here. If there are issues, please provide the specific diffs for them. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 07:10, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

It is indeed a content dispute, but this ANI thread refers [339]. Although Sirikwa is newly registered and their first post to the talk page claimed they had merely come in and reviewed the talk page [340], their first edit was to revert back to the IPs preference. They have now done so again. They have also deleted my only substantial contribution to that page. The IP also claims to be different users [341] although is transparently the same - their style of interaction here is rather, er, distinctive - (and before temporary accounts came in, was clearly posting from the same geolocation with each). I believe they are attempting to create a false consensus by WP:LOUTSOCKING and am formally requesting a WP:BOOMERANG, as the article is impossible to edit under the current circumstances. Any material changes not made by this editor are reverted out (usually after a few days as their visits are infrequent) and it is a clear case of WP:OWN. Please could this editor be topic banned from editing this page. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:57, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

I do agree that the behavioral evidence suggests that 24.197.196.103, 71.37.196.51, 199.193.70.20, ~2025-32028-59, and Sirikwa are all the same person. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 08:12, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Also relevant are these three ANI threads: [342], [343], [344]. Nyanza Cushitic is an account with 191 edits, almost all to the Kisii people page, and who started all these 3 ANI threads (and possibly 2 others). Note that Sirikwa did not notify me of this thread, as they didn't notify Wojak6 in diff 2, noted by C.Fred. Also Slywriter, in the third diff, noted No idea if you were previously the ip editor(s) who have bloated the article into an unreadable wall of text over the years, but ever heard of "less is more"? Note that there is no editing overlap with Nyanza Cushitic, who has not edited logged in since December 2022. The Nyanza Cushitic account is not being used for vote stacking, but this issue is clearly not a new one for this new account, registered 8 days ago, but who already finds themself at ANI making very similar calls for action against editors as the former editor. Slywriter noted, talking to Nyanza Cushitic, that a review shows [Wojak6] removed unsourced content or tagged unsourced content and you promptly reverted. This is the same behaviour of the IPs,[345] the temp accounts,[346] and Sirikwa [347] see line 79 for instance. The WP:OWN behaviour here is long term and entrenched. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:24, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Proposal - Sirikwa is topic banned from the Kisii people page, broadly construed.

• Support as proposer. The editor, as an IP and now with this account, is unwilling to edit collaboratively and has bogged down the talk page of the article in walls of text, whilst not engaging in discussion on issues; has repeatedly removed maintenance tags; appears to have started multiple ANI cases like this one against editors; has, as an IP, engaged in personal attacks; Has been WP:LOUTSOCKing; has demonstrated a long term pattern of WP:OWNership of the article, and thus prevents article improvement. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:48, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Competence concern - Jaredryandloneria

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

---

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

I am concerned about the competence of Jaredryandloneria (talk · contribs) who has failed to understand the AfC process. He has created multiple articles, many of which have been moved by multiple users like me into Draft space. Where he has participated in the AfC process for a draftified article - see Draft:Nathan Schauf specifically - he has made repeated resubmissions, received multiple rejections, and then finally just moved it into article space anyway. If his user page is to be believed then (Redacted), but regardless of that, some strong guidance or other admin action is needed.--10mmsocket (talk) 07:29, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

 Question: They appear to be a young person. Might they be susceptible to mentoring? They are enthusiastic, but undisciplined. It would be a shame to lose the enthusiasm when discipline might be mentored in?

@Jaredryandloneria: it is important that you contribute to this discussion. If you do not contribute then decisions about you may be made in your absence. I am particularly interested in whether you feel that mentoring would be appropriate. Wikipedia has a mentoring programme which would help you learn what you do not yet understand 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 09:23, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

A pblock from article creation might help with steering them in the right direction. However, I'm frankly concerned about WP:IDHT here, because this user has been receiving ample guidance and warnings on their talk page which they aren't engaging with at all, and it'll surprise nobody that their rapid draft creation seems to be being assisted by AI. At a cursory glance, Draft:Nathan Schauf stands out with the passage His subsequent work as editor on KPop Demon Hunters (2025) presented unique challenges, Draft:Samsung Foundry has and the two firms dominate the market for leading-edge processor manufacturing. and The integrated structure, however, posed challenges for securing external business, as potential clients Editors will also note the difference in English proficiency between this user's talk page & smaller edits, and their article drafts.

Classic case of a young editor with certain passions and interests who thinks successfully creating a Wikipedia article is the ultimate badge of honour here and promptly starts mass producing AI-generated drafts to bombard AfC. Athanelar (talk) 10:45, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

seems to be being assisted by AI: Agreed, some additional examples found quickly:

Special:Diff/1325990180 – *Ars Technica* ... *Reuters* ... *TechCrunch*

Special:Diff/1326113378 – 7 of 8 references and three templates are hallucinated.

Special:Diff/1325659041 – This subject meets the criteria for WP:CREATIVE. The article includes multiple instances of *significant coverage* in *independent, reliable, secondary sources*, not just routine mentions., followed by more generated bullet points which misapply notability standards. A direct misuse of AfC reviewers' time. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 12:06, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

@Timtrent I couldn't agree more. Properly channelled enthusiasm is a good thing. Hopefully an enforced pause on article creation combined with some mentoring will lead to a good outcome. 10mmsocket (talk) 14:02, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, @10mmsocket. Despite my concerns, I think you are correct to bring this here. I just worry that we might end up doing this poorly. If I am correct and they are a young person then guidance and mentoring is likely to be of more use to them than a preventative block, and thus of more use to Wikipedia.

I believe we should give Jaredryandloneria sufficient time to respond. I will, however, not be happy if a response is AI generated(!), or is inappropriate in another way, or is absent. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 14:35, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Is it possible to restrict them to edit requests for a bit? I also have competency concerns since their edits have required a fair amount of cleanup at KPop Demon Hunters & related articles (bulk handled by @Jamie Eilat) - examples of grammar/formatting issues: grammar ([348], [349], [350], [351], [352]), AI upscaled images ([353], [354], [355]), other formatting ([356], [357], [358], [359], [360]), etc. Sariel Xilo (talk) 15:14, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

No response forthcoming. The user has put a retired/fresh start template on their user page. He has also created a new account and is now editing the same articles as before, including editing a draft article that he created under his original username. Hmmmm..... 10mmsocket (talk) 08:47, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Instead of participating here, they've put a {{retired}} [361] and then a {{clean start}} [362] template on their userpage while this report has been open. Naturally, they are not clean start eligible. Could a checkuser please find whatever account they're socking under and kindly redirect them to this report? Nevermind, it's ContextCube [363] in this very thread, who's first reply here was simple trolling [364]. Support indef for WP:CIR. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 09:05, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Think that guy is very dumbass to be honest ContextCube (talk) 08:47, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

This is not a forum where you should be playing childish games. If you are going to respond to this ANI then please do seriously. 10mmsocket (talk) 08:49, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Sorry 😔 ContextCube (talk) 08:51, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

I Starting a new account reason:i made this former account my personal own because of reading Wikipedia. Second, I created the ContextCube account for editing accounts, and I also read Wikipedia guidelines and other more to make my edit persize as possible. ContextCube (talk) 09:06, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Even if you were eligible for a clean start, which you are not, the fact you decided to come here and troll after your 'clean start' means you're not a clean start, you're a sockpuppet created to attempt to evade scrutiny. Blocked ContextCube accordingly, and will block Jaredryandloneria as well. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:20, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

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

Legal threats on User talk:Cinch1965

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

---

Cinch1965 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has posted legal threats on their talk page and should be blocked accordingly. Aydoh8^{[what have I done now?]} 12:41, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

 Done DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:46, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

• For the record, he's also issuing doxxing threats, so mere withdrawal of the legal threats won't be enough. EEng 16:13, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

  I think the doxxing threats are worthy of a WP:CBAN at least. QwertyForest (talk) 16:27, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

  No need. There's little to no chance he's capable of composing a convincing unblock request. EEng 16:42, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

  THey are also admitting to off-wiki canvass people in the same talk page post, we may need to protect the article. Lavalizard101 (talk) 17:01, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

  The mention of editors harming children is equally beyond any pale. Nathannah • 📮 21:23, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

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

Continuous personal attacks

A user @FactCheckerBharath: keeps attacking me personally and also asking me to revert all my edits at the earliest, instead of seeking consensus. His uncivil comments are against Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Collaboration first. Also, he want to portray me as a bad character among other editors (by providing a link for previous AN discussion labelling it as "info for other editors" in a public talk page). Instead of seeking consensus through RfC, he started a whole new section to criticize me. It's truly disappointing and discouraging. Anbarasan1523 (talk) 12:59, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

I have not made any personal attacks to defame you personally. In your earlier communication, the administrators have already confirmed and closed the discussion.

I clearly mentioned that "deleting the entire talk page message was inappropriate," you deleted my entire talk page RfC, which is not correct, and you are agreeing the same in your comment above.

Earlier, you confirmed to me that you were not going to delete my sourced content. After obtaining Extended Confirmed User status (which I do not have), you deliberately removed all my edits and other authors' content under the excuse of NPOV.

I'm not sure what kind of personal attack you are referring to now. FactCheckerBharath (talk) 13:25, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Furthermore, all the edits by @Anbarasan1523 are aimed at criticizing and defaming subject of the article. His account is a new account that was created 30 days earlier only. All his edits on this page look like they are paid or intentional. FactCheckerBharath (talk) 13:36, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

The user @FactCheckerBharath: is continuing personal attacks here also and his comment tone is clearly out of personal hatred against me. Now he is insulting me by labelling me as a paid editor. That's why I stopped engaging in discussion with him. I request the administrators to intervene soon on this issue and also please ask him to stop any further discussions with me. Also, another clarification: His claim of deleted my entire talk page Rfc is false. He didn't start Rfc at all. I removed his uncivil comments only. Anbarasan1523 (talk) 13:43, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

On 8 November 2025, I left a courtesy warning regarding the user’s edit on the article talk-page. After that, I filed a formal complaint at ANI.

1. The user has since claimed that I was making personal attacks. My comments were directed at the editing behavior involved in the dispute, not at the user personally. (Please check his previous compliant and admins comment)
2. The user also removed my follow-up RfC. He has stated that he only removed an “uncivil comment,” but the entire RfC was deleted.

From my perspective, these explanations do not align with what actually occurred. I am requesting administrators to review the situation and consider appropriate action. FactCheckerBharath (talk) 14:05, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

That removed section is not a follow-up RFC, it is a request for admins to restrict that user's editing privileges. Those should be posted here at ANI, not on article talk pages. Regardless of where it was posted, however, the section they removed was not an RFC and should not be construed as one. I haven't looked at the rest of the issue yet, but I thought I should clarify this. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:46, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

@QuicoleJR, yes, I do agree, from the heading point of view. But my intention was to follow-up on the earlier post which was closed by him. And there is no point in deleting my section as I mentioned earlier. FactCheckerBharath (talk) 15:45, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

In the future, all posts like that should be directed to pages like this one, not article talk pages. I can see how Anbarasan could have been offended and considered it a removable personal attack, although it is debatable and I don't think they should have been the one to make that call. If you would like to post your concerns about Anbarasan here, please feel free to do so, so that the admins can have a full view of the issues here. Thanks, QuicoleJR (talk) 15:50, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

admins comment — did you mean to link to this section? If so, then it looks like the filer is forumshopping. Nakonana (talk) 19:51, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

He linked the administrators noticeboard, and added section header also here. Anbarasan1523 (talk) 00:55, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you to all admins for your time in the section. I would like to present the timeline of Anbrasan and his edits to the article which I believe are paid and or intentional edits,

1.     Anbrasan account created on 07 November 2025.

2.     On the next day ie. 08 November 2025, he started his edit war on the article. I engaged with him on the same day. Furthermore, I lodged a formal complaint on ANI and we were both warned since we are new or inexperienced editors. He informed me on his talk-page that he would not revert or edit on the article.

3.     On 09 November 2025, the article status changed to protected which requires extended confirmed access.

4.     Anbrasan waited for 30days, made enough edits and gained extended confirmed access on the 07 December 2025.

5.     Exactly on the same day of getting extended confirmed access ie on 07 December 2025, he resumed editing the article with content favorable towards criticism and removed many sections without contest. I also wish to note that many of the removed portions were those that were not favorable to him. (edit diff.)

6.     Furthermore, please refer his entire edit log on all the articles he has contributed to. His edits are primarily limited to templates, tables and infoboxes only. However, in this article he made significant changes to the background section and other sections as well. This is unusual and raises doubts about paid or intentional edit.

Elections are a hot topic now and are scheduled in the coming 5 months. The edits, as I mentioned above, create confusion among the readers, hence, I request admins to review his edits and impose restrictions on his account, especially on the political topics. If any other information is required, I am happy to help. FactCheckerBharath (talk) 05:49, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

    FactCheckerBharath (talk) 05:49, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Refutations to @FactCheckerBharath:: 1. Your comment is underrating new users. 2. It was a content dispute, so you have to reach consensus first, instead of personal attacks. Edit war started by you, not me. 3. The page was protected due to edit war. 4. If I have to gain extended-confirmed access, I would have stopped at 500th edit and waited 30 days. That was not my intention. My contributions are over 1000+ now and I also received a barnstar. 5. I followed bold, revert, discuss, cycle. If you want to restore the content, start an RFC and get consensus. 6. Check my contributions first before insulting like this. Your comments are against the collaborative first policy of Wikipedia. Anbarasan1523 (talk) 07:27, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

@CoffeeCrumbs: I request you to intervene here as the user is continuing his personal attacks even after your advice. Anbarasan1523 (talk) 07:27, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I do agree that your 1000 edits within 30 days, most of them in political pages at the election time, raises questions about paid editing. I strongly believe that all your responses about personal attack, NPOV concerns are being used as excuses, since you have not engaged with me in talk-page and instead went directly to ANI. Please note that I'm not insulting you, I am presenting evidence based on your editing history. FactCheckerBharath (talk) 07:42, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

@FactCheckerBharath: I don't want to engage in discussion with one who continues to attack personally over content dispute. Your insults are crossing limits now. Please leave me alone and stop talking with me. Let the administrators solve this issue. Anbarasan1523 (talk) 07:55, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

This is your perspective I intend to present to the administrators to demonstrate how you have been shielding yourself by offering repeated excuses. FactCheckerBharath (talk) 08:21, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

The user's personal attacks are continuing and crossing the limits. His usage of words like "paid editor", "shielding..excuses" showing his personal hatred against me just because of a content dispute. His only intention is to portray me as bad and restrict my account instead of gaining consensus for content dispute through RfC process. Wikipedia is based on collaboration, not for personal hatred. So I request administrators here to intervene as soon as possible as the issue becoming a serious concern now. Anbarasan1523 (talk) 08:31, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

TA mass restoring sock edits

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

---

• ~2025-39181-22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Can someone block this temporary account that has quickly appeared to mass restore sock edits made by IdrapoelIII? Thanks in advance. Mellk (talk) 17:20, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Blocked. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:28, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

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

Large-scale copyright violations

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

---

HorseBro the hemionus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I have warned this editor on-wiki and off for copyright violations and LLM use; I nominated Battle of Khoton Lake for WP:G12 because it was entirely copyvio, while Draft:Oirat-Uzbek War is entirely AI-generation. I told the editor then that if I saw one more incident for copyvio or LLM-generation I would open an ANI report. Now the editor has resorted to machine-translating foreign-language sources and copy-pasting their text; aka WP:TRANSVIO:

Article (Draft:Kazakh–Oirat Wars)	Machine-translated source
"where Nouruz-Ahmed (who died in 1556) was still the khan. Tevekkul offered him an alliance against the enemies, but Nouruz-Ahmed replied that "even ten kings like the two of them would not have been able to cope with the Oirats.""	"where Nouruz-Ahmed (who died in 1556) was still the khan; Tevekkul offered him an alliance against the enemies, but Nouruz-Ahmed replied that "even ten kings like the two of them would not have been able to cope with the Kalmyks.""
"In the 1560s, the Kazakh ruler Haqnazar (1560-1580) fought against the khans of Moghulistan for dominance in Semirechye. The Oirats aided the Moghulistan, and Haqnazar was defeated. After this, the Kazakh khans lost influence in Semirechye for a long time, where dominance subsequently passed from the Moghulistan rulers"	"In the 1560s-1580s, the Kazakh ruler Khakhnazar (1560-1580) fought against the khans of Moghulistan for dominance in Semirechye. The Oirats aided the Moghulistan khanates, and Khakhnazar was defeated. After this, the Kazakh khans lost influence in Semirechye for a long time, where dominance eventually passed from the Moghulistan rulers"
"Yesim khan continued operations and campaigns agains the Oirats, and Kyrgyzs. However, it was not successful. Mahmud ibn Wali's "Bahr al-a-srar" reports his severe defeat at the hands of the Oirat' Sultan-taishi, who after this victory was named Ildai-tayishi (Wind-taishi, taishi swift as the wind) ...according to the "Jami at-tavarikh" of Kadyrgali-bek Kosumuly, the Kazakh Sultan and batyr Ondan, son of Shigai Khan, father of the famous ruler of the Kasimov Khanate, died in one of the battles with the Oirats. After his death, he was buried in Turkistan"	"Yesim khan continued his struggle against the Kalmaks, which, however, was not always successful. Thus,, Mahmud ibn Wali's "Bar al-a-sar" reports his severe defeat at the hands of the Kalmaks' Sultan-taishi, who after this victory was renamed Ildai-taishi (Wind-taishi, taishi swift as the wind). According to Kadyrgali-bek Kosumuly's "Jami al-tavarikh", the Kazakh sultan Ondan, father of the famous ruler of the Kasimov Khanate Oraz-Muhammad, died in one of the battles with the Kalmaks...After his death, he was buried in Turkistan.
"Kazakh nomadic camps of the Middle and Little juzes were routed. In pursuit, Oirat troops crossed the Ishim, Irghiz, and Emba rivers and, skirting the Aral Sea from the north, ravaged the areas around the cities of Urgench and Khiva"	"The Kazakh nomadic camps of the Middle and Little Zhuzes were routed. In pursuit, Oirat troops crossed the Ishim, Irghiz, and Emba rivers and, skirting the Aral Sea from the north, ravaged the areas around the cities of Urgench and Khiva"
"The struggle between the Kazakhs and their Kyrgyz allies against the Oirats during these years was unsuccessful. According to reports from Russian ambassadors T. Petrov and I. Kunitsyn, they succeeded in subjugating the Senior Juz and the Kyrgyz:"	"The struggle between the Kazakhs and their Kyrgyz allies against the Kalmaks during these years was unsuccessful. According to reports from Russian ambassadors T. Petrov and I. Kunitsyn, they succeeded in subjugating the Great Zhuz and the Kyrgyz:"

And that is the one article I have had time to review in depth. I suspect very similar problems at Torghut Migration, Battle of Ayagoz River (1717), Erdeni's second campaign against Kazakhs (1640), etc. I suggest at least a block from mainspace and immediate draftification of all created articles. Pings to other editors who dealt with this editor onwiki or off: @Femke, IsCat, Grapesurgeon, and Aesurias: ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:22, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Support. I've reviewed articles created by this editor previously and was unable to verify multiple claims made in the sources provided. I couldn't find some of the other sources cited either, and I suspect those were just LLM hallucinations. I'm furthermore troubled by a message left by this editor on their talk page in which they appeared to state that an article they created and cited multiple sources in was actually based entirely on a misinterpretation of a source. This resulted in an article that is tantamount to a hoax, containing more incorrect information than accurate content. Finally, this editor has repeatedly been disrespectful. Notably, they posted a profane comic which they made on their userpage that depicted a solider killing a civilian based on their ethnic group. The comic has since been deleted from Commons, but the description given in the diff paints enough of a picture. I too feel a block from mainspace and draftification is the least that should occur, as this editor has repeatedly shown they cannot be trusted to contribute respectfully. IsCat (talk) 19:46, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Wasn't there a similar case recently about Battles around the Volga and the question whether the articles were hoaxes? Nakonana (talk) 19:59, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Ah, not the Volga River but the Don River: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1207#Circassian bubuzuan.

But maybe they are unrelated after all... Nakonana (talk) 20:08, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Sadly I have to support a block from mainspace. I saw some pretty bad copyright issues in a newly-created article but decided to bring it up with them on their talk page rather than publicly. They did amend the wording (as I asked) and I hoped that they would stop this behaviour, but it doesn't look like it. aesurias (talk) 20:40, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

• Block from mainspace numerous warnings and little improvement. grapesurgeon (talk) 21:27, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

I do see your suspicion of me using LLM as i did on early October to early novenber until the Dzungar-Russian conflicts, which i started collabiratin eith kalmyks to find use the sources. I did sometimes use google translate to translate my foriegn sources. I am fine with my block on wikipedia. - The Khan of the universe and the Hoofed animals. (talk) 22:23, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

• I have blocked HorseBro the hemionus indefinitely for copyright violations. Since these were not limited to the mainspace, I had to block from all namespaces. The reply above gives me no confidence they understand why introducing copyright violations is not okay and puts the encyclopedia at risk. Toadspike [Talk] 08:57, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

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

Autopatrolled & NPR editor inserting hoax references/using a LLM to generate mainspace content

• Boleyn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• John Braham (MP) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This isn't a very pleasant post to write, but conversation at User talk:Boleyn#John Braham (MP) has not been fruitful.

In late-September, editor Boleyn published the article John Braham (MP). It cited two sources:

• The History of Parliament: The House of Commons 1386–1421, ed. J.S. Roskell, L. Clark, and C. Rawcliffe, Boydell & Brewer, 1993.
• Parliamentary Representation in Medieval England, R.F. Jones, Cambridge University Press, 1997.

The major issue with that, of course, is that the second source does not exist (another editor and I spent a bit of time trying to find evidence that it did[365]). It's a Cambridge book; those do not just disappear.

The first source, while it does exist, is available online, I believe in an unmodified form,[366], and doesn't support the text Boleyn submitted. When it says this man died in 1420, Boleyn's article says "John Braham disappears from the historical record" and "unclear what happened to him afterward", after 1417. The source provides multiple paragraphs about his upbringing and lawsuits, Boleyn's article says "Not much is known about his early life or career, but his tenure in the English Parliament during the early 15th century has been documented in historical records"

Reading the rest of the article, and it looks very AI generated - it's vague, has those aforementioned hallucinations, and (though this is the least important bit of data) recieves a 100% AI generated score on sites like GPTZero. It's also very different from Boleyn's older creations, like Edgar Mayhew Bacon and Philip Bernard (MP), which are stubs that use(d) bare URLs.

I asked Boleyn about this on their talkpage, and they claimed not to remember how they made that article. I asked them to provide more bibliographic data (like an ISBN) for the second source, which they could not do. I asked them next about using ChatGPT, which they denied - and then told me they were "nonplussed" by my message and told me to fix the article myself. [367]

Needless to say, I don't find their denial about using ChatGPT or another, similar, LLM credible; while I believe a one time mistake make be compatible when holding advanced rights, that would also require Boleyn admitting that they had made a mistake. And, ultimately, if Boleyn didn't use AI - then they inserted a fake reference and text that they knew to be contradicted by the source. AI is the WP:AGF for that; if they didn't use AI, that's much much much more worrying.

Could an admin consider revoking Autopatrol and/or New Page reviewer right? Thank you GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 20:37, 8 December 2025 (UTC) typos fixed after Aesurias's reply GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 20:58, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

"Not much is known about his early life or career, but his tenure in the English Parliament during the early 15th century has been documented in historical records" is stereotypical LLM-talk. aesurias (talk) 20:46, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

I confirm the text at Special:Diff/1312956450 is AI generated. This version of the article was entirely of Boleyn's creation. Using gptzero.me, zerogpt.com, quillbot.com/ai-content-detector, scribbr.com/ai-detector/, and copyleaks.com/ai-content-detector, the LOWEST score I got was 99.33% AI generated. Based on that, I find it very hard to believe that this editor actually generated the content. I'm not particularly concerned that someone would make a mistake using AI. I am deeply concerned that someone would try to deny it when the evidence appears to be so clear. @Boleyn: please respond to this thread. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:59, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

My go-to source for ancient MPs immediately turned up BRAHAM (BRAME), Sir John (d.1420), of Brantham, Suff.. I'm about to disappear to bed, and I haven't compared it with our article on John Braham (MP). Narky Blert (talk) 21:57, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Just drive-by seconding that this in fact reads very much AI-generated, just the title case headings are already extremely suspect. JustARandomSquid (talk) 22:33, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

I'd like to see what Boleyn has to say in light of this evidence before I revoke the perms. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:06, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Looks plausibly AI generated -- also note that the edit was made 10 minutes after doing something else -- but it's also kind of weird that it seems to be an isolated instance amid several months of mostly just gnoming reference tags. This is really unusual among people who use AI, I almost wonder if it was a one-time experiment. (not much can be done but wonder if they say they don't remember) Gnomingstuff (talk) 22:26, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

That's the weirdest thing to me. This editor has no long-term conduct issues, no previous issues with LLM usage, and hundreds of thousands of uncontroversial edits. Why have they suddenly decided to (very obviously) use a large language model, and why would they even try to deny such a thing?

I doubt this would ever have made it to ANI if they just said "Ah yes, sorry about that. I was just testing it out" aesurias (talk) 22:28, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

You are correct, this would not have made it to AN/I - I have a huge respect for the amount of time and dedication Boleyn puts into improving our website's navigation and specifically told her that if this (article) was a one time mistake/experiment that wouldn't happen again, then I would drop the matter.[368] That is when she denied using ChatGPT. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 22:32, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

I concur with voorts; I'd like Boleyn to respond to this query before we move. There's no ongoing damage happening right now. We can afford to be patient. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:13, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

I am not on that often anymore, usually just for a particular stab at a particular backlog, so haven't given lengthy answers to GreenLipstickLesbian's messages. As people have mentioned, I have created a lot of articles, I imagine over 100,000 over the last almost-20 years, thousands of these on MPs. Although I have commented at ANI before, there hasn't been a case where I've been expected to answer in that time. GLL contacted me recently asking me for more info on an article I created 3 months ago. I create a lot of short, starter articles and wouldn't usually remember them individually later on, so I told GLL it wasn't one I remembered.

I don't think I have used AI, and I said that if there were issues with the references, they could delete them. I did find GLL checking my edits and article creations, then the way the comments were made on my page, quite heavy-handed. Having created so many articles, I just won't be likely to recall them individually, and generally there's been no issues raised. I feel really awful to be 'reported' here. If someone thinks there is an issue with one article someone has written, after examining lots, tag it, prod it, change the refs, whatever you feel is appropriate - but this kind of approach drives people away from Wikipedia. Having created so many, I will definitely make the occasional error and will not remember all articles. If there isn't concern about ongoing damage, I don't think this report is necessary. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 15:22, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

What error do you think you made? Theroadislong (talk) 15:30, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

GLL said above that they have been unable to verify the refs in the article I wrote several months ago. If it helps, I know very little about AI but wouldn't use it now or in future articles. Boleyn (talk) 15:44, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

@Boleyn I think the concern is because this article is so different from the many previous stubs you have created about MPs, and bears the hallmarks of being written using an AI tool. Is there any chance that someone else has logged onto your account and created this one? Comparing the first version of Philip Bernard (MP) (which you created in Jan 2024) with the first version of John Braham (MP), they don't look as if they were written by the same editor. The JB article has malformatted headings, no links, vague text, a reference to the book, not the online version, of History of Parliament, and a reference to a book whose existence seems unverifiable. It's puzzling. The concern about "ongoing damage" is that if you, or someone using your account, have created one article using AI, there may be more to come. This seems to be the first new article you have created after quite a break in article creation. Please explain. Thanks.

Just seen the above post: you say you "wouldn't use [AI] now or in future articles": does that mean you did use it in the past for this JB article? PamD 15:45, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what more I can explain, Pam. As I have stated several times, I don't use AI or know much about it, and understand it isn't to be used no WP (from this discussion - as I don't use it, I hadn't thought about it before). This article was months ago, but I can't see that I would have used AI as it's not something I use. I haven't created many articles in the last year or so, so I am not surprised that any I did create might seem different. If asked nearer the time of creation, I may have been able to give better answers, but really that's all I can say. Boleyn (talk) 16:06, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

One possible way of reconciling what Boleyn has said here is that they did use some AI-based tool, but genuinely didn't realise that (which would be explained by them saying they don't know much about AI). The way AI is more and more integrated into everything from your phone to MS-Office to search engines etc., it's plausible that you may do, say, a Google search, copypaste some of the resulting blurb into an article, and aren't even aware you've just polluted it with AI content. I don't know that's what's happened here, of course, but AGF I'd be prepared to give them the benefit of doubt.

However, by that very same logic, I think autopatrol should probably be withdrawn, at least until we're confident that there won't be more such incidents. If one genuinely isn't aware of using AI in one's workflow, then by definition one also cannot give reasonable assurances of not using AI.

(I'm not concerned about their NPR perm, since that's about reviewing other editors' content and not about creating content oneself.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:42, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

I think this is an entirely plausible scenario, and we should probably give them the benefit of the doubt. Theroadislong (talk) 17:00, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Saifyalakmar

Saifyalakmar (talk · contribs) has repeatedly posted another unblock request despite being a confirmed sock two declined requests. I think WP:STANDARDOFFER would be a best option. Ahri Boy (talk) 22:35, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) He's had standard offer already, at another of his sock accounts. He's not actually asking to be unblocked: he wants a different account, possibly his real name, set as the main account at SPI. Simply revoking TPA is what's needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikishovel (talk • contribs) 23:05, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Actually they are explicitly requesting an unblock. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:50, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

@Ahri Boy, I'm not sure why you've brought this to ANI? The unblock template already puts this into a queue for administrators to have a look. There's no need to bring someone to ANI for making multiple requests. -- asilvering (talk) 01:43, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

For any admins not yet aware, and if standard offer is being considered, there are worse issues than sockpuppetry to consider. This guy has directed vile abuse at WP editors who reverted his sock edits, including threat of rape, homophobic abuse, and WP:OUTING as noted at their user talk. Wikishovel (talk) 08:26, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

R3YBOl is banned on three Wiki projects, socking, racial slurs (N word), constant sourcing problems

• R3YBOl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I wasn't really sure if I should take this to the Incidents page because most of the worst offending behavior seems to have ended earlier this year in March when User:R3YBOl called another user @Moha7817: the N word and was banned for socking on the Arabic Wiki project. The initial reason this came up again is because I recently ran into some content dispute issues with R3YBOl where I asked for third party dispute resolution. They told me to wait a couple of weeks until Christmas Eve before commencing dispute resolution so they could finish their test prep irl, but in the meantime they would still continue to edit by reverting IPs. I'm not saying that this reason is impossible but a cursory glance at their edit history told me R3YBOl edited on a near daily basis and the content dispute in question was a page they were quite familiar with and had been working on for months. That combined with the tendentious behavior I had spotted made me very skeptical of their intention and resulted in a deep dive into a rabbit hole of this user's history.

What I found out about R3YBOl is that they are already banned on three Wiki projects. There's a Meta wiki global ban request (15 August 2025) for socking, racial slurs (N word), lying about language proficiency, misuse of sources (inconsistency and OR), anti-Kurdish bias, trigger happy claiming others are socks and making SPI requests (especially against Kurds) as well as article deletion requests (also against Kurds), and POVPUSH on Persian Wiki. This seems to be in line with what I've seen of R3YBOl's edit history. They seem to be in constant conflict with Persian and Kurdish editors. Idris Shirazi (talk · contribs) pointed out that at one point R3YBOl made a draft for an article called Three_Whom_God_Should_Not_Have_Created:_Persians,_Jews_and_Flies, which from my understanding is a historical text. But in the context of their biases, seems a bit on point.

At the time of the global ban request, one of the reasons brought up against their ban was that they weren't banned on two or more wikis yet, but this is only true for R3YBOl and not the account which was identified as the sockmaster on Arabic wiki, translated as Abu Khashm Al-Sandous (ابا خشم السندوس). They are also registered as User:ابا خشم السندوس on EN Wiki. They are banned on Arabic Wiki, Egyptian Arabic Wiki, and Wikimedia commons. The English account was reported on Incidents in March 2025 by @كريم أحمد: but since R3YBOl was older, it was dismissed.

They were first banned on Egyptian Arabic Wiki on 19 January 2025 for no particular reason stated even though they only had one edit so maybe this points to an even longer history of problems prior. Idk what this kind of ban implies. On Wikimedia Commons they were banned for socking on 31 January 2025. On Arabic Wiki there are 11 confirmed accounts, 6 of which were spotted aiding their main account in talk discussion and banned for socking on 13 February 2025.

R3YBOl was later found as a sock and banned on 1 March 2025 with 3 or 4 other socks. Their last edit on Arabic Wiki was on 8 February 2025 calling @Moha7817: a white n*gger, before which they had already called them n*gger on 2 December 2024, and Mr. Krabs (pejorative for miserly, cheap) on 29 December 2024. In hindsight, I wonder if the Mr. Krabs comment was a reference to Jews but I'm not familiar with Arabic slang.

All of this makes me incredibly skeptical of engaging with this user. I initially wasn't going to go to ANI due to most of the major issues being several months old, but User:Kansas Bear recommended I do so.

While these bans happened months ago, what I find concerning now is that R3YBOl has not really changed from their original mindset that led to their conflicts with other uses and quick ban. They are still highly biased regarding events concerning Arabs in particular, and are not above citation stacking with an assortment of low quality and Arabic sources to prove a point. I go into further details about R3YBOl's consistent willingness to use WP:FRINGE sources in the article talk].

The major difference between now and then is that they are less prone to immediate edit warring and has mostly switched to tendentious WP:Civil POV pushing. Initially they just POVPUSH without sources but then they switched to adding sources, just really bad ones or ones with dubious statements on subjects that they are clearly biased on. The sources are very Islam-centric and biased towards the Arab POV. I want to make clear that the issue here is not adding different perspectives, but that R3YBOl will always go out of their way to find for any statement from any source no matter the quality to push an Arab biased perspective. You can see this early on in their edit summaries back in December 2024. Sometimes they are lazy and just copy from the text word for word. Often they make small changes like remove a word like Persian and claim a certain person was Arab or change a conflict infobox to alter force sizes or participants with dubious and outdated sources or no sources. They will often apologize (or not) and then revert to problematic sourcing or undue belief in dubious statements again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again,

It is not as if they do not understand how reliable sourcing work. They have been explained to more than adequately several times by multiple users.

The problem with their editing is that they have a persistent motive to aggrandize events related to Arabs while attacking any opposite elements, mainly Persians/Kurds. I think their stance on Iranians, Kurds, and anybody in a conflict with Arabs can probably be summed up by the following edits: [369][370][371][372][373]

Also note that R3YBOl is their earliest and possibly main account. They were insulting people and socking on Arabic Wiki while concurrently editing on EN Wiki. I don't know if anything will come of this, which was why I was initially reluctant to take this to ANI, but at least this will go on record for any further discussions regarding this user. Qiushufang (talk) 03:53, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

@Qiushufang Our issue was from a content dispute and now it's been taken to ANI? I already told you that we will resolve our dispute in the DRN as soon as I get free again and I explained that I am busy.R3YBOl was later found as a sock and banned on 1 March 2025 with 3 or 4 other socks the sock master is not me and if it's acceptable, I request a checkuser to make sure if I am them or not. They will often apologize (or not) and then revert to problematic sourcing or undue belief in dubious statements are you bringing up situations that happened 7-9 months ago? how is this even valid that at one point R3YBOl made a draft for an article called Three_Whom_God_Should_Not_Have_Created:_Persians,_Jews_and_Flies, which from my understanding is a historical text. But in the context of their biases, seems a bit on point this article exists in different Wikipedia platforms and it talks about a pamphlet, I lost motivation in editing that draft, Which I even forgot about it.There's a Meta wiki global ban request (15 August 2025) for socking, racial slurs (N word), lying about language proficiency, misuse of sources (inconsistency and OR), anti-Kurdish bias,the user who requested global ban against me, has a long history of racism and vandalism in different Wikipedia platforms. they were once banned for displaying an anti-Arab userbox "This user hates the arabs and wants them to be annihilated" on Ckb Wikipedia, which even the admins banned them for several days for that. they go by the name User:Average kurd. Average kurd claimed that I don't know kurdish (which is supposed that I lied about knowing kurdish) yet I took all of these information from their talk page archive. Average kurd was not someone who was doing anything other than trolling on English Wikipedia.[374][375][376][377] they even cursed at the admins when they were trying to get them unblocked, and the admins can see this in their deleted contributions.[378] they also sent me a full threat on Ckb Wikipedia, the message was written in kurdish and arabic.[379] It was unnecessary for such a person to request a global ban for me and it was already declined.[380] regarding the sources that I cited, you reverted the non-arabic sources (from citation number 40 to 48 were removed for no reason; the sources there are all made by historians who have specialization in the field of history) if you were concerned about these low quality arabic sources, why did you not remove them and keep the English ones that were written by historians such as Clifford Edmund Bosworth? I also noticed that you started a new talk page section in Battle of Talas, which it was a WP:WALLOFTEXT of casting aspersions against me and calling out my sources as low quality sources.. how is a source from Iranica supposed to be a low quality source? or a source from Encyclopedia of Islam also supposed to be a low quality source? regarding resolving our dispute in the DRN, I already explained for you the reasons and told you that I am busy. It is true that I talked about reverting some unconstructive edits made by unregistered accounts, but you can notice that since our last discussion, I haven't edited anything. R3YBOl (🌲) 06:26, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

I took this to ANI because your behavioral issues go back months if not the entire year. WP:ASPERSION only applies when you are accusing misbehavior without evidence. That is not the case here. Similar issues reappearing at Battle of Talas were repeated months ago despite so many explanations by multiple users is actually an indication that it is probably less useful to continue further dialogue, not more. Why am I supposed to waste time talking to you about WP:AGEMATTERS when somebody already did the exact same thing back in March? Your predilection for stacking citations needlessly was also mentioned back in March, although in the case at Talas, it was obviously to POVPUSH proof that it is the "majority opinion". You have a clear preference for instating force numbers and battle article results to favor the Arab side using low quality sources or dubious statements ([381][382][383][384][385][386][387]) that has extended to the present day.

These are behavioral issues with your editing and not related to any single misuse of a source and would not be fixed if we went to dispute resolution. I have already spent enough words describing issues that just turned out to be things multiple other users have explained to you.

I also don't feel too enthused about discussing things with someone who would go out of their way to call someone "n*gger", "white n*gger", and "Mr. Krabs". If you are not a sock, then your behavior makes even less sense , because that would mean you randomly went to some other person's account and racially harassed them by calling them called them n*gger, white n*gger, and asked them if they would rather be "yellow, black, or pink?" You had zero interactions with them beforehand and they responded to your comments with a question mark. A day after your harassment, the sockmaster account asked the user you harassed not to revert their edits, so I can at least see why you would be seen as a sock if it truly isn't true. But I am skeptical about that too. You were banned a month after your last edit on the same day as another sock Salafi, which usually indicates that admin found additional evidence linking to you or judged the behavioral clues sufficient for a ban. Either way, I thought the past history and current behavioral problems were sufficient for at least a post to put this on record. Qiushufang (talk) 09:25, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

The account that is called "Salafi" isn't mine and "Salafi" refers to Salafism. I don't even belong to and Salafism is literally the opposite of my religion sect. feel free to open an SPI investigation and ask for checkuser to check if I am the sock master or not. R3YBOl (🌲) 09:48, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

• Support CBAN do we not have no tolerance for the N-word on wikipedia?

Tankishguy 14:04, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

I do support, and I do deal with zero tolerance for racial and gender slurs. However have they used any such slurs on the English Wikipedia? Maybe I missed them. Canterbury Tail talk 14:30, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

No, this is only on Arabic Wiki. Here are the relevant diffs ([388][389][390]). They said some other stuff including quoting a certain Abu Shawqi and asking the user it was direct at whether they would rather be yellow, black, or pink. As far as I can tell R3YBOl had no prior interactions with the user who was insulted. I haven't seen them doing the same on EN Wiki but they have a POV bias in line with a nationalist bent, which was part of what made me suspicious about their intentions after running into a second content dispute issue on the same page. Qiushufang (talk) 14:40, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

bias in line with a nationalist bent is it just because I cited an old source made me nationalist? or I cited too many sources made me look bad? I don't understand since when citing was something bad to do? I was planning to clean up everything by just resolving the issue in the DRN but I explained myself that I am busy in these weeks. You were complaining about me citing low quality arabic sources meanwhile you removed all the english sources that I cited regarding the article and I still have no idea how are they supposed to be arabic sources when the sources are literally in English and written by non-Arabian historians. R3YBOl (🌲) 14:46, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

I've already given my reasons above why I am skeptical about your claims of ignorance. Multiple users on at least nine separate occasions have explained to you how reliable sourcing works including dubious statements in a dozen long comments. It is either WP:COMPETENCE issues or feigned ignorance. Seeing your past history makes me lean towards deliberate denial of understanding. Qiushufang (talk) 15:00, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

However have they used any such slurs on the English Wikipedia? Maybe I missed them I would like to answer you myself, No I never used any slurs in English Wikipedia because I respect the encyclopedia. I wasn't banned for the slurs but for sockpuppeting in arabic Wikipedia but the sockpuppeting accusations is false and I myself would like to ask for a checkuser on my account and the sock master's account, whenever I have a dispute with an editor, they bring up arabic Wikipedia's situation.. I would rather choose to have a clean start and abandon this account because this is getting frustrating. I have been accused of being anti-kurd, and that's because I was involved in some ANI discussion that got some nationalist editors banned, one of those editors is Average kurd, who literally have shown their hatred to arabs in their own Wikipedia profile.[391], they added two different quotes about some person had said this (Ibn Khaldun):

1. Wherever Arabs settle, destruction follows. When Arabs are hungry, they steal; when they are satiated, they commit immoral acts.
2. If you get arabized, you will be destroyed

and so many other sock masters that I used to report their socks and file SPIs against their socks, brought up the slurs of arabic Wikipedia where even admins told them that they don't deal with this here. R3YBOl (🌲) 14:42, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Checkusers won't do self-requests (at least on enwiki). Tenshi! (Talk page) 14:46, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Checkusers won't do self-requests (at least on enwiki) Alright, then how can I prove that I am not related to that sock master? I have filed over 30 SPIs and I know how it is frustrating to report socks. If I get blocked, I won't ever create any other account to start a new series of sockpuppeting. R3YBOl (🌲) 14:52, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

courtesy Oshwah ping for his opinion Tankishguy 14:06, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Support CBAN - There is no time for R3YBOI to respond further. We should push for CBAN based on his WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior in other projects. Zero tolerance for slurs directed against everyone. Ahri Boy (talk) 15:04, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

@HurricaneZeta ping Tankishguy 15:30, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Tankishguy, is there a particular reason you are pinging other users to this discussion? Are they related to this dispute in some way? 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 15:34, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

from what they told me on and off-wiki, they like to be notified of possibly important AN or AN/I cases Tankishguy 15:38, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

@Tankishguy, that is extremely obvious canvassing. You've also pinged Oshwah, for no reason as far as I can tell. Please stop pinging people to unrelated discussions. I would strongly suggest that you avoid user conduct discussions entirely and focus on regular editing. -- asilvering (talk) 16:30, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

he probably pinged Oshwah because of this 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 16:38, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

That is the AGF version of it. But there is this, so I don't think its a one time issue. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 16:51, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

I do think pushing for a CBAN for content on other Wikimedia projects, where most people can't read the context without translation tools, is strange. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 15:33, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

I do think that this report is WP:HOUNDING by Qiushufang 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 15:44, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Some of their edits since their ban on other Wiki projects echo the same racially based POV, although to a lesser degree, especially related to Persians/Kurds. See how they emphasize Arabs defeating Persians or try to delegitimize Kurds [392][393]. Idk what the Wiki policy is on racial slurs on different Wiki projects, but that wasn't the only reason for this ANI, and it has certainly affected my ability to trust them. There is after all a global ban request on R3YBOI and many of the problems described there mirror my interactions with R3YBOI. Qiushufang (talk) 15:50, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

although to a lesser degree, especially related to Persians/Kurds. See how they emphasize Arabs defeating Persians or try to delegitimize Kurds regarding the addition I added to the Battle of Nahavand,I already justified this edit to a different user, and I explained my intention was only shortening, it wasn't an improvement anyways because I violated MOS:VICTORY and added I dots in the result parameters. As for "delegitimizing Kurds" that's not true, you brought a resolved discussion here, and I don't know how that is even supposed to be counted as "anti-Kurds". User:Ilamxan threatened to report me for removing parts that were not supported by the sources (the article was about a religious sect that was founded in Lalish; the majority of sources mentioned that it was founded Lalish but not in "Kurdistan") I don't know how this is supposed to delegitimize the Kurds, the same editor even violated WP:OWN by saying "The page is full of citations that mention Kurdistan. Touch it again and I will report you" and was blocked for two days for personal attacks against me. Nothing to do with delegitimizing Kurds. R3YBOl (🌲) 16:16, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

R3YBOl, from what I see in the page you linked, User:Wikaviani did not accept your justification for that edit, and rightfully so. This is another problem where you seem to think and portray your explanations as sufficient and others should accept it. Another instance of this is where you made it sound like I agreed with you to dispute resolution at a later date you had set. I very much made it clear that was not the case. Qiushufang (talk) 16:40, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Actually reading further into the comment you made, it makes me even more frustrated, because you consistently expect other users to extend goodwill towards you despite your persistent editing behavior problems. A comment like You could have asked me nicely to re-write it for neutrality. is ridiculous. That's what you should have done from the beginning. What's ironic is that you even accuse Wikiaviani of thinking you are settling a "score between the arabs and the persians", to which they basically said as much about your editing history, so you are obviously aware of how others view you. Again, I am 100% sure now that you are not ignorant of your behavior. Qiushufang (talk) 16:58, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Oppose CBAN - He did not do any of his previous mistakes on the ar-wiki on here, and there is no proof for R3YBOl engaging in WP:SOCK on the English wiki. There is no reason for us to ban him for not doing anything on here 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 15:36, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Oppose CBAN: I am failing to (a) see the objectionable actions R3YBOI may have done on this wiki; and (b) to understand since when we became traffic cops for offenses purportedly committed elsewhere. I realize that lynch mob mentality often takes hold on the drama boards, but this is way too far. What's next, are we going to get doxxing teams demanding cbans because of what people have been getting up to in real life? We are not the damn thought police here. Ravenswing 17:03, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

User:Paulie302 reported by Woovee

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

---

I raised an editorial issue on two discussion pages of articles related to the band OMD. In response, this user posted a message with a conclusion that constitutes a clear attempt to discredit me through negative and malicious comments, with the aim of negatively influencing other users. Here is what this user posted: Last sentence of their post: "There are no discernible issues [...] other than those that a multi-time blocked user seems hell-bent on creating." Posted at this talk [394] and this talk [395]. I am asking for sanctions for these attempts of blocking any further edit towards an user. Woovee (talk) 06:23, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

I raised the fact that you've already been blocked multiple times for edit-warring, in response to your edit-warring, editing against Wikipolicy (and attempts to bend "WP:STICKTOSOURCE" to support your crusade), and dismissal of sources whose reliability has already been agreed upon by the community at WP:RSMUSIC (your claim that SuperDeluxeEdition is owned by record labels was a total fabrication). Please, WP:DROPTHESTICK, adhere to Wikipolicy, stop edit-warring, respect reliable sourcing (even if you just don't like it), and don't try to make this into some kind of "rivalry" between us. Since it apparently offends you so much, I have removed the references to your multi-time blocked status on those talk page discussions. Paulie302 (talk) 06:57, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

I maintain that I am demanding sanctions for these particularly low attempts to discredit any viewpoint of mine in the present and the future. Woovee (talk) 07:03, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Good grief. You got yourself blocked multiple times for edit warring, I mentioned this in response to your edit-warring (and other quarrelsome behaviour), you got offended, and I did you the courtesy of removing those mentions. I could ask for petty "sanctions" against you as well, for falsely accusing me of "false claims" and outright lying about WP:RSMUSIC-approved SuperDeluxeEdition being "owned by record labels", but I won't stoop to that. Please, stop trying to foster a "rivalry", and work for the betterment of the project. WP:DROPTHESTICK. Paulie302 (talk) 07:25, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Huh ? [396]

How bizarre when a person accuses someone's else of edit warring to achieve their goals when there are only two people involved. Woovee (talk) 08:43, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Still not "owned by record labels". And this just epitomises the petty, rivalry-courting BS I'm dealing with here. WP:DROPTHESTICK. Paulie302 (talk) 09:57, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

This report is only about an attempt made by a user to delegitimize another person's viewpoint at two discussion pages. And ANI is not the platform for discussing editorial content.Woovee (talk) 10:32, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

*Yawn*. Those supposed attempts to "delegitimize another person's viewpoint at two discussion pages" have already been gone from Wikipedia for far longer than they were ever live. WP:DROPTHESTICK. Paulie302 (talk) 11:03, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Speaking of which, D-R-O-P-T-H-E-S-T-I-C-K isn't a magical incantation that becomes the more potent the more often you type them. You've done so four times now. We get it. Ravenswing 11:37, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

My apologies. Noted. Paulie302 (talk) 11:53, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

There is also a single-purpose account (spa) concern with Paulie302 as this account serves to only promote Orchestral Manoeuvres in the Dark at many articles as possible with sometimes wp:undue editing. The issue is not being a spa. The issue is Paulie302 has their own agenda for advocacy and promotion OMD on wikpedia and there might be a conflict of interest if they are hired by a management company ,(as one ip suggested it at Paulie302 talk). This might explain the petty attacks with a very well put sentence which wa a call aimed at the community to reject any viewpoint from me. They attacked when I suggested them that claiming that Radiohead were influenced by their pet band OMD would require the inclusion of at least one quote by the members of Radiohead, as no quote is available in the reliable sources they used which are not interviews of Radiohead. That suggestion made paulie302 show their teeth and bite. This is not a good sign. When such a petty comment is made at discussion pages to an user who is an expert in legacy sections, this is worrying. Receiving such hostility from the start can't be justified. Woovee (talk) 11:37, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

And speaking of repetitiveness ... Yes, yes, we get that you're mad that Paulie302 launched an ad hominem attack as opposed to focusing on the content dispute at hand. So stipulated. He removed it. He also didn't lie about the fact that you've been blocked several times for edit warring, and you can't imagine that it's a good look for you to bludgeon this discussion with attempts to discredit Paulie302. He's not wrong about the stick dropping (however much he should take his own advice). Ravenswing 11:42, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Wait, minutes ago you said "This report is only about an attempt made by a user to delegitimize another person's viewpoint at two discussion pages". Now your crusade against me extends to claiming that I'm working for OMD, which is complete horse crap. They are my favourite band, yes. But if I were working for OMD, things like this would look a hell of a lot different. And once again: We do not need direct "quotes" from artists. There is no Wikipolicy that says we do. Paulie302 (talk) 11:48, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

"They might be a..." means an eventuality: it is not an assertion. Huh, user:SnapSnap had already edited the Critical reception section adding those sources as soon as 2000 before the arrival of the other person.[397] Users would have seen it if an OMD fan had changed the section.Woovee (talk) 12:30, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Nope, try again. That section was largely written by me over the last four years. Do bands normally pay people to write a detailed section about how everyone thought their album sucked? You're deep in conspiracy mode now, scrambling to discredit me. You may have forgotten, but you initially filed this report because I was allegedly trying to discredit you. Doh! Paulie302 (talk) 12:37, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

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

User:Jessgod94 reported by Zackmann08

User has been consistently creating unsourced pages, breaking created pages, inserting unsourced or improperly sourced content and violating copyrights. At least a dozen warnings have been placed on the user's talk page. They have responded to/acknowledge exactly ZERO of them. Clear violation of communication is required.

They have also reverted fixes to their breaking of templates multiple times because they refuse to understand the use of PREVIEW and the concept of edit conflict and choose to simply overwrite other's changes.

A few of the warnings I have personally placed:

• [398]
• [399]
• [400]
• [401]
• [402]

A few of the many problematic edits the user has made:

• [403] - Broke the infobox, I fixed and was promptly reverted by the next edit
• [404] - Rebroke the infobox by overwriting my fix
• [405] - Reverted ANOTHER of my fixes, reinserting bad code, bare urls and incomplete citation templates

The user is violating multiple policies and is refusing to listen to those correcting them. I will also note that I specifically offered to help multiple times but was ignored. I fear that the only way forward is a temporary block until the user decides to acknowledge the messages left on their talk page at the very least. -Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 06:48, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

This editor has also uploaded at least half a dozen copyrighted images of BLPs – see the lengthy list of speedy notifications on Wikimedia. I don't believe they replied to a single one. aesurias (talk) 08:59, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

I'm prepared to wait so see what the user says, though with only four talk edits in 1,700 edits over nine years, I'm not confident. My inclination if this is not forthcoming in a reasonable time would be to block them from problematic namespaces until they respond, though. Black Kite (talk) 11:27, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

I don’t think we have much choice.. Doug Weller talk 16:54, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

I will note that since filing this ANI, the user has continued to edit and create pages with multiple issues while completely ignoring the ANI. Now it is 100% possible that this user just doesn't understand how talk pages work and that communication is required... But I think a 1 week block would get their attention. If it produces an immediate response on their talk page in which the user were to appologize and acknowledge their previous failures to communicate, I would have no issue with a reviewing admin lifting the block (obviously no admin needs my approval, just voicing my support for that outcome). But at this point something needs to happen to get this user's attention. The dozens of warnings clearly haven't worked. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 16:59, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Request to review outdated and defunct sources in the “Subsequent events” and investigation sections (WP:V / WP:BLP)

Hello editors,

This is a follow-up request focused specifically on WP:BLP and WP:V compliance in the “Subsequent events” and “Investigation” sections of the article. A number of citations currently used to support serious allegations are now non-functional, lead to defunct news sites, or no longer provide the material they are said to verify.

Because these claims involve a living person, I am requesting independent review of the following issues to ensure accuracy, verifiability, and compliance with BLP.

1. Defunct source at reference [14]

The link currently used for the “Hit and run driver admits fatal crash” citation no longer works and resolves only to:

“Sorry you can’t find what you’re looking for… we have taken the decision to close gethampshire.”

As it stands, the link does not provide access to the original article, the headline, or the material it is cited for. Per WP:V and WP:BLP, non-functioning sources cannot verify contentious claims.

2. Link for “community service” leads only to a generic definition

The link describing community service does not verify the sentence:

“Anthony’s wife received a sentence of 120 hours of community service for her role in the cover-up.”

This appears to be mis-sourced or incorrectly linked. Because this involves a private individual who is not a public figure (WP:BLPNAME), it requires especially strong sourcing and correct attribution, or removal if no suitable source exists.

3. Several older references point to archived, partial, or context-less reproductions

Some 2013–2015 articles (e.g., Drake, Chambers, Southend Standard) no longer display the original full content or rely on secondary quotations, making verification difficult. I request review to ensure that any material retained is linked to functioning, independent, reliable secondary sources as required by WP:V.

4. Request for source audit in “Investigation” section

Several serious statements—including the listing of disputed claims (birthplace, martial arts titles, protection work, etc.)—currently rely heavily on a small number of sources. Given that the article has grown increasingly negative and weighted toward past allegations, I request that editors review whether:

• each claim meets WP:RS,

• each claim is supported by an accessible, functioning reference,

• any unsourced or poorly sourced statements should be removed per WP:BLP.

5. Request to remove non-functioning citations or replace them with accessible, independent sources

If archives exist, editors may choose to replace dead links with functional ones. If no reliable functioning source exists, I respectfully request removal of the unsupported text per WP:BLP’s requirement that unverifiable material about living persons be removed immediately.

I am not asking to remove sourced criticism. I am only asking for review of citations that are now non-functional or no longer meet verifiability requirements, so that the article reflects current Wikipedia policy and maintains accuracy and fairness.

Thank you to any independent editor who can review the above concerns. I appreciate your time and attention.

TonyAnthonyWiki TonyAnthonyWiki (talk) 16:47, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

TonyAnthonyWiki, this board is not the appropriate location to request for editors to look at a specific article (and you have not even identified which article you have in mind). I would suggest taking this up either at the relevant article's talk page, or perhaps at WP:BLPN, while noting that generally editors do not respond to such broad requests for inquiry (even when highlighting a specific article). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:52, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Having now done some sleuthing and found Tony Anthony (evangelist), please follow the guidance at Wikipedia:Guide to effective COI edit requests and WP:EDITXY, and post your request at Talk:Tony Anthony (evangelist).

v _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:54, 9 December 2025 (UTC)