Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1196

Stealthy addition of spam links

Hi people. It took me a few days to figure this out: New users have been adding spam links through seemingly innocuous edits in which they edit existing references, for example adding translation of the article titles. Examples:

• Ivonschitz (talk · contribs): Edit at Aliou_Cissé adds a link to achat-industriel.com, which redirects to https://packers proshop.us.com, which mentions Vietnamese betting platform New88.
• Giménaz (talk · contribs): Edits at Ansi Agolli and Mërgim Mavraj add links to tub.uk.com, which redirects to https://training .uk.net//, which mentions Vietnamese betting platform New88.
• Eloquim (talk · contribs): Edit at Demy de Zeeuw adds a link to https://e2bet .limited, which is also about a Vietnamese betting platform.

I found more achat-industriel.com spam through a source search: [1], [2], [3], [4].

Ouch, there's plenty more New88 spam to deal with: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?go=Go&search=New88&title=Special%3ASearch. That's these accounts: Quarosme (talk · contribs), Alirezaiko (talk · contribs), Overmes (talk · contribs), Tagneuti (talk · contribs), Hooijdenk (talk · contribs), Mantazori (talk · contribs), Mantazori (talk · contribs), Carvajala (talk · contribs), Hamann211 (talk · contribs), En-Nesyra (talk · contribs), Waterris (talk · contribs), Kluiverta (talk · contribs), En-Nesyri (talk · contribs), Skácelzi (talk · contribs), Mendyladi (talk · contribs).

What measures can we take to deal with this issue? Robby.is.on (talk) 10:37, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

I mean those domains could be added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist or to Special:BlockedExternalDomains by a sysop but I don't know how well that'd work. Aydoh8^{[what have I done now?]} 12:50, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

This might unfortunately be futile if each user is adding external links to different domains that mention the betting platform; who knows how many are out there. These tools work best when users are linking to the same external domain. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:38, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

@Oshwah can check if there are ties to WP:JUDI? the fingerprints are though different but they are all the same type of syndicate(s) with possibly domain hijacks. – robertsky (talk) 14:45, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Robertsky - Just to clarify: Were you asking if they can check if there are ties to WP:JUDI (they, meaning MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist or to Special:BlockedExternalDomains)? I wanted to make sure I understood your question before I responded to you with a bad answer. ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:01, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

@Oshwah: more of sock related. then i realised the JUDI is a passive spamming pattern, which means there's no way to link this edits to JUDI. 07:17, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

{{checkuser needed}}. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:17, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Results have been posted to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Simbaz12. There are some new additions of users. Izno (talk) 04:54, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

You can add Drobnýa and Igor Samsh to the pile, caught in the 32win cleanup. 184.152.65.118 (talk) 15:31, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

 Doing... – robertsky (talk) 14:34, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

I added the initial ones to the blocked list. As for the new88 set in the later part of report, I will tackle later. – robertsky (talk) 14:42, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Some more accounts (from enwiki)

• Mêtgino (talk · contribs)
• Koscieln (talk · contribs)
• Tătărușenu (talk · contribs)
• Kinstentan (talk · contribs)
• Kescialno (talk · contribs)
• Sholaretire (talk · contribs)
• Barizatsk (talk · contribs)
• Dmitri Komba (talk · contribs)
• Kerzhekoav (talk · contribs)
• Giorgos Kera (talk · contribs)
• Brożekazi (talk · contribs)
• Gresickia (talk · contribs)
• 2405:4803:C8AC:9F50:DC2F:582B:7693:4B20 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Ibrahimna (talk · contribs)
• Václev Peliř (talk · contribs)
• Quarosma (talk · contribs)
• Jikupević (talk · contribs)
• Patríceoz (talk · contribs)
• Regueiron (talk · contribs)
• Jemmala (talk · contribs)
• Ibáñezn (talk · contribs)
• Bolañosa (talk · contribs)
• Makosiva (talk · contribs)
• Kovačića (talk · contribs)
• Rebićkola (talk · contribs)
• Erdinç98 (talk · contribs)
• Pletikisa (talk · contribs)
• Pivarićaz (talk · contribs)
• Hélderami (talk · contribs)
• Philippane (talk · contribs)
• Valverde911 (talk · contribs)
• SampChêra (talk · contribs)

meta:Special:AbuseFilter/383 (I think?) catches this a lot (this is a cross-wiki issue). ClumsyOwlet (talk) 19:39, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

This being hidden is a sad. Izno (talk) 05:02, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Removed all the gunbet ones, if more domains turn up I'll try to find time to clear those later. 184.152.65.118 (talk) 20:21, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Found a bunch more, though I'm under no illusion this is even close to being cleaned-up. The sniff is quite distinctive so long as patterns hold RCP should become better a picking up on this as knowledge spreads. 184.152.65.118 (talk) 20:19, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

This kind of vandalism is unfortunately too subtle for RCP to catch. There's effectively no way to stop it either. Izno (talk) 21:03, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm a bit less pessimistic. It's true that broad spectrum first line RCP focuses primarily on the obvious, and relies on varying degrees of filtering. However the edits can be caught with just a whiff, and more focused RCP is also constantly ongoing. Though a more salient question is whether the effort is worth the outcome.

Discussing just the obvious, the modal number of edits is 1, each edit primarily alters or adds parameters within reference templates, or more rarely overlinks, and condenses the paragraphs within one (sub)section adding a spamref there. There's additional more subtle tells, but even if you just know the obvious ones it's not that hard to pick out.

Even while multitasking and distracted I was able to follow the faint but distinctive feculence to previously unidentified accounts and spam domains without devoting that much time to it and that's actually a bit trickier. Bottom line, if even this old dog can find the scent none of our active sockhunters will have any trouble. 184.152.65.118 (talk) 03:33, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Unfortunately the large-scale reference edits (I assume some script is being used) is hard to revert and makes some careless mistakes. Effective cleanup may require manually checking the whole of each edit, although generally reference urls are left in place so nothing theoretically couldn't be fixed by someone checking sources at a later time. CMD (talk) 03:36, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

There I agree. These are best caught before edit-conflicts make reversion a pain. Aside from just the spamref the script being employed often causes problems with the other refs like changing indicative refnames to nonindicative ones, and the condensation of paragraphs is also undesirable. Once or twice I did manually revert while keeping later productive changes when they were small in number, however once the quantity of post-disruption edits gets large you are probably going to need 3 to 5 uninterrupted minutes to sort everything which is far from ideal. 184.152.65.118 (talk) 04:34, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

I am not particularly disputing how easy or hard it is to spot if you know what you're looking for, but most RCPers are generalist vandalism reverters and so don't know what they're looking for/at - all they see is some citation fussing and then miss the new parasitic tree in the forest. Most don't follow AN either, so educational effect of this section is minimal. The reason all these edits passed the net is that they're too subtle. NB this isn't new; though I associated them particularly to Simbaz, this kind of refspam has been ongoing for multiple years at this point. IznoPublic (talk) 19:52, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

I mean refspam has been with us since we started having refs. I suppose I was trying to give a partial answer to Robby.is.on's query regarding what measures can be taken. However, thinking about it now you are correct, knowledge is unlikely to diffuse on its own. In principle someone could leave talk page messages for people who do the largest amount of RCP work both generally and in the most affected areas specifically though there's no practical way to reach the long tail and add instructional information about this on a CVU page or similar but nobody reads the instructions and most RCP is self-taught. So we come back to the more salient question of whether the inputs are worth the outputs given the many other competing priorities.

Local logging filters could also be set up that would catch this specific style without too much difficulty no public details for obvious reasons though I suspect you already know how. Would need people to monitor and tweak as the tools used by spammers continually evolve. Not that big a deal but may still be questioned from an efficiency standpoint. 184.152.65.118 (talk) 18:36, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Noting that this seems vaguely similar to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Raphinha98: hiding gambling spam inside chaff (in Raphinha98's case, adding and modifying refs) to make it harder to detect (and where someone does find the edits, it looks like they were made in good faith). OutsideNormality (talk) 19:15, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Merged. Izno (talk) 00:16, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes, this is cross-wiki. Found another few cross-wiki, and this is checking only one domain.

• Yui Nakaran (talk · contribs)
• Miguelzi (talk · contribs)
• Verrattia (talk · contribs)

Please list the domains spammed at m:Talk:Wikiproject:Antispam and m:Talk:Spam blacklist. You can use Spamcheck to check both users and domains e.g. [5]. All accounts should be locked and domains blocked globally. MER-C 19:15, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Nova Scota (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (check GUC) is another one. This one is concerning because it looks like they are creating new articles with the spam links in them. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 02:10, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Persistent addition of unsoured content by 2A01:CB10:90E7:7C00:0:0:0:0/64

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

---

2A01:CB10:90E7:7C00:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - /64 keeps adding unsourced content to articles, and hasn't responded to warnings. /64 has been blocked twice previously, most recently in April for 3 months for persistent addition of unsourced content - the same behaviour has continued after block expired. Recent examples of addition of unsourced content: 1 (content added not in existing cited source), 2, 3, 4, 5. Waxworker (talk) 14:35, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Blocked from the article namespace for 1 year. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:57, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

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

FuzzyMagma

I placed a deletion template on File:Aed Abu Amro.jpg but User:FuzzyMagma removed the template based on the fact that no deletion rationale was provided, so i placed a different deletion template. FuzzyMagma removed it again and placed a nastygram on my former IP's talk page. Perhaps i am wrong to add the templates? Is it correct to illustrate a BLP with copyrighted material? 2600:1010:A121:E21D:2811:5F2:BCAB:2257 (talk) 16:23, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Can you provide difs?

Also, you have to notify FuzzyMagma. Redacted II (talk) 16:35, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

• Notified user
• First template
• Second template
• First revert
• Second revert. 2600:1010:A121:E21D:2811:5F2:BCAB:2257 (talk) 16:44, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes I did remove it as you did not specify why and where you found a suitable alternative free image. I twice quizzed you on your talk and you refused to engage and continued to do the same thing.

You could have also used the file talk, but instead you came here, and still did not provide any clarity on why you want the image to be deleted, why you think a free alternative can be found and where? the onus is on you to show you did your homework not for us to guess or to do it for you. FuzzyMagma (talk) 11:29, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Wow, where to begin.

1. The template does not call for any parameters which is why I didn't provide any.
2. None of the three templated nastygrams you posted to my talk page would qualify as you 'quizzing me'. The third one explicitly suggested I come here to ANI so I did. I suggest you retract your claim that I refused to engage. I wonder how many other editors you've gaslighted in these ways. 🤔
3. I don't owe you any explanation for why the image should be deleted when the reason is included in the template text so no "homework" is required of me, and no 'guessing' is required of you.

#As a side note, it appears you abused rollback when removing the templates. You should probably brush up on your Wikipedia rules.

2600:1010:A121:E21D:F194:32D8:71A1:7788 (talk) 22:39, 28 July 2025 (UTC) (edited) 00:05, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

It does not look like FuzzyMagma used rollback on File:Aed Abu Amro.jpg at all? Their reversions were made using Twinkle, which is an entirely seperate tool. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:13, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Noted and partially struck, thanks. Still it was rather rude of the user to come at me in those ways. 2600:1010:A121:E21D:F194:32D8:71A1:7788 (talk) 00:05, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

1. Use the talk

2. you changed your reasoning between your deletion requests, hence why I still think it was disruptive

3. you do! That why we have the talk. This is not a place where you just get to do as you want without explaining yourself

about being “rude” and “gaslighting”: IP please! This a personal attack so tread carefully! FuzzyMagma (talk) 06:04, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes, rude. 2600:1010:A121:E21D:F194:32D8:71A1:7788 (talk) 17:04, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

User:102.97.181.146 making unsourced and unexplained additions to pages, certainly disruptive editing and potentially vandalism?

• 102.97.181.146 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Hello there,

as per the title, this IP user appears to possess an albeit short, but exclusive edit history of making disruptive, unsourced and unexplained changes to the infobox of various articles, particularly on the Siege of Jerusalem (1099) and Battle of Écija (1275) pages, which could potentially be vandalism if I’m not mistaken. If this user is not penalized, could I at least suggest they receive a warning on their talk page and have the relevant articles they recently disrupted be patrolled for further disruption? Thanks all. 47.176.216.18 (talk) 18:32, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Most of the IP's edits to the pages were over 6 days ago, which is atypical for anything substantial. Though looking throughout Battle of Écija (1275)'s history, the range of 102.97 appears infrequently throughout this year with the same/similar unsourced edits. Conyo14 (talk) 19:49, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Harassment and weird IP behaviour

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

---

This might be the strangest incident I have come across in my time here—okay, maybe the second after the KMaster888 incident(s). A few weeks ago, an IP started editing Sergio Pérez in what felt a fairly promotional way. They proceeded to start an aggressive edit war with four users over this, leading to a long discussion at that talk page with unanimous consensus against them. To draw their attention away from the article and any WP:CANTHEARYOU shenanigans, I agreed to bring a separate discussion to my talk page when they asked me an unrelated question. What started off as a normal conversation got weirder, and weirder, and weirder. They started altering my comments once I stopped replying and have pinged me thrice in the eight days since.[6][7][8] I assumed these were isolated incidents in jest but this comment (now removed from the public archive) at another user's page is outright egregious. Apologies for not reporting this sooner.

IPs used by user:

• 2a02:c7c:746d:3000:f814:f678:afd3:a74a
• 2a02:c7c:746d:3000:4452:c19b:99e5:6518
• 2a02:c7c:746d:3000:99e9:ce58:2994:5b63
• 2a02:c7c:746d:3000:7d69:9785:4eef:493a
• 2.219.210.1 (not blocked)
• 2a02:c7c:746d:3000:1176:aa36:d97e:f4c8
• 2a02:c7c:746d:3000:79fd:ea77:8693:c9a6
• 2a02:c7c:746d:3000:f5cf:c74c:fb59:e61f
• 2a02:c7c:746d:3000:64e2:48ae:d3ab:67e6
• 2a02:c7c:746d:3000:dd79:dc7a:962d:a699

Pinging @Namelessposter, @Lobo151, and @BrandNewSaint, who have witnessed this individual's bizarre behaviour over the past few weeks. I see they have been blocked for a month for the latter incident but, frankly, they should be indeffed—their behaviour is incompatible with this community. MB2437 23:34, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

We don't indef IPs, because they are largely dymamic. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:38, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Fair enough. Then I would request extending the length to at least three months; they have shown they are willing to wait weeks at a time to continue their harassment. MB2437 23:43, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Typically, if the range being unblocked becomes a problem, they'll be blocked again within a day. If it isn't a problem because they either lose interest or get assigned a new range, then the problem solves itself. The less you pay the trolls mind and more you just report and ignore them, the less of a problem is to be had overall since at that point administration is an assured thing. Departure– (talk) 23:47, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Are tabs kept on recently unblocked ranges? They have continually crossed the line and their behaviour towards myself and BrandNewSaint has been obsessive. MB2437 23:53, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Sort of? One sockmaster has been pursuing an editor for a year now, and chasing their socks is now a game of whack-a-mole. (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sheepman2099/Archive.) Are we saying there's nothing that can realistically be done about it besides refining the methods of mole whacking? Namelessposter (talk) 00:04, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Not sure this would be the place to discuss the possibility of device bans. MB2437 00:10, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

I don't know if the CheckUser guys can block a MAC address, but it would be useful to know. Namelessposter (talk) 00:12, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

If all of the disruption is coming from one /64 range of IPv6 addresses (like Departure– said below), what I've seen is that admins just block the /64 as if it were a single IPv4 and move on as to deny recognition. I don't think MAC address blocks are needed (or possible; I'm not an admin, so I don't know). SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 01:11, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

For IPv6 addresses, blocking the /64 is pretty much standard. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:03, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

MAC addresses are not given to websites and so are impossible. (Also would be largely worthless since randomized MAC addresses are common now.) Skynxnex (talk) 01:23, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Randomized MAC addresses? The future is now. Namelessposter (talk) 12:07, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm not involved with this incident but note that the IPv6 addresses you've brought up were all under a single /64 range; Special:Contributions/2A02:C7C:746D:3000:0:0:0:0/64, which was blocked around 40 minutes before this report was filed. The IPv4 you brought up hasn't been used in two weeks. Departure– (talk) 23:38, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Agreed, indefinitely blocking an IP is very rare. 2600:4040:F10F:6E00:78BD:BF0C:B446:F2AC (talk) 23:40, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

It looks like the appropriate IP range has been blocked but if anyone is feeling targeted, you can contact Trust and Safety and they might have additional advice on protecting your account. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:45, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, Liz. MB2437 19:05, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

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

Dragonfruitfox

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

---

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

Dragonfruitfox only seeks to be disruptive, creating at least one hoax page (Zach Hanson; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zach Hanson) and editing others to insert similar hoaxes (1, 2, 3, 4). They hijack pages to promote hoaxes. WP:NOTHERE. jolielover♥talk 09:19, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Blocked as an advertising only account. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:59, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

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

Lucygeejones8 is at it again

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

---

• Lucygeejones8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• When Will I Be Famous? (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Lucygeejones8 continues to improperly cite their sources on several articles. In addition to carelessly restoring a broken (and ambiguous) citation on I Quit (Bros song) ([9]), they have been attempting to add French chart peaks that weren't compiled by SNEP, the official French chart compiler. In addition, they have neglected to replace the French single chart template and have instead added the citation to the lead, in which France wasn't mentioned at one point ([10]). Also, another citation they provided on When Will I Be Famous? contained a broken link ([11][12]). I'm getting tired of their attitude, and it seems like the users at the Teahouse and those who have posted on their talk page feel the same. While I understand that this user's intentions may be good, they are not contributing to this site in a positive manner, even after many warnings and reversions. They just won't listen. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 11:36, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

That would be Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TomWatkins1970. Blocked a couple others, too. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:50, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

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

BusFan901

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

---

Report declined at AIV.

BusFan901 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has done nothing but disrupt school bus-related articles in the two days the account has existed, largely with unexplained and unsourced date changes. When pressed for a source, they spew gibberish in edit summaries and mention "alternative wikis." The most recent edits have been made while logged out in the 2603:7083:46F0:A610:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), which they'd been using before creating the account. "You aliens" and "dog(s)" would seem to be personal attacks ([13], [14], [15]). --Sable232 (talk) 01:41, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Sable232, I see you have posted templates on their User talk page but have you tried communicating with the editor? Talking with them? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:48, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Blocked as a vandalism only account, but the LOUTsocking definitely didn't help. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:03, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

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

Amanda Forsythe Tufts

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

---

Amanda Forsythe Tufts (see User talk:Amanda Forsythe Tufts) recently had their user page speedy deleted for being promotional. Then then proceeded to change the Amanda Forsythe article (which is a different person) in this edit to mirror what had been deleted in user space. They also posted on their talk page in language that suggests they are not Amanda Forsythe Tufts. This would seem to violate WP:MISLEADNAME.4meter4 (talk) 01:14, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Returning block evasion from SF-banned user

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

---

Can an admin take a look at Special:Contribs/98.118.249.156? It's a sock of User:Willwill0415, and has been blocked a few times in the past, but the blocks have expired. Thanks, GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:08, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Pinging the previos blocking admins @331dot, Giraffer, and Fuzheado. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 18:35, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Escorted out. Izno (talk) 19:18, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Robert2300 and overlinking

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

---

• Robert2300 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I have asked this editor on their talk page multiple times not to add unnecessary links but they have decided to not respond and continue with the overlinking. I gave them three warnings today but they are still continuing with this.[16][17] Mellk (talk) 19:00, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Indef'd from mainspace until they respond. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:24, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. Mellk (talk) 20:25, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm also concerned about gaming here, given that this account is 3 weeks old and has 1000+ edits that are basically the same as those two diffs. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:26, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

If another admin thinks this is in fact gaming, I'm fine with another admin preemptively stripping this user of XC and site banning. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:27, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

It appears that the editor started out making legitimate edits to remove overlinking, and when someone expressed concern that they were removing too many links they went 180° (possibly to be WP:POINTY)) and started overlinking. Celjski Grad (talk) 20:52, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Diffs? voorts (talk/contributions) 20:53, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Their edits before and after July 20. Celjski Grad (talk) 21:07, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

I gave them a warning on 18 July (see for example this edit). This reminds me of another recent case where the editor had 100% of their edits to mainspace and went from mass removing links to mass overlinking. This was a few days before Robert2300 created their account. Could this be the same person? Mellk (talk) 21:17, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Interesting—for example, these two edits: [18], [19]. Celjski Grad (talk) 21:36, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

{{Checkuser needed}} voorts (talk/contributions) 21:29, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

I have left results at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MatthewSree. Relevant editors have been blocked. Izno (talk) 21:47, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Kanikosen

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

---

This editor Kanikosen (talk · contribs) is repeatedly violating WP:NOTFORUM on Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine, first making an unrelated comment baselessly claiming that ″Ukraine out manpower and they drag at gunpoint everyone they can, while Russia get 20k to 30k every month new willing soldiers″ here, when it was reverted per WP:NOTFORUM as it in no way was concerning actually making improvements to the article, the editor went to my talk page and accused me of ″posting propaganda″, and posted yet another similar comment here, only now with the propaganda attack. All of this in a WP:CTOP.

If you look at the history of the editor they've previously been blocked for disruptive editing and most of their recent activity seems to revolve around pushing the 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive being a failure and then also making another ″propaganda″ claim here claiming ″white washing of nazi collaborators″, also a Ukrainian military figure.

Everything about this editor screams WP:NOTHERE and WP:TENDENTIOUS and they do not seem capable of contributing constructively to this site without throwing temper tantrums and accusing people of posting propaganda. --TylerBurden (talk) 10:41, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Note that this user is currently partially blocked from the page Milan Tepić for disruptive editing. Also this user was warned by Mzajac regarding an ANI notice on 31 December 2023. Fabvill (Talk to me!) 11:21, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

And Mzajac was forced to quit as admin for abusing NPOV, and he quit wikipedia. TylerBurde never heard of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view as his edits are pure Ukrainian propaganda. Kanikosen (talk) 14:21, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Your comment — "The Russians are begging and tricking all kinds of foreigners into their meat grinder army..." — is highly emotional and not written from a neutral point of view (NPOV). How is this any different from what I previously posted, which was removed or criticized for lacking neutrality? The tone and wording you used demonstrate a clear emotional involvement in the conflict, which undermines the required neutrality expected in Wikipedia discussions.

I have only been blocked on a single article, not site-wide.

At the time I made those edits, the Ukrainian counteroffensive was widely seen as a failure, a point that is now acknowledged across the Wikipedia community and reflected in the article itself. Initially, that assessment was downplayed or removed by users like Mzajac, who eventually stepped away from the topic.

Given that, how is it acceptable for you to characterize the Russian military as “begging and tricking foreigners” while dismissing or deleting similar language about Ukrainian conscription practices — especially when reports of forced mobilization on Ukrainian sides exist in every major publication? This double standard clearly violates the principle of neutrality and raises concerns about bias and editorial consistency? Kanikosen (talk) 14:31, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Your comment — "The Russians are begging and tricking all kinds of foreigners into their meat grinder army..." — is highly emotional and not written from a neutral point of view (NPOV).

WP:NPOV has neither authority nor relevance over Talk page comments. It only applies to the actual live artcicles. There is no scenario, whatsoever, where it applies to comments on Talk. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 17:26, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Regarding the Petro Dyachenko article, the version you initially supported presented a highly sanitized narrative, omitting or downplaying his documented collaboration with Nazi Germany. This approach reflected a clear whitewashing of his past and resembled wartime propaganda more than a balanced historical account. It was only after intervention from other editors that more accurate and sourced information about his collaborationist activities was restored.

To me, this is yet another example of a consistent pro-Ukrainian bias in your editorial approach. Selectively minimizing or removing controversial historical facts that are well-documented and widely acknowledged undermines Wikipedia’s core policy of neutrality and misleads readers about the full historical context of the subject.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Petro_Dyachenko&diff=1303670064&oldid=1303668965 As you can see your edit is removed by another user as man was nazi collaborator. Kanikosen (talk) 14:36, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Also, reinstating a very foromy post as "factual"! [[20]] reqaks of wp:not. Slatersteven (talk) 14:33, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

It is factual.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/15/world/europe/ukraine-military-recruitment.html Ukrainian civilians, by gunpoint are conscripted, send to line of contact with up to 2 weeks of training https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/06/02/ukraine-training-soldiers-mobilization-war/. That is fact. Same as fact is https://www.kyivpost.com/post/50861 that Ukrainians themself admit Russian volunteer numbers are constantly rising. Kanikosen (talk) 14:44, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

What does it have to do with the question asked, which was about loation soldiers serving in the Russian army? Slatersteven (talk) 14:56, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Everything. NPOV. How is editor that removes https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Petro_Dyachenko&diff=1303668965&oldid=1292483572 nazi past of Ukrainian war criminal neutral and fit to enforce NPOV? Kanikosen (talk) 15:08, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Read wp:soap, talk pages are for discussing how to improve the article (as such comments need to address the questions asked, not just general posts), they are not forums for general discussion (nor in fact is this). Slatersteven (talk) 15:21, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Yes, so why did he write about beggar army and meat, and then removed my comment when called on it? And why is he white washing Ukainian nazis from ww2? Kanikosen (talk) 15:33, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Because they actually had something to say about the question [[21]]. Talk pages are not for discussing users conduct, either. You (literally) said nothing about the Laotians fighting in Ukraine, as such your comment was off topic. Again read wp:not and wp:nothere. Slatersteven (talk) 15:42, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

They are not fighting in Ukraine. Where did you got that there are Laotians Fighting in Ukraine? Talk was about one unit of deminers being send to Russia, something Laos claims as false. You are your propaganda... Kanikosen (talk) 15:59, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

"You are your propaganda."

Once again folks, WP:NOTHERE probably combined with a WP:COMPETENCE issue. The topic is enough of a mess without editors like this. TylerBurden (talk) 16:28, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

• Comment While I do think that TylerBurden's comments often push the edges of WP:NOTFORUM and that they have a very clear POV that they want Wikipedia to reflect, I think Kanikosen is far more disruptive. I would not be against some form of warning to TylerBurden to suggest the consider a more neutral approach but Kanikosen needs a topic ban at minimum. Simonm223 (talk) 15:46, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

  So you admit we should all just let him write his original research, admit he have NPOV and let him use project as forum, and not call on it, give me topic ban and not stop him from NPOV pushing? I rest my case, this project is doomed. Kanikosen (talk) 16:01, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

  I think it's interesting you say this given that you're evidently not immune to making POV blanket statements within serious discussions in the topic such as this. If you're going to make claims about me and imply I'm disruptive, you should back it up. I can have the opinion that what Russia is doing to Ukraine is horrific, that doesn't change the fact that I need to follow Wikipedia policy, the ideals of which I also happen to agree with. There are very clearly editors with an opposing view, the difference is that most of them also generally follow policy and don't act like the editor in question here. I'm not really sure what the disruption you're implying is really, I'm a bad guy for wanting Wikipedia to reflect WP:RS instead of Russian (and friends) propaganda?

  TylerBurden (talk) 16:25, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

  For a man that just today try to whitewash nazi collaborator, claiming that Azov are not nazi is hilarious. https://www.cnn/2022/03/29/europe/ukraine-azov-movement-far-right-intl-cmd Kanikosen (talk) 16:28, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

  I think you've proven rather clearly that you're impossible to actually interact with in a constructive manner, you're doubling down on all the issues that have been called out here, so rather than playing your game I'll be hoping that the administrators checking this out will see the same thing, good luck. TylerBurden (talk) 16:38, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

  You went and removed Ukrainian collaborator nazi allegiance. Main issue is that eveything you don't like is Russia propaganda, and your pov pushing. Kanikosen (talk) 16:46, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

  Deflection: the act of attacking or blaming another person rather than accepting criticism or blame for your own actions. TylerBurden (talk) 17:23, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

  I made one post on the talk page, a direct response to your own biased editing. That single comment was removed, while your continued point-of-view pushing remains unchecked. If neutrality is a standard, it should apply equally. Given your clear lack of objectivity on this topic, perhaps it would be more appropriate for you to excuse yourself from editing in areas where your personal views consistently affect your editorial decisions. Wikipedia requires a neutral point of view, and editors who cannot adhere to that standard should reconsider their involvement in sensitive historical or political subject matter. Kanikosen (talk) 17:28, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

  I am not particularly fond of POV pushing from the would-be partisans of either side of this conflict and frankly you have both been doing that. TylerBurden I stand by my statement that the Wolfsangel-wearing ultranationalist fascist Azov battalion should be described as Nazis and I find your opposition to that description of this group somewhat troubling. I think you need to take a step back and reorient yourself toward neutrality. But Kanikosen your comportment has been so beyond the pale with rampant incivility and forumy comments as to set even TylerBurden's behaviour into stark contrast. TylerBurden, for all I may disagree with them, does do useful work in this topic area. Your contributions have been purely disruptive. Simonm223 (talk) 17:26, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

  That’s the point—I don’t edit those articles, so claims of bias on my part are unfounded. Meanwhile, any useful contributions this editor has made are increasingly overshadowed by persistent POV pushing, particularly the whitewashing of individuals with well-documented ties to Nazi collaboration. Selectively rewriting history to fit a national narrative undermines the credibility of the project and violates core Wikipedia principles like neutrality and due weight. When an editor consistently sanitizes controversial content about historical figures based solely on their nationality, it raises serious concerns about their suitability to contribute neutrally to such sensitive topics. Kanikosen (talk) 17:30, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Yep, with that piece of misrepresentation (I in fact opposed any addition of Loation forces) a TBAN is needed. Slatersteven (talk) 16:03, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

And his NPOV should remain? Why is he even allowed to post in those topics when his edits are not neutral? Kanikosen (talk) 16:05, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

But it seems like you aren't neutral as well. How can we know that you aren't strongly biased? 2A04:7F80:37:24E6:9958:72A5:20B4:70F0 (talk) 17:07, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

I don’t contribute to articles related to the Russo–Ukrainian War, so any alleged bias on my part cannot influence that topic area. In contrast, we have an editor actively involved in Ukraine-related articles who consistently pushes a point of view by whitewashing the historical record of Nazi collaborators, seemingly based on their Ukrainian identity. This raises serious concerns about neutrality and the application of Wikipedia’s core content policies. Historical facts, especially those supported by reliable sources, should not be selectively removed or downplayed to align with modern political narratives. This kind of editorial behavior undermines the encyclopedia’s credibility. Kanikosen (talk) 17:17, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

I don’t contribute to articles related to the Russo–Ukrainian War

Was this you? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 17:29, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

3 years ago. Your point? Kanikosen (talk) 17:35, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

It looks like Kanikosen is using LLMs? The above text looks fishy and I used an AI detector and it says 90%+ AI. Even on the chance that it's wrong, it looks vague and of course the AI doesn't know about your prior editing history. Also an appeal to ‘facts’. What is your sources? 2A04:7F80:37:24E6:9958:72A5:20B4:70F0 (talk) 17:42, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Random IP, facts are in comments. Kanikosen (talk) 17:49, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Alright that's enough. If any admin wants to indef-block the editor for creating a hostile atmosphere (harassment, claiming it's the other guy, etc.), they are welcome to do so. I'm going to block them from Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine and we might add to that, if the editor doesn't get blocked outright by someone who's not in as great a mood as I am. Drmies (talk) 17:43, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Emotional, aggressive. Confirming evey point I made so far. Thanks. Kanikosen (talk) 17:50, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Ad hominem attacks are never good attacks. You are just making that potentially blocking admin go closer to blocking you. 2A04:7F80:37:24E6:9958:72A5:20B4:70F0 (talk) 17:52, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

You want to tell me Drmies didn't just made emotional tantrum and you signed yourself with your username, and not hide behind ip? Kanikosen (talk) 17:57, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Not the above IP but I would not describe what the admin said above as an emotional tantrum. GothicGolem29 (talk) 17:58, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

I would. That admin is unhinged. Now eveyone od slave of his moods. I don't mind being blocked, I mind emotional admin throwing tantrums talking how he is not in mood. Kanikosen (talk) 18:02, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

They really aren't unhinged what they said above is reasonable. I don't see how them mentioning their mood at the end represents throwing a tantrum. GothicGolem29 (talk) 18:06, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

The admin said that he is in a good mood, and that's why he didn't just block you completely.

Then you proceeded to make several personal attacks against him, confirming that the partial block was correct, and suggesting that a complete block is probably coming soon unless you stop acting like this.

If you respond, please don't include the words 'But what about (some other person)?' That doesn't matter. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 18:10, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

English is evidently not your native language; so for the record, Drmies stated that he is in fact in a great mood and that that is what has presently saved you from an indefinite site-wide block. Since I am here, somebody should inform Herr ChatGPT that combining forms should be hyphenated not dashed per MOS:DUALNATIONALITIES. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:13, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) are you seriously discriminating against IPs? also you seem the one here to be throwing a tantrum considering the fact that the admin just said that they aren't in a good mood but it could mean anything from sadness to disinterest, not just anger 2A04:7F80:37:24E6:9958:72A5:20B4:70F0 (talk) 18:05, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Don’t you think that someone who is clearly emotionally unstable should not be the one issuing blocks or enforcing sanctions based on how they feel at a given moment? Administrative actions should be grounded in policy, not personal sentiment or bias. Kanikosen (talk) 18:11, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

We get it. You want a block so that you can feel like a martyr. I'm sure an admin will oblige you shortly with this behaviour. Simonm223 (talk) 18:14, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Blocked sitewide 31 hours for personal attacks in the above comments. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:15, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Blocked sitewide 31 hours for personal attacks in the above comments. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:15, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

After further review of this user's history, changed to indefinite nothere block. Cost/benefit analysis for this user shows all cost, no benefit. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:25, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Maybe worth upgrading to a TPA revoke. User has said they have no intention to file an unblock request and have instead continued to argue with other users about the site. Fantastic Mr. Fox 20:06, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

(EC)What is that aspersion/attack? Alleging literal emotional instability is not helpful! 2A04:7F80:37:24E6:9958:72A5:20B4:70F0 (talk) 18:16, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

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

This editor

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

---

• Chef Biplab Biswas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This editor keeps on promoting himself on the sandbox AND his personal sandbox (see his talk page). Any responses appreciated. Request for block please. User:StopLookingAtMe1 07:09, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

That's the sandbox, it gets wiped regularly so that isn't an issue. If the editor recreates the promotional page in userspace or Article/Draft space you can mark it for speedy deletion under the criterion G11. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 08:10, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Note they have created it in userspace, but it's been deleted there. @StopLookingAtMe:, first you should name "this editor", and secondly, it is required that you notify them on their talk page of this discussion. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:52, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Draft:Biplab Biswas deleted by Jimfbleak for G11. Fabvill (Talk to me!) 11:07, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Not sure why this is here, Chef Biplab Biswas has been warned, including by User:StopLookingAtMe1. If they persist, I'll block, I don't think any other admins need to be involved Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:15, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

The same thing is true with their user page for advertising, but at least you deleted that page for G11. Fabvill (Talk to me!) 11:23, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Persistent use of sources that don’t actually exist by User:10bhardwajrock

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

---

• 10bhardwajrock (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Note: User already banned for sockpuppetry (and LLM abuse) on Wikicommons.

1. List of presidential trips made by Droupadi Murmu:
   1. #1: cited 15 links, 7 do not exist, 8 point at entirely different things.
   2. #2: cited 3 links which point at entirely different things.
   3. #3: cited 3 links, 1 does not exist, 2 point at entirely different things.
   4. #4: cited 9 links, 6 do not exist, 3 point at entirely different things.
   5. #5: cited 9 links, 1 does not exist.
   6. #7: cited 2 links which do not exist.
   7. #8: cited 5 links, 4 do not exist, 1 points at entirely different thing.
   8. #9: cited 14 links, 9 do not exist.
2. Presidency of Droupadi Murmu:
   1. #1: cited 11 links, 4 do not exist.
   2. #2: cited 5 links which do not exist.
   3. #3: cited 10 links which do not exist.
3. Om Birla:
   1. #1: cited 5 links, 2 do not exist, 2 point at entirely different things.
4. Presidency of Pratibha Patil:
   1. #1: cited 2 links which do not exist.
5. Pratibha Patil:
   1. #1: cited 3 links, 2 do not exist.
6. Droupadi Murmu:
   1. #1: cited 5 links, 2 do not exist.

Northern Moonlight 15:40, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

I saved everyone some time and indeffed for disruptive editing after verifying the disruptive use of LLMs and use of fake sources. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:48, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

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

Annoying warning templates from FredTheDeadHead

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

---

I left an edit warring template on their user talk page, they responded with five templates on my user talk page, including vandalism [22], gaming the system [23], unexplained content removal [24], harassment-1 [25], and incorrect information [26]. Here are the diffs from FredTheDeadHead that led to my leaving the EW template [27], [28], [29]. Here is the article talk page thread I started to discuss the content [30]. Geogene (talk) 20:40, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

@FredTheDeadHead: Consider this a warning to cut the childish bullshit. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:48, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

I beg your pardon? I find your comment to be extremely rude. Are you an administrator? Do you really think it would be productive to ping me with profanity and insults? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Civility FredTheDeadHead (talk) 06:02, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes I am an admin. Posting five random warning templates on another editor's talk page because you're annoyed with them is in fact childish bullshit. voorts (talk/contributions) 13:17, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @FredTheDeadHead: do not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. Please go revert all of those retaliatory user warnings you left on Geogene's talk page. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:49, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

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

User:Vijay897665566 and page moves

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

---

• Vijay897665566 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Arunachalesvara Temple (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• The user recently moved the page after level 4 warning for page moves. They have moved the same page despite being reverted, and warned. Most of their edits seem to reverted. Non-responsive on user talk, and article talk pages. possibly CIR, or IDHT. requesting a block of 3 days to get the message through. —usernamekiran (talk) 20:16, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

  you changed temple name was wrong . What I changed is the real name. It has a history of aroglogist proof. In the same temple, there is an inscription stone with a pure Tamil name. Without any proof, how did you changed name?.if We changed the temple's real names. Why are you reporting other Id. 103.165.8.92 (talk) 20:37, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

• Blocked from moving pages indefinitely. Evidently they also need to read our policy on the use of multiple accounts. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:41, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

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

IP are insulting me

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

---

Hi

2A02:8440:F503:5CC5:38A2:B100:B740:BEB9 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 82.216.149.77 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) are insulting me at my talk page. --Panam2014 (talk) 09:15, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Note: 2A02:8440:F503:5CC5:38A2:B100:B740:BEB9 is currently partially blocked from specified non-editing actions for 1 year by Izno. Fabvill (Talk to me!) 11:57, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

@Agent VII, Izno, and Fabvill: the IP have been blocked before my harrasment by his 2 IPs. Please could you expand the block? --Panam2014 (talk) 18:12, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

That /32 block is not pertinent to your issue. I will look at blocking. Izno (talk) 19:28, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Ok, these edits are too old to block for at this time. Report future issues at WP:AIV noting the earlier behavior from these addresses. Izno (talk) 19:30, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

@Izno: okay, could you protect my talk page? The IP are probably used by a sock who act by revange. Panam2014 (talk) 19:57, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi

Since my talk page have been vandalized by lots of socks, and one of the two IPs belongs to a blocked user (See here), which seems to be the puppet of a banned user (Michelbiter), could you protect my own talk page? Because one the IP who have have insulted me (probably a crosswiki harrasment in revange to this) after a new checkuser request have permitted to discover a new Michelbiter's sock. Panam2014 (talk) 20:11, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Two edits for these two IPs are not enough to request a talk page protection. Fabvill (Talk to me!) 13:28, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

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

Concern about biased editing by user Weatherextremes

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

---

I would like to report User:Weatherextremes for a pattern of biased editing and disregard for reliable sourcing and neutrality.

On List of extreme temperatures in Greece, between 23 and 26 July 2025, the user made the following edits:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_extreme_temperatures_in_Greece&diff=prev&oldid=1302151373
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_extreme_temperatures_in_Greece&diff=prev&oldid=1302653443
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_extreme_temperatures_in_Greece&diff=prev&oldid=1303169555

These edits removed valid cold-temperature records (overall, as well as per month) and gave undue emphasis to heat records. I have reverted to the stable version from 20 July 2025 by User:Aexon79, reintroducing extreme low temperatures, which User:Weatherextremes removed, thus creating a biased representation of the Greek climate.

In addition, on the Glyfada article, the same user is labelling short-term data from a station with limited operational history as “climate data.” This contradicts the definition of climate norms (≥30 years). The changes were made without discussion or reliable consensus.

Also recently, the user characterised the breadth of information added on the Nea Smyrni climate section as arbitrary and subjective, while the edit that I contributed was based on objective data, e.g. the lack of a long-term weather station in the area (i.e. with a presence of ≥30 years). The user proceeded to describe the climate of Nea Smyrni as a hot semi-arid one in the absence of long-term data (since at least 1995). I believe this is a biased interpretation of data from the last few years only, which is by definition insufficient to characterise an area's climate as a "climate". You can compare the disregard of official data by the user here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nea_Smyrni&oldid=prev&diff=1244112474 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aexon79 (talk • contribs) 14:07, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

In all examples, the user failed to initiate a fruitful discussion before reinstating their own changes, which may constitute a lack of good faith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aexon79 (talk • contribs) 00:02, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

I have notified the user as required: User talk page notice.

This appears to be a pattern of WP:POV-pushing and misrepresentation of sources. I request administrator input, and if appropriate, page protection or topic restrictions.

Thank you. User:Aexon79 aexon (talk) 13:50, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Quick comment - zero of the diffs given match up with the complaint given. — ^EF⁵ 13:56, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

You are right. Apologies, please see the correct diff's here, where you can see the gradual deletion of extreme cold temperatures:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_extreme_temperatures_in_Greece&diff=prev&oldid=1302151373

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_extreme_temperatures_in_Greece&diff=prev&oldid=1302653443

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_extreme_temperatures_in_Greece&diff=prev&oldid=1303169555 aexon (talk) 14:36, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Literally I have no idea where this is coming from. I am not sure how experienced this editor is but my edits are always properly referenced and I go with what I have. For example we only have a few years of data concerning Nea Smyrni. To accuse me of biased editing lacks good faith. In fact I have noticed that this editor despite asking for consensus has reverted to their own version regarding the above article without any dialogue. Weatherextremes (talk) 23:53, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Not to mention even full paragraphs by this editor that are completely non sourced, generic and very subjective in nature. Weatherextremes (talk) 00:08, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

I have just started a section in the talk page of the above article in order to reach a consensus, so I call this editor and anyone else to engage constructively for a really good article. Let's discuss here: [31] Weatherextremes (talk) 03:08, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. I have replied quite extensively on the Nea Smyrni talk page providing peer-reviewed evidence by WMO and quoting ISO standards to provide argumentation on why some of the language previously used was misleading. aexon (talk) 10:16, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Great I have answered. Did you check the link I provided? Please engage also in the list of extreme temperatures, which is the most problematic section and is not presentable at the current state. That's the heavy job we need a consensus on. Weatherextremes (talk) 10:37, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Dear User:Weatherextremes, I have already answerered to your latest comment in the Nea Smyrni talk page, using arguments from internationally recognised sources.

I agree that the List_of_extreme_temperatures_in_Greece page is still problematic; however, it was more problematic when extreme low temperatures were removed, as discussed above. I have added references for the extreme low temperatures and corrected some quite wrong coordinates in the map. I am very happy that you see room for improvement too, though, and I would be even happier if others could also engage to improve that article even more. aexon (talk) 10:50, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

I went through the edits by Weatherextremes and it appears they are characterizing their edits correctly - the record-low temperatures they removed were almost entirely unsourced. Simonm223 (talk) 11:22, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Yep, thank you. They were completely unsourced and the fact that this editor called me out as biased shows a lack of good faith. I hope this editor engages in the said talk page without any more edits before we reach a consensus. Weatherextremes (talk) 11:36, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, dear User:Simonm223. Whilst some of the records were unreferenced, care was taken later to add these in said article. I deeply hope that these will not be removed again, but rather

However, my deepest concerns remain for the Nea Smyrni page, and other pages that User:Weatherextremes has helped edit, as basic scientific integrity is missing. This has been clearly argued in the Nea Smyrni talk page, but the user references practice for other areas in the world, where editors have also not followed best practices. In my opinion, this does not show good faith. In the spirit of thriving to make Wikipedia a more reliable source for all, I have referenced internationally recognised standards to help be as scientifically precise as possible -since meteorology is a science. aexon (talk) 11:43, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

I am not sure what you are on about on Nea Smyrni its been a long time since I last edited over there. We need to reach a consensus on both articles. It's as simple as that. The fact that you unilaterally without even discussing it with me called me out as biased in the admin area is simply too problematic. I am uncertain to which extent, given this behavior, we can have a fruitful discussion. Weatherextremes (talk) 11:46, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

I looked at [32] This diff - where Aexon79 inserted the material that it seems was previously removed by Weatherextremes and, honestly, it's pure WP:SYNTH at best. The citations are wholly insufficient for the claimed text. Weatherextremes seems to have been following WP best practice. Simonm223 (talk) 14:19, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Please refrain from any more edits in the main article until we reach consensus. Do engage with me in the talk page of the list of extreme temperatures in greece. Weatherextremes (talk) 11:34, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

I am still deeply concerned that precision is not taken into account. Quoting practices followed in the articles of other areas globally, as you are doing in the Nea Smuyrni talk article, does not change the fact that scientific integrity is not being followed. But that is a discussion for that article talk page. aexon (talk) 11:38, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Please engage discussing in each talk page separately as its confusing to have the discussion here. I hope we reach a good summary on both articles that covers all aspects with precision. Cheers! Weatherextremes (talk) 11:42, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Dear User:Weatherextremes, I am engaging deeply in said articles, and will be doing so in others, too, in the spirit of making Wikipedia more precise. The reason I am referring to argumentation here, showing good faith, is that my initial notice was not pertinent to one article only. Thank you so much for understanding. aexon (talk) 11:45, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Excuse me what are you on about? You haven't even left a single comment in the talk page here [33]. That's what engaging constructively in wikipedia is. You just went ahead and edited yet again without discussing anything even after I pinged you on the talk page! Please be more careful. Weatherextremes (talk) 11:49, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Dear User:Weatherextremes, thank you for your message. I'd like to respectfully point out that I have a personal limit when it comes to how I am addressed in discussions. Phrases such as “Excuse me what are you on about?” come across as unnecessarily confrontational and do not align with Wikipedia’s expectations for civil discourse in the spirit of good faith.

I understand the importance of using talk pages and have been making an effort to engage constructively, and will of course do more so in the future. At the same time, I hope we can maintain a respectful and collaborative tone as we work through content disagreements.

Let’s focus on improving the article. aexon (talk) 11:57, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

I am sorry if you misread it as being unrespectful or anything. You understand that your behavior, calling me out as biased, then going on the admin area, without even discussing anything with me in the talk pages has kinda taken me off guard. This is not good faith and frankly its insulting given how meticulous I am with my edits and referencing. We are dealing with a content dispute here and we need to reach a consensus in the talk page before we go ahead with further edits. Weatherextremes (talk) 12:00, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Dear User:Weatherextremes, the word "biased" is used in peer review internationally, as it refers to the analytical thought approach. Please continue the discussion in the talk pages, and please keep it respectful. Thank you so much. aexon (talk) 12:14, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Your writing is here you know. You clearly accused me of biased editing and disregard for reliable sourcing and neutrality when my referencing is extremely meticulous. You on the other hand have provided an intro summary version which is mostly unsourced, full of generic or subjective claims that do not have a single reference. Please be careful when you address my edits. It's insulting to have someone call me out on perfectly sourced material. Cheers. Weatherextremes (talk) 12:17, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

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

Promotion of CSAM/Nazi/Satanic Telegram groups

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

---

The user User:Bobolsen2 is promoting a Telegram group supposedly related to the 764 (organization) through their edit descriptions and on the talk page, their revisions should probably be deleted to remove the links to the Telegram. D1551D3N7 (talk) 23:35, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

You do need to inform them of this post. Simonm223 (talk) 23:38, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

I have done so on behalf of @D1551D3N7. Jahaza (talk) 23:58, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

D1551D3N7, please provide diffs that are examples of edits you want to be deleted. Editors shouldn't have to go looking for these, you need to provide them in your presentation of the problem. Why don't editors ever read the instructions before posting on this noticeboard? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:04, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

@Liz in this case @D1551D3N7 should probably take this up via the process at WP:REVDELREQUEST per WP:CRD RD3, rather than posting difs here, because this is really bad stuff that we shouldn't propagate additional links to. Jahaza (talk) 00:08, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

I've removed the links and requested revdel of prior revisions. tony 00:17, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

It was stunning to me to realize that some hate groups were basically using our Wikipedia article 764 (organization) as a way to advertise their Telegram channels. I hope we don't let that happen again in that article but it will take more editors adding that article to their Watchlist and removing lists of those organizations if they are added to the page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:51, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

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

User:Ziad0tarek952005

• Ziad0tarek952005 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I really don't know why I have to post here, but Izno feels a highly disruptive editor who removes content, who has stripped tables from multiple articles and messed around, being highly disruptive needs an ANI response. The editor has been warned multiple times. But continues, this should be straight forward ban in my opinion. Govvy (talk) 20:23, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Govvy, could you supply some diffs illustrating the problems you see so that your fellow editors can easily see what the problem is you are facing? Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:30, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I noticed this discussion and would like to clarify that my edits were made in good faith. For example, I recently added a reliable source about Emam Ashour's injury to the article about him (diff) as part of improving the content in line with Wikipedia's standards.

I'm more than willing to address any specific concerns or discuss any edits that may have been misunderstood. I believe in contributing constructively and have no intention of being disruptive. Ziad0tarek952005 (talk) 22:06, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Is this a real bot?

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

---

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

After seeing this edit which broke the page I tried to investiage who owns this bot, but couldn't find anything. Is this real? — Czello ^(music) 15:03, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

And now a second. — Czello ^(music) 15:03, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

See global contribs @Bahati11: -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:06, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello Czello and zzuuzz,

Thank you for your feedback. BahatiBot is a personal bot I developed to help maintain Wikipedia by fixing common formatting and syntax errors. I’m continuously improving it to avoid unintended changes and minimize any disruption.

If you notice any problematic edits, please let me know specifically which pages or changes caused issues, so I can fix or revert them quickly.

I appreciate your vigilance and support in keeping Wikipedia accurate and well-maintained.

Best regards,

BahatiBot operator Bahati11 (talk) 15:13, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Every single one of its edits was at best pointless (and therefore cluttering watchlist, which is disruptive) and at worst wildly incorrect and breaking things. Do not continue to use this bot. DMacks (talk) 15:14, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Let me help out here - I have blocked the bot, given the disruption detailed above and that it does not appear to have approval. GiantSnowman 15:22, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

GiantSnowman - I just realized that my block overwrote the one that you applied moments earlier. This might've been a blessing in disguise, since the original block had autoblocking enabled. Regardless, I wanted to respond and let you know about it and apologize if I stepped on any toes. :-/ ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:30, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

No, no toes stepped on at all - thanks! I didn't even think that the default 'auto block' would affect the main account, so thanks for sorting. GiantSnowman 15:31, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Hehe, happy to help! ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:33, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Per WP:BOTAPPROVAL, you must have an approved BRFA or an approved trial to operate a bot outside of userspace. Please stop the bot for now and go through that process. Tenshi! (Talk page) 15:21, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

I might be a bit late to this charade, but I blocked this account as an unapproved bot and left a message on the bot account's user talk page before I saw that this ANI discussion existed. I'm just adding a response here as an FYI so that there's no confusion with why I did so. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:26, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

My blocking must have crossed over with yours! GiantSnowman 15:28, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Blasphemy! I draw my sword and point it toward thee... En garde! ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:32, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Azarelvis WP:IDHT and WP:CIR

Azarelvis (talk · contribs) submitted a draft at AfC and it was rejected. They received plenty of feedback both on their user Talk page and on the draft's Talk page, but either didn't read it or didn't understand it because they simply resubmitted the same draft. After the draft was rejected twice, they moved the article to Article space. I moved it back and then the editor resubmitted the draft for a 3rd time. Either the editor cannot understand English or they don't care to, either way it is a competence issue and they're wasting editors' time by resubmitting rejected drafts without making changes.

They are also an WP:SPA so there's potential WP:COI issues too. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 07:56, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

He should listen. Azar, please communicate with everyone so you shouldn't repeatedly submit the rejected draft. Ahri Boy (talk) 10:22, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Frequentflyer93

• Frequentflyer93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Please take a look at the edits of user:Frequentflyer93. This user seems to have a problem with understanding what independent sourcing are, as he is often using company websites (see here for an example. Plus falsifying sources (a source about flights in 2023 to back up a date in 2026 [34]). He seems to think that WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT is a joke, and not confirmed by multiple RFCs. His behaviour is worrying. He has a talk page full with warnings and I am at my wits end. The Banner talk 18:09, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Please take a look at the sources I've provided which are independent, for example links to the AeroRoutes website. I have included a source to the TUI flight timetable page as I've seen it used before by other editiors as there are no other sources online. I've also made sure to add "better source needed". Administrators, there are two sides to this story not just The Banner's. He has a long history of reverting users edits when they've provided independednt sources and engages in constant edit wars and disruptive behaviour. His actions are simply unacceptable and is blatantly trying to get me blocked so he can have airport articles edited in a way that suits him. He acts as though he has the final say alone and nobody elses contributions matter. I never falsified any sources as the same source was used for ages on the corresponding airports article for ages. I have since removed the source in question and have added "better source needed" to keep The Banner happy. Lastly, my talk page has warnings all from The Banner as he appears to hold some sort of grudge against me making any edits on here. I'm not familiar with reporting users on here but if I was I would have reposrted The Banner for his actions also. If anyone is at their wits end its me because The Banner never seems to pulled up for his actions on this website. Frequentflyer93 (talk) 18:27, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

I am only enforcing WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT. Beside, this edit sets the tone quite right. The Banner talk 18:43, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

If you are enforcing that be consistent with it and stop contradicting yourself. You deemed this source (https://www.aeroroutes.com/eng/250326-orns25ie) an acceptable one when editing Dublin Airport but when the same source was used for my edit on Cork Airport you reverted that edit and said it states no end dates for the routes out of Cork even though it does. This I don't understand. Make what you're saying and so called enforcing make sense. Frequentflyer93 (talk) 18:49, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Can we not continue this argument here? Frequent, your comments to Banner have been, quite frankly, rude and uncivil. Saying someone has nothing better to do and accusing somebody of trying to get you blocked really isn't constructive, it makes you look worse. jolielover♥talk 18:52, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

You're right, I apologise for coming across as rude and uncivil towards Banner. I wish they had at least tried to see my edits as constructive and genuine as I honestly try my best to provide accurate edits and include independent sources where available. It has felt as though Banner kept reverting my edits for a long time just for the sake of it even if I had provided an independent source at times. Maybe Banner could let me know his thoughts/point of view on this so we can avoid it happening again in the future and be civil towards one another. Thank you. Frequentflyer93 (talk) 19:02, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Chiming in from the cheap seats, "enforcing" what, precisely? A local consensus, based on RfCs with significant dissension, that doesn't have the status of an official guideline, and that's what you're taking someone to ANI for "violating"? Ravenswing 13:21, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

An example: this edit is especially dodgy, claiming that an article about the "Northern winter 2024/25 season" is evidence of the connection returning year after year. Should Wikipedia not be reliable? The Banner talk 19:52, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

First of all the link to that article wasn't added by me to begin with and second of all it has been on the Dublin Airport page for a long time so why are you only wanting to remove it now? I would like to make admin aware that you are just randomly removing content that appear to not meet YOUR OWN PERSONAL REQUIREMENTS which is DODGY. Frequentflyer93 (talk) 20:17, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

I don't think a VPP RFC (Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 187#RfC on the "Airlines and destinations" tables in airport articles) is a "local consensus". Sure, it's not a guideline, but an RfC was had and consensus was found and the closure was upheld (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive359#Closure review request for the RfC on the "Airlines and destinations" tables in airport articles). That said, both editors' behavior here is subpar. I recommend that you both voluntarily agree to avoid each other, or else the community may need to impose an IBAN to prevent further disruption. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:39, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

I can't lie, you two should have stopped interacting months ago. I just want to say that an edit war goes both ways, and it's also inappropriate for one of the people involved in this war to send out warnings; WP:NOTINVOLVED. This series of warnings by Banner shouldn't have happened since 1) Banner is involved, and 2) the warning template is incorrect; it is not blatant vandalism and instead appears to be a disagreement between the two editors (essentially edit warring). Actual content/verifiability of the sources aside, I personally believe that both editors haven't been very WP:CIVIL to each other: Banner for constantly sending warnings despite being involved; Frequentflyer for leaving snarky/rude comments like this. Frequentflyer, I also want to say that verifiability is a core part of Wikipedia and low-quality sources can be challenged. Really, this should have been brought to Dispute Resolutions ages ago. I think that Frequentflyer should have some sort of ban from the page for some time due to their constant addition of poor quality sources and very uncivil comments; Banner, I think you should just consider not sending warnings if you're involved in a conflict, and seek resolution much, much earlier next time. This whole situation could have been prevented. jolielover♥talk 18:48, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

In fact, Frequentflyer93 still goes on, even after this filing. Still adding unsourced info in breach of WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT. And this edit is especially dodgy, claiming that an article about the "Northern winter 2024/25 season" is evidence of the connection returning year after year. This is clearly a structural problem to the detriment of the reliability of the encyclopedia. The Banner talk 19:48, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

In fact The Banner still goes on, after this conversation coming to a close where he was also called out for his behaviour, he went and reverted the edits on Dublin Airport. He's trying to deflect from his own actions and portray me in a bad light. Let me be crystal clear, The Banner removed content from Dublin Airport and then posted here accusing me of adding unreliable sources again. The source in question states that the Dublin - Verona connection is a seasonal service which operates every winter season from December to March. Many similar sources appear to be acceptable on other airport articles however, Banner seems to think this does not apply for Dublin Airport which is most bizarre. Not that you should have to but if you search for a flight from Dublin to Verona on TUI's website you will see that flights are available to book from December 2025. This further backs up my argument that the flights operate on a seasonal basis during every Northern Winter December - March. Why is this so difficult for Banner to understand? Its pathetic that I'm including this but if you Google the definition of 'seasonal airline route' it states "a flight route that is only offered during certain times of the year, typically due to seasonal demand or weather patters". I rest my case. Frequentflyer93 (talk) 20:30, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

I wanted to add an example for you to see. On Dublin Airport here is an example of Aer Lingus's seasonal routes - Seasonal: Brest, Brindisi, Burgas, Cancún (begins 6 January 2026), Catania, Corfu,^{[citation needed]}. If you take a look at Corfu next to it is "citation needed". Banner has no interest in removing that content because he knows full well that Aer Lingus's route to Corfu is continuous and operates on a seasonal basis during the summer so why does he only want to remove content I remove? Frequentflyer93 (talk) 20:41, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

AN/I is not the place to continue litigating your content dispute. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:42, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

I do see a general issue here with @Frequentflyer93's editing, and I'm not willing to dismiss this report despite the fact that the filer has unclean hands (per @Jolielover). WP:BURDEN requires that the editor who adds or restores material must provide a reliable source. Edits like this are not acceptable. The presence of a {{cn}} tag is not grounds to restore unsourced content. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:52, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Fair enough. I have now removed the content of that edit due to no independent source being available at present. Frequentflyer93 (talk) 21:01, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

You should do the same for any similar edits that you made. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:07, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

There are no similar edits. "I recommend that you both voluntarily agree to avoid each other, or else the community may need to impose an IBAN to prevent further disruption." - I welcome this recommendation you made and hope Banner abides by it and does not attempt to engage with me further in the future. Frequentflyer93 (talk) 21:35, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

There are no similar edits. Yes. There are. See Special:Diff/1303632758/next. You added content that was previously removed and restored it with a {{cn}} tag. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:38, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

No. There are not. I re-added Verona because Banner removed it along with its independent source. This is the source in question which I re-added - https://www.aeroroutes.com/eng/241016-tomnw24dubvrn Frequentflyer93 (talk) 21:43, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

As that source says: TUI Airways in Northern winter 2024/25 season plans to offer Dublin – Verona service, operating on weekly basis. From 21DEC24 to 15MAR25, the airline operates this route with 737-800 aircraft on Saturdays. But he claims in the summery It states the route is operated on a seasonal basis from December - March. Means route resumes every year during winter season. It does not. The Banner talk 04:40, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Title of source says in bold "TUI Airways Adds Seasonal Dublin – Verona Service in NW24". I explained in previous comment what a seasonal route means FYI and gave an example of one listed on Dublin Airport which you never remove. You only remove edits made by me. On Dublin Airport under Aer Lingus's seasonal routes Corfu is listed and has no independent source. As you said in a previous reply to Ravenswing "Should Wikipedia not be reliable?", if you want this then remove Aer Lingus's Corfu route with no source for consistency or stick to editing articles you have knowledge of. I work in the airline industry so that's why I edit airport/airline articles. Frequentflyer93 (talk) 07:50, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

So you have a Conflict of Interest? The Banner talk 13:27, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

No conflict of interest on my part. The only thing I have to gain is that Wikipedia users are getting the most up-to-date information added to airport/airline articles based on my knowledge of the subject. I feel no further replies to you are necessary at this point, your referral of me to admin was cleared up with User:Voorts. I owe you no explanations. Take care! Frequentflyer93 (talk) 14:27, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

I just wish to remind @The Banner: that Wikiprojects don't produce anything that can be "enforced". They're just collections of like minded people for areas of interest, they don't get to make policy and guidelines on article structures/content etc. Wikiproject text isn't gospel or in any way enforceable. Wikiprojects can write as much as they want on their guidelines and structures, but it ultimately doesn't mean anything other than a polite suggestion of how it could be. Canterbury Tail talk 14:09, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

WP:AIV backlog

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

---

WP:AIV is getting close to a mile long if someone could spare a few minutes. I offer some digital cookie's as thanks :) Raladic (talk) 19:59, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Newinwiki8 repeatedly removing maintenance templates

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

---

Newinwiki8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is repeatedly removing maintenance templates from Kocaeli Health and Technology University, despite a couple of final warnings at User talk:Newinwiki8#March 2025 and User talk:Newinwiki8#August 2025. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:18, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Can I suggest that this response to this thread merits an indefinite block? Cordless Larry (talk) 19:20, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Blocked 48hr for the disruptive attempt to remove this thread. I have not reviewed the other evidence, thus there is zero prejudice against further sanctions as needed. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:30, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

@Rosguill you might want to extend that, they've actually attempted to remove it twice. Once under the account in question and the other logged out.[35]

It's the same person clearly, given the only other edit by the IP is replying on the user's talk page in first person as though they were the account holder.[36] Rambling Rambler (talk) 20:00, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Actually, twice using the account and once while logged out. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:03, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Looking at this, the user has created a draft for the topic but it was declined. Then rather than improve it they've just deliberately created the exact same article in main space. I've CSD'd the draft and suggest draftifying the main space article as well as banning the user+IP address given the obvious attempt to bypass AfC and repeated removing of this thread. Rambling Rambler (talk) 20:08, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

I saw the IP—it seems those edits actually came first, which makes me think this was unintentional editing while logged out rather than persistent attempts to evade a block. The 48hr block to my mind is a stopgap measure to allow the community to consider this thread without disruption and force the editor to take it seriously. If there’s any further attempt to remove the thread at this point (not counting Joe-jobs), I think they will have demonstrated beyond a doubt that they are not willing to engage collaboratively. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:26, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Fair enough. For now I've decided to go ahead and draft the main article. Digging into the page's history, the article had already been moved to draft but Newinwiki8 immediately moved it back to mainspace despite having a self-admitted COI[37] so should stay in draft per WP:DRAFTREASON. Rambling Rambler (talk) 20:34, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

I think the 48 hour block was appropriate. And I untagged the draft, the main space article was already draftified once so doing it a second time is inappropriate according to WP:DRAFTIFY and there wasn't a valid CSD criteria applied. Also, it's not in terrible shape so it can be improved where it is. This editor is a SPA but that's not against any policies. They made the mistake of posting to a couple dozen User talk pages to get attention to their pet article and now we'll see what other editors can add to it. I don't think this incident needs any more tending to. Let's see how they behave when their two day block is over. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:33, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

"I will do it again. Bypassing IP is not difficult". I was happy to go along with a short block, but this does not suggest an intention to contribute productively. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:53, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Can someone clarify for me whether being a student at an academic institution is generally considered sufficient to constitute a CoI when editing an article on said institution? I was under the impression that the community didn't normally consider it as such, without further grounds, which would possibly make the CoI accusations on their talk page inappropriate, possibly inflaming the situation. This isn't to say that Newinwiki's subsequent behaviour was in any way appropriate, or that there might not be an actual CoI (i.e. paid editing), but we'd more to go on for the latter. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:33, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

I wouldn't have thought so. Even allowing for the possibility of institutional employment, the relationship between student and institution is closer to that of a customer and a business than anything else. Mackensen (talk) 21:43, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Any external relationship—personal, religious, political, academic, legal, or financial (including holding a cryptocurrency)—can trigger a COI. How close the relationship needs to be before it becomes a concern on Wikipedia is governed by common sense. Per WP:EXTERNALREL.

If I'm paying to be a student at a university then I certainly would view that as having a conflict of interest in creating an article about them, especially one that looks to be rather promotional in nature. Rambling Rambler (talk) 21:45, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Well, walk that out. If someone holds a Costco membership and is writing positively about Costco, is that a COI, or just inappropriate editing? Mackensen (talk) 21:53, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

It's a bit different though, isn't it? Someone who bought something from Costco doesn't have a particular incentive for the rest of the world to have a positive opinion of Costco, but someone with a degree from a university does have an incentive for that university to be thought highly of. That said, I don't think this is in the same league as paid editing. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:57, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

@Mackensen well in the Costco example I'd say there's the potential it's inappropriate because they have a conflict of interest.

If someone walked into a local shop and bought a packet of crisps or a coffee, then yeah I wouldn't think that would reach a COI if they then made small matter of fact edits because of how minor the relationship is.

However similar to what @Cordless Larry has put above, a degree at a university is a multi-year relationship where there is a substantial career and financial incentive in relation to the editor for the university who awards that degree to look good and therefore their degree to look "better". Rambling Rambler (talk) 22:03, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

"substantial career and financial incentive"? That seems a stretch. Are Wikipedia articles really that effective? Are we to believe that mere article-boosterism is going to result in a 'substantial' career boost etc for the entire student body? Personally, I'm of the opinion that the majority of readers can spot promotional BS well enough on their own, and I'd assume that those in a position to e.g. hire former students would take a critical eye on Wikipedia content, if they consulted it at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:11, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

I don't believe it is that much of a stretch as it may seem on first glance. Nowadays what really matters isn't the actual classification on the degree but the "prestige" of the organisation awarding it. So yes, there is a substantial incentive for both the institution (who want to attract more students and therefore more revenue from fees/funding) and the students (to embellish the "worth" of their academic degree) for the institution to seem as prestigious as possible. Anecdotally I know myself and those I know who also went to university or college were rather "encouraged" shall we say to do anything that would to increase said prestige (rate it high in government student surveys, promote it on social media etc).

Debating just how effective a Wikipedia article itself is as part of that is rather beside the point, the issue is whether there is the existence of a substantive enough COI to view a student editing or creating an article for their institution as breaching the policy, and at this point I think there would be. Rambling Rambler (talk) 22:28, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Well, COI editing is strongly discouraged but not prohibited, so it's not actually breaching policy. The promotional editing and removal of maintenance templates is though. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:39, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Are Wikipedia articles really that effective? Well, there are multitudes of POV pushers here who think getting their preferred POV on some Wikipedia article is somehow more important than talking real world action. Anyway, for the topic in hand, I would say that writing about your academic institution does constitute a conflict of interest because of well-researched social dynamics. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 23:59, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

(ec) Yes, but as I wrote above, I was under the impression that the community thought otherwise. And we really need to distinguish between promotional editing - which is problematic on its own, and can be dealt with as such - and actual CoI allegations, which refer to specific relationships. Maybe someone can point to past discussions of this - I'm sure it has come up before, hence my comments. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:57, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

It'll probably be one of those situations where there isn't a hard or fast rule. Usually when you think of "student" many probably still think of under-18 mandatory education as opposed to tertiary education. However now with the marketisation and commercialisation of university and college there's likely a greater establishment of a COI than previously.

As to the distinction between promotional editing and a COI, they can be distinct things but they are admittedly not uncommon to see together. Funnily enough just below WP:COINOTBIAS in the guidance we have the following.

On Wikipedia, editors with a conflict of interest who unilaterally add material tend to violate Wikipedia's content and behavioral policies and guidelines. The content they add is typically unsourced or poorly sourced and often violates the neutral point of view policy by being promotional and omitting negative information. They may edit war to retain content that serves their external interest. They may overuse primary sources or non-independent sources, and they may give too much weight to certain ideas.

If I was to simply apply that description to this editor just against their previous behaviour it certainly fits. Rambling Rambler (talk) 22:12, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Yes, but you made a specific claim on their talk page: that they had a CoI, and were therefore violating policy by editing the article. As has been pointed out above, CoI editing is discouraged, but not prohibited. You were misstating policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:41, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

That's not strictly the case. I used the word "policy" while referring to a specific shortcut ("therefore per our policy you should not be creating or editing articles you have a COI for as set out in WP:COIEDIT") which immediately states "Editors with a COI should follow Wikipedia policies and best practices scrupulously" and then lists several criteria of which three they had gone against (COI editing, deliberately going around the AfC process, and failing to disclose their COI). Given the use of what looks to be LLM generated text (given the odd speech marks in some of their replies) and focus on a Turkish university I assumed they probably aren't English-language native so felt it wasn't the best time to introduce more complex language than necessary, so I used the word policy because it was already being used by what I was referring them to. Rambling Rambler (talk) 00:25, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Possible hounding and uncivil conduct by User:JalenBarks

I am reporting User:User:JalenBarks for repeated uncivil conduct and potential hounding WP:HOUND.

- Over the past 24–48 hours, this user has nominated multiple articles I created or contributed to (including Karra (singer), Sophia Dashing, Neriah (singer), Precious Pepala, Madeline The Person, Leyla Blue for deletion in quick succession. - In at least one AfD discussion, they referred to my writing as "AI-generated slop", which is a personal attack and violates WP:CIVIL. - Their deletion rationales lack proper policy basis WP:GNG, WP:MUSICBIO and seem targeted toward me rather than content quality. - This behavior is disruptive and discourages good-faith contributions.

I request administrator review to address potential harassment and enforce WP:CIVIL and WP:HOUND policies.

Meio2934 (talk) 05:31, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

I am going to make a very civil rebuttal in response to this report. I have ran Sophia Dashing, one of these articles at AFD, through GPTZero and can confirm that there is some portion of the text in the article where generative AI was used. And while some of the article's sources did come up as "Possible AI-generated slop" on User:Headbomb/unreliable, I can only verify at least part of the information in each of the sources. The other articles will need to be ran through the software as well, and any sources that come up with ChatGPT as the utm_source will need verification as well, as this is as far as I got with it so far. With regards to the user's comments here, I also suspect that this user is still using ChatGPT to write their comments for them. For example, I ran their vote on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sophia Dashing through GPTZero and it also returned mostly AI-generated.

At the moment, I have no comment with regard to the other claims presented here, but this user may also need to be investigated further regarding the GenAI use. Jalen Barks (Woof) 05:39, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Don't rely on GPTZero to determine whether an article is AI-generated. It has both false positives and false negatives. What particularly in the article jumps out as AI-written to you? To me, while Meio2934's AfD !vote does look AI-written (note the seeming heading that has been copied without formatting as the comment's second paragraph), the article looks pretty human-written given the multiple misspellings and miscapitalizations, one vice LLMs tend to lack. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 05:45, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

1. Sophia Dashing: In particular, the paragraph on Dashing's support of LGBTQ values appears to have some level of AI generation inside it, mainly with the added text after. I can only verify LGBT in the source from ZoMagazine. Also, only a portion of the paragraph that includes her Jezebel award was detected. The only way I can withdraw this one is if the text is rewritten and the legitimate (yes, I Googled to verify this part) WP:MUSICBIO concerns are addressed.
2. Leyla Blue: I've had to withdraw this one as the paragraphs I was suspicious of were mostly returning human writing.
3. Precious Pepala: Also withdrew this one on principle due to the lack of the tag Headbomb's code detects on all sources.

So you are correct that I was quick to the call on most of these deletion discussions. I apologize to everyone, including @Meio2934, for the trouble caused here. Jalen Barks (Woof) 06:20, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for acknowledging this and for the apology, I appreciate it. Regarding the Sophia Dashing article, I’m happy to work on cleaning that section up to make sure every sentence is fully supported by reliable sources. I’ve already gone ahead and rephrased the section on Sophia Dashing’s LGBTQ support to make sure it stays strictly in line with what the ZoMagazine source states. If you have a moment, could you please review the updated text and consider withdrawing the deletion nomination?

My goal has always been to improve articles in good faith and follow WP:MUSICBIO, so I’m happy to make any further adjustments if needed. Meio2934 (talk) 06:40, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

After reviewing the criteria and confirming the changes, I have withdrawn the nomination.

All that's left regards Draft:Karra. I've already warned you about cut & paste moves on your Talk page as well as suggested some alternative venues, like Articles for creation or even Requested moves, to get that one published. The rest here is up to you. Good luck with the draft. :) Jalen Barks (Woof) 06:56, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

thank you so much I really appreciate it, I did that because the redirect link with the name Karra ( Singer) was already existed but it was for her and it was a empty redirected page, I though erasing the draft from karra and copying it onto the redirect karra (Singer) was going to be a better option, but from now on I will just move the page instead of copying from one to another thank you :) Meio2934 (talk) 06:58, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

I have given at least one editor a warning about calling another editor's work "slop". Even if AI is a factor in their creation, please do not refer to an editor's work as garbage, crap or "slop". It violates civility. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:50, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, Tamzin and Liz, for pointing this out. I really appreciate it. I want to clarify again that my work is written by me and not AI-generated. I understand my AfD comment may have looked odd because I copied part of a heading, but I always write my own contributions.

I also appreciate the reminder about civility. Being called “AI-generated slop” felt discouraging, and I’m glad this has been acknowledged.

<meta />

Meio2934 (talk) 05:56, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

"Just to clarify, I accidentally pasted stray HTML (<meta> tags) into my previous comment. I'm learning new coding's now to edit better on Wikipedia instead of visual editing, so it was a formatting mistake while drafting my message. Please disregard the HTML tag." Meio2934 (talk) 06:00, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

I’d also like to point out how contradictory it feels to accuse me of “AI use” while relying on an AI-detection tool yourself to make these claims. If AI is supposedly not acceptable here, it seems inconsistent to bring in an AI-based program to judge other editors’ writing.

These tools are not reliable evidence, and as others have said, plenty of well-written human text can be flagged as AI-generated. Wikipedia shouldn’t be making decisions about articles or editors based on speculative AI scans – it should be about reliable sources, notability, and policy. This repeated focus on AI accusations feels personal and disruptive. Also all articles I've created, or helped create were all edited and written by me, I do not use Artificial intelligence to manipulate text or help with writing. Meio2934 (talk) 05:53, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Two things to respond to this, both positive and negative.

1. The positive. GPTZero did return mostly human writing on one section each of two articles. Based on this finding, I have withdrawn my nominations for both.
2. The negative. There's no hiding the use of generative AI when the code "utm_source=chatgpt.com" is present in the reference tag, and this is how User:Headbomb/unreliable spotted the possibility.

And an admission: I will also take back the "slop" portion of my comments in the remaining AfDs. I admit the incivility this has caused. However, due to the presence of those tags in select sources, the AI accusations remain. Jalen Barks (Woof) 06:00, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

I’d like to clarify something about the “utm_source=chatgpt.com” in some of the reference links. These tags were part of the URL I copied from social media or a shared link. They’re tracking parameters automatically added by websites, not evidence of AI-written content. The articles I cited are real publications with human authors, and my writing is my own. Meio2934 (talk) 06:08, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

That doesn't quite explain how the tracking tags ended up on the URLs in question. They are supposed to be used, at least under normal operation, to tag the source of the originating traffic. If these links were found through google or some other search engine, they'd be tagged by that search engine, or even the social media site they came from, not ChatGPT. There's a step missing here, that I would at the very least appreciate clarification on. Though I am at least aware I'm an outside observer at this point. Daedalus969 (talk) 06:45, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

I understand the concern, and I’d like to clarify further. When I created the page for Sophia Dashing, I initially had trouble finding articles through a standard Google search. I tried alternative search engines and link aggregators to locate news coverage about her. I don’t remember which one I used, but it provided me with direct links to reliable articles written by human authors from established outlets. I read those articles myself and cited them. The tracking tags in the URLs came from the search tool I used, not from ChatGPT or any AI content generation. The writing on the page is entirely my own. Now what might've happened is that at the end they left the tag on it, cause you can see it is at the very end of the link for the article so it doesn't really change if you erase it or not when clicking that is what i guess happened. from now I will not be using google search engines if you also have any to recommend to find articles I will be very grateful thank you :) Meio2934 (talk) 07:00, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

The thing is, that should indicate the search engine you used to find the content. If it says "utm_source=chatgpt.com", that very indicitive thatit was chatgpt that was used to search for it. I assume its not infallible, but that will absolutely raise eyebrows. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:01, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

I understand completely, I didn’t used ChatGPT to search for but the online engine I used to search the articles might have a directly alignment with them that’s why. There are lots of search engines online these days too never trusting any of those that’s for sure Meio2934 (talk) 08:03, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

The sources with the chatgpt tag come up in obvious Google searches ("sophia dashing lgbtq", etc.) and I find it hard to believe your (unnamed) alternative search engine returned URLs with a chatgpt source tag 3 different times. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 12:01, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

I would assume because they used it to find sources -- I do not really understand what the kerfluffu is about. Does it give the webpage cooties if GPT links to it or something? jp×g🗯️ 08:38, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

In regards to point 2, when I run across references with that tracking parameter - "utm_source=chatgpt.com" - it raises a red flag to me as well. Isaidnoway (talk) 08:00, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

• Just noting that, for better or for worse, "AI slop" is the common verbiage for this kind of thing. We may not like it, but that's how language be. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:59, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

  The n-word is in common use, too, but we still don't use it here. Levivich (talk) 19:20, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

It's not destiny. We can choose not to.calk an editor's work "slop". Just like we can choose not to use other insulting terms. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:05, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm incredibly disappointed that something like "AI slop" has made its way into being a Wikipedia article. Liz is right, just because an article exists for a certain word, that does not mean we should use it in common parlance with other editors. Calling your fellow editor on Wikipedia a hack writer would be just as unacceptable. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:36, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

"Hack writer" is a comment on the contributor, "AI slop" is a comment on the content. It cannot be an attack on an editor's work if the editor copy-pasted it from an LLM. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 12:42, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

I consider the employment of both terms in reference to an editor or their work to be unacceptable, regardless of the distinction. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:45, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

But it's not their work, by definition. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:13, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

And honestly, this thread and the subsequent responses - especially along the lines of "well you should know better than to have 'utm_source=chatpgt' in your reference" shows how extremely the pendulum has swung in the other direction when it comes to AI acceptability, and it was one of my foremost concerns when Wikipedia started drafting a policy on LLM usage. It's also alarming how the leftovers of web analytics, which is present (and often unnoticed) in most linked URLs, can be mistaken for LLM/GPT usage. It is true and self-evident that we should not allow false content to proliferate on Wikipedia through AI-assisted technology. At the same time, pillorying any editor for even having an incidental (or unknowing) interaction with ChatGPT outside of the scope of a Wikipedia edit, to me, shows a rapid and unpleasant descent into WP:WITCHHUNT mentality. We're so much better than this, or at least we should be. But I fear we're going to look back at ourselves in years time with mighty embarrassment in how we treated other editors in this regard. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:44, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

I checked Meio2934's user page and it has Markdown formatting in it, so I am inclined to believe this user is actually using a LLM to create articles and make edits (and their edits have also frequently tripped edit filters for AI-generated citations and Markdown). This observation does not depend on AI content detection; see WP:AISIGNS SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 14:28, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Using **markdown** ( —) formatting on my own user page is my preference of customization, I also add imojis there. My coding is also not the best but I am learning and I do space out so it looks less messy for me on the editing hand. Meio2934 (talk) 14:33, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

If you don't know, if you want text to render in boldface on Wikipedia, you surround it with three apostrophes on each side, like this:

'''This sentence will be rendered in bold.'''

I felt I had to mention it because non-wikitext markup, especially Markdown, is often seen when copy-pasting stuff from an AI chatbot into Wikipedia and is not commonly used otherwise. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 14:38, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

I see, thank you for the tutorial, I think it might be hard to believe but I really just like how the markdowns look, I really do I think they are cute in a way in my personal writing and essays I often include them. But I’ll change them don’t worry Meio2934 (talk) 14:41, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

They make use of bold in their AfD votes, and also earlier in this topic. I don't think I'm witch-hunting if I say these explanations take an incredible amount of AGF to believe. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 14:44, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Last time I checked bold is available as a tool to be used, if bold is not allowed then why have it on Wikipedia ? Seriously, do everyone around here write with no customization at all, I do use bold, I use italic, I use dashes, I use any tool on the writing tools that I available. If you don’t use bold it’s your preference of choice tho. Meio2934 (talk) 14:49, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, use of boldface for emphasis is discouraged in most cases; the main place you see boldface used in articles is to emphasize the first occurrence of the article title in the lead section. Typically, extensive use of boldface is a sign of AI writing since most (human) editors don't really use boldface that much. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 14:55, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

I understand that, but I just happen to use it, it is a tool and just because most editors don’t use does not mean none will. I do and only in certain places you can check all the articles I’ve created or contributed to, articles in main space I don’t use bold out of nowhere, but when it comes to topics and discussions or replies I like to use them. Meio2934 (talk) 15:01, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

(Not that it's really relevant here, but I use markdown-adjacent formatting in ASCII chats because when I started in 1986, it was all I had to work with. Some chats pass them on as written, some convert to markdown.) SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:50, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

I spot checked six different paragraphs from the four articles they have listed on their userpage, and they all come back as 100% AI generated. In contrast, I spot checked six different paragraphs from articles that I have created, and they all come back as 100% human written (which they were). I don't know, seems odd to me. Isaidnoway (talk) 15:03, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

I’d really like to know which tool you’re using that can supposedly tell the difference with 100% certainty. It seems odd that every article you wrote came back as ‘100% human while mine all came back as ‘100% AI.

The editor who originally nominated my articles for deletion already admitted most of those AI flags were wrong and withdrew the nominations. Only one article had an issue flagged, which I’ve since fixed, and it’s now back online. This is exactly why relying on these tools is so unreliable we’ve already seen they can give false results. Meio2934 (talk) 15:15, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

I am not using AI detection to determine that your edits are likely AI-generated; instead, I carefully look over your edits. For example, this sentence from Precious Pepala, an article that you wrote, is concerning:

Throughout her early releases, Pepala has consistently drawn on influences like Billie Eilish, Lady Gaga, Destiny's Child, and Aaliyah — blending gospel roots with alt-pop and rock stylings.

This sentence has two big problems:

• It introduces a superficial analysis by attaching a gerund phrase (which is common in AI writing)
• It has a spaced em dash (most editors use the em dash very rarely, or not at all, since it is hard to type reliably on many platforms)

The same article also has many more occurrences of this pattern of "comma or dash followed by a gerund phrase".

I am not using an AI detection tool, and I don't need to use AI content detection to arrive at my conclusion. All I rely on is the list of signs of AI writing that Wikipedians in WikiProject AI Cleanup have created from experience. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 15:19, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

I have to respectfully disagree with this assessment. Writing style alone is not reliable evidence of AI involvement. Using gerund phrases or a spaced em dash is simply a matter of how I naturally write. There is no Wikipedia policy or guideline that prohibits these stylistic choices, and many long standing articles use similar phrasing.

Assuming AI use based purely on personal interpretation of style is not only speculative but unfair, especially when my edits are made in good faith and supported by verifiable sources. Meio2934 (talk) 15:26, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

MOS:DASH specifically does say not to use spaced em-dashes, in fact. Sesquilinear (talk) 16:06, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

The style of writing with gerund phrases that I mentioned above is very prone to introducing original research; it also often fails to maintain a neutral point of view. Here's a relevant quote from Wikipedia:Signs of AI writing that explains the situation pretty well:

Beyond simply being indicators, the following phrasings and conventions often violate Wikipedia's Manual of Style or introduce a promotional or non-neutral tone; therefore appropriate use of AI chatbots on Wikipedia should not exhibit any of these indicators.

SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 16:12, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I totally reject the idea that some are basically suggesting, that we should treat good faith as a WP:SUICIDEPACT. If multiple AI checkers, with different algorithms, find many different sections being 100%, the writing is so obvious that anyone who reads on a fifth-grade level can recognize it's AI-written drivel, and there is actually tracking for chatgpt.com left in multiple places, it's perfectly reasonable to assume LLM use.

LLM usage is an existential risk to the utility of Wikipedia as an ongoing project. I think five years from now, when lax policies have contributed to the permanent enshittification of Wikipedia, we'll regret we took such a "golly gee whiz" approach as a community. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 17:10, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

No it's not. jp×g🗯️ 08:44, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Using em dashes is not a problem — bad writing is a problem (and, conversely, good writing is not a problem). The main problem with this article was that it was badly written and in need of a trim... jp×g🗯️ 11:20, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

I used four different apps, and they all came back with the same results. The second paragraph in this section triggered a 100% result, and it has a source with the "utm_source=chatgpt.com" tag in the URL, and it also has the spaced em dash. In my view, based on how it is awkwardly written, specifically the third and fourth sentences, I think there is some AI content there. Isaidnoway (talk) 15:38, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

It really does seem like we've a situation where there is substantial evidence of LLM usage - writing style, use of markdown, chat gpt as the source in refs, triggering of AI detection apps, etc. And while any given one of these things, alone, might be a false positive, it does appear that there's a lot of these indicators all clustered together. While it's not the most civil thing in the world to call chatbot output "slop" it does appear that chatbot output was correctly identified. Simonm223 (talk) 15:59, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. It would be very unlikely for all of these signs to appear together coincidentally. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 16:06, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. And we really should not be offloading the drafting of articles to Climate Change Clippy chatbot outputs. Simonm223 (talk) 16:10, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

🙄 jp×g🗯️ 09:22, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

+ this. ChatGPT has evidently been used. I don't think it's fair to be uncivil about it, or blindly trust AI detectors, or mass-nominate articles that potentially do meet WP:GNG (WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP), but Meio2934 has got to admit they used it. LLMs are very unhelpful in writing articles for a slew of reasons - there's a RFC right now about whether speedy deleting clear LLM submissions should be allowed, and it's skewing towards a yes the last time I saw it, yesterday. LLMs are especially harmful when writing BLPs due to false/exaggerated claims. I don't think a full on ban/block is warranted yet, just a little warning and a note that in the future, stricter measures can be taken. jolielover♥talk 16:11, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

To me, the main concern here isn't the wording (I do agree it should be watched) or even the use of AI itself (new users can see it as a tool, not realising the pitfalls, and I'm sympathetic to its use as an aid to users who have disabilities). My main concern is how Meio2934 has doubled, tripled, and quadrupled down on "I did not use AI" when the evidence keeps piling up that they did. LLM use, itself, isn't a sanction-worthy offence if it's corrected once the problems with it are pointed out. Being misleading and untruthful about your conduct multiple times, however, is. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:30, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

I do agree we have to be honest about our work and what we do in all senses, and what I did I said I did, I used google search engines to search for the articles which gave me links tied to chatgpt at the very end of the article links. i read the articles and wrote what I thought was useful to do from them and cited, I'm not good in citation most of them have citation errors which I am trying to get better at, and in regards to the spaces and wording and language I did wrote them myself, in fact when i first began writing articles here on Wikipedia I based my article writing style on other singer articles already live cause I was and still am learning. i also focus a lot on writing and fixing articles for musicians and songwriter. Last time I was being accused of editing for payment which I already said i did not and I do not do and they recommended me to clarify that on my user page which I did. I do write very consistent and in the same style for every article of mine, i write them all in visual editing because my coding is a disaster so when i do code i spend time doing it. i do not rely on chatgpt or AI for my writing, I do and did online for sourcing the articles links but i read them myself and write the articles myself. When it comes to the spacing and the bold, and the italics and the ** () ": >< I use these regularly and even tho editors on Wikipedia don't I do because specially the dashes and the "" are often bused I use them often for album titles, singles that are in the middle of the text and At least I thought needed to be added because they are being named inside the context. So i do apologize again if my writing is all the same or different from other authors here on Wikipedia. that also has nothing to do with this but in class our professor talked about this as well about when did the dashes and points and bold became symbol of AI use in general ? even he stopped using them for lessons and test and quizzes because he was being accused of using artificial intelligence and his own research papers and tests and quizzes were being flagged for AI when he never did. I can't stress this enough so no I will not say I used AI because I in fact I did not for my writing what I did confirmed I did was online for searching for news articles via a search engine which very on top above I said they might be tied to chatgpt which gave those awful link tags. Meio2934 (talk) 20:59, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Your "writing style" in this long paragraph doesn't come close at all to matching your writing style from your replies above, nor does it match your writing style in the articles you supposedly wrote yourself. Isaidnoway (talk) 21:16, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

writing style from "articles" and writing style for responses like yours for example are very different. Besides, tones tend to shift on conversations specially the more you have to talk repetitive about the same argument over and over again. Meio2934 (talk) 21:25, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

I was simply highlighting that this reply up above and and this one, and this one, don't appear to me to match the style in what you wrote in the long paragraph. I don't know, I could be wrong. Isaidnoway (talk) 21:35, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Agreed - the writing style in this comment is drastically different than the style in previous comments in the thread. Almost as if this one was in fact 'hand written' entirely while previous ones were AI-generated, or at least AI-assisted. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:41, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

I think you and Isaidnoway are absolutely correct. Before, I was maybe 95% convinced Meio2934 was using AI, but I'm pretty certain about it now. I cannot imagine someone who legitimately quickly shovel out replies exactly like ChatGPT can also write, in a discussion where their honesty is being questioned, something like I do say one more time that my writing is done by me and that I didn’t payed to much attention when looking what search engine I was using but even tho when asked the specific link I remember the website design and thus saw it was ChatGPT search engine not AI writing tool which is not the same. LLMs bug me, but dishonesty really bugs me. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 02:29, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Browsers keep your browsing history; this is a well known fact. Please share the URL of the search engine search that contains the ChatGPT tagged links; we should be able to reproduce this for ourselves. For example, here's a URL of me attempting to find a changelog for a javascript library: https://www.google.com/search?q=javascript+library+changelog&rlz=1C1ONGR_enUS1045US1045&oq=javascript+library+changelog&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIKCAEQABgKGBYYHjINCAIQABiGAxiABBiKBTINCAMQABiGAxiABBiKBTINCAQQABiGAxiABBiKBTIHCAUQABjvBTIHCAYQABjvBTIKCAcQABiABBiiBDIHCAgQABjvBdIBCDQyNDNqMGo3qAIAsAIA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 This shouldn't be a privacy violation, given its only the base search for sources in the article.

_{I couldn't figure out how to get link text to not be a link; I've been away from wikitext for quite sometime.} — Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 21:44, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Here you go the link to the search engine I used to find the articles and use to find articles for artists. https://chatgpt.com/g/g-kRen9yNIt-search-engine when you search they give you the articles and then you open directly from them. Meio2934 (talk) 21:48, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

I wish we could add prints here I have them prints, it is a search engine I found on Google and then for artists that you need more articles that are hidden I use this one and I also often use others but this one is better at least I thought to find articles, they give the articles and you click on the link they give you and it opens write where you need to be. Meio2934 (talk) 21:52, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

You said up above I didn’t used ChatGPT to search for but the online engine I used to search the articles might have a directly alignment with them that’s why.

And now you are giving a link to chatgpt.com and saying that is the search engine you used. Seems like to me you are digging a hole for yourself here with your contradictory claims. Isaidnoway (talk) 21:57, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

I did said, and it’s true when I write articles I often look out for search engine that best suits I did not looked at it to see which search engine I specifically used, now that you asked me the link I went looking for it and that’s how I found it. I’m being 100% transparent here always, and I already told you as well and even shared the link again that I got from it again for Sophia dashing that I like to search for the articles everywhere so I just go clicking around the search engines, I shared the link search engine GPT gave me and it ends exactly like that. Meio2934 (talk) 22:05, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

...okay. Let's be very clear here: you have just confirmed you are using ChatGPT as a search engine and thus previously you have not been truthful when you have claimed you are not using ChatGPT. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:19, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

I never said I used ChatGPT for writing, I said I used a search engine online for finding the article, and once asked the specific link it was ChatGPT search engine, not ChatGPT AI two very different tools. Meio2934 (talk) 22:26, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

You outright said you didn't use it for search, and then you said above that you did. — Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 22:28, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

I’m outdoing myself I see, what I said was I used a search engine online to search for the articles correct, ok. I didn’t record of which search engine I used I used lots. Then when asked the specific link of the engine, I went ahead looking for it based on the website design and thus I came across ChatGPT search engine. Which again is not the same as ChatGPT AI for writing. I do apologize for the misunderstanding but this is what happened. And I do understand your point. Meio2934 (talk) 22:30, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

It's all the same AI. What you're linking is the same 'ChatGPT AI for writing' that someone has seeded with a couple of prompts and stuck a sign reading 'search engine' on. It's not actually a search engine. These are not 'two very different tools', it is exactly the same thing. MrOllie (talk) 22:37, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

On the link I gave here it says “Search Engine” tho and it gives the same things a search engine would. https://chatgpt.com/g/g-kRen9yNIt-search-engine look search engine at the very end of the tag. Meio2934 (talk) 22:39, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

I could put a sign reading 'search engine' on a rock, but it would still be a rock. One more time: You absolutely have been using an LLM, and you should stop. MrOllie (talk) 22:43, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

If you say so Meio2934 (talk) 22:47, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Besides myself, there are at least three other editors who think some of the content in the articles you have written is AI generated, I agree with that assessment, and have nothing further to add at this point, because, to be blunt, I don't think you are being 100% transparent. Isaidnoway (talk) 22:19, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

I understand completely why you feel that way, I apologize for all inconveniences but I do wanna state that the articles that we’re nominated for deletion or for discussion of deletion were already withdrew in the sole bases of “AI” use for writing. I do say one more time that my writing is done by me and that I didn’t payed to much attention when looking what search engine I was using but even tho when asked the specific link I remember the website design and thus saw it was ChatGPT search engine not AI writing tool which is not the same. But I understand your statement. Meio2934 (talk) 22:28, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Here I just did it again and it gave me this link about Sophia dashing ending in ChatGPT https://medium.com/authority-magazine/music-star-sophia-dashing-on-the-five-things-you-need-to-shine-in-the-music-industry-dd4f220920dc?utm_source=chatgpt Meio2934 (talk) 21:56, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

So this particular use of ChatGPT is basically okay, but with any search engine, you have to check the sources you find to ensure they're reliable and actually support what you say in the article, and generally people will give you a lot less benefit of the doubt if you leave the UTM parameters in. Sesquilinear (talk) 22:19, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the input, I understand and will look out for this then detail in the tags from now on. Meio2934 (talk) 22:34, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

There is a general consensus here that some of the content, if not most of the content, in articles created by Meio2934 is AI-generated, despite their claims to the contrary. I spot-checked some refs in Precious Pepala, and found they failed verification, an indicator of AI, and at least one unreliable source being used - WP:BROADWAYWORLD. I am proposing a formal warning that Meio2934 not create any more new articles using AI tools, as articles created using LLM damages the project. Isaidnoway (talk) 13:48, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

• Support I think a formal warning is the most appropriate way forward here. Meio2934 may not have realized that chatbot assisted material was contrary to project goals but they do know now. If they can avoid using chatbots to draft content or to communicate on WP going forward we can close off this discussion. I want to clarify that I also support no sanctions against Jalen Barks at this time. Simonm223 (talk) 13:51, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

  I understand completely and will do my best to help Wikipedia to grow, I mean no harm and now that I understand, I will no longer use AI no more of any kind for anything writing or researching, I take full responsibility for my actions regarding the articles I wrote and promise to fix them as well. Regarding Jalen Barks despite my initial accusation, he already apologized for the word use and did as well withdrew the deletion nomination for the articles, so I also support no sanction against Jalen Barks. Meio2934 (talk) 13:59, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

• Support I think there's the opportunity for them to change - all of us make mistakes initially, for better or worse. I'm glad they've admitted to using it and take responsibility. jolielover♥talk 14:18, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
• Support - It's too bad it's come to a formal warning, but as this makes the expectations of the community clear going forward, this is a good resolution. I also support no action on Jalen Barks, who I believed acted in good faith, if too aggressively. Jalen, if stress is getting to you, please take a Wikibreak and refresh rather than beat up on yourself! CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:32, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

  +1 Simonm223 (talk) 18:18, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

A formal warning for something which isn't against the rules — and "damages the project" in some nebulous manner that is not explained at all — what? jp×g🗯️ 08:43, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm not following this at all. They're not being warned to not use LLMs because they used LLMs, they're being warned to not use LLMs because they WP:DISRUPTed the project by abusing LLMs, made a mess, and then lied about it. Someone being warned to not do something they would have otherwise been able to do if they had not abused that something is a thing that happens all the time here, without any raised eyebrows. Some star chamber; nobody's proposed a block or a ban or a wider topic ban, but simply the minimum required to stop someone from editing in a manner they have abused after they would not stop voluntarily. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 01:45, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Update: Meio2934 has kept their word and cleaned up Precious Pepala, and has promised on my talk page to look at the other articles they created to address any issues they may possibly have. Thanks to everyone. Isaidnoway (talk) 06:16, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Admission of further misconduct

Let this be my final say on the matter, specifically that while I acknowledge that I have violated multiple Wiki guidelines in this case, I have reflected on my own time here on the English Wikipedia and honestly do not believe the wider community here should remain trustworthy of me. I will let the community decide what they want to do regarding my future here, but I am openly admitting now that there is further misconduct in my contributions that should not be overlooked. Examples include edit warring, abuse of automated tools, abuse of user rights, and even going as far as to faking my own retirement when things don't go my way (trust me, I don't plan on doing that here now that the article issue is resolved). Even in this very moment, I have also contemplated accepting a community ban multiple times over these past issues, given how far this has gone. Therefore, I now leave it to the wider community here to decide my fate. Jalen Barks (Woof) 15:12, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Did they actually do anything that violated any policy or guidelines?

There are a bunch of people saying that this editor slopping prose in mainspace has "damaged the project", or caused an "existential risk", and that they need some kind of formal warning. I understand it is disgraceful that they kept blowing smoke about whether they were using it or not, and this if nothing else is quite rude, but what in the devil are you guys talking about with this stuff about injuring the project?

Fisrt of all, it is not against the rules to use LLMs — I know this because I created WP:LLM and WP:LLMP, both of which were very concise attempts to make a basic common-sense rule ("users should not use LLM output without disclosing it"). Both of these were condemned forever to bureaucracy hell, the first by getting bloated to incomprehensibility and then sent to the gauntlet of a hopeless RfC, the second by a 2-to-1 RfC in favor of adoption getting closed as no consensus, so the state of affairs is indeed that there is no guideline prohibiting their use, or mandating disclosure — so to speak, this is what everyone voted for — if the idea is to protest that by chewing up random noobs for using em-dashes, I am against this, and if the idea is to punish some actual violation of policy or guideline, then I am all for this, but really, can someone give an example of what was actually wrong about the edits, other than the writing being of somewhat poor quality (extremely typical of the gamut of quality people on Wikipedia typically write and have written for two decades)? What is wrong with Special:Permalink/1295977669? jp×g🗯️ 08:54, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Looking into this myself, on the lark that perhaps there really is a problem here, and that probably nobody is going to actually bother to read the diffs to figure out whether it exists or not, I find something very strange. What is going on in Special:Diff/1303518461?

The single was also included in Rolling Stone’s "Songs You Need to Know This Week," placing her alongside international artists and affirming her arrival on the global pop stage. "Songs You Need to Know This Week". Rolling Stone. December 2, 2022. Retrieved March 25, 2025.

Of course, this is not well-written, and has blatant WP:PEACOCK language (kind of a puzzling use of {{cn}} rather than just copyediting it out), but we've been dealing with that for about 24 years now. Did people only start doing this in 2022? I guess I didn't get the memo.

But there is a way bigger fugazi.

Despite someone claiming to have gone through this and done a source check... this source does not exist! The URL is a 404, and there is no copy of it in the Wayback Machine, except for a single grab (of a 404 page) shortly after this reference was added to the article. There is one article on Rolling Stone with a similar title, from that same day — Coi Leray, RM, Metallica and All the Songs You Need to Know This Week — that mentions the song, but it's at a completely different URL. @Isaidnoway: Why did you tag this as saying the "source does not mention" the statement in the sentence? Did you not notice that the source didn't exist, or did you do all of the aforesaid work to find the original article, and then leave the original (nonexistent) source in the citation with a claim that it had been verified? jp×g🗯️ 09:14, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Yup, I found that Rolling Stones source, which doesn't verify the content added, and found all the other sources that came back with a 404, which is an indicator of AI slop. The user said up above that they take full responsibility for my actions regarding the articles I wrote and promise to fix them as well. Do you have a problem with them taking responsibility for their actions and fixing the problems they created? I thought we encouraged editors to take responsibility for issues they created. Isaidnoway (talk) 09:30, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

I think making up sources is a significant issue, whereas what software the editor has installed on their computer is less pressing. jp×g🗯️ 10:12, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

I would agree it's not that they are using LLMs, but that doing so has caused them to add made up references and potentially hallucinated content. Editors are responsible for any content they add regardless of how they generate the content. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:18, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Of course they are, but what is the purpose of all this dreck about how many em dashes can dance on the head of a pin, why did it need to be proven whether they were using a transformer? Either the edits are good or they are bad. Bad edits are bad if they come from a human, a computer or a potato, without a need for Tuber Detectives. jp×g🗯️ 10:55, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

The main problem here was that they were dishonest about using LLMs and repeatedly denied using them to write articles and comments despite all the evidence to the contrary. LLM usage, by itself, is not necessarily disruptive; not being honest about using such tools is, especially because I don't think this user fully understood the problems associated with unreviewed LLM output (e.g. promotional tone, bad formatting, nonexistent references, etc.) until they were pointed out to them. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 15:10, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Sources from Precious Pepala: 404 plus failed verification, 404, 404 plus failed verification, failed verification, failed verification, unreliable source. These are all signs of an editor using LLM to create an article, and not bothering to check the sources for verification (one of our core policies for a BLP), or checking the reliability of the sources being used. I think this sort of behavior damages the project, but of course, you are free to think otherwise. Furthermore, drafts are now routinely being rejected by reviewers because of LLM concerns: Draft:WKLR-FM, Draft:Kashmir Sapphire (Kashmir, Pakistan), Draft:Mohammad Ali Nasiri, Draft:Sir Patrick Bijou and Draft:Abraham Peck. There is also an ongoing RfC for adding a new criteria for speedy deletion of unreviewed LLM content, which appears to me, of having an overwhelming consensus so far for adding this option for speedy deletion, maybe you'd like to express your opinion there that it is not against the rules to use LLMs. Isaidnoway (talk) 10:20, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Did you not read my original post at all? That is a policy I proposed in 2023! And it has nothing at all to do with running star chambers at ANI. jp×g🗯️ 11:00, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I read your original post, and I stand behind my comment 100% that articles created using LLM damages the project, as the LLM content may include hallucinated information, fake references, copyright violations, and as shown in at least one article Meio2934 created, content that failed verification, an unreliable source, and multiple sources that somehow returned a 404 error and can't be found archived, when the sources actually do exist when searched for by a human. And it looks like to me that "star chambers" have been running for a while now here at ANI, AN, AfD, etc. From what I've seen, the general consensus is that using LLM is frowned upon in articles, talk pages and discussions in project spaces, as editors are getting blocked, warned and scolded for using LLM. If you'd like to start a formal discussion with a proposal that these so called star chambers be prohibited, please do so, and if you'd like to oppose a warning for Meio2934, please do so, thanks.

Rationales written by an LLM are unacceptable, LLM use by Gyan Know, likely LLM use, possible serial llm usage in blp space, massive wave of LLM spam, 9t5 ban from using LLM for writing, using LLMs to add content to pages, potential use of a large language model, Going to pblock from mainspace, draft and category space until this is cleared up, as an LLM helps a person contribute a lot of material quickly (which we do not want in this case)., it would be better with an opening statement written by a human, AI-generated article spammer blocked, Your edits to articles smack of subjects just poured into AI and spit out and pasted into Wikipedia, it is painfully obvious that your writing needs work. That's fine, do what you want to do, but don't use your various "tools" on Wikipedia, apparent LLM abuse, and on and on and on. Isaidnoway (talk) 15:58, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, the problem is not the use of LLMs. It's that the user repeatedly and explicitly denied the use of LLMs when asked about it, despite mounting evidence that they were. There is no policy (yet) against the use of LLMs, and as I mentioned above as well, they can be aids for users with disabilities, for instance. Lying - to call a spade a spade - at ANI about the use of LLMs when directly asked about it, however, is a no-go. Also I will note that running star chambers at ANI is pretty danged close to casting aspersions and I'm dissapointed to see a fellow admin saying that kind of thing here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:03, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

While there is no policy against the use of LLMs, from what I've seen, the general consensus is the community prefers to communicate with humans, not LLMs, and discussions are routinely hatted because of editors using LLMs. Drafts are being rejected because of the problems associated with using LLMs. So while there is no official policy, the community is still taking decisive action to prevent the spread of it's usage on the project. There are numerous templates now to alert our readers and editors alike, that content or sources may be AI-generated, and talk page guidelines which allow LLM-generated arguments to be excluded from assessments of consensus, and if I recall correctly, I recently saw there's an edit filter now that tags edits with potential AI issues. Isaidnoway (talk) 00:04, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Yes, if I'm reading the above discussion correctly, they added fake references to articles. This is a major issue that should be addressed with a warning (which someone might want to propose, with diffs of adding fake references, assuming those diffs exist). Unfortunately, it's gotten lost in arguments above about dashes and "slop" and UTM parameters. ANI ain't perfect. Levivich (talk) 19:35, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Borrisbaron

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

---

This user, Borrisbaron (talk · contribs), was dormant for 9 years and suddenly came back spamming tiny edits with the justification of "adding punctuation", probably trying to hit 500 edits under WP:PGAME(?). They had also made 20 to 30 quick edits in short bursts on pages like Bernard L. Strehler and Alex Comfort. The only real edits of substance are on a few biographies, mostly about biologists and oddly a single politician from Singapore (K. Shanmugam). Aleain (talk) 05:57, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

How about giving them some rope? If they want to waste their time just to eventually get to say something bad on a contentious topic page only to be met with a swift and unceremonious RBI, so be it. But until proven otherwise, we should assume good faith. 73.38.235.124 (talk) 06:08, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello, 73.38.235.124, this is your first edit ever. How did you find your way to ANI? Are you Borrisbaron, editing logged out? Aleain, have you communicated with this editor? That's a necessary step before coming to ANI. I'm sure that you already notified them about this discussion, right? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:36, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi Liz (talk · contribs), I have not directly reached out to the editor about this but I did leave a note on their talk page linking to this discussion. Looking at their talk page history, past messages about other things have been ignored, which is why I figured it made more sense to bring it up here instead since I likely would not have received a reply anyway. Aleain (talk) 06:49, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Liz, I would assume - based on the content of their comment - that this is one of the long time IP editors who participates in these discussions just as, and often more productively than many other registered long time editors. As above _{so below} 07:30, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

As above, well, you can't (or you shouldn't) base your judgment on their edit history as this is the only edit they have made. I'm not sure why you would conclude they have had a long history here. Just to make a point? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:44, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

IPs are dynamic, no? 37.186.45.131 (talk) 07:51, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Based on the fact that they are familiar enough with Wikipedia and its policies, guidelines and essays to refer to WP:ROPE, understand why people might WP:GAME WP:XC (in order to be able to edit in WP:CTOPS covered by WP:ECRs), and to subsequently point to WP:RBI if they do end up causing issues suggests to me that the edit history visible from this IP is in fact not representative of their actual experience here excessive linking for illustrative effect. Of course, IPs are human too. As above _{so below} 08:47, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Most of the time, if I make a logged-out edit (e.g. from a public computer) the IP address will have nothing in its contribs besides that one. They tend to change pretty often jp×g🗯️ 11:07, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

IPs are human, yes. And it is against policy for any human to use an undisclosed alternate account (or edit logged out) on project pages. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:19, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Well, CU me if you want, you can see the I added from the library a few months ago. jp×g🗯️ 10:54, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

@JPxG: Actually, no. If you had not edited from that library within the past 90 days while logged in, the checkuser tool would have no way to link that edit with your account, although it could potentially confuse your edit with those by others who edited from that location. checkuser isn't the magic juju it's made out to be by some. 73.38.235.124 (talk) 14:56, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

It would be nice if we had a banner above IP contributions saying "IP addresses frequently change. The edits here are very unlikely to represent the editing history of a particular person."

This seems to confuse 50% of admins and 95% of vandalism patrollers. 107.115.5.23 (talk) 17:11, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

• I had a quick look at their contribs, and it looks very much like they gamed autoconfirmed in 2016 and then didn't do anything at all for a decade. By my count they would have gained EC on 9 June (they have 5 deleted contribs) and as far as I can tell the number of EC protected or subject to ECR articles they have since edited is exactly zero in nearly 200 edits since. It is odd that they very occasionally make a large substantive edit like this one while most of their contribs are the sort of progressive multi-stage edits that most editors would just do all at once (example - this is 11 commas in 11 separate edits) which we do often see from permission gamers. But until they actually use an ill-gotten permission, I think this is just someone being eccentric. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:28, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

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

User:Mr.choppers

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

---

Hello, please look at Hyundai Staria history page (starting at the 2nd of July edit by User:MoCars) and the discussion on my talk page. Basically Mr.choppers reverted my revert which reinstated the model year for the Middle East after it was removed by MoCars and claims that WP:MODELYEARS and Template:Infobox automobile both say that Model Years is for North America use only, even though both pages don't explicitly say that. A decision is needed regarding this matter, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alawadhi3000 (talk • contribs) 09:51, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

This is a content dispute. WP:ANI does not rule on content disputes. Discuss it on the article talk page, or try one of the forms of dispute resolution. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:58, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

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

User:Afrika1997 is adding unsourced content to multiple articles

Last month, I made a report about User:Afrika1997 for adding unsourced content with fake sources that fail verification on Vice President of Ghana. On 30 July, they created an unsourced section on Guang people. On 31 July alone, they added unsourced content and changes on 12 articles. These changes are listed as follows: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12. This editor has already been advised on their talk page about the value of adding sources and avoiding original research.

@Ad Orientem, Alexf. Please have a look. My previous ANI about this editor went unaddressed and archived. Kwesi Yema (talk) 05:24, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

I will soon leave a note at the talk for Afrika1997 (talk · contribs). Post again if problems continue. Johnuniq (talk) 06:24, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Well noted. Kwesi Yema (talk) 09:51, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Looks like this user has received multiple warnings and continues to respond with accusations of bad faith on the part of others. This is not encouraging. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:20, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem and @Johnuniq. It's been 2 days but the editor hasn't replied yet. Should I revert the unsourced changes they made to several articles? Kwesi Yema (talk) 02:30, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

@Afrika1997 Notice has been left on your talk page, and you have been pinged to this discussion. If you do not respond within the next 24 hrs, the edits listed above may be reverted. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:34, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Afrika1997 last edited at 22:22, 31 July 2025. It's common for newish editors to disappear for a week or two (or forever) when challenged. Feel free to revert their edits, after the 24 hours notice from Ad Orientem above. Let me know if more problems arise. Johnuniq (talk) 03:12, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Alright. Thank you for the reply. Kwesi Yema (talk) 21:08, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Edit warring on Socialist Party (Ireland) and related pages

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

---

• Socialist Party (Ireland) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Edit warring by an IP user, 188.65.190.76, on Socialist Party (Ireland). IP editor has blown past 3RR and insists on readding poorly sourced content that multiple editors have reverted. IP editor cites Wikipedia guidelines but doesn't abide by them. Has an odd behaviour of using <su p> to mark areas of the article for improvement instead of proper maintenance tags. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CeltBrowne (talk • contribs) 18:44, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

@CeltBrowne Why was there no mention made of @Rambling Rambler This is a very bad faith report.

Please see their conduct under my talk page. International Socialist Alternative Socialist Party (Ireland) and specifically ROSA (organisation) which led to the page being locked. 188.65.190.67 (talk) 20:13, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

@ChildrenWillListen

@AndyTheGrump

@Liz

@Asilvering

@FactOrOpinion

@JFHJr

188.65.190.67 (talk) 20:33, 3 August 2025 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.65.190.67 (talk) 20:24, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Random multiple pinging of editors here is not a good look. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:25, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

It is not random, all pinged Users are involved in this matter, and their attention and input is necessary. 188.65.190.67 (talk) 20:27, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Just a reminder that adding more editors to ping without signing your post in the same edit won't work; you need to add your signature to send the notification. For help fixing this (if you want), see Help:Fixing failed pings. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 20:28, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

This is primarily a content dispute and did not have to go to ANI. See the IP's talk page, Asilvering's talk page, Rambling Rambler's talk page and the BLP noticeboard for further context. This is the edit that's being contested. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 20:33, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

@ChildrenWillListen The linked edit is now outdated as my newer edit proving a primary source is also contested. Can you please add the newer one, or both edits? 188.65.190.67 (talk) 21:05, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

188.65.190.67, this looks like a content dispute to me, so I would continue discussion at WP:BLPN and not here, since ANI is for "urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems" (emphasis in original) and not content disputes. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 21:10, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Oh yes. This is a modified version of that edit we agreed upon at the IP's talk page, but @Rambling Rambler thought that it still violated BLP policy. There is also this edit which removes the source for the disaffiliation. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 21:11, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

@ChildrenWillListen I'm referring to this one which was reverted due to @CeltBrowne reverting the edits made. 188.65.190.67 (talk) 21:18, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

If this dispute concerns the acceptability of a certain edit and not editor behavior, then this is a content dispute and does not belong at ANI. Please continue discussion on the article's talk page or at WP:BLPN. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 21:24, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

The dispute concerns both the behavior of the editor and the content of the edit itself.

At least

@CeltBrowne seemed to think so by creating this report. 188.65.190.67 (talk) 21:27, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Please see my talk page for review of their accusations.

Under both August 2025 posts. 188.65.190.67 (talk) 21:37, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Then please review this talk page and notice the one sided nature of the accusations by CeltBrowne and the suppression of my own warnings by Rambling Rambler. 188.65.190.67 (talk) 21:40, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Finally, please review ROSA under this talk page. 188.65.190.67 (talk) 21:48, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Please note that my only involvement was to comment in a thread on this matter at WP:BLPN. And that mostly involved trying to get a clear picture of the issue - I think I made it clear I still had an open mind. [38] Given that I said nothing regarding the behaviour of anyone involved in the dispute, and given that I haven't edited the relevant articles at all, I fail to see why I have been pinged. WP:ANI is not a forum for resolving content disputes, and as far as I'm concerned, that was what was supposed to be going on at WP:BLPN. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:44, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

You were pinged to bring to your awareness of this ongoing report. It's creation is relevant to the discussion at WP:BLPN. Your ping is not a reflection or remark on your conduct. 188.65.190.67 (talk) 20:49, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Here, the IP editor is being told to "go to WP:BLPN", but at BLPN, they are being told to "go to ANI". As an outside observer, I think that discussion on this matter should probably be kept in one place to avoid confusion. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 20:53, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, but no. Content disputes don't belong at WP:ANI. And if anyone has an issue with my behaviour concerning the articles in question, I'd like to be given specifics. Failing that, I'm not going to participate here further, since it won't resolve anything. Discussion of this matter is already scattered about multiple pages, and trying to resolve the content issues here is not only inappropriate, but liable to make the situation even worse. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:00, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

I agree; this should probably be kept on WP:BLPN if at all possible. I checked that noticeboard and I agree with you that this looks to be a content dispute (which, like you said, doesn't belong at ANI), so this discussion should probably be closed with a recommendation to "use the right forum". (I can do this if necessary.) SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 21:06, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

I think that the actions of @CeltBrowne by making this report and @Rambling Rambler should be reviewed further as they are not conducive to a cooperative discussion on WP:BPLN. 188.65.190.67 (talk) 21:12, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Look, I've got no interest in relitigating anything here as I don't see how it's worthwhile, but you've already been told by @Asilvering to stop bringing me up with the endless tagging of me and saying I should be looked into[39] and you've now tagged me twice here trying to make this about an issue they've told you has been dealt with.

Please will you leave it alone. Rambling Rambler (talk) 21:26, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

You had no issue engaging in an edit war then had the audacity to accuse me of vandalism first.

Your conduct deserves review. 188.65.190.67 (talk) 21:29, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

IP, RR has already been warned about this and, as far as I have seen, has taken that warning on board. Please move forward and stop trying to relitigate this. You've already been asked once. This is twice. I won't ask a third time. -- asilvering (talk) 21:49, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

"urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems"

I disagree that they took it on board. Instigating an edit war and continuing to engage is an intractable behavioral problem.

I have the right to make my position heard here.

They did not recieve any admin warnings until the damage was already done. 188.65.190.67 (talk) 21:54, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

I agree that this is a content dispute and that ANI isn't the right place for this discussion. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 21:12, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

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

User 2A04:4A43:874F:FC50:3CBF:EB6D:48C6:54CB

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

---

Personal attack: "You will burn in hell you heretic." I suggest a one year block, with talk page blocked. Jc3s5h (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:33, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

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

IP editor at The Fantastic Four: First Steps

• The Fantastic Four: First Steps (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 2601:282:8901:40f0:94ba:63dc:a05:4ac8 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2601:282:8901:40f0:b0a8:f08e:da26:9cd (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Hi, we have an IP editor who appears to be using the talk page at The Fantastic Four: First Steps (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) as a soap box and has started making personal attacks against editors there, basically making it feel like a WP:BATTLEGROUND. They forked one of their discussions off, and when this was pointed out, I performed a NAC directing them back to the original discussion. This was reverted repeatedly, with the IP suggesting I bring the matter here. I know it's rare, but maybe semi-protection of the talk page wouldn't be the worst outcome here... —Locke Cole • t • c 20:04, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

As one of the editors involved in the discussions and editing this article, I would endorse semi-protection so we can focus on improving the contents of the article rather than dealing with this distraction. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 20:07, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Based on their comments, it feels like they are just spamming the talk based on a personal dislike of Marvel or something along those lines. I've been trying to stay out of it honestly. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:17, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97 Please AGF, sir. Wikipedia:Assume good faith Spamming was certainly not my intention, and my words and information I shared say otherwise.

For the record, I don't dislike Marvel, but I do dislike misinformation on wikipedia articles. I was simply mentioning on the talk page that the press is reporting that the movie is experiencing a disappointing box office, and I did NOT even make a single change to the article itself. And for sharing my opinion, I was dogpiled by two editors, both of which have been blocked before for disruptive behavior. Please don't put words in my mouth. Thank you. 2601:282:8901:40F0:94BA:63DC:A05:4AC8 (talk) 20:24, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

You have not assumed good faith once in your tirade of the talk page, accusing us of original research, WP:OWN, and being biased without evidence. You are not a victim here, so stop acting like we somehow targeted you. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 20:26, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

@Trailblazer101 [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Give_%27em_enough_rope If you say so.

In any case, I stand by my talk page contributions, and again, find this matter closed, and moot. Certainly not a good fit for an WP:ANI but maybe a text book example of a matter that could WP:BOOMERANG if you persist. So don't let me stop you at making your WP:POINT.2601:282:8901:40F0:94BA:63DC:A05:4AC8 (talk) 20:32, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

P.P.S.I would take into account the OP's long documented history for being disruptive, edit warring, and for treating wikipedia like a [[WP:BATTLEGROUND]], and the previous WP:ANI that the other user who just chimed in, for which he was banned for a week, and recommend possible WP:BOOMERANGS here if necessary to deter this absolute waste of time in the form of an WP:ANI.2601:282:8901:40F0:94BA:63DC:A05:4AC8 (talk) 20:48, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

This excessive bureaucratic nonsense coming from an IP reeks of sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry, especially given the mention of the IP being specifically logged out. Personally, I think a SPI might be warranted in this case, given I’ve encountered socks/LTAs in other topics that have said such bureacratic stuff that a newly-editing IP would normally not be aware of. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 21:17, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Both editors are trying to WP:OWN the talk page, making this ANI petty at best.

This WP:ANI is moot, as the OP certainly knows, given that he compromised in the 'row' we experienced, and reframed my thread (which I am fine with) rather than outright closing it (which I was not).

So, if I'm moving on, and fine with the compromise here, and the conflict itself with the OP here and the other user that chimed in is essentially resolved, then why are we here?

If anything, this should WP:BOOMERANG on to the OP here for filing an unnecessary IP clearly in service of a grudge.

P.S. I'm personally fine with semi-protection, but it's probably not necessary as this was a 'row' which, again, is now resolved, and hence moot, and only involved me and the other two editors. So doesn't make sense to deny other contributors the freedom to discuss the article on the talk page. There isn't an issue with many random IPs on this page. My 2 cents. 2601:282:8901:40F0:94BA:63DC:A05:4AC8 (talk) 20:19, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

It honestly sounds like you are just deflecting. Digging up past actions of other editors you disagree with in a dispute is not going to be helpful or sway anything in your favor. You are being disruptive and trying to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 20:22, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

This WP:ANI is moot, as the OP certainly knows, given that he compromised in the 'row' we experienced, and reframed my thread (which I am fine with) rather than outright closing it (which I was not). I did not compromise, I was not going to edit war with you on the talk page any more than I already had. It's quite clear you think you know about me, even though I've never edited either this article or the talk page prior to today. It's clear that you disagreed with the WP:NAC closure of your very similar discussion, but what you did in response was inappropriate. You revert warred against not just me, but another editor who also agreed with the closure (and a third one who did not engage but did comment that it was duplicative). I viewed that as a consensus to close the discussion so attention could stick with the existing discussion (which you had also started). With this edit, the IP admits to having an account (There is a reason why I am logged out), but appears to be abusing their anonymity to be uncivil and disruptive. WP:SPI might be my next stop.. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:31, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Just going to provide some diffs here for admins to look at. IP has been resorting to personal attacks whenever anyone (reasonably) disagrees with them: saying one is "obviously triggered" (and also mention being deliberately logged out) Special:diff/1304068309, calling other editors "studio shills" special:diff/1303996657 special:diff/1304010382 among other pointed attacks. There's more examples in the Talk Page thread, but Adam and Trailblazer have both been beyond reasonable with this IP. Nil🥝^Talk 20:28, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

I'd say pblock the IP from the page. If things escalate, make it a full block. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 21:00, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

I'd agree that a pblock would be preferable to protecting the talk page, as it's just the one IP causing an issue here. Nil🥝^Talk 21:08, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

My concern is that an IP block, even one that blocks an IP range (WP:RANGEBLOCK) would miss them entirely later, as based on their edit summary here (An ANI? On an IP from a coffee shop that I am at?? With you long history of being blocked again and again. Good luck with that, sport.haha) they claim to be editing from a public WiFi location, which would block them (for now) but allow them to circumvent the block later when they leave for home (clarify, before I leave for home). —Locke Cole • t • c 21:35, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

12 hours at a coffee shop? I'm going to AGF that they really like their coffee... Nil🥝^Talk 21:38, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm sure it will be trivially easy for any of you to recognize this person when they return, regardless of which IP address they return on. If they try it in the next week, it'll be block evasion, and they'll be blocked for that without need for further discussion. Cheers. -- asilvering (talk) 21:57, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP for WP:LOUTSOCKing. -- asilvering (talk) 21:55, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

They’re already feigning innocence and deleted the warnings/block notice (which I restored in good faith as they were rightfully given to the IP who didn’t listen). Might need talk page revoked as well if this continues. I’m not buying the “kiosk” excuses. Sounds very WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 23:33, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

I saw. Please don't bother with reverting that kind of thing. It's all in the page history and it doesn't really matter if it's still on the talk page or not. -- asilvering (talk) 23:36, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Even for shared IP addresses, WP:NOTWALLOFSHAME only says that notes about an IP being shared should be kept, not other notices etc except the stuff required for all editors. In this case, no one has placed such a note other than the IP themselves making the claim, and there are strong reasons to doubt the claim anyway. Either way, if the IP is telling the truth than the only thing that needs to be kept are the statements of the IP being shared. If they aren't then there's nothing that needs to be kept. So best just leave it, if whoever is behind the IP wants to be silly on the talk page of that one single IP let them provided it doesn't cross into the NPA or BLP line, or get excessive. Better than them messing with other parts of the encyclopaedia. Nil Einne (talk) 00:01, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Talk page civility and bad-faith dispute regarding user:MilesVorkosigan

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

---

I am not sure how this works. I am composing this because I am having an issue with an editor on the talk page for Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. I specifically wanted to bring attention to the recently-declassified annex/appendix to the 2023 Durham Report,[40] which appears to me to be relevant to the article, before making any discussion about potential edits. I made the mistake of highlighting/quoting certain sections of that report before reading the entire thing - specifically two emails (shown in pages 9 and 11 of the document) that were concluded in the document's conclusion itself (page 17) to have been fabricated.

Several editors pointed out that the specific emails I quoted/highlighted were fabrications/Russian disinformation, and I acknowledged this in subsequent remarks after I read the entire document (as mentioned above, the declassified document itself reaches that conclusion). It also became apparent/was made clear to me that only a few secondary sources had reported on this so far, and as such, edits to the article referring to the declassified document would have to wait until more secondary sources reported on it. I also quoted several other sections of the declassified document, and cautioned against dismissing the entire document on the basis of the two sections I highlighted/quoted.

However, MilesVorkosigan seems to have assumed my discussion in the talk page to have been started in bad faith, and in the subsequentback-and-forth he has repeatedly engaged in what appears to be intentional misunderstanding/disregard of my responses. He has accused me of using an AI chatbot in my responses (without evidence) - which I personally find to be insulting, and he seemed to be conflating the quoted/highlighted fabricated emails with the entire declassified document by intentionally ignoring or dismissing my quotation of other sections of the document. He has finally claimed that this is not the case, but until that remark, his wording in all of his other remarks suggested otherwise to me.

I have noted my objections to his characterization of my remarks, some of which as I mentioned are personal attacks. I have explained why his wording implies or constitutes certain aspersions, accusations, personal attacks, and so on. He either denies that he has implied any such thing or completely ignores/disregards my objections in his responses. He has completely ignored my objection to his baseless LLM accusation and has refused to apologize for that particular insult. He has stated that (by quoting emails shown in a declassified document that were determined to be fabricated) I am pushing Russian disinformation. He has asserted that I am lying, that I am somehow "defending" the fabricated emails I highlighted, all without explaining what I have said that suggests this. I asked him to drop it, that I was willing to chalk up our dispute to misunderstanding, but he has not done so.

I have observed that MilesVorkosigan has a history of bad-faith assumptions and casting aspersions, and unfortunately it appears that our back-and-forth - again, on the article's talk page only, as no editing of an article has occurred - has induced a recurrence of this behavior.

I am not sure what administrator action or censure is warranted here, but I feel that MilesVorkosigan's language is some kind of violation of wp:agf, wp:npa, and wp:civil at the very least. Maybe something like wp:ecr is warranted for both of us on that article and its talk page, as well as our respective user and talk pages, as we cannot seem to come to some mutual understanding.Ecthelion83 (talk) 23:25, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

"How this works", Ecthelion83, if you read the pink instructions at the top of this page, is that you have to present "diffs" or edits that illustrate the problems you are talking about. We can't just accept a narrative statement from you that there are problems, you have to supply diffs that demonstrate what you claim happened so that other editors can see the evidence and assess if action needs to be taken. Without diffs, it's very unlikely that anyone will respond to you. You have to present a compelling case that others can easily follow with your evidence. If you have questions, look at other cases on this page that have been successfully addressed and closed and use them as an example of what should have happened with your report. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:35, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Here are some examples:

My first stand-alone remark: [41]

My acknowledgement that the segments I first quoted/highlighted were determined to be fabrications, as well as direct quotations of other sections of the document: [42]

MilesVorkosigan's first implication that I acted in bad faith: [43] - my response to that remark: [44] In retrospect, this is what seems to have set it off - as I suggested in a subsequent remark, I may have been hypervigilant. This concession on my part has been ignored, as far as I can tell.

MilesVorkosigan's unsubstantiated accusation of LLM usage: [45] - my response to that remark: [46]

What I believe to be MilesVorkosigan's characterization of the entire linked report, not just the sections I first highlighted, as misinformation: [47] and [48]

My clarification that the entire document, not just the sections I highlighted, may be relevant to the article: [49] and [50]

I implied that MilesVorkosigan seemed to be intentionally misunderstanding or misconstruing my remarks:[51] - this was his reply: [52]

This was my request to drop it, in which I also threatened arbitration before considering what that might look like: [53]

MilesVorkosigan asserts here that I am lying and that I am pushing Russian disinformation: [54]

MilesVorkosigan asserts here that I am lying (again) and that I am "defending a faked quote": [55]

MilesVorkosigan asserts here that he has not dismissed the entirety of the document I linked, asserts that his command of English is superior to mine (irrelevant and not for the first time in this back-and-forth, but a personal attack nonetheless), and asserts that I'm putting words into his mouth/saying things that he is not: [56]

My final message to MilesVorkosigan prior to coming here: [57]

Ecthelion83 (talk) 00:11, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

While my personal assessment is that your comments are human-made they are also huge blocks of text. Liz is entirely correct above but also, you might find you have an easier time at article talk pages if you cultivate some brevity. Simonm223 (talk) 23:45, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Point taken.Ecthelion83 (talk) 01:21, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Point taken but ignored, obviously. See e.g. Special:Diff/1304025881. — Chrisahn (talk) 18:08, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

I just read that thread, and while it got a little heated, in my view, there is nothing actionable there. And just a friendly reminder, since you started this report, your own behavior is likely to be scrutinized as well. Isaidnoway (talk) 23:57, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Understandable - I made a number of wording/spelling/punctuation edits to my remarks after having posted replies (some of which alters the tone of my remarks), so I expect that to be examined/scrutinized.

In retrospect, I think I know where the dispute began, and I acknowledge that I may have been hypervigilant and inferring something from MilesVorkosigan's language that he did not intend. Nevertheless, it has devolved into personal attacks and insults (mostly on his part), and I feel like some form of limited censure could be considered, possibly for both of us. Ecthelion83 (talk) 00:15, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Assuming good faith here: it looks Ecthelion83 unknowingly spread disinformation. We should all feel very fortunate that it was caught quickly and not perpetuated. Maybe we can use that feeling of good fortune to overlook any slights, real or perceived, from people that reacted negatively to the spread of disinformation. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:34, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

MilesVorkosigan is now engaging in gaslighting: [58] - my response: [59]

He continues to assert that I am the one insulting him (when it is in fact he who has done all of the insulting, casting of aspersions, and personal attacks), and I suspect this is a reference to my suggestion of bias - which I walked back ([60]), but he seems to have either ignored or missed this. Ecthelion83 (talk) 14:27, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

I have gone a little further than walking back the suggestion of bias and have apologized for this suggestion; as he continues to deny that he has made any implications in his wording, I am assuming good faith, i.e. that the implications evident in his wording were not his intent, and I have recommended that he consider his wording more carefully in the future: [61]

However, given his prior history of assuming bad faith and casting aspersions, I am now requesting that MilesVorkosigan be given a formal warning to consider his wording more carefully. Ecthelion83 (talk) 14:43, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

I've read the linked conversations. This is a content dispute. It looks like you are personalizing everything being said. That is causing you to derail conversations. You need to focus on content, not arguing with people. You will probably have a better time editing about something where you are less emotionally invested. 107.115.5.23 (talk) 17:05, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

You know what, you're probably right. Ecthelion83 (talk) 12:24, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

The mistake wasn't only using a primary source, but using examples in the primary source of fake emails as if they were genuine emails. That's a real big mistake, but we all make mistakes, and it's good that you admitted this mistake when it was pointed out to you.

The problem is when you were called out for that mistake, you immediately tried to "turn the tables" and create some kind of conduct issue on the part of the person noting your mistake. Miles said, Wait, you knew that the emails were Russian disinformation but you posted them anyway without mentioning it? That's... concerning. and your response was The fact that you consider this "concerning" - despite the fact that I put it in the talk page rather than unilaterally editing the article precisely because I believed it needed to be parsed out in the talk page before any determination is made - is itself concerning, especially in light of the fact that I acknowledged that the report concludes that the specific quoted emails (other emails in the report have been verified as authentic) were composites and not authentic messages. You should consider checking your biases. No, there is nothing concerning about calling your attempt to use a primary document (and to misuse that primary document by citing emails that the primary document includes as examples of fake emails) "concerning." What you did is concerning. More concerning is the attempt to create a conduct issue, escalate it to ANI, and continue escalating further with accusations of "gaslighting," etc. That sort of concerning behavior makes uninvolved editors like me start looking at your contribs to see what's going on.

And what I find is repeated problems with the way you use sources. From your last 100 talk space edits:

• At Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine/Archive 21#"Baseless" vs "without evidence" you were called out by other editors for changing "baseless" to "without evidence," although of the four sources cited, one used the exact word "baseless," and a second wrote the Russian perspective is still so far from our realities in the West that we might be dealing with people from another universe, which surely is more accurately described as "baseless" than "without evidence" (the other two sources, AFAICT, do not opine on the veracity or plausibility of the claims at all). Surprisingly, you wrote the term "baseless" is more frequently used in accusatory or defensive language and carries such a nuance, so you totally understand the difference between "baseless" and "without evidence"--that the second is a watered down version of the first--yet you changed the text anyway, even though the sources aren't using the watered-down term. And you described that change as bringing the wiki prose closer to NPOV, when in fact you were doing the opposite: bringing the wiki prose further away from what the sources wrote, and thus further away from NPOV.
• At Talk:Old Korean#Ainu, you were called out by another editor for adding text that, according to them, completely failed verification.
• At Talk:Nakajima Ki-43 Hayabusa#"Forward swept wings" you were also called out for adding text that failed verification, and it wasn't even close:
  • What you wrote: The Ki-43 is notable as one of the few successful/mass-produced designs with truly forward-swept wings, though the forward sweep of the wing leading edges is minimal.
  • What the source you cited said: Japan did have some success with a forward-swept fighter in World War II – the Nakajima Ki-43. Yet, the Ki-43’s forward-sweep was minimal, barely perceptible, although technically present.
  • How the heck do you go from "have some success" to "notable as one of the few successful/mass-produced designs", or from "minimal, barely perceptible, although technically present" to "truly forward-swept wings"? Yikes!

Your repeated justification in the above discussions of your changes as "encyclopedic" v. "un-encyclopedic" hold no water. It'd be easier to WP:AGF that these are the mistakes of an inexperienced editor if it weren't for your 18-year tenure or your boast on your userpage of a genius-level IQ. You should be far, far more careful with how you summarize sources. Levivich (talk) 19:14, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

I think you're mostly on point, but the Ki-43 wording seems OK to me. Not great, but not "yikes" level bad. :-) In this context, I read "successful/mass-produced" as "not a failure or mere prototype". But, yeah, it's not great. The word "truly" certainly is a bad choice. — Chrisahn (talk) 12:57, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Even though it was in the context of summarizing sources (which I will clarify/explain), you have recommended exercising more caution, and that is something I can take to heart, so thanks for that.

I wanted to ask for clarification - and correct me if I'm wrong here. You left out the first part of my reply you quoted in which I acknowledged that my highlighting/quotation of certain portions was premature. I also conceded that I may have been hypervigilant or overreacted, which appears to have been missed both by MilesVorkosigan and you. Are you suggesting that my reply that you partially quoted (which again, in retrospect, was probably an overreaction on my part) warranted accusations of using an AI chatbot, intentionally spreading Russian disinformation, and attacks regarding command - or lack thereof - of English? Am I inferring too much? I'm asking for clarification here because I have caught myself doing this (inferring too much) from time to time, so I acknowledge that this is totally a possibility - I fully concede that I may have even done that in the part of my reply you quoted.

I did apologize for the suggestion of bias, which is what seems to have offended MilesVorkosigan, after coming here and looking through the diffs I linked.

I would like to clarify the examples you give which might indicate my lack of caution with references:

1. Regarding the "baseless" v. "without evidence" edit - in full disclosure, I only perused 2 of the 4 references, and not seeing "baseless" in either of them I reasoned that "without evidence" was a more appropriate wording that wouldn't substantively alter the meaning of the summary. When one of the other editors pointed out that at least one of the sources specifically used "baseless," I took that to mean that it must have been in one of the references I didn't look at and conceded the point ("[y]ou did claim in your reversion that the term "baseless" is more faithful to the reference(s)/reliable source(s), which is a fair rationale").

2. Regarding the edit on the Old Korean page that failed verification, I made two mistakes which I acknowledged/conceded. For the purpose of linking the two articles (Old Korean and Ainu) I copied a sentence - references and all - from another article without verifying that the references were summarized correctly, and I inadvertently marked the edit as minor (because my original intent was to make a punctuation/grammatical correction and I forgot to uncheck the minor box before publishing the edit, which was much more substantial). I believe my my subsequent edits are much better.

3. Regarding the discussion on the Ki-43's wing sweep or lack thereof, I explain that both the source and the text in my edit came from the forward-swept wing article - the source and the text were in separate/different sections of that article but referred to the same aircraft. It should be noted that the sentence that I used from the forward-swept wing page has since been removed - correctly, I believe - by one of the editors who discussed my edit. In the talk page I conceded that this edit was in error because not only is the source questionable (as pointed out by the other editors) and I could not find any other corroborating sources, but also because the point that the other editors made (about the leading edge and trailing edge angles with the resultant optical illusion) seemed to be correct. The source says "Japan did have some success with a forward-swept fighter in World War II" which I had paired with "notable as one of the few successful/mass-produced designs with truly forward-swept wings" - but I now agree that this is not an appropriate summary. However, I didn't pair "minimal, barely perceptible, although technically present" with "truly forward-swept wings" - I paired "the Ki-43’s forward-sweep was minimal, barely perceptible, although technically present" in the source to "although the forward sweep of its leading edge is nearly unnoticeable."Ecthelion83 (talk) 14:06, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Having said all that, since in retrospect the incident I reported seems to have originated from my overreaction to/inferring too much from what could be a genuine statement of concern, I would like to withdraw this case, if that is permissible. Ecthelion83 (talk) 14:15, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

And yes, I must be much more careful about both reference summaries and using text from other articles in the future. Ecthelion83 (talk) 14:58, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

As others have said: Please keep it short. — Chrisahn (talk) 18:10, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

References

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

User:Amaury

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

---

Amaury reverted my edit on the Bunk'd article. All I did was add some periods to the spaces where there are none. Legobro99 (talk) 01:28, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Legobro99, and you thought this was a matter important enough to bring a complaint to ANI for the community to evaluate? Have you tried talking with the editor? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:33, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Legobro99, you also have yet to notify Amaury that you opened this complaint which is a mandatory step. It would also help if you provided a diff of the edit which you are concerned about. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:37, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bunk%27d&diff=prev&oldid=1303949785 Legobro99 (talk) 01:43, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Here is the revert of the edit. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:34, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

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

User:Mickeyibarra COI editing and reference removal

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

---

Mickeyibarra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been editing the Mickey Ibarra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) page, removing the previous version of the page and replacing it with their own version. This version they have added doesn't have inline citations, and suffers from COI issues. They have continued to add this version of the article, despite being reverted many times by other editors and having been warned. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 03:00, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

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

User 2803:6000:E001:797:7412:A87D:5E56:D39C

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

---

IP addresses in San Jose, Costa Rica area have been genre warring on Appetite for Destruction, Interstate Love Song and I'm So into You. Me, @Binksternet and @ResolutionsPerMinute are some of the users cleaning up their mess, but they keep reverting. CleoCat16 (talk) 21:36, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Long-term abuse, block evasion by Special:Contributions/186.5.165.158. The range Special:Contributions/2803:6000:E001:B89:0:0:0:0/64 was blocked twice. Binksternet (talk) 21:45, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Maybe we should block the /40 despite a very small amount of collateral damage to good-faith users. Binksternet (talk) 21:48, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Reblocked the range, three months this time.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:51, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

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

IP editor genre warring

• 2800:860:701E:8033:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2803:6000:E001:797:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

More IP addresses are genre warring at I'm So into You, Interstate Love Song, and a number of other articles. The previous thread here suggests that this is a LTA. I requested protection of the two articles I mentioned at WP:RFPP, but it seems like the disruption is due to the same editor as before, just with different IPs. How wide of a rangeblock is needed to stop the disruption without causing collateral damage? SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 20:27, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

The two pages are now protected. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 21:53, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

User:Gvihar

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

---

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

This user registered their account only on 17 May, but is nevertheless hassling other users with messages about policies and guidelines that they are clearly not familiar with, or have just made up. See for example User_talk:Victoriaelizabeth9275, where they have been telling a new editor nonsense like "Please avoid making repeated edits. The article has been edited in a way that creates confusion—sometimes content is added, then removed—it’s hard to follow". This is very likely to be making new users abandon their efforts to contribute to Wikipedia.

The user is apparently being paid for some of their edits, and was already blocked for failing to disclose that. I suspect that their vexatious postings about policies when they are so inexperienced are a crude attempt to distract from their paid editing.

There appear to be numerous other problems with this user, from pretending to be an administrator (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Gvihar&diff=prev&oldid=1290829957), to using LLMs to add hallucinations to articles (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gvihar&diff=prev&oldid=1303899622). But on the point here, I suggest that the user needs to be told to stop posting any messages about policies and guidelines, until their account is much older and they've demonstrated that they themselves understand the policies and guidelines. 2A00:23C8:D318:1801:5975:A75A:730E:4D79 (talk) 23:30, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

@Gvihar, please immediately stop warning other editors and explain yourself here. -- asilvering (talk) 23:40, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for raising your concerns. I would like to clarify that I am here in good faith to contribute constructively and to understand Wikipedia's policies. I understand that my previous messages may have caused confusion, and I acknowledge that I still have much to learn. I will refrain from posting further policy-related messages and instead focus on improving my understanding and editing practices by reading guidelines and observing experienced editors.

I also want to make it clear that I am not claiming to be an administrator, and if any of my edits gave that impression, I sincerely apologize. If any specific edits were inappropriate or misleading, I am open to correction and will fully cooperate. I respectfully ask for the opportunity to improve and contribute productively.

The suggestions I gave to new users were not meant to stop or discourage them, but rather to address confusion caused by repeated edits and reversions on the same post. My intention was to help, not to interfere. However, if my approach was not appropriate, I will be more mindful in the future and focus solely on improving my own editing conduct. Gvihar📝 23:44, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

@Gvihar, you've already been warned about using LLMs on Wikipedia. Please don't do it anymore. Thanks. -- asilvering (talk) 23:46, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the guidance I will definitely keep this in mind. Gvihar📝 23:48, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Great, thank you. -- asilvering (talk) 23:52, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

@Gvihar, I'm struggling to find any problems with the edits made by Victoriaelizabeth9275 on Wormsloe Historic Site. You told them repeatedly editing the article again and again goes against Wikipedia's policies -- which policies are you referring to, and which diffs go against them? From what I can see, they were making good, referenced contributions to a rarely-edited article, so I find your comments on their talk page baffling. Is there more context here? --tony 01:50, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Gvihar is also making edits removing large amounts of content without leaving any edit summary explaining their reason for doing so or what was the problem with the previous edits. Seems like they are enjoying acting like WikiPolice but not explaining their own behavior. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:41, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

I reverted that chunk unless a third party-editor says otherwise. Borgenland (talk) 04:26, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Look at all of the warning messages they have received at User talk:Gvihar/Archive 1! How can they still be editing and they listed themselves on their website as a "Top-rated Wikipedia content creator"! See this advertising page and compare that with their level of competence. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:57, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm also confused with the entire articles they've just copy-pasted onto their Talk page here and here?

There's a lot here that makes one question WP:CIR. Nil🥝^Talk 05:29, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. If there was any misunderstanding or incorrect information, I have removed it. Thank you again. Gvihar📝 07:50, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

@TonySt Thank you for the information. That’s why I discussed it earlier and apologized. Please do let me know if there are any other issues. Gvihar📝 07:56, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

I posted some messages on you User talk page 3 hours ago and they are already shuffled them off to your archive page. Please change your bot to allow messages to exist for a few days or weeks before they are wiped from your talk page. It makes it impossible to have a discussion when messages are already archived. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:15, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, I will make the changes today itself... including the bot settings. Gvihar📝 08:19, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Six empty talkpage archives - Archive 2, Archive 3, Archive 4, Archive 5, Archive 6, Archive 7 - all created on 26 Jul 2025? And manually, not archive-bot created - I'd like to see an explanation for them. Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 08:54, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

When I joined, I wasn’t aware of the archive bot… I had set it up based on what I saw elsewhere. Now I’m looking into the correct code to fix it for the future.If you can guide me or help in any way, I would appreciate your support. Gvihar📝 09:11, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

I had written the wrong code on the talk page… I apologize for that. I have now corrected it please have a look and guide me if needed. I will be careful in the future. Gvihar📝 09:19, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

The user has been blocked as a sockpuppet. Looking at their very first few edits, I can't really understand how they were allowed to disrupt unimpeded for nearly three months. By the look of it, unfortunately, they will be creating another sockpuppet account soon. 2A00:23C8:D318:1801:42FE:9BD8:4E24:8D42 (talk) 20:53, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

They are back at 2409:40C2:2008:EABF:8000:0:0:0 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), unless this is a Joe job. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 21:00, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

I blocked the IP but I do not have time now to see whether speedy deletion is warranted. Ymblanter (talk) 21:08, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

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

ZChemIR25 and Iranian Journal of Chemistry and Chemical Engineering

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

---

• ZChemIR25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Iranian Journal of Chemistry and Chemical Engineering (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Can someone look into the antics of ZChemIR25 and see if they can get a better understanding of what is going on, because it's all mighty strange - something nefarious seems to be going on.

The user is a WP:SPA interested only in creating the Iranian Journal of Chemistry and Chemical Engineering article, and who has a paid editing disclosure on their talk page to that effect - which is all above board. However, when they created the above page it was draftified and then rejected at least four times until it got to the point where it was "rejected and cannot be resubmitted", and throughout this time they repeatedly removed the AfC comments and even moved it back into article space themselves with the comment Move to mainspace: Accepted by AfC reviewer - a blatant falsehood.

Thereafter, an admin decided to give the page another chance, removed all the AfC comments and resubmitted it, and it was accepted but with the instruction that further changes should be made via edit requests, which was ignored. When pressed on the matter they posted a suggested update as required but then brazenly replied to the request themself, saying they had reviewed it and it was a good proposal. This, I thought, was one of the lamest attempts I had seen to pull the wool over our eyes so I asked what they were playing at, got a response assuring me they were not a sockpuppet, then got another response saying almost the same thing, which was quickly removed. Although I had no previous concern there were multiple users of this account, this episode rather makes me feel there are - why mention multiple users? And the two responses appear to be the result of two users in edit conflict, hastily corrected.

Furthermore, pretty much everything they write is AI-generated - at least, it is according to gptzero. Dorsetonian (talk) 17:28, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Courtesy ping to involved page reviewers and admins: @Randykitty:, @45dogs:, @GraziePrego:, @Asilvering:, @MCE89:. Dorsetonian (talk) 17:33, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

I give up. I'll block. -- asilvering (talk) 17:39, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Legal threat?

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

---

Not sure if this counts as a legal threat per se, or the threat of a threat. A pre-threat. Possibly a block evade of TruthSeekerEditMaster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Celjski Grad (talk) 18:05, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for reporting. The IP has been blocked (by someone else) today for a week for disruptive editing. I don't think the "threat" requires further action than that at this stage, but I've watchlisted the page for when the block is over. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:37, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

• Personally, I'm looking forward to courts passing judgment on Herodotus and Pliny the Elder. EEng 21:11, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

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

User:AnLacPubs

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

---

AnLacPubs (talk · contribs) was active in 2020 and 2021 on various Buddhism articles, where it added Further Reading and External Links to translations by Peter Lunde Johnson, published by An Lac Publications (or Anlac Publications), and linked to a Wordpress URL. From the website of An Lac Publications, it looks like it's Johnson's vanity publisher for his self-published translations.

In the past week or so, several of IP editors have been adding more translations by Johnson published by An Lac Publications to Buddhism articles. I and other editors have gone through to revert the edits. If it can be narrowed down to a blockable IPv6 range, that might help too.

Those IPs include:

• 2600:4040:b07d:ce00:283b:2525:387f:4edd (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2600:4040:b07d:ce00:5c0a:2db4:ca25:b0cb (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2600:4040:b07d:ce00:6cc6:5ac7:33d5:e128 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2600:4040:b07d:ce00:6d91:95ad:4e25:fdb5 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2600:4040:b07d:ce00:70ab:337d:6c71:9094 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2600:4040:b07d:ce00:747c:e245:b750:d701 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2600:4040:b07d:ce00:a1e2:5f8c:e4e0:3f78 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2600:4040:b07d:ce00:e0bc:7b21:4bd:c08a (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2600:4040:b07d:ce00:f8a4:5e7e:bcad:264d (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Apocheir (talk) 22:54, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

2600:4040:b07d:ce00:f8a4:5e7e:bcad:264d/64 catches all your IPs and a few more. When it comes to IPv6 addresses, it's generally safe to assume that the /64 range is controlled by the same person. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 22:57, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Like ChildrenWillListen said, this is just a /64 block, which you can essentially treat as one IP address when talking about logged-out Wikipedia editors. Here's another link to all the contributions under that range: Special:Contributions/2600:4040:b07d:ce00::/64 SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 22:59, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Blocked /64 range for 3 months. PhilKnight (talk) 23:04, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

User:AnLacPubs isn't blocked so this is not a block-evading editor. May I ask why we are blocking this IP range? I understand that they have a conflict-of-interest but it seems like we jumped really fast from posting this notice on ANI to enforcing a range block so I unarchived this complaint to ask about it. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:07, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

They say they're a sock of AnLacPubs here. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 01:22, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

I have unblocked the range. PhilKnight (talk) 02:23, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Who can speak to me in layman's terms so I know what can do moving forward to restore my external links? Thanks! Peter Johnson 2600:4040:B07D:CE00:5049:DB1:D6C6:A3A (talk) 21:21, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

ChildrenWillListen, they didn't say they were a sock. They state they used to use that account but have abandoned it and are now editing logged out. It's not ideal but it's not blockworthy. 2600:4040:B07D:CE00:5049:DB1:D6C6:A3A, please be aware that you have a conflict-of-interest and should not be citing your own work, it's seen as promotional. It's hard to communicate with you when you are editing anonymously but I'll post some information about COIs on your current User talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:37, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Maybe the user's talk page is an easier place (this thread URL will disappear and their IP will change quickly). jp×g🗯️ 11:23, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

One more today: 2600:4040:B07D:CE00:D5A9:70AF:D612:9988 (talk · contribs) Apocheir (talk) 16:00, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

This is already covered under the /64 range; like ChildrenWillListen and I said above, you can generally assume that one /64 is controlled by the same person. Instead of tracking a bunch of individual IPv6 addresses, just keep track of the /64 (Special:Contributions/2600:4040:B07D:CE00::/64). If you need more information, search for "IPv6 subnetting" to find relevant articles. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 16:50, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Right, but the range isn't blocked any longer. I'm pointing out that this editing pattern is persisting after Liz gave him a COI warning. Apocheir (talk) 18:47, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

I've given {{uw-spam1}} on User talk:2600:4040:B07D:CE00:D5A9:70AF:D612:9988 and {{uw-spam2}} on User talk:2600:4040:B07D:CE00:2DEE:BEB4:4FA5:B79A. I'd also argue that WP:SPA applies. Apocheir (talk) 21:51, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

I've reboocked. They are not responding to warnings, cajoling or anything else. Girth Summit _(blether) 22:05, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

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

User:HiddenInformation: UPE, article hijacking

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

User:HiddenInformation appears to be an undisclosed paid editor for the news website GrowJust. The totality of their edits is adding content about the company and CEO. They also added information and created an article (now tagged for speedy deletion)about non-notable "Jeevsea Premium Water"[62], which GrowJust published a promotional article for. It is clear that GrowJust is not a legitimate, honest publication but an advertising firm.

They have also hijacked an article of the same name slowly [63], avoiding detection. This eliminated all assumption of good faith from me. Ca ^{talk to me!} 14:15, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

I was close to an INDEF, but I've p-blocked from content creation to encourage communication in the hope of progress. No issue with someone adjusting the block Star Mississippi 14:19, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

GrowJust is being refspammed and its founder article-spammed by several different editors. I've rooted out what I can see easily. It involves xwiki (HiddenInformation is indef'ed on commons for spam and has over 100 deleted edits on wikidata). User:Akiinaam and User:NiashiSharma are also involved (but long dormant--note, NiashiSharma added here later). There are so many small bits that I can't see myself to trace further...not sure it's worth an SPI or just periodically keeping tabs on additions of links to that family of sites. DMacks (talk) 00:36, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Would it be possible to blacklist the GrowJust domain? Ca ^{talk to me!} 01:06, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Poland

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

---

User PahlaviFan is engaging in disruptive behavior on the Poland page. Recently, there was a RfC and a discussion on the Talk:Poland page regarding the formation date in the information box, and a general consensus was reached by 4 editors. However now, user PahlaviFan repeatedly started to insert a new formation date in the information box, engaging in an edit war and removing 2 reliable reference sources, which do not align with his view. Also, user PahlaviFan is misrepresenting another source, which he claims back's up his formation date, however upon review the source says nothing of the sort. Please warn user PahlaviFan of possible consequences of his disruptive actions. Also, the user's behavior of removing reliable sources and then misrepresenting what another source says could potentially fit the definition of vandalism, which could warrant a more immediate action. PJK 1993 (talk) 05:52, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello, PJK 1993, please provide diffs of some of these edits so that other editors can see what evidence you are presenting. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:23, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi Liz, as requested please see the below diffs:

Link: [64]

Link: [65]

Also, what's more problematic here is that this user is ignoring the consensus that was reached for the 966 date, and now is pushing what could possibly (maybe) be described as a myth or a hoax; this coupled with the removal of reliable reference sources that back the formation date of 966, could potentially meet the definition of vandalism. There are just no sources which say c. 960 or c. 900. --PJK 1993 (talk) 06:39, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

I don't see a consensus there, and you're in fact deleting referenced, consensus-established parts. The Britannica highlights statehood (territorial unit) preceding the baptism. PahlaviFan (talk) 06:48, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Please see WP:NOTVAND. Any edit done in good faith is not vandalism, no matter if you don't like it or even if it's outright wrong, and accusations of vandalism applied to edits that are not vandalism can be seen as a personal attack. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:51, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello The Bushranger, please note that user PahlaviFan is clearly misrepresenting a source because nowhere does it say "c. 900" or "c. 960" and nowhere in there does it say that these are the generally accepted dates for the formation of the country; this is the text user PahlaviFan is citing: The dukes (dux) were originally the commanders of an armed retinue (drużyna) with which they broke the authority of the chieftains of the clans, thus transforming the original tribal organisation into a territorial unit.[66]. So, calling out someone for a blatant misrepresentation of a source or removing additional reliable reference sources, which do not back up their view should not be seen as personal attack. This is really academically dishonest. --PJK 1993 (talk) 07:13, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

calling out someone, if true? No. Calling it vandalism? Yes. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:15, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

That's why I said "possibly" vandalism (its a borderline situation). Unfortunately, Polish history is subject to some unfounded myths like the Great Lechia legend. 966 is the generally agreed upon date, because Poland's written history starts there, and this is when the early Polish state was recognized by other European polities. Unsourced myths, theories, and speculations about an earlier formation date are just that and they have no place in the information box.--PJK 1993 (talk) 07:27, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Liz and The Bushranger, could I ask for user PahlaviFan to be blocked, at this time they reverted the text for the 3rd time here [67]. They are engaged in a prolonged edit war and still did not provide a reference source for their claim. --PJK 1993 (talk) 09:42, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

(declined with a warning to the reporter at ANEW.) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:56, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

PJK 1993, I haven't assessed the merits of your argument but I just wanted to let you know that PahlaviFan has been blocked as a sockpuppet. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:08, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

The Original Poster has also started an RFC concerning the starting establishment date in the infobox, and an RFC is the right way to resolve this article content dispute. The RFC has had minimal participation, and should be neutrally publicized. Is there a reason why administrative action is needed while the RFC is still in progress, such as interference with the RFC? If not, should this be closed with instructions to take part in the RFC and to await its closing? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:33, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

PJK 1993 decided to evaluate the consensus of their RfC themselves by continuing to revert, which is absurdly bold and generally unadvisable. As PahlaviFan turns out to be a sockpuppet, we can close this here. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:46, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

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

User:Chittaranjan Murmu Indian Rugby

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

---

It would appear that User:Chittaranjan Murmu Indian Rugby has violated the terms of their unblock by creating an autobiography after committing to not doing so. It also appears to be AI generated with fake sources so I've CSD'd it under G15. Aydoh8^{[what have I done now?]} 10:42, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

See Special:PermanentLink/1304328227#Unblock_request Aydoh8^{[what have I done now?]} 10:46, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

I have reblocked indefinitely. That was disappointing. Apologies for the waste of community time Star Mississippi 12:40, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

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

User:Marc87

• Marc87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user appears to have a history of unsourced and unexplained changes. They appear to have an interest in ice hockey. They have made multiple changes to a number of ice hockey player bios, related to birth dates, death dates, birth places, and hand they shoot with, notably to subjects born in the early 1900s. Many of the articles they edit lack depth and sources.

• Moved Jack Riley (ice hockey, born 1910) without explanation or a corresponding source
• Changed shot hand at Billy Coutu
• Changed shot hand at Art Alexandre
• Unsourced birth date change at Art Gauthier
• Unsourced death date change at Sprague Cleghorn
• Unsourced birth date change at Howard McNamara
• Unsourced birth date change at Tommy Smith (ice hockey)

They have made a similar move at Jack Riley (ice hockey, born 1910) before back in 2013 [68]. They have also made unsourced changes to the article's birth place as recent as 2022 [69].

They don't appear to engage much with their talk page despite multiple notices. DaHuzyBru (talk) 11:24, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

User:Marc87 has in the past cite "SIHR" [70], which I gather to be sihrhockey.org. User:Djsasso noted in 2017 that "SIHR is user contributed" [71]. User:Djsasso subsequently removed info attributed to SIHR at Jack Riley (ice hockey, born 1910) [72]. The SIHR website appears to be mostly behind a membership and login, so it's not easily accessible and is therefore not a source that is readily verifiable. It may also be unacceptable per WP:USERGENERATED. Perhaps User:Marc87 uses sihrhockey.org, is affiliated with the website, or makes contributions at the website. DaHuzyBru (talk) 11:38, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Although SIHR website is user contributed, only handful of members have authorization to make edits. Assuming they have reliable disclosed sources and connections to SIHR executives. Marc87 (talk) 07:46, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

I would argue that is not good enough and does not satisfy Wikipedia's sourcing standards or verifiability requirements. It's basically its own ice hockey wiki. It should not be used as a source of information here. DaHuzyBru (talk) 08:04, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

That's fair. If my edits are not satisfied, I would allow Wikipedia to redirect on whatever it sees fit. No problem. Marc87 (talk) 08:06, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

I would encourage you to focus on independent reliable sources. The ice hockey subject on Wikipedia appears to be a poorly moderated project. There appears to be a lot of player bios that do not meet WP:GNG, primarily relying on primary sources or UGC sources. Not every ice hockey player born in the late 1800s or early 1900s is notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article. Just because SIHR or justsportsstats.com (or even nhl.com) has a record of the player, doesn't mean the player meets the notability guidelines to have a Wikipedia entry. DaHuzyBru (talk) 08:16, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Yes, even the NHL's direct predecessor, NHA, don't have reliable sources. It can only be found from SIHR. Marc87 (talk) 08:27, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Unless you can find them through libraries, archives, baptismal records, etc. Marc87 (talk) 08:30, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

This has to be WP:NOTHERE, but note that his contributions may contain correct information as supported by the sources. Fabvill (Talk to me!) 11:43, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

The user's rationale for making unsourced infobox changes is that "the infobox image of the subject shows them with the stick in their left hand" [73] [74]. Hardly a reliable source and definitely WP:OR which goes against the existing external links. DaHuzyBru (talk) 12:02, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

On the article Leonard Grosvenor, he reverted your revision, stating that the profile image of Leonard Grosvenor shows he was left handed. I reverted this because this should be supported by the sources, not the profile image. Fabvill (Talk to me!) 12:03, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Well, Marc87, has been editing for 17 years now so they are an experienced editor but they haven't responded to a User talk page message in 2 years. They seemed to have withdrawn from communicating with other editors around 2016-17. I have invited them to join this discussion but I'm not optimistic. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:14, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Note that this is their last substantive edit to their talk page. Their last substantive edit in the Talk namespace was more than 1,000 edits to that namespace ago. They also continued editing for hours after this thread was opened without responding. I am indefinitely partially blocking Marc87 from articlespace until they respond here regarding the valid concerns about their edits. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:27, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

My edits were based from the SIHR and it requires a membership to see its source. However, the players' information (eg. images and texts) don't have their respective URL addresses, but user-friendly tabs. So, that's why I didn't include sources in wikipedia, it would redirect to unrelated tabs. Marc87 (talk) 06:42, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

You haven't addressed why you are changing article information based on photographs of players holding a stick in one hand vs. another. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:44, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

In my opinion, it's common sense and the letters of the hockey jersey were not mirrored. Marc87 (talk) 04:57, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

That is probably original research, unless you cite a reliable source preferably not user generated 2A04:7F80:37:24E6:B097:1276:3E2D:6D68 (talk) 05:10, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

It's not a common sense if you're not following the attention of the sources. Your edits should not be user-generated and definitely contains original research. Fabvill (Talk to me!) 13:32, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

• For the record, being behind a membership and login does not make a source unacceptable. Being UGC, of course, does though. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:24, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

It's rather concerning, that appears to have taken a mainspace block, to get Marc87 to communicate. GoodDay (talk) 00:45, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Well, better that than none at all. 2600:1012:A024:21CA:4689:AE31:E7E4:87BC (talk) 02:16, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Don't try to impress me. GoodDay (talk) 02:32, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

A lot of Pblocked from article users due to ANI will literally not make any response to that ANI 2A04:7F80:37:24E6:B097:1276:3E2D:6D68 (talk) 04:57, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Indeed. We have to do the WP:COMMUNICATE pblock regrettably often. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:11, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Big Brother 26 voting table dispute

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

---

There is an on going dispute about changing the voting table on the Big Brother 26 page particularly regarding the HoH during week four. Angela Murray won Head of Household that week and Quinn Martin a DeepFake Head of Household power. This topic has been voted and debated before in the past. I'm not sure why we are bringing this up again. It was clearly voted on back in August 2024. We are going to bring another full discussion until the matter is resolved. I suggest we protect the Big Brother 26 page from further vandalism. Welcometothenewmillenium (talk) 18:18, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

As I stated at the WP:AN thread you created for this exact dispute, you and another user are in an edit war and need to both stop reverting and actually discuss any changes on the talk page. CoconutOctopus talk 18:31, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Cs01kh: topic ban needed

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

---

As it seems impossible to get User:Cs01kh to understand what was wrong with edits like this one and this one and others. People have tried explaining this on Talk:Islamic views on Jesus's death#The claim that Jesus went India and on their user talk page, but to no avail. A topic ban from religion would give them the chance to edit other articles and get to know the ropes on enwiki without editing this topic where they have rather strong views. Fram (talk) 16:51, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

I.e. you want to ban people who know & write the truth about islam from correcting the islamic wiki-pages so that you & others can discretely vandalise the information about islam in your own way! Cs01kh (talk) 16:56, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

I have not rejected the first edit attempt as a mistake, but you are using past incorrect edits by me to defend yourself against my recent acceptable edits. Cs01kh (talk) 16:58, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

This really seems like WP:RGW in action. I'd suggest that CS01hk should either step away from this dispute or they should be invited to step away. Simonm223 (talk) 17:02, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

I am not going to step away, when i havent been proven wrong in my recent statements, (only in how i started). Cs01kh (talk) 17:07, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

I am not going to step away does not fill me with confidence that a topic ban would be worth the community's time. tony 18:15, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

you are trying to block me from all islam wiki pages, not just "Jesus in islam", because you know I have more accurate knowledge in islam than you Cs01kh (talk) 17:01, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

No, they want to block you because you're trying to push a POV and refusing to concede to other editors. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 17:13, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

no, I was trying to push a npov (stating the truth that the AlHamduLillah are a minor group in the population of Islam (around 1%) - As this is the truth. Rather than a POV. Cs01kh (talk) 17:18, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm more inclined to indef Cs01kh as WP:NOTHERE. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:23, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, topic ban or indef. Based on the response above either seem reasonable remediations. Simonm223 (talk) 18:25, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Indeffed for WP:RGW. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:31, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

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

User:Editorrking suspected LLM-generated articles

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

Hi, I recently declined Draft:Shashi Kiran Shetty submitted by User:Editorrking on the basis that it contained a substantial amount of LLM-generated text with unsourced and promotional claims. Other articles created by the user including Gulbarga Electricity Supply Company, Karnataka Lokayukta, and Gruha Jyoti show similar patterns, promotional language, subjective phrasing, and content presented without citations to reliable sources.

Below are some examples from their edits

Gulbarga Electricity Supply Company

The article contains massive amount of unsourced, subjective and promotional lines,

1] ''Academic analysis indicates that the creation of multiple distribution companies like GESCOM was intended to introduce competition and improve service delivery in different geographical regions"

2] "Recognizing the company as a key stakeholder in the country's power distribution landscape"

3] "Represented a shift from the centralized utility model that had dominated Karnataka's power sector since independence"

4] "Reflecting the company's emphasis on accessible leadership and customer service accountability"

Karnataka Lokayukta

1] "Recognized for his expertise in constitutional law and administrative jurisprudence"

2] "Known for his judicial acumen and commitment to upholding constitutional principles"

3] "Marked the restoration of Karnataka's apex anti-corruption institution after months of vacancy"

4] "His office has become a focal point for environmental grievances..."

5] "Pioneered direct intervention in environmental governance issues..."

And the third one I am listing is Gruha Jyoti

1] "Comprehensive welfare measure designed to address electricity affordability concerns"

2] "Part of a broader social welfare package aimed at reducing household expenditure on essential services"

3] "State-wide publicity campaigns to ensure awareness among eligible beneficiaries"

4] "Rollout was completed systematically, with priority given to districts with higher concentrations of Below Poverty Line households"

Again the same pattern of their edits can be seen over here

They lack inline citations, contain promotional and subjective lines that violate core content policies such as WP:POV, WP:V, and WP:OR

I request admins to kindly check their editing history and take appropriate action regarding the use of LLM-generated content. Thanks! Jesus isGreat7 ☾⋆ | Ping Me 12:48, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Given that they have received multiple talk page warnings for LLM use that they have not responded to, I've gone ahead and imposed a partial block from article space pending adequate acknowledgment of the concerns. Editorrking, you are expected to address other editors' concerns of LLM use here (and please note that the editing community has very little patience for editors who use LLMs to respond to questions from other editors). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 13:35, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Note that this user's articles were declined more than five times already, but some of their articles created were accepted for following the Wikipedia's guidelines in making articles. In this draft, these paragraphs need clarification, which may sound confusing to the readers. This draft may be too technical. These paragraphs requires an AI detector to check if the paragraphs were 100% AI-generated or not. Fabvill (Talk to me!) 13:33, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Editorrking is currently partially blocked indefinitely by admin Rosguill from article namespace for disruptive editing and disruptive use of LLMs in making articles, likely failed to communicate. Fabvill (Talk to me!) 13:36, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Just a quick note, AI detectors such as GPTZero are notoriously unreliable and shouldn't be used as the only means for determining if something is AI gen or not. CoconutOctopus talk 13:47, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Hallucinated citations are a definite AI hallmark though (see my comment below). Black Kite (talk) 14:00, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Probably WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia properly, failed to communicate again. Fabvill (Talk to me!) 13:42, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Comment Most (although not all) of the citations in Gruha Jyoti are hallucinated so I've moved it to draft. Also,I'd just point out that Karnataka Lokayukta has existed since 2014 and Editorking has only made one minor edit to it, so you might want to remove that. Black Kite (talk) 13:54, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

@Black Kite, should do the same thing for Gulbarga Electricity Supply Company and Karnataka Lokayukta (move to draft)? There are lots of AI-generated slop, unsourced sentences and promotional tone here in these two needs to improve. Fabvill (Talk to me!) 14:10, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

• Did you not read what I just said? Karnataka Lokayukta has existed for 11 years and Editorrking's only edit was a minor copyedit. Meanwhile, Gulbarga Electricity Supply Company does not appear to have the hallucinated citations. If someone else wants to send it to AfD, feel free. Black Kite (talk) 18:41, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

A weird sort of tangent here, but user User:Dolphish who was involved in several of these articles seems to be acting very oddly for a supposed "new" user on Wikipedia. I really don't want to cast aspersions or anything but his editing behavior has been... odd. Allan Nonymous (talk) 14:04, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Seems questionable?? User:Dolphish moved Draft:Gruha Jyoti to mainspace even though it was moved before for not being good. Should someone check this?? Jesus isGreat7 ☾⋆ | Ping Me 15:40, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

@Rosguill, @CoconutOctopus, @Allan Nonymous, I took a look at their talk page, and they seem to be following the same draft patterns as User:Editorrking. They've also been using promotional and subjective content in their drafts, and now they're moving those same drafts to mainspace without any real rewrites or changes!! Jesus isGreat7 ☾⋆ | Ping Me 15:46, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

I have no wrong intention. I thought these articles were correct so I moved them, but if you think all this is wrong then I will not move them in future. Thank you Dolphish (talk) 18:16, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Dolphish, could you clarify how you came across these articles or why you were promoting them for mainspace? It's hard to understand how you came to the conclusion that these articles were correct (as you put it) when virtually all of their references are broken, other hallmarks of LLM use are present, and a clearly explained move to draft is visible in the pages' edit histories from shortly before your decision to move them to mainspace again. Beyond that, it's pretty clear from your editing history that this is not your first account. Could you please disclose any other accounts or IP addresses that you have edited with in the past? _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:03, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

I found these articles WP:INNEW, Where they were in draft form, i moved them to mainspace but I didn't look at the sources before moving. Dolphish (talk) 19:30, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

I searched on Google where to see newly created articles related to India, then Google brought me here. Dolphish (talk) 19:32, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

That makes sense as far as finding these articles goes; I expect that you realize now that checking sources is one of the most important things that a draft needs before it is published. You haven't addressed the concern regarding prior accounts or IP addresses, however. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:52, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

I used to read a lot of information on Wikipedia, whenever I searched about anything on Google, Google would take me to Wikipedia, I have edited many articles before but they are all old things, yes I have edited Wikipedia many times and maybe I had created 1 or 2 IDs long ago. Dolphish (talk) 21:42, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

User:Moguy

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

Your Party (UK) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User:Moguy, who has managed to accumulate 4500 or so edits to Wikipedia over 8 years with next-to-no interaction with other contributors (38 talk space edits, and very few edit summaries), appears to have difficulty understanding the concept of a collaborative project. Having had an edit the new Your Party (UK) article [75] reverted for perfectly legitimate reasons (i.e. "talked to the article", and referring to local elections that have already occurred in the future tense), then went on to attempt to edit-war similar content into the article, despite being reverted by multiple contributors, in the process adding inappropriate "Don't revert this edit" edit summaries and similar. It took a warning by User:Czello about edit warring to finally stop the edit-warring, though with a thoroughly hostile response "I wasn't aware of the three-revert rule. However, the people who opposed my contributions didn't act with good faith at all. They deleted all of my contributions for BS reasons instead of trying to find a middle ground. I won't repeat my mistakes, but I will stand back with my claims unless I find a good reason." [76]

Having failed to edit-war, the hostility than shifted to the article talk page, [77] featuring such highlinghts as "bad-faith actors", "whataboutism" (the relevance of which eludes me), "you appeal to authority and behave in a bigoted way", and after I made it clear I wasn't prepared to engage with such relentless belligerence, a final "Hahahahaha, you guys can't provide ANY argument for your case, yet you try to cyberbully me and still claim the moral high ground. You are pathetic." [78]

Now, I'm not going to attempt to claim the 'moral high ground' regarding civility in general (that would be pushing my luck), but I'd have to suggest that at minimum, one might expect that an experienced contributor would make a token effort not to treat a simple content dispute as an excuse for relentless hostility. Though whether someone who has engaged with other contributors so little really counts as 'experienced' is questionable. Regardless, I'd have to suggest that Moguy needs to be told in no uncertain terms that such behaviour is unacceptable, that taking things to the article talk page should be the first response to a content dispute, and that such disputes are not settled through invective and a complete refusal to take note of what others are saying. And since I have my doubts that mere instruction will get the point across, I would also suggest that maybe Moguy needs to be blocked from editing for a few days, to give them time to familiarise themselves with how this collaborative project is supposed to work (i.e. by reading Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, along with relevant policy in general concerning article talk page usage and regarding the legitimate use to which a source can be put, and why one cannot cite sources describing past events to justify one's own speculations about the future, which seems to be behind some of this problematic attitude) AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:19, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

A mid to stern warning is probably all that's due here, in particular on civility but also WP:ONUS given their apparent misunderstanding of how inclusion of material works. Much of what they've said in the article talk page is certainly unacceptable behaviour but I can understand why the edit summaries first from DeFacto[79][80] and then yourself[81] when making your reverts could've struck a raw nerve given they appear to focus more on the poor grammar rather than the material nature of the edits, and therefore look like you were only reverting because you thought their English was poor.

Think this is one of those situations where the initial revert and poor summary as to why it was reverted is what caused this to snowball here. Rambling Rambler (talk) 00:27, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, but I see nothing wrong with DeFacto's first edit summary. It isn't reasonable to expect a complete breakdown of everything problematic with an edit when reverting, and attempting to provide one is liable to result in the sort of edit-summary argumentation responses we see. Content disputes are supposed to be resolved on article talk pages, not in edit summaries, and I'd have hoped that anyone with the editing history that Moguy has would know that. And know that "Don't revert this edit" is never an appropriate edit summary for anything. Moguy was clearly set on imposing their confusing content from the start, and I very much doubt that any particular edit summary would have made much difference. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:50, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

You're right in that the edit summaries are limited and shouldn't contain a complete breakdown, but that's why I think the focus on language skills rather than the actual source itself being inappropriate is possibly what led to the inappropriate behaviour here that was otherwise unavoidable.

Compare what DeFacto said (doesn't make much sense: "talked to the article"? Which "upcoming local elections"?) to a later reversion by Bondegezou (Given none of that then happened, I don't how this is particularly useful)[82]. As someone just reading the history page, DeFacto's summary reads like they haven't actually looked into the material changes of the edit but just reverted for poor English, which I think has an outsized role to play here as to why it spun out of control so badly.

Moguy was clearly set on imposing their confusing content from the start, and I very much doubt that any particular edit summary would have made much difference

Honestly I'm not comfortable making that assumption in this case. The comments you've highlighted on the talk page suggest to me it was more that they viewed themselves as being unfairly targeted for their grammar (probably because DeFacto and yourself kept highlighting that in edit summaries as the primary reason for reverting) and therefore were upset as a result. To me this paragraph in one of their replies reveals as much[83]

One of the reasons my contributions were reverted was the failure to give the name of the aide. Even though the article DID NOT DISCLOSE the name of the aide, the person who reverted my contribution demanded the name of the aide. Is this the experience that you talk about? Or did Wikipedia add arbitrariness as one of its pillars? How should I assume good faith when other users don't even bother to read the article? I am open to a discussion and cooperation, but you guys are not. Give up your strange ideas.

So yes, while uncivil, I don't believe this was an attempt at imposing content but a rather easily avoidable heated argument if the material content itself had been focused on and not some poor grammar that, if it had been the main issue, could've been easily fixed without reversion. Rambling Rambler (talk) 11:40, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

It strikes me that you are reading this with hindsight. Not an option for those actually involved, where issues concerning the content - specifically, the way Moguy seems to be suggesting that the Spectator article (which pre-dates the article subject considerably) can be used as a source for statements about the newly-forming party's future electoral strategy - only really became apparent later, when Moguy was finally persuaded to use the talk page (not that that went well). Up to that point, all we had to go on was confusing wording, and an insistence that their edit had to stand. Yes, different reasons were given for reverting by different people, but that was because there were multiple issues with the edit, and no explanation forthcoming from Moguy as to why they were so insistent on including what, even at their last edit, amounted to a vague claim in an old source concerning something that never actually occurred. The unnamed 'aide' was discussing a hypothetical strategy for the May local elections, in which the aide's organisation appears to have taken no part. And note that the edit didn't explain what the strategy was. It isn't at all reasonable to expect contributors to explain in depth everything wrong with an edit. Not when it makes little sense, appears to be off-topic (clearly an organisation formed in July can't have participated in May elections), and really didn't tell readers anything much anyway. WP:ONUS exists for a reason. So do article talk pages. Edit summaries are not supposed to substitute for talk-page discussion. If Moguy failed to understand why multiple contributors were reverting, the solution should have been obvious - take it to the talk page. Instead, all we got was edit-warring and hostility. I can't see how differently-worded edit summaries for the reverts (or at least, ones that didn't involve mind-reading) would have avoided that. By all appearances, Moguy was primed for hostility from the start. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:30, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

People pointing out grammatical issues doesn't excuse the belligerence that Moguy has shown. They've entered into the realms of outright personal attacks with their last comment, and that's on top of casting WP:ASPERSIONS (calling others bigoted) and a general lack of good faith. — Czello ^(music) 06:38, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

It doesn't excuse it, no. But the overall context to me is one of this user getting upset because others had been commenting on their English (rather than the material nature of the information added) and that having tainted the entire issue. If they had initially been told that the source was out of date and therefore didn't materially add anything to the article I believe there's a strong likelihood this would've been avoided.

Instead both DeFacto and Andy failed to comment on the material changes (in DeFacto's case their words suggesting they hadn't even looked into them) and instead got stuck on Moguy's use of English, which in their uncivil comments is easily identifiable as the source of their frustration/anger (i.e. the comments about bigotry and bad-faith).

It's why I don't think more than a stern warning is warranted here, because there's no established history of Moguy engaging in this sort of behaviour and because of how easily avoidable this incident could've been if two far more experienced editors (who both have long established history of aggravating easily resolvable disagreements) had better conveyed themselves to begin with. Rambling Rambler (talk) 12:07, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Evidently I'm being held responsible for my lack of mind-reading powers. At least, it looks that way, since until Moguy went to the talk page, it wasn't in any way evident why they were insisting on including this content at all. If they'd done that at the start, I could have explained why policy precluded the source being used that way. Since they didn't, I was working on what I saw. Which was confusing content about hypothetical past events being shoehorned in for no obvious reason. I reverted, explaining why based on what I saw. I cannot be expected to be responsible for not knowing why Moguy was trying to include it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:00, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm just going to reply once here rather than two chains.

I would suggest you re-read your longer comment above and note that in it you've raised several, far stronger and more importantly material reasons to remove their contributions compared to the initial comments about English language ability. These material reasons should've been raised far earlier, and any comment about their English language left at the wayside. The fact is their English isn't even that confusing and was readily fixable if that had been the issue that was so pressing it merited the main focus in edit summaries.

As to following ONUS and taking issues to talk pages, yes you say these are "obvious", but these things are only "obvious" when you've been made aware of them and there was nothing to stop you or others from alerting them to this. Not only would this has given them a fair chance to make their case before it spiralled, but also would've made your case here stronger because then there's evidence they were aware of the rules and had then broken them. In fact the moment you make them aware to take it to the talk page[84] they do so[85], which if anything is evidence that in fact they weren't aware of said rules, and their edit summaries show a clear intent to justify their edits in response to comments made by those reverting them.

To me it reads of good-faith, unintentional rule-breaking rather than belligerent edit-warring.

I cannot be expected to be responsible for not knowing why Moguy was trying to include it.

But neither can they be responsible for knowing there were material reasons to revert their contributions if the only thing you and someone else is commenting on is their English. Rambling Rambler (talk) 13:15, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Again, since I didn't know why they were insistent on including the content, I was in no position to explain to them why this was inappropriate. And if you don't consider "Don't revert this edit" as belligerent I'd like to know why. Moguy was already being hostile before I got involved at all. Somehow though, this hostility is my fault? Clearly not... AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:29, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

They mentioned "don't revert this edit" after DeFacto had reverted them while making comments about their English rather than the actual material nature of the edits, and having clearly attempted to resolve the issues raised in the reversion. Again, I don't see that as edit-warring belligerence but good-faith attempts to contribute by someone who from all demonstrated evidence wasn't aware of rules on reversion.

And no, I never said it was all "your fault", but if you want to take my rather nuanced comments as to how your edit summaries likely didn't help matters as such then that's your decision and probably if anything emphasises just why I believe this avoidable situation occurred. Rambling Rambler (talk) 16:38, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Given that nobody else participating in this thread seems to agree with you, I see no particular reason to discuss this further: We have a well-documented instance of an experienced contributor (4,500+ edits) attempting to assert control over article content, while handing out abuse to those who disagree. That, in my opinion, is what we should be discussing here. An actual behavioural issue. Without further rambling discourse on the optimal use of edit summaries. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:14, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

The only people who have participated are yourself, an involved editor who you specifically notified of this, and myself. Hardly an instance of "well everyone agrees with me" but ok.

I have no problem with ending things here. Quite frankly all I believe this discussion has done is less reveal any chronic or repeated behavioural problems on the part of Moguy, given this is the only demonstrated instance of misbehaviour and I believe has clear contextual reasons for why it happened and could've been avoided, but has highlighted that far more experienced editors could be mindful of how edit summaries needlessly raising English language ability could needlessly enflame issues. Rambling Rambler (talk) 17:32, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

For personal reasons, I will give my full answer sometime tomorrow. Until then, I want to thank Rambling Rambler for supporting me. I agree with his arguments. Also, you can use he/him pronouns while talking about me. If you have any questions about the incident, I can also answer them when I write my full response too. Moguy (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 01:18, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

It's over 48H since the above was posted, and it looks like we aren't going to see any response. At this point a block seems unlikely, but it seems to me that it would be advisable for someone to make it absolutely clear to Moguy that his behaviour was unacceptable, and that the appropriate way to deal with a revert (and in particular multiple reverts by different contributors) you don't understand is to discuss it, rather than assuming it is 'bad faith' or worse. And that more broadly speaking, communicating with other contributors is a necessary part of participation in the project - which incidentally would include the use of edit summaries as a matter of course. As I noted in the first post, Moguy rarely gives edit summaries, contrary to established practice. I'd post the above advice myself on his talk page, but it might be more effective coming from someone less involved. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:53, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. It was a busy week. Here is a short version of my points. I follow Wikipedia's rules. After AndyTheGrump warned me about Edit War, I gave up editing the Your Party page. Then I came to the talk page and wrote my arguments. Nonetheless, AndyTheGrump didn't give any answer then or now. Somehow, I became the one who doesn't understand Wikipedia's collaborative nature. Yes, I saw people who opposed my edits in other pages. However, no one has entered an edit war against me until last week. Unlike AndyTheGrump, other people who opposed me understood the collaborative nature of Wikipedia. They didn't revert my contributions; instead, they changed some parts of my contribution and left other parts of it. This is the reason why I assumed AndyTheGrump was a bad-faith actor, and none of the actions that you've made changed my mind. Yes, I rarely give summaries because I made more overall changes, which are hard to summarise. But alright, I will give more summaries in the future. Moguy (talk) 22:19, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Devesh Bhondwe

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

---

Hi, Special:Contributions/TraFu_Vlogger and Special:Contributions/Digitalsocialmedia are sockpuppets, as they admitted on Commons: [86]. Also probably undisclosed paid editing, and promotion of a non notable guy: Draft:Devesh Bhondwe. Both accounts are already blocked on Commons. Yann (talk) 18:57, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

And you opened (correctly) an investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TraFu Vlogger. I don't see any need for action on AN/I given the sockpuppet investigation, do you? — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:27, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

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

User:SongRuyi and WP:HARASSMENT of User:SunloungerFrog

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

---

• SongRuyi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

TL;DR: Over the past few hours, editor SongRuyi has declared that their role on Wikipedia is going to be, in their own words: I will no longer contribute to Wikipedia, but instead, I will focus on identifying and pointing out mistakes made by editors like SunloungerFrog, as part of my duty to improve the platform.[87] When I told them to please, no,[88] they told me to Please open an ANI case because they could not accept my comments.

Longer version: A few days ago, an editor nominated the article Princess Changde for deletion; SongRuyi !voted keep and began to greatly expand the article[89]. (They are now responsible for nearish half the text[90]). User:SunloungerFrog, unconvinced, !voted delete[91] and describes what they think to be several issues with the added text. A long back and forth ensues at the Afd and the article talk page over original research, source-text integrity, and notability. SongRuyi makes a variety of very personal remarks, either insulting the other editors, implying they are biased against Chinese people[92], implying they other editors are socks[93] or implying that because they aren't Chinese, they should stay out of the article:

• If you believe you have more knowledge than a native Chinese, then sure—go ahead[94]
• add Chinese text for enlight no brain[95]

SunLoungerFrog warns them for that last one[96], to which SongRuyi maintains that it wasn't a personal attack, as it was only a metaphor used to describe people who don't make an effort to think or study seriously, especially in a school or academic context. [97]. They also doubled-down, asking if SunloungerFrog felt insecure, continuing in kind and finishing off with the comment You’re not the center of the universe, and not every sentence is about you. Grow up. [98] This continues until August 4th, when SunloungerFrog tags an article SongRuyi linked in the Afd with some maintenance tags. [99]. SongRuyi seems this as harassment, and accuses Frog of targeting them[100]. After Sunlounger denies this, SongRuyi doubles-down on the personal attacks, sayings I’m highly educated and busy with real-life responsibilities, unlike you[101] and vows to no longer contribute to Wikipedia, but instead, I will focus on identifying and pointing out mistakes made by editors like SunloungerFrog. They then notability and cn tag several Frog-created articles [102][103][104], and nominated one for deletion. They explicitly state in an edit summary that This is not about revenge [105]. I reverted one of these tags as the article was on my watchlist and I disagreed with it,[106] noticed what they were doing, and went to warn them about harassment [107] because that's not on. They responded[108] by asking me to take them to ANI, then, as I was writing this up, saying they would take me to AN/I. So that's where we are now. From my POV, this is pretty clear-cut WP:HOUNDING of SunloungerFrog by SongYuqi, and it and the personal attacks just seem to be getting worse. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 08:39, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

According to my record... I don't believe I did anything seriously wrong. :) I thought the Princess Changde AFD was one of my very first AFD discussions. Before that, I never tried to get involved in arguments , I simply focused on creating and improving articles.

But after I entered the realm of AFD discussions, the situation became worse. I’ve been trying to learn the rules, but instead of being guided, I feel like I’m mostly receiving warnings..without clear explanations of what exactly I did wrong. It feels like some editors are making the situation worse for me instead of helping.

I also didn't realize that using strong words could be considered a personal attack on Wikipedia. If what I said was indeed "indirect" personal attack, then I accept responsibility. If necessary, I am willing to accept a 6-month block or ban from Wikipedia. I will return after that with a cooler head and a better understanding.

For now, I feel too exhausted by the arguments and need to step away. I hope people understand that I came here with good intentions. Cheers SongRuyi (talk) 09:04, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Before taking any action, I asked at the AFD discussion whether my approach was appropriate, saying:

If he claims this is part of his editor duties, then I should be allowed to take the same editorial interest in his contributions.

After I defended the article at AFD, SunLoungerFrog changed his color. Looking at his recent contributions, he added multiple tags on the Liu Sai article even though it was saved from DRV by me and expanded with citations from that discussion. Despite the subject meeting WP:NPOL criteria and several editors agreeing the article was notable and could be recreated, Frog tagged it for notability issues without reviewing the prior DRV discussion. This seemed like an act of revenge, even though I did not create the article.

User @User:GreenLipstickLesbian focused on blaming me, accusing me of taking revenge on Frog because he voted to delete Princess Changde, wrongly assuming I created that article. In fact, I was only an AfD voter and not the creator. After I explained this, GreenLipstickLesbian apologized for the assumption and instead raised another editor’s case for ANI due to perceived disrespect from me.

I admit I have made mistakes, but that does not mean they were always right or unbiased. Before punishing me, I would like to request that the administrator consider both sides and take into account my calm demeanor before I became involved in my first AFD discussion. Yes, I may have been indirectly rude to other editors, and I now understand that strong words can be considered harassment. I admit ...in this case that I was wrong about 80% of the time, but SunLoungerFrog was also wrong 20%, having been biased and overweight on the new editor. SongRuyi (talk) 09:23, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Are you seriously suggesting that you needed to have rules spelled out for you to realize that calling someone "no brain," telling someone they don't make an effort to think, and so on? That's certainly something. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 10:55, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks @GreenLipstickLesbian for compiling all the diffs and making this report. It is a pity that we are here, because I do think that @SongRuyi really wants to add to the encyclopedia contructively, and in areas (Chinese history, mythology and religion) that are arguably under-represented at the moment.

Based on what I saw of their behaviour at Princess Changde I had some concerns about how they sourced articles in terms of verifiability, and so looked at a couple of other items they worked on: Comprehensive Collection of Deities from the Three Religions and Liu Sai. I am not going to go through a laundry list of justifications for the handful of edits I made to those pages right now, apart from to say that I don't think they were unwarranted; of course I'm happy to expand on specific edits, if others would like me to. I regret that SongRuyi does not seem to want to engage me in a constructive discussion on those articles' talk pages; they generally do seem to have a pugnacious attitude to responding to other editors that borders on incivility.

Regarding the hounding, well, I am an old fart with a thickish skin, so I am not myself especially bothered by SongRuyi's actions today, though I can see that other editors might well feel harassed were it to happen to them, and of course SongRuyi shouldn't have behaved as they did. Dealing with the silly tagging of articles I've been involved with is a bit tiresome, but relatively quick to fix, and there might be some time wasted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gabbi Kosmidis, though to be fair I was conscious when I created that particular item that meeting WP:NACTOR was maybe borderline, so it's probably not dreadful that there is a community discussion about it.

The one thing I do feel quite strongly about is this edit, which is discussed further (by me and another editor) at Talk:Princess Changde § Religious endowments - failed verification?. I didn't want to cast aspersions first off, but given SongRuyi's refusal to discuss the matter, I will set my concerns out here. The quote given in the source text citation could not be found having checked two separate online versions of the source material. My strong suspicion - in the absence of any explanation, and of course I would love to be wrong - is that the quoted material and the content based on it is entirely fabricated, possibly using a large language model. To my mind, that is pernicious and WP:SNEAKY, as it's probably fair to say that there are not many editors with the literary Chinese skills (and I will admit that mine are not well-oiled) to be able to verify the claims. Making up sources and content is not on, doubly so when an article is at AfD, where it might mislead other editors as to the subject's notability. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 10:56, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

@SunloungerFrog ..your accusations against me are unfounded. I was only trying to explain the source by including both the original quote and an English translation. There was no hoax or misinformation involved. If you are not satisfied with my translation, you are free to use machine translation or consult other Chinese-speaking editors.

While I took the time to explain things in detail, you ignored my efforts and kept raising new issues, seemingly just to keep me busy. Regarding the Talk:Princess Changde#Religious endowments - failed verification? discussion: the original version of the text was added by me and was properly sourced. In the second version, I included an offline citation with a quote, which may have caused some confusion. I later revised it using content I found through a Google Books snippet.

Today, when I turned on my PC, I was planning to clarify everything, — but you had already reverted it to the first version, which looks fine. So I decided not to explain further. SongRuyi (talk) 12:27, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Maybe I am not being clear. Neither of the online sources for History of Ming 《明史》, Volume 190, Biographies, Section 78 here and here appear to contain the text you quote in your citation: "天順元年，駙馬都尉薛桓及常德長公主，以所賜第宅為寺，請額。英宗復辟，感后與主翊衛功，特賜名弘善，寵賚優渥。". That is what @Toadspike (sorry for dragging you into this) and I are questioning. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 12:43, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

GreenLipstickLesbian, SongRyui said on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gabbi Kosmidis What’s going on with you? Do you think you're some kind of VIP on Wikipedia? said to DaniloDaysOfOurLives as their vote to keep, it seems WP:UNCIVIL and WP: HARASSMENT and DaniloDaysOfOurLives have a {{user mental health}} notice on their userpage so I am a little bit concerned so I intervened on SongRyui behavior.

Note to administrator: I already added a warning to their talk page. Although, it should be sanctioned on being uncivil and attacking editors. ROY is WAR Talk! 11:54, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

I was really shocked to learn that telling an editor “What’s going on with you? Do you think you're some kind of VIP on Wikipedia?” is considered harassment on English Wikipedia. Really? I’ve never used highly insulting language like “--- of b” or “m--- f---,” or any vulgar or profane words.

I understand that calling someone a “dog” is extremely rude and would clearly be considered harassment, and I would accept responsibility for that (but i never called). But I truly don’t understand why a light, slightly sarcastic comment is treated the same way.

Before I got involved in AfD discussions, my experience on Wikipedia was peaceful; no arguments, no problems. Now, I honestly regret participating in the Princess Changde AFD. If I had the power to go back in time, I would not have voted at all.

I’m also not surprised that there are so few Chinese editors active here. English Wikipedia feels very different from Chinese Wikipedia. Even asking someone, “Are you a VIP?” is treated like a serious offense. I’ve learned that on English Wikipedia, you’re expected to remain extremely patient and tolerate every kind of comment from others. If you respond honestly or with a hint of frustration, you're suddenly the “bad guy in white sheep".

We Chinese, I was simply being direct and honest. Even if I was a bit frustrated, I responded with only mild irritation ... but that, too, is labeled as harassment here. SongRuyi (talk) 12:44, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

To be honest, it was a bit rude and pointy, but I've (and we all have) seen worse from even admins. I've also seen worse get handwaved. I think a simple apology and moving on is the best course of action.King Lobclaw (talk) 12:58, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

@King Lobclaw, thank you for your message..! I honestly didn’t know that some of the things I said could be considered harassment. In my opinion, i agree calling someone “no brain” is indirectly hurtful, but for other words I used, I didn’t realize they could also be seen as rude or pointy. Even though I was hot-tempered at times, I tried to stay calm and used indirect language instead of aggressive words.

Now that you’ve helped me understand, I choose to sincerely apologize to everyone involved. You've enlightened me, and I’ve realized I was unaware of Wikipedia’s civility standards. I promise that from now on, I will no longer comment on general discussions of others or AfDs except for those directly related to articles I created.

"I also want to apologize to the experienced editors and users affected by my actions."

I'm still learning as a new editor. I humbly ask for forgiveness for my first time mistakes, but I am also willing to accept a block as editors or admins want to give (one, three months or 6 months) as a way to cool down, and I need some time come back as a smarter and more responsible contributor in the future.

Please accept both my apology and my promise to improve. Thank you. SongRuyi (talk) 13:19, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Well, here we are. This began with WP:Articles for deletion/Princess Changde, a discussion I started. At that discussion, SongRuyi has cast a series of aspersions:

• Accused three editors of voting without doing due diligence: why do you guys give delete votes without doing any research? [109], near-instant "delete" votes without much investigation or meaningful consideration [110]
• Seems to accuse me(?) of socking or preparing to sock, without evidence. I honestly suspect something — I can almost smell the socks. [111] When asked to file an SPI, they did not.
• Seems to accuse SunloungerFrog of hounding [112] after SunloungerFrog questioned an unverifiable citation, received no response, and (rightfully) decided to look into their other work. This is not hounding: Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles. Here, SunloungerFrog is investigating violations of our policies on Verifiability and No original research.

SongRuyi has also canvassed by pinging several editors they believed to be sympathetic to their views on notability in an ongoing AfD. [113]

And made several condescending or strange remarks about other users' knowledge of notability, Chinese history, and other topics:

• @Toadspike you need to learn the outcomes of AfD discussions about ancient princesses [114]
• ??? That is the ancient Chinese political system, not a Communist system. How much more do you need?. [115]
• Says that they don't care about SunloungerFrog's opinion: Well, that is your opinion, and I don't care whether you buy it or not. I only value comments from much experienced editors on royalty or the Chinese monarchy system, such as... before canvassing several other users. [116]
• Soon after that, calls other editors "no brain" in an edit summary [117] and then says As a native, I only want to help those who are unfamiliar with the ancient Chinese political system. If you believe you have more knowledge than a native Chinese, then sure—go ahead. But I’m not buying it. [118]

Several editors, including myself, have had to repeatedly warn them against original research [119], [120]. That they explicitly refused to answer questions about an unverifiable source does not fill me with confidence that they respect our content policies. Finally, their behavior at the AfD verges on bludgeoning (though, to be fair, there were many questions for them to answer), and it looks like they are doing the same here. Toadspike [Talk] 13:22, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

I really regret that it had to come to this for an editor who cited my favorite TV show in an AfD. Toadspike [Talk] 13:32, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

@Toadspike It feels like too much. What happened was a normal discussion and disagreement, like many editors have. It’s surprising how easily minor editors like me are treated as if deserve a "death sentence."

I never canvassed anyone to vote "keep" or "delete" ... their votes were their own decisions, and I never asked anyone to support me or vote 'keep'. I mentioned "smelling socks" because several users were using the same green-line quotes, and I assumed maybe some of you were friends on Facebook or Instagram. But I never accused anyone directly, because I had no evidence.

I was really shocked to see all my words you gathered to paint me as a bad editor. That’s not how I see myself. I’ve already issued an apology and asked the administrators to block my account. I can’t do more than that.

Thank you for spending your time collecting my mistakes. I appreciate the effort. SongRuyi (talk) 13:39, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

I never accused anyone directly You mean, besides here? you are a Facebook friend of above editors and they asked you to blame me? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:57, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

@SarekOfVulcan it is a comment before my apology. after i accept you guys put me on death row; I withdraw afD and choose apology as suggested. Why are you putting it here? SongRuyi (talk) 14:02, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

@SarekOfVulcan, please continue to add more fire to my case as your culture does. I already apologized and am not trying to avoid my punishment; that is an act of my responsibility. If you are not happy with my apology, I can't do more than that. I just logged out of my Wikipedia account and just said goodbye. SongRuyi (talk) 14:08, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

as your culture does

Bold of you to do personal attacks in a thread about you doing personal attacks. Northern Moonlight 20:22, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Finally, my first AfD ended in my dead, and many editors said my behavior was inappropriate. No one supported me, which I now take as a sign that I was at fault. I only expressed what I believed....I wasn’t trying to be confrontational with English-speaking editors, but I’ve noticed that some are very sensitive to wording, which I didn’t expect.

I believe this might be due to cultural differences, and honestly, I’m shocked 100%. Even a simple comment like “Toadspike, you need to learn the outcomes of AfD discussions about ancient princesses” was seen as rude and labeled as canvassing. I don’t know how to understand that.

In any case, I accept it. I think it’s best if I don’t come back to editing. I would like to request that my account be blocked permanently, as I may have caused harm or made personal attacks. I will not create any new accounts. I’m retiring, as I can no longer cope with rules that I find difficult to understand. SongRuyi (talk) 13:57, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

I have had a decent apology from SongRuyi, who intends to take a break from editing enwiki for a while. I'm happy for a line to be drawn under this sorry business if others are. Thank you again GreenLipstickLesbian for initiating this discussion, without which SongRuyi would probably not have realised how unsuitable their behaviour was. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 15:02, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

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

ClueBot NG is malfunctioning

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

---

Bot is flagging all my entries when they are being made in good faith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Droning Maestro (talk • contribs) 15:22, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

One edit you made got reverted by ClueBot. I don't know why it did that. Maybe one of the words you chose is often used during vandalism. You can re-add the content and report it as a false positive if you want by following the instructions. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:31, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

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

User:YourFriendlyNeigborhoodBisexual

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

---

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

I stumbled across this account because they tried to vandalize an article, then made a report at WP:EFFP when a filter prevented them. The username obviously recalls User:Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist (I was initially confused to see the latter's name there), to the point that I'm guessing whoever created this account is familiar with them. My reaction is that this is an impersonation concern, but I figured this is potentially complex enough to warrant posting here instead of UAV. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 00:25, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

"Your friendly neighborhood X" is a pretty common phrase. Taking a newbie to ANI for a possible username and one incident of disruption is pretty WP:BITEy. Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 00:45, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

I think this inquiry should be moved to Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:51, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

I don't think it's impersonation, just a vandal and coincidence, the phrase "your friendly neighborhood ..." is pretty common (and quickly checking pretty common as a WP username too). Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 00:52, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

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

RFA without my consent

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

---

I’m reporting a concerning behavior by User:Spworld2, for creating Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/User:Thilsebatti. I did not consent for this RfA. Per WP:RFA#Nomination, this violates the clear expectation that candidates must consent before an RfA is initiated.

This is particularly alarming because:

I have nominated several articles created or heavily edited by this user (or their likely socks) for deletion, and they are currently under discussion at AfD.

I have previously opened a Sockpuppet Investigation Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Msp7com/Archive that includes this user or their likely accounts. The timing and nature of this RfA strongly suggest harassment, as it appears to have been created solely to embarrass or discredit me. I request administrator attention on this matter and to delete the RfA per WP:G7 or WP:CSD#G3. Thilsebatti (talk) 10:35, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

It would be more helpful if you could please expound on this. Borgenland (talk) 10:32, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/User:Thilsebatti opened by Spworld2. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 10:35, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

(Thilsebatti substantially edited this report after it was replied to) REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 10:36, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

I suggested Thilsebatti name after seeing his experience. I don't know much about the withdrawal format in this. If you can help Spworld2 (talk) 10:41, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

I think this RfA in my name was not a good-faith nomination, but a deliberate act of trolling. Thilsebatti (talk) 10:48, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

@Spworld2: do you check what you are doing before you hit submit? If you do, can you explain why you felt it helpful to submit an edit with the statement "Here write a few short paragraphs about yourself or the person you are nominating for adminship. Include their qualities and what you believe they would do well as an administrator. Explain any mishaps that have happened in the past you feel may affect the votes. Say why you think they (or you) deserve adminship" intact? If you don't, you really need to start if you are going to continue to edit Nil Einne (talk) 10:59, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't know much about this nomination. I will pay attention to such edit nominations in the future. Sorry if any of the users who are candidates face any technical issues with this. Spworld2 (talk) 11:02, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: Recently, I have seen a lot of deletion discussions, and I have seen this person actively working on new review pages. He is currently active on an AFD, so this person was nominated based on his editing history and user page. I don't know much about this admin nomination. I am surprised that he nominated me as a sock, I am only just learning about this incident really.

Spworld2 (talk) 11:21, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

I deleted the RfA as that seemed to be a fast and desirable way of resolving the situation given the above statements. Johnuniq (talk) 10:56, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks and regards!! Thilsebatti (talk) 10:57, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, I didn't know much about this nomination. Thank you for solving this case. Spworld2 (talk) 11:04, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

I guess SPWorld2's edits should be looked at more in general as well. They are edit warring to keep seemingly false information in an article they created[121] and in another article[122] and repeating these claims in the AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/P.K. Shifana. Fram (talk) 11:18, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

I have only 3 years of experience here, I am learning more editing. My argument sometimes goes beyond the limits. Sometimes it may seem repetitive, mistakes happen while learning, sorry Spworld2 (talk) 11:26, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Yes, and if too many mistakes happen, contributors get blocked. Not that your highly-inappropriate RfA nomination looks like a 'mistake'. It clearly wasn't done in good faith. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:47, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with being repetitive, it is about claiming some facts are supported by a source when the source says nothing to support it, and insisting that you are right even when this is pointed out, instead of checking whether you haven't made a mistake. Fram (talk) 13:09, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Can I ask a sub-question here? My question: Can I change my existing username? If so, how do I set the password? There is a misunderstanding about whether my username is another account or a user, I think it is because of the similarity of the nomination name to the SOCK allegation made by the nominee editor. Spworld2 (talk) 13:47, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Changing your username in the middle of an active ANI discussion would be disruptive, and grossly inappropriate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:25, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

This is starting to look like either trolling, or CIR, either of which is incompatible with editing here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:27, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Which is really odd to hear from a user with 2K edits. Ymblanter (talk) 12:29, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

I apologize for my question. I am not knowledgeable on this subject. Honestly, I asked because I did not know. Spworld2 (talk) 12:45, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

I apologize for my question Spworld2 (talk) 12:56, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Spworld2, Why did you create the article as Ashraf (social worker) instead of using the subject’s full name, Ashraf Thamarassery, which was first created by the Msp7com. Msp7com is the original sockmaster you are referring to. I cannot believe it is just a coincidence. This seems rather unusual and raises concerns. It is clear that you were trying to game the system and wanted to avoid genuine NPP process. That time I did not took it seriously as I had no time to waste. But now I thought I should ask you this. Thilsebatti (talk) 12:41, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Before I create any page, I type that page in the search box, and then in the edit column that comes up, I type the bio details

When I searched for Ashraf Thamarassery, I saw a link that someone had created before, but I didn't know how to reopen it, honestly

So I put his known section in brackets, and this is what happened in fact

I don't know much about editing, and that's what happened today. Spworld2 (talk) 12:53, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Apologies to other editors for bringing this up here, but since Fram suggested we take a broader look at Spworld's editing, I felt it necessary to raise this. The article Ashraf Thamarassery was created multiple times by the sockmaster Msp7com, who appears to have a strong interest in the subject—an interest that you seem to share as well. Msp7com has previously attempted to recreate the article under various titles, including Ashraf Palarakunnummal (Ashraf Thamarassery) and Ashraf Palarakunnummal. Both you and Msp7com have shown considerable interest in topics related to the Indian Union Muslim League, such as Muslim Students Federation (I. U. M. L.), Indian Union Muslim League, and Muslim Youth League.[123]. You were extremely fortunate that the earlier accounts in the farm had gone stale, so CU could do nothing. At the time, I chose not to pursue the matter further, partly because you seemed to be contributing some useful edits. However, your pattern of editing is now becoming difficult to overlook. Thilsebatti (talk) 13:11, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Note the above similarities. Also note the usernames: Msp7com and Spworld2. I'm amazed this wasn't blocked at the SPI, stale CU or not, based solely on  Looks like a duck to me. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:04, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

This is not me, truly. I have absolutely no connection to this. This is a misunderstanding. Please do not spread rumors. Truly, you must believe me.

The claim you made, the similarity in names, is a misunderstanding. I have already explained the Ashraf Thamarassery article issue above; it happened because of a lack of knowledge. I believe that 1-2 pages like this were created similarly.

Another similarity is that the editors are from the same zone. I am actively involved in projects in the Kerala zone in India, especially in Kerala politics (UDF, LDF, CPM, Indian Union Muslim League, BJP), and topics such as political bios, geography, crime cases, disasters, villages, cities, buildings, roads, etc. I believe this is the reason for the similarity with the SOCK you have raised. As a fellow Malayali, I believe you will understand this.

I am ready for any investigation. Truly, this is not me. I have no connection to this. I have only three years of experience here. I am very saddened that I am being blamed for a misunderstanding after all the time I have volunteered for Wikipedia. If you decide to punish me based on this misunderstanding, I am ready to accept it.

I have not done anything wrong in this. I have no connection to this sock puppet account. Spworld2 (talk) 05:26, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Jerrypeton, the last sock in the farm was blocked in June 2022. Your account, Spworld2, was created just a few days later in July 2022. Since then, you have frequently edited many of the same articles that the earlier sock accounts focused on. The article Ashraf Thamarassery, which was previously created in a clearly promotional manner by Msp7com, was later recreated by you. Your username also resembles that of msp7com as indicated by The Bushranger. Most of your edits are centered around the Malabar region, similar to the previous accounts. Additionally, you have created or attempted to create multiple articles about non-notable youth leaders, the most recent example being P.K. Shifana. Fathima Thahiliya. K another MSF leader created by msp7com. P.K Shifana is also an Haritha leader. I cannot believe all of this is just a coincidence. Thilsebatti (talk) 06:21, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

It was not me, and I repeat, you must believe me.

I do a lot of editing related to Kerala politics, particularly in the Malabar region. It's likely that your accusation stems from the editing similarities with people from that area. For instance, I have edited cases like Aisha Abdul Basith and Ashraf Thamarassery I had also requested permission to recreate the article on Fathima Thahliya that someone had previously edited, but it was rejected due to a lack of notability. I believe this is the source of your misunderstanding.

In my editing, I often focus on the biographies of women in Kerala politics, especially young leaders. As a supporter of feminism, I try to create pages for various notable women in the state. Some of these have been deleted. It is very difficult for women in the Muslim community to rise to leadership positions in Kerala due to social circumstances, and I aim to support those who are emerging.

My primary focus for editing is on the Indian Union Muslim League and its affiliated organizations, the Communist Party of India (Marxist) Kerala and its affiliated organizations, and the Congress Kerala and its affiliated organizations. There are many editors in Kerala who work on these same topics. I believe you are located in Central Kerala.

I am not trying to discourage you by pointing out the similarity from such a large zone of editors, but I truly have no connection to this 'sockpuppetry.' I hope you will believe me. Spworld2 (talk) 07:31, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

I don't believe you, and I have sent the evidence to the checkusers via email (to avoid WP:OUTING). Fram (talk) 08:51, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Agreed, you may be trying to promote Muslim women in politics, and that’s commendable in principle. But that doesn’t justify creating articles about non-notable individuals or adding misleading content, as was clearly pointed out by other editors here. The arguments you’ve presented at past and present AfDs are vague and show a lack of understanding of WP:GNG and WP:NPOL.

You’re repeatedly creating articles about local youth leaders with little to no significant coverage. It is completely your right and I agree. But this is not how things should work. Notability is not inherited just because someone is active in politics or associated with a known organization.

Regarding the sockpuppetry concerns, I’m not going to argue further here. I have more proofs to show but this is not the correct venue. So I'm stopping it here and leaving that to the admins and CU if they choose to proceed. But whatever the outcome, my sincere advice to you is: stop creating articles directly. Use the Articles for Creation (AfC) process from now on, because your understanding of Wikipedia’s notability policies appears to be fundamentally flawed. Thilsebatti (talk) 08:31, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you!! @Thilsebatti for sharing your concerns. I appreciate you taking the time to provide feedback on my recent article creations. I will take your advice and use the Articles for Creation (AfC) process going forward to ensure my submissions better align with Wikipedia's notability policies. I will also review the guidelines more closely to improve my understanding. Spworld2 (talk) 08:44, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Legal threat by User:Socrynpinfeb

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

---

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

Socrynpinfeb has tagged Rhonda Roland Shearer for AfD and used the associated discussion page to post a "formal" cease and desist notice regarding content in the article, threatening legal action. They have also posted this notice at Talk:Thomas Girst. --Finngall ^talk 20:37, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Clearly The AFD for Rhonda Roland Shearer Needs to be deleted asap because the AFD contains a Legal Threat and User:Socrynpinfeb needs to be blocked from editing for making Legal Threats. Untamed1910 (talk) 21:12, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm not the subject of the article and don't represent any of the individuals involved, nor am I affiliated or employed with the orgs, so I'm not sure how this constitutes a legal threat Socrynpinfeb (talk) 21:25, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Libelous content is anything that is not true and causes harm. The consistent omission of Ms. Shearer’s name and leadership not only erases her decades of scholarly and administrative contributions but also undermines the credibility and ethical standards of the organizations promoting these inaccuracies. It makes it difficult to improve the page and no example has been provided by editors with experience for how to resolve what's a pretty egregious misrepresentation of The Art Science Research Lab's leadership. Socrynpinfeb (talk) 21:32, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

You're the account that keeps posting an extensive list of sources that all say someone else runs the ASRL, correct?

And it represents a legal threat because you keep posting 'formal' 'cease and desist' notices and (incorrectly) claiming that the article contains libel.

And you are clearly involved with the subject. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 21:36, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

The inconsistencies are causing issues for scholars who aren't related to the org and who rely on these resources. You guys need to clean up her page so it's neutral and give equal attention to pages that cross lines a lot more egregiously than this article. I have no goal other than to see it fixed so I don't know what is hard about cleaning it up if you're going to bully new editors who try in good faith. Socrynpinfeb (talk) 21:45, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Spamming notices about 'Cease and desist' is not acting in good faith. We do not make changes in articles based on "But What About Another Article." Asking you to follow policy and not claim to be unrelated to the subject of this article is not 'bullying.'

If you want changes to be made, use the COI edit request template and post them on the article's talk page. Most importantly, do not spam another wall of text, give a simple and clear change, along with a reliable secondary source the supports the change. Do not use the subject's resume. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 21:54, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

I don't actually see a legal threat there, just some needlessly formal language that isn't really helping the situation from someone not familiar with how things work on Wikipedia. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:33, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

I've tagged the AfD as a CSD attack page. Just looks to be a long rant about a living person. Rambling Rambler (talk) 21:39, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

@Rambling Rambler: They had since walked back their "Formal Cease and Desist" to "respectfully request[ing]" the changes they wanted to see. --Finngall ^talk 21:47, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Taking a brief look at the account, despite being created three years ago it has made the entirety of their edits in the last week or so of which they seem entirely focused on what they see as WP:RGW, with the introduction of large amounts of material wanting to "correct the record" so to speak.

Seems like a case of WP:NOTHERE. Rambling Rambler (talk) 21:51, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Thomas Girst seems to have been mostly written by SPAs so I am willing to hear them out if that article is overly promotional. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 22:03, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

@REAL MOUSE IRL well that's unlikely, they just got blocked for sockpuppeting... Rambling Rambler (talk) 22:04, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

An example of their addtions, they've created this article, Art Science Research Laboratory. The majority of citations are either their own site or citations to award pages that immediately 404.

Definite promotional-vibe rather than any meeting of WP:GNG. Rambling Rambler (talk) 21:55, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Current references 1, 3, 4 are all AboutSelf, 3 is from a summary note that indicates it was partly source from... Wikipedia. 7 gives me a 'phishing warning', 8-17 all 404 or say 'article not found on this site'. 18 says that *their* source is 7, and the last one is an NYT article that I can't access. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 22:11, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

The NYT article does indeed discuss Shearer and supports the content it is being used as a reference for in the article.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:17, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

It looks to be a case of a possible notable topic that is buried under a bad attempt to force notability, if that makes sense. Given the array of socks they've used for this very niche topic I've drafted and reduced to stub as a COI of some kind. Rambling Rambler (talk) 22:31, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Socrynpinfeb, Spiritualamerica, Jfksfoatx, Fromfairest and Vikidotwiki blocked. No comment on the content. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:20, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Legal threat on User_talk:Justiniolani

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

---

User:Justiniolani has made a legal thread on their User Talk Page after having unsourced additions reverted. Diff.

"Let this serve as formal and final notice: I will be contacting Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation directly to end this harassment, this suppression, and this digital colonization. And if they ignore the sovereign of the Hawaiian Kingdom, I will ensure that every trace of my family’s history is permanently purged from your platform."

qcne (talk) 09:53, 7 August 2025 (UTC)}}

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

User:OCDD August 3 2025.

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

---

(Much content was transferred from AN/EW) There was already this discussion at right here a few days ago: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:OCDD 31 July 2025. Considering the links of warning they have been given on that ANI thread, I think this user has had way too many warnings and it is time for them to be blocked indefinitely for pertinently making disruptive edits. Looking at the ANI thread, they have had way too many chances dating back 2 or 3 years. Many of their recent contributions such as this: [124], [125], they persistently edit warred and unexplained their changes, when I explained my changes and when they reverted they did not explain theirs. In many times they re removed content without explaining why it is being removed. It feels like they claim they own the encyclopaedia and every article they have knowledge about. Servite et contribuere (talk) 09:00, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

This situation is already being discussed above at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:OCDD 31 July 2025. Both editors are currently blocked for edit-warring. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:13, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Proposed TBAN of Kelzoro from science fiction topics

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

---

On August 2, the community unanimously agreed to redirect Philip J. Corso to The Day After Roswell. As usually occurs in these situations, this prompted extensive Reddit and X threads accusing a sprawling conspiracy of being underway, peppered with various offsite legal and physical threats against Wikipedians. In the midst of this:

• On August 5, Kelzorro undid [126] the redirect and reintroduced a truncated version of the article. This was not a new version of the article with fuller sourcing, it was merely an abbreviated version of the article with the same sourcing and verbiage that existed prior to the redirect. This was reverted.
• Later that day, Kelzoro again [127] undid the redirect. This, too, was reverted.
• On August 6, Kelzoro again [128] undid the redirect. Again, this was reverted.
• Kelzoro was cautioned both on their talk page, and in the redirect target, no fewer than four times ([129] [130] [131] etc.). These discussions were met with a broadside of fire and declarations that he would reveal the truth about space aliens, and what seemed to be accusations that Wikipedians were part of this conspiracy: "Oh I know all about your behavior and antics, chersford. You dont intimidate me from getting the truth out." [132], "so you're just going to delete his page just because he spilled the beans about Roswell?" [133], "You're doing a disinformation campaign " [134]
• On his userpage, Kelzoro indicates his general dissatisfaction with our policies and guidelines "Wikipedia and its policies suck" and has previously used it to indicate his intent to extract revenge against his perceived enemies in science fiction topics "JBW must pay" [135]
• In a 2011 block over a science fiction topic (Aaahh!!! Real Monsters), he used the unblock request to launch into a tirade: "Fuck it, this site can kiss my arse. You admins are nothing but a bunch of bigots. You abuse your power, you don't care about fact, no. You depend on consensus and you really think I am going to drop on my knees and smooch your asses for punishment that idiot Banana should have gotten? I don't even care about being blocked. This site is a pathetic joke and sad thing is the creator has to depend on donations to keep it running. Far as I care, you and the admins can shove it. Block me permanently, I don't care."

For all these reasons, I regretfully propose Kelzoro be indefinitely topic banned from science fiction topics, broadly construed and inclusive of flying saucers, UFOs, and related subjects. Chetsford (talk) 00:12, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

I honestly feel like this should just be an WP:AIV report for vandalism and trolling and be done with it. But hopefully a discussion here can be just as swift. Full support on the topic ban if that's all we're doing. Silverseren^C 00:13, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

I really hate to see anyone blocked outside of the most extreme cases and I'm certain Kelzorro could be a productive editor in a topic that provoked less intense passion. Chetsford (talk) 00:15, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

I second the topic ban as a minimum intervention. Kelzorro has only edited sparsely, but in all cases, his editing has been in the fields of fringe science and his attitude has been that Wikipedia and its editors are deliberately trying to hide the truth as only he knows it. A topic ban is hard to monitor (it doesn't really stop you from editing, it just allows others to revert you based on the ban); I would recommend a temporary block to get his attention followed by a topic ban. If he obeys the ban, it is unlikely that he will contribute anything further to Wikipedia. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 00:22, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

• Regardless of the merits of the proposed TBAN, Kelzorro definitely been edit-warrning on Philip J. Corso and has been blocked 24 hours. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:14, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
• Comment, to be honest, this editor edits only every few years. If it hadn't been for a recent decision to Redirect an article, it might have been another 5 years before he emerged back on the platform. I'm not sure if an editor who is active so sporadically is worth galvanizing editors to vote in a topic ban. I think once this current article change dies down, it could go years before they edit again. That is not a support or oppose to the proposal, just a comment that I think this energy is misplaced when there is so much else that needs fixing here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:33, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

To be honest, I didn't closely look at their edit history beyond the items that became apparent might warrant a ban but, given this, I'd agree it would probably be more efficient to just vamp until they've moved onto something else. While I hope they'll stay and make themselves productive on other things it seems the pattern suggests that's not likely. As such, I'm content to withdraw this as nom. Chetsford (talk) 04:55, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

"They're only disruptive every few years" doesn't change the fact that they are disruptive. Somebody shouldn't get a pass for violating policy just because they only pop up every now and then to violate it. I'll also note their user page currently repeats the WP:ASPERSIONS against admins in general, along with the WP:FREESPEECH bit that I haven't seen elsewhere in awhile. Support topic ban. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:13, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Is Aaahh!!! Real Monsters really a science fiction topic? I also think that this person's only non-alien edits in the past literal decade have been a minor spelling and minor grammar error correction so they can probably just be handled as an SPA if they continue being disruptive. Sesquilinear (talk) 04:42, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

• Comment: Regarding a 2011 temporary block for edit warring to Aaahh!!! Real Monsters, saying "Fuck it, this site can kiss my arse. You admins are nothing but a bunch of bigots. You abuse your power, you don't care about fact, no. You depend on consensus and you really think I am going to drop on my knees and smooch your asses for punishment that idiot Banana should have gotten? I don't even care about being blocked. This site is a pathetic joke and sad thing is the creator has to depend on donations to keep it running. Far as I care, you and the admins can shove it. Block me permanently, I don't care. The unfairness here is ridiculous and it just goes to show you that you admins got nothing else going for your sorry lives, so you try and flaunt your authority on a site that's seen as a joke by everyone in academia. Go on ahead and block my page. I'm not even going to bother editing anymore on this shitty site. Consensus, and you guys wonder why Wikipedia is a joke.", I would suggest that this request reason might contain personal attacks to administrators, especially to JBW who blocked him temporary for 1 week on March 4, 2011. Fabvill (Talk to me!) 05:16, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
• Support: and frankly, a site ban would be entirely appropriate: we indef newbies for a fraction of this much invective. Hell, we're talking about a fellow whose user page now displays "Wikipedia and its policies suck - Wikipedia - the site filled with Admins who're power hungry bigots. [/First Amendment]" "Productive" editors don't go this far off the rails. Ravenswing 07:11, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
• Given that and everything else here, yeah, changing to Support indef/cban. Like I said before, the fact they only occasionally pop up to act this way doesn't change the fact they regularly act this way. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:14, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
• Support a site ban, per Bushranger's reasoning: While I totally agree with the comments from Liz about time and effort being spent on a small issue, the issue already is here and being considered, so it makes sense to effect the best outcome. I'd personally prefer if an admin had indef'ed the editor, but in any case, whether it's next week, next year, or next decade, this editor's next edit should not occur until someone, whether an admin or the community, can pass judgment on whether this conduct will repeat. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 08:15, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
• Indef I'd do it as an individual admin action, but this already has calls for a CBAN. Sennecaster (Chat) 11:56, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

  It seems a block or a topic ban will result in basically the same outcome. I don't care much about an angry tirade from 14 years ago, but if they're an SPA who wants to reveal The Truth! about UFOs then WP:NOTHERE applies. Simonm223 (talk) 12:00, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

• Indef/site ban I'd also do it now except for the Cban support. Doug Weller talk 13:15, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
• Indefinitely blocked. I don't think dragging this out so as to be able to Cban is worth it; an indef by an individual admin will work just as well IMO, because who's going to unblock this user? (Seriously, can you even imagine them composing an acceptable unblock request?) Therefore, I have indeffed per NOTHERE, with a link to this discussion. Bishonen | tålk 13:35, 7 August 2025 (UTC).

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

Personal threats by User:Olectralab

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

---

@Olectralab.

I rejected and CSD G3 their sandbox draft. The user has made threats against me:

One day far in the future I will buy Wikipedia and remove everything you have ever posted on the site and send a small army of geospatially locked satellites to monitor you and block the IP of every device you ever use from accessing Wikipedia if you don't let me have this one article. You may laugh now and think to yourself "yeah right". but you will eventually forget about out little interaction we have had and then one day things will stop working for you and you will be locked out of more than just your Wikipedia account and you will remember this moment.

on this diff.

and

Don't start a war you can't finish. I will give you exactly one opportunity to reconsider what you just typed

on this diff.

Would recommend a NOTHERE block. qcne (talk) 10:16, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Not a threat a promise. Olectralab (talk) 10:19, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Proposal to convert partial block of 2600:100F:B100:0:0:0:0:0/40 to full block

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

---

• 2600:100F:B100:0:0:0:0:0/40 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I feel like this is just going to be another repeat case with this IP range every time we have to do this. Recently, this range was partially blocked from some pages due to persistent unsourced additions, and over the last 2 months, admins have had to add more pages to the partial block via other venues, like WP:RPP, where I've been reporting much of this habit. I do not think this partial block is helping, and this anon is only going to keep finding new opportunities to cause unsourced disruption with each new page added to the partial block, with the latest target being Steve MoriartySteve Moriarty (diff). Therefore, to prevent further disruption across the encyclopedia, I would like to propose that the current partial block on this /40 IP range be upgraded to a full block for the same period.

Note this range was also previously blocked for CheckUser evidence, so I am not opposed to a CheckUser running another check first. Jalen Barks (Woof) 20:47, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

I've applied a full block of the /40 for one year, noticing that the partial blocks haven't stopped the problem. Other admins may adjust this as they see fit. EdJohnston (talk) 22:49, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

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

IP word vandalism

A bizarre one - random IPs (which I suggest are linked due to their similarities, such as majority being in Brazil and use of wording e.g. 'old age' etc.) making only one edit of vandalism, changing words and infobox parameters (examples 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9) - any idea what is going on?! GiantSnowman 12:03, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Paki ain't a bad word 46.56.250.117 (talk) 12:13, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

The fact that a new IP shows up to make this comment suggests a single user hopping IPs. Might need to see if a rangeblock will do more good than harm. —C.Fred (talk) 12:19, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

What are they even talking about? I notice most of the IPs in the OP are flagged as open proxies. I haven't really looked further. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:21, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

It looks like they're running random words through a translator, leading to either awkward English in the pose or broken parameters in infoboxes. —C.Fred (talk) 12:24, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Buddy, I got more IP blocks than an advanced Lego set.

Deal with it 46.56.250.117 (talk) 12:42, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Please deal with the sock threat.14.162.206.244 (talk) 17:29, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

edgelord behavior. "i am a badass hacker" type edginess grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 15:36, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes it is a 'bad word' see Paki (slur). Is this just going to be ignored? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:36, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

"Paki" is a filthy word in England, in pretty much the same way as the N-word is every English-speaking country. Narky Blert (talk) 15:56, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Truly vile, I'm not sure that's understood outside the UK. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:34, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

I've just reverted a bunch of these, looks like someone using a thesaurus without a brain attached, it did strike me as possibly an AI bot of some kind. DuncanHill (talk) 13:15, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

I have checked for edits flagged as 'very likely bad' and 'likely bad' in recent changes and there are hundreds of similar edits in this time period. Same pattern. Mellk (talk) 13:48, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

I clocked two incidents of this today. It's replacing with synonyms... but not necessarily synonyms for the usage at hand. The first replaced the infobox parameter "parent" with "raise", which would make sense if we were talking about a verb (parenting a child), but not the noun (and certainly not as a parameter name.) The second replaced "state" with "express", which is fine if you're stating a preference but not if you're California, as was the case. So I'm not sure this takes AI level of smarts (as weak as that may be.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 13:58, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Just reverted a bunch of these from around 6 hours ago, filtering for "likely have problems" IP edits. Can corroborate that it seems to be replacing random words with synonyms inappropriate to the context + breaking infoboxes. Weird Abasteraster (talk) 16:23, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

It seems to favor certain word substitutions, i.e. years -> old age. Also noticing a pattern of it sometimes inserting words, like "language" after "German" or "English", where it's unnecessary or doesn't make sense. Abasteraster (talk) 16:34, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Besides breaking infoboxes, they are also breaking wiki markup and introducing lint errors, for example changing </small> to </weeny>. I cleared several dozen of them earlier today. —Bruce1ee^talk 17:43, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

The edits seem to span from about 10:20 to 11:00 GMT. Is there a way to nuke these edits? Mellk (talk) 18:37, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

I reverted every edit flagged as 'very likely bad' and 'likely bad' that wasn't already reverted (there were several hundred). I suspect a number of their edits slipped through. Mellk (talk) 13:15, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Not sure if this is the same person but there is an IP hopper engaging in the same kind of vandalism at Slavs. Mellk (talk) 17:00, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Now Great Turkish War. Mellk (talk) 17:38, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Now Nikolai Zaremba and Eaglehawk Football Club a few minutes ago Myrealnamm (💬Let's talk · 📜My work) 17:53, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

I think it is clear now this is the same person. Mellk (talk) 17:54, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Here we go again. Now recent changes is flooded with their edits starting at 17:54 GMT. Mellk (talk) 17:56, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Wack-a-mole, but I just protected the last two articles. —C.Fred (talk) 18:00, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

It's now random articles. It's non-stop. tony 18:05, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

@C.Fred those edits seem to be triggering filter 1367, which also contains false positives. Looking at the AbuseLog seems to help catch most of it. Myrealnamm (💬Let's talk · 📜My work) 18:07, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes, they're back on my watchlist, see e.g. this. GiantSnowman 18:32, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

They are making dozens of edits every minute. If this continues every day then we are in trouble. Mellk (talk) 18:36, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

I requested enabling CAPTCHA to the edit filter at WP:EFN so it hopefully slows down the disruption. Myrealnamm (💬Let's talk · 📜My work) 18:38, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

I've never seen this technology before, hopping IPs and making edits that quickly?! GiantSnowman 18:43, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Some of the edits did not trigger any edit filter but that seems like a good idea. Mellk (talk) 18:44, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

If you are referring to 1367 (hist · log), I originally had it set to captcha but there are simply too many false positives. The point of 1367 is simply to gather data on different proxy types using the IPReputation variables which we can then use to make more specialized actions. That is the reason 1367 is currently log-only, as opposed to a captcha/warning/disallowing action. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 19:53, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Well, at the moment 1367 is the most efficient means we have of dealing with most of the edits by this bot, so maybe it needs to be temporarily repurposed until a better method is put into place. Acroterion (talk) 20:11, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Back at it again. Lynch44 18:59, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Yeah this is getting a bit ridiculous. Obviously this is some form of a macro/bot hoping between different addresses rapidly and making edits, sometimes without the edit filter picking them up as problematic. This is starting look less like a single actor doing a bit of trolling and more like a coordinated cyberattack of sorts in a less threatening-looking package. Fantastic Mr. Fox 19:18, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Vandalism from IP hopper

I checked my watchlist and noticed vandalism from various IP addresses around the same time. This looks to be the same person since some changes they made are similar e.g. changing "Moscow" to "Russian capital" here and here. Here are also other examples.[136][137][138][139][140][141][142]

These edits were made within minutes of each other and they edited under a different IP each time (all of which have only one edit). These IP addresses geolocate to places all over the world and do not come up as a proxy via Proxy Checker but I suspect some kind of IP hopping is going on here. They may have vandalized other articles but I am not sure how to find the rest of the damage. Mellk (talk) 12:37, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

@Mellk:, this is the same as Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#IP word vandalism. DuncanHill (talk) 13:17, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes, you're probably right. Mellk (talk) 13:21, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

IP-hopping vandal changing 'small' tags

There is an IP-hopping vandal changing 'small' tags today. I have fixed about ten of them in articles. Here is a link to a few reverts. I am not sure how to report an IP hopper, since AIV takes only single addresses in its template. The editor is changing words into synonyms. See the page history at Glyphicnemis, Ceratostigma, Listed buildings in Wombourne, Kessleria, and Entandrophragma utile. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:17, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Looks like WP:ANI#IP word vandalism to me. Sesquilinear (talk) 19:20, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

IP-hopping thesaurus vandals

I've been seeing a rash of random IP editors each making one or two no-edit-summary edits with small size changes that replace words in articles, often by synonyms, sometimes by total vandalism. Examples: [143] [144] [145]. Anyone have any ideas how to prevent these, other than being vigilant on our watchlists? —David Eppstein (talk) 19:41, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Wasn't there a planned transition from IP users to a new form of "temporary accounts" aimed to occur back in May? I have been away for a while so I didn't keep track of whether it was implemented or not. Fantastic Mr. Fox 19:54, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Just to capture some common replacements I'm seeing in this disruption, which may be can use as search terms when cleaning up:

- village -> greenwich

- village -> hamlet

- former -> onetime

- Career -> vocation

- (Any full month name to the short variety (e.g., October -> Oct)

- located -> situated

- neighborhood -> vicinity

- community -> local

- named -> titled

Table syntax tags

- style -> cut, tailor, stylus, trend, mode

- center -> centrist, shopping mall

- scope -> orbit, telescope

- align -> aline, line up, coordinate

- right -> honorable, proper, right-minded Mad Jim Bey talk 19:55, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

The temporary accounts transition has rolled out on many other wikis, but hasn't reached enwiki yet I believe. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 19:57, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Looking at non-reverted "likely bad" edits in the RecentChanges feed is also helpful. It is not my usual beat, and I see that multiple gnomes are quite active there. It makes a person question whether we have enough filters in place on IP edits. Yuck. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:58, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! Yeah, my bigger concern is that I'm seeing these unregistered single-word swaps in the 'May have issues' filter (and some of the higher ones). Mad Jim Bey talk 20:05, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

I just found three edits like this one, adding commas to numbers and messing with colons in DEFAULTSORT and categories. These are also single edits by different IPs. They may be related to this word replacement activity. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:32, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

I think they are. Removing commas, adding commas seemingly randomly, adding duplicate commas. tony 16:37, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

They're also changing 'career' to 'vocation' pretty consistently too. VergilSparkles (talk) 18:27, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

IP-hopping vandal changing numbers

FYI, now appears to be changing numbers randomly. [146] [147] [148] [149] [150] [151] [152] [153]. I know this seems common but these are first-use IPs and I'm seeing the same pattern as the word-switching. Note that some edits they're also changing numbers in CSS, page numbers, etc. in the same edit. They're coming in faster than I can revert. --tony 21:00, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Yup, looks like they are trying new ways to evade detection. Mellk (talk) 21:21, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

ST47ProxyBot may have had flaws[154] but the WMF need to step up with a solution for this kind of problem. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:15, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

The WMF may need to implement a bot/system that would check IPs for potential proxies the moment they visit Wikipedia/another project. This is becoming insane-insane. Myrealnamm (💬Let's talk · 📜My work) 13:35, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

2409:40C2:2005:C1D9:8000:0:0:0 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) also? Robby.is.on (talk) 13:25, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

They're now re-using IP addresses during the same attacks. [155] [156] [157] are the first three IP's I've seen. tony 13:54, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Which suggests that if you see an attack, you should definitely do a contributions check for previous attacks missed... and it may be worth going through your recent reverts to see if any of those accounts have surfaced again. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:04, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

It looks like they are doing a lot of one word changes instead now. Mellk (talk) 14:05, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

I know we have a much more sophisticated filter running but I've just enabled Special:AbuseFilter/1374 as an emergency response for this. Sam Walton (talk) 14:10, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

It appears to have started again but with IPv6 addresses now. If any administrator is bored and looking for a list of blockable addresses, any revert at my contributions from this point forward today which doesn't have an associated talk-page warning immediately following it might be worth looking at. tony 15:22, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

These are not triggering any edit filters. Mellk (talk) 15:25, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Most of the edits are not getting flagged as 'very likely bad' or 'likely bad'. There are a lot flagged as 'maybe bad' instead. Mellk (talk) 15:34, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Also getting these too. Pretty much all of my recent reverts are of that kind. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 15:25, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

My bad, the ones I've seen are of the thesaurus kind, I mixed up the two sections. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 15:42, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion, the vandalism I was referring to was the word-swapping kind, even though I put it in this section. tony 16:10, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

[158] more grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 15:32, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Re-enabled 1374, which I had turned off once the previous bout had ended. Sam Walton (talk) 15:35, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Non-exhaustive list of ranges. Looks like most edits have not yet been reverted from the most recent batch. These things seeem to happen in spurts of 15 minutes or so:

• 2601:2008:0:0:0:0:0:0/32 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• 2601:2009:0:0:0:0:0:0/32 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• 2A01:E300:0:0:0:0:0:0/32 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• 2601:200F:0:0:0:0:0:0/32 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• 2001:5A8:0:0:0:0:0:0/32 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• 2A01:E303:0:0:0:0:0:0/32 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• 2A01:E302:0:0:0:0:0:0/32 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• 2601:200D:0:0:0:0:0:0/32 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• 2A01:CB04:0:0:0:0:0:0/32 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

tony 15:54, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Some of these are webhost IP addresses (LIGHTNING-HOSTING-SOLUTIONS) and should be blocked for longer. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 16:16, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

They're back at it, this time on IPv4 again. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:47, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

More number vandalism.[159][160] Mellk (talk) 17:59, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

This is becoming exceptionally problematic. Can we just block all numeric changes from IP addresses? Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 18:30, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

That’s what I thought about, but I think it would be too collateral for the rest of legitimate anons. What about requiring CAPTCHA for all non-confirmed users as a temporary measure? I know some other wikis use this feature, like the Chinese Wikipedia. Myrealnamm (💬Let's talk · 📜My work) 19:02, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

This vandal seems unaffected by the CAPTCHAs. Filter 1375 is slowing them down but they're still going. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 19:05, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Also it's not just number vandalism - I'm still getting word vandalism on my watchlist. GiantSnowman 19:08, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

How about blocking all edits when user_type == "ip" & page_namespace == 0 & length(summary) == 0 & edit_delta < 100? Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 19:22, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Heinz or Bush's? ;) tony 19:36, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps, but it'll buy us some time. I also suspect this abuser isn't very new here. I have created a ticket (T399996) to allow the AbuseFilter to see if an edit originated from the MediaWiki API (which is what this abuser and a few more are using), but I ran into some issues when trying to implement it myself. If anyone here is familiar with the MW code base, I'd gladly appreciate some help. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 19:59, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

I am sure they will keep tweaking the script in order to bypass these kinds of restriction. Mellk (talk) 20:36, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Another large wave now. Mellk (talk) 21:03, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Admins are aware of this but I wonder should the WMF be made aware of it, since the nature of the attack leads me to believe more than one device is involved, considering some of these edits are within mere seconds of one another when I was patrolling yesterday. It's possible they are multiple virtual machines, but I don't see there edits being marked as being mobile ones. Fantastic Mr. Fox 21:04, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

The WMF is aware. Giraffer (talk) 12:10, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, in my earlier comment I meant to require CAPTCHA for all edits made by all non-AC users as a temporary measure, not just edits caught by filter. I don't know how quickly such could be implemented, but I think it just might solve our current problem. Myrealnamm (💬Let's talk · 📜My work) 19:26, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

@Myrealnamm: It's possible to enable EmergencyCaptcha, and it's possible to disable IP editing entirely if an emergency occurred, but I certainly wouldn't be eager to flip the switch on such a filter, nor is this disruption probably at the level of that. Additionally, EmergencyCaptcha is a severe restriction to legitimate editors with visual impairments, and would be a drastic measure to take, even for a short period. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 00:12, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

I am not an IP anymore, nor am I an EFM, but I am guessing that this filter must catch a lot of FPs based off how quickly it was deactivated after the first attack. This has been going on for two days now, with no signs of stopping. Is keeping this filter on long-term even feasible? Lynch44 16:30, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

So...are we blocking these when they turn up on RC patrol? I understand that there are edit filter or other measures being looked at, but for now? And if so, how long a block? Joyous! Noise! 18:19, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Looks like they're back. I've noticed they've been at it for the past few hours, but only at a relatively slow pace. At the moment they seem to be focused on number vandalism again. Mellk (talk) 16:41, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

We might need to add blanking to the list of behaviors from these IPs. Lynch44 20:47, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Name and shame?

Is it worth adding this to WP:LTA for easier reference in case it happens again (as opposed to digging through the archives here)? If so, what should we call them - the 'Thesaurus IP'? GiantSnowman 16:51, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

I don't think this would be a good fit for an LTA entry. The people who "need to know" patterns and behaviors are the edit filter managers, and they have their own spaces to work in. Documenting details in a public place like an LTA entry is just going to allow them to alter their behavior, which is the opposite of what we want. As far as names, they don't need a name. tony 18:16, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Note also that new LTA pages are, I believe, discouraged from being created per WP:DENY. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:49, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

OK, fair enough. GiantSnowman 20:58, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

I've noticed a lot of stuff is done on the general premise of WP:DENY or WP:BEANS, even when it seems extremely counterproductive and wastes gigantic amounts of volunteer time. I wonder if we even have any solid evidence that this encourages LTAs so much as to offset the gains in efficiency. jp×g🗯️ 04:07, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Have they disappeared for now? I have not seen anything since 31 July. If they re-appear, do we need to open another report here? Mellk (talk) 20:54, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Another potential single-edit IP number changing vandal: [161]

This edit changed the ranking parameters to have Ireland's CPI be 90 (instead of 77). The change did not have any visible effect. I'm mentioning it here for suspicion. 海盐沙冰 (talk) 21:12, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Strange distributed disruptive editing

A large number of IP editors are replacing words throughout articles with synonyms—here’s a few: [162], [163], [164], [165] and many many more. They’re easily found on the recent changes page with the problem filter active. Celjski Grad (talk) 13:45, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

I think this is the same IPs as in the above 'IP word vandalism' section 37.186.45.131 (talk) 13:47, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Indeed it appears so—thanks, I missed that. Celjski Grad (talk) 13:49, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Habitual improper editing

• 136.50.2.119 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Pinged @136.50.2.119: and ANI notice sent, also with note: "Please respond". This editor has a habit of improper editing as shown here and has been notified about proper editing and warned three times here. Perhaps some timeout will help the editor go down the right path and quit fouling the encyclopedia and wasting other editors' time. Thank you. Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 23:37, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Quaerens-veritatem, instead of pointing editors to a Contributions page, can you highlight specific edits that concern you? You brought the complaint here and so it's your job to help others understand what the problem is by posting diffs. Otherwise, you are unlikely to get a response here. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:20, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Liz. What called my attention was a pattern of edits including multiple reverts shown here that include failures to adhere to MOS, including MOS:GEOLINK, failure of sources, extraneous unnecessary edits, etc.; for example, this, this, and this, even though the editor was twice informed regarding editing protocol here. Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 00:48, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Disruptive Editing by Akandkur

For a while now, user Akandkur has been making disruptive edits on a few pages regarding Nickelodeon Movies and some of the films released under the label. The user keeps removing films from the production list or removing the company from the film pages because, despite opening with the NM logo, they feel they don't count because of a few factors and they continue link articles to back up their points. However, for over a year, people have tried explaining to them why they should count. Not just because they open with the logo but other films fit their criteria of what they say shouldn't count but they let them pass anyway simply because they weren't a simultaneous TV/streaming release. We gone through this on several talk pages for film pages, the NM page and even on a few user pages like on theirs, mine and Multiplivision's, with Akandkur even deleting one of their own responses. I even tried to come up with a compromise on more than one occasion but they ignored me and went back to their disruptive editing. No matter how many times we make our point and even back up our arguments, eventually they go right back to removing films once again. Whether or not they think they count as films released under Nickelodeon Movies is up to them but this isn't a personal collection. It's a Wikipedia article. They shouldn't keep picking and choosing and then deciding that their word is gospel.

This is the first time I've made one of these as it's the first time I've come into conflict on this site. I'm hopeful that I did a decent job summarizing this whole affair. I was hoping it didn't have to come to this but I'm very tired of having to deal with this person and after at least a year of other people having to fix their edits or make their case to Akandkur, I don't see any signs of this changing. GatekeeperofCoolness (talk) 16:33, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

It occurred to me that while I provided examples of the talk pages and attempts to talk them down but almost no examples of the disruptive editing other than my own word. So here are examples for Template:Nickelodeon Movies, Dora and the Search for Sol Dorado, Henry Danger: The Movie and most notably, their numerous attempts at removing elements from the List of Nickelodeon Movies productions. The first paragraph of that list's page even mentioning that they include "animated and live-action feature films, shorts, television and internet series, and specials" so their argument that some films shouldn't count because they aired on Nick a few hours after they premiered on streaming is built on shaky ground. GatekeeperofCoolness (talk) 16:58, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Good job, GatekeeperofCoolness, but you forgot to notify the editor of this discussion. There is a code listed at several places on this page. Please do so on your next edit. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:10, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Apologies for that. I have notified them on their talk page. Thank you for letting me know. I will not make that mistake again. GatekeeperofCoolness (talk) 18:47, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

After I notified them about this, Akandkur left this on my talk page. It seems like the issue has now resolved itself and hopefully, we won't have to worry about this in the future. There's a part of me that's surprised by how fast it was resolved after so long but I choose to believe Akandkur that they will do better from now on. GatekeeperofCoolness (talk) 02:12, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

• I am not familiar with the topic area in question, but I have intersected with Akandkur at KTSF. The edits were of low quality with poor English grammar and no sources and have mostly been plowed over because I rewrote the page. Looking at what's been brought up, the problem is simple. We have to write with the sources available. If the sources say Nickelodeon Movies, then that's what we have to go with. It seems like this sort of tendentious editing on the topic of Nickelodeon films and even some other film genres (Indian cinema) has gone on for quite some time. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 19:27, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Keizers and Saks Fifth Avenue store locations

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

This is the first time I've ever started a discussion here, so please bear with me here. I'm bringing this issue to ANI at the suggestion of User:Nathannah, who brought it to my attention. User:Keizers has over the past several years engaged in disruptive editing regarding the inclusion of a list of Saks Fifth Avenue locations within the encyclopedia. Starting in 2020, Keizers added a list of locations to the main Saks Fifth Avenue article in [[166]]. The list was removed by User:Galatz noting WP:NOTDIR in [[167]], but was reverted by Keizers in [[168]]. Galatz again removed the offending content in [[169]], but once again Keizers reverted the deletion of the content in [[170]].

In 2021, User:JayJay removed the list of stores in [[171]] citing WP:NOTDIR. This time, Keizers chose to create the article List of Saks Fifth Avenue locations without linking to the parent Saks Fifth Avenue to avoid detection from those patrolling Saks Fifth Avenue. This article was subsequently deleted without opposition at AfD in[[172]]. Instead of respecting consensus, Keizers once again created a list of Saks Fifth Avenue stores, this time under the alternative title List of Saks Fifth Avenue store locations, and again failing to link it to the parent article to try and avoid detection. I've brought the current list to AfD at [[173]], but considering the numerous times this user has continued to ignore WP:NOTDIR in an effort to include this information I think a wider discussion is warranted regarding their behavior. Let'srun (talk) 18:00, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Just fixed some internal links here. Let'srun (talk) 18:06, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

I've deleted the page under G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion. No comment currently as to whether additional actions are indicated. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:28, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

I've salted List of Saks Fifth Avenue locations, Timeline of Saks Fifth Avenue branches, and List of Saks Fifth Avenue store locations. I really would like to hear from Keizers why (a) they believe this is important enough to need to be recreated multiple times (b) after having been deleted at AfD before (c) and in such a way as to look very much as if they were attempting to evade detection. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:54, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

User:Keizers has been editing here for 18 years and has over 26,000 edits so the extended confirmed protection on these pages won't faze them. That's why it's important to engage and talk to them so they understand that the recreation of this article shouldn't be occurring. I'll invite them to come and talk. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:56, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Huh. I didn't realise the default salting was ECR now - been awhile since I did that. Will up to full sysop protect, thanks Liz for catching that. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:09, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Sorry Liz I accidentally replied to the notice on my talk page and not here. My answer was:

Thanks for reaching out. There are a lot of editors out there on the lookout for these lists and automatically conclude they’re directory like. I should have gone to discussion when they deleted them, yes I am guilty. I’ve been stubborn in the past, you can check my whole Israel/Palestine history, and I’ve repented and furthermore am

not active now as I have to work so much on my small business.

Now, why does the list belong in Wikipedia?

1) The list contains a lot of more detailed information about various key locations which is encyclopedic, albeit highly specialized, but not out of place.

2) the chronological information of store openings supports the detailed history in the main article, highly relevant to follow the history of the geographical presence early on, and later the expansion to major cities nationwide, which is relatively rare for department stores.

Don’t take the following as arrogance but as a simple fact.. I’m drowning in work right now and don’t have the time or mental and emotional energy to defend the article’s presence in Wikipedia.

It is such a shame that things that appear to be only directories are sort of hunted down and it’s very hard to defend them. But you know what, pick your battles, right?

thanks again for inquiring, all the best and thanks for your work and time!

Oh and the detailed information on certain location like architect expansion and remodel is arguably encyclopedic, but obviously in a micro level. These are sometimes listed as historic buildings at a local level, and things like their expansion reflect the growth of the community and of the company. Even milestones in the history of US department store retailing. Architecture and square footage ídem. This is not unusual information in Wikipedia; it’s commonly found in articles about individual buildings or companies with one major location be it a store or HQ.

I trust you'll make the right decisions. I have absolutely no intention of being an active editor in the next six months minimum, but if you think I haven't learned and recognized that I should have gone to discussion, it's perfectly fine to suspend my edit privileges, preferably for a certain topic range. Thank you! Keizers (talk) 15:19, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

This isn't really the place to make the argument that this type of article is suitable for inclusion, though. Rather, it is important that you recognize the relevant policies WP:NOTPRICE and WP:NOTDIRECTORY and that they specifically mention these types of lists as not being allowed on wikipedia. Let'srun (talk) 03:44, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

It may be worth noting here that I have sent Category:Lists of department store branches by company, which was created by Keizers, to CfD. Despite the category's name, most of the articles in that category are actual articles on department stores with lists of locations, with Keizers being the main contributor for at least a good chunk of those lists (many, but not all, of the articles, were created by him as well). While many of those articles are for defunct chains (which may or may not be a gray area with regard to NOTPRICE issues, but I may be way off base there), Beymen, El Palacio de Hierro, and Suburbia (department store) are not. (For what it's worth, the one currently-extant category entry that actually is a list article after List of Saks Fifth Avenue store locations was G4'd, List of Printemps store locations, was not only created by someone else but has never even been edited by Keizers.) I note this for completeness; while not as seemingly persistent as with Saks Fifth Avenue, he has not limited his inclusion of store lists to Saks Fifth Avenue. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:02, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Images with apparently false featured picture tags applied

• Mikeydoodles96 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Mikeydoodles96 has created a couple dozen local pages for commons images, which have {{FeaturedPicture}} tags on them. Problem is, none of these tags appear to be correct. I asked on their user talk page but they've just gone on creating these. What if anything should be done about this? - MrOllie (talk) 00:50, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Honestly, the problems extend far beyond that. Why do we need Draft:2062 in film? Or Draft:2047 in public domain? And there's a lot of that. A substantial number of their edits are reverted, too. This is looking very much WP:NOTHERE, but perhaps Mikeydoodles96 has a solid explanation. --Yamla (talk) 00:56, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

As their file actions are continuing, I've partially blocked them from the File namespace for a couple of weeks. Hopefully that's enough to grab their attention. This is a regular admin action, any admin is free to lift the partial block without consulting me. --Yamla (talk) 00:58, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

This image was selected as picture of the day on the English Wikipedia for September 26, 2041.. Pure vandalism. I've deleted their Filespace page creations. This looks to me like it should be an indef. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:01, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

I'd be interested in hearing what they have to say if they decide to come to ANI. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:38, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

• I just almost did a NOTHERE block after looking at their recent contribs, which have all been reverted, but will leave to a 2nd opinion. Mixing "too early" but not vandalism with redating tags and the like. This person is causing more work for others, and not an asset. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 05:39, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

  Could this be also Wp:CRYSTAL 2A04:7F80:37:24E6:35FA:F7DB:64AA:F70E (talk) 05:50, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Disruptive Editing by Akandkur

For a while now, user Akandkur has been making disruptive edits on a few pages regarding Nickelodeon Movies and some of the films released under the label. The user keeps removing films from the production list or removing the company from the film pages because, despite opening with the NM logo, they feel they don't count because of a few factors and they continue link articles to back up their points. However, for over a year, people have tried explaining to them why they should count. Not just because they open with the logo but other films fit their criteria of what they say shouldn't count but they let them pass anyway simply because they weren't a simultaneous TV/streaming release. We gone through this on several talk pages for film pages, the NM page and even on a few user pages like on theirs, mine and Multiplivision's, with Akandkur even deleting one of their own responses. I even tried to come up with a compromise on more than one occasion but they ignored me and went back to their disruptive editing. No matter how many times we make our point and even back up our arguments, eventually they go right back to removing films once again. Whether or not they think they count as films released under Nickelodeon Movies is up to them but this isn't a personal collection. It's a Wikipedia article. They shouldn't keep picking and choosing and then deciding that their word is gospel.

This is the first time I've made one of these as it's the first time I've come into conflict on this site. I'm hopeful that I did a decent job summarizing this whole affair. I was hoping it didn't have to come to this but I'm very tired of having to deal with this person and after at least a year of other people having to fix their edits or make their case to Akandkur, I don't see any signs of this changing. GatekeeperofCoolness (talk) 16:33, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

It occurred to me that while I provided examples of the talk pages and attempts to talk them down but almost no examples of the disruptive editing other than my own word. So here are examples for Template:Nickelodeon Movies, Dora and the Search for Sol Dorado, Henry Danger: The Movie and most notably, their numerous attempts at removing elements from the List of Nickelodeon Movies productions. The first paragraph of that list's page even mentioning that they include "animated and live-action feature films, shorts, television and internet series, and specials" so their argument that some films shouldn't count because they aired on Nick a few hours after they premiered on streaming is built on shaky ground. GatekeeperofCoolness (talk) 16:58, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Good job, GatekeeperofCoolness, but you forgot to notify the editor of this discussion. There is a code listed at several places on this page. Please do so on your next edit. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:10, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Apologies for that. I have notified them on their talk page. Thank you for letting me know. I will not make that mistake again. GatekeeperofCoolness (talk) 18:47, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

After I notified them about this, Akandkur left this on my talk page. It seems like the issue has now resolved itself and hopefully, we won't have to worry about this in the future. There's a part of me that's surprised by how fast it was resolved after so long but I choose to believe Akandkur that they will do better from now on. GatekeeperofCoolness (talk) 02:12, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

• I am not familiar with the topic area in question, but I have intersected with Akandkur at KTSF. The edits were of low quality with poor English grammar and no sources and have mostly been plowed over because I rewrote the page. Looking at what's been brought up, the problem is simple. We have to write with the sources available. If the sources say Nickelodeon Movies, then that's what we have to go with. It seems like this sort of tendentious editing on the topic of Nickelodeon films and even some other film genres (Indian cinema) has gone on for quite some time. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 19:27, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Images with apparently false featured picture tags applied

• Mikeydoodles96 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Mikeydoodles96 has created a couple dozen local pages for commons images, which have {{FeaturedPicture}} tags on them. Problem is, none of these tags appear to be correct. I asked on their user talk page but they've just gone on creating these. What if anything should be done about this? - MrOllie (talk) 00:50, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Honestly, the problems extend far beyond that. Why do we need Draft:2062 in film? Or Draft:2047 in public domain? And there's a lot of that. A substantial number of their edits are reverted, too. This is looking very much WP:NOTHERE, but perhaps Mikeydoodles96 has a solid explanation. --Yamla (talk) 00:56, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

As their file actions are continuing, I've partially blocked them from the File namespace for a couple of weeks. Hopefully that's enough to grab their attention. This is a regular admin action, any admin is free to lift the partial block without consulting me. --Yamla (talk) 00:58, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

This image was selected as picture of the day on the English Wikipedia for September 26, 2041.. Pure vandalism. I've deleted their Filespace page creations. This looks to me like it should be an indef. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:01, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

I'd be interested in hearing what they have to say if they decide to come to ANI. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:38, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

• I just almost did a NOTHERE block after looking at their recent contribs, which have all been reverted, but will leave to a 2nd opinion. Mixing "too early" but not vandalism with redating tags and the like. This person is causing more work for others, and not an asset. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 05:39, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

  Could this be also Wp:CRYSTAL 2A04:7F80:37:24E6:35FA:F7DB:64AA:F70E (talk) 05:50, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

78.173.66.120

78.173.66.120 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Disruptive editing on National Legal Aid & Defender Association, see [174], unexplained removal on Cessie Alfonso, see [175], [176] and more. Fabvill (Talk to me!) 11:25, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Blocked and protected Cessie Alfonso for a week from more IP abuse. KylieTastic (talk) 11:53, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

User contributions for Kevin truskter - Wikipedia is also clearly related. Some of the edits to the NLADA page are removing content from a recently-added infobox that may not be correct (e.g. this removal seems supported by the NLADA website). 173.79.19.248 (talk) 13:08, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

82.217.77.240

Constant edit warring at Women's National Basketball Association. Keeps adding the same text that has been removed by several editors. Assadzadeh (talk) 13:38, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Buffs, American politics, and climate change

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

---

I've been trying to work with Buffs on July 2025 Central Texas floods, and have a number of concerns with their behavior.

Subjecting sources to a political test, characterizing people as “leftist activists” who push “global warming hysteria”. [177]. This CNN source *was* ultimately rejected by a talkpage RfC, but Buff's unique rationale based on politics seems uniquely bad.

Accuses others of "gaslighting" [178]

Since someone asked, and, yes, Buffs also thinks Bill Nye is a "leftist activist". [179] This seems absurd to me.

Accuses me of "attempting to demonize conservatism through insinuation....Conservatism isn't the problem here." [180] I'm just trying to represent what was in that source. That source seemed to be saying that fiscal conservatism just might be the problem.

Repeatedly adding original research to one particular locus in the article about supposed "restrictions" or "requirements" on the use of ARPA funds, or editorial commentary in Wikivoice on what ARPA funds are supposedly "intended" to be used for, which is commentary not found in sources. Diffs: [181] [182] [183] Just because local residents were "fearing strings were attached to the money" doesn’t mean WP can word things in a manner that indicates the strings are real. This is either a competency problem, or because of ideology they can’t interpret the source accurately. And the source implied that the residents against spending the money were Biden is a Communist people, so why was Buffs seemingly trying to justify their fears in Wikivoice? Source

I started an article talk page thread to try to talk about this [184]. Instead of a productive discussion, Buffs accused me of: OR, SYNTH, Gaslighting, Undue, and AGF. I also made the mistake of using the words "extreme conservatism" in that thread, and Buffs latched onto that as "OR" and "hyperpartisanship" as if I were going to put that verbiage in the article, which I clearly wasn’t. I'm not sure that Buffs understood I was just using the words "extreme conservatism" on the talk page, or maybe that didn't matter to them since it was another rhetorical cudgel. They also made some political arguments in that thread that had no relevance to content, defending Kerr County officials for not spending money on a flood warning system. But I'm not here to argue about politics, I'm here to figure out what sources say about politics. I find it’s just not possible to discuss content with Buffs.

I also tried a thread on their user talk [185] and Buffs continued to deny misrepresenting the source, and I was accused of having a political agenda, and wikihounding, and gaslighting, being condescending, and being rude. And brought up my "extreme conservatism" talkpage comment again. I'm not sure "extreme conservatism" was inappropriate, given that the source [186] was quoting anonymous residents who said things like, "I’m here to ask this court today to send this money back to the Biden administration, which I consider to be the most criminal treasonous communist (sic) government ever to hold the White House", that does seem extremely conservative to me, and I don't think saying so on a talk page would be provocative to most people. I'm a little concerned that Buffs finds it offensive to label that "extreme conservatism" in a talk page discussion.

Calls climate change a logical fallacy, because it used to be called global warming, and that’s "moving the goalposts". [187] That's climate denialist nonsense that makes it hard for me to assume good faith.

Posts anti-DEI rants on the article talkpage. [188]. This kind of political grandstanding about a black fire chief allegedly being a DEI hire [189] and defending Charlie Kirk’s statements about that seems problematic and, again, is an AGF problem. Why is this even posted on a talk page?

I have the impression that Buffs has political opinions that are too strong for them to edit neutrally, that they are unable to discuss content without seeing it as an attack, and perhaps is here to POV-push.

I have some doubts about whether ANI or AE is the correct venue for this complaint. Climate change and AP2 are both CTOPs, or whatever it is that old ARBCOm cases are called now, but I'm not sure there are specific remedies to be enforced. Geogene (talk) 06:15, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Frankly, both of you have communicated with each other in a way that has brought a lot more heat than light in your exchanges. Buffs does appear to be too quick to add political labels to things and has been rude where de-escalation would have been appropriate, but you appear to be guilty of basically the same kinds of things.

For example, it's clear to me when reading that, in the case of the ARPA funds edits, the opinion was properly attributed to the citizens. Rather than working on wording that would have better expressed it was an opinion expressed by some of the local citizens, you bludgeoned Buffs with WP:OR charges, even though that wasn't really appropriate either. We attribute documented beliefs to people all the time if it is sourced.

I agree that the DEI stuff was real WP:FORUM and definitely concerning; things like this would have to be far better sourced. But it's also not completely out of bounds to refer to Bill Nye, at least as an activist; he's taken a leadership role in a political advocacy group and has actively campaigned for politicians and advocated specific legislation proposed in Congress. Whether the causes are just or not isn't really here or there; a characterization of him being an activist is not an unfair one to take.

I'm not sure anything if there's anything sanctionable here. I'd honestly suggest both you and Buffs take some time away from this topic before there is. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 06:48, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

It did eventually occur to me that that should be an attributed POV. [190]. Geogene (talk) 07:19, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

I think AE might be the more appropriate forum. This comment is like one gigantic paragraph and AE imposes order on complaints so they are organized and easier to follow. Since it also deals with this subject, it might be a better fit. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:50, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, this really should go to WP:AE, where structure and word count limits can be imposed. I don't think I can make you to do that, so I won't close this discussion. I will say, though, that if this stays open, it's likely to turn into a wall of text full of political bickering. If this doesn't get moved over to AE, and it does turn into a political bicker fest, I'm putting this warning here now. Anyone who, in my opinion, violates Wikipedia decorum will be partially blocked from ANI. This includes bludgeoning, uncivil behavior, etc. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:42, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

I agree with others. Please bring this to AE. voorts (talk/contributions) 12:57, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Please take this to AE. Some pretty offensive racial stuff in there (equality is a pipedream apparently, sorry non-whites?). Our admins here are really hesitant to step into culture wars. AE is slower, but may do something. 166.205.97.37 (talk) 14:02, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eugenio Sena

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eugenio Sena (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I was going through the delsort on the football AfDs and this one seems very odd, HypothesisNull is a new account created, edits the article first to PROD and then sends it to AfD, there is a new account Robertogiulio1988 created to specifically goto this AfD to take part?? Are these two accounts one person?? Maybe an admin can review? I don't know if a check-user is needed. I have no qualms against the article being deleted, it's just the process here, they way it's been done! Regards, Govvy (talk) 08:26, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

If you believe there's sockpuppetry afoot, WP:SPI is thataway. → - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:44, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

HypothesisNull wants the article to be deleted, and Robertogiulio1988 is arguing for the article to be kept. They're SPAs, sure, but I don't see them being sockpuppets unless I'm missing something here. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 08:57, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

It's more likely than you'd think, alas. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:07, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Govvy,

Let me clarify: I came across one article that struck me as clearly non-encyclopedic in nature. I usually am just a lurker on Wikipedia (and a passionate one, at that), but I decided to seize this opportunity and so I opened an account, initiated a discussion and carefully reviewed each cited source, referencing relevant Wikipedia policies. I learned a bit on how Wikipedia works and I would happily continue contributing to it, in the future.

As for my sole contribution up to now, I would like to think that my comments were detailed and policy-based, aimed at reaching neutrality. Shortly after I proposed the article for deletion - a motion that received support from several other users - a newly created account began opposing the deletion in a markedly emotional and subjective manner. This user described the subject, whose most notable managerial role is with a team currently in the lower ranks of Georgia’s second division, as “one of the most talented and young Italian coaches” and suggested that dissenting opinions stem from a lack of football knowledge.

Interestingly, this isn’t the first time the page has shown signs of being closely monitored. In the past, there were attempts to insert highly adulatory content, further suggesting a pattern of self-promotion.

I believe maintaining Wikipedia’s standards of neutrality and verifiability is essential, and I hope this comment clarifies what happened. HypothesisNull (talk) 13:23, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Odds and ends, something still smells off, I posted to this venue because I thought maybe an admin might have an insight into this type of behaviour. Still smacks of WP:DUCKS to me. Govvy (talk) 15:55, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Govvy,

Could you please clarify what you're suggesting here? As @ChildrenWillListen rightly pointed out, the account you referenced earlier is actually *opposing* the deletion proposal I initiated. *All* the accounts who support it are well established and have been on Wikipedia for quite a while. If I were operating a sockpuppet, I think I would make sure it supports my positions instead of actively opposing them - don't you think?

I’ve tried to keep my contributions focused on policy and sourcing, and I welcome scrutiny of my edits. If there’s something specific that seems off, I’d appreciate it if you could point it out directly so we can address it constructively.

Thanks! HypothesisNull (talk) 16:05, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Please don't use AI tools to communicate. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 17:02, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

If I were operating a sockpuppet, I think I would make sure it supports my positions instead of actively opposing them - don't you think? Well yes, but actually no, or at least not necessarily. Not saying one way or the other here, but noting that "opposing the other putitive sock" isn't a smoking gun against it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:07, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

First of all, I’m not using "AI tools" to communicate. I simply prefer to take the time to carefully review and refine my comments before posting, rather than doing it impulsively. It’s unfortunate that clear grammar and structured reasoning are now seen as the domain of machines instead of humans.

That said, please feel free to conduct any checks you deem necessary. You have my full permission to verify that the other account is not connected to me in any way.

Let me add something: I would suggest all of you to take a look at the latest comments in the AFD - particularly those posted from an IP address based in Georgia who previously modified the article in question with an extremely enthusiastic and promotional tone and is arguing against its deletion using the same tone, grammar and style as the account "Robertogiulio1988". HypothesisNull (talk) 09:53, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

If you have accusations of sockpuppetry, go to SPI. Also, LLMs usually have more signs than grammar or 'structured reasoning' such as markdown for one 37.186.46.28 (talk) 10:34, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Your only edits so far all involve deleting Eugenio Sena. It is generally unusual for new editors to want to delete a particular article. If you have a financial stake or a personal conflict of interest in this matter, you must declare it. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 18:06, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Request for assistance regarding a situation with User:Go D. Usopp

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

---

I have a concern regarding editor Go D. Usopp. In the past, both reported to ANI by different situations, that were resolved.

My recent problem is with his latest message on the talk page topic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sokoban#Reverse_mode,_question_for_newcomers_in_the_subject

His message consists of two parts: the opening sentence - "Please read WP:LLM for every edit you've made with help from LLMs." - which is impractical, followed by a second part, which focuses on sourcing rather than directly addressing my questions about clarity and understandability.

My concern is primarily with the opening sentence, as it diverts the discussion away from the topic on the talk page.

Maybe is poorly choose wording.

I want to bring the talk page discussion back on track. I'm hoping an administrator could remove or collapse these comments so the discussion can refocus on improving the article.

Also, I would appreciate feedback so I can continue improving the article (this is the last section I'm working on, and the article is currently class B.

The specific message is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sokoban&oldid=1304100536

I wish to continue contributing productively and hope that discussions remain focused on the topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carloseow (talk • contribs) 07:11, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Remember WP:AGF. I was not discouraging you from using LLM assistance in this specific case in bad faith, just reminding you to observe the specific guideline I mentioned previously (which is simply to disclose all LLM use in edit summaries). Go D. Usopp (talk) 07:20, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

> just reminding you to observe the specific guideline

why did you consider it necessary? Carloseow (talk) 19:27, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

@Go D. Usopp Regarding your reminder of WP:AGF, I commented 'Maybe is poorly choose wording' it reveals good faith. My complaint is not about your intent, but about the result of the message, particularly in the opening sentence, shifted the discussion away from the topic. Carloseow (talk) 20:16, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

This seems to be a bit of a frivolous complaint, considering 1. It’s just one message not even a WP:PA 2. You seem the one exaggerating here a bit and thirdly LLMs can hallucinate and using it to proofread could lead to additional information you didn't add but the LLM subtly included 2A04:7F80:37:24E6:B097:1276:3E2D:6D68 (talk) 07:27, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

ANI is for urgent problems, policy-violating behavior. I don't think this complaint belongs as ANI because it seems like the OP just doesn't like the "tone" of the message and there is nothing here that is contradiction to actual guidelines. Please only bring "chronic, intractable behavior issues" to ANI. Otherwise, try actually engaging with the other editor (i.e. talking to them). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:34, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for the feedback. While tone plays a role, the main concern is the specific opening phrase: "read WP:LLM for every edit you've made with help from LLMs".

This reads as a broad retroactive directive that may be interpreted as "review all your past edits" or "re-read the policy as many times as LLMs were used", thus impractical or confusing.

Rewording or removing that part would help. As written, it's unexpectedly worded, it disrupted the discussion.

Because the article's talk page was used to give unsolicited overly personal advice ("read WP:LLM for every edit you've made"), which would have been more appropriate on my user talk page, and did not address the original question, it disrupted the discussion.

I hope the talk page topic stays focused on feedback about the text, not on broader discussions about LLM usage.

Thanks for comments. Carloseow (talk) 14:29, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

I appreciate your perspective, but I don't share it. I consider my concern to be genuine. As for LLMs, I use them only to proofread my own text, and I am always careful to review and correct the results before posting. Write to my user page if you want to talk more about it. Carloseow (talk) 20:28, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

It is absolutely frivolous, especially when you claimed that the other user did not answer your question, but you both saw his response of On your question, we do not add fan-made content without sufficient significant coverage from third-party sources outside the community, even if the community seems to be really active but you also responded to it.

And discussing relevant policy with an editor is not even remotely "personal." This should be withdrawn. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 21:59, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello. I'd like to clarify the record.

There were two specific questions asked in the talk page topic, which was titled "Reverse mode, question for newcomers in the subject". The questions were:

"Is this text understandable for a reader unfamiliar with Sokoban, or does it leave significant unanswered questions?"

"I have a draft revision (created from scratch by me and polished with LLM and reviewed by me) and would like to ask for feedback from new readers — is it more understandable than the current version?"

The other editor's reply, "we do not add fan-made content without sufficient significant coverage", did not address these questions. While it's good as a reminder that content requires sources, this was off-topic and did not provide the requested feedback.

Regarding the comment that discussing a relevant policy is not personal, I agree. However, in this specific case, the off-topic reminder did not directly relate to the question asked. The phrase "read WP:LLM for every edit you've made" was an impractical and overly broad directive. It was this unexpected phrasing that I considered personal, as it was not related to the content of the discussion. Carloseow (talk) 23:04, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

That I considered personal That you, considered personal. It wasn't. The other editor's reply did, indeed, address the issue questioned about. I'd suggest you drop the stick and move on. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:18, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello, thanks. I still don't believe my question about what text was easy to understand was addressed, but I have presented my case. Thank you to all who have commented and shared their perspectives. Carloseow (talk) 23:49, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Please may I ask if the off claim read WP:LLM for every edit you've made with help from LLMs falls into WP:INDCRIT in the sense of Avoid [...] making indirect criticism when you are writing in edit comments and talk pages. Write clearly, plainly, and concisely, and do so in a way that allows other editors to easily respond to you. (Edited), in my original message I mistakenly quoted from the proposal version: Out of respect for other editors, criticism of another's edit, [...] ought to be made clearly, directly, and explicitly in a manner that may be easily understood and replied to, but the current says mostly the same.

It could be interpreted as implying noncompliance without evidence (which may raise WP:ASPERSIONS concerns), and is phrased in a way that is difficult to understand or respond to.

Could it be possible to remove that reply and my subsequent comments to it from the talk page so the discussion can be reworded or restarted more constructively? Since the topic title says "a question for newcomers," I think it would be better to avoid such messages on the talk page. Carloseow (talk) 18:20, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

@The Bushranger, please, per WP:STAYONTOPIC which states that Comments that are plainly irrelevant are subject to archiving or removal would be possible to remove in the talk page the phrase "Please read WP:LLM for every edit you've made with help from LLMs." and related comments? Carloseow (talk) 19:08, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

I got an ANI notification about this because I declined a related CSD. I'm too on vacation to dig into this, if anyone needs to undo an action of mine at any point feel free to do so without consulting me. Rusalkii (talk) 15:24, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

@Carloseow, do not substantially revise your comments after they have been responded to. See WP:TALK#REVISE. You can fix spelling errors and such, but do not reword or change your comments.

As stated by others above, there is nothing actionable here. Do not try to read more into someone else’s comment to you than was actually there—that’s part of assuming good faith. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:47, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

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

User:T Yorke reported by User:Mvcg66b3r

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

Persistent addition of copyrighted material at Boblo Island Amusement Park. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 17:53, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

My previous edit only included a few sentences of facts from the source material. I don't understand what else needs to be done to add the information @Mvcg66b3r. T Yorke (talk) 17:58, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Those are still copyrighted and unattributed, whether it be a few sentences or 5 paragraphs. Tenshi! (Talk page) 18:11, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

OK, I will find a different source then @Tenshi Hinanawi. T Yorke (talk) 18:17, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

@T Yorke You seem to fundamentally misunderstand copyright. It is very likely that a different source will also be copyrighted. qcne (talk) 18:25, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

The page has information and sources from newspapers. I was going to add information from a newspaper. Are you saying that information like that will also be copyrighted @Qcne? T Yorke (talk) 18:34, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Yes: if you add verbatim text from a newspaper without attribution, you are breaking copyright. Please read Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. qcne (talk) 18:40, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

It will not be verbatim text or without attribution since the newspaper article has the author listed @Qcne. T Yorke (talk) 18:47, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

@T Yorke Do not reproduce copyrighted text on Wikipedia. Close paraphrasing without in-text attribution is a copyright violation. qcne (talk) 18:52, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

It will not be reproduced copyrighted text or close paraphrasing without in-text attribution either @Qcne. T Yorke (talk) 19:54, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. qcne (talk) 19:56, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

User:LineBoyd reported by User:Mvcg66b3r

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

---

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

Non-contributor's misuse of Wikipedia as a web host (see [191]); userspace pages for fictional cartoons, TV channels and highways. Also spamming on their own talk page. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:58, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Tagged for speedy deletion. Ahri Boy (talk) 10:39, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

This user just took the speedy tag off User:LineBoyd/Sandbox/KLHB-DT. I just put it back on. They're also posting contested deletion tags on most pages. We got a WP:NOTHERE situation on our hands. @Sammi Brie: Mvcg66b3r (talk) 15:05, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Not Here, DE. Regardless, I've INDEFfed. Star Mississippi 15:17, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Should all their subpage copies of articles not be deleted per WP:COPIES? Many have been tagged as G3 hoaxes or U5s neither of which ring true, but as WP:COPIES says such copies should only exist short-term. Maybe G2 as tests or G6 for some uncontroversial cleanup be more appropriate? KylieTastic (talk) 16:10, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm about to log off @KylieTastic so don't have time to do this unfortunately. Star Mississippi 16:19, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm happy to do the cleanup just wondering whet reason was valid as I'm aware the speedy reports are building up. And sorry I did hit reply but I did not really expect you to do it more a general question. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 16:23, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Rangeblock

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

---

Looking at Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of EnglishDude98 there are two ranges here - one beginning 2A02:C7C:E529:E800 and one beginning 2A06:5902:180C:5800. Please can somebody who knows what they are doing review and implement range blocks if appropriate? This is a long term disruptive editor. GiantSnowman 18:27, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

• Both /64 ranges dealt with for 3 months. But this is a very big range (it's Sky Broadband) and it would be unsurprising if the editor did not pop up again soon. Black Kite (talk) 18:34, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

  OK, thanks, much appreciated - I've been tracking them on regular articles (DUCK) and not noticed any others. GiantSnowman 18:37, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Harassment by User:PradaSaetiew

I am writing to report persistent harassment from User:PradaSaetiew. This user has been engaging in disruptive behavior towards me, including:

Edit warring/Reverts

• [Diff link 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Restaurant_War_Thailand&action=history ]
• [Diff link 2: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Porapat_Srikajorndecha&action=history]
• [Diff link 3: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wanpiya_Oamsinnoppakul&action=history]
• [Diff link 4: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pariit_Thimthong&action=history]

I request administrator review and intervention to stop this disruptive pattern of editing.

Thank you. Tomarzig (talk) 14:24, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

@Tomarzig you need to notify them on their talk page that there is an ANI discussion about them. Stockhausenfan (talk) 15:02, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

PradaSaetiew deleted his talk page including the welcome wiki message. Is there any other way you can suggest? Personally, I think that even if you go to the talk page, nothing will change. Tomarzig (talk) 15:28, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

I have notified them now. Tomarzig, the series of edits here in PradaSaetiew's talk page history is problematic; please have a look at WP:UP#CMT and don't restore messages against the will of users who have removed them from their own talk page. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:50, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Removing a user talk page message is considered an acknowledgement of receipt so there’s nothing you need to worry here. Northern Moonlight 15:56, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello PradaSaetiew, you seem to have followed Tomarzig around to revert their edits; is this correct and why? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:59, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Looks to me like it's just separating out an automatic undo edit summary from their actual commentary. Responding to a comment that was deleted instead of stricken. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:04, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

I didn’t want to followed to undo his edits, I just edit on pages that I’m interested in, and some page that I see some details without source, every edits i give a reason, so it’s him that try to followed to undo my edits on English page The Face Thailand season 6 because he’s angry me that edited on this page he was built and then followed me to undo my other edits on The Face Thailand, and then followed to undo my other edits on Thai articles for The Face Thailand and The Face Thailand season 6, Then he didn’t stop and try to harassment me on my own talk page by undo messages that i was deleted, you can check. PradaSaetiew (talk) 13:21, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello Tomarzig, regarding the first diff ([192]), if someone removes content as "unsourced", the burden is on you to provide a citation that directly supports the material, and such removals are not "spam", which has an entirely different meaning. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:59, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

@Tomarzig it’s not harassment, every edit i give the reason, so you try to spam the colors on The Face Thailand, The Face Thailand season 6 and other seasons both in Thai and English pages many times. And you followed to undo my edits many times on both Thai and English pages too.

And on 01:20, 27 July 2025 in your edit on The Face Thailand contributions page you was said really bad words to me in Thai “สแปมพ่xมึxสิ ใช้โทนเดียวกันหมด มึxเป็นไรห่xอะไรมากไหมเอาแต่ตัวเอง” it was full of Profanities and really Harassment and Bullying me and Against Wikipedia Rules, but just no one on English pages understand it because you wrote Profanities words in Thai on English pages. English Admins can ask Thai Admins what it’s means.

And you try to harassment me 3 times on my personal talk page by try to undo some of massage that I was deleted long time ago, and act like try to asked me as why I deleted it. So it’s my personal talk page and i can delete it if i want, it’s not your page or I didn’t delete messages on your talk page. I don’t have to tell you the reason or explain it to you before i delete if i want to delete any messages on my talk page, and you can’t undo messages on my own talk page by your behavior. Anyway Thai admin ever told that in personal talk page the owner can delete it if they want.

• for The Restaurant War Thailand I deleted the end date of the season because it’s Unsourced and it’s future situation not finish now yet, so if it’s finished can add the date soon with source.

• for Porapat Srikajorndecha, Wanpiya Oamsinnoppakul and Pariit Thimthong I rewrite it as “Television series” to “Television” because it’s Thai Drama on TV. not series, and i saw every Thai Actor or Actress’s English pages we use “Television” not “Television series”, so this editor trying to edit and change it to “Television series“ for some of Thai actor/actress pages. we can check other famous Thai Actor/Actress in English pages, on their pages we use “Television” for their “Drama on TV”. because it’s “Drama on TV.” not “Series on TV.”

• And for Wanpiya Oamsinnoppakul I deleted her high detail because it’s Unsourced about her high too, I still believe that good articles on Wikipedia should have reference and sources.

I know that you’re angry me that i was edited on The Face Thailand season 6 you was build, because i’m a fan of this TV. show, so it’s true that you build some of English pages but every editors on Wikipedia can edit the page that your build by yourself, not only you who can edit it and English pages that your build is not your personal page.--PradaSaetiew (talk) 16:37, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

• For anyone interested, Diff/1302696870: the edit summary "สแปมพ่อมึงสิ ใช้โทนเดียวกันหมด มึงเป็นไรห่าอะไรมากไหมเอาแต่ตัวเอง", according to Google Translate and QuillBot Translate, roughly translates to "Spam your father! You use the same tone for everything. What the hell is wrong with you? Are you just self-centered?" — DVRTed (Talk) 16:59, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

@DVRTed Hi, I think this translation is not 100% correct, because this translated it’s so polite. Maybe should ask Thai Admin who’re good in English because it’s Profanities and really Harassment and Bullying word in Thai and it’s Thai Slang, so Google translate can’t correct it. Something like พ่อมึxงสิ and มึxงเป็นไรห่x. Thank you.--PradaSaetiew (talk) 17:09, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

@Tomarzig Can you translate the words ”พ่อมึxงสิ” and ”มึxงเป็นไรห่xไร” in English for English Admins? Thank you.--PradaSaetiew (talk) 17:55, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

@PradaSaetiew I'm not an admin, but here it is: พ่อมึxงสิ means "Your father!" while มึxงเป็นไรห่xไร' means "What's wrong with you?" in English. Fabvill (Talk to me!) 13:40, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

• Reviewing the diffs and the context surrounding them, it seems like there's been some back-and-forth testiness and lack of assuming good faith. As far as I can see, the improper accusations of "spam" began with PradaSaetiew (Special:Diff/1302498373, although they've also made similar edit summaries in response to other editors in the past, e.g. Special:Diff/1300110885, so it's not strictly limited to this personalized dispute). Beyond the sub-par edit summaries, however, I'm not sure I see anything that adds up to harassment or hounding: the main crux of the dispute here seems to be a content dispute across multiple closely related articles that both editors seem to have good-faith interest in. I can't read Thai, but based on context I can certainly understand that the Thai comments were some form of personal attack, which in this context means that Tomarzig cedes the moral high ground that they otherwise may have held here. I'm not seeing a cause for immediate sanctions against either editor provided that both sides stop misusing accusations of spam and other personal attacks, and would recommend that they take steps to resolve the content disputes (largely over color-scheme and heading wording as far as I can see) either among themselves or with recourse to a WP:DR process. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:36, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

@Fabvill Hi, the correct meaning of this sentence it’s not same that you’re translated. I was said already that Google Translate or an online translate can’t correct for Thai Profanity and Insult slang words.--PradaSaetiew (talk) 15:47, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

@PradaSaetiew, DVRTed was right. The correct translation for the words พ่อมึxงสิ and มึxงเป็นไรห่x according to Google Translate, Quillbot, and other translators are Your father! and What's wrong with you?. As a result, these two are generally not considered as Thai profanity and Thai insult slang words. Fabvill (Talk to me!) 12:10, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

@Rosguill He started to followed me to undo my edits after i was edited on page The Face Thailand season 6 that he built it, he was so angry that i edited on English pages that he built. And then he always followed to undo my edits on The Face Thailand and The Face Thailand season 6 both in Thai and English Wikipedia, and then he try to undo old messages on my personal talk page that i was deleted it long time ago, 3 times.

For The Face Thailand season 6, 5 and 4 page’s TV. Infobox I was deleted the color to original Infobox’s color because every season of The Face Thailand we use original Infobox’s color, didn’t decorated the Infobox with other color for the articles.

And for Praveenar Singh I deleted the result to TBA because the 2025 competition it’s not finished yet, just started yesterday, but her fan edited the result for her as the winner. Thank you.--PradaSaetiew (talk) 16:09, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

@Tomarzig Can you translate the words ”พ่อมึxงสิ” and ”มึxงเป็นไรห่xไร” in English for English Admins please? And all Thai sentence that you said to me please, Because you’re Thai and I see you’re fluent in English, but I’m just not good in English, so I can’t explain for the real correct meaning from Thai to English.--PradaSaetiew (talk) 16:16, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

To English Admins, I would like to explain about real correct meaning of this Thai sentence "สแปมพ่xมึxสิ ใช้โทนเดียวกันหมด มึxเป็นไรห่xอะไรมากไหมเอาแต่ตัวเอง" with sources from Thai’s English teachers channels, that’s it doesn’t means “Your Father, Your Dad” and not “What wrong with you”. Because I’m just not good in English. But I can’t reply my explanation here because after I publish my reply with sources and real meaning in English here the system said that I can’t publish them.

Maybe because my reply it’s full of English Profanity, Insult and Hate speech words from the meaning, and I added some of Link from the sources that Thai English teachers who’re teaching and explain this Thai sentence, Profanity and Insult words to English from their Fackbook, Instagram, Tiktok and YouTube channels. How I can explain with Links from the Sources here. Thank you.--PradaSaetiew (talk) 16:49, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

As a non-admin, สแปมพ่xมึxสิ ใช้โทนเดียวกันหมด มึxเป็นไรห่xอะไรมากไหมเอาแต่ตัวเอง means Spam, you're all using the same color scheme. What's wrong with you? You're just being selfish. in English according to Google Translate. Fabvill (Talk to me!) 12:30, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

• Note: If you don't know the real meaning of these Thai words/sentences, just use Google Translate and Quillbot instead. This will help understand the speaker to avoid prior confusion. Fabvill (Talk to me!) 12:36, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

@Fabvill All your translated are wrong meaning, you translated Profanity, Insults and Hate speech sentence to polite sentence. I ever explained to you and other editors already that Google Translate or Quillbot can’t translate Thai Profanity and Insult Slang words correctly, why you don’t understand.--PradaSaetiew (talk) 13:14, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

I don't think that this is an important tangent. I've already acknowledged that Tomarzig's comments in Thai amount to a personal attack. In English we have a very similar construction, Your mom. And I can easily imagine that what's been translated as What's wrong with you was probably more like What the fuck is wrong with you. To be honest, as a community we care less about profanity than we care about general civility, and the comment is already uncivil even if we don't consider it to include profanity. I already pointed out in my comment above that both of you need to disengage from the accusations of spam, other insults, and reverts, and proceed to resolve the content disputes through discussion on a talk page. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 13:29, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Your mom??? Where did you learn your snappy comebacks -- from Leave It to Beaver? EEng 20:19, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Nah, it was Shakespeare. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:55, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

EEng, I think the only thing I can say to you here is (Redacted) _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:41, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Hey, I just thought of something -- we're always redacting things, but what about dacting them? Doesn't anyone do any dacting around here? EEng 03:28, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

TrruthPrevails editing disruptively and communicating only with LLMs.

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

---

TrruthPrevails (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been editing tendentiously at Advance (lobby group) – among other things they want to remove paragraph about an exposé about propaganda published in two newspapers of record. They added false claims and obviously POV text. There's plenty more tendentious editing at that article from this user; just look at the page history.

The user defends their POV-pushing with edit summaries claiming they're supporting WP:NPOV. ([193]) Note that in that diff they also introduce WP:SYNTH by implying the lobby group impacted the Greens. The lobby group is not mentioned The Guardian article.

When confronted on their talk page, the user adds blocks of LLM text which have had to be hatted. ([194], [195])

The user should be blocked indefinitely, as these are their only contributions as of this comment, so they are clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. (@Gommeh, LakesideMiners, Epsilon.Prota, and ChildrenWillListen:) Cremastra (talk · contribs) 18:19, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

I agree the person is NOTHERE. Namely, they appear to have zero to no ability to edit collaboratively, as stated by WP:NOTHERE: The following may indicate a user is not here to build an encyclopedia: [...] Extreme lack of interest in working constructively and cooperatively with the community where the views of other users may differ; extreme lack of interest in heeding others' legitimate concerns. As much as I would not have used the word "confronted" there myself, their responses on their talk page mean to me that they interpret the findings of the Australian Electoral Commission as definite truth even though they're not necessarily always independent and/or primary (I haven't looked at the sources in question). Gommeh 🎮 18:34, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Given the user's continued vendor-style edits without reliable sources, lack of meaningful engagement, and what appears to be AI-generated responses that don't address the concerns raised, I suggest a temporary block or editing restriction to prevent further disruption during this ongoing ANI discussion. Goku from bd (talk) 18:37, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

You mean, block them temporarily while we're talking about them, and then determine what block to give them? That sounds too complicated. Let them respond here if they want to; however, I think they should be indeffed. (remember "indefinite" is not "infinite") Cremastra (talk · contribs) 18:41, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Agreed, Based on the pattern, an indef block makes sense here. Appreciate the input. Goku from bd (talk) 18:43, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Sadly I have to agree here - an indef block would probably be the best course of action. The user has to learn to make constructive, neutral edits without the use of AI. If TrruthPrevails shows they can do that, then we can always welcome them back later. For right now though, let's at least give them a chance to explain themselves. Gommeh 🎮 18:47, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Agree with indef block in this case - in general I would be more inclined to support a targeted editing restriction in cases of POV-pushing, but the displayed lack of interest in communicating with other editors suggests this may not be effiective in encouraging constructive edits. Epsilon.Prota ^talk 22:30, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Yes. Their use of AI after they were asked not to suggests that an editing restriction may not be enough as well. Gommeh 🎮 22:34, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Unfortunately, a name like "TrruthPrevails" suggests a WP:RGW mentality, and as other editors mention, WP:NOTHERE behavior. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 22:34, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

They posted more AI slop in response to this report. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 00:07, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

equest to update outdated AEC reference

The current sentence in the article reads:

As of 2019 Advance Australia's independence had not been tested by the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) in the same manner as similar lobby groups.

This statement is now outdated, incomplete, and potentially misleading, as Advance’s status and reporting obligations have since been formally established and documented by the AEC.

Proposed updated text:

Advance (formerly Advance Australia) is registered with the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) as a Significant Third Party and is subject to financial disclosure requirements under the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918. As a Significant Third Party, Advance must lodge annual financial disclosure returns covering donations, receipts, debts, and electoral expenditure. For example, in 2023–24 Advance reported total receipts of A$15,676,823, total payments of A$13,014,688, and electoral expenditure of A$297,378. The AEC also conducts compliance reviews; in 2021–22 it confirmed Advance’s compliance with transparency requirements and foreign donation rules after amendments were made to its initial disclosure.

Rationale:

WP:V – The updated wording is based on verifiable, official data from the AEC transparency register.

WP:NPOV – The change removes any implication of non-compliance or lack of scrutiny without evidence, replacing it with factual, up-to-date information.

WP:UNDUE – Retaining the 2019 statement gives undue weight to an outdated situation that no longer reflects Advance’s actual regulatory status.

WP:RS – All figures and statements are drawn from primary AEC records and Advance’s own public disclosures.

This is not an interpretation or opinion — it is a factual correction to reflect the current, verifiable regulatory position. TrruthPrevails (talk) 00:13, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

References

I'd be in support of a indef as there are clearly here to right great wrongs LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 23:06, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

	Text generated by a large language model (LLM) or similar tool has been collapsed per relevant Wikipedia guidelines. LLM-generated arguments should be excluded from assessments of consensus.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
TrruthPrevails rejects the suggestion that their edits to Advance (lobby group) were disruptive or politically motivated. All contributions were made in good faith, using reliable sources and with the aim of improving accuracy and balance in line with core Wikipedia policies, particularly WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:RS. Where the subject’s own statements were included, they were clearly attributed. Allegations of adding “false claims” or “synthesis” are disputed. Any references to election outcomes or campaign impacts were based on published sources, and if wording unintentionally implied more than the sources support, TrruthPrevails is willing to adjust it. These are content disputes, not reasons for an indefinite block. It is true that some research (AEC) was assisted by AI tools, but all material was reviewed, fact-checked, and edited before posting. AI use is not prohibited under current policy so long as the editor takes responsibility for the final text, which has been the case here. TrruthPrevails also wishes to note a pattern of multiple editors reverting contributions without substantive, policy-based explanations and without prior discussion. The repeated, coordinated nature of these reversions creates a hostile editing environment and can have the effect of suppressing well-sourced, policy-compliant material. This feels less like normal content review and more like targeted editing to preserve one perspective, which undermines WP:CONSENSUS and the collaborative process. From TrruthPrevails’ perspective, this situation has become a test case for whether free expression of differing but verifiable viewpoints can survive in a collaborative encyclopedia. At present, the experience suggests that the process is not functioning well, as coordinated opposition appears to be preventing neutral and balanced updates from remaining in the article. The editor has invited discussion on talk pages and is willing to: Re-word disputed text to address concerns, Limit changes to those agreed upon through discussion, and Use formal dispute resolution mechanisms where needed. This matter should be treated as a content disagreement rather than a conduct issue. Indefinite blocks are appropriate for editors unwilling to work within policy; TrruthPrevails has shown willingness to engage constructively and seeks a collaborative resolution TrruthPrevails (talk) 00:09, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

@TrruthPrevails Please don't use AI tools such as ChatGPT to communicate. That's not doing you any good. Use your own words to explain what's going on and we might be able to help. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 00:11, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Testing TrruthPrevails (talk) 00:14, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Yes? Cremastra (talk · contribs) 00:34, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

TrruthPrevails, why do you talk of yourself in the third person, as if you are someone else? Generally, people use "I" language not "name" when talking about their own actions and opinions. This makes it look like you are using an LLM to compose a response instead of your own words. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:37, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi - we are a large community group and subject to bullying online -happy to use I if that helps you. TrruthPrevails (talk) 00:41, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi @TrruthPrevails, I gather you are a group of people representing Advance. In that case, you should understand that we have strict policies about conflicts of interest – pretty standard stuff, and I'm sure you understand all about conflicts of interest if you're a lobby group. Basically, you're strongly discouraged against editing your own article; instead, you can post requested edits on the talk page.

We at Wikipedia also have a policy against accounts being controlled by more than one person (and similarly against one person controlling more than one account). It's like one man, one vote: you get one account per person, no sharing.

Hope this clears things up for you. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 00:48, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi Cremastra,

We want to make it absolutely clear that we are not a group representing Advance - such assumptions are not helpful. This account is operated on behalf of a community group focused on accuracy, neutrality, and free speech in public information spaces, including Wikipedia. Our recent contributions to Advance (lobby group) were aimed solely at correcting outdated or misleading statements — specifically the 2019 claim about the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) “not testing” Advance’s independence. That statement is now factually obsolete. Our proposed update relied entirely on publicly available, verifiable AEC records and complied with WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:RS. We believe the focus should be on whether the content itself meets Wikipedia’s content policies, not on assumptions about the identity or affiliations of the contributor. Suggesting a conflict of interest without evidence shifts attention away from the accuracy and neutrality of the article, and risks becoming a form of failure to assume good faith and personalising a content dispute. For the record this account represents one community group, operated in compliance with Wikipedia’s account-use policies. Our edits have been transparently sourced and open to discussion on the talk page. We ask that editors engage with the substance of the official AEC reference update and other proposed changes on policy grounds, rather than seeking to discredit contributors by association. Bullying or intimidation of editors — particularly over unfounded assumptions about their identity — undermines the collaborative environment Wikipedia depends upon.

— TrruthPrevails (talk) TrruthPrevails (talk) 01:00, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

They claim that their account is controlled by multiple people here. I would support indef at this point. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 00:41, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

	Text generated by a large language model (LLM) or similar tool has been collapsed per relevant Wikipedia guidelines. LLM-generated arguments should be excluded from assessments of consensus.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
== Allegations of Disruptive Editing / COI – Request for Administrator Review == This report concerns allegations made against the account TrruthPrevails in relation to edits on the Advance (lobby group) article. 1. Nature of the edits TrruthPrevails has been updating outdated and incomplete content in the article, particularly replacing the 2019 AEC reference with up-to-date, verifiable data from the Australian Electoral Commission’s transparency register. The proposed wording is factual, neutral, and supported by primary AEC sources, in accordance with: WP:V – Verifiable with reliable, official data. WP:NPOV – Avoids unsupported implications of non-compliance. WP:RS – Sources include AEC public records and official disclosures. 2. Allegations made Several editors have alleged that the account: Is pushing a political point of view. Is controlled by multiple people. Represents the lobby group Advance. Uses AI to generate content. 3. Refutation The account is operated by a single designated editor. While the editor belongs to a community group concerned with accuracy and free speech, there is no organisational connection to Advance. The “we” used in discussion posts refers to that community perspective, not to multiple editors controlling the account. All content added is fact-checked, neutrally phrased, and based on reliable sources. The issue at hand is a content dispute — specifically whether the current AEC statement should reflect 2019 conditions or current, verifiable data. This is not a conduct or COI matter. AI tools have occasionally assisted with research, but the editor takes full responsibility for the final wording. This is not prohibited by policy when used appropriately. 4. Concerns about process There appears to be a pattern of multiple editors reverting sourced contributions without engaging first on the talk page, followed by coordinated conduct accusations. This creates a hostile environment and risks suppressing accurate, policy-compliant updates. 5. Request That administrators: Confirm there is no policy breach in replacing outdated material with accurate, sourced content. Address any COI concerns through normal disclosure and talk-page request processes. Remind all involved editors to seek WP:CONSENSUS through discussion rather than repeated reversions. This matter should be resolved as a content dispute, not escalated to indefinite block proposals. The editor is willing to re-word, discuss, and follow dispute resolution where needed.

TrruthPrevails (talk) 01:03, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

I have off-wiki obligations not to engage with the subject matter here. May I suggest that the article be locked until the question about paid editing I added here be answered? Thanks. Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 02:03, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely for WP:NOSHARE and obvious LLM abuse. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 03:02, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Alex_21, intervention regarding WP:BLUDGEON on Doctor Who-related RM discussions

Alex_21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The articles for Doctor Who series' 14 & 15 have been subject to several RMs over the last two years regarding the naming of them, invariably reaching a conclusion of "No Consensus" each time. However as these have gone on the user's behaviour has become more and more bludgeoning to the point I believe is actively worsening discussions.

As can be seen in each of the now closed RMs[196][197][198], there's been a growing tendency to reply under a growing percentage of those who take the opposite view (namely those Opposed to moving the articles to a new name), and with a tone that can only be described as at times incredibly patronising ("So, it's not actually part of any policy? That's a shame, that's what most arguments need to be based on, RM's especially. The policy on article titles states that, yes, it should be based on the consensus of sources - and in the lack of that, the consensus of editors. Do I need to repeat the above quote? I can bold it for you"[199]).

To better exemplify this issue, at the latest version of the current RM[200], despite it being open for less than four days they have already replied under 5 of the 6 people of the opposite viewpoint, even stating in their initial contribution they view all potential Oppose votes as invalid (there is no other reason not to move the article, other than "I don't like it"[201]).

They also seem incapable of stopping themselves from doing this. In the previous RM at Series 15 on May 8 this year they explicitly state I was legitimately trying to avoid this talk page any further, since it seems to blow up every time, but this was an insane argument.[202] only to then proceed to keep getting heavily involved in these discussions in the same manner as before.

As a result of all this, I now believe the only way to resolve this behaviour is admin intervention. Rambling Rambler (talk) 01:21, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

My apologies if you have viewed my tone as patronizing; viewing discussions over a screen can certainly distort intended meanings. I agree that I have a firm view on the topic at hand, as does every other editor involved, and they can definitely clash.

I added a comment earlier this morning (in my timezone) summarizing the !votes that were given in the current discussion, and how they lack the usage of sources, guidelines and policies. Indeed, one very detailed thread in the active RM is using fan-sites to give support to their meaning; I only intend to educate on the usage of proper, reliable sources. Another examples of my comments have been to make the details of WP:NCTV clear, having been heavily involved in my contributions to that project and relevant WikiProject for over a decade now. Could I perhaps do that at the talk page of NCTV, to avoid inflating the discussion? I could certainly consider that.

Official discussions such as RM's, RFC's, etc. need to be grounded in Wikipedia's core policies. My only intention has ever been to abide by that. No intervention is necessary here; if you'd agree, a discussion section could be opened up, to invite proper discussion and analysis of sources and the expectations's of Wikipedia's core. This would allow the RM to flow more easily. -- Alex_21 _TALK 01:33, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

@Alex 21 To be quite honest, as I have said to you previously over this same issue I really think the best way you could help this RM topic reach a consensus isn't by offering what you see as guidance, even at a different forum, but to simply take no further part. You've made your position on the content issue clear but if you take a look at WP:BLUDGEON (in particular "dealing with being accused of bludgeoning the process") you are matching it wholesale when it comes to this issue at this point.

You are now replying to basically everyone who takes a different view to yours, you keep pointing out how you regard those of that viewpoint to effectively boil down to "I don't like it", you keep effectively pestering people for more exact evidence over and over as it's never good enough to satisfy you, and by your own admission can't seemingly help yourself but engage even when you try not to. This can also be seen in how this attitude bled over into you opening a Move Review into the previous RM closure[203] where you seemed to mostly just rehash the RM and vent about all the ways you saw it as policy not being followed, only for everyone uninvolved who left a comment endorsing the RM as closed appropriately.

You are simply too invested in this issue to maintain a healthy distance to it and see that what you may think as helping or educating instead comes off as Luke Rattigan shouting "I'm cleverer than you". Rambling Rambler (talk) 02:11, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

• Alex 21, in these discussions, would you agree to put forward your opinion and not comment or critique other editors' opinions even if they are in opposition to your own? I can see where that behavior would quickly become tiresome to other editors. Promising this means not "correcting" other editors when they put forth views you disagree with. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:13, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

  I could certainly do that. It's not the fact that they oppose the RM, that's not what has been targeted here, it's the necessary information being given relating to the relevant guidelines and policies. As an administrator, I do ask, would it be considered critiquing if I request a user not use fansites to support their arguments? What of misinterpreted policies? I'm absolutely happy to remain in line with other editor and discuss civilly and collaboratively while still adding positively to the discussion.

  There's a big difference between contributing positively, and another editor recommending that I do not contribute to the discussion at all. That will help nobody. To also be told by the above editor that following procedure correctly (i.e. the move review) was also unaccetable feels like I'm being directed in my every step on Wikipedia on what they believe I can and cannot do (I have no idea who Luke Rattigan is). Like I said - happy to abide by whatever you recommend here, while still contributing. -- Alex_21 _TALK 02:24, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

  Just adding onto this, I have continued in the discussion with this reply; the responding editor replied in kind, showing that there's no animosity in the discussion at all. I'm sure to point out that they asked me direct questions, so I provided direct responses. I hope this would be within an acceptable frame of responding, as the reply was directly to myself. Please do correct me if this would be considered out of line. Thanks. -- Alex_21 _TALK 05:25, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

  I have not looked that closely at the RM but generally there's no reason to repeat an argument five times. You already said 'there is no other reason not to move the article, other than "I don't like it".' so I guess you've already made an argument so compelling that there isn't even any real need to continue to monitor the RM. Just wait for it to end and it will be closed with consensus on whatever side your arguing on. To be clear, I'm serious here and not being facetious. Consensus is not simply a vote count but instead a discussion trying to find which side is supported by our policies and guidelines. So if you're sure of what you said, then you should also be reasonably sure consensus will be on your side in the end since whatever anyone else says, it's irrelevant. In the event the closer makes a mistake in closing, you can bring challenge the close in an appropriate manner. There's no need to challenge everyone who makes an argument which isn't supported by our policies and guidelines. Any competent closer having read what you said earlier perhaps along with anyone else arguing on your side, should see you're right. In cases where you're less sure of your argument and so you don't say what you said here, it might be okay to continue to monitor the RM (or whatever discussion) to reply if someone say something which raises a point you did not previously consider, to help you understand the point they are making perhaps as part of reconsidering your !vote. Or sometimes if they say something you did not address previously but you feel is wrong, to challenge them in a limited fashion. Note you still only have to do this once. Having said it once even if someone else makes the same point there's no need to challenge it again. Nil Einne (talk) 08:54, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

  I can see where you're coming from.

  I try my best to recommend the relevant policies applicable, as I believe Wikipedia should stick to its core policies whenever possible, rather than basing this website on our opinions. I absolutely agree that "consensus is not simply a vote", and that I can "challenge the close in an appropriate manner", and while it's great to hear those ideas from you and I try to stick to that idea as much as possible, it's disheartening when the opposite happens - that is exactly why we're at this current RM, because the last RM was closed based on simply counting votes, and I did indeed challenge it at MR. However, despite following the correct order as you've suggested, me doing that was listed in the opening statement above as another grievance. (I do hope that me detailing these events will not be further taken as a grievance by any editor that disagrees with my procedure there.)

  We can only abide by Wikipedia's guidelines as much as the next person, and deal with the situation if it becomes to difficult to follow that. I'll be sure to follow any advice that recommends I ease up on that, to allow editors to provide personal opinions to further Wikipedia's content, rather than try to force points they may not be aware of.

  I can refrain further from commenting on other's !votes, and if I have anything further to add to my own !vote, I'll happily simply add it to my original comment as an addition or ammendement. -- Alex_21 _TALK 10:54, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

  I have attempted to hide my extended comments in good faith to allow the discussion to continue, but have been reverted. -- Alex_21 _TALK 11:10, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

New Boy666

New Boy666 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)

This user has received numerous final warnings, including last week for vandalism. On 29 July, they moved a dozen Moroccan soccer-related pages to "anglicized" titles with no explanation, and at least once (twice rather [204][205]) against explicit consensus. It seems to me like they should be blocked for disruptive editing. JBchrch talk 08:58, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

There's a cut-paste mess on the Mohammed V Stadium one. I don't have the ability to fix it right now. Sennecaster (Chat) 10:48, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

I have begun to fix it [206][207] and have requested a technical move back to the consensual title [208]. JBchrch talk 12:41, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

I've just performed the technical back to last consensus. TarnishedPath^talk 12:53, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Edit warring by user "True narrator"

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

---

True narrator (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

A new account, True narrator is edit warring against multiple users and causing major disruption on practically every article they edit. They got reverted because their additions were unsourced, and after multiple requests by different users (such as here, on their talk page, and numerous times in the edit comments of the reverts), they start to add sources, which, however, only tend to cover one claim they add, but not the rest. They continue to edit war [209] even after two warnings on their talk page that they must not edit war and may be reported on this page when continuing; these warnings came not from me but from two different users. Jens Lallensack (talk) 06:07, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, this user is indeed just doing edit war. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 06:55, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

again since when did i edited arctotherium again? and apologies for not providing every source i am new to wikipedia True narrator (talk) 08:34, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Since when we talked about Arctotherium article here? Link shown is Daeodon. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 09:10, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

i have provided source for arctodus size and yet that 1000 kg estimate is a speculation based on visual comparisons True narrator (talk) 09:23, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

In addition, this user is also causing copyright violation. See c:User talk:True narrator, two images they uploaded for article was uploaded from non-free website, and after that I warned about that in talk page. But they did again.[210][211], this image is apparently "uploaded from Reddit". Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 09:13, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

that image might be from reddit but it is free to use True narrator (talk) 11:25, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

It is not. Read c:Commons:Licensing. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 11:33, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Sorry but i cant access the website True narrator (talk) 13:38, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

my apologies for that True narrator (talk) 13:41, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

• User is continuing edit warring on Daeodon: [212]. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:22, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

  can you please tell whats the problem with my edit? why are you reverting it without mentioning the problem? True narrator (talk) 11:27, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

  You have to read and understand Wikipedia:Edit warring. If someone disagrees with your addition and reverts you (and it does not even matter who is right), you must not revert back but open a discussion on the article talk page to convince others that your proposed addition improves the article, and not add it back to the article until such consensus is reached. On Daeodon, you just now added your info back again, after already having been reverted six (!) times. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:36, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

  i have fixed all the problems which were the cause of the disagreement added a reliable source fixed grammer and evenn more if you still think theres an error then please tell me and i dont think anyone who would read my current edit would revert it back True narrator (talk) 13:40, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

  This user claims that there are no papers that estimate the weight of Daeodon, and tries to show its weight by comparing it with Arctodus, which has a similar shoulder height. However, considering that the two are completely unrelated animals with very different body shapes, this is completely WP:OR. The paper cited in the Entelodontidae article[213] clearly states: "750 kg or more (large male Dinohyus hollandi)". Dinohyus is synonym of Daeodon. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 15:09, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

  again the study doesnt cite any study as a reference that puts daeodon at 750 kg and yet arctodus and daeodon might be unrelated with daeodon having slender legs but daeodon was. Bulky and was robustly built since it was related to hippos and whales and arctodus on the other hand had a leaner built

  They had similiar height with daeodon exceeding it in both height and lenght

  And yet in WP:OR it is stated you should not inculd any analysis out of your own i only inculded a speculation True narrator (talk) 17:08, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

  Well, you just reverted again, now for the seventh time in the same article (Daeodon), continuing your edit war despite multiple editors asking you to stop many times. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:14, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

  Again whats the problem???? You guys need to understand that i just fixed all the errors and mistakes True narrator (talk) 17:27, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

  Analysis, educated guess, speculation, all of that is original research. We don't care what you (or I) think about our subjects. We're here to summarize what reliable sources have published about them.

  Reliable sources, on the other hand, are able to do original research or analysis. They don't have to show their work or cite their sources, either. Woodroar (talk) 17:17, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

  Okey pal just remove that 1000 kg guess then also that 750 kg estimate has no reliable source to be proven. True narrator (talk) 17:26, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

  @Acroterion beat me to it. You're blocked from Daeodon for a week for edit warring. Original research is unacceptable here. Please read WP:OR carefully. You are also showing ownership behavior and personal attacks in your edit summaries. Please read WP:NPA and WP:OWN. If you continue down this path, you may completely lose your editing privileges here. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:32, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

• True narrator (talk · contribs) blocked from Daeodon for a week for edit-warring. True narrator, if you keep adding unsourced content and edit-warring, the next block will be longer and more extensive. Acroterion (talk) 17:31, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Ahmedreza72718

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

---

Ahmedreza72718 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This editor has a history of personal attacks (check warnings talkpage) and this new message on my talkpage[214]. Semsûrî (talk) 10:51, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

You keep editing pages without a source ur a pan kurd making up fake history and when i rewrite it showing the truth you edit it back without any sources Ahmedreza72718 (talk) 11:02, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

 Blocked Ahmedreza72718 indefinitely for disruptive editing. — Newslinger talk 12:12, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. Can you redact his inappropiate edits here?[215] Semsûrî (talk) 12:21, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

 Done for the maternal insult. I'm not familiar enough with the topic area to determine whether the other edit qualifies for the criteria for revision deletion. ​— Newslinger talk 12:32, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

That's fine. Thank you. Semsûrî (talk) 12:32, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

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

185.215.34.88

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

---

• 185.215.34.88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Reverted an edit that was political vandalism on "Found a Peanut", calling Israelis... I'm not going to repeat it here. 108.160.120.113 (talk) 06:16, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Edit was three days ago. No action to be taken (and at this point, posting here only calls attention to it). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:33, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Rambling_Rambler

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

---

• Rambling Rambler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ROSA (organisation) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User has a history of targeting Socialist/Trotskyist political pages for AfD or reverting edits and engaging in edit wars on aforementioned pages. Claims to be "slowly clear-up Trotskyist pages the last few years." because they "attempt to reform their image" They've been warned against continuing to target the specific page ROSA, but their history shows at least a year long bias against Trotskyist pages specifically.

"I got distracted by trying to deal with the BLP violations getting put on multiple articles regarding sexual misconduct allegations (including ROSA) and then it was locked. Once the page protection is over the plan is to put it to AfD and try to work out how best to deal with ROSA as a subject given it's got relevancy to multiple articles."

All evidence to support these claims can be found on their User Page history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.65.190.67 (talk) 16:11, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

IP editor, I have added some links, it would also be helpful to add some diffs, see Wikipedia:Simplest diff guide. TSventon (talk) 16:26, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=International_Socialist_Alternative&oldid=1304200836

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ROSA_(organisation)&oldid=1303929928

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ROSA_(organisation)&oldid=1303931881

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Socialist_Party_(Ireland)&oldid=1303942177

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ROSA_(organisation)&oldid=1303946218

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ROSA_(organisation)&oldid=1304358299

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Asilvering#Further_issues_related_to_IP_user_on_Socialist_Party_(Ireland)

=1305022817 188.65.190.67 (talk) 16:36, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

To whoever looks at this, 188.65.190.67 was earlier on this week blocked following the ANI discussion Edit warring on Socialist Party (Ireland) and related pages. What started as a content dispute saw them escalate to repeated harassment of myself and they were banned for 31 hours as a result of this.

They then proceeded to lose access to their talk page after making repeated unblock requests that made remarks about the conduct of various admins[216]

They have now returned under this same IP and 217.75.5.71 to dispute the same content where they started off by stating how they'll just re-insert the disputed content and report anyone who removes it,[18] and have since made further remarks about myself and how my conduct is "malicious"[19][20][21]

I have raised this with the admin who initially blocked them.[217]

This report is basically further harassment from this user, so please dismiss and block accordingly. Rambling Rambler (talk) 16:27, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

@Asilvering tagging for your awareness. Rambling Rambler (talk) 16:28, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

In all other regards to the conduct of involved parties in discussion on this matter, both here and on other pages, please see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith , https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers , https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:HUSH&redirect=no, and lastly "IP users and registered users are considered equal in status; Discrimination between the two is frowned upon when it comes to conduct and online behavior. This is wikiquette for ensuring healthy project contributions." https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:IPHOPPER&redirect=no

Additionally it is not "harrasment" to address inappropriate actions made against me. To claim otherwise is extremely abusive behavior in itself, as it shields abusers from accountability. See "Discussion of behavior in an appropriate forum (e.g. user's talk page or Wikipedia noticeboard) does not in itself constitute a personal attack." My attempts to address this in more appropriate forums such as user talk pages were suppressed by the parties addressed. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:NOPA&redirect=no , https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Playing_the_victim , and

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/DARVO .

If I am continually blocked from editing, especially on my own page to prevent my appeal attempts, by any currently involved admins; without any attempt at discussion, warning, or accountability for all parties involved; all relevant parties will be reported for violation of blocking policy and harrasment. There has been a serious, consistent, lack of accountability and impartiality in regards to the conduct of all involved parties and admins on this matter.

An involved admin went so far as to say this is regards to my block appeal -

"Decline reason:

Contrary to your comment at ANI, you have no "rights" on Wikipedia - you have privileges. When you violate the policies and guidelines that grant you those privileges, they are revoked - as was appropriately done here."

This assertion, being contextually grossly abusive rhetoric on it's own merit, is refuted by "As current policy stands, unregistered users have the same rights as registered users to participate in the writing of Wikipedia (with the exception of certain protected pages)." https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:IPHUMAN&redirect=no

See also https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:BLOCKNO&redirect=no , https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:NOPUNISH&redirect=no , https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:HUSH&redirect=no , and "Blocking for harassment" under https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:HARASS&redirect=no .

It is very disappointing and discouraging to have seen and experienced this conduct, especially by involved admins. In my view it paints Wikipedia as a whole in a bad light, and makes me question it's reliability and impartiality. Especially as it's often the main source of information provided to anyone researching a topic online, even moreso with AI generated topic search summaries.

Again, see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers , but also https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:IPHUMAN&redirect=no . 188.65.190.67 (talk) 16:38, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:188.65.190.67&oldid=1303932489

User engaged in harassment by sending me these superfluous warnings for combating their reverts. 188.65.190.67 (talk) 16:41, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Im done engaging with this user. They clearly have an issue with Trotskyist pages and are fine with engaging in abuse to revert any meaningful contributions to them. 188.65.190.67 (talk) 16:44, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

As someone involved in this debate, as well as someone with some personal knowledge on the subject, I'd have to suggest that if Wikipedia articles on Trotskyist groups are getting special attention, it is because they very frequently deserve it. Far too many are far too dependent on primary sources, and a good few fail to demonstrate the level of coverage in independent sources necessary to demonstrate notability. Some are a disjointed mess. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:14, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

As someone with first hand experience on how Trotskyist groups operate; due to their often extreme positions and subsequent repression by governments, they tend to be very secretive. And independent sources often don't have much of a reason to report on their activities, or have access to accurate details regarding their activities. 188.65.190.67 (talk) 17:17, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

That's their problem, not ours. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:21, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump their response also suggests a possible COI may be present, saying they have "first hand experience". Rambling Rambler (talk) 17:24, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Their problem? I don't even support Trotskyism, but to say they aren't notable or don't deserve inclusion on Wikipedia is a somewhat jarring position to have. People deserve to know they exist and what they are/do, even if independent sources are hard to come by. 188.65.190.67 (talk) 17:24, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

People deserve to know they exist and what they are/do, even if independent sources are hard to come by

This is literally the opposite of how notability on Wikipedia works. Rambling Rambler (talk) 17:27, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:28, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

• As an admin who was and is uninvolved, both in my decline of your previous unblock request and now, as my only involvement in this has been adminisrative: you're not just done engaging with this user, you're also done editing Wikipedia for awhile, since upon the expiration of your previous block you returned and went back to the exact same conduct that got you blocked before. Blocked both 188.65.190.67 and 217.75.5.71 for two weeks. I've left talk page access open for now, but given their conduct after their previous block, an eye should be kept on it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:27, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

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

2600:1700:7A50:9C0:90AF:6E84:560F:3811

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

---

• 2600:1700:7A50:9C0:90AF:6E84:560F:3811 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Can an admin please block this IP? Looks like some combination of disruption, trolling, and frivolous requests. Left guide (talk) 00:14, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/2600:1700:7A50:9C0:0:0:0:0/64 blocked 31 hours. Johnuniq (talk) 02:09, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

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

JazzyOxygen and LLM use

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

---

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

To date, JazzyOxygen has created eight articles. The second and most blatantly LLM-generated one (Jobs to Be Done – see first revision) was originally created in article space, and I moved it to draft space after they confirmed in a user talk page discussion that it was LLM-generated. Although JazzyOxygen said that they do not recall creating any other LLM-generated articles, I'm not sure if that is the case and I'm asking for more opinions.

Specifically, JazzyOxygen's first revision to the article Agentic web (Special:Permalink/1296595657) cites a number of sources that do not verify the article content. For example, this cited Engadget article does not verify the article paragraph about "educational" and "Healthcare" use cases, and it is unclear how this Indian Express article has anything to do with how agents "help customers discover optimal deals". When I asked JazzyOxygen about two of these discrepancies, they said that the Engadget citation was a mistake and should have been this Wall Street Journal article. However, while the WSJ article mentions healthcare, it does not mention education. It seems like the Agentic web article was generated by an LLM that incorporated unverified content into its output.

The first revisions of JazzyOxygen's other articles also show some signs of possible LLM use (e.g. in the section headings), although not as clearly as these first two. Additionally, JazzyOxygen started editing by making a bit over 500 "newcomer task" suggested edits and requesting the new page reviewer permission (which requires 500 article space edits), then creating the LLM-generated Jobs to Be Done article in mainspace the same day the request was declined; I found the timing of this to be peculiar.

Does this editing pattern warrant any kind of response? — Newslinger talk 23:43, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

There's more than enough evidence to suggest they're an undisclosed paid editor. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 00:20, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

(Redacted) Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 00:55, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

You've picked things up quickly. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 01:01, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

I've lurked here for a while, but yes, it's obvious when someone's only trying to superficially contribute versus do it because they actually want to. There are some more signs, but I would rather not discuss about them publicly per WP:BEANS. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 01:09, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Yes, it does warrant response. If they're persisting in creating LLM-generated articles they should be blocked from mainspace. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 00:39, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

I have nominated Agentic web for G15 based on the evidence provided here. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 00:43, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Update: Sohom Datta has WP:BLARed the article by redirecting it to Agentic AI. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 01:27, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

More a merge, but yeah. Sohom (talk) 01:32, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Welp, that was quick. Don't worry about me contesting it and trying to improve it. Thanks. JazzyOxygen (talk) 01:35, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

@JazzyOxygen, you are welcomed to improve the more condensed section about agentic web on the Agentic AI. For what it's worth, I'm sufficiently familiar with that area to say that there is not enough at this time to create a non-stub article. Sohom (talk) 01:40, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm currently being accused of being a paid editor so I'll pass. JazzyOxygen (talk) 01:46, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Frustrating. I am not a paid editor. Not sure what I can do to prove to you otherwise? I have indeed admitted to using an LLM on some of my articles and I don’t claim to be an A+ editor like you all are. I’m also aware that using LLMs are discouraged but not against the rules.

I thought the ethos of this community was to build upon and improve? I’m not vandalizing and I’m not spamming I’m trying to make the place better and fill in gaps that need filling.

What would you all like me to do moving forward? According to my “pattens” I cannot apply to help even work on any newcomer articles? I’m at a loss. JazzyOxygen (talk) 01:04, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

I have two suggestions for you:

1. Please do not use LLMs to generate articles. Their outputs usually have many problems that cause them to run afoul of Wikipedia guidelines. If you haven't, I would suggest reading (or re-reading) WP:LLM.
2. Repeatedly denying allegations is likely to make other editors more suspicious of you.

Thanks, SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 01:18, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

1. Yes I understand that now. I have read it, but will read it again.
2. Okay, but I'm also not going say I'm getting paid to do this when I'm not. Or say I have some sort of vested interest in random people, topics, and theoretical frameworks when I don't.

So how can I prove to you that I'm not a paid editor? Perhaps go super deep into a single topic and never come back? When I first started this, I thought the idea was to get things started and then people would come in behind me and improve upon my work? As I previously said to Newslinger, when I come across topics I find interesting, I try to get something started for the community to see it get built upon by others. One of the example I used was an entrepreneur who has built two very large companies that already have their own Wikipedia pages. His name was even listed in the info box on both company pages. It's not unreasonable to think a type of guy like that should have his own page. I understand it wasn't good enough now and will work to improve it if you all don't immediately delete it like the last one. JazzyOxygen (talk) 01:49, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

You should not edit with the idea that you can make lots of errors - especially the kind of sourcing errors LLM tools produce - and that someone else will come along and fix or improve it later. Make your best effort to get it right the first time, that's all anyone expects. MrOllie (talk) 01:56, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Okay JazzyOxygen (talk) 01:59, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, all that we're asking is that you be careful when editing, especially if you are using LLMs. I don't think that you're a paid editor; other editors may think so, but I think the best thing to do in this scenario is to just move on and let it go. Using LLMs to get ideas and such is perfectly fine, provided that you carefully check all the references and text to make sure that is acceptable for Wikipedia; since it is usually not, I would recommend just writing articles yourself if you can. Thank you for your contributions! SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 03:38, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

LLMs are more trouble than they're worth because they lie pathologically and their content needs to be checked. Far easier to just write stuff yourself. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 03:40, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. I think an admin should close this discussion since it seems the issues have been resolved. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 03:44, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi JazzyOxygen, a large part of the problem with your LLM use is that it was undisclosed. After originally saying that you don't recall using an LLM for more than one article, you are now saying here that you have used an LLM on multiple articles. If any of your other article creations contain LLM-generated text, a big step toward transparency would be to disclose on the corresponding talk pages of those articles that you used an LLM to assist with editing the article. As WP:LLMDISCLOSE (part of WP:LLM) states, "Every edit that incorporates LLM output should be marked as LLM-assisted by identifying the name and, if possible, version of the AI in the edit summary. This applies to all namespaces." I also recommend against using LLM outputs for editing, but if you disregard our advice to avoid using LLM outputs, the bare minimum expectation is that you properly disclose every single one of your LLM-assisted edits and ensure that they do not violate any content policies, including the verifiability policy.

Regarding your two requests for the new page reviewer permission on 19 June and on 7 July, please keep in mind that the 500 edits in article space are only a minimum requirement. New page patrol involves identifying and correctly handling promotional content and sourcing issues, and at this point, I believe you would need to gain additional experience in these areas before qualifying for the permission. For instance, when I said that phrases such as "focus on performance, security, and customer support" and "focused on long-term vision, product innovation" in your created article Jason Cohen (entrepreneur) were promotional, that was intended to be constructive advice to help you recognize (and hopefully correct) that promotional content.

As for what "to do moving forward", I recommend that you submit your new articles as drafts through the Articles for Creation (AfC) process to ensure that they are thoroughly reviewed, instead of publishing them directly into article space. AfC reviewers are there to help catch any issues that would get your article deleted or merged, so that you would be less likely to run into problems after publication. — Newslinger talk 06:43, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Okay JazzyOxygen (talk) 12:41, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

• The way things are going, LLMs will be the death of Wikipedia. The only defensible use case for them (on Wikipedia) is grammar-checking and so on, but the marginal benefit of allowing that particular use is nothing compared to the overwhelming existential threat posed by opening the door to the flood of horseshit already being heaped upon us by people who are incompetent to edit and think using an LLM turns them into a useful contributor. If someone can't contribute usefully without an LLM, then they're also not able to properly review LLM-generated material so as not to post garbage to our articles and discussions. We are wasting more and more time, here at ANI and elsewhere, dealing with such people, and I challenge anyone to show me the benefit we reap from it. We should be forbidding all LLM use, period. (That's step 1; step 2 is figuring out how to do that.) EEng 17:56, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

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

User:OCDD 31 July 2025

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

---

User:OCDD has received many warnings for many different reasons. Recently moved a page and provided no evidence it was the WP:PRIMARYNAME, have persistently failed to comply with copyright policy, and have created a bunch of redirects that are being disruptive (Basically ones that get deleted speedily or via discussion shortly after). After reverting TBD medals on Cricketers which violated WP:CRYSTAL, they immediately reverted and kept edit warring. Very important to bring up that they have also persistently uploaded non free files (Which violate United States copyright law which applies to all Wikipedia editors regardless of location) and refused to comply with Wikipedia Policies like they believe they are immune from these policies. They also have a history of removal of content (Like shortening from X National Team to simply National Team. X represents whatever national team it is), and recently removed at fair amount of content on Anahat Singh without a providing valid reason for removal. You can look at their page talk history. A lot is from me, but a lot is also from other editors regarding many non free files. Servite et contribuere (talk) 23:22, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Servite et contribuere. Please provide diffs that demonstrate the problems that you say exist. Don't expect other editors to go looking for evidence to support your claims. This is part of your job, opening this complaint, and laying out a compelling case that is understandable to other editors if you want action to be taken. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:42, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Liz Oh. Thanks for that notice! Here are some: [218] (Basically the ones that I reverted). I should provide more. Sorry! Understood! Servite et contribuere (talk) 01:17, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

You don't have to apologize to me, I hope you understand that posting insufficient information means that it is unlikely that other editors will respond. If a lack of response doesn't bother you, then it doesn't make any difference. But if you want action to be taken, you should make it easy for other editors to follow your line of argument. So, this really falls on you and how urgent you think this isssue is. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:24, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Liz The current talk page has a lot of notifications of copyright. To prior revisions, there are so many issues. Here are just some of them: [219], [220],[221], [222], [223], [224], [225], [226], [227], [228] (I went to the version before archive because I accidentally gave a notice to the wrong user), [229], [230], [231], [232], [233], [234], [235], [236], [237], [238], [239], [240], [241]. I went to a lot of effort to provide all this evidence. It doesn't have to be a block now, but whatever the next block is, I think it should be indefinite. Servite et contribuere (talk) 09:04, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

I can tell this took a substantial amount of time and effort on your part. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:42, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

I'd like to mention that this user has been creepily stalking me for weeks. Reverting EVERY edit I make even about topics they know nothing about. They deleted pages claiming they were season 2 pages when they were about a reboot show and not about the second season of a show. They list redirects for deletion without checking and use false reasons for it. It's like a routine: open up my edits and go about reverting them using random excuses and keep reverting them. The obsession is sickly. They revert page moves without checking that they were correct. The sources are all over the page but they don't do the job of checking them but of course the wrong revert has to be made because this is specifically targeted behavior. OCDD (talk) 08:19, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

They listed a redirect for deletion claiming it was not at the source page even though it was. This was nothing new. They have done such mistakes many times in the past. Reverted things without checking, making false assumptions and making mistakes because they simply wanted to revert EVERYTHING instead of checking. And then they removed my comment from the archive. This is blatant envy and targeting. OCDD (talk) 08:20, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

OCDD But I corrected my mistake on that redirect. And the mistakes you think I have made have only been from your experiences. If you look at my history, you will see I have a long history of discussion which you seem to have a problem with. I have told you if you don't want me looking at your contributions, you should probably change the way you edit and stop edit warring. Looking back, I have not reverted every single one of your edits. Most I have not reverted recently. You need to stop your unexplained removal. Unfortunately, I think it is too late. Servite et contribuere (talk) 08:35, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

• Comment both the users have been blocked for edit warring (Servite for 1 day, OCDD for 2 weeks)- so I don't think this requires any further action at this time? If OCDD does continue with this behaviour, then this can be reported again in future. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:29, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

  Whatever the content issues, repeatedly calling other editors creeps is not on. TarnishedPath^talk 10:33, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Aqsalsaputra

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

---

Aqsalsaputra (talk · contribs) - this user has a LONG history of adding unsourced content to BLPs, one previous block in 2023, and a user page littered with warnings. They have never responded and continue to make unsourced changes. I think we need a longer block. GiantSnowman 17:55, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Talk page edits: none. Supporting a (possibly provisionally indefinite) block for failure to communicate and the above reason. 2600:1012:A024:21CA:4689:AE31:E7E4:87BC (talk) 02:24, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Still doing it! GiantSnowman 17:45, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

An editor since 2020 who has never edited a page in Talk or User talk. That's not good at all. Pblocked indef from articlespace due to consistent unreferenced additions to BLPs and failure to WP:COMMUNICATE. Once they start communicating and agree to change the problematic editing behavior, anyone can unblock. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:05, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! GiantSnowman 20:25, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Ces.althea162003

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

---

Ces.althea162003 (talk · contribs) has been inserting multiple hoaxes and vandalising Philippines-related film and BLP articles by inserting made-up films derived from their user page. [242] [243] [244] [245] [246] [247] [248] [249]. Borgenland (talk) 12:13, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

WP:AIV is there. Ahri Boy (talk) 03:12, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked from article space unless/until they communicate. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:48, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

I filed one but given the tendency of that site to backlog I filed it here and had the AIV deleted. Borgenland (talk) 04:44, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Also noting that they recreated their userpage that had been deleted for abusive purposes and other G10 behavior. Borgenland (talk) 04:45, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Now just indeffed. They have had plenty of opportunity to communicate and have chosen not to. Moving on... -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:22, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

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

User:Bender the Bot is malfunctioning

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

---

• Bender the Bot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This bot generates invalid URLs, at least in Special:Diff/1305071787, where the http → https change yields SSL_ERROR_BAD_CERT_DOMAIN for infocenter.arm.com. The change summary is also incorrect: it mentions SourceForge, but this isn't. — Vincent Lefèvre (talk) 22:40, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

@bender235 voorts (talk/contributions) 22:49, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

@Vincent Lefèvre: are there any other errors or is that it? I'm not going to shut down a bot for a single error. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:50, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

I don't know, but I noticed that in Special:Diff/1305077849, the bot also changes a non-SourceForge URL, still with a summary "HTTP to HTTPS for SourceForge" (no errors for this one, though). So, if it changes arbitrary http URLs without checking, this is very wrong. — Vincent Lefèvre (talk) 22:57, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Special:Diff/1305078896 has a http://notepad-plus.sourceforge.net/uk/download.php URL but the bot changes another one. — Vincent Lefèvre (talk) 23:01, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Special:Diff/1305079077 is similar: the bot identifies a line with a sourceforge.net URL, but it changes the first URL, whatever it is. The bot is very broken (bad greedy regexp?). — Vincent Lefèvre (talk) 23:04, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

I've blocked the bot for now. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:04, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

I also notified bender235. Please notify bot operators when you report their bot at AN/I. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:05, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Hm, can't really explain why Special:Diff/1305071787 happened. As the summary said, the run was supposed to find SourceForge links and fix them. The Regex was: find (?<!/)http://(.*\.)?sourceforge\.net/ and replace with https://$1sourceforge.net/, so I'm as surprised as you that it changed http://infocenter.arm.com/.... I will look through the changelog to see if any other URLs where erroneously changed. --bender235 (talk) 23:14, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Maybe you should change .* to [^/]* — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:16, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

I agree. .* is greedy so will match across URLs. — Vincent Lefèvre (talk) 23:17, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

You're right, didn't think of these edge cases. My bad. I went through the last 200 edits and found 7 erroneous edits (fixed them). Will go through the rest. Thanks for pulling the plug on the bot in this case. --bender235 (talk) 23:31, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

.* is greedy and dangerous. I'd avoid it whenever possible. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 00:04, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

(This is one of those situations where I have to remind myself that even though I find them terrifying, plenty of people actually find swimming, hot sauce and maths enjoyable.) Umm, so in regular expressions, * is "greedy" because it matches too many things, yeah? Can someone explain why it is also "dangerous"? Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 03:52, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

.* is dangerous when using it in an automated task, because . matches anything and the * zero or more operator won’t stop until it would otherwise fail the following parts of the regex. This is bound to give unanticipated results when used with real text. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 04:05, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

People often assume it will stop when the following part of the expression first matches, but it won’t stop until it finds the last match of the following part. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 04:11, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Yes, when a line can contain multiple expressions you want to match, a regexp of the form prefix.*suffix is generally incorrect because prefix will match the prefix in the first expression, suffix will match the suffix in the last expression, and .* will match everything between. — Vincent Lefèvre (talk) 12:56, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Went through all ~2000 bot edits with a fine comb, found about 100 erroneous HTTP/S changes and reverted them. Took about four hours, so lesson has definitely been learned! --bender235 (talk) 04:02, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Good to unblock? voorts (talk/contributions) 04:09, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, that'd be great. --bender235 (talk) 17:34, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your conscientiousness in the cleaning up, Bender235. ♫ Bender is great! Oh, Bender is great! ♫ SnowRise ^{let's rap} 05:12, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Appreciated. --bender235 (talk) 17:34, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

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

WP:CIVIL block request for User:Geogene

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

---

I have repeatedly asked for User:Geogene to leave my talk page and he continues to post grievance after grievance. At this point, I am asking for a block. He is not my personal conscience and has no justification to continue to harangue and hound me per WP:CIVIL.

"If that's all you're going to do, leave." Responds with a litany of complaints based on half truths and out-of-context remarks; some are outright lies

ask to stop #2 Continues #2

ask to stop #3 (put it in edit summary too) Continues #3

Buffs (talk) 21:02, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Support IBAN at this point both of you have been noticeably uncivil and disruptive to each other. ^EF⁵ 21:04, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Your original remark was far more telling but I didn't have time to respond before you changed your remarks. I'm not "pinning" anything on Geo other than his repeated remarks on my talk page. On that page we've found a generally found a detente despite minor changes here and there. That's a normal part of the editing process. He didn't have to my user talk page; he chose to do so repeatedly despite being asked to stop. Buffs (talk) 22:02, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

“Far more telling”? Really? I edited my comment because I realized it was inaccurate. What, exactly, is the issue with that? And don’t use past revisions of edited comments as if they’re the most recent revision; there’s a reason they’ve been edited. ^EF⁵ 22:14, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Remarks struck accordingly based on that explanation. Didn't realize how short lived it was (in hindsight, I should have checked timestamps closer). Buffs (talk) 22:49, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

You’re all good, sorry for lashing out. ^EF⁵ 22:55, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Fair enough; likewise. Buffs (talk) 00:54, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Comment this is related to "Buffs, American politics, and climate change" subsection on this page, which I procedurally closed after three different admins recommended taking it to AE. Geogene (talk) 21:14, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

To be blunt, no it is not. It is 100% with regards to my talk page and that page only. If an editor asks you not to edit their user pages, such requests should, within reason, be respected...repeatedly posting on a user's page without good reason after being asked not to, may be seen as harassment or a similar kind of disruptive behavior. When in doubt, ask for help from another experienced editor or uninvolved administrator. I shouldn't have to put up with the constant harassment on my own user talk page and I came here as directed. Buffs (talk) 21:48, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Okay, so why don't you go do that? And then avoid posting on Buffs' user talk page. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:00, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

I haven't made any edits today since closing that thread. Sheesh. Geogene (talk) 22:04, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

I wasn't joking about the admins on this board earlier Geogene. They only make decisions about obvious vandalism and whether someone may be gaming ECR. Someone said DEI is a pipedream here. Since they had over 100 edits they can't be held accountable here. 166.205.97.37 (talk) 00:57, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

166.205.97.37, what on Earth are you talking about here? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:16, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

I think the IP is talking about unblockables. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 05:05, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Having over 100 edits doesn't mean they wont be held accountable(I have seen people with far more than that sanctioned here.) GothicGolem29 (talk) 11:58, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

I'll say what I said before the last one was closed: both of you are acting uncivil toward each other and bringing a lot more heat than light to the dispute. And again, I strongly urge both of you to drop the stick, take a break from AmPol, say three or four weeks, and get some time to cool down and reflect. Neither of you have presented anything that's the equivalent of crossing the Rubicon, and there don't need to be any IBANs, TBANs, or indefs or anything else logged. You two have nearly 40,000 edits; is it really necessary to require a sanction to keep you two from fighting like SPIs edit-warring Sambhaji? CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 00:49, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

To both the disputants here: CC is flagging you both towards the off ramp with marshalling wands, and you should really both avail yourselves of the guidance. As they said, this is a tempest in a teapot at present, but it wouldn't take a whole lot to reach a point where a sanction for one or both of you begins to look like the only way forward.

Geogene: when someone asks you leave their talk page, 99 times out of 100 it's the right call to comply. On the other hand, Buffs: if you really want someone to leave your talk page, consider not coupling the requests with paragraphs of accusations, some of which might reasonably be taken as WP:ASPERSIONS by your rhetorical opposition. If you make these kind of detailed accusations of misconduct (or even just suboptimal/bad faith behaviour), you are actively de-incentivizing the party you claim to want to go away from doing so. The manner in which you combined the requests with these sorts of comments was either an effort to lock in the last word or just a really obtuse strategy for getting someone to stop engaging with you. Bluntly speaking, it's a little obnoxious to come here to essentially request that the community order Geogene to WP:DROPTHESTICK when you yourself were being equally obstinate about ceasing the broadsides.

Again, I urge you both to take the feedback you've received here to heart, and short-circuit a cycle that is leading neither of you anywhere good. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 03:33, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

consider not coupling the requests with paragraphs worth of accusations I see nothing here that resembles that on my side. I've answered questions and provided quotes. The only person who has provided detailed accusations of misconduct is Geogene, not me; perhaps you misread that. Likewise, this was done before I submitted here. I am attempting to disengage. Buffs (talk) 04:17, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

If you really can't see which comments I am talking about there, that significantly heightens my concerns for your ability to properly de-escalate these kinds of situations and avoid wasting the community's time on frivolous requests. That said, let me be more express: when you say to Geogene "You've miscategorized, mislabeled, misquoted, demonized innocuous edits, repeatedly taken partial sentences completely out of context, and generally created a nuisance." (which is just a small fraction of one post, itself a part of a protracted back-and-forth about who is really running afoul of behavioural standards) what result were you really expecting? You can't have your cake and eat it too: if you want someone to leave your talk page, you expressly ask them to in a quick and pointed matter. It can be accomplished in seven words: "Please don't edit my talk page further." If you instead opt for 200+ words, most of them criticizing the other party and others in their rhetorical camp for the underlying disputes, the aggregate effect is not going to be to discourage them from commenting further.

And yes, since then you have deleted the entire user talk thread, but I don't think that actually improves the complexion of how you behaved here or whether you are making use of community time in good faith. Because you deleted the discussion a full day after Geogene last commented on your talk page, and after they seemed to be finished there, having given up on that discussion and opened a thread requesting oversight here at ANI. Geogene didn't comment on your talk page again after they opened the above discussion, and there doesn't appear to be any indication that they would return there, since they were seeking a community resolution at that point. And yet you opened this thread, ostensibly asking for community intercession and a sanction in regard to the user talk discussion where a) the discussion was effectively over at that point, and b) you had been equally as active in maintaining the discussion for the time it did run.

So, when one looks at the specific actions and timeline as an outside observer, it's hard to escape the conclusion that the most likely reason this thread was opened was as retaliation for Geogene's filing--which, not withstanding that it was redirected to AE, appears to have been made in a good faith belief that it was needed to address a pattern of issues in your conduct. Whether those concerns are warranted or not, they contrast with your own approach in how you have handled this filing, which I would not hesitate to say looks much more like an abuse of process and a waste of the community's time. I would seriously drop this approach and stop doubling down, as I think the most likely outcome if you do not is a WP:BOOMERANG. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 23:56, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

The result I was expecting was that an admin would simply say "He's asked you repeatedly to stop posting on his user page and you won't stop. Therefore, you're blocked for XX hours." That's all I was looking for. The idea that my responses to his remarks somehow justified his continued posts is baffling at best. YMMV. Buffs (talk) 21:18, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

WP:PA. Both need to work on acting more nicely, User:Geogene for attacking and Buffs for managing the problem with civility. StormHunterBryante5467⛈️ 02:58, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Possible vandalism

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

---

Is this edit vandalism? BodhiHarp (talk) 21:08, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Why not ask about it in the talk page section that the reported editor started on the topic at Talk:Voiced dental and alveolar taps and flaps#Standard in Italian? Nakonana (talk) 21:15, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

AN/I is not really the correct venue for this. Please try discussing it with the user in question first as Nakonana says. This forum is for urgent and chronic issues only. CoconutOctopus talk 21:18, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Vandalism in Wikipedia is defined as editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose. Also Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. Given the talk page comments, this is not vandalism. As discussed above, engage with the editor on the talk page to resolve your concerns. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:30, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Akhter Hossen surname was spelled incorrectly

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

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akhter_Hossain . I tried to edit the article mentioned that all the reference shows Hossen but, he refuges to accept the change. Please help me, i need to edit this page for my public visibility as soon as possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saikothjahan (talk • contribs) 17:47, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Assuming that this is not someone whose native language is non-English, I find such editing for attention-seeking WP:NOTHERE. Borgenland (talk) 18:08, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Saikothjahan, you've taken the appropriate next step by raising this on the relevant talk page a few minutes ago. I don't think there's any need for this to be at ANI at this time and would recommend this discussion be closed. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:11, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

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

69.14.4.153

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

---

• 69.14.4.153 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log): 3RR, NPA, enough already, was lucky not to have been blocked yesterday.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:05, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

  Blocked for 60 hours. Might be too light. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:02, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

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

User conduct concern: OrionNimrod (Battle of Păuliș/Romania article and talk pages)

I feel like this is the best way to resolve this situation. In summary, I am filing this ANI report regarding the conduct of User:OrionNimrod across multiple articles and talk pages related to Romanian history, including but not limited to: Battle of Păuliș Talk:Battle of Păuliș Talk:Romania. His conduct includes repeated personal attacks, motive misrepresentation, forum shopping, hounding, and mischaracterisation of my account. 1. Personal Attacks / Aspersions (WP:ASPERSIONS, WP:CIVIL). He accused me multiple times of having "nationalist motivations" at the Pǎuliș article without evidence and twisted neutral phrasing ("heroic Romanian achievement"), which wasn't even my wording, into a claim of bias. 2. Hounding Behaviour (WP:HOUND). He followed my contributions across multiple articles and Talk Pages (e.g., Battle of Păuliș, Treaty of Trianon) and escalated a content dispute into repeated personal accusations. 3. Filed a misleading post on WP:WikiProject Military history misrepresenting me—without notifying me about Pǎuliș. Misuse of Policy / Forum Shopping (WP:POINT, WP:DISPUTE, WP:BLUDGEON). Posted walls of historical text to sidestep policy-based discussion and accused me of edit warring after a single revert. Tried to gather outside support after losing the Talk Page discussion. 4. Mischaracterisation of my account, repeatedly referred to me as a "brand new user" to discredit my edits, despite my contributions being sourced and policy-based. This is, I'm sure you can agree misleading, irrelevant, and contributes to a hostile editing environment. Some context... the dispute centers on how to represent the Battle of Păuliș in the infobox. I argued based on multiple sources—that Romanian forces led the decisive phase, with Soviet reinforcements arriving after the outcome was mostly decided. I proposed keeping "Romanian victory" in the infobox and fully acknowledging Soviet participation in the body. This aligns with WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV. Additionally, in the Talk:Treaty of Trianon and Talk:Romania pages, OrionNimrod has consistently attempted to downplay Romanian perspectives and push alternative historical framings, often using similar personal accusations and dismissive tactics. Instead of engaging with content policy, he escalated with personal attacks, misrepresentation, and canvassing behaviour. I ask that admins formally warn or sanction OrionNimrod for: Repeated personal attacks. Hounding behaviour. Misrepresentation of my account. Disruptive editing tactics and forum shopping. I’ve remained calm and policy-based throughout. His conduct is turning a content disagreement into a hostile editing environment.

1. Personal attack — “nationalist motivations” accusation, Pǎuliș page.

→ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Păuliș&diff=prev&oldid=1304577420

2. Misrepresentation on WikiProject Military History (no ping)

→ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history&diff=prev&oldid=1304515332

3. My only revert — no edit war on Pǎuliș talk page.

→ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Păuliș&diff=prev&oldid=1304498758

4. Treaty of Trianon / Talk:Romania — dismissive tone on Romania talk page.

→ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Romania&diff=prev&oldid=1300146433

5. Bludgeoning with excessive, off-topic historical wall of text, both Romania and Pǎuliș talk page.

→ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Păuliș&diff=prev&oldid=1304509486

6. My policy-based initial Talk page comment during out first interaction on Romania's talk page.

→ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Romania&diff=prev&oldid=1299863799 Welcometothejungle007 (talk) 23:22, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

It has been my observation that most complaints at WP:ANI are more seriously considered if they are written by a human than by a large language model. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:46, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Sir I'm afraid I don't use any large language models or artificial intelligence on Wikipedia. Everything I've ever written on this site is my own language, structure and intent. Please can you help me with my query, thanks. Welcometothejungle007 (talk) 09:05, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi,

I suppose Welcometothejungle007 is an old sockpuppet (Romania/Hungary related articles, I had a lot of conflict with a massive sockpuppetry over many years Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TheLastOfTheGiants/Archive, in the report we can see this sockpuppet was very keen to use Hitchins as source, Welcometothejungle007 uses this source again [250]), Welcometothejungle007 has a very minimal edit counts, but he mentions randomly always many Wikipedia rules (even in this ANI report, edit logs, talks) which is really suspicious form a new user. (When I started edit Wikipedia, after 10 edits I did not know any Wiki rules...)

I see Welcometothejungle007 accuse me harassment and that I follow him in more articles, but it seems he started following me and making a personal harassment campaign against me, as I made earlier edits in articles and he attacked them later. It seems he reverts only my edits in many articles by aggressive edit war. I added a country establishment event [251] a little later a new user he started an edit war [252] [253] [254] (but interesting, he was well aware with 3 revert rule, so he did not make 4 reverts). In talk page, at that time just after 10! edits he demonstrated a great knowledge of Wikipedia rules, which is very suspicious from a "brand new" user. Talk:Romania#Establishment event: Treaty of Trianon (in talk I mentioned this is suspicious). Earlier, a blocked user Napoli0079 did exactly the same revert after my edit [255].

I earlier edited another page [256] in response of this edit [257] (this sockpuppet always creates many accounts, maybe this is also his account), of course Welcometothejungle007 started to attack my edit Talk:Voivodeship of Maramureș#Concerns about recent edits to Maramureș section - Neutrality 3? accusing "nationalist-fuelled claim to change the text".

Earlier I restored a removed content [258] by a blocked user [259] User talk:Napoli0079 made a racist attack against me [260] now Welcometothejungle007 started to make an edit war to make the same edit what blocked user Napoli0079 did. [261] + [262] (he said he made only 1 revert, we can see 2)

Welcometothejungle007 said in this ANI report that I followed him to Treaty of Trianon page, I see Welcometothejungle007 did not edit at all that page, I also did not make anything there a long time ago, but also I have a conflict with the mentioned sockpuppet many years ago in that page, which also support my suggestion that Welcometothejungle007 is the same sockpuppet TheLastOfTheGiants: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Treaty_of_Trianon/Archive_4#A_lot_of_incorrect_info_added

Welcometothejungle007 said in this ANI report that I "lost talk page debate" (I do not know what does it mean and how), this was also the usual claim of TheThorLat (same sockpuppet) [263]

I also recognize he uses ChatGPT for his comments, probably to use a difference communication style than his former sockpuppets.

It seems very suspicious that most of his dispute and edit wars focuses on my edits. And now we can see he reported me here, just because in talk page I provided a reliable modern academic military historian source regarding the battle (Welcometothejungle007 says that is "off-topic") which support the stage of original article before Welcometothejungle007 arbitrary started to remove contents with edit war. For me his sentences an admitted nationalistic personal motivation to remove other combatants, to emphasize the participation of only 1 combatant: Talk:Battle of Păuliș, I asked to follow WP:ATT instead of his personal belief WP:NOR. [264] "Heavily, heavily undue... Romanian forces did all the fighting defending Pǎuliş and most of the fighting pushing back Hungarians, stop trying to diminish Romanian participation" [265] "A Sole and decisive Romanian victory" "This is perhaps the greatest military achievement in the history of the modern Romanian army" [266] "by no means is a Romanian-Soviet victory when Soviet forces had extremely limited involvement in the battle". I think using the ANI after 40! edits also very suspicious. OrionNimrod (talk) 09:57, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

User:Welcometothejungle007 - If you aren't using a large language model, don't write like a large language model. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:19, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Napoli0079 SPI case opened OrionNimrod (talk) 23:54, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

I think there is many signs of sockpuppetry. I suppose an old sockmaster (5+ years), had many socks, it is hard to know the things, so I did an another report with another evidences. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TheThorLat OrionNimrod (talk) 21:40, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Uncivil language by editor Trasheater Midir

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

---

I am quite concerned about the aggressive and POV-pushing tone of Trasheater Midir's edit summaries, which may amount to uncivil behaviour. I think The RedBurn raised concern about the user's POV-pushing before. As recent examples:

1. In this edit, the edit summary states "what a rat, hope he will perish miserably"
2. In this edit, the edit summary states "cope and seethe, CIA-backed soyboys, CWC allows gassing soyboys"
3. In this edit, the edit summary states "if CS gas is suffocating for you, it's skill issue, lmao", appearing to imply that the victims of chemical weapons were to blame
4. In this edit, the edit summary states "someone left a caption like it's normal to have stinky Amis on the street of a town outside Amerikkka" – note abusive misspelling and calling Americans "stinky"
5. In this edit, the edit summary states "-Western funded propaganda outlet. No person with brain will trust it even when it says that Siberia have some bears and pines", when removing RFE/RL source. I thought the recommendation of WP:RFE/RL was to use inline attribution for recent sources (after the early 1970s).

As much as I am frustrated by American politics, the above appear to be toxic language that I don't expect from editors: the userboxes in their userpage are also concerning, particular those that claim "This user wants Japan to be invaded and subjugated by Mongols" and "From the river to the sea, two-state solution is for soyboys" (diff): the former seems xenophobic. --Minoa (talk) 17:40, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

1. Yes, I wish harm to members of terrorist organizations, sorry if it offends you.

2. I agree it may sound impolite, but it's factual information. CWC approves use of riot control agents in internal conflicts, including adamsite. I'm always frustrated by false claims that something is "internationally banned". Such counterfactual claims are mostly used as "coping behaviour" by claimants.

3. I was refering to incorrect description of gas effects. Tear gas is irritant, they were trying to represent it as pulmonary agent. See point 2. I despise false claims. It's skill issue when you need to resort to such claims.

4. US soldiers deployed in occupied Middle East countries really stink of their MREs (that contain very low quality food) and sweat (for obvious reasons).

5. RFE is Western funded, so always suspect when writing about Eastern bloc. I may have stated it in incorrect terms, but it's true.

I can agree that some my edit summaries sound too harsh or emotional, I'll try to avoid it.

About userboxes: they are, as explained in edit summary, reaction to other user's userboxes that called for expulsion of some countries from the UN. I see no difference between their userboxes and mine. I see no problem in one about Palestine (two state solution is not only one and not universally accepted solution), I may slightly adjust one about Japan (sorry, Genghis Khan, you could have tried better). Trasheater Midtier🐉(talk) 18:34, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Can you agree to be less trollish on WP in the future? (Also: wrong Khan.) --JBL (talk) 19:06, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Since "trollish" implies insincerity of expressed views, no. I never troll. I can agree to be more polite and less emotional. Trasheater Midtier🐉(talk) 19:15, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

"Trollish" certainly does not imply insincerity. Your problem is not that you're impolite or too emotional, it's that you're incendiary, and in my opinion that is obviously intentional. This might be a good opportunity to own up to that and to agree to rein it in. (But you don't need to address it to me, this will be my final comment in this discussion no matter what.) --JBL (talk) 21:01, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Also see [267] (ok, westerner,) [268] (how rude, that's what wathcing CNN/BBC does to your manners and worldview, recovery not guaranteed😢) [269] (ukrainian Oppengamers (sic) don't know a thing. Well, considering that nobody in country has access to ScienceDirect🤔), [270] (If it was French Pleiades, every Western pawn would say "earth observation", "it's doing research!", "it's for environment!". But when it's Chinese, everyone assumes recoinassance). Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 19:18, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

I see nothing inappropriate in stating facts. Ukraine doesn't have access to ScienceDirect (check Elsevier#Ukraine). Their claims of being able to make a nuclear weapon out of reactor-grade plutonium are ridiculous and unscientific, it's all what I said. If they had access to Elsevier, they would have read article that I cited.

There's real difference in Western media coverage of Western dual-use spacecraft and Chinese dual-use spacecraft. Trasheater Midtier🐉(talk) 19:31, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

If you are incapable of stating a point without insulting people, you should not edit Wikipedia. Northern Moonlight 21:08, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm also bothered by the top of their talk page, describing what appear to be justified warnings to their talk page as vandalism. It doesn't appear to be enforced as much as I feel it should, but there seems to be precedent for false accusations of vandalism to be considered a personal attack. Taffer😊💬_(she/they) 20:30, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

I would argue the bigger concern is a series of tendentious edits [271], [272], [273], [274]. I found four in the past month that a pretty clearly fall into this camp, not to mention a lot that are... marginal at best. Allan Nonymous (talk) 19:39, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Please explain what's wrong in calling Coalition forces in Iraq invaders. See invasion of Iraq. Or in stating the fact that RFE is US-sponsored? They had a documented relationship with the CIA. This all looks like a politically motivated attack on me. And to political attacks I always say: mam to w dupie. Trasheater Midtier🐉(talk) 19:51, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

This is definitely not a politically motivated attack. All we're trying to say is that you're less than neutral when it comes to Russian and "western" topics. Also, what is mam to w dupie supposed to mean? I'm getting some... interesting translations for that. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 20:32, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

From their userpage, This user wants to subdue Anglo-Saxons and make them pay tribute? Placeholderer (talk) 20:27, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

This user thinks that every bomb dropped on wokou country was justified doesn't inspire much confidence either. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 20:41, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Why are we wasting time on this? This is a very obvious troll and they are not here to help Wikipedia. It doesn't matter whether the anti-Japanese racism is sincere or pure trolling for amusement. It's just as bad either way. Please somebody just indef them. They are also editing the Russian Wikipedia, the Commons and Wikiversity so maybe a global ban should be considered. DanielRigal (talk) 21:20, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

That's a Russian slur by the way: Anglo-Saxons (slur). Super Ψ Dro 10:01, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

• Indef'd for disruptive editing. These edit summaries, at the very least, are entirely unacceptable, and the rest doesn't look good either. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:48, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

  Following the disruptive editing ruling by The Bushranger, the editing history of Trasheater Midir (contributions) should be trawled for disruptive edits: this is because I found this incredibly WP:UNCIVIL edit summary here, which claimed oh yes, human rights organization. All they do is smear campaigns against anyone who criticize Isn'treal (troubling term underlined). I have limited time and I have to get my doomscrolling problem back under control, so help is greatly appreciated. --Minoa (talk) 09:07, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

  For stuff like that, at this point, unless it's extremely disgusting, best to ignore it. I have however removed the row of...interesting userboxes from their user page per WP:POLEMIC. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:39, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

  I understand. Thank you. --Minoa (talk) 22:54, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

  Should the userboxes be mfd'd anyway? 2A04:7F80:37:24E6:DAF:7AED:9ED5:E638 (talk) 06:51, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

  It may be a good idea to revoke TPA.[275] Mellk (talk) 17:34, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Rht bd

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

---

Rht bd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has made multiple disruptive edits to the article Bangladesh Chhatra League — in this and in this edit, where they removed sourced content written per WP:NPOV and MOS:LEAD and added unsourced or non-neutral material. Also, seems like a bit of WP:EW aswell. I warned him twice on his talk page, but the behavior continued. Requesting admin attention for review. Goku from bd (talk · contribs) 14:25, 8 August 2025 (UTC) 

Discussion ongoing on the talk page of the article. Hope other editors will also join the discussion to reach a consensus about the lead. Rht bd (talk) 14:37, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

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

78.81.123.235 and WP:RUSUKR again again

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

---

IP-user 78.81.123.235 made this non-trivial, misleadingly summarized edit: [276]

The user has previously been sanctioned for WP:RUSUKR, but evidently has a problem to accept the policy. Lklundin (talk) 13:25, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

I've partially blocked the IP from articlespace for one month. If there's evidence of disruption in other namespaces, I'd consider expanding the block. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:40, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers, @Lklundin. Sorry to edit the namespace. Just forgot it's tangentially under the sanctioned policy, which I accept and support. Thank you. 78.81.123.235 (talk) 15:38, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

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

User: Chesesenomy - Vandalism + Threatening

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

---

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

User has came onto wikipedia with the seemingly sole intent of being disruptive, has vandalised Cabra Dominican College and has also decided to come on my talkpage and seemingly made some backhanded threats towards me.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cabra_Dominican_College&oldid=1304755825

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cabra_Dominican_College&oldid=1304755570 NeoJade ^Talk/_Contribs 02:24, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

NeoJade, this editor has been editing for an hour and has 5 edits. It seems a very quick to open an ANI complaint on them. This is for "urgent" "intractable behavioral problems". Have you tried talking with them? Posting a welcome notice? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:34, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

As linked above, Chesesenomy made a clear and obvious threat to NeoJade and their family on NeoJade's talk page. I am surprised at the suggestion that the appropriate or expected response would be for NeoJade to post a friendly "Welcome to Wikipedia!" message on Chesesenomy's talk page. --tony 02:49, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

See also this. Sorry Liz, your degree of WP:AGF is often a model for the rest of us to aspire to, but this one is clear and obvious. I've indef'd. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:53, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Aye, think this was closed a little bit too early to not allow a discussion and/or response from myself on Liz's seeming query.

This user clearly never would edit outside of causing harm - personally, I get the suggestion they are a younger person who's just made their account to get around a school IP block.

Plus, they were already on a final warning for vandalising, before making threats towards myself. NeoJade ^Talk/_Contribs 03:06, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

To be honest, I didn't take these comments as a serious threat. I suggested engaging the editor so I went to go talk with them. If my remarks were insensitive, I apologize. I guess I've seen too many threats that I thought were truly vile that I have become a little jaded over what looked to me to be juvenile trolling. Thanks to other editors who responded more appropriately. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:27, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Block user for confirmed sockpuppetry

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

---

Block user HistorianAlferedo[277] with VikRagnarr[278] for sockpuppetry who is also active for disruption in Indian caste related articles on this platform.

Who is also blocked on Simple Wikipedia for committing sockpuppetry by CheckUser block-account. 2402:E000:44F:E557:0:0:0:1 (talk) 21:40, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

I'll notify the user for you. VikRagnarr is unused on this wiki. We don't typically block people for what they do on other wikis (nor does simplewiki). If you have evidence of disruption on this wiki, please provide it. Also just curious, do you have an account? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:01, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Zzuuzz

1. He posted Copyrighted content on Dhir Singh Pundir [279][280][281] Kachhwaha, [282][283][284] and Political marriages.[285]
2. Citing poor sources from WordPress.[286] citing non reliable sources of Sikhhero.com and WordPress.com on contentious caste articles. [287]
3. Caste promotion with unreliable travel guide books source that also not mentioned any caste origin.[288]
4. Removed sourced information with invalid edit summary.[289]
5. Removed other caste names[290][291][292] from articles but added rajput caste name on many articles openly pushing rajput caste POV.[293][294][295][296] 2402:E000:4B6:EA6D:0:0:0:1 (talk) 22:37, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

I don't have an account I read and edit independently on both Wikipedias and in native language platform of Wikipedia. 2402:E000:4B6:EA6D:0:0:0:1 (talk) 22:39, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

WP:SPI is thataway →. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:42, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

i don't know about this. Yes go please. 2402:E000:450:710B:0:0:0:1 (talk) 22:47, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

The Bushranger You should investigate later or tomorrow. 2402:E000:450:710B:0:0:0:1 (talk) 22:51, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

No, I should not. One, I'm not a CheckUser, and two, you need to file a SPI request. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:57, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Zzuuzz

sir jee then close this if you don't want to take actions. I give you evidence you people said provide evidence for disruption. Good night. I don't know other task of reporting. I KNOW ANI on Simple Wikipedia and English Wikipedia that's why posted here. On simple Wikipedia they say we don't have responsibility for English Wikipedia. 2402:E000:450:710B:0:0:0:1 (talk) 23:05, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

If you have concerns about sockpuppetry, you need to file a report at WP:SPI, which has directions on how to do so. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:55, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

I take a slightly different perspective to my esteemed colleague above, because I consider the SPI already closed with my initial comment in this thread. I wouldn't want to waste the OP's time. The other stuff doesn't really strike me as ANI material, but I'll defer to others on that. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 05:51, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Are you sure? I thought it was this way ←–. 208.105.244.131 (talk) 23:55, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Actually it's ↔ thataway. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:55, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

You're both wrong. It's ↓ that way. In hell. -- asilvering (talk) 05:25, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Isn't this page already hell? LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 17:47, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Only the fifth circle. SPI is the eighth. -- asilvering (talk) 23:35, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Willform ignoring all feedback

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

Willform has a mixed record; good and bad edits. If you flip through their contribution history, probably like a third of their edits have been undone in recent history. I've yet to see them use sources in their edits. I found this apparent joke edit to be concerning.

My main problem is that they never respond to feedback. If you scroll through their talk page, they've been receiving warning after warning over the last 5 years and have engaged with none of it. They haven't really seem to have learned from any of it either; still make problematic edits despite having been on the site for much longer than me.

I think they have potential to be a helpful editor if they just listened to feedback. At present they're clearly willfully ignoring it; I would not buy any excuses that they haven't seen it; it's been 5 years and they're not a new editor.

Proposal: block from mainspace until they show willingness to engage with feedback. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 15:00, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Would support this. Has been registered for 5 years and never made a comment on his own talk page--FMSky (talk) 11:13, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Given the massive wall of concerns on their talk page with nary a peep in response, and no alteration of behavior, I've pblocked from articlespace until communication improves. Anyone can unblock once it does. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:46, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Given that they've not even reacted to the block I feel it's likely they've just been ignoring the talk page and feedback intentionally and have just decided to abandon the account. Fear they'll just start socking. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 22:08, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

AI-generated edits by User:Glaubenswächter17

• Glaubenswächter17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I believe some or all of User:Glaubenswächter17's edits are LLM-written. I first noticed this on Brandon Herrera, where the link for almost every single reference added was broken, despite the access-date for all of them being 2025-08-09 (yesterday). I checked a few of Glaubenswächter17's other edits, and they all had multiple issues:

Open to see big table

Page	Date	Issues
Brandon Herrera (diff)	04:05, August 10, 2025	Mentions a campaign event that takes place in the future: His campaign released a policy white paper on August 15, 2025, ... Broken links: https://sanantonioreport.org/brandon-herrera-texas-23rd-congressional-district-candidate https://www.texasmonthly.com/news-politics/brandon-herrera-ak-guy-congress https://texaspolitics.com/2024/03/10/out-of-state-congressional-candidate-brandon-herrera-says-texas-was-home https://www.firearmsnews.com/editorial/ak-guy-expands/495622 https://favikon.com/profile/brandonherrera https://www.expressnews.com/politics/brandon-herrera-firearms-business https://www.shootingillustrated.com/ak50launch https://www.cbsnews.com/news/texas-tony-gonzales-brandon-herrera-runoff-election https://www.census.gov/mycd/?st=TX&cd=23 https://www.legistorm.com/stormfeed/view_rss/1494961/organization/13920/title/MEDIA-ADVISORY-MONDAY-Rep-Matt-Gaetz-Leads-Republican-Coalition-on-ATF-Accountability-Field-Hearing-in-Northwest-Florida.html https://brandonherreraforcongress.com/unity-event-matt-gaetz https://www.texastribune.org/2024/05/29/tony-gonzales-brandon-herrera-texas-primary-runoff https://www.sacurrent.com/news/incumbent-gonzales-narrowly-defeats-ak-guy-in-texas-district-23 https://themavericktimesnews.com/brandon-herrera-2026-campaign-goa
John Ratcliffe (governor) (diff)	17:09, August 9, 2025	Broken links: https://archive.org/details/purchashispilgri04purc https://www.nps.gov/jame/learn/historyculture/jamestown-handbook.htm https://www.nps.gov/jame/learn/historyculture/three-ships.htm Bad books: 978-0-8139-2560-8 - this is Ethnic American Literature, not the cited The Powhatan Indians of Virginia: Their Traditional Culture. 978-0-465-03414-7 - no such ISBN. 978-0-88402-016-5 - this is Early Christian and Byzantine Political Philosophy, not the cited The First Seventeen Years: Virginia, 1607–1624. 978-0-8173-5333-9 - this is The Cultural Prison, not the cited The Deadly Politics of Giving. Early Virginia: A Documentary History (1998) by John Rabb - no such book. Rabb died in 1861.
Russell Kirk (diff)	13:25, July 27, 2025	Broken links: https://www.isi.org/intercollegiate-review/russell-kirk-a-life https://www.nationalreview.com/magazine/1994/06/13 https://www.firstthings.com/article/1994/08/russell-kirk-in-memoriam Bad books: 9781442273771 - this is Human Security: Theory and Action, not the cited Russell Kirk: A Critical Biography of a Conservative Mind. 9780895267245 - this is The Conservative Mind by Kirk, not the cited Russell Kirk and the Conservative Mind by John East.
1976 New Jersey casino gambling referendum (new) (now at Draft:1976 New Jersey casino gambling referendum)	02:12, July 27, 2025	This is a page creation by Glaubenswächter17. Broken links: https://www.nj.gov/state/elections/assets/pdf/election-results/1970-1979-results/1976-general-election.pdf https://www.nytimes.com/1974/11/06/archives/new-jersey-voters-reject-casino-gambling.html https://www.nj.gov/casinos/about/history.html https://www.nytimes.com/1976/10/24/archives/atlantic-city-sees-casinos-as-economic-salvation.html https://governors.rutgers.edu/governor-brendan-t-byrne-atlantic-city-and-casino-gambling/ https://pressofatlanticcity.com/news/local/could-history-repeat-itself-with-north-jersey-casino-vote/article_4fddf4c8-1272-11ee-a139-874cd0e0c2e3.html https://www.nytimes.com/1976/11/03/archives/casino-vote-wins-in-new-jersey-atlantic-city-hopes-for-revival.html https://www.nj.com/politics/2016/11/nj_voters_overwhelmingly_reject_north_jersey_casin.html https://apnews.com/article/atlantic-city-casino-closures-2015 Bad DOIs and books: 10.1177/107808747801400204 - this is "Street-Level Bureaucracy and Political Support", not the cited "The Social Impact of Casino Gambling in Atlantic City". 10.1177/0096144205283910 - no such DOI. 9781598841343 - this is Religion and the State, not the cited Gambling in America.
Joseph Bradway Jr. (new)	04:59, June 28, 2025	This is a page creation by Glaubenswächter17. Bradway married Patricia Butler, a local teacher, in January 1973 appears fabricated. This 1973 NYTimes wedding listing says he married Michelle Stephanie Lenzmeier, and his previous wife was named Carol. Bad links: https://www.nytimes.com/1976/11/03/archives/voters-approve-casino-gambling-in-atlantic-city.html https://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/supreme-court/1976/69-n-j-185-0.html - some unrelated petition, not City of Atlantic City v. Board of Commissioners.

I have reverted the edits made to the first three pages, but there are dozens more that I haven't looked at. Just one or two errors in total could be attributed to human error, but the huge number of nonexistent links and identifiers seems indicative of AI hallucination. Iiii I I I (talk) 06:32, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

I just noticed there is a new WP:G15 CSD that I believe these edits fall under: Implausible non-existent references: This may include external links that are dead on arrival, ISBNs with invalid checksums, and unresolvable DOIs. --Iiii I I I (talk) 06:37, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

It's not clear to me how LLM use is verified and CSD are suppose to be obvious and uncontroversial. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:50, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

I think technically, we're not verifying something is written by LLC, but the name of the criteria is misleading; it really ought to be some form of G15. Pages with LLM artifacts, implausible references, or non-existent citations. Think of it like drug testing at the Olympics, where masking agents for performance-enhancing drugs are tested for, even if those masking agents provide no competitive advantage. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 08:18, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

The signs of LLM usage are simply indicators of the real problem that G15 tries to solve: unreviewed LLM-generated content (i.e. when an editor, unaware of the problems that AI output has, copy-pastes in AI output without bothering to check if the references exist or if they accidentally included the prompt they used to generate the text). The stuff in the criterion is used to verify LLM output; if, judging by the page history, the author did not adequately review the LLM output, the page can be speedily deleted. The main sign that I've used to nominate pages for G15 is the presence of obvious AI markup (like the ":contentReference[oaicite:1]{index=1}" code that gets produced by a ChatGPT bug) throughout the article/draft/page with no attempt by the page author to remove it or clean it up. CoffeeCrumbs provided a good analogy with masking agents. The signs of LLM usage listed in the criterion (the masking agents) are not necessarily the problem (although fake references are definitely a problem); they are just indicators of the underlying issue, which is unreviewed LLM-generated content (the performance-enhancing drugs). SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 08:30, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

It requires an admin to verify that the speedy deletion tag is valid, and we certainly have other criteria that do that (such as G11). As such, I have moved Draft:1976 New Jersey casino gambling referendum to Draft for the author to fix the multiple citation problems (by human means, hopefully). Black Kite (talk) 08:36, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

As regards Joseph Bradway Jr., the sentence about marrying Patricia Butler has no citation I can find, I can however find two about his first wife being named Carol and his second Stephanie (and their marriage date), so I have inserted these cites correctly and updated the article. This is mostly fixed now, just the "Legacy" section unsourced. Black Kite (talk) 09:02, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Off-topic. Please feel free to propose improvements to LLM-related edit filters on the edit filter noticeboard or the LLM noticeboard. — Newslinger talk 11:24, 11 August 2025 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Honestly, this whole LLM generated content battle is laughably hopeless. This project is fighting against an avalanche using a toothpick. It's over people, it's over. Fighting against it with the pretty much useless tools at our disposal is an absolute waste of time. Let the jerks who want to destroy this project have their fun with LLMs and instead of reporting their idiocy, spend the energy developing tools that will actually stop the avalanche. An absolutely MUST begin point is to have edit filters that stop the addition of LLM content, unreviewed or not, before it ever gets posted. Stop messing around and get it done. You're dealing with a symptom and ignoring the disease. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:48, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your contribution to this discussion. Mackensen (talk) 14:53, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

but how exactly would you implement those edit filters? AI can have various signs, and the only really easily filterable ways might be collaborative messages, markdown and possibly em dashes (last two will probably have several false positives) 2A04:7F80:37:24E6:B054:635:CEE8:66A0 (talk) 15:54, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

And those things already have filters, by the way. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 15:58, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

So I dunno what @Hammersoft wants to do here? More sibjective edit filters? Trying to filter every 'not x but y'? 2A04:7F80:37:24E6:B054:635:CEE8:66A0 (talk) 16:19, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

The edit filters, as written, are effectively useless. Tag? Come on. That's a wave of bots coming at a handful of humans willing to do something with the tagging. Automation vs. manual. Who do you think wins in that equation? Anyway, meta discussion will be useless here on this thread. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:32, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

If you really want to open that discussion, you should go to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject AI Cleanup, maybe you'll have a more proper discussion. Anyways this thread should be closed before this sprawls 2A04:7F80:37:24E6:B054:635:CEE8:66A0 (talk) 16:51, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

@Hammersoft you know you could use your first reply as the content in your new discussion, it has great writing! 37.186.46.26 (talk) 19:08, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Keizers and Saks Fifth Avenue store locations

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

This is the first time I've ever started a discussion here, so please bear with me here. I'm bringing this issue to ANI at the suggestion of User:Nathannah, who brought it to my attention. User:Keizers has over the past several years engaged in disruptive editing regarding the inclusion of a list of Saks Fifth Avenue locations within the encyclopedia. Starting in 2020, Keizers added a list of locations to the main Saks Fifth Avenue article in [[297]]. The list was removed by User:Galatz noting WP:NOTDIR in [[298]], but was reverted by Keizers in [[299]]. Galatz again removed the offending content in [[300]], but once again Keizers reverted the deletion of the content in [[301]].

In 2021, User:JayJay removed the list of stores in [[302]] citing WP:NOTDIR. This time, Keizers chose to create the article List of Saks Fifth Avenue locations without linking to the parent Saks Fifth Avenue to avoid detection from those patrolling Saks Fifth Avenue. This article was subsequently deleted without opposition at AfD in[[303]]. Instead of respecting consensus, Keizers once again created a list of Saks Fifth Avenue stores, this time under the alternative title List of Saks Fifth Avenue store locations, and again failing to link it to the parent article to try and avoid detection. I've brought the current list to AfD at [[304]], but considering the numerous times this user has continued to ignore WP:NOTDIR in an effort to include this information I think a wider discussion is warranted regarding their behavior. Let'srun (talk) 18:00, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Just fixed some internal links here. Let'srun (talk) 18:06, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

I've deleted the page under G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion. No comment currently as to whether additional actions are indicated. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:28, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

I've salted List of Saks Fifth Avenue locations, Timeline of Saks Fifth Avenue branches, and List of Saks Fifth Avenue store locations. I really would like to hear from Keizers why (a) they believe this is important enough to need to be recreated multiple times (b) after having been deleted at AfD before (c) and in such a way as to look very much as if they were attempting to evade detection. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:54, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

User:Keizers has been editing here for 18 years and has over 26,000 edits so the extended confirmed protection on these pages won't faze them. That's why it's important to engage and talk to them so they understand that the recreation of this article shouldn't be occurring. I'll invite them to come and talk. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:56, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Huh. I didn't realise the default salting was ECR now - been awhile since I did that. Will up to full sysop protect, thanks Liz for catching that. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:09, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Sorry Liz I accidentally replied to the notice on my talk page and not here. My answer was:

Thanks for reaching out. There are a lot of editors out there on the lookout for these lists and automatically conclude they’re directory like. I should have gone to discussion when they deleted them, yes I am guilty. I’ve been stubborn in the past, you can check my whole Israel/Palestine history, and I’ve repented and furthermore am

not active now as I have to work so much on my small business.

Now, why does the list belong in Wikipedia?

1) The list contains a lot of more detailed information about various key locations which is encyclopedic, albeit highly specialized, but not out of place.

2) the chronological information of store openings supports the detailed history in the main article, highly relevant to follow the history of the geographical presence early on, and later the expansion to major cities nationwide, which is relatively rare for department stores.

Don’t take the following as arrogance but as a simple fact.. I’m drowning in work right now and don’t have the time or mental and emotional energy to defend the article’s presence in Wikipedia.

It is such a shame that things that appear to be only directories are sort of hunted down and it’s very hard to defend them. But you know what, pick your battles, right?

thanks again for inquiring, all the best and thanks for your work and time!

Oh and the detailed information on certain location like architect expansion and remodel is arguably encyclopedic, but obviously in a micro level. These are sometimes listed as historic buildings at a local level, and things like their expansion reflect the growth of the community and of the company. Even milestones in the history of US department store retailing. Architecture and square footage ídem. This is not unusual information in Wikipedia; it’s commonly found in articles about individual buildings or companies with one major location be it a store or HQ.

I trust you'll make the right decisions. I have absolutely no intention of being an active editor in the next six months minimum, but if you think I haven't learned and recognized that I should have gone to discussion, it's perfectly fine to suspend my edit privileges, preferably for a certain topic range. Thank you! Keizers (talk) 15:19, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

This isn't really the place to make the argument that this type of article is suitable for inclusion, though. Rather, it is important that you recognize the relevant policies WP:NOTPRICE and WP:NOTDIRECTORY and that they specifically mention these types of lists as not being allowed on wikipedia. Let'srun (talk) 03:44, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

That’s a good point. I could set down the same information without casting it as a list, and only leave out those locations that don’t quite fit — or even keep them, if I worked it into prose. I do find a list rather easier to follow myself, but you’re quite right that, as a body, Wikipedia seems to favor “better prose than tables,” or something of the sort. Keizers (talk) 15:38, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

It may be worth noting here that I have sent Category:Lists of department store branches by company, which was created by Keizers, to CfD. Despite the category's name, most of the articles in that category are actual articles on department stores with lists of locations, with Keizers being the main contributor for at least a good chunk of those lists (many, but not all, of the articles, were created by him as well). While many of those articles are for defunct chains (which may or may not be a gray area with regard to NOTPRICE issues, but I may be way off base there), Beymen, El Palacio de Hierro, and Suburbia (department store) are not. (For what it's worth, the one currently-extant category entry that actually is a list article after List of Saks Fifth Avenue store locations was G4'd, List of Printemps store locations, was not only created by someone else but has never even been edited by Keizers.) I note this for completeness; while not as seemingly persistent as with Saks Fifth Avenue, he has not limited his inclusion of store lists to Saks Fifth Avenue. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:02, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Clarity needed on moving talk page discussions during merge prop

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

---

This isn't so much a behavioral problem, as a need for clarity on whether it's ok to move talk page discussions during a WP:MERGEPROP. I've personally never seen other editor's comments get copy pasted from one talk page to another, and I've been editing for a very long time so it shocked me. There was a merge proposal made by FaviFake at Talk:Placeholder name#Proposed merger of Oceanic Airlines into Placeholder name to merge Oceanic Airlines to Placeholder name but that was opposed by pretty much everyone in a short window. The nominator mentioned a WP:SNOW close for this reason and suggested a new target article at Fictional companies. In good faith I interpreted this comment as a withdrawal from the nominator, so I boldly closed it per SNOW (which perhaps in hindsight was a bad idea) with the advise of starting a new merge proposal at Talk:Fictional companies for procedural reasons so that proper notification tags could be placed. FaviFake objected to this, and undid the close (which I am ok with because I could reasonably interpreted as an involved editor). What I do have a potential problem with is copy pasting others comments onto another talk page, and moving a formal merge proposal midway onto a different page. (See Talk:Fictional company#merge proposal) Are either of those actions allowable in a formal merge prop discussion? If it is I can accept that, but it just seems very unusual.4meter4 (talk) 13:02, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm the nominator in question. This description of the situation is correct. I would add that I moved the discussion mainly because many editors in the discussion (including me) said they believed Fictional companies to be a better target for the merger, and because 4meter4 attempted to close it for this reason. To me, it seemed consensus was forming to merge the page into Fictional companies instead of the original target, so I moved the discussion to allow it to continue and to satisfy the concerns of improper notification and labelling of the different pages involved. Editors' time is a valuable resource that I didn't want to waste by disregarding the previous discussion and starting from scratch. I have witnessed talk sections being moved other times and it seemed to me that there isn't a policy advising against the practice. I now understand 4m4's closure was caused by a misinterpretation of my comment mentioning SNOW and that my un-closure was partially caused by my lack of understanding of their motives, which wasn't aligned with AGF. FaviFake (talk) 13:21, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Edit 1; edit 2 bigger picture. For formal discussions, such as merges where a {{merge from}} (or similar) tag was used, bots and scripts will send out notifications, and also maintain a central list. Even though edits like this were also made, can we be certain that the bots and scripts will update the pages that point to the original location? I would say that FaviFake has performed a series of improper actions. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:35, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

@Redrose64 Thanks for pointing this out. I discussed the matter at Talk:Fictional company#Proposed merger, and FaviFake has done what he can to resolve the bot issue. I still think this is WP:DISRUPTIVE procedurally at MERGEPROP, but it is highlighting a weakness in our procedures rather than an editorial behavioral issue (ie FaviFlake is acting in good faith even if their decisions are problematic). For this reason I started this discussion at Wikipedia talk:Merging#RFC needed on moving open WP:MERGEPROP discussions to different talk pages. All opinions welcome. Best.4meter4 (talk) 17:22, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

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

User:Philippine City Editor

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

---

Philippine City Editor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) The user has been adding unsourced claims and unsourced statistics such as economical data to Philippine-related articles. He has been warned numerous times before (and was blocked for a week), however, it seems that the user ignore these warnings and continue to insist of readding them. For instance, he insists that I should just "Google search" his claims: here and here. Even if he added sources, I am not even sure whether they are LLM generated such the one he did in the Hualien City article and the Calabanga article. I can't find the specific claims made in their respective government websites.

The user also has a tendency to edit war whenever his edits were reverted constructively, just take a look at the Calabanga's revision history page since June 2025, which is filled with reversions, back and forth, as well as insults. I have been reverting his edits since July 2025, and the edit warring with him is making me demotivated to make another constructive reversion, especially in the Calabanga article which now becomes a battlefield. I tried to communicate with him in the Calabanga's article talk page and his user talk page, still no progress. AsianStuff03 (talk) 03:26, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Adding this vandal edit [305] of theirs involving a Filipino sexual act. Borgenland (talk) 04:44, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Not only vandalism but also attempted to remove warnings on him here and here after his 1 week block and harassing users such as Pencilceaser123 AsianStuff03 (talk) 05:16, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

AsianStuff03, hopefully you are aware that any editor can remove content from their own user pages. There is nothing wrong with doing that. Was there some other problem you were trying to point out? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:14, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

I see, thank you for pointing it out. The reason I wanted to raise his reversion to his talk page is because he doesn't engage in discussion with other editors. I tried to communicate with him in the Calabanga's talk page and his user talk page to reach a consensus, however, he kept on his battleground stance and edit warring. AsianStuff03 (talk) 07:24, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Even if he did reply to other editors, he won't engage in discussion with me in terms of content dispute in the Calabanga article. I literally don't know what else to do. Aside from wishing the best and hopefully respond to my messages. AsianStuff03 (talk) 07:28, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

@AsianStuff03 it would be better if you posted diffs in format such as this [306] (clear trolling following a warning). It is difficult to prove WP:NOTHERE behavior when all we see is the entire article. Borgenland (talk) 08:58, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Ah thanks, I already changed it. AsianStuff03 (talk) 09:25, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Also shouting [307]. Borgenland (talk) 05:47, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Calabanga is my town whether you like it or not. Trust a local. Kung abo mo magtubod bahala ka. Dae ko yan problema basta ako tigcocorrect ko ang info kan banwaan ko. Iyo tabi noy? Philippine City Editor (talk) 10:14, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

In summary, unwillingness to work collaboratively, WP:IDNHT and municipalist editing bordering on WP:OWN in Bicolano. Which still does not explain why they deliberately misspelled Bambang, Nueva Vizcaya into a sexually-offensive Filipino word and trolled another user as outlined above. Borgenland (talk) 10:20, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

im sorry for the NV one. That's the only one I'm gonna say sorry for Philippine City Editor (talk) 14:04, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Huh? You're only sorry for the vandalism you made in the Nueva Vizcaya one but not the edit warring and insults you made with fellow editors? AsianStuff03 (talk) 14:26, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Not to mention this incitement to suicide on another user [308] in Tagalog and calling them a motherf*****. Borgenland (talk) 10:31, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

@Philippine City Editor Yes, I get it, you live there. But that doesn't change the fact of you insisting on adding unsourced claims to articles. Wikipedia is concerned about verifiability and using reliable sources NOT your own guesses and original research on the topic. Aside from unsourced statements, you also edit war (instead of discussing) with editors such as me that does not align on what you think the Calabanga article should look like. Wikipedia rules and policies are here to stay whether you like it or not. AsianStuff03 (talk) 10:33, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

We trust sources, not locals. Articles are not edited based on either the personal experiences or personal knowledge of editors. I don't know whether you cannot properly source many of your edits or just don't want too, but both are serious problems. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 10:48, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Offending user continuing to WP:IDNHT with more unsourced content and WP:OWN [309]. Borgenland (talk) 13:54, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

huh? It was old content not more content. Also I'm a local.

Borgenland you sound like you're from Northern Europe.

You are Baltic

Baltic or Saltik is a psychopath person in Bicol/Tagalog hahahaha Philippine City Editor (talk) 14:05, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Appreciate awarding yourself the indef barnstar and letting the community know you are a racist WP:NOTHERE editor. So much for describing yourself as an honor student. Borgenland (talk) 14:07, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

You being a local doesn't matter. You have no more Wikipedia right to edit this page, nor do your edits carry more weight than someone in Tokyo or Moscow or Paris or Buenos Aires. I try to stretch good faith as far as humanly possible, but the WP:INDEF can not come quickly enough in this case. You have no business at this time editing English Wikipedia. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:31, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Editing wiki pages isn't solely for locals. GothicGolem29 (talk) 14:47, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

You are Baltic. Baltic or Saltik is a psychopath person in Bicol/Tagalog hahahaha. That insult is totally unacceptable. Narky Blert (talk) 16:25, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm surprised this has gone on so long. See User talk:Philippine City Editor#WP:ANI. User was already on last chance. Indefinitely blocked now. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:36, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

I would have loved to propose a CBAN on grounds of making the rare combination of ethnic and mental health slurs in one sentence but realized that no self-respecting editor would dare bring them back even in six months after reading this report anyway. Borgenland (talk) 17:39, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

For easy-to-block accounts like this one, I agree that having a CBAN discussion is a wasted effort. An admin looking at the appeal will easily see the problem with the editor. No need to bring appeals to the community for review. To help in the event of an appeal, I included a permalink to this AN/I discussion in the block log. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:47, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Qoo2Qoo

I have repeatedly asked user Qoo2Qoo (talk · contribs) to stop deleting content and citations from the Yona of the Dawn article and instead to present evidence that explicitly refutes what is stated there. The user has refused multiple times, and the most they have done recently is to cite a few X/Twitter accounts that simply do not mention what is stated in the article, they are not refuting it. The user continues to insist on deleting content without compelling reasons. I discussed this on their talk page and on the article's talk page, and they still maintain the same attitude. I also reported them at WP:SPI. Xexerss (talk) 16:38, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Indefinitely partially blocked from Yona of the Dawn for persistently removing sourced content. (Also blocked for 72 hours for sockpuppetry.) jlwoodwa (talk) 20:33, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

RedactedUser15 - shared account, gaming EC, and likely LLM use

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

---

RedactedUser15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I stumbled across this user after seeing this edit with a very promotional tone and a non-existent web page as a source. Looking through the rest of their edits, a significant number of them were like this, simply parroting the lead and subsequent section and passing it off as an "expansion" of the description. In at least one case, it was just pasted after the existing content. The more edits I looked at the more this appeared to be LLM-generated, especially this promotional-looking content.

I posted a notice on the user's talk page. They deny using an LLM, but state that roughly 8 friends have access to the account and that they are trying to get extended access so we can write on big articles together.

I don't want this to come off as too bite-y in case this is good-faith unfamiliarity with Wikipedia, but as shared accounts are not allowed, and gaming extended confirmed status and use of LLM content are severely frowned upon, this situation likely needs administrator attention. --Sable232 (talk) 21:41, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

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

user:Veldecima WP:NOTHERE

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

---

Account user:Veldecima is WP:NOTHERE: it generates aa steady stream of false information in numerous subjects. It appears it runs some kind of chatbot designed to generate false information, as I guessed from this accidental slip and this obviously AI-generatted edit. I am not even menntioning lack of adherence to our rules of referenceing. Several other editors reverted gthem, but ghey did not check other edits of this acccount. --Altenmann >talk 16:55, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

How exactly do those diffs show usage of a chatbot/LLM? REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 17:07, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

My hunch, based on miinor detail in all edits I do not want to waste my my time explaining . but the undeniable fact is that ALL edits of this accoount are false info. --Altenmann >talk 17:10, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

If the "accidental slip" is "Articles created by Qbugbot", that is true, the bot Qbugbot created that article in 2018, and the category is real. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 17:16, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Sure thing, but tell me how a normal human editor would insert this text? Dont tell me WP:AGF and novice and stuff. --Altenmann >talk 17:22, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

You have accused them of "testing information warfare", which is a lot less probable than a confused new editor making mistakes. If they are a disruptive LLM user just provide diffs and make your case, the "hunches" and conspiracy nonsense are not helpful. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 17:42, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

I guess that, like in Jokester, once the plot uncovered, they go away. --Altenmann >talk 17:28, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

If my guess is correct, Wikipedia is in grave danger. I am surprized it did not happen earlier, with this influx of AI edits. May be I am paranoid, but this account is testing information warfare on wikipedia. --Altenmann >talk 17:01, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

What is this grammar by the way? This is so confusing 37.186.46.26 (talk) 17:47, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

SFR has taken care of this. There was some LLM in there, but also some nonsense writing, and a whole bunch of missing sourcing. Looks rather WP:CIR to me. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 19:18, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Passive aggressive behaviour

NullIndex (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This user proposed a move using what appeared to be language generated by a LLM. When questioned about this, they replied: I'm going to win this argument, and the title of this article will soon be the 345 Park Avenue shooting. LLM or not. In a separate exchange with @Locke Cole, who asked, "You were asked a very direct question above, would you be so kind as to answer it?", the user responded: Who cares? Buzz off. In my view, this was passive-aggressive and discourteous. Given that the account is one month old and has made 17 edits (15 of which are on the Talk:2025 Midtown Manhattan shooting page) what administrator action, if any, would be appropriate under the guidance of WP:BITE? Goku from bd (talk) 23:36, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

I've just closed the move discussion. It's hard to know what advice to give a user who doesn't think they need any. Asking whether someone used an LLM is a fair if abrupt question; people need to understand that whatever norms they're used to, LLMs are unacceptable here. It's best to learn that right away. My advice to NullIndex would be to look at how they handled themselves in that move discussion, and never do any of that again. Mackensen (talk) 00:04, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

As regards the LLM/AI concerns, I have started a discussion at VPP. Not an RFC yet, though it may end up going that way depending on feedback received. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:40, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Personal attack by IP editor 2A13:9500:2D:1002:BFEA:561E:447D:7AA1

Diff of personal attack: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASon_of_Sardaar_2&diff=1305269032&oldid=1305133396

The IP editor 2A13:9500:2D:1002:BFEA:561E:447D:7AA1 has made public, unfounded accusations that I am working for Mrunal Thakur, that my edits are paid reviews, and urged others to “beware” of me. These comments violate WP:NPA and WP:AGF, targeting me personally rather than my edits. Requesting admin attention and possible block. Computeracct (talk) 06:50, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Computeracct, I've posted a warning on their User talk page but this IP account only has 2 edits so I think if they return to editing, it will be on a different IP address. I think it was a "hit and run" comment. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:47, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the prompt action. Computeracct (talk) 08:07, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Diff of personal attack: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASon_of_Sardaar_2&diff=1305333086&oldid=1305297131

The IP editor 2A13:9500:2D:2002:DACC:F61D:B3AF:5931 has attacked me personally false accusing me of deliberately giving false information by paid reviews without giving evidence of either.

I’m reporting repeated personal attacks against me from multiple IP addresses, including this recent comment https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASon_of_Sardaar_2&diff=1305269032&oldid=1305133396 accusing me without evidence of being part of an actress’s PR team and engaging in “cheap PR works.” This is a violation of WP:NPA and WP:PAID (which requires proof before making such accusations).

This is not the first occurrence — similar comments have appeared from different IPs, suggesting a pattern of harassment and possible WP:Sockpuppetry. The comments do not address article content and instead target me personally.

I request:

• Removal or redaction of these personal attacks from the article talk page.
• Administrative warning or block of the IPs involved.
• Possible page protection if the harassment continues.

Computeracct (talk) 16:12, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

This user is adding paid reviews as mentioned at Son Of Sardaar 2 talk page. This user is working for Mrunal Thakur. Either he is a hardcore fan of Mrunal Thakur or in a team of her. His previous edits are proof.

1. Removed negative reviews from Sita Ramam [310]
2. Added a film called Tum Hi Ho to Thakur with an unreliable source [311]
3. Added non notable award with unreliable source to Thakur [312]
4. Added another non notable award with an unreliable source to Thakur [313]
5. Added award to 3rd IIFA Utsavam [314]
6. Added an award with an unreliable source [315]
7. Removed budget with reliable sources and added lower budget with unreliable sources. Also added box office with an unreliable source [316]
8. Also blocked for disruptive editing and edit warring in Son of Sardaar 2.

And so on. Beware of this user, who is working for Mrunal Thakur. These three reviews here are definitely paid reviews, sometimes given by him or producers. 2A13:9500:2D:2002:DACC:F61D:B3AF:5931 (talk) 02:40, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

I had already replied to this, but this user insists on repeating unfounded accusations and lies

To clarify, I am a fan of Mrunal Thakur but have no professional connection to her or her team. My editing history includes contributions across various topics, including film and tennis, and my aim is to improve Wikipedia with useful, verifiable information. I have been learning about reliability and notability requirements as I go along.

Some of the awards I added were later identified as non-notable; once this was explained, I supported their removal. Tum Hi Ho has completed shooting, and there are multiple independent sources confirming its existence.

I note that this comment comes from an IP address with no prior contributions. While everyone is welcome to participate, I would encourage keeping the discussion focused on article content and sources, rather than on speculation about motives. I am happy to work collaboratively with other editors to ensure the article remains accurate, neutral, and well-sourced.There is no clear evidence that these are paid reviews from what I see. If there is clear evidence pointing so, anyone is welcome to share that in a fact based manner. Admins, I'd request you to review and take appopriate action as requested.

@Liz, you had previously warned him.

Computeracct (talk) 05:24, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

@Computeracct: Your edits that noted above including removing reliable negative reviews and adding unreliable positive reviews to Sita Ramam and adding paid reviews to Son of Sardaar 2 feels that you are not just a fan of Mrunal Thakur. Your edit warring with other users in Son of Sardaar 2 that led to the block definitely feels that you are a member of Thakur's team or paid for her promotion work. You have a conflict of interest towards Mrunal Thakur. There is no personal attack towards you as you said and only replying with what I see from your contribution history. 2A13:9500:2D:1002:BFEA:561E:447D:7AA1 (talk) 06:37, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

I already responded to most of these in the talk page and shown so many of your accusations are unfounded or lies. not going to keep on repeating everything. You have no proper evidence for the IANS/Zee/DNA India reviews being paid.

These are personal attacks as you have already been warned before.

This is not the first occurrence — similar comments have appeared from different IPs, suggesting a pattern of harassment and possible WP:Sockpuppetry. The comments do not address article content and instead target me personally.

I request:

• Removal or redaction of these personal attacks from the article talk page.
• Administrative warning or block of the IPs involved.
• Possible page protection if the harassment continues.

@Liz Computeracct (talk) 06:42, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Who is attacking you personally? I said my findings at Son of Sardaar 2 talk page, checking your contribution history? You are blocked for disruptive edits and edit warring. I only said you have conflict of interest for Mrunal Thakur? What's the wrong here? 2A13:9500:2D:1002:BFEA:561E:447D:7AA1 (talk) 08:37, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Quoting verbatim from an admin who has already warned you.

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:44, 11 August 2025 (UTC) Computeracct (talk) 08:54, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Admins, (including @Liz). Also note user has admitted to using multiple IP address accounts on his talk page for the same purpose (which as admin @Liz has already pointed out are personal attacks.) Now this is also proof of Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry.

User talk:2A13:9500:2D:1002:BFEA:561E:447D:7AA1

Not personal attacking. The user who reported is actually doing fan work or paid editing for Mrunal Thakur. More details replied in above link. 2A13:9500:2D:2002:DACC:F61D:B3AF:5931 (talk) 02:43, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Diff link ->

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A2A13%3A9500%3A2D%3A1002%3ABFEA%3A561E%3A447D%3A7AA1&diff=1305441899&oldid=1305304378

I have already said I am fan of Mrunal, but not associated with her team or PR in any way.

User has not provided any proper evidence of the IANS/Zee News/DNA India reviews being paid/sponsored either.

Requesting a ban on the 2 IP addresses after review and a possible cleanup of these personal attacks against me. Computeracct (talk) 09:01, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

User:WikinonBot4

WikinonBot4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) I don't like opening ANI's when the user has been reported at WP:UAA (see here and WP:ANEW (see here already but the EW has essentially stopped for now as a discussion is underway at the talk page of said article, and EW takes two to tango so I've stopped reverting and EW is not an active issue. However the discussion at the talk page has brought more issues namely WP:CIR or WP:IDHT and WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:OWNERSHIP.

After being told about WP:RSPYT [317] (this is the second time linking to RSPYT the first was [318] on his user talk page) he continued insisting on using youtube as a source. WikinonBot4 also has ignored/skirted around direct questions.

The WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour is accusing me of bias not once, butmultiple times making a (borderline?) personal attack you appear to be delusional (see first bias diff) harassment [319] and using very sad bully boy tactics [320], the last one after I informed then that per Wikipedia:Donating Copyrighted Materials, the copyright owner is the one who needs to upload copyrighted materials. The WP:OWNERSHIP behaviour is reverting anyone who removes or edits not just the paragraph in question but the paragraph before (going back months, not every incidence of reverting listed).

Even an attempt to compromise with leaving the paragraph in the article with a different source (the paragraph is about the book, so I asked why not just use the book in question as the source) was ignored.

In sum it appears the user is a net negative to Wikipedia either for WP:CIR or for WPIDHT WP:BATTLEGROUND. Lavalizard101 (talk) 22:34, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

this is wikinonbot4 responding. I hope this is the correct place to post my response. this is my first time doing this in this forum.

my response:

	Text generated by a large language model (LLM) or similar tool has been collapsed per relevant Wikipedia guidelines. LLM-generated arguments should be excluded from assessments of consensus. — Newslinger talk 11:18, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Under WP:RSPYT, the reliability of a YouTube video depends on the origin of its content. In this case, the video is published on the official channel of Rabbi Gavriel Bechhoffer, a widely recognized and respected Orthodox rabbi and rabbinical court judge on the Beth Din of America. He is a notable public figure with an :established reputation for expertise in Jewish law, meeting the criteria in WP:SELFPUB for self-published expert sources. The video directly quotes primary source material (Kuntres Shmoi Shel Moshiach by Aharon Yaakov Lieberman) and includes Rabbi Bechhoffer’s own scholarly interpretation that the Rambam did not rule out the possibility of Moshiach arising from the dead according to halacha. This use is consistent with Wikipedia’s sourcing policy: The author is an established subject-matter expert. The content is from the expert’s own official channel. The statement is about the subject matter in which the author is recognized as an authority. Given these factors, the video should be treated as a reliable source in this context.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by WikinonBot4 (talk • contribs) 01:56, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

@WikinonBot4, this response appears to have been generated by a large language model. We're interested in hearing what you have to say about the interactions Lava described, not what someone else's computer spat out about how reliable a specific YouTube video is. tony 03:30, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

this is wikinonbot4 responding to Tony: I am sorry you feel my response was from a large language model. I will not ask you how you came to that conclusion or why that would even matter. however to say succinctly, assuming I am posting in the place. the video referenced to is appropriate based on the facts and circumstances enumerated above the the response you described as "someone else's computer spat out" I trust judgement is based on facts and established Wikipedia rules. as such the edits I have made are appropriate and should remain. Happy to answer any other questions you may have in this regard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikinonBot4 (talk • contribs) 03:52, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi there, WikinonBot4! AN/I is a forum for discussing conduct, not article content. Do you have any comments regarding Lavalizard101's statements against your behavior, especially the quotes highlighted in green? — 🪫Volatile ^{📲T | ⌨️C} 03:59, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

this is wikinonbot4 responding to volatile. if I offended lizard or anyone I apologize. the comments as well as his comments to me and his many edits and reverting that he did are for all to see in there proper context which included several messages he sent to me of which I could have made a complaint about. the comments and his reverting is there on the history for all to see. in any event I apologize if I offended anyone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikinonBot4 (talk • contribs) 04:11, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

WikinonBot4, the problem is not that you offended anyone. It's that you are not editing in line with policy. At the top of this discussion, in Lavalizard101's statement, there are links to policies which are being pointed out as problems but I think you didn't spend much time reading over the complaints about your editing. These comments are not aboout you personally, it's about Wikipedia's policies and standards and whether your editing is in line with our accepted practices. If you could spend time, click on those links and read over the policy pages, you can see what some of the issues are. I recommend you spend some time doing this. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:42, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

this is (rather was) wikinonbot4 I changed my user name to Jamie53c due to complaints my previous name had "bot" in it. in any event, Liz I believe I have read the relevant document and stand by my edit. the YouTube video used as reference 15 I believe meets Wikipedia rules.

please let me know if you have any other questions or if any other information is required of me. thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamie53c (talk • contribs) 12:00, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

To clarify, you are saying that you have examined the diffs and quotes presented by LavaLizard101 in the original post, and find that they are all compliant with policy? EducatedRedneck (talk) 12:08, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

the YouTube video used as reference 15 I believe meets Wikipedia rules. It doesn't. Not for the material it is being cited for, or for anything other than the opinions of the individual who uploaded it, stated as opinion. And to include that, we'd have to have evidence that the uploader's opinion is of any significance. And why have you given the video a fictitious title? AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:30, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

I want to note they changed their username to Jamie53c (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 08:12, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

• Wasting community time with AI-written slop is disruption for which we should have zero tolerance. Suggest immediate indefinite block. EEng 08:52, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

I don't think it is malicious, I think it's a lack of ability with computers and English. And we still have no policy absolutely forbidding AI use on the project. I wish we did have policy measures with more teeth, but we don't. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:15, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

I don't think it's malicious either, but it's a CIR problem. My thesis: anyone who thinks it's OK to use AI to write things they can't write for themselves (because of lack of English skills, lack of basic brainpower, lack of patience, or whatever) is a CIR case, and should be blocked on that basis alone, unless and until they show that they've come to understand that posting AI-written content is not OK. At that point they can be provisionally unblocked on a probationary basis. Second offense: indef with one-year minimum wait for unblock request. AI will destroy Wikipedia unless we start taking a hard line NOW. The cancer is already spreading. EEng 14:37, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

It's honestly commendable that they stopped using an LLM after it became obvious that we didn't want them to use it. Someone changing their behavior based on others' feedback is awesome. Lavalizard101 did not bring them here for LLM's, though -- they brought them here with evidence of a pattern of disruptive behavior, and Jamie53c hasn't even acknowledged any of it besides arguing in support of a single YouTube source (which appears to be one tiny part of the larger pattern Lava described). tony 21:59, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

This is at ANI too... Well, I have blocked them sitewide for 2 weeks for disruptive editing, which seems to be a pretty good summary of everything they did so far. Feel free to extend this to indefinitely. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:43, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

~ ToBeFree, I had to explain to them about clicking on a link to take you to a page (ANI in this case), so I just assumed they were unfamiliar with using technology or online editing like Wikipedia. I hate to cite CIR but I think it might be a factor here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:16, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Well, I'm not questioning their intentions at all, and the block isn't about intentions/faith either. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:00, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

User:Srich32977 modifying ISBN formats again, despite years of requests not to do so

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

---

Srich32977 is modifying ISBN formats again, despite years of requests not to do so. The editor was asked to stop yet again, responded with the same "consistency" justification, and then immediately went to another article to make the objectionable changes. The editor has been asked to desist from undesirable ISBN editing behavior in:

• December 2016
• March 2019
• January 2020
• November 2020
• November 2022
• June 2023
• November 2024

Those were just the ones that I could find. I expect that there are more. I hate going to ANI for resolution, but this editor keeps returning to the same objectionable behavior, despite warnings, blocks, and requests. I apologize to the administrators who will have to deal with this, but I don't know where else to turn. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:54, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Let's compare:

A WP article has some references posted. Some of them are styled as ISBN 9780691122946, some have ISBN 978-0691122946, and some have ISBN 978-0-691-12294-6. Also, the article has these ISBNs: ISBN 0-691-12294-6 and ISBN 0691122946. (For sake of argument please assume these go to different sources. My example is about the mix of styles.) Please note that all of these ISBNs connect to WP:Book Sources and Book Sources then allows us to check different data bases for the books. More importantly, Book Sources says "Spaces and hyphens in the ISBN do not matter." So I ask you, if we are posting these 5 different layouts in our article are we being consistent with our copyediting? I don't think so. H:ISBN tells us what the ISBNs do (and that they don't need hyphens). Also it says we can put in spaces -- which could expand my example considerably. What have I been doing? I see articles that have a mix of ISBN layout styles. It is easier to remove unnecessary hyphens rather than guess or calculate what the "standard" format should be. So removal is the preferred COA. As for the list of dates posted, two were related to "fat-finger" typos, and one or two others were simply discussion -- not admonishments. In all I'd have to say Jonesey is the only editor who is content with in-consistent ISBN layouts. – S. Rich (talk) 00:38, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

When you have been asked multiple times, over a period of years, by multiple editors (not just Jonesey), to stop doing this (see especially this one), and you continue to do it, that's disruptive editing at best. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:57, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

ANI is about behavioral problems. The issue here is you are going ahead with mass edits despite having received 8+ warnings on your talk page. See #4 and #5. Northern Moonlight 02:00, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

@Srich32977: I highly recommend you to pause your ISBN editing now while this thread is ongoing. You made 15 more ISBN edits after the ANI started. Northern Moonlight 04:49, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Alright, it doesn’t seem you care about what other editors think at all. Northern Moonlight 06:33, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Sigh. I considered using stronger language in my earlier post here, typing out "do you need a final warning or will you stop on your own?", but decided not to in hope that this might be taken on board without it. Apparently I should have posted it, given that while they have started posting on talk pages seeking consensus for ISBN changes, even as they do this they've also continued plowing right on ahead making these edits (seven times, by my count) despite the multiple concerns and the ANI. Accordingly, I've pblocked Srich32977 from articlespace until they acutally engage here and heed the community's concerns. Anyone can lift the block once they do. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:12, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

I've declined the unblock request. It didn't address the concerns. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 23:35, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Agree with other editors, please stop when you are asked to. This appears to be a behavioral pattern of yours, ignoring other editor's concerns raised on your talk page, and just continuing on full steam ahead, knowing that objections have been raised in relation to your edits. Isaidnoway (talk) 04:30, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

if we are posting these 5 different layouts in our article are we being consistent with our copyediting? The answer to your question is “no, but who cares?” As your previous sentence notes, it doesn’t matter. You’re annoying people about an utterly unimportant formalism; go find something for which this kind of gnoming *makes a difference* and no one will mind. 173.79.19.248 (talk) 12:15, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

I recommend that Jonesey95 and Rich have a look at Template:Format ISBN and see if they can reach a mutual agreement to use it. Preferably that discussion should occur on an article or either user's talk page rather than here. 208.105.244.131 (talk) 06:14, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

That's a potentially useful template, but it's not just ISBNs for this editor. They make other changes, some of which are helpful and some of which are detrimental. Have a look back through their User talk archives and you will see dozens of posts from editors objecting to all sorts of changes, mostly to citation formatting. The editor usually claims "consistency" as a justification for all of their edits, even ones that have objectionable changes in them. The editor sometimes agrees to change their behavior, but they consistently backslide. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:46, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Many wikignomes find it absurd that their edits could be seen as disruptive. After all, they're only making small edits that fix Wikipedia! However, a small subset of wikignomes are not fixing things that are broken. They are instead imposing order on a disordered world, which brings them peace. People who want to impose order on the world don't care whether the world wants or appreciates this – they're doing it for themselves, not for you. This is why there are several wikignome sock puppeteers that I've had to range block. If they could stop, they would have. Since they can't, they just keep creating more and more accounts to disrupt Wikipedia in the name of consistency, enraging other editors who want them to stop doing this. @Srich32977: I hope that you'll go down a different road. Next time someone asks you stop fixing things that aren't broken, stop doing it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:15, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

There is an inherent contradiction here. In my case I see inconsistency in a citation and I seek to "fix" the citation. Ah, but, if a citation was "not broken" to begin with, does it remain "not broken" after the fix? – S. Rich (talk) 18:32, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

What’s the contradiction? If I make 200 edits to a page to add and remove spaces, leaving it ultimately the same, nothing is broken as a result but the behavior is obviously disruptive! 173.79.19.248 (talk) 18:52, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Well, your comment is not quite on-point. There is concern (much talk page discussion) about hyphens in ISBNs, and hyphens always render to the reader. I contend that giving the reader a mix of hyphenated ISBN-styles is not helpful. That is, if the reader sees hyphenated, partially-hyphenated, and non-hyphenated ISBNs, they are seeing inconsistent information. (E.g., information in inconsistent styles.) The ISBNs might all work (link to Book Sources), but do we have an established style? – S. Rich (talk) 19:09, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

One of us certainly is having trouble staying on-point, but it’s not me. There is no contradiction in NRP’s post, and turning things from one non-broken state to another non-broken state can be disruptive, and instead of plugging your ears up with unimportant questions like “do we have an established style?” you should consider the key introspective question “why haven’t I stopped doing this even though it bothers many other people?” 173.79.19.248 (talk) 19:23, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict)That doesn't matter. It doesn't even matter if you're actually entirely right. What matters is that concerns have been raised about your edits by multiple editors over a period of nearly ten years, and yet you have continued to make them while brushing off those concerns for one reason or another. That is, at best, a case of IDHT - including right here, in this post above. Your response isn't "sorry, I won't do this", but is instead "but actually (Wikilawyering)". I'm going to be blunt here - your 'fixes' are not desired by the community, in large part because of your attitude torwards them. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:56, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Everyone is right that this is not about content, but since people are in fact weighing in on the content: I support S. Rich's edits that change articles from having an inconsistent ISBN style to having a consistent one. I wish we had a more gnome-friendly or gnome-neutral culture here. In the meantime, S. Rich, I think the move here is to say "I'll stop making ISBN-related edits. I won't start until there's clear consensus that these edits are supported." I would appreciate a ping to any such discussion. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:27, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

I agree, the edits themselves aren't a problem, per se. I'm pretty sure I've made similar edits myself in the past on occasion. The problem is the response to community concerns about them, because WP:BRIE. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:40, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

@The Bushranger: Now I'm even more confused! You say "the edits themselves aren't a problem ... ." But it seems that my interaction with a small number of editors is getting me into hot water. And to reach the boiling point we have the list of 8 notifications over 8 years. (Egad! The fact that I'm asking for an un-block might be construed as a negative interaction!) Well, I've figured out how to find the "thank you" notes that editors have sent me. Since June 3, 2013, they total 1,337. See [321] for the end of the list. Now I can't parse what thanks are related to what articles or what specific edits edits, but I do think the number of thanks offsets the complaints that Jonesey95 has posted. Please consider and then unblock me. I've got more gnomish tasks to work on. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 15:28, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Are you going to stop making ISBN-related edits, since multiple editors have asked you not to. Isaidnoway (talk) 15:41, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

I think his answer is no. Northern Moonlight 15:49, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Reading the link Bushranger posted would alleviate that confusion.

Being right isn't enough MilesVorkosigan (talk) 15:42, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

You say "the edits themselves aren't a problem ... ." But it seems that my interaction with a small number of editors is getting me into hot water. There is no contradiction between these two things: a behavior can be harmless until the moment when it annoys other people, at which point the failure to stop becomes problematic. 173.79.19.248 (talk) 15:52, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

I've been reading Rich's responses on his talk page and elsewhere and they are not encouraging to me. He's constantly pointing to his barnstars and thanks despite those being meaningless in the grand scheme of things and them having no effect on editorial/behavioral policy decisions. His initial post on RL0919's talk page here saying "If you (as an Administrator) can straighten them out I will recommend that you get an upgrade to WP:Bureaucrat.)" sounds like a bribe to me which isn't on. I could be misunderstanding this post but it sounds like the classic scratch my back and I'll scratch yours bribe to me which is really concerning. Overall there's a undercurrent of WP:IDHT throughout Rich's posts which isn't helping his chances of getting unblocked. ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 23:15, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Here is the whole discussion, to provide context and RL0919s reply and then Srich32977s response to that reply. Isaidnoway (talk) 23:34, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Reply to JCW555. I'm sorry, I was trying to be funny. A promotion to Bureaucrat is a complex process and editors get throughly vetted. I'm sure RL0919 knows that! I think I'll go back and delete or strikeout my poor attempt at humor. – S. Rich (talk) 23:47, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, I just saw this, but to alleviate any possible confusion: I did not take that part of S. Rich's comment seriously, and it wouldn't have changed anything anyway, for the reasons I indicated in my reply to him. --RL0919 (talk) 21:40, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal

Looking at their talk page post-block, I don't see any indication from Srich that they understand why they were pblocked - indeed they have repeatedly stated their intentions to return to ISBN editing immediately upon being "let loose". Thus I hereby propose a formal topic-ban from edits that alter ISBN format in any way for Srich32977. Note that this does not prevent Srich32977 from adding ISBNs - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:09, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

I am clearly involved here, so take this with a grain of salt. This editor has received many messages (yes, many are from me) on their talk page regarding a variety of incorrect citation changes over the years. I believe that if this editor gets unblocked, and if a topic ban is limited to ISBNs only, this editor will be back at ANI sometime in the next year or two due to undesirable non-ISBN citation changes. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:13, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Then per WP:ROPE, isn't that what we do, and we then respond as needed? Andy Dingley (talk) 16:50, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

• Having complained about this behaviour for several years and raised an inconclusive ANI thread on the topic two years ago, I support this proposal. The "in any way" is necessary, given the history of stretching interpretations, especially of "consistency". Jonesey95 may be right about the potential for non-ISBN issues, but Srich has (albeit too slowly) come around on MOS:INITIALS and MOS:NUMRANGE. Kanguole 06:26, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

  Re "has come around on MOS:INITIALS": Unfortunately, not all the way. I don't have the time or emotional energy to look at every one of this editor's edits, but in this recent edit they changed "E. O." to "E.O." in a first-name parameter, which goes against MOS and which they have been asked to stop multiple times. I haven't seen undesirable edits to page numbering recently. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:27, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

  My mistake. I thought I remembered him agreeing to both of these years ago, but then there's this disregard for NUMRANGE last November. Kanguole 07:43, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

I think this is both an over- and an under-reaction. S. Rich has two problems:

1. He's made many disruptive ISBN edits. They're disruptive because we insist that mass editing be paused when objections are raised and not resumed until consensus is reached. S. Rich's offer to restrict his edits to FA-quality articles is not the "I'll stop all ISBN edits" that many of us were hoping for, but it does address this issue. There is existing consensus (enshrined in the FA criteria), that FA citations should be consistently formatted, so mass edits to conform FA-article ISBNs would not be disruptive.
2. He has not yet shown an understanding of what he's done wrong. Even if S. Rich stopped all ISBN edits, he'd still likely resume mass editing, and he hasn't picked up on how he should respond when an objection is raised. For this problem, an ISBN TBAN would not suffice. The current article-space pblock is working, but a more narrowly tailored sanction could instead be a ban from mass editing. I would support such a ban, though I'd much rather just see S. Rich explain that he now understands how to act if someone objects to a set of mass edits.

Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:35, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

• Support – as this is the only way to get them to stop. This has been going on entirely too long to overlook anymore, and then to continue ISBN editing when you're brought to ANI over this exact problematic behavior is a reliable indicator they have no intention on listening to their fellow editors when we are telling S. Rich – we don't want you doing this. I also share Jonesey95's concerns about other undesirable non-ISBN citation changes if they are unblocked, but at least we can stop this particular behavioral issue right now. Isaidnoway (talk) 14:09, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

  After getting blocked from article space, Srich32977 decided it’s a good idea to mass start editing ISBN in draft, template and Wikipedia namespace today (#1, #2, #3). Can we extend the indef to all namespaces except talk and Wikipedia? Northern Moonlight 22:16, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

  This is so frustrating. Half of their ISBN edits are good: correcting an incorrect ISBN. Others are annoying and useless. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:44, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

  Their self-imposed wikibreak didn't last but a hot minute, before returning to the same behavior being discussed in this report. This might be blunt, but I don't know that I've ever seen someone so determined to dig the hole even deeper. Isaidnoway (talk) 23:06, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Can you just confirm that it is only a ban on "fixing" ISBN and not on adding references that contain one? CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 16:00, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

My reading is that alter means “modifying or removing an existing ISBN field” and hence would exclude “adding”. Northern Moonlight 16:09, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Presently I'm looking for the best template to announce my Wikibreak. Post-break I'd like to improve the ISBN-formatting in Wikipedia again. I will focus on the ISBN-error/checksum list category. I will put in all, I mean ALL, the hyphens I can find in OCLC, ASIN, Amazon, etc. Why do I have this mania about ISBNs? In my pre-US Army days I was a book sorter and shelver at the local public library. Library patrons would drop their returned book down the slot to the basement book sorting room. I'd help in checking the books back in, put them on the carts, and push the carts back to where we could re-shelf them according to the Dewey Decimal System number. Sometimes I could actually sit down and read the books! It was a great job. So bye-bye for now. It is time to start my brake. – S. Rich (talk) 16:36, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Post-break I'd like to improve the ISBN-formatting in Wikipedia again

This has to be the most blatant WP:IDHT I have ever seen. Northern Moonlight 17:55, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

If this ban proposal goes through you can't alter currently added ISBNs. You would be able to add comments to the talk page using something like {{Edit COI}} CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 19:10, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

That's how I read it as well. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 19:06, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

That was my intent, yes. Fine to add, not fine to alter or remove. I've tweaked the wording accordingly. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:53, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

As I read the 6 to 8 complaints listed by Jonesey95 I think the major criticism was that my edits were improper when I took out hyphens from the ISBNs. And yes I failed to explain my edits properly. (And double-yes, one of my WP mentors has pointed out how effectively I shot myself in the foot with my responses!) Well, I'm signed up with OCLC which displays publication data, plus much more. And OCLC will display the various ISBNs for different editions of books. At this moment I looking at a book published by Sage and OCLC is displaying a non-hyphenated version of the ISBN. (See OCLC 750831024 and ISBN 9781412965804 or 978-1-4129-6580-4.) In our discussions about my block editors have suggested using Template:Format ISBN. This template displays the ISBN with full hyphenation. (Also, it displays a red checksum note if the ISBN is invalid.) I suggest that I be allowed to modify ISBNs so they display the hyphenated version of the ISBN. (My first goal is to go through the categories that list articles with ISBN errors so they can be cleaned up.) And Market socialism is also one of my "targets" for ISBN fixing – it is an interesting topic and both Jonesey95 and I have recently edited the article. (It still has some gnomish errors.) There is no rush on my request. I'm on WikiBreak at present. But I do want to boost my edit count a bit more. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 01:34, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

No, that isn’t really the main objection at this point.

As at least a dozen people have told you, the objection is that when lots of people tell you that your edits are contentious and need to be discussed, you appear to be 100% unable to hear them. You also appear to be unable to hear what anyone in this report is saying to you.

I believe that you’re editing in good faith, but whatever stops you from being able to hear what other people say is causing a big problem for you. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 04:51, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

• Support = I am not sure that this is the best possible sanction, but at this point, with at least 7 incidents over 8.5 years, some sanction is in order, and is better than nothing. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:55, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

  Jonesey95 did say their list was incomplete. Here are some more:

  • December 2018
  • December 2018
  • January 2019
  • January 2019
  • May 2022
  • October 2022
  • April 2023

  and that's just ISBN formatting. As Jonesey95 points out, there are similarly persistent issues with other aspects of citations. Kanguole 07:43, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

  Here's the ANI report from 2023, which arose out of the April 2023 discussion linked in the list above. A formal warning was suggested in that report, but unsure if the warning was ever acted upon. Isaidnoway (talk) 08:17, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

  Also noting that - I've received "Thanks" and Barnstars - was a defense offered for their objectionable behavior in that report as well. Isaidnoway (talk) 08:29, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

  Also note that they have moved to making the exact same edits as before in draftspace: [322], [323] and in projectspace: [324]. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:42, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

  Some of those edits are good: fixing bad ISBNs. I still believe a block is in order and will block from the affected non-talk spaces until this discussion on what to do long-term is concluded. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:46, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks. Not all of their edits are bad - in fact, very few of them are. The problem is the absolute WP:IDHT in response to concerns about them, and the continued plowing right on ahead with the edits, including here with a pblock and pending tban as a result of that IDHT. Being right isn't enough. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:48, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

  Any admin can modify/remove the pblock changes I made without prior consultation. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:52, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose S. Rich isn't doing anything that violates PAGs. The RfC last held on this topic (Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 188#RfC: Standardizing ISBN formatting (and an end to editwarring about it)) concluded with no consensus as to whether ISBN formats should be standardized in articles, which in my view means that S. Rich's edits are permissible. We should not sanction an editor just because other editors don't like what someone is doing. If you want to prohibit this behavior, get consensus for it. Otherwise, leave S. Rich alone. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:16, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

  To be clear, I'm obviously in support of unblocking S. Rich as well. voorts (talk/contributions) 05:13, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

  Did you read this whole thread and look at the diffs and links to previous talk page threads for this editor? Have you seen that they are continuing these objectionable edits in non-article namespaces? Also, this discussion ended in consensus for hyphenated ISBNs. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

  Yes. I read the thread and the links. My opinion here is what it is. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:13, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

  There would have been zero support in that RfC for S. Rich's position, which is to retain the first hyphen in 13-digit ISBN numbers and remove all hyphens from 10-digit numbers. Incidentally, he didn't participate in that RfC, but his behavior was brought up by one user as a negative example. Mackensen (talk) 13:46, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

• Support: Whether the ISBN edits are technically permissible is irrelevant. The real issue here is the continuous editing despite a long history of opposition and failure to build a consensus (WP:DE). Northern Moonlight 03:03, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

  How can one build consensus when the main RfC on the topic ended with no consensus? Why is it fair to ban someone based on opposition to their editing when that opposition isn't shared by the community? voorts (talk/contributions) 03:59, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

  The problem is not their edits. Their edits are, technically, correct. The problem isn't even the fact they have community pushback. The problem is that they blithely utterly ignored that pushback, to the point of making spurious claims about that pushback being more limited than it actually was (note early in this thread that they were implying, if not outright claiming, that only one editor had raised concerns), and that, even with knowing that there are community concerns about it and having been pblocked for the IDHT, they still do not get that their behavior was in any way problematic, and their suggested remedies on their talk page carry a strong sense that they would be automatically accepted and they could roar right back into editing ISBNs left right and center, a recipe for - by omission, or otherwise - just bringing the same issues up yet again. Technically, their edits are entirely in the right. But being right isn't enough. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:35, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

  Being right is not enough, but we shouldn't be gaslighting people by telling them their editing is fine but then faulting them for not stopping when people complain about it. IDHT applies to ignoring community consensus, not a group of editors who are annoyed with you and who lack consensus for their position. S. Rich has no obligation to stop standardizing ISBNs on articles, so I'm not sure why it's an issue that he wants to continue doing so. voorts (talk/contributions) 05:12, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

  In this edit seen here, from just a couple of days ago, they wrote in their edit summary - minor edit to achieve consistency in ISBN presentation. Looking at the article prior to their edit, only 3 of the ISBNs had one hyphen, while 13 had multiple hyphens, so the dominant style was multiple hyphens, so if anything, they should have changed the 3 to match the other 13. And even after their edit, there still wasn't any consistency, as some ISBNs had just 1 hyphen, while others had no hyphens.

  In addition, Help:Citation Style 1 says Use the ISBN actually printed on or in the book. I spot checked five of the books, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and the citations were actually using the ISBN printed in the book. Doesn't make sense to me. Looks like to me they were just forcing their preferred version of ISBNs on the article. Isaidnoway (talk) 07:34, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

  Now we're going to sanction someone for violating the Help pages? voorts (talk/contributions) 21:15, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

  Not that I'm aware of, no. Isaidnoway (talk) 21:36, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

  we shouldn't be gaslighting people by telling them their editing is fine

  I said it’s irrelevant. I didn’t say it’s fine. Northern Moonlight 23:06, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

  That was in response to The Bushranger, who said that his edits are "technically" correct. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:45, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

• Support. There is long-standing consensus that mass cosmetic style changes aren't okay if people object. People have objected. Repeatedly. Mackensen (talk) 13:47, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

  A cosmetic change is an edit that doesn't change what is displayed to readers. These edits do change what readers see. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:39, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

  Style, then. It doesn't alter my substantive point. Mackensen (talk) 23:21, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

  @Voorts: That's exactly what a cosmetic change does...it changes the appearanc without changing the meaning or functionality.

  I happen to agree with User:Srich32977 on the importance of consistency (in appearance as well as meaning and function). However, it would be best to always use Template:Format ISBN as I recommended above, since that will handle putting the hyphens in the correct places. It's also best to use 13 digit ISBNs whenever they are available in a source per WP:ISBN even if there are some inconsistencies due to different sources cited in the same article using different length ISBNs.

  The much bigger problem is that Srich32977 needs to IMMEDIATELY stop all edits relating to ISBNs and other contested changes in any way, apologize for not doing so sooner while ignoring others and then gain consensus before proceeding to make any future ISBN or other changes that have been contested. If he does not do so, an indefinite block from all editing is inevitable and warranted. 24.198.157.168 (talk) 00:09, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

• Support. When these edits spread to draftspace and projectspace, we started acting out the last part of the Wikipedia:parable of the wildflowers. 174.138.218.72 (talk) 22:44, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

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

IP bigotry and death threats

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

---

139.135.43.255 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Absolutely abhorrent comments by the IP here, who has also consistently made death threats against another editor: [325], [326], [327] (other attacks have been revdeled).

We need a perma block. Shocking this went on for so long. Gotitbro (talk) 15:02, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

IPs can't be indefinitely blocked. In extreme repetitive cases very long blocks can be put in place tho. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 15:06, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Note, for whatever it's worth, the IP user in question blanked this section a couple of minutes after it was posted. --tony 15:09, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

I did a six month block. Nobody is on this IP address, so it seems safe to do long blocks. It'll eventually get recycled to someone else, though. If there's more disruption after six months, we can an even longer block, but indefinite blocks shouldn't be done on IP addresses. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:31, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

I can't decide if this is flat-out trolling, or something else. "On 22 April 2025 unknown gunmen neutralised 26 pagan infidels who were in Muslim territory for Israeli-like settler colonialism. Those dirty pagans are now in hellfire where all infidels will burn forever." (in part) and "Do you remember our secret plan to take over Wikipedia? We have to save it from Muslims." (Google Translate from Hindi, in part). Narky Blert (talk) 15:41, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

If I had a nickel for every time a vandal announced their vague association with a Wikipedia-infiltrating super secret organized group (in public, of course) I'd have enough to buy the next round of drinks at the RCP cabal's next bi-weekly meeting at the pub ;) --tony 16:27, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Undiscussed page moves by User:YashTheBosss

• YashTheBosss (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Move log: [328]

This user joined Wikipedia just 3 weeks ago, and yet they have performed over 170+ page moves in most cases claiming those are the official names with no regard to the COMMONNAME policy or naming conventions. Vestrian24Bio 16:16, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

No talk page discussions before doing the redirects either, several warnings on user page about disruption (including a block), plus this doesn't scream "I'll do better" [329]. Conyo14 (talk) 16:29, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Considering this user has put Kannada on their talk page we might want to {{Uw-ublock-wellknown}} due to similarities with Yash (actor). Up to admins though. —Matrix _{ping me}^{when u reply} (t? - c) 18:25, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Actually, on second thoughts Yash is quite a common Kannada/Hindi name, so maybe don't do that. —Matrix _{ping me}^{when u reply} (t? - c) 18:31, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Paid editing fraud

Please redirect me if there is a more specific noticeboard these days, but I recently was contacted via LinkedIn and Instagram by two business executives who had been emailed by someone posing as me offering paid editing/article monitoring services. These were minor executives with existing articles (notability a bit dubious but apparently they did not request or pay for their creation), and so contacted me out of suspicion. No doubt there are a lot more who are being spammed and potentially defrauded this way. Other than adding a warning to my userpage, is there something we should do about this? They shared the email address with me, if we have an avenue to report this to the WMF for Terms of Use violation investigations? Steven Walling • talk 01:55, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

See WP:REPORTPAID. Confidential information should go to the Arbitration Committee. Acroterion (talk) 02:46, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Steven Walling, I'd direct the people who contacted you out of concern to read WP:SCAM. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 17:11, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

In this case the scam is that they were offering to monitor edits to existing mainspace BLPs, not create new articles or publish drafts. Steven Walling • talk 17:33, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

@Steven Walling: I reread the page and I'm surprised that what you mentioned isn't included as part of the bullet list of options because I've definitely heard of that before and I'm not even super involved in that space. Trying to remember how I came across it... maybe the paid editing session from T&S last wikimania? Might be worth including it on the page itself. I'd say the general statements regarding how paid editors can't guarantee anything etc are still useful, though. I would also still forward the email to paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org as well. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 19:40, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Yep I reached out to paid-en-wp@ directly on this case. I do think a more general, non-AFC related warning page would help. Scammers are creative and will continue to come up with new approaches. Steven Walling • talk 20:51, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Armandlee

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

---

Moved from WP:AN 03:52, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Armandlee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to be an WP:SPA (they were tagged as such by @Some1). Their entire contributions history has been to the Sydney Sweeney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) talk page or article. They've exhibited a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, insisting content they appear to want to include be added, accusing editors who think otherwise of forcing your own opinions on this article, and claims that what you have showed is a bias. You have shut others up and threatened those have a different opinion if this article (@TNstingray is the editor who allegedly threatened Armandlee). Accuses the same editor again that they have a clear bias that wants to withhold information on a public figure. In an interaction with @DocLG they stated You did not explain yourself. I haven't said anything that would not be of good faith. You just don't want to explain yourself. Accused me of editorializing simply for bringing the matter to the attention of WP:BLPN.

They appear to be stretching the limits of WP:CIV and when editors don't agree with them, they WP:BLUDGEON them expecting it's every editor who must WP:SATISFY them. Their talk page has three different warnings, two of them written seemingly by the editors leaving them in a genuine interest in helping them slow down, but this has been going on for four days. Bringing the matter here in the hopes of either attracting more attention or perhaps looking at a WP:NOTHERE block. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:34, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

(just realized I posted this at AN instead of AN/I, as I've already left the notifications pointing here I leave it to an admin to decide if this should be moved to AN/I with a pointer or left here) —Locke Cole • t • c 03:37, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Dunno how I missed this one, Clearly you are not actually reading the sources provided and jump to a conclusion that fits your viewpoint. As others have pointed out I can't help but think you are part of her team in some way. She's about to kick off her Oscar campaign and I'm thinking some of the wikiusers are here to cover for her. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:40, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Locke Cole, I think this should be moved to ANI as it really doesn't involve the admin community. There is a specific template to do this but perhaps you could just cut and paste since only I have responded to it so far. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:43, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Hey there, would be happy to be part of the discussion. I have not broken the rules of WP:CIV. Any discussion of a public nature will involve push back but I've been open and honest about why I believe I should push back. User Lock Cole has been harassing me non stop/ Armandlee (talk) 03:50, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

@Armandlee, Some1, TNstingray, DocLG, and Liz: post-move pings, will re-notify Armandlee. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:54, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

• I've been following that section of the article talk page since it began. It's a testament to the other participants' dedication to WP:AGF that it's taken this long to escape the bounds of Talk:Sydney Sweeney. Pick any random contribution of Armandlee to the article's talk page for an example of WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality; taken in toto it's something akin to WP:BLUDGEONING incarnate. TurboSuper+ left excellent advice on Armandlee's talk page, which was totally ignored for a day but finally responded to after the AN discussion opened, followed by a declaration a few minutes ago of Cool, if there is no fairness. I can do what I want. We are unable to help someone who refuses to hear us. tony 04:37, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

The "I can do what I want" definitely makes me think that there's no way to not avoid a page block at this point. While I totally agree with Liz philosophically about this being a new editor, this is a failure of basic human interaction, not someone falling afoul of a tricky Wikipedia process, and presumably this editor has more than five days of being a human who has to communicate with others who disagree with them. Also, it's a page block, not a wider topic ban or an indef. If the discussion being here isn't a speed bump, then something else has to be. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 06:51, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

• The solution would be an indefinite partial block for editing the Sydney Sweeney article and talk page. Indefinite doesn't mean forever, but they can appeal later once they've demonstrated the ability to play nice. If they drag the issue to other articles, then an indef block sitewide. The partial block will give them the ability to demonstrate they are not a single issue editor (ie: WP:NOTHERE). I'm almost of a mind to just unilaterally impose it, but I'm not around often enough to deal with it afterwards. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 05:27, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

  What draws my attention here is that Armandlee has been editing Wikipedia for 4 days. Locke Cole, you've had your account for 20 years now! You could not be more polar opposites on the ends of the editing experience spectrum. It's not an even playing field here and we can't expect an editor in their first week of edititng to be familiar with all of Wikipedia's policies, guidelines and practices. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:29, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

  This might be a new account, but I'm not convinced they've never edited enwp before. I would bet on it, so they don't get a pass for being new. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 05:47, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

  And in those 4 days, they have been like the proverbial bull in a china closet on the talk page, bludgeoning the discussion, and frequently responding to other editors with snark and snide remarks. I'm not necessarily advocating for a pblock (yet), but they do need to understand that civility is policy, and if they don't want to get on board with being civil, then their editing career here is likely going to be short-lived. Isaidnoway (talk) 08:02, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

  Of course a newbie isn't going to be familiar with our thicket of rules and regulations, but I agree with Isaidnoway: it's not remotely a stretch to expect anyone, however new, to interact with civility. The immediate response of any newcomer to being pointed to WP:CIVIL should be "Alright, I'll do that going forward." Ravenswing 09:23, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

• Comment I'm not surprised to see Armandlee popping up here considering they seem to think anybody who disagrees with them even partially is part of a concerted effort to conceal The Truth. I am, however, very receptive to them being a very new editor and, as such I think we should avoid WP:BITE in this case and give them a warning that their comportment at article talk has been overly personal and insufficiently collegial. They're new and may not understand Wikipedia expectations. So let's try explaining those expectations before blocking them. If that doesn't work and they continue responding with unnecessary hostility after these expectations have been explained then we could always revisit other preventative measures. Simonm223 (talk) 11:56, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
• What makes me think they aren't so new is the lack of formatting errors and other newbie mistakes from the get go. Normally I don't like to spell it out so plainly, and I'm not saying they are a sock of anyone, but again, I'm betting they aren't really as new as their account shows. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:30, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
• Comment - As one of the editors involved with this situation, I contemplated coming here early on when it became clear that this user was NOT HERE for the right reasons, but I held off in the hopes that they would familiarize themselves with Wikipedia policy and reach an understanding (despite their accusations of me threatening them... I explained that a warning of potential administrative involvement is not a threat). I see they have only persisted in their problematic behavior. I'm in agreement with some of the other commenters that a partial block on Sydney Sweeney will hopefully be sufficient, and we can widen the block later if necessary. TNstingray (talk) 16:24, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Just a note for the archives but Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Armandlee was created as there was an account created shortly after this AN/I was opened that acted similarly. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:42, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Also for the record it was resolved as unrelated. Armandlee was not socking. They also seem to have stopped participating in WP after being brought to AN/I. Simonm223 (talk) 16:55, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Also also for the record, it's still open, and there is no resolution. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Guide to filing cases, specifically, Note: CheckUser is just one way to find evidence; it is not  magic pixie dust or a  crystal ball. Even if CheckUser shows "unrelated" or "inconclusive", it means that the CheckUser tool did not reveal any connection or is inconclusive. In some cases it may be clear or likely on behavioral grounds and an adverse finding could be justified by the evidence taken as a whole. In short, don't take IP addresses at face value. The similarities were enough for a clerk to endorse the technical check. However, as neither account is continuing to edit, we may never know. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ —Locke Cole • t • c 17:37, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

I haven't said a word in four days. This is my only account. Armandlee (talk) 00:40, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

• Support article block on Sydney Sweeney with ability to appeal after showing productive editing elsewhere over a period of time - After reviewing @Armandlee's conduct on Talk:Sydney Sweeney, there are some serious issues of not only civility, but a clear unwillingness to listen to the advice and direction of more experienced editors. [330][331][332][333] are just a few examples. When (appropriately) advised of their conduct on their UTP, instead of listening, they turned things into a victim complex (Others have belittled, threatened and gaslight me[334]). Their response of if there is no fairness. I can do what I want[335] is particularly troublesome. Right now, I don't necessarily see them as a SPA, but rather a new/inexperienced user unfamiliar with Wikipedia guidelines and, more importantly, culture. That doesn't excuse not listening, but it does give me pause on sanctions. If they're not here to build an encyclepedia, that will become evident in time. @Armandlee: Regardless of the outcome of this ANI report, my strong advice is that you review the civility policy as well as learn to assume good faith of other users. There was a significant amount of advice given to you that you completely disregarded as an attack. We have a specific definition of what amounts to personal attacks and nothing that was said to you (that I see) meets that definition. If you're going to continue here, you're going to need to learn the difference. ButlerBlog (talk) 01:38, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

  I don't think this response from @Armandlee should have been reverted. It needs to be considered in the scope of this thread in determining whether they are willing to move forward here productively. So far, that hasn't been the case. ButlerBlog (talk) 22:13, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

• Support pblock on Sydney Sweeney and its talk page, per my comments on August 6, and because we've had no assurances that their disruption at that page will stop without administrative action. --tony 20:39, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
• Support pblock. Armandlee's refusal to listen there is a real problem. In the United States, voter registration cannot be equated with party membership. Voters who live in states with closed primaries (I live in one) often register tactically. Is that the case here? We don't know, and that's why primary sources generally aren't acceptable, and especially not for a BLP. Mackensen (talk) 16:59, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
• Support pblock While I don't like biting the newbies and have healthy skepticism of the claims this editor is not new [336] this diff shared below by Butlerblog doesn't indicate someone who has fully walked away from a discussion that they got too invested in and who is committed to avoiding disruption. I think the minimum necessary consequence to prevent disruption is appropriate here. That would be a pblock. Hopefully the editor takes this, and the many pieces of advice given to them by experienced editors, to heart and learns to develop some distance from their discussions and to avoid treating Wikipedia as if it were Twitter. Simonm223 (talk) 17:21, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Proposed community ban of Armandlee

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

---

Based on the behavior of the account discussed above (exhibiting consistent WP:IDHT and WP:NOTHERE behavior, and also at best WP:CIV and at worst WP:NPA conduct), including most recently inserting a YouTube link to a Mariah Carey music video for her song "Obsessed" in reply to another editors genuine comments (an obvious WP:NOTFORUM and WP:TPG violation), I propose an indefinite community ban of Armandlee (talk · contribs). They may at any time request an WP:UNBAN using the usual methods outlined there should they wish to in the future. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:18, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

• Obviously premature. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:45, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose Frankly I'm not even sure a page block is necessary as they have voluntarily stepped back and stopped with the aggressive comments at article talk. It seems like substantial overkill to do more than a page block. Simonm223 (talk) 21:58, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

  I'd tend to agree that CBAN is too drastic at this point. But this ridiculousness just a few hours ago doesn't indicate that they're serious about reversing course, either. They may have stepped back from the article, but the attitude of I can do what I want[337] doesn't seem to have changed. ButlerBlog (talk) 22:17, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

  Yeah, I missed that. I think, perhaps, a page block may be in order. Still oppose a cban. Simonm223 (talk) 16:17, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose simply based on where things stand right now. CBAN is simply too drastic - it requires community consensus to reverse. This early on, there isn't enough to show that's warranted. I don't belittle the fact that Armandlee has cast aspersions against you and TNStingray without evidence. However, sanctions are not intended to be punitive. It's far too early to in their editing to assume they can't change. I don't disagree with your assessment that certain behaviors appear to be there (IDHT, NOTHERE, CIV) but we also can't assume they actually understand our internal culture and definitions of things like "personal attack" yet. Part of our mission involves allowing new editors some grace to learn those things. Yes, that has been extended and, so far, seemingly ignored and/or rejected. But we do it anyway. If they truly are NOTHERE, it will become evident. (I do stand by my support of pblock above, though, as I don't see them reversing course on any of it - maybe a self-imposed block will do, but I would be surprised.) ButlerBlog (talk) 22:29, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose as premature. Mackensen (talk) 16:59, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

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

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

Kawo mint

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

---

Requesting a second opinion on Kawo mint's edits of Ajora Falls to avoid an edit war. Per brief discussion on user's talk page, they feel strongly about correcting the location of the falls. No real objection on that point (though their changes are unsourced, and they have removed sourced content). This repeated change includes style, link, grammatical, and spelling errors.

Since the user's one communication with me included a threat, I am requesting someone else step in, please. (And apologies if this is not the right place to request help with this.) Thank you, Jessicapierce (talk) 19:42, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Canterbury Tail restored the previous version of the page; Kawo mint has again re-added the error-filled, unsourced changes, and has made further threats to me here. I could really use assistance with this. Thank you, Jessicapierce (talk) 21:55, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

I've blocked them indefinitely for the blatant legal threat and clear attempt to chill and intimidate other editors (while making falsehoods about everything being referenced, violating the MOS again and clearly simple grammatical errors.) Canterbury Tail talk 22:49, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks very much, I appreciate your help! Jessicapierce (talk) 23:03, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm a little puzzled. He's been blocked under the WP:NLT policy. "A legal threat, in this context, is a threat to engage in an off-wiki ('real life') legal or other governmental process that would target other editors or Wikipedia itself. It does not refer to any dispute-resolution process within Wikipedia." I'm not saying his behavior is otherwise tolerable, but people should be blocked for what they actually done. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 23:49, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

The last diff shared by the OP contains an extremely clear legal threat. Not sure what your opposition to an NLT block would be. 173.22.12.194 (talk) 01:21, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Ah, I missed that one. Never mind. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 04:27, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

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