Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1199

User:AbhinavAnkur

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

---

AbhinavAnkur (talk · contribs) had recenly created a page, which I ran through a AI checker which turned out as around 70% made by AI, so I nominated it for speedy deletion which got rejected, then they had a contested deletion section on the talk page which I also ran through an AI checker which came out as 100% artificially created, so I asked them about "why they were using AI" and they kept denying that they were using it. So I decided to come to here

Pagelinks:

• Sasaram subdivision (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)- checked this just recently, 78% generated by AI.
• Banmankhi subdivision (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) also checked this recently, likely generated by AI.
• Bhabhua subdivision (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Page this AI debacle is all about, 70% generated by AI.
• Talk:Bhabhua subdivision#Contested deletion (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) AI generated contested deletion which I closed. shane (talk) 19:20, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm not saying that AbhinavAnkur didn't use AI, but AI checkers are notoriously unreliable. The speedy deletion criterion G15 only applies if the page contains one of the unambiguous signs listed at WP:G15: nonsensical/nonexistent references, or communication intended for the user. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 20:05, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

They didn't deny that they were using AI, they said they were using AI "grammar/formatting." Unfortunately that could mean any number of things, none of which are great but only a few of which are bad faith. Was it a ChatGPT prompt? If so, what was that prompt, and how was it interpreted? (It seems like English may not be this user's first language, which will affect the prompt.) "Copy editing" tools like Grammarly/Quillbot going beyond copy-editing to insert slop? And if it's that, did the tool do it against the user's will, did the user specifically request that level of writing, or was the user simply unaware of the difference between copy editing and content generation?

Whichever it is, you're not going to get the answer by accusing them of lying. Gnomingstuff (talk) 22:39, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

shane, you are very adversarial. At one point, you state are you a AI then?. Clearly, you are not accusing them of being a bot. Even when new editors are using LLM tools in a way we don't find helpful, they are still people here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:53, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

@EditorShane3456, @Gnomingstuff, @Helpful Raccoon, @Liz,

Hi everyone, I just wanted to clear up some concerns about my recent edits and the use of AI. English isn’t my first language, so I’ve only used AI tools to help with grammar and formatting. All the content, research, and references are written and double-checked by me personally. If AI checkers say otherwise, that’s just a limitation of those tools—they aren’t always accurate. I always try to follow Wikipedia policies and make sure everything is accurate and properly sourced. I really appreciate any feedback and am happy to improve anything if needed. AbhinavAnkur (talk) 03:37, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Do you have enough reliable sources? I recommend to manually restructure the text to avoid problems. Ahri Boy (talk) 03:49, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

@Ahri Boy, Yes, I have enough reliable sources. I’ll go through the text and restructure it myself to make everything clear. Thanks for the suggestion! AbhinavAnkur (talk) 04:01, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for responding here, AbhinavAnkur. I'm not sure what outcome shane was seeking when he filed this complaint. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:09, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Liz, thanks for your note. I’m not entirely sure what @EditorShane3456 was expecting with the complaint. My main goal has always been to keep the content accurate, well-sourced, and in line with Wikipedia guidelines. I’m happy to clarify anything or make improvements if needed. AbhinavAnkur (talk) 06:49, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for responding here. Could you let us know which AI tools you're using and how you're using them -- any prompts you might enter, or any features of the tool? Thanks. Gnomingstuff (talk) 06:13, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Gnomingstuff, I use ChatGPT, Perplexity, and Gemini only to help with grammar and formatting. I prompt them with “Check this for grammatical errors” for grammar, and “Make this clear and properly formatted for Wikipedia style” for formatting. I do all research, writing, and referencing myself, and I don’t use AI to generate content. Everything is reviewed by me to ensure accuracy and compliance with Wikipedia policies. AbhinavAnkur (talk) 06:51, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Using AI for grammar checking can sometimes rewrite it using your prompts. shane (talk) 00:43, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

And that would ruin the quality of writing style. Ahri Boy (talk) 01:25, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

@Ahri Boy, I understand. That’s why I always read everything again before saving. If the style doesn’t look right, I just leave it out. AbhinavAnkur (talk) 02:54, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

@EditorShane3456 Yes, sometimes it changes more than just grammar. I don’t use those changes, I only keep the small grammar or formatting fixes. AbhinavAnkur (talk) 02:52, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

You can't trust that the AI is only changing the grammar and not affecting the meaning. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 02:24, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

@Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction, That’s true. I don’t trust it fully either. I always check myself so the meaning stays the same as what I wrote with the sources. AbhinavAnkur (talk) 02:55, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

• Unless anyone comes forward with evidence that AbhinavAnkur is obviously not checking the LLM output, there's nothing to do here. Are there falsified references? Hallucinated facts? If not, they've clearly addressed the concerns above. -- asilvering (talk) 03:32, 31 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.

Non-collaborative and authoritarian behaviour of I'm not perfect but I'm almost on national football/soccer teams' pages

I'm not perfect but I'm almost (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The user I'm not perfect but I'm almost never bothers to discuss on talk pages' articles or leave a message in the edit summary, and simply reverts any user who wishes to amend an article relating to national football teams. In the past, they have also threatened their detractors with sanctions 1, 2 with this sentence "So shut up and stop reverting me or, again, I will get an admin to block you." (on both occasions, they simply told their detractors, who had cancelled them only once, that they were engaged in an edit war, without leaving any message in edit summaries 1, 2). They don't hesitate to engage in edit wars themselves, repeatedly deleting several users in order to impose their versions, and act unilaterally, they do it again in other article this time with IP user 1, 2. Telling someone to ‘shut up’ is unacceptable in itself. @SoftReverie: for helps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A0D:E487:124E:DC30:4145:50A1:A355:F787 (talk) 15:15, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Looks like a routine WP:IDLI / edit war between an IP and I'm not perfect. Very bizzare that they are "thanking" SoftReverie who as been retired 1 years ago, it smells a bit like WP:MEAT. The only recent diff above was two "AGF reverts" 6 days apart; everything else is from last year from inactive users. No recent uncivil behavior. Looks like an IP editor who is in a routine edit war and is trying to stir up unnecessary controversy from an uncivil comment over a year ago directed towards someone else. TiggerJay (talk) 04:18, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

User:Camilasdandelions

Camilasdandelions (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been blocked two times this year and been involved in several "incidents" after the last block. I've been one of the users who have tried to discuss and/or warn them on their talk page, yet some of the attempts resulted on reverts, nonsensical edit summaries, and even a copy-paste to my own talk page. Other topics where they don't seem to be following WP policies include Talk:Bite Me (album), Talk:That's Showbiz Baby, Talk:Something Beautiful (Miley Cyrus album)... Most about non-issues that lead to plenty of reverts. Recently, I was one of the three users who reverted their edits here, and when giving more details here, the user decided to just revert again and repeat what I said (?) It's becoming kind of a fix loop; when you finally get to the end of the issue, they just repeat it over and over again in similar topics. I really don't think they are here for constructive reasons at all. CatchMe (talk · contribs) 00:42, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

People can clean there discussion page up after they checked. I [irregularly] remove / clean talk sections in my talk page. (except which should not be removed: such as block warning; they are then moved to my archives) So the case of removing CatchMe's talk section can be regarded as kind of this process. For my "Copyedit" sunmary, I was misunderstanding what "Copyedit" means, and now I almost realized the meaning of it, apologies for my imprudentness before.

CatchMe user has continuously reverted most of my edits in various articles. (which (s)he referred in here) For this edit summary, I couldn't understand it in my common sense and (s)he removed my non-problematic edits (such as | title in Template:Music ratings, Template:Singles) just because it is "unnecessary". Furthermore, this user also said "I can go on" in edit summary, which sounds odd and nonsensical, so I reverted that edit back. And I was planning to open discussion if CatchMe user reverts this edit again.

As I know, this case doesn't violate WP:3RR rule (I'm sorry if it does, I'm still not adjusted in Wikipedia) and the user didn't even warn me in my talk page. But I admit that I was imprudent and postponed to open discussion in Ego Death at a Bachelorette Party, I apologize for that, I will try to be more cautious in such situations. Camilasdandelions (talk!) 01:10, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

This seems like a random assortment of problematic edits but I'm not seeing a coherent argument for what the policy violations are here that might warrant a sanction. I see some awkward editing but those blocks were back in January, not recently, so they aren't really relevant for whatever claims you are making here, CatchMe. Unless there is systemic and continued disruptive editing, I just see some imperfect editing which isn't a strong argument for bringing an editor to ANI. But if I'm missing something big here, I'm sure that I'll be corrected. To Camilasdandelions, I'll just say, please try to learn from your mistakes so they aren't repeated. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:05, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by User:Kyrgyzthefan

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

---

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

Kyrgyzthefan has been warned all week for their disruptive behavior, with no signs of improvement, such as this obvious case of page move vandalism, unhelpful/nonsensical comments on talk pages (1, 2) and their persistent uploading of non-free images without proper attribution (not own work).

I am also unable to find evidence of the existence of the many flags of uploaded by this user. The only evidence that I could find were from Fandom wikis, which are not reliable sources, so these images are likely hoaxes. The user also appears to be an LTA on simplewiki per this block log, so with that said, I think an indefinite block may be warrented here.

Potentially fictitious flags

• File:Flag of Kunar.jpeg
• File:Flag of Khost Province, Afghanistan.jpeg
• File:Flag of Khost.jpeg
• File:Flag of Kapisa.jpeg
• File:Flag of Kabul Province.jpeg
• File:Flag of Faryab.webp
• File:Flag of Farah.jpeg
• File:Flag of Jowzjan.webp
• File:Flag of Daykundi.webp
• File:Flag of Bamyan.webp
• File:Flag of Ghazni.webp
• File:Flag of Ghor.webp
• File:Flag of Herat.jpeg
• File:Flag of Balkh.webp
• File:Flag of Helmand.jpeg
• File:Flag of Tamanrasset.jpeg
• File:Flag of Baghlan.jpeg
• File:Flag of Badghis.jpeg
• File:Flag of Antigua.png
• File:Flag of Badakhshan.jpeg
• File:Flag of Uttar Pradesh.jpeg
• File:Flag of Guangxi.jpeg
• File:Flag of Coral Sea Islands.jpeg

Thanks, quebecguy ⚜️ (talk | contribs) 03:44, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

I'd like to hear Kyrgyzthefan's response to this complaint. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:53, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Likely a sock of Tajikthefan/CBeebies1288. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 05:54, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Im still standing here Kyrgyzthefan (talk) 06:03, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

What is up with your reply here? The account is globally locked, you saying that doesn't do anything. Edit: As TurboSuperA+ pointed out, this was bitey. I apologize for that, Kyrgyzthefan. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 06:13, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

They're obviously new/inexperienced, WP:BITE. @Kyrgyzthefan just say you'll stop adding flags sourced to fandom and that you'll read Wikipedia's policy on reputable sources. That should be the end of this. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 07:22, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

All of these flags

Is from https://vexillology.fandom.com/wiki/Main_Page, check it out! Kyrgyzthefan (talk) 05:46, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

fandom

And these pages from https://vexillology.fandom.com/wiki/Main_Page:

• https://vexillology.fandom.com/wiki/Flags_of_country_subdivisions
• https://vexillology.fandom.com/wiki/Proposed_flags_of_provinces_of_China?so=search

Kyrgyzthefan (talk) 05:53, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

• fandom.com is not a reputable source because it is user-generated content. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 05:58, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

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

Unsourced sportswear "sponsorships" 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.

---

• Alessio Pasquinelli (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 87.19.176.59 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Last week, I made this report here, and the editer was indeffed.

Today, an IP turned up with an remarkably similar interests, and editing habits, ie adding huge chunks of unsourced "sponsorships" to sporting goods manufacturer articles.

I have no evidence except the above to support my contention that the IP is the same guy, logged out to avoid his ban. - Roxy the dog 18:33, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

• Blocked. I hope we don't have to play whack-a-mole here, but we will see what happens. The IP range they're on isn't the busiest, which is promising. Black Kite (talk) 19:38, 31 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.

Please revert and delete this edit

The following discussion is closed. 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 hope someone cuts Iggy Azalea to jump off a cliff has created his user page, and used the f slur too which I find very inappropriate, can an admin or oversighter delete the edit please. 98.235.155.81 (talk) 12:01, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

There is also evidence of this on the talk page, various insults. 98.235.155.81 (talk) 12:03, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

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

Twister Swagger

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

Looks like the vast majority of this user's edits should be reverted. In the past, I would have simply used rollback and been done with it, as well as warned them. However, since I've significantly reduced my rollback use, I figured to post here for support on this. Thanks! - UtherSRG (talk) 15:54, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

• I saw Special:Diff/1308970196 on my watchlist, and it's hard to understand on its face. Mackensen (talk) 15:30, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

I see some constructive edits, or edits that could reasonably be seen as being done in good faith, like [1], and most of their edits adding cleanup tags. New user, possibly not used to typical standards/policies/guidelines here, like MOS:APOSTROPHE. I think we AGF and let them know to read up on the MOS (assuming there isn't something I'm missing).

Now I'm scrolling further back and see reverts that shouldn't have been done. But I'm assuming newbie mistakes. I think we let them know to read up on the MOS and think before reverting. jolielover♥talk 16:04, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

All (I think) of the reverts are of cite bot. There's rarely a need to revert that bot. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:06, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, saw that later since it's not in their past 50 edits. Well.. at least they stopped? Presumably? I wouldn't call for a block/ban since it seems like a mistake. jolielover♥talk 16:08, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Would you say that rolling back all of their edits would be appropriate? Asking for a friend. ;) - UtherSRG (talk) 16:10, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Ah. I mean, sure. Sorry, misinterpreted your intentions a bit. jolielover♥talk 16:14, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Most of their tags are on stubs. There's nothing valuable in putting "cleanup rewrite" or "lead missing" on a stub. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:11, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

I wanted to highlight the issues in these stubs to bring attention to areas that may need improvement or further expansion. I apologize if my contributions have caused any issues. That was not my intention, and I’ll make sure to be more mindful moving forward. Twister Swagger (talk) 16:58, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

I’m still not entirely sure how my edits may have impacted negatively the articles. My intention was simply to highlight areas that seemed to need more content so they wouldn’t remain stubs. If anything I did caused harm, I apologize, as that was never my goal. Twister Swagger (talk) 17:03, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

LucyGermanDog's editing pattern to infoboxes

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

I am reporting LucyGermanDog for repeated tendentious editing and POV pushing on the infoboxes of articles pertaining to the War of 1812. Many of their edits have been reverted, and they still persist in making edits that run counter to wikipedia policy. There have been requests made to stop this, which are being ignored, WP:ICANTHEARYOU. I propose a temporary ban, to warn them to stop, and to reconsider.Keith H99 (talk) 13:16, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

removed duplicated line.

The user has had their edit at Battle of Caulk's Field reverted twice. For a third time, they have made the same edit, thereby bloating the infobox. Were I to roll-back, this would be a third revert, so am loath to participate in what would be an edit war with this editor.Keith H99 (talk) 13:32, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

There has been more disruptive editing being carried out, and yet nothing is being done to stop this. why?Keith H99 (talk) 06:47, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

• LucyGermanDog has just over 80 edits. Almost all of these are in the topic of the War of 1812. Almost all of these are edits to infoboxes. Almost all of these have been reverted by perhaps half a dozen different editors. See also User talk:LucyGermanDog#August 2025. This should be sending a pretty clear message that more experienced editors do not view their edits as constructive and in accordance with prevailing P&G. Infoboxes are a CTOP (Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Infoboxes). They are not the best place for a novice editor to learn the ropes of WP. While I am conscious of not biting the newbies, because they don't appear to be getting it, it may be appropriate to consider a TBAN from editing infoboxes until they gain more experience as an editor (eg 500 edits). Cinderella157 (talk) 09:52, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

  What you propose sounds a good approach. Yet another case of more bloat being added to an infobox, and it's Fort Bowyer yet again.Keith H99 (talk) 21:44, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

203.54.128.0/17

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

---

203.54.128.0/17 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

This large IP range in Australia seems to be used almost exclusively by many public schools across the country, judging by the nature of its edits, even though it's geolocation information just mentions Telstra, Australia's largest phone company. Per its block log, it's been blocked for a total of five years and one month, three years of which were because of a block by me in 2022. Ever since the expiry of my block, the range has gone right back to its old editing pattern. Out of its last 100 edits over 11 days at time of writing (permalink), 93 have been reverted. I asked @ToBeFree: (with whom I'd previously discussed this range) to re-block it in this thread on their talk page, but they said that due to the size of the range they'd prefer a wider discussion about it at this board first, so here I am. Per my talk page message, I'd suggest that this range be re-blocked for at least another three years with account creation and talk page access enabled. Graham87 (talk) 10:01, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

This mirrors a discussion I had on Discord about the same range. Very broad, but overwhelmingly kids doing kid things. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 11:41, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

It can't really be narrowed either. I've gone through all 345 of their edits from the expiry of their block in late June to the time of writing (quite a high number of edits for two months considering that during that time schools across the country have had two-week winter breaks), ignoring all edits tagged as reverted before I got there; only 35 are not tagged as reverted, counting the edit filter reports. There are a couple of false positives either way, but they cancel each other out and from the two lists it's safe to say that over 90% of their edits have been undone. Here are my relevant main namespace contribs where I cleaned up after that range; some of those are quite yikes (as in they shouldn't have lasted so long), but looking at just my list of contribs probably puts the range's edits in too flattering a light. Graham87 (talk) 15:36, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Also, there have been 15 block actions on single IP's within that range since the expiry of my rangeblock, per this database query. To all editors looking into this sort of thing: if you see an IP with large gaps in its contributions, it's often a good idea to search for a rangeblock relating to that IP. I know that will become a huge amount more awkward soon with temporary accounts ... Graham87 (talk) 16:02, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Off-topic comment: Well, we have a little more time now since temporary account deployment on enwiki has been pushed back to the week of October 6 per Phabricator. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 20:51, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Well, I personally don't think it's a big deal to block a wide IP range when it's got account creation enabled. Putting a trivial barrier in front of people is often enough to discourage them from impulsive actions. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:28, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

I have somehow overlooked / not really realized the requested block was not just anon-only but also with account creation enabled. I think it will still prevent password reset requests from being sent, which is something Wikipedia-unique; normally, the "e-mail disabled" flag does that. But perhaps even that is allowed for such blocks. I'm not sure where that all is documented; I stumbled upon it as a feature implemented on request on Phabricator years ago. As there seem to be no objections, I'll re-block the /17 as requested. Thanks! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:45, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Found it at https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T109909 , although I'm now unsure whether it's really Wikipedia-only and if anon-only account-creation-enabled blocks are affected. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:49, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, that works for me. I've also reverted one of their recent vandalism edits. Graham87 (talk) 06:02, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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:LateFatherKarma

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

---

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

Suggest indef for LateFatherKarma on grounds of either trolling or CIR. They refuse to use their talk page for communication ("I do not want anything on my talk page", "Please do not post on my talk page", "I remove everything from my talk page. I don't like double spaces, on pages", etc) all with a dubious (to say the least) story of harassment from 15 years ago (see UP). If they are trying to avoid harassment, then leaving multiple {{connected contributor}} notes at talk pages of articles they're only peripherally connected to ([2], [3], [4], [5]): as Acroterion put it "For someone complaining about stalking, they seem to be making a point of drawing attention to themselves". This led to a bizzare discussion. And then another. And now they've filed a request for arbitration—albeit without actually explaining what they want, and without notifying any of their proposed parties that they have done so. Either they're taking advantage of our proactive sympathy in allegations of stalking in order to disrupt the project, or they honestly don't see a problem with wasting editors' time ("our most precious resource"). —Fortuna, imperatrix 17:40, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Just as a quick note re: ArbCom, they are unsure of how to file and have asked for assistance in that regard (see the Clerks talk page). Primefac (talk) 17:46, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Primefac; have they been advised to withdraw it? It would probably help their case if they did so voluntarilly rather than ask assistance to continue. —Fortuna, imperatrix 17:49, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Not as of yet, but it has only been about 15 minutes and I think some of us are waiting to see what gets posted as an official statement. Goodness knows if they are taking their time making the proper notifications they will likely not see any request to withdraw until they are done anyway. Primefac (talk) 17:54, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Well, they've also asserted they're connected to Angela Rayner [6], Rachel Reeves [7], Derry Irvine, Baron Irvine of Lairg [8], and Keir Starmer [9], who somehow was supposed to have been involved in McDonalds. Acroterion (talk) 18:01, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Starmer was part of the legal team of the defendants in the McLibel case. Void if removed (talk) 19:12, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

And to the Fixated Threat Assessment Centre [10], plus these [11], [12], [13] [14], [15], [16] Acroterion (talk)' 18:18, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Are we sure this isn't an elaborate troll? LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 19:04, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Whether they are or not, I'm of the opinion a user concerned about being identified and harassed off-wiki should never intentionally put themselves in a situation where the connected contributor tag is necessary, especially with the reckless abandon they've been posting it. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 23:45, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

I’ve indeffed them. See the response to their ArbCom request.Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Removing connected user disclosure and stalking article content: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/0/0> Doug Weller talk 19:15, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Good block. I don't think that it matters whether this is a lack of competence or an elaborate troll, because either way that were not here to be constructive and were disruptive. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:45, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

I have said in the past that ArbCom is maybe the only forum where the boomerang principle does not apply. I had never before seen an editor blocked for a disruptive ArbCom filing, but this wasn't just a case of a disruptive ArbCom filing, but other competence issues. It wasn't a complete ArbCom filing anyway, but an incomplete ARbCom filing. Most ArbCom filers at least have the complaint written when they file. Oh well. One doesn't get blocked for a bad ArbCom filing, but being in the process of a bad ArbCom filing isn't a get-out-of-indef card for other problems. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:45, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

There was one only a few months ago: case & block log — abuse of process (filing an edit-warring report and filing an arbitration request). Didn't go back any further than that. Daniel (talk) 22:59, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

I think TPA might need to be yanked LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 23:52, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

I think we should only remove Talk page access from blocked editors if an editor is being destructive or making vandalistic edits and this editor is just communicating with unblock requests. We are much too eager to remove TPA, I think. We shouldn't try to just silence editors who have complaints about the project and the way they were treated. Some times their comments have truth in them. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:50, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I do not wish to withdraw it and instead have asked for help. Now someone kindly gave that, all users have been notified. You posted this within minutes of me submitting it. Please allow a new user time and the opportunity to ask for assistance when they do something for the first time. It is my personal choice to remove comments on my talk page, whilst that may be deemed unhelpful, it is allowed. I do read them and respond. There is a discussion on the conflict of interest noticeboard and I tried to listen to more experienced users and it is clear I then made changes in response to others concerns. I am now going to focus on my arbitration case statement. LateFatherKarma (talk) 18:14, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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 ShayonD19

ShayonD19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

AIV report declined with pointer to ANI, so here we are.

User is repeatedly changing the number of remaining Sears stores as of August or September. Some of the edits are unsourced WP:OR, and some are WP:SYNTH, calculating the number of remaining stores based on a sourced count as of July 23, 2025, combined with sources about the subsequent planned closure of individual stores in August. Not only is this WP:SYNTH but the individual store closing refs are not acceptable sources to show that the stores have closed, rather than that the closures are or were planned.

This has been discussed on the article's talk page talk:Sears#number of locations and on the user's talk page in User talk:ShayonD19#August 2025 and User talk:ShayonD19#September 2025. Despite multiple warnings and very extensive explanations the user continues to make these edits, all marked as WP:MINOR:

• [17] (unsourced OR)
• [18] (SYNTH using deprecated July 25 source about future event)
• [19] (unsourced OR)
• [20] (SYNTH using July 9 source about future event)
• [21] (SYNTH using July 9 source about future event)
• [22] (unsourced OR, and actually removed the latest source we have for a total count)

The user simply either does not understand, or will not accept, that we cannot claim that a store has closed base on ref for a future closure, and that we cannot combine those future predictions with a sourced count to generate a new count: [23], [24],[25]. The "isn't that proof enough that the store count should be reduced to 5 even if no source says so" from the final diff pretty much sums it up. Meters (talk) 23:01, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

User is still adding improper sources and SYNTH even after this ANI thread was opened: [26]. User claims https://www.lagradaonline.com/us/sears-closes-last-store-in-burbank/ is an August 31 source but is clearly actually dated August 11. User added a nonRS personal YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FcNSC6z9YGM and used it as justification for changing the number of open stores. The third ref is paywalled and I have not been able to check it, but after seeing the first two my WP:AGF is done. This is either WP:IDHT or WP:CIR. Meters (talk) 09:55, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

The editor is now using "go check Google AI" as a reliable source. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 10:16, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

User:AzanianPearl

The following discussion is closed. 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 keeps persistently adding WP:OR and WP:SYNTH to the Mogadishu article. They are also removing sourced content that they don't like for no apparent reason. I originally removed their original research, but now they've added it back and are keep inserting their disruptive edits. The source they are citing from does not mention much of what they've included. Nothing about a "QDSH" or "Sarapion" or a specific temple. I've already previously mentioned exactly what the source states, but they prefer to add in their own claims. Also in their edit comment, they referred to the other editors as "idiots". I don't think this user is willing to seriously engage in good faith editing. Limegreencoral (talk) 10:11, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

My material was present prior to you adding folk etymologies, some even completely without a source. I have cleaned up the page and kept it to the bare minimum. This is the current clean and basic form, which cannot be accused of either OR nor SYNTH:

Etymology

The name Mogadishu appears in early Arabic sources as Maqdīshū (مَقْديشو), which closely resembles the Hebrew word מִקְדָּשׁ (Miqdāsh), meaning “holy place” or “sanctuary”. The Semitic root Q-D-Š relates to holiness, sanctity, sacredness.

The 16th century explorer Leo Africanus knew the city as Magadazo (alt. Magadoxo).

Hamar or Xamar, the local nickname of Mogadishu, likely derives from a Somali word for "red,"

For the sources, see the current page.

I sense the reasoning why the Q-D-Š etymology upsets you is either out of antisemitism or nationalism. AzanianPearl (talk) 10:17, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

I suggest reading WP:ASPERSIONS before accusing me of having some sort of hateful beliefs. That is a strange thing to say. You've consistently added in your own research and assertions onto the section. Limegreencoral (talk) 10:22, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

You have been in prior conflicts with other wiki editors regarding nationalist or tribalist disputes, so my sense that either antisemitism or nationalism being behind why the Semitic etymology upsets you is justified. Let a neutral administrator be the judge. AzanianPearl (talk) 10:37, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

This is a content dispute which should be resolved (hopefully amicably, without accusations of antisemitism or nationalism) at Talk:Mogadishu. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:33, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

I would agree also, that this is usually the sort of thing that is resolved in the talk page, but like I said, I don't think the user is willing to engage in good faith behavior. They've insulted other editors labeling them as "idiots", and now even accuse me of having prejudiced beliefs for some reason. They've removed sourced content proposing different theories that they don't like and kept adding in original research. I come to the ANI because I'm not sure a productive discussion can be had. Limegreencoral (talk) 10:41, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

I have started to engage on the talk page and hope User:Limegreencoral resolves this amicable there. As for 'idiots' having been used, that was an unfortunate typo which was meant to be edits (similar words with D and Ts). I immediately self-reverted that and clarified it, so kindly do not bring that up again as I never meant to use that word. AzanianPearl (talk) 10:44, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

• This is a content dispute, and to that end—and before I saw this report—I reverted back to the pre-dispute version from 20 August. Since this is a content dispute, I strongly suggest that no changes in this area be made until after consensus is reached at the article's talk page. Since both parties here have demonstrated awareness of edit warring policies, I have no qualms issuing a 3RR block for any further reverts. —C.Fred (talk) 11:24, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
• Behaviour note: User:Limegreencoral attempted to remove the entire thread to this point, including other editors' comments. They have been advised that such actions are disruptive. —C.Fred (talk) 11:36, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

  As I mentioned in the talk page, I did not remove the discussion for a disruptive or malicious reason. I assumed that since you made your revert on the page and stated a consensus needed to be reached on the talk page which was similar to the other users comment above that this was the resolution of the ANI and we had to use the talk page. A complete misunderstanding which I apologize for, I did not even see that you commented. I would not have removed the discussion if I saw a new comment. Limegreencoral (talk) 11:40, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

  Close it I guess 37.186.35.158 (talk) 12:57, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

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

Arivgao hasn't heard us at all over years of disruptive meatbotting

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

---

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

Wow, I think Avrigao may have the world record for most 4/4im warnings delivered to their talk page without an actual block. They have an unusually high edit count, and seemingly slip from scrutiny each time, all while never having made a single edit in user talk space. It seems almost certain they WP:CANTHEARUS, but if they can, I actually imagine it's most likely that they think the final warnings are odd but ultimately disconnected from their behavior. At least in this most recent era, they do almost nothing but disruptively violate WP:NOTBROKEN and tendentiously remove every instance onwiki of the phrase "Roman Catholic"—even from direct quotations.[27] Remsense 🌈 论 17:31, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Remsense, you have plastered their User talk page with templates but you don't specify in your complaint what misconduct you are alleging here that needs a response. Please be specific and include diffs, don't just identify an editor as a problem. The one diff you include doesn't warrant sanctions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:43, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

I am not sure what to say, other than I have done these things. I have clearly both made bespoke posts on their talk page trying to make them aware of what specifically they were doing wrong, and I have also clearly laid out here what they are presently doing to be disruptive—with said described behavior comprising nearly 100% of their recent contributions history.

While I realize my here are sometimes unclear, I am genuinely at a loss as to the particular difficulties we seem to have in communicating about incidents, other than maybe we just have particularly incompatible communication styles. I dislike making reports here at present, because each time I do I manage to frustrate you somehow, though like I said I have tried to learn from previous hiccups and better communicate issues like you would like me to. I want to avoid making your admin work harder and I wish I were better at this, sorry. Remsense 🌈 论 18:00, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

I looked at recent contribs for Arivgao and every one I checked was mostly removing the word 'Roman' from the phrase 'Roman Catholic'. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 18:29, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Likely WP:COMMUNICATE? Warned for 30 times on the talk page and has not responded to any of them. The only edit in the talkspace is on Talk:Taylor Swift six years ago. There are 6 notices about using edit summaries and their use of edit summary is basically 0% for the last two years. Northern Moonlight 19:59, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Looks like they were indef'ed_[zh] on zhwiki six months ago for disruptive editing of mass replacing religious terms. Northern Moonlight 20:13, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

On their contribs page, you have to go back almost 100 edits to find one that hasn't been reverted. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 20:16, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Well, User:Northern Moonlight and User:MilesVorkosigan, thank you for investigating this and providing some information we can use to look into this editor. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:45, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Liz, I also provided much of the above information in my original post, just articulated in a different way. I really do think it's largely a matter of communication style at this point. I'm not asking you to do anything specific, but if it would make you less frustrated I would be fine if you felt no pressure to engage with reports I file here. Remsense 🌈 论 21:52, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Well, that's a surprising comment. The comment that I left at the beginning of this discussion is similar to others I regularly post here because many editors do not include diffs with their original report. It's meant to be a nudge to get more information because other editors on ANI are more likely to respond to the OP if they have adequate details. It was nothing personal. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:23, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Editor WP:Not here...... Impossible for the community to get anything done if they're unwilling to discuss anything with anyone. Overall a net negative if they're unwilling to engage with the community. Moxy🍁 23:39, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

@Liz I feel like the issue being discussed between Remsense and you boils down perhaps to having a significant administrative workload and not feeling like there is necessarily enough time to really sit down and do more than skim the report and try to quickly spot the issues. I get that, I spent the last 3 years doing just that, and I really don’t fault you for it. But at the same time, I think that people find it frustrating when they have provided carefully crafted statements detailing the issues only to be told that they are “insufficient.” Insanityclown1 (talk) 04:04, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Liz, perhaps you should reconsider these posts, as many editors have no problem with opening posts like the one in this (or many other) sections and are quite capable (or even prefer) to look for themselves instead of requiring to be spoonfed a truckload of diffs. I also replied to a post you made at the UtherSRG report (03:01, 22 August 2025) which was just unhelpful. In many cases your posts seem to be more bureaucratic red tape and just making it harder for people to make a report and have a meaningful discussion about it. See on this page your stricken post of 18:56, 13 August 2025. Or see your post of 07:59, 23 August 2025, where you demand diffs because, er, the reported editors have very few edits (to be precise, 7 in total). After which the OP replies by listing all those edits as diffs. What have you achieved here? Just creating more work for others.Or your 02:49, 24 August 2025 comment, where you warn an IP to "I can see you and they have a content dispute, please do not let this veer into edit warring." when the IP opened the ANI report because the other editor was edit warring, and where the IP explicitly stated already that they stopped after one revert. The IP had filed protection requests, and the pages got protected, but your comments were patronizing and besides the point.

In the "TheCreatorOne" report on this page, you start of well enough, but then you seem to slide back into the "reply without actually reading the previous posts" routine. You actually linked previously to this complaint about TheCreatorOne, which is about nationalistic POV editing about Albanians and Kosovo, edit warring, and PAs. Other similar previous ANI reports were listed as well. E.g. there was a link to this where you had responded as well, while the opening post of the current section had a paragraph on "In the Niš article, they repeatedly inserted the same contested info, sometimes months apart" (with diffs). And still you then come back with "Are the problems you bring to ANI today similar to these previous reports?"

In the 271rpm section, the OP posted a lengthy report with plenty of diffs showing behavioural issues, as indicated by multiple edtablished editors quoted in the report. Your reply? "Looks like a simple content dispute. Why does this need administrator intervention? " Luckily other admins looked at it, and the reported editor was PBlocked.

Please reconsider your approach to ANI reports, as way too often it is more distracting, bureaucratic and dismissive than actually helpful. Fram (talk) 09:58, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

I hear what you are saying. But often, I'm the only editor or admin who replies to many complaints that get posted here at ANI. I thought a short response was at least an acknowledgment that the complaint had been seen. But if no response would be better than the type of responses I provide, I'll reconsider where I spend my time as an administrator. It would also help if other admins stepped up and we had more admins patrolling and responding on our noticeboards. I'm not trying to deflect criticism of myself, it's just that I often step forward with an incomplete response when I see no respones coming from anyone. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:49, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

You shouldn’t have to worry about “deflecting criticism” here, this was 100% a normal admin reply of “okay, diffs?” and “please expand?”

The page instructions are very clear on that. And nobody should be using this report to bring up unrelated complaints. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 03:03, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Remembering back to when I was a newbie and also when I was helping out at the teahouse, I would absolutely agree that a standard acknowledgement is much much better than no acknowledgement. At the very least, it gives one an admin to ping with questions about how it's going. That would remain the case even if the responding admin would sometimes appear to have missed something already mentioned in the report or ask diffs or details about things one thought one had already made clear. One can take it as a learning experience as long as one has comfort in the knowledge that the issue is being looked at by an admin. Liz has an exceptional demeanor for it as seen in the very threads highlighted by Fram, which is a plus.
But I can also see how that may not be always be appreciated by experienced filers who need and may want no help or courtesy except for the intervention that they're seeking. In those threads, it may be advisable to respond only if you've taken the time to investigate the situation reasonably thoroughly even before you make the first comment. They would know how to proceed if no one does that and their thread remains unanswered, be it adjusting how they craft their report, the evidence they include or a perhaps a change of venue. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:52, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

@Liz, in this case your response came less than 15 minutes after this thread was opened. You could let them wait for a little longer before worrying that no responses are coming from anyone. -- asilvering (talk) 05:32, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

asilvering, message received. But I do wish we'd have more admins showing up here on a daily basis. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:16, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

@Liz don't we all. Time to get recruiting. -- asilvering (talk) 03:21, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Well, you've done a great job tonight closing discussions, asilvering. It's amazing what can be accomplished in an hour when you set your mind to bringing long-winded discussions to an end. Many thanks! You earned a day off on Sunday. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:13, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Looks like the editor is being disruptive and certainly CANTHEAR, but this might be them improperly implementing a recent, related RfC. I think there's enough to warrant a block to get their attention—especially considering the zhwiki block—but there might be some good faith going on here. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:30, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

A mild trout for Remsense might also be appropriate, with indiscriminate reversions that include edit summaries like ffs ([28]) on reversions of actually wholly productive edits. Obviously, the biggest issue here is we have an editor making mass (no pun intended) changes without communicating. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:35, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

The same seems to be true for Northern Moonlight: unexplained mass reversions that include things like this, where improper capitalization was restored. It would seem that the vast majority of Avrigao's edits are actually totally fine on this matter. Some aren't perfect or, as reported above, may alter quotes. But the primary issue is their lack of communication, and the immediate move towards mass-reverting their edits seems to have been hasty and counterproductive. ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:16, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

My apologies for restating the improper capitalization. Northern Moonlight 05:03, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

@Pbritti: I think you may be missing the wood for the trees: Arivgao's blanket changes are not "totally fine" on the whole but tendentious, especially when they insist so vehemently on their preferred terminology as to change a quote. The reverts were after multiple attempts to engage them on their talk page, and I've now fixed the capitalisation at Chile, including in a passage where it had remained untouched as "Roman Catholic church"; someone may have legitimately followed the established usage on the page. At Religion in Germany, I initially deferred to your preference for Latin Church as more correct, but to a non-expert in Catholic internal politics it reads like a euphemism, and after looking into where that link goes, I can't see the justification for that level of precision and disagree that Arivgao's change was "wholly productive". Yngvadottir (talk) 18:55, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

I quite clearly stated that there was an issue with the editor's lack of communication despite objections, but imprecise mass reversion is a solution generally reserved for edits by banned editors. Use of Latin Church—which, when called by the common nickname of the Roman Catholic Church, is often conflated with the body as a whole—has been discussed at length. As for claiming that term Catholic Church is a neutrality issue, that's a content discussion that does not align with longstanding consensus. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:07, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

The RFC was to remove the term "Roman Catholic" from a small number of article titles, if their implementation is to remove it indiscriminately from article prose (including quotes) then that is a CIR issue, to be frank. Their mass changes are a WP:FAIT issue. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 09:46, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

I've indeffed them from mainspace until they begin to communicate and respond to the issues raised with their editing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:09, 26 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.

COI Rollback - Jennifer Doleac

The following discussion is closed. 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 was going through and trying to pick off some of the easy COI requests. I went to go look at Jennifer Doleac's page and noticed that someone with a noted COI had done significant editing to the page all the way back to July 16. This needs to be rolled back. How would I go about doing that? Is this a vandalism noticeboard issue? history page for context

Meepmeepyeet (talk) 02:16, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Meepmeepyeet,

You are a very new editor yourself. For these sorts of issues, I'd rely on a more experienced editor to assess a situation like this and not just "rollback" a great number of edits. This isn't vandalism but you could go to WP:COIN and raise the issue there if you want some more feedback from editors experienced with COI issues. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:48, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

I'll raise the issue over there. Thank you! Meepmeepyeet (talk) 03:51, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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:Livelikemusic AI photo editing and false vandalism warnings

Socks gonna sock. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:27, 2 September 2025 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

---

The User:Livelikemusic has continued to revert new updated photos on Kat Slater and Zoe Slater when the replaced images were far clearer and the photo uploaded by Livelikemusic for the latter was digitally edited. This user then accused User:XxLuckyCxX of vandalism here [29] when this user did the exact same thing overwriting files with images that were less clear and/or darker. MissWaissel (talk) 21:08, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Uhm, none of the images I have uploaded are via use of A.I.; that is an unfounded accusation. They came directly from the episodes, as uploaded to BritBox. livelikemusic (TALK!) 21:13, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

User is likely a blocked account of ZestyLemonz. Ponyo they are back! livelikemusic (TALK!) 21:21, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

• Blatant sockpuppet account. Any administrator should close this B.S. immediately. Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:18, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

User:Bgsu98 It’s got nothing to do with you - stick to changing reality show table formats, which by the way I will be changing back once you’ve been blocked eventually MissWaissel (talk) 21:26, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

To the closing admins, do not let these users stop you from investigating Livelikemusic over the fake vandalism warnings. MissWaissel (talk) 21:27, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

User:Livelikemusic has now been blocked as a sockpuppet of User:ZestyLemonz — Preceding unsigned comment added by MissWaissel (talk • contribs) 21:32, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

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

Topic ban violation of User:BunnyyHop

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

---

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

In March 2021, User:BunnyyHop was given a 6-month topic ban for "Marxism/Leninism, broadly construed". In August 2021, this topic ban was extended to indefinite. The user never appealed the ban. Afterwards, the user's activity on Wikipedia declined to zero, starting in October 2021. This is until today, when BunnyyHop made this edit. This is on the page of the Portuguese Communist Party, which is Marxist-Leninist. Brat Forelli🦊 06:21, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Two IP editors have also tried to remove the same information as BunnyyHop recently, possibly indicating loutsocking, meatpuppetry, or just an unfortunate coincidence. 2601:18E:C481:1E70:0:0:0:0/64 [30][31][32][33][34][35], 24.62.243.117 [36], and BunnyHop [37]. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 06:52, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

There does appear to be a kind of mobilization against the particular piece of content that BunnyyHop happened to break their 4-year Wikipedia break (and topic ban) for. It started with an IP editor making the same exact deletion and claiming that they read their [the Portuguese Communist Party's] publications daily before retorting to personal attacks. BunnyyyHop, as an editor topic-banned from Marxism-Leninism (broadly construed), may or may not be connected to this, as they edited Portugal-related articles too: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. Brat Forelli🦊 08:02, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

I've blocked them; I think this is some offsite campaign rather than LOUT socking. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 20:04, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for handling the situation! Let's hope this relatively short block is enough. It's unfortunate the user broke their t-ban for this. Brat Forelli🦊 08:27, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

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

For Your Consideration

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

---

81.6.214.255 (talk · contribs) posted the following to the Talk page of the article Black genocide in the United States: [38]

In other words black Americans murder each year around three times more of their fellows than were lynched in the whole of American history. This is tragic. But it does beg the question, exactly who is committing genocide?

Here they try to minimise the plight of American slaves. They also wrote this gem: The KKK is the universal bogey-man. [39] TurboSuperA+_[talk] 02:13, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

I'd indef, but that's an IP, so I blocked for three months instead. If they manage to convince an unblocks admin that they're here to contribute and not to concern troll, more power to them, but this looks WP:NOTHERE as hell. -- asilvering (talk) 03:00, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

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

Txskys

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

Repeated creations of poor articles, possilikely AI-generated. Ignoring all warnings, draftificiations, and deletions. Creating articles for concepts that already have articles. E.g. French campaign against Korea, 1866 and French expedition to Korea (I recently turned their article into a redirect). Also Italian Domination over Africa and Italian Empire.

Think WP:CIR and noncommunication issues. Unless they respond to feedback here, think block is in order. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 04:15, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Reporting NOTHERE/BIT user User:EnlightenedIllusions

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

---

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

EnlightenedIllusions is demonstrating clear NOTHERE behavior, and failing to engage in consensus building either on the article or user talk pages. They have been tenatiously editing articles in the post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people category and was notified that it was a contentious topic and to take proper precautions last year. Since that time they have been on wikibreak until mid-July where they have edited pages such as:

• Make America Great Again such as 4 edits reverted by @User136596:. Plus multiple attempts to change the wikilink to Donald John Trump, which has been reverted multiple times. [40][41] as well as other unsoured contributions which have almost all been reverted by multiple editors.
• Constitution of the United States such as 10 edits which was revered by @Dawkin Verbier: and then subsequently reverted by Enlightened, and reverted by DV, and reverted back again by Enlightened (but in a span greater than 24 hours). This concern was brought to their talk page and their NOHERE behavior is evident [42] with statements like It's %100 obvious. I don't care about sources. I am the source.
• Peter Thiel is currently protected, so they have made demands that for a protected page be unlocked: Talk:Peter Thiel/Archive 3 § Unlock this page. where they interacted with @WeyerStudentOfAgrippa: and was demanding correction per BIT.
• Supreme Court of the United States such as [43] which was reverted by @Magidin: and again another multiple reverts followed. @R'n'B: placed a edit war template on Enlightened's talk page.
• Project 2025 with this edit and reverted by @Tarlby: which at least time they did not revert back. A talk page message was left [44] and subsequently a discussion took place at User talk:Tarlby/Archive 1 § Project 2025- is a christo-fascist manifesto where I first became aware of this editor.

We could go on with more POV pushing at Second presidency of Donald Trump, Preamble to the United States Constitution, and Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Beyond the inline talk page attempts/notifications/warnings above:

• On 26 Aug, Tarlby attempted another time to reach out to this editor on their talk page and the message was blanked.
• On 26 Aug, I, @Tiggerjay: warned them about editing other users contributions to article talk [45]
• On 29 Aug, Tarlby posted another warning about editing other users talk messages [46] Those were blanked with a edit summary of waste [47]
• On 2 Sept and 3 Sept I placed additional warnings about edit warraning behaviors [48][49] which were both blanked, with the last one with an edit summary of trash [50]

It is clear that they don't care about policies, or even reliable sources, but simply want to push their own political beliefs and adjenda. Looking at their mainspace edits, at least 54 have been directly reverted this year -- and less than 9 contributions which have not been reverted (at least according to contribution tags) -- several of those were soft-reverted or undone manually. No indication they are here for the right reasons. TiggerJay (talk) 02:57, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

You forgot about the message on your talk page. EnlightenedIllusions (talk) 03:06, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Do you mean the rude and rather condescending reply. Failing to follow Wikipedia norms will lead to blocks. CambridgeBayWeather (#1 deranged), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 03:13, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Consider these statements they've made:

• Removed unconfirmed descriptor. %24 of Americans voted for Felon DONALD JOHN TRUMP. [51]
• You have no authority. Your edit doesn't make sense. So I don't care what you think. Stop stalking my editing. I don't care if you sit on the Supreme Court. [52]

Enlightened has repeatedly removed entire talk page threads despite clearly knowing this isn't something they can just do. [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 03:08, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

The five pillars are:

• Wikipedia is an encyclopedia
• Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view
• Wikipedia is free content that anyone can use, edit, and distribute
• Wikipedia's editors should (not shall or must) treat each other with respect and civility
• Wikipedia has no firm rules

EnlightenedIllusions (talk) 03:24, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Oh, what kind of lawyer shenanigians are you trying to pull that you think will actually work? Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 03:27, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Blocked 1 week for disruptive editing. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:26, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

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

Please delete this user sandbox

The following discussion is closed. 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:Gina Bohorquez1/sandbox, the user has been only using it for vandalism and triggered a lot of filters while doing so, the user has been blocked, but the page needs deleted. 98.235.155.81 (talk) 21:30, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

The speedy deletion criterion you need is G3. I went ahead and tagged it.

Also, this is probably Salebot1, an LTA who likes to game extended confirmed. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 21:53, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Ok, that makes sense, thank you so much! 98.235.155.81 (talk) 22:40, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

If you see this happen again, immediately report them to WP:AIV and add {{db-g5}} to their sandbox; that apparently breaks their script and slows them down enough to get blocked. (G5 is the speedy deletion criterion for creations of banned or blocked users and/or their sockpuppets in violation of their ban or block.)

Another tip: if you ever create a page by mistake, put {{db-error}} on it. Pages created in error are eligible for G6 speedy deletion. You can read more about the specific speedy deletion criteria at Wikipedia:Speedy deletion.

If you create an account, you can use a tool called Twinkle to fight vandalism once you're autoconfirmed. Twinkle makes many tasks (like tagging pages for speedy deletion) much easier; I would definitely recommend getting it (if you want to make an account).

Happy to help, and thank you for your contributions! SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 22:53, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Your welcome, and thank you for the advice. 98.235.155.81 (talk) 08:34, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

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

Gdshordy final warning

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

This user Gdshordy repeatedly re-creating pages in mainspace instead of Draft, similar to cases lole 4cf (singer) and Dom Corleo. The user has a history of earning for creating promotional articles and using AI generated content. Their editing shwoing that they are not here to build an encyclopedia. ROY is WAR Talk! 07:25, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

There's certainly issues, but I've not seen any history of paid editing?

My impression is that they're a young & enthusiastic editor writing about rappers they're a fan of. Nil🥝 08:16, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

I also think the WP:NOTHERE label is a bit unfair in this case, as they have been receptive to feedback, and adapted their editing appropriately; their recent creations haven't relied on LLMs, and they've attempted to better attribute quotes to avoid their past copyvios issues (albeit not quite perfectly yet).

I also think some of your taggings have been unfair here @Royiswariii; adding the LLM tag to Me vs Me (Yung Fazo mixtape) when the prose was most definitely human written, or tagging Dom Corleo for A7 CSD.

That said, there are still issues:

• Recreating 4cf after its AFD isn't great
• Their tendency to WP:LONGQUOTE has caused copyvios issues that have needed revdeling
• They lack familiarity with WP:NMUSIC, with too many of their creations being sent to AFD.

I don't know the answer to these issues – maybe it's recommended they stick to improving existing articles, rather than creating new ones until they're more familiar with policies and guidelines. Nil🥝 09:43, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

I have second thoughts on that. But, the thing is Gdshordy repeatedly recreating the articles that deleted. Maybe some issues like using AI and creating promotional article and WP:FANPOV. I already assuming good faith on their work.

On the article Me vs Me (Yung Fazo mixtape), the references almost in the primary sources, which is might be fail WP:NALBUM.

On the other hand, I will leave to administrators and other editors on their perspective on Gdshordy doing. ROY is WAR Talk! 09:57, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

I understand. I made a mistake when beginning to write articles, and using AI was terrible, i should end it for that lol. But with the more recent works I did. I didn’t use AI. I find Wikipedia editing super fun. But I thought that when writing 4cf and Dom Corleo, I used sources and didn’t AI those new works. So I was confused. But if it’s really a bad thing to do. I will stop. Gdshordy (talk) 13:59, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Bahamian Creole/Bahamian Dialect

Disruptive editing pattern by User:Wolfdog on Bahamian Dialect and Bahamian Creole articles. Related interference from Pineapple Storage, which doesn't itself arise to disruptive but is coincidental.

I'm seeking guidance on the contributions involving two editors following the merge proposal regarding Bahamian English and Bahamian Creole language. User:Wolfdog in particular is problematic.

Background: I developed the Bahamian Dialect page years ago, which was redirected to Bahamian Creole. Since that time, another page - Bahamian English was created that overlapped substantially as there was no clear distinction between the two pages. I initiated a merge proposal, which was opposed by Pineapple Storage.

Following a merge proposal, I compromised by rewriting the Bahamian English to cover the varieties of English spoken and written in the Bahamas.

Despite that Pineapple Storage seems determined to police by behaviour by giving me unsolicited advice. Both he and Wolfdog have followed up my substantial sourced edits by making minor changes as if they are checking my behaviour.

Having changed the Bahamian English, I procdeded to revise Bahamian Creole page, which seems to have incurred the ire of Wolfdog.

Despite admitting that he is not well versed in the matter, he has reverted my changes and insisted that I discuss them on the talk page, despite the fact that they reflect the literature, are sourced, and include substantial quotes.

Pineapple Storage has made similar silly edits like changing the lead of the Bahamian English page to refer to "spoken" English but leaving the body to discuss both.

Bahamian Dialect is what the language is called in the Bahamas. Since the 1980s, it's been suggested that it's a creole language although this was still being discussed as late as 2015.

Both Pineapple Storage seem to have some stake in the language being called Bahamian Creole when it is only the creolised varieties that constituted Bahamian Creole English

Concerns:

User:Pineapple Storage:

• Repeatedly provides unsolicited advice
• Makes condescending suggestions
• Dismisses evidence of independent reliable sources, such as newspaper sources showing 2-1 usage patterns in favor of academic sources only
• Continues giving advice rather than engaging substantively with content, which is strange considering he has looked up source material

User:Wolfdog (acknowledged early on that he was "not well-versed on the matter")

• Kept out of any further discussion, however, as soon as I pointed out that the Bahamian Creole page has only ever referred to Bahamian Creole in the title and in the body to Bahamian Dialect throughout, immediately changed the first line to say that Bahamian Creole is Bahamian Dialect without any proof
• Reverted my edits and insisted on a discussion for information that was sourced and reflected the literature
• Unilaterally changed Bahamian Dialect to Bahamian dialect (despite it being a proper name) and then told me I should go to the talk page if I wanted to change without following his own advice
• Acting with apparent ownership over articles despite limited expertise.

Pattern: Both editors seem invested in enforcing "creole" terminology despite acknowledging limited knowledge, while avoiding substantive content contributions. When I've attempted to incorporate reliable sources, they've responded with process manipulation rather than content discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmemaigret (talk • contribs) 15:53, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm afraid Mmemaigret is heading down the road to WP:PETARD. Administrators will have to make their determination. Wolfdog (talk) 16:22, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Not sure why this has been brought here, when WP:DRN would probably have been a more suitable venue. I haven't made a single edit to Bahamian Creole (see here) and have only made one edit (diff) to correct an obvious error in Bahamian English (see here), so I'm not sure what Mmemaigret means when she says...

Pineapple Storage has made similar silly edits like changing the lead of the Bahamian English page to refer to "spoken" English but leaving the body to discuss both.

... and...

Both [Pineapple Storage] and Wolfdog have followed up my substantial sourced edits by making minor changes as if they are checking my behaviour.

My only involvement has been commenting on the various discussions that Mmemaigret has started on the relevant talk pages:

1. Talk:Bahamian English#Merge proposal
2. Talk:Bahamian Creole#Page move proposed
3. Talk:Bahamian Creole#Bahamian Creole vis a vis Bahamian_Dialect

What Mmemaigret calls unsolicited advice and condescending suggestions, I would call "giving my opinion as part of a consensus-building discussion". I have tried throughout to remain civil, despite some inflammatory comments from Mmemaigret such as:

• "unlike you having your cute theoretical arguments [...] since you know more about this language that you don't speak" (diff)
• "It's like you insisting that a tomato is in fact a fruit so we should maintain two pages - one for tomato fruit and one for tomato vegetable and finding some sources that refer to tomato the fruit and some that refer to tomato the vegetable and arguing with a person who grows tomatoes that they must in fact be different because the 'literature' refers to them differently, when you've never seen or tasted, much less grown, one." (diff)
• "I created the Bahamian dialect page years ago, which was renamed Bahamian Creole by someone (I suspect a lot like you) who decided they knew better." (diff)
• "I speak this language that you think it a theoretical exercise. [...] You'd know that if came from the Bahamas." (diff)
• "You not of fan of linguistic diversity - that's what you tell yourself but that's not true. / All of the research says there are multiple varieties of Bahamian English and Bahamians call our language Bahamian Dialect. But you keep glossing over that. Now it's obvious why, you think the stupid native don't realise they need to be decolonised. [...] we don't need you to erase our varieties because you're on a crusade." (diff)

Also, while we're on the topic of condescending suggestions:

• "But since you know more about this language that you don't speak, maybe you indicate what the criteria is for distinguishing between the creole and the variation of English, so that editors can easily determine what goes on which page. Maybe you could indicate how may varieties there are on this spectrum." (diff)
• "If you read my last version and the sourced material and quotes, that would be clear." (diff)
• "Why don't you go and read all of the sources that you added on the talk page?" (diff)
• "Does that seem definitive to you? [...] Does that seem definitive to you? [...] Have you looked at a map of the Bahamas and seen how big it is? [...] Again, is this definitive?" (diff)

These are just the comments that were directed at me; Wolfdog might point to other examples.

Also, a very minor point: Mmemaigret says Both he and Wolfdog, but I haven't given any indication that my pronouns are he/him. Pineapple Storage (talk) 17:36, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Also, I've been accused of giving advice rather than engaging substantively with content, which is strange considering [I have] looked up source material, but I doubt that Mmemaigret would have preferred me to barrel in and start making contentious edits without engaging in the discussions (that she herself initiated), presenting my arguments and providing sources that support these arguments. Pineapple Storage (talk) 18:02, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm sorry to come back to this again, as I would really prefer to put this whole thing behind us as soon as possible, but I wouldn't feel comfortable leaving some of Mmemaigret's accusations unchallenged. Given that she has not responded to this discussion since initiating it, I had a look at her contributions and saw that she has opened a discussion (diff) at @Liz's talk page (talkfork?) regarding this issue. She says:

At the same time, the other user kept going on about trying to get me to move a discussion about a proposed name change to another forum when I told him I was happy to leave the discussion on the talk page. He even proposed making a requested move himself because I wouldn't.

(Aside from the pronouns, which I have already pointed out above...) Mmemaigret continues to misrepresent me; I never proposed making a requested move [my]self because [she] wouldn't. In fact, I considered doing this, decided against it for the sake of diplomacy, and then specifically did not make that suggestion. Instead, I laid out (here, here and here) my concerns about the potential problems with a move discussion happening outside of WP:RM, one of which is the fact that the article's move history makes it a potentially controversial move, so official guidance is to use RM.

I will say, also, that in searching for policy and guidelines that might be relevant to this ANI discussion, I stumbled across Wikipedia:WikiBullying, and the forms of WikiBullying listed there really feel like they could apply to some of the comments that have been made. Inaccurate claims have been made about my editing, and aspersions have been cast; false narratives have been used to discredit me; and the very fact that I've been included in this report—to ANI, which is supposed to be used to address urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems—(despite having made no significant edits to the articles involved) could be interpreted as an attempt to brand and discredit me, if I weren't assuming good faith. Pineapple Storage (talk) 11:34, 1 September 2025 (UTC) Pineapple Storage (talk) 11:34, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Given that she has not responded to this discussion since initiating it

What do I need to respond to? Your selective quotes that take a long conversation out of context? You weren't upset with them at the time. But they helped to distract from the issues that I raised on this noticeboard. Anyone who takes the time to read the transcript and follow the edit history should be able to see what happened.

Instead, I laid out (here, here and here) my concerns about the potential problems with a move discussion happening outside of WP:RM, one of which is the fact that the article's move history makes it a potentially controversial move, so official guidance is to use RM.

Thanks for confirming that you pressured me. (It was premature to say the move was controversial when you didn't let anyone else comment. That you and I disagreed did not make it controversial.)

I stumbled across Wikipedia:WikiBullying, and the forms of WikiBullying

I'm fine with an investigation to determine who bullied whom so long as it's through and independent. Because I think you know those were honest mistakes. On the other hand, do you think that following this issue across pages, and reviewing my user contributions to see that I asked Liz for advice, might qualify as wikihounding? I'd also like to know is how you got involved in the merge proposal discussion in the first place when you weren't pinged. MmeMaigret (talk) MmeMaigret (talk) 09:35, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

You don't need to respond to anything, but I thought if I were in your position, I would want to address the comments made below by uninvolved editors (which I see that you now have).

You weren't upset with them at the time. I was, actually, but for the sake of diplomacy I didn't flag this, because I wanted to avoid raising the temperature of the discussion even more and potentially attracting more accusations and insults. I wouldn't have taken it further, because I wanted to avoid ANI or similar, but given that you've reported me to ANI, I think I'm allowed to lay out my own perspective on the comments that have been made.

It wasn't premature to say the move was controversial, and I never said that the reason it was controversial was because you and I disagreed. It was always a potentially controversial move because—as you well know—the page has been moved several times in the past, including by you in 2006 to the same title that you were proposing this time (Bahamian DialectBahamian Dialect), and then twice subsequently (this one to Bahamian dialectBahamian dialect and this one to Bahamian Creole). Not only that, but you had already encountered resistance from another editor in 2015 when you suggested a move back to the previous title; there was also a related discussion at Talk:Bahamian English just last October, in which @Wolfdog was involved and a definitive consensus wasn't really reached. Given the prior moves and discussion about the title, the requirements for going through WP:RM (as laid out in WP:PCM) were clearly met.

I think you know those were honest mistakes. I don't know that, and how could I? Casting aspersions in multiple comments over multiple days doesn't imply honest mistakes. Purposefully using a pronoun I have told you I object to, as you did below (diff), also doesn't strike me as an honest mistake—especially since you bolded it, deliberately making it clear that you had seen my objection and were ignoring it.

following this issue across pages I joined in the move discussion for Bahamian Creole because it directly followed on from the merge discussion for Bahamian English; you even said (diff) I have already proposed the name change on the Bahamian Creole talk page. I look forward to your objection. This can only be interpreted as an invitation to contribute to the other discussion, so again, please don't misrepresent my involvement.

reviewing my user contributions to see that I asked Liz for advice Having not heard from you for two days, I was interested to know whether you were still actively editing articles and choosing to ignore this discussion. It turns out you weren't, so there's no problem there. You didn't just [ask] Liz for advice though, you also introduced a new accusation against me (quoted above), at another venue, without offering me right of reply by pinging me or otherwise letting anyone else from this ANI discussion know that the accusation had been made.

how you got involved in the merge proposal discussion in the first place when you weren't pinged. As I told you before (diff), the merge proposals appeared (diff) on Wikipedia:WikiProject Languages/Article alerts, which is on my watchlist because I'm a participant in WikiProject Languages. Pineapple Storage (talk) 14:27, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm only seeing one condescending person here, and it's not Pineapple Storage or Wolfdog. Maybe a read of WP:OWN would help. All participants should discuss the articles on the talk pages in good faith, which means being prepared to accept that consensus might be against you. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:20, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

User:Mmemaigret, this discussion should be occurring on the article talk pages or on the talk page of a relevant WikiProject (if one exists), the only reason I see for you bringing this disagreement to ANI is because you are seeking sanctions against the other editors. I see some disagreement between editors but that happens on a regular basis all over this project which is, after all, a collaborative editing project. We don't "vet" editors and require a certain level of personal familiarity with a subject before they can weigh in with their opinion on changes to an article. I think it would actually be more unusual if all involved editors actually agreed with each other! You may not like the "tone" of another editors' remarks but I don't see any actions involve policy violations. I'll echo Phil's comment that everyone involved has to dismiss any OWN behavior and be willing to discuss any significant changes in an article regardless of any editor's specific level of experience with a subject. You are not writing your own article, book or encyclopedia here so I think it would be best to move some of these discussion points to the article talk pages where all editors (and maybe some new ones) can be involved in developing article content.

If you want to have an article version that is 100% yours, I'd suggest creating your own blog or website where only your editorial opinion matters. I'm sure there are plenty of subject knowledge experts on Wikipedia who maintain their own sites off-Wikipedia where they don't have to edit according to the strict policies and guidelines present on this platform. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:41, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

+1 to Phil (well, and Liz too!). Mmemaigret, you've been on Wikipedia a long time, however much your edits were few and far between up until three years ago. In that time, you should have absorbed a few concepts. Besides what's been pointed out to you as far as article ownership or civility goes, there's another basic principle: we have no way of knowing whether your self-professed expertise is accurate, any more than you actually "know" that the editors you're dealing with are wholly ignorant. You have to have seen, over those years, that many editors exaggerate their expertise/credentials, a large factor in why WP:OR is a core policy of Wikipedia.

Take a look at my user page. I list a number of credentials there. And for all you know, I'm lying about all of them. That's why I don't barge into hockey talk pages and claim my experience means I should get my way. That's why I don't barge into legal talk pages and claim my experience means I should get my way. My having published or contributed to a dozen RPG books doesn't mean I get to barge into RPG talk pages and claim my experience means I should get my way. Ravenswing 08:09, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

@Ravenswing (1) My expertise My only 'expertise' is real world knowledge. In the same way that if someone told you that a book said Levine Street intersects with Heller Street and you know that's wrong because you live in the city. The book is a reliable source and has value on Wikipedia but you'd expect someone to listen to you when you say you actually live in that city, and not keep telling you that they read it in a book. Or to keep talking about the city as if neither of you had ever visited it. Or to listen to you when you point out that the book clarifies the issue on another page. Pineapple Storage has quoted from my interaction with him from a talk page discussion - one that has increased the talk page of Bahamian English from 7500 characters to 44,000 characters. A conversation that went nowhere because even when I disapproved a point, Pineapple Storage would ignore it or concede it only to return to the same point over and over again. Then move the same discussion to the Bahamian Creole talk page. But let's talk about why I actually came to this noticeboard because talk page discussions and article edits are different things.

Woldogs edits After the merge proposal was closed, I set about amending the two pages to remove the overlap that had led me to propose the merge. I took on board Pineapple Storage's suggestion that the Bahamian English page could cover all of the varities of English, then I started to amend the Bahamian Creole page so that it only covered the basilectal (ie creole) varieties of Bahamian Dialect. Despite that, Wolfdog, who had indicated that he was unfamilar with the topic, started making unsourced opposing changes. If you look on the [Bahamian Creole page history], you will see that I made 3 significant edits. I came back after half a day to find a minor unsourced edit by Wolfdog. I didn't argue with him or assert my expertise (as the quotes above might suggest). I simply continued my edits from the night before, making another significant, sourced edit. To which, Wolfdog responded with a comment accusing me of 'steamrolling his edits' and ordering me to discuss things with him on the talk page (ie ownership and gatekeeping). But (i) he didn't have multiple edits and (ii) he and I hadn't had any discussion, so what was he eluding to? He had made a single comment on 22 August on the talk page of Bahamian English. Why did I need to discuss my factual sourced changes with him? And, if I was having a running discussion with Pineapple Storage who hadn't edited the page, what did that have to do with Wolfdog? Meanwhile, on the Bahamian English page, Wolfdog had changed "Bahamian Dialect" to "Bahamian dialect" throughout and advise me that, if I had a problem, I should discuss it with him on the talk page before amending again. If he knew there might be a problem, why didn't he take his own advice and discuss it on the talk page first? And since Bahamian Dialect isn't a normal dialect but a creole as Pineapple Storage had been keen to establish, or the proper name for a post creole continuum which I kept pointing out, why had Wolfdog made the change in the first place? (The lower case was inconsistent with both propositions.) But what did Pineapple Storage's discussion have to do with Wolfdog's edits and what did a lower case/upper case style preference on one page have to do with sourced vs unsourced edits on another? MmeMaigret (talk) 07:24, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Mm, it seems you missed my point. The reason we don't credit "real world expertise" is because there is no way of telling whether a "real world expert" is genuine or talking out of their ass, and as we all know, a great many people badly inflate both their knowledge and their credentials to get their way. The only real world experts we credit are those who have multiple reliable, independent sources confirming that expertise. Ravenswing 08:36, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

No, I didn't miss your point and honestly, I'm not convinced that you missed mine. This is why I don't engage on discussions on Wikipedia. I was clearly explaining that this actually isn't an area of academic expertise for me. But I know enough that, when Donnelly says on the first page "Bahamian Dialect is Bahamian Creole" that I wouldn't stop there and instead read further to where she says "A good many Bahamians speak a more mesolectal variety (which is still referred to as Bahamian Dialect)". But what I have learned in my last 3 years at Wikipedia, is there's no winning for losing. That when you guys lecture me, I should just quietly accept it. MmeMaigret (talk) 08:56, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

This seems very simple to me. When explicitly told to stop editing and to discuss, you ignored that request and kept editing (as you admit above). It doesn't matter how many credible sources you use. Discussion through consensus is what's paramount on WP. (For example, we often require discussion to properly interpret those same sources.) Any of your arguments would hold more water if you simply stopped editing and talked through, specifically, what you liked or didn't like that I was doing. We could both pause and actually come to some agreements. Wolfdog (talk) 10:35, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

(1) You don't have any authority to stop me editing.

(2) There was no reason for me to believe:

(a) that because Pineapple Storage was still debating whether the page should be moved that I should take that as meaning that I couldn't edit the page in any way without discussing it with the two of you

(b) that I should take Pineapple Storage as having anything to do with you.

(3) I think you have now clearly admitted WP:HOUNDING. MmeMaigret (talk) 12:25, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

References

User:Acrisiuss

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

I have been involved in some discussions relating to the “Cartel De Los Soles” page, including general improvements. This user took it upon himself to not only ignore the general conversation But also to compare me to a holocaust denier stating: “the equivalent of a holocaust denier calling for the deletion of the Holocaust Wikipedia article.”

His statement (linked below) makes it seem that the user does not intend to use the talk page to discuss the content of the article but only attack my views; they might be WP:NOTHERE.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cartel_of_the_Suns#c-Acrisiuss-20250902201500-PlebeianTribune-20250827025200 — Preceding unsigned comment added by PlebeianTribune (talk • contribs) 20:48, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Neither of you is being particularly civil. With that being said, responding to source analysis with a conspiracist WP:ABF gesture isn't appropriate in the slightest. I think it would be wise to hear from @Acrisiuss about why they did that. Simonm223 (talk) 21:39, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

To be completely honest, I regret replying to his insult with an insult. I would’ve deleted it but I felt it would be dishonest to do so. I normally don’t insult people out of hand. PlebeianTribune (talk) 23:36, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Moved from WP:AN

Disastrous conduct on the talk page, with remarks like "Substanceless argument. This article is biased and ideologically brain dead, and so are you." I've already requested the page be locked to extended confirmed, but that's for Increase protection request. ⛿ WeaponizingArchitecture | yell at me 01:25, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

This is fairly terrible conduct. I'm of half mind to block for a week but will wait for more input. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 01:45, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

I just want to make it clear that PlebeianTribune responded to Acrisiuss with the remark "This article is Ideologically Braindead and so are you". Whether or not Acrisiuss started it, PlebeianTribune does NOT have the right to make personal attacks in response. When asked about the remark by another user, he doubled down, saying "Did you see what I was responding to", implying it was justified due to the other user's misconduct. He only apologized *after* getting pushback from other users.⛿ WeaponizingArchitecture | yell at me 20:23, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

I didn’t say I was right, and I wasn’t.

you say that I apologised after pushback. This is true, but you seemingly imply that I wouldn’t have if there hadn’t been any. I fully intended to. And I have done so. Whether or not I am punished for my actions shouldn’t have a bearing on whether acrisiuss is for his. PlebeianTribune (talk) 21:09, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

PensRule11385: Excessive WP:NFCC8 violations with NHL logos

The following discussion is closed. 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:PensRule11385 recently started uploading lots of NHL team logos and created galleries in their respective teams' articles (under the "Logos" section of each article). They did this with the Anaheim Ducks, Buffalo Sabres, and Chicago Blackhawks. Now they have 14 files with disputed rationales because they were only used in gallery sections with no explanation of why they have significant histories. While they seem to have stopped uploading more logos, they aren't trying to find the significance of the logos' histories.

They also had a page that they created recently deleted by an AfD. In the process, this user has committed excessive violations of WP:NFCC8, as seen on the file pages for the logos they uploaded, as well as on the deletion discussion.

They may deserve one of the following:

• A warning
• A temporary block from uploading files
• A temporary topic ban from NHL team logos

An indefinite file upload block or sanction is not deserved, though. 2001:56B:3FFB:EA08:95FB:D30:5629:E40D (talk) 21:47, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

None of the above. The issue about galleries has not been raised on their talk page, but notices have been placed regarding contended rationales. Since those notices were placed, I'm not seeing any further activity implying that they intend on editing against that. Thus, I see no reason for a topic ban, a block, or even a warning at this point. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:54, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Note that you're required to notify editors when starting a discussion about them. I've done that for you this time. Woodroar (talk) 23:04, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

I stopped as soon I saw the first notification to do so. What else do you want me to do? PensRule11385 (talk) 23:06, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

• Nothing about this situation rises to the level of "urgent incidents" or "chronic, intractable behavioral problems". There's nothing to be done here. Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:24, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

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

AI accounts causing confusion

The following discussion is closed. 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:Jozaf dyny and User:Meltonmarry are both very overt AI accounts, as well as Special:Contributions/103.57.224.193. A quick look at their extremely short contribution history shows that they only reply to talk pages (some of which are discussions from 15+ years ago), consistently write in an AI-like manner, and seem to summarize the content above them.

One such example is this post on Talk:Flash of unstyled content, where Meltonmarry responds to a talk page comment about whether the page is meaningful 18 years later as if they are just editing it for the first time.

Another such example, and the place I found the other two, is on Talk:Zero-width space - inexplicably, all three accounts responded to this 2009 talk page post as if it were about including the zero-width character on the page as copyable text.

They then show up in Talk:Geometry Dash, where Meltonmarry responds to Talk:Geometry Dash/GA1 as if it is their GA review AND while leaving the quotes in, a common marker of AI. Jozaf dyny then replies to the Geometry Challenge redirect section with a response that's evidently meant for the GA review. Meltonmarry also links their user page to a Spanish font website. I'd hazard a guess that this is meant to drive traffic to it, but that's speculation.

Userlinks:

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

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

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

I don't know what precedent exists for fake users like this, but they're adding significant confusion to Talk pages that are actively in use (Geometry Dash) as well as those of historical record (Zero-width space). Corsaka (talk) 09:34, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm interested in AI, but honestly, I find it very hard to see what you're asking here. Govvy (talk) 09:40, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Either a warning or a block for the three editors? We don't want AI comments in general, but we certainly don't need AI comments to long-stale discussions, and by seemingly meat-or sockpuppets. At best they are acting independently and are being guided to these discussions by some incorrect newcomert task, in which case that task needs disabling or adjusting. But it certainly seems like a good case to raise here, so admins can look at it and people can chime in if they have noticed similar behaviour by other accounts. Fram (talk) 09:49, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

AI is getting more popular these days but I never heard of something like an AI account on Wikipedia, this feels like something new to Wikipedia. 98.235.155.81 (talk) 09:55, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

I think they mean AI-generated responses being copied in by humans. That has happened before. 2001:8003:B15F:8000:F48E:23D:2BEE:5BB (talk) 11:06, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

no idea why a human would do this to random tak pages at random times of day, but either way it's a problem Corsaka (talk) 11:26, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

"Random times of day" isn't indicative of anything, different time zones exist. Gnomingstuff (talk) 15:39, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

It's probably just a spam campaign, see one of their userpages. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 12:43, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

I WP:BOLDly removed one overtly spammy comment so it wouldn't get archived by the bot, because once it gets archived, people will complain if you try to remove it even if it's spam.

The other comments, whatever. Gnomingstuff (talk) 15:37, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Mentioned this on AI cleanup but it definitely is spam, Google searching the URL on that page will turn up their other spam attempts elsewhere. Gnomingstuff (talk) 19:59, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

I've reported the domain to WT:WPSPAM as a precaution. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 00:05, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

I ran a check and blocked both accounts as  Technically indistinguishable, along with

• Hafiz Tayyab sani (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

(already blocked for spam) and

• Jsunlang (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Jsouns (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:44, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

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

HotArticlesBot malfunctionining?

The following discussion is closed. 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 noticed that the HotArticlesBot hasn't seemed to update any pages since 27 August. Is this a normal occurrence or is the bot not functioning right? Hsnkn (talk) 23:39, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

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

Continued unreviewed LLM use by Braindot

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

---

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

I fairly recently asked Braindot to not continue using LLMs to generate articles in articlespace, here, due to the creation of multiple LLM generated articles. They don't appear to have listened, since they recently created Govt Inter College Binakkhal, which is clear LLM use, and Saunla, which might be LLM use (the sole source doesn't work for me). 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 01:33, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

If this information is wrong then tell me otherwise delete it, I will not make a dobra Braindot (talk) 01:39, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Its not other editors responsibility to clean up what your LLM spits out. You are the one who should be reviewing the things it creates, not just simply publishing them into article space. The problem is that you are clearly not reviewing what it creates, given Govt Inter College Binakkhal. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 01:48, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Ghananad Gagodia and Khawada are also pinging the hell out of the AI scanner. I just have zero tolerance for any of this bullshit. All of this AI-generated hoohah needs to go into file 13. Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:44, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Braindot,

I'm not sure what you plan to do with User:BraindotBot but all bots must be approved for use. For more information, go to Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:53, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

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

Personal Attacks

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

---

• Ogaboga69 (talk · contribs · block user)
• Protobowladdict (talk · contribs · block user)

Ogaboga69 seems to be throwing personal attacks all over replies on their user talk page. Protobowladdict is not helping with replies in the same manner and also asking for external communication information. Both need a timeout. - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 00:58, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Would you care to provide us some diffs? Ravenswing 01:01, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Just noting that User:Ogaboga69 has already been blocked. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:03, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Note: Ogaboga69 has already been indef'd by Lofty abyss. Liz beat me to saying this 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 01:03, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Beyond that, the username is likely a racially derogatory insult, with the phrase used to refer to Black people in comparison to certain animals. Rambling Rambler (talk) 01:04, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

I left a comment on Protobowladdict's page prior to this ANI thread, so this might not be necessary. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 01:10, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Fair enough, didn't see that comment! This can be hatted - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 01:12, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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 46.97.170.0/24 clearly NOTHERE

• 46.97.170.0/24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous ANI's: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1038#Personal attacks, BLP attack etc. by 46.97.170.78 (2020) and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1068#46.97.170.0/24 (2021)

This user barely contributes to article pages, editing mostly in talk pages. This wouldn't be an issue by itself, but they seem to be using talk pages like forums and bludgeoning their viewpoints without ever mentioning policy or reliable sources. Recently they seem especially bent on denying Christianophobia as a genuine phenomenon and dismissing it as a generic form of "religious intolerance", and claiming — based on nothing but their own opinions, and most of the time irrelevantly to the subject at hand — that it is not comparable to Islamophobia or antisemitism. Such views often contradict the sources cited in the articles, making such discussions pointless, pedantic and a clear case of soapboxing.

I first noticed this user on a discussion started by them in the talk page for the recent shooting of a Minnesota Catholic school (which had to be closed) which expressed such views, denying the shooting's status as a possible hate crime solely because the targets were Christian and Catholic, with the logic that because they are not minorities, they cannot be victims of a "hate crime", which again, contradicts sources, including the FBI. Impertinent, unproductive soapboaxing.

Their most recent instance of bludgeoning was in the talk page for the article Anti-Christian sentiment, where they continued to deny Christianophobia as a unique phenomenon even in countries where persecution of Christians is well documented.

In yet another instance of bludgeoning this month, on Talk:Cultural appropriation#The criticism section, part deux, they attempt to revive a discussion which they admit having started four years ago, inquiring why their objections weren't yet applied to the article (which I see as quite presumptuous) and again, baselessly discrediting sources and their addition based on nothing but their own opinions on the matter. Indeed, what was their last instance of actual editing of an article since 2024 was the near-blanking of an entire section which contradicted their beliefs in that very article.

It's also worth mentioning their comments in Talk:Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom#Why does the title no longer contain "Moral Panic"? in June. Here's an excerpt that caught my eye: If there's a poster child of group based sexual abuse of children in the UK or anywhere else in the world, it's the catholic church, and not "muh pakistani grooming gangs". Never mind the relevancy of the comment in its whole (thought it's also certainly problematic), just note the use of "muh" to disparage the opponent and their views, clearly showing a lack of interest in a serious, respectful, productive discussion.

An editor being strongly-opinionated on a given subject normally isn't the end of the world, neither is occasional impoliteness or name-calling, and talk page contributions are still contributions. But when we're talking about an IP that has a history of belligerence in talk pages and hardly makes meaningful contributions to articles themselves, I believe some attention is needed. In previous incidents they expressed some regret and were given chances, but their behavior hasn't changed. In my opinion, this is clearly a case of WP:NOTHERE. --DannyC55 (Talk) 00:04, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

I first encountered this IP over at Talk:Calvin Robinson (a touchy subject with some implications for politically active conservative Christianity). There, the IP admitted some difficulty avoiding going off topic and making venting frustration at all of wikipedia. I would give them a bit more credit than that and suggest they seem to get a bit overzealous only on matters related to Christianity. The Talk:Annunciation Catholic School shooting discussion was bad, but I'm not sure we can hand down a block based on these last few incidents. I'd say giving them some ROPE is probably the best course of action here. (Off topic, but I get a tad anxious that the primary metaphor behind ROPE might not be the best language; something to be discussed another day, perhaps...) ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:42, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

IMHO they've been given ROPE plenty of times in the past, and it clearly hasn't worked. 5 or 4 years since the last ANI's and they seem to be exhibiting the same kind of behavior; although I'll concede that they seem to have mostly let go of blatant name-calling. But even if they occasionally show self-awareness and admit that their behavior is inappropriate, that's not enough if they continue to be disruptive. DannyC55 (Talk) 01:45, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Some specifics would be helpful here. To start with, one recently used account is 46.97.170.26. Any others you can identify, DannyC55? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:25, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

The individual IP responsible for the problematic discussion that took place in Talk:Annunciation Catholic Church shooting is that one you linked. Others are listed here. 46.97.170.26 appears to be the most recent iteration of that IP range. DannyC55 (Talk) 03:06, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

I will say that comments like this where they decide AGF can be tossed out when someone disagrees with them might be indicative of the NOTHERE behavior described in the OP. Judging from recent prolonged discussions, I think the project has a higher tolerance of "combative, inflammatory, but not outrageous" statements than I would expect. That said, this is an IP with a history stretching back a few years, so perhaps my initial ROPE appraisal shouldn't apply. ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:30, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

They seems to have stopped talking on the Talk:Anti-Christian sentiment page here, still annoyed that our concerns had supposedly already been addressed. It does really feel like WP:NOTHERE behaviour with how continuously confrontational and hostile they are, and after years of this behaviour it might be worth doing something here, whatever that may look like. Harryhenry1 (talk) 07:55, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Sadly, they have not. 84.206.29.66 (talk) 13:57, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, based on this, I'm inclined to believe this editor's primary interests are RIGHTGREATWRONGS and stirring the pot. At the minimum, a tban from Christianity-related subjects. Their tendentiousness on talk pages might also need some other tailored solution. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:58, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

A topic ban on Christianity and possibly the topic of religion as whole would hit the nail on the head, if it includes talk pages. Seems like the most appropriate measure to me. DannyC55 (Talk ★ Contributions) 16:41, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Probably should be enforced with pblock because it’s an ip 2001:1A10:1898:6302:5D1B:E16:FFBE:20A4 (talk) 18:41, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

It seems like admins are too lax when it comes to users being disruptive outside of editing. I can't believe this thread had to spend multiple days arguing this, just ban already! Debatta (talk) 03:05, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Our frustration notwithstanding, there is a benefit for a group project within the give and take from extreme arguments and tendentious personalities, to a point. Some of the best contributors began with wp:TE collaborative efforts.

Cordially, Augmented Seventh (talk) 03:23, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

That is why I (occasionally) believe in second chances. But this IP user has been doing this for years. They've been given plenty of time to rethink their actions and we can't be constantly running after them, especially with a limited supply of administrators. Debatta (talk) 04:00, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Continued unsourced edits after final warning by 76.157.118.61

76.157.118.61 has been continuing to make unsourced edits [60] [61] despite my final warning to them about this subject, the first of many given to them by myself and other editors since May, on their talk page. I think by now a block is the only thing that can be done. Thanks. Graham87 (talk) 06:16, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Pro-quackery agenda

• RiverstoneScholar (talk · contribs · block user)

Seems to have a pro-quackery agenda. Please advise. E.g. [62] and talk page discussions.

Also: highly suspect of WP:LLM. tgeorgescu (talk) 08:19, 4 September 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.
Thank you for bringing this matter to WP:ANI. First, I would like to address the accusation of having a "pro-quackery agenda". This claim is entirely unfounded and serves only to derail the constructive and content-focused discussion we should be having. My primary goal has always been to improve the article by adhering to Wikipedia’s guidelines—ensuring that the content is neutral, well-sourced, and reflects the scientific consensus. Regarding the concerns about WP:LLM (Large Language Models), I acknowledge that I used AI for research purposes. AI was employed solely as a tool to assist with gathering information, and I cross-checked everything with peer-reviewed, reliable sources. AI was not used to generate unverified content but only to aid in sourcing data. All content added to the article is properly verified and cited, in line with Wikipedia’s reliable sourcing standards. I am fully committed to ensuring that this article adheres to Wikipedia’s core policies, especially WP:NPOV (Neutral Point of View) and WP:MEDRS (Medical Reliable Sources). The term “quackery” is editorializing and should only be used when strong evidence from reliable sources supports it. The article should reflect the current scientific consensus, which does not support the use of such loaded terms. Personal attacks and unwarranted accusations are harmful to the collaborative spirit of Wikipedia. I would like to keep the focus on the content ensuring it remains neutral, factually accurate, and well-sourced. I trust that the community will recognize the importance of adhering to Wikipedia’s guidelines and work together to resolve this matter productively. RiverstoneScholar (talk) 08:43, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

I could bet that your reply above was produced by LLM. tgeorgescu (talk) 08:45, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Gah. Responding to allegations of LLM use with LLM waffle should be an instant knock-out. I wonder how many more months of clogged-up ANI it will take until the community makes that a formal consequence. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:55, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

• RiverstoneScholar, I have just collapsed your reply per WP:AITALK. Please respond again in your own words. Salvio ^giuliano 08:53, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

RiverstoneScholar admits to being willing to remove "quackery" from the article. If that's not a pro-quackery agenda, then I don't know what it is. tgeorgescu (talk) 08:56, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia should summarize what the systematic reviews and regulators already say: Evidence is limited and of low certainty, and that the FDA prohibits it. That conveys lack of efficacy without Wikipedia itself using labels like "quackery." My only goal is neutrality and compliance with sourcing standards. Repeatedly framing neutrality as "pro-quackery" is itself such a biased stance. RiverstoneScholar (talk) 09:07, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I have checked the source provided for the edit, Frontiers in Public Health, against WP:MEDRS and, according to Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Journals cited by Wikipedia/Questionable1, Frontiers Media publications are [v]ery much hit-and-miss. The article cited is authored by members of the Brazilian Society of Medical Ozone Therapy and of the World Federation of Ozone Therapy. I'm waiting for a response, but, for the moment, I'm not impressed. Salvio ^giuliano 09:10, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

My meaning: it would be against WP:NPOV to leave "quackery" out of the article. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:24, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Tgeorgescu, for me there are two different questions. On the one hand there are the repeated use of LLMs and the violation of WP:MEDRS and, on the other, there is the question of whether ozone therapy should be described as "quackery".
As regards the former, that's a conduct issue and, at the moment, I am inclined to consider imposing some sort of restriction on RiverstoneScholar. But the latter is a content dispute, unless there is evidence that RiverstoneScholar is POV pushing, for which there is insufficient evidence at the moment, in my opinion. —  Salvio ^giuliano 10:11, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Okay, I will leave it at that. tgeorgescu (talk) 10:22, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

This is noted @Salvio giuliano I want to clarify my position. I am not promoting ozone therapy. My edits are based on systematic reviews, which conclude the evidence is limited and of low certainty, and on the FDA prohibition. That should be enough to convey lack of efficacy without Wikipedia itself using the word “quackery.” My goal is neutrality and compliance with sourcing standards while avoiding a biased stance.

Since this is ultimately a content dispute about lead wording, I have opened an RfC at Talk:Ozone therapy#RfC: Lead wording and neutrality, and I am happy to follow whatever consensus emerges there.

Just to clarify as well, the Frontiers in Public Health piece was cited only in the context of describing regulation in Brazil and other countries, not to make any efficacy claims. For medical evidence, I rely on MEDRS-compliant reviews (Cochrane 2015; Int Wound J 2018), which already conclude the evidence is limited and of low certainty. RiverstoneScholar (talk) 10:27, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

RiverstoneScholar, if you commit to only using WP:MEDRS-compliant sources going forward and to stop using LLMs to contribute to Wikipedia, I think we can close this complaint. So, I'll ask to please be clear and make this commitment.
However, please note that you're editing in an area – complementary and alternative medicine – that is subject to certain restrictions on Wikipedia and, that, in general, WP:NPOV and WP:V require us to report what is said by reliable sources. So, if the consensus in reliable sources is that ozone therapy is pseudoscience, then that's what Wikipedia must report.
POV pushing is disruptive and can lead to sanctions. —  Salvio ^giuliano 10:35, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

User:Abrham1111111111111111

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

---

Abrham1111111111111111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user repeatedly makes unsourced changes to articles. See this, this, this and this diff for example, and also see the recent edit history of Labyrinthodontia. Jako96 (talk) 21:38, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

You placed a uw-unsourced4 warning on their talk page [63], they didn't make any further edits, and 17 minutes later you brought the issue here? When they did resume editing, they reverted their edits. I'm not seeing a pressing problem here. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:59, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I saw it now. Also I do not see a pressing problem here. Let's just end this discussion. Jako96 (talk) 07:54, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

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

Dubious edits at Elden Ring-related articles

There has been a string of accounts making strange and disruptive edits in the Elden Ring topic area that all begin with the term "Aeonia" such as Scarletaeonia, Aeoniaflower, and Aeoniabloom. They have incorrectly claimed to be adding citations such as here and here and continuously restore their preferred version even when the content is not found in the sources. For example in this edit Scarletaeonia adds content not found in the sources, and I subsequently remove this content and explain why in an edit summary here Then Aeoniaflower then restores that unsourced content and other phrasings that Scarletaeonia added and says incorrectly that they "Added citation" when they didn't change anything at all from the version that I reverted diff. In addition, Aeoniaflower has personally attacked another editor here and here and did another disruptive edit here. Scarletaeonia has continued with those personal attacks such as in this edit summary. I feel like there should be some eyes on this topic area since there has been disruptive editing going on since at least August 13. Fathoms Below (talk) 00:20, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Maybe it would be time to file a report at SPI. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:29, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

On a somewhat related note, I just slapped a Template:Criticism section template on the article for giving too much attention towards a controversy that is, all things considered, irrelevant and probably WP:FANCRUFT. And that FANCRUFT seems to be the motivating factor behind some of this disruptive editing from what I can them. λ NegativeMP1 01:57, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

I'll add that the edit history generally is odd with prolonged edit streams on the same article mixing large edits (often with bad/inaccurate summaries) mixed in with copy small copy edits, in some cases just doing and undoing the same page change (compare [64] [65]) either in adjacent or subsequent revisions. Driftingdrifting (talk) 13:13, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

White Genocide conspiracy theory

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

---

Jamiejagger2006 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) thinks very strongly that the article on White genocide conspiracy theory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) contains "sections that indicate a left wing diatribe rather than actually indicating knowledge." It is his view that "If "trans genocide" is taken seriously as a concept, so should "white genocide"" ([66], [67], [68]). He has similar views on Great Replacement conspiracy theory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ([69], [70], [71]). Tgeorgescu and I have both reverted.

I disagree. Doug Weller has warned him about contentious topics, but this has not yet effected change in his behaviour or edit summary language. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:39, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

• Indef Seems like straightforward WP:NOTHERE. Simonm223 (talk) 11:45, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

  I don't think so. He has made some positive contributions (albeit sometimes with a distinct editorial lean, see [72]). I just think he absolutely despises liberals. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:51, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

I disagree with you. It seems you are the one engaging in a non productive edit war. See: your talk page and political rants on "Trumpelstiltskin". SuperAdamFirst69420 (talk) 11:47, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi @SuperAdamFirst69420; care to explain why your very first edit on Wikipedia is to jump into a thread at AN/I you are not involved in? CoconutOctopus talk 11:49, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Who could possibly have predicted that? Guy (help! - typo?) 11:52, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

This user JamieJagger2006 and I are feminist professors at University of Arizona. We are participating in one of your famed edit-a-thons. Your support of violent radical islam and the great replacement is proof you hate women like us! SuperAdamFirst69420 (talk) 11:52, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Sure friend. Simonm223 (talk) 11:55, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Well, that was an easy indef. Unsure exactly on what the connection is between these two if there even is one at all, so I'll leave this thread to someone else. CoconutOctopus talk 11:56, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

{{checkuser needed}}. Could just be a random noticeboard troll, so we should check before assuming a connection. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 13:40, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Template not really needed at ANI. Anyway, there are other accounts on the same IP range engaging in what could be called trolling, but I just blocked the most obvious one, Nuckfiggers1969. It's a wide IP range, and the others will do something overt enough to be blocked if they're the same person. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:02, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Yup, you could be conservative feminists, which is actually the opposite of the popular understanding of "feminist". tgeorgescu (talk) 12:08, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

• As a stopgap measure I have indefinitely pblocked the user from both articles. I think a topic ban is in order, preventing this user from making any edits relating, at least, to race. Probably sexuality as well. Salvio ^giuliano 12:09, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

  it is intriguing that valid reasons have not been offered for the attempts to stonewall my edits, just "must hate liberals". Jamiejagger2006 (talk) 12:14, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

  Fair enough, let me proffer one in plain English. The edit summaries and editing pattern linked above is clear evidence that you, in fact, are editing here with an agenda in mind. Ravenswing 12:29, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

  Jamiejagger2006, the valid reason is that per WP:V and WP:NPOV, Wikipedia reports what reliable sources have written about a topic. If the majority of reliable sources consider the great replacement a debunked conspiracy theory, then that's what Wikipedia must report. Your arguments basically amount to original research, in that you draw a parallel between the great replacement theory and the trans genocide theory. But that's what you do, not what reliable sources do and, as such, it violates our policies. —  Salvio ^giuliano 12:30, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

  there is one, precisely one, source for it being "debunked" and that is PolitiFact, which last time I checked is not an academic paper. Jamiejagger2006 (talk) 13:06, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

  Isn't it funny how, when it's debunking a conspiracy theory, it's always "this isn't a peer-reviewed academic paper and the author hasn't even won a Nobel Prize", but when it comes to supporting a conspiracy theory, it's always "this suppression of my self-hosted personal blog as a source is blatant bias and infringement on my free speech"? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:32, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

  pretty sure i never cited any blog as a source lol.

  I never mentioned freedom of speech, but it is telling that people are trying to ban me from the site for not being left wing. Jamiejagger2006 (talk) 13:35, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

  That wasn't about you specifically. It was a joke about an extremely common general pattern of disruption around conspiracy theories and "culture war" nonsense, that you'd be well-advised to stay much further away from than you currently are. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:42, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

  @Jamiejagger2006: NOBODY has mentioned anything about banning you from the site for not being left wing. If you want to tilt at windmills, that's your business. However, casting aspersions here at your fellow editors isn't going to fly. Barring actual evidence someone is trying to ban you from the site for not being left wing, I strongly suggest you drop this line of accusation. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 14:09, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

  Multiple other sources are available on the talk page, not all available sources need to be included in an article. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:34, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

  Jamiejagger2006; To add on, you're engaging in edit warring in a vain attempt to force your way. That too is against our policies. When faced with a situation where someone reverts your edits, your pathway forward isn't to keep relentlessly reverting their reversions of you. Under no circumstances is there a time when you should be thinking "Just one more revert of this person will do the trick!" It never does and it never will. To add on further, your editing on Great Replacement conspiracy theory is in a Wikipedia:Contentious topics area, which you were warned about and chose to ignore anyway. To be blunt, you're very lucky you weren't blocked sitewide. Keep up this sort of behavior on other articles, and you will be. If you're here to right great wrongs, it's hardly surprising there will be push back. If you disagree with something, follow Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:42, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

  I'd like to say for the record I didn't even start the edit war, it was someone who provided no explanation for reverting the edit, yet somehow it's all my fault lol Jamiejagger2006 (talk) 21:09, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

  For the record, it doesn't matter if you started the edit war or not. You were involved, and chose to continue it. Nobody said it's all your fault. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:29, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Despite warnings, Jamiejagger2006 has continued edit warring, this time on Food and Drug Administration. I've given them a final warning. See User talk:Jamiejagger2006#Edit warring final warning. My hope they can become a productive editor here is slipping fast. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:17, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Sadly, it looks as if ChildrenWillListen (see below) might be right after all. —Fortuna, imperatrix 14:28, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Proposal: Topic ban from Post-1992 US politics and race, both broadly construed

• Support as proposer. Hammersmith is probably correct re a sitewide block, but perhaps start at a lower register and see how it goes. —Fortuna, imperatrix 13:22, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Update: Although I proposed TBans, I'm sympathetic with the indef/ban suggestions below. Frankly, at a time when the community would like to see just a little reflection, Jamiejagger2006's absolutely battleground approach suggests they're (increasingly, perhaps) unable to work collaboratively. They certainly aren't lowering the temperature here. —Fortuna, imperatrix 10:21, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

• I would support that at a minimum though I agree with Hammersoft a site-wide block would probably also be an appropriate response. Simonm223 (talk) 13:35, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

  shows a great ability to offer valid counterarguments that you'll ban me from the whole site, given i've made dozens of useful edits to other articles on finance. Jamiejagger2006 (talk) 13:36, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

  useful edits don't offset unremorseful edit warring and being unnecessarily combative

  also drop the persecution complex; plenty of right wing users get by just fine on the site because they don't have obvious behavioral issues grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 15:13, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

  They're a new editor and have made constructive edits elsewhere, so I would support a topic ban as described as a first measure. Editors are allowed to have whatever political beliefs they like, but not to force those beliefs into content or to cast asperions in edit summaries. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:39, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

  Struck my support for a topic ban, a block until they understand that comments like this are unacceptable would be more appropriate. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:33, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

  Support indef block, although likewise this isn't looking good, and Jamiejagger2006's strong tendency here to argue with all comers (especially with "Teh Libs Are Out To Get Me!") isn't promising. Changing my vote to supporting an indef, what with this person's ranting and personal attacks below. We don't need people like this around, full stop. Ravenswing 13:43, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

  Indef sitewide, upon reading through this report, I have good reason to believe that this user is WP:NOTHERE. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 23:05, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

• WP:DFTT. Let's just block and move on. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 13:38, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

  I'd support an indef block. This is pure racism at its core. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!}

• support indef block - see WP:NONAZIs per lakesideMiners, jamiejagger is here to do WP:BATTLEGROUND only from the edits on this section Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:18, 3 September 2025 (UTC)
• Indefinite sitewide block - We shouldn't even be debating this. Our SOP for users of this nature who can't shut up and won't change the subject has always been an indef block for one reason or another: WP:DFTT, WP:TRUTH, WP:CIR, WP:NONAZIS, WP:HID, take your pick, all of them apply here. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 15:37, 3 September 2025 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. I also would not disagree with a sitewide indef ban but a topic ban might suffice for now. --DannyC55 (Talk ★ Contributions) 17:04, 3 September 2025 (UTC)
• Support a standard American politics topic ban at the very least, with an indefinite block if tendentious axe-grinding continues. Cullen328 (talk) 17:37, 3 September 2025 (UTC) (withdrawn due to subsequent developments.) Cullen328 (talk) 03:49, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

  dawg about twenty people have been seething all over this thread since i last spoke hours ago, i think it's others doing the axe-grinding at this point Jamiejagger2006 (talk) 17:44, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

  The casual flippant unapologetic tone, complete lack of remorse for objectively awful behavior, and the mocking ("seething") is exactly why people are mad at you. No self-awareness in your behavior, no ownership of bad behavior. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 19:30, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

  please, please go outside and soak in some sunlight for once in your life. There is no part of editing Wikipedia that requires you to be this histrionic and talk like it's a murder or domestic violence trial. Jamiejagger2006 (talk) 21:02, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

  Nothing that I wrote in that comment was that serious? I just said there's no persecution campaign against your political beliefs, you just have awful behavior. Again, plenty of other right-wing users that don't have your problems because they know how to act in public. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 22:26, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

  And there's no part of editing Wikipedia that requires you to be this histrionic and hostile. You're definitely showing us your true colors. Ravenswing 01:06, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

  @Jamiejagger2006: Being aggressive in a contentious topic - particularly an ethnopolitical one like post-1992 American politics - and doubling down on that aggression is a very good way to get blocked. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 20:38, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

  great replacement theory is French you mindless cretin Jamiejagger2006 (talk) 21:06, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

  Blocked one week for the personal attacks here. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:18, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

  @Jamiejagger2006: That's akin to arguing that the British Mandate by virtue of its origin is irrelevant to the Arab-Israeli conflict. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 07:09, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

• Support CTOP bans as suggested in header. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:43, 3 September 2025 (UTC)
• Support general indef per totally WP:NOTHERE behavior above, preferably with TPA revoked per WP:DENY. Borgenland (talk) 03:30, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
• Support indefinite sitewide block for personal attacks, general hostility, trolling, POV pushing and not being here to build an encyclopedia. Cullen328 (talk) 03:49, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
• Support indef site block as it appears that they are WP:NOTHERE. There is no reforming editors who are here to engage in culture wars and push great replacement crap. TarnishedPath^talk 03:54, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
• Support indef site block. All else aside, the constant personal attacks and clear trolling in this thread ([73][74][75]) show that they're just going to double down on battleground behavior. --Aquillion (talk) 04:08, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
• Support: clearly WP:NOTHERE. ROY is WAR Talk! 04:29, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Indef block nothere, personal attacks. CTOP isn't enough, they'll just keep insulting other people and claiming persecution despite obvious awful behavior grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 12:13, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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:The Banner

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

---

Ok so, The Banner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), an experienced editor with 130k+ edits and a history of apparently refusing to engage in discussion, harassment, etc., has decided to join this dispute on the Socotra Airport article after this new editor (User:Mitchp10) started a talk page discussion after I've reverted this edit of theirs, where they attempted to make the wording "more neutral". (Gotta admit that I did come a bit hot in there)

Now, The Banner, who clearly didn't read the sources cited (because if they did, they would've found out that the same source that they decided to label as "Palestinian-leaning" clearly calls it unauthorized), decided to revert my edit but didn't explain why, and to which I've obviously reverted. Now, what sensible thing to do in this situation other than reverting me again, templating me, and labeling my edits as "POV-Pushing", two times ofc [76] [77], instead of engaging with my two attempts at going on with the discussion. 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 15:25, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Why are you escalating your difference of opinion with a longterm editor to ANI instead of continuing to talk it out on the article talk page or going through Dispute Resolution? What about this disagreement is a "urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems"? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:50, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

@Liz Would'nt have done this if they've replied to my messages on that talk page instead of ignoring them altogether and saying whatever this is 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 15:55, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

I still call it plain POV-pushing based on non-neutral sources. But he thinks that being rude (see summary) and bringing me to boards makes his edits neutral. The Banner talk 16:00, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Sorry for telling you to stop harassing me on my talkpage with your templates (after what I think that this reply should've made it clear that I didn't like the first template that you've placed) and to focus on the discussion on that talk page. Also, wouldn't it be convenient for all of us to label sources that we don't like as "non-neutral" 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 16:05, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

But the discussion has been going on less than a day. If there is not immediate disruption happening, why escalate it to ANI? To pressure the editor to respond? Why not give the discussion more time or go to Dispute resolution? You shouldn't come to ANI with every dispute you find yourself in. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:23, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

@Liz, they both goaded themselves to here as the talkpage discussion shows, that's ultimately why this topic exists rather than alternative solutions. It looks self-explanatory at this point. If there is consensus to take it to here, even if not the correct venue, then this isn't a question for one editor. CNC (talk) 16:51, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

I see that the Middle East Monitor has been discussed several times before, resulting in WP:MEMO. This discussion can be put to bed if a better source is found. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:42, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

@Liz what am I supposed to do when they are making me look like a desperate ex trying to get a reply from them? They should be replying instead of casting aspersions. If they're not willing to engage in the talk page, then a request from DRN would get rejected due to the lack of proper talk page discussion, and a 3o request would get declined since we're more than 2 editors in that talk page. 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 18:01, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm not really impressed by this report, especially not the introductory link to The Banner's block log. It's true that they have a history of many blocks; but only two of those blocks are later than 2015, and none are later than January 2023. The one block that mentions "harassment" is from 2012. This block log shows a user who has been here a long time and who used to edit in an angry way with much edit warring, rather than showing a user who does that now. Also, if anybody looks battleground-y in the talkpage discussion at Socotra Airport, it's certainly you, Abo Yemen. I also have a lot of trouble figuring which edits on article talk you are referring to above — AFAICS, The Banner is replying to you. Please make proper diffs for the convenience of people trying to figure what it is you're arguing, AY (see Wikipedia:Simple diff and link guide).

The only move by The Banner in this context that I find objectionable, and also ridiculous, is their posting of noob templates on Abo Yemen ("Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page", etc, blah blah blah, you're embarrassing yourself there, The Banner). IOW, neither of the combatants is covering themselves with glory, but if anything, a boomerang for AY seems more appropriate than any sanction of The Banner. Bishonen | tålk 21:15, 25 August 2025 (UTC).

@Bishonen, I largely agree here, but did you see the edit they're arguing over? The Palestinian-leaning Middle East Monitor calls the flights illegal. This is an article about an airport in Yemen that's being occupied by the UAE. Calling the source "Palestinian-leaning" in this case is astonishingly undue, to the point that I'd call it a pretty clear pov lean. I don't think what was there earlier was a good use of wikivoice either, but at least that sentence was coming from the source directly.

@Abo Yemen, @The Banner, if you'll take a suggestion, mine would be to change that sentence to "The UAE runs a once a week charter flight to the airport from Abu Dhabi; however, this flight has not been authorized by Yemeni officials." That follows from the sources (I checked) and avoids both pov-leans. My next suggestion would be that you both go your own separate ways after that and avoid this article. -- asilvering (talk) 23:28, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

I can live with that suggestion.

But aside from that, let me quote the intro Middle East Monitor to show where my phrase "Palestinian leaning" is coming from: The Middle East Monitor (MEMO) is a not-for-profit press monitoring organisation and lobbying group that emerged in mid 2009. MEMO is largely focused on the Israeli–Palestinian conflict but writes about other issues in the Middle East, as well. MEMO is pro-Palestinian in orientation, and has been labelled by some commentators as pro-Islamist, pro-Muslim Brotherhood, and pro-Hamas..

Have a nice day. The Banner talk 01:52, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

God forbid that there are hamas tunnels under the Socotra airport that are just justifying the mention of memo’s “pro-Hamas views” (or anything related to Palestine) 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 02:30, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

But... why is Palestinian leaning even relevant in this context? jolielover♥talk 08:25, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

It shows that the source is not neutral in this case. The Banner talk 12:58, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Sources are not required to be neutral. As Abo Yemen pointed out, their "Palestinian-leaning" stance is irrelevant in the context of a Yemeni airport where the UAE exercises a degree of control. The illegality of the flights also seems like a straightforward conclusion, since government officials explicitly called them illegal and accused the UAE of violating international law and Yemeni sovereignty. Even if this were solely MEMO's position (which it is not), the in-text attribution could still be phrased in a more neutral manner. Paprikaiser (talk) 21:27, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

How is it not relevant? The source expresses the opinion (not a fact) that a weekly flight used by Israeli tourists is illegal. The headline is "Israeli tourists in Yemen's Socotra on holidays illegally run by UAE".

The fact that the source is pro-Palestinian makes anything they say against Israeli tourists just a little suspect, right? It's in the same mental category for me as writing "The Democrat-leaning newspaper called Trump's latest executive order illegal" or "The Republic-leaning newspaper said Biden's executive order is illegal". Sources are allowed to be biased, but our presentation of those sources needs to be neutral, and sometimes that means WP:INTEXT attribution that identifies a partisan source as being biased or partisan. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:42, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

No, it is not relevant. The headline, which is not pertinent per WP:HEADLINE, reads: "Houthi gov't slams UAE over Israel tourists on Socotra and air base on Mayun island." The article quotes the National Salvation Government's Tourism Ministry, which issued a statement declaring that transferring Israeli tourists to the island was illegal. MEMO further explains: "As the UAE have been running tours, including direct flights and issuing visas without the permission of the Yemeni authorities, including the internationally-recognised government, such trips are deemed illegal and a violation of Yemen's sovereignty." It is the Ministry making the claim that the flights are illegal; MEMO is simply reporting on their statement, which can be corroborated by other sources. Stating "The Palestinian-leaning Middle East Monitor calls the flights illegal" is misleading, as it implies MEMO itself is making a legal judgment, when in fact it is reporting an official government condemnation. Paprikaiser (talk) 20:40, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm talking about https://middleeastobserver.org/2021/05/19/israeli-tourists-in-yemens-socotra-on-holidays-illegally-run-by-uae

You seem to be talking about https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20210602-houthi-govt-slams-uae-over-israel-tourists-on-socotra-and-air-base-on-mayun-island/

These are not the same source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:58, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I'm referring to the source being used to justify the "Palestinian-leaning" qualifier that The Banner added here. I'm not sure where the other source comes from? It's not in the article, and even if it was, it is not the one used in the original edit that brought us here. Paprikaiser (talk) 20:30, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

the case of there being Hamas tunnels under that airport? Yeah I'd agree, if that was the case 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 14:28, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

that would be good enough, as long as The Banner's deletion of other stuff like the removal of the footnote from the airport's destinations box 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 02:06, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Yes, you added the illegal stuff twice. And the part in the destination table was superfluous and double. The Banner talk 12:58, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Adding cited content that is not being challenged by other sources is a bad thing now? 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 14:29, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia is neutral, not taking sides. The Banner talk 22:57, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Is there a reason this apparent debate over content is taking place on ANI? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:26, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

The Bushranger, I tried to point the OP to an article talk page or Dispute resolution when this complaint was originally posted. I don't like the trend of ANI becoming a frequent first stop in discussions whenever an editor meets with opposition in a dispute. It's supposed to be the last stop before arbitration, not the first. I think this discussion should be closed as I don't see conduct that violates policies. If there was, I'd recommend editors head to WP:AE instead if that makes more sense given the dispute. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:38, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm cautiously optimistic it is not a longterm trend, Liz: we just occasionally get a glut of such overzealous filings; in any system that runs long enough, you will get such statistical artifacts and I believe (although admitting that our assessments are impressionistic by nature) we've seen that wax and wane many times before. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 01:10, 30 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.

AI-generated prose at Chutney music

• Chutney music
• Bensmith.18 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Hermes Express (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

In April, Bensmith.18 added some text to the Chutney music page. The excessive bolding and referencing problems were quickly addressed by others, and some human-written prose was added in May by Hermes Express, supported by a low quality source, the peepultree.world blog, which had been added in April by Bensmith.18.

Two weeks ago, Life of Tau removed all of the recent additions because of the AI-generated text. A fraction of the removed text had been from Hermes Express, written by human. This started a slow-burning edit war first over the poorly supported recent additions, and then over a maintenance tag announcing that the page may contain AI-generated problems such as hallucinations.

This is new territory for me, so I would like to poll the community for solutions. Binksternet (talk) 18:12, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

The edits by Bensmith.18 do look very much like AI to me; in addition to what you mentioned, they come from this Wiki Ed class that I've found other AI edits in, for instance to Calypso music. See the sandbox versions if you need more evidence.

Hermes Express's edits to the intro appear to be relatively minor style changes, for instance removing boldface and tweaking some grammar. No obvious indication to me that they used AI. So I don't know what their motivation is or why they're going to bat for (probable) AI content that they had nothing to do with, but it seems unlikely to me that they're related to a random Canadian student.

But all this is moot anyway because the AI-generated template is intended for both confirmed and suspected LLM use, that's why it has the optional parameter certain=y. Gnomingstuff (talk) 18:39, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

@Binksternet, I don't understand why you've brought this here and not to the article talk page. Please discuss, don't edit war. -- asilvering (talk) 18:48, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

It's been on the talk page for around 2 weeks, as well as Hermes Express's user talk page. Based on the edit history there they don't seem interested in discussion. I didn't tag Hermes on the talk page at the time because the edits weren't theirs, and I didn't tag Ben because the class was over and so was his editing activity.Gnomingstuff (talk) 19:05, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Courtesy ping to @CBFraoch and @Brianda (Wiki Ed). Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 00:08, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

This might be a WP:CT/SA issue, with the llm a distraction. Hermes Express' edits shift the focus of the lead from stating the music mostly had a Bhojpuri origin, to a focus on the origin as Hindustani. I note the reverts have kept Hermes Express' infobox changes. Looking at the other lead text, a further issue is that it appears to be a WP:COPYVIO of the source. CMD (talk) 09:29, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

To me it seems the page would have to have a lot more discussion of Indian castes in order to qualify for CT/SA status. It contains some info about the culture of the Bhojpuri people, but there does not appear to be any caste-related controversy. Binksternet (talk) 20:47, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

My best guess is that maybe they thought the AI-generated template was directed at their edits, not Ben's -- the template doesn't have a great way to specify, especially when the edits aren't confined to one section and when the AI-generated edits are not the most recent ones (both of which are very common).

It would be nice to hear their point of view instead of having to guess, but their last word on the matter was Stay off my talkpage. Gnomingstuff (talk) 21:05, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

That's cause the first thing that was placed on my talkpage a template was, assuming i'm editing in bad faith. Hermes Express (talk) 02:03, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

No, it was not. That is a standard notification given to every editor who edits in the topic area, and it explicitly says it does not imply that there are any issues with your editing (emphasis in original). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:56, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm referring to what binkersnet's first message was ? Hermes Express (talk) 12:02, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

I think they're referring to this. Honestly I agree that it's probably not the right warning, the AI stuff all came from Ben. Still not sure why you want to leave it in, though, any changes you want to make to the article can be made to the pre-AI version. Gnomingstuff (talk) 13:03, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Which stuff is from Ben ? Thought that already was reverted, I only wanted to keep my edit in. Hermes Express (talk) 14:51, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

CT/SA is not about caste, it is about all topics that broadly touch upon South Asia. There are strong views about topics such as languages, as shown in multiple FAQs in Talk:India touching upon them and specific conventions such as WP:INDICSCRIPT. An edit that adds early on the assertion that Bhojpuri folk traditions are a form of Hindustani folk music, something I can't find in the source (closest is "Bhojpuri traditions may be dominant among the Indian-Caribbean population, but elements incorporated from different regions in India together with those from local contexts in the Caribbean also contribute to chutney") is a strong CT/SA indicator. CMD (talk) 03:26, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

@Binksternet: it seems the page would have to have a lot more discussion of Indian castes in order to qualify for CT/SA status. Erm. You may be operating from an outdated understanding of CT/SA, from this comment. CT/SA covers ALL pages related to the region of South Asia (India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal), broadly construed, including but not limited to history, politics, ethnicity, and social groups. The old WP:GSCASTE and Indian military history in particular are under ARBCOM-imposed extended confirmed restrictions, but every article on the subcontinent and a bit more, geographically is part of the CT. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:54, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

ModernDaySlavery disruption (and now, probable socking by VPN-hopping)

ModernDaySlavery (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has a primary interest in copyediting article leads. Unfortunately, they don't listen when others object to their changes.

Over the last three weeks, they have been asked by multiple editors to stop messing with the prose in the lead of Logic, a recent FA, without consensus. They initially refused[78][79] then were given clear reasons why their idea was disputed after going to talk,[80] and immediately kept going, not as if they hadn't heard a thing, but as if they had gotten consensus for a slightly different idea, as if they are entitled to keep trying until they have their prints on a page.[81] I have been perennially miffed with their stubbornness, and am unable to understand it at all. It also doesn't mean I haven't tried make them aware what the issues are, because their talk page should at least verify how I've tried repeatedly.

I wouldn't be here if this was new behavior, I have been flummoxed by their tact on Science, where they have had some issue with the phrasing of a particular sentence which I have not been able to understand for nearly a year,[82][83][84][85][86][87] despite trying to ask them about it on talk, and even going to WP:3O a few months ago about it because I thought I was losing my mind.[88] Months later, they casually blew past and tried to "fix it" again.[89]

I try not to be this blunt, but they really do not have good instincts for diction, but the real issue is that they do not seem to care one iota about what other editors say if they can help it. I consider the result more often than not to be real, particularly visible damage for our readers. Remsense 🌈 论 18:52, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

---

—actually! I withdrew this thinking the inciting incident just wasn't worth the trouble, but no. I'm sure this time.

On at least three articles recently engaged with by ModernDaySlavery, there have been sudden bursts of one-off activity from geographically random IPs, making similar kinds of edits (sometimes the same edits!) and leaving similarly written summaries. The most egregious are Logic, Red pill and blue pill, Template:Life imprisonment overview—just look down the recent edit histories! This one-off tag-team on Forecasting is as convincing once you notice the others and their general pattern of behavior.[90][91] Either they somehow aren't aware VPN-hopping isn't allowed, while editing as if they're tens of different users, or they care even less about doing things the right way than I thought they did before. Remsense 🌈 论 21:38, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

ChatGPT also agrees with me fills me with neither confidence nor enthusiasm. Narky Blert (talk) 08:06, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

• In addition to the above, user's chosen moniker combined with their obsessive addition of obscure incel jargon to pages such as Incel and Red pill and blue pill, often with bogus sourcing, suggests a WP:NOTHERE mentality. (Incels want to literally enslave women.) —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:06, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

  I would also point to the discussion that ModernDaySlavery started on Sangdeboeuf's talk page, where they seem to think very highly of LLMs as potential sources of knowledge. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 23:10, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

  About the user's chosen moniker, they likely used the name "ModernDaySlavery" because they initially wanted to edit a section about modern-day slavery ([92].) Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 00:22, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

  Regardless, they seem heavily invested in "blackpill" ideology, based on their commentary on my user talk page [93] and edits to Men's rights movement by one of their suspected sockpuppets, literally called Blackpiller. [94] —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:55, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Previous report. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 23:04, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

I agree they're using proxies and LOUTSOCKing, for example see [95] vs [96] and [97] vs [98]. They also gamed autoconfirmed to edit Slavery, and it seems they use this account when the article they want to edit is protected. Also see [99] and [100], where they try to get articles unprotected, presumably because they want to use proxies to edit it instead of their account. There's something interesting going on here indeed. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 23:28, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Some confirmed proxies:

• 2.220.19.153 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 186.214.138.66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 99.93.63.193 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 95.9.79.66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 71.190.209.208 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 14.175.43.217 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 97.204.240.74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 122.175.33.42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 168.70.79.91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 138.112.55.246 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 88.213.221.9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 93.35.165.93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2.1.131.155 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (got Wikipedia:Books protected by disruptively editing it, see also [101], where they use their account to make the same edit after the protection)

Likely:

• 75.83.3.253 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 68.199.106.61 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 206.255.82.34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 37.24.69.42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 95.87.89.56 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

...and several others I'm not bothering to list here. They sometimes use proxies to make null edits to the redirects they create with their main account (e.g. [102] and [103]) almost as if to let everyone know they're using that specific proxy. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 00:09, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Filed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Uni3993. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 01:02, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Wow, you really did start tunneling through the encyclopedia catacombs farther than I could be bothered and didn't stop till you broke into the old haunted mineshaft we wanted. Genuine props. Remsense 🌈 论 01:05, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! ModernDaySlavery would be blocked soon, but they would surely be back, and they're probably still using proxies to edit in places we have never seen. All we can do is be vigilant of POVPUSHing in Incel and other alt-right topics. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 01:37, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

The fact they've got a pretty good VPN means I should be less apprehensive for RPP than usual. Remsense 🌈 论 01:39, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

That's why I suggested we should block whole groups of proxies on sight, but Izno clarified we don't have access to raw proxy data to do that. Once temporary accounts roll out, this is going to be more problematic than ever, so perhaps we can have a protected AbuseFilter that automatically flags new temporary accounts with a bad IPoid score. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 01:50, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

And we are supposed to believe that you have only been editing for a few months. 🤣 206.195.76.221 (talk) 05:42, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Modernday is continuing with disruptive edits at Blackpill (disambiguation)[104] - against WP:DABONE. While not very egregious, it demonstrates a continued disruption in contentious topics. It is a similar edit to this from an IP, and this. TiggerJay (talk) 22:17, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Could we please get at least an articlespace pblock on the account if we're waiting for checkuser on the SPI case? This is egregious. Remsense 🌈 论 23:45, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

A CU has already checked (with a  Possible result.) Now an admin has to decide what happens to them. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 23:47, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

I've now blocked. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 15:32, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Disrespectful language in reference to a murder victim

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

---

Editor @Babysharkboss2 referred to Lisa, a victim of a murder, as a "rando".

When editing the page on the town of Abcoude (Lisa's town), and in a discussion about the importance of including her story on the town's wikipedia page. @Babysharkboss2 said "Oh my fucking God don't let this rando's death become an edit war, it's too early in the day for me" using language that is insensitive to the victim and her loved ones, and violating Wikipedia's policies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.251.60.169 (talk) 16:56, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

And you violated WP:NPA by telling them to fuck themselves. 331dot (talk) 17:01, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes in violation of Wikipedia's policy but there is no moral equivalence between the two actions. I did not dehumanize @Babysharkboss2 by expressing my feelings towards them, and if @Babysharkboss2 verbally attacked me I would have less of an issue with this; I'm alive and can defend myself against verbal insults, but the victim and her family in no way deserve this kind of dehumanizing language.

Furthermore @Babysharkboss2 proceeded to use dehumanizing language again after the initial complaint, they referred to Lisa as "this chick" showing no remorse or reflection. 37.251.60.169 (talk) 08:34, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

This is not the place to fight fire with fire. Your action isn't justified just because they did something wrong. 331dot (talk) 08:40, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm not justifying my action. I don't regret telling @Babysharkboss2 to go f themselves and I won't apologize for it.

If you think telling someone they can go f themselves and calling a murdered 17 year old "a rando" and "this chick" are one and the same thing then that's your issue dude, go evaluate your values. 37.251.60.169 (talk) 09:11, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

I am not saying their behavior was correct, it was not. I'm talking about your behavior, which was wrong and it is deeply concerning that you don't think it was. I don't want you to say you're sorry if you're not, but some contrition and admitting you violated policy- and will try not to in the future- would be nice. 331dot (talk) 09:20, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

If you read the first reply they do acknowledge they violated the policy.

It is still silly to suggest the two actions are both “equally” wrong. 31.161.155.149 (talk) 12:48, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

In general, articles about towns don't list every crime that occurred there(has someone been convicted of murder in this matter, per WP:MURDERS?). If the killing led to national changes, then the killing itself might merit an article. In any event, please discuss it on the talk page, without personal attacks. 331dot (talk) 17:04, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

I will be working on an individual article. The language used by @Babysharkboss2in reference to Lisa is disgusting. Calling a murder victim a "rando" and "this chick" is unacceptable. 37.251.60.169 (talk) 08:27, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

This wasn't a "discussion", this was an edit war, that neither of you should've been engaging in. Neither of you used the talk page. Babysharkboss2's language was absolutely out of line, but so was yours. ESH. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:07, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes in violation of Wikipedia's policy but there is no moral equivalence between the two actions. I did not dehumanize @Babysharkboss2 by expressing my feelings towards them, and if they verbally attacked me I would have less of an issue with this; I'm alive and can defend myself against verbal insults, but the victim and her family in no way deserve this kind of dehumanizing language.

Furthermore @Babysharkboss2 proceeded to use dehumanizing language again after the initial complaint, they referred to Lisa as "this chick" showing no remorse or reflection. 37.251.60.169 (talk) 08:36, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

On Cullen's talk page, IP, you said I gave a Meaningless, self-preserving apology. You did it not once, but twice, and you'd do it again if you could get away with it. which just isn't true. I recognize the implications of my actions both morally and how they broke Wikipedia guidelines. However, to say I am without remorse simply isn't true. My edit summery's and edit war were both distastefully done, but not without judgement. To say I'm only apologizing because I could be banned is both untrue and personally hurtful. I pledge not to edit war again, but I would not hate an admin for taking away editing privileges entirely. ☩ ^{(Babysharkboss2)} 12:06, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Why do you feel it’s okay to call the victim a “rando” and “this chick” in the first place?

Regardless of Wikipedia policies this is not merely distasteful, it’s gross. 31.161.155.149 (talk) 12:51, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

How do I know you didn't mean it?

Half of your apology is about editing wars and editing privileges and wikipedia rules. You are apologizing to the wikipedia admins and not to Lisa and her loved ones.

"I pledge not to edit war again".... okay, good for you. They should take away your editing privileges and not because you edit war but because you so casually dehumanized a dead girl. 37.251.60.169 (talk) 15:49, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

@37.251.60.169: Wikipedia is not a news outlet. The death of someone, even a violent death, is of no interest to us here unless that event has some gravitas among multiple, independent, secondary sources that attest to the event being of great significance beyond the simple crime. It doesn't matter how tragic the death is. Sorry. Also, you are required to notify people when you start a WP:AN/I thread that involves them. @Babysharkboss2: No matter how right you are, you shouldn't be edit warring to prevent this from being posted, unless it's obvious vandalism (which, though not acceptable for Wikipedia, isn't vandalism). At both of you; knock it off with the insults/snarky attitudes. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:07, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

to be fair, they did notify BSB2. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:10, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

I did notify them.

Furthermore, the death did have wider social consequences and is of importance to the community in the Netherlands.

I won't engage in further edit warring but I stand by my position.

Moreover @Babysharkboss2 language in reference to Lisa (even after the initial notice they proceeded to call Lisa "this chick") is absolutely insulting and unacceptable. 37.251.60.169 (talk) 08:25, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

I definitely should've stopped earlier, and per Cullen328's suggestion, I'm stepping away now. However, to explain my reasoning, I saw no long-term relevancy to the murder. This didn't seem like an impactful murder, just (to be blunt) another dead person hitting headlines. I apologize for my actions and I should've disengaged before even thinking of seeking out Cullen328 or any other form of external resolution.☩ ^{(Babysharkboss2)} 17:09, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Referring to the victim as "this chick" is unnecessarily dismissive, insensitive and sexist. I am discussing this matter with Babysharkboss2 on my talk page. Cullen328 (talk) 17:11, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

While I'm sensitive to WP:NOTMEMORIAL I agree that the language Babysharkboss2 used was inappropriate. Seems a warning for this is kind of already in the cards - a warning seems about right. Simonm223 (talk) 18:10, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Of course the language used by Babysharkboss2 was unnecessarily dismissive, insensitive and sexist, so I'm not going to defend that editor ("chick" sounds like a throwback to the 1960s). Is there any reason why Babysharkboss2 and 37.251.60.169 shouldn't be blocked for edit-warring if that hasn't happened already? Phil Bridger (talk) 17:39, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes. Blocks are not punitive, but preventative. The edit war has stopped, and at least Babysharkboss2 has already stated they have disengaged on the article. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:48, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

I'll note that I had to warn Babysharkboss for edit-warring only a couple weeks ago, which raises the question of whether warnings are getting across that edit-warring is not allowed. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 18:16, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

I thought WP:3RR blocks were an exception to that general rule, in that they are automatic. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:35, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

From WP:3RR; "Editors who engage in edit warring are liable to be blocked from editing to prevent further disruption to the affected page". Since there is no further disruption to prevent, a block would be inappropriate. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:41, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

That's edit-warring in general, yes. The very next text on that page says: While any amount of edit warring may lead to sanctions, there is a bright-line rule called the three-revert rule (3RR). Violating 3RR leads to immediate blocks, even if the immediate edit war seems to have stopped, because it illustrates an underlying behavioral issue - an editor who has run past 3RR once is likely to do so again if not sanctioned, and a block is thus preventative. Note further down: If an editor violates 3RR by accident, they should reverse their own most recent reversion. Administrators may take this into account and decide not to block in such cases—for example, if the user is not a habitual edit warrior and is genuinely trying to rectify their own mistake. Babysharkboss2 has not done that. Either they should or both editors here should be blocked for being at 5RR (Babysharkboss2) and 6RR (the IP editor) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:41, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Nowhere at WP:3RR does it say "Violating 3RR leads to immediate blocks, even if the immediate edit war seems to have stopped". The last reversion happened 8 hours ago, and as I noted Babysharkboss2 said they were disengaging from the article. If you want to block when there is no ongoing disruption, that's your business. I doubt you'd find much support from other administrators for doing such a block as a "preventative" lesson to avoid edit warring in the future. Go for it. For my part, a stern warning on their talk page would be plenty enough if I didn't think they already understood the gravity of the problem. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:27, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Just noting that today wasn't a good day for Babysharkboss2 on noticeboards as a second complaint was filed against them on AN, too. All should send a signal for them to take more care with your editing, especially don't be so quick to revert other editors. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:11, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Today certainly could've gone better for me personally, but I can't let that bleed through as a crutch to excuse my behavior. I won't be on Wikipedia for the rest of the night, simply logged on to see recent changes and to see the general ruling on my reports. I have no guidelines or diffs for my innocence, I simply over-relied on WP:NOTNEWS and disregarded 3RR. ☩ ^{(Babysharkboss2)} 02:28, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

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

Lee Nysted returns, 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.

---

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

Some of those who have been around for a while might remember Lee Nysted. For those that don't:

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive177#User:Lee_Nysted
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive72#The_Lee_Nysted_experience
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive76#User:Lee_Nysted
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive77#Lee_Nysted
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive233#Lee_Nysted_returns
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive235#Sock/meatpuppet theatre
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive248#Lee_Nysted,_the_continuing_saga
• Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Lee_Nysted

Nysted was blocked indefinitely in 2007. There was some sockpuppetry, and then Nysted asked for a right to vanish, their user talk page was deleted.

In 2011 they were granted a WP:BASC appeal. As was said at the time We hope that you will not repeat the behavior that has led to the ban in the first place.

As of today, Nysted is back to edit warring to include mentions of himself at Todd Sucherman. Sucherman was a session player (a 'hired gun' as they say) on Nysted's album. Promotion of the album (including edit warring on the bios of the session players involved) was the focus of all the problem editing in the past. What say you, ANI? Is this grounds to re-ban? - MrOllie (talk) 15:30, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

2007

Whispers of WisdomLee NystedDrums, Percussion I am simply trying to add my album to his discography. That is "warring"? Hardly. I have offered up AllMusic Souring. Todd and I have played together and are friends for years (Chicago.) Self promo? It is real and real time. Look at 2007. I have contributed as a donor to this site and caused no problems. Over stimulated to block, I see. Todd Sucherman Songs, Albums, Reviews, Bio & M... | AllMusic Lee Nysted (talk) 15:37, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Verifiable proof and adding information is not warring. As I have said, I have been a donor to Wikipedia / Wikimedia for years and came back after visiting with Todd, because he said my album is not on this site. If you block me, I can just live on without Wikipedia. That is fine. Thank you. Lee Nysted 9-4-2025 Lee Nysted (talk) 15:42, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

You are writing about someone you know Lee, and their connection to your own work. That's a clear COI. Post a note on the article talk page about it, with your source. If other editors agree, your content will be added - that's how it's done when you're connected to the subject. Girth Summit _(blether) 15:47, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Got it...thank you for your clarity. I am an investment advisor with Schwab ($8 Trillion in assets) and have been instrumental in financially supporting "our" wikimedia and wikipedia sites. If people like me are treated as criminals when trying to add real sourced data to this site, then I suspect the longevity of same may come into question. I have been absent from this site for years and certainly do not need to edit, albeit if blocked, simply delete my account and talk page... I will refrain from using this site. Thank you... I await your decision. Lee Nysted Lake Bluff Illinois 9-4-2025 Lee Nysted (talk) 15:57, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Girth Summit Yes...Todd and I have known each other for decades, albeit that is no reason for this site to not act as an encyclopedia. A simple Google search or AI search will reveal what I say is true. Add the info or not, this public lynching is absurd at the core and relflects poorly on this site. Todd Sucherman Songs, Albums, Reviews, Bio & M... | AllMusic Lee Nysted (talk) 16:16, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

While your contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated we don't have special privileges for major donors. Girth Summit is not attempting a lynching nor a witch hunt nor is this McCarthyism nor any other such clam of persecution. What they're saying is you have a history of making COI edits and the abuse of multiple accounts and now you are back to making COI edits. If you would please be so kind as to self-revert and to post your suggested changes at talk for another editor to action then that's probably going to be that. Simonm223 (talk) 16:22, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

I have known Todd for decades and we have collaborated together in music within the universe of musical spheres. Todd contributed to the album Whispers of Wisdom in 2007. I add my own album as real life news and a have sourced the news and data as real life fact. If you choose to not add it, so be it. Lee Nysted Here is the link I just deleted in a self revert, if you so choose to put it back in. === Lee Nysted ===

• Whispers of Wisdom (2007)

Lee Nysted (talk) 17:31, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

You're not getting the point. Editing in an area where you have a COI is almost always a bad idea. It's not just 'is this true' or 'is this verifiable', you also have to consider 'is this WP:DUE?', 'is it relevant?', 'is it proportionate?'. You are uniquely poorly placed to make those calls, that's why you should post a note on the article's talk page and leave others to do it. Look, I have lots of friends with articles about them. My partner has an article about her. I don't edit those articles, ever, because I would be conflicted about their content. Now, I would strongly advise you to take this on board, and indicate that you have done so. Girth Summit _(blether) 16:26, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

I am an alcoholic with over 30 years of continuous sobriety and subsequent membership in AA. Do I not add to articles on that subject because I have a conflict of interest? I understand what you are saying except in the instant case, I went through this in 2007 as you can see by my history. For some reason, one or more editors can simply refuse to add real life history to an article and that is that. The hierarchy at Wikipedia has not really evolved, has it? I am disappointed with all of you. Ego is one thing ... news is news. Microsoft Copilot: Your AI companion ........ We cannot alter the truth for long. Fighting about is really lame. I will play by your rules and leave you with this: AI and time will eliminate the need for many timeless mistakes we have let evolve on this planet. Millions of folks, including Radiologists and even some investment advisors will lose jobs. Such is life. Peace, Lee Lee Nysted (talk) 17:08, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

If I filter all the irrelevant stuff out of your last post, it boils down to " I will play by your rules and leave you with this". I think you're saying that you agree not to edit that article again, or any other that you have a conflict of interest with. If that's correct, I don't see any reason to block your account at this stage, and this can probably be closed. If you want to discuss the content, you can do it at the article's talk page. If I've misunderstood you, please say so. Girth Summit _(blether) 17:19, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Girth Summit https://www.allmusic.com/artist/todd-sucherman-mn0000086296#credits

I have known Todd for decades and we have collaborated together in music within the universe of musical spheres. Todd contributed to the album Whispers of Wisdom in 2007. I add my own album as real life news and a have sourced the news and data as real life fact. If you choose to not add it, so be it. Lee Nysted Here is the link I just deleted in a self revert, if you so choose to put it back in. === Lee Nysted ===

• Whispers of Wisdom (2007)

Lee Nysted (talk) 17:23, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

We don't make decisions about content at this board Lee, just conduct. Discussion of whether the material should be included can take place at the talk page. Thank you for self reverting, that is the gracious thing to do. Girth Summit _(blether) 17:35, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

You are welcome. I am a mathematician ... I quantify things. When I see truth, I am pleased. When I see thugs or thuggery that deprive the world of truth, I try to set the record straight. I say the serenity prayer and if something should be changed, as judged by consensus, and I can change it, I do it. You have editors that fail to add content because they have their own agenda and wield far too much power. Like I have said... this site and many others will go away, without funding. That is how people like me have an impact on the world. Peace, Lee Nysted 9-4-2025. Lee Nysted (talk) 17:49, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

@Lee Nysted: You:

• 15:02, 4 September 2025: Made this edit, where among other things you add Whispers of Wisdom. You were reverted.
• 15:14, 4 September 2025: Just 12 minutes later, you made this edit, which again among other things adds Whispers of Wisdom. You were reverted.
• 15:16, 4 September 2025: _2_ minutes later, you add an entry about Whispers of Wisdom again with this edit. You were reverted.
• 15:24, 4 September 2025: Not to be dissuaded, apparently believing that yet another revert would win the day, you added Whispers of Wisdom again.

You're trying to claim this is not edit warring. This is classic edit warring. Even worse, it's class edit warring on an article with which you have a rather severe conflict of interest. That you are an investment advisor for Schwab has no relevance here. That Schwab has $8 trillion in assets has no relevance here. That you think financially supporting this influences things is incorrect. Further, you already told us 18 years ago that you were withdrawing financial support, so even if it mattered, it wouldn't because you're not financially supporting the project anyway. That you think "[y]our wikimedia and wikpedia sites" are yours is completely false (see WP:OWN). We most emphatically are an encyclopedia and by enforcing WP:COI and trying to get you to make requests to talk pages on articles where you have a COI is being an encyclopedia. Thank you for your self revert. I was very close to blocking you from making any edits to that article. If you want to be a productive editor here moving forward, make requests to the talk pages of articles where you have a conflict of interest would be a great start. Continuing edit wars is NOT the way forward. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:44, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

I suspect that many of my attempts to add the correct and accurate information were not warring...it was my lack of knowledge as to how (and if) my adds were actually there. I had no idea I was being reverted. Truth. Further, if you really think after nearly 20 years, this site or this information is going to greatly alter my life, the answer is an emphatic, no. If real life information is not found here, this site will fail, with or without Lee Nysted. The CABAL still exists here...same folks as 2007. Oh well ... I will simply use Chat or C0-pilot and go about my life as I have forever. Peace, Lee Nysted 9-4-2025 Lee Nysted (talk) 17:58, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Friend, I think you should look at what you're actually being told. It's not some cabal of secret masters. It's a very bromine request that you adhere to WP:COI policy and avoid making multiple reverts of the same information. This is a very easy set of standards to adhere to. All this "AI is coming for your (unpaid, voluntary) jobs" stuff isn't necessary or helpful to you here. Honestly the best thing to do at this point would be to say "Yes I understand. I won't edit war in articles about me or my friends or workplaces going forward." If you can do that very small thing then nobody has a problem. Simonm223 (talk) 18:11, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

"Yes I understand. I won't edit war in articles about me or my friends or workplaces going forward." Peace, Lee Nysted 9-4-25 Lee Nysted (talk) 18:31, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

• There are more threads and discussions of Nysted's self-promotion than he has made non-COI edits, and he has been in dispute re this specific article before (see [105]). I really don't think he's here to help. Guy (help! - typo?) 18:57, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

• Broke WP:3RR on Todd Sucherman, accuses those who don't support his self-promo as a CABAL, the usual "This site will fail without real life information!" claims (along with apparently claiming "real life" is a appropriate source), heavily implying being a Wikipeida donor gives him special privileges (still surprised WP:DONTYOUKNOWWHOIAM doesn't exist...), and babble about how "AI will eliminate mistakes" (apparently radiologists and investment advisors are mistakes?) along with an evident campaign for WP:THETRUTH. And this 'apology' very much comes across as "this is what you told me to say, I said it". Is there any reason not to indef block here? Because I'm not seeing it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:25, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

  I was trying to be nice. They've been around since Adam was a lad, but only racked up about 350 edits. Don't let my decision not to use my discretion to block influence you, we all have the same mandate to stop disruption. Girth Summit _(blether) 22:26, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

  (rolls his eyes) I swear, if all the people who claimed in disputes to be Major WMF Donors actually were, the Foundation could buy Bermuda ... although the degree you all believe that Nysted has been vigorously supporting the encyclopedia that blocked him, and to which he's made exactly thirteen edits between 2007 and yesterday, I leave to you. I'm not seeing any reason you shouldn't, The Bushranger. Ravenswing 00:02, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

I have INDEFfed Nysted. I went with DE, but there's a host of reasons that are applicable. Star Mississippi 01:11, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Good block. I was thinking of proposing a community ban, so you, User:Star Mississippi, have saved him from that, as if there is much difference between a single-admin indef with which the community agreed on 5 Sept 2025 and a community ban. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:40, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

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

Persistent disruptive edits by 67.42.99.185

• 67.42.99.185 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 67.42.99.137 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 67.42.86.227 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 67.42.84.25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 67.42.80.125 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 67.42.81.250 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 67.42.80.8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 172.56.171.242 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 172.56.170.20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 172.56.51.159 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 172.56.200.252 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 172.56.14.238 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 172.56.170.27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 172.56.171.249 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 172.56.200.34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 172.56.169.212 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 172.56.170.177 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 172.56.170.216 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 172.56.201.166 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 172.56.168.86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 172.56.200.43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 172.56.51.87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 172.56.51.146 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 172.56.170.66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 172.56.14.69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 172.56.14.94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 172.56.203.65 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 172.56.200.72 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 172.56.168.206 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• 67.42.64.0/18 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• 172.56.0.0/16 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

This is the same user previously discussed at:

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1168#Persistent disruptive edits by 65.102.188.122
• User_talk:67.40.202.59#Welcome back to Wikipedia. Your communication is requested
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1184#Persistent disruptive edits by 65.102.187.27

They have never responded to comments about their behavior, and they've been back for a while, under this IP range, making the same style of disruptive edits previously discussed: modifying sortkeys to transfer leading articles to the start of keys, refactoring book ISBNs without hyphens, removing external links templates such as {{Metacritic film}}, {{Rotten Tomatoes}} {{Commons}} {{Wikiquote}} {{Wikisource}}, removing stub sorting templates from actual stub articles, removing proper spacing and altering quotation marks in violation of WP:LQ, and restructuring existing reference/footnotes. These edits are committed by all of these IPs, but is certainly not limited to these IPs. Previous discussion suggested a bot may be performing these. Pinging just a few of the people familiar with this @Johnuniq:, @Hinnk:, @Geraldo Perez:, @Sjones23:. Οἶδα (talk) 09:09, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

I've added links for the ranges. The /18 range appears to be mostly edits from the same user; some look OK, but if there is no communication that's an issue. Blocking the /16 range would be more likely to affect some constructive editors on that range (as well as some vandals; it's a big range). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:45, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by 2409:4000:0:0:0:0:0:0/22

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

---

Persistent disruptive editing by [106] on Deepika Kumari.[107][108][109][110]. Account is adding unsourced information and engaging in edit-warring. They have been partially blocked for displaying similar behaviour on other pages. I guess this page is their new target? Baberoothless (talk) 11:29, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

I've semi'ed as there's no other editor it would impact. Flagging for @Ohnoitsjamie in case they want to modify their p-block Star Mississippi 13:53, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

 Done OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:56, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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 still editing ECP area after warnings

M.Furqan Baig was already warned during the last ANI against editing ECP area regarding Indian military history.[111] However, he is still continuing to edit this area.[112] THEZDRX _{(User) | (Contact)} 11:33, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

The edit you link to is an edit request; the one thing that is permitted for non-ECP users in the area. So it's not a problem. Bishonen | tålk 12:00, 5 September 2025 (UTC).

@ZDRX I don't think there is a restriction on non XC editors from making edit requests for Indian military history topic per WP:CT's standard set? – robertsky (talk) 11:58, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

@Bishonen and Robertsky: I forgot to add the actual diffs since the last warning. See this and this. THEZDRX _{(User) | (Contact)} 12:29, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Blocked for 24h. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:48, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Is a block really needed here? They did make those edits, no question about it, but after I warned them in non-template language to make edit requests, they only made the edit request after that. The first edit request wasn't quite how it worked, but they did also learn in the second edit request. This kind of feels premature unless they regress and start editing the area again directly. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:55, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

If based on the diffs above (Munabao and Batapur articles) neither have/had CTOP edit notices. I thought this was a basic necessity (point 2.) for enforcement of restrictions, aside from reverting/protection? CNC (talk) 16:32, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

I am under the impression that the second point was applicable when part of the "standard set" of restrictions that could be imposed by a single editor, not a much wider scope restriction placed by ArbCom. Adding an edit notice to any page related to Indian military history or social groups of South Asia broadly construed would be...daunting. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 19:34, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Edit warring with personal attacks in edit summaries

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

---

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

I was going to take this to the 3RR noticeboard, but the edit summaries were also crossing the line as well, hence bringing it here.

I made the following edits to Raymond C. Ortlund Jr., some of which was BLP info the subject of the article actually discussed removing for privacy/notability:

• "not particularly notable" (subject had asked this be removed)
• "only include those notable enough to be WL'd" (subject had asked this be removed)

Those edits were reverted by Efficacity:

• 1R "If you aren't going to go around the entire site and do this, please do not do it here. Warning: stop following"
• 2R "Nonsensical"
• followed by this new edit: "city"

I inadvertently reverted that edit[113], intending to revert the other two. I self reverted that edit, noting it as self-revert of an unintentional edit. I did then reverted their two edits they reverted:

• "preferable to omit per WP:BLPNAME"
• "not notable to the article"

Efficacity returned of course to revert those changes, and then an additional revert:

• 3R "Although I find you to be a huge problem, I guess we will take this to the talk page. You are ruining this article."
• 4R "Talk pg." - although no talk page discussion ensued.
• 5R "I realize you won't understand the concept that multiple links, citations sometimes fit" - this was a revert of this: "already linked in article"

This user has edit warred in the past, and I did not want to get drawn into an edit war here. In fact, I specifically manually self reverted the edit that I thought was fine by them. The other two were specifically items that the subject of this BLP has previously mentioned as desiring to be removed (see the article talk page and User_talk:FaithfulAccount). While exceeding the 3RR rule is problematic, what I found particularly offensive was the personal nature of the edit summaries - especially I realize you won't understand the concept that multiple links, citations sometimes fit". ButlerBlog (talk) 20:55, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Now they seem to have added this odd statement to a nearly year-old talk page discussion: [114] ButlerBlog (talk) 21:01, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Butler (ButlerBlog) has been cruising here for quite some time awaiting banishment. This person does not need to be on the site. Efficacity (talk) 22:00, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Efficacity, I'd rather see you explain why the accusations against you are mistaken, if that's what you think, instead of trying to say that the other editor is at fault. WP:2WRONGS. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:08, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Just go to Butler's page and you can see how obtuse they have been being. They badgered me, I should have long ago asked for them to be kicked off of here. Efficacity (talk) 22:14, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Rather? I pointed out that Locke Cole and ButlerBlog were working together on certain stuff here. They have to win at all costs. Efficacity (talk) 22:18, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Butler doesn't understand that the guy is 75. He's not able to coherently talk to him via Wikipedia. He instead tries to ruin this person's Wikipedia article. Efficacity (talk) 22:20, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

So add whatever this is supposed to be to the above aspersions. WTH? ButlerBlog (talk) 22:13, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Butler, you have really stepped in it. You hid on here making edits and then pounced on me for some wacked out reason. I was trying to fix links. You were too busy to really care about any of it. You went and joined projects instead on here and then tried to bombard people on here referencing MOS. Efficacity (talk) 22:17, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Butler's own words to me about me. BTW, your general copy editing is seems to be very good, so it's not my intent to discourage you from editing. ButlerBlog (talk) 12:19, 16 July 2025 (UTC) Fixing the grammar is doesn't belong in the sentence. Efficacity (talk) 22:28, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

You realize you just made a personal attack without any links or quotes to support it, and then followed up with a quote from the editor you're attacking, showing that they addressed you politely?

You really need to take a beat and think about how you're presenting yourself here. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 22:49, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

The way I took that, at the time, was that Efficacity took offense because Butler had paid them a compliment, and then disagreed with them in another area later. Very much exhibiting WP:USTHEM behaviors. I think they bring it up again now because they may view it as a betrayal..? That's my best good faith guess. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:45, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Probably worth mentioning this is not their first trip through AN/I, we just had a discussion closed a couple of weeks ago. Since then Efficacity has also been uncivil, made ad hominem bordering on personal attacks, and for a guideline change they're trying to push through, they've taken to some light vote-stacking behavior. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:26, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Efficacity also is continuing to escalate their personal attacks (that was removed shortly after it was posted in this conversation). —Locke Cole • t • c 22:36, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Locke Cole, I can't even address anything you say because admins won't let me reply. My points are that the two of you have been collaborating on certain things. You don't see any errors and then they're shown to you. That's when you double down. Efficacity (talk) 22:41, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia is supposed to be a collaborative project, so yes, I "collaborate" with many people. ButlerBlog is but one. I don't know what you mean by the rest. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:46, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Having those personal attacks removed might end up helping you avoid a ban. If you want to reply about being reported here, you can't do it by attacking the other person. You need to address your own edits, specifically the multiple personal attacks in the diffs linked above.

ANI isn't here to deal with content disputes, you should have discussed that at the article talk page. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 22:47, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Just to address how I came here in case it comes up, Efficacity informed the group in a shared discussion. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:47, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

And another one directed at Butler, also removed. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:40, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

If Butler is guilty of behavior which should not be here, why should they be allowed to edit? Efficacity (talk) 22:42, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

A couple of things. Although I know Locke has been going through some tough times recently, and I think he is generally a valuable contributor, his hands here are not particularly clean. As for "a guideline change they're trying to push through", here's the link: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Text formatting#As good as?, where I guess I'm trying to "push" it too, if that's how we are going to define the term, and Locke has been on the other "side". (It was me who rpa'd the attack on Butler there.) I can link to some significant incivility from Locke as well, although that's really not the issue here, and I don't see it as rising to the level of a separate complaint. I've been on the same "side" as Efficacity in the content dispute related to MOS, which is separate from whatever is going on at the page about Ortlund. Efficacity has some communication issues, but I cannot excuse the way this has taken on a WP:RGW tone, and the over-the-top things Efficacity is saying here, some of which were rightly reverted. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:42, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Tryptofish, so incivility from Locke Cole is justifiable? I have tried to use humor and they took that as affronts. It is not over the top if they indeed are doing things in ways that are either misguided, evil, or merely majorly disruptive. Efficacity (talk) 22:46, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

If you are describing it as "evil", I think you are, regrettably, becoming the problem. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:56, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

• Efficacity The next time you demand that someone be "tossed off the site" (or any other version of the words) I will block you. Stop it. Black Kite (talk) 22:45, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
• Support major warning indefinite block. Something is off with this user. They personally attacked me yesterday on Tryptofish's talk page after I explained I wasn't talking to them. They also made a series of what can only be described as delusional comments.[115] They do not appear to be here to contribute to the encyclopedia.[116] Update: changed to support for indefinite block based on new comments below. User is here primarily to disrupt Wikipedia. Viriditas (talk) 23:00, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

  Viriditas, you went to a thread I was on and ignored me. Efficacity (talk) 22:52, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

  That was at my talk, and I genuinely think it was a misunderstanding rather than a personal attack. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:56, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

  Viriditas is misrepresenting. They admitted on Tryptofish's talk page that they made a mistake in something they initially said. They also did not address Tryptofish. They were rude to me and didn't realize that I was talking to a third editor on the thread who is very disenchanted with Wikipedia. Efficacity (talk) 22:58, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

  Viriditas is a long time and welcome participant at my talk page. My talk page is not the issue here, and you aren't helping your case. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:12, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

All I'll add is that I think some of this problem extends from the long-running dispute over the Bolding of names on the article 2025 Midtown Manhattan shooting. As can be seen in the RfC Talk:2025 Midtown Manhattan shooting#RFC: Bolding, a lot of it has descended into WP:BLUDGEON territory. While no side is "clean" in this, I do think Efficacity holds most of the blame as they've been fighting a mostly one person war about this for some weeks now, which has previously come to ANI[117] seen them blocked as a result as per their block log.

Do think this is entering WP:TEND territory with some convenient "inability to understand why everyone else disagrees" from Efficacity and that it's certainly in WP:RGW territory even if I was to assume the absolute maximum good faith possible. Rambling Rambler (talk) 22:57, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

RR, you are not an admin. You may not even know about the RFC or other discussions on the same topic. I am not one person, there are more than a handful who agree with me. You're distracting from what is being talked about. I am saying these editors follow me on the site. I told one of them not to talk to me, that's within my rights. Efficacity (talk) 23:01, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Commenting on these posts isn't restricted to admins, and frankly whether I do or don't know of every discussion on the same topic is irrelevant. I just have awareness of how your edit warring on this topic has been dragging on for some weeks and I genuinely don't think you'd ever be satisfied or able to accept consensus going against you and will continue to grind this out come what may in an increasingly uncivil manner. Rambling Rambler (talk) 23:11, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

I think that what RR says is mostly accurate, but I would add that there is an awful lot of bludgeoning in both directions. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:13, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, it’s definitely going both ways as far as Bludgeon is concerned, but from my own experience I can sympathise at how the sort of WP:TEND on display can end up getting under the skin of editors attempting to follow good practice and lead them to demonstrating similar behaviour back out of frustration. Rambling Rambler (talk) 23:26, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

I've looked at that conversation in which you told a user not to talk to you, and all I could see was Butler politely explaining WP policy in response to a clumsy attempt to rally the troops (for lack of a better phrase). I might not be the most experienced WPedian out here, but that makes you look like a dick. MiasmaEternal☎ 23:19, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

• Support a 31-hour block before the user can talk themself into an indef. They haven't been able to stop the personal attacks even here on their report for personal attacks. They're posting what seems to be literal "I Can't Hear Anyone" in response to multiple people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MilesVorkosigan (talk • contribs) 23:07, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

  Yeah, I'm starting to feel the same way, although I also think that editors sometimes react badly to ANI accusations against them, and this isn't entirely representative of this user's conduct most of the time. But yeah, it's bad. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:15, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

  What in heck is this? Non-admins are somewhat acting or trying to act as admins. I am not even allowed to present evidence. Humor is allowable. That's not attacking. Efficacity (talk) 23:16, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

  You are allowed to post evidence. Feel free to post it here, although I'd prefer you didn't lest you put your foot in it even further. MiasmaEternal☎ 23:23, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

  MiasmaEternal, not sure what I am allowed to say. I have presented this case: Two unnamed users which we probably all know who they are, they don't try to solve something. They bring it here whether or not they're guilty of doing things which are terrible. Efficacity (talk) 23:27, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

  So far, you haven't presented any evidence in your defense. You have, however, in this very thread, cast aspersions and made accusations without evidence (a form of personal attack). ButlerBlog (talk) 23:24, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

  You are of course allowed to present evidence. People have begged you to present evidence.

  You refused to do so and just kept making personal attacks and claiming that all your attacks and insults were actually “humor”. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 00:12, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Wow! I stepped away for a bit and this really went off the rails fast. Efficacity's inability to maintain civil discourse aside (no diffs necessary at this point), there should already be a block for violating WP:3RR on Raymond C. Ortlund Jr. where they made 5 reverts in less than an hour (shown at the beginning of this report). ButlerBlog (talk) 23:16, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

It's not the same material on the RCO page, not that facts should get in the way of perceptions. Efficacity (talk) 23:17, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

You might want to actually read the rule before commenting further: from WP:3RR: An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period ButlerBlog (talk) 23:20, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

FWIW, I notified them of 3RR many weeks ago, which they removed without comment. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:24, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

They have performed 3 reverts, not 5, on Raymond C. Ortlund Jr.. Multiple back-to-back edits with nobody editing in between count as a single revert for 3RR purposes. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:46, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Acknowledged. Thanks for the correction. Striking my comments above. ButlerBlog (talk) 01:02, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

• Actually, I'm wondering if there's a CIR issue here - see User_talk:Black_Kite#Apparent. Black Kite (talk) 23:25, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

  That or WP:SEALION. Rambling Rambler (talk) 23:27, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

  I presume I am the one doing abhorrent things - whatever those may be. ButlerBlog (talk) 23:28, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

  I was done asking you something, Black Kite, but now you bring up something else. I can't even present edits these users have made? Efficacity (talk) 23:29, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

  When admins say RFC is hopeless, that's when it is? I began discussions at RFC, the village pump, etc. It's not hard to present that case here if anyone asks. When these users saw that it's even-sided they come to ANI? Efficacity (talk) 23:31, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

  That's the new way to do something here. Anyone who uses humor or presents a differing viewpoint on talk pages will be guilty of attacks. That is censorship. Efficacity (talk) 23:34, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

  It's not sealioning, but I'm afraid that I have to agree about CIR. There's also been some genuinely useful concern by Efficacity over some BLP issues related to that page about the shooting, where I've agreed with Efficacity, and found some of the other editors unpleasant, but yes, I think it might be getting to where we should no longer wait for a cogent self-defense, and this thread is just going from bad to worse. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:33, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

  That is my defense, Tryptofish was there and can't even understand. Efficacity (talk) Efficacity (talk) 23:36, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

  You haven't even posted a single diff of anything sanctionable on Butler's (or anyone else's) part. Again, feel free to post it here as per my earlier reply. MiasmaEternal☎ 23:34, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

  Nearly 24 hours later, and no evidence has materialized. MiasmaEternal☎ 21:22, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

  @Efficacity, Black Kite is just asking you to not demand action be taken against any editor while presenting your evidence. Action, as in blocking an editor, or restricting their ability to do stuff. Basically, just provide the diffs, nothing else. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 23:34, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

  I actually have other things to do today so I can't do this now. I said any one or four of you that look at everything would support me. I am saying that I am being persecuted. I used humor to try to talk on RFC and other pages. They decided they would do this. 23:37, 2 September 2025 (UTC) Efficacity (talk) 23:37, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

  If Efficacity will come back later and provide a diff-based explanation, that could lead to a good outcome, and I hope no admin will pull the trigger without giving that an opportunity to happen. Maybe a bit of time passing will allow them to get a better perspective, and I'm still hoping that this user can be rehabilitated. But the discussion so far leaves me pessimistic. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:48, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

  I'm still hoping that this user can be rehabilitated That's always the best possible outcome. ButlerBlog (talk) 23:52, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

  Agree with the hope for rehabilitation; their copy editing doesn't look too bad, though they do seem oblivious to the MOS (they've made a number of edits that undo work done to make our articles consistent). But these are things they can hopefully learn over time.

  That being said, there is the five reverts that prompted this discussion. While blocks are preventative, not punitive, I think an admin should ideally get them to promise not to violate 3RR again (assuming this doesn't turn into an indef block). We can't have edit warring like that on top of everything else. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:04, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

  That "oblivious to MOS" thing is more 2-sided than what you make it sound like. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:07, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

  There's more to it than what you may know. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:09, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

  And more to it than you are admitting here. I said earlier that I wanted to cut you some slack, but that well is not bottomless. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:13, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

  It sure is to me, at any rate. Between their frequent shrill "But you're not an admin!", them dissing the ones who ARE admins, their refusal to provide diffs to back up their side of things, the persecution complex, Efficacity is not covering themselves with glory. They likewise haven't yet put together a body of effort commending us to cut much slack. Ravenswing 14:13, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

  I don't really want to come back here because I have never figured out where it's commanded of me or anyone to provide diffs. Wikipedia stores everything, anyone can find something. I'm supposed to go find everything which supports my cause? Ignore the few or however many things don't? Likewise I have to prove people have an agenda? Or that it's not imaginary that I am being followed or something else? That people make me have to fix stuff because they would rather complain. I have figured out one main thing. It's best to never mention editors because they will see it as an affront over 85 percent of the time. Humor is similarly not welcome, jokes and asides will be slammed, and you'll probably be hauled around by your keister. Also ANI is seen as some moral authority and if you don't bring some ironclad case you'll probably be pushed over. ANI will not look at something which is crusade-like and see any value. As for the individual whose article is being abused, I can try to rescue it via a talk page discussion. This man is 75 or 76, the site is being horrendous to him. Finally, some of you (who aren't even admins) are hoping I will say something you can pounce on. Efficacity (talk) 05:43, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, in fact you are supposed to present evidence that supports your allegations. We are all volunteers here, we all have our own editing to do and our own lives to live, and as you can see with a casual glance, ANI gets a great deal of traffic. If you're unwilling to trouble yourself to do that, we're not going to do it for you. (And yes, you absolutely do have to bring ironclad cases here, given that we have the power here to sanction and/or block editors outright; we are sure as hell not going to do so based on unsupported innuendo.)

  Beyond that, what level of hostility does it take to claim that people are hoping you'll say something we can pounce on? Building this encyclopedia is a serious thing, and Wikipedia is a serious place. This is neither UFC nor Comedy Central. No one's seeking red meat to chomp, no one's counting coup on how many editors they block, and our tolerance for the passive-aggressive "canchu take a joke, geeze" mentality is threadbare. Ravenswing 07:31, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

  Ravenswing, I do not plan to take four to six hours and go through 800 to 1900 edits to make points which you may not see. I have summarized my case. I am certainly not the only "canary" in a coal mine either whispering (I feel it is louder than that but yes, you would admit it's supremely surpassingly arduous to get ANYONE to see, comment, let alone vote or assent to something on RFC, the village pump, the teahouse [where else?]) or yelling. Thus what can be done, zero. You, Ravenswing, seem inclined to try to preside here. This whole notice is erroneous, there is no 3RR, the edit summaries are not attacks, this entire thing should be tossed on a scrap heap. I have clearly pointed out wholesale changes on here are impossible. I am right now endeavoring to make it so perpetrators are not bolded on Wikipedia. I gave plenty of evidence (and you want diffs) that editors wait to pounce on someone and take them to ANI. Efficacity (talk) 12:54, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

  And yet, if you take a look through the threads here at ANI, editors not only manage to provide those diffs, all the time, but they're enjoined to do so, every time. And it doesn't take "four to six hours" or going through many hundreds of edits; don't be absurd. The obvious conclusion is obvious: you don't actually have any evidence Ravenswing 03:47, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

  Coming back a day later, I can see that Efficacity has made one edit today: [118], but obviously has not commented any further here. I guess admins can draw their own conclusions as to whether it's ANI flu or taking more time to think it over, and as to whether there is a realistic likelihood of an eventual good response here, given the obvious problems with the posts so far. As noted above, there was some fairly clueless reverting at the Ortlund page, but not a 3RR violation. There's clearly a record of incivility and odd ways of communicating. I've appreciated Efficacity's concern about BLP issues, but that gets undercut when one considers the inattention to BLP issues at the Ortlund page. I also want to make clear that there have been issues with conduct from both "sides" about the MOS debate over the shootings page, and some criticisms of Efficacity here have come with unclean hands, but Efficacity has also done some bludgeoning that is not excused by what other editors have done. I have to agree with Ravenswing that Efficacity has given us little reason to cut much slack. That's my take, and I'll leave it to the admins to decide what to do with it. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:13, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

  Tryptofish, you're a huge puzzle. I am not going to try to sort out what motives you may have. Efficacity (talk) 05:45, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

  My unsolicited advice would be to assume good faith. Augmented Seventh (talk) 16:18, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

  Efficacity, I'm very disappointed to hear you say that. What I'm trying to do here is the same thing I've been trying to do with the BLP-related issues: call it like I see it, and try to be fair. Anyway, I think your answers here today are clearly the "best" we can hope to get from you. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:27, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

• Support an indef block per WP:CIR. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:27, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

So we're voting here? Heck, I could go along with the foolishness and say block too. But I won't, I don't deserve any block but an indef after a one week temporary topic ban? Proves my point. I am not allowed to say that people who would vote like this don't belong here. Why is that? It's pure vindictiveness at work, some person changed from a temp block to indef based on me saying they ignored me? What is that about? I supposedly correctly question the motives of someone who says they are here to support the project BUT what did they do? Look at the evidence, consistently they went after me. They stuck with people they thought they knew a bit except for once saying "don't count on endless support" and they WAFFLED when it came to a RFC. I have been told over and over and over that Wikipedia is hopeless when it comes to trying to change MOS and do something at RFC. The village pump is supposed to not be symbolic as is dispute resolution but these are HOPELESSLY mired in something and you can't get much input there. Sorry to be pessimistic and ruin your rainbow-hued sunglasses approach to things. This is not Pollyanna world. It's hard work to do things correctly. This is a shambles. I have only tried to make sure perpetrators are NOT glorified and a 75 or 76 year old man is not run over in trying to edit something about himself. You guys think this is fair? It's not. Efficacity (talk) 18:40, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

I could add that MilesVorkosigan's vote could be tossed out because they are at ANI, so based on the outcome of their case. I will say I continue to try to always do things correctly. I am not even trying to get away with anything. I could conclude by saying there are not many people on this thread. If you look at what I have been trying to accomplish you wouldn't even be in this discussion. 1. I feel the MOS needs a bunch of work although it's a guideline and 75 percent of it could be useful-maybe a bit more than that. 2. All of you could admit that getting input is a major problem. You have to wait for people to weigh in with opinions which sometimes takes weeks and you only have a handful of people even bothering to go to such talk pages. 3. You guys seem to endlessly say the following: Be civil, alright, but how do you tell someone they are wrong then? If you say anything other than "you're wrong" it is like saying "open sesame" to oh, you're causing offense, you're being confrontational, you're casting aspersions, you're not here to create unity. How would you know? 4. Anyone who calls into question problems here (on the site) or at ANI will probably get railroaded. Sorry, but you guys are just doing what people expect. Efficacity (talk) 18:52, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Note to editor: No, there is no numerical tally by vote; rather, decisions are arrived at through weighted policies, guidelines, and evidence presented.

Hope that helps, Augmented Seventh (talk) 18:48, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

No, not much is helping. I see people trying to put up a kangaroo court. Why would anyone want to be here? Efficacity (talk) 18:54, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

An IP user is the only person to post on my talk page kindly. I was already going to post a promise to work collaboratively. I will edit with the good of Wikipedia in mind. I'll avoid conflict. Efficacity (talk) 19:38, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

@Efficacity: Please strike (<s></s>) the comments that go against Wikipedia rules, then summarize in your own words what WP:AGF means. I regret not posting a reminder on August 23 that discussing "motives" doesn't help one's case on Wikipedia. 172.97.211.96 (talk) 19:48, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

• Support indef block per WP:CIR; way too much WP:IDHT in talk page discussions wasting time arguing about MOS policies they don't like. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:57, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
• Comment (comment from involved editor) After sitting it out yesterday, today Efficacity had a golden opportunity at Talk:Raymond C. Ortlund Jr.#Amending to show they could work collaboratively ... edit with the good of Wikipedia in mind ... [and] avoid conflict. Yet, that discussion resulted in the same battleground and "righting great wrongs" mentality that their previous discussions descended into. That's simply not conducive to continued activity here, and thus their mea culpa posted less than 2 hours later comes up short (at least to me). I think given that last post, there needs to be a more complete explanation of how they actually understand what they are promising, specifically with regards to civility and WP:NPA. ButlerBlog (talk) 20:53, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

  Support indef block: A two sentence mea culpa after paragraphs after paragraphs after paragraphs of battleground behavior and insults doesn't impress me. I expect the lapse to happen a day and a half after the heat's off, and we might as well cut this short now. Ravenswing 00:10, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

  Support indef. Awful behavior suspiciously similar to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Engage01. Borgenland (talk) 06:55, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

  Good catch. They even share the same baffling behavior of deleting talk page comments and replying to them on the original poster's page. Celjski Grad (talk) 07:16, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

  Comparing edits, this looks like a duck. Same type of copy editing in musician-focused articles, same focus on re-assessing those articles, and same bizarre unrelated one word edit summaries. I'll be adding evidence to the SPI. ButlerBlog (talk) 15:11, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

  I just went through the SPI, and I'm facepalming myself. I'm seeing so many behavioral tells, going beyond those listed already by other editors, that this duck is quacking loudly in my ears. I try to AGF, but in this case, I have to conclude that I was taken in. Add socking for block evasion to the other reasons for an indef. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:46, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

• Support indefinite block - At the start of the discussion, I would have been more in favor of a warning, but as it has continued, I'm less hopeful that this editor is willing to place our WP:MOS over the personal one they've decided on. I think this editor could still eventually be a constructive one, but it's going to require a change in mindset. If they want a Wiki that goes by their rules, MediaWiki is free and efficapedia.com is not taken. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 08:09, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

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

Lannion74 using talk pages as a general discussion forum

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

---

Lannion74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked for a week in May for using talk pages as a general discussion forum. Soon after their block expired, they were back with another rant at Talk:Feminism but then seemed to take a break from editing for a while. Now they're back again to using talk pages as a soapbox for their personal opinions and unverified claims about living persons, including at Talk:Misandry, Talk:Clementine Ford (writer)—repeating one of the exact comments that got them blocked in the first place—and now Talk:Unpaid work. All are within the gender and sexuality contentious topics area, to which they were alerted back in March. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:35, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Clearly not here. I've INDEFFed Star Mississippi 00:01, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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 193.52.208.98

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

---

193.52.208.98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) repeatedly violating MOS, MOS:BOLD to be specific, after being blocked. Disruptively edited The Masked Singer articles over a year ago prior to being blocked. After the block expired, they went back to disruptive editing, doing the same thing before getting noticed. There are too many diffs to list there, please check their contributions page. CreatorTheWikipedian2009 (talk) 13:20, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Comment: Checked the page history of some pages where that IP address edited, and saw 193.52.208.97. This suggests that the anonymous users in the "193.52.208.X" range are doing the same thing as the reported IP address! CreatorTheWikipedian2009 (talk) 13:25, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

The IP user ignores warnings and fails to discuss their edits. The IP range ending in 97 has been previously blocked. The range of both IPs would be 193.52.208.96/30 [119] per the IP Range Calculator. [120] I have stopped reverting their edits as I don't want to be blocked myself for violating the three-revert rule. Telenovelafan215 (talk) 13:31, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

That's definitely a blockable offense. CreatorTheWikipedian2009 (talk) 13:40, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm inviting @Magitroopa to join the discussion if they would like as they have also come across this anonymous user, specifically the IP ending in 97. Telenovelafan215 (talk) 13:46, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the ping to here. At this point, if they are still persisting at this, it seems like a block at the /30 range would do best. They've already been getting reverted/warned prior to my involvement with them, and they are 1) violating MOS:BOLD, 2) edit warring those same MOS:BOLD violation edits back in, and 3) not communicating whatsoever, despite all the reverts against them and talk page warnings/blocks they've already received. Seems to me like this could just be a block for disruptive editing by this point. Magitroopa (talk) 14:04, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

I've gone and rolled back most of their edits. It's pretty clear we need a block at this point, they've been repeatedly warned and have kept repeating the same actions. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 14:14, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

I blocked the /30 for a week. I don't have any of the affected articles on my watchlist, so I'm counting on the other participants here to ping me if this pops up again. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:59, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers User:2001:861:41C2:C1B0:176:911D:C6DB:C7AE just popped up and is doing the exact same edits. We'll probably need a block there too. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 15:15, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, a block at 2001:861:41C2:C1B0:0:0:0:0/64 seems needed then as well. Magitroopa (talk) 15:17, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Blocked the /48 for a month and extended the /30 block to a month. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:21, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers Sigh... looks like this is becoming a large LTA issue, now with 176.187.183.1 in the mix. Magitroopa (talk) 15:36, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

If any further IPs pop up following 176.187.183.1, I'm afraid the only other option would be protecting many articles, or just continue to report/block the IPs as they come in- reporting at AIV and linking this discussion would (hopefully) do fine, especially since now it's becoming just an entire block evasion mess. Magitroopa (talk) 15:42, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Blocked for a month. We'll see. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:47, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

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

Letirinus making racist comments and violating the BLP policy

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

---

Letirinus (talk · contribs) is making racist remarks. This person added content to Beyoncé saying, "Denying Spanish ancestry lives in black people is racism."[121] After being reverted by another editor who said "INCREDIBLY disrespectful AND disgusting of you to say, ESPECIALLY given I am a black person, Letirinus returned and claimed that that person "is not black"[122]. After being warned against making personal attacks by another editor, Letirinus claimed that was not an attack. [123] Then proceeded to claim they will fill a police report. [124] After I warned them again to stop making attacks, this person claimed I was harassing them. [125]

At Blu Cantrell, the person is inserting BLP violations on baseless rumors citing an unreliable source to backit up. [126] These articles alone indicate a lack of competence to follow basic instructions even for a new editor. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 19:38, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Blocked for the clear legal threat. I haven't looked at anything else yet. 331dot (talk) 19:42, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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 Menhelicks, Disruptive Editing

User:Menhelicks began editing on 29 August of this year. Their edits have all been on Habesha peoples, History of Ethiopia, Land of Punt (once), associated Talk pages, & individual talk pages (theirs & mine). Their editing has been disruptive in multiple ways: In [127] & [128] they added lists of peoples to Habesha peoples that they knew to be false in order to prove a point, as attested in the edit summaries. They were notified that this was disruptive editing by administrator Gyrofrog at [129]. In their most recent edits, they have misused the {{Unreliable sources}} template: In my opinion, they have employed it in reference to material that either does not need a source within the article (an image) or is quite reliably sourced (a contemporary academic article), but more to the point of disruption, they have employed it incorrectly, placing two banners within the body of Habesha peoples ([130] & [131]). They present themselves as being ganged up on or threatened by other editors ([132] and [133]) who have a pro-Ethiopian bias ([134], [135], [136]), & accuse Wikipedia as a whole of having a pro-Ethiopia bias & engaging in whitewashing or Habesha-washing ([137], [138], & elsewhere) or pro-Ethiopian propaganda ([139]). It is unclear to me whether or not their series of post-reversion edits on Habesha peoples counts as a WP:3RR issue. Most recently, they have created the article Habesha-washing, which has no source which treats Habesha-washing as a notable topic—or even mentions the term. I have engaged them exclusively in relation to the Habesha peoples edits—in edit summaries, that Talk page, their personal page, & my personal page. My initial engagement was to explain process, & why their recent edits had been reverted (by another editor). I have also reverted their edits twice: once ([140]) for an inappropriate citation needed (material in lead was supported by the article content), once ([141]) for the incorrect application of {{Unreliable sources}}. Because they view me as pro-Ethiopian, I have been unable to successfully engage them in a conversation about the Habesha peoples lead paragraph on the Talk page, tho I have tried on both Talk:Habesha peoples & User talk:Menhelicks. Ironically, I think that their behaviour is rooted in a valid concern, & that the lead paragraph could be productively modified, but the frenetic disruptive editing & refusal to see other editors as engaging in good faith has made it hard to make progress. The Arbitration Committee has determined that the Horn of Africa is a contentious topic [142]. Pathawi (talk) 14:46, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

User:Pathawi has falsely presented himself as an authority and I noted that to him directly. He/She/They may feel that as not disruptive but however, he deleted my edits and then presented the threat of banning, blocking, and other issues. I took his words seriously and I responded accordingly. I even asked why he felt the need to communicate in that manner. Now he is using this other forum to continue imposing authority. If Wikipedia does not want me to edit or even be present on your platform,then that is fine. I will gladly leave!. But for the sake of this topic, I note the following: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Menhelicks (talk • contribs) 15:06, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Your User:Pathawi argument is that Eritreans are Abyssinians/Habesha? Correct?

1. If so, what are your reliable sources that states that Eritrean s (all ethnicities of Eritreans) are Abyssinians/Habesha.

This is the first question, I ask and why I have content dispute with the Habesha article.

My second dispute is really a question, can anyone on that article define what an "Abyssinian/Habesha" are? and provide the reliable source that notes that defintion? Menhelicks (talk) 14:55, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

This isn't the place for that conversation: The Talk page is. (But very briefly: It is not my position that all ethnicities of Eritreans—or any ethnicities of Eritreans—are Habesha.) This is a place for discussing intractable behavioural problems. In the preceding paragraph I argued that your editing was disruptive. An administrator may or may not take notice of this post. You might decide to ignore this, or to use this space to make the argument that your editing was not disruptive. The specific content isn't the issue here, tho. (That is, that your edits were substantive & well-sourced rather than disruptive might be relevant, but this isn't the space to debate that content.) Pathawi (talk) 15:04, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

What is this conversation for? Do you want the Administrations to just punish me? That is fine...I'll accept the punishment.

But if the punishment is for me simply BOLDLY countering the article which you are a Protecting without any neutrality...and I don't want to accuse you of being not neutral, but how you edit warred and now brought me to this Supreme Court of Wikipeida, well I can't say this is a bit extreme instead of atleast even discussing with me on the Talkpage which I created a Talkpage article for... You appear to have forced the situation to get me here before this Supreme Wikipedia Court..and that is ok. I hope you succeed at getting me banned, blocked. If Wikipedia Admins do ban, block me...over this or any reason they can come up. You will continue to control that article [[Habesha]] or any article where you can do the job that you are intended to do on this Wikipedia. Menhelicks (talk) 15:15, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

I probably am (&/or, have been) too closely involved in the Habesha peoples article to act on this (though, anyone, feel free to disabuse me of that notion), but Menhelicks is one edit away from 3RR, at this writing (1, 2, 3; I've just left a warning about it). @Menhelicks: at this point I am compelled to ask, what happened when you read WP:V, WP:RS & WP:CON? -- Gyrofrog (talk) 16:42, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

My issue is with the source and I'm discussing that with you and editing boldly and Pathawi just reverted anything I added with sources. You and Pathawi have a moving definition for reliable sources. For example, you reject secondary sources that I posted while you presented a source which is about an immigrant community and not the official identification of Eritreans in Eritrea. Habesha Abyssinian is an outdated identity for a person from the Abyssinia Ethiopian Empire and Eritrea was not a direct nor a part of proper Abyssinia. Menhelicks (talk) 23:06, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

As @Pathawi has already told you, this page is not the place to discuss these changes, Talk:Habesha_peoples is, & Pathawi has already left you another response there. As for the discussion taking place here, in addition to WP:V, WP:RS, & WP:CON, I'll also strongly suggest that you actually read WP:BOLD, since you keep defending your actions as bold. There's a big difference between being bold (e.g., the first edit you made to the article) and being disruptive (adding nonsense to prove a point; multiple reverts; misapplying templates). And by this point, I would add WP:IDHT to the list. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 15:44, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

P.S. In hindsight, I (or anyone) ought to have done it sooner, but I just left an {{alert/first}} notice at Menhelicks's talk page. -- Gyrofrog

(talk) 16:17, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

User:Pathawi and User:Gyrofrog, I ask, what do you want me to do? Menhelicks (talk) 05:30, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

I have said these things explicitly multiple times. In general, this is what I’d like you to do:

1. Discuss the changes you want to see in Habesha peoples on the Talk page without making edits to the article itself before reaching consensus. (One doesn’t need prior consensus for every change to every article. We need it here because there’s already been disagreement.)
2. Engage your fellow editors as if they’re colleagues (who may disagree with you) rather than enemies.
3. Familiarise yourself with the policies that we’ve been mentioning & linking to, namely WP:RS, WP:V, WP: CON, & WP:BOLD on content & editing, & WP:GF & WP:IDHT on interactions with other editors.

You have seemed to ignore these requests & suggestions in the past, which has resulted in the majority of your edits being disruptive. Your treating those who disagree with you as enemies has made it all but impossible to discuss these matters productively. This is why I’ve brought this to ANI, in the hopes that a temporary block would give you time to cool down, & might encourage you to actually read those policies. At this point, I suspect that this will not happen as a result of this particular discussion: There are too few admins to handle the workload, & this issue has not received anyone’s attention yet. However, if you continue editing as you have been, a block will happen sooner or later. The things I’ve written at the top of this comment would prevent that. Pathawi (talk) 11:16, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

You appear to behave like you own the Habesha article, to the point that you created this ANI.

In response to your claims:

1. I am doing that and you are clearly involved in that.

2. The same can be said for you, but you went straight to ANI with a stated goal to get me blocked and banned. I've stopped editing not only on Habesha, but any article because I know you are tracking all of my actions on Wikipedia. WP:Harassment

"Harassment is a pattern of repeated offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to intentionally target a specific person or persons. Usually, the purpose is to make the target feel threatened or intimidated, and the outcome may be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine, frighten, or discourage them from editing."

WP:Ownership

"All Wikipedia pages and articles are edited collaboratively by the Wikipedian community of volunteer contributors. No one, no matter what, has the right to act as if they are the owner of a particular article (or any part of it). Even a subject of an article, be that a person or organization, does not own the article, nor has any right to dictate what the article may or may not say. No one, whether a subject or an article creator, has a responsibility to maintain an article or can normally be held responsible for its content.

Some contributors feel possessive about material they have contributed to Wikipedia. A few editors will even defend such material against others. It is quite reasonable to take an interest in an article on a topic you care about—perhaps you are an expert, or perhaps it is just your hobby; however, if this watchfulness starts to become possessiveness, then you are overdoing it. Believing that an article has an owner of this sort is a common mistake people make on Wikipedia."

You have been following me around and sent an ANI on me because I disagreed with your conclusion which I am disagreeing and discussing with you on the Talk:Habesha. Again, is your goal just to get me blocked, banned just so I don't edit Habesha, your behavior is that of someone who thinks they own the Habesha article.

3. You present yourself as the main contributor and above me simply because I am not editing and owning a single article. I request that you stop following me around and stop sending me to the ANI because you disagree with my edit. You edit warred but User:Gyrofrog did not tag your Talk page with a Stop edit warring. Why did User:Gyrofrog side with you when you were edit warring. Menhelicks (talk) 02:45, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Menhelicks, I would heavily suggest you assume good faith instead of accusing harassment. I haven't read everything on all the pages, but at Talk:Habesha peoples#Habesha, an ethnic group in Eritrea, Ethiopia? at least, you don't seem to be working with achieving consensus in mind. Gyrofrog most likely warned you and not Pathawi because you are a newer editor, and thus more likely to not know about the 3 revert rule. I would recommend stepping away for a bit, let yourself calm down, and then edit somewhere else; Wikipedia has millions of articles, numerous of which have many issues. If Pathawi does actually follow you to those other articles, then that is actual harassment, which you should report. But, I am failing to see any of that at this moment. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 03:08, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

You know you make a good case. I will take your recommendations. Menhelicks (talk) 03:20, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Rangeblock request to deal with LTA sockpuppeteer

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

---

• 2600:6C56:7800:553:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log)
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Colemanhull

If someone could please block the above range it would be much appreciated, the sockmaster is the only editor on the range (at present anyway). FDW777 (talk) 10:53, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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 JCSigma2000 Unsourced/improperly sourced edits

JCSigma2000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been repeatedly adding un- or improperly sourced information to transportation-related articles since July, and continues to do so after numerous in-depth discussions on their talk page. This, along with many grammatical errors in thier edits, has become a time sink for other editors who have been performing clean-up work. Although they appear to be editing in good faith, they just aren't getting how important verifiability and reliable sources are after multiple warnings and discussions.

Piccadilly line: reverted edits in July and August: [143], [144], [145], [146], [147] and relevant talk page discussions here and here

London Buses route SL7: reverted edits in July and August: [148], [149] and relevant talk page discussion. Some of their edit summaries: "stop reverting people’s edit when you have no idea anyways"; "No offence but genuinely stop wasting my time"

London Buses route SL1: reverted edits in August: [150], [151], [152] and relevant talk page discussion. Some discussion quotes: "maybe you can help me find a source"; "I think quite a lot of people know more than 50% of wikipedia’s edits doesn’t even follow these rules [verifiability, reliable sources]. I understand you are trying to follow procedures but the point is; you know the info is right but you just can’t accept it."; "over 50% of Wikipedia edits don’t follow these rules"; "If everyone followed these rules, Wikipedia wouldn’t have gone this far in the last 20 years"}}

Senne Lammens: reverted edits in September: [153], [154] and relevant talk page discussion.

Cathay Pacific: JCSigma2000 restored an anonymous editor's unsourced change twice[155],[156] without explanation, and insisted it be allowed to stay while they looked for sources.

And after the most recent discussion, they've continued to add unsourced content.

• [157]: Replaced text and added a source that fails verification
• [158]: Made up an opening date

Celjski Grad (talk) 14:41, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Although I too am concerned with this user's editing, I feel it only fair to clarify one point regarding the editing at Cathay Pacific - I get the feeling that they might have been misunderstood (by myself) when they restored the edit. Although it appeared through the above linked talk page discussion that they wanted it to stay while they looked for a source, subsequent discussion in fact revealed that they had already found the source and were simply restoring the edit prior to adding said source. It's simply not completely clear what happened there, and it's entirely possible that there was misunderstanding on my own part there.

When they restored the content the first time, I happened to be on Wikipedia, and so near instantly noticed the reversion - so I undid it nearly instantly too. If their intent was to follow up with a source, it would have been too late. That's my bad, not theirs. It's worth bearing in mind that it's perfectly valid to restore an unsourced edit then immediately follow up with the source - it's simply easier to use the undo or rollback functionality from Twinkle to restore the edit before pressing the "edit source" button. Yes, the original edit should have had a source from the very beginning - but that wasn't this user's fault. So if their intent was indeed to immediately follow up with a source, then I apologise because I scuppered that by reverting them almost instantly.

My point with the above is that the Cathay set of edits may well not be anything bad, but rather a misunderstanding between editors that's now been resolved. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 14:53, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don’t think so. It took them nearly 20 minutes to add the sources (and it only partially supports the text), and it came from a ChatGPT search. If they already had it they could have added it with the revert or immediately afterwards. Celjski Grad (talk) 16:23, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you're getting this 20 minutes from - the timeline is as follows...

• 10:43 JCSigma2000 restores the unsourced content
• 10:44 I revert them (with hindsight, too quickly)

This is where the discussion between us on my talk page happens

• 10:58 They restore the content following said discussion
• 11:01 They add the sources

Yes, the sources were from ChatGPT - however, the sources are real, and the text that was added wasn't from ChatGPT. There's nothing in Wikipedia policy that says LLMs can't be used to find information, as long as the original sources are what are cited - and that's exactly what JCS did here. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 16:33, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

I’m not going to continue dragging this out because it’s distracting unnecessarily from many other examples and giving too much weight to just one. However: 11:01-10:43 is 18 minutes, which is “nearly 20.” Celjski Grad (talk) 16:48, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Right... 20 minutes during which he was discussing the edit on my talk page, and the content wasn't live on the site as it had been reverted. My point is I don't think that is a good example, although I am fully onboard that there is a concerning pattern. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 16:50, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

I firmly believe JC is a good-faith editor who intends to improve the articles they edit, and while the problems are minor in isolation, the sustained pattern has become disruptive. I've previously raised concerns about some of this user's edits at User_talk:JCSigma2000#Air_India_Flight_171, and was joined by @Celjski Grad, who also edits that article. The issues raised there were not related to sourcing, and again are individually minor. It's the pattern as a whole which is problematic. Xan747 (talk) 17:27, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

And they continue to make finicky edits to established articles that make no improvement while introducing grammar and spelling errors, like here: [159] Celjski Grad (talk) 11:05, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

This is very distressing because I'm sure JC means well, but we're into CIR territory here. Xan747 (talk) 11:27, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Admin Intervention Requested: Genetics Relevance Being Dismissed

The following discussion is closed. 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 dispute began during a discussion on the origins and identity of the Huns. I contributed research that included genetic evidence, emphasizing that genetics is essential in understanding who the Huns were and how they relate to other groups. Archaeology, linguistics, and written sources provide important insights, but they cannot fully explain the complex history and identity of a people without the scientific confirmation that genetics provides. Modern studies on ancient DNA have already revealed crucial information about the connections between the Huns, the Xiongnu, and various steppe and Iranian populations, which makes genetics an indispensable part of the discussion. However, user TurboSuperA+ responded by saying: “I don’t care about genetics.” This is not a counter-argument or an alternative interpretation—it is a direct dismissal of valid academic research that undermines the integrity of the discussion. By refusing to acknowledge genetic studies, the conversation becomes incomplete and misleading, especially for readers who expect a comprehensive, evidence-based account of the Huns’ origins. Genetics is not an optional or trivial factor; it is a key component in identity, heritage, and historical continuity. Ignoring it means disregarding one of the most reliable and modern tools we have for understanding the past. Because of this dismissive stance, I will not make further edits until administrators review the situation. I respectfully urge admin intervention to ensure that evidence-based contributions are treated fairly and not disregarded out of personal preference. AsianTiele (talk) 13:10, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

It is true, I really don't care about genetics. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 13:12, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

A couple thoughts. First off, TurboSuperA+ was right in calling you out for accusing him on his talk page of vandalism; it is not "vandalism" to disagree with you on a content dispute. Secondly, you're forumshopping here -- he originally raised the issue on the NOR noticeboard [160] where you responded to him [161] with a barrage of links. Why did you bring that issue here as well, without waiting for a response? Thirdly, are you kidding us? His response (on his own talk page, mind) was flippant and dismissive, but exactly what policy or guideline are you claiming he's violating here? And finally, this is a content dispute, and should be settled via consensus on the article's talk page. Ravenswing 13:26, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello Ravenswing, thank you for your reply. I want to clarify that my intention has never been to attack anyone or misuse the term “vandalism.” I now understand that this was not appropriate in the context of a content dispute, and I apologize if my wording gave that impression. English is not my first language, and sometimes translation mistakes make my tone sound stronger than intended. Regarding “forumshopping,” I am still new to Wikipedia and learning the correct procedures. I posted here because I was directed to this venue as the proper place to continue the matter, not to bypass or undermine discussions elsewhere. There was no intention to misuse the system. That being said, I did feel that the attack-like tone in your reply was unnecessarily rude, especially as I am participating in good faith. I am here only to contribute accurate, well-sourced information, and I believe we can discuss these matters constructively without hostility. If I have made procedural mistakes, I will learn from them and be more careful in the future. My goal is to improve articles through respectful discussion and consensus, and I appreciate the clarification you have provided. AsianTiele (talk) 13:31, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Why are you using large language models/AI chat bots to talk? Just noting here 37.186.35.134 (talk) 14:20, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

I do not use AI chatbots to write my posts. The only tools I occasionally rely on are Google Translate and basic spell checkers... Since English is not my first language and I want to avoid unnecessary spelling errors. Claiming that I use AI simply because I am able to write longer, meaningful texts is quite an absurd accusation. I believe that writing carefully and clearly is now considered suspicious? AsianTiele (talk) 14:26, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Oh ok really sorry if that's the case, the tone feels like AI, maybe because of the way Translate works or something… 37.186.35.134 (talk) 14:35, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Accusing other editors of using LLMs to generate messages or content, without providing any evidence or proof, is not acceptable. Even if AsianTiele were to be using an LLM to write their messages, so long as they agree with everything that's stated and understand that they can be held accountable with what they say (as if they made the response without using one at all), what does it matter? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:29, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, Oshwah, for stepping in. I appreciate it! Could you also point me to the section where I can learn how to use Wikipedia properly, since I'm new? AsianTiele (talk) 14:34, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict) AsianTiele - Sure! I highly recommend that all new users go through Wikipedia's getting started page and complete Wikipedia's new user tutorial before they make any major edits or take on any major tasks around here. These pages will provide you with extremely helpful introductions, walkthroughs, guides, interactive lessons, and tutorials that will familiarize you with the interface and navigating around the website, important policies and guidelines that you need to know, proper etiquette and how different processes on Wikipedia work, how to edit articles and communicate with other users, how to find important locations, pages and information, and where you can ask for help if you have questions or get stuck anywhere. Most users who take this advice, read through these pages, and complete the new user tutorial tell me later that the pages were significantly helpful to them and saved them hours of time and frustration they might've experienced otherwise. You might also find the introduction to Wikipedia to be useful to you as well. Please don't hesitate to reach out to me if I can answer any questions or help you with anything. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:40, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

I appreciate it man! Thanks a lot for your help and friendly attitude as an admin. :) AsianTiele (talk) 14:42, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

AsianTiele - Of course; always happy to lend a hand - especially to new users who are asking for help! I was brand new to Wikipedia once, too... And don't worry, administrators on here aren't all nasty and mean people who are out to get you. Only most of them are... lol :-P ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:51, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Ahaha, got it man. Was just performing a tiny change with stating the research, don't know why it was such a big problem. But yeah, no worries. I'll manage to be friendly. :D AsianTiele (talk) 15:01, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Think WP:V and WP:DUE may be useful to you 37.186.35.134 (talk) 14:36, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, I’ll check out WP:V and WP:DUE. Thank you for the cooperation! AsianTiele (talk) 14:40, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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 not listening to talk page feedback

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

I need to raise an issue with SueRostvold, a new editor who is ignoring repeated talk page messages about WP:USERNOCAT rules. Their sandbox page, User:SueRostvold/sandbox, has had to be removed from categories ten times in three days, because they keep putting it back into categories.

After the fourth time I had to remove the categories, I posted to their talk page to advise them that the page cannot be in categories. Then after they put the page back into categories again two more times, I posted a second message to their talk page, following which they put the page back into categories another two times, so I posted a third message to their talk page, following which they put the page back into categories another two times again.

So since they're not listening to messages about USERNOCAT, I'm not sure what to do. Bearcat (talk) 16:14, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

If they got notified 4 times and have to be reverted 11 times for the exact same problem, I recommend a partial block on user namespace until they acknowledge the problem. Northern Moonlight 18:46, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Blocked for 31 hours. Let's see if that gets the message across or if we need to impose longer blocks... Salvio ^giuliano 18:52, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Well, the editor seems to be willing to discuss their edits and to take criticism onboard, so I've tried unblocking. Hopefully, that was necessary to impress upon them the importance of listening to experienced users... Salvio ^giuliano 19:07, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

(Sigh) All you need do is put a colon between [[ and Category. Easy, when you know the trick. Why did no-one tell them that before I just did? Narky Blert (talk) 19:17, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Continued copyright violations

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

---

Truthisclear (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) continues to add copyright violating content despite numerous warnings and explanations [162][163][164][165][166]. Sample diffs of copyvios pulled from prior warnings (admin only): [167][168][169][170][171][172], there are more.

Truthisclear has been warned again today, 8 September, by MCE89 [173] after adding more violating content [174], MCE89 then found more edits which added copyrighted content [175][176].

The continued violations despite clear communication of what is not allowed, indicate that Truthisclear lacks the necessary competence to contribute in a way which will not harm the project. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 21:18, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

I have given them a final warning. If it happens again, it will be a block. -- Whpq (talk) 21:27, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

I appreciate the feedback. I went over the rules, and this will not happen again. Truthisclear (talk) 22:12, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

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

User talk:Randyknots

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

---

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

Could someone please help deal with this? I'm too personally annoyed to be unbiased. Notice given. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 16:45, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

And I'm obviously too WP:INVOLVED for further action. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:46, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

TPA revoked. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:07, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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 quick 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.

---

Already reported at AIV, but requesting a rapid block of LTA BillyJoelFan1234 who has turned the sandbox into his personal vandalism arena. Thanks. Home Lander (talk) 01:44, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

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

2607:FEA8:A5DF:A6A0:709C:B915:94B:C49B

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

---

2607:FEA8:A5DF:A6A0:709C:B915:94B:C49B (talk · contribs) Virtually all edits of ths IP are reverted. Many warnings in talk page, with no remorse. Time for a block.. --Altenmann >talk 23:48, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Pretty bad BLP violation: #1, #2. Northern Moonlight 00:25, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

/64 Blocked for 3 months. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 00:38, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

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

Template:AeroRoutesRef

The following discussion is closed. 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 created a template at Template:AeroRoutesRef - this has been marked for speedy deletion by user User:KEmel49 on the grounds of suspicion of LLM usage. Hhowever, there was no LLM involved. None. Zero. Zilch. Nothing. See the edit history of the main page of the template to satisfy yourself. I've tried to engage in a meaningful and polite way on the talk page of the template, but the other user has said that only an admin can remove the speedy deletion request and they are either unwilling or unable to remove the speedy deletion they created. Can somebody advise what should be done please ? Wibwob28 (talk) 20:55, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

I think I have the right to remove that template but the argumentation of KEmel49 bothers me enough that I like it when others take a look at the talkpage. The Banner talk 21:17, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes, you do have the right, as does KEmel49. I heve removed the speedy deletion tag. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:41, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Another editor had already removed the speedy request (see (edit conflict) above), and I was about decline the speedy. No need to raise this here as you had already contested it on the talk page. KylieTastic (talk) 21:45, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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 continues to vandalize despite final warning

The following discussion is closed. 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:Kaikakajjajau7161 has been warned on their talk page, and even reported on WP:AIV, yet they continue to disruptively edit the project, an edit war was sparked at Iraqi Invasion of Kuwait, but the user has not stopped, and continues to vandalize the project, can an admin take a look at this please. 98.235.155.81 (talk) 13:46, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Indef blocked. I woke up to quite a backlog at AIV this morning. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:50, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

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

Legal threats from SusanVoner

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

---

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

Legal threats at User talk:SusanVoner:

• Nothing ive edited had ANY source .. and you can forget me stopping as Disashi Lumumba Kasongo is the one paying me to make the edits AND EVERYTHING IM SAYING IS THE LEGAL TRUTH and everyone who tries to stop him from telling the truth from this point on is getting sued at the very least so you choose but I wont stop!
• you can block me but you cant block Diashi Lumumba - Kasongo from editing a page for the band he OWNS. and this reply is a soft cease and desist order from allowing these bots etc to call the truth lies or has wiki turned into a place full of lies?

--tony 03:56, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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 nectar possum is up to no good

The following discussion is closed. 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 nectar possum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

First, if you check his contribs, you can see that most of his edits have been reverted. A lot of his edits involve blanking certain parts of Wikipedia pages. An example would be a recent one: Kosovo–New Zealand relations. He merged the page without the existence of a consensus. Second, he rarely uses edit summaries is his edits. Underdwarf58 (talk) 00:04, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Third, check his talk page. An IP gave him a warning regarding his actions to the afromentioned article, and the nectar possum didn't respond, violating WP:COMMUNICATE. Underdwarf58 (talk) 00:06, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

@Underdwarf58 You really should've just warned them before taking them to ANI- though I admit “the nectar possum is up to no good” is one of the funnier titles I’ve seen here. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 00:54, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

What do you mean warn them first? The IP in his talk page did that already. Underdwarf58 (talk) 00:57, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

There was a single lv2 warning. Also WP:COMMUNICATE is an essay, not a policy (though ignoring it is a good way to earn a block). Edits like this would be a good use of uw-delete4 for example. Please read WP:WARN to learn more about properly warning users. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 01:27, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Because you said this, the block is going to be cancelled? Underdwarf58 (talk) 01:32, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

What? Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 01:41, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Blocks are preventative, not punitive. If the account continues after you warn them sufficiently, then take it to this noticeboard or WP:AIV with your rationale, and a block will likely be issued. But if the editor stops, then there isn't a reason to block them, unless an admin believes they will continue to be disruptive. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 02:02, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

It’s not given that a warning leads to a block. Northern Moonlight 02:03, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Alright I placed the warning for you. Northern Moonlight 02:05, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Okay, some updates:

1. Repeatedly edit warring to restore their edit filled with bad capitalization and non-English text. #1, #2, #3, #4, #5. Last rev as of today.
2. Moving obviously not ready articles back to mainspace after being draftified. #6
3. Copyvio (see revdel)
4. Has never replied to a message on their talk page

Northern Moonlight 17:01, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

This edit seems to be the closest to communicating with other editors as this editor has done. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 19:50, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

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

109.81.23.142 continued adding of unsourced content

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

---

Good-faith editor 109.81.23.142 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been given half a dozen warnings over the past three days about adding unsourced content to various articles, and after a frustrating back-and-forth where I explained what they were doing wrong and pointed them to appropriate guidelines and tutorials,[177] they continue to apologize and immediately repeat the same behavior. [178][179] I’m at a loss at how to proceed. Celjski Grad (talk) 19:58, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

The editor is now editing at 109.81.89.240 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and has racked up three more sourcing warnings from three different editors in one day. Celjski Grad (talk) 10:46, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

oh, i'm sorry, now that i'm seeing i could be banned, well honestly i want to put infomration on wikipedia, but i don't have sources and stuff because i dont know how to put it, and also sometims there arent any, so you know, a "good faith" editor 109.81.89.240 (talk) 13:13, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

109.81.89.240, if you don't have any references or sources and cannot find any, you cannot add content to Wikipedia unless one is at least available that supports the content that you're adding. If you are unsure of how to add citations to content within an article on Wikipedia, you can ask for assistance at the Wikipedia helpdesk and they will be more than happy to help you. What you cannot do is ignore warnings left for you by other editors who are trying to explain what you are doing is disruptive, and simply go about your business and add any content that you want. If content added to an article needs to be referenced or supported by reliable sources, this needs to be done - full stop. Please take some time and review the Wikipedia pages that users have left for you to go through (such as Wikipedia's verifiability and no original research policies), and ask for assistance if you need help with adding in-line citations. If you continue to make edits to articles and add content that needs to be referenced and supported by reliable sources and without doing so, you will be blocked from editing. This isn't done in order to "punish" you, point any fingers at you, or call you a "bad faith editor"; it's done in order to assure that the disruptive editing to the project stops. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:39, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

More warnings to this editor can be found at User_talk:109.81.84.82, User talk:109.81.29.16, User talk:109.81.85.198, User talk:109.81.20.216, User talk:109.81.84.82. Most of these were read and replied to. I appreciate the WP:AGF aspect of explaining one more time, but it doesn't seem likely that they're going to change. MrOllie (talk) 14:05, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Continuing to add unsourced controversial information, attempting to put the WP:BURDEN on others, continuing to say they won't do it again. Nubzor [T][C] 18:14, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

The IP editor has just added unsourced content to The Powerpuff Girls (franchise) and The Powerpuff Girls (2016 TV series) and included a {{Citation needed}} template in their edit. I informed them on their talk page that adding a cn template is not an acceptable substitute for including a reference, and they replied "but im not good at finding, so someone else would have to find it, because there are someone that is better at finding than me. Nubzor also warned them for edit warring on this unsourced content, and they replied "ok, i won't, you see im not good at finding sources, so someone else would have to find it, because there are someone that is better at finding sources than me". It seems clear that this editor has no intention of learning how to properly source the content that they add. CodeTalker (talk) 18:15, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

They have also added a message to my talk page: "in the untitled second reboot, find a good source yourselfs, you may be better at finding sources than me". CodeTalker (talk) 18:19, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

I’ve struck my original description of the editor as good-faith after seeing the amount of disruptive edits they’ve been making across numerous addresses throughout 109.81/16. Celjski Grad (talk) 11:22, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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:ClarkKentWannabe

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

This editor has insisted they include a list of members of city council at Homer Glen, Illinois.

This list was removed here with the edit summary "unnecessary, per WP:USCITIES#Government", which states "Avoid listing all city council members, because this information becomes obsolete fairly quickly since a subset of the members typically changes every 1 or 2 years, wrong information is worse than not having it."

ClarkKentWannabe reverted it here.

I reverted it here, stating "please discuss on talk page before editing against consensus".

ClarkKentWannabe started two discussions:

• Talk:Homer Glen, Illinois#RfC about listing all current members of Homer Glen's Village government (closed; please disregard).
• Talk:Homer Glen, Illinois#Should the "Government" section contain a listing of all current members of Homer Glen's Village government? (Closed; disregard)

Neither discussion established a consensus to include the city council in the article.

ClarkKentWannabe's frustration level seems to have increased to the point that an intervention may be needed:

• [180] - Asked an editor "how long have you had to wait before you were successfully able to re-insert the wikitable about a municipality's elected officials without getting blowback from inconsistent editors like Magnolia677?"
• [181] - Asked an editor "care to point out where Magnolia677 has been criticized in the past for his inconsistency?"
• [182] - Canvased an editor to comment on my "blatantly misusing & misinterpreting WP:USCITIES to justify information about Homer Glen's government being removed."
• [183] - refers to three editors who disagreed with their edit--User:Reywas92, User:Sbmeirow, and myself--as "the three idiot editors".
• [184] - "I just decided to close the discussion & take your advice to wait maybe a week in the hopes that the three idiot editors will have eventually forgotten about the Homer Glen article".
• [185] - Asked another editor if other editors "need to be called in to deal with Magnolia, Sbmeirow, & Reywas92?"
• [186] - a rant against User:Reywas92, User:Sbmeirow, and myself.
• [187] - Advises User:Reywas92, User:Sbmeirow, and myself: "I would strongly advise you to cease & desist in the removal of content about government officials other than the Mayor in the "Government" section of articles for municipalities smaller than cities up until someone from this WikiProject can set the record straight as to which side (myself/Uraveragejoe/Marcus Markup/glman, or you/Reywas92/Magnolia677) is in the right on this issue. However, should you not wait for the final word on this issue & proceed anyway in removing content before it is known whether or not it's allowable, I will respond to what I see as article vandalism by you, Magnolia, & Rey by going straight to the administrators' noticeboard, letting them know what's going on, and then recommending/suggesting that all three of you receive temporary editing blocks in order for the three of you to have time to re-consider how you interpret WikiProject guideline vs. Wikipedia guideline (especially how project guidelines do not apply site-wide), as well as understanding when a WikiProject's frontpage directly states that abiding by said WikiProject guideline isn't a requirement when it comes to editing Wikipedia articles."

This editor continues to re-insert the city council at Homer Glen, Illinois.

Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:22, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

And now, to describe the situation here much in the same way I described it at the WP:USCITIES talk page...

There is some content under dispute related to articles about municipalities (Homer Glen, Orland Park, Midlothian, etc.), and so far, discussions opened about the content have reached a stalemate, due to two groups of editors having conflicting opinions.

The content under dispute, relating to the "Government" section of articles of some municipalities, is a wikitable listing the current elected members (Mayor, Clerk, Trustees, etc.) of certain smaller municipalities (smaller than cities).

Now, in one discussion in July on Magnolia677's talk page (here), glman had reprimanded them, stating that WP:USCITIES guideline is a WikiProject guideline, not Wikipedia guideline (as in, USCITIES guideline does not extend to the site as a whole). Magnolia677 was also reminded by glman that the "frontpage" for WP:USCITIES itself states While it is just a guideline and there are no requirements to follow it in editing.

And, in another discussion earlier this year (May), also on Magnolia677's talk page (here), Marcus Markup had reprimanded them for removing relevant information from the article for Dolton, Illinois about the scandal concerning former Dalton Mayor & former Thornton Township Supervisor Tiffany Henyard.

As of recently, through engaging in a discussion about the disputed content launched on Homer Glen's talk page (here) by me (where both myself & Uraveragejoe proceeded, in a way, to reprimand Magnolia677 a seemingly third time for, apparently, once again misusing & misinterpreting policy on here), Magnolia677 attracted the attention of Reywas92 & Sbmeirow, who proceeded to agree with Magnolia677's stance on WP:USCITIES guideline.

So, it would seem Magnolia677 insists on engaging in disruptive behavior by blatantly misusing (& therefore, misinterpreting) policy on here to argue, and therefore themself determine, what content does & does not belong in Wikipedia articles.

In fact, on my talk page (here), Magnolia677 has accused me of "plotting" against themself, Sbmeirow, & Reywas92 by simply discussing with Uraveragejoe how to deal with the three of them (here; I admit I wrongly engaged in a personal attack towards Magnolia677 in the discussion on Uraveragejoe's talk page (by referring to Magnolia677, Sbmeirow, & Reywas92 as "the three idiot editors"), and on the request of Magnolia677, I have since removed the personal attack, but I will not apologize for consulting with other Wikipedia editors in order to figure out how to deal with what I consider to be disruptive behavior (misuse of policy) by disruptive editors.

And, as I even stated to Sbmeirow on WP:USCITIES talkpage...

The thing is, as it's been pointed with the USCITIES WikiProject:

1. What takes priority above everything in WP:USCITIES (meaning what content WP:USCITIES allows in articles about municipalities) is how, in the main USCITIES article at WP:USCITIES, the lede section states (and I quote): "While it is just a guideline and there are no requirements to follow it in editing" (my emphasis added). So, right away, *any* argument about it being necessary/required/etc. to abide by what WP:USCITIES states in the body of the article is already neutralized by the direct wording of the lede section of USCITIES itself. So, Magnolia677 stating that WP:USCITIES *must* be adhered to is already wrong; the main article itself actually directly states otherwise. And, to make the additional point that USCITIES is a *WikiProject*, and therefore, any guideline stated in the USCITIES article is a *project* guideline; that means it is applicable *only* to the particular project, not to the entire website (meaning anything outside of WP:USCITIES is outside of WP:USCITIES's jurisdiction). That was what glman pointed out to Magnolia677 in the reprimand on Magnolia's talk page that I referenced.

2. WP:USCITIES#Government states: This section should include a description of the local city government, such as the mayor's office, city council or legislature, city manager (if applicable), and how these entities interact. For larger cities, you might include information on the local government politics as well. Avoid listing all city council members. Now, if you notice, the recommendation/suggestion about *not* listing *all city council members* comes *after* WP:USCITIES#Government starts talking about *larger* cities (like New York City, Los Angeles, & Chicago, for example), and that makes sense, because large cities (like those I referenced) will tend to have a large city council (NYC has 51 council districts, LA 15 city council districts, & Chicago 50 wards). But, nowhere else other than in referencing *larger cities* does that recommendation/suggestion about not listing all members of a municipality's legislature appear. And, the sizes of the legislatures that I pointed out for NYC, LA, & Chicago is likely why.

And, one thing I find interesting is how Magnolia677 seems to have no problem when Uraveragejoe seemingly kept reverting their reversions, re-inserting the information in the Orland Park & Midlothian articles that I'm trying to put back in the Homer Glen article. In fact, from my awareness, Magnolia677 hasn't filed an ANI complaint against Uraveragejoe. But, for whatever reason, Magnolia677 seems fit to go after me for reverting their reversions, going so far as to take this course of action.

And, I also find it funny that Magnolia677 saw fit to omit in their comment the information I pointed out in mine.

So, if the result of this ANI complaint is a finding against Magnolia677 on account of their misinterpretation, and therefore misutilization, of WikiProject guideline across Wikipedia, then I am recommending/suggesting their account receive a permanent edit block for the whole of the USCITIES WikiProject. ClarkKentWannabe (talk) 12:52, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Commenting just to clarify I do not agree with the characterization of Magnolia and I's discussion as a "reprimand". Magnolia and I are both editors, and we were having a discussion. We disagree on how strictly WP:USCITIES should be applied, but our discussion was just that, a good faith discussion between two editors who disagree. glman (talk) 14:35, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

• Sorry but the idea that we can't list councilors in an article because they "may change every year or two" is laughable. Should we do away with movies' box office receipts, active rosters of sports teams, charting information for music, all of which change more frequently? How about state and national legislators? ~~ Jessintime (talk) 14:13, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

  Agreed - if the information is sourced, it certainly seems notable. glman (talk) 14:33, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

  I personally find the local consensuses of wikiprojects often become vexing when they assume that editors editing within the scope of a project but outside its auspices say, "no that's silly." See also the wikiproject that declared that certain sources found at RS/N to determine box office totals reliable ran afoul of RS/N participants saying these same sources seemed unreliable for anything. Generally the consensus of a wikiproject is useful right up until it encounters editors who are not members to that project and then consensus should be based around policies and guidelines and around the local consensus of editors at that page. Simonm223 (talk) 14:39, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Neither editor is covering themselves with glory here, but Jessintime is exactly right: there are many areas where frequent changes of information are ubiquitous. Nor does a WikiProject's non-binding advice to avoid such lists constitute a blanket prohibition of such magnitude as to meet the level of "urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems." I suggest Magnolia677 drop the stick. Ravenswing 14:54, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

+1. Simonm223 (talk) 16:11, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

This is a conduct noticeboard. ClarkKentWannabe has edit warred while calling other editors idiots. ClarkKentWannabe is partially blocked to prevent it from continuing. Whether they're right or wrong about whether the content should be included or not is perhaps worth a discussion on the article's talk page, on the "guideline"'s talk page, on a village pump page, wherever, but not here. This can be closed as the edit warring won't continue during the next 2 weeks and further personal attacks would lead to a sitewide block. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:49, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

1. As I pointed out (not just here, but even on WP:USCITIES's talk page as well), after Magnolia677 brought what I said about them, Reywas92, & Sbmeirow on Uraveragejoe's talk page, I removed it, apologized for doing so, and admitted I was wrong to engage in such an action. Or, are you intentionally ignoring that? And, I will do my best from here on out to avoid engaging in personal attacks in the future.

2. There were two discussions on Homer Glen's talk page about the content in question (both reached stalemates, due to both sides holding firm in their stance). There's also an on-going discussion on the WP:USCITIES talk page.

2. If I am to be partially blocked for edit warring, then why hasn't Magnolia677 received the same punishment as well, not just for Homer Glen, but also for Orland Park, & even Midlothian as well? So, I am asking that Magnolia677 receive a partial edit block as well, maybe for the same amount of time that I'm getting. Otherwise, I'm filling my own complaint against ToBeFree for inconsistent moderation in not punishing Magnolia677 for doing the same thing I'm being punished for. ClarkKentWannabe (talk) 00:19, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

@ClarkKentWannabe Blocks are preventative, not punitive, per WP:Blocking policy. It would appear that the administrator who partially blocked you felt that the step was need to prevent further disruption to the article. —C.Fred (talk) 00:44, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

They did.
ClarkKentWannabe, regarding the personal attack, great. The summary of the behavior is still correct (ClarkKentWannabe has edit warred while calling other editors idiots). Regarding blocking others, you had the latest edit in the edit war, there was no recent edit warring from Magnolia677 and they went here instead of reverting. Tu quoque-style argumentation doesn't really work for blocks; WP:NOTTHEM describes this. As administrators are never required to use their tools, a complaint about an administrator not blocking someone is comparatively pointless. You may convince someone else that a block of others is needed of course, and I'd be fine with that too. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:50, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

So, once again, I apologize for my behavior getting out of hand with the personal attack. And, you have my word that I will not repeat such actions ever again.

And, if we're going to talk about editors receiving edit blocks:

- After looking at Magnolia677's involvement in "edit warring", not just for Homer Glen (3 revert attempts: here, here, & here; violation of 3RR), but also for Orland Park (3 revert attempts: here, here, here; another 3RR violation), & even Midlothian (2 revert attempts: here & here; beginning of another 3RR violation), I would argue that warrants an temporary edit block to his account; I would argue it should be for the entirety of the USCITIES WikiProject, based on his recent targeting of several USCITIES-related articles.

Also, since it seems like discussions about the content of the Homer Glen article got nowhere on the article's talk page (both sides involved seem firm in their stance), and a discussion started on the USCITIES talk page currently has gotten no attention from anyone with that project's team since the discussion was first launched on August 17th, I would argue that this discussion be allowed to continue (seeing as how it's gotten more attention than previous discussions elsewhere), and then Magnolia677's fate (at least related to USCITIES) be decided based on community consensus from this discussion. ClarkKentWannabe (talk) 03:24, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

3 revert attempts...violation of 3RR No, three attempts is three attempts, which is the limit and is not a violation of WP:3RR. Four reverts would be a violation of 3RR. Furthermore, the limit is three reverts within 24 hours, which none of those "violations" or "beginning violations" took place within. If you're going to accuse another editor of violating policy, especially a bright-line policy like 3RR, you may want to be sure you actually understand the policy. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:35, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Also noting that all of those "examples" took place several weeks ago and are thus stale: blocks are preventitive, not punitive. ClarkKentWannabe, I strongly suggest you observe the first law of holes here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:38, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Fine. I accept the correction to my stance on 3RR, and I withdraw my request for an edit block based on that.

However, your defense of when Magnolia677's edits took place does not remove their involvement in the very edit warring I'm being disciplined for (as Wikipedia states it takes more than one person for edit warring). And, Magnolia677's actions in multiple articles related to the USCITIES WikiProject shows a track record of removing content they don't agree with (but haven't reached a community consensus for such removal); in the essence, engaging in disruptive editing.

In fact, after some brief research, it turns out that neither you nor ToBeFree are fully aware of the Wikipedia policy regarding WP:EDITWAR that is being used for my case. And, that is why, while I advocate for continuing this ANI discussion to see where community consensus stands on Magnolia677's stance, I will be filing a complaint here based on true points & violations of Wikipedia policy. ClarkKentWannabe (talk) 01:28, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

You were actively edit-warring with multiple editors on Homer Glen, Illinois on September 1-2. Magnolia677 made one revert on that page during that time. Drop the stick, as any attempt to file a complaint based on The Truth will not go well for you. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:40, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

At this point, at the risk of this portion of this overall ANI discussion getting out of hand, I am ending my involvement now, and waiting to see what further community consensus is achieved as it relates to Magnolia677's stance. ClarkKentWannabe (talk) 01:50, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

For Your Consideration... (partial withdraw)

Magnolia677 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

As per the suggestion of ToBeFree:

In light of recent developments in relation to a situation concerning myself & Magnolia677, much like discipline taken again me recently for WP:EDITWAR-ing & engaging in a personal attack, I am requesting that Magnolia677 receive a block from editing any articles connected to the WikiProject USCITIES for a period of 2 weeks, based on his recent targeting (within the last few weeks) of several WP:USCITIES-related articles, for repeated WP:EDITWAR-ing & WP:DISRUPTIVE editing as it relates to the articles for Homer Glen, Illinois (see: here, here, & here), Orland Park, Illinois (see: here, here, here), & Midlothian, Illinois (see: here & here), particularly in what seems to be viewed by multiple uninvolved editors (Jessintime, Simonm223, & Ravenswing) (see: here) as an incorrect interpretation of WikiProject & Wikipedia guidelines.

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

Also, after doing research on Wikipedia policy, specifically as it pertains to edit warring, I am requesting that discipline be taken against ToBeFree on account of WP:ADMINISTRATORABUSE for inconsistent moderation in violating administrator guidance on edit warring (last sentence in first paragraph in specified section), specifically in how policy states multiple parties involved in edit warring should be dealt with (and I quote: Where multiple editors engage in edit wars or breach 3RR, administrators should consider all sides, since perceived unfairness can fuel issues.; my emphasis added). I am asking that, based on ToBeFree's defense ("Tu quoque-style argumentation doesn't really work for blocks; WP:NOTTHEM describes this. As administrators are never required to use their tools, a complaint about an administrator not blocking someone is comparatively pointless.") of not abiding by administrator guidance for edit warring, my 2 week punishment be reduced to 1 week (first infractions for edit warring are usually dealt with by a 24 hour edit block, as per WP:EDITWAR#Administrator guidance; first infractions for personal attacks are generally ignored, as per WP:NOPA#First offenses and isolated incidents, not to mention I did remove the personal attack against Magnolia677, Reywas92, & Sbmeirow when requested by Magnolia677, and apologized for my actions), and that ToBeFree has their moderation ability suspended for 1 week for not following posted administrator guidance on dealing with edit warring.

ClarkKentWannabe (talk) 03:16, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

You break 3RR when you make 4 or more reverts. Since Magnolia677 has only made 3 reverts, they should not get blocked for edit-warring. You, on the other hand, reverted four times (Homer Glen, Illinois: [188], [189], [190], [191].) I don't frequent that topic area, so no comment on the apparent disruption there. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 03:40, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

And, I've stated elsewhere on here that I wouldn't pursue an ANI complaint against Magnolia677 for 3RRing once it was explained to me. However, Magnolia's actions are still covered by edit warring & even disruptive editing. ClarkKentWannabe (talk) 03:48, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

@ClarkKentWannabe, this retaliatory posting is both disruptive and absurd. There is nothing here which wasn't already explained to you mere hours ago by several editors and administrators. Your temporary pblock was designed to prevent further disruption and it has already proven to be inadequate. --tony 03:41, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

All I'm asking is that, since I wasn't the only one involved in edit warring for the Homer Glen article (and since the other editor involved has also engaged in edit warring for the Orland Park & Midlothian articles as well), I shouldn't be the only one punished for engaging in edit warring. And, Wikipedia has policies & guidelines for a reason; for anyone, whether editors OR moderators/administrators, to ignore those creates an unnecessary atmosphere of chaos. I am well within my right to complain about what I see going on here, and for my complaints to be fairly considered.

If nothing else, I will accept discipline for edit warring, as I am aware it goes against Wikipedia policy. However, I will not accept when it can be shown that administrators/moderators are clearly abusing their abilities in dealing with disruptions on here by not following posted guidelines & policies.

And, I already stated elsewhere on here that, when it comes to the content for the Homer Glen article, I would like to see the original ANI discussion about me continued to see where community consensus ends up at as it relates to Magnolia677's stance on WikiProject & Wikipedia guidelines. ClarkKentWannabe (talk) 04:01, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

when it comes to the content for the Homer Glen article, I would like to see the original ANI discussion about me continued to see where community consensus ends up at as it relates to Magnolia677's stance on WikiProject & Wikipedia guidelines. That isn't what ANI is for. ANI is for conduct issues, not content disputes. Content disputes go elsewhere. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 04:29, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Note: I have merged this into the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:ClarkKentWannabe thread, since I really don't see why it should be a separate thread. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 04:41, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

The reason for me doing the separate "For Your Consideration" post here (on Magnolia677 & ToBeFree) was on what I interpreted as the advice from ToBeFree as it concerned my viewpoint that, as I wasn't the only one engaging in edit warring for the Homer Glen article, I then shouldn't be the only one getting a temporary edit block (and, Magnolia's edit history for the Homer Glen article clearly shows edit warring on his part as well). ToBeFree's response: "You may convince someone else that a block of others is needed of course, and I'd be fine with that too."

So, I am learning how to do things around here as time goes on, and taking those lessons to heart. But, when I believe that moderators/administrators aren't abiding/following the post guidance for Wikipedia guidelines/policies, I will speak up when I feel it appropriate/necessary.

That's even why, when Children Will Listen mentioned 3RR, I even stated that I wouldn't file a report on Magnolia677 based on that, but rather on WP:EDITWAR-ring & WP:DISRUPTIVE editing. Not to mention, when Tony stated their viewpoint, I pointed out the known details of the situation with myself & Magnolia677, as well as what posted guidance for Wikipedia policies & guidelines state as it relates to edit warring.

And, I have even stated that I will accept discipline for the edit warring offense (1 week seems appropriate for a first-time offense, based on the guidance at WP:EDITWAR#Administrator Guidance), as that was a mistake I know I shouldn't have made. As far as the personal attack, considering that, when requested by Magnolia677, I removed it & apologized, admitting I was wrong in doing that, even though Wikipedia policy & guideline implicitly state that, for first-time offenses, it's best to ignore the personal attack. ClarkKentWannabe (talk) 05:39, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Again, Magnolia677 came here instead of reverting further. I personally saw no preventative need for blocking them. Their latest revert was [192], their ANI thread creation was [193], which is later, and there were no more reverts on the article from Magnolia677. Your edits on the other hand were the reason they went to ANI, you were reverted after the ANI was created (possibly in response to the ANI thread) by C.Fred, and you kept reverting and reverting again while the ANI discussion was running.

If anything of this is factually incorrect, please let me know. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:22, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Well, I'd like to make the point that part of your statement, at least from my perspective, is problematic.

In fulfilling their duties, an administrator's responsibility is to execute & uphold the well-established & currently-standing policies & guidelines of Wikipedia to the best of their ability, not to interject their own personal belief, and it is my belief that, if an administrator is unable to keep their personal belief separate from their duties as an administrator, then it is advisable for them to resign as administrator.

And, as far as Magnolia677's actions overall (and why I argue that they should receive an edit block on account of, from the looks of it, repeated edit warring & disruptive editing), every time that Uraveragejoe attempted to restore Wikipedia content related to "Government" in articles for Orland Park, IL & Midlothian, IL (while keeping in line with what WP:USCITIES states about what "Government" information should be present in articles about municipalities), either Magnolia677 or one of the other two editors (Reywas92 or Sbmeirow) would revert such restoration, claiming it violated WikiProject guideline (despite the frontpage for USCITIES stating that USCITIES guideline isn't required to be adhered to in editing). So, if anything, the valid argument could be made that Magnolia677's actions related to the Homer Glen article represent a repeat of edit warring & disruptive editing that started from the Orland Park & Midlothian articles. And, as I've made sure to highlight, when it comes to Wikipedia policy & guideline about dealing with edit warring, specific administrator guidance points out that "Where multiple editors engage in edit wars or breach 3RR, administrators should consider all sides, since perceived unfairness can fuel issues."

So, based off the aforementioned administrator guidance, that is where my claim of your inconsistency in moderation is based (forming what I believe is the foundation for the valid argument/claim of administrator abuse). Again, when it comes to moderation, personal beliefs aren't supposed to factor in; it's solely about executing & upholding Wikipedia policies & guidelines to be best of an administrator's ability. ClarkKentWannabe (talk) 13:20, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

• Comment Being right in a content dispute is not an appropriate justification for edit warring. While I agreed with them on the original content dispute and am not fond of wikiprojects trying to enforce their local consensuses in content disputes with non-members, I don't think there's anything inappropriate with a 2-week pblock for edit warring. Wikipedia has no deadline and the content discussion can be resumed after the block expires or can be taken up by other editors. Ideally when this happens it is without reverting over each other. Simonm223 (talk) 11:16, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

  I respond to that claim in stating that (apparently, from the looks of the community consensus about Magnolia677's stance) intentional misinterpretation of WikiProject guideline is not an appropriate justification for its blatant misuse across Wikipedia in removing article content that has stood for some time, not just in one article, but in several within the same WikiProject.

  Not to mention, the fact that it seems, at least according to my awareness, Magnolia677 never had a problem with Uraveragejoe inserting information about elected municipal officials into the Orland Park & Midlothian articles, but suddenly had a problem with me placing that article content into the Homer Glen article possibly suggests an intentional targeting of myself & the Homer Glen article because of what I placed into the article.

  And, my argument is that, as far as the discipline given to me on account of edit warring, based on posted administrator guidance for edit warring, 2 weeks is a bit of an overreaction, and action being taken against only my account (despite it being more than just me involved in edit warring) goes against known Wikipedia standards.

  Also, the comment about Wikipedia having no deadline and such is irrelevant, as I'm not arguing for a rush to return to a discussion about the content in question. ClarkKentWannabe (talk) 13:46, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

NOTE: the following is to remain at the bottom of this "For Your Consideration" section...
@ToBeFree, TonySt, and Simonm223:, after some consideration, due to so many people's viewpoint on the situation, I am withdrawing my complaint against ToBeFree for administrator abuse (and I will reluctantly deal with the 2 week edit block on Homer Glen, after which time, I would appreciate some help with the discussion about Magnolia677's stance on the WikiProject USCITIES talkpage), but keeping my complaint against Magnolia677 for edit warring and/or disruptive editing (based on the evidence I have provided & launched at the advice of ToBeFree). ClarkKentWannabe (talk) 00:25, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

What is described as "advice" by me a few times above was never meant to be advisory or an encouragement of any action. All I tried to say is "I, personally, as one of 834 administrators, am not convinced that additional blocks are needed to stop the edit war at Homer Glen, Illinois". ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:47, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

My point is that, when it comes to edit warring, as posted & established Wikipedia policy states, *all* participants in an edit war should be dealt with, as perceived unfairness can fuel issues. Nowhere in the policy is it stated that discipline should be applied only to the editor with the most recent "entry" in an edit war.

So, if anything, my concern here is the point of posted & established Wikipedia policy for edit warring not being adhered to. And, much as I stated on your talk page, from my awareness, it is discouraged by Wikipedia for administrators to interject their personal opinion while engaged in their administrative duties. Their responsibility is to execute and uphold Wikipedia policy & guidelines to the best of their ability. ClarkKentWannabe (talk) 02:01, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

You were partially blocked for violating 3RR. The other editor didn't, and therefore, there was no reason to block them.

What personal opinion are you referring to? M.Bitton (talk) 15:53, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Then, would you be so kind as to explain why ToBeFree indicated, not just here, but even on my own talk page, that he placed my account under an edit block for the Homer Glen article for 2 weeks due to edit warring (which I would say Magnolia677 is guilty of as well, at least according to the Homer Glen page's edit history)?

And, to answer your question...

From a statement of ToBeFree's above (and I quote):

"Again, Magnolia677 came here instead of reverting further. I personally saw no preventative need for blocking them." (my emphasis added)

And then, from ToBeFree's own talk page about my (now-withdrawn) complaint against him (and I quote):

"ClarkKentWannabe, you have referred to this as my "advice" multiple times, but the quoted statement "You may convince someone else that a block of others is needed of course, and I'd be fine with that too." isn't meant to be encouragement of doing so; I was only making clear that my personal decision not to take action doesn't prevent other administrators from taking action." (again, my emphasis added).

In fact, after doing some research, it sounds like the combination of several Wikipedia policies/guidelines, more or less, instructs administrators to base the actions they take in the course of their administrative duties on their interpretation of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, while keeping their personal belief/opinion out of the picture (and, I will admit I had help from AI in finding out this information):

	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. tony 22:25, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Neutral point of view (NPOV) - While NPOV is about content, it sets the cultural baseline: administrators are expected to act in ways that promote neutrality and not impose their own views. If an admin’s actions are based on personal beliefs, that undermines neutrality. Wikipedia:Administrators (WP:ADMIN) - Admins are described as trusted users who must exercise their tools with care and good judgment, consistent with community consensus and policy. It explicitly states: Administrators are expected to exercise good judgment and to be aware of and responsive to community consensus. That means actions should be grounded in policy/consensus, not private opinion. Wikipedia:Administrators are not supposed to act as judges (WP:NOTJUDGE) - This page reinforces that admins shouldn’t use the tools to enforce personal standards or beliefs. Their role is to apply policy and consensus, not to impose their own view of “right” or “wrong.” Wikipedia:Use of administrative privileges (WP:ADMINACCT / WP:ADMINABUSE) - Admin actions must be justifiable by reference to policy and consensus. If challenged, “I believed…” or “In my opinion…” is not an acceptable justification. Wikipedia:Consensus (WP:CONSENSUS) - Decisions, including administrative ones, must be based on consensus and policy, not on what one individual believes.

ClarkKentWannabe (talk) 21:59, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Your genius AI hallucinated the existence of a "NOTJUDGE" policy that doesn't exist. I didn't read the rest. Try again using your own words. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:03, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Fair enough on the non-existent NOTJUDGE policy. And, I will admit I was not aware of a Wikipedia policy that prohibited using AI when it comes to content on here. So, I apologize for that misstep.

But, as far as the other points (NPOV, ADMIN, ADMINACCT/ADMINABUSE, & CONSENSUS), explain to me how they collectively don't discourage Wikipedia administrators from basing administrative decisions on personal opinion/belief, rather than on interpretation of Wikipedia policy... ClarkKentWannabe (talk) 22:48, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

I interpret "personally saw no preventative need" and "personal decision not to take action" as "in my judgement as an administrator". Schazjmd (talk) 22:29, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

So then, I'll ask you the same thing I just asked ToBeFree:

With the exception of the non-existent NOTJUDGE policy, explain how the other points (NPOV, ADMIN, ADMINACCT/ADMINABUSE, & CONSENSUS) collectively don't discourage administrators from basing their decisions on personal belief/opinion, rathern an on interpretation of policy. ClarkKentWannabe (talk) 22:52, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

In my judgement as an administrator, you are editing disruptively, and my next step will be a lengthy block, unless you turn things around immediately. (Wikilawyering over the meaning of that statement will be considered as not turning things around.) SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:05, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

To SarekOfVulcan:

OK.

I understand. And, I apologize.

Please close this overall section (Magnolia677's complaint against me & the secondary "For Your Consideration" section that I launched). From here on out, I will focus solely on the USCITIES WikiProject discussion about Magnolia677. I will no longer bother ToBeFree or anyone else that has commented in this overall section. You have my word. I do not wish to cause anymore trouble for myself. ClarkKentWannabe (talk) 23:27, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you and no worries from my side but I'm not 100% sure if describing the guideline discussion as one about a specific user is such a good idea; in my non-administrative subjective discussion participant's opinion focusing on content would be advisable... ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:33, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Responding to ToBeFree's latest comment:

@ToBeFree: Please refer to the discussion I started on your talk page about the dispute between myself & whatever editor that removed the content I posted to the Homer Glen article, so that this overall section can be closed. ClarkKentWannabe (talk) 00:22, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm out of here! :) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:31, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

As is Clark. I just converted the partial block to a full block. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:42, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

my personal decision Would you have preferred them to say that it was the community's decision? M.Bitton (talk) 23:20, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

What kind of nonsense is this? The personal opinion and judgement of an admin is what you'd expect from a human admin, unless you expect all admins to either think and act alike, or make a group decision for everything. M.Bitton (talk) 23:13, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Persistent addition of unsourced information and no communication

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

User will not stop adding unsourced content despite multiple warnings [194][195][196][197][198][199]. They have been explicitly invited to discuss their edits multiple times [200][201][202][203], and have never once responded.

Sampling of unsourced additions and changes: [204][205][206][207][208][209][210]. There are many more.

Suggesting a pblock from articlespace to encourage communication here. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 23:42, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Just noting that this editor had one edit they made today but before that edit, they hadn't been active here on the project since August 2nd. This doesn't negate your complaint against them, which is likely valid, I'm just noting that it doesn't seem like an urgent situation at this moment. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:53, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

The edit they made today [211] reinserts an unsourced figure they added before in July [212] and May [213], each time without adding or changing the current source to support it. I'm at a loss for how to proceed since its clear disruption will continue if something is not done, even if its once a month. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 01:06, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

A list of all unsourced additions and WP:OR for future reference, sequential edits are collapsed into single diffs:

Extended content

• List of equipment of the Albanian Armed Forces – [214][215][216][217][218][219][220][221][222][223][224][225][226]
• Economy of Albania – [227][228][229]
• Albanian Armed Forces – [230][231][232][233][234][235]
• Albanian Naval Force – [236]
• Military Police (Albania) – [237]
• Albanian Air Force – [238][239]
• Albanian Land Forces – [240]
• List of equipment of the Kosovo Security Force – [241][242][243]
• Kosovo Security Force – [244]

fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 21:36, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Blocked from main. They edit too rarely to wait and see if they'll come to ANI. -- asilvering (talk) 04:55, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

User 47.157.133.11 Continual Disruptive Editing After Talk Notice

47.157.133.11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Notice of this report was made here: User talk:47.157.133.11#Administrators' Noticeboard Please Respond. Another editor called this user's behavior to my attention. This user is an experienced editor who has an extensive history of disruptive editing as shown by the user's history here: Special:Contributions/47.157.133.11. As you may see, all user's edits were reverted. The user was warned here: User talk:47.157.133.11#August 2025 Disruptive Editing and here: User talk:47.157.133.11#September 2025 Disruptive Editing. User is chronically and intractably disruptive. Apparently this user is WP:NOTHERE. Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 07:01, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

47.157.133.11 has never made an edit to a Talk page, User talk page or Noticeboard. So, I don't expect them to respond to your warnings or show up here. However, you haven't presented diffs here of any "intractably disruptive" edits they made so I don't know if any admin will take action against them given the incomplete complaint you have posted. You can't just point to an editor's entire Contribution history and label it "an extensive history of disruptive editing", you need to select and present a collection of edits that provide evidence for the claims you are making which you haven't done yet. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:06, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

If it makes any difference, I also pinged the user three times on user's talk page. I would have thought a profuse, consistent, and unbroken list of hundreds of reverts would be enough. Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 02:48, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

I did some of that reverting. Some of this user's edits have been constructive, some have been unconstructive, and some I can't tell what they thought they were trying to accomplish. In any case, they're all mobile edits, so they can't hear anyone's concerns with their editing. I don't think a block is in order yet since this appears to be a good-faith attempt at... something, and not intentional disruption (although at some point they'll have to realize that all their edits have been reverted and start communicating). --Sable232 (talk) 03:25, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

This has been going on consistently starting in early June 2025 for hundreds of reverts, the user all this time has apparently not noticed the consistent reverts, and thought a brief block might wake up the user. Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 04:05, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

p-blocked for a month, in the hopes of forcing them to a talk page. -- asilvering (talk) 05:04, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Personal Attack by IP

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

---

2A00:F41:14E1:299F:B149:9694:52A0:CF4D - The IPs sole edit is a racist personal attack against me. Catlemur (talk) 22:10, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Removed and blocked. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 22:11, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

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

Unmanageable talk page at Talk:Shooting of Charlie Kirk

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

---

• Shooting of Charlie Kirk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I don't know if we need semi-protection or an editnotice or what, but can someone help manage the deluge of new sections about renaming the article to "Assassination of..." when there's already a move discussion underway? It's up to multiple per minute. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 22:04, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

After being listed at WP:RFPP, now semi-protected for one week by @Sennecaster. - Fuzheado | Talk 23:17, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

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

Legal threats at Talk:Charlie Kirk

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

---

At Talk:Charlie_Kirk#Pointing_out_cultural_Marxism_is_not_antisemitic, anonymous user User:216.8.82.237 threatens that certain content should be removed or "get ready for a lawsuit", this is a clear violation of Wikipedia:No legal threats. –DMartin 02:34, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

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

Please block this IP address

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

---

185.84.70.135 keeps making unsourced numerical changes to death tolls on various pages on Wikipedia, edits appear to be vandalism, IP has been warned at AIV but since this is getting more persistent I thought it was time to make an ANI discussion on this, can somebody please block the user. 98.235.155.81 (talk) 21:33, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

I have presented the evidence and you are editing it for no reason 185.84.70.135 (talk) 21:34, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Your edits were vandalism, you are getting reported here for unsourced numerical changes on pages. 98.235.155.81 (talk) 21:43, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Can somebody also revert the edit at Dersim massacre, I don't want to revert it myself as if I do I would've violated the three-revert rule. 98.235.155.81 (talk) 21:52, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Reverting clear vandalism has an exemption from 3RR. Anyways, reverted by user:Kajmer05. Meters (talk) 21:56, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the help, now it's time to clear the discussion as the issue is resolved 98.235.155.81 (talk) 21:58, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

I reverted their edit because they were LTA. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tishreen07 Kajmer05 (talk) 22:02, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

(ec) reported IP blocked as sock. Meters (talk) 22:04, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

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

Long term incivility by user MilesVorkosigan

MilesVorkosigan has less than 2000 edits to their account but appears to have a long term issue with civility. This has directed at myself and a number of other editors. Complaints of incivility have resulted in two ARE this year [245] and [246]

The core problem is not that MV is "wrong" about the direction they are arguing, rather, they include CIVIL violations as well as casting aspersions while disagreeing with other editors. This includes frequent accusations that other editors are lying, claims of prior interactions without evidence and even stating an editor supports sexual assault.

Examples:

• [247] "But you’re lying about that, correct?" and "You decided to pretend that she did because you support sexual assault." After another editor suggested, the latter statement was removed

• [248] "No, I’m sorry if you don’t care that people decide to lie, but I don’t think we should ignore Wikipedia policy and encourage dishonesty"
• [249] "Okay, I guess? I’m sorry that I didn’t agree with lying, I’ll try to be less antagonistic with liars in the future."
• [250] " Why do you support lying?"
• [251] "You just lied about what an author said, in order to protect a sexual abuser. If you were here out of a dispassionate concern for the truth, does it seem likely you’d choose dishonesty?"
• [252] "Okay, I’m going to assume you’re not intending to lie when you claim that your points are being dismissed “without reason”,"

Ironically they do understand that accusing people of lying is personal attack [253]"Please do not falsely accuse someone of lying, that is a personal attack."

02:50 25 Aug they accused me of a vexatious filing at AE [254] "Please stop dishonestly quoting policy as a personal attack. You should have learned this lesson after after your vexatious filing of a report at AE". To the best of my knowledge the first time I interacted with MV was 20 Aug 2025. I certainly did not file any AE reports against them from 20-25 Aug. I noted CIVIL and asked them to abide it. I did not suggest they were specifically making a personal attack at that time. They are casting aspersions on my by falsely claiming I filed an AE against them. They repeated this claim on their talk page.

After I posted a contentious topic notice to their talk page they removed the message with an edit summary casting more aspersions, "latest repetition of harassment and hounding" [255]. Finally a related false claim, [256] "You’ve been asked several times to stop harassing me and the last time you dishonestly reported me to the notice boards everyone there laughed at you." This is the first time I've reported this user.

Yet more uncivil comments

• [257] "Please don't use terms you don't understand, " directed at an editor who noted a false dicotomy.
• [258] "If you feel that the definition of illiberalism isn’t clear enough, you need to go to a dictionary site, not Wikipedia"
• [259] Edit summary: "undoing bad-faith template abuse by anti-trans POV-pusher"

Several editors have tried to raise concerns on MV's talk page

• [260]
• [261]
• [262]
• [263]

Most of these comments would be in the area of AP2 or GENSEX. Regardless of any merit to any edit MV is discussing, this is simply not an acceptable way to interact with other editors and shouldn't be allowed. This is especially true of the wide spread accusations of "lying" across many topic areas. This editor needs to understand that disagreements are fine but they must FOC and maintain CIVIL including not casting aspersions. Springee (talk) 04:01, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Springee, you have certainly compiled a lot of evidence to make your case. Before passing judgment, I'd like to hear MilesVorkosigan's response to this substantial collection of diffs. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:15, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

I'll try to respond more completely tomorrow, but one of those is for something that the editor asked me to retract because I didn't have proof of their internal thoughts, and I struck it out, and they acknowledged that. One is where I said I was assuming someone wasn't lying?

Note that Springee is part of the group of anti-trans editors who filed the frivolous reports against YFNS and MjolnirPants earlier this year, the ones who kept having to be cautioned that their descriptions of diffs should more closely match what the diffs actually said. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 05:34, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Based on the aspersions in the second paragraph here, made by one party to an ongoing ArbCom case against another, I have topic-banned Miles from GENSEX, and 1-way IBANned them from Springee, until the conclusion of the ArbCom case. This sanction should not be taken to prevent Miles from defending themself against the accusations made by Springee above, provided they do so without engaging in further aspersions. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 05:48, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

My only interactions with Springee for the past few months are all the times I've asked them to stop posting on my Talk page and most recently on an article talk page where I asked them to let a neutral editor comment on what I posted. I'm not aware of any way I can interact less with them. Does that mean I can't respond the next time they ignore my requests and post on my Talk? MilesVorkosigan (talk) 17:04, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

I don't intent to appeal the T-Ban, but I would very much find some way to get Springee to stop posting on my talk page or replying to me when I've told them multiple times that I don't want to interact. May I request that the I-BAN be two-way? MilesVorkosigan (talk) 18:29, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Why did you include the third-to-last diff as an example of an editor raising concerns? That from what I can tell is someone thanking them for a cleanup rather than raising concerns about anything. GothicGolem29 (talk) 13:01, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

My apologies, I was thinking of the whole dialog in that link. Hopefully this is better [264]. Note comments like,

• "Please do not be dishonest when you post warning templates"
• ”You are the one refusing to read or take part in the talk page discussion. As you can see, everyone agreed that we couldn't find any problems, and you obstinately refused to communicate or try to work with us to explain what was wrong, and now you're engaging in bad-faith threats because you felt like you were forced to finally answer a simple question.”
• "that still doesn't make up for your poor behavior, lying, and dishonest use of warning templates."

The editor involved is a long term experienced editor. In context I don't think that can be seen as a simple thank you to MV. Springee (talk) 14:28, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

No worries thanks for the clarification. GothicGolem29 (talk) 17:43, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

I believe they may have you mixed up with Sweet6970 & this AE request, I will admit I have myself mixed up the 2 of your names before as I've often seen you 2 editing in the same broad topic areas (though if this is the case, it is still a mistake on their part that they should apologize for)

Regarding [254] - I will link to the talk page for further context, including that of other involved editors.

I will also note that, in regards to the Zak Smith page at least, it has recently been inundated with disruptive & persistent meat-puppets using LLM. This does not excuse incivility, but I understand getting frustrated.

Civility is an issue here that needs to be dealt with, but I'd advice @MilesVorkosigan that, in the future, the best course of action when you think you're arguing against a brick wall or if you're generally getting frustrated with another editor, is to walk away for a bit & take a breather. Editing while angry isn't good for anyone. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 19:17, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

No offence intended to Springee, but I find it surprising that anyone would confuse us, bearing in mind that our Usernames are completely different, and that we mostly edit different articles. And I hope that Butterscotch Beluga is not suggesting that the allegations MV has made against Springee would be true if made about me? Sweet6970 (talk) 20:05, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

I've mixed the 2 of you up before because I'm mildly dyslexic & see both the "S" & "ee". (Also, the only times I've personally crossed either of your paths is in regards to GENSEX articles, so that hasn't helped my misreading) I admit it's a dumb habit of mine when reading quickly, but it's the only thing I could think of to explain why they thought Springee had filed an AE request against them before.

With regards to the allegations themselves, I was only commenting on the allegation of previous reports, not their merit or other remarks. I meant no offence, nor such a suggestion & apologize if it came across as such. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 20:30, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, it didn’t occur to me that the names might look similar to someone with dyslexia. And thank you for the clarification. Sweet6970 (talk) 20:44, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

This is correct, and I do apologize to @Springee for my error here. They may have mentioned this on my talk, but that was after I had asked them to stop posting several times and advised them that I was going to delete any further messages unread when they refused to stop. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 17:09, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

MV, I'm not sure you asked several times but if you were confusing me with another editor that would be understandable. My feeling is if you understand the CIVIL issues with your comments and you agree to follow CIVIL, AGF, FOC (comment on the content, not the editor in particular), and FORUM type comments, I see no reason for any sanctions. The best outcomes from an ANI are ones where an issue is understood and corrected. Some editors seem willing to overlook incivility when directed at editors who are actively earning a block or similar. I don't agree. CIVIL does not make an exception for trolls and the like. It's not that we care about the feelings of trolls, rather, others reading the comments may not understand they are directed at a troll. We don't want new editors thinking such discourse is acceptable. Also, sometimes we might mistake the intent of another editor, incorrectly assuming they are a troll. Finally, until blocked, editors are assumed to be in good standing. For all these reasons we shouldn't assume CIVIL exceptions for those "who deserve it". Springee (talk) 23:40, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

While I think most of these are still not great, I do want to note that over half of them are from this RFC, which as you can see from glancing over it is flooded with SPAs all voting the same way, which appear to have been canvassed from off-wiki. As such, despite those being the most inflammatory comments out of context I'm least convinced by them because I do think there's good reason to believe a bunch of those people were being dishonest.

Other than that I basically agree with Butterscotch Beluga here. Loki (talk) 19:34, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

I agree with Tamzin's actions but I am not sure about having the topic ban only lasting until the Arbcom case. The main issue is that this evidence cannot be presented at the Arbcom case but what we have here clearly merits enforcements. Accusing an editor of supporting sexual assault and accusing a BLP (who is not facing trial nor has been convicted as far as I can tell) of sexual abuse are incredibly serious issues and goes beyond mere incivility. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:02, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

I actually think Tamzin's topic ban was somewhat harsh. The first comment you mention was struck, and the BLP in question was accused of such in the article and statements accusing him of sexual abuse have been found to be true by a court. Loki (talk) 04:20, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

You need to include a citation to support such a claim. BLP applies to ANI too. Traumnovelle (talk) 05:32, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

This is very much a primary source, but here. Loki (talk) 05:47, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

He won the case...? I see nothing that suggests the court found him to have committed sexual abuse. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:29, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

There are a list of statements about him the court evaluates, of which the court finds all of them true but one. Any of them individually (except, funnily enough, the one that was found to be untrue) would be enough to say he committed sexual abuse. Loki (talk) 20:36, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

No it doesn't and thankfully WP:BLPPRIMARY exists to prevent us from over-analysing such a document to reach our own conclusions. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:40, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

I did specifically note it was a primary source, which is why I phrased what I originally said as "statements accusing him of sexual abuse have been found to be true by a court" rather than directly accusing him of committing sexual abuse. Loki (talk) 20:44, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

But that isn't a straightforward reading of the document -- it is an interpretative claim of the source. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:56, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

As I said at the last AE I don't see this as connected to the proposed ArbCom case. This is not a topic regular who's been involved in any of the protracted medical disputes over the last 18 months. Rather, this is a fairly straightforward case of incivility and casting aspersions in a contentious topic, and refusing to moderate or retract that behaviour even after being asked by an admin.

That AE resulted in no action aside from a general reminder to everyone that civility is a requirement of conduct on Wikipedia, which clearly had no effect. Void if removed (talk) 07:35, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

If, as seems possible, the remarks by MV about a supposedly ‘vexatious’ filing of a report at AE are about my report about MV, then I object – there was nothing in the adjudication of that report which said it was vexatious, or ’dishonest’ . The report resulted in MV striking his accusation that I had lied – but it seems he has now accused me of dishonesty again. Sweet6970 (talk) 15:53, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

• Comment Just to echo the statement by Loki, anything to do with the Zac Smith page should be excluded from consideration here as there is actually pretty solid reason to suspect some of those parties are being dishonest when they do things like claim that their questions have not been answered. Repeatedly. WP:PACT is pretty solidly in play there as a result of the extensive meat puppetry I mentioned in the associated thread above. I make no comment about any of the other diffs. Simonm223 (talk) 11:55, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

  Very strong disagree on that. Civility isn't something we can disregard just because we're assuming another party is being dishonest, nor is it something optional when dealing with those who we know are being dishonest. NPA means NPA -- it does not mean "NPA except if you think they're lying." --tony 16:08, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

  AGF is not a suicide pact, if it was there would be no way to say that an account was run by a sockmaster. Saying that someone is lying (as one has to do in order to make a sockpuppet identification) is not always a personal attack, although it very well can be. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:11, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

  +1 Simonm223 (talk) 17:26, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

  Accusing someone of being dishonest is not, in itself, incivil. However, there obviously are incivil ways to go about it. Per your example, if you feel someone is a sockpuppet, the correct place to report that is WP:SPI with evidence. The best course is probably not to ignore that venue and instead repeatedly taunt the user on a talk page. tony 17:28, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

  Crickets.[265][266] Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:31, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

  Exactly. A lot of editors have tried a lot of correct process to deal with this issue, including SPI, but, frankly, the rate of new disruptive obviously coordinated accounts joining the discussion significantly outstrips the rate of removing disruptive obviously coordinated accounts from the page. Simonm223 (talk) 22:54, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

  If an SPI does not result in an editor's desired outcome, that does not give that editor impunity to denigrate. Put simply: insulting or belittling other editors achieves nothing, absolutely and completely regardless of context. I do want to note that I'm speaking in general terms at this point and not specifically of Miles' behavior. --tony 03:23, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

• These issues are not just contained to a single topic area... I wouldn't make it too much about GENSEX when almost all of their participation appears to have issues... Even here at ANI there is a pattern of unfair characterizations of the arguments made by others across a number of unrelated discussions which is either a civility or competence issue. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:07, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
• Comment: The Talk:Zak Smith page is a poor laboratory indeed from which to draw samples for examination. Read the page statistics at Zak Smith and at Talk:Zak Smith. At least 15 different dormant (or lately, newly minted) accounts have participated in this RFC (created by a now blocked and T-banned account), almost entirely to poorly quote policies over and over which don't say quite what they think it says. It seems obvious puppetry (for which Zak Smith was blocked), if only by coordination. Over its twenty year page history the article has drawn new accounts and ip contributions as shite often draws flies, perhaps because Zak has been editing his own page continuously since its fourth edit. Little the sleeper or new accounts say in this RFC may be taken at face value, except perhaps as through the lens of observing a blocked twenty-year wikipedian autobiographer up to the same disruption for which they were blocked. I should add the subject appears to think of themselves as a social gadfly of sorts, and based on the energy expended lately, I believe he's overconfident how this is going to end up. BusterD (talk) 16:45, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

  I don't want to reply individually to all the mentions of the dealing with the meatpuppetry at the Zak Smith article, it would look like bludgeoning. I definitely let myself get frustrated and too-involved. I should have been more civil and honestly, should have posted a lot less. I, unfortunately, was Righting Great Wrongs. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 17:21, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

1. 2 in 'Raised concerns' is... very misleading. That editor kept putting a template on a page and refused to say why. I was one of the editors who removed the tag with the consensus of everyone else on the talk page after we all went over it and determined that the tag didn't apply. The removal was entirely proper.

Note that they eventually said that the changes they wanted made were to have some of the citation links filled out more completely but refused to do it themselves. I ended up doing it for them. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 17:33, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps coincidentally, another longtime wikipedian found themselves unexpectedly at a noticeboard for behaviors this week. Apparently one of the coordinated editors has off-wiki information which they've shared with the Wikimedia Foundation. BusterD (talk) 17:41, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

This is actually the second time such complaints were brought forward. The last time it was Arbcom who were presented with "evidence" (submitted privately by the now blocked Slacker13) and, if I understood the situation correctly, it turned out said evidence consisted of diffs indicating certain editors were participants in wikiprojects related to RPGs or had previously edited articles about RPGs. So, while that editor claims to have off-wiki evidence that they've sent to WMF, I would be surprised if there were any substance to it. And frankly that's the level of antics we've been dealing with on the Zac Smith page. Which is why I'd say it should not be really used to adjudicate any pattern of behaviour anywhere else - the mess there is so singular that @Chetsford, today, withdrew their !vote from the RfC that they drafted because it had gone so far off the rails as to be effectively uncloseable. I'll be honest, I've been somewhat avoiding articles related to Trans rights as, at the moment, it's making me too upset to edit dispassionately. So I will not speak to any of the diffs related to the GENSEX conflict at the core of this complaint at all. But the Zac Smith situation? Yeah, it's just all-around uniquely messy. Simonm223 (talk) 18:22, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

@MilesVorkosigan: You have now apologised to Springee for confusing him with me. This means you are, in fact, accusing me of dishonestly filing a vexatious report at AE, despite the fact that there is nothing in the close of that report to justify your allegations against me. Sweet6970 (talk) 18:49, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

User:JMF and IP 24.50.56.74

User:JMF, on the talk pages of Dollar sign and At sign, has undone several of my edits, and when confronted about it, this user has:

• refused to read the edit summaries and analyse the content of my edits
• demanded I start a talk page when all of my edits were substantively based in due inclusion
• deliberately stalled responses, only responding once I made clear that I intended to either proceed with restoring my edits or reporting said user's behaviour to administration, as well as in what few responses were given were minimal and made zero attempt to address any of the points I made (see Talk:At sign#@ in C++)
• resorted to bad-faith arguments and strawmanning to weaken my arguments in favour of inclusion (claiming that "letters A, B, C, ... can appear in a string" and this trivial information is somehow equivalent to what I am trying to include)
• accused me of soapboxing
• undone my edits, even those that are outside the scope of their complaints (I wrapped all instances of @ in the "programming languages" section in code blocks, which was undone by the user)
• repeatedly tried rule-lawyering and leveling every WP page under the sun to justify that I am somehow wrong, including but not limited to WP:UNDUE (disproven), WP:TRIVIA (content of my edits was not any more trivial than some of the existing points on that list but I digress), WP:DISRUPTIVE (also disproven)
• twisted the words of other users to give the impression that other users who had weighed in on the talk page were against me, when any simple analysis of the content of their responses will show that not only are they not against me, but if anything are against User:JMF's policing and WP:OWN (one user (User:CodeTalker) agreed with me that @ was due for inclusion, while another (User:MwGamera) simply believed that the entire article should be trimmed

Given this overwhelming amount of evidence of misbehaviour from this user, this transcends beyond a mere content dispute and is a report of actually destructive behaviour from this user's actions, and in my judgement I deem it fit to determine said user's behaviour to be destructive. 24.50.56.74 (talk) 20:26, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Hmm. You said, "I don't think I've dealt with a more deliberately obstinate and deceitful warping of my arguments" [267]. You also said "Perhaps you're so full of yourself you can't comprehend " [268]. You said "User:JMF is acting delusional" [269]. Yet, you're not making any personal attacks? You've been engaging in edit warring with at least two other editors. Kudos to you to start a conversation (finally) at Talk:At sign. However, your claim here that there was consensus for your edits is not upheld by the state of the discussion at the time you made the claim [270]. So you've at least thrice engaged in personal attaccks, made a false claim of consensus, and continued edit warring. I sense a WP:BOOMERANG in the air. If you don't get blocked from this, I strongly recommend you stop editing At sign until there really is consensus for the changes you want to make. Carefully read WP:CONSENSUS to understand what that means. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:49, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

How are any of these "personal attacks"? Commentary on someone being obstinate and deceitfully warping my arguments is not a personal attack, neither is saying that someone is being full of themselves or acting delusional. What WOULD be a personal attack is "X user is insane/stupid/delusional", not "X user is acting delusional".

If anything, User:JMF is making false claims of consensus. Did you not read the statement User:CodeTalker gave, So I'd be ok with adding a mention of operator@, making it clear that it's a nonstandard use by IAR (or any other variant for which there are sources), but ditch the rest.? User:JMF is again trying to point fingers at me here (and curiously has still not actually addressed any of my arguments). 24.50.56.74 (talk) 20:59, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

If you are not able to understand that the quotes I made of your postings, provided with diffs, are personal attacks, then there is a serious issue of WP:CIR here. Your personal attacks are aggressively insulting people, rather than content. At no time is there ever a reason to refer to someone or their actions as "delusional", "full of yourself", "obstinate", or "deceitful". There is not going to be any further meta discussion about whether these or any future personal attacks are actually personal attacks. If you descend to using such personal attacks again, you WILL be blocked. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:04, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Fair! Now can we address the claim that "consensus is against my edits" when So I'd be ok with adding a mention of operator@, making it clear that it's a nonstandard use by IAR (or any other variant for which there are sources), but ditch the rest. was commented and the other user gave a general criticism of the page rather than my edits in particular? And what of said user's same accusations of calling me a soap boxer/shill? 24.50.56.74 (talk) 21:08, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Such a discussion is outside the scope of this noticeboard. That is a content issue, not an issue that administrators need to address. However, I will say this; you have the order of operations wrong here. You are seeking to include content. There is no consensus for the content you want to include. We don't operate by putting something on an article and then demanding people get consensus to remove it. The discussion is ongoing at the talk page of the article. Get consensus. If you can't get that consensus, then don't seek to include the content. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:11, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

That isn't what I'm claiming though? I'm claiming that one editor is in support of me including the content while another is critical of the article itself (but not my edit in particular). I've demonstrated time and time again that if anything, I have more consensus than User:JMF, and User:JMF is refusing to acknowledge that. This was one of the opening reasons I started this notice on the noticeboard. 24.50.56.74 (talk) 21:15, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

And this noticeboard is not the place to be trying to untangle content issues. Please see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:21, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

But do not request discussion at DRN while a dispute is still pending in another forum including a conduct forum. I have closed a request at DRN filed by the unregistered editor because there is a dispute in another forum (this forum). Robert McClenon (talk) 19:31, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

So I get asked to move the discussion to the dispute resolution noticeboard because the administrators noticeboard is the incorrect place to resolve the matter, and then when I do I'm suddenly told to return here to resolve it? 24.50.56.74 (talk) 20:06, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Maybe there should be language at the top of this page that reminds filing editors that, once they open a case here, it may address their own conduct. You opened it, but it stays open until the community closes it. You threw the boomerang. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:44, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

What's this obsession with "boomerang" this, "boomerang" that? I opened this page knowing very well what the risks would be. Investigate my behaviour all you please. I have nothing to hide, nor have I self-censored anything I have ever written here. 24.50.56.74 (talk) 13:16, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

There is no such thing as more consensus. There is either consensus, or there is not. Discuss this at the article talk page and establish a solid consensus for the inclusion of the material you want included. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:35, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

I suspect that ANI has rather bigger issues to deal with than this level of trivia. However...

The issue is that the articles dollar sign and At sign are already clogged with trivia and this editor insists that the factoid that these symbols have no function in C/C++ is wp:DUE. That's right. They don't actually do anything.

@MwGamera put it very well when they wrote "this is a laundry list with vague criteria of inclusion that, as usual in such cases, attracts unnecessary cruft slowly turning into a trivia section". Three editors have told 24.50.56.74 that it does not merit inclusion and no-one has offered any support [despite an invitation at talk:dollar sign. It seems to me that this is a simple content dispute and 24.50.56.74 refuses to accept that there is no consensus for the change they want to make. Their nagging and bludgeoning has tried the patience of editors who have tried to negotiate with them. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:55, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

If there is so much "cruft turning the page into a trivia section", then you and User:MwGamera are free to clean up the article and remove all that is trivial there. However, you have done more than that - you have undone my edits which do not even relate to what I am trying to include, and refused to allow me to add what I am seeking to include (the use of @ in the IAR Systems extension, which User:CodeTalker agreed was acceptable), then tried to claim that everyone who weighed in was in agreement with you (which they were not). You don't get to "block" further edits to the article just because they don't align with the direction you want to take the article in. You can get consensus for those changes, and then remove everything once you have reached consensus, but NOT rope in every new edit coming in to the article editing the content you want removed. 24.50.56.74 (talk) 21:05, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

• Oh, that editor, whom I reverted on Method chaining, where they kept inserting unverified material (examples offered without rationale in the text--we don't need more examples) without explanation. They made more unexplained edits, at Command pattern, and later insisted they were self-explanatory. The editor actually flaunts Wikipedia's rules and guidelines, and I see from the conversation here and on Talk:At sign they they do so across other articles they edit--against consensus too. Drmies (talk) 14:27, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Look, I'm not sure what you're trying to insinuate by referring to me with emphasis on "that" (if you're trying to suggest that the four months I've edited I've done nothing but cause trouble), editing the title of the report to add "added to steer the boomerang" (are you trying to "force" a WP:BOOMERANG with that change? in that case why not just plainly call for banning me, or better yet do it yourself) when that adds nothing to the report, or continue claiming I "edit against consensus" (when I have laid out plainly why the consensus favours my edits, and I have STILL not received an explanation how it does not), but I don't particularly appreciate this juxtaposed hostility compared to the message you left on my talk page which had none of that needless hostility. I've explained already on my talk page why I thought my edits were self-explanatory, and explained in the edit summary of method chaining why those examples were added, and gave the citations right after. Frankly it looks like you're trying to harp on every mistake I have made editing, and weaponise it as evidence of "misconduct". I haven't consistently added uncited material, and each edit I made, while in retrospect could have been given a clearer edit summary, have not been destructive nor made with the intention of causing destruction on Wikipedia. None of those pages I edited that you reverted and left a message on my talk page had any conflict of consensus either, so I really have no clue what you mean by "other articles they edit". 24.50.56.74 (talk) 20:16, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
    • "other articles they edit" pointed at other articles besides the At sign articles this started with. And that's what I meant with "that editor"--the editor who I ran into in other articles. I don't really see the need to address your other points; it's pretty obvious that you made numerous unverified and unexplained edits and edit-warred over content. You said on your talk page you would be more careful: good. Drmies (talk) 14:33, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Legal threats, promotional editing, etc.

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

---

Zom00000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Zom00000 is a single-purpose account and has been repeatedly trying to publish an article about a non-notable subject. They have submitted their draft over and over again, and when it finally got rejected, they enlisted the help of a sock/meatpuppet and pretended to be an AfC reviewer to move their draft into mainspace. They have recently made a legal threat here: I will be reporting you to the administration and I will take legal actions if you keep harrassing Zaher Merhi page. Also see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zom00000. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 14:08, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Blocked for the legal threat. 331dot (talk) 14:10, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

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

User talk:Farming E commerce

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

---

• Farming E commerce (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Needs a TPA yoink, continuing to advertise on talk page. Aydoh8^{[what have I done now?]} 07:23, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

I was the original blocking administrator back in July. TPA yoinked. You can read tractor advertisements in the page history, if you dig that kind of stuff. Cullen328 (talk) 07:36, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

@Aydoh8, @Cullen328 I've reblocked as a checkuser action. They're  Confirmed to User:KhetiGaadi Pvt Ltd and User:Rohanghulekg who were both also advertising tractors. The tractor firm has obviously spent some money on SEO. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 07:59, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Something something pun about not gaining traction here. Celjski Grad (talk) 08:06, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Good work, Harry. I kind of like old tractors. I have a 1942 poster for a farm auction. My grandfather, then aged 62, sold his northern Idaho farm. He owned two tractors and also nine horses, including a matched pair of Percherons. Plus a piano and an almost new refrigerator. He went to work for the war industry, which paid better. Cullen328 (talk) 08:14, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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:EncycloSphere adding unsourced, inappropriate AI content after being warned

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

---

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

This user has added a large swath of AI-generated, unsourced, largely promotional edits across articles since July. After being warned multiple times about this, they have only kind of sideways acknowledged it, their responses to being asked whether they use AI being even if some drafting help was used (was it used or not? what specific drafting help?) or When it comes to AI, I see it as another tool, one that isn’t going away and may, in time, become an integral part of how we live and communicate. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t challenge it or shape its use thoughtfully, but I do believe in engaging with it realistically. Well OK then; realistically, edits such as this and this (the most recent two) are poorly sourced, promotional, and just problematic all around.

I've reverted a lot of the recent edits but I am sure I've missed some, and I've left the non-prose edits alone for now. Gnomingstuff (talk) 00:11, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

These are definitely not properly reviewed LLM additions of text, but literal garbage. While the community has unfortunately not formed a consensus to absolutely forbid LLM use, the slop this editor has been creating for the last month is surely not the carefully crafted-and-reviewed LLM-aided output that some have said can be created. I believe a WP:INDEF is necessary, at least until this editor promises to not use LLMs on Wikipedia. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 04:10, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Looks like a User:LosAngeles000! sock? (SI page, EIA) Northern Moonlight 07:16, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

That did cross my mind yeah, but I didn't want to jump to conclusions. Gnomingstuff (talk) 08:05, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

It's definitly a lot of overlap for an account with only 500 or so edits. CU indicates it's likely, so I've blocked them. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 14:24, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

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

Concerns about User:Wasianpower – misuse of deletion processes and conduct

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

---

Hello, I would like to report User:Wasianpower for repeated misuse of reviewer rights and disruptive behavior in deletion processes.

1. Speedy deletion misuse

Instead of tagging articles for improvement (e.g. notability, refimprove), this user often nominates pages directly for deletion.

• Diff – Nomination of Charlie Brumbly for deletion using Page Curation – Page nominated for deletion instead of being tagged for improvement.
• Misuse of Speedy Delation Nomination tag For Abdun Noor Tushar

2. AfD participation

In AfD discussions, this user consistently votes only for deletion without offering constructive reasoning or considering alternatives.

• Diff – Comment in Xefer Rahman AfD – A simple delete vote, while other editors suggested draftification or alternatives.

3. Conduct and interaction issues When I tag pages for deletion or improvement, this user frequently intervenes aggressively, opposing without constructive engagement. Their actions appear combative, focusing primarily on deletion or banning rather than collaboration. This creates unnecessary conflict and discourages editing, particularly for contributors from underrepresented regions (such as Bangladesh, in my case).

4. Policy concerns - WP:AGF (Assume Good Faith) – The user’s pattern of deletion-focused behavior conflicts with assuming good faith in handling articles. - WP:NOTCENSOR / WP:CIVIL – Frequent unilateral deletion attempts without discussion can discourage contribution and may appear censorious. - WP:BATTLEGROUND – The user’s aggressive approach in reviews and AfD increases conflict and may escalate disputes unnecessarily.

Request

I ask administrators to review this conduct. The combination of frequent speedy deletion tagging, one-sided AfD participation, and hostile interaction discourages constructive editing and article improvement. Appropriate action may be needed to ensure a neutral and collaborative editing environment.

Thank you. Kironshikder (talk) 20:44, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

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

Magician Abby and edits to Pennywise

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

---

• Magician Abby (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Pennywise (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hello all,

I nominated Pennywise for GA a while back and noticed that Magician Abby (talk · contribs) has been trying to contribute constructively to the article. Unfortunately, I've come to the conclusion that their edits - while in good faith (as a matter of fact, some of them have been very helpful) - are unconstructive and are creating a significant roadblock to the article's potential acceptance at GAN. As is discussed on their talk page, two nights ago they moved the page to Pennywise the dancing clown against consensus (diff: [271]) which was reverted by Sundayclose, who then posted a message on their talk page. Earlier, they added uncited information (although I personally think it's true, admittedly) in violation of WP:OR (diff: [272]; also see our discussion on Abby's talk page).

I am beginning to question their idea of a reliable source as well, as they once suggested we add citations to Reddit posts by fans of the movies to the article, which would be WP:USERG (see also WP:SOCIALMEDIA).

I can tell that Magician Abby has a genuine desire to help, but may need more guidance than I can give them. As much as I don't want to WP:BITE inexperienced editors, there is a limit to how much we tolerate good-faith mistakes. Editors like this have little to no experience editing Wikipedia and genuinely want to contribute, but they take WP:BOLD to its absolute limit sometimes.

As a sidenote, I know this is not necessarily a huge issue but their command of the English language is... a little shaky. It may be affecting their ability to understand the guidelines on the English Wikipedia (as well as the interactions other users have had with them, including my own) but I'm not sure. It's possible they may be able to better contribute to the Wikipedia in whatever is their native language, in particular WP:TRANSLATEUS.

Let me know what you think. Gommeh 📖/🎮 13:59, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

I think this editor might benefit from WP:ADOPT if they are willing to cooperate. I made this suggestion on their talk page. But if they are unwilling to try remedial efforts and these problem edits continue, for the good of Wikipedia administrative action may be necessary. Sundayclose (talk) 16:04, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice. Magician Abby (talk) 16:52, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

No problem! We're just trying to make sure you're on the right path is all. And if you have any questions about how to contribute constructively, feel free to ask. Gommeh 📖/🎮 16:57, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

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

Block evasion of Seoulburner/MysticWanderer81

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

---

• Nootjonah (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and AW1234444 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Those two editors appear to be sockpuppets of Seoulburner/MysticWanderer81 because they all share the same IP range 2603:7081:5000:54F3:0:0:0:0/64. Both Nootjonah and W1234444 have recently been editing the Cro-Mags and Harley Flanagan articles by copy and pasting the same information without providing a reliable source. I'm thinking both articles should be protected or those two new editors (or maybe their IP range) should be blocked. UndergroundMan3000 (talk) 13:53, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

They just created another account called Undergroundman3001. UndergroundMan3000 (talk) 13:53, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Block evasion is sockpuppetry, and thus should be reported at WP:SPI. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:52, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

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

Partially-blocked IP making troll 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.

---

Special:Contributions/2A04:4A43:872F:F892:A906:FB12:B9A:2555 has made [273][274] several vandalism edits threatening violence upon various politicians. The IP range Special:Contributions/2A04:4A43:8700:0:0:0:0:0/40 is already partially blocked, but vandalism persists — any chance the block could be expanded?  abasteraster ✮ t c  13:06, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

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

Can someone do a rollback?

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

---

83.111.78.194 is vandalizing Irish grammar faster than i can revert it, but i dont have rollback rights nor twinkle (which is only availible to autoconfirmed, which i dont have yet), so please, BUT PLEASE! ^(talk) Chunginton _(contribs) 10:09, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

I've reverted. Just so you're aware, you can go into the edit history, click on a previous version before vandalism, click 'edit', and then click save. That'll restore the prior version without having to undo each individual edit. — Czello ^(music) 10:13, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice! ^(talk) Chunginton _(contribs) 10:15, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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:Titus pullo, hoaxer

The following discussion is closed. 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 started Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michel Lunarca yesterday as a possible external hoax, but a certain internal "embellishments" hoax by User:Titus pullo, who took the few claims made by sources and added tons of fake details and images of their own making.

At 15.11 yesterday, I added this proof of hoaxing, i.e. a supposed newspaper clipping with a non-existent date on it. Half an hour later, they uploaded a new version at Commons, with a "corrected" date.

I don't think we (and frwiki, where they did the same a few years ago already[275]) need editors who deliberately insert false claims with false sources, and continue to falsify the sources even when caught. Fram (talk) 10:03, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Image is clearly manipulated or generated upon visual examination. This is a form of editorial dishonesty. Clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. Given that their actions spread across three projects, a global block would be more appropriate. – robertsky (talk) 10:21, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Oh, and if there are any French-speaking admins (or editors) here, I have two related questions:

• I can find no evidence that "Lunarca" exists as a surname. It looks to me like some verlan of "le canard", the hoax. If so, perhaps some French magazine or newspaper would be interested in covering this 10-year old and quite widespread hoax? It has made it into many, many books since its first appearance in 2015...[276]
• The same fake information and fake images have been on frwiki for three years. They might be interested in our decision on both the article and the editor involved, so anyone wanting to raise the issue there is welcome to do so of course! Fram (talk) 12:25, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Never mind contacting French newspapers or magazines, I have contacted Libération, perhaps they will be interested (not in the Wikipedia hoax, but in the more widespread one). Would be nice to get this ball rolling... Might even end in a new article on Lunarca, not as the inventor of the croque but as a significant hoax :-) Fram (talk) 12:40, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

The newspaper clipping was created using this tool. Someone should contact the frwiki admins or nominate the article for deletion there. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 12:34, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

User indeffed, page deleted. Ha ha very funny. —Kusma (talk) 13:15, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

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

User_talk:Alierenerdal

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

---

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

OK, it is time that someone else is taking over: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Alierenerdal&diff=prev&oldid=1310383446. Calling this a personal attack is an understatement. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:35, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

TPA revoked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:45, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

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

TPA - User Labuja1

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

---

Could someone please revoke TPA for Labuja1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? randomdude121    01:40, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

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

Harold9595959

Harold9595959 (talk · contribs) - previously discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1197#Harold9595959, a user with a long history (including a block) for unsourced additions to BLPs, where this user narrowly avoided sanction by saying that they would not do it again. Except, that was a lie and they continue to add unsourced content to BLP. Can we finally get a long block? GiantSnowman 20:12, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

I have also recently reverted their edit adding erroneous information at Sycamore gap tree. Appears to be WP:NOTHERE. Polyamorph (talk) 19:47, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Being followed by anon user, probable sockpuppet

Background: I was recently in a disagreement with User:Deansmith750 regarding edits to improve the tone of Hal Prewitt, as well as the placement of maintenance tags.[277] Some issues were discussed on the talk page both recently and in 2015, where Deansmith showed signs of ownership and resistance to other editors' input, as well as disclosing a personal connection with the article subject but insisting it was not a conflict of interest. The majority of this user's edits have been to the article in question.

However, the main reason to bring this to ANI is that anonymous IP User:12.235.52.14 reverted (diff) my (and one other editor's) most recent changes to Hal Prewitt, and then the same anon IP reverted my most recent edits to a number of articles I created, as listed on my user page (Charles Warrell, David Barlow (biologist), Zafar Sareshwala, List of people from the London Borough of Bexley, Fries Cotton Mill) or added inappropriate tags (The Apollinaires, Joyce Martin Dixon, Henry Ambrose Hunt, Helena Válková, Frances Badger, Ernest Greenwood (artist)). Based on the similar tone to Deansmith750 and a similar fixation on maintenance tags, I don't believe I am unjustified in assuming this is Deansmith750 using an anon IP sockpuppet. If so, this anon IP targeting articles that I created is a clear case of wikihounding. Thanks! Jdcooper (talk) 20:04, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Not going to comment on the validity of the case, but Wikipedia:Sockpuppet Investigations is a thing; why haven't you started a case? — Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 22:16, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

I also agree it's Deansmith750 LOUTSOCKing, one of their edit summaries literally says Page creator has added this to many of the articles they edited [278]. If you compare this wall of text with some of the IP's edit summaries, you are able to find more similarities, such as published (facts/details), and improv[ing] the article. CUs can't compare accounts to IP addresses per policy, so I'm not sure if an SPI would help. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 22:45, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

And its more than likely stale 37.186.35.134 (talk) 03:55, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

The account has edited recently, so it isn't stale. Also, why are you using proxies to reply on ANI? Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 04:04, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

off topic? ugh I tried to turn off my 'proxy' (Apple iCloud Private Relay) and it did work... but it somehow kicked me into a damn proxy despite turning AiPR off! 37.186.35.134 (talk) 16:13, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi, sorry if it's the wrong place, I didn't know about the sockpuppet investigations page. Most of my edits are background stuff and I don't get into the disputes side of WP very often. Should I move this conversation there? Jdcooper (talk) 09:36, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

This was not in the wrong place - it's perfectly fine to report someone who is WP:HOUNDING you at ANI. I've blocked the IP. -- asilvering (talk) 00:57, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

SchroCat

I'm requesting assistance in dealing with user SchroCat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The following is a summary of the events as I have witnessed them (I have not looked at discussions that took place outside this article; see below):

Background

• Mitch Ames edited the page Saint Valentine's Day Massacre to clarify a link, to remove the pipe from 2 links in the "See also" section.
• SchroCat added the pipe back for the first of the 2 links, so Mitch Ames clarified that same link using {{slink}} instead of the pipe.
• SchroCat reverted the edit per WP:EASTEREGG, so Mitch Ames modified the link and added a note about the page, citing WP:EASTEREGG and MOS:SEEALSO.
• SchroCat reverted the edit, only saying Maybe the talk page would be the best place to stop the edit warring?

Talk page

• Mitch Ames started a thread at § See also - List of organized crime killings in Illinois, arguing in favour of their version and the discussion started.
• In the discussion, SchroCat kept WP:STONEWALLing Ames, only citing WP:STATUSQUO in their replies (even though the SQ wasn't being changed during the discussion), while Mitch Ames, provided excerpts from different policies and guidelines.
• I then replied in support of Mitch Ames's version and pointed out that SchroCat was still stonewalling.

Archiving shenanigans

• 6 minutes after my reply, SchroCat manually archived all discussions, including § See also - List of organized crime killings in Illinois, only saying they were "following current practice".
• I reverted their edits with the edit summary Talk pages shouldn't be blanked, and archiving an [ongoing] discussion in which you're involved in isn't going to accomplish anything. [...] "Current practice" isn't documented anywhere.
• Since there seemed to be consensus (based on policy) to implement the change, and given that the opposing party had archived the discussion, I restored the edit to the article and commented about SchroCat's behaviour.
• SchroCat then deleted every discussion on the page without archiving them deleted all discussions except for the newest one, and archived them 2 hours later. (edited 13:53, 2 September 2025 (UTC))
• SchroCat accused me of "edit [warring] on a featured article" and of "supervot[ing] to [my] personal preference". They also reverted my edit to the article, against the apparent consensus on the talk page.

Other notes

• 2 out of the 3 discussions that SchroCat deleted from the talk page without archiving them archived from the talk page (edited 13:53, 2 September 2025 (UTC)) had been created by other editors after a similar request from SchroCat in their edit summaries. For example, in § Revert re: Use of CURRENTYEAR in the main namespace, Graham87 pointed to policies and guidelines supporting their change while SchroCat cursed at them:
  • Again, there’s nothing against using these in mainspace. If you think there is, please link to the policy or guideline that says it’s inappropriate. If you can’t, then we’re done here. After Graham87 found the guideline, they replied:
  • Fuck me you like edit warring, don’t you. [...] your overly aggressive approach and ongoing edit warring really is sub-standard.. The discussion ended with Graham87 saying Re this edit: I don't get it at all ... but I'll accept it and leave it alone.
• I have not looked at discussions that took place outside of Saint Valentine's Day Massacre's talk page; there are many other discussions about SchroCat at WP:AN/I: (archives search).
• From their block log, SchroCat has been blocked of 11 times. I haven't investigated further; some of the blocks have been removed ahead of time:
  • For edit warring: 6 times, latest on June 2025. (Longest: 48h)
  • For personal attacks or incivility: 3 times, latest on June 2025. (Longest: 72h)

I do not think that yet another block that only lasts a couple of days or even a few weeks would be enough for this user given these circumstances. FaviFake (talk) 12:59, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Note: SchroCat has now archived the previous 3 discussions on the article's talk page; some links in this post may not work correctly. FaviFake (talk) 13:15, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

They even reverted the ANI notice, see [279] and [280] Fabvill (Talk to me!) 13:16, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes, they are allowed to do that, so don't frame it as some sort of "bad" thing. ^EF⁵ 13:20, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Deleting the ANI notice from their own user talk page is fine, but I don't think it was appropriate to delete it from Talk:Saint Valentine's Day Massacre § See also - List of organized crime killings in Illinois, so I've restored it. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:36, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

The removal was a mistake of mine (it was caught up in the archiving of earlier threads.) However, I do think it inappropriate to post ANI messages into article talk pages. - SchroCat (talk) 13:50, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

No it's not inappropriate to post neutrally worded messages, about ANI discussions in article talk pages, about issues which concern said article. WP:APPNOTE specifically states this is acceptable. TarnishedPath^talk 02:01, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

• It's a straight lie to say I have deleted threads without archiving them, as looking on the relevant archive page will show. I initially used a script to archive the threads, so they were automatically archived. The bottom three threads of the archive are all dead in that the matters discussed have been settled, so there is no need for them on the talk page any more.
  I'm really not sure why the mud-raking of my history - it smacks of desperation and very poor form.
  I stand by reverting FaviFake's edit warring: there is a discussion without a conclusion and without a consensus. There was no need for them to force their own supervote on the article while the discussion was underway: that's just poor form. Aside from that, it seems I'm being castigated for using a naughty word (in exasperation over someone edit warring), but that seems a little ridiculous, even for ANI. And yes, as EF5 points out, I am allowed to remove most things from my talk page, including ANI notices. - SchroCat (talk) 13:32, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

  It's a straight lie to say I have deleted threads without archiving them

  They had not been archived at the time I drafted this message; I failed to check again before publishing it, I apologise. It appears you removed them on 10:58, 2 September 2025, but only pasted them in the archive about 2 hours later at 13:17, 2 September 2025. While they hadn't been archived immediately, it seems this was unintentional and was done in good faith. I have struck these statements from my original message.

  There was no need for them to force their own supervote on the article while the discussion was underway

  As I explained, I only edited the article following the consensus because the discussion was archived by you. A discussion cannot be "underway" if it is archived. FaviFake (talk) 13:46, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) In terms of the original thread on the article talk page: there is no consensus in the discussion at present. What you describe as "stonewalling" (something that only reaches the level of an essay), others will see as someone expressing an opinion. It's a discussion, for goodness sake: two people are disagreeing over something. Just because one person can't get their own way doesn't mean the other person is "stonewalling" any more than it means the first person is being disruptive in continued pushing. It's concerning that someone saw a thread in which two people agree with the status quo and one person is requesting a change that someone thought you could come along and use a supervote to force a change. Why would anyone do that? Why would someone not just join the discussion, rather than edit war? - SchroCat (talk) 14:05, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

  Why would someone not just join the discussion?

  Because you archived the discussions 6 minutes after I posted a comment. FaviFake (talk) 14:14, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

  That's a staggeringly disingenuous answer. The thread was not archived at the point you decided to supervote. Why did you do that, rather than just discuss, as you should have done? - SchroCat (talk) 14:22, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

I have looked at the edits leading to this. It started over a change to the format of a See Also link at the bottom of a recently promoted Featured Article. This lead to a disagreement that was rightly continued on the Talk Page. Rather than engaging in this discussion User:FaviFake starts an edit war [281]. After being reverted by User:SchroCat, which was not a good idea, FaviFake starts this thread at ANI, which includes erroneous accusations of deleted discussions and throws in the irrelevant block record of SchroCat. In my view FaviFake has been disruptive and should receive a warning and SchroCat reminded of WP:3RR. Graham Beards (talk) 14:13, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

• Comment Making no assertions about the underlying content dispute what I see at article talk is definitely not anything resembling consensus with four invloved editors, two of whom are for the change and two of whom are against the change. Nobody on either side has presented particularly compelling policy reasons but, when consensus has not emerged, WP:STATUSQUO and WP:BRD both suggest retaining the old text is probably the wise choice until a consensus emerges. I would suggest, rather than either over-rigorous archiving or over-eager AN/I submissions, that the parties consider some other form of dispute resolution. As there are four parties already WP:3O is probably out but you guys could go to WP:DR or start an RfC about it. Simonm223 (talk) 14:16, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

• Rather than engaging in this discussion FaviFake starts an edit war

  It would've been hard to engage in a discussion that was archived. You may have missed this part of my post:
  I replied in support of Mitch Ames's version and pointed out that SchroCat was still stonewalling.
  6 minutes after I replied, SchroCat manually archived the discussion.
  Since to me there seemed to be consensus based on policy to implement the change, given that I and Mitch Ames were the only partecipants backing our claims with policy and that the opposing editor had archived the discussion, I restored the edit to the article and commented about SchroCat's behaviour. FaviFake (talk) 14:21, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

  Stonewalling is an essay. Expressing a counter argument is not forbidden. There was no consensus and your action was sub-par. - SchroCat (talk) 14:25, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

  Expressing a counter argument is not forbidden — Agreed. I have repeatedly asked you to express a counter argument (other than "does not need to change"), but you seem not to have. Details and discussion at Talk:Saint Valentine's Day Massacre § See also - List of organized crime killings in Illinois Mitch Ames (talk) 14:12, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

  That is a lie. I have given a clear explanation. The most recent examples are at here and here. You may keep repeating that I haven't given a reason, but it's untrue, I'm afraid. I reject your falsehoods, and the fact you decided to use that falsehood as a reason to drop into incivility on the talk page. - SchroCat (talk) 14:20, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

  That is a lie — It is not a lie, it is a misunderstanding. You posted your first explanation (a week after I first asked, 6 days after my most recent explicit request) at 13:41 (UTC), apparently responding directly to the part of my post comparing redirects to piped links (which "does not affect the reader experience") – that sentence is not about {{section link}}s, the primary disputed proposal – which is why I did not read your 13:41 post as a reason not to use {{section link}}s. (See my 14:04 post where I explicitly stated my presumption that we were talking about piped links vs redirects, not {{section link}}. Had you quoted me about {{section link}}s, your post would have been clearer.) Your clarification was posted at 14:10, by which time I was already typing my 14:12 statement at AN/I so I did not see your 14:10 post. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:40, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

• I remember six years ago complaining at ANI, AE, and/or ARCA (I forget the details) of the use of one-click archive to shut down discussion. As I recall, that led to a vanishing. Then editing as an IP. Then a return. Please tell me this time it isn't about infoboxes at least? Levivich (talk) 16:54, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

  @Levivich, welp.[282] Nemov (talk) 17:21, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

  This archival and the others are clearly problematic. I think Schrocat should avoid archiving and leave it to other users and bots. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:24, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Broader problems with FaviFake's editing

The filing of this ANI request is yet another example of a longstanding problem: FaviFake, more generally, has been acting like a bull in a China shop, both in needlessly stirring up old trouble that would otherwise have died and in causing new trouble of their own (often through insufficient care in editing). Their talk page history is a litany of warnings, which they repeatedly blank (allowed per WP:OWNTALK but tends to mask the problem). Example, Example, Example, Example, Example, Example, all in the last two weeks. How many "formal warnings" does one get before something is actually done? * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:52, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Those aren't warnings, formal or otherwise. Levivich (talk) 22:03, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

The one from SFR definitely came off as a warning. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:10, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Not to me it didn't, but even if it was, that's one out of six? I read all those (waste of my time in retrospect) and came out of it with a very positive impression of how FaviFake responded to the concerns raised. I'd give them a barnstar for it; I wish all editors responded so well. Meanwhile, "acting like a bull in a China shop, both in needlessly stirring up old trouble that would otherwise have died and in causing new trouble of their own," is exactly how I'd describe Pppery's post here. Levivich (talk) 22:25, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

That's because you haven't seen the situation as it really is. I have been (almost) missing in action but have been unable to avoid seeing the bull-in-a-China-shop stuff due to pages on my watchlist. Johnuniq (talk) 06:05, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

That of User:ScottishFinnishRadish was obviously a warning. But perhaps "has received repeated negative criticism of their behavior" is a better descriptor of Pppery's links. In plain English, just because they managed to avoid receving a message that states "This Is A Warning", it can hardly be said to be a litany of praise. I'd add, that for someone who clears their talk page do frequently, they're happy enough landing walls of text elsewhere. Their report above, for example. —Fortuna, imperatrix 09:27, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

It's editors telling the person to slow down to not be disruptive. Competence is required and I do not see the user performing such a thing. I see they have apologized for smaller actions but the edits to the Wikipedia namespace do have a bigger effect to the Wikipedia community. – The Grid (talk) 12:35, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Lets try and solve this time sink editor - noone has the time to hold their hand every other day or every 5th edit. Perhaps implement WP:TALKFIRST when related to policies and guidelines. Moxy🍁 13:28, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

@Moxy: Yet it continues. Sigh. —Fortuna, imperatrix 13:32, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

I am not sure they realized how many of their edits require correction from others - as most try to fix the problems themselves over reverting. Moxy🍁 14:39, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

A temporary block to the Wikipedia namespace is perhaps the best way to go about at this. – The Grid (talk) 15:39, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

As Long as they can make talk page requests - i really belive they are editing in good faith - and love the enthusiasm. I think the concers is what they may see as little changes that may have wider implications - be it accessibility concerns or simply If it ain't broke, don't fix it.....why because old timers/stewarts of protocols/info pages like stability and or concensus for changes even if its simply a chnage like shortcut - may not be riight to be like that but that is what they are facing. (sorry for typos on my phone no glasses) Moxy🍁 16:17, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Oppose any kind of block, or even a warning. Let's go through Pppery's examples of alleged disruption one by one, then:

• Example 1 - Complaint that two mergers shouldn't have been merged. Big deal. Polite response from Favi, and AFAIK, no edit warring, no repeated bad mergers.
• Example 2 - Complaint about too many edits to a single template. The response: "I'll definitely be more careful in the future and use sandboxes for non-minor edits..." There is no wrongdoing here. People make edits, they make mistakes, they get reverted, this is a normal part of the editing process. Of their last 500 Template-space edits, 55 were reverted. That's ~10% reversion. A bit high but not for a newbie, and ~90% are good edits. There is no disruption here.
• Example 3 - "Please do not go through every single shortcut box on Wikipedia to reduce them down to the one or two most commonly used ones." Actually, I think they should do that. This is great work. There is a serious problem on Wikipedia of having 3 frickin shortcuts in the shorcut box on every page. I, myself, have gone through and reduced the number of shortcuts in those shortcut boxes. (It's a fool's errand, as they are inevitably replaced.) And @Moxy, "because old timers/stewarts of protocols/info pages like stability and or concensus for changes even if its simply a chnage like shortcut" is not a valid reason to prevent changes. We should not have "stewards" of policy pages, that's not an FA, it's just OWNership. There is nothing wrong with someone removing excess shortcuts from shortcut boxes. The fact that someone complained about it doesn't mean it's disruptive. That was Aug 25. Here are 500 Wikipedia-space edits up to Aug 25 - 43 were reverted. Less than 10%. No problems there, no serious disruption there.
• Example 4 - A complaint that Favi deletes messages off his user talk page. F that, that is not against the rules, it is allowed, it is widespread, I do it myself. Not disruptive, not a policy violation, in fact, not something that anyone should be asking of anyone else. It's not anyone else's business whether an editor deletes messages off their own UTP or uses one of the archive bots. I can't believe this was included in the list of so-called "warnings." This is the one that made me get involved in this thread, BTW.
• Example 5 - The so-called warning from SFR, "Stop going around to different policies, guidelines, and essays to push your preferred version of shortcuts. It's disruptive." Yeah, I don't think so. Changing "RFA" to "RfA" is not disruptive. That was August 12; here are Favi's last 500 Wikipedia-space edits up to Aug 12 -- 49 reverted. Still under 10%. I don't believe there is any kind of widespread disruption because somebody changed "RFA" to "RfA" and somebody else doesn't like it.
• Example 6 - "Please stop making major changes to project space pages without knowing their history or the impact your edits might have. This is the second time I’ve had to revert your changes on these pages." The second time!!! OMG, better call arbcom, somebody had to revert twice! That was also Aug 12. Still less than 10% reversion.

And we're talking about a block for this? Because somebody had less than 10% of their edits reverted? What the heck happened to Wikipedia? Guess what -- making edits that other people disagree with isn't disruptive, it's part of the damn process of building an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Levivich (talk) 16:52, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

or even a warning - simply out of touch with the community concerns about Wikipedia space edits. O well. Moxy🍁 17:15, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Vocally out of touch, and always have been. Levivich (talk) 17:21, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Levivch, are you serious? An editor out of nowhere going through the top policy and guidelines pages doesn't warrant some insight? – The Grid (talk) 17:24, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Not when they're changing "RFA" to "RfA". Are they rewriting policies? I'm going off the examples cited by Pppery. If there is some other problem that isn't contained in these examples, then let's see the diffs. Levivich (talk) 17:26, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

And what does "out of nowhere" mean? Where should they be out of? Levivich (talk) 17:27, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Your basic by the numbers analysis (not editor corrections) is ther type of thing that will lead down a path of being banned outright. They should try and address the concerns rasised by many many many editors before there is a Wikipedia:Tag team effect and they quite or get banned. Moxy🍁 17:35, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

As the editor who started the "Example 3" discussion, I agree with Levivich that FaviFake has been trying to improve the encyclopedia in good faith, even if they have made some mistakes (which they were open to discussion about and took the feedback offered).

When I started that particular discussion, I was originally under the (incorrect) impression that FaviFake was intentionally singling out shortcut boxes, so I pointed this out and asked them to stop. They responded civilly and clarified that they were just improving the boxes on pages they came across (to be clear, I wasn't specifically hunting for pages that have long shortcut boxes, I just edited those I happened to be on.) It turns out the real issue was that there are often clashing opinions on how many shortcuts should be in a box (since WP:LINKBOXES is not very precise in that regard). The discussion about shortcut boxes at Wikipedia talk:Twinkle#Template-protected edit request on 23 August 2025 (which prompted me to post on FaviFake's talk page in the first place) was restarted and ultimately discarded due to a perceived lack of importance. Another discussion at Wikipedia talk:Policies and guidelines#Shortcuts (2) was resolved with no major issues.

I would still recommend that FaviFake try to focus a bit more on improving articles in mainspace (which is advice I should definitely take myself). SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 20:18, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Weird closure

The closure by User:Fortuna imperatrix mundi states "The consensus is that, fundamentally, we have a content dispute. However, per impartial, seasoned commentators:[...]" but as far as I see, only one impartial commentator has commented, which is not sufficient to discern a consensus or to close "per [...] commentators". It may well be that other commentators would have agreed, but only then would we have such a consensus and multiple commentators, not now. Fram (talk) 09:06, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Probably for his own good. —Fortuna, imperatrix 09:12, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

That's not really a reply to my comments. Without better explanation I'll just reopen the discussion I guess? We shouldn't let incorrect closing statements stand, no matter the intention. Fram (talk) 10:49, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

More importantly IMO is not encouraging unnecessary drama, in this case pile-ons or boomerangs. Subsequent discussion suggests that an informal warning, suggested by one admin, was for the best, as more have since commented critically. I didn't know, then, about these other ... issues that have come to light; as I told FaviFake, assuming he was a generally drama-free editor (which may still be the case), a lighter touch could be applied. Of course, I then got another wall of text (cf. above)—sealioning?—in response and indeed I was tempted to reopen the discussion and add my own by-then critical voice. I suppose it was an IAR close to avoid drama, but as is so often the way of these things, someone needs to recognise when they've been done a good turn. Unfortunately, I don't think that's the case, and the drama has increased. —Fortuna, imperatrix 11:05, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

In any case, I have undone my close, and support a formal warning for FaviFake based on their ignoring the advice/criticisms of multiple experienced editors, as epitomised by their behavior on Talk:Saint Valentine's Day Massacre and this ANI filing. Ppperry's comment that FF is often acting like a bull in a China shop, both in needlessly stirring up old trouble that would otherwise have died and in causing new trouble of their own sums it up precisely. —Fortuna, imperatrix 11:12, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for reopening. Disappointed that you haven't addressed your false claims in your closure, and that you removed the subheading critical of your closure. IAR does not give people the right to make up stuff they would like to be true. Fram (talk) 11:16, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

It does give me the right to attempt to reduce temperature, and I have no idea why you would be currently averse to that. It's not as if you were a dramamonger yourself. Cheers! —Fortuna, imperatrix 11:28, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Not by lying in your closing statement. No idea why you seem to insist that this was acceptable. Fram (talk) 11:31, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Please desist from attempting to increase, rather than temperature, and may I recommend mayo on your nothingburger? Cheers, —Fortuna, imperatrix 11:49, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Can some other editors please chime in here? Is it really acceptable what Fortuna imperatrix mundi did here and should we just shrug when seeing it, or is this, including their responses, more of a "don't do this again or you'll get blocked or topic banned" type of behaviour? Fram (talk) 12:26, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Some more eyes on an increasingly bizarre thread which started as a WP:close challenge, saw the said close undone, but continued to descend into accusations of lying and ABF? (It's literally the definition of assuming bad faith: you had an opportunity to assume I was trying to help, but you immediately defaulted to the position that I must have been intending to deceive. Really? I'm sorry if you feel mocked, but I can't see how you can expect an empathetic response to your claims.) —Fortuna, imperatrix 12:38, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Just reread the discussion right above. I did not "immediately defaulted to the position that [you] must have been intending to deceive", I gave you repeatedly the opportunity to explain why your close didn't match reality, but you didn't make any effort to explain this. Only then did I conclude that it wasn't some innocent mistake but a deliberate lie. After which you became all indignant and indeed mocking. "Trying to help" is not an excuse to just make up stuff and post false claims in a closing statement. If it was a mistake, it would have been trivial to state "oops, misread this, there indeed was only one such commenter so far", but instead you used the tired combination of attacking the messenger, deflecting the question, and acting hurt. Very, very poor behaviour. Fram (talk) 12:54, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

The intentions were good, the execution was... Meh... Fortuna should probably have been more careful with his words when closing the discussion, so as not to give the impression that there was a consensus where there was none, but the most appropriate remedy here was simply reverting the close with a request to be more careful in the future, in my opinion. The close has been reverted by Fortuna and I hope he will take this criticism onboard. That said, this discussion is starting to generate more heat than light and, so, should probably be closed... —  Salvio ^giuliano 12:45, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict)s. Fram, I hope you'll take this as helpful - in the past I have in some cases gone out of my way to support you and in others been vehemently opposed to what you have said. In this case I see you both as being a little wrong. You have said why Fortuna imperatrix mundi is wrong, and I think you are making far too big a deal of things. Wikipedia works on pragmatism above many other things, and, if the right result is achieved for the wrong reasons, it is usually better just to leave things be. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:51, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm rather disappointed in this. I'll try to remember it in the future though, no need to be truthful if my intentions are good. I thought we were better than this. Fram (talk) 12:56, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

It's not really acceptable to call other contributors "liars" unless you have a good reason to suspect bad faith. Deb (talk) 13:02, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks @Salvio giuliano and Phil Bridger: I accept both of your advice willingly, SG sums it up neatly, while PB summarises the actualité of Wikipedia today. (Feel free to close this either of you, as parting shots aren't my thing.) Cheers, —Fortuna, imperatrix 13:04, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Then block me. Would be the icing on the cake. He deliberately made false claims to produce an IAR closure. Deliberately making false claims = lying. Or is there anything, anything at all, in the above discussion, that makes you think that Fortuna made what he thought was a truthful statement when closing? If so, then why would they invoke IAR and why wouldn't they just say "oops"? So yes, I 100% see them as liar, and if that makes me blockable, be my guest. Fram (talk) 13:16, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

No? What a surprise. Fram (talk) 16:27, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

L'État, c'est pas toi —Fortuna, imperatrix 20:43, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

• This seems like an overreaction. The ANI filing, the archiving of ongoing talk page discussions, and the rapid closure of ANI threads all feel premature. The archiving of ongoing discussions, in particular, needs to stop. It has apparently been an issue in the past (per: Levivich) and continues to be one. It would be better to let conversations run their course. Nemov (talk) 17:27, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

  +1 to this. This thread has veered significantly off topic into a separate dispute about the early closure of the complaint. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 20:22, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

  Agreed. And frankly it is such an absolute no-brainer that it is inappropriate (and unambiguously WP:disruptive) to archive an ongoing discussion that one is involved with, that, if there is even a shred of truth in the description above about their doing repeatedly in the immediate conflict, SchroCat needs an editing restriction forbidding them from closing/archiving community discussions under any circumstances. From the above discussion, it seems like this situation is both a tempest in a teapot that needn't have escalated as it did at several junctures, as well as a situation in which there is blame to go around. But this particular behaviour is specially unacceptable and whatever steps necessary to stop it should be implemented. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 08:50, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

  The example I gave above was from a month ago, in a different content dispute from August 8th (a contentious topic BTW).[283] I'm not familiar with the case Levivich mentioned in the past. Nemov (talk) 13:07, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

  Schrocat archived the entire talkpage literally six minutes after the most recent edit (and if we're generous we'll give nine minutes given the six minute edit was an edit), before edit warring this archiving and quite unbelievably referring to the threads as "dead threads". If this ANI filing is an overreaction, then what is an editor supposed to do when someone else is literally edit warring to get rid of their talkpage contributions minutes after those contributions are made while also calling this "current practice"? CMD (talk) 11:55, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

  Well, having looked at the edit history of the TP and studied the back-and-forth between SchroCat and FaviFake above, this appears to be Schro's defense: they only meant to archive some of the "older" discussions (though it's worth noting that the most recent comments of these were only 2-4 weeks old and thus these would not typically be thought to be ripe for archiving on any but the most fast-moving/high traffic of articles). But in any event, it seems, if I am reading SchroCat correctly, that they are insisting they did not intend to archive the discussions that had been more recently edited, including the one edited mere minutes before. I certainly hope that is true, because were it not, it would be a serious WP:CIR issue. To even attempt to take the position that it would be ok to archive a discussion as an involved party minutes afer your rhetorical opposition responded would be manfiestly no-defenisble and disruptive. Thankfully, SchroCat does not seem to be advancing that as a colourable position.

  So the only question is whether or not the community believes them. Personally, I think it was likely to have been a genuine mistake, as I just can't fathom any longterm editor expecting they could get away with such a tactic. But at the same time, I do understand why SchroCat is not necessarily getting the benefit of the doubt. Schro characterizes Favi's reference to the length of their block log as foul play, but personally, I don't find it entirely irrelevant to a discussion of this nature. Nor are the problems reflected merely in the reactions of individual admins in that log: I don't have much personal experience of SchroCat's discussion style, but they are maybe one of the most frequently involved parties to disputes that land at ANI; If Schro has been either the OP or subject of AN/X filings anything less than thirty or forty times over the last twelve years, I'd be surprised. And I'd guess the true numbe ris north of that. To say that they have a noted propensity for dust-ups and disinclining their rhetorical opposition to give them the benefit of the doubt would be a serious understatement.

  But again, I'd be surprised if this particular error with regard to the archiving was intentional. But the references to their block log and extended history are relevant at least for the purpose underscore for Schro themselves that when you so consistently utilize a take-no-prisoners approach to your discussion style and then make a serious blunder are not given the benefit of the doubt...well, that result can be fairly described as a situation of your own making. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 15:07, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

  I've read the back-and-forth above again and confess I can't find that defence. I also find that defence hard to square with the same edits deliberately setting the min thread setting to 0, which suggests there was a conscious effort to get the talkpage to zero threads, as well as hard to square with the examples on other talkpages like closing and archiving a thread two minutes after its most recent post. I hope that defence is not being made, because it seems so improbable.

  I also can't see the reading of SchroCat "not necessarily getting the benefit of the doubt". This thread very quickly pivoted towards a discussion of FaviFake's editing, with a now reverted close calling this was a content dispute. That seems an extremely generous benefit of the doubt towards edit warring to archive a minutes-old discussion. CMD (talk) 17:26, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

  Finally this little dustup (permalink) I recently had with them at Talk:Dirty Dick seems relevant to mention here, if only to add something else to the long, long list of examples of their conduct at issue. I understand why relatively non-technical editors might have problems distinguishing between a template and a magic word. I don't understand ... whatever that was. (Edited to add: maybe weaponised incompetence? (Speaking of English varieties, which are mentioned in the above-linked talk page scuffle, I just created the "weaponised incompetence" entry (with that spelling) on Wiktionary; contrast that with SC's seeming refusal to do anything constructive about their English variety pet peeve with "as of" vs. "as at" in that thread, other than making things more difficult for other editors. I also recently wrote more at my talk page. I'm mentioned in the first post in this thread; I only gunned as hard as I did in the dispute mentioned there because I knew SC's reputation. Graham87 (talk) 16:31, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

  Oh, wow ... out of idle curiosity, I just used the Editor Interaction Analyser on SC and me and found edits like this one, which demystifies what SC meant by doing things "properly" in the Talk:Dirty Dick thread. Note for SC, note for all: a revert notification is only activated when someone does a full revert, not an edit like that. The edit summary in this edit (which I've also only just noticed) wasn't the best either. Graham87 (talk) 18:19, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

  Pinging Metaviva, who was also in the thread at "Talk:Dirty Dick", though I don't blame you if you want to stay far away from this mess. Graham87 (talk) 17:17, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks for the ping. But yeah, no, I'll not interact further after this comment.
  All I'll say is that that was a pretty pointless discussion, over a minuscule change, with someone being needlessly rude and confrontational. Metaviva (talk) 01:39, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

This idea lab thread was started by a newer editor in response to this ANI discussion. Something of an over-reaction in my view, but an understandable one. Graham87 (talk) 11:12, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

User:Haydi123

• Haydi123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user was banned from editing the Dolma article for two weeks due to edit warring, but their disruptive edits does not concern one article, and involves more than just edit wars. Their talk page has many warnings, and the user does not respond or engage in discussions with anyone.

Removed sourced content, as seen in:

• 1. [284]
• 2. [285]
• 3. [286]
• 4. [287]
• 5. [288]

Continue to engage in edit warring and avoid discussion on article talk pages:

• 1. [289]
• 2. [290]

Also added unreliable blog/spam sources to the Dolma and Pastirma articles.

Copyrights violation:

• 1. [291]
• 2. [292]

In general, I see a deliberate removal of references to Arabic, Persian and Armenian, promotion of POV and a complete ignorance of the rules. It appears that the user is either unfamiliar with or unwilling to follow Wikipedia's guidelines.

Thank you in advance! Barseghian Lilia (talk) 15:07, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

• Update: (9 September 2025)
• 1. [293] copyright violation
• 2. [294] removed Albanian sources and references to the word's Albanian origin; added Turkish sources instead. Barseghian Lilia (talk) 06:24, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
• Update: (10 September 2025)
• 1. [295] the edit war continues on another topic

Haydi123 (talk) 16:34, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

What is this supposed to mean, @Haydi123? An acknowldegement? 37.186.35.134 (talk) 16:11, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Killing of Iryna Zarutska and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Killing of Iryna Zarutska likely canvassing

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

---

• Killing of Iryna Zarutska (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Killing of Iryna Zarutska (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

We're going to need something on this deletion nomination as it looks like we're getting clear outside canvassing and a lot of questionable IP/new account 'votes' and comments (including LLM usage) like this, this and especially this vote who have no idea how our guidelines, the nomination process, and sourcing work (apparently the guy who runs Twitter commented on it so they're claiming because he said something, it's automatically notable now). The article already has already had to be protected, thus those arguments are now moving to the talk page and AfD discussion and attempting to derail it into another culture issue rather than just a common crime of circumstance. No idea who to notify about this discussion, please let me know if I need to. Nathannah • 📮 23:03, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

I think this could be ECP'd under RUSUKR? voorts (talk/contributions) 23:13, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

@Chaotic Enby: noted in the discussion that a big right-wing Twitter account is driving traffic here, so it's obvious there's some effort trying to TRAINWRECK the discussion. Nathannah • 📮 23:23, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Since a no consensus result that usually happens with such trainwrecks also benefits said account's desires to keep the article. I think we should require the admin closer to weigh the arguments and give a Keep or Delete decision with an explanatory note on said weighed arguments. No consensus is just not good enough. Silverseren^C 23:36, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Separately, could we have an admin put the AfD under semi-protection to prevent new accounts from being involved? Edit: Ah, I see that's what Voorts suggested above, missed that. Silverseren^C 23:37, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, Isabelle Belato. Silverseren^C 23:39, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Coming from WP:RFPP/I, I semi-protected the page for 4 days. Any admin is welcome to upgrade to ECP if they believe this should fall under WP:RUSUKR. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 23:42, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Agree with protecting the AfD (either semi or ECP) given the manifestly heavy canvassing going on. Not sure if it clearly falls under RUSUKR (broadly construed, maybe?), although WP:AMPOL might be the more direct topic, and page protection falls under WP:STANDARDSET either way. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:46, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, Isabelle, this should help settle things down. Sorry if I bludgeoned the discussion (which someone warned me about), but this was an unusually hot discussion I rarely see in AfD where IPs/low-edit accounts were rapidly degrading things. Nathannah • 📮 00:05, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

I've upped the protection to 1 week and also semi-protected the talk page. I've added them to my watchlist and am already seeing some low edit accounts joining the fray. I wouldn't be opposed to an ECP, but if people are behaving and !voting according to policies, semi should suffice for now. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 00:07, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Should something be done with all the votes from the new accounts that wouldn't be there if ECP had existed from the beginning? Silverseren^C 00:01, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Ian Miles Cheong has now tweeted about the AfD, so expect things to get worse. Silverseren^C 00:37, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Would it be possible to also get PP on Talk:Killing of Iryna Zarutska as that is getting quite out of control as well, especially considering Silver's statement above. TiggerJay (talk) 00:46, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. I've upped the AfD's protection to ECP. Will take a look at the talk page. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 00:52, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you again, Isabelle; disengaging from the discussion now since trying to reason with policy/past consensus is not happening easily and it's now well into needing admin guidance. Nathannah • 📮 01:00, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

@Isabelle Belato, I'd prefer to stay out of it because I just snow-closed the AfD, but you may want to have another look at the talk page of the article. This is very likely to hit WP:NOFORUM territory and the whole thing might need locking down for a bit while until the Twitter hordes move on to yelling about something else. -- asilvering (talk) 01:25, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, just got home and will be taking a look at everything that transpired. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 02:14, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Just saying. I don't think we will miss out on many high-quality discussions if the talk page was moved to ECP while the canvassing is ongoing Trade (talk) 02:24, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

I only came into the AfD not knowing anything about the story outside what details I read in local sources (this was one of five AfD's I voted on today) and the hostility/baiting I've experienced is like nothing I've ever experienced on an AfD discussion. Nathannah • 📮 00:56, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Welcome to the fun club. But, hey, at least you're not being specifically targeted by name like Chetsford is by the UFO conspiracy people. By the way, Chets, they posted another thread a couple hours ago due to the Swords guy deletion. Sorry, good luck. Silverseren^C 00:59, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Oh wow, I missed that—thanks! Though, it appears they've resigned themselves to Chetsford being an annoying fact of life like telemarketers or UTI. The threats to report me to the UN Security Council or whatever seem to have evaporated. Chetsford (talk) 01:11, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Ever since the Admins in Black turned up and spooked them? CoconutOctopus talk 14:35, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Aight, I'm going to go through the !votes and strike non-ECs AlphaBetaGamma (Talk/report any mistakes here) 02:20, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

@AlphaBetaGamma - I'm not familiar with how often we do that, but another alternative I was considering (again not sure of the precedent) but to section out ECP and non-ECP !votes - as it might make things a LOT cleaner. Also given the social media attention already given to this, simply sectioning !votes out as NON-ECP without a strike might go far less noticed by unexperienced editors/viewers, as opposed to actually striking them. Of course any admin who is going to close this will know to disregard those, but either of these might be a good way to make it easier. TiggerJay (talk) 02:33, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

I have upped the article protection to ECP, and extended the semi-protection for article-talk. Lectonar (talk) 14:24, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Article closed as keep by @Asilvering: was just about to switch my vote to keep because mainstream reliable sources have confirmed the article's notability. Thank you for the well-explained close. I made a statement on my talk page (came in early and never expected this nom to go where it did at all) and I'd like to now put this day behind me since some of the attention online focused on my conduct defending my proven-erroneous vote, and I apologize if my zeal early on to defend my delete vote was too much (and I will hold to that self-ban from current true crime for six months; remind me if I forget, please!). Asking as the opener to close this portion of the thread. Nathannah • 📮 00:27, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

As a counterpoint, Nathannah, Asilvering, I just wanted to say that was a terrible close with a vague reasoning that seemed to try its best not to even specifically address the actual arguments used while generally waving at "but look at counted numbers". The lack of even mentioning WP:NEVENT outside of WP:LASTING was telling in and of itself. But I guess I'm going to bow out here. No point in bothering with things like DRV when it's obvious that numbers trumps all and outside political machinations and canvassing is more important when Wikipedia is being criticized for not bowing to said politicians. I'm reminded of the old Gamergate Arbcom case where the editing community was also shunted to the side in favor of the SPAs that flooded things. Silverseren^C 00:37, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

@Silver seren, please don't imply that everyone who sided with "keep" was an SPA flooding the AfD, or that my closure was politically motivated. A great many experienced editors took part in this discussion, and very many of those experienced editors knew quite well what kinds of statements they were making when they argued in favour of a keep. You're welcome to disagree with them, but very similar arguments occur in WP:NEVENT closes that are not politically contentious or full of disruptive canvassing. Immediately above you have an editor who says they'd been won over to keep over the course of the AfD. Sometimes consensus doesn't go the way we'd like. Them's the breaks. -- asilvering (talk) 00:47, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

The arguments used in the AfD by experienced editors that actually discussed NEVENT, including changed votes like A. B., specifically didn't address the subject actually meeting NEVENT, but instead argued WP:IAR because of the canvassing circumstances. I assume you can recognize the issue of using IAR for any notability argument whatsoever anywhere on Wikipedia. Silverseren^C 00:58, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

@Silver seren, I disagree with your harsh criticism of asilvering's close. I don't know why you're claiming SPAs had any influence -- go see the discussion for yourself at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Killing of Iryna Zarutska. Comments made by non-ECP editors before the page was protected were aggregated into their own section, then hatted, as discussed above. Only established editors's comments were considered; sadly, a preponderance of your peers disagreed with you, arguing to keep the article. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:11, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

What does being ECP confirmed have to do with not being an SPA? Those are two completely separate things. And when the arguments still left include things like Trending on X, now at 414K posts and this is making international news and the POTUS is even talking about it and considering cleaning up Charlotte with National Guard Troops, color me not convinced about the relevant policy based argumental acuity of said peers. Silverseren^C 01:40, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

More admin eyes needed

See Talk:Killing of Iryna Zarutska#BLP disaster. For many hours our article has stated as fact a named living person committed a murder, which he hasn't been convicted of. Apparently CCTV > WP:BLPCRIME. FDW777 (talk) 16:10, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Killing of Iryna Zarutska

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

---

Please take away Lostinnh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)'s ability to edit the talk page. He continues being disruptive even after two warnings --Trade (talk) 21:36, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

An admin wouldn't take away TPA without blocking them first. Though I agree that comments like You libs have a lot to learn and I'm here to teach it to you are concerning and may merit a NOTHERE block. MiasmaEternal☎ 22:18, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

The first two edits are abhorrent to the point where I don't want to quote them here:

• 2025-09-08T20:57:30Z
• 2025-09-08T21:09:12Z

--tony 22:19, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Support an indef block. MiasmaEternal☎ 22:27, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

After seeing and skimming these diffs... support an indef block on WP:NOTHERE grounds. Such incivility, personal attacks, and battleground behaviour, is not tolerated. Codename AD ^talk 22:34, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

They seem to be entirely unable to maintain any sort of civility towards other editors, and also seems to just be unable to be neutral. Support indef. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 22:54, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

A shame. His previous edits were perfectly serviceable. I dont know why he started to talk like a shockjock Trade (talk) 23:00, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Indef isn't forever, so they would still have the ability to reform themselves. Though frankly, even if their edits were perfectly fine, the things in User talk:Lostinnh#Reliable sources and biographies don't leave me with confidence they could be properly civil or neutral, even outside of this topic. Though, perhaps a voluntary TBAN in relation to American politics could work. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 23:10, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Support Indef per WP:NONAZIS and WP:NOTHERE LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 23:47, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

How exactly did we went from WP:NOTHERE to WP:NONAZIS? Trade (talk) 00:46, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Update: user has been indeffed for WP:HID by Isabelle Belato. MiasmaEternal☎ 02:47, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

I have p-blocked them from the article and the Talk. That does not require a full block, but it can be expanded if needed. Star Mississippi 01:56, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

No more complaints from me then. Hope they wont react too badly to the p-block Trade (talk) 02:02, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Support an indef block I see nothing of value in referring to people as "liberal wahoos." --Insanityclown1 (talk) 23:20, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Support indef. By themselves, these diffs should be enough for an immediate indef. --Xacaranda (talk) 02:05, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

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

Silver Seren casting very personal aspersions.

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

---

Silver seren (talk · contribs) cast a severe and very personal aspersion against me here. They have not provided any evidence of any wrong doing on my part, just completely singling me out and explicitly casting aspersions. I've been able to collaborate amicably thus far even with editors I disagree with so I'm not sure where the implication I'm not interested or ignore policy is coming from, any time an editor has accused me of violating policy up until this point they're specific and I respond to them and work with them to work it out, this is just a gigantic personal aspersion at nothing I've done in particular, just gesturing towards me. I asked them to strike it here and was refused so here I am.

At this point I'm very accustomed to experienced editors reacting to an opposite vote in an RfC from a less experienced editor with ad hominem and attempting to discount the votes, but this is a pretty explicit personal aspersion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ratgomery (talk • contribs) 02:51, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

The talk page of Talk:Killing of Iryna Zarutska has a large amount of new accounts and general WP:SPA accounts being involved in every discussion, including any RfCs that get started. My comment, linked by Ratgomery above, pointed that out and used their account as an example. Started in February, from their first edit, they've only contributed to articles in a very specific topic area. some examples include Roman salute, JD Vance, COVID-19 lab leak theory , Tesla Takedown, For Women Scotland, June 2025 Los Angeles protests, Grooming gangs scandal, and Great Replacement conspiracy theory. In addition, their contributions have almost entirely been restricted to talk page arguing or reversion edits in main space to continue talk page arguing. They are a good example for the definition of an SPA and stating that, commenting on their editing history and their actions on Wikipedia, is not a personal attack. Discussing editing actions explicitly isn't, per WP:PA itself. They don't seem to want to listen to that explanation though, see my talk page. Silverseren^C 02:58, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

I've also edited documentaries, twitch streamers, and anime pages. I'm not sure what the "single purpose" between these are other than they're vaguely controversial. What does JD Vance, Asmongold, for women scotland, or daily wire documentaries, and anime have in common? I don't think I'm a good example of a single purpose account at all, I edit articles, revert vandalism, participate on talk pages, RfCs, and AfDs regularly. Ratgomery (talk) 03:03, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

I've read this like three times now. Is the aspersion in code or something? I'm not seeing it. Chetsford (talk) 02:59, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Chetsford; Ratgomery is trying to make the case that referring to their edits as being representative of a single purpose account is a "gigantic personal aspersion". --Hammersoft (talk) 03:03, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

That seems like a difficult case to make. Chetsford (talk) 03:07, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Concur with Silver seren. Noting an account appears to be a single purpose account isn't a personal attack. Ratgomery, rather than being offended by the comment, I strongly recommend you read Wikipedia:Single-purpose account in detail. Silver seren isn't wrong. --Hammersoft (talk) 03:03, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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.

Please close undeclared RfC

At Talk:Gaza_genocide#RfC on first sentence there is an RfC which seems to have never been properly declared as such with an RFC tag. There has been very extensive !voting and discussion already, so if someone could properly close it that would be appreciated. (I didn't participate but I'm "involved" so I shouldn't be the closer.) Thanks. Zero^talk 07:13, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

It was declared [296] and had the tag removed by the bot after 30 days [297] REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 11:22, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Please stop can you help check out this.

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

---

HistoryofIran (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Strikebella (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Please can you check @HistoryofIran. He is vandalizing every Wikipedia page. In pages like Sart and Registan he is removing sourced info. I like his content and in many ways he is doing right but in his recent edits he is removing sourced info and puting info without any sources claiming it. Thanks Densmartasvensken (talk) 15:44, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

You need to provide specific examples and links. No one here is going to go out and search for anything. Second, drop the hyperbole. Edits you don't like are not "vandalism", nor is HistoryofIran editing "every Wikipedia page". Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:49, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Also, you failed to notify User:HistoryofIran of this discussion, which you are required to do per the giant red notice at the top of the page. I have notified him. Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:54, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Please check Strikebella too

Check @Strikebella, she is removing many sources and puting News as sources for her claim as @HistoryofIran. They both are not politicaly neutral, one is pro Uzbek and the other is pro Tajik. Densmartasvensken (talk) 15:48, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

This person hasn't made any edits since July. In what universe does that qualify as chronic, intractable, or urgent? Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:54, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes I’m talking about @Strikebella last edits in July. Densmartasvensken (talk) 15:57, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

This is September. Nothing about Strikebella's edits in July represent urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, which is the purpose of this page. Bgsu98 (Talk) 16:00, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

• Recommend WP:BOOMERANG and closure. The Kip ^(contribs) 16:16, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Agree. This is clearly a content dispute and User:Densmartasvensken hasn't started a discussion on either article talk page. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:21, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

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

Repeated attempts to violate BLP

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

---

At the contentious Killing of Iryna Zarutska we have this and this, both accusing a named, living person of murder (which they haven't been convicted of), claiming some mythical consensus from a still ongoing RFC. Please intervene. FDW777 (talk) 21:08, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm an involved party. Editors have held an RfC on the talk page, where there has developed a clear consensus that the suspect's name should be added to the article as secondary sources have reported him: that is, a suspect in a murder. It has been explained thoroughly there why BLPCRIME is not an absolute ban on naming a suspect if reliable source upon reliable source has named them and the event in question has become a major story, present in even international news organizations. FDW777 has not participated in this RfC but has taken it upon himself to be the authority on BLPCRIME (without explaining his reasoning, of course) and reverting the changes to the article that editors have made in line with the consensus on the talk page. -- Veggies (talk) 21:16, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

There is not a clear consensus. By my count, there are at least 10 !votes against conclusion that are grounded in BLPCRIME. Please wait for consensus before changing the article. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:22, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Except that the BLPCRIME issue has already been addressed thoroughly and those that continue to claim that it supports their position choose not to try and refute the points made against their position. There will still be X number of !votes claiming to be supported by one policy or another no matter how long we wait. The WP:CLD standard is "rough consensus", not perfect consensus. -- Veggies (talk) 21:43, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

@Veggies:, the RfC has been active for less than two days. You've participated in the RfC. That doesn't leave you in a position to judge consensus and apply consensus, especially on an RfC that has barely begun. You are out of line for including the name in the article. While consensus may eventually be decided in favor of inclusion, we are quite some time away from concluding such. There's no deadline here. We can afford to wait. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:28, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

You don't need to ping me, I'm already participating in this discussion. You are out of line for including the name in the article It wasn't just me who saw the RfC and concluded that it had formed a rough consensus to include the name. Hilariously, his name is already present on the article page—in the titles of the sources cited. ...we are quite some time away from concluding such WP:RFCEND states there is no required minimum or maximum time for an RFC. You disagree that the point has been reached? Fine. We disagree, then. -- Veggies (talk) 21:43, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

So you don't think you're out of line for voting in the rfc, judging the consensus of the rfc, and applying what you think the results of the rfc are...even though the rfc is just 2 days old? Really? This is a serious error in judgment. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:57, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

So you don't think you're out of line for... No. I don't. Is that clear enough? I did a thorough survey of the responses and arguments both ways and came to what I felt was a rational conclusion. You disagree? Fine. -- Veggies (talk) 22:01, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Not fine. Please read WP:INVOLVED and WP:NACINV. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:05, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

I'll also note that you appear to be heading towards bludgeoning the RfC and that you're exhibiting a battleground mentality here. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:05, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Then please read Wikipedia:Advice on closing discussions. Nobody who votes in an RfC should be the person deciding the consensus of that discussion. Under no circumstances should you be asserting consensus in an RfC that you participated in. You were blatantly out of line by asserting your own elevation of consensus and then twice attempting to apply it the article under the auspices of your conclusions [298][299], even being so bold as to wipe out an inline hidden comment telling you not to include the accuser until the discussion concluded. Concur with Voorts. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:11, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Except I wasn't "closing" the discussion. I was editing based on my judgement of what I felt the rough consensus was at the time—especially considering strength of arguments. You were blatantly out of line... We disagree, then. -- Veggies (talk) 22:30, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

If you weren't closing it, then there was no consensus to assert. You can't have your cake and eat it too. This isn't a simple issue of disagreeing. What you were doing has resulted in people being blocked in similar circumstances. What you were doing has caused administrators to lose their admin status. You were unequivocally out of line. There's no wiggle room on this. Don't ever do that again. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:34, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

• I made the first edit, noted it was BOLD, and was reverted. I do not intend to participate further. After 15 years of seeing BLP crime disputes exactly like this one, I know the name will be in the article shortly. I have no interest in an edit war.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 21:36, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

I think I'm too involved with BLPCRIME (my views on how BLPCRIME should be applied are quite clear) to do anything here, but can another admin full protect the article again? There's continued edit-warring over the name of the suspect. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:38, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

(And I've now !voted on the discussion, so I'm clearly involved now). voorts (talk/contributions) 21:41, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Given the ongoing edit war, I have fully protected the article for a month and reverted the article to the status quo ante bellum. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:41, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. I have to say I am somewhat disturbed by the attempts by some people to claim their edits were somehow justified. The disputed sentence read Iryna Zarutska, a Ukrainian refugee who had fled her country because of the Russian invasion, was fatally stabbed by 34-year old [name redacted], a homeless man with a lenghty criminal history (added text in bold), if anyone thinks that clear and obvious WP:BLPCRIME violation (since even if the suspect is named, he's still very much innocdent until proven guilty) isn't a problem then I think they have no business editing articles relating to recent crimes. FDW777 (talk) 23:16, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

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

Cross-wiki ban violations by Geo Swan

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

---

Wasn't sure about the right forum for this, so I'm asking here. Geo Swan (talk · contribs), who was community banned, posted a screed on my Meta-Wiki talk page regarding a page I nominated for deleletion. Ban issues aside, the user flagrantly disregards WP:BLP considerations, which is a red flag in my book. What can be done about ban violations that occur on another Wikimedia project, when the user is using them to cicrumvent their ban here? They are also doing this to other editors who successfully nominate their articles for deletion, casting aspersions and generally engaging in harassment. I would notfy them but for the CBAN. Longhornsg (talk) 17:08, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

@Geo Swan did this on my Meta-Wiki talk page as well.[300] Jahaza (talk) 17:22, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

There's nothing for us to do here, as administrators on en.wikipedia have no ability to do anything special on Meta. I would recommend you post a request for help at Meta:Meta:Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:02, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

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

Bypassing of the AfC process and open conflict-of-interest

The following discussion is closed. 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 was recently reviewing some articles and came upon American College of Osteopathic Anesthesiologists. The article has just two sources, both being primary sources, and there is a lot of original research. I looked up the college online and found no reliable source covering it. The edit summary for the creation of the article said "New Page for our College. I serve as the current Vice-President." The article's creator, who claims to be its vice chancellor, is User:Escherare. Looking into it further, I realized that the article was a Draft in the User's sandbox. On 16:04, through the AfC process, the draft was declined. The exact same minute, the article was created anyway.

I had initially filed it for speedy deletion, but I realized that educational institutes were not eligible under that criteria. I have thus filed it for PROD (I am a new reviewer. I only got NPR rights around a week ago as I wanted to participate in the September 2025 New Pages Backlog Drive). What is the way forward? Should the user be sanctioned (I know of instances in the past where certain users faced partial blocks on certain drafts and articles for participating and subsequently bypassing the AfC procedure)? Should the article be deleted or draftified? I am looking for further insight, and perhaps actions, by admins, as again, I am new to reviewing. EarthDude (wanna talk?) 16:44, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

PROD is good. If someone de-PRODs it, then AFD is the proper venue. 😀 Bgsu98 (Talk) 16:47, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! I did not know what to do in situations such as these. EarthDude (wanna talk?) 18:36, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

How can there be any penalty for bypassing an optional procedure - unless the editor was under special restrictions relating to this? That said, surely this is not an ANI issue (unless they are under special restrictions). Nfitz (talk) 22:14, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

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

Rewriting of leads by LLM

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

---

NicheSports reported on my talkpage that Jaravedr is using an LLM (Chatgpt) to rewrite the leads of articles. Jaravedr has made 1172 edits so far; it looks like the last ~240 have editsummaries like "Improved lead section".

I asked 331dot who suggested posting on ANI. What should we do? Should all these be reverted, checked by a human, accepted, something else? Jaravedr wrote i will make sure 'almost all my lead sections are written using existing information within a article' but LLMs don't know where they get their facts and "facts" from. And not all information in each article is based on a reliable source. Usually we are stricter for lead sections than for article text. Polygnotus (talk) 19:03, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Well they should definitely stop using LLMs to rewrite leads. If they will do so willingly that would be the ideal solution. But, regardless, they should stop. Simonm223 (talk) 19:07, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

@Simonm223 Agreed, perhaps someone should use massRollback? Polygnotus (talk) 19:10, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Yeah. I got the one that was already on my watchlist but this will require massRollback I think. Simonm223 (talk) 19:17, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

I doubt that mass rollback script will work well in this situation (to my knowledge, it can only rollback edits that are current revisions). Though, I am not sure if any sort of mass solution is the best way to deal with this issue. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 22:50, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

I'll post what I said to Polygnotus; WP:LLM is an essay, not policy. There is now a speedy deletion criteria for entire pages that have certain signs of LLM use and don't appear to have been reviewed by a human(WP:G15) but I know of no other policy in this area. I didn't say before that there is also now a series of warnings in Twinkle against LLM use. 331dot (talk) 19:14, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

The user in question has about 1k edits, of which 700 are from the last month, supposedly from modifying leads.

do we need to go look through these to see if there are any errors from ChatGPT? Bluethricecreamman (talk) 19:16, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

@Bluethricecreamman Well we know ChatGPT makes errors, but we don't know how much of those they've filtered out/let slip through. That is one of the problems with LLMs. Polygnotus (talk) 19:18, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

• Seems to me that you should post some actual analysis of their changes. If you can find an actual hallucination, yeah, that's a problem, or if they are doing bot-like edits without manual review and/or intervention to address anything problematic. Andre🚐 19:30, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

  There are far more problems associated with LLM use. It generates a bunch of very plausible sounding content, but it is not based on sources.

  You know, the kinda stuff that should be aggressively removed according to Jimbob Whaleman I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons. -- Jimbob Whaleman

  And if it is based on sources then we don't know which ones and if they are reliable.

  It is also pretty great at saying very little: this self-titled work reflects both continuity and change in their sound, offering a dense, emotionally complex musical experience that subtly shifted their artistic direction. I can see that part (dense, emotionally complex musical experience) of that description is stolen from here but since that link is a 404 and not in archive.org I have no clue if that is a reliable source or a forum post by some rando. And the URL contains deftones+saturday+night+wrist+album which is a different album by the same band... Polygnotus (talk) 19:41, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

  My lead sections are not unsourced, they are based on the content of the article itself, which I input into the LLM. On rare occasions, the tool may bring in outside information, but when that happens, I add proper references. I don’t simply ask the LLM to “generate a lead for this topic” and copy-paste; instead, I use a prompt that requires me to provide the article text, and the tool then produces a summary of that material. I review every line before saving.

  So my question is: which Wikipedia policy am I violating? Is there a formal policy that prohibits editors from using AI tools to save time or automate parts of the writing process, provided that the output is reviewed, sourced, and complies with core content policies (verifiability, neutrality, no original research)? Jaravedr (talk) 14:00, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

  @Jaravedr My lead sections are not unsourced, they are based on the content of the article itself No, they are not. the tool may bring in outside information, but when that happens, I add proper references No, you don't, as my example demonstrates. And you can't because there is no way for you to know where it took which words from.

  So my question is: which Wikipedia policy am I violating This has already been explained. Mainly WP:VER but probably a bunch of others. Verifiability is probably the important one tho.

  Is there a formal policy that... irrelevant, there is also no formal policy that says you are not allowed to remove the letter E everywhere, but people who do it still get blocked. Polygnotus (talk) 14:28, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

  "irrelevant, there is also no formal policy that says you are not allowed to remove the letter E everywhere, but people who do it still get blocked."

  1. There is a formal policy against vandalism. so youre wrong on your example.

  2. Regarding llms you are right. i will stop generating leads using ai. Jaravedr (talk) 14:41, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

  Thank you! Rmoving th lttr   is a hug improvmnt, not vandalism. Polygnotus (talk) 14:53, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

  While not a policy, WP:LLM provides explanations of the many issues that can come from using LLMs in contributions. While it is possible to use an LLM to aid in work like producing lede sections that cover the article, any LLM output must be manually reviewed to make sure there aren't hallucinations and that the style complies with WP:MOS policies. As the examples from others point out, in multiple instances both hallucinations and MOS issues have made it past the manual review you purport to do. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 16:53, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

  The edits are bot-like. They are rewriting entire leads 5-6 minutes apart. They were previously notified about this on their talk page [301] but it has continued. On August 29 they rewrote these 4 leads (including the Mastercard lead) within 15 minutes. [302], [303], [304], [305]. A quick review also reveals quality issues, including LLM-style editorialization: "notably" etc. I don't think there is any way this user is reviewing these LLM generated edits sufficiently. NicheSports (talk) 19:47, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

  I don't think this user should get in trouble, as per 331dot we don't have policy in this area (yet - hopefully we will soon), but ideally admins can instruct this specific user to stop making any edits with LLM generated text given the issues with their previous LLM usage NicheSports (talk) 19:51, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

  We DO have a policy on disruptive editing as well as on high-speed auto/semi-automated editing. Just because they've used an LLM does not mean other policies no longer apply. -- Whpq (talk) 01:26, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

  I'm a newer editor and don't have a strong opinion on whether this user should be sanctioned. I agree with Padgriffin below that what is most important is for the user to be told to stop using LLMs (entirely, given their history) and for the problematic content to be reverted. If a mass rollback isn't feasible, then ideally admins can give the community approval to manually revert all of this user's LLM lead rewrites. We can definitely handle it - a few users have already started but I suspect people are waiting for the all clear NicheSports (talk) 02:00, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

  Mass rollback (or any sort of mass editing) just generally has a lot more restrictions behind it, in order to prevent disruption. This combines with the fact that rollback has restrictions on when to use it, leading to a unwillingness in using any sort of mass solution. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 02:07, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

  I went through a bunch of them. Haven't found any outright hallucinations, just puffery (more so in the earlier edits). Also some weird stuff I've seen before with AI edits, like this diff appearing to talk about the Wikipedia list itself as a standalone notable entity. (The original version was also bad, too, in a different way.) That being said, they appear to be genuinely attempting to help out with the lead backlog in good faith, whether or not they're succeeding at that. Gnomingstuff (talk) 20:43, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

  As funny as the List of songs about Mexico diff is, I think it's one of the best examples (in addition to some other diffs provided by NicheSports) that this editor is not properly reviewing these chatbot edits.

  I totally think that rollback should be on the table. To steal and alter Hitchens's razor, what can be created without effort should be removed without effort. It's unfair for volunteers to have to spend an enormous amount of time having to wade through hundreds of articles to see which AI slop is worth saving. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 00:47, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

  It's the classic problem of the benefit vs the cost (in editors time)- the benefits to Wikipedia as a whole are, in my opinion, very low. Most of the ones I spot checked are barely an improvement or suffer from "great at saying very little", but the amount of editor time wasted having to manually check every one of their edits is immense relative to the rate at which they're pumping these out. I would support a Massrollback but no direct sanctions other than a VERY strong warning to stop using LLMs. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 01:17, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

  I work 11 hours a day in manual labour, and in the little free time I have (30–40 minutes), I try to contribute to Wikipedia so that knowledge remains free and accessible, not just for the rich or privileged. To me, this is meaningful work, not “effortless AI nonsense.”

  My process is transparent:

  ·        I input the article text into an LLM, which then produces a draft lead based only on that content.

  ·        If outside information comes up, I cite it with proper references.

  ·        I review every line before saving.

  So my questions are straightforward:

  1.     Which specific Wikipedia policy am I breaking?

  2.     Are my leads problematic in substance, and if so, in what way?

  If the concern is quality, I would argue that indiscriminate mass reverts could actually lower article quality, especially since many of these leads are viewed thousands of times a day. Hitchens’s razor applies here: “What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.” If my edits demonstrably improve articles and comply with verifiability, neutrality, and no original research, then why should the method matter? Jaravedr (talk) 14:11, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

  @Jaravedr These questions have already been answered below. If my edits demonstrably improve articles and comply with verifiability, neutrality, and no original research If that would've been the case we wouldn't be here. Polygnotus (talk) 14:13, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

  If we allow people to just throw in junk from an LLM, then this project will fail long term as a meaningless one and then knowledge will becomes less free, less accessible, and more for the rich or privileged.

  If people want to read information generated by AI rather than researched by humans, they can already go to chatgpt. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:27, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

  @CoffeeCrumbs ChatGPT is trained on Wikipedia. Polygnotus (talk) 15:29, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

  Among many other things. ChatGPT is also trained on the New York Times, but that doesn't mean that running AI articles indistinguishable from ChatGPT output wouldn't kill the New York Times. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 16:53, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

I previously asked them about it at User_talk:Jaravedr#Lead_expansions, and asked them to fix some unsourced data they added to articles I randomly spot checked (Mandaue City Council and HIV/AIDS in Guinea). The additions still remain unsourced, so I have concerns about their LLM use. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 19:37, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

At least the recent edits seemed to be targeted at articles with Template:Lead too short. I am particularly concerned to see that lead changes to this WP:BLP in WP:CT/SA area (and on castes, which had its own specific restriction before being amalgamated) [306][307] were edit warred back in following a reversion. CMD (talk) 01:43, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

I generate lead sections using LLMs, but only from the existing information already in the article. If the LLM happens to pull in information from outside sources, it provides the source, and I add a citation (as you can see in some of my edits where I included new references).

My process is this:

1. I input the full article text or article link into the LLM.
2. The LLM generates a self-contained lead that summarizes the material I supplied.
3. I carefully review every line of the generated text, checking it to ensuring accuracy.

The LLM is not writing open-ended leads based on vague prompts. It is simply reorganizing and condensing the article’s content into a proper summary, which I then verify and edit.

So my question is: what is the problem with this approach? Jaravedr (talk) 13:53, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

@Jaravedr I generate lead sections using LLMs, but only from the existing information already in the article That is not possible, LLMs don't know where they get their information from.

If the LLM happens to pull in information from outside sources, it provides the source How would you know, and looking at your contribs, no you don't.

The LLM generates a self-contained lead that summarizes the material I supplied. Incorrect, ChatGPT cannot do that currently.

It is simply reorganizing and condensing the article’s content into a proper summary No, it is generating text based upon its training data and what is in the article, and you don't know which is which. So it may incorporate text from an unreliable source, or a source that is impossible to verify.

what is the problem with this approach? WP:VER mostly. Polygnotus (talk) 14:10, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

I input a prompt, the tool then asks me for the article text, I provide it, and it generates the lead based on that material. Jaravedr (talk) 14:15, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

@Jaravedr it generates the lead based on that material. No, it does not. ChatGPT can't do that. Polygnotus (talk) 14:16, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

I want to second what Polygnotus is saying here. LLMs do not have an internal knowledge model, they are not capable of reorganizing and condensing as you are suggesting here. You cannot hope to apply this tool correctly if you don't understand what it is doing. MrOllie (talk) 14:18, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

I need to start a company that is literally just me telling people what AI can and can't do. Polygnotus (talk) 14:19, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

I concur with above that User:Jaravedr's behavior is inappropriate. Numerous edits appear to be in violation of existing WP core policies such as WP:NOR and WP:V.

It is no excuse that User:Jaravedr was relying on an AI. If the edits are coming from your account, they are your responsibility, period. No excuses. That means you need to take the time to (1) fully learn and understand how AI works and (2) learn how to adequately double-check an AI's work product. If you don't have that kind of time, then you don't have time to contribute to Wikipedia and you should not contribute until you can find the time.

User:Jaravedr has dumped AI slop all over WP.

For example, the new intro for Mastercard (since reverted) added the sweeping claim that the company operates in 210 countries, which is found nowhere in the body of the article. This is facially ludicrous and obvious misinformation as it is common knowledge that there are about only 195 countries.

Another example: the new intro for Kele Okereke (since reverted) makes the breathtaking statement that he has released "several studio albums spanning genres from electronic and dance to folk and experimental", which isn't in the body of the article.

This is an facially incredible claim that sounds like puffery. As any music fan knows, most musicians today don't have that kind of versatility, especially as to folk.

Running "folk" and "Okereke" through Google reveals that Okereke's album 2042 does have a song with West African folk influences and that is discussed in the October 2019 NME article already cited in the WP article about him. But that specific point about folk music was never actually brought into the WP articles on Okereke or 2042. So to come up with that statement, the AI is broadly synthesizing original research from underlying press coverage of Okereke's work, in clear violation of WP:NOR, rather than merely making a summary of the content of the existing WP article on him.

It's clear at this point that User:Jaravedr wasn't running quality checks on AI-generated edits.

This user's edits need to be monitored for future submissions that are obviously composed by AI. Now that the user has been duly warned, a permanent block would be appropriate if this happens again.

I also support a mass revert of all this user's edits. No one has the hundreds of hours it would take to manually review their AI-generated garbage and salvage any parts that do correctly summarize the bodies of the relevant WP articles. Everyone else has better things to do with their time. --Coolcaesar (talk) 03:29, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

The Mastercard thing was something I actually looked into. It seems like a corruption of the company website statement that it "connects individuals," whatever that means, in 210 countries and territories (bolding mine). Gnomingstuff (talk) 05:15, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

@Coolcaesar

1. You’ve said that volunteers don’t have the time to check every single article in detail, which is why mass reverts are sometimes done. But from my perspective, I don’t see the difference between what you’re asking me to stop doing and what you’re doing yourself.

2. It feels like a double standard to suggest that I should stop contributing if I don’t have enough time, while continuing to patrol without fully reviewing every article. If someone doesn’t have the time to review articles thoroughly, perhaps patrolling itself isn’t the right task for you. 'If you don't have that kind of time, then you don't have time to contribute to Wikipedia and you should not contribute until you can find the time.' listen to your own advice.

3. Regarding the Mastercard article, the company’s own website states that it serves 210 countries (I reviewed the articles i published). This information is verifiable using that source. In this case, the better approach would have been to add a “citation needed” tag rather than treating it as a violation of verifiability. Jaravedr (talk) 13:35, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

So first you repeatedly deny that you did anything wrong. Then you state Many of you are right and I will stop using AI to generate Wikipedia leads. I asked you to help the cleanup effort but then instead of thinking "Oops how do I fix this mess I created, this sucks!" you decide to debate Coolcaesar? Polygnotus (talk) 13:41, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

The Mastercard mentions 210 countries and territories, not 210 countries. Those are different statements, one of which is correct and one of which is wrong. Also, the wording you used was "operates," which is vague -- does it mean they have business arms in all of those countries, or just that the card is accepted in all of those countries? Those are different statements. Especially in the lead the facts need to be unambiguously true and well sourced. Gnomingstuff (talk) 16:05, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

1. Many of you are right and I will stop using AI to generate Wikipedia leads.
2. I don't recommend mass reverts though. In my opinion those articles are better off with those improved ai generated human reviewed leads.

Jaravedr (talk) 14:44, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

@Jaravedr Maybe you can ask over at WP:AICLEAN? Reverting them is relatively easy, the other option is that a human other than you has to check every single edit, which can take quite a while. And most our volunteers are busy people. You can explain the situation over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject AI Cleanup. Polygnotus (talk) 15:14, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

• I'm going to add my warning as an admin here: generating text using LLMs in this way is a clear WP:CIR violation. Discussions about how to clean up this mess can happen elsewhere. FOARP (talk) 13:38, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

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

The Banner (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.

---

I feel like I have essentially no choice but to bring this here, as this user is simply refusing to recognise their inability to assume good faith and completely un-civil comments.

I was involved in a content dispute on British Rail Class 117 over the last 48 hours, which is being handled on the relevant article talk page (discussion originally started on my user talk page), and is indeed now mostly resolved. The dispute isn't why I'm here, but rather the aggressive behaviour of The Banner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and their refusal to assume good faith during said discussion. It has led to me, quite frankly, feeling unwilling to continue the discussion which I started as it seems everything I come out with gets thrown back in my face with "bad faith".

context on the resolved content dispute that led to the uncivil comments

A brief timeline of the dispute, purely for context:

• An uninvolved user made an edit which introduced unsourced information, which I reverted. I then placed a maintenance banner in that section ({{more sources section}} as there were many more entries which also lacked a source. In my edit summary, I said all entries require citing. Add banner as precursor to deletion. - this is a paraphrase of WP:V, which states Whether or how quickly material should be removed for lacking an inline citation to a reliable source depends on the material and the overall state of the article. Consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step to removing unsourced material, to allow references to be added. - I do not seek to remove the content, I'd rather encourage users add references; however, I'm aware that if sources aren't added then the content should really be removed to satisfy Verifiability.
• There was some back and forth with the uninvolved editor as they used a Flickr source, which has generally been seen as unreliable as WP:UGC for many years in all the rail articles I've been involved in. Again, this is unrelated - just context really.
• The Banner then arrives and adds a gallery and removes the maintenance tag, with the comment Remove tag not added in good faith. They did some sterling work in improving the article by adding sources, for which I have thanked them a number of times through various means - however, I partially reverted their removal of the maintenance tag (the issue wasn't resolved, there was no discussion.... as far as I can see, none of the criteria for removal in WP:WTRMT had been met, and a number of criteria in WP:WNTRMT had been met), and removed the gallery (primarily under WP:GALLERY).

The above all led to a discussion (originally on my talk page, then moved to) at the article talk page, which has led to the article being improved immensely with the addition of sources where it was needed. Therefore the content dispute itself I would argue is over and done - the above is context only.

I do have concerns about the conduct of The Banner during the dispute resolution process, in discussions on the article talk and on their own talk.

• Their very first edit on British Rail Class 117 accused me of bad faith when they removed the maintenance template - Remove tag not added in good faith - this was a tag added due to a lack of sourcing in that section. How on earth is that bad faith?
• Their next edit, where they once again remove the maintenance template, uses the edit summary when you add a template with the specific aim to remove encyclopedic content later, that is bad faith. Not to improve the article. - I addressed this above, and at in the discussion (before it was moved to article talk). They never responded to this, choosing instead to ignore it.

Meanwhile, User:Black Kite started a separate discussion on The Banner's talk page. I had that talk page on my watchlist anyway (I can't even remember why, it's been there a while along with many others), so I noticed it, and requested they come to the article talk page and continue the discussion. By this point I fully recognise I had got frustrated, so I used the opportunity to try and reset myself, and ensure I was civil. Their response? Then please stop editwarring first. How is this in the interest of civil discussion? I fully accept I had done, in my opinion, one too many reverts by that point (hence why I was trying to "reset" myself and discuss)... but it's also very interesting to know that The Banner continued the edit war, even while actively discussing the fact there was a dispute.

• I expressed disbelief on their talk page at their response, and reiterated that literally all I wanted was for them to discuss the dispute on the article talk page. They did so... but doubled down on their accusations of bad faith - You started with removals of sources you did not like. You removed a gallery that you did not like (superfluous by now). And you added a request for sources with the clear aim to remove encyclopedic information later. What did you actually contribute to the content of the article?
• I responded with a point by point rebuttal as I do not believe I have done anything in bad faith here at all. At this stage I was already angry at being baselessly accused of bad faith, hence my comment I'm going to ask you one last time before I seek more formal channels - kindly address the above points, and stop accusing me of bad faith without good reason. referring to opening this very discussion. They chose to ignore the lot, and instead responded wth So, your arguments are that weak that you have to use threats instead?
• My last interaction with them was to leave the following comment - Kindly address the points above. Show me where I have made a mistake, otherwise you're assuming bad faith. Their one and only response... Kindly tell my what you added to the content of the article..

I would love to know at what point I ever did anything in bad faith - All of my edits have been with the best interests of Wikipedia in mind, trying my best to ensure articles are sourced as best they can (although I don't have the same knowledge as to where sources can be found, which is why I put maintenance templates on articles to try and encourage editors to add them - which The Banner has done, for which they should be commended) and improve article layout (in this case maintaining WP:GALLERY. The Banner obviously doesn't believe in assuming good faith, and instead prefers to assume bad faith... and when asked to clarify in what ways anyone is acting in bad faith, they ignore the request and instead turn to frankly insulting uncivil remarks.

Across other discussions, they have also left other uncivil comments on my talk page - You seriously have to tone down your attitude before you run in trouble by your own actions.[308] - I do fully agree, the incident being discussed was something I'm not proud of and I absolutely deserve and would accept a trouting for the edit summaries I left (One of these days people will learn how to cite properly - it was an IP-hopping editor ignoring attempts to communicate on their talk page(s), but that isn't an excuse.), but an editor telling someone to tone down your attitude?

It's also concerning that this is being filed just days after The Banner was taken to ANI for very similar behaviour towards another user (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1199#User:The Banner... I'm beginning to strongly suspect this is a pattern of uncivil behaviour that's being tolerated simply because the user has a high edit count. However, experienced users are held to the same standards as other users - so the fact they're being uncivil and not assuming good faith is concerning.

To clarify one point, I'm not in any way wanting sanctions on The Banner - they do appear to otherwise be a productive and net positive editor, indeed working towards the same goals as myself in many respects (working to improve verifiability across the project). I do feel though that they need a strong reminder to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, and a reminder to remain civil when discussing problems and in their edit summaries (a reminder that they provided to myself, which is a little ironic, if deserved). Danners430 _{tweaks made} 10:40, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Just to add matters unrelated to my complaint - I do accept my conduct when it came to edit summaries when dealing with the IP, which was what sparked The Banner’s last (in the message above) uncivil message, was too far. That’s why I’ve been mostly inactive on Wiki for the last 24 hours to try and gather myself and reflect on what I did wrong. But I would accept a trouting or worse if the community decided upon it. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 10:46, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

I have warned Danner430 to tone down his aggressive behaviour before he gets into trouble due to his own actions. And now we are here at AN/I. The Banner talk 10:49, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

And I took that on board - as I said directly above your comment, I’ve learned from it which is why I took a short wikibreak. The problem is you’re showing the same aggressive actions - you haven’t once in the interactions above assumed good faith and still aren’t. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 11:37, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

And yet more passive aggressive messages on their talk page, after I notified them (as required) about this discussion - Watch out for the boomerang. What does it take to get this editor to abide by WP:CIVIL? Danners430 _{tweaks made} 11:41, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

@Danners430 your complaint is around 1,000 words long (not including the collapsed content!). Please have more respect for reviewing editors' time and slim it down. By about 95%. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:43, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

If you prefer - my complaint is that The Banner is ignoring WP:AGF and jumping straight to assumptions of bad faith, while being aggressive and not particularly WP:CIVIL. Examples: ABF, ABF, ABF, continuing ABF and not particularly civil, uncivil, and following the creation of this thread passive aggressive messages.

Below this sub-thread there's further examples of The Banner ignoring my messages and doubling down on their assumptions of bad faith, despite it having been explained why edits are being made. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 12:50, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Okay, then let use discuss this edits: Stop edit warring - especially while there’s a discussion actively underway on a talk page. (that discussion on the talk page came some 15 minutes later), all entries require citing. Add banner as precursor to deletion., Tenerife South Airport (removal of sourced content just to get the attention of an IP who added sources in a format he did not like. Followed by self-revert.), Dalaman Aiport (removal of sourced content just to get the attention of an IP who added sources in a format he did not like. Followed by self-revert.), Luton Airport (removal of sourced content), Lanzarote Airport (removal of sourced content), edit summary: Reverted 2 edits by Wibwob28 (talk): For the last and final time - the discussion is on YOUR talk page. Stop spamming my talk page with nonsense. The page notice is explicit - I left you a message, that’s where the discussion is., edit summery: Reverted 3 edits by Wibwob28 (talk): How about you look at the page history properly - and perhaps look at your OWN talk page once in a while, User talk:Wibwob28#Reversions. The Banner talk 12:27, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Happily.

1. The discussion was underway - on my own talk page, and it was moved to the article talk page as it was a content dispute. That’s why the discussion on the article talk has a Moved From template. You were actively engaged in the discussion on my talk page prior to it being moved, so there was indeed an ongoing discussion when you reverted.

2. I’ve already addressed this in my original post, and on your own talk page. What more do you want?

3. Again - already addressed on my talk page in a discussion with you - User talk:Danners430#Sourced information. What more would you like to know beyond what has already been said?

4. What on earth does this have to do with this complaint? Per the talk page guidelines, I’m allowed to remove content from my own talk page. There was an active discussion on Wibwob’s OWN talk page - and there’s an edit notice on my page making it clear that editors should respond on their own talk page when I’ve left them a message there. At some point it does become spam. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 12:41, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

The Banner, can you please explain the circumstances that led to your edit summary "Remove tag not added in good faith"? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:30, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

I can. this edit where the edit summery all entries require citing. Add banner as precursor to deletion speaks out a clear intent to remove information instead of a wish to improve the article. I added several sources after that. The Banner talk 12:40, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

And again, as I have repeated multiple times at this point… this is a paraphrasing of WP:V. Please tell me you’re at least reading the messages I send you. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 12:42, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

The Banner, that reading is a clear failure to assume good faith. You are familiar, of course, with situations where deletion of content is done to improve an article. See, just as an easy and recent example, your edit from yesterday where you removed unsourced content. I urge you to state an intention to act differently moving forward, and I see a block as likely if this conduct is repeated, or if someone demonstrates that this was part of a pattern of ABF. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:04, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

I have responded on that tag by adding quite a number of the requested sources. To improve the encyclopedia. The Banner talk 15:34, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Seriously, thank you for doing that. That is orthogonal to the issue of assuming that the tag was added in bad faith. Can you respond specifically to that part? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:39, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

I agree with @Firefangledfeathers - as I have said before, thank you for sorting the sourcing problems. That was what I had hoped would happen - just perhaps not in the way it did. Just to reiterate, I regard the problems with the article as resolved, mostly thanks to the sterling efforts of The Banner. The problem I see is with their conduct throughout. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 15:42, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

The Banner has a long-term pattern (see 2023 AN ignored as they went on a long break when this occurred), involving also hounding of Another Believer with repeat and stunning refusal to get the point. Considering the number of ANI reports, before and after the 2023 AN, it appears that unblockable applies, as they escape sanction because ( edited, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:24, 9 September 2025 (UTC) ) their actions seem to involve other editors who have their own misbehaviors or lack the "social capital" to get The Banner's behaviors looked at by admins. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:50, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

I left out that SusanLesch was the editor followed in that case, to an article created by Another Believer -- and that multiple admins mentioned in that discussion that something should be done if The Banner returned to editing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:58, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

I have never ignored that discussion. I was knocked off the internet by a hard disk crash. And since then, I have distanced myself from editing restaurant articles. The Banner talk 13:18, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for not ignoring it this time. That issue did not only involve your repeated pattern of ignoring notability (in a restaurant article, this time, even with an abundance of high quality sources) -- it also involved hounding and WP:IDHT. Could you address those behaviors? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:51, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I made mistakes in 2022/2023. I am still convinced that too many low quality sources pop up in restaurant articles. But as they are sanctioned, I walked away from the editors and the articles. The Banner talk 15:28, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

The Banner, unfounded and unsubstantiated assumptions of bad faith are personal attacks. An assertion of bad faith requires impeccable evidence that the other editor is deliberately out to damage the encyclopedia. You cannot accuse other editors of bad faith as a debating tactic or as a bludgeon to win content disputes. You are on the brink of a block. Please address my specific points. Cullen328 (talk) 18:27, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Maybe it is the placing of this reply, but you leave me confused now. What specific points do I have to reply to? The Banner talk 19:16, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

The Banner, I presume Cullen328 just responded to your most recent comment, and I believe he is seeking a response to the specific points contained within his message. I hope he'll correct me if I'm wrong. His concerns and mine (mentioned here) overlap enough that one response should suffice. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:27, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Okay, clear. It has something to do with this edit where Danners430 not only removed an unsuitable Flicker-source but also removed a perfectly valid source further down in the article. In my opinion, the combination of "Add banner as precursor to deletion" followed by removal of a valid source is at least suspect. The Banner talk 22:43, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Hey Danners430, you removed a source in the edit TB links above. Can you explain why? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 23:04, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

The diff that TB linked above was myself reverting the uninvolved party because of the use of Flickr as a source, which is generally regarded as WP:UGC, not a reliable source. Looking back, I should have partially RV’d as I didn’t spot the second source at the time - and indeed, I only noticed it literally now. At no time during any of the discussions leading up to this point has TB ever pointed me at that specific diff as an explanation for why they’re assuming bad faith.

Edit to add - one of the reasons I wound up bringing this here is because I was at a loss with trying to deal with TB making these accusations - I did try multiple times to establish why they were ABF, and having missed that I removed that second source I didn't know what they were talking about when they accused me of removing sources. Yet when I asked for clarification, they never answered. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 23:22, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

I assumed it was something like that. Thank you for clarifying. The Banner, it turns out that your assumption of bad faith was erroneous. Are you prepared to approach disputes differently moving forward? You are able to ask for explanations, if something is not obvious to you. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:26, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

The Banner isn't unblockable: 2 page blocks and 9 full blocks to date. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 18:45, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Valid, point; edited above. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:24, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

PS, that was a brain fart related to another editor that came to mind while typing up the summary. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:33, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

• This conversation here at ANI shows a long pattern of disruptive editing and unwarranted assumptions of bad faith from The Banner. I gave the editor an opportunity to recognize the problem and make a commitment to changing their behavior. They did not do so, and accordingly I have blocked them for one month. Cullen328 (talk) 07:32, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

  was the reason he wasn't blocked just a week ago for the exact same reason that I didn't write up a wall of text? A 1 month block is too little for a user who's had a history of this stuff. They also seems to like threatening people who take them to ani with a "Watch out for the boomerang" [309] [310] but never seems to have something to boomerang people with 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 12:02, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

  Good block. Sorry AY, but POV-pushing-based complaints tend to be harder to action than AGF-based complaints. You say the report was for the same reason, but I'm not seeing it. The last part of your comment just seems like point-scoring, and I suggest you strike it. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:27, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

  I've struck that part. The POV-pushing thing was him casting aspersions towards me. Either ways I hope that they change their behavior once this block is over 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 14:04, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

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

Part 5 (Continuing to Bludgeon Talk Pages)

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

Hello everyone. I'm really sorry to do this, but I'm having to file a fifth report on this user. (Past reports: [311][312][313][314]) To summarize, Newsjunkie has a history of adding unreliable sources to articles, edit warring, and bludgeoning talk pages with WP:WALLSOFTEXT. While in this instance she has not reverted other than one time, the bludgeoning from this user and the unreliable sources continues primarily on the Tolkein fandom talk page, as she went on to make multiple replies, edit them to add more content, and try to argue her point numerous times in lengthy replies even though consensus was pretty clear against her edits, which is a WP:NOTLISTENING problem. [315] @Chiswick Chap (who left her a final warning on her talk page), along with @EducatedRedneck have warned her about edit warring and bludgeoning. @Butlerblog along with Wound theology have also warned her in the past. I used the cite highlighter script, and out of the 20 references listed in the now closed first talk page discussion (all from Newsjunkie), 8 of them are red. According to this, she has made 71 edits to the first discussion, along with 26,628 text added, we're talking around 70% for both. A second discussion (currently open),[316] shows Newsjunkie bludgeoning the second discussion [317] with 13 edits and 6,927 text which is around 50% for both. Here's another example of bludgeoning, even though @MapReader has explained to her. [318][319], with Chiswick Chap providing a further explanation [320] Newsjunkie also doesn't seem to quite understand that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument, and a recent edit stated on the tag got a tag that she added a blog site.[321] NacreousPuma855 (talk) 16:44, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

My chief concern is the recurrence of the same issues. I wish I had a good suggestion of what to do. Newsjunkie has some good contributions which outweigh the bad. They are a major timesink, but only for a few articles. Here, the bludgeoning walls of text, treating fansites and blogs as reliable, and not understanding WP:SYNTH concerns is almost identical to those in the first ANI report. They've done good work, but haven't fully aligned themselves with the purpose of Wikipedia, despite many attempts to guide them. An indef seems far too harsh, but a page block or topic ban is too narrow as the disruption spreads to other topics. Bludgeoning restrictions rarely work, but some sanction is clearly necessary. Does anyone have an idea for an appropriate sanction? EducatedRedneck (talk) 17:07, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

My original proposal was a one week block from all pages, however a 31 hour block may be more ideal. A topic ban may be more sufficient however this would require admins to detect the bludgeoning that could come across over several months. I understand that Newsjunkie is trying to do a good job, however the bludgeoning has gone too far. NacreousPuma855 (talk) 17:28, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm sorry this has had to come here. I have spent a deal of time, both on the article's talk page and on Newsjunkie's talk page, trying to encourage her to edit more moderately and explaining that folks were finding her conduct very trying. I am afraid that after a pause, she started all over again. I had been hoping that some explanation from me, or perhaps a serious word from an admin might help, but some sort of restriction on her editing may now be needed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:41, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

That is all very charitable and all, and maybe I should be giving more weight to the recommendations of editors who have to deal with the actual disruption, but as an outsider looking in, I can tell you that I am beginning to feel that it may be time for something much more substantial, including possibly a CIR indef pending major acknowledgments of issues and a commitment towards correcting their approach. I have no direct experience with Newsjunkie that I can recall, but I have seen some of the above-linked discussions over recent months, and there is obviously a very consistent consensus ac cross them that when it comes to the standards for inclusion of certain types of (generally WP:TRIVIA-adjacent) content and related issues of appropriate sourcing, NewsJunkie has a...well, let's be generous and say "idiosyncratic position on" rather than assume "poor grasp of" the relevant policies. While a number of other issues seem to be involved, the primary concerns seem to be (and others can correct me if I am wrong) WP:OVERCITE and reliance on non-RS fan community sources to support content. I looked into the complaints with regard to two of the previous threads, and found them to be substantially grounded in reasonable concerns.

Further, I will note that the close of the last discussion, by an Admin and Arb, classified the result as a "final warning". So I think a sanction with teeth should at least be considered on the table. On the other hand, the fact that even the editors whose time is most taxed by NJ's approach speak of her as a net positive is compelling argument for applying something lower on the escalating block process. But my feeling is that it needs to be something that is going to underscore that patience is wearing thin for the high-volume/low quality approach that many people seem to feel that NJ is bringing to bear on articles about particular types of media. Personally, I am less concerned about the particular bludgeoning that inspired this report: it's far from the worst examples I have seen, and NJ, if obviously the most vocal single party, is not the only one speaking with significant verbosity in those discussions. And to the extent that their specific perspectives/approach was called out as the subject of one of those threads, it's to be anticipated that they would have a lot to say. But at the same time, I also can't be entirely dismissive of that complaint, as it is obviously an issue that is being raised as part and parcel of the longterm WP:IDHT/sealioning concerns. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 01:39, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

I would appreciate any guidance from anyone on how to balance responding and trying to improve my suggestion with what is considered bludgeoning. My main goal in responding was trying to develop a better proposal with better sourcing, the majority of the sources in my second proposal were all reliable news sources, the "community sites" I acknowledged in the discussion from the beginning would only be appropriate if considered to be a subject matter expert in this case and weren't included in this original edit, which was a reliable news source as others also acknowledged and some primary sources, which I then supplemented/replaced with additional reliable news sources with additional context as part of the subsequent discussion. newsjunkie (talk) 01:52, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

I reread some of the previous reports to see if I was remembering right. I think you have the right of it, SnowRise. To quote three different editors:

• This pattern was identified as chronic and not changing months ago: at this point there is a pattern here that is not changing. (May 4, 2025)
• Newsjunkie was warned that this behavior could lead to a site block: [Newsjunkie] has been advised to be aware that if this behavior pattern occurs on other articles or pages, they may be subject to a sitewide block. (26 April, 2025)
• The aforementioned final warning: lets chock this up as a final warning. (4 June, 2025)

In the last ANI thread, there was some modest support for an indef as a regular admin action, the idea being that Newsjunkie could appeal and, if they showed that the problem behavior was understood and promised to not do it again, they could return promptly.

Re: Net Positive: to clarify, I have not interacted with these positive edits. I just cruised the contribs and saw lots of unreverted ones, so I figured we should avoid throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I wouldn't oppose an indef, I just don't have the experience to be comfortable jumping right to it when it's a gray area. EducatedRedneck (talk) 02:19, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

If there any specific conditions I should abide by, I would be happy to consider them. While the initial edit may not have been ideal in terms of sourcing, I added several additional acceptable sources as the discussion continued and was always clear that the criticized sources were an optional suggestion (which were in part used by another editor in a separate but related addition during this discussion). newsjunkie (talk) 02:43, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Alright, I'll give it a try. Here are some suggestions:

1. If someone tells you you're bludgeoning, you're bludgeoning.
2. If your comments take up one-third of the total text or you have replied to half the people who disagree with you, you are likely bludgeoning the process
3. If you ask a question, and are told it has already been answered, you're bludgeoning.
4. If you're bludgeoning, Leave at most a short (<100 words) reply and immediately stop contributing to the topic.
5. If you encounter overwhelming opposition (more than two-to-one), consider that your idea may be a poor fit for Wikipedia and drop the subject.
6. Address one point at a time; each reply doesn't have to be an omnibus. Instead, aim for short clarifying questions, and only once one point has been settled move on to the next. If you write more than 250 words, your reply is likely too long.

I doubt these are sufficient conditions, but they'd be a step in the right direction, I think. Provided links have explained this many times, so I still believe a block is needed, but perhaps this will help guide them when they return. EducatedRedneck (talk) 14:37, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

I really do appreciate those suggestions. I did try to at least respond shorter in the second thread. Do you have suggestions for the best way to discuss Synth/Original Research concerns or proposed additional sources? What seemed to most lead to long comments in this case was feeling like the only way to clarify whether a source reflected what a proposed statement said was to include quotes from the sources. newsjunkie (talk) 15:37, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

My strong recommendation (re-iterated below) would be to stay away from trying to add sources. The long-term pattern of talk page disruption stems directly from your inability to discern overciting, synth, and what makes a source worthwhile, which is further evidenced by your own responses here. Even with the volume of responses to you in various article talk page discussions already, there remains a deep disconnect in your understanding. Your best option is to do something that doesn't get you into that mess in the first place. ButlerBlog (talk) 17:05, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

If the goal is to improve and get better at it eventually though, never adding them without any positive/non-feedback or negative feedback doesn't seem like the totally right way either though. Just reading the guidelines or even looking at existing sources on pages where even I recognize imperfect sourcing many times isn't really a replacement for that either. It does seem realistic to focus on minimizing the need for conversations and how to have healthier conversations, since at least some source discussion is part of the normal process. newsjunkie (talk) 17:41, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Notice what just happened: you asked for recommendations, they were given, and you started arguing. I understand that you want to know what exactly was bad so you can avoid it, but in doing so you create a new timesink, which is also a problem. I think any more advice I give would not be helpful, so I'll just say I agree with ButlerBlog above: avoid sourcing at all. EducatedRedneck (talk) 19:09, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

I agree that a block should still be given, as based on this discussion, it seems the bludgeoning has continued. NacreousPuma855 (talk) 21:04, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

I suppose a 31 hour block is worth a try. I suspect the behavior won't take long to return, but reblocks are cheap, and maybe it'll be the wake-up call that's needed. EducatedRedneck (talk) 22:11, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

I clearly have stopped replying on that talk page there now. My frustration was that I was trying to to respond to specific points that were being made and I felt that efforts I made to address specific concerns to make an improved suggestion were being completely ignored with others only seeming to see the initial proposal. After an initial suggestion, I made a second suggestion with better sources and was trying to find consensus by addressing the points in question. I think my second suggestion was stronger and better as a result of trying to respond to concerns, so how does one determine the limit between responding to address concerns to improve one's suggestion, and bludgeoning? I was not insisting on the original edit, but was bringing up other news sources that fully supported what the initial suggested statement said. When another editor made a suggestion for a list and there was firm consensus against that, I also made clear that I respected that, but wanted to see if there was another solution.

To address the synth concerns, I was trying to illustrate what the news sources were actually saying in quotes, but then of course some of the responses got too long. There were no fansites or blogs in the original edit, it was something I repeatedly said during the discussion should only be included if it was seen as an appropriate appropriate expert source in the specific context in addition to other sources, which were all reliable news sites. (and one of the suggested sources initially inspired a different editor to make another addition on the page same using the same source) Once the discussion started, I didn't edit war on the page itself. When initial specific criteria were outlined in the second discussion, I specifically asked how my suggestion did not meet those specific criteria to see if there was some agreement on one point, but I never got a reply, which was why I was hoping for an RFC to get broader feedback and for the discussed criteria on the same page to be applied consistently. newsjunkie (talk) 18:35, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

First of all, we don’t have time to reply to every comment, that’s just how Wikipedia works sometimes which is why you were getting ignored, as we have clearly stated why your points were objected to. And I would suggest you read those 2 xcloud links that showed you were bludgeoning. NacreousPuma855 (talk) 18:47, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

I am not going to deny the percentage of comments or number of replies, I was trying to explain how it got that way and that what I was saying was not blindly repetitive without regard for what other people were saying or without trying to improve my suggestion and incorporate what people were saying. newsjunkie (talk) 18:53, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

I clearly have stopped replying on that talk page there now.: Newsjunkie has (for the moment) indeed stopped talking on Talk:Tolkien fandom - having left some last words there after everybody else. Instead, yesterday she added materials much like the disputed additions to Tolkien fandom to two other Tolkien articles: Works inspired by Tolkien diff and The Lord of the Rings (film series) diff, though she decided to self-revert the latter of these. This behaviour could be thought evasive, after two lengthy discussions which didn't go her way; it certainly doesn't suggest she has changed her attitude. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:46, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

I added it rewritten a bit to a different page because I thought that was possibly the more appropriate page for it, maybe it would have been the more appropriate page to begin with especially since it already mentions more different individuals and is less focused on the communal idea of fandom as discussed. In one of your responses, you mentioned that one of my additions might be better off in a different article so I was looking at whether there was another page that might be more appropriate. With the exception of the last sentence, which I have no objection to removing, all the content in that paragraph is from reliable news sources plus two new additional book sources. Also totally open to it being shortened. Since I got no replies when I previously asked for specific feedback on how to meet the criteria, there didn't seem to be an opening to ask whether another page would be more appropriate, so I just did a bold edit. I also considered the popular culture section of the Impact_of_Tolkien's_Middle-earth_writings, but this one seemed more fitting for the reasons I mentioned. (I self-reverted the other page because I realized I had already added that content there months ago in another section with no objection and had honestly forgotten.) newsjunkie (talk) 07:56, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

It's much too long, and more than half off-topic. I'll trim it now. The issue is your continual special pleading, bludgeoning (including here), and unwillingness to take "no" for an answer even when it comes from the whole community. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:43, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Both here and on the other thread I was always open to feedback and compromise and my only reason for responding was trying to address directly the specific concerns that were raised and understand the criteria and exact sticking points to see if there was any compromise version of a better proposal that could work. I do apologize for the multiple replies, but the back and forth also led me to better sources and shouldn't that be the ultimate goal, rather than either not trying to improve an imperfect version or having a perfect version to begin with? newsjunkie (talk) 09:32, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

You have a reply to everything. I note that you wisely reverted one addition, and that the other was a dump that had more to do with your Colbert-as-fandom view than anything to do with parody, which was the subject of the section where you dumped it. It is hard therefore to avoid the view that you were simply seeking a target rather than trying to improve Wikipedia. I have been bending over backwards to assist you to edit more constructively but I don't see any improvement. I therefore favour a block. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:54, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

You and others raised some legitimate substantive concerns in the initial thread, but then it also felt like there was nothing or no source I could propose to address those concerns and that made it difficult for me contribute constructively. newsjunkie (talk) 12:02, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Your troubles are a twofold problem, with one leading consistently to the other. The inclusion of low-grade sources, primary sources, and WP:OVERCITEing is where it starts. Just because something exists on the Internet - regardless of reliability & verifiability - does not make it suitable for inclusion. Your inability to course-correct there is what leads to bludgeoned discussions.

@EducatedRedneck provided some sage advice on how to stop bludgeoning. I would add that your best option is to find a way to contribute that does not involve sources - at least for a time, since that's what ultimately results in bludgeoned discussions. Perhaps copyediting or something else for a while. Show that you can contribute productively in some other area before attempting to come back to this. ButlerBlog (talk) 15:05, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

This appears to have stalled without action but given the number of times there have been ANI reports for your activity, and that each time there are additional editors all saying the same thing, I would suggest in the strongest possible terms that you heed advice given here. ButlerBlog (talk) 03:55, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Proposal: Newsjunkie is subject to a bludgeoning restriction

It seems that Newsjunkie has disengaged from the relevant discussion, which is good. Per WP:NOTPUNISH, it would be against policy to block her now for behavior she's already stopped. However, the bludgeoning is a clear pattern. I hope she'll take the advice in this thread to heart, but I fear that she won't. Previous ANI threads have closed with final warnings, so warnings have not been effective.

If we end up back here in the future, I think it would be good to have a proposal that makes it clear an administrator can block Newsjunkie for bludgeoning and have the block endorsed by the community. The duration of the blocks I think should be left to administrator discretion; this would allow short blocks for edge cases, and longer ones for egregious behavior. A similar restriction of "zero-tolerance for bludgeoning" was used in this previous case.

I have not selected a more prescriptive approach ("X comments per day") as was done in this case to allow for more leniency and discretion from administrators. This restriction is only intended to stop the severe bludgeoning exhibited so far, and I believe an administrator will know it when they see it. This also means that if Newsjunkie has taken the advice given here on board, she won't have to worry about the restriction, as she would already be complying with it.

I therefore propose the following:

Option A: that Newsjunkie be subject to an editing restriction of zero tolerance for bludgeoning

Option B: that Newsjunkie be restricted to no more than 500 words per post in discussions.

EducatedRedneck (talk) 14:58, 7 September 2025 (UTC) Refactored to add Option B per discussion below. EducatedRedneck (talk) 17:28, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

What about adding an "option B" like a word limit restriction? ButlerBlog (talk) 18:33, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

I wouldn't object; I think it could be a bit inflexible, as some discussions would naturally grow larger than the limit would allow, it would also effectively solve the issue. Do you have a thought for what the word limit would be? EducatedRedneck (talk) 21:02, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

I don't think it would unreasonable to suggest a 500 word limit. The inflexibility of it on discussion is exactly the point - to prevent the discussion from growing unnecessarily. If you run some of their bludgeoned discussions through a wordcount, I think you'd be surprised at what 500 words would allow. 1000 is where people definitely start losing their patience. ButlerBlog (talk) 22:12, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

• Support either option as proposer. EducatedRedneck (talk) 14:58, 7 September 2025 (UTC)EducatedRedneck (talk) 17:28, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

User Kironshikder 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.

---

Kironshikder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems to be WP:NOTHERE. They first drew my attention after I WP:G11'd an obviously promotional article they had written (Bangladesh Debate Federation), and seemingly in retaliation they reverted what was at the time my most recent edit without explanation. In addition to the deleted article, the user has a history of adding promotional verbiage to articles, for example [322], as well as creating other articles which are wholly promotional (Abdun Noor Tushar, in addition to the previously mentioned debate federation article). Looking at their talk page also reveals a number of other indiscretions, including recreating AFD'd articles, misusing speedy deletes (and then gloating when the page is later deleted), and other unbecoming conduct. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 15:15, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

They have continued to attempt to retaliate by spuriously nominating PWHL Seattle, an article listed on my user page as one that I started, for deletion ([323]). 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 21:02, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Aye, their Talk page is studded with warnings and complaints, and going over the contribution history, there's more of the same. I'd almost suspect them of trying to run to extended-confirmed (499 edits and counting) if they hadn't started this rampage last year. Ravenswing 15:30, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Commenting to keep this alive, would appreciate admin input. I'm going to try listing out all the issues here that I have found to assist any responding admin. Kironshikder has been repeatedly warned for their behavior on their talk page:

• [324]
• [325]
• [326] (specifically warns them about POV editing).

They have created at least three articles and rewritten one by my count with POV issues, and possible undiclosed WP:COIs, given that several of them deal with the same "debate federation":

• Bangladesh Debate Federation.
• Abdun Noor Tushar.
• Moncho 71 could be worse, but the use of "freedom fighters" in Wikivoice gives the game away here.
• [327] Rewriting an article to add their own POV.
• There may be more as several of their created articles have been deleted, I'm only linking the ones still up or that I viewed before they were removed.

They have misused Wikipedia tools:

• [328] Random revert of my last edit when the debate federation article was G11ed.
• [329] Putting 4 different irrelevant CSDs on an article.
• [330] Bad faith 'reprisal' use of CSD on an article listed on my user page following the deletion of Abdun Noor Tushar.
• [331] Another misuse of CSD to attempt to delete the talk page of an IP.

Other problematic behavior includes:

• Repeatedly attempting to remove AFD templates from their articles despite being warned (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Md. Ziaul Haq (Juyel))
• Removing cited information because it's "embarassing" [332]
• Gloating on their talk page about a page they did a bad CSD on getting deleted anyway ([333], not strictly against any rule I'm aware of but certainly unbecoming behavior)
• Attempting to game the AFD system by immediately recreating deleted articles [334]

Kironshikder has not only not been a productive editor, and has also wasted the valuable time of admins and other volunteers. There are both WP:CIR and WP:NOTHERE issues. It seems they are only here to POV push and WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 21:41, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Just noting that I've just had to WP:G15 a new article (Jannatul Nayeem Avril) from this user because all of the citations were hallucinated. I saw there was an open ANI thread when I went to leave the warning, so I figured I'd mention it. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 04:09, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

And I draftified a few. I also spotted Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/kironshikder. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 04:49, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

It seems they are on a spree today — Xefer Rahman also appears to use all hallucinated sources, I've G15'd it. I'm also checking Rezwana Karim Singdha, created today, some of the sources seem suspect. Could a ban from mainspace be considered? They don't seem to have any indication of stopping. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 04:52, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

They removed the speedy tag from the article. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 04:54, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Which is something they have been repeatedly warned not to do. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 04:56, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

@Kironshikder Please reply here as requested by ChildrenWillListen on your talk page. They are currrently continuing to edit despite CWL's request. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 05:15, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

ok, i want to improve Wikipedia, if there any mistake, all contributor should improve that. And the alligation that ''Promotional Article", that is not true. You all can search in web about that, and last edit are from red name to blue. I am new, so, some mistkae can happen. But all article are capable to keep in wiki. Thanks. Kironshikder (talk) 05:23, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

@Kironshikder: Thanks for responding. You aren't allowed to use AI (ChatGPT, etc.) to create articles on Wikipedia. These tools are known to hallucinate, which basically means they can lie to you. I understand you're trying to contribute in good faith, but that means you can't use AI at all. If you think your English ability is hindering you from using your own words, you can always contribute to the Bengali Wikipedia. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 05:33, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Okay, @Kironshikder, but what about stuff like this, or repeatedly removing deletion tags despite being warned? I'm sorry, I'm not buying this whole "I just want to help" routine, but even doing my best assumption of good faith, competence is required. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 05:33, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Actually, I did it without knowing it.

and thats true, sometime's i took help from AI to get some source or fact check.

Finally, Sorry for not understanding the rules, but I hope I won't make any mistakes from now on, and even if I make a mistake, I will check the warnings, and I hope you will encourage me to work and help me. Kironshikder (talk) 05:40, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

@Kironshikder "Not understanding the rules" is not a good excuse when you did something you were repeatedly warned not to. A deletion tag does not just get deleted by accident all those times. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 05:53, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

And the tag removal is an early one, not a recent incident. I'll pay attention to all warnings from now on. Kironshikder (talk) 05:57, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

@Kironshikder What do you mean it's not a recent incident? You literally did it an hour ago! [335] 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 06:02, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Clicking on Rollback brings back, I was clicking on Vandalism to see what happens, then before I could revert, I saw someone else reverting. Kironshikder (talk) 06:10, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

This would be more believable if you didn't have a history of WP:IDHT behavior. And why would you have been flagging that edit as vandalism anyway? Is it just part of your pattern of trying to disrupt the legitimate work of editors who you're upset at, like these? [336] [337]. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 06:24, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

@Kironshikder: Regarding your comment sometime's i took help from AI to get some source or fact check: Please do not do this going forward. Whichever AI tool you are using is "hallucinating" citations: inventing citations that look plausible, but in reality never existed. At your recent article on Jannatul Nayeem Avril, all of the links pointed to non-existent pages, and searching for articles by those publications with those titles revealed no such articles had ever been published. This is exceptionally damaging to Wikipedia. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:23, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Thankyou Kironshikder (talk) 15:28, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

@Kironshikder back at it with more unproductive edits in the past few hours misusing CSD tagging: [338], [339], [340] and casting aspersions about other editors: [341]. Could an admin intervene here with a mainspace ban as suggested below? 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 02:09, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Do you try to ban people who disagree with your opinion? You can see some these page are deleted before, and last article is not nutral. Kironshikder (talk) 02:23, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

I've indeffed this editor as not here following their retaliatory AN/I report. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:20, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Propose TBAN from Bangladeshi topics

In the spirit of WP:ROPE I'm willing to take Kironshikder at their word that they will improve their behavior going forward until given evidence otherwise, but this does not address the widespread issues with the articles they've created. I have WP:CIR concerns that they still don't seem to understand that their writing has been so promotionally worded that multiple articles they wrote have been WP:G11ed, given that above they said "the alligation that ''Promotional Article", that is not true. You all can search in web about that, and last edit are from red name to blue". This seems to stem from their political leanings and ties to the subjects of their articles, so I'd like to propose Kironshikder tries honing their skills elsewhere on Wiki until they can write with a neutral point of view. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 02:13, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 02:14, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

  (Courtesy pings to involved @Kironshikder, @GorillaWarfare, @ChildrenWillListen, @Ravenswing). 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 22:38, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

• Comment: TBANning an editor from the topics they are interested in (indeed, the only topics they're interested in) isn't a good idea. How about forcing them to go through AfC when they want to create new articles? Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 22:48, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

  Is this possible on a technical level? I researched this as a preferable solution IMO but reading WP:PBLOCK I wasn't sure it was technically feasible. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 22:51, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

  There is supposedly an option called Creating new pages and uploading new files that admins can use to prevent page creation. However, I assume this applies to all namespaces, including Draft and User. An alterantive is a pblock from article space, which would also prevent them from editing existing pages. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 22:59, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

  Maybe a mainspace ban is preferable? There have also been instances of them rewriting articles to inject POV like here [342], so creation may not be a catch-all. I assumed that what I was proposed would be preferable to them, but as you pointed out a mainspace ban would at least let them edit the topic they're most interested in draftspace. Can also wait for an admin to weigh in on the technical feasability, I'm concerned about the line from WP:PBLOCK "You cannot block someone from creating pages in one namespace while allowing them to edit in that namespace." 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 23:07, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

• Support a mainspace ban - the level of disruption seems enough to warrant such a ban. If they want to do edit requests or make drafts through AfC, i'm all for it, hopefully they cna learn. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 23:21, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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:GiantSnowman mass-changing "committed suicide" including in quotes, against consensus

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

---

GiantSnowman is currently making hundreds of automated edits in which they remove all instances of "committed suicide" and replace with "die by", even in contexts where this is inappropriate, or in quotes. In this edit he changed a quote by Jim Jones to read "die by" suicide when Jones, in justifying his mass murder, said committed; this is part of a string of hundreds of automated edits removing every single instance of "committed suicide" against the consensus of contributors, even when we're talking about fictional movies where the characters said committed. Past discussions have come to no consensus to mass remove these (Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/The term committed suicide); of course, this can be removed on a case by case basis, if one individually decides this is not appropriate (many cases should and can use die by, but not all, as evidenced by previous consensus) which is not what GS is doing. After discussing this on their talk page they refuse to stop. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:44, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

I am reviewing the edits, this is pure ABF from this editor. You will note I am editing alphabetically - yet have skipped e.g. Kurt Cobain, because that was a quote. The Jim Jones was a mistake, which I owned up to immediately. The guidance in WP:Committed suicide applies. GiantSnowman 15:47, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

That is a user essay and is against community consensus from this year. The other example I reverted you on was also an indirect quote from a fictional character in a screenplay - the only other one I looked at! I have concerns you are not checking the language properly on such a sensitive subject. They were also falsely marked minor edits. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:50, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

The VP discussion you post appears not to have been closed and there to be no consensus? Stop trying to mislead other editors. As I have already asked you: this is an old fashioned terminology which is increasingly out of favour. What's your problem with replacing it with acceptable wording? GiantSnowman 15:53, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

That there was no official closure does not mean you cannot gauge a rough community consensus. In fact, the MOS explicitly says the words committed suicide are not forbidden, though it may not always be optimal, which you are going against with your blanket removals. My heading was "stop the automated edits", so yes, I did ask you to stop, and there were at least 2 instances of you altering a direct or indirect quote from 1) a mass murderer and 2) a fictional character, in the only 2 instances I checked. There is no consensus to keep it in every case and there is no consensus to remove it in and the last time someone tried this it led to that VP discussion.

My problem is that in many cases "died by" gives an extremely misleading impression. In cases such as mass murder or mass murder-suicide (like your Jones edit) the suicide was in fact part of a crime, and committed is the correct verbiage. If someone kills 5 people and then themself as part of the crime "died by" seems absurd. Died by also gives the bizarre impression that it was something that merely happened to someone rather than what they did, which is appropriate in cases where it was something like depression but not in cases where someone did it as the direct result of another action. Other verbiage may be preferable, like simply "killed themself", but "died by" is bad in many situations. Marking these edits minor when this language is also very contentious is problematic. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:59, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

We had a long RFC that established the language "committed suicide" is acceptable, now incorporated at MOS:SUICIDE. So mass changing these away from "committed suicide" is inappropriate. Masem (t) 16:11, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Also, for the avoidance of any doubt, I have stopped pending this discussion. I dispute that PARAKANYAA asked me to stop, and I dispute that I am editing against consensus. There is no policy to remove the wording, but there is no policy to retain it either. It's awful, old fashioned language that is a hangover from when suicide was a criminal offence. GiantSnowman 15:51, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

See MOS:SUICIDE. There's zero reasons to remove it. Masem (t) 16:12, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

You mean the MOS:SUICIDE which says "style manuals have come to avoid 'commit suicide', which is now considered insensitive because of its association with crime or sin. There are many other appropriate, common, and encyclopaedic ways to describe a suicide, including [...] died by suicide" i.e. fully supporting my edits? GiantSnowman 16:38, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

"The phrase committed suicide is not banned on the English Wikipedia..." so switching the term without seeking consensus on a mass scale is disruptive. Masem (t) 16:42, n31 August 2025 (UTC)

If the guidance in WP:Committed suicide applies, then that includes "editors should not systematically remove all uses of that phrase from Wikipedia". Phil Bridger (talk) 16:58, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

• This is a content dispute. M.Bitton (talk) 16:00, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

  No, because the issue is the automated mass changes on hundred of pages against consensus. PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:02, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

  It would have been preferable to link to MOS:SUICIDE or this RfC (which is clearer than the recent discussion). M.Bitton (talk) 16:29, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

  ....probably, yes, but I was rushing because the edits were ongoing. My bad. PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:38, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

When did "committed suicide" become a terminology to avoid in articles? GoodDay (talk) 16:19, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Since this and this and this and so many others. GiantSnowman 16:36, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

But the terminology is not barred on Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 16:43, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Mind the gap between "not barred" and recommended, encouraged, endorsed, etc. It is language that bothers some editors, some readers, and nearly all relevant professionals. I don't love "died by" (I'd suggest trying something like "killed himself" or a separate sentence, "The manner of death was suicide"), and I don't love mass editing, but there's nothing wrong with a copyedit that just happens to change the disputed and drama-prone "committed" language to something that doesn't draw complaints. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:51, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes, well, quite aside from that I don't get to rewrite language on Wikipedia to suit what bothers ME (I would certainly cut a large swathe when it came to diacritics and capitalization), demonstrably GS's actions are drawing complaints. Ravenswing 08:21, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

It's generally preferred that editors act in accordance with en-wp's own guidelines rather than external advice sites. Ours are formed and governed by consensus; theirs aint. Mind you, WT:MOS might be open to an RfC to change MOS:SUICIDE as it stands, of course. —Fortuna, imperatrix 16:45, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

See above - MOS:SUICIDE specifically talks about alternate wording. GiantSnowman 17:36, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure that principle is true, even in theory ("It's generally preferred that editors act in accordance with en-wp's own guidelines rather than external advice sites"). Sure, if we have a specific rule rejecting it (e.g., MOS:TRADEMARK rejects some companies' trademark capitalizations or styles), then you should follow our style guide. But when our style guide doesn't disagree with the external advice, then why not follow both? It is possible (even easy) to comply with the MOS:SUICIDE guideline, the Wikipedia:Committed suicide explanation, and the professional external style guides at the same time. So why not? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:00, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

In 2010, maybe. —Fortuna, imperatrix 14:55, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

• Any argument that relies on "but the guideline says it's 'not banned'", when the guideline also explains there are a variety of reasons to prefer an alternative, is fundamentally a very weak argument. That there is not a mandate to change it doesn't mean there's a mandate to retain it. As long as Snowman catches the quotes and any other context where a change would be problematic for basic policy reasons, I don't see a problem with leaving this to be disputed at the level of individual articles. I would hope that anyone reverting would have a reason why "committed suicide" is better than "died by suicide" other than "it's not banned" or "no consensus" though. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:48, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

  This mirrors my stance as well. Sergecross73 msg me 18:32, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

  I have no problem with getting rid of "committed suicide", but GS is not catching the quotes and any other context where a change would be problematic. This is not a content dispute, but an admin carelessly running scripts and falsifying quotes. —Kusma (talk) 18:34, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

  You are attributing malice on my part here where there is none. WP:AGF. GiantSnowman 18:36, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

  We have taken steps against editors using mass editing tools carelessly, even if the goal was in good faith. (Anyone remember BetaCommand?) Masem (t) 19:35, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

  In fact, not to be dragging up old history, but GiantSnowman has been cautioned about the careless use of scripts before. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:40, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

• Just had one of these on my watchlist: [343]. It does not look like GS is putting a lot of care into these edits; the phrase "weapons they used to commit suicide" should be changed to something like "weapons they used for their suicide", not "weapons they used to die by suicide", if it is changed at all. Additionally, there is a "committed [..] suicide" that was not changed, so this particular edit seems like a net negative. —Kusma (talk) 17:01, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

  My script is very limited, literally just 'committed suicide → died by suicide' and 'commit suicide → die by suicide', hence why the second one was not picked up. Editors are obviously more than welcome to tidy up wording further. GiantSnowman 17:35, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

  Seems your script isn't good enough then. It is your responsibility to clean up your mass edits, not anybody else's. —Kusma (talk) 17:44, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

  If you insist on making this change (as it happens, I think you are wrong to, but that's besides my point) rather than using an automated script that produces errors and poor wording, you should work by hand, avoiding these pitfalls. It's not the responsibility of others to clean up the mistakes made by your "very limited" script and haste to make this change. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:46, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

  You seem to be utterly careless when running this script. I have reviewed fewer than 20 edits and found the following: [344] is vandalism (falsifying a quote is unexcusable). "he has died by suicide by hanging himself" is not "correct terminology", but bad English. "he tried to die by suicide" is also not the usual terminology, which is "he attempted suicide". If you were not an admin, I would pull AWB access over this amount of carelessness. I would suggest to mass-revert all of your recent edits and to do them properly if you think they are worth doing. —Kusma (talk) 18:31, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

  Editors are obviously more than welcome to tidy up wording further. It would be strange if they were unwelcome to do so. Mackensen (talk) 18:32, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

  Given the issues raised by Kusma and others I won't be proceeding with this script. Apologies for any inadvertent disruption (such as accidentally catching quotes), clearly not intentional. GiantSnowman 18:34, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

  While your script has problems, it is correct to act against consensus to remove "commit(ted) suicide" from articles where it is not in quotes. The dictionary definitions of "commit" in this sense clearly have negative connotations, in violation of WP:NPOV, which "cannot be superseded by editor consensus." Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:48, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

  Neutral point of view does not mean we cannot describe things negatively, but "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." It is a rather mainstream view that suicide is a regrettable thing! It may not be appropriate for all cases so removing it manually while considering the situation is one thing, but mass removals without regard for context are another. Going against consensus is, in fact, bad. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:55, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

  PARAKANYAA you are yet to actually highlight any 'consensus'. Repeatedly saying something does not make it so. GiantSnowman 19:01, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

  MOS:SUICIDE "The phrase committed suicide is not banned on the English Wikipedia" and Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 164#RFC: "Committed suicide" language "The result is to not change policy, which allows "commit suicide," therefore no change is needed".

  Other versions are allowed, even suggested in some context but using a defective script to enforce one single (poor) variety of several allowed without regard for context, options, quotes, fiction or reality, and expecting other people to clean it up is bad. If you had manually changed a few in contextually appropriate situations (not mass murderers or movie scripts) that is another thing entirely. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:07, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

  Then your issue is with the method, not the intent. GiantSnowman 19:22, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

  My issue is with both, because removing it in all contexts is bad. "Committed" is appropriate in some situations. But the automated issue is why I took it to ANI. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:24, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

  The RFC that led to the addition of the MOS:SUICIDE language clearly dismissed the concern that "commit suicide" may be seen as POV, which is why the term is still acceptable to use. Masem (t) 19:37, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

  Citation needed. Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:09, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

  Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 164#RFC: "Committed suicide" language "The result is to not change policy, which allows "commit suicide," therefore no change is needed. In each article a multitude of word choices are allowed and editors can make editorial decisions through the normal process as to what sounds most natural, most informative and reads the best in each specific situation. A minority of editors think "commit suicide" is archaic, and if some other equal or better formulation exists and a change is made, we should not tendentiously revert it. Likewise, I would urge editors not to tendentiously remove "commit suicide" everywhere it is found. Perhaps the best idea is to see what the cited sources in each article say and follow their formulation. This will naturally cause us to track whatever trend exists in society. The issue could be revisited a year from now (to choose an arbitrary unit of time) to ensure we have the latest style, while avoiding discussion fatigue". Don't go around removing every instance but decide what is best in each individual case. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:28, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

  That decision doesn't speak to NPOV. Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:27, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

  You're operating under the assumption that "committed suicide" necessarily violates NPOV, which is a position that does not have consensus. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:29, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

  There is no consensus either way, so WP:BOLD is the correct action, because all of the RS say "commit" in this context has negative connotations. "Committed suicide" has become universally disapproved of by style guides and RS over the past ten years:

RS showing "commit suicide" violates NPOV

In 2015 the Associated Press states in part:

Avoid using committed suicide except in direct quotations from authorities. Alternate phrases include killed himself, took her own life or died by suicide..."Committed in that context suggests possibly an illegal act, but in fact, laws against suicide have been repealed in the US, at least in certain states, and many other places".

Columbia Journalism Review

The American Heritage Dictionary also advises against "committed".[345] The dictionary definition of "commit" in this sense clearly has negative connotations, in violation of WP:NPOV, which "cannot be superseded by editor consensus." Also per MOS:MED#Careful language, "Choose appropriate words when describing medical conditions and their effects on people". Appropriate means medically accurate and not expressing negative/disparaging attitudes. Lastly, we have our own style guidelines; we do not use the style of the RS which we happen to cite, per Wikipedia:Specialized-style fallacy (reliable sources style fallacy).

The negative connotations are specific:

1. Cambridge Dictionary: "to do something illegal or something that is considered wrong", for example: "She tried to commit suicide by slashing her wrists." [346]
2. Lexico: "Perpetrate or carry out (a mistake, crime, or immoral act)", for example: "he committed an uncharacteristic error". [347]
3. American Heritage Dictionary: "To do, perform, or perpetrate", for example: "commit a murder". [348]
4. Wiktionary: "To do (something bad); to perpetrate, as a crime, sin, or fault", for example: "to commit murder". [349]
5. Chambers Dictionary: "to carry out or perpetrate (a crime, offence, error, etc)." [350]

• Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:11, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

  That RFC considered what external style guides and medical journals stated, as well as the concern about "committed" implying a crime. And the results are as that RFC closed - that there's POV issue with using the term, that there are other ways to say it, but no mandate to require moving from one or the other. We're not here to reargue the close of that RFC, and it should be accepted the community very much understands what issues do exist with the term but also know how often it still is used today. Masem (t) 04:08, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

  The RfC close did not discuss NPOV beyond person opinions. It did not discuss RS claims that it is not NPOV. Kolya Butternut (talk) 10:37, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

  +1. "NPOV", like many other concepts on Wikipedia, is in the eye of the beholder. I expect that for every person who's hot under the collar at the purported pejorative nature of the phrase, there are two people convinced there's an actual issue at stake here far weightier and graver than picking fights over nomenclature. Never mind that style guides "universally" follow your preferred wording? What, every style guide known in the English language? Want to back that up with a bit more than just two examples? Ravenswing 08:16, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

  Every style guide which mentions the phrase advises against it?

  Wikipedia:Committed_suicide#External_links Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:33, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

  ... you mean "every style guide" represented in that table? Fair enough. But if you're going to wage war over nomenclature, keep your own clean. You want "widely," not "universally." Ravenswing 01:49, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

  Every style guide represented in that table happens to be every style guide editors have found that mentions that language at all.

  If you find another style guide – whether it's pro-, anti-, or in between – please add it to the table. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:01, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

  Surely that is wrongheaded. If a style guide does not mention that language at all, that style guide finds no problem with that language at all. Style guides only busy themselves with style that needs guidance. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:47, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

  If a style guide for math papers doesn't mention suicide, then that style guide finds no problem with any way of writing about suicide? That's not a sensible conclusion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:30, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

  Nobody made nor intended to make nor implied any such ridiculous argument, as you well know, Sirfurboy and Ravenswing weren't talking about math style guides. 76.20.114.184 (talk) 01:13, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

  What is an example of a style guide which does not mention suicide which you feel proves this point? Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:16, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

  They've offered an Argument from silence as supposed proof that there exist style guides that disagree with the ones listed there, and that their disagreement can be determined by their silence on the subject. It's an unsound argument, and the example I gave of a math style guide not addressing suicide makes the unsoundness immediately obvious.

  If anyone can actually find a (reasonably recent) English-language style guide that supports this language, I would love to put in the list. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:40, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

  No, but I'm surprised you linked to Argument from silence without noting how historians use such arguments. My argument was that we would not expect to find opposing style guides, since style guides only guide style where the style needs guidance. You offer no refutation of that. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:32, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

  If a style guide does not mention that language at all, that style guide finds no problem with that language at all. Can you provide an example of such a style guide for consideration? Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:44, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

  Thank you. Can you try to clean up your edits? This really doesn't seem to be suited for simple scripts; very often some other rephrasing than a simple replacement is required. And quotes really, really need to be left alone. —Kusma (talk) 18:49, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

  I 100% agree that the quotes being caught was an error and should not have happened. I will do a sample audit to check if others have been caught and correct accordingly. GiantSnowman 18:53, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

  I did a sample check last night and only found 1 that was clearly error, and a few more where the new wording was fine but not ideal. GiantSnowman 17:26, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

• In the end, there is absolutely no problem removing "committed" in those cases where (a) they refer to a real person and (b) there is no overriding reason to keep the wording (I think these would be quite rare). Unfortunately, I suspect the complexity of this means that the only really efficient way of doing it is by manual examination of each edit; even using categorisation to restrict the types of articles, I can think of many situations where an automated change would run into problems. I absolutely support the removal of this language where possible; I do not think an automated script is the best way to do it. Black Kite (talk) 19:32, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
• Given the speed that these edits were performed, and the level of errors gone undetected (such as changing quotations, errant grammar, etc) -- this seems to be exactly the sort of behavior the policy regarding automated/BOT edits is addressing. Even if there was consensus for these sorts of edits (which there does not appear to be), this script should have undergone a trial before being more widely used for mass changing. With regards to attributing malice on my part here where there is none - the problem here is that it seems like scapgoating the "script made me do it" is the reason why this behavior should not be a problem. As a reminder per the arb case GS was involved in Users are responsible and accountable for all their edits or actions, whether they are assisted by user scripts or not. Users are expected to take appropriate additional care when contributing with the assistance of a user script.[351] and it seems like this "appropraite additional care" was not taken here.TiggerJay (talk) 20:59, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
  • I had started typing out "To GS' credit, they do appear to have stopped the script immediately upon noticing that this thread had been opened" which, while true, having checked their talk page I see that they were notified originally there that inappropriate changes to quotes were being made but allowed the script to continue running regardless at that point, which is not good. This isn't the first time, as mentioned above, that GS has had...issues...with automated editing tools. I don't think we need, at this time, an explicit prohibition of use of automated tools by GS, but they should bear in mind that "once is an accident, twice coincidence, but three times is a pattern" and this is at least, that I am aware of the second time - they must take more care with the use of automated editing tools, because a third recurrence will likely see a sanction proposed with regards to automated tool useage. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:55, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
• My two cents is that this all seems to be a case of hamfisted editing and some stubbornness on GS's part rather than malicious disruption. I believe a formal, final warning would suffice for this situation. As for the "Committed" vs. "Die by" discourse, IMO "commited" should be kept in the context of quotes and in cases like mass killers and terrorists (since those are playing an active role in criminal activity, and thus in their own deaths, rather than being individuals who happened to be dealing with long-term mental illness), and "died by" should be reserved for biographies of otherwise regular persons and perhaps fictional characters. --DannyC55 (Talk ★ Contributions) 01:40, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

  Sorry, in my defence - having already held my hands up here - there were only 3/4 'mistakes' highlighted (although 3/4 too many, of course!) - people are acting like every single edit was fundamentally wrong and disruptive, which is not the case and entirely unfair. GiantSnowman 18:38, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

  Using an automated tool to make these edits was, in fact, fundamentally wrong and disruptive. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:21, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

• The prior wording “committed suicide” was agreed upon and used on the articles, Adolf Hitler and Death of Adolf Hitler when they passed GA. And it is the wording used in the WP:RS sources as to the circumstances of his death. While consensus can change, at the very least, it should been discussed on the talk page prior to change and consensus of the local page editors, reached. Kierzek (talk) 02:18, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

  Neither Talk:Adolf Hitler/GA1 nor Talk:Death of Adolf Hitler/GA1 contain any discussion about that language, so I don't think we can say it was "agreed upon" in the GA reviews (as if such an agreement would be binding on all subsequent editors, more than a decade later anyway). It might be fair to say that it was "accepted", but based on the total lack of discussion, someone could equally conclude that it was simply "overlooked". WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:10, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking#Fait accompli seems to apply here (one editor making many controversial edits). It doesn't seem appropriate, considering the RFC, and MOS:SUICIDE, for these edits to be automated or accomplished via script, presenting Wikipedia with a fait accompli. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:44, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
• The n-grams show that 'committed suicide' is overwhelmingly used. "Died by suicide" seems awkward to me, so checked n-grams. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:46, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
• Mass style/word-choice changes are never a good idea and don't end well. However, whenever this discussion turns up, the usual false claims are made: "We had a long RFC that established the language "committed suicide" is acceptable", "There's zero reasons to remove it", "The RFC that led to the addition of the MOS:SUICIDE language clearly dismissed the concern that "commit suicide" may be seen as POV, which is why the term is still acceptable to use". None of these tendentious claims are true. We have a lack of consensus about this, not a consensus to retain forever more. In my opinion, through mass edit or individual edit, the phrase "committed suicide", outside of historical quotes, will die out on Wikipedia as it has already done in quality writing and in usage by health experts dealing with the matter. Those fighting that are, simply, wasting editor time on a battle they will lose. Find something else to do so. -- Colin°^Talk 12:13, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
• I want to note that I've encountered another issue with GiantSnowman's script-assisted editing. I previously warned him about WP:COSMETICBOT regarding his use of MOSNUMscript (User talk:GiantSnowman/2025#Edit to Kathleen O'Melia), and today he made another (completely useless) cosmetic edit to the same article. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:38, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

  Except the template documentation explicitly states those 'completely useless' edits should be made, as has been explained to you previously - "After an article is tagged, periodic script runs clean up formats, correcting any new introductions since the last edit using the script, and updating the tracking date parameter in the {{Use dmy dates}} template" (my emphasis). GiantSnowman 08:47, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

  GS, given the concerns that have been raised about your automated/semi-automated editing on multiple occasions, I would suggest it'd be a good idea if you were to voluntarily step back from all script-assisted edits for awhile, even those like these. If they are necessary, other people can make them; there is no deadline. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:37, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

  I've already stopped AWB/JWB. So are you saying this is a disruptive edit that I should not be making? Or this? And just hope that somebody else comes along at some point to tidy up an article? GiantSnowman 09:55, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

  Given the context? Yes, and yes, and yes you should. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:42, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, but you're not supposed to make any changes to the article unless it's non-cosmetic. You're supposed to review what the script outputs and reject the edit if there are no substantive changes to be made to the article. voorts (talk/contributions) 13:03, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

  The template documentation states "The parameter |date= is intended to track the most recent month and year in which an editor checked the article for inconsistent date formatting". That is precisely what I did - performed a date audit and updated the date parameter accordingly. GiantSnowman 13:30, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

  Also let me add before I log off for the day (friend's wedding to get to!) - if there is community consensus that the 'non-substantive date audit' (i.e. something like this, where just the date and nothing else is changed) should NOT be performed and the template documentation is updated accordingly, then I will obviously not make those kind of edits. How little you think of me. GiantSnowman 13:37, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

  Snowman, what Voorts is saying aligns with my understanding of current consensus on such edits, even if it's not written anywhere. Updating the format of dates in citations to conform with a consistent date format is not cosmetic, fixing dashes is not cosmetic, but updating a date parameter certainly is, and should only be made alongside other edits. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:07, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

  This has been discussed before on the template talk. See this diff for the reason this is not necessarily problematic. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:19, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

  Not persuasive IMO, and not in line with more centralized discussions I've seen on cosmetic edits. The whole point of disallowing purely cosmetic edits is we're not catering to editors with this or that stylistic fascination but to readers of articles. It's one thing to standardize dates; it's another to make an edit to update a template about standardizing dates when there are no dates being standardized. If someone wants to create a threshold whereby e.g. "it's ok to update a [X]-year-old template even if not making any reader-visible edits" then fine, but the vast majority of cases seem to be someone making a template update while cranking out AWB edits that can be executed en masse on a regular basis. This is a tangent at this point, though, to be fair. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:22, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

• I'm suprised it was removed on an article I wrote. The statement didn't make sense but that has been discussed. The whole thing about committing suicide, is that your committing to the abgregation of reason. That is the committal part of the phrase, your making a committment to yourself. Also nobody dies by suicide. They die for a specific reason, and you would never see such a statement recorded by any examiners/doctors/police report. Its just not there. More so, the phrase is widely known and understand by both the public and health professionals. scope_creep^Talk 07:34, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

  Actually, I believe the "committing" part of the phrase is a left over from when suicide was a criminal offence.[352] DeCausa (talk) 13:11, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

• "Died by suicide" is a fucking insult to those of us affected by suicide. You don't help anyone by patronising self-righteousness. As a phrase it possesses all the disadvantages, and none of the advantages, of euphemism. Go and do something useful instead. The horrible thing, the negative thing, the damaging thing, the stigmatising thing, about committing suicide isn't the word commit, it's the killing yourself. DuncanHill (talk) 07:58, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

  Never mind that it's all virtue signaling in the first place. In the same fashion that the commonly accepted term to refer to people of visible African descent has changed six bloody times in my lifetime alone, I give it just a few years before the chattering classes decide that "died by suicide" has somehow become pejorative, and it will be the Only Conceivable Decent Thing To Do is to change it to something else. Ravenswing 11:05, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

  Since when has "died by suicide" been pejorative by any definition of the word? MOS:SUICIDE explicitly says There are many other appropriate, common, and encyclopaedic ways to describe a suicide, including: [...] died by suicide. This whole argument seems pointless at best. 2A0E:1D47:9085:D200:1B7C:9298:D67:4367 (talk) 11:29, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

  It isn't, of course: yet. But it will. There was a time when "colored" wasn't pejorative. There was a time when "Negro" wasn't pejorative. There was a time when "handicapped" wasn't pejorative. There was a time where "retarded" wasn't seen as pejorative. There was a time when "Oriental" wasn't considered pejorative. In each and every one of those cases, the term was considered a legitimate, neutral replacement for an appellation that was felt (and often was intended) to be pejorative. And in each one of those cases, almost as soon as the replacement term gained broad acceptance, the backlash against it as the New Pejorative began. Ravenswing 12:50, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

  WP:NOTFORUM REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 13:20, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

  And if I wasn't addressing the reasons why I think such a mass change is pointless, I might even agree with you. Ravenswing 16:27, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

  The problem is, opinions among those of us personally affected are not uniform, and there are people who feel just as strongly on either side (not to mention a large number of ambivalent/disinterested people). That's why we tend to err on the side of what other style guides say and try to figure out if there's a consensus among RS rather than just go by Wikipedians' opinions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:03, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

• Looking at the relevant pages (MOS:SUICIDE, WP:Committed suicide, Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/The term committed suicide, etc) regarding the specific word use tells me that "committed suicide", "died by suicide", "killed his/her/themself/ves" and others listed in examples are what we should be trying to use (depending on multiple factors), and that no policy exists explicitly forbidding the use of specific terms. The point that these pages touch on the most is the importance of avoiding euphemisms, and the importance of writing it in an encyclopaedic tone and without undue emphasis.

That being said, it's quite clear that the verbiage and exact word use regarding suicide is:

• a contentious topic that many editors have at least some level of opinion regarding.
• an area that isn't enforced by a narrow or "black and white" set of policies or rules regarding its use.
• a topic that has a diverse range of different opinions by editors regarding the exact wording or phrase to use given different article subjects, among many other things.
• a phrase with many different ways to refer to it, and where a "one size fits all" approach absolutely does not apply here.

The use of automation or scripts to make mass changes to the exact phrase is definitely not appropriate in this situation. As pointed out, it has resulted in edits and changes where doing so has added more issues or errors depending on the article or content (an example being where quoted text was altered to no longer reflect exactly what the person stated). Aside from that fact, making mass changes or edits of any kind like this across Wikipedia is absolutely not appropriate without a discussion and community consensus beforehand if what's being modified is contentious, controversial, or will likely be questioned or cause objection by other editors. So... the automated mass changes definitely needed to stop (which it has). This topic is something that - as pointed out by all of the relevant essays, discussions, and style guidelines referenced here - will be different on a case-by-case basis and depending on the article subject, content, situation, and other matters. Unless a discussion takes place that comes to a consensus regarding the use of automation or scripts to make edits like this, this is a matter that will require pairs of eyes and manual observation and changes to articles that use "committed suicide". ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:13, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

You're acting like I didn't stop a week ago... GiantSnowman 13:35, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

GiantSnowman Oh, not at all. I know that you did, and I absolutely should've acknowledged this in my response above. I apologize for not doing so, and I hope that I didn't cause you any anger or frustration. I was simply adding my input and thoughts for the record, since I spent a crap load of time reading through all of the responses and the relevant Wikipedia pages referenced here. It wasn't done with the intent to point fingers at you or imply that you're continuing to be disruptive or anything like that. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:58, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

I appreciate that, but I remain more than frustrated. The ANI post started with mis-repreentations which a few colleagues have manfully helped show, but which other editors have listened to blindly. That type of conduct continues to date. Are we going to keep this thread open indefinitely and hanging over me so people can continue to have minor pops and continue to have a chance to say how much I annoy them?! GiantSnowman 18:01, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

GiantSnowman - I completely understand the frustration. Let me see scan the rest of this ANI thread, and I'll close it. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:10, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Since GiantSnowman has stopped the mass changes-in-question. Hasn't this ANI report reached its goal? Thus it should be closed? GoodDay (talk) 13:45, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Further - I stopped a week ago, said I would not undertake edits like these again (I did not realise it would be so contentious, and in hindsight it was poorly planned/thought out/executed, and totally inappropriate as an automated project), and audited and corrected the (small amount of, but nevertheless still too many) mistakes (i.e. edits to quotes). GiantSnowman 13:55, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

I think it's honestly time to close this discussion, the behavior in question has stopped since this report was initiated a week ago. 98.235.155.81 (talk) 13:58, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

There's still the open question that has been raised above as to whether GS is abiding by WP:COSMETICBOT. Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:39, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

An issue raised by one editor here, and explained with reference to the documentation of the template in question. GiantSnowman 17:27, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

(oh, and which I have said I will no longer do, if there is consensus to change the template, which there is currently not). GiantSnowman 17:28, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

I agree edits like this one are purely cosmetic and annoying for those who have the page in their watchlist. You had already updated the template a few weeks before, there was no other edit in the meanwhile, you didn't really need to update the date parameter in the 'Use dmy dates' again. Cavarrone 19:24, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

As stated above - edits like that are specifically permitted/encouraged by the template documentation. Get consensus to change that, and I will stop. GiantSnowman 20:08, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Instead of just repeating that these edits are "encouraged" in the template documentation (they're not), what's your specific reason for making an edit like this? What actual improvement do you feel your edit has made to the page? As long as for me that's not a big deal, this is also a totally pointless way to spend your time on WP. Cavarrone 21:17, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Opening the diffs of script-assisted maintenance edits on your watchlist to check if they are "purely cosmetic" also seems like a pointless way to spend your time, to be honest. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 09:40, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Eh. Scripts and bots mess things up; just today I removed this random letter "e" that had been inserted into the top of an article during a script assisted run[353], and I've seen CitationBot do mindboggling things with ISBNs before.[354] If you care about an article, checking that automated or semi-automated edits haven't broken anything isn't a bad idea. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 09:45, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Actually, here's another example: [355]. I created and wrote this article, and I intentionally used "mdy" for the text dates and "yyyy-mm-dd" in citations, because the YYYY-MM-DD style citation is easier for me to keep track of and I naturally write MDY-style dates. This script-assisted edit changed every single date to "dmy" & added a tag telling others to use that editor's chosen variety of date; AGF there must be something that tripped that choice, but I can't for the life of me see what. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 18:45, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

But the original date formatting was NOT consistent - if your issue is that DMY has been implemented rather than the intended (but not actually expressed or fully used) MDY, there's a very easy fix. GiantSnowman 18:58, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes, that is consistent, using it in the references but not the text is a fully allowed standard. Just because you do not like it does not mean you can change it. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:00, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

My least favourite part of getting an article on the Main Page is that GiantSnowman usually comes with his script and messes up my consistent date formatting (dmy or mdy in the body as there is no automated conversion, yyyy-mm-dd in the references, automatically displayed as dmy or mdy as appropriate). At minimum, he makes a useless cosmetic edit to the month in the date formatting template. —Kusma (talk) 08:50, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

I entirely agree; that's the way I do it on articles I write as well, and given that form is explicitly allowed by MOS:DATEFORMAT I don't know why it is done. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:02, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

PARAKANYAA, Kusma, and GreenLipstickLesbian, adding cs1=ly as a parameter to the date style template is the gnome- and script-friendly way to indicate that you'd like render citation dates as YYYYMMDD. I made this edit to Rita (chimpanzee) as an example. GiantSnowman, your choice of DMY at the Rita article was a clear error (which you've since corrected, thanks), since every date present was either MDY or YYYMMDD. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:25, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers, that displays citation dates as YYYYMMDD. I want the wiki text to be YYYYMMDD because that is easy to use for editors, and display dmy or ymd so the output is consistent for readers. —Kusma (talk) 13:41, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

I was not 100% sure what you wanted, so thanks for clarifying. I think you and I disagree about what's easiest for editors, but it's not relevant here. I'm not aware of a templated way to achieve what you're looking for, but maybe a hidden note would help? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:50, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

I generate my citations with ProveIt, and they usually come out as ISO dates. So it is easiest for me if all citations are in this format. Hidden notes help against manual gnoming, but don't defend against date formatting scripts that are run without looking at the wikicode. —Kusma (talk) 15:35, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Discussion for a separate location, but can the templates (DMY and MDY) be edited so that a parameter similar to 'cs1=ly' is added, so that Kusma's concerns/issues are resolved? GiantSnowman 17:42, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

This doesn't solve the problem, because there is no reason to change the wikitext format when it is consistent, even if it shows as another style due to templates. It looking different (the ISO standard) in the wikitext is fine and we don't need it to be changed by running a script against citevar. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:01, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

What GreenLipstickLesbian said. Also you apparently are a new editor (do you really are?) who arguably has very few articles in the watchlist. I have thousands (all the 5,000+ articles I created, hundreds I significantly expanded, hundreds of files I uploaded, dozens I am interested and so on) and often have my watchlist clogged by series of pointless edits like these, which increase exponentially the risk of missing meaningful/disruptive edits. Cavarrone 10:36, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

You are of course more than able to filter out 'minor' and 'bot' edits etc. from your watchlist, so this argument is a non-starter. GiantSnowman 17:59, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Just noting that you keep not responding to what's your specific reason for making an edit like this? What actual improvement do you feel your edit has made to the page?. I am genuinely curious about how does updating the month in an invisible template every few weeks actually help readers. About filtering edits, I have to remind you that this very thread was started because your 'minor' and 'script-assisted' edits generated errors, which you yourself partially admitted. I strongly suggest you to follow The Bushranger's suggestion. Cavarrone 18:17, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

No, I have already explained this. The template documentation says "The parameter |date= is intended to track the most recent month and year in which an editor checked the article for inconsistent date formatting". That is what I am doing. It is a useful exercise to audit articles like this ("Use of this template is part of a continuing effort to monitor the date formats used in articles, to assist in maintaining consistent formatting within an article"). As I have also already said, if you don't agree - get consensus, change the template documentation, and I will be more than happy to stop those edits.

I've already repeatedly (and long ago) held my hands up to the mistakes with the 'suicide' issue, so don't dare belittle/patronise me by saying I have only "partially admitted" that. GiantSnowman 18:30, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

More technical explanation for DMY updates here. GiantSnowman 18:36, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

What I don't get is why you're not deferring to policies and guidelines? Your editing remains consistent with the documentation, but the documentation appears inconsistent with community standards. It's not the job of editors to change that documentation for you to understand the issue. CNC (talk) 18:41, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

And what policies/guidelines are those? GiantSnowman 18:55, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

I was really hoping you'd not only know the answer to this, but also provide a relevant argument based on them. Nevermind. CNC (talk) 09:26, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

COSMETICBOT specifically allows an exception for "administration of the encyclopedia", which should include auditing and maintenance of date style, which we track using maintenance categories. GS has shown a willingness to stop tasks and switch to others when there's not consensus for them, but this is a task for which there is local consensus and permission in policy. I join the voices calling for closure here. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:14, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate this. GiantSnowman 17:40, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

It looks like there may be a discussion in progress regarding WP:COSMETICBOT, but since GiantSnowman put a pause to the automated changes that caused this ANI discussion to be created in the first place, I think the main topic of concern can be considered addressed, and I think this ANI discussion can be closed once this other discussion concludes. I've interacted with GiantSnowman many times, and I've never once had a negative experience with them. I completely trust that GiantSnowman will take this discussion to heart and will use this as a learning opportunity to shape how they contribute moving forward (just like anyone who cares about this project should). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:06, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Except the purported COSMETICBOT edits are nothing of the sort, as pointed out by Sarek above. GiantSnowman 20:27, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

GS, the fact you continue to protest this, despite multiple editors expressing concerns about your editing, doesn't reflect well on you. Let somebody else make these edits if they are so desperately needed. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:42, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Two (?) editors have said they think it's COSMETICBOT - but I have justified my edits by referring to the template documentation, and Sarek has pointed out pre-existing support for the edits. So, yes, I will continue to defend myself against false accusations. GiantSnowman 17:58, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

I'd argue that instead you should stop digging the hole, but you do you. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:04, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I have to agree. Much ink (bandwidth?) has been spilled in this discussion in an effort to re-litigate the merits of various approaches to the use of the "committed" idiom, so that the perceived rectitude of GSM's action could be determined. But almost all of that was a waste, because it unessential to figuring out if there was disruption caused as a result of the specific conduct being complained of here. If there is anything that is clear from GSM's own detailed discussion of the underlying editorial dispute, it is that they are completely familiar with the breadth of previous discussions and the contents of the specific formal closes. So it should have been absolutely beyond the shadow of a doubt that their choice to systematically mass convert this content across so many articles would be controversial. I'm not necessarily saying every such change across every affected article needs an express consensus discussion on the matter--though, I also wouldn't look askance at anyone who did have that position. But, in any event, this kind of change made by volume was always going to cause problems, considering the results of previous discussions and the specific verbiage codified into the ultimate guidelines, and the fact that GSM made these mass changes with a script, leading to errors including the changing of direct quotes only further gives the impression of an attitude that was far too cavalier, especially when compared with the level of perspective and restraint we tend to expect from someone with the bit.

Now, like Oshwah, I tend to think of GSM in a mostly positive light. If only because of the volume of work and community contributions I have seen from them over the years, relative to this being the first time I can recall seeing someone complain about them. I have had occasions to search by the morpheme "Snow" on project pages over the years, as you might imagine. So I tend to notice when GSM is around, which is how I know what a productive editor they are. And again, generally as a well-regarded contributor as far as I have ever observed of their community standing, with my personal appraisal similar. But here, their level of failing to take the feedback, and being hyper defensive about what was, at absolute best, a questionable choice of approach to this issue, is demonstrating really poor judgment and more than a hint of WP:IDHT, with tinges of outright WP:TE by way of an apparent WP:RGW motive. I really think it's time for them to take a pause and re-assess every bit of how they are coming at this problem. Because right now I think they are doing far more harm than good for their perceived ideal outcome for the content. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 08:45, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

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

Missing Links

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

---

Since I am blocked from making edits I am requesting assistance to get the links updated. The most recent version of Template:Russia–United States relations should include all the missing links, which can be found in this version that can be copied/pasted into the current version Template:Russia–United States relations -4vryng ^talk 15:14, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

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

Palmiped and rollback

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

---

Palmiped (talk · contribs) - issues with rollback were raised here in June 2025 by @The ed17:, referring to this this edit. Since then, Palmiped had rollbacked me twice at the same article (see 1 and 2), both seemingly in error, as they have acknowledged that "didn't know I had mistakenly hit the rollback button, I had no reason to revert the good edit"]. It happening once is OK, but it has now happened multiple times, and Palmiped clearly cannot be trusted with rollback. GiantSnowman 15:40, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

As I was writing the above, they have said "sorry again finger trouble on watchlist page, yes please remove me from rollback". GiantSnowman 15:41, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes I agree remove me from rollback, getting too old to control my finger on my watchlist pagetext too small. regards palmiped^Talk 15:45, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

User:Mr. Stradivarius/gadgets/ConfirmRollback might help? Sohom (talk) 16:13, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Not sure if it is the same thing, but you can set "Require confirmation before performing rollback on mobile devices" in Preferences > Gadgets. It is so easy to fat-finger the rollback. -- Whpq (talk) 16:15, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

That as well (it's a different version of the same). Sohom (talk) 16:30, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Added confirm script, so now all OKpalmiped^Talk 09:18, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Cool deal - you should be all set then! Over the years that I've been an editor here, I've accidentally pressed the rollback link more times than I'm willing to admit (and I know that most administrators and rollbackers can say the same thing to a certain extent), so we completely understand. Mistakes happen, and it's not the end of the world. Thanks for being so responsive and for working with us to find a good solution for you. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:46, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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: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.

---

Mvcg66b3r (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Look I dont own a desktop or laptop computer anymore so I'm editing on my phone all the time and don't have to properly format sources despite being able to cite them. And User:Mvcg66b3r is constantly reverting my edits. Its almost like he's stalking me. I wish he was blocked from seeing any WP:GOODFAITH edits that I make. Its getting to be annoying that any constructive edits to improve Wikipedia that I make he ALWAYS has to revert it. Jgera5 (talk) 22:19, 10 September 2025 (UTC)".

First, what happened in 2025 has nothing to do with what happened in 1989. Second, your WPGH edit had too much detail and an improperly formatted reference. And even your edit here is improperly formatted. @Sammi Brie: Your take? Mvcg66b3r (talk) 22:31, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Bare URLs aren't banned from use, no? I personally don't see why this edit should be fully reverted instead of improved on in other ways, like cutting out unnecessary parts or filling in the citation to a non bare URL, such as with something like ReFill. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 23:00, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

That edit, on the article WPGH-TV, cites a URL that doesn't mention WPGH-TV, so how is it supporting the text? Schazjmd (talk) 23:12, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Apologies, I didn't realize that the source doesn't actually talk about WPGH-TV. That's my bad. I can fully see why it would be reverted now. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 23:17, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

I don't think Jgera5 is editing in bad faith. I think Jgera5 is trying to add constructive information to articles, but the sources they cite don't always support the text. I've spoken to them on their talk page about it before. I reverted one of their edits just today because the source they cited was completely inadequate. I'm sure that if I went through all of their contributions, there would be many similar edits, I just don't have the patience to do so. If Mvcg66b3r is keeping an eye on Jgera5's edits, it's for the benefit of the encyclopedia. Schazjmd (talk) 23:25, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

I looked through a bit of Jgera5's edits, and found this thread, which could be of value in this discussion. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 23:33, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

I saw the mentioned edit summary before it was revdel'd, it was ugly. And the diffs in that discussion show repeated poor behavior by Jgera5 that I wasn't aware of. Schazjmd (talk) 01:12, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Jgera5, could you please provide some diffs? 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 23:03, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

As one of the most-active TV station editors (and someone that has also reverted additions from Jgera5), I am in a good position to explain the things that have led me, Mvcg, and other users to revert contributions made by Jgera5 in the space. I also think I can be more explanatory than Mvcg on this front:

• WPGH-TV: In cleaning up a lot of articles on television stations, one thing I've set as a rule of thumb is that we generally don't mention stations airing network sports programming because they were affiliated with the network. This used to be common in articles about stations in cities with pro sports franchises. (I just excised something like this from KGW about the Portland Trail Blazers.) WPGH didn't do anything to get Steelers games; their network did. If they had been a preseason rightsholder and bought those rights from the team (which WPGH has never been), then I'd consider differently and put some information about that in the page.
  • WPXI: A similar principle applies about rumors of a station group sale or retransmission consent disputes. Those should generally be handled on the page of the station group, not the local station, whose local management likely had no hand in the matter.
• WCMH-TV: One thing I've noticed in Jgera edits is mention of sister stations in other markets that may not be included even in the available references. This is the case here. The Columbus Dispatch article says nothing about Zanesville. (The Nexstar/Tegna merger being so early that we don't have firmed up plans for how they will handle the thorniest markets where they might have to spin out stations is a contributing factor.)

I have several suggestions for Jgera5:

• Read the policy on text-source integrity, which explains why all the added bloat of sister stations and speculative sales can't stand.
• Consider that we are in a cycle of cutting a lot of bloat from TV station articles. I see you've been around since 2006, and it's my experience that long-term editors have the most trouble adapting to the higher standards across the project.
• Please refrain from the personal attacks you have made in edit summaries and user talk pages. They are, right now, the most likely reason you might be blocked. (Though calling someone a jagoff is remarkably on geographic character here.)

I also have some for Mvcg:

• I know you struggle to communicate with users on complex issues, but that deficiency makes things hard when you are dealing with editors who may expect longer answers. I have become all-too-used to being pinged on these things as if I'm the Mvcg cleanup crew—sometimes quite usefully and sometimes rather obviously because I'm being called on to handle more complicated matters. Your general lack of edit summaries doesn't help. People cannot read your mind.
• You have been a valuable antivandal and first line of defense in the topic area. This results in your talk page getting a lot of queries. (To wit, a comment there was my first sign of TheMediaHistorian's misconduct earlier this year, and that was the worst conduct issue I've ever handled on enwiki.) You need to be better at explaining in some cases precisely why you are reverting. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 06:13, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Just going to point out that the OP has been indef'd in part due to the sourcing issues but primarily for a back-and-forth on Disney Princess on 1 Sep which had to see a revision deletion for a personal attack and a subsequent talk thread in which he, apropos of nothing, compared his opponent's edits to GS-based controversies. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 18:25, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

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

Sabletiger55 gaming extended confirmed to step into contentious 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.

---

Sabletiger55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sabletiger55 has obviously gamed extended confirmed by making the exact types of gnoming edits in bursts, spaced out over four years. After making exactly 500 edits, they went dormant once again, and they've now returned to edit WP:ARBPIA topics and have created Stop Zionist Hate. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 02:26, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

their average edit size is 43 edits, and their single biggest edit is that stop zionist hate article. It doesn't seem like they gamed all at once, but agree it raises suspicions. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 02:40, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

This seems like a pretty clear case of WP:PGAMEing to me. And the fact that the vast majority of the edits are redirects doesn't fill me with confidence they are able to edit in a way expected of WP:PIA restrictions. Part of the point of ECR is to get some of assurance that the editor knows a decent bit about editing Wikipedia, in order to prevent disruption. Perhaps a revoking of EC would be the best option? At least until they make a fair bit of properly constructive edits, not just redirects. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 03:05, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

One of the reasons I reported this here at ANI is that this seems very intentional (making exactly 500 edits and then coming back) and the way they took four years to complete this shows there may be something else going on that we can't quite see. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 03:25, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

WP:BOOMERANG King of Nauvoo (talk) 07:27, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

I fail to see how this would be applicable to the current discussion.

Explain? Augmented Seventh (talk) 07:44, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

This seems to me as being simply solved by revoking ECR. If this isn't obvious gaming, then what possibly could be? CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 08:09, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Agree. A clear pattern and obvious gaming just to get in to the I-P field. I've yanked their EC membership. They can edit in a non-gamed fashion and get it back by request, but also WP:DUCK to be honest. FOARP (talk) 10:39, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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 IP

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

---

2409:408D:4DBC:ED9D:1505:E78F:517E:9DC1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Threatening to make a police complaint in this edit summary.

It appears the /22 range already has pblocks associated with it. Nil🥝 03:23, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Liz blocked the IP for 31 hours. I've expanded to the /64 rangeblock as should always be done with IPv6 addresses. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:17, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

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

Killing of Charlie Kirk and urgent WP:BLPCRIME violations

The following discussion is closed. 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/Killing_of_Charlie_Kirk
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection/Increase#Killing_of_Charlie_Kirk

Rampant WP:BLPCRIME violations rapidly happening. Need admin eyes on this and page locked down for admin / consensus gated editing via talk ASAP. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 17:56, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Could you be more specific? Like linking at least one or two examples? Loki (talk) 18:03, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, the page/talk editing there is moving seemingly multiple per minute.

People (multiple now) keep adding images of an alleged murdered from social media. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Killing_of_Charlie_Kirk&diff=1310799509&oldid=1310799373 (one example) — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 18:05, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

See Talk:Killing_of_Charlie_Kirk#What_is_policy_for_suspect_image_now_that_FBI_has_released_it. Guettarda (talk) 18:19, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

I think you meant to link this edit. The image got added (most likely accidentally since those two edits occurred shortly after the image's removal) back into the article here and here after being removed. quidama _talk 19:05, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Another period of full page protection or at least heightened monitoring of it for a while might be beneficial. Currently sources seem to be publishing anything, which now includes unverified anonymous claims of engravings of "transgender... ideology" on the gun/ammo, so it's fallen into another Contentious topic area of WP:GENSEX too.[356]

Even with ECP it seems the tempo is running high. Rambling Rambler (talk) 18:20, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

With the amount of attention the article is getting, I don't think there's a real risk of things going off the rails. Warnings might be in order for people who are engaging in problematic editing, but I don't think full protection is warranted. A lot of experienced editors, and at least five admins have edited the talk page in the last few hours. Guettarda (talk) 18:40, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Aren't the experienced editors and admins the ones adding the CCTV images? The article is extended protected so it's not like it's completely new accounts Trade (talk) 18:42, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

A lot of experienced editors are showing that they don’t have the strongest grasp of WP:BLP right now. I'd almost suggest a 48 hour full lock on this page and on Charlie Kirk (not talk mind) to let the dust settle and get some clarity before the edit frenzy kicks off even more. Simonm223 (talk) 19:49, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

FWIW, things are so busy on that page that I see on pageviews it's already up to almost 3 million page views, and I just got nine consective 500 server errors from Wikimedia just trying to reply to a talk comment. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 19:45, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

• This can be closed I think with no full protection needed. In fact, full protection would be detrimental to the rapidly changing nature of this article. I have seen no names of detained people or investigated people at all. No BLPCRIME concerns. R. G. Checkers ^talk 21:01, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

  It wasn't names, it was images. Just as bad. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 21:12, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

  The images released by law enforcement that are all over the place or other images? Wehwalt (talk) 22:08, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

  The first Trade (talk) 22:12, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

• We absolutely should not be posting photos of "persons of interest" until such a point that the person has been arrested or arranged for a crime, at least in the immediate wake of the event. If this is still an ongoing manhunt a month from now, that might be different. Using pictures of people that are not arrested in connection to a crime can lead to significant problems for low profile BLP individuals (in the Kirk case, a 77 yr old man in Canada was falsely labeled as the suspect and has been receiving threats). Masem (t) 22:16, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

  I agree, real people are at stake in this. But several administrators, are, I've told, present at the article, which I have not looked at myself. The presence of this topic may attract more there. Usually that's enough. Wehwalt (talk) 22:29, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

  Please note that administrators who are involved in a discussion as editors aren't really supposed to be deploying the mop so the presence of admins as editors is no guarantee of enhanced administrative scrutiny. Simonm223 (talk) 10:14, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

  Yeah, this is goofy as hell -- there is no reason at all to have the image there if it nothing has been confirmed. This is internet-detective true-crime nonsense not appropriate for an encyclopedia; the benefit it brings is that... fans of murder? get to see a photo that titillates them, and the detriment is that some random innocent dude is having his photo slathered across one of the world's most heavily trafficked websites. jp×g🗯️ 02:06, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

  Every time that image goes up and the page isn't protected, it's basically us dropping a turd directly on the public. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 02:12, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

  I'm also rather concerned about the number of people whose editorial decisions at that page seem more motivated by a fear for how Wikipedia will be perceived than for our editorial policies. A lot of talk on article talk about how we should change the article title to something less neutral and unverified, include unverified BLP violations in the article or include unrelated ephemera out of fear that we would look biased without doing so. This is pure BLP territory. We should be moving slowly and only using the best quality sources and instead we have a feeding frenzy. Simonm223 (talk) 11:46, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

  "number of people whose editorial decisions at that page seem more motivated by a fear for how Wikipedia will be perceived" Wdym? Fear for how Wikipedia will be perceived by whom exactly? Trade (talk) 15:36, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

This can now be closed, article has been full protected for a week following repeated issues with WP:BLPCRIME.[357]Rambling Rambler (talk) 13:58, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

It has not been protected for a week, it's been protected 12 hours.

This can't be closed. This is the most high-profile article on the site. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 14:05, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Whoops, read the move protect date by mistake. Rambling Rambler (talk) 14:11, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

• I've upped it to four days. With all due respect to Isabelle, 12 hours wasn't going to be enough with public statements this morning. If things settle down sooner news wise, it can absolutely be shortened. (Entirely uninvoled admin) Star Mississippi 14:33, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

  Support and as noted on talk, I think it would be very wise that any edit requests for that page only be acted on if originating from the local talk page only. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 14:35, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

  For what's worth, I'm in support of the time increase, with the 12 hour being used most to stop the increasing WP:BLP violations that were happening in a highly visible and edited article. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 15:46, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

• The suspect's name as been on the Charlie Kirk article for quite a while! It's manageable there currently as it's not changing anything like as much as the killing of .. article, but it needs monitoring too JeffUK 15:53, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Given the extreme visibility, uninvolved admin consensus needed

Please see here:

• Talk:Killing of Charlie Kirk#Requested move 11 September 2025

This section is likely to increasingly spiral until someone does some consensus evaluation there. I know that's not a WP:ANI thing but eyes are good. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 15:47, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

The BLP noticeboard exists for this explicit reason. You should go there with it instead. Guaranteed people there will have experience dealing with BLPCRIME (hopefully) Trade (talk) 15:51, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

While you're correct in their expertise, @Trade, the discussion is here and does not need to be moved to another noticeboard. More discussions on the same issues are not necessarily helpful in their outcome despite being well intended Star Mississippi 15:58, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

A notice could be left at that noticeboard, if it hasn't been already, referring interested persons to this discussion. As much as possible, the four or five present discussions on this contentious issue should be consolidated. Wehwalt (talk) 16:27, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

I'll drop a pointer to here. Let's absolutely not split up the broader chat.

I suspect we'll be happy to have this Kirk stuff from a ANI/conduct POV centralized soon, for a few days. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 16:33, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

@Very Polite Person: Please sign your posts, per WP:SIGNHERE. —Fortuna, imperatrix 16:42, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

I didn't? — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 16:45, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

You did here. —Fortuna, imperatrix 16:47, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

I gotta admit I don't see it... signed here and signed here? Which edit? — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 16:51, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm an idiot, I see it, over on BLPN. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 16:52, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Accused shooter disambig page needs protection

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

---

Hate to add another section but look at the talk history here: Talk:Tyler Robinson. I did a RFPP there but it's already a huge mess. That's not exactly a high volume page before this--can we toss a long term full on there for now? — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 17:49, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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.

The personal information on Beast Mortos and Mercedes mone

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

---

• Mercedes Moné (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• The Beast Mortos (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I'm Mercedes mone personal manager and I know for a fact that Mercedes is not in any relationship with fellow wrestler beast mortos. This is a storyline. She told me herself last month. Can you please help me out with correcting this? It would be appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.124.128.183 (talk) 19:45, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

I'll help with these pages, per WP:TMZCerulean Depths (talk) 20:47, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

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

Invisible page restrictions ruining the quality of the article

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

---

The Bengal Files article apparently has an invisible page restriction imposed by Firefangledfeathers which seeks editors not to make reverts no matter how bad the edit has been made on the article.

This is clear from this edit because of which another editor got a "logged warning about edit warring in the WP:CT/SA topic area",[358] even though he was only restoring the status quo and reverting a disruptive removal of content sourced in body.

The above disruptive removal was repeated by another editor along with a myriad of POV changes to lead including addition of new content in the body, and was subsequently reverted by another editor with status quo restored for a valid reason by asking the editor to seek consensus.[359] Apparently, this editor feared he would get a logged warning or block as well after checking the history of the article, thus he had to make a self-revert with all the changes by the editor that still has no consensus.[360] Nevertheless, he still got a logged warning which was then overturned by the admin after recognizing the self-revert.[361]

Firefangledfeathers has refused to restore the status quo and kept these new changes in the article.[362] The disruptive removal and unsupported addition remains on the page for these reasons. To quote another editor from talk page: "You can stop edit warring by imposing 1RR or 0RR restriction, or enforcing the version during page protection which remains undisputed since nobody made any edit requests to change it. You haven't done any of that."[363]

This type of unwarranted sanctioning of editors who seek to remove disruptive edits is ruining the quality of the article. At this stage, this recent constructive edit can also be well construed as edit warring according to this invisible restriction given it reverted this unconstructive edit and the editor who made the new edit would be facing sanctions.

To solve this issue, I would request restoration of this last stable version and imposition of proper page restrictions that are visible to everyone. Orientls (talk) 11:21, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Unfortunately this may be a case of Wikipedia:The Wrong Version 2A04:7F80:6E:D2B:9DA9:9CE8:B50F:BB95 (talk) 11:41, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Policy (WP:ONUS) states that the responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content, in this case, that's presumably User:Computeracct. Since they've been sanctioned, that seems a pretty solid indication that they have not attempted to seek such a resolution. —Fortuna, imperatrix 11:45, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm aware of this and will have more to say as soon as possible. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:07, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

This is a content dispute that has no business being on ANI. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 12:39, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

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

Urgent: WP:BLP violation in redirect needs deletion.

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

---

[364] For obvious reasons. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:38, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Being dealt with as these show up. Another redirect was also deleted by MIDI, and I've protected the related dab. I hope our more experienced editors will stop contributing to the issues. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 13:40, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

I'd only done a week salt for the one I protected. Obviously no objection to another admin changing that duration – my assumption was that soonish we'll know whether or not any of these redirects are valid (or are ongoing WP:BLPCRIME. Thanks for diligence AndyTheGrump. MIDI (talk) 13:43, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

I think it would be a very long while before a redirect to a BLP by name (criminal) is allowable since they are innocent until proven guilty in court. Simonm223 (talk) 13:54, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Never mind, it's already been done. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:39, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

This is going great. I'm getting upset messages at my talk page for calling an innocent man innocent. [365] Simonm223 (talk) 14:04, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

 Question: If a redirect using the arrested individual's name is wrong in this situation, why isn't it wrong in the case of Decarlos Brown Jr. (up for deletion) and the recently created Decarlos Brown? Neither person has been convicted. Counterfeit Purses (talk)

The two deleted/salted redirects included a parenthetical that assumed the person was already guilty of the crime they are accused of, which we considered a clear violation of WP:BLPCRIME. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 14:20, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. That makes perfect sense. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 14:27, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

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

Previous blocked accounts?

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

---

Aman7goyal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

On another user's talk, this editor stated that I've been blocked at least a couple of dozen times in the past, lol (albeit now removed). Yet their account is only four days old and with no apparent blocks to it. I raised this on their talk, but alas to no avail apart from some rather colourful commentary. I can't file at SPI due to a lack of sockmaster, and in any case their approach seems an alphabet soup of WP:RGW, WP:CIR, WP:NOTHERE and WP:TENDENTIOUS: apart from the accusations of being Orwellian, a dictator or a spy, this discussion is instructive. —Fortuna, imperatrix 17:00, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

They had one page edit before heading straight into the heat. I believe either a stern warning or an outright block would be the obvious route. Babysharkb☩ss2 ^(DEADMAU5) 17:02, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

I went with DE, but to your point @Fortuna imperatrix mundi it's a bit of choose your own adventure. There is enough disruption in the current events that we don't need more. Star Mississippi 17:05, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

This one made me chuckle admittedly. Talk about WP:CIR even as a troll. Rambling Rambler (talk) 17:06, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Now indeffed by User:Star Mississippi, and thanks for that—a lightening strike! But can we have Checkuser needed to establish a master, if the info is available. —Fortuna, imperatrix 17:07, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Nothing too telling with the CU goggles on. They're also Not-pompous-like-other-editors, a username which alludes to earlier beefs, but that was a soft block. They also have some very questionable logged-out edits (which I obviously can't link to here). I couldn't see anything else specific in the window the CU tool provides.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:05, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

thanks @Ponyo. For completeness sake, also noting @Yamla's note at Aman's Talk. Star Mississippi 18:10, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, Ponyo. —Fortuna, imperatrix 18:21, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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 and threats related to edits on Donisia Minja

The following discussion is closed. 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 corrected sourced information about Donisia Minja, who plays for JKT Queens, but another editor keeps changing it to Young Africans. After correcting it, they threatened me in my inbox not to edit again. I request admin help. Togolai (talk) 18:01, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

You don't need administrator help. You need to read the message you got on your talk page, which says you need to include a reliable source when you add or change information in an article. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:18, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

oooh ok thanks

But all sources from CAF,Tanzania Football federation and JKT queens Instagram mention Donisia as JKT queens player.

Also I am Tanzanian and family friend of Donisia Minja Togolai (talk) 18:57, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

If you're a family friend, you should NOT be editing her page directly because you have a conflict of interest. Please make edit requests on the article's talk page using the {{Edit COI}} template. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:06, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Ooh thanks for clarification.

Another time I'll do my best Togolai (talk) 19:10, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

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

Talk:Aerospace Data Facility-East anon vandals

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

---

For whatever weird reason, someone from Germany apparently and always showing IPv6 IPs has taken to vandalizing this talk page:

• Talk:Aerospace Data Facility-East
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Aerospace_Data_Facility-East&action=history

I'm not sure if this the right place, if that page can pick up a range block or something else? I can prune it periodically but they seem intent. Weird place for something so obscure.

(I know the page is thin, merging the three similar articles is on my to-do.) — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 00:02, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

I've blocked the two /64 ranges. If problems come up again, let us know. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:05, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Cheers. Or danke, as they would. But now they can't. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 00:07, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Of note; there's one stray /64 range that performed similar vandalism. But, that was 2+ days ago. I'm reluctant to pick that one up in a /64 block. I've temporarily added the page to my watchlist. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:09, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

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