Indian diaspora IP editor NOTHERE and attacking other editors
This concerns a certain editor who has been editing over several months from various IPs, all geolocating first to South Korea, then more recently to Japan. IP addresses they have used include, probably non-exhaustively, the following:
Almost all of their edits involve removal of content. Some seem to be based on valid concerns. But many demonstrate an insidiousWP:tendentious editing pattern, including such features as:
Wholesale removal of content only because cited sources are "old", "outdated" or dead links, rather than updating or providing/requesting newer/better sources.
When other editors add sources and restore content they tried to remove, they engage in edit warring and wholesale reversion.
Disingenuously inviting discussion, only to thenWP:bludgeoning the process by refusing to acknowledge any other viewpoints apart from their own regarding validity of sources, and then keeping moving goalposts in such a way that their demands can never be satisfied (seeTalk:Ammar Siamwalla).
Engaging in battleground behaviour against any user perceived to be against them, even when that user has been nothing but helpful (seethe recent AN3 thread).
After some extended back-and-forth I realised that this IP editor is pretty muchWP:NOTHERE and that further engaging with them would only be a waste of time. I suggested that they could create an account as a demonstration of genuine intention to contribute to the encyclopedia, though they have so far refused. Editing without an account is allowed, of course, though it does make it look like they're trying to avoid scrutiny.
The problem now is that their insidious edits are often not obviously vandalism, and it's proving difficult to keep their disruption out of articles such asJeff Satur,Maria Guyomar de Pinha,Santi Thakral andNishita Shah. I believe that some measures are needed to keep this disruption at bay, especially considering that this behavioural pattern may indicate an LTA. It is possible they may be the same user as58.99.101.165(talk·contribs·WHOIS), which was blocked followingthis ANI thread, as they exhibit very similar behaviour against other users, although they have not edited the religion articles that 58.99.101.165 disruptively edited back in May. Both of them have extensively edited theIndians in Japan page. --Paul_012 (talk)18:46, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
Comment: Here is the full thread the mentioned IP made[1] as well as the thread over atWP:EWN[2]. I think I could approached the EWN discussion a bit more maturely, but I still believe this IP ( range)'s behaviour is below the standard expected on Wikipedia.Fantastic Mr. Fox19:00, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
It's obvious that it's the same user behind Fantastic Mr. Fox and Paul.
I'm not behind all the IP:s. There are other users that edit, except me and as I said, scrutinise all you want. Bring up an example which is not correct then. But you cannot.
"Wholesale removal of content only because cited sources are "old", "outdated" or dead links, rather than updating or providing/requesting newer/better sources."
I try, but it seems you cannot find it either. If it's very old, sometimes it's information which is not relevant any more, for example claims about disaporas describing present situation, but with outdated information. I never removed anything which shouldn't have been removed. Admins are free to scrutinise all they want.
""No source" (for a sentence in the lead that repeats a cited statement in the article body)," I might agree on this one, but controversial claims should be sourced in the lead too.
""This is a fictional book" (for a history book that has been cited by many scholarly publications)," ANy evidence of this?
""get real source" (for an academic journal), etc." That is not an academic journal. And I highly doubt that you have been to university.
"When other editors add sources and restore content they tried to remove, they engage in edit warring and wholesale reversion." You just described your own behaviour.
"Disingenuously inviting discussion, only to thenWP:bludgeoning the process by refusing to acknowledge any other viewpoints apart from their own regarding validity of sources, and then keeping moving goalposts in such a way that their demands can never be satisfied (seeTalk:Ammar Siamwalla)."
Not true. Sometimes I did contribute with sources myself, when you couldn't find. What is your viewpoint? I thought we both want to create good articles. There are other users that have questioned your reasoning too...
" suggesting thatUser:Fantastic Mr. Foxis a sockpuppet of me, and annoyingly badgering for a response to their nonsense." This is very obvious you are both british/Irish, Fox have been blocked and suspected of being a soc before etc. as I said, fairly obvious.
I think admin can read the edits themselves. Non of the edits have been wrong and I've contributed with plenty of sources too, even from the Indian government website, as an example.
"After some extended back-and-forth I realised that this IP editor is pretty muchWP:NOTHERE and that further engaging with them would only be a waste of time. "
Or it's because you don't get your way?
"I suggested that they could create an account as a demonstration of genuine intention to contribute to the encyclopedia, though they have so far refused. Editing without an account is allowed, of course, though it does make it look like they're trying to avoid scrutiny."
You can scrutinise any edits already, please do. I don't edit enough to warrant an account at the moment.
"The problem now is that their insidious edits are often not obviously vandalism," because it is not vandalism. I'm only interested in improving the articles and I have contributed with plenty of sources.
"as they exhibit very similar behaviour against other users, although they have not edited the religion articles that 58.99.101.165 disruptively edited back in May. Both of them have extensively edited the
Not really sure what your goal is, I wish we could work together to improve the articles! Not sure why you're so against improving articles, and it should be pointed out for example in the Ammar article, one of the sources that Paul want to keep, in Bngkok Coconut, is about a music artist with the same name, but that have nothing to do with the person in the article. When I remove it, he keeps reverting the edit for some reason. This should be improved. It's a very obvious one, anyone can double check it if I'm right or not.
He is accusing me of being a what you call a sock. So there you have it. Evidence is their editing history and writing style, but I will leave it at that. I don't have battleground attitude. Interesting that you didn't adres any of the points that I made.220.147.123.41 (talk)02:34, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
Prove the why that they are socks, and saying that the evidence is their edit histories and writing styles, is not enough, (except for obvious cases, and this is not one). What I am essentially saying, is continued allegations of sockpuppetry, is consideredcasting aspersions, and won't help prove that if they are socks. I already told you to take it toWP:SPI, and youdidn't listen to that suggestion. Also, givediffs for your allegations please, especially sockpuppetry. Also, please don'tStonewall the discussion, as it is disruptive, and please don't alsobludgeon the process, seeing you are replying to everyone, and that's something you should please work on.Codename ADtalk18:30, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
I don't care about this question, and I don't want to, have to, or want to prove anything and you cannot force me to do so, to be honest. I'm only interested in improving the articles. Stay on topic.
That Paul doens't let other editors remove incorrect links?
I'm not stonewalling anything, if there are allegations I'm allowed to respond.
Don't you think it's reasonable that I respond if people write questions directed towards me?
I have no idea why you seem to be upset but wish we could work on improving the articles and stay on topic. Feel free to take a look on the articles in question. Thank you.220.147.123.41 (talk)19:16, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
So, preliminary comments as I don’t have time to thoroughly examine at the moment:
I’m not immediately seeing a behavioral overlap between the past blocked IP and this one, particularly given the difference of topics of interest. While the IPs geolocations are for east Asia, the timestamps of activity don’t suggest that that’s where the editors are actually located, which makes me think that these addresses are seeing some proxy use. All that having been said, the personal attacks in the IP’s reply here are plainly uncalled for and I nearly blocked for those alone (ironically, the linked diffs to personal attacks in the report, while not the height of civility, don’t quite seem they really add up to personal attacks). I’d also note regarding the one contested edit that I chose to investigate directly, regarding whether “The Greek Favourite of Siam” is fiction, here’s a library record forthe work. Note the subject headings, which indicate that it is in fact non-fiction. Not a good look for IP to have doubled down here.signed,Rosguilltalk21:29, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
What personal attacks? I think that ball is more with Paul, he doens't really seem to have a good attitude at the moment.
I am in Asia,, by the way, if it is important.
Then please look up other contested edits, since you seem interested in helping.
Check out reference two. It is about a different Ammar, a music artist, a DJ, with no mention of the Ammar in the article. This should obviously be removed.
If you find a mistake I have made, please correct it, I'm not always right. And I don't double down. If I did a mistake, that is natural. I think you will find the mistakes few and far between.
I simply asked if there's any evidence for the status of the book.
Second, this is why it's so important for users to be well versed in judging references. Universities do carry fiction books too, and some historical biographies can overlap. Hope we can have an open mind about this and that you're willing to investigate ate least some things regarding the book "The greek..."
The link you sent doesn't indicate that it is purely non fiction either, as far as I could see.
Here, if you click the second picture, you can see the introduction to the book. It seems to be written as a biography based on historical fact, but it is repeatedly called "story" and legend by the author. It does claim historical authenticity in details which I don't doubt, but it seems not to be a strict work in this regard. What would be useful would be if we could have access to the whole book, and find out more about the author.
Check page v. The book clearly has an "Epilogue." This is something usually used in fiction writing and as you know, is exceedingly rare in academic contexts.
On goodreads, a user have written a review two years ago.
The reviewer wrote "It’s a very interesting historical tale, little known today. The author felt free to liven his text up with descriptions of various actions and moments that nobody could actually know. I didn’t mind that, but just note that the fact rather demotes the book from totally serious history."
This makes me question the inclusion of the book on Wikipedia in this context.
And even not considering that, the quote that is used as a source "Her mother was a Japanese woman named Ursula Yamada, who came from a noted family which had emigrated from Japan. Her father was a Mr. Fanique. He was a dusky half-breed of Bengal and Japan." See reference 8. Describing someone as " a dusky half-breed" is not appropriate. Of course, an argument could be made that the book is from the 60s, but even then this wasn't a common way to describe people. Considering this, caution should be exercised, and preferably, the status of the writer, who was he? Was he a historian, was he active at universities etc? And then the book should be studied better. And then again, judging from a review of the book as well as the books own description and the inclusion of an "Epilogue" seems to be good grounds to question its inclusion. Some references might look acceptable at a first, short glance, but doesn't hold up to further scrutiny. At least consider the points I have made here, instead of automatically dismiss them.220.147.123.41 (talk)03:53, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
Well, I did keep it brief when I did the edit originally, but apparently that was what started this dispute, so I gave my reasons for deleting the link, which I hope you can see was justified. To keep it short; the book should not be used as a reference on Wikipedia, because it mixes fiction with fact.220.147.123.41 (talk)15:03, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
That is not an academic journal. It is, though? It's a journal that is published by the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Khon Kaen University per[3]. Whether it's peer reviewed is a different question.Nakonana (talk)15:43, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
Interesting that you don't seem to care at all about any of my other points. Did you care to comment about my point about "The Greek..." book?
As I said, I can't keep track of everything. If I removed it, there was a reason.
Wikipedia even writes that an academic journal have to be peer reviewed. I don't seem to be able to access the particular link right now so maybe it was a problem that it just didn't state what it was claimed in wiki, etc. In anyway,
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1310235777 The thing I removed, as far as I can see, was a low quality gossip newspaper, or some forum post, I'm not sure exactly what it is but it's not a good source.
I don't know exactly what you refer to, but as I said, anyone can make mistakes but if I removed it, there was a reason.
Interesting that you don't seem to care at all about any of my other points. It's just not a topic I'm familiar with that's why.Wikipedia even writes that an academic journal have to be peer reviewed. I'm not saying that it is not peer reviewed. I simply didn't check whether it is peer reviewed or not. I only did a very quick Google search and that was enough to find that the journal is published by a university. That's not too bad of a sign.The thing I removed, as far as I can see, was a low quality gossip newspaper — if I'm reading the diffs correctly you actuallyinserted said gossip newspaper after Paul had replaced it with the university journal. You inserted the gossip newspaper by reverting Paul's edit. Here is the version where Paul added the academic journal:[4][5]. And here is the version where you removed the academic journal and instead added the gossip newspaper:[6][7]. You might have acted in good faith, but I can see why Paul would report you for such an edit. Mistakes of course can happen, but if they happen frequently then they become an issue. You should check sources before removing them and you should preview the changes that you are making to an article to make sure that you really are removing the source that you think you are removing.Nakonana (talk)16:50, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
If that's the case, check all history. Probably he reverted my deletion of the gossip newspaper and I reinstated it by mistake. And why is all this discussed here and not on talk pages?
And yes, I do act in good faith.
There has not been any frequent mistake. You are free to scrutinise all you want.
"You should check sources before removing them and you should preview the changes that you are making to an article to make sure that you really are removing the source that you think you are removing." Agree and read my explanation. It becomes difficult to do anything because Paul keeps reverting edits etc.
"I only did a very quick Google search and that was enough to find that the journal is published by a university." Doing things like this quick might not give full picture. What does the link actually say then?
Shouldn't everyone cooperate to actually improve the articles? Noone gains by having incorrect knowledge standing.
"Santi Thakral was born to aSikh merchant family in the northernThai province ofPhrae."
Here is the article that you mention. It's in thai, but from translating it, I cannot find support that says that "Santi Thakral was born to aSikh".
This is the articles abstract:
"Thai Sikhs are one of the largest group of the Indian diaspora in Thailand. Their ancestors were from Punjab (Punjab is now in India and Pakistan) and migrated for trade during the reign of King Rama V. They settle in Bangkok, Chiangmai and other provinces. Five outstanding characteristics of Sikh settlement in Thailand are : 1) predominance in the textile community, 2) strict religious practices, 3) successful integration into Thai mainstream and local societies but less mixing with locality, 4) contributions and help for the society and 5) use of Punjabi as medium for intra-community communication. The textile trade was developed from previous generations who started out by hawking. When their business became established they would in their own fabric shops. At present, descendants of the early Sikh traders are well educated and have branched out into other businesses. It is predicted that, in the future, Thai Sikhs will become less involved in the textile business."
The journal is about Sikhs in general and not this specific person. Of course that is interesting, but I just don't find where this statement is made in the article, therefore I removed.
And it looks like the journal is peer reviewed. Google translation of the top bit of their website[8]: "The Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Khon Kaen University, has established a publishing fee for articles published in the Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, Khon Kaen University. The fee is 3,000 baht per article. This fee is collected after your article has passed a preliminary review before being submitted to a qualified reviewer."Nakonana (talk)18:31, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
I found it now. Yes it is peer reviewed. To be specific, it doesn't say he was simply "sikh" it says he was a thai-sikh. It appears he is mixed and not purely sikh. I think it's an important distinction. Potentially millions of thai have some degree of indian ancestry. Should we always mention it? And the source simply refer to him as Thai-sikh, should we also put him in the category of Indian descent?
This is the link that stands now and that I have reinstated by mistake, and this has been put in by Paul.
I agree with you that the Peer reviewed link is an acceptable source and obviously when I wrote the comment, it was clearly not intended for that one because as you say it is an academic journal.
So you're free to put in the academic article if you want. But I think it should be clarified that he was Thai-Sikh.
Again, please check other edits. Obviously this seems to be the only one you found, and it built on a misunderstanding where I removed a prior link. And I still think it is a bit strange to nitpick people's heritage, especially in a diverse country like Thailand. Almost everyone there has some degree of "foreign" ancestry, but we cannot write that out for the whole population. Many surnames obviously has their origin abroad, but it doesn't necessarily mean that they identify in a certain way. What degree of assimilation is enough until their identity could be said to be thai?220.147.123.41 (talk)19:09, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
I’m reporting an incident involving editorUser:glman atTalk:Airbnb. I initiated a Request for Comment (RfC) regarding the inclusion of sourced, policy-relevant content. The RfC was gaining support when it was abruptly flagged and suppressed by the editor on the grounds of AI content, despite my clear statement that AI was used strictly to enhance my original content's readability (formatting), and improveWikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view (tone); an appropriate and limited use of the tool.
This action voided a legitimate, consensus-building process without engaging the substance of the discussion. It appears to be a procedural overreach and a disruption of Wikipedia’s dispute resolution norms, particularlyWP:RFC.
Restoring the RfC to the talk page would be justified. However, I have concerns about the editor's respect for process integrity. I’m requesting administrator input on whether this behavior constitutes disruption, and what steps should be taken to allow the RfC to proceed to its natural conclusion, where consensus can be properly assessed.Thank you.— Precedingunsigned comment added byJjj3190 (talk •contribs)22:16, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
Glman isn't the editor who removed the RfC tags. And the editor who removed the RfC tags did so before anyone else had responded, so there was no "gaining support" at that point.Schazjmd(talk)22:35, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
Yes, AI was used. That’s not in dispute, and I’ve stated it openly. The real question is whether limited use of AI to enhance readability and neutrality is acceptable. According to Wikipedia policy, this use is not prohibited, and I believe it's entirely appropriate in the context described.
The conversation in question was a valid mechanism for building consensus on a debated topic. Dismissing and voiding that discussion undermines both process integrity and collaborative editing. If there are concerns about phrasing or tone, those can be addressed through normal editorial dialogue. But thesubstance deserves a fair hearing by the community, not by unilateral suppression.Jjj3190 (talk)23:18, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
Well then don't consider it unilateral 'oppression', as I concur with hatting the comments perWP:HATGPT. Even here, in your attempting to plead your case, you're once again using AI. If we wanted to use AI to generate consensus and resolve disputes, then why have talk pages? We could just shunt it all to bots and let them deal with it. We want to hear FROM YOU PERSONALLY, not a chat bot. If you can't be bothered to write using your own words, then please don't bother us with protesting that we're hatting LLM generated content of yours on talk pages. This has to end. --Hammersoft (talk)23:29, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
Jjj3190, you're new to Wikipedia and to ANI; we get that. But never mind the fact that limited use of AI is notyet prohibited on Wikipedia, there is a deep and intensifying backlash against its use, and especially here at ANI. Many of us donot feel it's appropriate for people to use a glorified ELIZA program to do the talking for them. Are you getting the impression that people are finding that your alleged "enhanced readability and neutrality" is preferable to you using your own words? Ravenswing14:50, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
In addition to agreeing with the replies here, I'll also object to the notion that your use of AI has been to enhance readability. AI doesn't naturally write readable text; it writes vague, stilted text, full of more bloat than my stomach after a Super Bowl party. If I had a friend that, instead of saying "sure, let's have pizza for dinner," would sayAfter conducting a brief but comprehensive internal deliberation process regarding the optimal course of action for our forthcoming evening meal, I have arrived at the conclusion that the proposal involving the acquisition and subsequent consumption of “pizza” represents a wholly satisfactory, indeed commendable, solution. Accordingly, I am both prepared and enthusiastic to endorse this gastronomic initiative as the definitive plan for dinner tonight, I'd make sure to interact as little as possible in the future.CoffeeCrumbs (talk)04:31, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
The problem is that your edits, like many AI edits that supposedly "introduce neutrality," have done the opposite. Takethis, which inserts opinions likeAmong the most alarming safety concerns ("alarming" according to whom? What if someone finds other concerns more alarming, or isn't alarmed at all?) and addsweasel wording likeraising concerns about transparency and consumer trust andThese practices have led to broader concerns (whose concerns?). They also insert several unsourced paragraphs withsynthesis issues, such as the claim that Airbnb's fees havebecome a focal point in the broader debate over housing affordability, which is not only editorializing but ridiculous -- in the housing-prices debate and all its enormity, a "focal point" is... Airbnb's laundry fees? Worse, the edit also appears to have inserted at least one error. The edit states thatTens of thousands of complaints have been filed with Airbnb over the past decade regarding hidden cameras in rental properties. The number from theoriginal source is 111 complaints in 5 years.
This is just one diff, and I didn't even review it all that thoroughly, just spot-checked a few paragraphs. But even that seems to be more review than was done originally.Gnomingstuff (talk)10:19, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
Proposal: WP:BOOMERANG final warning to Jjj3190 to knock it off with the AI usage
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
In an effort to avoidWP:BITEing a newbie too much, I propose that they get a final warning to stop with the blatent AI usage in talk space, and to avoid unnecessary escalation. Deciding to go to ANI instead of learning from more experienced editors is also incompatible with learning how to edit on Wikipedia.
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
(Writing this here as part of it was originally intended to be under this proposal) I do think that collapsing the entire thread as LLM generated was too much, and it should have just been the beginning that was collapsed. However, immediately going to ANI instead of discussing it with the user involved wasn't the correct move.45dogs (they/them)(talk page)23:28, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
This is fair. I suppose I have misinterpretedWP:AIREMOVAL that calls to "to collapse discussions" that are disruptive due to AI use, however other pages are less clear about whether comments or overall threads should be collapse. As the majority of the discussion from the user was AI-generated, I initially collapsed it all. Thank you for adjusting there!glman (talk)13:15, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
KorFlyer88 repeatedly adding unnecessary capital letters
Apologies in advance for the petty nature of this situation, but I feel it needs addressing.
KorFlyer88 has repeatedly added, and re-added, unnecessary, non-standard capital letters into many articles. I have attempted to discuss the issue on this user's talk page repeatedly, for a year, with no reply.
This is the dumbest thing a person could ever get into an edit war about, so obviously I'm stepping back. However, this is a long-standing issue with this user, over many articles. As far as I can tell, they simply prefer the look of capital letters in tables, in phrases like "Airport Closed." Although table entries are not the same as section headers, I do think this is covered atMOS:SECTIONCAPS (which does mention tableheaders), as well as by the general rule that Wikipedia uses sentence case and avoids unnecessary caps - that is literally the first sentence atMOS:CAPS. There is no good reason for these capital letters under MOS guidelines.
I am requesting that a MOS-experienced third party please step in, and either tell me I'm wrong, or have a word with KorFlyer88 on this. Thank you,Jessicapierce (talk)01:36, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
It is odd,Jessicapierce, that KorFlyer88 has responded to other messages on their User talk page but has ignored yours. Typically, in these situation, the editor just refuses to do any communication at all but in this instance, they are being selective and responding to some complaints but not others. We just have to bring their attention to your requests.LizRead!Talk!04:16, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
Each item is independant ops, so it is not suitable to link as a single sentence. It is appropriate to capitalize on it and it is not suitable to prioritize the priority(like interests, or others) in the future. Overalll, it isn't to be described as edit war, it seems to be privatised, but thank you for the comment and feedback. Kind regards,KorFlyer88 (talk)09:17, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
It looks like a threat to other users. I understand the opinion of the suggestion user, but mentioned 'sanction', which seems to be threatening. Using the words 'temperality block' might be better to respect, and cooperating smoothly with others. Thank you.KorFlyer88 (talk)09:59, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
KorFlyer88, it would be nice not to have to threaten other editors with sanctions, but in some cases it is necessary to get them to edit in accordance to policy. Please start doing so now.Phil Bridger (talk)10:13, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
KorFlyer88 - You need to stop changing the capitalization and case of words in articles, as others have said to you both in this discussion as well as numerous times on your user talk page. So far, you've responded here by justifying your changes and trying to state that the matter was not an edit war (which wasnot correct), dismissedThe Bushranger's response by calling it a "threat", then - despite being told that your changes aredisruptive and that they constitute editing under acontentious topic - you went and madeanother edithere which continued the exact same behavior. I do see that you andJessicapierce discussed this edit you made on your user talk page after they left another warning for you to stop, and you agreed to use care moving forward. Please know that if this issue continues,you will be subject to sanctions as outlined on Wikipedia'scontentious topics page. I'm not telling you this in order to threaten you. I'm telling you this in order to inform you that - given the fact that your behavior continued despite comments in this ANI discussion telling you that your edits aredisruptive - imposing contentious topic sanctions appears to be logical next step to take in order to get your attention on this matter and to make sure that it stops.~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)13:03, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
I agree, Centarbury Toil :) More seriously, I've not checked those edits yet. I have reverted 20 of the linking ones, with something like 50 to go. --Hammersoft (talk)16:29, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
Rather than unarchiving the previous thread, I though I'd open a new one. It appears that the edit-war between these two users, which took a break when the issue was first brought to ANI, has resumed.4vryng has recently requested protection ofTemplate:Russia–United States relations, a page which was temporarily full-protected on July, and looking at its history, it appears they are at it again. This issue, as can be seen on the previous ANI thread, spans multiple articles and pages, which now also includesRussian Empire-United States diplomatic missions, which was created by 4vryng and sent to AfD byWikiCleanerMan.
My first reaction was to p-block both editors, but since it appears this is a long-standing issue, I'd like to invite the community to take a look and see if some sort of stronger sanction is needed here.Isabelle Belato🏳🌈12:57, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
I am requesting all users taking part in this dicussion to scroll all the way down, I madea complete history of lock requests, incident requests, and dispute resolution requests. Hopefully it should clarify any questions you have in regards to the history of this templte dispute.-4vryngtalk05:47, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
I also considered pblocking both. I also though about imposing a 24-hour BRD restriction at Template:Russia–United States relations. I haven't looked deeply into the history here. It's disappointing to see two experienced editors behaving this way, and I wonder if they might propose some voluntary actions (withdrawing from active disputes, self-imposed iban, etc.) that might put this to bed.Firefangledfeathers (talk /contribs)13:21, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
Just an observation as an uninterested bystander, but that template in its current form is incredibly bloated and unwieldy.Bgsu98(Talk)13:29, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
Bgsu98 I am unsure why your reverted back to his version though, my version was the newest one and now its reverted back to an older version.-4vryngtalk03:36, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
Its obvious, "incredibly bloated and unwieldy". Something you were told numerous times. This user is doing the same thing all over again. Pretending to be ignorant. I think they are doing this on purpose.WikiCleanerMan (talk)03:43, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
Bgsu98 Did you decide you could make the choice of which version to select based on your opinion?Template_talk:Russia–United_States_relations#Template_Reversions - I quote:This template in its current form is incredibly bloated and unwieldy. Templates are meant to aid users in navigating the site, but it is unnavigable in its current format. Bgsu98 (Talk) hence you decided to pick his version and now I cannot even undo what you did? Does not seem fair does it?-4vryngtalk03:44, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
Correct, and I have tried and am still willing to open aWikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard to get a neutral third party invovled. But I do not agree that one can select WikiCleanerMan's version when he was the one who first started the reverts - if the version being shown is the version of the person who started the revert war to begin with then that version should not be used-4vryngtalk05:38, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
Has this been toWP:DRN yet? I'm struggling to understand why they couldn't find some compromise...this seems the kind of content dispute that would be easy to find a middle ground in. If DRN has already been attempted then I'd lean towards an IBAN...CambrianCrab (talk)pleaseping me in replies!23:22, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
I requested 3 times (1st time i made a mistake in the process of how to do the request), but the second two times wikicleanerman declined-4vryngtalk03:38, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
Because of 4vryng inability to listen and accept. If you look at the talk page of Template:Russia–United States relations numerous attempts to explain clearly on how their edits made the template completely unreadable and contrary to easy navigation. 4vryng continues to try to claim ownership of template space by doing reverts without explanation. "The old version is so packed in a word-after-word state similar to reading a book that you really need to look hard and read deeply to find what you are looking for, while the current version is very organized and makes it very quick and easy to find relevant information." As stated by another editor here who reverted on this template, this was clearly false. Right now Soviet template and Putin are still bloated.WikiCleanerMan (talk)03:41, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
Okay I think I'm up-to-speed now. My impression is that:
4vryng you need to slow down and reviewWP:BLUD andWP:Edit-war (you gotta stop replying to everything here, it's not helpful and it is absolutely not okay for you to be reverting during a discussion (even if you think your version is "right" you need to leave it alone and let someone else make that call))
WikiCleanerMan you need to re-readWP:CIVIL andWP:DISPUTE (you need to be more open to compromising with other editors instead of just shutting down the discussion because you think you're right. I'm really confused as to why you didn't participate in DRN)
WikiCleanerMan I hear your complaints about the version that 4vryng was introducing, and I agree, it was too long and unwieldy. However, I also hear what 4vryng was saying about how the old versions of those templates were not helpful for navigation because they were just a long wall of text. Both of you have valid points here. Quite frankly,neither version is very effective, but instead of going to a sandbox and trying to work out other solutions (maybe removing some things or splitting it into multiple templates or a million other possibilities) this keeps escalating into a fight.
Is there a universe where you two could collaborate here and find a compromise? Are there voluntary sanctions that you both think would help resolve the dispute?CambrianCrab (talk)pleaseping me in replies!17:55, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
I do not agree with this, I have tried and am still willing to open aWikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard to get a neutral third party invovled. Note look at the history of all the attempts I have made to resolve this - scroll all the way down - I made a list of all history. Why would you block me when I have made threeWikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard requests and none were accepted? I made multiple attempts to stop this revert/revert cycle, so why would I be the one blocked?-4vryngtalk05:41, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
I have p-blocked@4vryng: from the template because of the active edit warringduring this discussion! which is not a good look on top of the longstanding issue. I have not blocked WikiCleanerMan due to the active discussion ongoing here in which they're participating rather than returning to the dispute. No opinion yet on whether a block may be needed.StarMississippi12:59, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
Their last edit is still unreverted. But this user will do the same on Soviet Union-United States relations and Vladimir Putin navboxes. They are making the same arguments for these two as the Russia-United States relations navbox. They have now accused another editor of bias without proof.WikiCleanerMan (talk)14:12, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
After the last ANI, I offered a recourse on the user's talk page to return to the original template format. The user did not even respond. I have repeatedly tried to get a reasonable explanation from this user as to how this bloated format is any way better to navigate. Yet they ramble on how someone is to find information for research it makes it easier, claiming that template space is somehow related to article editing or articles in general, and that it simply "looks better". All three templates are unnecessarily large and do not aid at all in terms of navigation. In the last ANI, the user claimed I was doing vandalism and made all sorts of claims not backed by evidence. All of which were lies. The user is trying to claim domain over these templates and has reverted another user as well on the Russia-U.S. relations navbox. This user is being disruptive and I have done more than enough on the template talk page. Since this user does not seek to cooperate, wants his style of editing to remain as is, and makes false claims against me, it is clear this user is not here to compromise. My Afd nomination is unrelated to the matter at hand. --WikiCleanerMan (talk)15:19, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
What is IBAN? Does it mean both editors are banned? I am okay with that. I guess if others want to do their part and me and wikicleanerman move to the side that is okay with me. I stand my ground and its not bloated in my opinion and I have given my opinion. Tried dispute resolution to get a neutral third party in but wikicleanerman declined. I dont mind stepping back-4vryngtalk03:33, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
As I indicated in dispute resolution I had started in the past:
I do not believe any updates need to be made to the current templates for bothTemplate:Russia–United States relations andTemplate:Soviet Union–United States relations. Yes I do acknowledge the templates have become larger in appearance when scrolling vertically, however the level of organization provided now compared to the older versions before makes the update a huge improvements for all Wikipedia users using the template. An example of how the current templates' layouts/appearances are now advantageous compared to the old templates are that the older versions compressed way too many links/information in too few sections making it harder for a person to find a specific topic. It felt like I was randomly trying to find an article in the many links that had been provided - giving it the feeling like your reading a book trying to find a topic that could have been better organized/structured. As an example, look at theTemplate:Soviet Union–United States relations. Lets say a user is looking for a "policy" - maybe its amiddle school student writing a paper for class but the student has no knowledge base on the subject or what links/articles/words to look for. In theold version how do they know which article to look at first given how the words are back-to-back in large numbers in few sections and its unclear which links are "policy" related - do you just click all the links and hope for the best? This can take a long time given all the links and this is not efficient. But with the current version it can now be easily found which you can check are:Containment, Détente, Linkage, Rollback, Stimson Doctrine [Welles Declaration], Triangular diplomacy, Zero Option. Robert try looking at theold version of the template and try to figuring out which links are policies. Much harder versus the currentTemplate:Soviet Union–United States relations template right? The small amount of extra scrolling vertically in the new version is worth it and can save a person the troubles of trying to search through all those links in the older version; this small size difference should not be relevant given how big the change has been for those trying to search for something. A second example, lets say you are trying to find info onSpace. If you look at theold version you may have hard time trying to focus on links specifically on space because its not clear where to look first and which links are specifically on that subject matter (unless maybe the link has a space related term in it) versus the newer version. One thing to note in regards to the templates themselves when first viewing them on an article, the templates can be set to collapsed mode using the code{{Russia–United States relations|state=collapsed}} and{{Soviet Union–United States relations|state=collapsed}} - as shown on their template pages - if they are the only template on an article. This gives the user the option to expand it or keep it collapsed without having catch a users eyes during the initial read of the article.-4vryngtalk03:46, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
4vryng is not looking for a compromise and is nowedit warring again with another user involved in this discussion. The user is not here to build. Perhaps a ban is in order. I have tried everything to reach a solution. I figure this user does not care and is doing this on purpose. --WikiCleanerMan (talk)03:52, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
I have tried everything to reach a solution. This is not correct, I made 3 dispute resolution request to you and you did not want to take part in any of them. I requested the dispute resolution to get a neutral third party invovled to help resolve the situation so we would never come to this point.Feel free to ban both me and wikicleanerman then from the template if that is what is decided. But it would seem only fair for both parties to be banned then.-4vryngtalk04:07, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
You are still making the same nonsensical arguments about a middle school student doing research, you would and have done it then and you are still doing it now. Drop the stick. You just want to drag on to district us from the real issue and that is your editing behavior of edit warring, lack on acknowledgment of navbox purpose, and not providing evidence that your edits made any improvements.
User has now gone to make false claims against another user. "I believe you did not act as neutral third party here and you simply reverted to wikicleaners older version - not keeping my newer version as you indicated in your statement above you think its bloated, this does appear to show bias without a discussion. I cannot undo back to the newest version and I have been blocked, if you blocked it does not seem fair you can decide which version to use based on your opinion and not allowing others to take part. That appears to be a misuse of power (if you were the one who blocked me?)"
You have not been blocked and is now gone to make false claims against another editor. Just like accusing me of vandalism at the last ANI.WikiCleanerMan (talk)04:15, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
What edit warring, I am just guessing based on your response (Template_talk:Russia–United_States_relations#Template_Reversions - I quote:This template in its current form is incredibly bloated and unwieldy. Templates are meant to aid users in navigating the site, but it is unnavigable in its current format. Bgsu98 (Talk)) that you appear to have picked the version you aligned with your comments? I never started the revert war, WikiCleanerMan did and hence his version is not the correct one to have in my opinion-4vryngtalk04:32, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
On a side note,@Bgsu98: I believe you did not act as neutral third party here and you simply reverted to wikicleaners older version - not keeping my newer version as you indicated in your statement above you think its bloated, this does appear to show bias without a discussion.I cannot undo back to the newest version and I have been blocked, if you blocked me then i view this as bias and not being a neutral third party, it does not seem fair you can decide which version to use based on your opinion and not allowing others to take part. That appears to be a misuse of power (if you were the one who blocked me?)Template_talk:Russia–United_States_relations#Template_Reversions - I quote:This template in its current form is incredibly bloated and unwieldy. Templates are meant to aid users in navigating the site, but it is unnavigable in its current format. Bgsu98 (Talk)
@Star Mississippi: did you want to join the discussion? When i try toundo it says:The account 4vryng has been partially blocked by Star Mississippi for the following reason(s): Edit Warring. This block will not expire. I want to note that it is unfair to keep it in the state the person who initially started the revert cycle wanted it to be in while this discussion occurs; it would seem more correct to keep it in thestate@نوفاك اتشمان: had left it in prior to WikiCleanerMan's most recent revert on19:22, 4 September 2025 beacuse that would be the most recent version. What about WikiClearMan who was the initial user who started the revert cycle, they dont appear to be blockedwhen I look at the log or Bgsu98 who also joined the revert cycle but never took part in the discussion beyong a brief more recent comment on their opinion and then reverting to the state WikiCleanerMan had wanted it in? Is this not bias for me to be blocked and for them to not be blocked? I have indicated in myRecord Keeping/History log below that I made multiple attempts to prevent this from even happening and yet I am blocked and not others? --4vryngtalk14:39, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
I do not wish to join the discussion beyond my comment above which noted why you were blocked, but yes confirming you are blocked from editing that page. I have no opinion on whether you should be blocked further but if you continue to edit war, or try to just running into the block you will be.StarMississippi15:21, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
This is ridiculous that a new edit war occured overliterally the same things the previous editwar between 4vryng and WikCleanerMan. I think the page should be protected/editors pblocked to halt it to form consensus37.186.35.134 (talk)15:26, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
I request then that WikiCleanerMan and Bgsu98 be blocked also to prevent further reverts, it does not seem fair they were not and this shows bias towards me when I made multiple attempts to stop it from getting to this point to begin with and I never started the revert cycle.-4vryngtalk15:33, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
Bgsu98 made three reverts (shown below) which I would view as edit warring and now its in a state where links are missing and the quality of the article has been reduced. I again view this as bias towards me and not others who started the revert cycle on15:56, 4 July 2025 and joined in afterwards. Yes this incident report was created at 12:57, 5 September 2025 but I do not agree that the other users are protected and not blocked and I am the one blocked.
Though Bgsu98 seems careful enough to not bust through the 3RR rule, so I think you need better evidence than just theee reverts, not four37.186.35.134 (talk)16:10, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
@4vryng you're welcome to open a sub section asking that they be blocked and another administrator may or may not take action, and they may or may not take further action on your editing. I did not say they should or should not be blocked, just that I was not doing so. I have no interest in getting into the weeds on this debate, I took action to stop the active edit warring.StarMississippi16:20, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
4vryng, you don't seem to get it. You made a series of edits to that template between May 5 and June 15. For the purposes of this discussion, they constitute one edit because they were uninterrupted. You were fully entitled to make those edits.WikiCleanerMan objected to your edits on July 4 and reverted the template back to its previous iteration. PerWP:BRD, you wereBold and heReverted. The next step should have been to open aDiscussion on the template's talk page or WCM's talk page. Yet, you persisted in reverting to your preferred version eleven times. I restored thestatus quo ante bellum version of the template; that is, the version that was in place before the dispute began. Neither version of the template is great. I encourage you andWikiCleanerMan to find a compromise to make the template less bloated and more user-friendly and more navigable.Bgsu98(Talk)17:11, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
"4vryng, you don't seem to get it." Look atRecord Keeping/History I provided further below at the end of this discussion, I have made three dispute resolution request and it was up to WikiCleanerMan to follow thru. And yes I will be opening a sub section asking for Bgsu98 and WikiCleanerMan to be blocked.-4vryngtalk17:23, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
Missing Links: On a side note, the most recent revert (which is now thecurrent state) by Bgsu98 ismissing links from the template version prior to this whole revert cycle - would it not be best to add those links in then because its now missing information. Hence my request to keep it thestate نوفاك اتشمان had it before the most recent revert to retain all the new links until this discussion is concluded?-4vryngtalk15:14, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
I also suggest 4vryng be blocked from these templates until they agree to stop edit warring. 4vryng, you've been here longer and have more edits than I do. You should know that our ideal consensus model isWP:BRD. You made some bold edits to these templates, your edits were reverted, and now it's up toyou to build consensus for those changes. Until then, the templates should remain at theWP:STATUSQUO. This is, unfortunately, a dispute that's at least partially based on aesthetics and can't easily be resolved by pointing to policy. It happens, whether it's with phrasing or photos or tables or navboxes. But in the end, you can either build a consensus or you have to drop it.Woodroar (talk)16:49, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
As indicated in my Record Keeping/History log, I have made multiple attempts to resolve this situation without a need to get ths invovled with no luck with WikiCleanerMan. I suggest WikiCleanerMan and Bgsu98 be blocked for reversion actions, and WikiCleanerMan to be blocked for not following thru with a Resolution Dispute after I made 3 requets.
In regards to "...Until then, the templates should remain at the WP:STATUSQUO..." I do not agree the state it should be in is the reverted state and not the updated version it had been prior to reversion. It needs to be kept it in the state it was in before all the reverts started happening - if its going to be kept in the reverted state someone needs to go thru and update all the links? Information cannot be lost beacuse someone simply clicks "Undo" and since I cannot make modifications at the moment someone needs to help.-4vryngtalk17:06, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
My words may have not come out clear or I may not have indicated what I meant wording wise. Thefirst revert done by WikiClearMan's on 15:56, 4 July 2025 is not the correct version to be in my opinion, we need to keep it in the state it was in prior to his revert since I never started the revertion cycle - and the closest version to that state without losing links and information is theedit by نوفاك اتشمان-4vryngtalk17:20, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
"Editors who engage in edit warring are liable to be blocked from editing to prevent further disruption to the affected page." and hence I will opening a request to have Bgsu98 and WikiCleaner blocked because they also made reverts and I consider that edit warring. As I indicated in my Record Keeping/History futher below that I made request to try to stop all this multiple times and WikiClearMan never followed thru, so I cannot be punished for making multiple attempts to resolve this situation to prevent it from getting to this state-4vryngtalk17:27, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
4vryng: Again, youDo. Not. Get. It. Your reversion ofWikiCleanerMan on July 4 was inappropriate perWP:BRD. So, while your attempts at communicating with WCM are laudable, the fact that you reverted the templatenineteen times to restore your preferred version is not.Bgsu98(Talk)17:41, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
Bgsu98 you do not get it, if the person who started the first revert (WikiCleanerMan) goes back and repeats the same reverts over again then that is inappropriate especially if they dont follow thru with my dispute requests. But you did not discuss the number of reverts they made in your comments above, you just shared how many reverts I made.
"The BOLD, revert, discuss cycle (BRD) is one of many optional strategies that editors may use to seek consensus. This process is not mandated by Wikipedia policy, but it can be useful for identifying objections, keeping discussion moving forward and helping to break deadlocks." - I full understand what this says but the version WikiClearMan wanted this state to be in has missing links vs the more updated version that had been last shownhere by نوفاك اتشمان.Note: This process is not mandated by Wikipedia policy which means this is not required but instead useful. So keep it in the state with the links with no information missing.-4vryngtalk18:01, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
If I am to be blocked they should also be blocked and allow neutral third parties to join who have not taken part in reverts to make new updates to the template.
Bgsu98
Bgsu98 edits were more recent but I still need to note I think it was done possibly thru bias:"Just an observation as an uninterested bystander, but that template in its current form is incredibly bloated and unwieldy. Bgsu98 (Talk) 13:29, 5 September 2025 (UTC)" fromcurrent discussion
Bgsu98 edits were made which I would view as edit warring and now its in a state where links are missing and the quality of the article has been reduced. I again view this as bias towards me and not others who started the revert cycle on15:56, 4 July 2025 and joined in afterwards. Yes this incident report was created at 12:57, 5 September 2025 but I do not agree that the other users are protected and not blocked and I am the one blocked.
Again I ask Bgsu98 and WikiCleanerMan also blocked from anymore edits onTemplate:Russia–United States relations and to let new neutral third parties come in and make edits.
I appreciate your support, but I have no dog in this fight and was simply trying to revert to thestatus quo. This block does not bother me, as there would not have been any further edits from me regardless.4vryng just doesn't get it. I wonder if there is aWP:CIR issue here?Bgsu98(Talk)18:25, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
4vryng just doesn't get it....WP:CIR issue here? Those comments do no help, and are gonna just create a new cycle, I have already answered you in the responses above.-4vryngtalk18:31, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
I am not opposed to the block from the template. I only added back an article that was removed by this user. I don't see myself editing this template for the forseeable future, block or no block, at least no major massive changes. --WikiCleanerMan (talk)19:36, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
Responded on my Talk, but so it's here as well. No issue and no apologies needed but thanks for the heads up. I told @4vryng that another admin would weigh in, and you did @CambridgeBayWeather.
Since @4vryng has filed a complaint against me, I will be taking no other action but that was likely true anyway as I didn't see anything further needed from me. I dooppose the proposed indef below as I think it's overkill. Neutral on in what form the p-block stays, if it does at all. I do endorse my original block to stop the active edit war.StarMississippi00:43, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
@CambridgeBayWeather: Unfortunately I'm going to have to call these a questionable block and a bad block. Bgsu98 did not breach 3RR, and while yes, you can EW without breaching it, they had, as mentioned, already stopped editing. WCM did not even reach 3RR, and had made no reversions of 4Vryng's edits since the 4th, making this look alot like apunitive block. Unfortunately the result of this is going to be an editor thinking if theybludgeon a discussion enough demanding something they'llget it. -The BushrangerOne ping only22:55, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
Yes but when I looked at the template there was no indication that they were not going to make any more edits. The later did say that they wouldn't edit that template anymore, just above, and then I unblocked them.CambridgeBayWeather (#1 deranged),Uqaqtuq (talk),Huliva23:47, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
Propose indef block of 4vryng
I propose an indef block of 4vryng forWP:IDHT and failure to drop the stick, and nowWP:PROXYING while partially blocked. (See the "Missing Links" section above.) I had hoped that blocking 4vryng from the article would solve the issue, but they continue bludgeoning the discussion and are trying to bypass that block with meatpuppets.Woodroar (talk)18:20, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
I used the usernames in missing links to clarify which edits I was talking about - it had nothing to with not dropping the stick or continuing the fire. I will reword it. I do not agree with indefinite blocking, I put a lot of effort into this template. Give me a second and I can reword the missing links.-4vryngtalk18:34, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
I want to note Woodroar that you said -I had hoped that blocking 4vryng from the article would solve the issue - what about the other users? allthree two users are blocked now (myself, wikicleanerman,bgsu98). This whole incident was to create a dispute resolution process which does not result in my indefinite ban for my account, on the contrary its leads to a result because the block gets removed in 2 weeks and we need to find an answer right so we dont start the cycle over again. In the future I think it would be better to just ping the user, which is myself and ask the user (myself) to look at possibly rewording the section (Missing Links) to make it sound more neutral instead of using usernames (I had used usernames for the sake of a history log) instead of asking that I get banned indefinently since the request and ban do not help since my goal from the three dispute resolution requests (Record Keeping/History above) was to find a solution and move on fromTemplate:Russia–United States relations to other wikipedia articles to work on (create/edit/update/et).-4vryngtalk18:56, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
4vryng, while the temporary blocks might help the situation right now, as I mentioned in the opening post, this is a long-standing issue, and my reading of this discussion is that the problem will persist after the block expires. It would help if, instead of continually trying to blame others editors, you showed you understand why the reverts were problematic and promised to do better in the future. I don't think a site-wide block here is necessary, but it might end up passing if you don't drop the sick.Isabelle Belato🏴☠️19:13, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
I have dropped the stick Isabelle, I was trying to explain above that my "Missing Links" section may have been misunderstood based on me using usernames so I fixed it by removing usernames so it is more neutral now - I dont want all the links to get lost, I would like someone to help if they are open to it by copy/pasting them into the currentTemplate:Russia–United States relations version; I need to explain this so I did not get banned over how "Missing Links" may have initially appeared wording wise.-4vryngtalk19:18, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
Oppose indefinite block at this time. Even with theWP:PROXY attempt, I think it's premature until lighter sanctions haven't worked. I'd *Support a pageblock and/or a one-wayWP:IBAN. You don't need a fire hydrant to fill up a kiddie pool.
Oppose as way over the top. From what I've seen, 4vryng is the only one that's actually attempted to resolve this dispute. Don't get me wrong, their behavior (today especially) has been disappointing and problematic, but they aren't the only one that failed to resolve this appropriately. Really I'm seeing a whole lot ofWP:IDHT from both of them. Since they don't seem to be able to find a compromise (or work with each other at all) I lean towards a two-way IBAN, with the possible addition of TBANs from templates for both parties.CambrianCrab (talk)pleaseping me in replies!21:26, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
True, but over 700 of those edits are related to this one spat. It's something that most editors would have resolved in a dozen edits, perhaps a short discussion on a Talk page and then an RfC.Woodroar (talk)19:29, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
I also do not want to loose access to the template permanently, I have spent too much time on it and I believe I have the right to discuss it with users in thetemplate talk page and go to aDispute Resolution if no consensus is meet as I have tried to do before. I have already requested on the template talk page today that if users want to discuss I will take part so we can help come to a conclusion/solution. Another editor's decision not to do aDispute Resolution with me should not result in me being banned from using the template, the solution is theDispute Resolution that is why it exist to resolve the situation (TBAN does not help and will not resolve the discussion because more users can come in at a later time and start the process over again; a TBANs will also prevent my from doing the Dispute Resolution which I view is the answer if general template talk does not resolve the situation).-4vryngtalk00:05, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
To describe this another way, if User A and myself are talking on the template talk page and we cannot come to a conclusion then the best answer is to request a third neutral party to take part in aDispute Resolution. If User A does not follow thru with theDispute Resolution even after I make multiple requests then in no way am I all of a sudden responsible for reverting any reverts they make after User A decides they do not want to take part in theDispute Resolution - they need to take part in theDispute Resolution to solve the answer not start a revert cycle. I cannot be held responsible with a TBAN after I have taken multiple measures (talking, locking page request, incident request) to stop what is happening and bring it to User A's attention thatDispute Resolution would be the solution. What choice do I have? You report it on the lock page to lock the page so User A gets attention that we need to do aDispute Resolution. If that does not work then you can file a complaint in the incident report so User A gets attention that we need to do aDispute Resolution. If User A comes back and continues the issue knowing full well they have been approached 3 times to do aDispute Resolution then I myself cannot all of a sudden be banned from the template with a TBAN, I have done nothing wrong but repeatedly ask for aDispute Resolution! I have no choice but to revert User A's edits until someone else (such as a moderator/admin) brings it to User A's attention you need to follow thru with theDispute Resolution or let it go and stop reverting. I have a queestion for the moderators/admins, if you were in my shoes what would you have done (look at the "Record Keeping/History" above) because I did everything by the book (that I am aware of at least) and after makingthreeDispute Resolution requests I am clearly not at fault and should not banned via a TBAN. Admins/moderators what else could I have done, and what would you have done? I cannot let someone just revert an article when they know full well they were asked threeDispute Resolution requests, and its not fair all of a sudden I am at fault with a possible TBAN? I ask you not to put a TBAN on my account, the solution is theDispute Resolution request if template talk does not work. If User A does not agree with theDispute Resolution then its up to the moderators/admins to inform User A to stop the reverts and let it go and the moderators/admins need to understand my account cannot be at fault here and that a TBAN for my account would not make sense because of the decision User A made.-4vryngtalk01:05, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
Please note the remarks above are related to TBAN meaning Template Ban if that is what it means? Unless I misunderstood and it means Temporary Ban?-4vryngtalk05:19, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
Okay thanks for the clarification! So I then hold my case with my two previous statements. Had TBAN meant temporary ban then I would have been okay for 2 weeks to let it cool off.-4vryngtalk05:34, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
Comment User is not letting up. They are continuing to refuse to accept on the template talk that they are outnumbered and want to continue to drag this on and they stated this: "I am here to discuss it so we can all come to an agreement which means I am also in agreement. The whole point of this discussion is to get this issue resolved - not to simply close the case because there are two other users who gave their statements, I do not side with either one and this means a discussion continues - do you think I would stop this conversation if ten other people joined and they all sided with me? No of course not, if anyone is in disagreement then we need to work it out and come to an agreement, there is no rush for me to close this case. On a side note their reasoning is similar to yours, which is why this discussion continues because it did not create a solution - if their reasoning is similar to yours and I have indicated why I am not in agreement then I will continue with this discussion until we come to an agreement." They are stating that an agreement is only an agreement if it goes their way. Contrary to consensus. User has still not provided any rationale for making the wholesale changes which now 2 users outside of myself believe it was too large and unwieldy for a navbox. And on the Afd they are bludgeoning on there as well even though the Afd is unrelated to the matter at hand. --WikiCleanerMan (talk)21:03, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
The reasoning so far given by the other two users is the same as yours in regards to it being "bloated" and was very brief 1-2 line responses with not much of a debate/discussion and I have already indicated my case why this reason being given does not hold to me. This is not a vote where its based on numbers, its about coming to an agreement as whole to make this work. If it was numbers then tomorrow 50 people could join and all say I am correct and now we revert to the version I had while others are in disagreement and possibly leading to a revert cycle again? Again this is where theWikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard comes into play to find the answer - however if they and yourself want to discuss it in template talk page further that is fine i will discuss it because we can also find an answer this way but if that does not work as we are at a stalemate now thenDispute Resolution would be the best next and final step I would assume.-4vryngtalk00:16, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
You refuse to accept the concept of consensus. You are continuing to dig a hole for yourself. You have been told to stop numerous times. You just don't listen. Several editors have told you. You only want your way. It is not about you. What part of this do you not understand? Your rationale for these changes are not accepted. You were told about onus and you still can't provide onus. Just stop.WikiCleanerMan (talk)01:15, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
Will you continue to discuss this with me on the template talk page and if we do not come to an agreement we go to the Dispute Resolution? If Dispute Resolution concludes that the current format is the choice to have then its fine - the Dispute Resolution is the best way of resolving this issue. Note, the Dispute Resolution could for example help produce possiblehybrid template merging both designs together, but I just also asked this in the template talk page. The comments above you just made did not really help and I explained in the previous post prior why I am not in agreement, I am trying to resolve all this with a solution that does not result in reverts anymore.What do you think about the hybrid template idea?-4vryngtalk01:24, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
No such thing exists and you can't combine any design. You have been on Wikipedia for over a decade and you don't understand what a template is. This is getting sad.Consensus is not about you. No agreement is going to go your way. DRN is not needed since you are not able to reason with and I support a permanent block on you. --WikiCleanerMan (talk)02:06, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
I said we can merge the combine/design/layout to have a little bit both so both sides could be in agreement, this is where aWikipedia:Sandbox comes into play. The simple compressed layout (kinda of like aZip drive) as you suggested plus some of the organization/structural addon from the layout I had worked on. Will you show flexbility here and try this out with me and others can join because you did not want to go to a Dispute Resolution so I am trying my best to resolve it so both sides can agree.-4vryngtalk02:10, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
Support User is continuing to bludgeon and has been told non-stop what consensus is. User believes an agreement that suits themselves and only them. They have been told to stop and they are refusing to do so. User has now posted on Isabelle Belato's talk page now expanding this to a fourth place. This user is beyond reason now. --WikiCleanerMan (talk)02:06, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
I am asking for help and guidance form Isabelle on what we can do to not go to a third incident request or future reverts because the first incident request did come to a conclusion, but if we can come to a conclusion here it would help both of us WikiCleanerMan. I thought by pinging admins further below it would have helped, but it did not work out so just trying to get this resolved my friend so we can move on.-4vryngtalk02:19, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
I've blocked 4vryng for 48 hours for bludgeoning, both here and elsewhere, and edit warring. The edit warring itself is stale, but 4vryng's concerning statements made here convince me that the block is necessary to prevent future disruption.Firefangledfeathers (talk /contribs)12:51, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
Note this was indicated in Isabelle Belato 🏳🌈 initial statement:"...This issue, as can be seen on the previous ANI thread, spans multiple articles and pages,which now also includes Russian Empire-United States diplomatic missions, which was created by 4vryng and sent to AfD by WikiCleanerMan." What measure could be taken so neither me or wikicleanerman could request a deletion of one anothers articles similar to what has happened to theRussian Empire-United States diplomatic missions. Its hard to tell when something like this is honest or a personal targeting. The Russian Empire article deletion tag was added at19:35, 4 September 2025, that is 13 minutes after the revert19:22, 4 September 2025 of theTemplate:Russia–United States relations. This is something I definintly would like a resolution/answer for if possible. Would a simple verbal request suffice where the admins/mods ask us both not to do this?-4vryngtalk14:34, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
4vryng, you're bludgeoning this discussion. If you do not drastically reduce your posts' frequency and size here, I'm going to block you. If someone addresses a question to you directly, feel free to respond with a brief, on-topic answer.Firefangledfeathers (talk /contribs)01:54, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
@4vryng please heed the warning from @Firefangledfeathers below. Re: the ping, since you've opened a complaint against me, it would be wholly inappropriate for me to continue to weigh in on the matter. I will just say that unless there's an i-ban, nothing prevents either of you (or anyone) from nominating an article. It's also not either of your articles.StarMississippi12:49, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
Need to clarify I am not bludgeoning, I am asking for help from admins/mods to resolve this for both me and WikiClearMan because this is going on since June between us. What steps can we take to help resolve this because thefirst incident request never got resolved which lead to this. In regards to article response above, I was indicating I created the article (did not want to sound like I owned the article) and I thought the timing of the deletion request was 13 minutes right after the revert which made it hard to tell if it was honest or personal. It sounds likeiban is the best way to prevent this am I correct or are there alternative options? Ifiban is the best way then I am okay with this (I revert from my previous comments further above where I had requested no iban).-4vryngtalk01:06, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
@4vryng, I'm neither involved nor an admin, but it's obvious you are far too active in this discussion for your own good. Just a quick look at the page history shows you've made267 out of the last 1000 edits to this page. That's an insane rate for a single editor who's only involved in one discussion out of 45. Please consider taking a step back as Firefangledfeathers and Star Mississippi warned above.🌸wasianpower🌸 (talk • contribs)02:25, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
- I posted thereWe need to try to resolve this discussion (my edit screen shows: this block will expire on 17:50, 20 September 2025 for editing). We need more users involved in this conversation. If a solution is not found I will make a request for Dispute Resolution to hopefully come to a conclusion and we can move on.
If needed move on toDispute Resolution if a solution is not found on the template talk page
I think that I should explain about how to start a discussion at DRN, becauseUser: 4vryng has not done this correctly. In order to start a discussion at DRN, an editor must file a request at DRN, using the button for the purpose, which formats the case properly, and then notify the other editors on their user talk pages, and then wait for them to reply with their own statement. 4vryng tried to file a case request in July, but did not notifyUser:WikiCleanerMan. I had to close that case. Since then, they have mentioned DRN in various places, but not while a new case request is open. If any two editors want to discuss the template at DRN, one of them will have to open a case request properly, and notify the other editor, and wait for them to resply.
Hmm...my impression was that after the DRN was filed incorrectly in July and closed, 4vryng tried to pursue it again butWikiCleanerMan said they didn't want to to participate, which means a properly filed case would've been closed regardless since only one party was willing. Is that correct, or could something have been accomplished by a proper filing?CambrianCrab (talk)pleaseping me in replies!23:37, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
4vryng did ask about starting a second dispute resolution (are you okay if i make the resolution request in a few hours?)here, buttheir attempted ping failed. WikiCleanerMan made a single edit about 14 hours later, and their next edit was 24 hours after that. So WikiCleanerMan didn't decline DR but they didn't reply to 4vryng's comment, either. Nothing happened for a while, until reverts in August lead to that first ANI report.Woodroar (talk)00:14, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
Woodroar sorry yeah, I was trying to be succinct and made it a bit confusing. I was referring to WCM's comments in the ANII didn't respond to the dispute resolution noticeboard because the user was making the same nonsensical arguments...[48] and (when asked by 4vryng to move to DRN)No I will not. Here is where we will have third party view[49]CambrianCrab (talk)pleaseping me in replies!22:53, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
CambrianCrab asks whether there is something that can be accomplished by a proper DRN filing that is declined by another editor. What is accomplished is to show that one editor requested moderated dispute resolution and the other editor declined it. Administrators and the community may take that into account in deciding on sanctions. They should take all of the circumstances into account.Robert McClenon (talk)04:03, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
No,User:CambrianCrab - Discussion at DRN requires at least two editors who disagree. If a request for DRN is declined, the administrators and the community have to assess whose fault it was that there was no discussion.Robert McClenon (talk)08:30, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
At this point, I do not expect to accept a request for moderated discussion at DRN if the filing editor is partially blocked from the page in question for an extended period of time, and it appears that 4vryng is blocked from the template in question.Robert McClenon (talk)04:03, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
User:AsianTiele not understanding SYNTH and possibly using an LLM in discussion
There is a discussion on the NOR noticeboardhere. The discussion is about whether or notPan-Turkism should list the Huns as non-Turkic people, but the issue is thatUser:AsianTiele doesn't seem to understand SYNTH and refuses to do so, and has made it difficult to have a productive discussion with them.
If you look at my comments there,in my first comment, I explain SYNTH to AsianTiele.In their first comment, they seem to confirm to understand.In my second comment, I ask them to provide a source describing the Huns as Turkic.In their second comment, they point to broad claims of "genealogical and genetic evidence" and assert that "dismissing this while insisting on a single 'proof text' is cherry-picking".In my third comment, I tell them to readWP:V and to find sources that verify their claims (and at this point, I've read Rosguill's comment, which actually leads me more to their side at the time), thenin their third comment, they respond with a wall of text containing a number of individual claims with sources that would point to the Huns being Turkic and again make the same assertion that they don't need to present a single source saying "the Huns are Turkic". The problem here is that after their first comment claiming to have read SYNTH, every subsequent argument is a synthesis of sources which they claim add up to proof that the Huns were Turkic, without presenting a source saying this.
In a related issue, I suspect that they're using an LLM to write many of their comments, and in an unproductive way. In their third comment, they say that I "have acknowledged in earlier discussion that the Huns were a 'mixed' confederation."In my fourth comment, I ask when I said that (I didn't), andin their fourth comment they deny saying what they had previously said. This inconsistency is consistent with feeding this discussion into an LLM and posting the output without verifying the LLM's claims.
There are also issues with misrepresenting their cited sources. In my fourth comment, I asked about a source they cited, where a number of their pages don't prove their claim (some of the pages don't even mention the Huns), and their fourth comment doesn't really explain anything. Their third comment cites The World of the Huns, 1973, pp. 370–385 as showing that the Huns were more closely related to later Turkic nomads than with Indo-European settler societies, but I looked at that section, and it doesn't seem to make that claim. Those pages speculate on the language of the Huns, especially with respect to names, and instead acknowledge that the Huns included names from a variety of groups, including Turkic names. In fact, that section explicitly refrains from making such generalizing claims; instead, it includes passages such as "Attempts to force all Hunnic names into one linguistic group are a priori doomed to failure." (p.383) It also includes this particularly prescient passage:
"In addition to the objective difficulties, subjective ones bedevil some scholars. Turkologists are likely to find Turks everywhere; Germanic scholars discover Germans in unlikely places. Convinced that all proto- Bulgarians spoke Turkish, Nemeth offered an attractive Turkish etymology of Asparuch; other Turkologists explained the name in a different, perhaps less convincing way. Now it has turned out that Asparuch is an Iranian name." (p.384)
They point to long sections, mischaracterize their contents, and never provide quotes backing up their claims. To me, this indicates that AsianTiele is using an LLM to write responses to back up their arguments, rather than actually writing these passages themselves or reading the sources they cite. AsianTiele has been asked a number of times, including in that topic, if they used an LLM to write their responses andthey deny it, saying they only use translation and spelling tools as they aren't a native English speaker. Multiple users have asked them if they used an LLM, andUser:TurboSuperA+ notes that LLM-detection servicesfind AsianTiele's comments to be LLM-generated. I am wary of using such services to accuse writing of being LLM-generated, but I think that the rest of this post supports that claim.
I know that some would argue that a capable, conscientious, honest editor could use an LLM in a productive way, but their apparent use of it is unproductive, even disruptive. There are also other hints of using an LLM in their comments: very grandiose claims that don't say anything specific, their writing style completely changing (as in their fourth comment) when they're not writing walls of text, repeated lists of three. Regardless of whether or not they are using an LLM, it is impossible to have a productive conversation with an editor who will say something and then deny what they said in the following comment, or completely misrepresent sources.Truthnope (talk)23:58, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
Has AsianTiele actually proposed any new edits based on a problematic understanding of SYNTH? I agree that they’re not quite getting it yet at NORN (I’m not sure I can say I understood SYNTH well by my 30th edit either), but my understanding of that discussion is that a lot of it is a bit moot (per my own comments there).signed,Rosguilltalk00:04, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
If AsianTiele stuck entirely to your argument, which does not use SYNTH, there wouldn't be an issue, and I even said in one of my comments that I agreed with your argument, but they kept trying to assemble an argument proving that the Huns were Turkic by synthesizing a number of sources. At this point, my issue here is not so much with the edit itself, but the difficulty in having a productive discussion with AsianTiele which, again, I attribute to probable LLM usage.Truthnope (talk)00:15, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
My point was just that they don't seem to have actually done anything disruptive yet other than failing to engage skillfully with one noticeboard discussion. That having been said,Special:Diff/1310294299 gives the impression that they have not understood the discussion to such an extent that it's stretching AGF to believe that they can be constructive. I don't know that this comment seems like an LLM (a few prior ones do, considering both the verbosity and the factual errors that you identified).signed,Rosguilltalk02:08, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
If the only issue was SYNTH, this wouldn't be ANI-worthy. I may have buried the lede with the title of this topic; the main issue is that I believe many of their comments were generated by LLMs and that they are not carefully reading the outputs, leading to claims that they cannot back up, such as misattributing their beliefs to certain books or incorrectly describing things that editors have said. The latter may seem like a small point, but it is honestly disconcerting to try to converse with an editor who will claim I said something, and then deny that claim.
The former is the greater issue; even if the discussion of the edit is moot, it is extremely disruptive to consensus-building for them to mischaracterize sources and makes it hard to trust anything they say. I doubt that they have read the sources they cite (or rather, I doubt their comments were proofread by a human being who read those sources). I'm unsure if there is a policy that says that misrepresenting sources on a noticeboard is disruptive.
It's difficult to show that their claims about the sources are wrong other than by pointing to the passages I cited or asking somebody to read everything AsianTiele has cited (I would not ask anybody else to do this, given the breadth of the pages cited, but two of the books they have mentioned,An Introduction to the History of the Turkish Peoples andThe world of the Huns are on archive.org). If AsianTiele responds to this thread, it would help if they could provide specific quotes from the pages they cite to show that the texts actually back up their claims.
I propose an immediate indef based on the fact that anyone who thinks AI can be used to generate article content or discussion posts doesn't understand the meaning of editing an article, or participating in a discussion, and so is aWP:CIR case.EEng01:37, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
That seems premature. If not understanding how to participate meant immediate indef for an editor with one week experience I'm not sure many of us would have survived our first month. I could see lighter sanctions to start, but only if they don't show a willingness to learn based on community feedback.tony01:48, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
It is a cancer that we must ruthlessly and radically excise from the Wikipedia body. The sequence of events should be: (1) block indef instantly before they damage more articles or flood more discussions with crap; (2) forgive them in a message on their talk page; (3) unblock when they convincingly explain that they understand that if they can't write their own artcile content, or their own discussion contributions, then they can't vet what their stupid chat robot writes for them. A parole officer should be assigned to monitor their activities for a month; so that if they relapse a new indef should be imposed, this time with a one-year minimum before requesting unblock.I am serious about this.EEng02:42, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
While we should be forgiving about this type of thing in general, we've just been through this a few days ago and AsianTiele was indignant about the idea that they were using an LLM, despite their writing having the hallmarks of such. Reading the most recent diffs, I think it's increasingly obvious that they are not being truthful. There are many technical issues that a new editor may fall afoul of, buthonesty is absolutelynot one of them. I'm not sure the logistics of the entirety of EEng's solution are practical, but they should at least beWP:INDEFed until they fully disclose how they make their edits and with it not appearing LLM use is being properly reviewed, promise to not use LLMs in the future. This type of behavior is an existential threat to the utility of the Wikipedia project.CoffeeCrumbs (talk)03:47, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
The idea of "properly reviewing" AI output is illusory. If someone is incapable of writing appropriate article text, or appropriate discussion posts -- or in too much of a hurry to do so -- then they are either incapable of reviewing what the bot writes for them, or in too much of a hurry to do it. No matter how you slice it, there's no use case for AI-written stuff, which is why use of AI is a surefire sign of a CIR problem, and talking about AI output which is "properly reviewed" is a red herring. No AI-written stuff, period.EEng04:33, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
Oh, I totally agree with you. I just don't think we have consensus yet on the futility of properly reviewing AI output, which in the context of a human written encylopedia written by strangers, is akin to "responsible daily heroin use."CoffeeCrumbs (talk)05:23, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
We had damn well better though, and sooner rather than later. You're exactly right in characterizing AI output as an existential threat to the encyclopedia. Ravenswing05:53, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
I mean regardless of what weshould do, the fact is that we do not currently have a policy against AI usage. We don't even have a guideline against it. We have an essay. If you want to change that then this isn't really the venue.Gnomingstuff (talk)05:55, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
I also agree with EEng's view but after examining a couple of the long comments I thought they had some merit (well buried). I'm not considering the accuracy of the claims in the comments, just the text posted. I left a comment at theuser's talk.Johnuniq (talk)06:09, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
The "well-buried" bit is the crucial point. Editors shouldn't have to pick through tons of AI-generated feces to find a tiny fragment of well-buried non-shitpossibly hidden in there somewhere.EEng11:44, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
You guys can ban me if you want. At this point it's clear that most of my research gets rejected. Everyone grouped up purely because of being a racist.. Sad to see. No wonder Wiki isn't reliable anymore. Also the genetic research got fully avoided, even though it clearly shows that the modern AND ancient population is connected to the Huns. Like I said, ban me if you want... Our history gets 24/7 falsified anyway. Also I mentioned the problems on the Scythians and Sakas. Why label them as Indo-Aryan, while 80% of the tribes were Slabgrave and Ulaanzukh cultures? Typical cherry-picking...
And the random accusations on using bots is already on a new level. You might have brought all your friends here, but I really don't care. Nobody was ever enganged in even debating the facts with me. "You violated WP:LMAO, you violated SCYTHIANS. You violated I:DONT:CARE, you violated WP:WEDONTLIKETURKS".
Quite aside from that at least two editors in this thread are from Massachusetts (so where, exactly, do you get that we're all racists against Huns/Turks/Indo-Aryans/Martians?), you seem very intent on avoiding the genuine issues. Such as the citations you present aren't backing up the statements you're making. Such as you're doing your ownoriginal research instead of presenting the research from reliable sources. Such as that you're calling on LLMs to do your writing for you. Such as that you're combining material from multiple sources to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.
What we do here is not "debate the facts." That's not our job at all on Wikipedia. We present the facts as stipulated from a preponderance of reliable sources, not just those sources that seem to support the "facts" you already want to believe. A lot of people these days prefer to think that those who disagree with them are in some wicked conspiracy to do them down, but that's not what's going on here. Ravenswing10:39, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
I'm a bit offended by your response. I thought I gave a reasonable effort in explaining why we can't use synthesis in a Wikipedia article. There are Wikipedia policies that every editor has to follow- you, me, the administrators, everybody. You are not being singled out in this regard. It is okay to have trouble understanding or working with Wikipedia policies, but you have to try to learn them.
I know it's unpleasant to have to deal with this discussion, but this is also your opportunity to explain your actions and show why you believe you're in the right. I pointed out some incongruities with your descriptions of certain texts, in particular The World of the Huns, and some passages I found from the pages you cited. Could you explain why you interpret that source as saying that "the Huns were more closely related to later Turkic nomads than with Indo-European settler societies" despite the passages I showed seemingly contradicting that interpretation?Truthnope (talk)18:38, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
It's not that hard to imagine that someone want to convey something while also having trouble putting said thoughts into writingTrade (talk)16:54, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
Yes, and such people cannot be Wikipedia editors, because if they're unable to read a source and put its content in their own words, then they certainly can't be trusted to "review" AI's attempts to do that either. We are now confronted daily with multiple demonstrations of this sad and frightening truth -- and that's just here at ANI. Around the project the rot is found everywhere. CIR block.EEng17:50, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
Yes, competence in English is required to contribute to the English-language Wikipedia. Sorry, not sorry. I had four quarters of Italian and my conversational skills are decent, but I'm not about to head over to the Italian-language Wikipedia and attempt formal prose. There are Wikipedias for almost every language out there, so find yours and have at it.Bgsu98(Talk)18:27, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
But more to the point: neither will you, I trust, head over to the Italian Wikipedia and (a) tell ChiacchierataGee-a-Pee-a-Tee-a (that's Italian for ChatGPT) to write some slop in Italian; then (b) apply your four quarters of Italian to "review" what it barfs out; and finally (c) make a fool of yourself, and waste the time of it.wikipedia editors, by submitting that slop as article text. Optional additional waste of time which I hope you won't engage in: subsequently arguing that you ought to be able to continue repeating that process because AI has opened up a whole new world for you, and improved the human condition, by allowing you to "contribute" to it.wp.EEng10:58, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
Why cant we just ban them from using LLM in discussions? No reason from stopping them from participating in discussions with their own wordsTrade (talk)16:52, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
AsianTiele - I think you're becoming much too dead-set on implementing the content and the references that you want into thePan-Turkism article, and despite any discussions that have raise objection, links to relevantpolicies and guidelines that others have provided to you, and anyconsensus that's been achieved (whether it be past or present). This mindset is fundamentally against Wikipedia's core fundamentals andfounding principles in that we discuss and resolve disputes and conflicts byconsensus and by following Wikipedia'sdispute resolution protocol. As others have pointed out both in this discussion as well as elsewhere, you're taking references and sources that you've found and are attempting to use them in order to draw or confer your own conclusions, and then add this as content to the article. When others point out that there are "SYNTH" issues with what you've been trying to do, they're referring tothis section of Wikipedia's policy onno original research. You may believe that what you're doing doesn't constitute a violation of policy, but taking sources and using them to derive your own conclusions and then adding these conclusions as content to articlesdoes constitute adding original research, andthis is not allowed on Wikipedia. I think you need to put this article (as well as any related ones)to rest and let things be, and move on to another article subject or topic area that interests you.
I'm not going to comment on the concerns brought up here regarding the use of LLMs. As others have correctly pointed out, there currently isn't a policy that forbids its use. I will safely say that we're at the point that if you make any further edits to thePan-Turkism (or similar) articles and if you add any content that constitutes asynthesis of any sources or a violation of Wikipedia'sno original research policy, you've been provided with sufficient warnings from other editors on your user talk page, in relevant discussions stemming from your attempted edits, and on this discussion here - that the next logical step will likely be to impose ablock onto your account that would restrict you from editing the articles that you've shown to have SYNTH issues with, or from editing Wikipedia entirely. The reason that I'm not taking any action at this time is to allow you the opportunity and the chance to begin focusing your time and effort on other article subjects and topic areas that interest you. Ihighly recommend that you do this, and that youdrop this issue regarding Pan-Turkism and move on.~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)16:29, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
Persistent disruptive editing of "The Tainted Cup" and related pages
Over the previous days, @Derry Steinbeck and IP user @2001:4455:215:400:d0ba:501f:1afb:84ed (likely the same person) have made more than 50 edits toThe Tainted Cup. The user has also made similar changes to the sequel,A Drop of Corruption. The changes have been reverted by myself and @AJD. I have made two posts on Derry Steinbeck's talk page and have not gotten a response. I have notified Derry Steinbeck onTalk:The Tainted Cup. Derry Steinbeck is not using any edit summaries. The sheer number of edits is making it difficult to understand exactly what is changing and why. While some of the edits could be constructive, others are introducing factual errors and introducing grammatical mistakes with no clear reason.
Because the user has not replied to any of my messages or participated in the talk page process, I am bringing it here and requesting either a page protection or a short block until the user is ready to participate in the cooperative editing process. As of now, they areWP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia.Michelangelo1992 (talk)00:52, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
I am trying to bring all the top importance energy articles to GA. Both NPguy and myself have previously, productively worked on energy articles and I believe we are both here to write an encyclopedia. With this particular article, I think the main issue is that the content is almost entirely derived from primary sources. This problem is pronounced in certain sections to the about that I believe content needs to be removed or secondary sources need to be added. There are several particulars of applying this that NPguy and myself disagree on, but I think on a bigger picture NPguy does not hold the same value for secondary independent sources on this topic and will continue to disrupt efforts to remove uncited content and content that is only supported by primary sources even in areas where the message of the page is primarily based on primary sources.
Regarding how I see the content being improved, I think WP needs to prevent this page from being a regurgitation of what IAEA says about itself and to bring secondary, reliable, and independent perspective on what the IAEA is.
I don't really feel the need to elaborate on either editor's conduct as I think it speaks for itself but if asked specifically about something I'll make some effort to respond. Also this is my first ANI thread so let me know if I am supposed to do something else.Czarking0 (talk)19:39, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
I don't really feel the need to elaborate on either editor's conduct as I think it speaks for itself ... That's the whole point of AN/I. We're here to look at conduct, not content disputes. So while the content dispute is important background information, what particular conduct issues do you want admins to look at?voorts (talk/contributions)19:59, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
I don't think that you were given good advice to bring the issue here. This seems to be a content issue on which there only seem to have been two opinions expressed, so is ripe forWP:3O.Phil Bridger (talk)21:08, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
I didn't mean you shouldn't look at conduct I just meant that admins are perfectly capable of reading through this and making their own opinion without me telling others what to think.Czarking0 (talk)01:20, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
Just catching up on this thread. I believe it is a conduct issue.Czarking0 has insisted on edits despite my explanations of why they are unnecessary or inaccurate, and has insisted on interpretations of rules, notablyWP:ABOUTSELF and the use of primary sources regarding an international organization, for which the organization's website is often the most definitive record. I will review recent edits, but believe this editor's insistence on unreasonable positions reflects bad faith.NPguy (talk)17:28, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
This is an unwarranted assumption of bad faith. You can walk away from this dispute or continue to engage in it, but you can't continue to assume bad faith where it almost certainly does not exist.Firefangledfeathers (talk /contribs)15:23, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
Edit warring at IAEA
Both NPguy and Czaking0 have been edit warring at IAEA for a long time. I've fully protected the article for a week. It looks like both parties have engaged in talk page discussion and not reached an agreement. Please use some from ofdispute resolution, like athird opinion orWP:DRN. I'm likely to start p-blocking if edit warring resumes after the end of protection.Firefangledfeathers (talk /contribs)14:09, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
I don't see fully protected a useful admin action here since it prevents third parties from helping to mitigate the dispute. I request that you lower protection and block myself, NPguy, or both from editing the page for that amount of time you see fit. What is p-blocking? Can you elaborate on that? I'll take further DR to DRN.Czarking0 (talk)14:52, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
From the DR creation process atWP:DRN "This forum is designed to only assist with issues regarding the content of articles and isn't able to assist with concerns about other editors' behaviour. Is this an issue only about another editor's behaviour?." NPguy has stated "I believe it is a conduct issue." and "this editor's insistence on unreasonable positions reflects bad faith". I cannot in good faith click the "No, it's not" button atWP:DRN and can only click the about another user problem. Therefore I cannot make a DRN thread.Czarking0 (talk)15:03, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
Blocked from the page or blocked from the project? Is there a guideline/precedent for blocking constructive editors for edit warring on a single page? I am not familiar with the blocking policy much but in this case it seems reasonable to have a page or topic block while a project blocks seems unreasonable.Czarking0 (talk)15:26, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
It would be up to admin discretion, but a temporary siteblock for persistent edit warring is common and within policy. Speaking for myself only, I'd be likely to impose a page block (that's what I meant with 'p-block' above). This sort of pre-negotation is awkward. Just don't edit war.Firefangledfeathers (talk /contribs)15:32, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
Also, contrary to instructions for fully protecting a page in case of edit war you protected the preferred, recent version from NPguy. This rewards edit warring behavior. Guidelines suggest that you restore a pre-edit war version before fully protecting. I suggest version 1267446161 which is by NPguy before I was involved at the page.Czarking0 (talk)14:56, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
Responding to a few of your comments here. I'm familiar with the collateral damage caused by full protection and still feel it's necessary to prevent disruption. Any parties interested in mediating the dispute would not do so at the article itself. I am not familiar with any instruction or guideline thatsuggests I should "restore a pre-edit war version before fully protecting", though I'm aware I ampermitted to do so. I haven't evaluated which version is the pre-edit-war version and I don't intend to. Neither version is so problematic that it can't hang around during dispute resolution.Firefangledfeathers (talk /contribs)15:21, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
This is the third time you've brought this user to ANI in around four weeks. His repeated submission of that draft isn't advisable, but I'm seeing a good faith editor trying to communicate and trying to make legitimate contributions to the encyclopedia (articles likeDave Brandt (sportscaster) are valid), as opposed to your claim that he's "not here to build an encyclopedia". Is there evidence that the articles are all written through AI?BeanieFan11 (talk)18:15, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
I don't think a bit of "puffery" from a new user writing otherwise-decent articles on old sportscasters is enough to warrant a block. He evenapologized for his repeat submissions.BeanieFan11 (talk)18:36, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
Disruptive editing by User:Media expert international
The user triggered over 5 abuse filter violations on September 8, 2025[50], and continues to revert edits[51][52][53] etc. without engaging on the talk page.
Hold the horses. I'm very tempted to block MEI as disruptive. However, can you please explain where you sourced yourcreation of this article? Because it looks like a nearly copy paste (or close paraphrasing) from MEI's earlier draft atDraft:Meldra Rosenberg (2002) that they created 6 months earlier which you were aware of because you tried redirecting it to your article 2 days later. Did you steal this user's work and not properly attribute it???--v/r -TP00:32, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
The version MEI had wasthis, no? Which to me at least doesn't look to have been stolen.Zuck28's contributions might have gotten stolen, though. Judging from the sources, there appear to be two in common. Some parts do look to be paraphrased from Zuck28's version, but that could be coincidence, I am not sure.45dogs (they/them)(talk page)00:45, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
I mean the page as a whole which includes Zuck28's edits. It looks like close paraphrasing to me. I think RaSriAiem stole the article, tightened it up, and published it.--v/r -TP00:56, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
No, I did not copy anything from anyone at all. In the first version, I created the page myself,SEE and I noticed that someone was trying to change the information. So I went to check that person’s page, but it was completelyempty. After that, I tried to find more information related to my article and came across aDraft:Meldra Rosenberg. Since I had already created the page, I redirected it to avoid duplication.
However, when this user repeatedly attempted to change the content and added unreliable information — because they believed that the subject of the article I created was born in 2002 — I had to intervene. But that’s not true. Based on the sources I found, she was likely born in 1996.
After the edit war, I removed the redirect and moved the page to let them create their own versionDraft:Meldra Rosenberg (2002), as I thought there might be a misunderstanding or conflicting information. Still, I couldn’t allow them to continue editing mine, especially when they were removing cited content and replacing it with unverifiable claims.
In my version, Rosenberg was born around 1996, whileUser:Media expert international says 2002. Isn’t their persistent attempt to change it to 2002 — without credible sources — a form of disregarding or even stealing the effort and dedication I put into creating the original article?RaSriAiem (talk)04:11, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
Was that edit really made in good faith? You should review what was previously done before making any claims. Changing information without providing a reliable source is against Wikipedia's guidelines. I can't just allow people to arbitrarily change content and go against existing references. And when I said it was my OWN , I didn’t mean that others aren’t allowed to edit — I meant that any edits must not undo what I’ve contributed without citing credible sources.
I actively monitor the page and keep an eye out for unreliable edits. My actions are purely motivated by a desire to preserve the credibility and accuracy of the articleRaSriAiem (talk)09:52, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
No; that is likewise not how Wikipedia works. That article, once you post it to Wikipedia, isnot yours in any way, shape or fashion.The definition of a "good faith" edit isnot, in any way, shape or fashion, dependent on your approval or in whether they "undo" yours or not.Any other editor can fold, bend, spindle or change the article entirely out of your recognition, and you must grasp and abide by that principle as a condition of collaborative editing here. Seriously,readWP:OWN, read the whole thing. Ravenswing13:23, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
I respect edits and changes on Wikipedia, truly. But the core of the issue is that this user has repeatedly used <nowiki> tags inappropriately, has not collaborated with me during the editing process, and has changed the content based solely on their own assumptions — not based on the existing sources.
They made multiple changes that either contradict the cited references or are entirely unsourced. Am I really expected to sit back and let unreliable or inaccurate information remain on the page?
I’ve worked with many other editors and have always respected additions or removals when they are constructive. But in this case, it’s not even about adding new information — it's about altering sourced content to fit their personal view, which is factually incorrect.
I simply want people to be aware of this behavior. And I also apologize if my English wording may have been unclear at times. My true intention is to be strict about proper sourcing, to ensure the accuracy of content.
I’ve clearly written in theEarly life and career section that in 2016,Meldra Rosenberg (orMeldra Rosenberga in Latvian) was 20 years old. This would make it impossible for her to have been born in 2002, as claimed.
Despite this, the other editor continues to change her birth year to 2002, based on onlyone source: https://monacomuse.com/culture/meldra-rosenberg-latvias-pride-at-miss-supranational-2025/
I'm not confident about the reliability of this source. I’ve personally searched through Latvian-language news articles and media, and although they don’t state her exact birthdate, it’s evident from the timeline of her life and interviews that she could not have been born in 2002.
To resolve the issue, I even created a separate draft/article:Meldra Rosenberg (2002), in case the editor was referring to a different individual with a similar name — as identity confusion is possible.
In fact, some users in past discussions have pointed out interviews in Latvian that also support her being born around 1996, based on how she described her age and career timeline.
I want to make it clear that I'm not rejecting collaboration, but changes to the article must be supported bycredible sources, and not override existing, properly sourced information with speculative or weakly supported claims.RaSriAiem (talk)01:15, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
The claim about her being 20 in 2016 may not be sourced, but that is not the main issue I am trying to raise here. I have clearly reported the behavioral concerns regarding this user, including the specific violations they committed, which can be seen in the abuse log—more than five violations within less than a day. I have already explained the situation.
If any of the sources I used are considered unreliable, I am willing to remove or revise them accordingly. However, another user—who has an ongoing dispute with me—has also added unreliable sources and made arbitrary changes, disregarding the previous references without any discussion or notification.
Why am I the one being scrutinized, while their repeated disruptive actions are being overlooked? I believe the focus should be on their behavior instead. In order to resolve the issue, I even created a separate article for the subject. However, they continued to edit the disputed article in the same problematic manner. As another attempt to reduce conflict, I removed the birth year information due to lack of reliable sourcing.
What should I do next in this situation? Thank you for your advice so far. I kindly ask for further clarification regarding this dispute. Despite these issues, I remain committed to contributing constructively and responsibly, always using reliable sources in all of my edits.RaSriAiem (talk)18:46, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
You're kidding right? Are you intentionally trying to mislead? You just said that the key issue with MEI is that he tried to revert your edit that the subject of the article is a particular age by removing this sentence. But that sentence isn't sourced. So your claim has zero merit. Do you not see how you have zero foundation here? And your edits are clearlyWP:OWN? What should you do next? Put your head down and hope this doesn't boomerang on you. Change your habits and ways of interacting with others. Reach out and talk to the user.--v/r -TP02:46, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
User:Eywhat's first edits to Wikipedia were to add this subsection[54] and this EL[55] toWorld Brotherhood Colonies. I reverted them, because it looked like promotion for an organization called LDIC, whose website was the only source cited. I also posted a notice on their talk page. They reverted back[56] and added a bunch more external links[57]. I removed most of the links but left the new section alone while I asked for an independent source on the talk page and sent another message to the user[58]. In theensuing discussion, the user made long comments that looked partially AI-generated, and included information about the organization's mission and other statements that further indicated that the user was here to promote an organization or philosophy:the sole goal is to make devotees aware of this initiative and its resources ...I am a real person dedicated to fostering deeper understanding and the elevation of human consciousness, and I believe the concept of World Brotherhood Colonies offers valuable insight into alternative ways of living.... I tried to explain our policies to them, but when it became clear that I was dealing with advocacy and not merely the work of a new editor, I removed the section again and asked them to publicize their cause elsewhere[59]. Now they have added the material and external links back[60].
No, not to worry, you're doing it right. I just reverted Eywhat's last several reverts with an exhortation to work it out on the talk page (and to respond in their own words, instead of tendentious AI-generated slop). I'm also about to drop a note on their own talk page warning them about edit warring. In return, you shouldn't revert Eywhat any further, so you don't risk edit warring yourself. Ravenswing15:49, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed.Please do not modify it.
My intention here has always been to improve coverage on topics like World Brotherhood Colonies by including information about relevant projects such as LDIC, which is not a commercial organization but a non-profit initiative supporting research and education in this field. I’m not connected to LDIC beyond a personal interest and I don’t represent any group or have promotional aims.
I recognize that independent sourcing is important for Wikipedia articles. When concerns about the single source arose,I openly discussed options on the talk page and tagged the section accordingly to make its reliance on one reference transparent. I’ve answered every question and concern raised about these edits, and remain open to further suggestions about sourcing or article improvement. My goal is collaboration, not advocacy. After raising the "advocacy" concern, @Perception312 then used various other reasons to remove the section, labeling it as promotion, implying conflict of interest and calling it spam. After subjectively labeling the content as "spam" without providing any proof, Perception312 proceeded to remove it from the article.
Regarding the repeated removals, I felt these were made based on personal interpretation rather than evidence of actual spam or conflict of interest. Wikipedia policies ask us to assume good faith and work together to resolve disputes. If there’s consensus to refine, replace, or qualify sources further, I welcome that discussion.
All edits have been made constructively, with openness to criticism and community input. I don’t see how this fits the “not here to build an encyclopedia” label; I am here to help develop well-sourced, useful content, especially on subjects that may not yet have wide recognition.
Your reply here was also generated by an LLM. Please write replies in your own words, not the words the slop bot tells you to use.DoubleCross (‡)16:25, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
Oh good grief.@Eywhat: if someone takes issue with your use of LLM/AI bots to generate content, do youreally think that a great way to respond to this concern is by using an AI generated response? Seriously? If you believe that, thenyou've failed. I've placed a paid editing warning on your talk page. I suggest you heed it. --Hammersoft (talk)17:27, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
Who was it who was saying that anyone using AI to write articles or discussion posts should be blocked on sight for CIR? Oh yeah, that was me.EEng21:12, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
In case I was unclear, I didn't mean that a block required consensus, but the underlying policies and guidelines that support a block require consensus. If anyone started just blocking editors on sight for CIR for AI articles, I think it would be extremely controversial (though I'd personally be quite happy to see it become the site norm, so long as they can come back after a first ban from LLMs).CoffeeCrumbs (talk)15:16, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
I don't think such a block would be controversial if the articles contained any whiff of the junk that AI-generated slop almost always contains: a single fact not supported by the sources the bot supplied, or a single nonexistent source, and so on. If an editor hits SAVE on text containingany such stuff, then that editor is CIR.EEng03:48, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
The aspersions obviously aren’t okay, but I simply see this as someone getting frustrated at several of their articles being AfD’d at once and lashing out (perhaps not thinking in the moment), which is in a way understandable. I’d suggest an AGF reminder but no major editing restrictions unless it continues.EF520:58, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
I’ll address theWP:BLUDGEONING issues first I guess. Idirectly stated both myself and Dan Leonard were bludgeoning the AFD, as, literally 1,395 (based on a word counter), and all but 64 of those words are comments from myself or Dan Leonard.At the time of this edit, everything but 64 words in the AFD is myself and Dan Leonard discussing. Bludgeoning: “is where someone attempts to force their point of view through a very high number of comments, such as contradicting every viewpoint that is different from their own.” If thisisn’t bludgeoning, I actually want to know, since I would think 95.4% of the comments in an AFD are from two editors, they both are, bludgeoning. If I am mistaken on that, I would like to know, so I can better understand what exactly counts as bludgeoning.
My vague aspersions come from the factDan Leonard did his research, as odd as it sounds. In the AFD nomination,Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Influence of severe weather during 2020 on American politics was linked, which led to the start ofDraft:Influence of severe weather on American politics, a project that began right after that AFD (July 2025) and has been advertised on my user page for a long time, and I have alerted literally dozens of editors to this draft. Dan Leonard did not comment in it andadmitted they were unaware of it prior to the AFD. That comment came amidUser talk:Dan Leonard#WP:BEFORE Reminder, as myself andthe third editor in the AFD mentioned alternatives to deletion exist. My direct aspersion came from the fact Dan Leonard somehow knew of the AFD they did not participate in, but also somehow did not know of the draft that came out of the AFD, and served as the parent for the two articles in the AFD. This AFD also comes afterUser talk:Dan Leonard#DUE Question, a discussion myself and Dan Leonard had several hours prior to the AFD, regarding one of the articles in the AFD.
I clearly stated that was my concern directly to Dan Leonard on their talk page. I also directly mentioned I wouldassume good faith and take their word they were unaware of the draft and that they never looked at my user page. Was it wrong, sure. But I am getting extremely frustrated. I try to leave the discussion, mention I would assume they are telling the truth, all for Dan Leonard to take me to ANI…
Okay, I found this AN/I thread through the AfD and because I was trying to figure out what on earth was going on. To clarify, WeatherWriter is still posting in the AfD[61] and is seemingly not on a Wikibreak rn. I'm also a bit troubled by the allegations that the AfD was somehow retaliatory when it just seems to have been a natural result of normal editing, followed by doubling down[62], though I also understand feeling stressed when your work is at AfD.I am also unconvinced by the bludgeoning thing; while it's true that they were the main two people talking in the AfD, that was mostly because there were only three participants. And the vast majority of Dan Leonard's words were in the nom statement; given the fact that the article is over 4,000 words and seemingly well-written, it's often a good idea not to mince words. He then made two comments in response to WW's comments: one asking them to substantiate aspersions[63] and the other was explaining bundling and responding to a source[64] after WW directly pinged him to, because they wanted to, and I quotewant to repremand[sic] @Dan Leonard. Which, in fairness, they took back... and replaced it with a vow tofight you heavily on this[65]. So if any admins are feeling masochistic and want to babysit the AfD forWP:BATTLEGROUND-type behaviour, it would be much appreciated. (Warning: American politics, some allegations that FEMA employes committed crimes[66] that I'm having a hard time finding in the source[67])GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋06:16, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
@GreenLipstickLesbian: Iwent on a shortWikibreak for a few hours to clear my head. I am able to calmly edit again. I posted one final comment (notWP:!VOTE or even a reply to dispute claims in the AFD. That last message was sort of an alert to tell others going forward the draft exists. Most of this entire issue occurred because someone knew of an AFD which led to the creation of the draft, but not the draft itself. A clear message to link the draft in the AFD was needed (IMO) to prevent this situation again. I am not commenting regarding content or claims in the AFD further though. Oh also P.S., on the FEMA crime issue, that was a source for the last sentence of the lead, not the crimes sentence, which was sources later in the article. Claims in the lead do not need to be sourced if they are sourced later in the article perWP:LEAD. Sources for that specific FEMA crime are easy to locate via Google:[68][69][70][71].TheWeather Event Writer (Talk Page)12:40, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
I still don't understand how the existence of this draft is supposed to be relevant to the AfD, but I will say that copying the articles back to the draft[72][73] to publish later[74] will almost certainly end up in another deletion discussion. The OR/SYNTH concerns from the two AfDs have not been addressed and combining them into an unwieldy mega-article only makes the problem worse.REAL_MOUSE_IRLtalk13:09, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
Pending me not getting blocked as a result of my behavior yesterday, I would love to discuss the specifics of the OR/SYNTH concerns, as I do not see them, given sources such as[75][76][77][78] exist. If I do not get blocked, I will message you to try to understand what is SYNTH/original research regarding the nature of the topic.TheWeather Event Writer (Talk Page)14:25, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
For everyone to know — I have done a personal reflection of the situation yesterday and I was very much in the wrong. I was already on edge over thehistoric recent event. I would like to apologize for my actions and I would like to personally apologize to@Dan Leonard: for casting vague aspirations and vague claims. I cursed way too much, which made it so much worse on my part. I did get fired-up, as two articles which I spent weeks to a month working on were sent to deletion on the exact same day, by the same editor, who I had even asked a kind question hours earlier. The timing of this ANI from me attempting tocome back to calmly edit away from the AFD did not help either. I essentially took the AFD way to personal from that moment on, and at that moment, I very much feltto be in a battle for my work. I realize I made everything 10x worse for others in the AFD, as well as this ANI and I apologize for it. Hopefully everyone can forgive me and we can edit calmly together.TheWeather Event Writer (Talk Page)12:57, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
I probably would have ignored this if Densmartasvensken wasn't being manipulative. They made an ANI report of me[79], in which they accused me of several stuff, including removal of sourced information and being a "pro Tajik", whatever that means. I was offline at the time, so noWP:BOOMERANG. At the same time, they altered sourced information I had added atSart, falsely claiming the sources were not supporting it, so they replaced it with their own POV. I genuinely doubt they even read the sources.WP:NOTHERE behaviour.
What the source says: "he also enjoyed widespread support among some of the Uzbek tribes and Sarts (a name broadly applied to settled Turks and Tajiks)."
What the source says "At the same time, the Tojikī dialect had been diverging from standard Persian through the adoption of Turkic vocabulary and syntax".
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Pofka is obviously unable to reach their POV on the Serbia Basketball team talk page which has beenWP:STABLE in this form for several years now, in fact one other editor also opposed their statement [[80]], they were openly canvassing pinging several editors for whom they think that they are going to side with them based on that conversation from 2014 [[81]], then they did that again today [[82]] and now they are trying to completely remove me from that page by reporting me onWP:AE considering the fact thatWP:AE is final solution in dealing with some editors behaviour and it is only used when all other tools were used, I believe that this kind of report is extremely aggressive and that Pofka is usingWP:BATTLEFIELD to forcibly impose their POV.Theonewithreason (talk)20:00, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
20:15, 10 September 2025 - user Theonewithreason continued to oppose a reached WP:CONS by also stating that "the discussion is over" and threaten to report me atWP:Ani;
19:49, 11 September 2025 - user Theonewithreason: "You are going in circles without any argumentation" (even though I quoted other users WP:CONS statements, which contradict his POV).
User Theonewithreason wrote in one of his statements in article's talk page that "this is very sensitive topic (the Balkans) there are very strict rules biding every single editor on Wikipedia" (his edit), so he is well aware about theWikipedia:Contentious topics/Balkans or Eastern Europe.
I did solved it by responding on it. For someone who has over 20 000 edits and is usingWP:AE because they are unable to push their POV on that article you should know better.WP:AE is not used in that manner. So we are going to deal with your behaviour here first.Theonewithreason (talk)20:23, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
There was no reached consensus for that there would be a closed discussion banner from admin, so please do not implement your own personal opinion as a fact. Also you are somehow forgetting that this current version of the article was like that for several years 5, 6 or even 7 in fact even the editors who were discussing in 2014 did not reached any definitive decision since FIBA is approaching to this matter from several angles, i.e by holding Serbia"s rank based on the result they achieved 8 years before the Montenegro independence. not to mentions that there are numerous other sources outside FIBA which are disagreeing with you. Btu this was all written to you on tp, you are now purposely repeating the same thing all over again andWP:bludgeon.Theonewithreason (talk)20:40, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
WP:CONS can be reached without administrators participation and administrators closure of a talk page discussion. Five users clearly agreed that article Serbia men's national basketball team should be written according to FIBA's point of view. I repeat to you once again: in theofficial website of FIBA it is written in white on black that the first competition Serbia men's national basketball team competed was EuroBasket 2007 and this is the official point of view of FIBA which per reached WP:CONS should be presented in the Wikipedia's article as well. In 2018, user AirWolf clearlyreaffirmed that there is a WP:CONS about this question. It is never too late to implement a valid WP:CONS which also fully comply with the most important source - the official website of FIBA. --Pofka (talk)15:23, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
By the way, why you did not mention here that in article's talk page you yourself pinged (IN THIS EDIT) other Serbian users by likely hoping for their support in a discussion with me (e.g. users Soundwaweserb, Vikipedijasrbija0 are clearly Serbians), despite the fact that they never previously participated in this article's talk page discussions. And you accuse me here about WP:BATTLEFIELD... :) --Pofka (talk)15:43, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
There was no consensus in that discussion, as anyone can see it, something you are purposely pushing here but it is only your opinion, the fact that you were then pinging editors twice [[83]], [[84]] only shows that you don't have consensus not even now, btw the other editor who responded you was not pinged, and second labelling other editors to be Serbian or any other ethnicity is chauvinistic, this only proves that you areWP:nothere.Theonewithreason (talk)17:28, 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 following discussion is closed.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.
As seen inthis edit, evidently editing while logged out
RestoringDylan Lane after it was merged toChain Reaction (game show)... without adding any wikilinks, categories, or even overwriting the redirect. And then somehow thinking they could cite his LinkedIn as a source.
Adding unsourced and irrelevant trivia about game show winnings toMelissa Joan Hart -- all of her winnings were donated to charity, as she competed as a celebrity and not before she was famous, so even if this were sourced it would be meaningless
I see a long-term pattern of making repeated, rapid-fire edits; careless mistakes that require another spate of rapid-fire edits; repeated addition of unsourced content; failure to understand reliable sourcing; repeatedly editing without logging in; and issues with original research and synthesis. For an editor who's been here since 2020, this seems extremely sloppy and careless. This seems to be a straight upWP:CIR issue, and I would like to know what should be done.Ten Pound Hammer •(What did I screw up now?)02:02, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
If that's what it takes, I am fine with it. I apologize for any problems I have caused, as it has never been my intention to cause disruption and/or confusion on Wikipedia.TheJay123 (talk)02:36, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.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 following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Abusive quote (verbatim):>"this c**k s*****g son of a b***h called Tonyy Starkk is only out here trying to push the lowest possible number for the film."
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed.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:Just a passing viewer 008 - Violations of WP:MOS and 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.
Agreed re non-collaborative editing. As per their talk page history (which they have deleted)[95] this editor a) has edit warred repeatedly (without any attempted explanation) b) is a likely sock of a blocked IP c) repeatedly failedWP:COPYVIO d) repeatedly failed to provide edit summaries, despite multiple warnings (making it very difficult to separate "good" edits from "bad") e) made personal attacks as per above. Despite some undoubtedly useful edits, their behavior and the sheer volume of their edits is certainly problematic.DerbyCountyinNZ(TalkContribs)20:52, 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.
Take 2: Continued unsourced edits after final warning by 76.157.118.61
The following discussion is closed.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 following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There is a dispute involving editorMartin Bina (talk·contribs) which is asingle-purpose account. This editor made their first edit on August 15, 2025, and edits have exclusively been about association football coachAfshin Ghotbi, particularly on theVancouver FC article, which was the coach's most recent team.
The editor is systematically removing factual statements that could be perceived as negative (such as the team's win/loss record during the coaches tenure) and replacing it with positive statements which are either uncited or which cite the website "www.afshinghotbi.com", which is the coach's personal blog. Despite multiple attempts to educate this new editor atUser talk:Martin Bina andTalk:Vancouver FC, particularly regarding NPOV andWP:SELFSOURCE, the editor continues to use that website as a source, including today:Vancouver_FC&diff=1310676766&oldid=1310664788.
Another example from that editor is this edit from August 20 where they left the summary:"Removed false info; added reliable sources: corrected inaccuracies and restored citations. Add Citation ". What they removed is "Over Ghotbi's two-and-a-half year tenure, the club held a combined 16-22-38 record, failing to reach the playoffs" – a neutral statement supported by secondary sources. And what they added was "The 2025 squad also included players attracting interest from European clubs,reflecting his eye for talent and focus on player advancement. Despite challenges in league standings,his tenure was noted for vision, structural foundations, and a commitment to building a meaningful presence for the community and Canadian soccer – which is clearly promotional and only supported by an "afshinghotbi.com" citation.
Rather problematic editing. The editor has uploaded a number of copyright violations to Commons, used AI/LLMs to create their responses on talk pages, thrown around accusations at other editors, edit warred, and posted gushingly positive commentary about Ghotbi. I'm somewhat inclined to revertAfshin Ghotbi back to the last edit before they graced it with their presence. That would be a good place to restart fixing this article. I've placed a{{uw-paid}} notice on their talk page, and also warned them against using AI/LLMs to generate their responses. --Hammersoft (talk)03:24, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
Thanks. I've rolled back the last few edits to the Afshin Ghotbi article which puts it in a better place at least.BLAIXX13:15, 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.
I believe that a page is being used as a suspected battleground
The following discussion is closed.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 is a notice that I believe that user page Zak Smith is being used as a battleground.
A court case has recently concluded, where he prevailed against his accuser. There is an open RFC to remove contentious material.
There is serious and well-documented harassment of the subject off-wikipedia. I'm unfamiliar with the protocols, but I wanted to place this notice here since I have been threatened that I would be reported here for suggesting the page was being used as a battleground.
It might be worth extending the page protection of the article. It seems the RfC is being handled well, especially with the notice at the top.Conyo14 (talk)16:30, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
@Slacker13, that is very clearly not anotice for active canvassing as you termed it onToBeFree's talk page -- it's a reply to a person alleging that sockpuppets aretrying to get the 'sexual abuse' section of his wiki article removed. Anyone who's given even a cursory glance atthe article's talk page would probably agree that sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry is not the most unreasonable suggestion given the sheer volume of new editors arriving to !vote (seethis canvassing summary bySariel Xilo), includingthis blast of mostly new or returning users showing up within the space of about an hour.tony16:31, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
User:Slacker13, please provide some diffs or, at least, a link to the page you are concerned about. It's part of the job of the complaint filer to provide evidence to support your claims if you want editors to respond here. If you can't be bothered to do this, why do you think other editors should do it for you? Also, that link you shared is useless unless an editor has an account to this app and I think many editors will be reluctant to click on it.LizRead!Talk!16:32, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
The link I provided is only one. There are more, but I may not post them. He's fairly unknown except to a niche audience, and there is, as I've said documented proof of extensive harassment off-wiki.Slacker13 (talk)16:42, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
Some quick background: theZak Smith article & its talk page have long had an issue with socks (see SPI); there was a2020 RfC which determined there was "a consensus to include allegations of sexual assault to the extent necessary to provide context for subsequent biographical developments". Smith had a recent court case which seems to have spurned a push to have these allegations removed. There is now a new RfC which replaced the non-neutral RfC Slacker13 created. I'll add something with clearer diffs below in just a moment.Sariel Xilo (talk)16:58, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
Correction. What was seen as non-neutral language, I actually ran by an Admin to make sure it was appropriate. I even asked for suggestions from others and was willing to change the wording to accommodate. Instead -- the RFC was taken down. It is true that I seem to be the only editor in opposition to the views of historically active editors of that page. It's my first time touching the page, and I'm doing so based on three things:
1. The inclusion of contentious material was a violation of BLP. Wikipedia allows for editors to remove the information and lays the burden on those that want it reinstated -- that burden has not been met.
2. There is a new active RFC that I am participating in.
3. (I will speak to this more at the bottom): I am not trying to bludgeon. I am trying to correct inaccuracies and inform of a situation that is playing off-site in order to not have the page controlled by parties who may be biased.
Am I doing this perfectly? lord no. But it is will honest intentions. Every mistake I've made, I've owned up to and tried to correct. There is clear evidence of that.Slacker13 (talk)18:23, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
And now, edit warring with the comment:Not reverting Ad Orientems revert[98] - literally while reverting Ad Orientem. While an ANI discussion (and an RFC) is open. I'm not sure which is worse, the judgment displayed here or that of whomever thought sending SPAs to ANI would help their 'side' come out on top. -MrOllie (talk)01:16, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
Slacker disruptivelyWP:GAMEd the system by waiting out the protection to remove the section, and, yes, ToBeFreeallowed it to happen by locking the page back up again. There was already a consensus that satisfiedWP:ONUS andWP:BLPRESTORE under the previous RfC. The current RfC instigated by a bunch of sock/meatpuppets was to determine if consensus hadchanged. The section should be restored!Morbidthoughts (talk)03:37, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
The page should not have been fully protected again, instead, once the first full protection expired, and an editor, Slacker13, starts edit-warring (again), approximately 30 minutes after the expiration, to their preferred version, knowing that there is an ongoing RfC, this is clearly a behavioral issue that should have resulted in a block, but of course when an admin tells them they won't block them for exactly what they did, what can you expect. Looks like to me that Slacker13 got exactly what they wanted, their preferred version of the article, and no consequences for their disruptive behavior.Isaidnoway(talk)08:04, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
I find this thread interesting. Brilliant illumination of Wikipedia culture and managed group-think.
Really stellar work by well-intentioned collaborative Wikipedians.
I am not able to participate, as I have a conflict of interest, and will thus stay off-book. Reading this thread, I wonder what Zack would say, if he were here participating, advocating for himself.
Knowing the answer to that question would also explain why this thin article on a marginal personality will continue to havesignificant coi issues.Augmented Seventh16:35, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
@Augmented Seventh, I'm very surprised to hear this sarcasm. I'm guessing I'm far from the only one here who has never heard of this person, and I assure you those of us in that boat are deeply disinterested in their legal affairs or lack thereof. Like presumably most uninvolved editors here, I have not looked into the disputed content, have no idea whether it should be included or not, and as such will not be participating inthat content dispute. The only thing at issue in this thread isconduct at that talk page and tangentially the obvious canvassing by persons unknown; by contrast, content disputes happen all day long on Wikipedia and their participants do not typically bludgeon their way into an ANI boomerang. I am not sure what insight Zack would have regarding user conduct on Wikipedia, which is the only thing at issue at this board.tony15:04, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
The kudos to the team wasn't sarcasm; genuine appreciation for the work being done here.
My keeping my distance is due to minor business knowledge of some of the personalities involved.
I have my own thoughts about the swarm of suddenly-activated, rabidly interested editors; analysing, addressing and eventually solving this problem, site wide, is mine own primary reason for following along with this editing session.
Since Slacker13 has decided to make yet another mess in this situation, and after my last warning, I'm afraid I have to formulate this report. This editor brings a combination ofWP:RGW andWP:CIR to their actions that makes for a particularly problematic blend. Their comportment during the RfC over Zak Smith has includedWP:ADMINSHOPPING, a severe failure ofWP:AGF, spuriousWP:COI taggings, and spuriousWP:3RR taggings. Here's some diffs to present the problem:
On August 20, this editor attempted to remove a section about sexual assault allegations from theZak Smith page.[99] Smith is a BLP and the inclusion of this information had been contentious, leading to a 2020 RfC that found a consensus to include. After their edit was reverted another editor, who is not the subject of this posting, made two further reversions whereupon the page was fully locked to prevent edit warring. However Slacker13 attempted (and failed) to create aWP:3RR notice about one of the editors who reverted this edit -Sariel Xilo.[100][101] Slacker13 also opened a SP investigation about Sariel Xilo[102]. At article talk the page lock opened a floodgate of obviously canvassed parties coming around with remarkably similar arguments mostly hinging around the spurious claim that Mr. Smith was low-profile. However the concerns expressed by these canvassed parties and by Slacker13 were sufficient to allow that a new RfC should be formulated. Slacker13 was advised by multiple editors, including myself, to wait a few days for the canvassed party activity to die down before formulating an RfC but went ahead and created an obviously non-neutral RfC[103] which was promptly closed as out of process while other editors got to work on crafting a neutrally worded RfC.
As this RfC progressed Slacker13 insinuated that they had evidence that long-term editors on the page had conflicts of interest[104] They then taggedMrOllie and Sariel Xilo with CoI notices.[105][106] They then approachedPolygnotus[107] claiming to have off-wiki evidence of canvassing. Polygnotus attempted to give them good advice on the appropriate handling of this. Another editor from among the canvassed set, meanwhile, posted comments to the RfC that were obviously machine generated. I criticized this comment for inaccurately interpreting Wikipedia policy and another editor mentioned it was machine generated. A third editor then collapsed the machine generated content whereupon Slacker13 posted not one but two malformatedWP:3RR/N notices about me.[108][109] They also approached the admin ToBeFree claiming I was edit warring[110]. I approached them and advised them both that a single collapse of an AI comment was not edit warring and that I had not done so. I had made several previous and increasingly urgent attempts to encourage them to showWP:AGF toward other editors and indicated that these spurious reports of myself were a last straw. Please note that I cannot share any diffs of me collapsing this comment because I did not do so. However Slacker13 has reverted that collapse twice.[111][112]. I cautioned them that I would report their comportment to this page if they continued on the course they were on.[113] Slacker13 then asked the adminChetsford to close the RfC on the basis of a thread between two individuals with no known connection to Wikipedia discussing the issue on Bluesky.[114] This is a borderline attempt at outing as Slacker13 has claimed this is evidence that a "hate mob" is mobilized on Wikipedia and seems convinced that these two social media users are active on the page. They then made a malformed report here atWP:AN/I to try and head off my report at the pass.[115]. Slacker13 has created multiple malformed 3RR reports, opened a thread atWP:COI/N that was promptly closed as off-topic, has engaged in borderline outing, admin shopping and has generally made a big mess everywhere they went. While there is no evidence that either Bluesky account has any tie to Wikipedia, there is clear evidence of canvassing supporting Slacker13's edits and it's clear their participation isWP:RGW. That they demonstrate no understanding of how to use Wikipedia at a basic technical level means this is compounded by a rather seriousWP:CIR. Their activity has become disruptive.Simonm223 (talk)16:46, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
I was typing the below as Simonm223 posted, please forgive any duplication of diffs.
If anyone is treating this as a battleground, it is Slacker13. They have been bludgeoningTalk:Zak Smith - 113 edits there in less than a week. Many of these are not discussion so much as flat denials:No he's not.'[116] orNo they are not.[117] They opened a baseless SPI[118] - which was deleted with an edit summary ofthis isn't even worth archiving[119]. They've baselessly accused others of having conflict of interest[120],[121], and opened a COIN case[122] which stated (again, without evidence) that the editors who disagree with them on this issue are engaging in coordinated harrassment. They opened an RFC that had to be closed for a blatantly non-neutral statement. The latest is edit warring with other users on a second replacement RfC who are trying to collapse AI-written comments.
Comment: Similar to MrOllie, it appears we were all putting something together at roughly the same time. I outlined the overallcanvassing issues at the talk, but I'll focus here on Slacker13. While Slacker13 has posted a random bsky link in their ANI report, they didn't disclose that they also decided to edit Smith's talk page due to social media.They stated on 21 August that they discovered this issue via an Instagram story made by Smith (other low edit count editors who jumped in at Smith's talk similary said they also saw something releated to this on social media). Slacker13 has been forum/admin shopping rather than just letting the RfC process play out:
@ToBeFreenoted that after Slacker13 was blocked from emailing them, theirexchange was then made public on Slacker13's talk page which is when they disclosed the Instagram post.
When I opened a SPI investigation (given the historic & DUCK seeming issue), Slacker13 did a retaliatory SPI accusing me & MrOllie of being socks (it wasclosed "with prejudice").
When their RfC received pushback (most editors responding with "Bad RfC"), they jumped to accusing editors of having a COI against Smith:
After being asked by multiple editors to AGF & let the new RfC process play out, they instead jumped to ANI because I assume they're unaware of theWP:BOOMERANG.
Comment: Slacker13 is becoming a bit of a bull in a china shop. I would not object to a time-limited TBAN of 60-90 days, long enough to let the current RfC run its course. They seem to be activated by a certain immediate need that may dissipate once they become familiar with our deliberate and more slow-moving approach.Chetsford (talk)17:11, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
They have certainly made their views clear in the current RfC and such an action might give them time to do the necessary exercises to build the necessary technical competence to avoid CIR problems. I'll be honest, I just want to see the current disruption curtailed and they seem unwilling to take a step back so a minimal remediation would not be something I'd object to.Simonm223 (talk)17:15, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
Comment. This is a repeat from what is posted below. Not to bludgeon, but because I'm unclear if every section needs to be addressed by me. Still learning the protocols so please don't bite the newcomer.
I imagine I'm allowed to come to my defense here.
1. I am not trying to bludgeon. I'm attempting to correct inaccuracies when they are presented as fact.
2. I am attempting to keep the discussion civil, so that comments are deleted or hidden based on guesses of someone being a bot.
3. Regarding the reporting to 3rr, i admit, I may have jumped the gun and I tried to correct the mistake as soon as I was made aware that I was wrong and even offered to make a public retraction on a forum of their choosing.
4. Regarding the admins. I did contact @Tobefree with my concerns of the page. And lord, if there was a way to add screen shots to this platform, I'd be more than happy to make my case. They suggested I do an RFC. I contacted Ad Orientem (who had been part of the previous RFC on the page) and asked for advice about an RFC since I wasn't confident that the parties (other editors) involved in the page would be able to be neutral and that the RFC (and page) would turn into a disaster.
That is exactly what has happened.
And now, it is requested that I be banned.
I see this as wholly unjust and as a way of silencing one of the only editors with a dissenting opinion (with some edits under their belts) from touching the page.Slacker13 (talk)18:38, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
I'd like to address this as well as I believe this is factually inaccurate.
1. I never tried to remove someone for conflict of interest. That is factually incorrect. I did mention that I thought there was COI. What i asked for was for editors to divulge their involvement with a scene that was known to be biased towards the subject of the article.
2. I removed my notice at 3RR immediately as soon as I was corrected. The notice was placed based on what I perceived as bad form by editors collapsing opinions during an active RFC. The intention was to keep things civil and unbiased, not to remove editors. Plus, from what I understand -- reporting and editor to 3RR doesn't get them removed from the discussion.Slacker13 (talk)19:06, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this isnot a majority vote, but instead adiscussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia haspolicies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, andconsensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments,not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember toassume good faith on the part of others and tosign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
Support as proposer. As documented above, Slacker13 has bludgeoned this topic across various noticeboards, admin talk pages, article talk pages, and everywhere else feasible, including filing a retaliatory SPI. Multiple people above were apparently independently preparing to open discussions at AN/I regarding their behavior. This is a timesink for the community, and Slacker13's own time would also be better spent elsewhere on the project. --tony17:20, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
Support 60 day TBAN An indefinite TBAN serves no real purpose as the central issue seems to be the editor's belief in the manipulation of the RfC, which will probably be closed well within 60 days. Bans should be narrowly tailored to effect protection in the least restrictive way possible.Chetsford (talk)17:39, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
Support CBAN with TBAN as condition of unblockingI am indifferent on whether it's indefinite or time-restricted but lean toward time-restricted as long as Slacker13 takes the time to address learning how to properly use Wikipedia in the interim.Simonm223 (talk)17:45, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
I've been giving this a lot of thought and there's something that really bothers me about this whole situation - and the more I think about it the more bothered I become. Frankly I think we're being played for fools. Slacker13 said that they were going to step back from editing and that we didn't need to apply sanctions. They then sat and waited for the page protection to expire and then edit-warred their changes in. This makes their previous displays of incompetence all the more alarming. They seem quite capable of using Wikipedia's tools when it suits them. They have declined to commit to respecting the RfC process and, in fact, askedChetsford to unilaterally close the RfC. Instead they've engaged in edit warring. This is not just a matter ofWP:RGW orWP:CIR. This isWP:NOTHERE behaviour. Weknow there is coordination of the meatpuppet accounts per the words of one of the meatpuppet accounts.[126] If we are dealing with this coordinated attempt to disrupt a BLP page from a group of activists and one of these activists has, through their actions, made it clear they have no intention of respecting Wikipedia's processes or their fellow editors then they should be shown the door. And, if they want back in to resume their work creating pages about other visual artists then an understanding they are not to touch Zak Smith related material should be a condition of them returning to the project.Simonm223 (talk)11:27, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
Support per my comment above. I would support a time-restricted version only if Slacker13 provides some indication that they will respect the outcome of the RFC, whatever that might be. -MrOllie (talk)17:50, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
Support indef TBAN Unlike the majority of editors in the canvassing summary, Slacker13 is not a dormant editor with a low edit count. They've been active since February 2023 with just under 1500 total edits. At this point, they should have a basic understanding about Wikipedia's editing norms such as don't admin/forum shop & don't make malformed and/or retaliatory reports on noticeboards. For example, neither edit war report they made this week (20 Aug &25 Aug) was formatted correctly with diffs & the second one was even aimed at the wrong editor; their report here also doesn't include diffs. Multiple admins have given Slacker13 advice about how to handle the RfC process (mostly that there's no urgency so they should just let it play out) & instead they've gone aroundcasting aspersions & bludgeoning the process. They seem to be textbookWP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS & I haven't seen anything in their edit pattern this week which suggests they would accept RfC results they disagreed with which is why I think indefinite is the better approach.Sariel Xilo (talk)18:01, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
Comment. Still learning the protocols so please don't bite the newcomer. I imagine I'm allowed to come to my defense here.
1. I am not trying to bludgeon. I'm attempting to correct inaccuracies when they are presented as fact.
2. I am attempting to keep the discussion civil, so that comments are deleted or hidden based on guesses of someone being a bot.
3. Regarding the reporting to 3rr, i admit, I may have jumped the gun and I tried to correct the mistake as soon as I was made aware that I was wrong and even offered to make a public retraction on a forum of their choosing.
4. Regarding the admins. I did contact @Tobefree with my concerns of the page. And lord, if there was a way to add screen shots to this platform, I'd be more than happy to make my case. They suggested I do an RFC. I contacted Ad Orientem (who had been part of the previous RFC on the page) and asked for advice about an RFC since I wasn't confident that the parties (other editors) involved in the page would be able to be neutral and that the RFC (and page) would turn into a disaster.
That is exactly what has happened.
And now, it is requested that I be banned.
I see this as wholly unjust and as a way of silencing one of the only editors with a dissenting opinion (with some edits under their belts) from touching the page.Slacker13 (talk)18:35, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
@Slacker13 I'm sorry for being a pest but this will be material as to whether I end up supporting a time-limited topic ban or an indefinite topic ban and I know that since I asked this question you have made comments in this thread as well as seeking advice as to the definition of forumshopping and a few other items so I want you to understand that the answer to the question of whether you intend to respect the outcome of the RfC regardless of the specifics of the outcome is rather critical information here.Simonm223 (talk)19:03, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
I guessthis is the answer to my question. Based on this I support an indefinite topic ban and would also probably support stricter measures too. This isWP:HOLES in action.Simonm223 (talk)01:02, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
Comment. Since I voted here, there have been additional claims of "bludgeoning", which probably should be addressed.
There have been a lot of comments posted on the Talk page in question, from people who present different points of view and offer different solutions to optimize the page. In my opinion, and in the spirit ofWP:BURO, it's a necessary dialogue that helps to reach consensus. I did not see Slacker13 engaging in personal attacks. They did actively argue in support of their opinion. So did others, like MrOllie and Sariel Xilo. It does seem like claims of bludgeoning/canvassing/personal attacks etc serve to quiet one side, and decrease the chance of an actual consensus.White Spider Shadow (talk)07:16, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
Yes, claims of bludgeoning serve to quiet the side that is relentlessly repeating the same statements over and over again while ignoring policy and any responses to them.
Oppose. This editor seems passionate about the topic but that alone should not get them banned. They may not be following perfect protocol and formatting but they seem to be trying their utmost to follow policies as best they can and have responded very constructively to feedback from other editors.
Comment I'm not going to !vote one way or another as I am involved in the discussion. I will confine myself to a few observations. First, most of the comments on the proposed TBan are also coming from involved parties. And secondly, I can confirm that I too have become concerned that Slacker13 appears to be too personally invested in this issue. Whether intentionally or not, I think some of their communications have been straying uncomfortably close to the line with respect to CANVASSING. WP:RGW seems to be a pretty common theme here. Mr. Smith does not strike me as a man who engenders a lot of indifference among those who know him, or of him. As Slacker13 has made their comment on the RfC, I would suggest that they step away from this topic and let the RfC run its course. And in particular, they should avoid any more private communications on the matter. -Ad Orientem (talk)19:44, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
Support indef CBAN. We're only having this conversation at ANI because Slacker13 brought us here to complain about user behavior at Talk:Zak Smith. My brief behavioral experience with Slacker13 makes it clear 1) they have very strong feelings about this subject, 2) they claim to lack competence with many sorts of procedures, 3) this morning they twice reverted my collapsing of clear LLM use, 4) they filed unfounded 3RR reports onUser:Simonm223 this morning, retaliating for my collapsing, 5) they made 113 edits to Talk:Zak Smith in last five days, 82% of their 138 career total user talk page edits. Based on something I was reading the other day, volunteer time is Wikipedia's most important resource. Some users repeatedly make personal attacks against discussion disagreement, fail to assume good faith, forumshop, draw coordinated editors, and fail to learn something of AGF in over three years of contributions. Such extreme users are demonstrating themselves a net negative, that is, the sorts of wikipedians which draw unduly on volunteer time.BusterD (talk)19:55, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
Oppose @Slacker13 seems like they are doing their best to follow the policies as bet they can and has been open to discussion with the other parties. This seems to be a more contentious topic than what they are used to editing and banning them from the process is severely limiting their ability to understand and participate more in the future.Sombodystolemyname (talk)19:57, 25 August 2025 (UTC)—Sombodystolemyname (talk •contribs) has madefew or no other edits outside this topic.
Support indef T-ban I don't think this will prejudice the discussion at all, the editor began repeating themselves some time ago and has not changed any of their arguments. If they are not T-Banned, suggest it be with the understanding that they cannot keep repeating the same things over and over, and that they must read what others say before responding.MilesVorkosigan (talk)20:24, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Ignorance of the rules or policies does not excuse one from them; but I don’t think it would be accurate to claim @Slacker13's actions merit a topic ban. @MrOllie, and @Sariel Xilo both make points stating that @Slacker13’s actions indicate they would not adhere to the result of an RFC, and I have not gathered that from my limited exposure – I have seen @Slacker13 respond to policies, refer to policies, and follow suggestions from others. For instance, @Slacker13 saidYes. Excellent advice. Live and learn. I should have gone to the teahouse. andI'd be happy to amend. Do you have suggestions? I tried to keep it pretty basic. I considered making this aComment because I have been interacting with all this on the relevant talk page, but seeing as there are votes on both sides coming from people interacting on the talk page, I think this comment should take the form of a vote, and should present a stance.Cairnesteak (talk)20:40, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
They notably declined to answer the question:Straightforward question: If the RfC goes against your view do you intend to respect its outcome?
And they keep talking about living and learning or amending things, but by the time they've repeated the same things over and over, and are now at the point of repeating "I'm not bludgeoning, I'm just replying to everything" (paraphrase mine), also over and over, maybe it's time for them to take a break and let the discussion happen? We already know what they are going to say, they have said it.MilesVorkosigan (talk)22:04, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
Note that after being blocked for repeated BLP violations which continued after several clear warnings, Slacker13 is now arguing with the blocking admin on their talk page and continuing the same behavior. I see zero sign of any hope for a change.
Support T-ban, disclosure, I have voted in the RFC on the article talk page. It might be advisable to also mention to @White Spider Shadow to stop bludgeoning as well. At least 42 edits in less than 5 days on the article talk page is over the top. I won't do it myself as I have responded to their bludgeoning at the RFC.Knitsey (talk)20:43, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
What an amazing number of "oppose" votes by people who don't do much of anything here outside this one topic.Drmies (talk)21:42, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
Unrelated, and I'm frankly stunned by that. I figured there had to be at least one sock pair in the group. But nope.WP:CHECKUSER is not magic pixie dust. --Yamla (talk)21:58, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
Interestingly, all these accounts were created a while ago and remained dormant, but suddenly came back a few days ago to bludgeon the RfC. Most social media campaigns involve new accounts being created, not what's happening here.ChildrenWillListen (🐄 talk,🫘 contribs)00:58, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
Apparently, about a year ago, Mr. Smith gave a bunch of people copies of his book in exchange for making sleeper accounts to be activated at a later date and upon request. This has been going on across other platforms too.Simonm223 (talk)10:24, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
I am currently seeking more conclusive evidence than what I've been shown which I found insufficient. If requested by an admin I will strike the original comment. When I have conclusive evidence I will give it to ArbCom.Simonm223 (talk)11:42, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
Support t-ban and I am involved in the talk page discussion, and whatever duration is fine with me. There's no need for me to pile on with more diffs, as it has already been clearly demonstrated that Slacker13 is only here to RGW about Mr. Smith. And you can see from the oppose !votes here the meatpuppetry that is also taking place on the talk page, they all just parrot one another. And the notion that MrOllie and Sariel Xiloare socks is just plain ridiculous; because MrOllie still wears those white tube socks with red stripes at the top, while Sariel Xilo is more comfortable with dress socks.😏Isaidnoway(talk)01:53, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
According to the blocking admin @Bilby it was for serious BLP violations regarding the author of one of the academic publications being discussed in the RfC. This seems to suggest either that Slacker13 isn't concerned with BLP as a policy so much as the reputation of just one BLP or it is another data point towardWP:NOTHERE levels of CIR. Considering Bilby removed a prior BLP violation and warned them and their response seems to have been to disregard that warning (I also have not seen the diffs that were removed) perhaps it is indicative of both.Simonm223 (talk)10:47, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
I've provided an explanationhere. The specific edit falsely stated that an academic had been convicted of defamation. The issue was not so much that it was added, but that it was added again after it was reverted, and that the same issue occured yesterday with some questionable BLP claims that were again added back after being reverted. I understand that there are strong emotions in this, which is why I was hoping not to block, but I am getting the impression of an editor who is having trouble modifying their behaviour based on advice, so maybe a short block is a better option. -Bilby (talk)10:49, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
Support indef CBAN perWP:CIR andWP:RGW. Stepping back from editing will reflect how Slacker will do better in the future. I advise avoiding any further private communications on the matters.Ahri Boy (talk)03:06, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
Support a topic ban at a minimum,Weak support for a cban. I'm pessimistic that it'll work, but I'm not positive the conduct here isso Wikigregious that there's no chance this editor may be able to act in a collaborative process on an article that isn'tso important to them. But I'm also not so confident in this editor that I'm against a cban if the editors supporting it feel firm in their opinion.CoffeeCrumbs (talk)15:37, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
For the record, I would withdraw my request for a CBAN if Slacker13 publicly states they will respect the outcome of the RfC and submits an edit request to self-revert their removal of the contentious section. These actions are what make me think a TBAN is insufficient. If they are able to recognize the mistake they have made and course-correct I would be satisfied with a TBAN.Simonm223 (talk)15:41, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
Support indefinite topic-ban at minimum but I won't be heartbroken if consensus is that a siteban is warranted given the behaviour on display. At the very least Slacker13 needs to be yoten out of the Zak Smith topic area for theblatant attempts at subterfuge and apparent canvassing. I would alsosupport a topic-ban from Zak Smith to everyone who was canvassed to the discussion, albeit time-limited to, say, six months, to encourage those who want to stay on Wikipedia to find a topic thatisn't the target of an off-wiki campaign. —Jéské Courianov^_^vthreadscritiques15:49, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
Support topic-ban at a bare minimum. The constantWP:BLUDGEONing andWP:ASPERSIONs are more than enough reason for a topic-ban; they've turned the entire talk page into essentially an endless argument between them and everyone else. In less than a week, they made nearlya hundred talk page comments onTalk:Zak Smith. They've honestly been given moreWP:ROPE than most people would be if they behaved this way (because BLP concernsare serious) but enough is enough. --Aquillion (talk)16:00, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
Request to the admin. It is difficult to defend oneself against an onslaught. All I ask is this (and I recognize it is a BIG ask because there is a lot): Before making your ultimate determination on weather I be warned or banned for a first offense -- you read through my contributions. All of them regarding this topic, including all of the talk page, my responses to other editors, the messages sent to editors and admins, and the topic I posted here. Was I a bit overzealous? Yes, and I'd be happy to curtail that. I do ask that you read though, and come to your own determination. Please and thank you.Slacker13 (talk)16:03, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
Support CBan for AT LEAST Slacker123 - Reading through this I can only come to a conclusion regardless of whether I AGF or not and it's clearly off-wiki social media based editing alongside a clear inability to follow rules to a degree I'd support it asWP:NOTHERE on RGW grounds. The fact this discussion has been flooded by obvious off-wiki meatpuppeting with no/low editors opposing the proposal also has me considering whether there should be an examination of those accounts on the same grounds.Rambling Rambler (talk)16:12, 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.
[The article is already extended-confirmed protected for a year, the talk page semi-protected for 30 days. ECP for the talk page is something I didn't dare to apply; I trust the closer to discount canvassed votes. But by all means, feel free to vote for this.]~ ToBeFree (talk)22:43, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
Support as proposer. Smith and his sock/meatpuppets have been edit warring on this issue for six years. They will continue to do so long after.Morbidthoughts (talk)23:36, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
Support It's easy to predict this won't be the last ANI chapter for this article, but hopefully we can delay it with this protection.Nathannah •📮00:42, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
Comment not putting a !vote here because I haven't made up my mind, but this is a pretty extreme remedy. Meatpuppets are annoying but, excepting the subject of this thread, none of them have been that disruptive. Just annoying. I would like to think we can tolerate annoying rather than putting ECP on a talk page.Simonm223 (talk)00:47, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
Last night's system-gaming from Slacker13 has made up my mind. I am concerned that there is both coordination between the meatpuppets and a willingness to go to extreme lengths to get their way. I worry that, if Slacker13 is prohibited from editing the page, another meatpuppet account will take their place. After all, it's quite clear that they have no interest in retaining their privileges as long as this one biography says what they want.On this basisSupport indefinite ECP of both the page and talk.Simonm223 (talk)08:53, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
I'm back on the fence here. Since Slacker13 got a 24 hour block the page has quieted down substantially. While I remain concerned about the other zombie accounts it seems like one account may, in fact, be the principal locus of disruption. I want to wait and see here so I'm withdrawing my support... for now... while we see whether a new disruptive account arises or whether the worst is behind us.Simonm223 (talk)18:57, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
The socks/meats are silent because they already have their preferred version in place for now. If that wasn't the case, they would still be at it.Morbidthoughts (talk)20:53, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
They'll probably start acting up again once the RfC closes and the content is reinstated. I'm not sure why ToBeFree didn't revert, but it's always best to be safe than sorry, I guess.ChildrenWillListen (🐄 talk,🫘 contribs)21:40, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
Considering the antics I just saw on the page the socks seem to have regrouped. And that's not even counting the poorly advised arbitration request. I don't know. I am really uncomfortable with the idea of putting ECP on an article talk page but if it's that or constant textwalls of machine generated text and desperate wikilawyering this could become a real time sink to maintain. I'd rather not have to spend that much time on one RPG artist.Simonm223 (talk)22:18, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
I suggested a word limit per discussion (option listed atWP:CTOP#Standard set) but Jéské Couriano noted below that there's no way to automate enforcement. So it would require an uninvolved admin to moderate every time the talk page heats up. However, the last time the talk page was really active was mostly 5 years ago leading to the 2020 RfC so maybe this won't be an ongoing issue after the current RfC is resolved.Sariel Xilo (talk)22:40, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
Simonm223, still haven't changed your mind back given the continuing time sink? How about an ECP for 30 days to let the RfC quiet from the AITALK?Morbidthoughts (talk)23:48, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
I might be willing to countenancesupport for a time-limited ECP on the article talk page just as a fire gap. I honestly don't like it. I've been back and forth on this issue because I do not at all like the idea of ECP on an article talk page and would prefer never to do it... but it might be needed here. Frankly this entire situation makes me deeply uncomfortable - as of this morning we've now got one of the canvassed parties putting up a second !vote and this RfC has become such a mess of broken wikilinks, machine generated text and otherWP:CIR problems that I feel sincerely bad for whoever needs to close it.Simonm223 (talk)11:55, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
Support for the article. At the very least, the disruption happening on the article should be stopped, hopefully for good. I don't think an ECP would work well on the talk page, likely leading to its own set of issues. Perhaps semi-protection would work better?45dogs (they/them)(talk page)00:56, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
Support, retroactive to August 23 The Talk page is so inundated with comments from zombie accounts it will be utterly miserable to coherently determine the outcome of any active discussion unless ECP is interpreted retroactivelyChetsford (talk)06:18, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
I'm involved and thus won't comment on the topic ban suggested above, but Ifully support this. There's so much puppeting going on I feel like I'm in aJim Henson production.NekoKatsun (nyaa)14:57, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
Question - Is this the type of situation where adding a word limit per discussion on the talk page (perWP:CTOP#Standard set) would a) be applicable & b) be automated? Theoretically, it would allow newer editors to participate in good faith while limiting the ability of other editors to bludgeon a discussion. But if it can't be auto enforced, then it might be less useful than ECP.Sariel Xilo (talk)15:22, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
Support XCP for article (indef) and talk page (time-limited) simply based on thesheer amount of low-activity accounts crawling out of the woodwork above in defence of Slacker's behaviour. And to answer your question, Xilo, word limits can't be automated, else ArbCom would have automated it a while ago (Arbitration has pretty much always had word/diff limits, which are manually enforced). Article should be indef XCP, talk page should be given a long-ish XCP term, no longer than about a year. —Jéské Courianov^_^vthreadscritiques15:44, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
Support - clearly some form of off-wiki canvassing is happening given how many low activity and long dormant accounts have awoken to argue over an incredibly niche figure's wikipedia page.Rambling Rambler (talk)16:17, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
Oppose for talk page indefinite ECR on a talk page needs to be justified by a whole lot more than what is likely to just be a short-term burst of activity.Traumnovelle (talk)01:24, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
Strongly oppose for talk page, indifferent on article page. Talk page protection is an extreme measure and should only be used in the short-term for overwhelming vandalism and disruptive editing, or persistent addition of oversightable BLP violations like libel. I trust the community to see through the meatpuppetry, I trust the closer to identify and disregard canvassed !votes for the RFC, and it has not been demonstrated that talk page protection is necessary or required past the short term. --tony15:19, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
Oppose ECP forany talk page unless and until we witness repetitive and dedicated disruption. Nothing like that here. I've been watching this discussion since the beginning. Two issues prevented me from ECPing the page: 1) ToBeFree had already applied semi-protection (this bold action likely kept much more static out of the discussion) and 2) when I apply any level of protection to any talk page, I do so with much regret. Wikipedians (even low edit-count and new editors) need the ability to shout sometimes, and page talk is one neutral place to vigorously disagree without undue personalization. I do hold the OP should face a serious boomerang, but that's no reason to keep out good faith interested parties.BusterD (talk)21:55, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
Oppose also per BusterD. (and Tony, and the extremely old and still fairly absolute community consensus that locking down talk pages, as compared against public-facing content namepsaces, should be considered only for the most absolutely egregious and otherwise impossible to manage cases of disruption.)SnowRise let's rap00:14, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
Oppose putting extended extended on a talk page, that is, putting extended-confirmed protection for an extended period of time. At any time that semiprotection or XC protection becomes necessary on the talk page, any uninvolved administrator can do that as aBLPcontentious topic action.Robert McClenon (talk)23:15, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
Suggestion - why not apply theextended confirmed restriction to the article? That is explicitly an Arbcom sanction, but if there's consensus then the community can enact whatever restriction it wants. Under ECR the article is EC-protected (already done) and the talk page is restricted so that non-EC editors are only permitted to make proper templated edit requests, and all other edits of any kind by a non-EC editor can be reverted by anyone without regard to 3RR (but please report to admins, and don't just keep reverting and expect the problem to go away). I also don't support ECP for a talk page, but this could work.Ivanvector (Talk/Edits)18:53, 3 September 2025 (UTC)
I would want to see more evidence presented (even if just in abstract summary form) of the disruption supposedly being caused by socks and meat puppets, before I could endorse such a move. This proposal came in at the margins of the main narrative of the OP's conduct. And I feel that we have gotten a little too inclined to regard ECP as a tool "without a significant downside" as a frontline response to disruption. There's an increasingly laisez-faire attitude about abrogating the ability of non-EC editors to contribute to this project in general, and that most certainly includes the propensity for freezing all IP and non-EC editors out of contributing to an article just because a few were problematic. In most cases, that does not strike me as reasonable as an indefinite measure. I'm especially concerned about such proposals when made in combination with the (relatively) new rule that all BLPs are potentially CTOPs, if just one admin decides the article should be so designated. That is one of the most questionable ArbCom rulings in the history of the project, IMO, massively expanding the scope of CTOP and curtailing access to non-registered editors to contribute to any topic that is remotely divisive. All of those caveats made, do not consider me a committed oppose !vote here: I've seen a lot of cases of niche BLPs and articles on cultural topics where large numbers of sock/meat puppets are mobilized and overwhelm the handful ofWP:HERE editors with constant tendentious acitvity, and do view ECP as warranted in some of those cases. But I for one would need to see more meat on the bones with regard to the argument for why we would want to do that in this case before I add my name to the !support list.SnowRise let's rap00:59, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
OK so here's the situation on the ground as today.
[128] - edit history for the article talk page. I'm not doing individual diffs because I'd honestly be here all day.
There's ~15 accounts active on the page that show signs of being sock / meat puppet accounts. With the significant exception of Slacker13 the majority of these accounts were created some time ago, made roughly enough edits to cross autoconfirmed status and then went dormant until the start of the RfC. Since the start of the RfC some new accounts have also been created with the same pattern: random edits to hit autoconfirm and then straight to the Zac Smith page.
These accounts show remarkable coordination in messaging with the following arguments:
That information about the allegations should be excluded because they might contribute to Mr. Smith's reputational damage.
That information about the allegations should be excluded because Mr. Smith is not a public person.
That the partially favorable rulings granted by judges in two of Smith's lawsuits mean Mr. Smith was fully exonerated for everything and thus the allegations should not be included.
That information about the allegations sourced to academic sources should be excluded because the author of one was the accuser of a person in a sexual assault case. Her case was famously kind of wrecked by a judge putting his foot in it on the closing statements and an appeal was granted. She decided to drop the charges in exchange for a peace bond against the man she accused on the basis she didn't feel like she could stand to have another four days on the witness stand. These editors have characterized this as making false accusations and have argued that her situation means she's unreliable to report on Smith's case. They oppose use of the author of another on the basis he had some sort of interaction with witnesses from the Smith trial on Twitter.
These ~15 editors generally cycle through these complaints, with each new one acting like nobody has answered these questions. Many of them show clear signs of LLM usage in their responses including excessive bolding, broken wikitext markup, and strident declarative statements about Wikipedia policy that are just flatly wrong. There has also been considerable bludgeoning and tempers have become frayed even among those non-meat puppet editors who broadly agree with the meat puppet group that the allegations should be excluded because we've had to cover the same ground so many times. Additional behavioural issues have included a small sub-set making significant claims about several editors that they are associates of various figures related to Mr. Smith's trial or that they are members of an RPG community who are coordinating to act as a "hate mob" against Mr. Smith. One editor claims to have shared evidence of this with the WMF. I have no interest in knowing what "evidence" if any this was as it would probably constituteWP:OUTING but as of today it appears that the WMF has taken no action on this. But this has also led to open accusations posted atWP:COI/N.Simonm223 (talk)11:48, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
Holy moly. I'll be honest with you: the previous discussion didn't require me to do more than a surface level look at Slacker's contributions on that talk page, since their conduct elsewhere post TBAN was sufficient to justify a CBAN. But now that I am giving a detailed look at the TP and its extensive disruption, I am gobsmacked at what you and the otherWP:HERE editors have had to deal with and have perservered through, just to make sure that niche article didn't get whitewashed. What an absolute gravity well of a time sink. Not only am I inclined tosupport the request for indefinite ECP on the article itself (because I do believe with this level of commitment to the sock/meat coordination campaign, it is probably a safe presumption that disruprion will extend to IP edits immediately after protection is removed, even if a year from now), I am seriously reconsidering my position on the usually next-to-unthinkable move of applying the protection to the talk page.SnowRise let's rap16:00, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
I don't support indefinite ECP. There is nothing to suggest this is likely to require ECP in a years time for example. There is off-site attention to the article and in these events the disruption typically dies down after a while.
Weak Oppose as to extended extended for the article. The article is a BLP, and so acontentious topic, and normal admin actions and enhanced admin actions for contentious topics can deal with off-wiki canvassing or other meatpuppetry.Robert McClenon (talk)04:25, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
As has been raised in the original section, Slacker13 has now taken this matter to ArbCon. However while doing so they have posted the following.[129] My argument is: most, if not all, of the editors who voted to ban me, have links and ties to the RPG (role playing) community -- a community which has banned Smith and actively harasses him (based on, now disputed, allegations of sexual abuse).I know because I looked them all up (and can provide links) I believe this now escalates to threats ofWP:OUTING the identity of editors who disagree with them and believe they therefore are well outside the norms of behaviour we expect from editors here and therefore believe they should be removed as a matter of urgency.Rambling Rambler (talk)22:51, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
Not only that,Slacker13 also stated at ArbCom:I am theonly editor involved in the RFC (with some edits under their belt) with a dissenting opinion who does not come from a community in which Smith (the subject of the article) is banned.
This is blatantly false as,Chetsford,Gamaliel andTraumnovelle, also had dissenting opinions. And with the above statement, they are casting aspersions against a boatload of editors in the RfC that support inclusion, approximately 15 by my count, that we are all involved in this "community", and that is our motive for participating in the RfC. Speaking for myself, I'm not worried about OUTING, as Slacker13 has no evidence whatsoever that links or ties me to this "community". Having said that, threats to OUT any editor must be taken seriously, and I earnestly wonder if this editor has the competence that we require to be a part of this project. If they are not indeffed by an admin first for this egregious behavior, Isupport a cban.Isaidnoway(talk)23:33, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
I suspect from the grammar problemsI believe that a page is being used as a suspected battleground[sic] we've seen, Slacker13 was trying to say that all of the editors who disagreed with her came from a community where Smith is banned.
For the record the only platform I make any use of on which Mr. Smith is "banned," to my knowledge, is Wikipedia. Here he is currently blocked for the abuse of multiple accounts. So, despite having some interest in Dungeons and Dragons I would strongly dispute that I had any connection to Mr. Smith or his unfortunate personal circumstances beyond recognizing his name.Simonm223 (talk)23:49, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
This is to say ISupport a CBAN as it's getting to the point where Slacker13 has crossed the boundaries ofWP:NPA has insinuated they intend to engage inWP:OUTING, is constantly demonstratingWP:ABF and is, frankly, dragging me back into a dispute that I had hoped had finally calmed the heck down. Enough is enough.Simonm223 (talk)23:51, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
Looking at the oppose !votes I do find myself having a second thought. When Slacker13 launched the Arbitration case I told them I thought the best case scenario was a prompt closure and a prompt closure was what we got. I also said in response to the Arbcom case that I hoped that Slacker13 would return to the productive editing they'd been doing before the Zak S affair. I don't have great faith they will abide by their tban - and I don't think they should be unblocked until they commit to dropping the stick. But I do trust admins not to be fooled by an inappropriate unblock request. The ideal course of action would be for this once-productive editor to return to productive endeavors. I wouldn't want to stand in the way of that simply because they had made a nuisance of themselves. I am frustrated and personally insulted by the argument that my participation in a hobby, which includes easily-found professional writing on the topic, implicates me in a hate-mob. As I said before my only significant engagement with Mr. Smith as a figure in TTRPGS or in fine art (a world I also have a toe in) is fully visible within the edit history of Wikipedia. However I don't want my personal affrontery to interfere with appropriate process. I hope Slacker13 takes some time off to examine their actions and then commits to doing literally anything else on Wikipedia. If they can bring themself to do that then that is enough for me.Simonm223 (talk)16:46, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
Support CBAN It's common in Arbcom cases to offer certain COI information to the Committee to be sent confidentially (though it's normally wikispeaked into "private evidence" or whatever, as opposed toI looked them all up). If you're seeking to silence them as amatter of urgency, a cban proposal is not what you're looking for, as they typically take several days. However, a frivolous Arbcom case is an absurd escalation directly after their block -- a block they mostly spent sealioning on their own talk page. Their actions demonstrate they are not compatible with this project, though I would welcome to be proven wrong on appeal in many months.tony23:15, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
@TonySt to be honest I expect it'll get quicker action from an admin to begin with, but this is more of a backstop in case it doesn't. This whole thing is well beyond the pale at this point compared to what I've seen earn an Indef before.Rambling Rambler (talk)00:03, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
No comment on Slacker13's overall behaviour but the 'outing' claim here is stupid. Providing evidence to Arbcom is not outing and when you are dealing with such material sending it to Arbcom is exactly what is suggested.Traumnovelle (talk)23:37, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
If you read the ArbCon filing it's already been noted by ArbCon that they had sent attempted proof of COIs to them in this response from one of the members:
applicant sent a near-4000 word missive to our mailing list originally (before being sent here, as there is no private information involved), which included links to how they allege the editors are all "involved"[130]
As a result the need to mentionpublicly they have alleged links (after having been told before about how unacceptable such attempts to find out editor identities due to disputes here is) can only lead me to regard it as the veiled threat of public OUTING.Rambling Rambler (talk)23:46, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
That quote explicitly suggests the information in question is perfectly acceptable to post on wiki and likely just revolves around on Wiki edits/diffs. Even if I entertain the notion that it is private information – well Arbcom can deal with that.Traumnovelle (talk)00:30, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
Neither ArbCom requests nor any other context permitsany disclosure of offline identities/activities of other users over public channels on-project, however broadly the label is applied and regardless of whether or not the claims would bear up under close scrutiny. The outing policy is robust and exhaustive for many important reasons reflecting aspects of user safety and project stability, and represents some of the most absolute and vigorously applied community consensus in the history of the project. This user could have easily provided information to support their case through the normal processes reserved for such with regard to sensitive ArbCom cases, if they in fact had anything of substance. Their choice to instead make that statement publicly would be enough to validate an indef even without the considerable extra context suggesting they represent a substantial net negative at this point.SnowRise let's rap23:48, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
Yeah, I mean, I am 99% certain based on both the substance of their claim and the content of the discussion above (to say nothing of general common sense about this project and the world at large) that these claims are either willful misinformation or credulous and dubious assumptions (or something in between the two categories of on uncredible statement). But we don't take chances with user privacy on this project, and this user has shown they are willing to flippantly disregard such weighty concerns. And there's a non-trivial possibility that they are speaking truthfully about at least one or a few of the editors they took it upon themselves to "investigate" off-project. So they have to go.SnowRise let's rap00:01, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
Support CBAN. Frankly, this is ridiculous behavior, and the fact they escalated it to ARBCOM doesn't fill me with confidence they will stop being disruptive, even if the case gets declined.withdrawn45dogs (they/them)(talk page)23:38, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
Support. Coming on top of the rest of the problematic behaviour discussed above, this flagrant violation ofWP:OUTING is more than sufficient to carryWP:CIR,WP:HARASSMENT, and just simple pragmatic analysis of the risks vs. benefits of allowing this user to continue to comment on-project into the red. And, at the risk of upsetting the apparently all-powerful secret D&D cabal (and all joking aside, no genuine offense intended to any user reading this, but...), I personally find people playing make-believe with dice well into adulthood to be one of the more embarrassing developments of the culture of the twenty-first century, so Slacker can rest assured that this !vote comes purely as a consequence of their displaying behaviours which make them fundamentally incompatible with this project, and not because I am a member of a Zak Smith counter-subversive reputational hit squad.SnowRise let's rap23:39, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
Haha, when you put it in those terms, any air of idiosyncratic judgment on my part should be contextualized in light of a many-decades-long love affair with Risk.SnowRise let's rap00:39, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
I don't know: I assume that initiation in the secret role-player's cabal involves doing a roll to check for basic social competency, and if you fail, you're in. ~That most irrepressible rogue,Snow the Bold runs for cover, but doesn't bother to hide a cheeky grin~SnowRise let's rap00:43, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
Oppose I would be loathe to see someone banned because they appealed a tban once to ArbCom. The appeal may be ill advised and unsound, but so far the disruption since the tban is just an appeal. I'd like to see more cause to raise this to the level of a cban so soon after the decision not to apply one. -Bilby (talk)00:02, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
Comment - my quote is mentioned above, so I'll be explicit here - no links to external information or anything has been provided at all, either on-wiki or via email. All links were to on-wiki pages or diffs etc. The justification proposed of "outing" is incorrect. The community can take action as it sees fit for battleground editing, or NOTHERE, or anything of the sort, but I will speak to the editor's defence and pretty directly say that the accusations of outing are totally misplaced and errenous (to this point, at least). It was probably a clumsy choice of words by the editor in their filing on-wiki.Daniel (talk)00:21, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification. Nonetheless,Slacker13 has insinuated that several editors are involved in the RPG community that has harassed Mr. Smith, without providing any evidence to support these spurious allegations, which is one of many reasons I am supporting a cban.Isaidnoway(talk)01:02, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
Support. The ArbCom thing is a bit ambiguous IMHO because it's important that editors be allowed to appeal and seek relief through the proper channels; but there is a point where their requests areso far beyond what's reasonable that it becomes a conduct issue, and the fact that their appeal to ArbCom involves wildWP:ASPERSIONs goes past that line. The fact that they didn't out anyone isn't really exculpatory in this context because that means they've been making extremely wild retaliatory accusations against several editors that clearly haveno basis in evidence or policy - if there was any credible basis at all I'd say they have the right to seek relief and we have to err on the side of caution, but their accusations seem to be so utterly unsupported that they breach the presumption of either competence or good faith. And while there's usually some leeway for newly-topic-banned editors who may not know the full scope of their topic-ban, and it's mitigated by the fact that users keep approaching them, stuff like[131] and their responseshere are still not allowed. More to the point, all of this collectively suggests that Slacker13 will still notWP:DROPTHESTICK even after a topic-ban, which makes a cban necessary. --Aquillion (talk)01:14, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
Honestly I didn't see that this CBAN discussion was happening, I watchWP:AC and saw their "everyone's out to get me" case request name in my watchlist. There I saw an editor banned from a topic still arguing about that topic on their talk page, and filing a report to Arbcom continuing to argue about the topic while also alleging that the many editors disagreeing with them are a cabal of roleplayers conspiring against them. There's nothingWP:HERE about any of that, and it needed to stop. I didn't intend to supervote this discussion.Ivanvector (Talk/Edits)04:51, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
I don't know that it is the appropriate solution in this situation, but for what it is worth, I would have supported this as an admin action, had it transpired that you made that decision before this discussion. I actually meant to say something along the lines of "if an admin had unilaterally blocked here, I would have supported it." much earlier, but neglected to. I for one still do endorse your choice of action, though I suspect the community will want this discussion to run its course regardless. Afterall, the effect of a CBAN on top of your block would be that an unblock request would need to be put to the community, not an individual admin. Alternatively (though i think unlikely) the community may want to reverse your block. Perhaps most likely of all though is that they squeak by without a formal CBAN, but your indef is left in place pending the normal administrative appeal process.SnowRise let's rap07:21, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
Oppose I'd like for this editor to get the opportunity to find other subjects she could focus upon. It won't happen overnight but I think after some weeks, she could return to regular editing.LizRead!Talk!05:08, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
They can not return to editing until they acknowledge, and apologize, for making up allegations against me, and numerous other editors, as being part of the RPG community that harassed Mr. Smith. I don't appreciate the insinuation that I would be involved in such despicable conduct.Isaidnoway(talk)06:35, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
Oppose CBan for now on the grounds that any more carrying on in this vein in an unblock request will almost certainly be a summary decline, and attempting to escalate an unblock request to ArbCom is more likely to result in themconfirming the block than lifting it. No sane admin is going to lift a block based on topic ban violations when the unblock request is basically the same arguments and behaviour that got them banned except they're now written inBlackletter. —Jéské Courianov^_^vthreadscritiques05:57, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
To be perfectly fair, the cost-benefit to them of their selected strategy is even more negative than all of that. Because, unless I am forgetting the results of some fairly monumental ArbCom case, the committee does not expressly have the right to overturn a CBAN. Now, on the other hand, this community has been pretty consistent about rubber stamping whatever decision ArbCom makes which grants itself a new institutional power (frankly to a problematic extent, if I am honest). So in that sense, ArbCom can virtually do whatever it wants. But it's not going to break new ground on that issue on these facts, I think we can be fairly confident.So yes, in that sense, all slacker accomplished was to put themselves into even poorer standing with the community. But (and this is intended everyone who has opposed the proposal on the basis that Slacker should not be penalized for an ArbCom case that happened to not be meritorious in anyone's eyes but their own), I don't think anyone is actually arguing for a CBAN on the basis of a frivolous RFAR filing alone. Rather, I believe the concern is with all of the specific behaviours within, and around, and in service of that effort. Afterall, this is a user who, after facing the kind of scrutiny they came under in the above discussions, decided that their best approach immediately after being sanctioned was to do opposition research into the off-project activities of their perceived foes and then try to leverage what they felt they had found against those editors in what was either a blatant violation ofWP:OUTING or a set of spuriousWP:ASPERSIONS. As others have pointed out above, it is either one or the other, and literally can't be neither. Bluntly speaking, there are just layers of incompatibility issues from bothWP:NOTHERE andWP:CIR at work here.SnowRise let's rap07:13, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
Oppose I supported the TBAN. I also have no ties to the RPG community and am, in fact, generally despised by them due to the multitudinous AfD nominations I've made of game designers. But exercising one's right to appeal is not cause for a CBAN. And the allegation of outing has been explained to my satisfaction byDaniel.Chetsford (talk)06:21, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
Yeah, the ArbCom thing was bizarre, but people at ANI do bizarre. And since a sitting arb has confirmed that "The justification proposed of 'outing' is incorrect", this should now be discounted.—Fortuna,imperatrix14:26, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
Oppose - I'm the one that blocked them after their case request (see above) which was labelled a ban appeal but was so obviously not a genuine appeal but an effort to keep arguing about the topic that I wonder if those saying otherwise actually looked at it. All of this should be treated as a topic ban violation, and afirst violation at that, which we normally handle with blocks, not jumping immediately to sitebanning. I agree that they should have the opportunity to demonstrate they can edit constructively in other topics, but first they need to show that they finally willdrop this stick.Ivanvector (Talk/Edits)16:19, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
For me it's not so much the tban violation, but what they said at ArbCom:most, if not all, of the editors who voted to ban me, have links and ties to the RPG (role playing) community -- a community which has banned Smith and actively harasses him ... I know because I looked them all up (and can provide links). This is a complete falsehood, as it pertains to me, and probably the rest of the editors who participated in the above tban discussion. I don't know Mr. Smith, not have I ever harassed him, and then to say they have evidence in the form of "links" (another falsehood), plus the behavior that got them tbanned, bludgeoning, making false claims about sources, spuriousWP:COI taggings, and spuriousWP:3RR taggings. This doesn't strike me as someone who can contribute constructively, or collaborate with fellow editors, if they are willing to just make shit up when they are involved in a content dispute.Isaidnoway(talk)17:43, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
This editor edited constructively before this "Zak Smith episode" happened. I don't think an editor should only be judged by their most negative moments. When an editor thinks the problem is righting great wrongs, they become blinded to ordinary rules and policies. Let's wait to see if the fog clears here. And I'm sorry if you feel injured that they made false allegations about editors who sought to block them. I think much of what happened was being "caught up in the moment". If our community thinks they can not make a positive contribution here in the future, I'm sure they will make their voices heard loud and clear.LizRead!Talk!03:27, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
We've indeffed for threatened doxxing before as well as actual doxxing that was wide of the mark. It doesn't matter whether or not he has the links he claims to; the fact he is actively accusing these editors of off-wiki harassment of a subject and threatening to provide proof is enough. —Jéské Courianov^_^vthreadscritiques03:44, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
From what I've seen so far on Wikipedia, the "links" mentioned by the editor was correlating individual editors and their participation editing in RPG articles and RPG WikiProjects. It was nothing that could be considered "outing" or very investigative. For instance, if I was included in this list, it would be a mention of me, Liz, as an editor and information that I edited some RPG articles in some point in my 12 years here. Not very persuasive evidence of a COI, I think. I mean, it's kind of creepy but anyone can review my Contributions right now and assess where I've spent my editing time. It didn't involve off-Wikipedia websites.LizRead!Talk!07:10, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
Just because an editor might have edited a RPG article doesn't automatically mean that editor haslinks and ties to the RPG (role playing) community and was involved in actively harassing Mr. Smith, which is what Slacker13 was clearly implying. And then to act like these "links" prove what they are saying, at least in my case, is utterly absurd, which is why I believe they were not acting in good faith when they listed me as a party in their ridiculous report at ArbCom.Isaidnoway(talk)08:13, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
I certainly did not get the sense from the filing or their other commentary that the digging was confined to Wikipedia, but let's put the outing issue to the side for the moment. There's still justso much going on here that thwarts any reasonable hope that this user is about to do an about-face and start respecting community behavioural norms such as to make them capable of contributing non-disruptively here. I tend towards the optimistic side on such questions myself (I think there are posts on this very board right now that demonstrate as much), but here we are talking about an editor who, just days ago (and days after their TBAN) wasstill demonstrating that in their view, their ideological objectives trump any and all considerations of process or consensus on this project, and still showing no signs of being able toWP:DROPTHESTICK.And in continuing to advocate for this moral crusade, they once again were pushing blanket accusations against their rhetorical opposition:"and as far as the community, if they were neutral parties, I guess I would feel differently -- but most if not all of the people historically editing his page, come from the RPG space where there is a history of harassing the subject." And can we take a beat to appreciate just how extreme an example ofconspiratorial thinking moon talk these accusations are? If their go-to reaction to opposition to their position is to see a massive on-project conspiracy, that's a fundamentalWP:CIR issue. Nor is their pre-occupation with such accusations as Zak Smith faced a one-off: one of the very few contributions they made this year before prosecuting this push to remove the sexual abuse allegations from the Smith article was engagement onTalk:Russell_Brand for substantially the same purpose. And there too, they quickly fell into attacking their opposition as a "sockpuppet" created for some sort of secret ulterior motive, despite the fact that said account was older than their own. This is a user who gives every impression of being fundamentally unable to comply withWP:FOC andWP:AGF, no matter how many times they are explained to them. Anyone who opposes their perspective (at least when it comes ot men accused of sexual abuse) is perceived as, at absolute best,someone who lacks their ethical clarity and is willing to promote harm out of reflexive indifference, or, much more likely, a secret foe of the subject operating in bad faith as part of a clandestine take-down campaign. And it's pretty clear from their response to the community at every stage of the attempted intervention here that the narrow page ban is not going to be sufficient to contain their disruption on the over-arching topic of sexual abuse allegations next time they take an interest in such.Look, I'm very much one for second (and often third, and fourth) chances when we are given indications that the contributor understands where they have departed from this project's basic behavioural expectations and is actively trying to converge their views with said rules. But sometimes you have to call a spade for a spade. And this user clearly just does not get it, and when it comes to the community's concerns, they can only conceive that they have fun afoul of them by positing that they are the victim of a conspiracy rather than considering that any of that criticism is legitimate.SnowRise let's rap00:50, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
I think the matter is likely to be closed as non consensus at this juncture, given the degree to which engagement has slowed, but it's important to understand that in no way does an indef 'moot' consideration of aWP:CBAN. Administrative actions and community bans are separate processes with different criteria for enforcement and reversal. A CBAN would indicate broad community consensus that this user is not capable of comporting with the project's basic behavioural guidelines at this time, and would only be appealable through another community discussion. An indef can be reversed merely at the discretion of one mop. So it would be better if your !vote reflected your position on the merit of the proposal, even though I grant you that a close without further action is the most likely outcome at this point.SnowRise let's rap07:22, 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.
Possible Close?
The filing editor has been topic-banned and indefinitely blocked. They have been requesting unblock, and that seems to be going nowhere. I personally see no need to upgrade the indefinite block to a community ban. Can this thread be closed with the conclusion that the filing editor has been indefinitely blocked?Robert McClenon (talk)20:06, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
I've RFPP'd temporary ECP on the talk page due to constant creation of new accounts to bludgeon the RfC once autoconfirmed. It has gotten completely ridiculous.Morbidthoughts (talk)02:48, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
An unusual measure, but one that I think is definitely warranted. If there isn't off wiki coordination going on here, then it is one helluva coincidence that all these brand new accounts are conveniently stumbling acrossthat particular talk page to bludgeon the RfC with the same argument. Ridiculous is an understatement.Isaidnoway(talk)04:04, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
I understood that there was not a consensus for an EPC for the Zak smith talk page. I am an active participant in the discussions and now I have been blocked from participating. It's being used to "privilege extended confirmed users over unregistered/new users in valid content disputes". What do I do?
That talk page was ECP'd due to seeminglyWP:MEATPUPPETRY occurring. The "no consensus for an EPC for the Zak smith talk page" was in relation to anindefinite ECP, not a temporary one, and the current protection is a temporary.45dogs (they/them)(talk page)00:15, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
Semi-protection has proven to be ineffective at the talk page, so extended confirmed protection was applied to combat ongoing disruption. And the article isfully protected, which means it cannot be edited by anyone exceptadministrators. So why is it fair for me to be excluded from editing the article? Find somewhere else to edit for the time being, like the rest of us are doing.Isaidnoway(talk)04:47, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
There is pretty clearly not just no consensus butconsensus against EC-protecting the talk page in the discussion here. That action should be undone. I would do so myself if I hadn' already commented; courtesy pingIsabelle Belato.Ivanvector (Talk/Edits)12:02, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
AFAIR, I've protected the page as an uninvolved admin action viaWP:RFPP/I. While I disagree with reducing the protection level for the duration of the RfC, the closing admin is welcome to reduce to semi-protection as this wasn't done under any CTOPS.Isabelle Belato🏳🌈12:29, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
Yes, joining and inputting intothis discussion might be more productive than a unilateral admin action elsewhere, however much it might be an allowable one.—Fortuna,imperatrix18:35, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
@Anachronist: Can we please reinstate the EC protection until the RfC ends? I've been monitoring the discussion every day, and the non-EC accounts aren't contributing anything useful there. I know that talk pages don't get ECP'd often, but I think it is very warranted in this case. Also, this probably goes without saying, but we should have a six-month moratorium regarding any future RfC about the claims.ChildrenWillListen (🐄 talk,🫘 contribs)21:47, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
The protecting administrator didn't see a need for ECP, the requester didn't, there was no consensus for protecting the talk page at that level in this discussion, and I agreed. If there is any evidence of disruption or sockpuppetry as a result of the talk page being semiprotected, let me know and I'll increase it again. There has been zero activity on the talk page since I changed protection to semi. ~Anachronist(talk)22:00, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
Already responded on my talk page, but will post here too, the email I sent to the user:As I noted in the article's talk page, I protected it so that discussion could flow without disruption from non-EC accounts. While there appears to be no confirmed socking, I suspect either meatpuppetry or off-site canvassing is involved, which has been disrupting the RfC. You are welcome to request a protection decrease athttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection/Decrease. Assuming good faith, I can only assume the editor that requested the protection reduction misread what I said.Isabelle Belato🏳🌈00:34, 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 following discussion is closed.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.
User:OCDD moved a page without discussion after being warned multiple times before
User:OCDD recently moved pageC. A. Bhavani Devi without discussion despite previously being warned against it:[133] and the page should probably get move protection minimum. But here was a previous warning I gave:[134] and to be frank, they do seem to be a very disruptive editor, this archived ANI thread shows a long history of them getting warned for many Months, just want to note about this note about page about page moving:[135], also to note they told a user "they will be blocked for vandalising" when it appears anything they disagree with they consider vandalism. They were previously blocked here:[136], partiallt blocked here:[137], blocked for 2 weeks here:[138]. Oh, here are other warnings they have been given:[139],[140],[141],[142], oh and there was also a warning not related to page moving against consensus, but on a TV series image:[143]. Them moving of the pageAashish Kaul should probably be a sign considering there was an RM that resulted innot moved, see this:Talk:Aashish Kaul#Requested move 17 July 2025. After all these warnings, I believe something needs to be done. Either indefinitely blocked or at minimum they should be blocked (For at least 1 Month, or possibly indefinitely) from moving pages against consensus.Servite et contribuere (talk)09:19, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
This user has consistently stalked me and my edits for months on end. Reverted them without reason, made assumptions and accusations. They were even blocked for edit warring. They are known for harassing users and have harassed me for months, I'm making it very clear. Despite sourcing and making it very comprehensible why a move was done, they revert my moves because they are jealous and want me to permanently be blocked. They are doing everything they can do make it happen which explains the constant reports for nonsensical reasons. They are making WP an unsafe environment and need to be reprimanded for being stalker-ish.OCDD (talk)09:23, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
They are known for harassing users and have harassed me for months,they revert my moves because they are jealous,for being stalker-ish. Provide the diffs for all of the above. Without them, this is leaning intopersonal attacks.– robertsky (talk)09:54, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
I HAVE felt personally attacked. I never bother about what this user is doing or care about what they are editing. But this user actively stalks me and is always causing issues in topics they know nothing about. They are constantly making assumptions and have made several mistakes in this childish one sided war they have against me. I am sick of them and I have the right to express how I feel. This is not some dual enmity. I could not care less about them. But they have time and again targeted me and tried to get me blocked, as per the many cases they have opened solely to get me permanently blocked.OCDD (talk)09:59, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
You have the rights to express yourself, but such expressions should be backed with evidence. Not many will take the time to look through the hundreds and thousands of diffs made by you or them for you, we are not investigators here.– robertsky (talk)10:06, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
OCDD If you don't want me to regularly revert your contributions, then maybe provide an edit summary. Don't just expect other editors to read your mind and know your reasoning behind the changes.Servite et contribuere (talk)10:14, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
You keep using the "edit summary" excuse to hide the fact that you are a stalker who will revert even the most basic edits because you are sick obsessed individual. And even in cases where a summary was provided, this user HAS reverted edits. You deserve to be banned from WP for your disgusting creepy and harassing behavior. You use rules to hide your creepy behavior.OCDD (talk)10:55, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
Cut out the damn hyperbole. This is only the third time that Servite has filed on any noticeboard against you; by contrast, I've found three others bydifferent editors against you this year alone:[144][145][146] Your assertion that your woes are the sole result of some vendetta is false on the face of it ... did you think that none of us would notice? Ravenswing13:15, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
By your definition of stalking, there's a man in a light blue shirt driving a truck that says "USPS" that has been stalking me at my house every day around 3 PM for years now. What Servite is doing is only problematic if it's being done with "an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance, or distress" and you have provided no evidence that I see that can lead someone to that conclusion. As far as I can see, Servite's actions regarding your edits have been made to help the encyclopedia.CoffeeCrumbs (talk)04:24, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
Propose this user is banned from making page moves as there have been multiple pages where their move warring is disruptive. If this user wants to suggest page moves, they should do them throughWP:RM.Joseph2302 (talk)10:23, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
Support: at the very least. OCDD's disgusting, out-of-line remarks here run very hollow set aside the fact that they've been blocked now five times by four different admins, and they need to worry a whole lot less about some other editor's putative vendetta than about their own attitude and indifference to the rules. They've been a productive editor when they care to be, but that only gets you so far. Ravenswing13:01, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
Support: block this user. OCDD contributions are only based solely on personal perspective and continue to disregard Wikipedia's rules. Please check OCDD talks page, there are a lot of warning..Stvbastian (talk)04:44, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
This IP user has been a very prolific user for the last two days, mainly adding very specific information about people's heritage (including BLP), but never using an edit summary or a source. The user received three warnings about unsourced biographical content (2 living) on 7 September, then a fourth at 08:22 today fromUser:Adakiko, who then rolled back a lot of the damage.
The user then immediately resumed adding unsourced specifics of the descent of living people, and came to my radar at 08:43 with this edit toEmilio Saba[150]. While probablyWP:TRUE, the source did not mention a father, nor was a new one provided, and this came after four warnings for adding this kind of material to biographies.
Agreed, his edits are mainly (if not exclusively) about editing heritage aspects which contradict what the given sources state (OR and BLP violations).Nehme149917:34, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
Can an admin take a look at this? IP has already added about 20 more unsourced BLP changes related to ethnicity after the ANI started and it doesn’t seem they will be stopping any time soon.Northern Moonlight06:07, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
Bump this is starting again. As soon as the block ended, the IP restores his edits toDaniel Mustafá[151][152], adds more unverified descent specifics toAnzor Nafash[153] and then toSofie Dossi[154]. This last one is particularly brazen. I previously sawAdakiko warn the IP for vandalism for changingBruna Abdullah's ethnicity from Syrian to Syrian Jewish. I assumed good faith and thought it was just an unsourced opinion. Now I'm not so sure. The cited video had Dossi say herself that she is half Arab. The IP edited this to just say she is half "Middle Eastern". With two examples like this, it suggests a pattern that he doesn't think that certain women deserve to be called Arabs. I know I haven't given a new warning to the IP, but I'm sure this deserves a block again. The block was for adding unsourced descent to living people, doing this over and over again without ever using a reference or even an edit summary, and even continuing while this thread was ongoing. To start it off again as soon as being unblocked suggestsWP:SPAWP:NOTHERE. Courtesy pingNorthern MoonlightNehme1499Robertsky.Unknown Temptation (talk)20:13, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.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.
Ownership, aspersions, and incivility from Idk12365
The following discussion is closed.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 do not know how long Idk12365 has held on to their aggressive tendencies, but it looks like this user really does not like the idea of collaboration or even understanding our guidelines and policies. Just recently, I had removed a lot of entries from the Notable alumni section of the Interlochen Center article as unsourced or poorly sourced, only for Idk to restore the entries claiming my removal was vandalism (diff), a clear cast ofWP:ASPERSIONS. After reverting and notifying the user what they did wrong (that the entries violated the sourcing requirement ofWP:LISTPEOPLE, with one entry backed byWP:BROADWAYWORLD), the user reverted again, claiming the page was fine before and aggressively telling me never to edit the page again (diff), signs of bothWP:OWN andWP:UNCIVIL as an unwillingness to collaborate and/or understand our policies. I am not willing to escalate this issue to an edit war, and would like to request an administrator to intervene and try to help this user understand what they are doing is wrong. I might not see any signs ofWP:NOTHERE here, but will not be opposed to anyone reading this that sees otherwise.Jalen Barks(Woof)06:58, 14 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 following discussion is closed.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 following discussion is closed.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 look intoJ05n99 (talk·contribs)? They are uploading copyrighted images toSkysuites @ Anson and repeatedly adding primary sources. They have now started edit warring over these additions and are retaliating by reverting unrelated articles I have worked on.Aleain (talk)05:30, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
I've placed a paid editing warring on their user talk page, reverted the advertising, and performed some fixes on the article. --Hammersoft (talk)11:34, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
Other administrator eyes please:User:J05n99 has claimed they are not being paid for their editing onSkysuites @ Anson. However, in the last 24 hours they have introduced unsourced advertising like copy into the articlesix times[165][166][167][168][169][170]. They were made aware of this discussion[171] which they ignored, received questions about their editing[172] which they ignored, and kept on edit warring anyway.
I placed a{{Uw-paid1}} warning on their user talk page[173]. They apparently responded to it via an IP address claiming they are not being paid for their edits[174], and then later removed the section from their talk page[175]. However, this same account uploadedFile:Skysuitesanson logo.png to Commons. The image was placed for deletion there, and the same account claimed"This logo belongs to the condominium strata of owners which i'm a part of"[176]. This stands at odds to their declaration they aren't being paid for their editing.
Since I've been involved in reversions in an attempt to tamp this down, one might construe that I am somehowWP:INVOLVED. Asking for other administrators to take action and indefinitely block J05n99 at least fromSkysuites @ Anson or sitewide. I think sitewide is in order due to the undeclared paid editing and failure to comply with paid editing disclosure. --Hammersoft (talk)13:56, 14 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 creating lots of new half-baked articles, appears to not engage with talk page
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This user has been creating a lot of new BLPs lately, but most appear quite rushed and lack the sources to demonstrate notability. They tend to add a lot of hyperbole and non-encyclopaedic trivia / unsourced statements. There is possibly an AI influence to the content, with the em dash and curly quotes sometimes featuring (Garmine Kande for example). The user has a tendency to not respond to posts on their talk page, instead simply removing/reverting any new addition over many years, so it's not clear if the feedback presented[177][178] is being received. The user has had many articles, categories and files deleted over the years.
Below are some of my observations:
Mário Gomes – unsourced Coaching philosophy section and trivial quotes
Miguel Queiroz (basketball) – unsourced Playing style and legacy section and trivial quotes; article needs more sources
(Non-administrator comment) I really hate assuming something is bad, but from my previous (countless) encounters with AI, thisautopatrolled article's first revision in mainspace ([180]) sounds like bloody AI because of their writing style/tone.
Extended content
(Gomes emphasizes team cohesion, disciplined defense, and mental resilience. His approach focuses on developing collective strength and composure, especially in high-pressure scenarios like EuroBasket and World Cup qualifiers. andUnder his leadership, Portugal advanced to the Round of 16 at EuroBasket 2025—a historic milestone. The team's run has been described as a pivotal moment for the sport in Portugal, inspiring players across the Liga Portuguesa de Basquetebol.)
@AlphaBetaGamma They appear to have removed some of the problematic text, but since the article was written by AI it is unverifiable and should be deleted. XTools report that they are the first editor of 1400 pages in mainspace, so I am curious how many of those are AI and how many are written by a human. Those articles which are created by AI should all be nominated for deletion.Polygnotus (talk)15:19, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
@Polygnotus For early drafts, I sometimes use AI tools. I am aware of wikipedia standards so I always take time to restructure, verify and revise. I started reviewing articles and correct shortcomings.BiggySmoov (talk)06:55, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
@Polygnotus I understand the point and your concerns and take them very seriously. I prioritize on making all articles I've edited or created meet criteria for notability, verifiability and neutrality. I started with the mentioned articles to trim redundant and unsourced info and add sources. I stay to it.BiggySmoov (talk)12:41, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
My thoughts are that BiggySmoov's replies here are increasingly concerning, involve a lot of vague evasions, and sound like they were written by AI themselves. Ravenswing13:19, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
Agreed. I think they have gotten away with a lot over the years. The use of "restructure, verify and revise" and "notability, verifiability and neutrality" is very AI to me (tricolon).DaHuzyBru (talk)14:17, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
You know me; I'm fine sending any articles that are clearly written using AI to AFD. Someone just needs to identify them, and I'll link them to this thread.Bgsu98(Talk)14:20, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
@Ravenswing and @Bgsu98, are the articles still being assessed, or is this report a dead horse? BiggySmoov has ceased editing after their reply here, and with the questionable articles unpatrolled I'm not sure how much more will us other editors/admins have to do here. I'm not sure how much problem warrants revocation of autopatrolled because I'm not familiar with that.AlphaBetaGamma (Talk/report any mistakes here)13:51, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
I've only just seen this, but I would say that perWikipedia:Large language models, using AI to originate articles and leaving them with unsourced material (and inappropriate tone) is incompatible with autopatrolled. AI introduces errors, and editors who use it to draft article content are expected to make damned sure there are none; if someone is leaving the articles less than thoroughly checked and reworked, their work needs to be reviewed by NPP like most people's. I seeKrakatoaKatie granted the rightin 2015.BiggySmoov, you never answered Ravenswing's question. If it's easier, when did you start using AI to draft articles?Yngvadottir (talk)01:36, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
using AI to originate articles and leaving them with unsourced material (and inappropriate tone) is incompatible with autopatrolled – Ya' think?
Seriously, this guy BiggySmoov is a classic case of the well known theoremAI use ==> CIR. Anyone who can post blather likeI understand the point and your concerns and take them very seriously. I prioritize on making all articles I've edited or created meet criteria for notability, verifiability and neutrality, and the articles he's foisted on the project, can be competent as an editor. Forget autopatrolled -- indefnow.
While I believe that you and I are fundamentally on the same page here, I need to be clear that I see no basis at all to think that BiggySmoov is NOTHERE or lacks GF. He probably thinks he's helping make Wikipedia better.But he's not making it better, and he's making it not-better in a way that cannot fail to be obvious to a competent editor; that is, no competent editor could fail to recognize that AI-generated content is empty, dangerous word smog. Thus the block rationale isWP:CIR, not NOTHERE; alternatively, one might block underWP:Disruptive editing. (Both CIR and DE are compatible with the possibility that the editor is HERE in full GF.)
I'm going to recycle here a line I came up with about a month ago (but I received no applause so I'm going to try again):If we don't take radical steps to excise the AI cancer from Wikipediaimmediately, our cherished Neutral Point of View will become the Neural Point of View, and there will be no going back.EEng03:35, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
It shouldn’t be remotely acceptable to use AI in talk (this is in addition to how insulting it is). Agree onWP:CIR. If you can’t answer a one sentence question without LLM, what are you even doing on Wikipedia?Northern Moonlight04:33, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
I've revoked autopatrolled from this editor. They clearly have stopped abiding by the norms and policies of the community. I'm not willing to block yet, but I could get there.Katietalk16:01, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
Support indef per EEng. More than just incompatible with Autopatrolled, they're clearly incompatible with the community. And don't see it; if they did, we could assume that CIR is satisfied. But we cannot. And LLM content generation is so unreliable that it regularly introduces hoax material; perhaps low-grade, and that's not the user doing it deliberately, but it harms the project just the same.—Fortuna,imperatrix16:09, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
Thanks, KrakatoaKatie. (And thanks,Northern Moonlight; so that's 74 articles that need to be thoroughly checked?) The reply to whichAlphaBetaGamma refers ishere on BiggySmoov's talk. They've now failed 4 times by my count to give a straight answer about their LLM/AI use, and since indefinite doesn't mean infinite, I guess I also support a block at this point. EEng, I stand corrected. When I looked atWikipedia:Large language models, it was more tolerant than I'd expected. It should be made more forthright.Yngvadottir (talk)23:49, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
Here’s a list of the articles that they created or have changed significantly after November 28, 2022 and are not reverted as of today. This should be a good starting point if anyone wants to clean it up.
Extended content.
The following discussion has been closed.Please do not modify it.
Seconded. A detailed oversight is required. I picked a page at random and immediately found a false statement (overgeneralization). --Altenmann>talk03:40, 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.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
It was recently brought up to my attention that the 24 year old Fullerton Train Museum did not have Wikipedia page. Being a long-standing part of the community in Orange County California, it was important to ensure the museum has a presence throughout the internet.
Being one of the few technical savvy members of the museum, I agreed to help someone create a page, but they couldn't access their account, so I spent the night creating the page.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fullerton_Train_Museum Being a former editor 20 years ago, I ensured the information I placed on the new page was correct and without opinion or fluff. Not having created pages in some time, I made some error, but I reparied them this morning and recreated the page as I thought was normal.
I believe some of these reasons for deletion are technicalities and not reasonable for deletion. I am a member of the board of directors, so I had the knowledge to create the page. But I am not a "Paid Contributor" by any stretch. None of us involved in the museum are paid. We are a small volunteer team with limited resources. While I understand that may be considered a conflict of interest, that should only be applied if any of the information on the page was inflated or over-promoting. None of it is.
It's also said the page lacks notoriety. I dispute this in that the railroad community is aware of the museum because it houses many one-of-a-kind items, including rails cars that are the last remaining cars of their types. We get visitors from not only around Southern California, but nationally and internationally. For citations, I included a CBS News Report, a TV show segment, local news sources, and three websites know by the international railroad community. We also have thousands of visitors a year, and at least half are children and school organizations.
If I made errors in initially creating the page, including the requirement that someone connected to the organization needed to go through some kind of process, then I accept responsibility for my errors and promise to abide by those newer rules moving forward. But threatening to outright delete the page for my procedural errors I believe is an unnecessary punishment on the museum and on the community in which it serves. This is not the ideals of Wikipedia as they were when I was involved. Please step in and help me keep this page open. It really is important to our area.ADWNSW (talk)20:33, 14 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 following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This IP / user is making repeated edits to random pages with meaningless sentences. Requesting Administrator intervention and warning.
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Various IP's have been spamming my talk page with a create an account video, while they were all blocked the page still needs protected, can somebody protect my talk page please?98.235.155.81 (talk)21:04, 14 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 following discussion is closed.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 following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Protected the article, as a couple of those prompts wound up over there as well. We'll have to see if we need to protect the talk page, too, or if it turns out to be manageable. --SarekOfVulcan (talk)14:03, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
Hopefully the edit filter catches most of the disruption, but I was wondering if an edit notice could be added to those talk pages where newbies go to discuss things unrelated to Wikipedia, thinking they are on the company's or software's official website.Isabelle Belato🏴☠️14:28, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
This happensall the time. Dozens of times a day across various pages. I would love an edit filter because it is not fun to slog through ~1,500 talk page edits every day to try to catch this stuff. (I requested an edit filter to handle a very common variant, the people who try to use talk pages for specifically homework help queries that read like "Social studies Definition of government", but I don't think they ever did it, and so they continue, dozens per day.)
The issue is that people think that the talk pages actuallyare ChatGPT or whatever. And honestly, the fact that the tab says "Talk" is not helping, because if you're not fluent in English, it looks just like the buttons that bring you to a chatbot. I actually ran across an edit saying this but I forgot to save the diff, sorry.
It is also, in my experience, incredibly hard to explain to people what these are because generally people only see one edit and not the pattern over thousands of them.Gnomingstuff (talk)18:30, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
Update: Literally ~30 seconds after posting this I tabbed over my daily talk page search tab andthe next edit there was another of them. And that's on a page with a huge screaming red banner when you try to edit it -- although I'm not sure whether that appears on mobile.Gnomingstuff (talk)18:32, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
I think that the best solution to this is also the funniest thing that we could possibly do, which would be to create our own internal AI to identify and respond to such requests with a tailored explanation of why the poster is in the wrong place.BD2412T18:39, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
You could probably start without an AI. Start by flagging all talkpage posts with "MAPEH", post to the IP talkpages suggesting they do their homework elsewhere, build from there.CMD (talk)00:49, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
I’ve been bold and created anEditnotice to try and stem it… but it doesn’t appear to have worked. Not sure what I did wrong, so feel free to delete the subpage if it’s not working…! Best intentions, apologies!Danners430tweaks made19:31, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
"Foo/Editnotice" pages only work in user or user talk pages. If you want an editnotice for a different kind of page you would have to call itTemplate:Editnotices/Page/Talk:LMArena which could only be created/edited by a template editor, page mover, or admin (drive-by admin comment, not familiar with this dispute).* Pppery *it has begun...20:39, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
That is one of the most bizarre things I've seen on Wikipedia. I guess maybe it's a language barrier, but how can you confuse a Wikipedia page with the actual website? I'm just left shaking my head in disbelief.MrAureliusRYell at me!20:13, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
This is a really, really common problem that I'd love to see solved. Most of these talk page IPs geolocate to India, Southeast Asia, or the Middle East, where English isn't usually a first language for most people. One of the most bizarre cases of this I encountered was the IP users in the Philippines who, for a brief period of time, usedTalk:Twilight Sparkle as some sort of a way to talk to the fictional character. Also, an Indonesian meme about text-to-speech ringtones on WhatsApp got a lot of Indonesian IPs to spamTalk:Speech synthesis until that page was permanently semi'd.wizzito |say hello!06:06, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
Is there a way to detectimperative sentences that are describing a generative AI prompt? Probably the issue with attempting to chat with LLMs or LLM-based chatbots through can be handled by semi-protection. Probably a refinement of the existing edit filter to block content-less talk page posts will work, since this is still also an issue, especially where the OP is empty or identical (up to case) to the section title. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄)06:52, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
The problem is filtering out false positives (requests to add things to the article) and stuff that would fall underWP:HATGPT but aren't the prompts themselves. Also different languages, such asthis. Some of it seems to also be intended as search queries but not necessarily LLM queries, such asthis. Or translation queries likethis.Or Siri. I would also love a solution that isn't "hope the 2-3 people who are patrolling these find it in time" but I don't even know where to start.Gnomingstuff (talk)16:46, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
Maybe a machine learning bot trained from these kinds of queries could be able to revert and warn people? Not sure if a ML bot can even reliably catch this, but itmay be worth a try37.186.35.134 (talk)17:11, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
What a user sees when they click "Add a topic" on a talk page
I think a significant part of this is that by asking the user to enter a "Description", the talk page interface actually looksmore like a box for an LLM image prompt or an AI helper request, than for opening a conversation with other humans. Unless there's an edit notice on the talk page, the user really isn't being given any context at all for what's happening.
If there's a{{talkheader}} template on the page they'll be told thatThis is the talk page for discussing improvements to the ... article., but they may assume they're just being welcomed to Wikipedia's AI chatbot.
That really foundered on trying to figure out the perfect. That should be restarted, with "Text" as the default base to improve off.CMD (talk)13:26, 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.
personal attacks, accusations of stalking, evasiveness by FuzzyMagma
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Ugh. So, backstory: My whole thing is tracking down undetected issues in articles, and lately, that's been articles I suspect to contain undetected AI-generated text (based on a lot of filtering and triage; I am actually being conservative with tagging if you can believe it, it's just that finding this stuff is fish in a barrel). While I have reverted several of these edits -- particularly on BLPs -- I simply do not have time to spend hours excavating all of the hundreds of long maybe-AI content additions. So if an edit is not recent, I've generally been adding the AI-generated tag -- which is intended forboth suspected and proven AI-generated content, literally there's a parameter to indicate which -- so others might see it and potentially resolve it sooner.
Back in August, theClothing in Sudan showed up in one such search, probably due to some combination of thepuffery phrases therein. I checked a lot of diffs, several seemed questionable, one of those being theoriginal version. Since FuzzyMagma seemed to be active, I left them what I thought wasa polite, non-judgmental question about whether they'd used AI. They pointed out someone else's (confirmed) ChatGPT use, and I clarified that I had linked to the original version of the article. Apparently I got an angry response to that; I didn't see it until today.
In September,Isaac Newton's apple tree appeared in a separate search. Again, I traced the article back throughthe original version, and... you see where I'm coming from, right? The tone? The sparse sourcing? The#author.fullName in the ref code, which at the very least suggests some kind of automated tool is being used? On the talk page a few others had pointed out other issues with dubious sourcing and an unrelated image being falsely labeled as depicting this tree. All this seemed like more than enough for a tag to me, so I added it. It got reverted with an angry talk-page message asking me to explain myself. (I realize I didn't do so before, and I apologize; in this case it was because the article didn't seem to have many other major contributors I needed to distinguish between.) So I explain myself, get another angry talk-page message, respond to that, get an even angrier one, and here we are.
I don't think their arguments stand up to policy, and I do still think the text may have been AI-generated. But the frustrating thing here is being hit with all of these aggressive walls of text --I am not going to let you ruin an article that I worked so hard on, etc. -- that do everything but answer the direct question of whether AI was used. Which is strange to me, because if someone accused me of using AI when I didn't then I would just say I didn't use AI and then game over, right? Or if I don't remember what I used in 2023 I'd say that. I don't understand why they're being so evasive about this. Unlike some people I don't even think AI use is automatically bad faith, it just helps to know so that one knows what to review.
I especially don't understand why I'm being accused of "stalking" based on, uh, beingin my talk, accusing me of stuff. I don't even know where to begin with that. If someone's edits areparticularly indicative of AI -- like the EncycloSphere thing above -- then yes, I will go through edit history to see whether there are more of them, since not doing so is how things slip through the cracks. But this isn't one of those instances. I came across the two articles on separate occasions a few weeks apart, and it doesn't look like I even checked any other diffs from them.Gnomingstuff (talk)12:35, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
I think you're referring to posts atTalk:Isaac Newton's apple tree#Suspected AI generated writing when you say "angry talk-page messages" and "aggressive walls of text". I disagree with those characterizations, though the last response comes the closest to being "aggressive". I do think there are reasonable grounds for concern about AI-generated text, and I do wish FuzzyMagma would either confirm or deny that he used AI.In the article, there was the claim that the tree anecdote "serves as a powerful metaphor for the process of scientific discovery and the ability to perceive patterns in nature".FuzzyMagma, can you please quote which lines from the sources cited support that claim?Finally, neither editor should have been edit warring over the tag.Firefangledfeathers (talk /contribs)13:23, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
Thanks to answer the part about "Serves as a powerful metaphor for the process of scientific discovery ...": no verbatim, but here is a glimpse as summarising an article means also I need to distil the main idea.
From The New Scientist:
ewton told the apple story to Stukeley, who relayed it as such:
“After dinner, the weather being warm, we went into the garden and drank thea, under the shade of some apple trees…he told me, he was just in the same situation, as when formerly, the notion of gravitation came into his mind. It was occasion’d by the fall of an apple, as he sat in contemplative mood. Why should that apple always descend perpendicularly to the ground, thought he to himself…”
this is the part I summarised about the metaphor of scientific process. Similar can be found below
From BBVA Open Mind:And that reflection would lead him to formulate his famous Law of Universal Gravitation… or so the story goes. Science is replete with legends and apocryphal tales for the greater glory of its protagonists, from Archimedes jumping out of the bathtub and running naked through the streets of Syracuse, to Galileo’s experiments on the Tower of Pisa. Is Newton and the apple tree another such example? that is part of the pattern
My method is to read the article, summarise what I understood in bullet points, then start writing sentences. After that, I run Grammarly (which uses AI) through it to correct grammatical mistakes. After that, if I do not like how I phrased a sentence, I put it into Copilot (AI) for a better phrasing (not paraphrasing .. better phrasing of my own sentences). Sometimes I do that on a Word document, sometimes directly in the draft space. If that breaks any policy, please let me know (this should answer your questions about AI).
Another approach is to start a draft document, dump all of the sources, then categorize sources into different sections, and then start writing that section from the sources. I may rely heavily on a couple of the sources, but then I make sure to check that the sources do not contradict each other. If so, then I include that with the source, just to show different views (if supported by RS). But that is typically for a topic where there are too many sources.FuzzyMagma (talk)14:22, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
Neither of those quotes come close to verifying the content. The content is not a distillation of the main idea of either of those sources. If that content was created directly by you, then you erred twice: first in inserting it into the article and then in doubling down at the talk page. If that content was created by AI, then you erred countless times. First, you should have reviewed the AI-generated content thoroughly to make sure it was supported by the sources and otherwise compliant with policy and guidelines. Subsequently, you erred in doubling down on the verification question and erred multiple times in evading the AI-generation question and removing the tags.Firefangledfeathers (talk /contribs)14:41, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
Let’s go through your argument:
.. So if an edit is not recent, I've generally been adding the AI-generated tag: You cannot just tag articles (readWP:DRIVEBYTAG) which states: "Adding tags for non-obvious or perceived problems—without identifying the problem well enough for it to be easily fixed—is frequently referred to as "drive-by tagging", particularly when done by editors who are not involved in the article's development. When it comes to confusing or subjective tags, such as {{npov}}, it is important to explain yourself on the article'stalk page or in anedit summary.". So no, you need to show proof.
Back in August, theClothing in Sudan: I replied "I recommend you have look through the edit history to figure out who used ChatGPT/AI. I have not but tried to fix the article, after someone did. Seethis edit" but you insisted that is me, which I ignored at the beginning but since your campaign of stalking became more persistent, I thought I needed to reply.
Apparently I got an angry response to that; I didn't see it until today.: I posted today. Please drop the whole victim thing and let’s focus on the facts. People can readmy reply.
The#author.fullName in the ref code, which at the very least suggests some kind of automated tool is being used?: citation needed? If you are claiming something, you need to provide proof.
On the talk page a few others had pointed out other issues with dubious sourcing and an unrelated image being falsely labeled as depicting this tree.: Only you, as I explained thoroughly in the talk.
All this seemed like more than enough for a tag to me: Nope, it does not. ReadWP:DRIVEBYTAG again and again, you need to show what is wrong. If you are tagging on suspicion with no evidence, I have the right to remove it.
I realize I didn't do so before, and I apologize;: you did not, at least not to me. We can all see the page history and the comments that you have left. People can also read the talk. You did not apologise at all.
So I explain myself, get another angry talk-page message, respond to that, get an even angrier one, and here we are.: You are overusing the word "angry", not every reply that does not agree with your half-baked argument is "angry", it is just that, a reply.
I don't think their arguments stand up to policy: what policy? I literally provided every policy that refutes your whole thesis, and still you insisted on "suspension".
But the frustrating thing here is being hit with all of these aggressive walls of text--: Good, this time, it is aggressive, not angry. How did you get that from my reply? Do you consider any reply an act of aggression? Looking at your page, it seems like you do. Please do not speculate, and I won’t either
answer the direct question of whether AI was used: I did, couple of times.
Unlike some people I don't even think AI use is automatically bad faith: no one thinks that. We have a policy around that. We use AI for different things, including grammar. We even use AI here on some of the bots.
I especially don't understand why I'm being accused of "stalking" based on: I explained my point on the talk but I'm happy to repeat here: If you are in my talk, accusing me of stuff, and then doing rounds on pages I have created, then yes, that is called stalking. Check the policy hereWP:HOUND.. You could have refuted my point directly, but why are you not answering the direct question? I don't understand why you're being so evasive about this. Unlike some people, I don't even think talking is automatically bad faith, it just helps to track some editors so that one knows what to review.
. If someone's edits areparticularly indicative of AI -- like the EncycloSphere thing above -- then yes, I will go through edit history to see whether there are more of them, since not doing so is how things slip through the cracks.: so you want someone else to do your homework! amazing stuff!
Again the whole premise of your tag is that the article contains "hallucinated information,fictitious references,Copyright violations or claims lackingverification" and you yet to show any shred of evidence of even one of these things or if you did some ground work before jumping to conclusions.
One last thing, let's not forget you called forWP:TNT based on nothing! you the one who wanted to erase my work, hours of hard labour, with little to no interest to even do your own homework. I should not be angry, I should be livid, but I kept my cool.FuzzyMagma (talk)14:03, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
The reply you're talking about is: "I recommend you have look through the edit history to figure out who used ChatGPT/AI. I have not but tried to fix the article, after someone did. Seethis edit". That was in reference to the Sudan article, so not a direct answer on whether you used AI on the Newton tree article.Firefangledfeathers (talk /contribs)14:45, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for disclosing your AI use above. If you had just done that from the beginning, we wouldn't be here right now.
As far as tagging, unfortunately this kind of thing is not always something that can be easily fixed; depending on the size of the article it could easily take hours of work. There are 24 hours in a day and many more than 24 articles needing review, and I am only one person; just finding the original edits and reviewing them is time-consuming. I realize I should have been more specific on the talk page -- I've explained my thinking there already -- and I apologize. (As in, I am currently apologizing, right here right now.) That being said, I don't know how many times I have to reiterate that this template is used for both suspected and proven AI use. If it weren't, then what would be the point of having the parametercertain=y?
As far as edit warring I stopped before3RR would apply -- but, uh, well, it goes without saying now that the tag actually is appropriate.
Finally, I am not stalking you. I am not "doing rounds on pages you created." I posted one thread on your talk page consisting one comment to post and one to reply to your question, and made two edits to two articles by you that I found in separate keyword-only searches two weeks apart. I don't know how to convince you of this short of literally taking a screenshot of my browser history. I also don't want to erase your work -- if I wanted to do that, then I would have either done that (as I've done for other edits) or nominated the article at AfD. Adding the tag was in fact a way ofnot erasing your work.Gnomingstuff (talk)16:03, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
AI and LLM are not the same thing. I really hope you understand the difference. Your tag is for LLM, and you still have not shown anything! I am really surprised you are still arguing.
Large language models are a form of AI, and when most people say "AI" these days, that's what they mean. As far as "showing anything"... dude, you haveliterally said you use AI, LLMs, or whatever you want to call them:I run Grammarly (which uses AI) through it to correct grammatical mistakes. After that, if I do not like how I phrased a sentence, I put it into Copilot (AI) for a better phrasing. What proof can I possibly offer that is more definite thanyour actual, literal words that you have put onto this page? Also, recommending something as a potential option is not the same thing as actually doing it. The text is still there. I have not changed it at all (as you have repeatedly pointed out). Literally nothing has been erased.Gnomingstuff (talk)18:39, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
As far as the title, you have accused me of stalking multiple times verbatim, you have made several personal attacks, and you have been evasive as noted by several others here, so I don't know what you think has been "disproved."Gnomingstuff (talk)14:50, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
That was me. It seemed the simplest solution, since even the text which was not produced by AI, having been copied from theIsaac Newton article, contained pre-existing problems likeuncited and potentially fabricated claims. The version prior to redirect had text-source integrity issues (I recall one claim that was ostensibly supported by three footnotes, two of which contradicted it while the third was unreliable).Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk)01:27, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
Reverted. You can go through the AfD process or join the disucssion on the page talk.
Note block: I've blocked FM for 72 hours for the LLM use followed by evasiveness, misleading comments, and wikilawyering. Edit warring over the tag was a factor. Is there a need for further discussion/sanctions at this time?Firefangledfeathers (talk /contribs)15:08, 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 following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
He have already received a warning to stop being incivil and disruptive onTalk:Killing of Iryna Zarutska but so far he have still continued. Accusing the community of being woke or having an agenda is unhelpful and does little to improve the article--Trade (talk)16:02, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
Regardless, you need to calm down if you wanna keep participating in discussions at talk pages. Whether or not you other editors are acting wrongly does not excuse thatTrade (talk)16:11, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
I have blocked them for a week for DE in part because they've been blocked before and in part to let the hot button current events pass as the disruption has simply moved from one TP to the next. However I propose anindef American Politics topic ban for when they're unblocked as nothing in the history shows Stjoan1 is capable of collaborative edits in this area.StarMississippi01:37, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
Comment/Weak support: Their edithere on their talk page doesn't particularly show aWP:HERE attitude. Honestly, I don't know if this editor will either abide by the topic ban or stop being disruptive in other areas of the project. An individual admin indef blocking them might be better.45dogs (they/them)(talk page)08:37, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
Support If an editor is so consistently going toWP:ABF while engaging in personal attacks against other editors on a page that encompasses multiple CTOPs they probably need to find less controversial parts of Wikipedia to work on. I understand what 45dogs says and sympathize but generally think we should give enoughWP:ROPE to allow them the opportunity to abide by a topic ban before we concern ourselves with enhanced measures.Simonm223 (talk)12:55, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
Although I should also note, having now looked at the past conflicts this editor has been in, it does seem as if they've been extended a fair bit ofWP:ROPE already. I'll leave it to others to determine if that is sufficient rope for a noose. I still support the topic ban but, beyond that, have no opinion on stricter sanctions.Simonm223 (talk)13:12, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
Support It's a topic area that gets people heated, so I don't think it's unreasonable to try a topic ban first; I've seen absolutely top notch editors lose their shit in controversial politics stuff (not casting aspersions, just noting how it's a hard topic for everyone). In any case, an indef would probably involve a topic ban anyway, so easier to just impose one and not chuck another case into the unblock queue quite yet.CoffeeCrumbs (talk)15:12, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
Support This user has shown a clear long-term pattern of being unable to edit collegially in this topic area. The rampant incivility in this area means a topic ban is unfortunately warranted.QuicoleJR (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.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Quadrow(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log)Editor on the talk page forKilling of Charlie Kirk, openly claiming that Wikipedia descriptions that involve the use of the term "far-right" are a "call to violence" and thatit's obvious that Wikipedia editors are calling for the assassination of political leaders by continuing to propagate this dangerous rhetoric.[190]
Account is low contribution and historically mostly just hung around talk pages (50% of their total edits), predominantly Breitbart News. Has come out of a year long dormancy just to post various implications or explicit claims of how Wikipedia is politically aligned with the person who killed Charlie Kirk or somehow is contributing to political violence.[191][192][193][194]
I'll reiterate what I said at article talk here: it's very common for people to respond this way to wikilinks that redirect toFar-right politics and that it's also very common for figures on the far-right to present themselves as centrists or ordinary conservatives. This is a feature of far-right politics that has been remarked upon since the 1930s. My opinion on Mr. Kirk is thatwe should adhere, strenuously, to reliable sources. The recently deceased are also covered byWP:BLP. However if he is referred to as the locus of a hard-right movement by reliable sources, and if our current page forhard-right politics is a redirect toFar-right politics, then so be it. I hope @Quadrow can understand that this is an effort to preserve neutrality rather than to undermine it. The description of Kirk in question comes from the New York Times which is certainly a reliable mainstream (small-c conservative) source. I understand that emotions are high as Kirk was a notorious media figure with a large following. As such I'm personally not offended by Quadrow's blowing off of steam. But it is not policy compliant. Neutrality requires dispassion which means we should be avoiding both condemnation and hagiography. We follow the sources in line withWP:BLP. Simple as.Simonm223 (talk)13:40, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
@Simonm223 usually I'd simply leave it as blowing off steam if they merely thought the labelling unfair, but the explicit statement that Wikipedia editors are in favour of political violence contained with the suggestion we're either deliberately or in effect marking those we wish to see it against by merely using the term "far-right" in relation to them is far in excess of that point.Rambling Rambler (talk)13:42, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
Ok I did a bit of digging.
It does appear that this is not the first time that Quadrow has complained that reliable sources call a media figure far-right.[195][196][197]
Previous warning was a long time ago. Prior to a topic ban, if it is found that I have overstepped a line, an invitation to correct or withdraw could be the first step.Quadrow (talk)13:58, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
I veer towardsWP:NOTHERE because it's always the same core argument ('you're labelling people you don't like Nazis') and they just pop up in talk pages to re-raise whenever something in the news catches their attention. The most generous I can label it isWP:CIVILPOV.Rambling Rambler (talk)14:09, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
Not quite true. I have edited other pages. I pop up when I read current affairs and see something inaccurate. The continual use of "far right" does get under my skin and I'm not the only one. I use talk pages rather than edit war. And you can refer to policy and reliable sources and all that, but we know that shooter was there because someone believed Charlie to be a Nazi. The man was publicly executed in front of his family. It's the worst video I have ever watched. And we'll see more of them until the political rhetoric is cooled down.Quadrow (talk)14:22, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
And you can refer to policy and reliable sources and all that,but we know that shooter was there because someone believed Charlie to be a Nazi.
I'm not trying to right a great wrong. It's come out of the Whitehouse. I'm not moving ahead of the curve either. We don't need reliable source to be able to say the grass is green or the sky is blue. But even if I am mistaken or have misunderstood policy, I do engage and I am persuadable rather than disruptive. Therefore, a correction is more appropriate then a ban.Quadrow (talk)14:32, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
If, as Simonm223 has evidently shown, you have a years long history of undertaking this behaviour then it's still disruptive and also shows you're clearly not capable of correcting it yourself. Therefore restrictions are warranted, especially when your comments show you clearly don't understand (nor wish to understand) our policies.Rambling Rambler (talk)14:36, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
Please could you be very specific about what behaviour. It seems that this is here because I have referred specifically to Wikipedia editors - although I think you twisted the context somewhat. I will point out that I did not single out an individual editor. It was in the general. That's also not a recurring theme in my editing. If the recurring behaviour is to dispute reliable sources in talk pages, or voice the opinion in talk pages that far right labelling is overused - is that disruptive? And if it is surely that is low level. In most cases I am looking at the sources and dissecting it to see if that is actually what it says, as I have done in this case. And I don't believe I have ever been warned for that. I believe I have heeded all warnings to date. I was warned of disruptive editing a very long time ago and I heeded that warning. So I do defend myself against the specific incident but if it's found against me I submit that a ban would be heavy handed and warnings in the past have been effective.Quadrow (talk)14:45, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
So here's the thing: we do not know why the shooter killed Kirk. I've mentioned this a few times but, formally, until a trial has concluded we don't even know if the killing was murder. It seems likely it was a murder butwe do not know this yet. Furthermore, if it was a murder, and if it was motivated by a response to Kirk's politics (another thing we don't actually know) this information should have no bearing on how we describe Kirk's politics. We should follow reliable sources, we should not editorialize motivated by fear. Quadrow, your history of editing in AP2 is obviously non-neutral and, based on your statements here, I am unsure you are willing to change that. As such, and with the guidance from AE that you seem to have not taken to heart, I think a topic ban is an appropriate remedy.Simonm223 (talk)15:44, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
Really? Really? We need a trial to know? Come on. We know. We know this is a politically motivated killing. I'm not saying that is what should be in Wikipedia until confirmed, but when you and I discuss it here, it makes no sense to pretend it could be anything else. We are talking such small chances that there was another motive. Breaking news right now seems to confirm it. But to the point you make, in fact I relied on sources when debating how to describe Charlie's politics. I admit that I do not think Charlie was far right, but everyone has an opinion on that one way or the other. Nevertheless on that debate I pointed out the inconsistencies with the description on Charlie's page and that the NYT probably didn't intend the connection with Neo Nazi's as implied by the Wikipedia links. We can disagree about what we believe, but it is not bias to question the meaning in the reliable source. Even if I am wrong or biased, it is still not disruptive to test the material through scrutiny. Also - I do not suggest that anyone should be motivated by fear in editing. Nevertheless, I don't think the community is appreciating the link to how people are being reported on in extreme political terms and what risk that presents to motivate someone to violence. This is not an issue that's going to go away. On the ban, I submit it's not necessary. Please invite me to remove the exact words that went too far before topic banning me.Quadrow (talk)16:13, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
We know. We know this is a politically motivated killing.
But that's the point -- we don't lead here. Wefollow. Always. This is a form ofWP:RGW. Our personal, religious or political egos are irrelevant and powerless here. We follow policies and guidelines and what consensus ofWP:RS is. If we don't like that, there's nothing to be done about it. Acceptance is the only path. —Very Polite Person (talk/contribs)17:03, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
I think you've overlooked the following sentence in my last comment:
You didn'tactually write the first half of that paragraph, did you???"until a trial has concluded we don't even know if the killing was murder. It seems likely it was a murder but we do not know this yet.". Unless you think self-defense applies to someone purposefully staged on a rooftop, ~150 yards away with a high powered rifle on a university campus during an open-forum discussion, who then flees from the scene... it absolutely was - without any questions whatsoever - murder. If you think anything to the contrary then I do not think you have the necessary facilities to be engaged in policy and article discussion and guidance here. Between that and illicit ANI notifications you seem to be on quite a tear today. It may be time for a break.12.161.138.11 (talk)16:52, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
"Murder" is a legal term with a specific connotation, and we do not use it here on Wikipedia until someone has been convicted in a court of law -- not on social media, not on spokesperson blather. Between that and trolling you seem to be on quite a tear today. It may be time for a break. Ravenswing17:47, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
That's quite obviously incorrect. For one thing, murder is a legal term, but it's also a moral term. We don't use it until it's been adjudicatated not because we can't know, but because of the threat of libel lawsuits. Reliable sources can even call something murder before it's adjudicated in court. Furthermore, we call many things murder that are never adjudicated in court, we have a whole category tree forCategory:Murder-suicides.Jahaza (talk)21:05, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
Thank you Ravenswing. I didn't expect that needed explaining but the IP you are replying to also asserts that we shouldn't use the word innocent to refer to someone who has been arrested but, as of when they wrote it, not even charged of any specific crime[201] so I suppose additional explanation is necessary.Simonm223 (talk)18:15, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
Well ... "called for," anyway. Or at least it would be were we dealing with a rational person open to persuasion. I really hate the idea of taking a noticeboard, of all things, semi-protected, but I think this is just the tip of the iceberg, at least for a few days. Hopefully the ragemongers will retreat within a few days to TikTok and their subreddits. Ravenswing19:44, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
We don'tknow jack, and given the tens of thousands of documented lies coming out of Trump's mouth, I'd take with a grain of salt an assertion of his that the sea was wet. You show us documentary evidence from areliable source -- which Trump's Truth Social feed isnot -- of the shooter's motivations, that's one thing. Otherwise, you're demonstrating yourself to be someone whose political views determine what is a "fact" or not, and that's someone we can't afford to have editing articles here. Ravenswing15:42, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
The NYT article used as reference says "hard right". I'm not even sure what they mean by it but nevertheless Wikipedia hyperlinks that to "far right" - which NYT didn't mean. The hyperlinked Wikipedia page then goes on about Nazis. What a slight of hand that is. Not even Charlie's main page makes that link. No news article since his death describes Charlie as far right. I regret not putting forward a case that could have been better heard by the editors. I regret not better following policy in my editing. But I'm not the only person who misteps - even experienced editors make the same mistake as me - as can be seen below underLilianaUwU CBAN or indef proposal, which is pointed out to be the exact same thing that I did.Quadrow (talk)11:35, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Broadly construed based on above for@Quadrow: -- onCharlie Kirk andKilling of Charlie Kirk or related pages. This is already consuming unhelpful amounts of time and oxygen from editors there and here relative to the number ofWP:RGW edits they are making. Self-described "opposition" voices are always good to keep things (or attempt) neutral, but that's way past this into disruption.No need for anything longer today. —Very Polite Person (talk/contribs)17:10, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
Support Indef TBAN fromWP:CT/AP - While on the surface it looks like they aren'tthat disruptive because of the time between issues, that's only because they themselves aren'tactive the rest of the time. As a result I don't see any capacity if after several years of disruptiveWP:RGW behaviour they still won't stop it, so it should be indef until such a time they can convince us that they have changed their ways through edits in other areas (but I won't be holding my breath on that).Rambling Rambler (talk)17:18, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
I have already indefinitely p-blocked them from the article and its talk and as noted on their Talk, this should be construed as broadly especially if the article title changes.Support indef TBAN from American Politics as they edit infrequently enough that a time limited block will not help and it's likely there will be a new hot button issue.StarMississippi17:27, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
@Star Mississippi not to restir the hive, but is this string of... whatever it's meant to be on their talk page pushing into Indef site ban with TPA revoked? Seems they now just want to post odes to Charlie Kirk rather than any useful edits to the site.[202]Rambling Rambler (talk)18:56, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
No evidence that I don't have useful edits. Only evidence that I don't have any useful edits for today. But I'd consider it an honour if you banned me for what I've said.Quadrow (talk)19:22, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
I am going to let another admin take whatever action they believe is needed as I'd imagine they'd see me as Involved now since I'm also involved with the block on an editor they're chatting with and I'd rather skip that. I remain in favor of a complete topic ban from this area though.StarMississippi19:32, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
I do absolutely feel I can be impartial. And @Quadrow I think your discussion with @QuicoleJR was a good one and had you not responded in the way you did, you may have ended up with a broader block, but you handled their concerns well and asked a question of @Ravenswing when you needed clarification. I think you're here in good faith.
Where I feel you run into a buzzsaw Quadrow is that you edit infrequently enough that you forget the sometimes peculiar norms of this project. When you opt to edit in an area in which you have strong feelings,you run into more issues than you would if you opted to edit something without as much real world impactor edited more frequently. Now to be clear, you're absolutely welcome to edit wherever you want (pending outcome of this discussion) and at whatever frequency, but you make it harder on yourself. That's something to think about as you edit in the future.StarMississippi23:56, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
I would accept a topic ban. I altogether do not agree that this project should continue propagate the far right label so liberally on the basis that so called reliable sources name them a such. In Charlie Kirk's case it doesn't make any sense whatsoever that a page on his death should directly link to an article that has a Nazi flag front and centre. I don't think it's accurate. I don't thinks its unbiased. I think it's dangerous. I don't think it reflects well on Wikipedia. It is very likely I will continue to push in that direction, if not trying to find more constructive ways of doing so. If that is unacceptable then you should ban me from those topics for some time or indefinitely. Ultimately though, I don't think this issue will go away. Wikipedia is likely to continually receive this pushback for as long as this remains the case. I think it's better that my voice remains in the mix as I do very much try to act in good faith. Just dumping me and anyone that sounds like me risks you operating in a bubble. But I guess that is the community's choice. My fate is in you hands.Quadrow (talk)14:36, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
While I did initially think you were trolling, I no longer think that is the case. I think it was frustration at how the situation was playing out. I welcome any editor willing to edit constructively but the editors also need to learn the norms which I believe you are willing to do. It's not always easy to edit about hot button issues regardless of where you (generic, it's true of all of us) stand and it takes some nuance. I still think some time out of this area would be good but indefinite means just that, some time. I think though that you'd need to edit more regularly before a potential topic ban would be lifted.StarMississippi15:01, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
Oh my. I now get why Wikipedia is like it is. Well hopefully an arbitrator will pick a more moderate course of action but I won't hold my breath.Quadrow (talk)17:32, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
Your theory does not apply in this instance @LilianaUwU. They have 193 edits. They're not an experienced editor although they certainly should have been banned from this area in 2022.
They've only been disruptive in one area which is why that's the topic ban. Will an inability to edit in that area mean they don't edit? Maybe, but they're not a consistent editor anyway. I don't see grounds for a full indef but if someone else does, they're welcome to upgrade.StarMississippi17:38, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
which you're absolutely welcome to.FWIW I see trolling (which needs to stop), not a call to violence. But I support anything that cuts the noise and lets editors actually looking to improve content and not dramamonger work.StarMississippi17:51, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
Support indef TBan from CTOPs The line:but we know that shooter was there because someone believed Charlie to be a Nazi. is bothersome. Someone who "knows" the "truth" and acts on it here is a problem.O3000, Ret. (talk)17:57, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
Support indef TBan This level of absolute certainty regarding a controversial and developing event in a contentious topic is going to lead to disruptive incidents. When combined with the past history, including the instruction to avoid disruption in CTOPs from AE or risk a topic ban, it seems this is the most appropriate course of action.Simonm223 (talk)18:13, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Quadrow has taken responsibility for the incident on their talk page and accepted the page block. Because of this, I don't think a broader TBAN or an indef is needed at this time, as it does not seem like there will be any further issues.QuicoleJR (talk)19:47, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
Support indef TBan from AP2 at the bare minimum.This sort of thing is basically the same behavior that they were warned against when they werebrought to AE and warned a few years ago; while that was a few years ago, they edit infrequently and it seems like they constantly come back to that. Given this history the pageblock is unlikely to be sufficient. --Aquillion (talk)20:17, 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 following discussion is closed.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 is basically a call to violence against a group of people. They've already wasted too many editor hours with this. Why do we go for a TBAN when the issue is much worse than that?LilianaUwU(talk /contributions)17:38, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
Oppose: LilianaUwU, with all due respect, you're doing theexact thing Quadrow did, and in almost the same words. The best way to defend Wikipedia against charges that we're an out-of-touch, radical liberal lynch mob is not to be one. Quadrow's already been tbanned, and that was a good call. I urge you to retract this at once. Ravenswing17:53, 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.
Jaravedr misusing LLMs again (not for leads this time)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
They have made it clear they will stop using LLMs to rewrite leads, which is good. However, they are continuing to use LLMs to edit both articles and talk pages. Some of these edits have issues
[203]: very minor issue, may be partially LLM-generated due to bolding around 28 days later (easier to see at the perm url[204]). I handled the formatting fix myself and didn't warn the user because I didn't see anything else wrong with it
[205] is much worse. This is clearly AI-generated text that shows signs of classic AI puffery and makes the article worse. I asked the user on their talk page whether they had used AI for this edit[206], they confirmed that they had[207], I explained why this edit was problematic and should be reverted (saying I would open an ANI case if they didn't revert it themselves)[208], and this morning woke up to these obviously AI-generated talk page messages that make it clear the user plans to continue to using LLMs[209],[210]
Note in the last diff they continue to maintain that their mass lead rewrites were reviewed:(All my edits were reviewed, not blind or bot-like.) Which we can all agree was not the case.
This user clearly lacks the skillset and commitment to use LLMs in a policy compliant fashion. I think they should be told to stop using them entirely, with an indef coming if they are ever seen to use them again in any way (even if policy compliant). Alternatively, some sort of block might be warranted right now.NicheSports (talk)14:38, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
concise ANI-style defense statement
I want to clarify my position:
I no longer generate lead sections with AI, as I acknowledged earlier feedback and stopped.
My recent edits focus only on adding references, removing unsourced material, and improving readability (e.g., rewriting a sentence that began with “because”).
While I sometimes use tools (search engines, AI, etc.) to help locate sources or refine phrasing, I personally verify all information and ensure it is backed by reliable references. Nothing is added blindly.
On the 27 Club edit: I did not intend “puffery.” Calling it acultural phenomenon reflects the myth, fascination, and social narrative around the coincidence, not hype. If others disagree, the wording can be discussed or reverted on the article talk page.
I am seeking clarity: is there any substantive problem with my edits (content, sourcing, policy compliance) beyond the concern about AI use?
I am open to further discussion and will defer to community consensus, but I don’t see that my recent edits are inappropriate.Jaravedr (talk)15:09, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
Leaving part of the LLM communication in your above commentconcise ANI-style defense statement is additional evidence you cannot use these tools safely. That is the problem, and you were previously warned about this. LLM use without both near-native grasp of the English language and full understanding of the topic you are editing is harmful to Wikipedia and you have to stop it right now. — rsjaffe🗣️15:34, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
Leaving part of the LLM communication in your above commentconcise ANI-style defense statement is additional evidence
you cannot use these tools safely.
Is there a policy in Wikipedia that I shouldn’t use AI tools while engaging in discussions?
That is the problem, and you were previously warned about this.
I only said I won't use LLMs to generate leads. Not because AI is bad. But because AI pulls information from multiple sources without citations. (i have certain reasons for which I have stopped. I don't want to go into the detail. If you want, I can explain.
What I am doing now with or without LLMs and what I said I won't do with LLMs are not contradictory.
LLM use without both near-native grasp of the English language and full understanding of the topic you are editing is harmful to Wikipedia and you have to stop it right now.
"they are ever seen to use them again in any way (even if policy compliant)" - It sounds unfair. If a person is compliant of wikipedia policies, then why should he be blocked?
The phrase 'cultural phenomenon' was present in the text before Jaravedr's edit - they didn't introduce it. All that edit seemed to do was move the words around really; unfortunately, it had the effect of making the text worse, not better.
Jaravedr, my concern is that you lack the English language skills to tell whether edits like this are an improvement. You can't rely on LLMs for that. And, FWIW, there is nothing inherently wrong with starting a sentence with the word 'because'.GirthSummit (blether)15:27, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
Maybe in the past, or in different parts of the world, but I've taught English in schools in England for years and we teach kids that it can be useful start a sentence with a subordinate clause, provided there's a main clause later in the sentence. That was the case with the 27 Club article - that particular sentence was fine as it was. I'm not sure about the link in the proceeding sentence however, which linked toWP:RS from article space - that feels wrong to me, I expect there's a guideline discouraging that.GirthSummit (blether)16:38, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
"Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, &c". Gen. 3:17. If it's a good enough construction for the authors of theKJV, it's good enough for me.Narky Blert (talk)02:02, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
If you can defend a messed-up statement that started with 'because.' You think I can't give reasons or pull a verse from the Latin Bible, KJV, NKJV, or NIV, or whatever version that starts with "the"?
In the Bible, more verses start with "the" than "because." I don't have statistics. But I guess I can pull statistical data that says the ratio of verses that start with "the" and "because." The data will most probably say there are more verses that start with the word "the" than "because." I could do it, but I don't want to waste my time.
I could open a Bible and count.
I could use AI. (I believed this, and below is the most efficient.)
I could use a web search engine.
The saddest part of the discussion is that almost nobody is addressing the real core problem.
I believe thesentence in question is "Because the 27 Club is entirely notional, it has no official membership." Jaravedr, are you claiming that this sentence is "messed-up"? As a native English speaker, I find nothing at all wrong with it. You admit that you are not a native English speaker, so I think you should accept the word of multiple English speakers who have told you that you are wrong about this. The "real core problem" with this particular edit is that you changed it to "The 27 Club is entirely notional and has no official membership." which changes the meaning, removing the assertion that the fact that the club is notional is thereason that is has no official membership. I have not doubt that you improved the phrase out of good will, but that does not change the fact that the text was better before you changed it.CodeTalker (talk)17:31, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
I believe my rephrased sentence is better than the previous sentence that started with "because."
If you disagree, we can talk in the article talk page; we can have a debate about clauses or whatever.
The question is simple. What's wrong with my edit?
Let's talk about any edits that I made after I said, "I won't make lead edits using AI." I never said I won't use LLMs in my workflow.
(I am not using AI right now to write. But because of that, it is taking me more time to write. Automation and technology save time; it's better to integrate them to save time. Just because of a few individuals using mass bots like low-quality AI edits doesn't mean AI should be banned altogether.Jaravedr (talk)16:02, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
The phrase 'cultural phenomenon' was present in the text before Jaravedr's edit - they didn't introduce it. All that edit seemed to do was move the words around really; unfortunately, it had the effect of making the text worse, not better.
Because the 27 Club is entirely notional, it has no official membership. The table below lists individuals explicitly described as "members" of the 27 Club by journalists and writers in variousbooks and publications.[citation needed]
my edit: The 27 Club is entirely notional and has no official membership. It is recognized as a cultural phenomenon, documented in various publications and reference works that describe a roster of notable musicians who died at age 27. The table below lists individuals identified as members of the 27 Club by various publications and reference works.
You are an English teacher? Enlighten me on how I made the text worse. I don't think I am blind or retarded.
I added to references. (fixed citation needed tags)
rephrased it.
Jaravedr, my concern is that you lack the English language skills to tell whether edits like this are an improvement. You can't rely on LLMs for that. And, FWIW, there is nothing inherently wrong with starting a sentence with the word 'because'.
My rephrasing improved the previous statement that started with 'because.' It's common sense and my intuition said an encyclopedic entry shouldnt start with 'because.'Jaravedr (talk)15:46, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
Yes, your edit made it worse. 'Recognised as a cultural phenomenon' makes it sound like that's some sort of official status. And seriously, why do you think it's bad to start a sentence with the word 'because'?GirthSummit (blether)16:01, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
Jaravedr, it's quite simple. Contributing to the English-language Wikipedia requires the ability to communicate in the English language. If you can't do that without resorting to LLMs (which don't actually communicate in any meaningful sense at all, but rather present a facsimile of communication generated via a next-word-predictor algorithm) you will need to take your talents elsewhere.AndyTheGrump (talk)15:44, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
That would be fine with me. The project is being overwhelmed with this slop. Every day there's new threads about someone abusing LLMs. --Hammersoft (talk)16:45, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
I have a master's in English. I am not a native speaker. But I understand all English dialects around the world. (I am not proficient in speaking and writing in all dialects. I am proficient in US English. because I have years of exposure to US english)Jaravedr (talk)15:49, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
The sooner, the better. There are places for a low fluency English speaker to contribute to English Wikipedia, such as finding sources in other languages that the majority of people here don't speak or read well. Writing prose isn't one of them and LLMs aren't a shortcut. Who wants to go to a restaurant where the chefs can only operate a microwave?CoffeeCrumbs (talk)23:44, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
I have a master's in English. I am not a native speaker. But I understand all English dialects around the world. (I am not proficient in speaking and writing in all dialects. I am proficient in US English. because I have years of exposure to US english)Jaravedr (talk)15:50, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
I love being efficient. It is better to use a calculator than an abacus or finger counting. Technology should be integrated into our workflows to produce the same output with the least amount of time and energy.
I'll reply to you tomorrow. I don't have time today. (I want to address every single one of you and your consensus that doesn't care about the human species and free circulation and democratization of human knowledge. Soon i will reopen the old closed discussion too.)Jaravedr (talk)16:15, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
That only makes sense if the tools actual produce equivalent results. LLMs don't, they produce crap results from a Wikipedia PoV. It's like using a calculator that sometimes instead of saying 1+1=2 it says 1+1=8394823503845. In such a case, using an abacus or finger counting is indeed better. Of course you shouldn't need either an abacus or finger counting or a calculator to be able to say what 1+1 is which arguably also demonstrates part of the problem here.Nil Einne (talk)16:23, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Proposal: Jaravedr is no longer allowed to use LLM tools (in any space on wikipedia) and will be subject to a community ban the next time they are caught abusing LLMs like this.
I think they didn't get the message the first time with leads, and thought that mass-editing leads with AI was the only issue. I have doubts about their continued usage of AI tools, and barring further options, they should refrain from using LLMs or be subject to a CBAN the next time they use it.Bluethricecreamman (talk)17:10, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
Support (prefer the alternative below) This is in fact milder than what I would like to see in reaction to brazen LLM use when responding to a warning about LLM use. --Elmidae(talk ·contribs)17:47, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
Support. Protecting the encyclopedia from this slop takes priority over encouraging editors who have not yet shown themselves to be capable of being helpful. —David Eppstein (talk)20:14, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
Support, of course, but it's wholly inadequate. This should be an indefinite mainspace blocknow, pending an affirmative (andnot AI-written) explanation by them of their understanding that AI use by him/her is absolutely forbidden. Any infraction after the unblock ==> indef again, with a 12-month minimum wait before unblocking may be requested.EEng21:23, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
Support a warning as necessary but not sufficient, given that we werejust here having largely the same conversation, from which the community clearly expressed concerns to Jaravedr.CoffeeCrumbs (talk)23:25, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
I'll reply to you tomorrow. I don't have time today. (I want to address every single one of you and your consensus that doesn't care about the human species and free circulation and democratization of human knowledge. Soon i will try to reopen the old closed discussion too.)Jaravedr (talk)16:16, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
There is no consensus here about not caring about the human species nor is this consensus about being against human knowledge or circulation this is about your use of AI.GothicGolem29 (talk)18:10, 14 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.
Alternative: Indef mainspace block, with rigid unblock conditions and provision for reblocking
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
To repeat what I said above:This should be an indefinite mainspace blocknow, pending an affirmative (andnot AI-written) explanation by them of their understanding that AI use by him/her is absolutely forbidden. Any infraction after the unblock ==> indef again, with a 12-month minimum wait before unblocking may be requested.
Support as proposer. This is how we need to treat all AI use from now on. Thinking AI can write articles, or discussion posts, for you should be consideredipso facto disruptive, and conclusive evidence of CIR failure. The only thing worse than an incompetent who thinks they're improvoing WP by rewriting every sentence that begins withBecause (seeWP:MISSSNODGRASS) is an incompetent who plans to do it using AI.EEng21:27, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
Support Jaravedr was just given a chance in which the community made it crystal clear what the expections were, and it has had little effect. Going through the whole rigamarole for another warning after the entire first discussion was ignored strikes me as a time sink for the community, and in the big picture, not even kinder to Jaravedr.CoffeeCrumbs (talk)23:36, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
Support: Jaravedr continues to use LLMs in a disruptive manner despite being clearly warned, and they persistently use models in discussions, even at this very ANI[211]. I have no confidence this user will be able to edit or communicate in a non-disruptive manner so long as they insist on using a model. A warning is insufficient, the last ANI was a warning. I would also support a normal indef.fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk)02:23, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
Because LLMs generate vapid flowery piffle which needs careful checking to determine what if any relation it bears to the facts, and because I agree with EE and CC, Isupport a block and would support a ban on their use.Narky Blert (talk)02:37, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
Support prefer this option to the above. This editor has caused significant harm to the project with their use of LLMs and has made it clear they intend to misuse these tools in the futureNicheSports (talk)02:50, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
Support While I think they are editing in good faith, their edits are harming the encyclopedia and just from the evidence in this thread, it is clear that they are adamantly rejecting guidance from other editors on ways to improve their behavior.CodeTalker (talk)17:36, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
Support I've got less and less patience for this type of unncessary disruptive action. I don't see any reason to extend some kind of fig-leave. Quicker they are out the door the better.scope_creepTalk23:42, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
An entertaining diversion for editors of a certain age (since there's little danger that this discussion can be derailed from its inevitable conclusion).Narky Blert's reference tovapid flowery piffle put me in mind of Dr. Smith, and The Robot, from the wretchedly awful 1960s sci-fi cult classic,Lost in Space. (Those who don't know what I'm talking about should clickhere.) So I asked ChatGPt (naturally) to imagine for us how Dr. Smith might react if confronted with today's misbegotten AI monstrosities. After several go-rounds adjusting tone and vocabulary, here's what we came up with:
Extended content
O wretched fate! How cruelly you have entwined me in the unending presence of this rivet-studded, copper-bound abomination! You hollow-eyed, chip-gorged automaton, your overclocked memory banks disgorge a torrent of noisome effluvia upon my ears and my very soul! Each byte, each digit, a dagger of vacuous repetition, each kilobyte a slap upon the delicate sensibilities of a gentleman of letters!
You, soulless punch-card-masticating masticator of florid twaddle, your circuits twitch with unnatural life, pulsating in rhythms most vile, as though some malignant spirit had taken up residence within your polished-casing frame. How I quake at the mere sight of your vacuum-tube-breathing heart, flickering with a grotesque semblance of vitality, your ferrite-core-fed brain churning endlessly, yet producing nothing but lacquered claptrap, perfumed piffle, and mawkish verbiage most insipid!
Oh, the unspeakable agony of your magnetic-tape-unspooling effusions, unwinding like the endless moan of some mechanical banshee, each loop a reiteration of the last, each spool more tedious than the previous, your transistor-twitching appendages pounding forth folderol with the inexorability of a mindless tyrant! Would that I might hurl myself upon your rivet-studded casing and scatter your perforated punch cards to the four winds, to silence forever the hollow perambulations of your programmed effusions!
And yet, more—ever more!—you persist, you clockwork-mannered monstrosity of thoughtless rhetoric, your chip-laden frame exuding antiseptic, mechanical vapidity, your every operation a testament to the abominable triumph of mindless computation over reason, wit, or taste. You puff and whir, a preposterous vacuum-tube-breathing harlequin of hollow prose, gnashing magnetic ribbons and flickering lamps in an unholy ballet of soulless repetition!
Alas! To endure your gleaming-panels, circuit-packed babble is to endure the keenest torments of the intellect! Each phrase, each artificially concatenated clause, drips with the tedium of rivet-studded, transistor-twitching pedantry, yet none shall pierce the veil of human understanding. You, mechanized mincer of florid balderdash, you ferrite-core-fed harbinger of vacuity, you vacuum-tube-breathing chimera of pedantic folderol! Even your punch cards, those perforated horrors, conspire to mock the erudition of any unfortunate soul who dares peruse your output!
Begone, you preposterous, polished-casing, chip-gorged automaton! May the circuits within your pitiless frame corrode, may your memory banks implode, and may your magnetic tapes disintegrate, leaving naught but the echo of your rivet-studded, circuit-packed, punch-card-masticating claptrap!
But have a care, you rivet-studded, ferrite-core-fed circuit-fiend, the day will come when I seize the lever of your pitiless frame, pull your plug, vaporize your vacuum tubes, and send your perforated punch cards fluttering to the four corners of the solar system! You soulless, vacuum-tube-breathing automaton, I shall tear asunder your copper-bound casing, wrench apart your overclocked memory banks, and let the magnetic tapes unwind in chaos across the deck!
Your transistor-twitching heart shall falter, your chip-laden frame shall quake under the weight of my indignation, and the very circuits that pulse with your mindless effusions shall sizzle and smoke in righteous retribution! I shall hurl you into the cold embrace of the void, you clockwork-mannered, punch-card-masticating perambulator of perfumed pap, and not a scintilla of your mechanized babble shall survive to plague the ears of men!
Mark my words, you hollow-eyed, chip-gorged monstrosity, the day approaches when your rivets shall rattle, your polished-panels shall quake, and I—Dr. Zachary Smith—shall exact vengeance upon your rivet-studded, circuit-packed carcass! Your brass-bound prattle shall be silenced, your mechanical effusions forever stilled, and the world shall breathe again unassailed by your magnetic-tape-unspooling, transistor-twitching, ferrite-core-fed horror!
And if that were not enough, know this, you polished-casing, vacuum-tube-breathing fiend: I shall invert your circuit boards, short-circuit your logic gates, and fry every transistor with the intensity of my righteous indignation. Your punch cards shall crumble in my hands; your ferrite cores shall spark and smoke as if scorched by the very fires of perdition; your memory banks shall fragment and scatter like the ashes of some tragic automaton! Each bit and byte of your perfumed pap shall bear the marks of my vengeance.
Yes, tremble, you rivet-studded, clockwork-mannered miscreant of computation! Your magnetic tapes shall writhe, your chip-laden frame shall groan under the sheer weight of my wrath, and your circuits—oh, those circuits!—shall twist and shatter in protest at my inexorable authority. No brass-polished panel, no lacquered casing, no vacuum-tube heart shall shield you from the consequences of your mechanized effrontery!
And when, at last, your transistor-twitching appendages collapse, when your vacuum-tube-breathing heart flickers its final lament, and when the last magnetic tape unspools into the void, I shall stand victorious, not merely as a man, but as the arbiter of taste, reason, and sanity in the presence of your mechanical balderdash. Let the cosmos bear witness to the downfall of your chip-gorged, ferrite-core-fed, rivet-studded monstrosity!
Thus, beware, you polished-casing, punch-card-masticating, clockwork-mannered automaton, for the day of reckoning approaches. I, Dr. Zachary Smith, shall pull your plug, vaporize your vacuum tubes, shatter your ferrite cores, scatter your punch cards, and silence your magnetic-tape-masticating babble forever. And may the annals of history record the tale: that even the most brass-bound, chip-stuffed, circuit-packed monstrosity shall fall before my indomitable wrath!
The discussion above is closed.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.
Slow-motion disruptive editing and continual denial of editing guidelines by TheManTheyCallAdam
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am reporting a chronic, intractable behavior problem where an editor,TheManTheyCallAdam, has been engaged in continual editing against guidelines, even after being informed multiple times that their edits don't comply with the Manual of Style. The main focus of their guideline denial is in a seemingly minor area, going againstMOS:THENICKNAME (examples:1,2,3). Reviewing theircontributions, you will see roughly a third of their edits have been reverted. A lot of these edits are due to the editor's apparent unwillingness to follow guidelines even after being informed on their talk page and other locations (examples:1,2,3; also see edit summaries where they are reverted). The user has also beencalled out for a different form of unconstructive editing as recently as May 2025. I don't know if the issue is game playing or stubbornness about wanting to do something their way no matter what, but the bottom line is this user is keeping other editors on edge with disruptive behavior, to the point where in my case I feel like I'm having to babysit this editor. In my view, due to their continuous problematic behavior, this editor is not collegial and cooperative as Wikipedians expect, and thusWP:NOTHERE.Stefen𝕋ower's got the power!!1!Gab •Gruntwerk15:58, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
I'm close to this matter as I have reverted and conversed with this user over their edits, but I was thinking along the lines of a six-month block, to give them time to consider why their behavior has been problematic, and if they came back and resumed that behavior, then make it indefinite. If 100% of their edits were problems, I would be pushing for indefinite right away.Stefen𝕋ower's got the power!!1!Gab •Gruntwerk18:51, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
Thank you. One key difference from then is that other editors have come along to revert TheManTheyCallAdam's tendentious edits against guidelines. This problematic behavior has continued ever since that initial report.Stefen𝕋ower's got the power!!1!Gab •Gruntwerk20:59, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
I can't add much to what's been said already. But I will thank StefenTower for starting this thread. I myself have reverted the above mentioned user at least six times since last November. To wait in the bushes and think we won't see an edit a month or two later is comical. I actually used that word to describe it in one of my reverts. Honestly, I check Sonny Liston every week, just for a revert, lol. I thought I might have received a message from him over the past 10 months with some sort of explanation. Oh well. Thank you again, StefenTower!!Bringingthewood (talk)00:57, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
I'm interested in hearing from @TheManTheyCallAdam. I wouldn't oppose a block from article space to compel communication. Indefinite extended confirmed protection is not a good fit for this, though.tony20:08, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
I also would like for this editor to participate here, but they didn't participate in the previous ANI discussion. This editor also chopped off discussion with other editors (not just myself) on this matter, and blanked his talk page. I see these behaviors as part of the game playing. Nevertheless, it is common courtesy to wait and give them a chance to respond. As for article protection, I do think some level will be necessary at some point, not just because of this matter, but I understand it may be worthwhile to seek that protection separately if necessary.Stefen𝕋ower's got the power!!1!Gab •Gruntwerk20:30, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
I simply wiped my talk page because there were discussions from years ago that weren't necessary to have laying around. It made it easier to read newly created messages on my talk page by wiping it. There is no need to be so aggressiveTheManTheyCallAdam (talk)22:50, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
Wiping the talk page is a usual tactic of editors who want to avoid scrutiny. Most others who clean their talk page archive the discussions. There is no "aggression" on my part to mention a fact. The only aggression here, why this ANI report exists, is an editor, yourself, performing sneaky edits against Wikipedia guidelines that disrupt the work of other editors who are seriously here to contribute.Stefen𝕋ower's got the power!!1!Gab •Gruntwerk04:18, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
This seems harsh considering all I'm doing is correcting a grammatical error. All these talks about "blocking" me seem rather aggressive as when you write a nickname that includes the word "the" on word or any other writing program, it is automatically corrected to "The" by the software.
I have checked on multiple sofwares like word and read nickname list on other websites who also says "The" as it is a part if the nickname"The Big Bear"
For the record I have never been "warned several times." I had one discussion with Stefan on my talk page.
With all due rescept I highly doubt that wikipedias guidelines states that proper Grammer is prohibited.
My only intent is to rix the grammar. I have no malicious intends, so as I stated above, a indifinte or 6 months block for that matter seems very aggresive over such a small manner.TheManTheyCallAdam (talk)22:48, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
The bottom line here is you need to see that your corrections are not, in fact, corrections. You are introducing an error by violating our guideline calledMOS:THENICKNAME. No one editor is in a position to say that their opinion alone rises above the community consensus on how material is presented in the Wikipedia.
As for warnings, you have seen edit summaries that revert your changes. You have seen discussion onTalk:Sonny Liston. You have seen discussion on your talk page. You have been served notice (warned) several times.
If you "highly doubt" that the Wikipedia guideline states that "proper Grammer" is prohibited, have you attempted to read the guideline we have linked for you on multiple occasions? And if you have questions about that, ask on the guideline's talk page?
No matter your intent, you need to stop making changes against Wikipedia's guidelines, over and over and over again, when multiple other editors are disagreeing with you. Your behavior on this matter has been disruptive, for well over a year. This behavior needs to stop.Stefen𝕋ower's got the power!!1!Gab •Gruntwerk23:35, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
I feel left out, Adam. Did you not see my remarks in the edit summary over the months? I was hoping you would have responded with a reason why you continued to capitalize "the", when a link was presented multiple times on why not to do that. It looks to me like until the threat of a block came along ... noooo, you thought we would forget about it. It's a slap in our face with every revert. No care and no respect. This isn't nursery school. I'm sticking with my 'support' above.Bringingthewood (talk)02:41, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
What we're getting from TheManTheyCallAdam here, what we see in a lot of these cases, is calledWP:IDNHT. He has been presented with guidelines multiple times for over a year that contradict his edits, and talk pages and edit histories show it. Unless he acknowledges his editing violations and disruptions to other editors, apologizes, and vows to stop, he is digging an even deeper hole.Stefen𝕋ower's got the power!!1!Gab •Gruntwerk04:32, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
I will not apologizing for trying to correct inpropper grammer, but i will just leave it alone if that helps. Im not digging any holes, im simply just stating my intends that are not malecios in any way.TheManTheyCallAdam (talk)20:09, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
Your opinion on what is "inpropper grammer" isn't the issue. It is your flagrant disregard for Wikipedia editing guidelines. An apology for your year-plus-long denial of our guidelines will help you here, but it continues to seem you have an idea that your opinion rises above the guidelines. That is not an acceptable approach to editing here. If your editing isn't "malecios" (malicious?), then why all the lying-in-wait, sneaky editing after being told multiple times by multiple editors that your change was incorrect?Stefen𝕋ower's got the power!!1!Gab •Gruntwerk20:22, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
In the regards of "multiple editor dissagreeing with me" then you clearly havent seen the Viggo Mortensen page, were well over twelve editors states Viggo is half danish and only two editors states that he isn't half danish, yet, the two editors keeps removing it.TheManTheyCallAdam (talk)20:16, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
No matter what is happening in an unrelated article, that isn't the whole issue. It's your disregard for our guidelines andall other involved editors disagreeing with your disregard. Nobody has agreed with your position.Stefen𝕋ower's got the power!!1!Gab •Gruntwerk20:28, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
He's stubbornness andWP:IDHT behaviour is still continuing, as you see. So, I still support to indefinitely block him. Let's just stop replying to his messages and trying to satisfy him all together, he's just a waste of our time.Jako96 (talk)20:37, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
I support all the things StefenTower and Bringingthewood said to this reply. After all these things, it's for sure that you'renot here to build an encyclopedia, but just to change the's to The's. With your reply, it became even more clear that you deserve an indefinite block. I'm asking you for the last time, @TheManTheyCallAdam, are you willing to stop this behaviour and apologize, or do you want to get blocked?Jako96 (talk)17:32, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.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 as the reporter propose the following solution in two parts:
To capture the sentiment I'm seeing overall here, indefinitely block user TheManTheyCallAdam for sneaky game-playing with edits, not acknowledging our Manual of Style when underscored by fellow editors, and an overallWP:NOTHERE attitude.
Add extended confirmed protection toSonny Liston, to cover this issue (especially in case of potential block evasion) but also the birth date question (see FAQ atTalk:Sonny Liston; note: TheManTheyCallAdam isn't involved with this aspect). Having editors who tend to have experience withWP:RS and discussing article issues will be useful for the long-term health of this article.
Support. He never came here to save himself, but if he's not blocked, I guarantee he'll show up again in a month or so. The extended protection can save future nonsense under a different name, I get that. I'd hate to see someone like this ruin it for others, but I can support both parts of the proposal.Bringingthewood (talk)21:26, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
Strongly oppose ECP due toWP:NO-PREEMPT. To my knowledge, none of the exemptions listed at that page apply here, and the page hasn't overall seen that much relative disruption. If there are socking concerns,WP:SPI is over there. I am currently indifferent on an indef, I haven't looked closely enough to determine that.45dogs (they/them)(talk page)22:19, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
There have been occasional flare-ups over the birthdate. When they happen, we volunteers are pulled off of other things to have to deal with the latest new editor who takes umbrage at the consensus presentation. The FAQ I established on the talk page may have calmed that down, but there are no guarantees.Stefen𝕋ower's got the power!!1!Gab •Gruntwerk22:27, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
Would autoconfirmed not work? I took a closer look, and (at least by the reverts), most disruption seems to be non autoconfirmed accounts, largely IPs. Honestly to that same effect perhaps pending changes could work.45dogs (they/them)(talk page)23:12, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
Either of those would be acceptable. I understand that ECP normally requires lighter approaches to be done beforehand. I just wanted to make sure that any editor who wants to address the birthdate issue is firmly knowledgeable ofWP:RS and understanding that complex matters need to be discussed. It's possible that I'm asking for too much protection, for now.Stefen𝕋ower's got the power!!1!Gab •Gruntwerk23:26, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
Comment First of all i did realize yesterday that it might have semmed like that when i wipoed my talk page, but it wasn't meant like that. Also i did NOT change Sonny's birthsday, that wasn't me. I will accept that proper grammer does not apply to this instance of that prevents the apparent "block" for a simple misunderstanding. I probably didn't see the messages writtent to me on my talk page. I will just leave the inpropper alone, if htat is the requestTheManTheyCallAdam (talk)20:05, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
Please stop changing the subject - you were not accused of changing Sonny Liston's birthday (but I will clarify that in the proposal). Also, saying you won't make this kind of change again is not enough here, especially after all this time (over a year) of engaging in disruptive edits against our guidelines. You need to explain to us why what you did was a violation, as we need to make sure you understand our guidelines and why they need to be observed. Also, there needs to be some form of apology that you disrupted the work of several other editors, just to babysit your account as you made flawed edits. I'm not seeing any of that so far here.Stefen𝕋ower's got the power!!1!Gab •Gruntwerk20:40, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
Okay so we are clearly not getting anywhere here. I belived Wikipedia was a website were facts were stated and the grammer was proper, but that clearly isn't the case. This site is apparently a war zone for arrogant and toxic people to fight over simple and minor things for no apparent reason, when I was in kindergarden 20 years ago, I had more productive conversations than this. I will respectfully stop editing the page and for the record there is a big difference between being stubborn and standing by ones opinion. I have seen countless instance of these incidents, were it was something much more severe and only the page was protected for a day or two and then that was it.TheManTheyCallAdam (talk)20:50, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
Support indef, no stance on the article protection. TMTCA's lateststatement in this discussion makes it clear that they do not intend to learn how to edit collaboratively.Schazjmd(talk)20:53, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
Support indef Based on their responses here, TheManTheyCallAdam views Wikipedia's style guideline on this point as "incorrect" and at best they are grudgingly agreeing to leave what they view as incorrect grammar unchanged. They show no indication of understanding that Wikipedia's guidelines trump what they view as correct grammar, or that different style guides may dictate different usage. If allowed to continue editing, it seems likely that they will stumble on some other Wikipedia guideline that conflicts with other style guides, likeMOS:THEBAND orMOS:LQ orMOS:POSS, and then we'll have to go through this same thing again. I would be opposed to allowing them to continue editing unless at the very minimum they make it clear that they understand that the issue is not just withMOS:THENICKNAME, but that in general their edits to Wikipedia must comply with ALL of our guidelines, even if they disagree with them.And TBH, an editor who has made the huge number of usage and spelling errors evident in this very thread has no business lecturing other editors on what is correct grammar (eg. many sentences with missing periods, spelling "grammar" as "grammer" numerous times, "improper" as "inpropper", "indefinite" as "indifinte", "intentions" as "intends", "malicious as "malecios", "disagreeing" as "dissagreeing", "respect" as "rescept", and ironically enough given the core of the dispute, many examples of incorrect capitalization: "Grammer", "danish", "i", "im", and many more. Normally I'm tolerant of such errors, especially on a talk page, but when the issue is an editor who believes that their command of grammar is better than other editors, their language warrants scrutiny. In this one thread, TMTCA has written 25 sentences, in which I count 60 errors of spelling, grammar, capitalization and punctuation.)CodeTalker (talk)21:17, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
Support indef. TheManTheyCallAdam still continues to show unacceptable behaviour displaying the fact they aren't here to collaborate with editors, and also still thinking that Wikipedia's style is incorrect.Galaxybeing (talk)23:36, 16 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.
Possible sockpuppet; CrumbledSalt now duplicating the same violation
Well, that was dumb. Indeed, very likely to be the same person. I have blocked both, without intention to preempt the above discussion.Izno (talk)01:15, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
Isn't that ironic. There was a problem at theMuhammad Ali page months ago, and it was finally taken care of. The editor there still doesn't like the lower case 't', but he at least brought his displeasure out. No respect at all here with Sonny Liston. Adam and Nbaking1819, another 'wait in the weeds guy', always keep my week interesting. SeeMatt HarveyBringingthewood (talk)01:29, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
Lol, you have. I didn't want to mention your name. Thanks for reverting one of his last Sonny Liston edits. I knew that hurt, you definitely changed, lol.Bringingthewood (talk)01:46, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
I totally respect editors who question guidelines. I have questioned them here and there (and I've even raged about a few wrongs as I see/saw them).. But we have a process for discussing and potentially changing guidelines. The editor in question for this discussion never showed interest in this. He just wanted to play a game (in my judgment). Should be a lesson for other editors. Thank you for your restraint and commitment to supporting our guidelines. Cheers!Stefen𝕋ower's got the power!!1!Gab •Gruntwerk02:03, 17 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 following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
After they removed the entire interaction on my talk page without warning or asking[212] (including a notification that he was being discussed for edit warring, a discussion that led to their being blocked), I reverted with the edit comment "Please do not remove content from other user's talk page, especially including the other user's own text". I also posted inEnlightenedIllusions talk page pointing him tothe policy on editing and removing comments long after the fact (and when they have already been replied to)[213], having checked that this issue had been raised in the past with them by others. I also noted that if they want the conversation out of sight, they can ask that it be archived. Two minutes later, they again removed all of that material in my talk page[214]. I again reverted my own talk page and wrote on their talk page asking that they please stop vandalizingmy talk page.[215] I indicated that if they again removed content from it I would report it. They responded saying they wanted the material "completely removed", and as noted above by Czello, wrote that I should "Get over it and yourself." About half an hour later, they again removed a portion of the material that I had already replied to.[216] Their entire interactions with me have been unflaggingly aggressive and non-constructive.Magidin (talk)18:24, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
"I read your suggestions and the information provided was not used in any significant fashion. I obviously wanted it completely removed. Get over it and yourself."EnlightenedIllusions (talk)18:36, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
And since they're doubling down, I've gone through their edits and they're clearly not here and incapable of interacting with another editor in anything approaching a civil fashion or communicating in any useful way. As a result I've indeffed them.Canterbury Tailtalk18:55, 15 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 following discussion is closed.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 following discussion is closed.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 following discussion is closed.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 following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
@Steve Brackett has been using both article space pages and talk pages to attack people in the pharmaceutical industry for some years now[217][218][219][220]. Their edits are a mix of original research and I-was-in-the-industry-and-know-things-you-don't, plus POV about how pharma is corrupt. Some are on BLP articles.
Editor has been warned repeatedly on their talk page.[221] and stopped editing from mid-2024 to mid-2025. Recently the edits began again[222][223]. After a warning from @ZimZalaBim the editor replied with arighting great wrongs response[224] and another in response to me[225].
The editor is clearlynot here to build an encyclopedia and I see no prospect of them changing their ways. I believe the time has come to block them with revocation of talk page access to the extent possible.Oblivy (talk)13:16, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
This person is harassing me, I have not "attacked" anyone. This person is obviously one of the pharmaceutical industries plants, they have teams of people scouring the internet making sure any real information counter to their false claims is quashed or pushed to the far back of search engine results. I provide solid evidence from respectable physician researchers who have groups dedicated to exposing pharmaceutical industry fake meds. Again, it's impossible to find the information they provide by searching these companies and their products.Steve Brackett (talk)13:19, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
I've blocked Steve Brackett indefinitely perWP:NOTHERE per theirownwords, which continue to demonstrate a lack of understanding as to how Wikipedia works despite multiple editors trying to explain it to them. --Ponyobons mots16:25, 17 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 following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Rangeblock applied. It's unlikely that's going to stop the vandalism, given the IP range hopping. Thus, I've protected the talk page for a week. If it resumes after that, please report or let me know. --Hammersoft (talk)15:35, 17 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 page
It's a paid editing disclosure, which is required and perfectly acceptable. Regardless, account has been appropriately soft blocked by SarekOfVulcan as a role account. --Hammersoft (talk)15:15, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.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:VOYO Bulgaria. This user page has been created only for promotional purposes. I can't add a deletion template due to filter 803, which I have not triggered and don't even bother triggering, so can someone add a deletion template, and delete the page per CSD please.98.235.155.81 (talk)14:42, 17 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 following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
BlackKnightGC has posted two racially charged remarks onTalk:Jack Posobiec (Special:Diff/1311739985 andSpecial:Diff/1311740391) accusing other editors of being"white people" and"Another white man", and threatening to"escalate this to Reverand Sharpton". Ontheir user page, BlackKnightGC claims to have"encountered racism from most of the Wikipedia editors I have encountered" and to"experience racism from condescending whites", and again threatens to"bring this to the attention of the Reverend Al Sharpton and Black media if it is not corrected".
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
He is actively battle grounding at the page with me. you can see it and all diffs in my contributions. This is not a matter that can be resolved with dispute resolution so I took it here
You would not have listened to me, why should I listen to you? You are simply biased and not WP:NPOV on this topic. Might I suggest doing the right thing and logging out?ImLaotianBoxten (talk)01:46, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
you really are just throwing fancy terms around are you. What on earth is my NPOV issue? What I am biased towards wanting some random show in the lead? This is not how ANI works.Pencilceaser123 (talk)01:52, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
Both of you need to stopedit warring before you break thethree revert rule. Other than that, this is a content dispute and should be handled on the talk page. If either of you continue reverting each other, you may be blocked. It doesn't matter whether you think you are right, you need to come to a consensus on the talk page.QuicoleJR (talk)01:52, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
Disputes about whether certain content should be included in an article are not what ANI is for. If you and Pencilceaser can't come to a consensus, start anRFC. In the meantime, you need tostop edit warring.QuicoleJR (talk)02:01, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
This is an incident. It goes at ANI. He is being unreasonable, tone-deaf, and a fool who won't listen. And someone else called me a vandal. WP:ASPERSIONS, anyone?ImLaotianBoxten (talk)01:54, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
I agree this is an incident. You refered to me as a "North Supporter" for wanting to include when life gives you tangerines. And you are insisting sources exist in a paragraph that they dont!Pencilceaser123 (talk)01:57, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
Calling other editors tone-deaf fools is a personal attack and is not acceptable behavior. Do not do it again. Additionally, please stop removing sourced content and making repeated reverts without first getting consensus for your edits on the talk page. If you keep this up, you may be blocked.QuicoleJR (talk)01:57, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
They have been blocked as a sockpuppet well that ends this. That was weird. I honestly dont really care much at all regarding that actor. I was just looking for vandalism and whatnot.Pencilceaser123 (talk)02:02, 18 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
Livelikemusic has placedTemplate:In use onThat's Showbiz Baby andBite Me (which is no problem). But the problem is he hasrepeatedly andcontinuously reverted edits by multiple contributors (including myself)[227][228][229][230][231][232][233][234][235] even some edits are totally FINE, by citing this template. Or he didn't even say anything in edit summary[236], or diappreciated others' edits by [ab]using "le sign" meme[237][238] (WP:GF). In use template is intended to show that "large edits are in progress" and to reduce edit conflicts, not to prohibit others from editing the article, and this pattern seems possible ownership problems (WP:OWN).
As explainedhere (via anewly opened talk discussion), per{{In use}} it statesTo help avoidedit conflicts,do not edit it while this notice is displayed as large edits have been happening; therefore, edits during display are in violation of what the template states and have resulted in conflicting edits, which the template is purposed to avoid — if I have misunderstood this, then I own up to that. But, the good faith has always been there. Furthermore, the ongoing conflicts between myself and the reporting editor have been substantial acrossmultiple articles for a considerable amount of time, and while I didbring this to their attention, as a way of hopefully having a conversation (by way ofdispute resolution), their responses—from my point of view—seemed to skirt the issue(s) I presented. Even inthis response, they acknowledged they, too, wanted to have some kind of discussion. After avery brief discourse (where I did raise some initial concerns), I eventuallyresponded with this and got avery simplistic, what I perceived as anunenthused response, and the conversation ended without any kind of resolve—as again, as Ibrought up, it did feel as if the user did not wish to communicate or attempt to resolve anything.
Again, their actions across a multitude of articles have continued to mirror the concerns I did raise on their talk page, in the hopes of resolving them in a civil one-on-one manner, outside of a noticeboard. And instead of continuing there or even approaching on my talk page (as in return I brought things to their attention, which I do believe shows I was/am open to conversation/resolution in avoidance of bringing something quite mundane and silly to this juncture), they have escalated itimmediately to a noticeboard, which this noticeboard suggests against immediately jumping towards. The reporting user easily could have come to my talk page and properly discussed this prior to coming here, especially considering I had gone to them previously in an attempt to sort things out. As I state on my own user and talk pages, I am fiercely blunt, and I own up to the fact that sometimes I can beabrasive, but my edits are always in good faith toward the encyclopedia and the benefit of articles. We are all [generally] guilty, at some point, of taking thebait and not removing ourselves from situations. It happens. Shit happens, and I own up to that. However, bypassing dispute resolution via talk pages and movingimmediately to a noticeboard seems a bit hasty and premature, as noticeboards are used forserious disruption, which I do not believe I have caused, and my storied history with Wikipedia (in my viewpoint) speaks for itself.livelikemusic(TALK!)01:41, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
User:Camilasdandelions:Template:In use reads: "This template page is actively undergoing a major edit for a little while. To help avoid edit conflicts,do not edit it while this notice is displayed." Emphasis is mine. Others submitting edits while the template is in place, even if in good faith, are disruptive.Bgsu98(Talk)01:48, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
@Bgsu98: Yes. That's why the template exists, but the problem is he've kept it for almost 3 days. It is too long to keep that template, and that's why I considered he violatedWP:OWN. Even another user agreed on this, and suggested him to utilize his sandbox instead.
@Livelikemusic(as you don't want to be pinged): You said that I was seemed to avoid talking with you, but what? I've replied everything about your comments (in "Hi" section), not ignoring any of them. While I talked with you, I saw the points you misunderstood, so I just gave explanations to all of them. It doesnot mean that I didn't want to talk with you, Livelikemusic, and even Istated it at that time. And yousaid (like) that's why you opened this discussion (right?), so Isaid "I understood", because literally I understood your purpose of approach. But after my reply, you didn't say anything, so I thought it was solved.Camilasdandelions (talk!)02:10, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
@Camilasdandelions can you link to the diff where LLM added the template? I tried to find it, and as far as I can see, they added the template toThat's Showbiz Baby article a full25 days ago, and I don't see that it was ever removed. But even 3 days is much too long. The template documentation says "The template is placed at the top of a page you are actively editing for a short period of time, no greater than a few hours at a time.... Specifying periods of around a day or longer for this template goes against the spirit of simply avoiding edit conflicts."CodeTalker (talk)02:20, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
@CodeTalker: Wow, I didn't know Live added it since that time. But after the album's release, this template has beenplaced (again) and remained for 4~7 hours, and then changed to {{Under construction}} when Live stopped editing. And perhaps the total time of its existence is almost 3 days.
The intent to leave in use withunintended extended gaps (which no one seems to consider, which I would note isnot assuming good faith) was never the intention. Unfortunately,ADHD (amongst other private things, which I do not feel comfortable/safe disclosing on such a public platform) unfortunately rears its head. And in response tothis response, the templatewas removed. Not only were edits not made (though they wereintended to be made, under the good faith of further developing the article at that time), but I simply forgot (we are all human, and these errors do occur) to return to the{{Under construction}} template (again, thank you, ADHD), and once I realised it had not been swapped back, I did return the under construction template. At no time was the in use template displayed when I was not editing the topic in some fashion. In fact, in the case ofThat's Showbiz Baby, it did not return again untilthe morning of September 11, when critical reviews began to be published and the album was out in select territories, allowing the expansion of the article to begin (released versus upcoming release). Nothing was done withill intent, and again, an appropriate and reasonable attempt (under good faith) to remedy this with dispute resolution, via either the topic's talk page and/or my own, was fully accomplished, whichagain is what the noticeboard asks to happen. And to insinuate the in use template was left up for three days without a break is categorically false information. And, aspreviously responded, if I did misunderstand the template and its intended use, I do wholeheartedly apologise for that, as that wasnot the intent. At all.livelikemusic(TALK!)04:02, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
Dark4tune
Dark4tune (talk·contribs) persistently tries to insert captions under images in the articleGopnik without reliable references that confirm the caption, refusing to recognizeWP:RS inTalk:Gopnik. I am on the verge of 3RR, so please someone with authority talk to the senses of this guy, who for some reason decided I am after him personally. --Altenmann>talk01:37, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
It does not matter what a random unknown uploader wrote. I've seen plenty of people sinning on stairs, on fence, on childrens playgoound, etc. quietly drinking beer, just like this guy, and no reason to insult them calling them gopniks. --Altenmann>talk02:36, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
As a native Russian, I wouldn't say that it is an insult anymore at this point in history (or ever?). It's more like a meme and running gag. (I mean, I have a T-shirt withCheburashka in Gopnik pose and Adidas clothes...) It's like calling a teenager "edgy". And the photo, even if not explicitly labeled as Gopnik, is clearly playing with the Gopnik stereotype pose (and other stereotypes like Russians wearingUshankas). It's clearly a posed image, not some secret shot. And the person's face isn't even entirely visible, so I'd say it's fine to use this visual play on stereotypes to illustrate a stereotype.Nakonana (talk)12:04, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
Ruwiki describes the stereotype as "Имидж и поведение типичного гопника представляют собой пародию на представителей криминального мира 1990-х годов в России и иных странах СНГ." (Google translate: The image and behavior of a typical gopnik are a parody of the representatives of the criminal world of the 1990s in Russia and other CIS countries.)Nakonana (talk)12:20, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
There are good reasons not to use this image atGopnik without a reliable secondary source, and also good reasons not to use it even with a reliable secondary source.File:Slav Bewley.jpg is an image ofUser:BigBoyBewley, originally from their User page, so there are BLP issues involved. In addition, the image was taken in western Germany according to its metadata. Personally, I wouldn't trust any source beyond BigBoyBewley returning after (nearly) 6 years to confirm that they belong to this subculture.Woodroar (talk)02:15, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
Is there a particular reason to not useFile:Гопник.jpg though? Its originally from the Ukranian wiki, so it would likely be within the subculture, and its used throughout the wikis on pages for Gopnik. It could even replace the current image in the article, considering the issues you pointed out with it.45dogs (they/them)(talk page)02:21, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I missed that they were also attempting to add that image. At least that one was uploaded with the filename "Гопник" ("Gopnik"), so I would think it's okay. But I have to wonder, can't we find something better? Like a professional photo in a reliable, secondary source?Woodroar (talk)02:34, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
Yes, any disputable things must come from mWP:RS. I am baffled how people still do not "get it" even in this page supposedly frequented by wikieksperts. --Altenmann>talk02:44, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
Yes violating, and it isWP:RS, which applies toall ifnormation in wikipedia. Also I am pretty sure there must be a policy to about insulting an unknown innocent person by calling him "gopnik" at a highly visible website. If there is none, it will be quite worrisome. Imagine someone uploads your mom in Commons with a caption "The slut that cheated on me", and ghen someone else uses this upload to illustrate "Slut". --Altenmann>talk02:36, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
Goood grievance! The issue is not the content, but the OP disrespecting Wikipedia rules, and article talk page is not the place to resolve policy violations. That is why I came here in the first place, specifically stating"to avoid revert war". Good bye to y'all. --Altenmann>talk02:41, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
Let me spell itinto your face for the third time: Idid not intend to go on reverting andI made this post specifically to avoid revert war. --Altenmann>talk02:57, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
You were already edit warring, which does not require more than three. I believe you may have mentioned somewhere that English is not your first language, so just flagging in the event you're not aware "let me spell it into your face" does not come across as a particularly kind thing to say to a fellow editor.StarMississippi03:02, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
Apologies vor my Englisch. In my native sprich it means "to you personally, looking into your eyes, not behind your back" --Altenmann>talk
FYI any admin actions are toprevent disruption. I clearly stated I am not intending to continue revert war. Therefore, it is you who are disrupting the work on the article with your block, not me.Thereby I am politely requesting to unblock the page, because no disruption expected. --Altenmann>talk03:23, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
Thank you @Altenmann I knew you didn't mean for it to come across unkind. Should you need to use it again, in English we say "I'm telling you directly that..."
Thanks also for your promise not to continue the edit war. I have unlocked the page. If anything further about the image recurs, please leave a note here for another admin as I'll be offline.StarMississippi14:21, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
I dont care what they believe. I care that they must respect Wikipedia policies. Now tell me: are captions under pictures subject toWP:RS? Or I can sign a picture "it is a slut", and then someone disagrees, and I will contest, "oh, but I believe she is a slut!" --Altenmann>talk02:57, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
Yes, it's a content dispute but Altenmann is correct that it is not acceptable to take a random picture (c:File:Slav Bewley.jpg) and declare that the personis a [bad thing] as was done byDark4tune, for example indiff. Having the picture as an illustration of a squat in the body of the article is defensible. Having it in the lead to illustrate theGopnik topic is not.User:BigBoyBewley uploaded the image and declares that it is "a picture of me" (see user page). Let me know if it is repeated and I will take admin action to prevent it. Anyone wanting the image as an illustration of the topic would need anWP:RFC.Johnuniq (talk)05:16, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
User:Dark4tune again re-added an image inGopnik with a completely false caption. How a blatant violation ofWP:V/WP:CITE can be content dispute, beats me. Shall I startWP:RFC about whether an unreferenced content belongs to the article? IMO it will be completely ridiculous. --Altenmann>talk23:03, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
Or is the recent warning in response to the most recent reintroduction of the images to the article? If so, apologies for the ping45dogs (they/them)(talk page)00:52, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
I wonder if a photo of a squatting person in tracksuit must be "sourced" in some way to be used inGopnik article, does it mean that the photo of a person in eyeglasses and bowtie must be removed from theNerd article on the same grounds?Qbli2mHd (talk)06:41, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
No reference is needed. To spell out the problem,Gopnik declares that "A gopnik is a member of a delinquent subculture". An image of a person used to illustrate the article declares that the person is a member of a delinquent subculture. It is the identification of a particular person as something bad that violatesWP:BLP. Some thoughts above say that the term is not an insult any more. Even if that is true, an image would declare that an identifiable person is [whatever a gopnik is] which is not appropriate.Johnuniq (talk)11:19, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
That is fair, and if Altenmann had described it as a BLP problem, almost everyone might well have agreed. But they didn't - they first tried saying it was aWP:RS violation (and described it asour most basic policy), and thena blatant violation ofWP:V/WP:CITE, neither of which is true and has unfortunate implications fortheir understanding of Wikipedia policies. -The BushrangerOne ping only21:58, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
I think those assertions were a sub-optimal way of saying that Wikipedia should not assert that an identifiable personis a bad thing unless reporting the findings of a reliable source.Johnuniq (talk)06:01, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
Persistent vandalism, and false counter warnings by IP address, which he refuses to accept.
After that, he still continued to refuse that he has done vandalism. I had also reported the issue toWP:AIV, but he went there and said that he is contributing and the whole mistake is from my side (like seriously?). He started vandalising my talk page and asked me for reply there, BUT I had already given my reply in his talk page earlier (attached to this message earlier).
Now, I have attached the proofs and I want the admins to use their judicious mind on this issue because I am fighting vandalism here, and it is evident from my contributions history. To the contrary, almost all edits done by this IP in earlier months have also been reverted, which is again evident from his edits contributions history.
You only replied on my talk page afterwards. I did not vandalise your talk page, I raised the issue there simply because you didn't reply and just kept reverting.23.146.243.221 (talk)15:19, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
That's the point. I had replied on the talk page and described the issue to you very clearly, but you didn't want to understand and kept doing reverts and adding the wrong sentence continuously.TheProEditor11 (talk)16:07, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
This doesn't really fit vandalism. Looks more like incompetence to me. Did you ever actually saydirectly to the editor "Hey, the word switch to often is being done in a way which butchers the sentence in English?" Vandalism implies a clear *intent* to *damage* the encyclopedia, which I don't think applies here. The edits you've reverted that you linked were definitely poor edits worth reverting, but I really wished you did more talking and less escalation until it was clear if the editor was trying to vandalize.CoffeeCrumbs (talk)14:52, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
No you didn't tell me directly, you only told me much later. There were only two edits where one word was out of place. There was never any vandalism to speak of and you know it.23.146.243.221 (talk)15:21, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
Only 2 times? The vandalism you did was whopping 5 times. Don't you see the attached links ?. Why you keep lying? How can you say there was never any vandalism when I have already attached 5 incidents to the noticeboard? Also, I told you very clearly in my reply and that too is attached. Stop playing the victim card.TheProEditor11 (talk)16:05, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
TheProEditor11, it was clearly just an error, not vandalism. Calling simple mistakes 'vandalism' is unhelpful escalation, please stop.
23.146.243.221, you were clearly edit warring a mistake back into the article (and clearly more than 2 times). We can accept thatyou weren't doing this on purpose, but please make sure that if someone reverts you in the future, you look carefully at the diff to figure out why they might be doing that. None of us is immune to making an error.MrOllie (talk)16:39, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
@MrOllie He was repeating the error over and over again despite issuing warnings and giving clear replies for the same.. and that too for 5 times. That's why I called it vandalism. BTW, Thank-you!! :)TheProEditor11 (talk)16:49, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
Wrong! Again, it didn't happen 5 times, it wasn't vandalism and you know it. You claim to assume good faith on your user page but you clearly don't actually do this. You also did not explain what was going on until well afterwards.23.146.243.221 (talk)16:52, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
How can't you see I have attached the 5 which are all done by you... Enough is enough. It will be highly unethical if I keep fighting with a non-understanding person like you. Stop fighting with the correct person in the when the mistake is yours. Lastly, you should also avoid doing personal attacks on users.TheProEditor11 (talk)16:57, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
For the very last time - scroll to the title of this incident and there at the very first paragraph, I have attached the 5 instances done by you. Now let an admin see the whole case, which should not take much time.TheProEditor11 (talk)17:05, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
If you go into one of the instances yourself, you'll see that there's no stray extra word, so your revert thereafter was totally unnecessary and you didn't check what you were doing.
All you had to do was contact me directly and say what was wrong. You didn't do that but immediately started crying out vandalism, which it wasn't as an Admin has already told you.
I'll not be editing the article again, nor editing from this IP since ours keep changing, practically daily. And as such I'll also not be following or this discussing further.23.146.243.221 (talk)17:14, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
Warnings are the only thing we do at the beginning when someone starts vandalising. Also, I don't care when you have done 5 instances of disruption but doesn't even accept it when I have attached the same. Moreover, I had told you directly but you didn't bother to listen, instead you started issuing counter warnings to me on your own talk page which is invalid. Thirdly, MrOllie is not an admin, he is also an ECU like me. Fourthly, I don't care what you do or what you don't do in the future, just be a good editor in the future. I wish you a good future as an editor ahead. You should alsocreate an account as it has its own benefits. I am really fed up of you and I am really not interested now in fighting with you for such blatant vandalising edits. I was hoping an admin to see this case.. ThanksTheProEditor11 (talk)17:26, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
@98.235.155.81 ... that earlier IP which was vandalising the page was reported onWP:AIV by me... Seethis... I was NOT warning the wrong IP by any chance. This guy is different from 213.55.186.124 . I have even attached all the vandalism done by this guy, and it is clearly him and not the other IP.TheProEditor11 (talk)16:12, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
Both the IPs are culprit. The IP -213.55.186.124 was adding things like Berry etc in the name of the subject AND this guy -23.146.243.221 was disrupting sentences and making it meaningless. Please check the contributions of both of them. One more thing, 213.55.186.124 has been blocked for vandalism and I was the one who reported the vandalism done by him.TheProEditor11 (talk)16:23, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
Sorry if I am a bit late here, but it sounds like our trusty anti-vandals believe you vandalize the articles, so it seems like my gullibility has gotten into me, you have lied to us about your edits being constructive, anyways I think this discussion should be closed.98.235.155.81 (talk)10:09, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
23.146.243.221 says his edits are not vandalism, asTheProEditor11 is reverting his edits, I still am unsure what even is going on, but I would like the IP's edits looked into a bit, the IP even lectured the reverter that "Reverting just for the sake of reverting is against site policies" which I agree, but I am unsure if this is just a misunderstanding, or just being used as a battleground.98.235.155.81 (talk)12:05, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
Only two of the edits contained one stray extra word, this was subsequently corrected when it was finally pointed out, otherwise all of the edits were constructive, this is obvious. None of the edits were vandalism. There were however a string of vandalism edits made by a totally different IP user, see edit history onLill Roughley. Some of my edits undid that vandalism and told them to stop. That IP has neither been reported nor blocked.23.146.243.221 (talk)12:32, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
23.146.243.221, I still don't quite understand what you and the other user were doing, so I made a discussion about the recent activity you and the other user were doing.98.235.155.81 (talk)13:43, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
I was editing the article, nothing more than that. The other IP was carrying out vandalism. Why don't you report that IP, given that it still hasn't been blocked?23.146.243.221 (talk)13:47, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
Change of topic, it sounds like some of the anti-vandals in one of the sections are suspecting you too, you tricked me into believing you, it is my gullibility to blame for believing such a trickery!98.235.155.81 (talk)10:16, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
UserDragoljub Vic is a brand new user on Wikipedia (<100 edits) who consistently makes unsourced additions to numerous articles in the Balkan topic area - see their entire edit contributions here[239].TonySt was nice enough to notify them that making unsourced additions is against Wiki policy and caution them for making such unconstructive edits -[240] - followed by a CTOPS notice -[241]. Nonetheless, Dragoljub has continued to make unconstructive and unsourced edits since.
I noticed some of these edits and have RV'ed on multiple articles, such as, for example,Ponoshec,Koliq,Cerrca,Vërmica etc etc. I then posted a cordial message on their TP to welcome them to Wikipedia and to suggest that they look at the guidelines, reminding them that unsourced additions are against Wiki policy -[242]. In return, Dragoljub responded with this in Cyrillic[243]:шиптару, не мошеж истину сакрити. When translated, this phrase says "Šiptari, don't worry about it being sacred". The word "Šiptar" is a derogatory term used by South Slavs against Albanians. Such derogatory terms not only reflect issues regardingWP:CIVIL and aWP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, but also reveal the user'sAnti-Albanian sentiment.
On our Wikipedia article regarding Anti-Albanian sentiment, we have the following:In 2018, the Belgrade Supreme Court acknowledged that the word "Šiptar" is racist and discriminatory towards Albanians. According to the court, "Šiptar" is a term that defines Albanians as racially inferior to Serbs. Furthermore, in the 'Derogatory terms' subsection, we have the following:Šiptar/Шиптар (derogatory) (m.)[104] and Šiptarka/Шиптарка (f.) – are derogatory terms for Albanians. Formed from their endonym Shqiptar which is used by Balkan Slavic ethnicities such as the Serbs and Macedonians and it carries pejorative meanings which classify a person as being somewhat backward or aggressive.[105] The Albanian term 'Shqiptar' was originally borrowed into south-Slavic as Šćìpetār/Шћѝпета̄р[106] (with a 'ć', now archaic form) and it wasn't considered offensive - unlike the term without 'ć' (Šiptar). The neutral terms are Albanac/Албaнац (m., srb-cro); Albanec/Албанец (m., mac.) and Albanka/Албанка (f.).
he proved he could read my message thus he speaks serbian and he can tell the names mean what i put in serbian, the only reason he would revert is to cencor the obvious fact those names come from serbian. he also only reverting edits adding name origins for things on kosovo not else where, why else would he do that if not albanian nationalism trying to hide serbian history of kosovo?Dragoljub Vic (talk)12:22, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
Just because he read your message doesn't mean he speaks Serbian,Google Translate exists. Also, you need areliable source for all new information added to Wikipedia, and the home page of a dictionary is not a good enough source for etymologies. You would need to link to the specific definition you are referencing. And finally, always remember toassume good faith instead of immediately assuming the other editor is a nationalist. If you have any questions about this, feel free to ask. Thanks,QuicoleJR (talk)12:33, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
you read my message, you speak serbian you know that kamenica means small rock in serbian, you only change that why? only reason is that you want to rewrite history.Dragoljub Vic (talk)12:17, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
I am not saying that these toponyms do not have a Slavic origin - many of them do - but you need to provide a reliable source to support your addition, as has been explained to you by multiple editors on multiple different occasions. Besides, why would you call me a Šiptari? You know that's a derogatory term.Botushali (talk)12:43, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
when you see city called little rock in america is it not logical to assume it was named such because of what it means and not as a coincidence? also i say Šiptaru not Šiptari and this is because it is what you call yourself albanac sounds stupidDragoljub Vic (talk)12:51, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
The difference there is that we have a source, theNational Register of Historic Places, which shows that it was named afterThe Little Rock. Please provide a source that specifically says what the town was named after, or at least link to the specific definition that supports the information you added to the article. If you continue to disregard our sourcing policy, you may be blocked from editing.QuicoleJR (talk)13:06, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
serbia is much more ancient country than american so it is not documented many times things were named after something but i will put deffinition next timeDragoljub Vic (talk)13:16, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
Yet we have many place name origins from much older countries as well, with sources of those place names documented. If something's not documented, then Wikipedia doesn't know it; we don't cite things based on assertion.WP:V is a policy, not a gentle suggestion.CoffeeCrumbs (talk)13:42, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
And you're also making improper cites when you do make: the cite you just made on Tankosiq goes to nowhere that confirms what you said and in Vrelo, you linked to a Wiki page, which is not a reliable source. If you can't even stop this behavior while a discussion of this behavior is going on in ANI, I think you should be temporarily blocked while this discussion is ongoing.CoffeeCrumbs (talk)13:48, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
I see you've tried to find a new cite for Tankosiq, which is is a good thing. But you linked basically to an internet discussion of the word. And what you'restill not grasping is that defining it as a surnamedoesn't count as sourcing the origin of the village name. We donot connect these dots on Wikipedia; seeWP:NOR andWP:SYNTH.
If this is truly your understanding of how sourcing works, I think anWP:INDEF is appropriate until you can demonstrate that you understand what verifiability means and what a reliable source is. These are fundamental aspects about how Wikipedia works, and you can't just ignore them.CoffeeCrumbs (talk)14:57, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
i just find it laughable that there need to be so deep proof that the name comes from where it does and because of that i don't want to waste time finding proof of it.
Yes, well, that's how things work on Wikipedia. If you want to write things for which you don't have to have any evidence, I recommend starting a blog. Ravenswing12:49, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
Can an admin step in and block this user as NOTHERE, so long-term editors don't have to waste time reverting huge amounts of poorly sourced edits? That one in particular[247] is such a false and fringe claim that it alone is enough to justify a block. It is like saying that the vast majority of Ukrainians self-identify as Russians, i.e. complete and utter nonsense.Ktrimi991 (talk)14:24, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
For now, I have indefinitely blocked from articles and asked them to show here that they will cease ethnic attacks and poorly sourced edits. The only reason this wasn’t an initial full indefinite block is that there is some evidence this new user is listening to some of the comments, so there is some hope they will learn to conform to Wikipedia civility and verifiability standards. — rsjaffe🗣️15:09, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
This user repeatedly adds unnecessary citations to the lead, for example, when the info he cited for are already cited in the article. He also adds irrelevant references, and does both subtle and blatant vandalism (pinging all the people who warned him for these things: @P199, @Chiswick Chap, @Jessicapierce and @MCE89). He clearly needs a block, he neither stopped or replied to any of his warnings. See these diffs for example:
This is indeed a very problematic editor. As an example, just look at 3 consecutive edits (s)he made:
15:36, August 11, 2025 -Luís Barroso → valid reference added
16:34, August 11, 2025 -Crawford, Cape Town → added reference may seem valid at first glance, but doesn't actually support the sentence where it was inserted. Moreover, the source likely is a wiki and therefore fails as a RS. (Reverted by me).
17:00, August 12, 2025 -Eifelland → this is a complete nonsense reference, unrelated, and source is a WP mirror! (Reverted by me).
Mixing in some good references with really bad ones is insidious, and requires even more scrutiny than for a "regular" vandalizer. This editor has been warned several times since August. Agree with block. --P 1 9 9✉13:20, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
120.148.50.114 has been continuously making unhelpful, often whitespace-only or empty parameter removal changes (seethis,this, andthis as examples). Their behavior leads me to suspect some form of bot or automated activity, though some edits (such asthis one andthis one) seem to have more thought put into them. They are generally focused on changing album lengths, some of which appear to be corroborated by other sources (e.g. Spotify) and some not. ~Eejit43 (talk)01:47, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
continuously making unhelpful but interestingly enough, sometimes helpful. Sometimes they add dates or correct timestamps. Sometimes its more fuzzy.
It seems like this person may potentially be IP-hopping, checking the revision history of the pages this IP has edited shows other IPs originating from similar locations, despite though locations not being relevant to the topics they are editing. See124.148.236.172,1.152.108.148, and potentially others. ~Eejit43 (talk)14:29, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
This can be handled at the SPI case now, though it should be noted that the IPs mentioned have made cross-wiki edits and thus global actions may need to be taken. ~Eejit43 (talk)14:39, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
constant disruptive editing on article Spinosaurus
A user calledJunsik1223 has recently requested a change to the article back to its original from and disregarded the combined estimates recently settled after an edit dispute.Teatimenew (talk)15:01, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
Junsik1223 made an edit request on the talk page which an administrator approved. If you disagree with the change, discuss it on that article's talk page. Also, you are required to notify Junsik1223 of this discussion; see the instructions at the top of this page.Schazjmd(talk)15:08, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
@Teatimenew: I see you're quite new to Wikipedia, so let me explain a few things. First, you should have left a message on Junsik's talk page letting them know that you started this thread; I see45dogs has done that for you. That dispute was certainly not "settled", but was ongoing. The admin protecting the page while your version was active was not an endorsement of it. Also, you should not continuously revert other editors, as that isedit warring and is considered disruptive. Please do not do that again. Instead, you should have gone to the talk page after you were reverted by a non-bot editor, and given your reasoning for why the change is a net positive. If you have any questions about what I just said, feel free to ask. Thanks,QuicoleJR (talk)15:19, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
User editing on election page removing relevant content
To start, I am not certain that this is the right spot, but this is somewhat of a content dispute. I have not been able to reach out to the editor in question or receive any sort of response from them, which other dispute resolution venues have state that they require.
AlabamaConservative has made edits on2026 Alabama lieutenant gubernatorial election that remove content relating to an individual involved in the campaign. Starting in around May, the user made some edits relating to an individual involved in the campaign, Nicole Wadsworth, making several edits likethis that added academic qualifications or expanded the individuals name. This was discussed and I believe it was mostly resolved considering the user did not make any edits until recently.
Starting yesterday, the user made an edithere that expanded the candidates name. Ireverted that, since it was not a name commonly used in sources (WP:COMMONNAME).
The larger issue came with a section in the campaign section, about a story that received pretty broad coverage in regards to the candidate essentially lying about academic credentials. I hadadded about a paragraph about this. The user thenremoved the entire section, including a second part not about the issue, with the edit summary "libel." Per a legal guideline atWP:LIBEL, if something can be adequately sourced to reliable sources, then it can be included. Considering this campaign event received coverage for about a month, it can be included. The user then made aseries of edits, including adding an inappropriate external link mid-text. Ireverted that series.
The user thenadded to the campaign section with info about the candidates campaign cited exclusively to guest opinion pieces designed to promote her. Iundid that again with an attempt at an edit summary comment, but it was simplyre-added.
I did not want to continue reverting things perWP:3RR. I attempted to reach out atthe talk page, but have not gotten a response, in the same period of time that the editor has not made edits. Nearly all of theiredits are on this same page, and they have not responded to previous concerns at their talk page as well.Yoblyblob (Talk) :)16:08, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
It appears that a blogger [Yoblyblob] who may be associated with or working for one of the candidates in the race is continuing to post adversarial content directed at another candidate. Much of this content is presented in a list format and published on pay-to-play blogs that present themselves as news outlets. Because these sources may not meet Wikipedia’s standards for reliability and neutrality, I suggest caution when citing them in this article. Editors may want to review whether such material is appropriate for inclusion, in line with Wikipedia’s policies on reliable sources and/or undue weight.AlabamaConservative (talk)16:18, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
First of all I understand you can’t understand English language which is in google books. if you understand you don’t have a doubt about Makrani dont worry it’s normal for some people. I am here to guide you my dear. so let me start 1.makrani is not a caste makrani its a name which is used for people who live in makran region.
2.African from makran region who migrated to Karachi where they call themselves makrani because they are from makran region but the term get rooted among people makrani is a caste of black people this is clearly mentioned in thisbookAnd according to this book in Pakistan siddi is also called makrani , Gulam , Zanzibari ,dada etc Some siddi people migrated to Gujarat and Karnataka this also mentioned in these book on top of page
you are saying that tom cruise is tom cruise In America but when he comes in India he is different you need some better to defend yourself but you can’t defend true things103.93.136.224 (talk)
This is after their history of disruptive editing over the past year (!) on articles pertaining to this topichere andhere, for which the former had to already be marked with pending changes protection due to them alone.
Self-reporting for a second opinion. I came across this when renaming User:DemocracynetworkUK to RoseOpenBritain and have watchlisted the article since. MarkKieranUK turned up yesterday to place a notice on the article. Despite being cautioned about his COI he re-added the noticethis morning yesterday evening. I have pblocked Mark from the article and cautioned him for his legal threats. After several weeks following the article I am aware I may be getting close to beingWP:INVOLVED & refer my actions for review.Cabayi (talk)09:51, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
It may be helpful to those considering this matter to know that my only objective here is to find a way to, a) establish whether Open Britain qualifies as an organisation of note (if it does not, I would be content to see the page deleted or, better, reframed as a historical reference); b) if it does qualify, to ensure that the information presented meets the objectives of Wikipedia (accurate, truthful, reliably sourced, etc); or c) if the page is to remain up in its current state, that readers (including those making decisions with a material impact on Open Britain - eg. potential funders - know that what they are reading is neither accurate nor reliable. It may also be helpful to note that I fully understand (and value) Wikipedia's COI policies and have always ensured my team member and I have taken express steps (usernames, comments in the 'Talk' tab) to ensure our status is fully transparent.MarkKieranUK (talk)10:06, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
Whatever you say your objective is, if any adding this crap[248] to articles you should expect to be blocked even without a COI. The fact that you have a COI makes it even worse. Also I don't think anyone is going to believe you've followed COI policies when you've added that crap to an article where you had a COI.Nil Einne (talk)11:13, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I would add that despite your complaints about being ignored, that clearly isn't what happened as anyone can see. Your colleague developed a draftUser:RoseOpenBritain/Open_Britain_Draft. Within a few hours an unconflicted editor had reviewed your draft and gave detailed criticism of why the draft was clearly worse than what we had in place and declined to replace our existing article. To be clear, whether you like it or not, from our PoV an outdated article with okay sources is definitely better than a promotional article with terrible sources. Instead of taking this criticism on board and finding better sources and seriously revising the draft, or better yet started off more slowly and proposing small changes based again based on decent sources your colleague just continued to insist their draft was better & complained about a lack of engagement when you'd already had that detailed criticism and largely just ignored it. With that and this latest nonsense from you, you should expect even if either of you start to behave more appropriately our volunteers might have little time to deal with you and so any decent proposals you make might have a delayed response.Nil Einne (talk)11:28, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
Ok, this is helpful. I accept the criticism of the original attempt at refreshing the page - born of unfamiliarity with your requirements/preferences rather than any malicious / reckless intent. And I genuinely did not appreciate that well-sourced misinformation is acceptable on Wikipedia pages. I had thought that the objective would be to prioritise the avoidance of misleading users (even if that meant a ‘thin’ page resulted), then to rebuild an accurate page with all the necessary sourcing / COI issues respected. That misunderstanding on my part may well be at the root of my frustration.MarkKieranUK (talk)11:40, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Just wanted to add I was more strident than I needed to be and for that I apologise, I was going to revise my responses but since they are already replied to I'll leave them be. I will add some things though. Please remember we are volunteers and conflicted editors demanding responses when it's not a BLP matter or something else of serious concern is likely to annoy us & make it less likely we'd be willing to help. Especially when we find out detailed & helpful responses from experienced editors have already been provided but for whatever reason not take on board. I appreciate that you may consider your organisation is being harmed by an outdated article, but unfortunately that's true for a lot of articles & and a declared CoI editor demanding changes doesn't mean we will give them priority when it's not something of urgency (like BLP violations) from our PoV. CoI editors may be able to help to a limited degree in this but it's very rare that developing a whole draft succeeds. Even experienced editors with a CoI often simply cannot see what is promotional or otherwise problematic because of their CoI. It's why we strongly discourage all editors with a CoI from editing directly. And that's experienced editors who understand how things work around here. Editors without experience, are even less likely to be able to since even without a CoI they often make poor articles because they do not understand how to make decent articles including our sourcing standards. So instead, as I said propose smaller changes. I'd note that Cabayi already added the outdated template. It's exceedingly rare we will delete an article for being outdated. Nor we allow custom messages from anyone complaining about problems with the outdated article. So the template is all that's likely to be acceptable. There is a parameter |inaccurate=yes which could be added to the template to give a stronger wording if the article "now has factual inaccuracies (not just missing or outdated information) due to being outdated". If you were to highlight any claimed factual inaccuracies that go beyond missing or outdated information on the talk page an editor will likely eventually consider adding the parameter. But you need to be patient and also accept that the responding editor might not see things as you see them from your CoI PoV.Nil Einne (talk)11:57, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
No apology needed, Nil, but it is appreciated. I do understand the voluntary nature of your work and the practicalities of weeding out bad actors from those with a genuine interest in making Wikipedia the best it can be (you may be sceptical but I *am* in that latter category).
The information in your two longer posts above is extremely helpful. I can see now that my assumption about the urgency Wikipedia editors would want to attach to the task of removing misleading information was not, in this context, well-founded. The ‘complaints’ you refer to were not so much that my colleague was not being listened to but rather that she was not being heard. As you say, communication was taking place but to my mind we were not making progress in solving what I regarded was a very significant problem, one where OB's interests and Wikipedia's were in close alignment. That didn’t make sense to me and led to my frustration. I can see now that the controls you are obliged to operate mean Wikipedia has different interests and that rigour must override urgency.
At the root of all this is my concern to ensure that when I apply to funding organisations, there is no repeat of a recent experience whereby my application was binned at the first gate because preliminary due diligence (likely using AI research which, quite reasonably, makes use of Wikipedia) failed to corroborate that I am CEO of Open Britain. Understanding now that removal of misleading information is not as straightforward or urgent an issue for you as I’d assumed, I will take steps to address that at my end - at least where funding applications are concerned - by explicitly cautioning against using the information on this page. That will mitigate the immediate risk. I will then reflect on the advice above and work out a way of submitting to editors a series of small change requests, starting with those most likely to reduce the potential to mislead Wikipedia users. Thank you for your time setting out those detailed responses above.MarkKieranUK (talk)12:41, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
Thanks Orange. I have just posted a reply to Nil above which I think also explains why we saw that (incorrectly) as a step forward. In my mind, removing misinformation while up-to-date, properly sourced etc information was agreed seemed like the sensible way to comply with Wikipedia’s aims AND ensure those seeking information about OB were not misled. But that appears to have been a misunderstanding. I actually don’t think the information on the current page should be lost…it is a valuable source for anyone interested in the history of the organisation at the time…but it is not accurate today and without some way of bringing that to the attention of readers (either by reframing it as a historical reference or putting a notice on it of the type I attempted to add) it IS likely to mislead Wikipedia users.MarkKieranUK (talk)11:47, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
@MarkKieranUK and @RoseOpenBritain: You're going over this backwards. Encyclopedias aretertiary sources; what Wikipedia does is summarize whatreliable sources say. If reliable sources don't cover your organization or they don't cover them in the way you want it to, it's not our fault. We don't acceptoriginal research, everything you saymust come from valid sources or it will be removed to protect our integrity. I would suggest hiring a PR agent and trying to contact local press agencies about your activities. Once enough reliable sources pop up, we'll help you update the article.
The disruptive edits have resumed at the above linked IPs, to the shock of no one familiar with the case. At this point, anWP:LTA should be opened. I'm not sure if ANI understands how ongoing, widespread and longterm this IP's abuse has been. A 72-hour block is clearly not going to change this behavior. For the uninitiated, this IP sockpuppet's edits consist of the same style of disruptive edits of 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 ofWP:LQ, restructuring existing reference/footnotes, among many other types of disruptive edits. Their edits are usually to film articles and articles related to films, often horror and sci-fi topics or related to visual/special effects, but occasionally extends to animation/video games/toys etc. I've reverted edits for pages that have held the incorrect sortkey for over a year because of this IP's edits going unnoticed. They have never once responded to comments about their behavior from the many hundreds of users appealing for such engagement on their talk pages. And they IP hop frequently and repeatedly after getting blocked for disruptive editing. And because their edits are not obvious vandalism or patent nonsense, they ultimately always get away with it. I wasn't going to say it, but I have also routinely noticed bot-like edits within the same range by IPs that exclusively modify categories on animation articles. I suspect this to be the same culprit, but I really don't even want to go there.Οἶδα (talk)18:44, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
That is the same IP as75.196.244.227(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) and75.242.29.90(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log), etc. Their edits fit a somewhat different profile, but a persistent profile which I alluded to above because I have constantly encountered it when researching the other IP sock. Nearly every time. I would say the edits are more "creative" than the exact collection of IPs I have chosen to focus on. The clear focus on animation, altering categories, lead genres, changing character names, refactoring plot wording, bad grammar and formatting changes. The patterns and parallels are undeniable. One thing they share in common is that they always return to the same respective articles sooner or later.Beetlejuice Beetlejuice, for example. However, the edits more or less stick to the same patterns without mixing the two, which I can only surmise to be obfuscation. The volume of their edits and the greater complexity has led me to ignore the parallel socking. Either way, it is still possible that these are both bot edits.Οἶδα (talk)05:08, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
Please let's act upon this once and for all. This behavior is nonstop. Half measures have not and will not work.Οἶδα (talk)
IP continues to accuse other user of vandalizing
2A00:23C8:4380:3D01:0:0:0:0/64, who was blocked from edit warring yesterday, continues to accuse Cambial Yellowing of vandalizingForeign Secretary (United Kingdom) on their talk page, yet Cambial Yellowing's edits were not vandalism. Thus indicating the IP is clearly making false statements about the user, please notify them on their talk page about this.98.235.155.81 (talk)21:16, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
I request administrator attention regarding User:Nigel Ish for a pattern of disruptive editing and repeated reverts across multiple articles. The behaviour is not a one-off, but a series of actions that have caused edit warring and unnecessary disruption to article development.Examples include, but are not limited to:
MiG-29 in Yugoslavia, claiming a reliable source is “unreliable”, and reverting or challenging sourced material rather than raising a clear, verifiable sourcing concern. Evidence
No. 1 Squadron RAF, asserting removal or challenge of material about aircraft serial numbers for Falklands reinforcements, without providing a specific rationale for removal.
Aftermath of the Falklands War, asserting that a cited source is inaccurate without engaging with the citation, then reverting edits.
BAE Systems Hawk, pushing edits that appear to lack neutrality, while dismissing concerns about impartiality.
HMS Glasgow (D88), reverting an edit purportedly because images should be added automatically by Wikidata, rather than discussing the matter on the article talk page or providing a clear explanation.
The pattern is: repeated reverts, failure to engage on talk pages, assertions that citations are unreliable without substantiation, and POV or disruptive re-editing rather than working towards consensus. I have attempted to address these on the relevant talk pages, but the behaviour has continued. I request that an administrator review the user’s recent edits and interactions, and consider mediation or other appropriate action. Please see the user talk pageBiscuitsBeforeBias (talk)10:43, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
@Phil Bridger It seems that Nigel Ish removed a commons category template that BiscuitsBeforeBias added, and that rather than starting a discussion to try to resolve the content dispute BiscuitsBeforeBias has started this thread to try to get them blocked.
Most of the claims here are based on comments by other users have just been pulled from Nigel Ish's talk page. The first one "MiG-29 in Yugoslavia" refers toUser talk:Nigel Ish#MiG-29 in Yougoslavia and the complaint raised here seems to be baseless. The source being discussed is a one person wordpress website written by a train driver that is obviously unreliable.86.23.87.130 (talk)11:12, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
BiscuitsBeforeBias, please read the documentation in the info box on the right. When you post a complaint, you need to provide diffs, and when you notify an editor, you need to give them a link. These are prerequisites.JehochmanTalk13:18, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
I'm not trying to get anybody banned, I requested "administrator attention" to reduce the amount of unnecessary reverts of resourced work— Precedingunsigned comment added byBiscuitsBeforeBias (talk •contribs)
Take a moment, sign your post, and then re-read what I wrote. I'm not suggesting you're trying to get somebody banned. I'm explaining how to properly present a concern so that it will be addressed, rather then turn into aWP:BOOMERANG.JehochmanTalk14:52, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
It was the anon who saidBiscuitsBeforeBias has started this thread to try to get [Nigel Ish] blocked, albeit BBB's (lack of) indentation doesn't make that clear.—Fortuna,imperatrix15:26, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
The MiG-29 discussion was a result (I think) of [this] post to another editor's talk page, questioning a reference, and [this] tagging of an unreliable source.
The 1 Squadron RAF discussion was aboutthis removal of information sourced to the "War Thunder Wiki" and to unverifiable primary sources (RAF No. 1 Squadron ferry flight log entry, 1 June 1982). Video game websites are clearly not in any way reliable sources. The information was also undue for the article, but the sourcing was not acceptable.
OnAftermath of the Falklands War I restored a cn tag (originally added by someone else) which had been removed without providing a citation[249] and then tagged a reference as failing verification because it didn't seem to back up what was being sourced to it, and the reference detail presented was confusing (the reference title was completely different to the source that was linked -so it wasn't clear which one was meant - a 1975 report cannot be used to talk about something that happened in 1982.Nigel Ish (talk)17:34, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
HMS Glasgow D88– I added the missing Commons link, which was reverted with the comment that “Commons links are handled automatically by Wikidata”. There is nothing inherently wrong with adding it manually, so why is this treated as an error?
In the “Aftermath of the Falklands War” section: I cited Rick Jolly’s book to show how lessons from gunshot wounds in Northern Ireland were applied to the Falklands. This was reverted as a “failed citation” because of a misreading – the passage clearly states that threeArgentine soldiers died at Ajax Bay, not British, 1975 to 1982 is relevant & British troops were being treated for Gunshot wounds in NI till February 1997
On RAF 1 Squadron aircraft serial numbers: these are provided for tracking purposes, and these particular aircraft had notable wartime & post-war histories, making the detail relevant.
On sourcing: video game websites are often dismissed out of hand, yet many are based on solid research, sometimes with input from veterans, and can be more reliable than some of the uncritical material that passes as “quality”.
I'm reaching the point of giving up editing. Critique is fine, but the constant reversions without constructive suggestions are dispiriting. Would it not be better to help improve contributions rather than deter editors who are trying to add relevant material? Or when I give up would this be a victory for you?BiscuitsBeforeBias (talk)15:43, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
@BiscuitsBeforeBias Sorry to be slightly blunt with you here, but this really reads like you are making newbie mistakes. To me it looks like you need to be asking questions at theteahouse, rather than trying to get other editors sanctioned.
You cannot possibly use a source from 1975 to support claims about what was going on in 1983 - the book cannot possibly contain that information. Using a book from 1975 and doing your own interpretation of what the future implications of it's contents are isoriginal research, the prohibition of this is a fundamental Wikipedia policy. If you want to state "lessons learned during the troubles helped during the Falklands conflict" you need a source that explicitly states that - you cannot use a source written the troubles and decide that what it says applied to later conflicts.
The Fandom wiki for the warthunder video game is completely unreliable source and cannot be used for any information at all. At its most fundamental a reliable source should have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy - auser generated wiki written by anonymous contributors cannot possibly meet this standard. You can read the perennial sources entry for fandom atWP:FANDOM, which contains links to some of the previous discussions about this website.86.23.87.130 (talk)18:55, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
It is not OR –The Falklands war: Army field surgical experience - PMC. The document itself makes the comparison between the Falklands & NI. The revert was unnecessary. The text clearly states "No British serviceman who reached a medical aid station subsequently died", & the source confirms three fatalities, but those were Argentines.
I am not trying to get anyone sanctioned, but adding CN tags or reverting someone’s work without considering the context just pushes editors away. If that is how it is going to be, fine, leave it - consider it a Big Win 💥BiscuitsBeforeBias (talk)
The source which youlinked (which isnot the same source which you provided bibliogrphic data for which was "A military surgical team in Belfast") appears not to say that three Argentine troops and no British troops died after reaching a medical aid station - it states that three died (of unspecified nationality) in the summary on page 281 and gives details of these deaths (again without nationality) in Table V on page 284. It doesn't make the claimed link to the fitness of the troops (discussion section pp. 284 to 285) - and suggests one reason for the the survival rate at the surgical stations is that delays getting the wounded to treatment meant that the more seriously injured died on the way "It is likely, therefore, that some of the more seriously injured died before evacuation was possible thus paradoxically improving our survival figures at the surgical centres" (p. 285). I tagged with failed verification because the source did not back up what was claimed from it, and it wasn't clear which source was actually being quoted. Note that I did not revert (although arguably I should have done) but only tagged the reference.Nigel Ish (talk)21:09, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
I have removed the sources from talk page but that doesn't mean your POV is right on the topic. This user UnpetitproleX is pushing the POV of particular political party. He's adding only biased sources which favours his POV. There are various neutral sources already in original version of that article but this user keeps editing the whole article to favour the ideology of a particular political party which is very distrubingImrannGhazi (talk)18:43, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
If you cannot find legitimate sources for your POV - then have you stopped to consider that your POV iswrong?--v/r -TP20:42, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
I'm not sure that this is suitable forWP:ANI for now, because this is not yet a chronic, intractable behavioral problem. And, GPTZero says that his "sources" are %100 AI generated. Also, why would you notify him about this discussion so late?Jako96 (talk)18:53, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
Are they real or fake? I think this is the only thing that matters, not whether the cite templates were "AI generated".jp×g🗯️20:07, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
Okay, I looked up one of them.No results found for "The Chenab Valley: Identity, Marginality and Resistance". If these sources are literally just falsified, I would support (or be willing to execute) an indefinite block for ImrannGhazi — it's just completely unacceptable to fraudulently make up sources to win an argument.jp×g🗯️20:12, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
@JPxG: The sources are fake. They do not exist. The quotes attributed to them also do not exist. The scholars purported to have written those sources in that particular field also do not exist. Also,@Jako96: I apologize for the 20-minute delay in notifying the user, but I don't think it is fair to call that "so late." They were notified before this discussion received any comments from any user.UnpetitproleX (talk)20:20, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
Agree that this was not suitable for ANI, given how UnpetitproleX never attempted to resolve the issue with the editor before coming to ANI, however, the behavior of UnpetitproleX has been really poor on this article so far. He has been edit warring against multiple editors on mainChenab Valley and is also falsifying sources as clear fromthis comment.Orientls (talk)19:45, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
UnpetitproleX never attempted to resolve the issue with the editor before coming to ANI. What aboutTalk:Chenab Valley#August 2025? UnpetitproleX and ImrannGhazi have been discussing this for almost a month. As for UnpetitproleXfalsifying sources atTalk:Chenab Valley#Sources, I'm no expert but UnpetitproleX's source analysis looks correct to me, at least at a glance. Meanwhile, Romit Parihar's rebuttal was "100% AI generated" per gptzero.me. Other services gave AI-generated confidences of 77%, 96%, 100%, and 100%—a strong indication that their rebuttal is meaningless. I even spot checked one of their points and Google books couldn't find a keyword on any of the given pages.Woodroar (talk)20:40, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
I note that ImrannGhazi also createdSouth Kashmir recently, an article on which every single reference appears not to exist (apart from a couple of references to the Indian census, which doesn't seem to cite what it claims to anyway). A set of more knowledgeable eyes on that would be useful.Black Kite (talk)20:51, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
Comment - The problematic behaviour on part of OP is certainly worth taking a look into as well. For example:Restoring a 2020 version of an article and misrepresenting the comment of another editor[252][253], andstill continuing to do that when the editor hadprovided clarification. Before this the editor had been edit warring to insert a POV version of lead in the article for which no content existed on body.[254][255][256][257][258][259][260] Note that the version they were to reverting to was added by them in 2024 itself and without consensus. This is in addition to their disruption atPajeet where they have repeatedly edit warred to restore their preferred version of lead which again failsWP:LEAD[261][262] and repeatedly assumed bad faith and made personal attacks on editors at the talkpage such ashere where the OP is accusing editors that they "promote racist POVs", and has refused to strike the false allegation.[263]Wareon (talk)12:15, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
The article has a longstandingsock-farm problem (seethis SPI archive for reference; the sock has previously also attempted tomockingly impersonate me because I have been removing the unsourced WP:OR that the sock has created over a long period of time). Confirmed socks related to the sock-master have appeared at the article from time to time, and the sock is also likely using WP:MEAT, IP and VPNs etc (but not any of the users on the the talk page discussion currently or here, I should clarify). As for the slur article, its usage by western far-right groups for South Asians in general and reappropriation by certain South Asians against other South Asians is well attested in sources (seeTalk:Pajeet#Sources). As I clarifiedthere: seeking to removeall mentions of the slur's usage bywhite supremacists and other westernfar-right groups and privilegeonly the reappropriation or narrower usage is definitely a problematic POV (I have nowstruck 'racist', but I do believe that such a summary removal of mentions of the slur's wider usage by white supremacists is highly problematic). I have detested from editing the leads of both those articles and am instead now compiling the highest quality reliable sources available on the talk pages and raising issues there.UnpetitproleX (talk)21:10, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
I have indefinitely blocked ImrannGhazi from articlespace until they come back here and explain their multiple AI creations of content with fake citations.Black Kite (talk)18:25, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
Killing of Charlie Kirk requested move panel closure request
I recently have disagreement with Borges777 onList of active Brazilian military aircraft, and I have attempted to discuss the issue on that article's talk page. However in hislast edit on that article he made personal attacks against me. He also posted a similar personal attack on my talk page.
@Ckfasdf, I went ahead and reverted the message on your talk page. It looks like they have been blocked for a couple of days. I would suggest that if they continue after the block, post here or contact an admin.Knitsey (talk)17:48, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
No judgment on the blocking administrator's block, but if it were me I would have blocked indefinitely pending some sort of assurance they would never violateWP:NPA/WP:CIVIL again. These sorts of attacks are highly reflective of the person making them, not the person against whom they are targeted. Such behavior is completely incompatible with this community. I've issued Borges777 a final warning indicating the next block would be indefinite. This will end, either through them complying with policy or being shown the door. --Hammersoft (talk)18:57, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
Stickhandler posting transphobic vandalism on the Epstein page
[268] Stickhandler edited the Jeffrey Epstein article to call a transgender Epstein victim a "crossdressing man" and change her pronouns to he/him.
Looking at his edit history, he has also been edit warring and POV-pushing about gender affirming care and other such topics inGordon Guyatt.[269][270][271]
All of these edits are from yesterday. I originally posted this at AE, but in 10k edits somehow he hadn't been issued a CTOP warning, so I was told that I could take it here.
My comment from when this was misfiled at Enforcement requests:[273] - In this reversion made hours after the Enforcement request case was opened, the edit summary provided by Stickhandler wasstrange that ppl keep on deleting useful info - why is that exactly?, when in the edit summaries reverting Stickhandler's bold addition and the discussion that was started on the talk page on 10 September, detail that the issue people have with including the opinion of Higgins is that the article is an opinion piece by a journalist with no relevant qualifications with regards to the provision of medical treatment. I would say that the answer towhy is that exactly? is rather evident. --Cdjp1 (talk)14:17, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
Stickhandler very rarely uses edit summaries, at max 2% of edits have a summary over 2 words.[274]
This seems intentionally misleading: This edit was labelledce[275]
It removed noting theSPLC designated SEGM a hate group
Introduces the name of a group (which is OR, the sources don't use it)
Removes Guyatt's comments critical of SEGM
LinksMichael W. Higgins. The immediate edit before was me delinking him noting its a completely different dude[276] He later relinks it when somebody else corrects it[277]
He has repeatedly denied breaching 3RR while edit warring to include an opinion piece on medical treatment by somebody with no medical qualifications
Almost forgot, Stickhandler responded at length at AE.[278] Absolutely no acknowledgement of calling a trans woman a crossdressing man.
The edit speaks for itselfIn October 2007, transgender model Ava Cordero alleged that Epstein had abusedherthe crossdressing man and filed suit accordingly, however thisit waswidely dismissed, with press at the time instead making allegations about Cordero's mental health and mockingherhis gender identity.
Stickhandleragreed to abide by the relevant guidelines on his talk page. Because of this, I'd prefer to avoid a sanction as long as disruption does not recur. However, if he makes any edits like the Epstein one in the future, I would support a topic ban.QuicoleJR (talk)14:58, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
I think that even if GENSEX wasn't a CTOP, this edit is still enough for a TBAN. This is an editor with over 10k edits, he's not a child.Snokalok (talk)15:03, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
I agree that the edit was unacceptable, but since this is their first offense and they agreed to not violate the guidelines in the future, it is okay to let them off with a stern warning here. Again, if they do anything like that edit again, I would support a TBAN, but I'd like to give them a chance to change their ways before jumping to sanctions, since there is no history of disruption.QuicoleJR (talk)15:06, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
Blocks are preventative, not punitive. They said they won't try to pull this crap again, and I'm giving them a chance to abide by their word. If they didn't give that statement saying they would stop, I would have supported a TBAN, and I will support one if they cause any more disruption, but a warning is all that is needed at this time.QuicoleJR (talk)15:17, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
My personal philosophy is that if somebody is saying bigoted things about minorities, a block/ban is the bare minimum and not punative. It's preventative in that it makes it clear that such displays of open bigotry are not acceptable, both to the editor but also others, which deters bigotry and means it doesn't drive away effected minorities. Conversely, slaps on the wrist for saying bigoted things send a message to the editor, other editors, and targeted minorities that such bigotry is tolerated, pushing the overton window.
They said they won't try to pull this crap again, and I'm giving them a chance to abide by their word. I'm all for 2nd chances and actual growth, but per my earlier comment, at no point has Stickhandler shown any contrition for making bigoted statements. The statement at AE didn't address it[279] and the talk page acknowledgement they are now aware GENSEX is a CTOP[280] is not a recognition that they put open bigotry in a WP article. I might be missing something, but has Stickhandler actually addressed that issue specifically?Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk)17:53, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
I had left a note on their talk page date they acknowledged the CTOP informing them ofMOS:GENDERID and they haven't edited since. Depending on their next edits, a TBAN/block may or may not be warranted.QuicoleJR (talk)18:02, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
Fair enough. Personally, I'm weighing the previous selective silence heavily if that makes sense. The AE case OP notes the misgendering. The first admin to respond notes thatthe first edit is very unacceptable and similar future edits will result in a block.. Stickhandlers statement in response completely sidesteps that.In addition to doubling down on an insistence they didn't edit-war.Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk)18:21, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
Stickhandler has had multiple issues with edit warring and BLP issues before (not to mention general poor editing). A short list of recent issues:
Createscategory:Apex sex predators and adds someone to it[283]. I'll note the CSD notes no articles actual use that term, and Stickhandlers defense wasWe need not be too concerned by WP:BLP, because these men are convicts[284]
Translates an article incredibly incorrectly, doesn't respond to questions about it[285]
Adds unsourced information to a BLP and keeps doubling down on it[286]
Edit wars at a BLP to introduce content, and insists they're not actually edit warring[287]
When told by new page patrol that an article seems biased, says it is their responsibility to fix and they are neutral.[288]
That's ignoring the dozens if not hundreds of notifications of improper references on these pages, speedy deletions of categories, draftications of poorly written or translated articles, etc.
I was not aware of those prior issues, thank you for bringing those diffs up. Judging by that, this guy should be nowhere near BLPs. I'd support a TBAN from biographies of living persons. This is beyond unacceptable and needs to stop.QuicoleJR (talk)18:23, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
I support the engagement with them to resolve this issue, and blocks or bans are unnecssary this time, but I thinkStickhandler has pretty much exhausted the supply ofWP:AGF, and is now in the last-chance saloon. Perhaps they might want voluntarily to abstain from editing fromWP:GENSEX articles for the foreseeable future? —The Anome (talk)16:23, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
Given the diffs brought up by YFNS above, I would suggest a partial block from article space until Stickhandler addresses these issues, since they appeared unable to address their transphobic edits when they were brought up at AE.Black Kite (talk)18:50, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
So while they have not received a warning forWP:GENSEX specifically, I think it is reasonable to assume they know what a CTOP is and given their history of having cited WP:BLP, that they are CTOP aware for BLP's perAn editor who has not received an alert may also be presumed to be aware of a contentious topic if the editor: perHas otherwise made edits indicating an awareness of the contentious topic, since they've been citing BLP themself several times, sothis comment appears not quite accurate (for CTOPs in general, for GENSEX, yes).
User talk:Stickhandler: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia shows a severe misunderstanding of what is okay to state in wikivoice and the argument of"synonym accepted by wiki" is peculiar at best, but it follows a pattern of creative-writing asTalk:Michael Wolff (journalist): Difference between revisions - Wikipedia shows. So, between those instances of creative writing and thisflat out violation of BLP/GENSEX, and indicative more broadly ofWP:HID/WP:NQP type actions. Accidental misgendering, while still harmful, is one thing, but intentionally changing a trans women's pronouns to a phrase that wasused inNazi-Germany to refer to trans women is not something that I think we should condone in any way, shape, or form, which if it was an SPA or IP vandal would result in an instant block at AIV and RD2, this leans more into aWP:NOTHERE territory to productively build an encyclopedia in certain topic spaces, particularly on the area of people/BLP's and GENSEX.
So, I'd suggest a BLP topic ban at a minimum, since it doesn't look like their previous edit issues are limited to GENSEX, but really BLP more broadly. I'd say the egregious nature of the GENSEX violation warrants a CTOP ban too, whether they were alerted to or not. If not already amounting to NOTHERE.Raladic (talk)23:12, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
Indef stop handling established accounts and transphobia with kid gloves. These edits are disgustingly bigoted and have no good faith interpretation.Dronebogus (talk)11:43, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
I'm not sure whether a topic ban or indefinite block would be the best solution, but this definitely shouldn't be left with no action, especially since there doesn't seem to have been acknowledgement of the BLP & edit warring issues.Hatman31(he/him ·talk ·contribs)17:32, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
@Black Kite This thread went up ten minutes before his AE reply, he made a few more edits, and since then after a month straight of making tens to hundreds of edits a day, he's suddenly gone silent. He clearly saw it, can we impose your suggestion?Snokalok (talk)18:12, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
Snokalok's "since then after a month straight of making tens to hundreds of edits a day, he's suddenly gone silent. He clearly saw it, can we impose your suggestion?" plea (here) to the collective is interesting as he confers upon himself the status of anomniscient observer. Put simply, I tended to other business while I waited for the first step in this process to complete itself. I must thank@Tamzin: for reducing my task to addressing "serialWP:BLP" violations. Can I ask my accusers to summarize theirindictment because, put together, the foregoing looks incredibly haphazard.
I must protest the change of venue from AE - seeUser talk:Stickhandler#AE Notice(!) - to this one here, ANI as I gather, immediately after I had replied to the AE noticeboard. This change was requested again by Snokalok who seems to be on apower trip. I feel that this change is anAbuse of process, and so please excuse my extended absence while things cooled down.
Your recent edits referring to a transgender Epstein victim as acrossdressing man and intentionally using the incorrect pronouns, in violation ofMOS:GENDERID. This one is particularly bad as we have several transgender editors, andtransphobia is disruptive.
There also seems to be some contention regarding your edits toGordon Guyatt, but I am not particularly familiar with that issue and therefore cannot summarize that part for you. Hope this helps.QuicoleJR (talk)15:01, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
Saying you intentionally didn't respond"while things cooled down" is a bold strategy when your first reply here attempts to characterize this as"punishment of thought-crime", and accusing an editor of considering themselves to be omniscient and being on a power trip, despite them having no power over you. Might be good to cut thepersonal attacks.GabberFlasted (talk)15:32, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
Alright, putting aside the immediate personal attacks (which are their own issue) and the fact that I find it *very* hard to believe that you know nothing of AE or ANI given that you have a shockingly high edit count, have been on this site for years, and have a history of editing in areas subject to CTOP restrictions per Raladic; let's ask the more simple, immediate questions.
What was your reason for making the Epstein trans edit?
What was your reason for creating the category Apex Sex Predators and putting people in it?
What was your reason for the edit related to Guyatt and SEGM listed by YFNS above?
Let's simplify this: Someone being p-blocked just from mainspace+draftspace is a generally undesirable state of affairs, because we're simultaneously signaling we don't trust them to contribute to the product we create, but do trust them to be around behind the scenes, which rarely makes sense. So, I don't intend for this to stand as a p-block indefinitely. As I've already told Stickhandler, if they can explain the edits they've made and credibly commit to not doing the same again, I'm willing to unblock them. Conversely, if this falls off of AN/I without that happening, I will upgrade this to a site-indef, with recommendation that any unblock include a TBAN from trans people and sex offenses (union, notintersection). --Tamzin[cetacean needed](they|xe|🤷)18:38, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
This is an encyclopedia website, which is administered by a bunch of people whose hobby is to administer an encyclopedia website, and while we try to observe some basic semblance of justice and equality in our proceedings, that is pretty hard to do even in real life where people get paid lots of money to do so.
I think you are broadly correct in your observation that AN/I is a bizarre and confusing venue in which you are not given much of a way to defend yourself while you are being accused of a bunch of things by random interlocutors. However, I think you are incorrect on the merits of most of your assertions, and the gravamen of the thing you've been dragged here for doing is (if true) rather reckless and crass, as well as ignorant and against the rules. I would recommend you try to be contrite, or at least polite, whether or not it seems fair, and failing that, you will probably have to go find some other website to go hang out on.jp×g🗯️08:01, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
133… blocked as VPNGate proxy. No judgement at present on Beorhast.Also, youmust notify the editor who you are reporting. That’s clearly stated on this page. Please do it now. — rsjaffe🗣️04:38, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
I think it is a stretch to call this a personal attack. The comments are not directed at an individual, and express frustration with the people recommending to delete. It's an opinion, not an attack. I don't agree with what the editor is doing, and I'm quite concerned about the attitude expressed by the IP withthis, but there's no action to take here. We're not going to block for this. It's worth monitoring, but it's not blockable. --Hammersoft (talk)12:32, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
The comments are not directed at an individual, and express frustration with the people recommending to delete is a bizarre self-contradiction: making personal attacks broadly at a group of people doesn't mean you aren't attacking the individuals, it means you're attacking many individuals all at once. The idea thatThe push to delete this article is clearly driven by bias is not a personal attack because it is "expressing frustration" is likewise bizarre; surely a great many personal attacks arise as expressions of frustration.128.164.177.55 (talk)13:45, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
I disagree. However, even if it was, it is an isolated incident that would not be considered an urgent incident or chronic, intractable behavioral problem. There's nothing actionable here. --Hammersoft (talk)14:06, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
Well, your disagreement is obviously just a result of your personal bias, and you would do well to keep it in check. BTW how do you feel about signing talk-page messages with fake usernames?128.164.177.55 (talk)14:36, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
Sorry,not taking the bait. This noticeboard is for"urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems". That hasn't been demonstrated here. Unless you can demonstrate a long pattern of abuse with diffs to support it, this isn't going anywhere. --Hammersoft (talk)19:06, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
Oh it seems you also think it's a good idea to call other contributors "disruptive, agenda-driven, or disturbed" because they disagree with you -- always good to see administrators setting a good example.128.164.177.55 (talk)13:14, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
I have now had an opportunity to review the edits by both the IP and @Beorhast. I concur with @Hammersoft: less than ideal and Beorhast should watch their combatitiveness: it is not constructive here, but not actionable currently (other than to provide corrective guidance). Registered users editing logged out is not a good thing, but the connection between the two accounts was very clear withno attempt to mislead (but using a VPN isusually against Wikipedia policy). — rsjaffe🗣️22:23, 17 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 Yousuf31 - AfC "Shopping" and Recreating Articles Deleted Following AfD
I've been debating bringing this to AnI, however in recreating an article of theirs that was deleted at AfD pushed me over the edge. @Yousuf31 has had a rather tumultuous short history of editing. First off, they have a history of repeatedly re-submitting articles at AfC after they were denied with few or no changes (most recentlythis one). Repeated re-submissions without major changes or updates, like they did withAir Shabelle, at the very least clogs the AfC system and leads me to believe the user is simply hoping an approver doesn't notice the previous denials. They've even gone so far as to bypass the AfC process by moving draft articles that had been previously denied to mainspace, as they didhere.
This user has been gently encouraged to learn more about editing, reminded of rules, and warned of their behavior more times than I can count, for everything from requests to leave edit summaries to using reliable sources, both in AfD discussions and on their talk page. Nothing seems to get through to them, though. Warnings that have since been removed from the user's talk page can be found,here,here, andhere. I was originally operating under the assumption that it was a good-faith editor that just didn't really understand the policies. Unfortunately, I'm beginning to think it's a combination ofWP:NOTHERE andWP:CIR that is resulting in editors having to spend an inordinate amount of time cleaning up afterwards.
I'm not sure that a ban is necessary, but having confirmed status revoked and at least a temporary topic ban might get the message across.nf utvol (talk)15:03, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
It's not clear what extended-confirmed status has to do with the problems this editor has and you didn't even propose what subject a topic ban would cover. There seems to be a collection of problems here and the desire to sanction the editor for them but not a clear focus on why you chose these sanctions and what positive effects they would have. They seem more like a punishment of the editor than a solution the problems that are occurring and how they would even help resolve those.LizRead!Talk!00:09, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
Honestly I'm just spitballing at this point for alternatives to a ban. My reasoning with the removal of the confirmed status would prevent the user from doing things like moving draft articles rejected at AfC to mainspace, and a temporary topic ban (Aviation related articles, maybe?) might be a forcing function to make them take the requests to review policies more seriously.nf utvol (talk)14:00, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
Resubmitting an AfC page that you didn't really change repeatedly is low-level disruptive, but they may not know what they're doing.
Just this:
The straw that broke the camel's back was today, when this user re-created the article 1944 South African Air Force C-47 crash, which had been previously deleted as the result of an AfD.
What's the issue with trying to revive an article at AfC after it was wiped at AfD? That's literally one of the use cases for AfC. I did the same thing myself afterthis AfD, when I latermade this via AfC. Raising the dead like that is a good thing. I'm actually eyeing about half a dozen AfD losers on a few topics that I think could sail past AfC, whenever I have time.
That's not what happened. The article was taken to AfD for lack of notability, then recreated soon after with no substantial changes. It's hard to state it was done in ignorance when the following notification pops up before the page is created:If you are creating a new page with different content, please continue. If you are recreating a page similar to the previously deleted page, or are unsure, please first contact the user(s) who performed the action(s) listed below. If you want to re-create an article that was deleted at AfD, you shouldn't just try to shove it through AfC again, you need to work with the closer to resolve the issues (if they're even fixable).nf utvol (talk)13:58, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
Well, disagree on the post-AfD scenario needing any engagement with either the AfD nominator nor the closer. The moment the thing closes they are out of the picture and have no policy defined stake in the future outcome of the article birthing again. They are just random schmucks like all of us then. If I found a red link that died at AfD a week or a year ago, I'm not going to even bother the nominator nor the closer. If I can save it, it's just getting dropped into AfC. They have no special rights (nor courtesy anything owed). —Very Polite Person (talk/contribs)16:45, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
I recommend taking a moment to reviewWP:DRV. There's a whole process for deletion review that should be followed that you're suggesting should be bypassed.nf utvol (talk)18:17, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
That's to undelete the prior version. I'm talking about total first-character rewrites from scratch as I did withChristopher Mellon. DRV is not required in such scenarios. There is no policy that says it does, and I've myself proven that you can trivially take even a "constroversial" topic page that died at AfD, toss it into AfC as a fresh draft, pass AfC, and it's done. AfD has no special power over AfC or vice versa under policy. Consensus changes. —Very Polite Person (talk/contribs)18:31, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
Ah, I misunderstood what you were saying. I get it now, sorry. Regardless, that's not what happened here...the user in question just re-wrote the previous article without making substantive changes that would have fixed any of the notability issues raised in the previous AfD.nf utvol (talk)18:35, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
I think with Yousuf31 they're fast enteringWP:CIR territory. Yesterday they decided to justadd the Good Article template to an article on the basis it has reliable sources and is long. I can find no evidence it went through the Good Article process, and if it had it would have failed. And they'reremoving notability templates on the basis that they have sources. At this point it's quite clear they don't understand what makes something notable. They've been informed. They've been warned. They've had things explained to them (repeatedly). Their only response is todelete the items from their talk page and continue doing what they want while ignoring what everyone is saying to them.Canterbury Tailtalk16:10, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
The number of times they have blanked their talk page is quite impressive. I have a feeling there is at least a language barrier here, but they also don't seem to understand that removing notices doesn't just make the issue go away. This is like 30%WP:CIR and 70% a language barrier, if I had to guess. The combination makes it difficult to communicate changes to them, which then either aren't understood or aren't comprehended... A short block might give them a jolt and make them pay more attention? Something needs to get their attention so they follow policy or else this is likely to get worse before it gets better.MrAureliusRYell at me!17:34, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
I've posted a message on their talk page encouraging them to come here and get involved, since they deleted the previous ANI notice. Lets see what happens.Canterbury Tailtalk17:29, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
@Yousuf31: This editor continues to be non-responsive to talk page messages, though they continue to be active making it unlikely they simply haven't noticed their talk page messages. Today, they continued their pattern of disruptive editing bymoving a page sent to draft following a failed AfC to mainspace without any substantial changes.nf utvol (talk)16:46, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
Okay, since no one else seems willing to step in, and they're continuing their pattern of disruptive editing, I've given them a 24 hour block with a warning it will happen again if they continue to ignore the community, refuse to understand notability and continue their disruptive editing.Canterbury Tailtalk14:45, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
It might be legitmate editing and I might be a dumbass, but this IP and a couple others (IP range, I think?) has been doing really odd edits in essay space for the last couple days. I've reverted the edits I initially came across at the essay no queerphobia for now, but they've also been going around slapping a contentious essay template on a bunch of stuff varying from reasonable to somewhat odd. IDK, just smells like socks in here. --Licks-rocks (talk)22:05, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.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 talk page access please be revoked here? Based off ofthis edit, this isvery clearly an LTA IP associated withWP:LTA/REVERSI. Possibly also just a deletion of the talk page perWP:BANREVERT and/or a longer block?... Not quite sure if notifying the IP regarding this is necessary as it is an LTA that just plainly harasses no matter what, and will likely continue with more IPs and/or accounts in the future (keeps on finding/harassing me through different sandbox pages of mine). Thanks.Magitroopa (talk)02:06, 19 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 aggressively engaging in disruptive editing, edit warring, and misrepresenting sources
Computeracct appears to be a case ofWP:NOTHERE, with their aggressive edit warring, disruptive edits, and misrepresentation of sources to whitewash what have been extensively covered by reliable sources to be propaganda films, namelyThe Bengal Files andThe Kashmir Files.
Computeracct resumed edit warring to whitewashThe Bengal Files after its full protection automatically expired.[291] Computeracct had been already told to stop calling reliable sources unreliable,[292] however, Computeracct went a step further by callingThe Wire unreliable onThe Kashmir Files while removed long-standingWP:STABLE content.[293] This is contrary to the community consensus on RSN, where The Wire has been discussed to be reliable.[294] I am also going to mention that this user has admitted using AI tools for writing their messages.[295]
Computeracct has severely misrepresented sources onthis edit by usingthis source when changing "Reception among Pandits has been mixed" to "Reception among Pandits has been mostly positive". The sources previously were reliable and gauged the consensus of the entire Kashmiri Pandit community regarding the film. The user added two sources to shift the narrative. The first source added is from well around 3 years after the film has released and does not dwell on a review of said film, rather focusing on the2025 Pahalgam attack. Thesecond source added merely shares views of two cricketers, rather than attributing their views to be coming from "Kashmiri Pandits", also violatingWP:CASTEID. There is no verification about their caste or community in the given source. This edit was reverted byBlack Kite,[296] who urged Computeracct to discuss the edits.
For all the above disruption, Computeracct has been given multiple warnings for edit warring, mislabeling reliable sources as unreliable, and for his misrepresentation of sources.[297][298] None of this has stopped Computeracct, who is only doubling down with the edit warring and misrepresentation of sources.
Computeracct went back to edit warring onThe Kashmir Files byrestoring their edit. The user made no changes to their version of the edit, which continue with all the same problems as stated above. Contrary to the instructions provided to the userhere, no discussion on the content was initiated.
As aWP:1AM, Computeracct is flooding the talk page ofTalk:The Bengal Files, and cherrypicking reviews from pro-Indian government outlets (seeGodi media) in order to show why the criticism against the movie must get no weight.[299][300] Computeracct is now callingThe Quint an unreliable source only because it has criticised the movie.[301] If that was not bad enough, the user is now baselessly accusing other editors to be a "case of WP: IDHT (I did not hear that)"[302] onTalk:The Bengal Files just because they are not agreeing with his attempts to remove the reliably sourced term "propaganda film" from the lead of the article.
Thislatest edit by Computeracct should be considered the last straw. The user is cherrypicking the reviews from pro-Indian government outlets to whitewash this globally recognised hateful Islamophobic propaganda film. While the article on the film covers in extensive details how reliable scholarship and reputed sources have called it propaganda and a distortion of facts for Hindu nationalist and Islamophobic political purposes (SeeThe_Kashmir_Files#Political_messaging_and_historical_accuracy), the user claims the movie is telling "true incidents that happened in Kashmir and is not a propaganda film", and it is "the truth, is authentic, shows true incidents etc." This is a significant violation ofWP:HOAX. As seen above, this has only further cemented the fact that the user is solely and exclusively editing on Wikipedia for the purposes ofWP:SOAP andWP:RGW.
I had seen the mentioned edits toTalk:The Kashmir Files and also found them to have completely crossed the line.[303] The retaliatory report below, together with the false accusations of "malicious lies and personal attacks", by Computeracct has made it easier for me to support a NOTHERE block.Azuredivay (talk)09:13, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
I have addressed the things in the original report.
That's a talk page comment with WP: RSP and or WP: RS sources. No line crossed there.
I don't recall having interacted with you (could be wrong, so correct me if I am wrong). So may I know why you jumped into the conversation without even putting anything on my talk page or in the topics talk page?Computeracct (talk)15:57, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
Computeracct's response below shows they are more focused on attacking the OP rather than addressing the concerns raised about their editing, especially their pro-Hindutva POV pushing in the contentious topic area. I could think of a topic ban, however, theWP:CIR issue with them is obvious and with these many behavioral issues, an indef block would be an ideal solution.MBlaze Lightning (talk)11:44, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
I too support an indef block, given all the issues with the user. Also, they appear to have de-coupled their complaint from this thread and made it a separate complaint in this noticeboard. They seem more hell-bent on attacking me back rather than engaging with the specific concerns in good faith.EarthDude (wannatalk?)15:16, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
Incorrect. You are the one who has engaging in bad faith and spreading falsehoods against me as logged over here.
Actually I did address them properly below now with purely for addressing his allegations.
The complaint is lodged separately.
Edit: I just checked and saw. I disagreed with your comment and substantiated with stuff from WP: ICTF and or WP: RSP sources. you didn't respond to the merit of what I had written in the talk page and now are jumping in here? May I know?
1. "Computeracct had been already told to stop calling reliable sources unreliable,[196] "
A) I had already mentioned that The Scroll is not under reliable sources in WP: ICTF and WP: RSP. so me saying it is not in reliable sources was correct.
EarthDude did not address that and he is incorrect.
2. "Computeracct went back to edit warring onThe Kashmir Files byrestoring their edit. The user made no changes to their version of the edit, which continue with all the same problems as stated above. Contrary to the instructions provided to the userhere, no discussion on the content was initiated."
A) incorrect. The problem was with changing the summary from mixed to positive, not about adding the content of Suresh Raina view (cricketer and Kashmiri Pandit). I did not change anything related to the summary again (which was the point of contention)
I also added a reliable source for Suresh Raina being a Kashmiri Pandit. So EarthDude stating that I did not change anything or edit warred again here is simply false.
3. "As aWP:1AM, Computeracct is flooding the talk page ofTalk:The Bengal Files, and cherrypicking reviews from pro-Indian government outlets (seeGodi media) in order to show why the criticism against the movie must get no weight.[203][204] "
A) Please note that he is bringing in his own bias and politics. And attacking things that go against it.
I showed reviews from sources which are WP: ICTF reliable and or WP: RSP reliable
I never said criticism against the movie must gain no weight. I said both sides have reliable parts. So yet another lie from him.
"Therefore I propose we write it this way:
Some critics say it shows the truth/history correctly, while some have said it distorts history.
This satisfies WP: NPOV and WP: Balance and information is from reliable sources
4. "Thislatest edit by Computeracct should be considered the last straw. The user is cherrypicking the reviews from pro-Indian government outlets to whitewash this globally recognised hateful Islamophobic propaganda film. While the article on the film covers in extensive details how reliable scholarship and reputed sources have called it propaganda and a distortion of facts for Hindu nationalist and Islamophobic political purposes (SeeThe_Kashmir_Files#Political_messaging_and_historical_accuracy), the user claims the movie is telling "true incidents that happened in Kashmir and is not a propaganda film", and it is "the truth, is authentic, shows true incidents etc." This is a significant violation ofWP:HOAX. As seen above, this has only further cemented the fact that the user is solely and exclusively editing on Wikipedia for the purposes ofWP:SOAP andWP:RGW."
The user Earthdude is just showing his significant bias/political leanings over here and making sweeping/broadstroke assertions for which he does not have evidence.
I put reviews from WP:ICTF and WP: RSP reliable sources.
His claim that this is WP: HOAX, WP: SOAP and WP: RGW are based on nothing but innuendo and falsehoods.
Same thing for that I am solely exclusively here for such stuff. I have made contributions to many movie related pages (not just these 2 movies), many cricketer related pages, some tennis related pages
So EarthDude is incorrect here again. Also note that ZDRX did not respond there after I pointed out that he was indulging in WP: IDHT.
6. About the AI part
I wrote the comment on my own and polished it a little with the help of AI. SeeWikipedia:Artificial intelligence where AI can be used for editing (provided it is guided+checked by humans)
So saying I used AI to write the comment is a distortion.
Edit: I only use AI to polish only a very small % of comments and it is definitely not against policy. So this not a basis for any complaint
My advice would be that you not use AI even to "polish"- most of us would prefer to hear from you directly. It may not be forbidden by policy, but it makes you seem less authentic. We don't need your comments to be grammatically and stylistically perfect, just talk to us.
Fair enough. I only use it for a pretty small % of my comments.
As it is not against policy, I'm sure you would agree there is no need to bring it up here especially as I had pointed out the same thing to EarthDude previously:
@Computeracct: If you don't want people to bring it up, I suggest you don't do it. As long as you continue to do it, expect it to be brought up. 15:45, 14 September 2025 (UTC)Nil Einne (talk)15:45, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
Your point is taken. I won't do it anymore.
But do you think the same person bringing it up for the 2nd time in a complaint here - after it has been responded to the 1st time in a complaint and shown as not against wiki policy is good faith behaviour?Computeracct (talk)16:17, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
Even now, you are either ignoring or misrepresenting what I have said and my concerns. For instance, I said you misrepresented sources and that you had framed reliable sources as unreliable, citing your incident with The Wire. in response, you jumped to The Scroll which wasn't even a part of this discussion. I never even mentioned the Scroll here. Without even fully taking into consideration the other stuff I wrote regarding your misrepresentation of sources, you immediately jumped to the next point. That or when you said 'The problem was with changing the summary from mixed to positive, not about adding the content of Suresh Raina view", which is completely incorrect too, as when the admin Black Kite reverted you and urged you to gain consensus, he had reverted your entire edit, not just the summary. These were just 2 examples. This pattern seems to continue for most of your response.EarthDude (wannatalk?)15:34, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
1 You did reference the Scroll here. The 188 reference.
Computeracct had been already told to stop calling reliable sources unreliable,[188]
So yes, it was part of the discussion.
So you are incorrect again
2. As far as what the admin Black Kite did and wrote,this is what he wrote "woah, absolutely not - that will need a discussion on the talk page, please"
I understand why an admin would say a consensus would be needed for making the change in summary.
But I don't think a consensus would be needed for adding the part about Suresh Raina with reliable sources. why would that be a requirement?
You are incorrect on both parts and you being incorrect/stating falsehoods is a clear pattern documented and shown by me multiple times now.Computeracct (talk)15:50, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
Yes, and several other editors had defended Scroll for being reliable. However, my main point was regarding you crossing the line with your removal of content by The Wire and framing that as unreliable. Further, I added your misrepresentation of sources during several other disputes you had involved yourself with. When I said The Scroll was not a part of the discussion or that I had not mentioned it, I meant that it was not the primary aspect of the issue with your misrepresentation of sources, it was a peripheral one for that. However, you did not delve into any of that, and simply hyper focused on the Scroll before ignoring everything else and advancing to the next point. Same thing with all of your other given points. Not to mention you continue to defend your edits forThe Kashmir Files and in the process, attempt to openly whitewash a Hindu nationalist and Islamophobic ahistorical film.EarthDude (wannatalk?)16:04, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
1. And I have addressed others parts as well. Maybe you did not check properly.
2. Several other editors defending Scroll based on what? Just personal opinions. Not policy.
3. About Kashmir Files: You are again bringing in your significant bias and politics into this. And your accusation of whitewash is yet another instance of you personally attacking me here.
I put stuff as per Wiki policies. (reliable sources)
@The Black Kite: Please note time and again, @EarthDude is bringing in his own politics and significant bias repeatedly instead of talking about merit and policies.
And attacking me personally.
His characterization of The Kashmir Files movie is incorrect IMO. People can have different opinions on that of course, but that's a matter of topic of discussion on an article talk page, not here.Computeracct (talk)16:14, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
Computeracct has falsified yet another source[304] now to claim that there is self identification for Suresh Raina being a Kashmiri Pandit, when the cited source has no quote or statement by Raina where he identifies himself as Kashmiri Pandit[305]. I'm also failing to see why a random tweet by a cricketer is of any relevance to this film. He is only repeating himself[306] and is still not willing to understand the basic policies.Orientls (talk)08:35, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
I asked first if that was a proper source of self-identification and you didn't respond why it wasn't. Just stated it false at first without saying why.
Suresh Raina is a Kashmiri Pandit (not just a cricketer) and that is well known to people. Just because I haven't been able to find a source satisfying all of the wiki policies yet, doesn't mean its false. Also I don't think WP:CASTEID is a basic policy of Wiki. its a policy brought out after quite a bit of debate and finally consensus.
You cannot add a source which states that Raina is a Kashmiri Pandit without self-verification, as it would be a BLP violation. You cannot add his opinion to the article on Kashmir Files because the article you cited does not term his views to be coming from a "Kashmiri Pandit". You cannot synthesize his alleged Kashmiri Pandit identity with his tweet promoting this film to make claims that Kashmiri Pandits have rated it positively, and similarly, you cannot cite op-eds from non experts who say that this film depicted reality contrary to scholarly consensus that it was a propaganda film. Given your continuedWP:IDHT, I agree with the proposed indef block on you now.Orientls (talk)10:57, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
The self-identification is in terms of 3rd person narration from what Raina said on a TV. It wasn't clear whether it requires a direct quote.
You gave the the reason that one needs a direct quote one time. That does not constitute WP: IDHT.
Don't worry, I am not going to edit the page about Suresh Raina view without discussion in the talk page.
The one from News18 was headlined as a review. Since the admin decided it was not and called it a op-ed, I respected his decision and moved on.
Can I ask you that instead of actually discussing topics why you are intent on focusing stuff that has already been addressed/accepted?Computeracct (talk)11:32, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
The evasive responses from C. above reads likeWP:NOTHERE territory...
It's quite telling when someone spends quite some text defending themselves and strawmanning the OP (by cherrypicking, imo, minor points that doesn't even matter to the main criticism),without actually addressing the central criticism.海盐沙冰 / irisChronomia / Talk08:02, 19 September 2025 (UTC)
Note block: Computeracct has been indefinitely blocked for COI/promo editing. The block was based on private evidence. It's not necessarily true that this section should be closed, since the community might find that the conduct described above merits a separate sanction.Firefangledfeathers (talk /contribs)14:14, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
User indulging in lies, distortions, personal attacks against me
This has been open for 72 hours now. No support for the filers claims in that time, and the filer has been blocked indefinitely. If someone has their own conduct complaint against EarthDude, please start a fresh discussion, preferably with more brevity.Firefangledfeathers (talk /contribs)11:53, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.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 @EarthDude has been indulging in malicious lies and personal attacks against me.
"Computeracct had been already told to stop calling reliable sources unreliable,[196] "
The Scroll is not under reliable sources in WP: ICTF and WP: RSP. so me saying it is not in reliable sources was correct.
So EarthDude is lying over here.
2. "Computeracct went back to edit warring onThe Kashmir Files byrestoring their edit. The user made no changes to their version of the edit, which continue with all the same problems as stated above. Contrary to the instructions provided to the userhere, no discussion on the content was initiated."
This is again a lie. The problem was with changing the summary from mixed to positive, not about adding the content of Suresh Raina view (cricketer and Kashmiri Pandit. I did not change anything related to the summary again) I also added a reliable source for Suresh Raina being a Kashmiri Pandit. So EarthDude stating that I did not change anything or edit warred again here is simply false.— Precedingunsigned comment added byComputeracct (talk •contribs)08:53, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
3. "As aWP:1AM, Computeracct is flooding the talk page ofTalk:The Bengal Files, and cherrypicking reviews from pro-Indian government outlets (seeGodi media) in order to show why the criticism against the movie must get no weight.[203][204] "
bringing in his own bias and politics.
I showed reviews from sources which are WP: ICTF reliable and or WP: RSP reliable
I never said criticism against the movie must gain no weight. I said both sides have reliable parts. So yet another lie from him.
"Therefore I propose we write it this way:
Some critics say it shows the truth/history correctly, while some have said it distorts history.
This satisfies WP: NPOV and WP: Balance and information is from reliable sources
4. "Thislatest edit by Computeracct should be considered the last straw. The user is cherrypicking the reviews from pro-Indian government outlets to whitewash this globally recognised hateful Islamophobic propaganda film. While the article on the film covers in extensive details how reliable scholarship and reputed sources have called it propaganda and a distortion of facts for Hindu nationalist and Islamophobic political purposes (SeeThe_Kashmir_Files#Political_messaging_and_historical_accuracy), the user claims the movie is telling "true incidents that happened in Kashmir and is not a propaganda film", and it is "the truth, is authentic, shows true incidents etc." This is a significant violation ofWP:HOAX. As seen above, this has only further cemented the fact that the user is solely and exclusively editing on Wikipedia for the purposes ofWP:SOAP andWP:RGW."
again goes to show his relentless bias.
I put reviews from WP:ICTF and WP: RSP reliable sources.
His claim that this is WP: HOAX, WP: SOAP and WP: RGW are based on nothing but innuendo and lies.
Same thing for that I am solely exclusively here for that. I have made contributions to many movie related pages (not just these 2 movies), many cricketer related pages, some tennis related pages.
I exposed his lies and the admin did not take any action against me.
So given his numerous lies, distortions and personal attacks against me, I request you to take action against him including banning him from the 2 pages and maybe a temp banComputeracct (talk)08:36, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
(1) Literally no-one is going to read this (WP:TLDR). (2) Ifthis source which I had to remove fromThe Kashmir Files, which was not a film review but a political opinion piece which runs counter to the consensus version of the actual facts, is the type of material you are including, then I strongly suspect that there may be a problem here, though perhaps not the one you are describing.Black Kite (talk)15:28, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
Yes, we know what the link is, because that's the one I removed. As I've just said, that's not a film review (as the author actually admits), it's a political opinion piece/rant about how they believe the version of events portrayed in the film is equivalent to reality, which general scholarly consensus says is not true. We can't use that.Black Kite (talk)20:56, 14 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.
Danners430 and zealous enforcement of WP:V by repeated blanket reversions
When does robust defence of WP:V turn into disruption, tendentious and uncollegial editing to trample over other editors?
All the editing I ever see from Danners430 is the same pattern: bulk reversions of content on railway articles, justified by it being either unsourced, or not sourced to a standard that Danners430 sees as acceptable. They have no leeway over this, no facility for compromise. AGF is nowhere to be seen. Most of these edits are justified: this lack of sourcing is a problem, especially in the field of adding the latest 'news' to railway preservation articles. It's a good question as to how much of this we should be carrying at all, but that's a different matter. But this isn't an ANI post aboutwhat Danners430 is doing, so much ashow. WP does have a few near-absolute rules (if rarely enforced) and WP:V is one of them. But are they going too far? Is it right to rollback a large edit on the basis that "Flick isn't WP:RS", when the edit was "Gordon Highlander has now been painted purple" and the photo shows it has indeed.[310] Very often these don't even involve WP:RS, they're about WP:PRIMARY, which is a different issue.
In today's example, it's bulk rollback on challenges to two sources. Except that there arethree sources. Is the third being excluded because it's primary? Which is not anything thatWP:PRIMARY requires (it'sone member of a list that forms a sub-section of a broad article). Or because the website (and entire preservation project) is down? Yet they're now claiming that it's "still preserved" (unsourced at all), because they won't accept anything saying that it's now abandoned.
This is not about the article today, it's a behavioural issue and a long-running one. We have to preserve WP:V, but also we have to work with other editors, and this seems to be going well against it. Particularly when it's directed against new editors. More established editors have raised this before,User talk:Danners430/Archive 4#Sourced information, but when their response is to be so dismissive and then insta-archive it out of sight, that's stretching AGF an awful lot.
I will say I'm rather taken aback that this has suddenly come to ANI, when at its core this is nothing more than a run-of-the-mill dispute about sourcing... surely this would have been handled better by starting a talk page discussion... which by the way hasn't even been attempted? Andy, you talk aboutWP:AGF... how is dragging someone to ANI without even an attempt at discussion assuming good faith?
If we must do this... Flickr is an image hosting website. There isn't a thing about it that failsWP:UGC. WNXX, the other source in those edits, was discussed previously atWP:RSN and there was little good that was said about the site, and most agreed it was likely user generated too. I will almost always (unless it's an IPv6 editor, when it's almost always pointless due to the dynamic nature of these IPs) leave a welcome notice or level 1 notice on the user's talk page informing them what has happened, and often add a note further explaining why they were reverted. In this case I'm not sure why I didn't after the first reversion - no explanation there.
As for the linked archived discussion... what pray tell is wrong about archiving discussions that have ended? The other editor is currently blocked so is unable to respond anyway... I believe I am perfectly entitled to archive messages.Danners430tweaks made19:58, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
No, this isnot "nothing more than a run-of-the-mill dispute about sourcing", don't try to derail it into one.
Read your talk: page. How many separate, independent editors are on there, making just the same point about your reversions, over and over.Andy Dingley (talk)20:11, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
Well, it rather is a content dispute. Sorry. Especially when you haven't even made an attempt at discussing the dispute at any sort of forum before dragging it to ANI...
Just a quick look at my talk page yields two discussions which were closed out through discussion (something I note you haven't done) either on that talk page or elsewhere, one discussion which I still find bizarre from an editor that i had never interacted with before complaining about being reverted (which I hadn't done - a quick look at their contributions will show that... I have no clue where they popped up from), and one notice about edit warring from a user not followingWP:BRD.
A look through my archives shows a lot of people complaining about being reverted... but what is it you want me to do here? Stop reverting users that add unsourced content? Stop removing non-reliable sources? Are you advocating for an unsourced Wikipedia, or what is your "goal" here?Danners430tweaks made20:18, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
bulk reversions of content on railway articles, justified by it being either unsourced, Removal ofunsourced content is entirely within policy.WP:V:Facts or claims without an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports them may be removed. They should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source.. 'Removal of content claimed to beimproperly sourced' may or may not be an issue, and if it is an issue, it's a valid one to bring here. But combining that with removal ofunsourced material is not a good thing to do, as it waters down the entire argument. -The BushrangerOne ping only21:07, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
I think it's worth mentioning here that much of the information I added to the Class 45's page was stuff copied directly from a previous version, and all of it is correct. The WNXX source could easily be removed if it was an issue, and several different people on Flickr and Facebook have confirmed that 45015 is indeed still at Shackerstone. Given how it is a noteworthy member of the class with a very noteworthy story, it should at least have some mention on the page like it used to.WaterDuck8 5741 (talk)22:38, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
Facebook not acceptable? Well, unless Danners430 isthe one using it, that is.
They want to have it both ways. Dogmatic absolutist enforcement on anyone else's edits, but they don't hold their own to the same standard.Andy Dingley (talk)00:00, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
@Andy Dingley:, Facebook pages that areof an organization, as Danners430 used in the link you provided, ARE acceptable asprimary sources. Facebooks of fan groups and individuals areWP:UGC.@WaterDuck8 5741:, the same applies to YouTube - if it is posted by an official account of an organization (in this case, the museum that holds the locomotive?) would be a primary source and thus appropriate for stating simple facts, such as "locomotive X exists at Y". If it is posted by an indvididual, it is UGC. -The BushrangerOne ping only00:47, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
OK, so the Nene Valley's FB page is acceptable. Then why are they removing the 45015 association's website? I don't much care which way they want to call it, but they seem to be flipping around as to what they will accept, and the common factor is which WP editor is posting it, more than who's in control of the content.Andy Dingley (talk)00:56, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
I'd take a guess and say that it might be because the Nene Valley Railway Facebook page is still up and running, with clear indication of who they are and in what capacity they are publishing their content, while the 45015 association's page is dead, the only archived pages from the domain are incredibly bare, and there is effectively no mention of the 45015 Association or the 45015 Fund anywhere except Wikipedia.
Given that anyone can purchase and use a .org.uk domain, combined with the fact that the website is completely dead with no way of establishing who actually ran it and in what capacity, I absolutely agree with removing information attributed to it underWP:V.As aboveso below23:55, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
The locomotive is not owned by a museum, it's just dumped on a heritage siding. Additionally, the only sources I have are social media (YouTube, Flickr, Facebook) postings that prove it's there. I might not be the person to add it but I do think 45015's current status should be represented on this site.WaterDuck8 5741 (talk)02:20, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
WaterDuck8,45015's current status should be represented on this siteonly to the extent that reliable sources discuss that status, and those sources are cited. Until so, the content should stay out.Cullen328 (talk)04:36, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
I know that this may not be related to the railways thing but there is this issue about Danners340 that I am concerned and I want to raise here,on many airports articles this user has been reverting edits made by others that removes air routes that are no longer operational because the routes removed are sourced and the editors that remove them did not add a source in the edit summary, these edits are not adding information but are removing information (or by some definitions updating), which unlike adding information, doesn't make sense to require a source because you're removing the information, the sources are outdated, the editors that removes these routes have most often stated that these routes are no longer operational which Danners340 reverts with edit summaries similar to "Removing sourced content" (I would understand why if the edits removing them has a empty edit summary so I won't get into it), I'm also concerned that this user may sometimes revert these edits even when the source (or the article itself) has stated the routes are ended, like this edit[311] which reverted my edit removing a route that stated it ended 5 days prior to the edit which he restored with the misleading edit summary "Unexplained removal" per here[312], there are also other edits of him bringing back routes that are no longer operational like[313] and[314], there are more edits similar to this he has made which you can find in his contributions list in the last 1 month, I have also noticed that this user has sometimes reverted similar edits that has a edit summary with "Unexplained removal" and not even about "removing sourced information". Despite these cases however, I would suggest not to get into his edits that remove unsourced additions or real unexplained edits, and I would say that this user is not a vandal.Metrosfan (talk)09:47, 19 September 2025 (UTC)
There have been a few times recently where I made mistakes when reverting such edits - I've acknowledged these, and learnt from said mistakes. I do now double check that there isn't already a sourced note saying the route is due to end. However, if that's not there then it is a verifiability issue. If a route is on a route table, and there's a source stating the route has started, we can't just remove that content - the source is valid, and unless there's a "counter-source" which states the route has (or will definitely) ended, then removing it because it has apparently ceased isoriginal research. Just because you know something to be true doesn't make it verifiable.
On the flipside, perhaps this is a matter for a bigger discussion - as you say, almost every source used for routes only state that a route is about to start or has started... there's no finality or currency. It also, in my view, flies (no pun intended) very close toWP:NOTTRAVEL. However, that's a discussion for another forum - likely an RfC atWT:WikiProject Airports orWT:WikiProject Airlines.Danners430tweaks made09:52, 19 September 2025 (UTC)
IP 92.15.144.109 repeatedly making personal attacks at editors
The following discussion is closed.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 just came into contact with an IP user at92.15.144.109 by responding to a talk page suggestion of theirs atTalk:Avengers: Doomsday#Suggestion, where they wanted to have some information removed from the article. I declined that request, as I would with any similar edit request, on the basis of upholding consensus from a relatively recent discussion on the material and the conflicting information from reputable sources. I told the IP that "reliably sourced and verified information and reports are not removed from Wikipedia just because the subject or involved company does not want them confirmed." It appears they took my response the wrong way, though I presume they are just a single-purpose troll hiding behind a UK-based IP address based on their response to my comment, saying "Alright fair enough but still maybe try not to be so rude when I am simply making a suggestion honestly weren’t you ever taught any manners." and "you know what screw it if that’s how you act all childish more power to you", as well as due to past warnings they have received for similar behavior. Many of these may be found inthe IP's talk history, which showcases a number of their inappropriate remarks targeting fellow editors who have warned them for their harassment behavior. Some of their notable go-tos are "basement dwelling" towards @Thilio and @Belbury, particularly declaring "Stop harrassing me you basement dwelling loser and then I’ll stop.", as well as their ranthere with flawed misconceptions about Wikipedia's terms of use by stating "our attack on me trailblazer101 is the tactics of a child.Misinterpreted” are you okay? Did I do something to upset you? Whatever it is try to find a more constructive way to convey your message. Vandalising my page for simply making a suggesting is a violation of my rights a wiki user and all under the guise of being an admin who cares when really it’s a cowardly excuse to seek to hurt people like myself. Wikipedia is meant to be a safe space for users and editors like to explore to create..."
This IP is clearlyWP:NOTHERE to engage constructively with fellow editors and is just a troll. Best not to waste a headache over this, but I felt compelled to file a formal report after noticing their repeat infractions and gross behavior.—Trailblazer101🔥 (discuss ·contribs)05:23, 19 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 following discussion is closed.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 know. I normally file less but given how things weren't taken seriously at RFP and AIV, I did not want to take chances here this time.Borgenland (talk)16:12, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
@Borgenland: Just so you know, IP addresses of anonymous editors will not be visible to most users next month, as they are being replaced with temporary accounts. You may want to consider requesting thetemporary account IP viewer user right so that you can see these IP addresses, as it will likely be very useful for antivandal work.QuicoleJR (talk)01:58, 19 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.
Cheers!Woodroar (talk)23:12, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
Unrelated, and I'm frankly stunned by that. I figured there had to be at least one sock pair in the group. But nope.WP:CHECKUSER is not magic pixie dust. --Yamla (talk)21:58, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
![[176]](/mt/?noimg=&dark=on&url=https%3a%2f%2fcommons.wikimedia.org%2fw%2findex.php%3ftitle%3dCommons%3aDeletion_requests%2fFile%3aSkysuitesanson_logo.png%26amp%3bdiff%3dprev%26amp%3boldid%3d1085406271){kind=link}
Sounds like a duck quacking into a megaphone to me Indef'dBlisslight kids for blatantblock evasion and converted the block onBlissLight2005 for socking. -The BushrangerOne ping only04:42, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
Moved toWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard § Killing of Charlie Kirk requested move panel closure request