• Haydi123 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

I've filed two complaints about this editor, but both times the bot archived my requests. Will any action be taken against this editor? If not, please let me know, otherwise, the bot keeps archiving it, and I'm left unsure about the status of my request. Thank you! ^^

1. Firstrequest2. Secondrequest

Barseghian Lilia (talk)16:40, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did they repeat the behaviour from the last ANIs? If not, I don't see what the point of this is.Stockhausenfan (talk)17:13, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is the same ANI, created three times because the bot archives it quickly.Barseghian Lilia (talk)18:27, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fur future reference, archival happens after three days of no comments, so if you simply reply to yourself every two days, it will prevent the section from being archived. This would be preferable to recreating the section every time. For third parties, the issue according to Barseghian Lilia is that the editor is POV-pushing in theArmenia-Azerbaijan contentious topic, and some of their edits in that area also seem to have sourcing and copyvio issues. I have not come to a conclusion yet on the merits of the case, I am simply providing a summary of the accusations so that other editors aren't required to look through the archived threads.QuicoleJR (talk)18:42, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for the info !Barseghian Lilia (talk)08:14, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Barseghian Lilia (talk)19:15, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Barseghian Lilia You may have more luck posting this atWP:AE. Posts there do not get archived until they are dealt with, and it is better suited to dealing with complex topics. This user isaware of thecontentious topic and thus their edits after that notice can be discussed at AE.Toadspike[Talk]01:34, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My initial complaint wasn't related to the contentious topic. But if no resolution is reached, I'll forward it to AE. Thanks for the advice!Barseghian Lilia (talk)08:08, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Barseghian Lilia (talk)16:50, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Taghavishr (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log) has been persistently editingVaresh Airlines - initially by adding copyright violation images to the infobox (namelythis logo, which was deleted byUser:Yann and almost instantly re-created by the user - they've now been blocked on Commons), and now by edit warring the addition of unsourced content -[1][2][3][4]. They've received numerous[5][6][7] warnings on their talk page, and have even been pinged on the article talk page[8] yet no reaction. We know they are able to use talk pages, because they previous responded to an unrelated matter on their user talk. Given I'm now at 3RR in trying to deal with the unsourced content in the article, and they're ignoring every attempt to make contact, is there any way they can be blocked from article space until they start communicating?Danners430_{tweaks made}13:21, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They’re back again, still making undisccussed changes - and I still can’t get them to respond on their talk page.Danners430_{tweaks made}12:49, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They’re finally responding on their talk page… however @Taghavishr, one question - what’s your connection to Varesh, as it’s the only thing you’ve been editing?Danners430_{tweaks made}09:27, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And still, after I've lost count of how many warnings, they'restill adding unsourced content. I've reverted this particular edit of theirs at least twice before now, I've told them to stop adding unsourced content (they're on a level 4 warning on their talk page), and yet they still continue doing it.Danners430_{tweaks made}11:26, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've askeda third time for them to please come to ANI, I'm also seeing signs of possible AI use in their responses so they might not fully understand what's happening.Blue Sonnet (talk)13:40, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I have to admit their bulleted response does scream LLM... but I'm trying toassume good faith for as long as I can - however frustrating it may be!Danners430_{tweaks made}13:42, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And still, more unsourced changes.Danners430_{tweaks made}07:29, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They’re still continuing to edit war, restore unsourced content, and have for the third time created a copyvio image on Commons and had it deleted - how much longer are we going to let this carry on for?Danners430_{tweaks made}15:36, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One more try. I guess this isn't getting attention because it's at the top of the page now?Blue Sonnet (talk)18:44, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

you can see that this logo is inhttps://fa.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D9%87%D9%88%D8%A7%D9%BE%DB%8C%D9%85%D8%A7%DB%8C%DB%8C_%D9%88%D8%A7%D8%B1%D8%B4#/media/%D9%BE%D8%B1%D9%88%D9%86%D8%AF%D9%87:Varesh-Airlines-Logo.png and free to use. on the other hand i'm working in varesh airlineTaghavishr (talk)11:37, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You’re creating problems on that article:

1. You are repeatedly and constantly adding unsourced content to the article, despite now five warnings and umpteen messages on your talk page
2. You’re edit warring other things such as flags, and again ignoring attempts to discuss and simply restoring your version

And as for the logo - it’s been deleted three times from Commons. Why do you think you can simply re-create it every time like nothing happened?Danners430_{tweaks made}11:51, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So looking at the edit summary (these are really helpful for other people to understand what's happening so please try to use them) the logo was deleted due to copyright violationsas shown here and on the original file pagehere. Just because it's been uploaded again or on a different language Wikipedia, doesn't mean it's automatically ok to use.

Please readWikipedia:BRD too - if someone reverts (removes) your edit and you disagree with them, you must go to the Talk page to discuss your reasons. Youcannot just put it back, unless it's obviously wrong (such as vandalism).

We must talk to each other, otherwise Wikipedia cannot work, ok?Blue Sonnet (talk)12:11, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just commenting to keep the topic open, as they've not edited for a couple days (which is a normal pattern for them)Danners430_{tweaks made}12:28, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've just reverted an edit by citation bot toRetrograde and prograde motion. The bot appears to be malfunctioning. It replaced the title of a book with an unrelated journal article.Fdfexoex (talk)22:34, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Several of us have reported similar bugs atUser talk:Citation bot#ArXiv references getting completely messed up, the bot is being run on the draft namespace with no one checking the changes, it is difficult to spot as well because at least for my case, it is merging and mixing up information from other references. I have blocked it from making changes on my pages, but I worry about all the other pages not being scrutinized as much.Ajheindel (talk)15:40, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Now the bot has reverted me and reintroduced the incorrect edit.Fdfexoex (talk)01:10, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FyiSmith609.Anne drew (talk ·contribs)01:19, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please seestopping the bot from editing a specific citation.Isaidnoway(talk)15:32, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For months now the bot's maintenance has fallen to someone with little coding experience who can only change small things, and not fix any serious malfunctions; seeUser talk:Citation bot#Is anyone actually maintaining this bot?. So when the bot repeatedly introduces serious errors to citations with little hope of fixing it, I think stopping the bot from editing altogether should come into consideration, rather than playing whack-a-mole with the same error on all the articles where it recurs. —David Eppstein (talk)00:59, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree.Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk)18:16, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The bot has been reverted atList of largest exoplanets for once again replacing titles with other random titles. How do we shut this bot down for good?Fdfexoex (talk)00:40, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It has also just been blocked from editingUnion-closed sets conjecture for similar misbehavior. I suggest that it be blocked until its maintainers convincingly claim that these bugs have been fixed. (I wouldn't want to block it permanently if it is properly maintained; on the whole it does much more good than harm.) —David Eppstein (talk)08:11, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Time to hit the funny red button?~2025-31733-18 (talk)13:51, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Does this need to be reported somewhere else or can it be resolved here? Not sure what the procedure for something like this would be.Ajheindel (talk)15:44, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If the maintainers were maintaining the bot the reporting mechanism would be to go toUser talk:Citation bot and follow the instructions at the top of the page (click a button and fill out a form, starting a new bug report). —David Eppstein (talk)17:57, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked As there have been repeated concerns raised about the bot introducing errors, and the lack of avaibility of experienced developers, I have blocked the bot for 72 hours. As well as stopping any other errors from occurring, it may also bring attention to this thread from other editors.Ritchie333^(talk)(cont)16:44, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• For context, the phraseFeedback [required] from maintainers appears100 times on that page—as noted above, going back over a year *minor facepalm*—Fortuna,imperatrix17:16, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is rather unfortunate. If there is anything I can do to help (experienced professional software engineer) I would.Andre🚐18:50, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd contribute too if it weren't written in PHP. —DVRTed (Talk)19:07, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the code is athttps://github.com/ms609/citation-bot, and AManWithNoPlan, while mostly inactive on-wiki, still appears to be reviewing PRs there. So I suspect code contributions would be welcome.* Pppery *_{it has begun...}00:39, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've been programming PHP for years (random example), but I don't think I can help as I don't know how Citation Bot is supposed to work. The last project I had a go at writing was an open-source replacement for SineBot and that stalled when the "real" bot came back online.Ritchie333^(talk)(cont)09:29, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Let's ping the other maintainers:@Kaldari andAManWithNoPlan:. I'll also leave a block notice atUser talk:Citation bot. –Novem Linguae(talk)03:13, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I've opened an issue on github (https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/issues/4823) to help alert the maintainers as well.Redalert2fan (talk)09:58, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SdHb: ANI Stalker here. Please make your report more succinct. With the length it currently stands at, it is completely impossible to reasonably evaluate.Viva la horde, ~GoatLordServant^(Talk)14:07, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's some broken telephone happening here regarding an arbcom case - I surely said (or meant) that you could bring the matter toWP:AE, since you're working in aWP:CTOP. There's certainly no need to go to arbcom with this since I think it can easily be settled here. But it's also fine to bring it here. I disagree with @GoatLordServant that this needs cutting down - it's quite clear enough, and there reallyis this much volume. It's unending. @Xan747 tried, I tried, @Robert McClenon tried, evidently others have tried: nothing has worked. This editor is not able to contribute collaboratively with others.

I cannot take administrative action here because I became editorially involved trying to help unstick the dispute atEthnic groups of Afghanistan after Xan747 struck out. Someone else will have to evaluate this and set a tban from Afghanistan, SA social groups, or maybe more narrowly "ethnic groups in Afghanistan" (the topic, not the article). Or just indef. This isn't going anywhere else. --asilvering (talk)14:15, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies. Was looking at all the diffs and this report's liberal use ofbolding, and immediately questioned what volunteers would really absorb it all. After some time looking through all these though, the throughline is there; I agree.Viva la horde, ~GoatLordServant^(Talk)14:20, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've alerted him to the contentious topic, so if he doesn't get indeffed now, the CTOPS options are in play. --SarekOfVulcan (talk)14:23, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SarekOfVulcan, they're aware, just not with the fancy banner. A very quick skim for likely diffs above got me[11], which isn't as clear as I'd like, but I find it hard to believe we got through a 3O, a 4O, and some dozen rounds of DRN without the CTOP ever being mentioned. --asilvering (talk)14:29, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's aware, then there'sWP:AWARE.SarekOfVulcan (talk)14:38, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Not sure why I didn't hand out a /first when I showed up to the first edit war report, since I normally hand them out like candy. Perhaps it was just that distractingly bad already. --asilvering (talk)14:43, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Asilvering; I closedthis discussion, which seems one of the loci of the dispute, and while I merely weighed the arguments, the behaviour highlighted by the OP wasvery apparent. (Specifically, the unholy trinity of WP:BATTLEGROUND, WPBLUDGEON and WP:IDHT)—Fortuna,imperatrix14:29, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Below is an extensive, but by no means complete list of all misconducts"

Given how excessively long this list already is, I'm very concerned as to what ISN'T on this list.GarethBaloney (talk)14:26, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support indef/CBAN If they cannot collaborate with others to this extent it's gone beyond a TBAN, and I can see barely any edits outside the problematic areas.

Blue Sonnet (talk)14:29, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to CBAN - seehere.Blue Sonnet (talk)22:23, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I've blocked them indefinitely as a response to the incessant personal attacks and inflammatory rhetoric, without having fully tabulated every other offence included here. No prejudice to the community deciding to further consider atWP:CBAN.SdHb, for reference, atWP:AE word limits for case filings are 500 words and 20 diffs, to give you a rough sense of the level of documentation normally needed for the adjudication of conduct issues, in case you ever have cause to file another report._signed,Rosguill^talk15:06, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  They are nowappealing the block on their talk page with a statement that is contrite._signed,Rosguill^talk19:55, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The first half is probably AI but the last paragraph seems genuine enough - they probably only used AI to get their thoughts together. I'm happy with TBAN on that basis.Blue Sonnet (talk)20:19, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  „please excuse me, I was wrongly thought that my behavior was probably normal.“ After over 3 months and literally dozens upon dozens of suggestions, askings, call-outs, and warnings, IMHO this one statement can‘t possibly be taken seriously, and at least shouldn’t be enough to justify mitigating circumstances when he had the chance to better himself every single time during the whole period.SdHb (talk)20:59, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I am inclined to agree with this assessment. The turnaround time for this apology following the block is rather surreal considering the prior history and staggering amount of examples of both problematic behavior by them and attempts by others to warn them. To be honest, I'm not sure I've ever reviewed a behavioral conduct case with this much evidence available. My inclination is that we're inWP:SO territory as far as paths back to editing go, although I don't think it's out of the question to consider converting the indef block into an indef tban from Afghanistan._signed,Rosguill^talk21:02, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Indeed. Saying „I […] sincerely apologize for myrecent behavior“ also doesn‘t help their case since it makes it seem like they haven‘t even recognized or acknowledged the misdemeanor they’ve shown the whole time since August.SdHb (talk)21:22, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Sigh. I really wanted to believe they were taking this seriously but my AGF glasses are obviously too rose-tinted today. Perhaps a CBAN is justified after all, then they would need a full assessment of any appeals by the community following SO.Blue Sonnet (talk)21:43, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Just adding a bit of information here. Although it definitely doesn't excuse the behavior, I think there's a bit of a language barrier here, so the content that seems like AI might actually be the result of a translation app/algorithm. This did make it difficult to follow some of the discussion, but it's still very clear that the user has become very hostile and making really strange, inappropriate accusations. This seems to be a very personal/triggering issue for them, and I do sympathize. But their accusations here are inappropriate. If anything, their dispute is with the authors of an article/report -- from a reliable source, i.e. the ABC News report they've mentioned (which is actually an ABC/BBC collaboration). The authors presented the data in a perfectly acceptable manner, but either way, they're the publishers of the data in question.BetsyRogers (talk)22:30, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support CBAN in order to require an appeal to the community.—Fortuna,imperatrix15:10, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support CBAN per @Blue-Sonnet and @Fortuna imperatrix mundishane(talk to me if you want!)16:41, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural note: I'm not trying to talk anyone out of their cban !vote (which I interpret to mean a site ban), but I would like to remind everyone that the communitycan set a topic ban here, and since the editor is already indef'd, they will have to get through an unblocks admin to return to editing in any case. Unless I'm much mistaken, we don't presently have any evidence that they would be disruptive outside of this topic area yet - it's all they've ever edited about - so a community-applied tban of some kind would likely be enough to stop the disruption. --asilvering (talk)17:31, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed they would. But the whole point of the C[ommunity]Ban is that it isn't within the remit of a single "unblocks admin" to unblock; it would have to come back to the community. And if the result of a tban is the same as a cban—because of their narrow editing are—then there's no real reason to go with a lesser sanction that would allow for similar behavior in a different topic area. (A Tban does not speak to the above-mentioned unholy trinity, for ex). Cheers,—Fortuna,imperatrix18:45, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jeez, my mind keeps changing! My original concern was that they seem to be almost an SPA, it's hard to judge a TBAN because I have no idea whether they'd continue their disruption elsewhere - they say they enjoy mountains, so would they have the same problems if someone pushed the right buttons on an edit about mountains?

The fact that they wouldn't listen to so many other people is definitely concerning, so they apparently have difficulty in editing objectively if they feel passionately about a subject. It'd be easier if we had more to go off, but we don't.

Yes, we have an indef, but are we voting to downgrade that to a TBAN or TBAN only after a successful indef appeal? Or CBAN with subsequent TBAN?

I ask because the whole "TBAN on appeal" part feels moot since that's what would probably happen on appeal anyway - I'm a bit worried that it'll get confusing if we're not clear on the suggested options.

Should we add separate proposals so it's clear, or am I thinking about this too much? We don't even know if they'll appeal or if it'll be successful yet.

If we ignore the possibilities of any theoretical successful appeals, then the options would be:

1. Keep indef
2. Upgrade to CBAN
3. Downgrade to TBAN

Blue Sonnet (talk)19:46, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A TBAN based on community consensus here wouldn't be quite the same as a TBAN upon appeal from an indef. I believe the difference is the level needed to repeal; a TBAN as part of a conditional unblock could be repealed by a singular administrator (perWP:CONDUNBLOCK), though it would have to be from the unblocking admin. A TBAN imposed here could only be appealed toARBCOM or the community.45dogs (they/them)(talk page)20:24, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That explains it, thank you! Unfortunately it turns out their appeal isn't very good. I wanted to AGF but it is pretty basic considering their overall behaviour & I can see why everyone's concerned still.Blue Sonnet (talk)21:36, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support TBAN - with the indef, a CBAN is unnecessary. A TBAN as well, will give them the chance if they appeal the indef to contribute in other areas without diving straight back into the CTOP. --Cdjp1 (talk)18:12, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support TBAN.There is clear evidence they are disruptive in this topic area so a TBAN is needed to prevent disruption and give them some time outside the topic area to show they can edit productively if they appeal their indef. I do not support a CBAN as it is unnecessary as they are already indef'd.GothicGolem29(Talk)18:39, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support TBANABAN at least to begin with). Full disclosure, I've never voted on an issue of banning before because I really try to Assume Good Faith, except in blatant vandalism. In reality, "good faith" is in the eye of the beholder, and I try to be sympathetic to anyone who appears to be going through some emotional stuff. But whatever this is that I've recently witnessed, I don't think it will resolve itself or fizzle out. For the sake of those being attacked (and for the sake of the attacker who probably would benefit from some time-off from this triggering topic), I would 100% support anABAN TBAN, then see how that goes.

BetsyRogers (talk)23:06, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason this should be an ABAN instead of a TBAN? An ABAN would only prevent them from editing the article (and maybe the talk page). They could still disrupt the project outside of that scope.45dogs (they/them)(talk page)01:03, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you could clarify, in what other ways could they disrupt it? (Serious question, trying to make sure I understand correctly what an ABAN does and doesn't do.)BetsyRogers (talk)02:11, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@BetsyRogers, an article ban would stop them from editing a specific article or set of articles, say,Ethnic groups in Afghanistan. But they'd still be able to talk about the sameconcepts elsewhere. I expect that ban would be far too narrow. The dispute would just end up recurring somewhere else. --asilvering (talk)02:19, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The most simple ABAN is one that solely blocks an editor from editing a page; it is akin to a partial block on singular page, just that it requires consensus to be undone. It does not stop the editor from being disruptive on the talk, or their user talk, or other pages. Most of the disruption in the report appears to relates to the talk page, and theNo original research noticeboard, which aren't covered by the most basic ABAN.45dogs (they/them)(talk page)02:21, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ asilvering 45dogs. OK, thanks for the clarification. Maybe then a TBAN ban is better. Separately, I'm remembering now that the user said they planned to follow up with a new RfC on reliable sources (I guess trying to dispute ABC News as a reliable source?). I don't know if there's a term for "disruptive RfC's", but is there any sort of ban/warning that could address that?BetsyRogers (talk)02:57, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would classify disruptive RfCs as just simply being disruptive. I would image doing such a thing, at least soon after being unblocked, would cause them to be reblocked as simplyWP:NOTHERE. Depending on the contents of the RFC, it could violate a TBAN as well since TBANs are (to my knowledge) generally classified asbroadly construed.45dogs (they/them)(talk page)04:12, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support CBAN. Badakhshan ziba may be editing in good faith, but at a certain pointcompetence is required. They've shown a distinct inability tolisten to and comprehend points raised by other editors. There may be a language barrier at play here, but their personal attacks against other contributors are also unacceptable.Anne drew (talk ·contribs)01:23, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for the links! That clears up a few things.BetsyRogers (talk)02:59, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural note: - I have declined a request to unblock (although they have already filed another), based in part on the fact that it is clear to me that the community wants to make the decision as to the outcome of this particular situation, rather than have an admin singularly decide. I won't opine of the merits here, as I've already handled the unblock request.Dennis Brown -2¢03:55, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support CBAN I always try to assume good faith to the final, tiniest shred, and I take the arguments presented for a TBAN instead very seriously. However, the poor conduct here is so extensive, beyond simply poor edits in a specific topic area, that I see this editor's approach to be fundamentally incompatible with a collaborative project such as this one. Their ethnicWP:RGW is extremely troubling, but I have zero confidence that this editor will react well to any kind of disagreement on any topic. While I have a great deal of confidence in admins, my personal belief is that with behavior this poor and with so many editors involved, the community has a responsibility to deal with it, and make itour problem; too often we outsource our headaches to admins.CoffeeCrumbs (talk)08:49, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support CBAN: Yes, that's a massive wall of OP text. But it's also a massive tally of violations; we'd CBAN someone for atenth as many of them and not even blink. It's a good indef, but I just don't see a way clear to ever trust this editor again. Dennis Brown called it in the first sentence of the first decline: "This seems too convenient, just 4.5 hours after you are blocked, you have an epiphany regarding a few months of abusive behavior." The fulsome apologies also just seem like snake oil to me: this degree of egregious behavior isn't a momentary spasm, or a "I was wrongly thought that my behavior was probably normal" (what, did this bloke not notice thatno one else talks this way here??), or "I recognize that my strong personal connection to this sensitive topic caused me to communicate inappropriately?" No. Doing this for months is strong evidence that this is who this editor is. Ravenswing09:48, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  (Non-administrator comment) Thank you for your comment, I completely agree. If anyone here has still doubts that the "epiphany" the user suddenly had just might be real and they really want to change their behaviour all of a sudden, I want to pick apart the content ofthis comment and theirsecond asking to unblock to show what their real intent might be IMHO.

  ButI have greatly improved the content of Wikipedia on the page related to the ethnicities of Afghanistan. Don't you consider this? Just compare the content of the article 6 months ago with the current article in the ethnic composition table

  Let alone the fact that considering that would in no way excuse their overall behaviour...

  This is so incredibly out of touch with reality and a straight punch to my face that it's hard to comprehend. Firstly, because all of their already discussed destructive behavior in all of the months. But secondly and more importantly, they completely underminemy contributions to the content ofthe article. I by no means want to give the impression that I created the live page all by myself, I certainly didn't, but them to saythey "have greatly improved thecontent [...] on the page" while it was me who sat on the page for months[12][13][14][15][16][17][18], trying to improve the whole content with the intent to bring it toWP:GOODARTICLE status[19][20] (which BTW was also honored and acknowledged by other users[21][22]), while all they actually did wascomplainingabout the content or straightup reverting everything[23][24][25]. Even the current ethnic percentage table was mostly done by me andXan747[26][27]. And now, they are claiming all the improvements made by me for themselves? That just shows how incredibly self-centered, ignorant, and righteous they really are (keyword:WP:ICHY), and how they want to make this discussion about them.

  I believe I have fallen into a big trap to be permanently banned from participating in Ethnic groups in Afghanistan.

  The same person who has just filed a complaint against me threatened me a few days ago and say ( I will try to find a way to leave you out of the discussion completely )

  Now I just realize that he was gathering evidence against me. this is just one example from several case.

  They don't really feel sorry for their behavior at all, they just think I and all of the other users who warned them for months made a plot against them. This may fall in the psychological realm of siege mentality (or "me against the world") and is totally inappropriate for serious discussions.Edit: Conveniently for them, they left out that part of the "threat" (inflammatory rhetoric!) where I said:

  ... unless you change your way of cooperativness dramatically.

  I'm pretty sure this is calledframing,WP:GASLIGHTING, orplaying the victim card.SdHb (talk)13:10, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I didn't really know three months ago that I was violating Wikipedia's rules of conduct.

  me and other editor who were involved in the discussion, both some times had an unfriendly tone. So I thought this was probably normal behavior andthere was nothing wrong with it.

  More examples of being just blatantly oblivious to all the warnings that were presented to them for months and months.

  Is it justice that I can't even speak?

  The next example of inflammatory rhetoric/emotionalization of the discussion.

  This all shows that their responses are still framed by the same unproductive conflict patterns as before, rather than by a genuine understanding of the concerns that multiple editors have raised and tried to sympathize with. But as @Asilvering already said:

  It's unending. @Xan747 tried, I tried, @Robert McClenon tried, evidently others have tried: nothing has worked. This editor is not able to contribute collaboratively with others.

  I'll leave it at that.SdHb (talk)10:42, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Youwere gathering evidence against them. Very comprehensively. Quite persuasively. Part of my support for CBAN comes from that they seem considerably more indignant that they're being brought to book than contrite about their appalling behavior. Ravenswing11:18, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Exactly. There's no actual remorse abouttheir behavior against me and others. Just this notion of having been wronged, of being the victim of some coordinated effort against them, rather than someone who has repeatedly and consistently violated core conduct WP policies. Their entire "apology" reframes the situation as a plot to silence them, not as the natural consequence of months of personal attacks,WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior, and refusal to collaborate.SdHb (talk)11:51, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support CBAN: If only administrators are allowed to vote, disregard this since I'm not one. I periodically weigh in on theOR Noticeboard where I encountered Badakhshan ziba. I don't know about all the other issuesSdHb but based solely on the OR conversation, I felt like Badakhshan ziba, while seemingly well-meaning, just doesn't have the temperament or basic capabilities to carry on conversations to get to a reasonable conclusion (and was far from that) and that this was leading to many editors spending many hours of fruitless time. Banning this user would allow these many other editors to get on with their work.Novellasyes (talk)16:01, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Admins are not the only editors allowed to !vote non admins can too and several already have(including me.)GothicGolem29(Talk)16:08, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support community sanctionsthey still don't get it, despite extensive coaching and advice._signed,Rosguill^talk20:21, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  They've nowstated that they are willing to volunteer for a TBAN, although they prefer to request a TBAN that allows them to edit Afghanistan geography and climate. Pinging editors who have supported more severe sanctions in case this affects their opinions:Novellasyes,ortuna imperatrix mundi,EditorShane3456,Anne drew,CoffeeCrumbs,Ravenswing_signed,Rosguill^talk22:06, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  One of the pings didn't work so I will add the ping @Fortuna imperatrix mundi.GothicGolem29(Talk)22:12, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I think in this case, I'm going to stand by my original opinion. Their conduct has been so poor over such a long period that I have zero confidence in their ability to collaborate effectively on any topic, the second they run into a disagreement with another editor.CoffeeCrumbs (talk)22:13, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I initially yo-yo'd between CBAN & TBAN following indef appeal (it's waaaay up the page).

  I realise I wasn't pinged here, but for the sake of clarity I will confirm I am going with CBAN - this was going on for literal months and they'renow trying to argue that an editor who was understandably frustrated by their actions should also be sanctioned.Blue Sonnet (talk)22:22, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Nope. My objections are to this editor's conduct and attitude, and I doubt their being unleashed on other topic areas will improve it. My statement calling for CBAN stands. Ravenswing23:14, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Question: Has the scope of any potential TBAN been defined here/elsewhere? I assumed it would cover a broad range of topics. If it would only be specific to the general topic of the article, I don't think that would be enough.BetsyRogers (talk)23:00, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  BetsyRogers,GothicGolem29 andCdjp1: what is the scope of the TBAN you are supporting? For instance, is it just ethnic groups in Afghanistan, broadly construed, or something like Afghanistan, broadly construed.45dogs (they/them)(talk page)00:02, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  My preference, as has been the case in other bans, is to keep it as narrow and specific as is necessary. So "ethnic groups in Afghanistan" seems good enough to me, based on what was seen as at my last comment. --Cdjp1 (talk)00:07, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I support the TBAN includingethnic groups in Afghanistan broadly construed as that is where the disruption has taken place so that is the necessary topic area to cover Afghanistan as a topic broadly construed per their request for a voluntary TBAN in that area.GothicGolem29(Talk)00:35, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't know if this is possible, but I would support a TBAN that includes the topic of the article AND anything in the realm of contentious topics related to Afghanistan (ethnic groups, cultural debates, politics, etc.). But that might leave too much up to interpretation.

  The main reason I'm not voting for CBAN right now is that although the user did get warnings, the conduct was still allowed to occur for several months with no resulting blocks/bans as far as I know. This isn't a criticism, and it's nobody's fault in particular, but it's still the case. If warnings aren't followed up with consequences, then they're not sending a clear message.

  Also, I looked through the user's edit/contributions history, and it seems the problem behavior only started when they began editing the article in question. Before that, they had been editing for a couple of years, and their contributions were mostly about geography & topography of Afghanistan, and they were not at all disruptive.BetsyRogers (talk)02:15, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I understand what you're saying, but I disagree with some of your reasoning. This is a community project run by volunteers, it's not our responsibility to correct or manage one editor's behaviour - that's their own responsibility.

  Blocks and bans should be a last resort and they're intended to prevent disruption, not to punish misbehaviour.

  I don't really agree with the idea that it's not the editor's fault because no-one disciplined them until now - multiple editors spent literal months trying to educate them, but it didn't work. They were blocked as a last resort.

  CBAN's aren't permanent, theStandard offer exists so an editor can work on another project for six months or so, then return with proof that they can edit productively and won't cause further disruption if they are unblocked.

  A CBAN means they the community as a whole can then review that history (or even a well-written appeal on its own) and decide whether that editor has demonstrated the competency needed to return to this community-driven project.Blue Sonnet (talk)07:53, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I am still in favor of a CBAN. The determining factor for me is "ratio of massive amount of time-consuming coaching to any observed changes or uptake". It has taken a lot of people a lot of time to offer a very significant amount of coaching spread out over multiple places, and this does not appear to have resulted in uptake. I don't want to waste the future time of other editors.Novellasyes (talk)19:23, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Changed support to CBAN (with the standard offer).

@Blue-Sonnet, I didn't mean to seem like I was saying that their behavior wasn't their fault. But you (and @Novellasyes & others) are right that this has taken up too much volunteer time/effort already. And a TBAN leaves room for further disruption, which is really unfair to other volunteers. I'd like to think this editor would be able/willing to get back to their nondistruptive editing style of the past (e.g., when they were making helpful contributions in geography and topography). But I guess the best place for them to demonstrate that is in a separate space. Like you said, there are other projects where this can happen.

- Giving more weight to the degree & duration of disruption that has happened (which has had a big impact on other volunteers), *and* the current uncertainty that a TBAN would actually prevent a similar scenario (which is again unfair to volunteers) , I wouldn't be opposed to a CBAN.BetsyRogers (talk)23:11, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about it, I just wanted to present my viewpoint to see if that might help put things into perspective, if that makes sense? It's difficult to gauge intent when you only have the written word to go from anyway!

They've added a new Talk post that I think they want carrying over to ANI - I'm not 100% sure so I'm double-checking with them first.

A few people (myself included) have recommended that theydrop the stick, wait for a decision and/or work on editing elsewhere to prep for a standard offer appeal, but it doesn't look like that's going to happen for the moment.

That said, they're entitled to give us a response so I'll transfer it over when I get confirmation.Blue Sonnet (talk)23:28, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding other ways to participate, personally I've started dabbling in uploading cc0/open-access images to Wikimedia Commons. (Articles need photos or nobody will read them!). :-)BetsyRogers (talk)23:56, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just sawThis reply from earlier. If this type of reply had happened days ago (instead of the denials and refusals to take feedback), I'd probably still support a TBAN alone. The best advice they got was to step away for a few days, and they ignored it.  :(BetsyRogers (talk)03:12, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• One look at the user's talk page says it all. Will an admin please close this, imho, it's gone on long enough. I can't since I declined the unblock.Dennis Brown -2¢06:37, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Copied over from user Talk page

"Last words.Hello everyone.

@Blue-Sonnet, @Rosguill ,@Cdjp1 , @GothicGolem29 ,@Dennis Brown , @BetsyRogers ,@45dogs , @asilvering,@SarekOfVulcan , @Anne drew ,@ClaudineChionh

I request a final vote. C-Ben. T-Ben. No comments. 11 person.

I have to say that I see ANI as a courtroom.And this reminds me of the famous movie12 Angry Men.

I ask the Wikipedia community why you think I am going to do something destructive again?I am human. I have brain.I understand that if I do something disruptive again, I will be punished more severely. For this simple reason, I will do my best not to commit another wrongdoing.why you dont believe me?

Why are you going to punish me in the harshest way?Is it fair that the harshest punishment should be given to me , while thefirst time I get blocked?

To be honest, being banned is very, very unfair and harshfor anyone who is the first time blocked and has little experience.

To gain the trust of the Wikipedia community,

1- I pledge to voluntarily implement aban on topics related to Afghanistan.2- I pledge not to engage in disruptive behavior becauseI am human and understand that if I make a mistake, the greatest punishment awaits me.3- I pledge to consultTeahouse whenever I encounter a problem or have a question so that I do not cause problems again.4- please Tell me, what other commitment should I make?

I ask the Wikipedia community to pay attention to my useful and non-disruptive history before entering into the discussion of Afghan ethnicities.

And I like to say again that this situation reminds me of the famous movie12 Angry Men.The decision is yours. There is nothing more I can do for now."

Copied byBlue Sonnet (talk)01:09, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, my heart isn't made of stone. I've struck my CBAN vote. Please don't make me regret it.Anne drew (talk ·contribs)01:15, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As others have stated before I will reiterate that a sanction is not a punishment it is about preventing disruption. As for my !vote I will amend to Afghanistan broadly construed as that is what they have volunteered to do.GothicGolem29(Talk)01:18, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't actually officially voted, and I don't particularly have the time to review right now. I do believe either sanction would prevent disruption though.45dogs (they/them)(talk page)01:31, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is no change in how I feel about this situation. This isn't a trial, and the analogy to 12 Angry Men is inapt and raises questions about what this editor thinks their responsibility in this situation truly is (though not why I haven't changed how I feel). This editor was continually abusive to a fair number of editors over multiple months, and had no trouble ignoring a parade of increasingly stern warnings and pleas from other editors to edit collaboratively. The sudden toneshift from hostility to contrition only came with the realization that there would be consequences for their actions.CoffeeCrumbs (talk)01:59, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The analogy to12 Angry Men is very inapt. In that movie, a jury originally voted 11-1 to convict but after their own examination of the evidence returned a unanimous verdict of not guilty. I fail to see the relevance.Narky Blert (talk)05:08, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I said there were 11 people voting for indef/CBAN and one unblock with TBAN at one point, plus they really want us to reconsider and change our decision - that's all I can think off the top of my head.Blue Sonnet (talk)05:23, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The latest[28] makes me feel stronger that a community ban is for the best. @Badakhshan ziba, you're not on trial and you're not being sentenced to death; you're being restricted from editing on a website.

You keep talking aboutWikipedia rules needing to be spelled out for you, but you're not currently blocked because you ran afoul of some obscure Wikipedia rule or because you made some accidental mistake. You're here because for months, you didn't followbasic human interaction rules that apply to any collaborative project, not just Wikipedia. Nobody is happy having to have this conversation, but you're the one who brought us here as a result of your actions. I don't think I have anything else to say.CoffeeCrumbs (talk)01:36, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still concerned that they could easily fall into bad habits if met with opposition over something they're passionate about - during their appeal they wanted (or strongly inferred that they wanted) sanctions against one of their opponents (the OP)[29], who had understandably become frustrated with their behaviour over the past 2-3 months.

They're active on Persian Wikipedia[30] (and Commons[31]) so I've suggested they edit over there for a while to demonstrate a long-term change in behaviour. They seemhappy to do this.Blue Sonnet (talk)02:26, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If this user understood what the problem is, they wouldn't characterize the potential ban as "very, very unfair and harsh". It isn't. It's an action taken to protect the time and headspace of WP volunteers. As@CoffeeCrumbs: says, up until now, you "had no trouble ignoring a parade of increasingly stern warnings and pleas from other editors to edit collaboratively". If you're not blocked now, then this whole exchange will be just another in a series of increasingly stern warnings that won't achieve the intended result (protecting WP volunteers).Novellasyes (talk)03:03, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm addressing this directly toBadakhshan ziba if that's okay:

Regarding "please Tell me, what other commitment should I make?" Some suggestions that I hope you'll take seriously:

1. Follow through on your commitment to consult the Teahouse FIRST, rather than escalating to a formal dispute.

2. Pay attention to the good advice you're given. So many people DID take the time to give you feedback, and they DID warn you that your hostile and rude behavior could result in a block/ban, and you ignored it.

3.  Several times after the block was in place, you said you weren't familiar with the guidelines for expected/prohibited conduct. But there are numerous pages of help articles to assist you with this! It'syour responsibly to educate yourself on this. If you haven't read through the introductory pages yet, you should. Here are a few you can start with:

• Help:Introduction to Wikipedia
• Help:Introduction to policies and guidelines (see Conduct)
• Civility;WP:AGF;WP:NPA;WP:OWN

4. When in doubt, ask yourself how you would want to be treated or spoken to. Would you like to be repeatedly accused of the things you have accused others of? (especiallySdHb). I assume you wouldn't. So please don't do it to others.

5. I looked through your contributions from when you first started editing here, and you made some very helpful contributions on a topic you clearly like. My suggestion would be to focus your efforts on topics that bring you enjoyment. Avoid topics that are emotional or stressful. It's not worth your time, energy, and emotional health to get caught up in a lengthy dispute, especially on an article that anyone else could come along and edit later anyway. (SeeWP:OWN)

- Changing my vote back to TBAN, but I'm not sure it will help. Your comparison to "12 Angry Men" is implying that not everyone here is acting ingood faith. That was not a good choice. You might have swayed a few more votes from CBAN to TBAN if you had kept that to yourself.

... I think I'm done commenting here. I know everyone here has thought about this carefully and honestly. As a more-or-less newcomer to this process, I'm incredibly impressed by all of the effort you all put into this.BetsyRogers (talk)06:28, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Tban from Afghani politics/culture/ethnicity. Oppose CBAN.

I don't think a CBAN is the right answer. This seems like ignorance, possibly someone who should have been pblocked from Ethnic groups in Afghanistan months ago, as what I feel like I'm seeing in the fast about face is not necessarily disingenuousness but possibly a failure to have read the room followed by the horrified realization that "Oh, shit, they're serious".

Yes, they ignored multiple warnings, but again that could be ignorance since apparently nothing ever happened? They're in a dispute with people with whom they profoundly disagree, they think this is how things are done here -- people trade insults and warnings and pound their chests, but it's all just posturing -- because nothing has ever actually come of it.

So now we're looking at the accumulation of stuff no one did anything about and we're talking about a Cban? Feels like overcorrecting.Valereee (talk)12:22, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiinfra development (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
Vellore (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views)

This contributor has received multiple warnings for adding unsourced (and promotional) content to our article on Vellore, a city in Tamil Nadu - seeUser talk:Wikiinfra development. Despite the warnings, they have just done the same thing - an edit adding an entirely unsourced and promotional paragraph, along with a photo, with an edit summary reading 'Fixed typo'.[32]

Given this disregard for warnings and blatant dishonesty, I can't see them ever being of any benefit the project, and would suggest an indefinite block.AndyTheGrump (talk)17:22, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed; even the user's non-WP:PROMO additions (see[33]) appear to be unexamined LLM glurge.Julietdeltalima(talk)17:39, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently the edit summaries are not dishonest but just an example ofWP:FIXEDTYPO.Stockhausenfan (talk)17:46, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It might be 'apparent' to you. Given the warnings, and given that they aren't using the same edit summary every time though, I'd still go with 'dishonest'. More so, when you look at their editing history on the article.AndyTheGrump (talk)17:56, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm strongly veering towardsCIR. Looks like they're using AI for the longer edits, the shorter ones aregrammatically incorrect/unsourced ordon't make sense in English, whilst the edit summaries are apparently chosen at random from the default list (if they're used at all).

I want to believe that they mean well, but that doesn't change the fact that they're causing damage as they blunder along.Blue Sonnet (talk)18:21, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(non administrator comment) perhaps use a short block, such as 24h, to see if it manages to capture their attention and get them to stop?Wikieditor662 (talk)18:27, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed at an absolute minimum - 50% of their edits have been reverted (the ones that haven't been reverted are short descriptions).Blue Sonnet (talk)19:03, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The editor is only active intermittently. Because of the seriousness of the concerns, I have preemptively blocked from Articlespace to prevent further disruption and pointed the user to this conversation. I await their reply. — rsjaffe 🗣️02:15, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rsjaffe The editor has respondedhere. I've asked again that they come to ANI to talk about this properly.Blue Sonnet (talk)03:09, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm following their talk page. Whether they respond there or here is not important, but they need to satisfactorily respond to the concerns raised in this report if they want to resume editing. — rsjaffe 🗣️03:23, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Smallpython (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log) continuededit warring for lists of official scripts forChinese characters,Arabic script andDevanagari. I removedthis,this andthat for Arabic script, whileRemsense removedthis,this andthat for Chinese characters, because it is redundant unlikeLatin orCyrillic for example without using official scripts. So I made a discussion onTemplate talk:Infobox writing system#Official script for depreciate the use of| official_script = parameter.Absolutiva05:29, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Absolutiva, if it's just edit warring, you can report that atWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. It looks pretty quiet so you might get a quicker response.Blue Sonnet (talk)08:15, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Absolutiva,Blue-Sonnet,Remsense, andSmallpython: Hey all of you. I -Shirt58(talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·page moves ·block user ·logs ·block log ·arb ·rfc ·lta ·SPI ·cuwiki) - was going to add a quiet message atUser talk:Smallpython to say, the reason your edits aren't constructive are because of this policy and that guideline and this part of WP:MOS, but I wasn't able to identify what they were getting not quite right here. Perhaps the next step here would be to actually explain what the problem is, and then go on to suggest ways to resolve it?Shirt58 (talk) 🦘09:22, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They've had disruptive editing warnings but nothing specifically for edit wars - I'm all for trying to resolve things before they escalate so feel free to give it a shot! I've done the same thing on the topic below this one, the worst thing that'll happen is I've chosen to waste my own time.Blue Sonnet (talk)09:30, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Kisii people (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views)

TheKisii people page has been edited for a long time by an IP editor who is showing a level ofWP:OWN. The talk page is just a mess. For reference, just scan the archiveTalk:Kisii people/Archive 1 23,000 words, I suspect largely by the same editor, as the style of comments are very similar going back several years, as well as the current talk pageTalk:Kisii people. The IP engages in frequent personal attacks which I warned against when I arrived.[34] I was attempting to understand the content dispute and provide some mediation here[35], but one party to that dispute has not interacted since, while the other is the IP who has edited much of the page, and continues to chop and change it.

Despite the plea and warnings, the IP has continued to engage in personal attacks, including these today:[36][37][38]. I have also previously warned the user about making personal attacks here:[39].

The user has made good edits to the page, although there is also probably something of a neutrality issue here. Another editor added a neutrality template,[40]] which the IP immediately removed (as they do for any templates).[41] I'm not convinced it merits a neutrality template, and thus didn't take this to the NPOV noticeboard. I agree with the IP that the theories of Ochieng are somewhat fringe and should be mentioned as an oral tradition, but with that caveating. However, the removal without discussion shows the OWNership behaviour. Any templates are removed, and edits by others are edited away, and the page is a moving target. Another example of the OWN behaviour is seen in their preferred denonym for the Kisii people — Abagusii — and they have edited the page to use only that term. They do show knowledge of the matter, mind. I am concerned that they are following one source rather closely, but sources do seem to use Gusii more than Kisii, and the page is ripe for a move discussion. Nevertheless, I am afraid to start the move discussion while the talk page constantly devolves into this mess of name calling and new sections that go nowhere every time this editor edits. Note that Abagusii means "Gusii people", and English language sources prefer "Gusii people".

Admin action: I am not sure what to ask for here. The personal attacks need to stop. It is driving editors away from the page and allowing the IP to take ownership of it. That needs knocking on the head firmly. But beyond that, I am hesitant to lose the editor altogether. They have knowledge that could be useful. They have edited the page for a long time. They need to be more collegial, and to be more succinct at the talk page, but they do want to write about this subject for the benefit of others. I am partly hoping that posting here will also flag this page for the attention of other editors.Sirfurboy🏄 (talk)11:39, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This'll be a bit tricky since Temporary Accounts are now a thing.

The original IP also won't see any new notices on their old Talk page unless they actively go searching for it (unlikely).

If they're still editing, they'll have a TA & new Talk page - except an admin won't be able to publicly link a TA the IP (I think they can in extreme cases). If an admin actively searched for a current TA for the IP, that could maybe be considered fishing?

Otherwise, I suppose an admin could block the underlying IP if they're continuing to be disruptive.

Has there been any disruption since the IP's last edit on 19th Oct - so is it still an ongoing issue with any TA's?

If not, it might be best to wait and see if a TA causes problems and deal with those as they arise. Otherwise, I'm not sure what can be done right now.Blue Sonnet (talk)12:47, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. So I don't want to get into the weeds of the content, but this edit today[42] removed material I had flagged, but the second paragraph was not, in fact removed, but inserted with minor changes and the template removed. I had added a template to discuss Akama, and opened discussion (twice) on the talk page, stating my concerns. I specifically asked them not to remove Akama as a source, but to discuss, because there are issues with Akama, but the material he is used to support is probably correct. But as usual, the edit removes material summarily and deletes the template (whilst still keeping Akama as the source!)

More to the point, these three edits[43][44][45] (cited above) were all today. That is a series of personal attacks. I understand the difficulty here though. In the age of temporary accounts, I don't see how we defend a page from a persistentWP:SPA engaged in such behaviour.Sirfurboy🏄 (talk)13:39, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant policy ishere, and this is a case where it most likely isn't needed. Publicly linking TAs to IPs purely through behavioral evidence is perfectly acceptable, after all.45dogs (they/them)(talk page)13:45, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Like linking IPs and named accounts through behavioral evidence~2025-31733-18 (talk)14:51, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good to know, thanks! Still getting used to the whole TA thing...Blue Sonnet (talk)19:53, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• There is some leeway provided for this viaWikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Horn of Africa, although I am uncertain if it’s enough to put the article under CTOP designation. Given the problem though, it may be worth looking into.~2025-35893-32 (talk)16:53, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:CT/HORN coversEthiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes. This article is about tribe in western Kenya, and doesn't appear to be related to any disputes in those countries, so it doesn't fall under the CT. -The Bushranger_{One ping only}23:54, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• The edsum of this edit[46] is another attack - calling my edits vandalism when flagging unsourced content (and removing the templates).Sirfurboy🏄 (talk)09:05, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

I came across this user atKwararafa Confederacy where they madethis edit that included several fictional references. I went to their talk page to tell them and saw several warnings. On 2 November they were warned about exactly this byAesurias123 to no response. ThenUser talk:NatHaddan#November 2025 whereJonesey95 had warned them about this exact thing on 7 November, to which theydenied use of AI. They thendoubled down with a probable AI-generated comment. Fast-forward to today (23 November), they've received several more warnings as well asa final warning by Jonesey. Rather than tack on, I thought it best to report here (imo they should've been taken here after denying using AI with an AI-generated comment). Seeking an acknowledgement that they were using LLMs, and a promise not to do it anymore.Kowal2701 (talk)23:34, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Based onthis comment at the associated filing atWP:AINB, it looks like there is a language-related CIR issue hereNicheSports (talk)00:09, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oshwah Ping incase you saw my DMTankishguy00:12, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Ah, they'renot happyBlue Sonnet (talk)00:25, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IDK why they gave us a reasonTankishguy00:27, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Visual editor lets you do itTankishguy00:35, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@NatHaddan: Perthis comment, you are clearly using AI tools, whether you realize it or not. The only way to get unblocked would be to come clean.ChildrenWillListen (🐄 talk,🫘 contribs)07:18, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NO, I WON'T!

I have paying gig need my attention too.

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

You ask what we want you to do - I'd like you to answer my question here[62].

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

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

We keep asking but you still aren't answering.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I agree, re the Kwararafa edit, 7/14 refs are fictional (and that’s before checking whether the real ones verify). They say they’re systematically checking every ref, that simply can’t be true. They’ve been given 4 (?) chances to own up and denied obvious use every timeKowal2701 (talk)01:30, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Their user page is fairly solid evidence as well. Is there a editor who would legitimately describe themselves as "dedicated to advancing the quality, structure, and integrity of articles within the Wikimedia ecosystem"? (At least they wisely removed the word "senior" from the original generated text.) It's typical AI junk (and gets worse as you keep reading, quite frankly), especially in comparison to the level of English fluency seen in (what are presumably) the comments they've actually written. --Kinu ^t/_c07:48, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Despite this the user has lied about their LLM use:

• Here
• At their talk page:I am not in use of any AI or LLM generated content tool ... I AM NOT USING AI OR ANY LLM GENERATED CONTENT TOOL![63],In my years of experience ... I always commit my time and resources visit the geographic region for self observation for inspirations not using proxy resources or LLM machines.[64], andI am not using ai chatbot[65]...
• and at LLMN:not AI generated content[66]

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

I was looking at this user earlier, and while I would like to assume good faith, AI wasdefinitely used here, sorry. An indef might be too harsh, but time shouldn't be wasted on a CBAN here.Z ET A^C02:39, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

No CBAN consensus? Close.Tankishguy05:10, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes cban consensus? close idkTankishguy05:12, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Their wording Was confusing to me.Tankishguy15:54, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

They are already indefinitely blocked from articlespace[67], there is no need to spend any more time on this.fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk)16:44, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The ironic thing here is if they genuinely are somehow hallucinating referenceswithout using a LLM that'sworse. -The Bushranger_{One ping only}08:53, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CONTENT DISPUTE

(non-admin closure) Content dispute, which is not within the scope of ANI.45dogs (they/them)(talk page)22:11, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

---

	Text generated by alarge language model or similar AI technology has been collapsed in line withthe relevant guideline and should be excluded from assessments ofconsensus.
The following discussion has been closed.Please do not modify it.
I would like to reportUser:Deamonpen for a pattern of problematic editing on biographies of living persons (BLPs) and closely related organizations, especially around Peter Thiel, Thiel Capital, and associated figures. The conduct involves: • adding factually false or highly implausible claims • misrepresenting what sources say • using marginal sources for serious allegations • engaging in synthesis/original research to create conspiratorial narratives This is a BLP-heavy topic area (post-1992 U.S. politics and closely related people), which is a designated contentious topic. 1. Fabricated / unsupported claims about Jesse Michels and Thiel Capital On the Thiel Capital article, the user added a passage claiming that Jesse Michels: • “works as chief executive officer for Thiel Capital”; and • “has been noted for his diplomatic activities involving Kirsan Ilyumzhinov, the Vatican, Kalmykia, Albania, and Africa”. The cited article does not say he is CEO of Thiel Capital, nor that he undertakes diplomatic activities on behalf of Thiel or Thiel Capital. There is no reliable source supporting this. This appears to be fabricated BLP content. Diff(s): Addition of false claim that Jesse Michels is CEO of Thiel Capital This is a serious violation of WP:BLP, WP:V, and WP:RS. 2. Misrepresentation and editorializing re: Döpfner / Kress.de line The user added text claiming: “Thiel’s and Palantir’s business and political connections with the Döpfner family in general attract a lot of attention in Germany.” This framing does not appear in the cited Kress.de article and is editorializing. Problems: • Overstates and generalizes the source • Uses non-encyclopedic language • Appears to be WP:SYNTH or WP:OR Diff(s): Addition of sentence misrepresenting Kress.de about Thiel, Palantir, and the Döpfner family This violates WP:BLP, WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV. 3. Problematic “Charles Vaughan / Cambridge network” paragraph The user added a long paragraph linking Thiel’s alleged political influence, Charles Vaughan, Curtis Yarvin, “anti-woke networks,” and Cambridge University. Issues: • Uses **student newspapers** and opinion pieces to support serious allegations about a living person • Attempts to connect Thiel → Vaughan → Yarvin → “race science” → Cambridge politics in a way not supported by sources • Includes loaded, non-neutral phrasing (e.g. “anti-woke network”, “crusade”, “illiberalizing”) Diff(s): Addition of long paragraph about Vaughan and alleged Cambridge recruitment network with loaded language Pattern of tendentious editing on Thiel and related topics On their talk page and in discussions about the Marc Andreessen / Peter Thiel articles,User:Deamonpen has stated they are trying to expose networks around Thiel and the “new military industrial complex.” Combined with: • repeated over-interpretation of sources • blending unrelated sources (“lossy compression”) • restoring contested BLP content this creates a broader content and conduct problem. Other editors (e.g. WeyerStudentOfAgrippa, Simonm223) have raised concerns about: • weasel wording • attributing claims to entire publications rather than authors • degrading sourcing quality in BLPs 5. Prior warnings and related notices On the user’s talk page there are: • warnings about copyright/close paraphrasing • edit-warring notices (including a recent one) • a contentious topics notice covering U.S. politics and closely related people This is not an isolated issue but part of a recurring pattern. 6. What I am requesting I request that administrators: • ReviewUser:Deamonpen’s edits on Peter Thiel, Thiel Capital, Palantir Technologies, and related pages • Assess whether there is a pattern of BLP violations, source misrepresentation, and tendentious editing • Consider a **topic ban** (Peter Thiel / Thiel-adjacent pages or post-1992 U.S. politics/tech) • Or, if needed, a **block** to prevent further BLP damage Thank you. 7. Attachments / Diff summary **Jesse Michels / Thiel Capital CEO claim** *Addition of false claim **Döpfner / Kress.de misrepresentation** *Misrepresenting Kress.de source **Charles Vaughan / Cambridge network** *Addition of non-neutral, synthesis-heavy paragraph Submitted by: InquireMore Date: 24 Nov 2025

— Precedingunsigned comment added byInquireHere (talk •contribs)08:04, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You madeone edit and opted to discuss this with the other editoron their talk page (which is a reasonable and appropriate move), but thenbrought this here within 15 minutes of yourlast edit to their talk page, without even notifying them of this discussion (which I have now done) or giving them time to respond. Is my reading of this timeline correct? --Kinu ^t/_c08:52, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

	Text generated by alarge language model or similar AI technology has been collapsed in line withthe relevant guideline and should be excluded from assessments ofconsensus.
The following discussion has been closed.Please do not modify it.
Good morning. @Kinu t/c: Your reading of the basic timeline is fair. I made a corrective edit, raised the issues on the user’s talk page, and then opened the ANI thread soon afterwards. In hindsight, I should have explicitly pinged them to this discussion and left more time for a response before escalating, and I’m happy to apologise for that procedural misstep. Sorry! What pushed me to ANI so quickly, though, wasn’t a routine content dispute but the nature of the specific BLP problems I was seeing. In this case that included: -a plainly false statement that Jesse Michels is the CEO of Thiel Capital, which is not supported anywhere in the cited source or, as far as I can tell, in any reliable source; and -language around “diplomatic activities” and network-building that goes materially beyond what the sources say — in clear conflict with WP:BLP, WP:V and WP:SYNTH. I then saw that the same pattern has continued across tens (if not hundreds) of edits on this page alone. With respect to this specific edit, I tried to address the issues on the user’s talk page, where I laid out the concerns in detail and invited discussion. Despite that, the user re-introduced a claim that is, in my view, straightforwardly and verifiably incorrect about a living person’s role. Because these additions involve multiple living individuals in a highly sensitive topic area (US politics, tech billionaires, alleged political networks), I felt this had moved well beyond a simple content disagreement. At that point it became, in my judgment, a live BLP issue that warranted admin attention sooner rather than later. For context, this isn’t an isolated incident. On the user’s talk page and on related articles (e.g. Peter Thiel) other experienced editors have already been raising very similar concerns. These include: -reliance on marginal or weak sources for potentially serious claims about living people; -repeated synthesis that strings together people (e.g. Michels, Vaughan, Moritz Döpfner) into a kind of implied “network” or “orbit” that the sources themselves do not actually link; and -imprecise or misleading attribution, such as attributing viewpoints to an entire publication rather than the specific writer or cited source. What especially concerned me — and what fits the broader pattern — is the treatment of non-public figures such as Charles Vaughan and Moritz Döpfner. These are individuals with little or no independent coverage, and the user’s edits often elevate scattered mentions into a veneer of coordinated political activity or conspiracy-adjacent “networking”. In some cases this is done via student newspapers or commentary pieces, which are not appropriate for contentious BLP assertions. In others, the synthesis suggests connections or significance that the sources themselves never assert. That recurring “network construction” pattern around non-public people in a political context is exactly what WP:BLP, WP:SYNTH and WP:UNDUE are meant to prevent. To be clear: I am not claiming the user is a vandal, or that they haven’t made constructive contributions elsewhere. My concern — and the reason I brought this here — is that in this particular cluster of articles involving living people and post-1992 politics, there is a repeated pattern of adding or restoring material that is not supported by high-quality sources and that crosses important BLP boundaries. If the consensus is that I should have waited longer before opening the thread, I’ll absolutely take that on board. But I do still believe the underlying BLP issues were sufficiently serious, recurring, and tightly clustered that ANI attention was appropriate. I have also gone into significant detail on the user’s talk page. My apologies again on the timeline.InquireHere (talk)09:25, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fabricated what?

I reposted and remixed the replies on my Talk page here:

This is theprevious version, as largely edited by me, before being changed by InquireMore.

Re: Jesse Michels:

CEO is probably a mistake, but not a reason to remove the whole sentence (and initially, without giving a single reason).

The sentence does not claim that Michels is doing diplomatic activities on behalf of Thiel Capital.

Thereference article on Michels does mentions Thiel Capital, and also Michels' private business, American Alchemy:

"The visit began at the Vatican, where Michels, an investor with Thiel Capital and the Thiel Family Office, accompanied Ilyumzhinov to the 60th-anniversary commemoration of Nostra Aetate, the landmark Second Vatican Council declaration reshaping Catholic relations with other faith traditions."

"The conversations between Ilyumzhinov and Michels — and those soon to be aired on American Alchemy — suggest that themes long dormant in public life are returning: spiritual authority alongside statecraft, new sovereign ambitions, ancient cosmologies, and emerging questions about intelligence and meaning."

No matter whether Michels does politics on behalf of Thiel Capital or not, it is clear that when he "accompanied Ilyumzhinov to the 60th-anniversary commemoration of Nostra Aetate", others see him as an investor from Thiel Capital, so what is the problem with mentioning Thiel Capital?

---

A previous sentence (in my version, mentioned above) only says that some current and former Thiel Capital employees are notable for politics, which are sometimes controversial. No where it is stated that this is orchestrated by Thiel Capital.

Certainly Kurz, Kratsios, or Harrington do not recognize that they do any political activities on behalf of Thiel Capital, but the press suspects that there is some linking (only in the case of Kurz, the suspicion is mentioned in the Wikepedia article bcause it was a fairly important EU official who said that).

In the case of Vaughan, I have included materials that argue again the case that there is a conspiracy. Obviously, Vaughan did something in the UK, but whether there was political networking on behalf of Thiel, or there was a race science conspiracy or any conspiracy or not.... is another matter.

Re: Moritz Doepfner: "attracts attention" is already a more neutral way of talking about it/

Kress

"Der Springer-Chef hat drei Söhne aus seiner Ehe mit Ulrike Döpfner (und einen weiteren Sohn mit Julia Stoschek). Sein Sprössling Moritz arbeitet als Chief of Staff für Investor Peter Thiel, hielt der gewöhnlich gut informierte US-Medienjournalist Ben Smith bei „Semafor“ zuletzt fest, um seine These zu belegen, dass Döpfner enge Kontakte „in die kleine Welt der neurechten Leader“ pflegt. Bereits im August vergangenen Jahres hatte das „Handelsblatt“ geschrieben, Moritz Döpfner leite die Investmentfirma Thiel Capital „des libertären Vordenkers und gefürchteten Strippenziehers Peter Thiel“."

On the manager-magazin, Thiel is reported to be helping Moritz to become "Ein deutscher J.D. Vance", and certainly Thiel and the Quantum System deal (that Moritz brokered for Thiel) are seen as controversial

On tagesspiegel:

"Schon immer hat der Springer-CEO die Nähe zu den US-Tech-Unternehmern gesucht. Sein Sohn Moritz Döpfner arbeitet als Chief of Staff für den umstrittenen Trump-nahen Investor Peter Thiel."

These are popular German magazines. So how do you want the whole thing to be written?"Thiel's alleged political and business links with the Doepfner father and son cause a lot of debates?"

---

Also,I repeat that you should stop throwing around inappropriate tags like WP:WEASEL. I am doing a lot of edits on Thiel-related articles, so naturally there are disagreements sometimes. But generally, the debating environment is good and productive, and people have also thanked me for what I have done, as you can seehere (Peter Thiel Talk page) orhere (Kevin Harrington Talk page). And if you pay attention, the previous times I got accused of being biased or having special interests or whatever, it was because they thought I was unfairly in favor of Thiel or something. But I can say that usually we can work out a compromise. Only in this case (an user who has some connected with General Matter) thinks that I includetoo much critical information on his firm, but I say that we have been good at working out a compromise as well.

I am willing to talk, so please be constructive, and don't throw out labels like there is no tomorrow.— Precedingunsigned comment added byDeamonpen (talk •contribs)09:20, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Let's start with this, both of you:cut back sharply on the walls of texts. Quite aside from that the OP reads like a legal filing written by a LLM, it's pretty much guaranteed to be ignored in the TL;DR vein. You both should also be signing your posts. Ravenswing09:21, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry. Will sign posts from here on out.InquireHere (talk)09:26, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I will keep the messages shorter. I didn't realize that was an issue. @InquireHereInquireHere (talk)09:28, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Given that the original post was clearly LLM generated (or, assuming good faith, heavily LLM assisted), I havehatted it.InquireHere, please use your own words instead of an LLMs.45dogs (they/them)(talk page)09:30, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks,User talk:Ravenswing. In short the other user is trying to change theThiel Capital article largely written by me. Seeedit history of that page. Here they seem to think that I am somehow biased *against*Peter Thiel or Thiel Capital (while some others have accused me of being the opposite, like what you will see on theTalk page ofPeter Thiel.

Again,User:InquireHere has removed the Jesse Michels part, this time with the reason that Michels is not doing any diplomatic activity

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thiel_Capital&diff=prev&oldid=1323889695

But thereferenced source clearly claims that:

American thinker Jesse Michelsled a quiet diplomatic and spiritual initiative through the Vatican and Albania, marking the public return of former Kalmyk President Kirsan Ilyumzhinov, whose separate visit to Mongolia added a personal cultural note to the wider effort.

[...]

Rome: A return to symbolic ground

The visit began at the Vatican, where Michels, an investor with Thiel Capital and the Thiel Family Office, accompanied Ilyumzhinov to the 60th-anniversary commemoration of Nostra Aetate, the landmark Second Vatican Council declaration reshaping Catholic relations with other faith traditions.----Deamonpen (talk)09:35, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per my reading of what is going on, this appears to be a content dispute. Since ANI doesn't weigh on content but on conduct, it appears this should be closed, unless there are behavioral issues that haven't been presented.InquireHere, please follow thedispute resolution process rather than going to ANI immediately.45dogs (they/them)(talk page)09:45, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Thanks!InquireHere (talk)10:40, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding LLMs: this text was not generated by one. I am a technical editor by trade and I do use LLMs occasionally to check grammar or clarity, but the substance and wording are my own.@Ravenswing

Regarding the “diplomatic initiative” wording: the fact that Billionaires.Africa described it that way does not, by itself, make the trip diplomatic in any formal or substantive sense. This is the issue. @Deamonpen

I will move this now to the Talk page.

Thank you, All, for your time, direction and understanding.InquireHere (talk)10:50, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(non-admin comment) To me that clearly looked like it was LLM as well, so I would recommend avoiding it, even for grammar or "clarity".Wikieditor662 (talk)17:37, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:~2025-32582-69 appears to be a bot account, created recently, with no edits besides reverting edits on theCommunist Party USA page without explanation or citation. Attempts to reach them on their own talk page have yielded nothing.— Precedingunsigned comment added byPequodOnStationAtLZ (talk •contribs)17:13, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(non admin comment) it seems that their warning was over edit warring. Have you considered reporting this to theedit warring noticeboard instead?Wikieditor662 (talk)17:40, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't look like a bot, but there has definitely been some edit-warring going on from both sides here (yes, edit-warring is a two way street, even if the other person is an unregistered account that hasn't provided an explanation). Based on IP information, Possilikely (a mix between possible and likely) toUser:~2025-31874-43. Fully protecting the page for three days (and inviting all of you to discuss it on the talk page), I'll let another admin sort out the blocks.ChaoticEnby (talk ·contribs)19:38, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Both TAs blocked for a week, they've both got relevant contributions past the past couple days. Probably could have been a partial for each.Izno (talk)00:22, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'd support making them partial blocks, since the purpose of the full prot was to get everyone to discuss it on the talk page, which isn't really possible if they're blocked from it for the duration of the full prot.WP:3RR is a bright line, and enforcing it on one side but not the other isn't ideal, even if Pequod is likely right on the substance (as the source didn't make mention of "22 thousand").ChaoticEnby (talk ·contribs)11:33, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is atemporary account, the replacement for IP editing.Gnomingstuff (talk)00:11, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies if this is the wrong venue for this request. I believe a single user has been hopping around IP addresses over the last couple weeks, make unconstructive edits to articles such asList of Japanese movie studios,Media Home Entertainment, and several others. Anyone with TAIV can verify this. I see that some individual IP addresses have been blocked and pages have been protected, but I would ask that an administrator consider a rangeblock on the /16 range (or a different range, if you feel it is more appropriate) underlying these temporary accounts (e.g.,~2025-36076-48,~2025-35740-91), as that may be more effective at preventing further disruption.MaterialsPsych (talk)07:10, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It appears some of the IPs, if not the whole range, are proxies.45dogs (they/them)(talk page)07:18, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IP range calculator said the /18 would be the range that would cover these TAs.45dogs (they/them)(talk page)07:23, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the additional info,45dogs. If these are indeed open proxies,they should definitely be blocked, especially if they are being used for abuse. I still feel a range block would be more effective than playing whack-a-mole when a new IP/temporary account pops up, but it doesn't look like a range block has been applied yet. I will continue to wait and see what happens.MaterialsPsych (talk)02:51, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Admittedly that proxy assessment was based on a spot check, but it appears to be accurate upon reviewing it again. The range appears to have two types of proxies. I don't think there is collateral in that range, but I'm not fully sure.45dogs (they/them)(talk page)03:32, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I added thelatest comment byStop culprits (talk ·contribs) onto an LLM detecting website calledGPTZero Dashboard. The following was the result:

• We are highly confident this text was AI generated
• Probability breakdown
• 100% AI generated
• 0% Mixed
• 0% Human

--Trade (talk)08:17, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the concern. To be clear: I sometimes use AI tools only to help fix grammar and wording, but all the points I make are my own. If this is an issue, I will avoid using AI assistance on Wikipedia going forward.

I have no intention of causing disruption, and I am happy to follow whatever guidance administrators provide. I will not add any contested content to the article without consensus.Stop culprits (talk)09:13, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Em dashes and that kind of quotation marks are a telltale sign of LLMs. Be advised that while using LLMs in discussions isn't specifically banned, if you continue to use LLMs to write rely (especially without disclosure), other editors will (and should) ignore your contributions, since you didn't actually make them.Cortador (talk)09:35, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely what policy violation is involved here? What attempts did you make to settle your dispute with Stop culprits? While there's broad consensus that the use of LLMs for articlespace edits is highly objectionable, there's not a whole lot for its use on talk pages ... except, as Cordator accurately points out, many editors will ignore them as illegitimate. Ravenswing10:22, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He was asked by other users to stop using LLM previously. It only seems to have stopped nowTrade (talk)10:45, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The preciseWP:PAG violation isWP:BLUDGEONing a talk page discussion so that an article violatesWP:BLPCRIMERavenswing.~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk)10:51, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not massively happy about the stuff they're trying to shoehorn into that BLP, either; I may pblock them if they add that again. I see they've now taken their LLM-generated complaints to the BLP board instead...Black Kite (talk)12:23, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve warned them. See last comment inWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Need help and support and feedback. — rsjaffe 🗣️15:17, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is backward.WP:HATGPT (the talk-page AI guideline in question) has existed for quite some time now. We have only had an articlespace LLM guideline for roughly 24 hours.Gnomingstuff (talk)14:44, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yay, we do? (Seriously freaking overdue!) Where is it? Ravenswing00:46, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NEWLLM.ChildrenWillListen (🐄 talk,🫘 contribs)00:47, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Skitash is preventing the resolution of an editorial conflict.

1) I'm discussing the Algiers page with M.Bitton to discuss his revert[75]

2) Faced with a discussion that's stalling, I decided to request a third opinion18:27, 25 November 2025;

3) Following this (WP:HOUND ?) Skitash posted a very brief message after my request for mediation.18:47, 25 November 2025

4) He decided to delete the mediation request himself!18:48, 25 November 2025 claiming to have been involved in the discussion (where he only became involved after my request for a third opinion).

This practice violates the rules ofWP:3OIf you are a party to a dispute and another party has requested an opinion, it is improper for you to remove or modify the request, even if the request does not meet the requirements for a third opinion or because you do not want a third opinion. If you feel that the request does not meet the requirements for a third opinion and should be removed, post a request on the Third Opinion talk page to be evaluated by an uninvolved volunteer..

5) Skitash, in addition to having arrived after my request forWP:3O repeats almost word for word[76] Mr. Bitton's argument[77]. orWP:3O stipulates:3O is usually flexible by allowing a few exceptions, like those involving mainly two editors with an extra editor having minimal participation.. Therefore, the request did not have to be unilaterally removed based solely on Skitash's late and minor contribution (redundant with M.Bitton).

Not only does Skitash not participate in conflict resolution, not respond to messages, and prevent the use of conflict resolution tools, but he also systematically reverts me to discourage any further contributions by usingWP :HOUND.Monsieur Patillo (talk)20:26, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, you're trying to turn a content dispute into a conduct issue. I commented inTalk:Algiers because I'm one of the two editors who reverted your contested addition, and I'm planning to expand on my reasoning when I have time.WP:3O is only appropriate when there's a deadlock between two editors. Once a third person weighs in, it's no longer eligible, and that's why I removed the request (as explained in my edit summary). I find it disappointing that instead ofassuming good faith and being collaborative about yourdisputed additions, you'd rather engage inWP:FORUMSHOPPING and open numerous reports against me on this noticeboard,most recently just over a week ago (and closed for similarly being about a content dispute).Skitash (talk)21:05, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is indeed a problem with your conduct:

• You intervened (first time) on the talk page just one minute before my request was deleted onWP:3O. When you realized (at least upon reading this request) that you were not respecting the guidelines (post a request on the Third Opinion talk page to be evaluated by an uninvolved volunteer) you haven't reversed this irregular deletion. This is a behavioral issue, not an editorial one. Not only did you improperly close my request (exceeding your editorial rights), but you also failed to offer an alternative way to resolve the conflict or wait for the third opinion (yours repeats M.Bitton's word for word, which is covered byWP:3O).
• There is also a phenomenon of tracking and monitoring my activities. Two examples:fr:Discussion:Tribus arabes d'Algérie/Admissibilité was launched on the French-language project by myself between October 10, 2024, and October 18, 2024. On October 12 at 3:54 PM, Skitash created the English page from a translation of the French[78], just a few hours after my blocking earlier that same day at 2:46 AM (overturned by appeal the following day)[79]. The timing of the creation of this article (copying the same manipulation of primary sources as the French-language project) is highly improbable without monitoring my activity.
• Same here[80] where Skitash appears after my participation[81] on a discussion page. How can this be explained and not perceived on my part in the case ofThe important component of hounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or disruption to the project generally, for no overridingly constructive reason. (as good faith for me). The problem is that we are seeing the escalation (cancellations, monitoring of my history, disputes, ignored remarks...) but never any solution or helping hand extended to resolve the disputes from Skitash.

Monsieur Patillo (talk)22:21, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1. The article never needed a 3O in the first place. I was the one whoreverted your edit first (so I’m already one of the editors involved). The page is on my watchlist, so when I noticed that the discussion was stalling, I came to present my own view, being the third opinion. That's why the request was ineligible and I removed it.

2. Your allegation that I'm monitoring you is utter nonsense. TheArab tribes of Algeria is a big interest of mine (I createdZughba,Riyah,Hamyan, etc), and I'd been planning to translate that article for months. Again, more of the same assumption of bad faith.

3. It's not hounding if those articles are on my watchlist and I've edited or discussed them long before you did.

4. The only escalation here is yourWP:FORUMSHOPPING and repeated reports about content disputes. Ironically, the indefinite block you mentioned[82] was literally for "using Wikipedia as a battleground by persistently unnecessarily personalizing content disputes."Skitash (talk)23:53, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ajrun Amir'za-da (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

Hi.User:Ajrun Amir'za-da has made 2,079 edits in total, many of which are counterproductive. For example,their last edit changed and added content without providing sources and also changed a grammatical phrase into an ungrammatical one ("which later became" => "which later becoming"). This is representative for most of their edit history. Some other examples:[83],[84],[85],[86],[87],[88],[89]. Most of these are not very extreme in and of themselves, but taken together it still amounts to ongoing disruptive edits that have to be manually reverted by editors one by one. Out of his last 500 edits, 98 are tagged as Reverted. He's also made an article thatwas speedily deleted as a "hoax", and he tried to prop that article up by responding with an intimidatingly long list of sources, which I seriously doubt really contain the info which he's claiming they contain (but haven't checked so who knows).(1) Other articles he's made weremoved to draftspace and he was warned aboutedit warring. What doesn't help is that it seems difficult to enter in a discussion with him, because either he doesn't respond (for example to the edit war discussion, toothers who pointed out his bad referencing, or tomy own post on his talk page); or he makes vaguely aggressive statements likethis edit summary; or he goes on an incohesive tangent likehis response to a suggestion to investigate him for sock puppetry. After my post to his talk page, he also simply re-reverted the disruptive edits I had reverted a few days before. Can an administrator please look into this? The problem is persistent and it's clearly hard to convey the issue to him, so it might not be too draconian to block this user at least for some period of time.LongueDurée (talk)20:55, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for welcome me again, but Sorry to say seems like you question on my entire wiki career existence, what i do and how i do edit and form a articles, and yes many of your statments are true, however, the way you allegation about your claim that i makes vaguely aggressive statements islogical fallacies, however if you sincerely go and checking my user pages many of details about me you can find, but when you talk about contents i create, most of categories are those parts of collective histories and most of were related to sources that if i given or, others given, and if any mistakes i made i first analysing then i didnt interrupt to edits or, reverting because of some mistakes, the way you claimsockpuppetry is to way higher much of allegations that equals to legal cases, i actually saying to way if you can't give me sources then dont edit on pages to giving wrong informations others, which is very doubtful that you already come here to discuss about on your previous some half-bias points, well i m not a regular editer but semi-editer or, short times edits for contributions on collections of histories, which is my one of favorite subjects, thats is might be the reasons for me that why i m very lose to responsing others, very small times i got to become regular editor, however you cannot show me one single vandalism about me that i do some conflictions, without reasons, can you tell me about yourself something more ? you may come and editing, enjoying Wikipedia being user, and i would suppose to say first find any vandalism or, bad conflictions which i m really aggressive and about my bad representations anyone can correct my edits, its never significant for me to revert, but you may come to showing your insincerities, and the reason i revert because you continuesly 2 or, more times you little discontributing the pages by removing many of words in first lines of the pagesBarlas, [tell you give any sources about you reverting for sources], instead giving any reasons you continues on your stance about reverts, i dont know if you check any of references ? or, not ?Ajrun Amir'za-da (talk)21:37, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(1) EDIT: after a closer look, it turns out he simply copy-pasted the entire bibliography section from aCatalan wiki article

I have blocked Ajrun Amir'za-da from article space and suggested that posting satisfactory edit requests would be his fastest route to an unblock. --SarekOfVulcan (talk)22:32, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Phuc Truong Dinh (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

This user has been editing for two years, with a bit over 550 edits in that time. However, their contributions are largely disruptive, and it appears to be a CIR issue. Image disruption has been prolific - replacing adequate images with ones that are much worse. Whether it's indoor shots with bad lighting ([90][91]),ones taken at unencylopedic tilted angles,so badly shaded the subject isn't fully distinguishable,replacing clean backgrounds with busy ones, and a wide away of others, almost none of their edits have improved an article.

Beyond image disruption, they've beenremoving hatnotes anddeleting legitimate cleanup tags.

Attempts at making other edits to articles have also been largely disruptive, including misinformation likeincorrect dates.This clearly-disruptive gibberish is a strong indication that they don't have a sufficient grasp of English to edit here.

The user has been warned on their talk page several times, but all have been ignored. They areaware of their talk page, but instead of acknowledging the issues with their editing, posted something barely comprehensible. They clearly are a not a net positive to the project. --Sable232 (talk)00:33, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Poopdecktheoverlord has, over the months, repeatedly gone to the final warning. Here are the instances of this:

• User talk:Poopdecktheoverlord#April 2025
• User talk:Poopdecktheoverlord#June 2025
• User talk:Poopdecktheoverlord#October 2025
• User talk:Poopdecktheoverlord#November 2025 (note for this one, I may have been mistaken in one of my warnings, but other users warned for other reasons, so it still made it to the final warning.)

They recently made their 10,000th edit and I would discourage a permanent block, I just want to make sure that they're being productive and not getting into trouble. What can be done about this? Thanks.

Wikieditor662 (talk)00:49, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide diffs of specific disruptive edits. Saying "this editor has been warned a lot" is not sufficient evidence.voorts (talk/contributions)01:22, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

April:

Diff that probably got warning 2:Ian Hanlin: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia

Warning 3 diff:Féodor Atkine: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia

Warning 4 diff:Spliced (TV series): Difference between revisions - Wikipedia

June:

Warning 1:Anna Cieślak: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia

Severe Warning:Le Petit Nicolas (TV series): Difference between revisions - Wikipedia

October:

Warning 1:Pakdam Pakdai: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia

Severe Warning: edit warring in October of this pageZig & Sharko: Revision history - Wikipedia

November:

Warning/severe warning:The Adventures of Kid Danger: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia

Severe warning:The Adventures of Kid Danger: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia

Severe warning:The Adventures of Kid Danger: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia

Also:The Adventures of Kid Danger: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia

Most of these were either unsourced, and / or edit warring.

Wikieditor662 (talk)01:34, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey everyone. It has been brought to my attention that in the year or so that I have been present with this account, over the past several months, I have repeatedly made unsourced and/oredit war-adjacent to several pages that I have come across (namely those listed here).

Before I continue, I want to make it clear that I have never intended to vandalize these pages in any way, shape or form. All of these edits were made in the name of improving them for people to read and making them not feel outright incomplete; something that I have confused with an excuse to flimsily add in claims that are either uncited or outright false; my contributions in April, June, October and November of this year especially reflect this the hardest.

Of note, I was particularly belligerent towards editors such asWaxworker andMagical Golden Whip (two editors who I will openly admit have occasionally gotten on my nerves in the past, although I do not wish them any harm), consistently reverting their edits to Wikipedia pages on the basis of them doing so for mine under the basis of being "unsourced" (and often without providing proper explanations for doing so in return) and refusing to back off when warned by them. Even when taking my previously-stated grudge against them, me escalating the situation without relenting or trying to relent was wrong and unjust. I just came off as a petty jerk à la the now-disgracedLukeJolly3 who cared far more about the virtues of inserting boneheaded claims into pages without citing sources so whoever reads this doesn't think I'm a rambling nutjob than actually contributingand citing sources, at least ones that were verified and not prone to fancruft or unfair, blatantly ignorant errors, even when I disagree with the claims they insert.