This page is forurgent incidents andchronic, intractable behavioral problems.

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

Concerns regarding an AFD source analysis

Scope creep (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)Howard the Duck (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

Scope creep has gone too far now. He AfD the article ofColet (which is still undergoing relisting at this moment), and to be honest I'm not really shocked or panicked at all. The problem with this editor is that he's conducting a hoax analysis of the sources. He claims the sources are "no byline", "PR", and "social media driven" and that's not theWP:RS it works. Perhaps he hasn't even read articles from the Southeast Asia.I'm sorry to say this while I'm frustrated but he's the worst editor i've ever encountered here. When we asked him to explain the basis of his analysis of the sources, he didn't even respond. I'm trying to understand hisgood faith but I really don't understand what he's trying to point out. He even accusedSPA of voting to keep the article on the anonymous users even toSoyadı (who just joined). He hasn't followed theWP:AGF andWP:BITE.

Now, inSherman Poon AfD, he did it again. He called it "PR" sources, and when he encounterederror code (which he seemed to think meant the site or source was dead), I personally checked it and found that it was fine. This means he's doing a hoax analysis again. He also removedHteiktinhein'scomment (I suggest reading all the comments on AfD to fully understand what I'm saying). After the AfD was closed as "keep", he left a message on mytalk page, threatening me to not participate in the Poon's AfD again.If you WP:BLUDGEON like you have been doing, I will take you to WP:ANI and I will get you blocked. If you doing it here, you've doing in other places. Keep that in mind. This is obviouslyWP:HARASSMENT now, and perWP:NOTHERE.

ForHoward the Duck,in the past discussion on ANI, there's no change of his attitude, he'sWP:BLUDGEON the process anddidn't leave us alone. In fact,The Philippine Star is reliable source, but he said on the AfDJuanCast seems to be a column/section/pen name(???) of someone/something from the Philippine Star (I stopped reading when Max Soliven died).. This is baseless and there's no connection to the AfD.

I'm requesting toWP:IBAN for our peace of mind and we can edit in Wikipedia properly, because, I'm exhausted to interact to them especially to HTD who doesn't leaving me alone, especially when it comes toBini topics.ROY is WARTalk!11:44, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Bloomagiliw, I will mention you here to join our ANI discussion.ROY is WARTalk!11:44, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Holy mother of god, what in the hell did I just read. I have only encountered Scope creep a few times, but now after going through everything, I think it may be a better option to TBAN from XFD's entirely (broadly construed).

Roy was not bludgeoning, they only responded to the Colet AFD twice, and for the Sherman Poon AFD? Encountering error codes that everyone doesnt see isnt a reason to AFD.

I am supporting a TBAN from XFDs (broadly construed) for this reason.shane(talk to me if you want!)13:25, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

EditorShane3456, what's the difference of TBAN and IBAN?ROY is WARTalk!13:54, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A TBAN is a editing restriction from a certain area, a IBAN is a interaction ban, meaning that 2 people cannot be in contact with each othershane(talk to me if you want!)13:57, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, maybeTBAN is the better option and I think in Music related, I guess?ROY is WARTalk!14:00, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

XFDs topic ban + music is the option i would supportshane(talk to me if you want!)14:21, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

People aren't TBANned for doing things thatyou don't like, but which aren't wrong. Sorry.Black Kite (talk)14:41, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly disruptive behaviour from scope creep.Policing AfDs by removing comments they don't like,issuing threats when discussions don't go the way they'd like, all block-worthy behaviour.

I can't see how Howard the Duck's behaviour is bludgeoning; indeed,Bloomagiliw seems have repeatedly tried to antagonise them. This appears to have carried forward fromthe last ANI, when HtD was (from my point of view) lucky to escape a block. This time, it is Bloomagiliw's behaviour that is uncivil (e.g. unsupported but repeated accusations that HtD called sources "trash" or "shit"), and they should be warned for being antagonistic.~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk)14:06, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

AirshipJungleman29, To be fair, yes, Bloomagiliw might be hostile to HtD, but, HtD is the one who only "bothered" when we're editing in girl groupBini. I really don't know if he really hate that group but we don't care about that because it's not our fault if he hates a group or not. OnAfD of "Ang Pag-Ibig Kong Ito, he saidthis song, which is a classic OPM hit across 4 decades, is certainly more notable than the Bini songs that the AFD proposer propagates., and toGwen's AfD:All WP:INTERVIEWs are WP:PRIMARY and thus fail WP:RS. Only this ref is eligible for WP:RS. Everything else is just primarytrash., and when Bloomagiliw argue, he said again:Just like I said, primary trash.ROY is WARTalk!14:25, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Royiswariii, if Bloomagiliw is hanging onto comments from a month ago to bring them up in unrelated discussions, that feels very much like they're "bothered".~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk)16:01, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I was not aware that I would be brought into this. In fact, I actively encouraged people to just ignore and not bring this to ANI because of how exhausting the process is. Comments like this are why. Sure, I'm "bothered" by Howard the Duck. Frankly it's difficultnot to be bothered by someone who gaslights and refuses to apologize even after multiple mods on ANI agree he was personally attacking me.

If you look at the discussion here, I wasn't just "trying to antagonize him":https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Colet_(singer)

My very first response to him was when he was already trying to antagonize someone else. Do you believe that "JuanCast seems to be a column/section/pen name(???) of someone/something from the Philippine Star (I stopped reading when Max Soliven died)." is in any way constructive or in good faith?

I also responded to the guy literally only twice in the entire discussion.

Also, "unsupported" accusations that HtD calls sources "trash"? He confirms in the very same discussion that hedoes do that, he just doesn't remember calling sources "shit" but he says clearly there that yes, he uses the other words. Coming from the guy himself. I mentioned it because it's a pattern and at his previous ANI, the mods said it's a problem in his case, because he uses such words to try to humiliate other editors and "win" arguments.

HtD was also informed by another editor thatHell University would premiere on February 6, 2026, so don't PROD the article:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hell_University&diff=prev&oldid=1335917488

He immediately put it up for AfD on January 30 after that with the reasonnot yet in filming phase, even though multiple references in the article indicated the showhad been filmed already. Then tried to blame me becauseIt's clear that no sources about the article being filmed were already in the article at the time article was nominated and I was "misrepresenting" it.

I provided proof to the contrary (sources about the show being filmed were added on January 23), so he stopped responding. But the article still has that AfD based on an entirely bogus reason, so honestly, I do find it a bit difficult not to find such behavior bothersome when the person both 1) refuses to change and 2) refuses to apologize.Bloomagiliw (talk)18:03, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

" Do you believe that "JuanCast seems to be a column/section/pen name(???) of someone/something from the Philippine Star (I stopped reading when Max Soliven died)." is in any way constructive or in good faith?"

Yes. Do I believe that:

"Thanks for refusing to apologize about degrading my education even though you don't know who I am beyond Wikipedia, trying to gaslight me even as multiple editors called you out, and now pretending to care about anyone's mental health while still letting everyone know that awards mean nothing because you, Howard the Duck, personally stopped reading one of the country's most established newspapers when Soliven died. Facts do not matter. The only thing that matters in the world is what you read and how you feel about things. Thank you for reminding us. "

is in any way constructive or in good faith, even if you take the first comment as a malicious attack against you personally? No.~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk)18:26, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, sure.Bloomagiliw (talk)18:29, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The edit that you call "Policing AFD" should have been removed, as it was just a screed providing commentary about mean ol' editors, and could do nothing but further turn up the heat. Telling someone that they may bring them to ANI for bludgeoningif they continue bludgeon after they were, well, bludgeoning is hardly a sanctionable "threat." We'resupposed to warn editors about conduct before dragging them to ANI and using the community's time.CoffeeCrumbs (talk)14:49, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

CoffeeCrumbs, I can see no evidence that Royiswariii was bludgeoning the AfD about an article they created. They have commented eleven times; if that counts as bludgeoning, Scope creep should note that they themselves are one comment away from bludgeoning.~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk)16:05, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile, this section hasUser:Scope creep's name in the title and I can seeabsolutely nothing that they have done wrong here. Their source analysis in both AfDs appears to be spot on to me. Regardless of whether the subjects are notable or not, this appears to be someone who has written an article with poor sources that is getting annoyed when someone points out that they're poor sources (and many of them are). Meanwhile, the OP statesHe even accusedSPA of voting to keep the article on the anonymous users even toSoyadı (who just joined). Yeah, well, Soyadiwas a sock (and are now blocked indefinitely) and if I was closing that AfD I certainly wouldn't be taking that TA's vote into consideration. There should certainly be no sanction for Scope creep; I have not looked deeply at the behaviour of the other three or four editors involved.Black Kite (talk)14:23, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm definitely failing to see why Scope creep is even being mentioned here. Yeah, there's an edit or two where I think that they got somethingwrong, but everybody makes a lot of mistakes. Unless there's something I missed or am not understanding, I certainly don't see a pattern of editing or conduct that would lead even to the world's gentlest whack with a goby.CoffeeCrumbs (talk)14:40, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@CoffeeCrumbs: I have adjusted the thread titlevis-à-vis neutrality.~2026-79706-0 (talk)16:20, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I first noticed Scope's unusual source analysis during the Sherman Poon AfD. I was surprised by the level of bias in the analysis and felt compelled to comment. I was not alone; several editors raised similar concerns and criticised Scope’s approach in that AfD.

Based on the comments across multiple AfDs, I believe this behaviour is viewed as unacceptable by a number of community members. After reviewing Scope’s recent AfD contributions, I observed a repeated pattern. His style of source analysis can significantly influence AfD outcomes and can be difficult to counter. AfDs nominated by Scope therefore deserve closer scrutiny.

This is concerning because if experienced editors do not participate, newer editors are unlikely to be able to counter this kind of aggressive or dismissive source analysis. While I agree with some of Scope’s evaluations, as certain sources are unreliable or interview-based and should not be used on Wikipedia, many other sources he dismisses appear usable. In several cases, he has labelled most or all sources presented by other editors asPR-driven orsocial-media-based without sufficient justification.

I welcome good-faith source analysis, but the practice goes beyond that and has caused repeated issues in AfDs, with many editors opposing this approach. There have also been instances where Scope made attacks on editors who worked to find sources during AfDs, including@Cunard:. For these reasons, I do not support dismissing these concerns underWP:IDONTLIKEIT. This behavior discourages participation in AfDs, especially when Scrop is the nominator. I believe this situation warrants at least an administrative warning.Hteiktinhein (talk)14:30, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What do you suggest they do when they are analysing a source list, much of whichis advertorials, PR-based, social media based or tabloid gossip?Black Kite (talk)14:39, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've been aware of the Colet AfD for a while, and alarmed by it. Can we cut ScopeCreep some slack? The whole AfD on Colet is a mess, with sock-puppets, a lot of extremely unpleasant personal attack, and a lot of people seeming very emotionally attached, a lot of extremely crude language and personal attacks/threats of ANI. This is exactly the sort of environment where things go wrong, and it becomes difficult to disentangle genuine bad behaviour from edgy decisions induced by the extreme frustration of operating in a very unpleasant environment. The bad feeling in Colet has clearly spread from some other articles too, and no one emerges with clean hands. There is a serious risk that ANI is being weaponised here. ScopeCreep does good work, and some of the stuff they're being accused of here is, in my view, grossly unfair.Elemimele (talk)14:39, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

For the SPA case, the AfD on Colet is a mess, with sock puppets and confusion. However, it should also be considered that these SPA accounts may come from a “third wheel” or a “shadow attack.” Bloomagiliw and Roy supported keeping the article, but they have high knowledge of SPA issues and Wikipedia policy, so it is unlikely they would create sock accounts to !vote in this AfD.

This may be an attempt by someone else to portray the AfD as sock-driven by Bloomagiliw and Roy. In my opinion, a third party scripted Bloomagiliw and Roy into villain roles. For this AfD, I am unsure about notability and chose not to vote because I am not familiar with the Filipino entertainment world.Hteiktinhein (talk)14:47, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Elemimele:ScopeCreep does good work, and some of the things they are being accused of here are, in my view, grossly unfair. Really? No one is trying to accuse the user without reason. If the user were making fair points in source analysis, I would not be here and would not care. However, the behaviour has gone out of line, to the point that even an unrelated Burmese editor felt compelled to speak out about this issue shows how concerning this behaviour has become.Hteiktinhein (talk)14:57, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Who exactly would be sockpuppeting? I'm even planning to disappear from this website and have whole days, if not weeks, when I'm not logged in. Also, onlytwo other people even voted "keep" in Colet's AfD. One of them is a much older, established user (can't speak for the other newer user, though I do know they've participated in various other AfDs and asked me to be calmer even when they agreed with me).Bloomagiliw (talk)18:15, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Someone orchestrated this type of death sentence. Only God knows who it is. I am sure no one would be foolish enough to use sockpuppetry in an AfD when the opposing editors have full knowledge of sockpuppet behaviour. If such activity were discovered, it would be a death sentence on Wikipedia.Hteiktinhein (talk)18:27, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything in this mess which would come even close to a reason to sanction Scope creep. (Okay, I'm not a fan of removing other users' comments from a discussion, but at leasthere that wasn't exactlyunwarranted either.) A critical source analysis is precisely what Scope as the nommer of the Colet AfDshould be doing, and if those sources are then found to be flaky, that needs to be said. If anything, I'd commend them. --DoubleGrazing (talk)14:58, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I'm missing something major, I don't see anything in Scope Creep's behavior that goes beyond a few strongly-worded messages.^EF⁵15:49, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. The only actual diffs here are removing Hteiktinhein's comment at the Sherman Poon AfD, which I do think overstepped the line a bit in that scope_creep should not be removing comments from AfDs they started unless they are significantly more obviously bad faith (although I do agree with others here that the comment itself wasn't constructive either). But as far as the other evidence alluded to...identifying a 503 error isn't remotelyhoax behavior (incidentally, it's a 503 error for me too[2], and I get the same error even when just trying to access the root site at[3]. There's definitely an issue with how that website has configured their security protocols). The user talk page engagement does not come even close to reaching the level of harassment. I'm also not sure I follow why this report combines allegations against scope_creep with allegations against Howard the Duck--these cases seem essentially unrelated._signed,Rosguill^talk16:04, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't think there's anything actionable, comments such asI will take you to WP:ANI and I will get you blocked. are not kind, productive or necessary. Scope creep, please ratchet down the tone when you speak with your fellow editors. We are all equals here.StarMississippi16:35, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there's nothing wrong with Scope creep's nominations or source analysis but their approach to AfD seemsvery aggressive. It's important to remember that AfD is supposed to be adiscussion, and the aim is not to win or get everyone to agree to agree with you. Also, people can disagree with you in good faith. SC definitely needs to dial it back. The same goes for Roy, who also needs to make his case much more concisely.HJ Mitchell |Penny for your thoughts?16:59, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What bothers me about Scope Creep's behavior in the Colet AFD is the repetativeness. Yes, posting a source analysis table is a good and constructive thing to do. Postingthe same one multiple times is bludgeoning. I do think editors in that AFD (including butnot limited to Scope creep and Howard the Duck) are making repetitive arguments. I don't think this rises to the level of needing a topic ban from XFDs, as suggested above, but maybe a tailored restriction to preventbludeoning. Maybe something along the lines of only allowing them to makeone comment per afd, not including their nomination statement? Or only respond to other commenters if they have something new to say that has not been previously said in the discussion? I don't know, I just think the repetition of the arguments turns it hostile. ~ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving16:43, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've just seen this. I've been away the last couple of days. I removedHteiktinhein comment from the Sherman Poon Afd because I read a comment about Hteiktinhein who consideredUser:Cunard to be his idol, so I considered it a case ofWP:NOTHERE. Some of comments Hteiktinhein andROY is WAR made are less than ideal. Hteiktinhein was initially at Colet, then went to Sherman Poon Afd with Cunard, then went Gancube, but removed the comment there, when Cunard moved across. I think Hteiktinhein is a youngish teenager or possibly a child. Royiswariii comments thought it was extremely poor and seemed to have in for me as I was arguing the point with Cunard. I left that message at Royiswariii as I thought the editor was blugeoning at another Afd and me at Sherman Poon. Nowhere did I say that they couldn't come back to the Afd and contribute and don't know where they got that from. I would have replied to Royiswariii if I'd seen the comment reply The Colet subjects coverage is entirely generated from PR. All of it apart from 1 ref. The Sherman Poon article is exactly the same. It is imposible to get these types of articles deleted due to vested interests of inclusionists who see a field of psuedo references and think its good, the PR company itself and newish editors who don't know or don't have any experience of the PR industry. They think what they are reading is naturally real instead of being completely artificially generated. These folk in these bands that are manufacturered come from being unknown to be been to pushed through a PR grater in the first 1-2 years, so they can sell and we don't seem be able to do effectively tackle it at Afd. This is the last shout at Afd for me. Its too much effort for a broken system.scope_creep^Talk17:19, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong point. I was initially at Sherman Poon, then went to Colet. I was simply giving comments about your overreaction, and when I looked at your recent edits, I found that you did the same at Colet and other AfDs. So I can’t tolerate this hoax-like analysis, and that is why I got involved in this drama here.

I did not give any !vote on Colet; I only criticized your actions. I am not alone there. If you were acting properly, no one would try to oppose you. There are over six editors who criticized your overly dramatic analysis.

You cannot judge sources however you want. If many editors agreed with your judgments on sources, I would stay silent. You are not special here, no matter how old you are. As Star Mississippi said, “We are all equals here.”

That said, if you have a strong habit of unbalanced source analysis, you should first apply that scrutiny to the sources in articles you have created. Roy stated that you used poor-quality sources in your articles and that you only look at others’ houses, not your own.Hteiktinhein (talk)17:40, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Scope creep's conduct is getting out of hand. It is not the first time they have harassed users over AfD, seethis comment just because they didn't like howWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gancube was closed.Skyshiftertalk17:25, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Skyshifter Agree. ScopeCreep was not happy with the AfD closure and began threatening not to close AfDs for which he was the nominator. That is really something to me.Hteiktinhein (talk)18:13, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I’m clear that I am not supporting a topic ban for ScopeCreep from XFDs, but a warning is enough! I will never involve myself in argument; I will never win. Roy really forgot that ScopeCreep is one of the oldest editors since the beginning of Wikipedia’s creation. He is primordial chaos on Wikipedia and a mentor of countless Wikipedians. So many will try to defend the user even if he did some minor mistakes. Sorry, I will not give attention to this baseless discussion. But one thing is that the user is very over the line on source analysis with his personal opinions. Well, if he is doing good work on source analysis, why did several editors come to oppose his behavior in recent AfDs he nominated? I don’t care about any other case.Hteiktinhein (talk)17:27, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

How's that for"overly dramatic analysis",Hteiktinhein?~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk)17:45, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29 Of course—seethis AfD. ScopeCreep’s analysis differs from other editors’ analysis. I agreed with the analysis byUser:Prince of Erebor andUser:Northern Moonlight, which I found fair. However, ScopeCreep’s analysis seemed to be emotionally influenced by the sources found by other editors.

The most frustrating point is that, for example, when other editors presented 10 sources, ScopeCreep easily labelled all 10/10 sources as PR or unreliable. That is too much. When other editors later re-analysed the sources, they agreed that 5/10 or 6/10 were reliable. After that, ScopeCreep changed his view on the sources once others pointed out their reliability.

That is why I describe this as emotional “drama” analysis.Hteiktinhein (talk)17:57, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What? I don't see any such change of view. Even if there was, why would that be frustrating?~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk)18:29, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That said,Clarification: There is one source here that seems to be valid, came only after others pointed it out. Yes, it is frustrating, because Wikipedia is community-driven notWP:IDONTLIKE driven....should be honest at first, and seeing this behavior several times is not okay. It does not motivate participation in future AfDs when the nominator is ScopeCreep.Hteiktinhein (talk)18:36, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is like talking to a histrionic wall. I'm seriously starting to sympathise with SC.~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk)18:50, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There are only two things that ScopeCreep has done that are bad: (1) removing someone else's comment was ill-judged; (2) yes, some of the replies are a bit aggressive. ButHteiktinhein can I just clarify: you are now saying that the "most frustrating point" is that ScopeCreep is accused of disliking too great a proportion of someone's sources, and being willing to change their mind when challenged by other authors? If so, what on earth is this ANI complaint here for? Anyone is allowed to dislike as many sources as they want, and create a source analysis table; no one has to agree with them, we just do all thispolitely.Svartner, if you're reading this, personally I think it might be an idea to let an AfD run a bit longer when there is debate going on; non-admin closures in the highly-emotive world of AfD are a very high risk thing. The difficulty with articles about celebrities is that they attract fans and inexperienced editors determined to defend their hero/heroine; in these circumstances a majority of "keeps" may not constitute a reliable "keep" result because the !voters aren't following any sort of policy. It all gets tricky. No criticism intended, this is just a way to avoid drama in the future?Elemimele (talk)18:13, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Elemimele Svartner did nothing wrong with his close on this AfD. Do not over-weigh the correct decision. Sure, if an AfD has multiple Delete !votes and the outcome is still unclear, it should be extended to run longer. But in this case there was extensive policy-based analysis, and no one gave a Delete !vote except the nominator. How much more discussion do you need?Hteiktinhein (talk)18:23, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, that AfD should have been relisted. It ran for only 7 days, there was extensive disagreement among editors as to the quality of sources involved, and the balance of actual arguments is much closer than the !vote count suggests. Cunard's engagement with Northern Moonlight and scope_creep's criticisms of their sources is basically IDHT with regard to the assertions that individual cited sources are not reliable due to being low-quality celebrity gossip columns in otherwise reliable publications (Cunard's position isn't baseless, but their arguments do not decisively address their detractors). Filmsssss keep !vote is ok, if not super substantive, in isolation, but it came before the rebuttal to sources and there was no follow up. Northern Moonlight did not !vote one way or the other. Metallurgist just said "per Cunard", Hteiktinhein's !vote is a combination of "per Cunard" and ad hominem, Royiswarii's !vote is there pure ad hominem that should be ignored in the final analysis, and Prince of Erebor's final !vote is a pretty explicit deviation from policy and accepted practice when they state that a given sourceshould never be considered unreliable under any circumstances, so that !vote should have been discounted too.

So, all told, we have 1 okay-but-not-flawless argument for keep, 3 editors who just asserted that they agree with that argument but didn't provide further substantive arguments, 1 okay-but-not-flawless argument for deletion, and 1 editor who made measured criticisms of both camps' arguments. That to me does not seem like a consensus for keeping, much less in the absence of a relist._signed,Rosguill^talk18:55, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's precisely what I thought too. I am not being harsh on Svartner because I believe them to have acted in good faith, but that AfD was crying out for re-listing. It was clearly a discussion that hadn't reached a natural endpoint.Elemimele (talk)13:10, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have no interest in participating in the drama, but I feel the need to defend myself a bit since my !vote was described byRosguill as "a pretty explicit deviation from policy and accepted practice". The line you quoted is out of context. It was my response to the fact that I found Scope creep's source analysis to be quite dishonest and self-serving. They claimed to have used an "RS script that flags up dodgy sources" and sources likeHK01,Ming Pao, andHong Kong Economic Times are shown as "red meaning unreliable". This is virtually impossible, asHK01 andMP are currently listed as no consensus (blue) here on enwiki (seeWikipedia:New pages patrol source guide#Hong Kong), andMP andHKET are listed as generally reliable (green) on meta-wiki (seemeta:Cite Unseen/sources/zhRSP). So,under no circumstances would these outlets be classified as unreliable (red) by any existing RS scripts as Scope suggested that only aggregate results and editorial consensus based on RfCs. (Edit: Okay, looking back, I think I may not have used the best word choice. I was not saying that a generally reliable source is reliable in all circumstances, I am saying that those sources cannot be flagged as unreliable under any circumstances. You may argue that a piece fromThe New York Times is unreliable, but you cannot make up thatNYT is listed as a generally unreliable source to support your argument. —👑PRINCE ofEREBOR📜) I do not know Scope prior to this discussion and have no knowledge of how they perform source assessments in other AfDs, so I did not want to call anyone out, and I assumed it was a good-faith misunderstanding and continued with an explanation of why editors considerMP andHKET to be RS. Combined with my other rebuttal to their misinterpretation of WP:INTERVIEW, I disagree with Scope's source analysis and tend to agree with Cunard that the sources are reliable and independent enough to pass GNG. I agree that I did not offer any new insights to the discussion, but my entire argument is based on P&Gs and the actual practices of how RS scripts currently function on WP. I do not see how my !vote is faulty. —👑PRINCE ofEREBOR📜14:48, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Re: bludgeoning -- If you've noticed on the Colet AFD, I have not made a formal !vote on delete or keep, just as, as per my pronouncement there that I'd only point out "disingenuous comments". Roy merely "commented" that perhaps "her JuanCast and P-pop Music Awards help her notability", implying those help her passWP:ANYBIO. I then explained the case that it is nowhere near the case. The next was my assessment of the Nylon Manila reference as notWP:RS. "It's from Nylon, so it must be reliable!" Not so fast. My next comment is ifWP:PROMO should be "provable"; I mean even the best people cannot distinguish actual news articles to adverts. Then I replied on Cunard's own assessment of references. Then Roy still insisted on the "Juancast Award" anchoring someone as being notable viaWP:ANYBIO; it's like Retropolis from the Washington Post awarding someone, then using that as the anchor in determining someone's notability here. This not a major award. We do not have an article about the Juancast awards. We do not have even an article on Juancast itself. Let's get real.

Re:WP:RS -- There's some confusion whatWP:RS are. The New York Times, The Globe and Mail, Philippine Star, those are typicallyWP:RS. However, notall of the articles from these would pass. As explained to these people at several AFDs, some articles fail theWP:RS test. There's this telling exchange atTalk:Bini (group)#Comments between Roy andRollinginhisgrave, where the latter looked for "actual journalism". Roy never replied after that.

Again, to reiterate, even the Times of London have articles which failWP:RS. Not everything from Nylon can be used as a reference here.

Re: misrepresentingWP:INTERVIEW as policy -- I always link toWP:INTERVIEW whenever I use it on an argument (maybe except editing on mobile). It is up to the reader to figure out that it is just an essay. We're not schoolchildren that has ro be spoonfed.

Re: previous ANI against me -- Again, as I've said there, I'd submit to the decision of the community.

Final thoughts -- AFDs are discussed in an adversial way. Notability of biographies are determined by the quality of sources; those are the first thing that we'll be looked into. If you are offended by "primary trash", and you were not the author of the reference being described as such, I really don't understand where you are coming from. That's not a personal attack; that's not even a personal attack to the author of the article.Howard the Duck (talk)18:06, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am really surprised that high-level editors are trying to turn a blind eye to Scope’s threats and bullying of others. Here are more threats toward other editors, and@OwenX: warned him seriously. See the recent threats atUser talk:Svartner#Non-admin AfD closures. Something is real.Hteiktinhein (talk)18:48, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Give it a rest, please. The real problem we have here is that we have a large number of articles on borderline-notable BLP subjects written by editors who stuff everything they find into the article as "sources" and then get upset when people actually analyse those sources and find that many of them are worthless. Perhaps the people writing those articles should actually make themselves familiar withWP:RS and understand that advertorials, AI-generated spam, social media postings and tabloid website gossip arenot any use to us. And itreally doesn't help when those people and their fellow-travellers spam AfDs with "Keep" votes and then run here to ANI when they are actually called out on what they're doing wrong. It's simple - do itright the first time. And this can be closed now, because there's nothing for admins to litigate.Black Kite (talk)18:56, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)This indeed is poor form from scope_creep, but the telling-off they got from OwenX seems like the appropriate response already._signed,Rosguill^talk19:02, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Why reopen case? Do not ping me anymore...no time for worthless discussion.Hteiktinhein (talk)12:35, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Update: The user continued to engage in personal attacks in this edit:diff by telling me to “fuck off.”

This is not a content-related disagreement but an explicit personal attack, in clear violation of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. The language used is abusive and serves no editorial purpose.

A level-4 warning has already been issued. Despite this, the user’s conduct demonstrates an inability or unwillingness to adhere to basic standards of civility, warranting administrative intervention to prevent further disruption.Hteiktinhein (talk)16:25, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is in response toyour comment here to him saying[t]his is only your opinion from your side. No one care. I strongly recommend you to strike that part out.Northern Moonlight19:20, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

My comment was not wrong. If someone values their opinion, many would likely agree with it. Please note that I did not vote in this AfD and am not taking any side. There is no need to point out my comment here. Everyone can see this AfD, and everyone knows that my comment made the nominator angry and now I strike it.Hteiktinhein (talk)23:27, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Support TBAN from AfD I've long felt that Scope Creep is a net negative at AfD, where they become extremely belligerent and outright bullying the moment anyone disagrees with them in an AfD discussion, including cursing them out as noted just above. They can't seem to handle any AfD discussion, particularly those they've opened, not going the way they want and will harass editors that vote otherwise.Silverseren^C18:32, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Support TBAN from AfD. I share Silverseren's concerns about this editors contributions at AfD, which often come across as bludgeoning or as if the editor is viewing the discussion as a battleground. Recent examples of personal attacks exemplify this mindset. Prior AfD nominations occasionally fail to exhibit understanding of existing content policies (e.g.Multiple failures of WP:V, conjecture LLM article atWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mamba (deep learning architecture)).Katzrockso (talk)00:57, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Support TBAN from AfD I have held back from participating in thisbecause of the battleground behavior I have experienced from @Scope creep in the past. In fact, when I see their participation in an AfD I tend to avoid participating because the interaction is almost always unpleasant. I assume I'm not the only one who feels this way. I'm not so vain to say my absence from one AfD or another is determinative, but I try to do good work and I give reasons for the positions I take, and I try to keep things civil and policy-based.
  I participated in theGancube AfD because I knew this company's reputation and I was able to find good sources in high quality Chinese news outlets. They responded to virtually every comment made, then got upset after it was closed without them getting the last word. Then harsh words for @Svartner on their talk page, and then a referral toWP:DRV which has run with zero explanation (initially coinciding with "I've been away" above) of their basis for invoking BADNAC. I can see valid reasons for wanting a relist, but the methods chosen were IMHO inappropriate and unhelpful.
  I have no doubt that @Scope creep does good work sometimes, but allowing this behavior to continue simply because they have a track record of other good faith behavior would send a message that good editors enjoy impunity for violations of one of the core values of Wikipedia.Oblivy (talk)03:25, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I personally wasn't offended, but it seems that, judging by his actions as a whole, he's out of control. It's one of those typical moments when it's best to switch off and go do something else.Svartner (talk)04:04, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral - After further diffs were provided, I'm at the point now where I think a logged warning would be appropriate, but I still think this is too far a sanction, but then again, I also tend to be more forgiving of editors who go too far when a discussion has multilaterally gotten heated. Responding "fuck off" is certainly not cordial, but it hardly qualifies as "cursing someone out," and quite frankly, I think it's a perfectly normal, though less than ideal, reaction after being told that nobody cares about your opinion, which is frankly a bit demeaning, especially in response to a rather prosaic comment about sourcing that wasn't even directly in response to anyone. This last exchange, I see as one that was needlessly escalated by Hteiktinhein, not scope_creep.CoffeeCrumbs (talk)07:56, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

After reviewing the further discussion, I have a much dimmer view of the conduct of several additional editors involved in this controversy, and I have to consider that as a mitigating factor, so IOppose any sanction on anyone.CoffeeCrumbs (talk)17:14, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Calling someone “fuck off” is perfectly normal? OK… nice try! I will archive your comment for future evidence that using “fuck off” is normal usage on Wikipedia. I will use this type of language, and if an administrator warns me for using “fuck off,” I will cite your explanation that it is, quite frankly, normal. Thanks.Hteiktinhein (talk)23:40, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There was a lengthy discussion about it a few years back:Wikipedia_talk:Civility/Archive_20#Request_for_comment_on_the_specific_term_"fuck_off"_–_sanctionable_or_not!Schazjmd (talk)23:47, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As opposed to you telling someone that nobody cares about their opinion? That was civil?You are the one who raised the heat on that exchange; you can hardly act surprised when someone reacts negatively to it. I find demeaning behavior far worse than a generic use of an expletive. This isn't third grade where you call the teacher because someone used a forbidden word. If you don't want to risk people saying a word that offends your virginal ears, maybe next time don't go out of your way to needlessly goad someone.CoffeeCrumbs (talk)03:23, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I know this is aragebait when you said saying "fuck off" is normal,CoffeeCrumbs. Let's be real here that according to theWikietiquette of AfD:Users participating in AfD discussions are expected to be familiar with the policy of civility and the guidelines Wikietiquette and "do not bite the newbies".,Please keep to public-facing levels of civility, just as you should for any edit you make to Wikipedia., andAvoid personal attacks against people who disagree with you; avoid the use of sarcastic language and stay cool.

Also, onHow to contribute on AfD:When an editor offers arguments or evidence that do not explain how the article meets/violates policy, they may only need a reminder to engage in constructive, on-topic discussion. But a pattern of groundless opinion, proof by assertion, and ignoring content guidelines may become disruptive.ROY is WARTalk!23:48, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Royiswariii it is 2026. Citing fuckoff (and bullshit, in another thread currently here on ANI) are not ragebait. @CoffeeCrumbs has been here for the better part of a decade. Please do not quote pages at them assuming they're unfamiliar. This is not going to be a productive part of this discussion. Disclosure: neutral on TBan but do think some of Scope's behavior isn't productive.StarMississippi00:20, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Support TBAN from AfD I took part in theAfD for Colet's article. During the discussion, Scope Creep argued aggressively and dismissed another editor's view, saying'That is plainly false' in response to Silverseren's opinion. This only escalated the discussion rather than helping it move forward. In the follow days, i saw Scope Creep make apersonal attack against Hteiktinhein, which was disappointing to see, especially since it was directed at a newer editor. Also, the profanity saying that is "normal" is not acceptable to me or the other editors; it constitutes abuse and insult.AdobongPogi^{masarap 🍛}09:08, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Support temporary TBAN from AfD I also feel that this very old editor has shown a pattern of negative conduct in AfD discussions, as several editors have noted above. The editor needs time to cool down, and I hope they can change their behavior in the future. A short-term sanction would therefore be more appropriate. This is my first time having an argument with this editor. In the past, we have had no disputes in AfDs, and I am only taking part in this situation because of the imbalance in the AfD discussion.Hteiktinhein (talk)23:47, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral, per facta non verbal. Support trout, per bloody hell.Augmented Seventh (talk)02:13, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Support TBAN from AfD the user simply does not know how to behave in a civil manner when it comes to AfDs and this is becoming disruptive.Skyshiftertalk02:18, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose TBAN, this is a contemptible pile-on, with a number of people popping up whose own behaviour is not entirely clean - they're just better at looking clean when the spotlight is swinging around. AfD is a difficult area, where borderline promotional articles for celebrities and companies are regularly defended based on extremely iffy sources, and ScopeCreep is one of those who calls them out. We need this sort of advocacy or Wikipedia is going to descend into dross. ScopeCreep could do with reining in the language, and has been told so. That's enough.Elemimele (talk)11:08, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose TBAN I can only echo what Elemimele says above, this is an disgraceful piece of bullying, and many of the people piling on do not have clean hands in this discussion. I cannot really seeanything wrong with the source analysis that they did, and I am unaware of previous sanctions being performed on editors because of a mob of people yellingWP:IDONTLIKEIT.Black Kite (talk)11:17, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Support TBAN Scope creep has been doing hoax analysis' which im fine with. But my issue with Scope creep is accusing sources of being PR without credible proof.shane(talk to me if you want!)16:20, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  How can a "hoax analysis" even have proof?Howard the Duck (talk)14:37, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  i was talking about the claims, not the hoax analysisshane(talk to me if you want!)14:39, 9 February 2026 (UTC) (edited)[reply]

  It's ... interesting how multiple people voting to support this are coincidentally talking about a "hoax analysis", which isn't even a thing that exists.Black Kite (talk)14:42, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  EditorShane3456, would you mind clarifying this comment so that it makes sense? Thanks,~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk)16:14, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose TBAN or any other sanction for that matter. This whole thing is a minor molehill blown up to a mountain of no merit; to what end, one can only wonder. Scope creep contributes massively to AfD, and although they probably don't get it 100% right (who does?!), they are overwhelmingly in alignment with consensus, and clearly a net positive to that part of the project, as well as to many others of course. (They might, however, benefit from a reminder of the importance of working well with others, and one hopes this discussion serves that purpose if no other.) --DoubleGrazing (talk)14:54, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose TBAN, simply because ofmy own experience conversing with Hteiktinhein.Support warning for civility for scope creep; a better choice than "fuck off" would have been to report Hteiktinhein's patronising comment here at ANI.~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk)16:13, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Hardoppose any sanction on Scope_creep per Elemimele;beams shold be removed from eyes first. Also suggest that any editor citing "hoax analyses" should adjust their reasoning to something that, as noted above, actually exists, or risk their !vote being disregarded; the suggestion that thereis such a thing as a hoax analysis is, well, a hoax.—Fortuna,imperatrix18:38, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the recent spate of oppose votes based on the supposed faults of others isad hominem of the most explicit sort. If Scope Creep has repeatedly violated the civility pillar then sanctions should be imposed. And if the people arguing for sanctions themselves violated policy then sanctions can be considered for them according to their culpability, perWP:BOOMARANG. Why does it have to be one or the other?Oblivy (talk)04:29, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Criticising what others havewritten on a Wikipedia discussion page is by definition notad hominem.Black Kite (talk)10:23, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  No, but attacking people'sarguments by criticizing their theirunrelated conduct (e.g., "people popping up whose own behaviour is not entirely clean") is definitionallyad hominem. A scoundrel's valid argument is still a valid argument.Oblivy (talk)10:55, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Again, criticising people's (relevant) behaviour in editing is also by definition not anad hom attack.Black Kite (talk)11:18, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd remove the parentheses but with that change, fair enough.Oblivy (talk)13:26, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose TBAN, but support the warning given to SC; both editors should be trouted here for their behaviour. I'd also caution Roy against accussing other editors of conducting a "hoax analysis", becausethis is really not much better.Nil🥝05:00, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose TBAN - I often disagree with Scope Creep, and I think he is too dismissive of sources sometimes, and I think he doesn't consider the opinion of others sometimes, and I think he bludgeons more than sometimes. But Scope fights tirelessly against the crud that wants to overtake Wikipedia, It's no wonder if he gets a bit jaded. He knows how to build content. He and Cunard are both necessary to this project. SC, if you could maybe realize this is a *collaborative* project a bit more then that would be great. I'm not opposed to a 'formal' warning or trout, and the threatening comment should not be glossed over, that was wrong. But a topic ban would be a big disservice to this project. I'm not seeing the level of disruption that merits a topic ban. Having an opinion that is more or less strict or permissive than yours is not disruptive, that's how this works, both ways.78.26_{(spin me /revolutions)}02:18, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose TBAN per 78.26.* Pppery *_{it has begun...}05:07, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose TBAN per Elemimele et al.Sirfurboy🏄 (talk)12:42, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I just issuedScope creep a one month pblock from project space, after seeing his recent behaviour atWP:Articles for deletion/Colet (singer), without seeing this ANI case. Long history of warnings and brief blocks justified a temporary relief for those who find themselves having to deal with him. If this ANI reaches a different conclusion, any admin is welcome to amend or remove the block, of course.Owen×☎01:06, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  @OwenX:, in view of the lack of consensus here to penalise ScopeCreep, and the fact you are borderline-involved[4] do you think that was wise?Elemimele (talk)11:51, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't believe warning him and reassuring his victim makes me "involved". I also don't think the guy is immune from short-term administrative sanctions just because there's an open ANI case against him. But as I said, if this discussion reaches a different result, any admin is welcome to amend or remove the block. It was meant to send a message that SC is not exempt from WP:Harassment, and to provide a temporary reprieve for those he bullies. I wasn't aware of this ANI when I issued the pblock, but that doesn't change my conviction thatsomething had to be donenow. I'm glad to see the community is addressing the larger, systemic behavioural problem here, and will support whatever conclusion is reached here.Owen×☎12:13, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Elemimele is out of line in defending this. I am not surprised that there has been a lot of drama and the Academy Award–winning performance.Hteiktinhein (talk)21:04, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose TBAN per Hteiktinhein. Yes, you read that right.Northern Moonlight03:33, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editor with changing IPs

User:Someone123454321 long-term sealioning and IDHT

Ilamxan, long term source misuse (WP:OR/WP:SYNTH)

Yepitsthatguyagain

Trs9k harassment on my talk page

Suspicious sock i think

I would like to request a neutral review regarding participation at the AfD discussion for "Kotdwar shop name controversy".

Two delete !votes were added in close succession:

• [Diff 1 link]
• [Diff 2 link]

The reasoning and timing appear similar. I am not making a formal accusation, but I wanted to flag this in case.. administrator believes it warrants review underWP:SPI or any other relevant policy.ButterflyCat (talk)13:06, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If nobody objects, I will create the SPIshane(talk to me if you want!)13:24, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect ✔️ Thank you(: I appreciate it...Just for my understanding — in the future, if I ever need to request an investigation, should i create? If i have evidence..is there any guidance regarding account age or track record that I should be aware of?ButterflyCat (talk)13:31, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If it is like a long term abuser, like for example if you have a user named "poopyfarts56" or something, and they get blocked for disruptive editing in like a certain topic area, and another account with a different name does the same sort of editing, probably a sockpuppet, and if they continue to do that again, their trackrecord can be referenced at anytime in a particular sockpuppet investigation, you should create the investigation yourself if you feel you have irrefutable evidence that said user is a sockpuppeteer.

Account age can be used but i have only seen it be used in situations where the sockpuppeteer creates another account like immediately after one of their socks get blocked, so account age can be used in that way

(p.s im not a admin this is just what i have heard and seen)shane(talk to me if you want!)13:35, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oh Cool..(:That makes sense. I understand that investigations should only be created when there is a clear behavioural pattern and strong evidence, not just timing or similarity. I appreciate the clarification regarding account age as well.I’m still learning the processes here, so this is helpful. Thanks for taking the time to explain.ButterflyCat (talk)13:41, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If it is proved to be a sock then it would be aLOUTSOCK.shane(talk to me if you want!)13:47, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Noted ✔️ButterflyCat (talk)13:58, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

~2026-95969-7 is definitely evading a few blocks according to technical data.ChildrenWillListen (🐄 talk,🫘 contribs)13:45, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well I’m not familiar with the technical systems, but I felt it was necessary to raise the concern because the participation seemed questionable. I just wanted to ensure the discussion stayed fair.ButterflyCat (talk)13:54, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes they are, and I have blocked them and struck their AfD !vote.Black Kite (talk)14:03, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What about the SPI?shane(talk to me if you want!)14:11, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As regards Hingolddiki? Unless you have an idea (and evidence) who they are a sock of, any SPI would be rejected asfishing.Black Kite (talk)14:52, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Behavioral evidence shows that the TA acts just like Hingolddikishane(talk to me if you want!)15:37, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Suddenly~2025-35213-06 sleeper temporary account active and first vote on2026 Kotdwar controversyButterflyCat (talk)16:55, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The link is~2025-35213-06. But that TA is using a proxy.45dogs (they/them)(talk page)(contributions)17:11, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't necessarily conclude it's a proxy; most IPs outside the Western world have bad reputation scores due to CGNAT and people intentionally running proxies to make money.ChildrenWillListen (🐄 talk,🫘 contribs)17:19, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@45dogs. Assessment of proxy use is not always simple,especially when it comes to callback proxies. Take suspected proxy use to theWP:Open proxy noticeboard. —Malcolmxl5 (talk)18:29, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that the OP here is now blocked as a sock.~2026-92659-0 (talk)16:32, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Act of vandalism by ~2026-96526-3

Non-contributor Boopathi Nishanth Wiki using sandboxes for web host

• Boopathi Nishanth Wiki (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

The only edits made by this editor have first been the creation of 9 sandboxes containing design specifications for a software application, likely commercial, and 9 reverts to restore the contents of the sandboxes after they were (reasonably) blanked byUser:Drm310. (Click on the contribs link to see them.) These pages are now all atMFD asimproper web hosting. But the user appears to benot here to contribute to the encyclopedia.Robert McClenon (talk)05:34, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support indef block.TheTechie^[she/they] |talk?06:05, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've also warned the user on their talk page right now.TheTechie^[she/they] |talk?06:10, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked.Doug Wellertalk15:54, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Paid editing by Enochprecious

The planned bug

• The planned bug (talk ·contribs ·logs)

This is either massive CIR (unlikely), or massive disruption, vandalism, and trolling covered in a very thin veneer of 'jess trying to help, ma'am':

• 100% oftheir 17 mainspace edits have been reverted for good cause.
• diff – a bizarre, empty offer of help in response to a 5-year old, unanswered help request atHelp talk:Directory
• removals of 12 to 21kb of content at:
  • diff – atWikipedia talk:Mentorship (removal of active discussion content)
  • diff – atWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log
  • diff – atEnd user
• their Talk page full of escalating disruption and other warnings; e.g. atUser talk:The planned bug#February 2026 culminating with{{uw-delete4}} and{{uw-vandalism4}}
• finally, their user page implying they are soon to be named an admin at Wikipedia
  • accompanied bythis 'question' to their mentor, confirming their admin application intent

Cannot find a single, unabashedly positive contribution anywhere; no indication of any serious intent to contribute anything useful to the encyclopedia. So far, nothing but a time sink for numerous editors cleaning up their widespread messes. Requesting indef NOTHERE block.Mathglot (talk)21:30, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

They previously claimed to be an admin on their user page, but I removed that.[25] They also put a ctop aware for me on a mainspace page.[26] I agree with the NOTHERE.LordCollaboration (talk)21:45, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

They've also been hitting a specific LTA filter repeatedly - including for the addition of that specific userbox.[27]. I'm not sure how useful that info is, but it's something to note.

BTW Is it just me, or is the date given on their userpage for when they'll start speaking Ukrainian a little bit off?Blue Sonnet (talk)22:07, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Who knows what they mean by that? They certainly don't use English like a native speaker. And I find it hard to predict whether I will be alive in 6+ weeks, let alone whether I will improve some of my languages enough to be able to increase the level stated, which is my best guess as to their meaning. Should be blocked as aWP:NOTHERE fantasist.Phil Bridger (talk)22:34, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I was guessing a bit there which doesn't help anything - the bottom line is that they're clearly disrupting Wikipedia (regardless of reason) & it needs to stop.Blue Sonnet (talk)22:58, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It didn't take me very long to see enough. It does not matter if this is trolling or aWP:CIR issue or both. I have blocked this editor as not here to build an encyclopedia.Cullen328 (talk)23:21, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing on the Marty Supreme page

Repeated disruptive editing and rule violations by user

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

This is not the first time I have reported this user (please readthis ANIIN FULL from 5 days ago where I gave the benefit of the doubt by referring to the user asbrand new. I no longer stand by that statement). BothUser:Johnuniq &User:Aesurias warned this user to stop their behavior. They have not. If anything they have doubled down.

I will not restate everything said at theprevious ANI, but all the same issues persist.

On top of that the user has filed a completely bogusdispute resolution noticeboard report because the discussion in question was not going their way.

Once again they have violatedWP:BRD at a new location (AFTER the last ANI was closed and they were warned). This time atTemplate:New York (state). Here when their edit was reverted with a very clear edit summary explaining to seek consensus, theyreverted the revert with a full url edit summary that attempted to link tothis single post thread where they are claiming that consensus has been reached by them posting with no other comments in the less than 60 seconds between the post and the revert.

Additionally they have refused todrop the stick about their pursuit of (to quote them)arbitrary cutoffs in widely used tempaltes despitezero consensus and in fact nothing but opposition by numerous editors at every template that have edited (please consult the user'stemplate talk edits)

User CLEARLY does not understand howWP:BRD orWP:CONSENSUS work and has ignored warnings by multiple users includingJohnuniq,Aesurias &Jonesey95.

I will add that this users familiarity with processes such as the dispute resolution noticeboard, but inability to understand the basics ofWP:BRD orWP:CONSENSUS is both suspicious and concerning.

Requestat the very least a block from the template namespace forrepeatedly ignoring warnings from multiple users until they can demonstrate they understand the process for modifying a template involves seeking consensus for a change when other's object to the change you are making, particularly when you try to force through the samearbitrary change on nearly a dozen templates.Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing})05:42, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping toVmanjr who is also involved in this now.Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing})05:43, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded to Vmanjr post on the relevant talk page now since I was busy checking my watchlist and making replies on other pages chronologically.Logoshimpo (talk)07:35, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I never claimed that consensus was reached.WP:BRD is exactly that: I was bold, was reverted by you and then I started a talk page discussion.Logoshimpo (talk)05:51, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

And then you did the edit again... You need to wait UNTIL consensus is reached, not just redo the edit because you started. discussion with zero responses...Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing})05:55, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Which edit are you referring to?Logoshimpo (talk)05:56, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No longer going to go back and forth with you.

If others need clarifications or links to diff, I am happy to provide.Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing})05:58, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Do you actually understand what BRD is, @Logoshimpo? It's possible that this entire discussion is only happening because you don't understand what it means to seek consensus, which is a simple issue to rectify.

The process should have been, as you say: "I was bold, was reverted by you and then I started a talk page discussion."

Instead, it was "I was bold, was reverted by you and then I left a one sentence talk page message before immediately reverting to my bold edit again."aesurias(ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk)06:12, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That's allowed as I continued the discussion on the talk page, which was moved on to the DRN report. The topic of this ani is about a different edit from template:vermont.Logoshimpo (talk)06:16, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No,@Logoshimpo:, that isnot allowed. You do not also re-revert. You start a discussion and then allow the discussion to play out to establish a consensuswithout re-reverting. -The Bushranger_{One ping only}06:28, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No warnings were issued by User:Aesurias nor User:Jonesey95. The only page cited by shortcut by User:Jonesey95 wasWP:STICK.Logoshimpo (talk)05:56, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thisedit that Zack is referring to contains "Unexplained content removal." in the edit summary which is clearly false. This seems to be a spurious ani report.Logoshimpo (talk)06:01, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) @Zackmann08 Why did you perform this revert? There is an edit summary, and the edit summary explains the removal of the content quite succinctly.MEN KISSING(she/they)T -C -Email me!06:39, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing "completely bogus" about the dispute resolution noticeboard report. It was made after you posted warnings on my talk page and made a threat of my being blocked from editing. Let me add that you continue to cast aspersions with the comment "the discussion in question was not going their way".Logoshimpo (talk)06:09, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure there's a specific behavioral issue here. Seems like just inter-editor conflict. Zachmann, the onus is on you to provide diffs showing the alleged poor behavior. I'm not seeing anything egregious.EvergreenFir(talk)06:10, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping toJohnuniq who closed the previous ANI threadEvergreenFir(talk)06:12, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@EvergreenFir: a few diffs from the previous ANI first...

Special:Diff/1336866573,Special:Diff/1336866902,Special:Diff/1336867938 &Special:Diff/1336862030 are just 4 examples of many where this user has removed massive amounts of data from templates without any discussion or real explanation. When those edits were reverted, they have subsequently reverted the revert (Special:Diff/1337229150,Special:Diff/1337228637 and MANY others) in direct violation ofWP:BRD.

Next the user once againremoved data without any explanation. When Ireverted it (with a VERY clear edit summary) they once againimmediately reverted my edit, once again in violation ofWP:BRD.

AFTER that ANI was closed (with clear warnings issued to this user), they once againremoved content from a template with a summary that doesn't match what they actually did. When Ireverted it with the clear edit summary toSeek consensus first, the userstarted a thread on the talk page and then IMMEDIATELYreverted my revert with a full url/non-wikilink that shows they started a discussion seeking consensus. That is simply not howWP:BRD works and this user has been told numerous times, including at the last ANI, that they need to read and understandWP:BRD.Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing})06:32, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

And now you made this ani report based onTemplate:New York (state) and not on the issues withTemplate:Vermont. This seems like a vexatious attempt to stop me from editing templates but that is understandable seeing that a large majority of your contributions are in template space.Logoshimpo (talk)06:14, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

When you make accusations likea large majority of your contributions are in the template namespace you should really check your facts. Please consultXTools showing that less than 3.5% of my edits are in the Template namespace....Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing})06:35, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I will be offline for a bit and may not respond to further posts on this discussion in a timely manner. If any admin needs further clarification on what I have said above,please ping me and I will respond upon my return.Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing})06:39, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Disputes like this need patience. That's why I suggested notifying me if problems continue. ANI is not a good place to examine the issue so I asked for opinions atthe wikiproject. I suggest that this be closed and discussion occur at the wikiproject on whether U.S. state navigation boxes should be pruned.Johnuniq (talk)10:11, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. From what I've seen, the problem here seems to be that the editor is running into a hitch at the "discuss" part ofWP:BRD. Saying "please readWP:BRD" can only get you so far when the actual essay is more focused on article editing, and doesn't advise a proper discussion venue for the kind of change Logoshrimpo wants to make. Showing them that part of the process in action would be a better outcome than a block.MEN KISSING(she/they)T -C -Email me!11:05, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing of Pow-Wow Oak Tree

Disruptive editing and personal attacks –User:MangoMarten

I am seeking administrator input regarding the conduct ofUser:MangoMarten in relation to edits onAditi Sanwal.

• The user has been repeatedly reverting content without achieving consensus, contrary toWP:BRD andWP:ONUS.• When asked to discuss the matter on the talk page, the user ignored the request.• The user made the following comment: “Who are you? Wikipedia is not your father's platform… don't revert my valid output otherwise I will complaint in ANI and you get block.” diff: [insert diff link]• This appears to violateWP:CIVIL andWP:NPA due to personal remarks and confrontational language.

I have attempted to resolve the dispute through discussion, but the behavior continues. I am requesting administrative review for incivility and disruptive editing.ButterflyCat (talk)09:48, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have been waiting for the past one hour+ for any admin action, but I think no one is interested in taking action. So is minor abuse allowed on Wikipedia? If that is the case, should I also reply to him in the same manner?ButterflyCat (talk)11:22, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) Hardly anyone gets a response from an admin within an hour or two - they're volunteers editing Wikipedia in their own personal time as well so please be patient.Blue Sonnet (talk)11:50, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Might be your right... lets see 👀ButterflyCat (talk)11:54, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Welp they're both blocked now so I guess that's that.Blue Sonnet (talk)12:19, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

DOTCOMsun - no communication despite a myriad of small problems

CIR / NOTTHERE with user ~2026-86105-1

Unsourced content by user:Yellosort930428

This user by the name of Yellosort930428 keeps going to every single Disney, Hanna-Barbera, actor articles and keeps constantly adding in false information about their voice actors being retired from their respective roles, which is false. Here is his history of his edits:Special:Contributions/Yellosort930428, is there a possibly of blocking him indefinitely because he still won’t stop.~2026-10056-84 (talk)18:28, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your supposed to notify Yellosort930428 of this discussion. I have done that for you.PhilKnight (talk)18:50, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for informing me my mistake for not notifying him, my apologies.~2026-10056-84 (talk)19:01, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A quick look at their contributions reveals instances of them claiming without sources that living people are divorced from their spouse, which isn’t acceptable.Neiltonks (talk)19:10, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Electricmemory - flat out refusal to acknowledgeWP:BURDEN and civility

IP disruption with inflammatory language

The IP~2026-10116-44 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log) is pushing a POV with an inflammatory nationalistic conspiracy language into article prose, all with edit summary aspersions, in thisdiff. .--౪ Santa ౪^99°20:21, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am not POV pushing. I inserted sourced academic content that states that. If you find somehow inflammatory, ok, just do a edit making better worded (I do if you want). Just don't mass remove sourced content because you simple don't like.— Precedingunsigned comment added by~2026-10116-44 (talk)20:31, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Those are not reliable sources, and you are inserting your own interpretation of Primary source. Political daily press (and nationalistic at that) from Serbia are not reliable source in article on academic topics in Bosnia.౪ Santa ౪^99°20:39, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I better worded and simplified that part. Put that Bosnian Studies labels as Bosnian Cyr. And Serbian Studies labels as Serbian Cyr. It's properly sourced.

I have other sources, I will add. The politica daily press is not a political press, but one of the oldest journalism in Serbian. It was a interview with Dr Rada S. Member of institute of Serbian Language of Serbian Academy of Science of Arts. It is a properly source that explain the Serbian Academic Scholar position on this topic.— Precedingunsigned comment added by~2026-10116-44 (talk)20:44, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to have at its base a content dispute. Just talk about it on the article talk page, where neither of you seems to have posted about this, and followdispute resolution if needed. And ~2026-10116-44, don't call any edit vandalism.Phil Bridger (talk)20:49, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

All issues are based, one way or another, in content. This goes beyond content dispute. It's POV pushing, yes, but the language and a tone are not exactly what we consider appropriate - and it persists. I have reported this Brazilian IP at least twice for desruption, language, aspersions, and nationalistic pov pushing earlier, and at least once the IP range has bee blocked, but they found the way to reappear. It was always desruptiv, without any attampt to discuss matters, and it was always garnered with nationalistic lingo and attack-tone - we all have limits.౪ Santa ౪^99°21:16, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

All editors involved with this dispute are hereby reminded or informed that the Arbitration Committee has designated the Balkans/Eastern Europe as a contentious topic area. Administrators have limited patience for any deviation from theNeutral point of view policy in this topic area. Any type of ethnonationalist POV pushing in this areawill not be tolerated.Cullen328 (talk)21:28, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have semi-protectedMatija Divković. Please work toward consensus on this matter atTalk:Matija Divković.Cullen328 (talk)21:36, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, this should help at least in toning down rhetoric. This report can be closed now as far as I am concerned as initiator of this report.౪ Santa ౪^99°03:07, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

User:MightyRanger draftifications

MightyRanger (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log), formerly User:Niafied, originally registered their account in 2022, and it was largely inactive until April 2024 ([39]). The account was somewhat active between April 2024 and June 2024 ([40]), followed by another long period of inactivity until October 2025, when they began anti-vandalism work and mass draftification of business-related articles.

Anti-vandalism work is welcomed if done in good faith, but it is obvious from the edit history that this user is acting in bad faith. They likely operate multiple accounts (as there are gaps in their edit history) and, based on private evidence, are an active so-called "Wiki vendor" on Upwork based in Las Vegas. I will not post the real name here due toWP:BEANS andWP:OUTING policies, but I would be willing to share it with theWikimedia Foundation andWP:COIVRT for further action.

User:MightyRanger's draftification spree is problematic for the following reasons:a) They are selective and only draftify articles about competitors.b) They do not notify the original creators about the draftification. This is an important part.c) They assume that all company or businessperson articles are created inWP:BADFAITH and draftify them by default.d) They submit the draft for review after draftification without the consent of the original authors or giving them a chance to improve it. This appears to be a bad-faith attempt to trigger a decline notification.e) They are not a New Page Reviewer (WP:NPP), so this pattern of editing since October 2025 is clearly suspicious.

Draftification is used rarely on Wikipedia and should not be applied to notable topics. Even if a topic is non-notable, it should be taken to AfD rather than using draftification as a backdoor to deletion. Tagging every company article with an undisclosed paid-editing tag is disruptive and violatesWP:5P4. For example,Abhinav Gupta andDeepak Pathak AfDs are some of their bad faith attempts. I hope this does not escalate to the point where a topic ban or indefinite block becomes necessary.~2026-10151-98 (talk)22:23, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree with these anonymous accusations, and I say that as an admin who recently had an article draftified by MightyRanger. When mistakes like this happen the best way to handle it is throughWP:DRAFTOBJECT, which I did, and not in accusing an editor of bad faith with no actual evidence.

I just went throughUser:MightyRanger's edit history and it is absolutely not obvious that the editor is "acting in bad faith," as ~2026-10151-98 claims. Instead, I see in MightyRanger's history an editor who is working hard to improve the quality of articles on Wikipedia. Yes, MightyRanger may make mistakes but all of us do.

User: ~2026-10151-98, if you have any actual evidence to back up your claims you need to share it. Otherwise, comments like "They likely operate multiple accounts (as there are gaps in their edit history)" and "based on private evidence, are an active so-called 'Wiki vendor' on Upwork based in Las Vegas" strike me as a violation ofno personal attacks.SouthernNights (talk)16:08, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

~2026-10151-98, if this depends on evidence that should remain private then you should email the evidence to Arbcom, so they can deal with it. On this noticeboard only public evidence can be used. And there are many reasons for gaps in edit history. You shouldn't assume that they are using multiple accounts. I myself have a gap of several years in my editing history, but I wasn't using multiple accounts.Phil Bridger (talk)19:50, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Naturally. However,if any more gaps appear in your contribution history, I have Mr Holmes's authority for saying that the whole story concerning the politician, the lighthouse, and the trained cormorant will be submitted to Arbcom. There is at leastone editor who will understand.EEng21:16, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

IP address

Misuse of VANISH request

• Renamed user 54e5a0d3f41d5b1ce137ef3c37afe286 (talk ·contribs) (formerly Noahbug05)
• Noahbug2005 (talk ·contribs)

I cautioned Noahbug05 regarding some infobox issues on Thursday regarding radio articles, where they are adding a link toAmerican English in the language field of 'Infobox radio station', which is to be used to denote a station airing a foreign language format, as an American station with English is by default something to not note; they've been warned about this and other issues many times before (including asserting English-language stations in California carry programming inCalifornia English (which is merely a dialect, not a completely different language).

In response, they declaredthey'd never do it again, but then chose to vanish and have their account locked and renamed, which was an extreme overreaction to several talk messages left by me,@Sammi Brie: and@Neutralhomer: in the last two months to listen to talk page feedback and edit more appropriately, including issues with pagemoves due to a station's move from AM to FM (WBT (AM) toWBT-FM, specifically).

I noticed that they then came back as Noahbug2005 and decided to make theexact same edit toWUSN I warned them many times not to do, just not leaving a link to American English this time. ClearlyWP:CLEANSTART was abused here to 'reset' the talk page and scrutiny, and some action against Noahbug needs to be taken.Nathannah •📮22:57, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The ping here is the first I've heard of this. That is absolutely crazy and wrong behavior, but I will leave it to an admin to dispatch this matter.Sammi Brie (she/her · t ·c)23:04, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

AwokenLight

User:ClueBot NG is malfunctioning

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:~2026-10346-05 keeps vandalising a plane crash with cars

i keep trying to revert their edits onSabena Flight 548 - Wikipedia , which they are for some reason replacing with cars.anonymsiy.user‬08:55, 15 February 2026 (UTC)— Precedingunsigned comment added byAnonymsiy (talk •contribs)[reply]

he also tried to vandaliseList of foreshocks and aftershocks of the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake - Wikipediaanonymsiy.user‬09:00, 15 February 2026 (UTC)— Precedingunsigned comment added byAnonymsiy (talk •contribs)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) Please readWP:VAND on how to deal with vandalism. Generally, you should first warn the user about their edits (WP:WARNVAND). If they don't stop, report it toWP:AIV, not here.🍅 fx (talk)09:01, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

ok sorry this is the first time i did thisanonymsiy.user‬09:02, 15 February 2026 (UTC)— Precedingunsigned comment added byAnonymsiy (talk •contribs)[reply]

Why is Sinebot signing your signed comments as if they were unsigned?MEN KISSING(she/they)T -C -Email me!09:22, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

idk- anonymsiy.user - (talk)09:23, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe because their signature didn't include a link to their user talk page?~2026-10250-40 (talk)09:27, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

well i think i fixed it now- anonymsiy.user - (talk)09:28, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Aww, but it's not green anymore. The green looked neat.MEN KISSING(she/they)T -C -Email me!09:29, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

ID RATHER HAVE IT NOT GREEN THEN GET CONFRONTED ABOUT "PRECEDIGFIWEJDGFSKWJFH UNSIFGHJKEU" AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA IM CRASHING OUTTTTTTT sorry- anonymsiy.user - (talk)09:30, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

AAah!! It's okay, it's not a big deal! Don't worry about it!MEN KISSING(she/they)T -C -Email me!09:33, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

its ok i was just crashing out- anonymsiy.user - (talk)09:35, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

All good. Happens to the best of us. Best of luck with your editing regarding this vandalism incident, and have a wonderful day! Feel free to reach out to me on my talk page if you'd like help related to signatures and Sinebot.MEN KISSING(she/they)T -C -Email me!09:54, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

thanks also he got blocked- anonymsiy.user - (talk)09:55, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

FrequentWP:DE - Temporary accounts adding unsourced details

Disruptive editing and personal attacks of Turk8f4g8s

Turk8f4g8s (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

User:Turk8f4g8s has been constantly reverting my edits on[42] andEthiopian civil conflict (2018–present), accusing me of "vandalism". When I asked him why on his talkpage, he simply said that "I'm not interested in discussing this with you" and to stop "corrupting" articles.Socialwave597 (talk)15:42, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also highly concerned that the editor in question's handle is an intentional homophobic slur. 4 is frequently used as "a" in leetspeak and saying 8s as "eights" ought to make what the slur is pretty clearly (I'm a bit squeamish when it comes to directly saying these types of slurs, even in the context of reporting them).CoffeeCrumbs (talk)15:53, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I also suspected that, but I wasn't 100% sure.Socialwave597 (talk)15:55, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

+1. That jumped out at me on reading the section heading. Nasty.Narky Blert (talk)18:28, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• I have indefinitely blocked this user, they can explain their username via an unblock appeal.Black Kite (talk)18:34, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive vandalism by Paul Malu

Paul Malu (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

• Adding[43] fake references toList of Hindi films of 2027 and restoring[44] them after they were removed.
• Altering existing sourced content of, adding fake references to, and repeatedly restoring the same changes toList of Hindi films of 2026. ([45][46][47][48][49])
• Adding[50] inappropriately placed info with a fake reference toList of T-Series films and restoring[51] it, slightly altered([52]), after it was reverted.
• Adding references with solely the Facebook video portal page as a URL toGolmaal (film series)[53] and a future-dated one toShahid Kapoor filmography[54] that was self-reverted.[55]
• Restoring[56] a previously reverted fake reference toMass Jathara, that was originally added[57] by one TA and had its original removal reversed[58] by a different TA.
• Altering[59] and deleting[60] warning messages on their own talk page.
• Altering another user's completed semi-protected edit request[61] atTalk:List of Hindi films of 2025.
• Removing[62] the dead link tag from a fake reference onMark (2025 film) that was originally added[63] by a TA, but had its dates altered and marked as dead by another editor([64]) instead of being removed.
• Adding[65] a fake reference and information unrelated to the article toViacom18.

Orxenhorf (talk)20:33, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This diff, which altered OP's comment on PM's TP, is not encouraging.Narky Blert (talk)20:52, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No reason to soften it; almost all of this editor's edits have been reverted. This is a vandalism-only account. Ravenswing22:27, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

They all have been. The ones that aren't tagged "reverted" are either their own user page, had an intermediate edits by another editor that prevented it, or were undone by hand.Orxenhorf (talk)23:44, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've implemented a{{uw-voablock}} here.Nyttend (talk)16:07, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page abuse by Fodbold-fan.

RepeatedWP:DE

Kansascitt1225

User:CNMall41 conduct concerns

Off-wiki harassment

Haplogroup E-Z827

Disruptive editing and edit warring by User:Louis He on Mirror-image life

I am reportingUser:Louis He for persistent edit warring, tendentious editing, and failure to engage constructively with talk page discussion on the articleMirror-image life.

This article has been the target of sustained disruption by sockpuppet accounts. In December 2025, asockpuppet investigation (see also thearchived case) confirmed thatUser:Raskimsakira operated multiple accounts (User:ArcanumAureliusXLI,User:Seine Walker, and a sleeperUser:Jinwentianyv), withUser:Aloneonelcb inconclusive due to proxy use. All these accounts were single-purpose, focused on inserting content that downplayed concerns about the risks of mirror-image life (e.g. Raskimsakira's editshere andhere, and ArcanumAureliusXLI's editshere andhere), and several were used tomanipulate a consensus discussion on thetalk page. Asubsequent investigation in January 2026 also foundUser:StardustHighway 2000 to be a likely sockpuppet of the same sockmaster. The confirmed sockpuppets were blocked and tagged.

User:Louis He's account was created in 2018, but had beencompletely inactive since January 2020 (theircontribution history shows that their last edits before 2026 were to theCOVID-19 pandemic article in January 2020). After nearly six years of inactivity, Louis He suddenly reappeared onJanuary 22, 2026, and their very first edits were reversions to the Mirror-image life article (Special:Diff/1334237435 andSpecial:Diff/1334237596), taking the exact same editorial position as the banned sockmaster Raskimsakira (i.e., restoring content that downplays the risks of mirror-image life and removing content describing the scientific consensus on these risks). WhenUser:Alenoach directlyasked whether someone had encouraged them to edit the article, Louis He never answered the question.

On the talk page (Talk:Mirror-image life#Non-neutral content), I and other editors presented detailed arguments explaining why Louis He's reversions were inappropriate, citingWP:UNDUE,WP:NPOV,WP:QUOTES, andWP:LEAD. Specifically:

• Iexplained that the content Louis He restores givesundue weight to a minority view, because the overwhelming weight of expert opinion (a 38-authorScience paper, the Spirit of Asilomar with 96 signatories, the Paris conference with ~60 participants in risk-related tracks, recommendations by UNESCO IBC, the UK Government Office for Science, Germany's ZKBS, and UNIDIR) supports taking the risks of mirror-image life seriously, while the skeptical quotes Louis He wishes to include come from a small number of individuals. Ireiterated this point when Louis He continued to ignore it.

• Ipointed out that the article provides no quotes from individual scientists whosupport regulation, so it is inconsistent to include multiple quotes from skeptics; the article already notes the existence of skeptical views in summary form, consistent withWP:QUOTES. Ielaborated further in a subsequent comment.

• Ipointed out repeatedly (here andhere) that "counting quotes" in a single news article is not a valid method for determining the distribution of expert opinion on a topic, and that the weight of a position should instead be assessed by looking at multi-author reports, joint statements, and institutional recommendations — all of which overwhelmingly support taking the risks seriously. Louis He never addressed this methodological objection.

Despite these arguments, Louis He hasnever substantively addressed any of them. Instead, they repeat nearly identical talking points in every edit summary and talk page comment, including variations of: "one should avoid making massive changes to the brief and neutral version of the Lead that has been there for a long time" and "no consensus has been reached" (see e.g. their edit summaries atSpecial:Diff/1334521713,Special:Diff/1334669999,Special:Diff/1335845600,Special:Diff/1336577656,Special:Diff/1336939242,Special:Diff/1337816155, andSpecial:Diff/1338666949). This refusal to engage with the substance of the discussion while continuing to revert constitutestendentious editing.

Louis He repeatedly claims that their preferred version should remain in place because "consensus has not been reached". However, asUser:Alenoachexplained, this claim is based on the false premise that the version Louis He reverts to is a long-standing, neutral status quo. In reality, much of the content in that version was introduced by the banned sockmaster Raskimsakira (comparethe article before Raskimsakira's first edit in September 2025 withthe article after Raskimsakira's last edit in December 2025). The pre-Raskimsakira version already gave substantial coverage to the risks; it was Raskimsakira who bloated the article with content downplaying those risks. Alenoach showed this byquoting the pre-Raskimsakira lead and noting that more than half of its content was already dedicated to coverage of the risks — content that neither I nor Alenoach had contributed. Louis He did not address this point either.

Louis He has reverted the article at least12 times since January 22, 2026:

1. January 22 (×2):Special:Diff/1334237435,Special:Diff/1334237596
2. January 24:Special:Diff/1334521713
3. January 25 (×3):Special:Diff/1334761684,Special:Diff/1334763909,Special:Diff/1334770808
4. January 28 (×2):Special:Diff/1335312214,Special:Diff/1335314371
5. January 31:Special:Diff/1335845600
6. February 4:Special:Diff/1336577656
7. February 6:Special:Diff/1336939242
8. February 11:Special:Diff/1337816155
9. February 16:Special:Diff/1338666949

While the individual reversions are spread over weeks (and thus may not violate the bright-lineWP:3RR rule on any single day), the overall pattern clearly constitutesedit warring. I warned Louis He ontheir talk page on February 11 that I would report them if they reverted again without addressing the arguments on the talk page. They reverted again on February 16 (Special:Diff/1338666949), and theirtalk page response still did not address the substantive arguments.

I request that an administrator review this situation and take appropriate action.Sir Paul (talk)17:36, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

User makes unmotivated threats of revoking my editing right on my talk page, what can I do?

New editorUser talk:GK0001 continues personal attacks after warnings