The newly created user User:Erdemozcantr has been removing text and reliable sources from adolma article — a contentious topic — and replacing them with other links. This user has alreadybeen warned about editing contentious topics and informed that their edits aredisruptive. Despite these warnings, they continue to remove sourced content. The editor alsothreatened to complain to the moderator if I continued my edits. I request that sanctions or an editing ban be applied to this user for this article.Barseghian Lilia (talk)17:50, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed.Please do not modify it.
Hello,
I would like to report a case of persistent misrepresentation and personal targeting regarding my edits on the dolma article.
User:Barseghian_Lilia has repeatedly accused me of “disruptive editing” while I was following WP:RS and WP:NPOV guidelines, providing academically verified sources (Clauson 1972; TDK; Işın 2018).
I did not remove reliable sources only content that was biased, unverifiable, or contradicted by stronger academic evidence.
Additionally, the user’s comments have become increasingly personal and accusatory. I am requesting administrative review to ensure the discussion remains within Wikipedia’s civility and neutrality standards.
The following discussion has been closed.Please do not modify it.
I kindly ask the administrators to review both my edits and those made by User:Barseghian_Lilia on the dolma article, and decide which version aligns better with Wikipedia’s neutrality and verifiability policies.
My edits are based on academically recognized sources such as Clauson (1972), the Turkish Language Association (TDK), and Priscilla Mary Işın’s Bountiful Empire (2018). These are neutral and verifiable references widely cited in food history research.
In contrast, the user’s additions rely on a single author’s national interpretation without broader linguistic or historical consensus. My only goal has been to ensure a balanced and well-sourced article.
The following discussion has been closed.Please do not modify it.
Understood, thank you for clarifying. I’ll continue the discussion on the article’s talk page to keep everything in the proper place.Erdemozcantr (talk)18:34, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
This sort of Armenia-related food and culture war stuff is explicitly covered byWP:GS/AA and covered by a community-imposed extended confirmed restriction. Erdemozcantr is now aware of the GS and needs to stop discussing here and directly editing the article. If anyone else wants to carry the torch on conduct issues related to Barseghian Lilia, go for it. Otherwise, this should probably be closed soon.Firefangledfeathers (talk /contribs)18:41, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Firefangledfeathers, unless I am misreadingGS/AA, I do not see howArmenia-related food and culture war stuff is explicitly covered by WP:GS/AA. Anything in the Armenia/Azerbaijan conflict can be placed under ECP, but the article is currently not under ECP. I also don't see how Dolma would fit under "Politics, ethnic relations, and conflicts", even broadly construed. Am I missing context?45dogs (they/them)(talk page)18:58, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Hey 45dogs, the origin of dolma is disputed between Armenians and Azerbaijanis. Azerbaijan's state-level National Culinary Center even accuses Armenia of "appropriating" their national dish.[2] When dolma was included on the UNESCO World Heritage List by Azerbaijan, aDolma Festival was announced in Armenia as a response. It's still very much a political issue.Barseghian Lilia (talk)19:12, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed.Please do not modify it.
You are labeling this as a “disputed topic,” yet presenting clearly biased and non-academic Armenian claims as if they were factual.
The sources being cited in support of these claims lack any linguistic or scholarly validity.
Furthermore, implying that a dish officially recognized by UNESCO as part of the national cuisine of another Turkic country (Azerbaijan) was “adapted from Armenia” is entirely unsupported and misleading.
None of these assertions are based on peer-reviewed linguistic or historical research, and representing them as such goes against Wikipedia’s verifiability and neutral point of view (WP:NPOV) policies.Erdemozcantr (talk)20:13, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
We do not discuss content here. The editor repeatedly removes reliable sources and text, which constitutes disruptive behavior and violates the rules. I noticed the same editorial behavior inTzatziki's article.Barseghian Lilia (talk)18:55, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed.Please do not modify it.
As for the “Tzatziki” article, I am well aware of the situation mentioned.
The same user attempted to falsely attribute cacık/tzatziki to “ancient Greek origins,” which was later identified as a sockpuppet account and had all edits reverted by administrators for lack of reliability.
Bringing that unrelated issue here as a personal accusation is entirely inappropriate and irrelevant to the present discussion.
In that case please explain the issues below with nonexistent sources and made-up quotes, and why every one of your talk page comments sounds exactly like every other AI talk page comment.Gnomingstuff (talk)22:16, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed.Please do not modify it.
I have already provided detailed bibliographic information with page numbers and links for all cited sources. All references are published academic works and verifiable through library catalogues or online databases. Additionally, I would like to point out a clear factual inconsistency: in the version of the Dolma article edited by the user accusing me, it was stated that “Armenia applied to UNESCO for dolma”. However, the external page cited as the source for that statement does not contain any mention of dolma whatsoever. The cited webpage only discusses elements such as Armenian national costumes, dances, and the alphabet dolma is never mentioned. If Wikipedia aims to remain a neutral and verifiable encyclopedia, how can such an unsupported claim be allowed to remain in the article?
I write carefully and with proper sourcing, which may appear stylistically consistent, but that is not a violation of any Wikipedia policy. If you have a specific content-related concern, please address it directly with reference to sources rather than speculation about authorship.Erdemozcantr (talk)22:38, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
We've got a much bigger problem here: Erdemozcantr's edits are most likely AI, including their posts here and on the talk pages. Not only do their edits display theusual set of LLM text signs, but they don't seem to be reviewed much if at all.This edit, for example, has inserted what the article claims to be a quote from the Oxford Companion to Food, butneither the direct quote nor anything like it seems to exist in the text, certainly not on page 150. Other clues are that the supposed quote uses the spelling "yogurt" when the book is British and uses "yoghurt" (LLMs default to American English), and that it reads exactly like AI slop.Gnomingstuff (talk)18:56, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
I have the Bountiful Empire book, and while there is content about dolma, there'snothing about dolma on or anywhere near the pages quote (pages 104-106). Page 104 is an illustration of artwork representing sugar animals being brought for a circumcision celebration, and pages 105 and 106 discuss circumcision celebrations further, with some discussion of sugar sculptures and wedding soup. Fake links, fake page numbers. Given this discussion and the evidence already presented, I have zero faith in this editor's honesty, and think there should be an article space block while the extent of the damage they've caused is investigated.CoffeeCrumbs (talk)22:40, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed.Please do not modify it.
The book Bountiful Empire: A History of Ottoman Cuisine by Priscilla Mary Işın (Reaktion Books, 2018) is entirely real and can be verified through the publisher and WorldCat catalogue records. There may be a slight variation in page numbering between print and digital editions this is common in Reaktion Books publications due to layout and image insertions but the section mentioning dolma and stuffed dishes does exist in the book, within the same chapter. Instead of personal attacks, I invite you to focus on the factual content. If you have the book, please share the edition and ISBN you are using, and we can compare page references precisely. That is the collaborative and verifiable way to resolve such differences.Erdemozcantr (talk)23:10, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
If I need to know what ChatGPT says, I can just ask it directly and cut out the middleman (you).
And no, the references that actually discuss dolma, not just as a long list of foods within a sentence, aren't in the same chapter, they're more than 60 pages before, in chapter three. This is chapter seven,Cooks and Kitchens. I'm also surprised that you apparently have intimate knowledge of what is "common" in books of a very specific publisher.CoffeeCrumbs (talk)23:32, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed.Please do not modify it.
It’s quite concerning that several users seem to defend unsupported claims simply because they come from a certain narrative. The influence of bias and lobbying on such topics is well known, but this is not the place for that. Turning cultural heritage into a “food war” or resorting to personal attacks is disappointing. You still haven’t provided an ISBN or verifiable reference; your only argument so far is “I have the book.” Ironically, the book titled Ottoman Cuisine omits a dish that’s widely known as Ottoman-Turkish. You’re free to keep imagining otherwise.Erdemozcantr (talk)23:53, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
This is literally a discussion not aboutdolma but aboutyour use of sources. I thought it premature to make a proposal for specific sanctions, but if you're not going to be forthcoming in substantiating the hallucinations you've posted, I'm not sure there's any other choice.CoffeeCrumbs (talk)23:57, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed.Please do not modify it.
Your personal opinions are irrelevant here. You still haven’t provided a single ISBN or verifiable source. The issue is exactly about dolma. I made an edit and you've been messing with me for hours, and you never question the edits made by the person who reported me. What a fair approach.Erdemozcantr (talk)00:12, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
Just a reminder that you are not allowed to discuss dolma as you do not have extended-confirmed rights, as you were told above. It's in your interest to discussonly your sourcing.CoffeeCrumbs (talk)00:37, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed.Please do not modify it.
After my last edit, I haven’t made any such attempt. I’ve realized how deep this level of fanaticism goes. You can stay happy with fabricated “facts” here, but historical reality will keep saying the opposite.Erdemozcantr (talk)00:44, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
I support a short block because E's comments have been so unconstructive, but FYI: the community-imposed ECR allows for talk page discussion outside of just edit requests, as opposed to Arb-imposed ECR. It's an annoying procedural quirk.Firefangledfeathers (talk /contribs)03:38, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
I feel like this is indef level to be honest. There's been zero attempt to communicate in good faith here, just doubling down via AI. (I often wonder what is being typed into the prompts on the other end.)Gnomingstuff (talk)14:59, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
“The modern recipe for dolma is a dish that originated in the Ottoman Empire. It never occurred to me that this might have a "political" aspect. Because I believed that a site like Wikipedia, which is supposed to be neutral, should be impartial on such a topic, I attempted to delete biased sources and add reliable ones. However, as a result, my changes were deleted, and opinions that were clearly biased and lacked reliable sources are still presented in the dolma article as if they were fact. Other users have strayed from the topic and made personal attacks against me and since Wikipedia has failed to satisfy me in terms of neutrality, I request that my editor account be permanently deleted.”
And I won't waste my energy expressing myself any further. The fact that the edit wars in the article in question are still ongoing and that no sanctions have been imposed on the person who caused it clearly shows how "impartial" you are, and I repeat, I no longer want to be on this platform.Erdemozcantr (talk)13:51, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
@Erdemozcantr: it isn't possible to delete accounts. Also it sounds like you're saying this isn't political because Wikipedia is supposed to be impartial by taking one side because one editor (i.e. you) is going to reject any sources which disagree with them as "biased". And this editor cannot even find sources to support the changes they want to make and instead has to make stuff up with LLMs. Do I have the gist of what you're saying?Nil Einne (talk)15:44, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
I didn't mention myself. Another editor made changes to the article, citing the source. The other editor (of Armenian descent, as the name suggests) can cite the personal opinions of an undocumented author's book as the source, assuming them to be true, and faces no repercussions. This person constantly engages in edit wars. A quick glance at his edits is enough to understand this. Instead of attacking me personally, I'd like to see the principle of neutrality applied, but that doesn't seem feasible, and I don't want to be on such a platform. For example, if I share a historian's opinion that "there was no such genocide" in the controversial article "Armenian Genocide," will it remain on Wikipedia permanently? I doubt it. Therefore, I don't think there's any need to deceive anyone. And as I said, I don't even feel the need to explain myself to you. I would appreciate it if you wouldn't constantly reply to me.Erdemozcantr (talk)15:59, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
We're literally discussing a food; there's not a single written Armenian recipe dating back to the Ottoman era. So how did dolma become an "Armenian dish"? The word itself, dolma, is Turkish; the oldest recipes date back to the Ottoman period, and there's no historical record of it before that in Armenian sources. When discussing the history of a food, you need concrete sources, written recipes, or archaeological evidence, not "that's just how I feel" claims. It's surprising how far some people will go to politicize food.Erdemozcantr (talk)19:51, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
Just to note I have never replied to you before my above reply, and this will be my last reply to you. So the idea I have constantly replied to you is ludicrous.Nil Einne (talk)07:13, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
I understand, but it’s rather ludicrous to assume that you were the only one I was referring to when I said “you keep replying”. Thank you.Erdemozcantr (talk)08:08, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
I will make an exception to my promise above since I feel it is important you understand this. When you reply to someone with indentation directed at them and what you say is directly addressing them and you end with "And as I said, I don't even feel the need to explain myself to you. I would appreciate it if you wouldn't constantly reply to me" it is entirely reasonable for people to assume you mean them and only them. Perhaps English is not your first language but "you" is generally taken to be to the person you are replying to and no one else. If you to intend to address multiple people, you need to use clearer words like "you all" or phrase you reply in such a manner that it is clear it is directed at multiple people. If you fail to do so, people are going to assume you mean only them. And this failure in communication is indeed on you and by you I mean only Erdemozcantr, because you have failed to use clear language in your communication but instead have used unclear and non standard language.Nil Einne (talk)08:37, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
(edit conflict) BTW, it was suggested above you were using LLMs for your replies. I have no idea if you did, or if you still are doing so although do agree with a comment left above that saying "I'm also surprised that you apparently have intimate knowledge of what is "common" in books of a very specific publisher" is very weird. But I do think it's important to remember even if you are doing so, other than being disallowed, you are still solely responsible for what you publish here. So if you use LLMs and they fail to communicate clearly in a threaded conversation, the fault is still entirely on you that you have failed to communicate clearly and people have make entirely reasonable assumptions based on what you did say no matter if it is just an LLM saying it for you.Nil Einne (talk)08:48, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
I still don't understand how you came to the conclusion that I was using AI based on my personal words and a polite thank you, but thank you for your warning.Erdemozcantr (talk)08:56, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
I made somedolmades the other day. They consisted of vine leaves stuffed with rice and lemon (and some other minor ingredients). I thought I was making a Greek or Turkish dish, but it seems that it might have been Armenian or Azerbaijani or from some other country. They were lovely anyway. This is an international thing that doesn't belong to any particular country.Phil Bridger (talk)18:39, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Ran into this editor,Coded message of truth (talk·contribs), on the perennially-controversialSuicide methods.Here they reacted with borderline personal attacks (Would you like a blue link to English reading levels perhaps that would help you a bit if you couldn't understand me,You sound like you have lost absolutely all of your humanity,You are exactly what Wikipedia wants an unempathetic person with no humanity left in them who obeys every rule they have). Looking at their talk page, they seem to have a problem with uncritically addingLLM-generated content, which was noticed bySeercat3160 (talk·contribs),Dr vulpes (talk·contribs), andTheroadislong (talk·contribs), probably among others.
also, according to Wikipedia’s guidelines, it is not prohibited to use AI as long as you are checking it, but I suppose I will stop for the most part so I’m not too keen on the idea of getting banned holy dude what are you doing? I will resort to it again. It’s like when you’re a kid in kindergarten and you go running up to the teacher dude just live with yourself. What are you doing? This is exactly what I was talking about when I was saying stuff about you losing your humanity whatever man move on I don’t careCoded message of truth (talk)13:59, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
I considered blocking in response to this doubling-down on the personal attacks, but given that they don't appear to have previously been warned about NPA, I issued awarning on their user talk page. Obviously, any further incivility should be met with blocks.signed,Rosguilltalk14:15, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Can I block the user then Jesus holy yeah I’m honestly about done with Wikipedia. What is this fine leave me alone then can you automatically block every other user on Wikipedia from talking to me please go to some kind of settings on my account and just block every other account from talking to me Jesus what are you guys doing? Holy disappointing. Fine leave me alone then I won’t talk to anyone and if anyone says something to me that I don’t like I will go tell the higher-ups at Wikipedia to deal with it. All right I’ll be exactly what you guys want me to be. Just leave me alone.Coded message of truth (talk)14:25, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
If you're going to continue to edit Wikipedia, you're going to find out that inevitably, communication will be required, unless you intend to go along with the other editor(s) on any changes you disagree with. Blocking everyone in Wikipedia from interacting with you is not a thing that is going to happen. This is a collaborative project.CoffeeCrumbs (talk)14:35, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
If you don't wish to interact with people in this discussion, then don't interact with people in this discussion. Your involvement in this discussion is 100% your choice.CoffeeCrumbs (talk)15:00, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I would recommend reviewingWP:COMMUNICATE--editors are expected to engage with criticism and concerns in a collegial fashion, not with a teenager-esque temper tantrum. That having been said, if there are no further issues of improper LLM use I think the matter here can be considered resolved.signed,Rosguilltalk14:35, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Hey, Wikipedia might not be the place to you if you respond to conflict and criticism in this way; and if Wikipedia isn't the place for you, that's fine. Editing Wikipedia isn't for everyone and there is nobody forcing you to be here.Athanelar (talk)15:11, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
No one has insulted you here.WP:COMPETENCY is the name of a guideline at Wikipedia. Theability to communicate with other editors and abide by consensus is explicitly named there. By refusing to discuss this issue, you've really only made the case here that you lack the necessary competency.wound theology◈15:56, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
WP:COMPETENCY is the name of a wikipedia policy this user thinks you're breaking. Click the link and read about it.
Also, it's understandable if you're overwhelmed and frustrated by this discussion. I highly recommend youstep away from Wikipedia for a while and take a breather; a day, a week, a month, whatever you feel is appropriate. Once you think you're ready to come back with a fresh mind and try again, do so. But right now you're much more focused on arguing with people who you think have wronged you than you are onbuilding an encyclopedia.Athanelar (talk)16:03, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Don’t frame it like you’re doing that with good intentions it’s fine. I’m done with this conversation. It’s been done. It never even started actually now everyone’s just jumping in like a pile of well really genius people.Coded message of truth (talk)19:30, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment) Hi again, We've been chatting on your Talk page for a little while but I noticed you're still replying on here. You don't need to respond to every message and I'm worried you're doing yourself more harm than good.
If you're reading this,please log off so you don't see any notifications and come back to this another time, ok? If you have notifications enabled, disable them. Don't reply to me.
How is it more harm than good is it because you know that the longer I entertain them and the longer I continue to talk here the higher the chance that my account gets removed is or is it because you know that these messages they are saying would generally be bad for my mental health those are the only 2 logical possibility and they each stem from themCoded message of truth (talk)00:27, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment) Both really, but more the former.
I've tried being patient but that hasn't worked so I'm going to be a little more abrupt.
A core tenet of Wikipedia is toassume good faith whenever possible, but you've been accusing everyone of being out to get you personally. That makes it look like you'll have trouble dealing with the inevitable disputes over content that happen every day. You're going to disagree with other editors but you can't react like this when it happens.
Multiple people have taken the time to give you advice, but you're not really taking any of it on board. You've not properly addressed the concerns over AI use either.
I stepped in to try to help you because was worried that each post where you continue to accuse complete strangers of having bad faith is going to add weight to the argument that you might not be a good fit for editing on Wikipedia. That's why Ikeep asking you to take a step back and calm down, because your posts read like they were written by someone who's angry and stressed out. I don't know if you are, but that's how it comes across to other people. If that's how you always react when challenged, it's not going to work here.
I've been desperately trying to help you for hours now but I don't think I'm getting through after looking at your last post below.
How do you expect me to properly address the AI I have already said a few times that I will stop and I also clarify that it's not really against the rules and I'm just getting targeted for no reason really cause I've checked all of the sourcesCoded message of truth (talk)15:43, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Oh never mind this conversation is done at least seemingly so I had 5 other notifications so I figured it was for the same thing so there wasn't any need to say that but I did address it at the very top of this whole thing if you didn't see it which is practically the only logical possibilityCoded message of truth (talk)15:50, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Considering this editor seems to be on the younger side and is a newbie I'm a bit concerned aboutWP:BITE but it also seems like they might need some encouragement to step away and take a breath. I suggest a short duration (like 24 hour) block and promptly closing this thread.Simonm223 (talk)21:54, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Wow what is this someone has my back for once Jesus what is this heaven also there's no need for the block this should just be shut down the block would have the same effect as me just moving on but backwardsCoded message of truth (talk)00:32, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Fun fact saying newbie was most popular in 1985 insinuating you're on the older side that's not a personal attack you did this same thing with me that's just a fun fact that you can walk away withCoded message of truth (talk)01:49, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
At the moment I don't think there's a need for a block. If there's future disruption, it can be dealt with when it occurs.signed,Rosguilltalk17:24, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
I disagree, unfortunately. They have made it clear that they areWP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia and are fundamentally at odds with the core principle of Wikipedia, which is collaboration-discussion.wound theology◈14:50, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
Yes, their latest was aresponse to someone complimenting their contributions to an article where they backhandedly referred to the praise as 'too nice to be genuine'
I don't think this person hasWP:COMPETENCE at all. They've obviously developed such a paranoia about theWP:CABAL that every positive interaction with other editors is going to be met with squinting suspicion and accusations of disingenuousness as above andhere, and any criticism or conflict is going to be taken as confirmation that they're being 'targeted' or that everyone here is out to get them in some way, as seenhere andhere
They also haven't demonstrated that they've actually meaningfully understood anything anyone has said to them. Their acknowledgements of wrongdoing were accompanied with tantruming statements about how they'won't talk to anyone' anymore, very obviously misunderstanding the actual meaning of everyone's complaints about theirWP:COMMUNICATION skills and apparently seeming to think everyone was telling them to shut up or something.
This user is young, hotheaded, obviously troubled and not in a position to deal with conflict healthily for themselves or appropriately for the project. Maybe in a few years, but not now.Athanelar (talk)15:55, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
My inclination is that given the observations about Coded's mentality at the moment, they can be left alone for the moment; they need to cool off. I think that the recent reply diff highlighted by Athanelar here indicates that they are still in this mental mode, but it's not so rude as to be disruptive. If actual disruption occurs, including failures to collegially discuss criticisms about further edits,then a block will be warranted in my view. Of course, if the community comes to a consensus in favor of a more immediate sanction despite my perspective I can accept that.signed,Rosguilltalk16:34, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
It's not really a cooling down thing I am very calm and happy all the time and it very very certainly does not take days for me to calm down like you guys are acting likeCoded message of truth (talk)17:05, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
See, replies like this really just confirm what the people calling for a block are saying. What editors expect from you is to be able to disengage here (read: stop replying), and go back to making constructive edits, and to respond ingood faith to any future messages people your way. If you can’t conform to that expectation, you will end up blocked.signed,Rosguilltalk17:10, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
Nobody is 'gossiping' about you. We're discussing whether you are a good fit for the community here; a discussion that you're welcome to be a part of, but that you only seem interested in responding to with accusations and hostility.
It's kind of like my childhood I would rather see the bullying than walk away and ignore it and also I get to egg it on and feed into it and have some fun while it lastsCoded message of truth (talk)17:22, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
But listen I am not only on Wikipedia do mess around I don't mind Wikipedia OK I don't actually really want to be banned I am only just playing around in this chatCoded message of truth (talk)17:31, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
Why is it that you're so worried about being banned from editing wikipedia if you also think that everyone here has 'hollow hearts' and is bullying you and gossipping about you?Athanelar (talk)17:36, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am reopening this notice, which was closed by a non-administrator (qcne (talk·contribs)) with the rationale that[e]ditor [was] no longer editing on the talk page in question. If it were not clear, I only incidentally ran into theeditor in question on a particular talk page, my concern is (per the title of both notices) withWP:COMPETENCY.Talk:Suicide methods is a perennial dumpsterfire, a dungeon where otherwise good editors rip each other apart...ANI reports about that page are futile.
To restate my original concern, the userCoded message of truth (talk·contribs) has stated their unwillingness toWP:COMMUNICATE -- in the words ofAthanelar (talk·contribs) they haveevidently developed a grudge with the project's ethos and methods. They are concerned with theWP:CABAL and consistently make references to "higher-ups". On a less (or more?) concerning note, they have been using LLMs to create pages with little human input.
I'm not sure if a block is warranted. But I believe it is necessary to at least receive verbal confirmation that they understand basic Wikipedia principles, and an acknowledgement that they will useWP:GOODFAITH going forward (and not engage in anymore personal attacks).wound theology◈08:27, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
Just to resummarise some relevant diffs;
[3] user compares the criticism they're facing on Wikipedia to being bullied in their childhood
[4] User characterises the discussion about them in ANI as 'gossip'
[5] In response to concerns that criticism/conflict on Wikipedia is causing them to lash out, the user outright says 'that's just how [they] are'
[6] User responds to praise about their contribution by calling it 'too nice to be genuine'
[7] User makes aWP:POINTy comment which indicates they interpreted comments about their age and pleas for them to walk away as insults
[8] User explains they feel they would lose 'integrity points' if they stopped engaging in the previous thread
[9] User says they"re being 'targeted' by the criticism in the same way they were targeted by their childhood bullies
[10] User leaves a message on their user page stating that 'the people on wikipedia have hollow hearts'
[11] User leaves a handful of angsty quotations on their user page in the midst of the initial thread
[12][13][14] Rather than actually substantively acknowledging that they've understood their communication issues, the user petulantly acquiesces with statements like "it's fine I agree just leave me alone" and "fine I'll be what you want me to be" and proposes that they'll solve their communication problems by never talking to anyone else on Wikipedia.
Personally I absolutely think a block is warranted. I don't think any acknowledgement will be genuine at this point nor do I think any cooling-off period will outbalance the underlying issues here. I have no doubt this user will be able to contribute productively; so long as nobody ever challenges their behaviour for any reason. I have no doubt in my mind that the moment they run into an editing conflict or conduct dispute we're going to end up right back here again.
To restate my thesis from the other thread; this user is young, hotheaded, obviously troubled and demonstrably lackingWP:COMPETENCE, the only appropriate course here is a medium-to-long term block (6 months+) to allow this user to return to Wikipedia once they've matured a little bit. So long ss they see theWP:CABAL in every shadow and think that Wikipedians who criticise them are acting like their childhood bullies, I simply do not believe this is the right place for them. It'll only cause continued stress for them and wasted time for us.Athanelar (talk)11:50, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
They haven't made any substantial edits at all. The last thread closed less than a day ago and I believe it was closed erroneously (as, again, I was not specifically talking about a single talk page but a multi-page pattern of behavior.)wound theology◈13:15, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
Well, it'strivially true. No edits mean they haven't made any problem edits, yes. It is also true they haven't made any non-problematic edits. It remains to be seen whether or not they take the previous thread or this one to heart, but unfortunately I do not have high hopes.wound theology◈13:32, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
Considering they also haven't given any indication they understand the problem with their conduct to begin with (which was really the issue rather than any particular problematic edits) I think you're missing the point.Athanelar (talk)13:35, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
I closed the thread because it was fairly obviously stressing out the user, and felt from a safety point of view it would be better closed.qcne(talk)13:53, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
I think this only goes to demonstrate the fact the user needs to be blocked for their own good. If a user can't handle discussion about them, they shouldn't be allowed to edit, because anyone who edits will eventually make bad edits and will eventually be subject to some kind of negative attention.Athanelar (talk)13:59, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
I second this response, and would like to stress that a non-admin closing a discussion here with a misleading summary is wholly inappropriate.wound theology◈14:06, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
Non-admins are permitted to close discussions on this board, that's not a problem. The userhad stopped editing the Talk Page and was clearly just spiralling.qcne(talk)14:09, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
You're missing the basic point here, which is not that non-admins can't close discussions (they can, do, and should.) It is that you closed it for a reason you did not disclose, instead using what is at best a technicality as pretext. It should have been abundantly clear from my original thread (which is, after all, titledWP:COMPETENCY) that it was the user's overall pattern of editing and their stated beliefs about Wikipedia that were in question, not merely their actions on the talk page.wound theology◈14:22, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
Jesus Christ again the reason why I haven’t made any edits is because I don’t really have too much time a day usually it’s on weekends and that would be today but like I don’t know if I even care anymore like if I’m gonna get blocked then just ban me like I don’t know what’s happening. I don’t really care. This is like really really ridiculous Now like this is absurd. I had many things to write down to do. There were some things I wanted to fix that I had written down for today, but I don’t really like care anymore at this point. If I’m in a band, then ban me although I feel like logically the person that I allegedly made personal attacks to shouldn’t really have a say in this and he is the one pushing it the hardestCoded message of truth (talk)16:28, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment) @Coded message of truth please calm down and I'll try to explain the problem again. People are worried because your first response to criticism (valid or not) is to become angry and defensive.
You need to understand that everyone's priority is Wikipedia and making sure it's the best it can be - to do that we need to be able to talk to each other in a calm & polite way.
Unfortunately it looks like you're having trouble, which is why this problem isn't going to go away unless you can show that you can talk to other peoplecalmly and openly.
One of thefive pillars of Wikipedia is toassume good faith and you've not been doing that. Even when someone complimented you, you presumed they were being mean.
I realised when I was typing that I've already said all of this on their Talk page yesterday, but I figured I'd give things one last shot to see if there's any way of defusing the situation.
I concur with Wound Theology on this. The issue at hand was general competency, not disruption on a single talk page. The response above suggests that the issue remains. While your attempt to prevent unnecessary distress is laudable, the purpose of Wikipedia isnot to prevent distress, but ratherto build an encyclopedia. Good faith concerns were raised that, independent of their response to these two ANI threads, they may be a poor fit for editing, whetherWP:CIR orWP:NOTHERE. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect a discussion on whether the editor themselves are disruptive, even unintentionally, should be allowed to conclude.EducatedRedneck (talk)17:02, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
Agreed. Not an admin, but just reading what has been posted it's fairly clear this should not have been closed and was aWP:BADNAC by @Qcne. An editor reacting poorly is not a reason for a non-admin closure of a AnI discussion, in fact it's wholly inappropriate for someone to step in and stop discussion because of a nebulous observation that a user is "spiraling." If you have legitimate concerns about a user's well-being (to an extent that might involve potential for personal harm), then you should follow the instructions atWP:EMERGENCY instead of just jumping in and closing an AnI thread that is bringing up issues with an editor's behavior.nf utvol (talk)18:32, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
On the one hand, if the disruption and incivility have stopped, a block would be punitive rather than preventative. On the other hand, Coded message of truth, you need to respond to this thread in a manner that convinces us that the problem edits will not resume, that you will make constructive edits, and that you understand that this is an encyclopedia and not a playground for you to play around in. (In case you cannot read between the lines, I'm trying to avert you being blocked, but this not a hill on which I wish to die.) Thanks-- Deepfriedokra (talk)14:01, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
They've edited their userpage to state they are away and thinking of leaving Wikipedia - I don't think pressuring them into replying here immediately or be blocked is particularly useful.qcne(talk)14:03, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
SeeWP:ANIFLU. This is not a matter of the editor being harangued after the matter is already settled. The question of their competency has not been answered, and their retreating away from the question and evident mental spiraling as a result of it only proves the case for a block.Athanelar (talk)14:49, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
Au contraire. I was young once. I see them as being embarrassed/humiliated/mortified by all of this and realizing they've gotten in over their depth. Perhaps if we don't beat them too badly, they will return after they've matured and overcome their other issues, and become productive, constructive users.-- Deepfriedokra (talk)15:58, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
I have no doubt about that. I also have no doubt that they shouldnot returnuntil they have overcome those issues, or else we're just going to end up right back here as soon as they have another editing conflict or conduct dispute, and a block should be imposed to give them sufficient time away from the project to mature a bit and change their mindset.Athanelar (talk)16:00, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
This seems less like an ANIFLU and more like a compulsive addiction to responding at ANI in the least productive way possible.signed,Rosguilltalk17:09, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
To that end...I don't know that there's really anything they need to answer for here. If they start up talk page or mainspace disruption again, they should be blocked. If they are just messing around in user space in a way that doesn't impact anyone else, I don't think they need to be sanctioned.signed,Rosguilltalk17:12, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment) It looks like they've just been adding userboxes rather than editing mainspace.
From my interactions with them, the two issues I've been concerned over areAGF and AI usage.
If they can explicitly agree to avoid using AI until they've got more experience and understand that other editors are trying to help them, then I'll be very happy.Blue Sonnet (talk)16:25, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
From what I've seen, this user is creating concise, well-written, well-sourced articles. I've looked at their drafts to try to get them into the end zone, but can't find anything to substantially improve or "un-AI."
Dude, I don’t know what else you want me to say he said he didn’t understand me. He was talking something about blue links a lot. I don’t know this happened two days ago so I made a joke about a blue link to English reading levels then a big thing happened with you guys then it got closed and then everything was all peaceful and then today rolled around and I had some things I was planning on doing I mean, I have a paper right in front of me Full of some other stuff I wanted to do today that isn’t on Wikipedia but now I’m not really gonna do that cause I don’t know where this is gonna go cause it opened up again like I don’t know if there’s much else I can say with the AI yeah I guess so. I mean it’s not against the terms of service but sure I’ll try to stop for the most part. I think I would still use it as a general template. And I would still probably have to filter what I’m saying through it to get the correct punctuation, but I mean, I don’t really wanna even say this. I don’t really want to defend myself and say my side there’s any side it’s just like very shallow if you guys want to ban me then ban me. If you guys think what I did is worthy of a ban then sure I don’t even wanna say what I’m saying right now I just want you guys to go about this however, your hearts want it toCoded message of truth (talk)17:28, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment) THIS! This is good enough for me, I only wanted to see a calm response and an understanding of what led to the situation. There are admins and more experienced editors on here who may have something else to add, but this response makes me happy.Struck, not sure what to think after this: [[15]]Blue Sonnet (talk)20:53, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
Jesus Christ you guys are killing me here but it's still beautiful I still miss this but unfortunately this is dying down because a lot of people have stopped caring about this at least seemingly soCoded message of truth (talk)02:29, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
It's like a never ending source of joy I haven't had this much fun interacting with humans in a while I hope that I wake up with an infinite amount of notifications and I pray that this will go on for eternity sweet dreams good nightCoded message of truth (talk)02:52, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
Uh, I don't particularly see an understanding of what led to this situation here. Particularly, we need to see an openness to collaboration and discussion of content, rather than a resignation that "we're going to do what we're going to do".wound theology◈17:54, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
It's entirely possible that I've misread the situation, apologies if so - hence my reference to more experienced editors noticing something I may well have missed. I'm going to withdraw from the discussion and leave this in ANI's capable hands for this very reason.Blue Sonnet (talk)18:01, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
How is this behavior stopping you from improving the encyclopedia? Personal attacks are unacceptable yes, but Coded message of truth has now been warned about NPA and appears to have desisted. I'm not sure what is gained by escalating to ANI andciting CIR. Is this really anurgent incident or achronic, intractable behavioral problem? And when has aWP:COOLDOWN block ever resolved a behavioral problem? I think Qcne's closure was reasonable and this discussion should be headed in the same direction.
ToCoded message of truth: please understand that whileediting Wikipedia istotally voluntary, when you do edityou must follow allpolicies and guidelines endorsed by community consensus. That includes an expectation that your participation in discussions is always constructive and respectful. You can read about this policy in more detail atWikipedia:Civility. A pattern of incivilitycould result in the loss of your editing privileges. We really would like you to keep contributing to Wikipedia, as long as you can do so in a spirit of collaboration. This is something many of us struggle with at times, and there are quite a few essays giving advice or personal perspectives on how best to go about it. One that I frequently refer back to isWikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot. Maybe it will help you, too. If you need help or have questions, my talk page is always open. —Rutebega (talk)21:29, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
Coded message of truth, I'd strongly urge you to stop replying here. Normally I'd suggest you stop replying except to answer to give simple and direct answers to questions. But I'll be honest your replies here have been bad enough that it might be better if you just stay away from this thread point blank and hope the community and admins haven't seen enough to block you.Nil Einne (talk)10:19, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
"[T]his behavior [is not] stopping you from improving the encyclopedia" is a bad argument, because it can be levied against practically everything else on this page outside edit wars and harassment -- and this isn't evenWP:AN3. Furthermore, toreiterate this once again, this is not about a single incident or behavior on a single page. Nor is it solely about personal attacks. In fact, the personal attacks have no really desisted either; they're still implying that anyone concerned with their conduct isheartless or lacks empathy.
It is indeed about achronic, intractable behavioral problem, as CMoT hasstill not shown any level of understanding for what Wikipedia is, or why we are concerned with their behavior. Their response to your comment, and the increasingly incoherent responses elsewhere in this thread, is more evidence that this problem cannot be solved. Despite being told by multiple users multiple times that this is not a trial, that there are no "higher ups", that admins are just janitors and so on, they are still treating this as if they're being persecuted for being empathetic. In reality, refusal to collaborate or discuss issues is an immediate sign that one lackscompetency.wound theology◈07:14, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
Man please just move on it's been days this was already shut down once and you are the victim of the joke you should also lack credibility for that reason for the same reason Wikipedia does not allow you to make articles that you are connected to it's the same logic oh godCoded message of truth (talk)13:29, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
I don't say this lightly, but my AGF is being stretched to the limit: from experience elsewhere, I have the feeling we're being trolled.Narky Blert (talk)14:16, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
I think there's been an appropriate amount of discussion here to poll some formal consensus about what the outcome here should be. As per my other comments in this thread, I think this user has demonstrated a lack ofWP:COMPETENCE in the form of communication skills, coupled with a total lack of understanding (and lack of desire to understand) Wikipedia's culture and practices. I think the lack of any meaningful acknowledgement of the problems with their behaviour means a preventative block is necessary, as otherwise I have no doubt they will soon end up in some other similarly frustrating conflict as a result of an editing or conduct dispute. I disagree with the idea that such a block would be punitive or unnecessary, as I think that the user simply withdrawing from this discussion, while solving the immediate problem, does not at all give us any way to be confident that the chronic, intractable behavioural issues will not repeat in the future.
I propose a block with a term of 6-12 months or so in the hopes that in that time the user will mature, and should they still wish to return to editing Wikipedia they will be able to do so with a clearer mind and hopefully better communication skills and self-awareness. Ultimately,not everybody needs to be a Wikipedia editor, least of all those who've demonstrated that the inevitable consequences of being an active editor (occasional conflict) brings them clear mental distress. We're under no obligation to fight to make sure that this individual remains active here, and I in fact think we have the contrary obligation to send them away for a while for their own good.Athanelar (talk)11:52, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
Support. While I can empathize with mental health issues, it's not an excuse for this behavior, the fact that their reaction to this ANI thread is to go on incoherent self-pittying, rants,(ramblings?), instead of actually engaging, shows they clearly don't truly understand the issues we are taking with their behavior.
Weak Support The evidence since the last time I checked in on the first thread increasingly indicate the editor is trolling. This is unfortunate. I do strongly think the block should be time-limited and I'd suggest not more than 3-6 months out of continued respect forWP:BITE. This is unfortunate but not entirely unexpected.Simonm223 (talk)12:50, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
Support One year, or even six months, is often more than enough time for a teenager (or other young person) to mature a significant amount -- which is clearly what is needed here.wound theology◈12:55, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
Dude what do you want me to say seriously this has been going on for days and you keep reopening it what do you want also you know you're not saying that with good intentions you just want me bannedCoded message of truth (talk)13:42, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
Support 1 year to six months. Whichever the community thinks best. It's not biting to block a new user who is so incompatible with and ill-suited to this encyclopedia project. Hopefully, by the time the block is over, they will have overcome whatever personality quirks are making them so. Six months to a year is more lenient that an indef, and supports the notion that people can change.-- Deepfriedokra (talk)13:26, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Despite the fact that I closed (erroneously) the first ANI thread, the continuing behaviour makes me think Wikipedia is, unfortunately, not a good fit for this user at the present time.qcne(talk)13:35, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
I've blocked for a year per normal admin discretion. They obvious trolling is disruptive and has to stop. Anyone can feel free to unblock if they think CMoT will contribute constructively.ScottishFinnishRadish (talk)13:47, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
I don't want to predict socking but I think my AGF shield broke earlier.I also think they decided I'm their lawyer, if so I'd like a pay raise.Blue Sonnet (talk)14:23, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
In future for noticeboard complaints it's beneficial if you provide links to diffs showing specific examples of problematic behaviour rather than linking to an entire page.Athanelar (talk)13:45, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
Individual edits likeI am a Rwandan historian. We know our history, and we will not stand by while non-Rwandans attempt to dictate what our history should sound like. That is precisely what Stewart is trying to do—and we will not allow it. Rwanda is now in the process of introducing to the world the fullness of its history, long preserved in oral form, with parts of it already being published. We know who we are—not what an outsider claiming to be a researcher wishes to define us as.[22] are really quiet concerning. It would have been better, Sundostund, to see if anything useful came from your queries to a few related WikiProjects, before coming here, since this noticeboard is typically for when other means have failed. That being said, that editor's hostile attitude and possible LLM use are real problems.CoffeeCrumbs (talk)14:52, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
And I have given them a sharp final warning against attacks on "outsiders" (=non-Rwandans), unsourced edits and nationalist puffery.Bishonen |tålk18:41, 26 October 2025 (UTC).
@Bishonen: Having in mind that you gave them a final warning, among other things, against unsourced edits and nationalist puffery, what should be done with their version ofList of kings of Rwanda, which is still standing? It is basically made of unsourced text and nationalist puffery, as well as likely LLM. IMHO, it should be returned to the last stable version, which isthis edit byTonySt (which was promptly reverted byIdzubamithra). As TonySt correctly stated, the current version is "material that appears to be mostly unsourced original research". —Sundostundmppria(talk /contribs)20:25, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
Sundostund, having warned the user, I'm not going to edit the article, least of all to revert them, because I'm now in admin (not editor) mode where they're concerned. But you're a competent and respected editor, you can edit it as you find appropriate. (Not sure I ought to give you more specific advice than that.)Bishonen |tålk21:16, 26 October 2025 (UTC).
Blocked indefinitely. Looks like that's the end of the road, unless they appeal the block in a way that shows them to have been unaware of their own talkpage (which they have never edited)and shows them willing to abide by our policies in the future.Bishonen |tålk07:05, 27 October 2025 (UTC).
Theydid find TonySt's talk page, so they're at least familiar with the concept. It really is too bad; if Idzubamithra actuallyis a Rwandan historian, with a more collaborative attitude and willingness to follow our rules, they could have really improved our content in this areaand helped more people find out about Rwandan history.CoffeeCrumbs (talk)07:19, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
I agree that this is unfortunate. I do wonder if a partial block from articlespace would compel them to talk with us here, but I suppose that discussion can just as easily happen on their own talk page provided they're aware of its existence. Hopefully they can eventually successfully appeal and return to contribute in some way, as this is a space where we could really use more knowledgable contributors (albeit ones who understand verifiability).tony14:36, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Personal insult and edit war
I invested several hours over several days editing and completely rewriting the Grand Egyptian Museum article, but today user Craigmac41 came and removed an entire section called "Museum Opening Postponement Date." I told him that this section was important because the museum's opening had been postponed so many times over the past 10 years, and everyone had noticed. He told me that since everyone had noticed, I should remove this section. I politely explained that everyone had noticed, but they didn't know why the opening had been postponed. The user reversed my edits twice, and because I didn't want to get into an edit war, I sent him a warning on his talk page and also opened a discussion on the museum article's talk page. I told him that I appreciated his work in proofreading the page, but that he should stop making unimportant edits, such as repositioning images, because they distort the article on the mobile version. He responded by saying, "Your reference to an editing war that no one needs is self-centered and arrogant. As is yours."[1] On his talk page he responded to the warning I sent him saying: Get off my talk page and out of my face, you bombastic arrogant jerk and How dare you threaten me with a block over a minor editing issue.[2] I don't know why he got so upset and called me those names but I was wondering if there is any action that can be taken against this personal attack that happened to me?, new personal attack[3]Egyptiankeng (talk)06:24, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
Craigmac41 absolutely should not have blown up the way he did, but you're not entirely faultless either; calling someone's edits unimportant, starting a talk page section about the editor "ruining the layout of the page," and an earlier poorly justified charge of vandalism in an edit summary were all pretty poor form on your part. And just because you did a drastic rewrite of the entire article doesn't give you any special authority in content disputes.
In your rewriting, you created myriad new problems, with scattered bits ofMOS:PUFFERY, drastically overwritten sections of issues related to the museum that are relatively unimportant, and whole sections that are poorly sourced or even completely unsourced. You shouldexpect a great deal of editing on this article, and likely many of those edits will be ones you will disagree with. Both of you should continue discuss the issues on the talk page.CoffeeCrumbs (talk)07:12, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
Egyptiankeng, this is fundamentally a routine content dispute about how much emphasis to place on the delay in opening a museum. We cannot resolve that here at ANI. Two reversions is not yet edit warring and therefore I think that it was a mistake for you to issue that templated warning instead of focusing on working things out on the article talk page. On the other hand, it was a mistake forCraigmac41 to respond with hostile insults. I recommend that both of you read and ponderAssume good faith, which is a behavioral guideline that all editors need to keep in mind when dealing with content disputes which are commonplace. When you write "everyone had noticed", I am mystified, since everyone means every living person on Earth. I happen to be a person who visited Egypt many years ago and toured its dusty, dark old museum so I am probably more interested in the topic hypothetically than the vast majority of the eight billion living people and I knew nothing about the delay in opening. Not everyone. So, those of us who write encyclopedia articles need to be more careful about precise language and avoid things like arguing with highly experienced editors about whether or not this new museum is as famous as the Louvre which I've also visited. Hint: that's highly unlikely. So, please avoid combative behavior, both of you. Try for consensus and use establishedDispute resolution processes instead of templating and insulting each other and filing ANI reports so quickly.Cullen328 (talk)07:30, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply but can we focus on the main issue that he insulted me? I didn't insult him and he insulted me several times on the museum's talk page and on his own discussion page so it's clear that he is a person who cannot be understood and does not accept discussion. It will end in an edit war and I don't want problems like that, can you please warn him or take any action against him? Wikipedia prohibits personal attacksEgyptiankeng (talk)08:28, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
It's already been noted that Craigmac41 losing their temper was inappropriate. But again, you're not blameless. Just one example is calling the removing an utterly overwritten section about the postponement vandalism. This may partially be the language barrier; a lot of what you've written sounds an awful lot like ordering people to do or not do things.
However, when there's an ANI filing, editors and admins will look at theentire situation in order to seeall the problems. Completely nuking the work of about 300 different editors over 19 years without a single discussion was rather unhelpful.CoffeeCrumbs (talk)10:22, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
I appreciate the work of the editors who worked on the page, but you can see the old version of the page. There wasn't even a picture of the museum before I edited the page. Let's be realistic, this was not an article that lived up to the representation of the Grand Egyptian Museum. Second, please, I want us to focus on the main topic. Whether I am wrong or not, it doesn't matter because I "did not insult anyone." I am here to talk about being insulted by this editor, and I want him to be punished according to Wikipedia's rules. I didn't respond to insult with insult because I thought that there were administrators who would punish him. Should I go and insult him or what? Knowing that he repeated the insults again, everything is on his talk page. Waiting for your decision, thank youEgyptiankeng (talk)11:07, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
Yeah, the article was far from perfect. It could have been improved. If you don't see a picture in an article, then add one! The fact is, youwere editing this article normally, but then people removed stuff you added, and instead of discussing it, you constantly reverted the removal of your additions, even though theWP:ONUS is on the person adding the content. Your only attempt to talk was an unhelpful block of text in which you explained why you don't think you needed to actually source things.
And after the pushback, you then decided that you wereinstead going to just chuck out the whole article and write a new one. Well, if you're going erase, again, the work of 300 editors working collaboratively over 19 years,without a single discussion about it, then the new articlebetter be a huge improvement. And it's not, it's a promotional, poorly sourced mess now.
You seem to have a misconception about how Wikipedia works. This isn't a place where you report people for their punishments. Our concern in any situation like this is preventing poor behavior from continuing, not doling out punitive sentences. Craigmac41's rude posts are disruptive. Your uncollaborative editing behavior andWP:OWN behavior (plus a few insults of your own) are also disruptive. Frankly, I think both of you need a significant time out from this article and interacting with each other.
It's bad to talk without knowing what you're actually talking about. If you took the time to look at the article's edit history, you'd see that I didn't delete the paragraphs about design and the paragraph about events because they were useful. What I deleted were duplicate paragraphs, outdated information, and unsourced information. You're trying to make it sound like I deleted sections of the article just because I thought they were no good, which is not true. In fact, the article had almost no sections. There was an overview, a history, and an events section. There was another section that i think was about Tutankhamun. What was useful I didn't delete. Wikipedia isn't a personal article for 300 editors so I can go ask each one if they are happy with the removal of their edit that they made a hundred years ago, which clearly didn't contain anything really useful. I don't know what it means that I made the article a mess. If I made it a mess, then let it be. Then another editor will come and make a little adjustments to that mess and make the article better, because Wikipedia is a collaborative place and not a personal article as you think. You claim that I only restored my edits and that my only discussion was useless and that I said in it that I don't need to add sources. I don't know where you read that. I never wrote that. Are you imagining things that don't exist? I never deleted the article because it didn't match my personal whims, but because it was bad. There is no information about what the museum even contains. LOL. Are you kidding me? No one has objected to adding these sections. Rather, they object to the way the article is written, which may be promotional, because my English is not good. I have no problem with that. Your intense interest in the work of 300 editors, while describing my job as "it's a promotional, poorly sourced mess now," is clearly biased. I understand Wikipedia well and I understand that cursing, insult is prohibited here and that your job is to prevent the continuation of bad behavior, but how will you prevent it? By issuing penalties, but you claim that this is not the place to request punishment for someone. You repeatedly try to change the subject and equate my mistakes, which you claim I made, with mistakes such as cursing and insults. Do you see them as the same thing? You didn't appreciate my work, you weren't impartial, you wasted my time, you didn't solve the problem. I hope no other editor has to deal with you.Egyptiankeng (talk)15:47, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
Egyptiankeng, I don't think this reply is a fair description of CoffeeCrumbs's engagement here. But to answer the relevant question: yes, mild incivility by Craigmac41 and the edit warring by you are roughly equivalent issues; I'd actually consider the edit warring to be a more serious concern, as it immediately obstructs editors' ability to discuss or edit the article, whereas this level of incivility can be addressed by rolling your eyes and moving on.signed,Rosguilltalk16:00, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
There was no edit war and I didn't get my edit back 3 times after twice i opened a discussion and sent an edit war warning to the other editor and the warning makes it clear that he is about to "engage in an edit war", calling the insult he insulted me a mild is funny if you accept people insulting you and call it "mild" that's a personal preference but I don't accept itEgyptiankeng (talk)16:30, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
Reinstating an edit that has been objected to, as you did inSpecial:Diff/1318998121, is edit warring.WP:3RR is not an entitlement, it’s a red line for immediate sanctions. As things stand, I’m of the opinion that this should be closed with a formal warning to Craigmac41 for incivility, and a reminder to Egyptiankeng toWP:AGF and avoid edit warring. If there’s further amends or alternatively further disruption, these recommendations should be decreased/increased as appropriate.signed,Rosguilltalk17:01, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
You don't get to dictate the subject of discussions. If Craigmac41 had started the ANI thread about you instead of the other way around, we'd be discussing their rudeness as well; they'd no more be able to dictate what editors look at than you are.CoffeeCrumbs (talk)16:05, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
I think this article needs a LOT of attention, if not just TNT. I gave a cleanup pass to just the section "Museum Collections and visit" and found that it consists pretty much entirely of unsourced or primary-sourced puffery/promotion which reeks of AI generation. I think aWP:BOOMERANG might be in order for OP.Athanelar (talk)08:51, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
There is no letter in the article written by artificial intelligence, the problem may be in the way I write because English is not my mother tongue and I am still learning, but please go back to the April 2025 version before saying that the page needs TNT, try to respect the efforts of the other editors, no one is forcing you to edit anything, you do this willingly, I don't know if we are here to talk about the problem of insulting me or the article itself?Egyptiankeng (talk)09:05, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
There is no letter in the article written by artificial intelligence
That's not true. There are references in the article with the "utm_source=chatgpt" fingerprint which indicates they were copypasted directly from the output of chatGPT, including in anedit you made here; so not only is there AI-generated content on that article,you added it.Athanelar (talk)09:17, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
You don't understand what you're saying! You're saying that I added sources with Chatgpt's signature, "I added sources" not words. Yes, I use AI to facilitate searching for sources and I don't put sources without reading them. Is using AI to search for sources prohibited on Wikipedia? What does this have to do with the way I search for sources have to do with you? I don't understand.Egyptiankeng (talk)09:23, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
Actually, what he said is that you don't understand whatyou're saying. What do you say to that, huh?HUH?EEng22:28, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
From the edits I've spot-checked, it does not look like this user is directly copying LLM output for the content of their edits, despite the sources obviously coming from ChatGPT, unless there are specific diffs I'm missing. --tony14:51, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
Egyptiankeng is now claiming that saying"Oh man i feel sorry for you u really need help!" was not an insult[27]. Clearly, it was. I've clarified this for them on their talk page, and noted the warning stands[28]. Hopefully they take it to heart. --Hammersoft (talk)19:52, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
Marvelcanon1 still using LLM chatbots for writing content
In spite of being warned multiple times by multiple different users over a long term period[29][30][31], this editor is still continuing to make contribute to highly contentious articles ofWP:CT/SA using AI chatbots, his most recent contribution toAnti-Hindu sentiment is entirely written by AI.[32] I recall that once he was warned for writing an obviously AI generated talkpage message, he denied using such tools[33][34] yet in another incident he agreed to not use them after another warning.[35] A look at his contributions reveals that he is entirely contributing using AI only that too for controversial changes in CTOPS.Orientls (talk)14:50, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
I've added the ANI notification to their user talk page, which you are required to do when opening up a new ANI thread.qcne(talk)15:21, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
I have been concerned by this user's edits for some time. Their LLM-user creates verifiability problems and also introduces meaningless verbiage. They do not appear to be taking warnings on this matter seriously.Vanamonde93 (talk)19:03, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
I have blocked them from mainspace until they explain themselves (and that explanation should not be a protest that they're not using AI, because they are).Black Kite (talk)22:36, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Not really sure if this is an ANI thing, but posting here anyways as I expect any fixes would require a mop and this is a specific issue rather than a matter of general interest.
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The user has been continuously making disruptive edits to the pageThey Call Him OG without providing proper justifications or any reliable citations. They keep making changes based on their personal preferences and are not following theWP:FILM/INDIA guidelines. I have addressed this issue on their talk page, but there has been no response, and the disruptive editing continues. I request that this issue be reviewed, and I recommend restricting the user from editing this page only. Thank you. --Tonyy Starkk (talk)05:37, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment) Hi @Tonyy Starkk, can you please provide diffs so it's easier for everyone to see what the issue is without digging through history? You're more likely to get a response if you provide clear evidence.Blue Sonnet (talk)00:17, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
The issue here is that the user is repeatedly changing the box office figures according to their own preference, rather than following reliable sources cited in the article. As per multiple reliable sources mentioned in the article, the film’s box office collection is in the range of ₹294–300 crore. However, the user continues to alter this range arbitrarily, as can be seen in their edit history:[42].
This disruptive editing has been ongoing for over a month. I have already raised this concern on the user’s talk page[43], but there has been no response, and the disruptive edits continue.Tonyy Starkk (talk)05:31, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
IP disruptive edits, personal attacks, deleting talk page comments
IP user isWP:NOTHERE. Among other non-constructive edits:
Yesterday they were edit-warring atAbd Allah ibn Mas'ud to impose a POV and/or blanking particular content they disagree with:[44],[45],[46],[47],[48]. That has stopped for now, but...
In one of their edit-war reverts, they called the other editor "idiot" ([49]).
They also deleted without explanation an old comment byAyaltimo atTalk:Al-Lalaka'i ([50]). Note that I reverted them and explicitly warned them not to do something like that again ([51]).
They received multiple warnings on their talk page ([52],[53],[54]), including another warning from me specifically about personal attacks ([55]), to which their only response was blanking ([56]). Following those warnings, their next talk page comment contained a personal attack ([57]) and they once again deleted another editor's comment and deleted part of Ayaltimo's comment again at Talk:Al-Lalaka'i ([58], contrary to their edit summary).R Prazeres (talk)06:46, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
Their editing patterns are consistent across several articles, particularly with historic individuals belonging to theCompanions of the Prophet, as well as their repeated vandalism of Ash'ari-related articles where they have repeatedly removed reliably sourced material and replaced it with unsourced content by inserting Athari. They also frequently editList of Atharis, expanding it without providing proper references. These behaviours indicate a pattern of disruptive editing aimed at promoting a specific point of view.Ayaltimo (talk)09:05, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
Yes. It's a bit of a mug's game to block IPs when it's so easy for the individuals to hop to another. But I've optimistically blocked 37.231.222.129 and the 94.129.78.128/25 range (all from the same ISP) for a couple of weeks. Any admin with better range skills got a better idea?Bishonen |tålk09:33, 28 October 2025 (UTC).
Funny, I was also thinking about a possible connection toWikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Muhammad Jalal al-Din/Archive, who was indeed also interested in Athari-related stuff. I even reverted them atList of Atharis[59]. These past years I've noticed quite a lot of instances where IPs (and new users too I think? memory is a bit bleak) randomly add "Athari" to Islamic-related figures, without providing anyWP:RS and disregarding the citedWP:RS that says something else. Perhaps the person mostly behind this is Muhammad Jalal al-Din, or its just random people, I'm not too sure. --HistoryofIran (talk)14:48, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
Ban-evading proxy IP causing disruptions across typhoon articles
This discussion split into a few different subtopics. At this time, all of the discussions requiring administrator attention have been closed. Please see each individual sub-section for more detailed closures.signed,Rosguilltalk14:50, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I’m bringing this here to hopefully solve this issue once and for all.
Since August, there’s been aproxy-blocked IP at 218.250.114.83(utcml) (more information on their behavior can be found there at that discussion) causing numerous disruptions on many typhoon-related articles, specifically2024 Pacific typhoon season and2025 Pacific typhoon season-related, changing date formats against consensus from MDY to DMY and inserting British English language despite repeatedly being reverted. They also seem to attempt to blend in using bureaucratic language and fake edit summaries as well. Since then after being blocked by Materialscientist, the IP in question has began docking through numerous proxies in an attempt to continue their disruptions, most notably atTyphoon Ragasa recently where I had to repeatedly revert them until they were blocked and I had to explain on the talk page and the page itself had to be protected due to the disruptive editing (only for the IPs to immediately begin again once it expired). Now, they’re causing disruption again with the same stuff forTyphoon Matmo (2025) (including repeatedly re-creating a now-useless draft atDraft:Tropical Storm Matmo 2025 which is outdated by several factors) andDraft:Tropical Storm Halong (2025). Some users (most notably have attempted to negotiate with these IPs, which, in my opinion, just feeds the ego of the IPs, and these edits to the pages fall underWP:BMB.
@MarioProtIV: I've been trying to make heads or tails of this Matmo mess for almost a day now, and I'll say, the IP is theonly person involved whose behavior has seemed to mostly comply with Wikipedia policies or guidelines. And to reiterate, no policy prevents an editor from continuing to edit after their proxy is blocked, andWP:NOP actually calls this out as explicitly allowed. I'm open to being convinced they're part of the problem here, but so far you haven't presented any evidence. Could you please show diffs of what the IP's been doing that is disruptive? --Tamzin[cetacean needed](they|xe|🤷)16:52, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
@Tamzin: Seehere when the new IP in question tried to restore the DMY format despitetwicereverted by@EmperorChesser: to the regular MDY format. The IP’s edit summaries are the same as previous IP’s that were blocked due to disruption at Ragasa. Other users have been made aware of the sock nature which include@Borgenland: and@Sam Sailor: (who I probably should’ve pinged first as they appear to have more knowledge of this specific socking/proxy-IP case.MarioProtIV (talk/contribs)17:02, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
@Tamzin: I have quickly visited the edit history of Ragasa.[60] It was exactly MarioProtIV, Sam Sailor, Borgenland (along with e.g. CleveAuxil) who disrupted the pageafter it attained article status following a proper draft review, by (a) enforcing US spellings and MDY date formats and (b) ignoring (i) the fact that just the opposite of these were followed in the draft before they stepped in and (ii) Retain and Dateret. MarioProtIV in particular forced his/her way by ignoring intermediate edits multiple times. (As for the Halong draft[61] it is more than clear which variety of English and date format were first established but again there are editors who ignored this.)203.145.95.215 (talk)17:23, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
This is quite the false allegation. The page was created byVida0007 which usedMDY format, which actually goes against what you are claiming. This was exactly what led to the block because of themultiple attempts at forcing a DMY conversion despite being told over and over again that was against consensus.MarioProtIV (talk/contribs)17:38, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
No, the IP appears to be likewise correct thatthe first non-stub version ofTyphoon Ragasa was their DMY version. What I'm starting to get the impression of here is that there is a systemic issue in the typhoon topic area with editors not understanding how ENGVAR and DATEVAR work. --Tamzin[cetacean needed](they|xe|🤷)17:46, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
As far as I’m concerned here, the moment IP was confirmed to have been a sock reverting them was necessary perWP:BANREVERT. And since they appeared to be IP hopping I assumed there was a plot on their part to rig consensus against the regular editors.Borgenland (talk)22:16, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
No one has shown any evidence that the IP is a sock. The only blocks against their past IPs have been for the IPs being proxies, whichexplicitly as a matter of policy does not prevent a user from editing under other IPs. Similarly no one has shown any evidence that they've ever pretended multiple of their IPs are different people. These are the sorts of details that editors are expected to sort out before they go reverting people under BANREVERT, not after. --Tamzin[cetacean needed](they|xe|🤷)22:23, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I don't think those are the diffs you meant to link, but, looking at all ofSpecial:PageHistory/Draft:Tropical Storm Halong (2025), I see that EmperorChesser created a draft with no prose, the IP added prose using DMY dates and British English, and EmperorChesser than added MDY and AmEng tags in violation ofMOS:ENGVAR andMOS:DATEVAR—which say the first non-stub version (i.e. the IP's) is controlling—with the hostile edit summaryAre you kidding me? Stop deleting or modifying this. The IP then made a reasonable revert, correctly citing the applicable policies, which you incorrectly reverted as ban evasion even though they are not subject to any active blocks for misconduct. You and EmperorChesser than both made further reverts in violation of ENGVAR and DATEVAR, and falsely alleging ban evasion. The IP does get some blame for edit-warring, but you two were also both edit-warring, and unlike the IP you were doing so to remove constructive, policy-compliant edits. If this is the extent of your evidence, I do see a potential need for sanctions here, but it's not against the IP. --Tamzin[cetacean needed](they|xe|🤷)17:27, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
The entirePacific typhoon season group uses MDY format. The IP was told multiple times that wa against the consensus, and the discussion atMaterialscientist’s talk showcases the exact patterns that started in August. Once the master IP was blocked, they began socking, and it is extremelyWP:DUCK that it has continued so. The IP also seems to be engaging in some sort ofWP:BOOMERANG/WP:DEFLECT in attempt to make the other editors in the WPTC WikiProject look bad who are just trying to keep the MDY consensus for the PTY range stable.MarioProtIV (talk/contribs)17:45, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
The entire Pacific typhoon season group uses MDY format. Which may be a reason that an article would form consensus to use MDY, but is not an exception to DATEVAR, and certainly not an exception toWP:EW. And if you refer to this behavior as socking again, after having it repeatedly explained to you that it is not sockpuppetry to edit after having a previous IP proxy-blocked, I am going to block youfor personal attacks. "Sockpuppet" isn't a word you can just throw around to discredit an opponent. --Tamzin[cetacean needed](they|xe|🤷)17:48, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
Alright so maybe I went overboard with that phrasing so I’ll cool it with that, I’m just a bit frustrated this is an issue we’re having with at all because it’s very similar behavior and am just trying to keep the consensus already built in. But, my main point to that was this is an issue that, even if it’s multiple different users from around the HK area or so, have been pushing this kind of formatting change against consensus for a while since the issues began onTyphoon Co-may in August. A change in date format would require a long discussion from the WikiProject on changing consensus considering that would impact hundreds if not thousands of Pacific typhoon pages as those all use MDY, just so you’re aware of the scope this entails.MarioProtIV (talk/contribs)17:58, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
That is incorrect. Beyond the general applicability ofMOS:DATETIES (which in the context of typhoons will usually either be irrelevant or cut in favor of DMY, except for typhoons primarily affecting Hawaii), date format is decided at the article level, not at the topic or wikiproject level. WPTC is subject to the same rules as the rest of Wikipedia. --Tamzin[cetacean needed](they|xe|🤷)18:04, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
Given that earlier part of edit history of Typhoon Ragasa when it was still in the draft space and before it entered the mainspace I would seriously doubt if there existed any broad and general consensus of mdy over dmy. Quite some editors might perhaps be indifferent though. The storm was anticipated to hit Hong Kong and the periphery badly and dmy is followed there. As for the Philippines dmy is used by the Pagasa and most part of the (national) government there, and, generally, in Tagalog.203.145.95.215 (talk)18:16, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
@The Bushranger: Interesting. There don't seem to be many storms which impact Guam and/or the CNMI (and/or any of the CFA countries) and not elsewhere. (By the way does the boundary follow the IDL or the 180° meridian?)203.145.95.215 (talk)09:05, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
Ahh. I'd always thought it's the IDL. Having it at 180° would be like putting the westernmost (or easternmost, by definition?) Aleutian islands and probably some other island groups in another basin with the main part of those islands, and vice versa.203.145.95.215 (talk)05:28, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
It looks like you missed my note below. The WikiProjectcannot mandate a particular style. It can encourage a style. — rsjaffe🗣️18:04, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
Yes, I am aware of this, and I am trying to encourage that MDY format (even though I was pushing it a little too much) The project, as much as I can remember, has used MDY because of the affiliation with theJoint Typhoon Warning Center, an American-run office in Guam, which is a U.S. territory (hence the MDY), and up until 1993 was the primary office responsible for the storms over there. Afterwards, theJapan Meteorological Agency (JMA) in Tokyo(?) became the RSMC and isn’t a U.S. territory. The JTWC and Guam is likely why MDY has been adopted for the West Pacific, while in other basins besides Atlantic/Epac (which use MDY bc of NHC being U.S.), DMY is used because of no U.S. territories being involved there. As I’ve said, this would require a project-wide discussion on changing this.MarioProtIV (talk/contribs)18:12, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
If you’d like to me to open a discussion with the WikiProject on changing the Pacific typhoon date format, then I can do that if it brings this mess to an end.MarioProtIV (talk/contribs)18:16, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
Let me be clear: the mess was caused by Wikiproject members imposing their preferences on other editors. Youcannot do that. — rsjaffe🗣️18:19, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
However, aligning the Wikiproject recommendations with the office changes you described would reduce future friction with non-project contributors. — rsjaffe🗣️19:00, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
I’ve opened the discussion and we’ll hash it out there. I’m not sure if this ANI report could tentatively be called “resolved” for now but at least we’re going in the right direction I think.MarioProtIV (talk/contribs)19:53, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
I hope so! I've gone ahead and unprotectedTyphoon Matmo (2025), since it seems the basis for the protection (supposed disruptive editing or socking by the IP) was incorrect and the protecting admin has (understandably) washed their hands of this mess. --Tamzin[cetacean needed](they|xe|🤷)20:11, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
Editing an article to change DMY to MDY and changing the English variety cannot be justified by what a Wikiproject wants. Yes, you can, within the project, discuss and develop recommendations, but you cannot change what is written by the original author just because the project doesn't like it. — rsjaffe🗣️18:18, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
MarioProtIV has started a RfC. However, I'mconcerned that it's a WP:BADRFC. Again, we have theWikiproject members imposing their preferences on other editors problem that rsjaffe said we can't have. The new WikiProject-level RfC is going against Tamzin's finding thatdate format is decided at the article level, not at the topic or wikiproject level.173.206.37.177 (talk)08:06, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
Yes. @MarioProtIV: If my andRsjaffe's comments above were unclear on this, to be clear:WP:WEATHER cannot change the Pacific typhoon date format from MDY to DMY, because WP:WEATHER does not control the Pacific typhoon date format in the first place. Y'all are welcome to change your recommended format, but that is neither necessary nor sufficient to stop the kind of edit-warring that y'all were engaging in here. For that, we simply need awareness: Project members need to understand that date format is decided at an article-by-article level, where the first consideration isMOS:DATETIES and the second is whatever format was used in the first non-stub version, and that WikiProject guidance does not let them violate sitewide rules on changing date formats. --Tamzin[cetacean needed](they|xe|🤷)10:26, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
Blocked for applying Datevar
This appears to have essentially stalled/tabled with editors agreeing to focus on the discussion of whether to adopt aWP:CT. If editors wish to seek further investigation or action, please reopen a new thread either here at ANI or another forum suitable for reviewing admin conduct.signed,Rosguilltalk21:25, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Sigh, when is someone going to make a template that dynamically formats dates and English variants based on user preferences so that everyone can see their preferred variant?216.126.35.228 (talk)13:01, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
To address the limitation of only applying to logged in users, code could be added at reverse proxy/caching sever level to take geolocation into account and use the most common date/eng var for that location by default when user preferences aren't available. That's still not perfect, but close and way better than all of the edit warring and blocks that otherwise occur.216.126.35.228 (talk)01:49, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
That would require the reader to take action to install the extension, so people inclined to edit war about variants would still feel compelled to do so on behalf of those without the extension installed. Instead, the community and/or WMF can easily solve this problem for all readers and editors and put and end to the endless arguments.216.126.35.228 (talk)13:23, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
Tell that the massive number of people who participate in them and the administrators occasionally misunderstand/misapplyWP:MOS. Seems to me fixing the route cause of those disputes and associated confusion would be net positive for the project and give the WMF developers something more productive to do compared to some of the more things they have recently worked on (Visual Editor, Vector22, and Temporary Accounts)216.126.35.228 (talk)02:23, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
... is to not participate in them. Those who ignore the rule would in such case dominate. This is in fact happening: Hato, Ragasa, Matmo, Halong.219.79.142.128 (talk)20:19, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
@216.126.35.228 - 13:23, 8 October 2025: So the script gotta be rewritten so that the dates would be shown not only in the display mode but also in the raw mode in the date format of the user's own preferences setting.203.145.95.205 (talk)07:13, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
Correct. Also, it shouldn't requiring linking. A template should be sufficient without linking or even a regex replacement that doesn't require the use of a template, although I expect we'll still need to use the formats used in sources when quoting them, so a template would be required to differentiate when the user's preferred format replacement is desirable.216.126.35.228 (talk)16:44, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
Create a datevar template that accepts year, month and day parameters. Have the template dynamically render the date using the format specified by a user preference. Have the preference default to the most prevalent format for the geolocation of the reader's IP address for logged out users and users who haven't set a preference in their profile. You could do the same thing with an engvar template that accepts a single word parameter and that renders the spelling for English variants based on preference or geolocation.216.126.35.247 (talk)05:43, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
What about something like the date parameter in citation templates that was suggested below? Something that works with the dmy/mdy tags?203.145.95.71 (talk)19:16, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
The problems with dmy/mdy tag suggestion are that 1) that would only render using a single date format per article for everyone reading it based on the value provided for the tag and 2) people will still be inclined to debate/edit war over the tag values. My suggestion allows the same instance of the date to be rendered dynamically in any format based on the user's preference or location. Then there is no need to edit war or even discuss the format, instead just change your own preference to view all dates across the entire project in the format that you prefer if you don't the default for your current geolocation and everyone else gets to do the same thing. Its really not that hard to program either, but it needs to implemented rather deep within the application stack and probably in multiple places due to distributed caching and offloading from the main application servers. So, its probably something the Media Wiki dev team needs to tackle rather than something a normal template editor can do.76.27.164.43 (talk)06:54, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
@Discospinster: please take note ofWP:ADMINACCT. A block you placed has been questioned on very reasonable grounds, you have been explicitly notified about this ANI discussion, but you have edited elsewhere without responding here.Fram (talk)10:11, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
I stand by the block, the IP was edit warring and removing content without a proper edit summary (I acknowledge using the wrong template on the talk page)....discospinstertalk14:22, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
I was trying in the second and the third edits to remove an extraneous semicolon in a date under the Vietnam section which appeared after my first edit at 00:08 UTC 7 October 2025 (which was properly marked inthe edit summary in the first place) and there happened to be edit conflicts crossing in between. Edit warring? Removing content? Without proper edit summary? Are you genuinely a block admin? You're making it a stronger case should I decide to bring it to AARV per ADMINACCT (and any other relevant policies or guidelines) - which I probably won't as long as it's settled here.219.79.142.128 (talk)16:12, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
if you do bring it to aarv, i hope it doesnt go to admin recall because it's proved to be quite controversial due to the snowball tendencies and execution-like nature of said process38.172.49.90 (talk)14:25, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The ongoing disruption around Typhoon Matmo makes me think administrators should have extra tools in the topic area. Previously, in 2022, the topic areawas the subject of an arbcom case due to off-wiki coordination around these sorts of topics. Therefore, I propose that administrators are given the ability to use thestandard set ofcommunity topic restrictions tools on articles related totropical cyclones, broadly construed. --GuerilleroParlez Moi16:53, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
Whereas the recent events were all around tropical cyclones and DATERET (and are in fact still ongoing) I would rather say the actual problem in question was essentially (i) a general bias among some aggressive users against unregistered editors, (ii) the tendency among some admins to grant page protections and blocks too easily, again, against unregistered editors, and, most importantly, (iii) the non-compliance attitude among some editors towards established policies and guidelines, and the atmosphere that such policies and guidelines can be ignored or looked down upon and the reasonable expectation among them that they would face no sanctions for doing so.219.79.142.128 (talk)17:25, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
What to do now with what's going on around the articles on Matmo, Halong, Ragasa, Hato, etc.
While the efforts above (§ Proposal: Community CT for Tropical Cyclones) and at VPR are ongoing and very much indeed appreciated, we also have to decide what to do now with (i) actions likethis with Matmo, which is IMO in practice ignoring AN/I and WP consensus outright, (ii) the frozen nature over Ragasa (a three-month page protection is still in place against Dateret and Retain), (iii) the self-imposed hiatus with Halong (also in effect against Dateret and Retain), (iv) opposing views towards what constitute "evolved ... predominantly" over Hato, etc. For the first case in particular should early signs to (re)ignite editwarrings be tolerated..., or... in some way..., appeased?219.79.142.128 (talk)17:14, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
They ignored and disregarded AN/I's decision (IDHT). Even if we AGF it may not be realistic to assume RfC(s) would be abode and enforceable.219.79.142.128 (talk)05:17, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
Proposed general warning to WikiProjects Weather and Tropical Cyclones
Motion to send strongly wordedletter noticeboard-post censuring WikiProjects Weather and Tropical Cyclines carries. That having been said, given that there were some proposed edits, I'm going to kick this back toTamzin,QuicoleJR,WhatamIdoing and any other participant in the discussion to figure out final wording and carry out the posting. There were a few different suggestions, some of them were rebutted by Tamzin while others seem to have been potentially taken as friendly, and it seems like there's likely minor changes to be made as a result. That having been said, it is my assessment that the text as initially proposed does have community consensus behind it, as no supporting editor has indicated that their suggestions were necessary for their support of the proposal, and none of the suggestions received much discussion from additional participants.signed,Rosguilltalk21:50, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
We've done this a few times atAE when a whole talkpage is full of editors misbehaving. I'm wondering if it would be worthwhile to do something similar here with these wikiprojects.
That wikiproject guidelines may contribute to an article's editors' decision to change date or English-variety styles, but that a wikiproject's guidance may not overrideMOS:DATERET orMOS:STYLERET.
Thatthe exception for reverting sockpuppetry only applies if the editor is in fact in violation ofWP:SOCK, that someone making such an edit should clearly state what the sockmaster account/IP is, and that editors make such reverts at their own peril in cases where the new account/IP has not yet been blocked; editors who incorrectly invoke this exception may be blocked for edit-warring orpersonal attacks if an administrator does not judge the misidentification to be reasonable.
ThatWP:BLAR generally prohibits blanking and redirecting a page once this action has been reverted once, and that BLAR-warring is a particularly disruptive form of edit-warring.
I think it would be nice to in any statement or message to recognize and acknowledge the work that these groups do particularlyWP:TROP. For example as part of my research I enjoyed this paper about their work.
I think proposing a warning strays intoWP:ANI territory and away from the reasoning for why community general sanctions are hosted at VPPRO these days, and would suggest it be moved there. The mandatory notification requirement is relevant here.Izno (talk)17:10, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
This discussion appears to have been going on for a week, we might need to do something to resolve this persistent issue once and for all.98.235.155.81 (talk)13:03, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
Are there some editors who aren't part of either wikiproject who you feel needed to be told? If not, I'm not sure there's a clear advantage to naming specific editors even more when there has been limited commentary on even the general proposal. As for enforcement action likewise considering how old this entire thread is with by now few seeming willing to participate, I'm not sure it would be productive to start discussing that especially if the community CT passes so it'll be easier for admins to take action for future misbehaviour.Nil Einne (talk)10:03, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
I personally agree with what was said here, maybe the pages being affected by vandalism may need to be indefinitely admin only protected to prevent future issues.98.235.155.81 (talk)10:10, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
I just finished reading through this entire thread. I'd suggest changing "over IPs" to "over unregistered editors" as insurance for when TAs inevitably arrive. Other than that,support as necessary to make it clear to these WikiProjects that they are being disruptive and that the disruption needs to stop. These editors do good work, as pointed out by Dr vulpes above, but some might need topic bans from changing the ENGVAR and DATEVAR of articles of this keeps up.QuicoleJR (talk)13:51, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
These editors do good work, as pointed out by Dr vulpes above, ... There are unfortunately bad ones who refuse outright to observe MOSs, or AN/I consensus and decisions.219.79.142.128 (talk)03:00, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
Copyedit points, with no opinion about whether this would be a useful message to post:
The first bullet point would ideally link to theWP:PROPOSAL process. "Edit-warring" in the second main bullet point should not be hyphenated. Editors who "clearly state what the sockmaster account/IP" may be in violation of the principle that we avoid tying IP addresses (or temp account names) to registered accounts. And it sounds like it might be worth reminding editors thatWikipedia:Vandalism does not involve someone whoactually hurts Wikipedia (in the opinion of the speaker), but instead is a claim about someone who isintentionallytrying to hurt Wikipedia.WhatamIdoing (talk)15:49, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
the principle that we avoid tying IP addresses (or temp account names) to registered accounts ← There is no such principle, except regarding what functionaries (or soon TAIVs) can say based on private data. To the contrary, an editor accusing an IP (or soon TA) of being a sock of a registered usermust name the account, or else it is anaspersion. --Tamzin[cetacean needed](they|xe|🤷)15:58, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
I do think you could make a colourable argument that such a requirement flows implicitly by combining relevant policies, but is it also expressly stated somewhere that I am unaware of?SnowRise let's rap04:59, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
Strong support. Frankly, the community is at least a decade overdue on movingWP:Advice pages to it's own namespace and promoting the policy much more broadly as part of our onboarding processes. While the situation has improved by leaps and bounds over the years, many wikiprojects remain active hotbeds for groups of editors to form idiosyncratic non-guidelines among their members and then aggressively try to to apply them to every article they perceive to be within their remit, in violations ofWP:PROPOSAL andWP:LOCALCONSENSUS. Even the number of situations that get out of control merely because of mistaken but good-faith misapprehensions about the scope and limitations of wikiproject authority is non-trivial.But until the community actually gets serious about getting around to making this principle of consensus formation a more broadly understood piece of policy, we're going to continue to see some remaining shadow of the issues that used to arise more regularly before ArbCom and the community codified the Advice pages standard, and we'll need to rely on more piecemeal solutions to those flare-ups. Any time a particular project starts to give rise to this highly disruptive and tendentious combination of rules cruft created outside of process and tag teaming to enforce said "guidelines", a notice like this is the least of what is appropriate.SnowRise let's rap03:12, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
As mentionedabove many of those involved in such acts have not signed up as members in either of the projects. I'd say that has been farther than just localconsensus.219.79.142.128 (talk)21:35, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Support While there's likely more than just these involved editors that need this restriction, as noted by 219.79.142.128 just above me, I think this is a meaningful and useful proposal. Too many topic specific Wikiprojects have been trying to fully control articles in their topic area, often against existing policy and MOS rules. These little fiefdom's absolutely need to be broken up. The fact that there are admins directly colluding in this case to help prop up policy violations is extra disturbing.SilverserenC17:14, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Separate claim
Checkusers are not allowed to use the tools to link IP addresses to named accounts.Users are entirely allowed to imply that an IP editor is any named account as all, provided there is evidence. This is how sockpuppet investigations work. Other allegations of misconduct should be discussed, provided there is evidence that is provided in the form of diffs, in a new thread. -The BushrangerOne ping only04:31, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
In another, not-quite-related, thread below User:SigillumVert, themself reported for other disruptions, hadcharged and related edits to Typhoon Ragasa to HKGW, which appears to be animaginary sockmaster that may or may not actually exist. Not sure if this would be the same as naming an account in sock allegations. (@Tamzin?)219.79.142.128 (talk)03:45, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
Reviewing this now, my assessment is that SigillumVert's allegation in the first thread linked by IP219 is asserted with a single diff of evidence. It may not be a good argument, but it's allowed. My understanding is that the rule against linking IPs to accounts in the context of SPI is based on the use ofWP:CHK tools that could in some contexts directly, definitively link the account to a physical device in a way that violates privacy; this does not bar editors from accusing IPs from behaving similarly to other editors. The canvassing concern raised by IP219 is not a good look for SigillumVert, but given that nothing appears to have come of it (and that they did not directly call for MarioProtIV to take any action), I'm disinclined to take action over it now. I would suggest that if you have further concerns about SigillumVert's behavior, you raise it in a separate thread, rather than at the bottom of a 7-section megathread concerning an entire WikiProject and then some.signed,Rosguilltalk21:39, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
but given that nothing appears to have come of it@Rosguill: SigillumVert's accusations in percussion with Citobun's smear campaign have already resulted in a block of the entire 203.145.94.0/23 range, which appears to be used by a handful of unrelated unregistered contributors.116.48.226.121 (talk)13:00, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
@Barseghian Lilia: For the sake of everyone reviewing this, can you please summarize the previous complaint? Also, if there has been any further issues since the last complaint, please mention that. Thanks,QuicoleJR (talk)18:38, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
HeyQuicoleJR, sure. The editor's been making a lot of violations. Back in September, I requested action regarding copyright infringement, point-of-view edits, vandalism, and disruptive editing — all of that's in the archived request. He's also been removing references to Persian, Albanian, Arabic, and Armenian, and replacing them with Turkish. Yesterday, he started editing thedolma article again (see the history please), which is a contentious topic. He was actually blocked from that article before and was warned it's a contentious topic (and there's still an ongoing discussion on the talk page about it). In his latest edits, he's again deleting references to other languages.[63] And he never responds on his talk page or takes part in constructive discussions. Can I also submit a request for extended-confirmed protection of the dolma article, based on this discussion as well[64]? I feel like this will never end.Barseghian Lilia (talk)11:14, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
You continue to claim that a dish with a Turkish name is actually of Armenian origin and you cite a Russian author's personal opinion as a source. For this claim to be true, can you find a written Armenian recipe from before the modern recipe? You keep waging edit wars, and the fact that you haven't received any sanctions yet truly calls into question the "impartiality" of this platform.Erdemozcantr (talk)17:07, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
Your understanding of "impartiality" is truly incredible. I haven't made any changes to the article, and you're even bothered by my comments on the discussion page, even though there were no insults or personal attacks. And please, permanently close my account. I've said this many times. I don't want to be on such a biased platform.Erdemozcantr (talk)23:29, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
Contentious topics don't stop being contentious just because they're being discussed on a discussion page. Disruptive behavior does not stop being disruptive because it's on a discussion page, either. Your account cannot be closed or deleted; if you wish to leave, scramble your password, log out of your account, and leave. -The BushrangerOne ping only23:37, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
But can an author's personal opinion be accepted as fact even though it's not backed by any documentation? If discussion is forbidden, why is there a talk page? You reply to me, and I receive emails, so I understand what's going on. It's clear this place is under the control of one party. You can't even accept discussion on a topic you claim is controversial. I applaud your "impartiality."Erdemozcantr (talk)23:45, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
It is not the place of Wikipedia to fact-check published authors in reliable sources. Discussion is not "forbidden" when the people discussing are able to do so within policy, which you have demonstrated you are unable or unwilling to do. If you truly want to leave, then do so instead of continuing to reply anddigging yourself deeper. -The BushrangerOne ping only00:13, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
I would appreciate it if you could specify exactly who I insulted or who I personally attacked. It appears that only one side’s sources are conveniently considered beyond the need for fact checking. When and if I leave or respond is entirely my decision, and it's not up to you to decide. Best regards!Erdemozcantr (talk)00:28, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
You have said, multiple times, thatplease, permanently close my account. I've said this many times. I don't want to be on such a biased platform, and yet you continue to respond. You did notinsult or...personally attacked anyone, you weredisruptive. You areWikilawyering around your topic ban with your comments about sources, you need to stop, now, or be blocked. -The BushrangerOne ping only00:32, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
Just wanted to briefly note for the benefit of everyone new here (I'm sure Bushranger understands this) that it is possible to challenge the reliability of sources for a variety of reasons. On the talk page of dolma this is happening by an experienced editor,User:Grayfell. From what I see, Grayfell is behaving exactly as someone should on Wikipedia in general but especially on a contentious topic area and discussing the dispute in a calm manner and giving reasons backed by our policies and guidelines to question some of what we say and some of the sources we you. This is how you can go about getting changes in articles rather than claiming something isn't contentious, making up sources with LLMs, claiming sources are no good without good policy backed reasons why, etc. And if there is a changes to the article from this dispute it likely Grayfell's contributions will be no small part of why. If editors want to improve Wikipedia, this is the sort of thing they need to do, and not the other stuff which has lead to topic bans and other problems. I can't say for sure, but I suspect one reason beyond experience why Grayfell is able to contribute as they do is because they don't care that much either way whether Dolma is Turkish, Armenian, Azeri or anything else. While editors aren't required to lack strongly held opinions about what they are editing, it can make it difficult especially when they are new to editing and in a contentious topic to boot.Nil Einne (talk)09:10, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
Look, I'm no longer interested in the article or its content because it's so far removed from reality. I'm trying to communicate with you in a polite tone. I don't want to engage in any editing or discussion of the aforementioned dolma article. The admins' biased approach has alienated me from this topic. Again, dolma is just a food for me; I didn't know it was a "controversial political topic" on this platform, and it never even occurred to me. Please, I don't see the point in continuing this discussion.Erdemozcantr (talk)09:33, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
Those areWP:GS/AA violations, no? Their edits inDolma look like ethnic "food wars" which I think would fall under GS/AA. Considering the previous warnings and ANI, Haydi123 should've avoided editing these kinds of content. Also since the previousANI case till now, Haydi123 continues to usenon-RS sources like nisanyansozluk and nisanyanyeradlari - I had reverted one of their such additions[65] but they still continue touse them including in Dolma[66].KhndzorUtogh (talk)12:29, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
Haydi123 is now posting the same text in different places including in the same thread within talk[70],[71], a separate thread[72],[73], and a different board[74],[75]? I've asked them to stop splitting the discussion[76],[77], but to no avail. Just more disruptive behavior, nobody should be expected to respond to the same thing split in multiple different places.KhndzorUtogh (talk)10:42, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
I shared the text I shared on theDolma page because I wanted more people to join the discussion. I explained my intentions on both pages[78],[79][80][81] and I also shared that we were discussing the same topic on the dolma page. If what I did violates a Wikipedia rule, can other users alert me, explaining which rule it violated?Haydi123 (talk)11:12, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
If the user wanted more people input, why they just didn't just post it inWP:RSN instead of copying-pasting the same thing 3 different times within the article talk (splitting it in 2 different threads) thenalsoposting it in RSN?KhndzorUtogh (talk)11:17, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
One - the topic is about theDolma page. We were discussing it under a separate thread on there, that wasn't related to this topic. That thread was already very crowded, making it difficult for newcomers to access our discussion (still no one else has joined). So, I opened a separate thread on the same discussion page and shared my concerns, which I previously wrote to you, there. This way, those visiting the discussion page can more easily follow and participate (which is my goal). Two - I also moved this topic to theWikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard because it also affects this board. By moving this topic here, I wanted others to join in. I don't think a one-on-one discussion with you is productive. You haven't properly addressed any of my concerns about the sources; you've simply dismissed them. Therefore, I'd like to discuss it with others. But I'm asking again: if sharing the same text on another board (by reporting it) violates any rules, I want other users to let me know.Haydi123 (talk)11:39, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
You really need a rule to stop copy-pasting the same text on the article talk page three times, and without waiting for a response, post it in RSN for the 4th time? How aboutWP:BLUDGEON for starters? And again, even if you don't want to engage with an editor for whatever reason, you don't need to respond to them by copy-pasting the same thing, pinging them and openining a new thread with the same text, then doing the same in RSN.
Also since the user finally got over the ANI flu and commented here, could they explain why they violatedWP:GS/AA in Dolma, and why they againused the sameWP:SPS shortly after the cautionary comments at RSN about that source's usage and that it needs to be proven reliable first[82],[83]?KhndzorUtogh (talk)11:32, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
The Nişanyan Dictionary source isn't considered self-published, but there's debate about whether Nişanyan place names could be, as another user in the discussion also pointed out. They also noted that there's controversy surrounding this source, but that it's not entirely unreliable or unusable. This source has been used numerous times on Wikipedia and continues to be used. This source hasn't been banned, and it's not listed onWikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, so no definitive judgment has been reached. "Could they explain why they violatedWP:GS:AA in Dolma" this is your claim. Someone else accused me of the same thinghere, so I opened a separatethread about it on the dolma page a few days ago. Theresponse I received said I hadn't violated this rule by editing the dolma page. So, you're accusing me of something I didn't do.Haydi123 (talk)12:06, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
The exact source/website youadded shortly afterthis discussionisWP:SPS and was asked to be proven asWP:EXPERTSPS which you didn't do. I'm sorry if you don't understand this from the discussion, but that is what was asked for users in general considering using this source. Now you could’ve contested ActivelyDisinterested's statement based on strong arguments instead of just replying that the source is "good" and then thanking their response that asked for more solid proof.KhndzorUtogh (talk)14:01, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
And Dolma especially the content you edited is clearlyWP:GS/AA covered, I don't know how aynone can dispute this. And considering you've been warned and blocked previously in Dolma, maybe you should've asked an admin instead (maybe beforehand not after editing the article)?KhndzorUtogh (talk)14:15, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
As an uninvolved admin,Haydi123, let me be quite clear, as Largoplazo seems to have not been paying attention to GS/AA when they replied to you: edits that dispute or assert Armenian vs. Turkic patrimony for foods, names or other cultural concepts are very much covered by GS/AA.signed,Rosguilltalk15:12, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
My apologies for misunderstanding and misstating the case. I was just going by the protection level. It didn't occur to me that there are articles where non-EC edits aren't allowed but, instead of simply EC-protecting the article, as can be done, we leave it possible for unwitting non-EC editors to make edits and then scream "GOTCHA!" when they do. Now I know; my error was unintentional.Largoplazo (talk)15:26, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
I figured that focusing on the protection level was likely what had happened when I saw the comment. I'd stand by not puttingDolma on ECR in general, as 90% of the article (ingredients, variations, etc.) is not covered by GS/AA--only specifically adding/removing claims of Armenian heritage is. It is confusing for new editors, no doubt, and I'd encourage people to shareWP:ECREXPLAIN alongside standard CT templates in order to help bridge that confusion.signed,Rosguilltalk15:33, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
Dipper1212 (talk·contribs) has recieved numerous warnings for inserting OR and otherwise unsourced claims into articles as far back asMarch 2024 and as recently aslast month, but continues to add unsourced claims to articles such asthis edit toGaustad (musician) that I just reverted orthis edit toIt's Not That Deep. An AIV report for the latter edit was declined and the reverter was encouraged to come to ANI instead, hence this report. On making this report, I see that Dipper1212 does not appear to have made any edits outside of mainspace since March,(those edits being personal attacks[84][85]) so there's a chance they haven't seen recent warnings.LaffyTaffer💬(she/they)21:26, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
I'd say give it 24 hours and then we can assume if the account has edited since then its seen the ani notice, past that point I'd consider either an indef block or a partial block to get the account's attention if it hasn't added anything here.TomStar81 (Talk)21:38, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
It's customary when taking someone to ANI to actually explain the situation and provide diffs of alleged behavior. This is not a report anyone could possibly act on or comment on because there is absolutely no information in it. ♠PMC♠(talk)02:20, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment) Their user page is suggestive of block evasion: "So hello This is me Kostya-Artist2005 so I will never Become a Vandalism User I'm Very sorry Look Do not Block me Forever because i was no Longer Vandalism User and Although i was Trying My Best for Wiki Articles"
User is still moving unsuitable drafts to mainspace while being uncommunicative - they've seen the warnings as they have removed mine and other user's warnings from their User Talk Page. Please can we get amainspace block?qcne(talk)16:04, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
Support - given that they keep adding sourceless nonsense about conlangs in the phonetics articles they are editing, seems like a case ofWP:NOTHERE. ~oklopfer (💬)16:10, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
Qcne: I believe they probably should get a user space block too because ofthis and other edits. Probably should also get a draft space block. However, they have already been blocked as a sockpuppet. -BᴏᴅʜıHᴀᴙᴩ (talk,contributions)16:55, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
While there's been some procedural errors on Sush150's part when filing this report and they were also engaged in edit warring, it's hard to look atthis exchange andthis reference provided by Ronz72 and remain confident that they able to edit competently.signed,Rosguilltalk17:26, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
Ongoing high-frequency LLM article expansions by Lunetra
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
New userLunetra (talk·contribs) has continued to make high-frequency LLM article expansions past mywarning/plea on their talk page. No diffs needed here, their contribution history speaks for itself. Can we please temporarily block this user from article space until they respond?NicheSports (talk)16:08, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
Ok they have now responded at their talk page and it seems to be trending constructively. If that continues I think we can close this one out and I'll take it toWP:AINB for cleanup. Sorry for the urgent filing - they had already cranked out 15 expansions today including 2 past my plee on their talk pageNicheSports (talk)16:34, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User has been warned by MULTIPLE users about inappriate non-admin closures atWP:TFD,WP:AFD andWP:RFD. Yet even while the discussion is ongoing on their talk page, they are actively closing and relisting discussions.
Just a few of the users who have warned them besides myself include@Jlwoodwa,Consarn,Rusalkii, andOwenX:. This user CLEARLY does not get it and absolutely needs a topic ban.
The user has paused after my warning on their Talk page. They seem to be acting in good faith, so I'm reluctant to pull the trigger on a project-space block unless they show blatant disregard and continue with those inappropriate closes and relists. Meanwhile, they've left behind a massive cleanup job for us to take care of. WhileWP:REOPEN specifically calls for an admin to revert an improper close, in this case I think anyone here should be welcome to help undo the damage.Owen×☎17:36, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
I apologize for any inconvenience caused, and I will absolutely not close or relist ANY discussions for the rest of October, and likely most (if not all) of November as well. enabling XFDcloser was a mistake I made, and as such I have disabled it.Oreocooke (talk)18:09, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
I am of a different mind and do not think this is premature nor that is should be closed.Oreocooke's last comment basically says they will wait a few months then go right back to their same behavior. I have nearly 400,000 edits and Istill almost never close TFDs despite being VERY familiar with the process. The fact that an editor with less than 1,300 edits thinks they can go back to performing non-admin closures of a process they very clearly do not understand is concerning and alarming. (I understand that edit count isn't everything, but it certainly demonstrates how new this user is).
I would request an admin reviewOreocooke's history of being warned by MULTIPLE users over the course of a few days and ignoring all those warnings until maybe the 15th?? Then saying "I'll give it a few months"? That is not ok in my book.
Oreocooke I would like to hear from you that you have ZERO intention to close TFD/CFD/AFD in the future. Not in a month. Not in 2 months.By all means take part in the process. Comment on whether something should be deleted. You are entirely welcome to do that. But closing or relisting these... I think you SHOULD be banned from doing that.Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing)01:07, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
I agree with this. For Oreocookie to say that they will not close discussions "for the rest of October" (that is, for the next seven days) and "likely" for "most" of the following four weeks, is not at all an appropriate response to the concerns raised about their activities. They should not close discussions for, I would say, at least a year, and even then only if they have accrued significant Wikipedia experience in that time.CodeTalker (talk)01:28, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
let me try iterating what i actually meant.
I do not have any intention of closing ANY discussions for the forseeable future, to my current knowledge.
I can 100% guarantee that it will absolutely not happen in whatever's left of october, and will very, very likely not happen for at least 4 weeks after that.Oreocooke (talk)01:54, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
This is completely insufficient. Would support an indefinite ban on you closing any conversations at all until successfully appealed.173.22.12.194 (talk)02:09, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
Oreocooke your responses continue to make clear you do not get it...very likely not happen for at least for weeks is not sufficient. At this point, if you close discussions EVER again, I will almost guarantee you will find yourself back here with the potential for an account block.
i will very likely not close ANY discussions myself for the foreseeable future, because considering how bad of an idea it was i will absolutely not do it againOreocooke (talk)04:25, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
@Oreocooke: I don't think anyone here thinks you are TRYING to do something bad... But your behavior is concerning. I think we have made our point and I sincerely hope you have gotten the message. I would encourage you to take the kind advice given byLeft guide on your talk page suggesting other areas to focus your energy...
Why do you keep using weasel words like "very likely"? Can you just promise that you will definitely not close discussions again? That would probably resolve the matter, but in every one of your comments in this thread so far, you seem to be deliberately leaving open the possibility that you will resume closing discussions in a few weeks.CodeTalker (talk)17:33, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
I think a lot of Wikipedians are very reluctant to make absolute promises, because, to use a vulgar expression, shit happens, and forward integrity is very important to them. It's been made fairly clear that closing discussions is out of bounds, and I doubt anyone would oppose preventative measures if it were to recur. Probably best to leave it here for the present. All the best:RichFarmbrough11:13, 26 October 2025 (UTC).
Refusal by Brian.S.W to adhere to sourcing guidelines
User:Brian.S.W has repeatedly refused to adhere to the guidelines requiring sourcing for articles. He has added places of death to the articles of recently deceased people despite not adding any accompanying citations. I informed him of this, but he rejected it. Per his recent edit summaries he has stated that he does not believe in sourcing requirements.Jon698 (talk)17:37, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
I do believe in sourcing requirements. The death information is included in the articles in the "Death" section. I just add the info in the Infobox.Brian.S.W (talk)17:40, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
@Bgsu98: Here are the examples Refusing to insert citationshere Saying that no providing sourcing as "No one puts citations for death location, we will survive"here Rejection of sourcing requirementshereJon698 (talk)17:44, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
I don't see where a place of death is included in the prose forKathy Karpan either, despite the editor's statement that that information is present. If information is present and properly sourced in the prose, than it does not also need to be sourced in the infobox. But that does not seem to be the case here. "No one puts citations for death location." Uh, wrong. Cite it, or expect it to be deleted. Thank you toUser:Jon698 for providing appropriate evidence.Bgsu98(Talk)17:50, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
I see examples of death locations with no reference to where they died or prove they died there.
Example here:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_(rapper). I look at rules for Wikipedia and see nothing relating to death locations. Just references of that last location there were.
I am also told by Jon that the reference has to be in the article when that does not seem to be the case. I am not trying to cause an edit war or revert out of stubbornness. I am just told the wrong thing.Brian.S.W (talk)18:03, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
Those are highly inappropriate and subject to deletion. Things like birthdates, death dates, places of birth, places of death, etc., need be sourced (preferably in the prose), but if that information is not stated in the prose and only listed in the infobox, the sourced in the infobox. What it doesn't need to be is sourced at both locations.Bgsu98(Talk)18:07, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
I believe that is where my confusion comes from. Again, I am not trying to be stubborn but I have could find no rules and I just needed something more than "Not allowed" over and over again.Brian.S.W (talk)18:15, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
@Brian.S.W: Infobox content is meant to include a summation of reliably-sourced article content. This is covered byTemplate:Infobox person. The first box with the exlamation point on the top of that page states"The design and content of biographical infoboxes must comply with Wikipedia's verifiability policy, as well as the infobox and biographical style guidelines. All content displayed by this template must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy when applicable. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material must be removed, especially if it is potentially libelous." The recently deceased continue to be covered byWP:BLP policy for an extended period after their deaths. If you are adding personal information to biography infoboxes that is not explictely supported by a reliable source in the article (or at the vey least in the infobox itsef) you must stop doing so.--Ponyobons mots18:48, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Original Research: User published several times questionable edits without a source, for exampleKLA Summer offensive (1998):[1] where he said: "There is no mention of a Yugoslav forces regaining control of any Eastern towns in the source. The offensive was overall a KLA success" and[2] where he stated:"KLA wasn't "completely" destroyed since it kept growing in numbers." which is OR since no source was provided and are rather based on Fact
Trying to cause Edit wars: User constantly add same things several times despite them being reverted:[3][4][5]
Removing sourced sections: InYugoslav September offensive:[6] and inBattle of Paštrik:[7]. I would understand if user removed sources since they aren't reliable but that isn't the case especially in Battle of Pastrik which used several books for result.
Thank you for suggestestion but Dardanianwarrior was already reported for being sockpuppet of Dr. Kurti and it was said he isn't sockpuppet. I don't know if it's possible to report someone again.Kajmak i Prsuta (talk)15:09, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Wyatt Omsberg
For the last two months, an editor claiming to be the subject of the article (seethis) has been edit warring in an attempt to remove an image or force a different image onto the article, claiming thatthis image is unflattering, and (lately) insisting on usingthis image instead. See edits:[94][95][96][97][98][99][100][101]
Due to their long term edit warring on the issue (despite many warnings), I p-blockedUser:Wikieditorial12 fromWyatt Omsberg for a month, and counseled them on their talk page, including that they needed to pursueWikipedia:Dispute resolution. That's when their claim of being the subject of the article came about.
Today, a rather blatant sockpuppet was created (User:Triteuniversal123) to circumvent the block and reinstated their preferred photo[102]. I reverted and blocked the account. I did not blockUser:Wikieditorial12 for sockpuppeting, as I am sympathetic to the realities this person is inexperienced and just might be the subject of the article, and the reality is their disruption is affecting only a single article, and not widespread.
I'm trying to be helpful (seeUser_talk:Wikieditorial12#Partially_blocked), but maybe this could be handled differently? I don't care which photo is used, but the means by which this account is going about trying to force the issue isn't how we handle things. I'm notWP:INVOLVED, but my irritation with the editor's methods may be beginning to color my judgment on this. Other eyes please? Thanks. Wikieditorial12 has be notified. --Hammersoft (talk)20:49, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
I saw this. I honestly doubt its him, rather a very passionate fan.
Regardless of who this user was (and their edits were unacceptable), perhaps we can try reach out and contact him to see if he can share a better photo and give us necessary permissions. I can only imagine the frustration if the first thing to come up when your name was searched is a photo you dislike.
I don't think there is any need to involve the editor in this discussion and we should try reach out to the person directly. It's clear from theiredit history that they are not here to contribute to other articles, but simply to try remove a photo.Aesurias (talk)21:11, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
I have just looked at the photo and it's almost remarkably unflattering, more than I remember.
The photo the user is attempting to insert has Omsberg facing sideways which is unhelpful, but I wonder if croppingthis image would be better for everyone?Aesurias (talk)21:13, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
User talk:Elihu Esparza has created 21 articles that can be classified as hoaxes. So far all of these articles have been "List of (year) box office number-one films in the (country)". Somehow they have not been punished via a block. I suspect that they run the accountTyrell Sunday (contributions) as they work on the same articles.Jon698 (talk)00:37, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
I would also suggest a mass deletion of all of the articles they have created and for somebody (I would gladly do it myself if requested) to go through all of their remaining edits.Jon698 (talk)00:42, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
I am beginning to suspect LLM/AI use. I have nominatedFrankie and Johnny (rock and roll duo) for speedy deletion due to irrelevant and nonexistent links, and editedThe Nightmare Before Christmas (poem) to remove links to Amazon book pages that had nothing to do with the subject whatsoever (citations to 'Neon Lawyer' and 'The Power of Awakening', which appear to be unrelated fiction and self-help respectively).diff The latter article may well have more problems and I plan to return to it when my brain powers up again.Meadowlark (talk)04:17, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
Having had a brief look at some of the other articles they've created, I'd support mass deletion, with the exception of those which have been moved to draftspace. I tagged nine "List of [year] box office number-one films in the United Kingdom" for speedy deletion after being alerted viathis discussion. They also created a bunch of "List of [year] box office number-one films in the United States" which were almost certainly hoaxes too, but rather than tag them for deletion I moved them all to draft as userSudiani has been working on overhauling them.Barry Wom (talk)12:27, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
As they have never, once, responded to any of the pile of notices and complaints on their user talk page, and instead have continued to create articles, I have pblocked them from mainspace indefinitely to encourage engagement with others' concerns. No objection to any other admin upgrading this to a full indef or otherwise altering it. ♠PMC♠(talk)07:57, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
I'm so sorry about this. I get now how some of my articles could be interpreted as hoaxes. Everyone warned me so many times and I never took any time to notice or acknowlenge. If I can be granted one more chance I'll be a more civilized user, you'll see. I won't make other pages unless I know my sources are legit and I'll stop using bare URLs. I promise!Elihu Esparza (talk)16:09, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
Because I was an idiot who never checked his notifications. If only I paid more attention to them, this would have happened. That book I sourcedBox Office Hits: No 1 Movie Hits in the UK by Phil Swern was a good source, but I should know better considering the fact that they weren't charts. I'm so sorry. But this guy, Jon698, he is going around and undoing all my hard work throughout the months, and it's breaking my heart.
They weren't just "interpreted" as hoaxes. You created over twenty list articles composed entirely of invented data. Do you have an explanation for this?Barry Wom (talk)16:36, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Ok so I am very confused. User@Imlickingthings999: literally has "Imlickingthings999 is cool I guess and consistently vandalizes pages on Wikipedia, a widely used online encyclopedia. Then they died " on their user page. I do not know if all of their edits are actually vandalism, but many are certainly disruptive. I had considered reporting as vandalism, but I do not know for sure if it was that malicious. It does seem like a troll or maybe an immature user.Slomo666 (talk)22:32, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have blocked range blocked IP per above for 72 hours, looking at that range there is a pattern of personal attacks.Mfield (Oi!)03:54, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:KALARATNA DR.K.V.SATYANARAYANA and User:Kvsdance COI editing and repeated copyright violations
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Both accounts indef'd unless and until they can explain the potential multiple account/abuse/co-ordination, and address copyright concernsMfield (Oi!)03:46, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Persistent addition of unsourced content by 2600:6C60:37F0:34E0:0:0:0:0/64
After going through the contributions of some IPs, I think it's reasonable enough to conclude that they're registered to Charter Communications and their IPs geolocate to Greenville, South Carolina.sjones23 (talk -contributions)11:17, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
Violation ofWikipedia:Assume good faith: The user automatically contacted my with implications of me commiting vandalism without any clear signs of that. Seemingly ignoring responses that edits where in good faith
Violation ofWikipedia:No personal attacks: The user A) Nominated an article i created for speedy deletion under "New Editor/They Have Bad Knowledge Of English" instead of challenging the content, not the contributor B) They used the wikipedia requires competence template in a way to discourage contributions, and claiming incompetence.
User CommitingWikipedia:Gaming the system: The use flagged the article for speedy deletion under "G7. Author requests deletion", despite them not being the author.
User Acting On Their Own: The user blanked the page, without any previous/prior consensus.
P.S.: Simillar response was also sent from another user violating only "no personal attacks" but it was seemingly in good faith.Mant08 (talk)00:50, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
The Original Page History ofAnti-inflamantory medications, including the original cause user Zefr gave of G7, which is invalid as they are not the author + they blanked the page withouy consensus. (Requires Administator Access To View.)
I can only see one article you've created,Anti-inflamantory medications [sic], which was not deleted by @Zefr and duplicatedAnti-inflammatory. Could you link to where this has happened?Aesurias (talk) 01:01, 28 October 2025 (UTC) On second glance: the article appears to have been deleted because a) it contained many spelling errors (including in the title) and b) an article already exists on the topic.Aesurias (talk)01:08, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
I am unable to see an issue with Andy's response. Having looked through your edits myself, I am sad to say that (while I wouldn't have phrased it in such an abrasive manner), I agree more or less with what he said.
The weirdest part is, you seem to speak and understand English perfectly finein this thread, but looking at your edit history, you make odd mistakes. I am unsure what to make of it.
The user may have blanked it as if the author had done so (I cannot see this as I'm not an admin, and I will not take a position on whether or not it has happened), but the article was deleted because it duplicated another article. Whether you like it or not, the article was rightfully deleted, and if anything, the user was helping you by doing something which you should have done upon noticing the spelling error.Aesurias (talk)10:36, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
@Aesurias I also agree and find fair the deletion of the article, but as i said i am here to report the abrasiveness of their repsonses and actions. Futhermore, i do recognise the lower quality of English being used in some instances, whcih was a result of editing Wikipedia while tired and being on a mobile device. That something i am willing to fix, starting now. Anyways, as i mentioned in the start of this text, the main reason i made this report, is for the agressive behaviour exhibitted by the other users and the suspected violations that they commited.Mant08 (talk)10:46, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
I would say mobile device is the biggest contributor to what appears to be a lack of comprehension skills - silly mistakes made while typing on a phone. Mobile editing can be hard. Could you share where they exhibited this behaviour?Aesurias (talk)21:06, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
Hi @Aesurias, i am unsure if your referring to me, but if you meant to ask me where the user(s) exhibited the possible behaviour i am reporting, is at the refs i mentioned in a previous response in this thread, and also AndyTheGrump way of commenting in this thread.Mant08 (talk)15:24, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
I'm going to cut to the chase here, and suggest, in order to avoid a pointless time-sink, that an admin with a few minutes to spare takes a look at Mant08's editing history, and then blocks perWP:CIR This contributor is clearly incapable of creating article-space-worthy content, due to a fundamental lack of competency in the English language. Their unwillingness to acknowledge this, combined with a self-evident eagerness to Wikilawyer, might also well make one suspect that this isn't their first account.AndyTheGrump (talk)01:40, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
In this list i am going to counter all the not in good faith "arguments" by @AndyTheGrump, and mention facts that he willingly chose to ignore:
"This contributor is clearly incapable of creating article-space-worthy content, due to a fundamental lack of competency in the English language.": Fo Example check the level of my response towards the user Zefr, which proves my capabillity (and of this current message):User talk:Mant08#October 2025.
"combined with a self-evident eagerness to Wikilawyer": It is notWikipedia:Wikilawyering, trying to report inappropiate beahaviour, and pointing to the policies someone believes are being broken by other users.
"might also well make one suspect that this isn't their first account.": This is clearly my first and only Wikipedia account (except for my Mant08Bot account, that i don't actively use), which can be proven by an administrator, simply verifying this is the only Wikipedia account which has been registered under my IP address (except the account mentioned before.)
Note: I will like to also add that i believe @AndyTheGrump's responses, might also violate: Assume good faith, no personal attacks and in addition the snipset "Mant08 (talk)10:10, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
@173.79.19.248: IP user, the text was cut off, due to issues in Wikipedia's mobile editor. The cut part was supposed to refer to AndyTheGrump's "suggestion"/directive to administators to block my account, and how admins are supposed to take the final decision of what to happen, not the normal users.Mant08 (talk)11:14, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
While I appreciate the attempt to notify me of your response, the ping template does not work for editors without accounts, and even if I had an accountthis wouldn’t have created a notification; see the documentation atTemplate:Reply to.173.79.19.248 (talk)12:53, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
173.79.19.248 i am aware about the correct way to ping users in Wikipedia, but since i already knew that in your case ( being an ip user), it wouldn't work, i tried the ping template instead, to see if it that would work instead. Thank you for letting me now!Mant08 (talk)13:00, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
Notice: The article was in the end deleted under being a duplicate, not for its content. (This is not meant to deflect the issue of parts or some of my previous edits having issues; This information is given for context)Mant08 (talk)13:24, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
A non-exhaustive list of supposedly-English 'words' recently used by Mant08:
'inflamantory' (Renaming a correctly-named article for no legitimate reason whatsoever)[104]
'speciallity' just a typo, maybe, but note the edit summary "Clean Up The introduction in order to more enclyclopedic". This is absolutely not 'cleaning up', it is messing up.
Miscellanious word-mangling inEmma Myers. Note that Mant08's User page asserts "a professional level of English.":
She describes herself as an introvert and having an overacting imagination. Her parents are lawyers and as she was growing up, she attended ahomeschool cooperative, in her hometown,Orlando, Florida, instead of participating in a traditional school...
Myers started interacting with acting, by doing performances in theatres.
It is clearly reasonable to give some leeway to contributors who's skills in the English language are somewhat lacking - but not when they claim 'a professional level of English' and then resort to spell/grammar checkers to deny there is an issue, as quite obviously occurred above.
And I see the Wikilawyering continues, in Mant08's post immediately above. As regulars will be aware, it is entirely normal procedure for non-admins to suggest remedies for issues they report here - and in some cases (e.g. CBANS), the input of the broader community is actively encouraged. Mant08 is clearly attempting to deflect from the actual problems (poor English, and a more general poor understanding of policies etc - see e.g. this bizarre help page request for what seems to amount to page ownership[107]) by concocting imaginary policies, or by extending the scope of real policies way beyond their intended purpose. The suggestion that reporting a contributors' self-evident issues at WP:ANI constitutes a 'personal attack' is absurd. If that were true it would make the noticeboard entirely useless.AndyTheGrump (talk)11:49, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
@AndyTheGrump As i mentioned multiple times, the typos/oversights where accidental, and not representative of a bad English level. The spelling issues arouse from quickly typing on a on-screen smartphone keyboard, due to its small nature. I am also not resorting to any grammar/spelling checkers, while writing these responses.
Futhermore, as i noted in a previous comment, answering to the user @Aesurias, i do recognise that on some occasions subpar or lower quality of was used, whcih as i mentioned it was from oversight, and i am willing from now on to take more care to prevent those issues. Despite, you seemingly countinue to ignore the actual possible issue i am reporting (refering to behaviour and relevant possible policy violations per user instance).
Finnally, i am not pretending to know all or/and the full extent of Wikipedia gudielines, but that doesn't mean i cannot invoke them in a discussion, or ask questions/clariffications about them (referring to the help desk request).Mant08 (talk)12:51, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
People correctly pointing out that you’re introducing lots of errors is not a violation of any Wikipedia policies; you should just do a better job and then no one will have any reason to complain about you. Also obviously don’t use mobile if you aren’t able to avoid making high frequency errors while using it.173.79.19.248 (talk)12:56, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
173.79.19.248 I am aware that people noting issues isn't a violation of Wikipedia's Guidelines, and actually it's the opposite, people are encouraged to point out issues. I am refering to harsh nature of response to the situation by the users, and the possible improper procedure following from the first one.
Also, indeed i will keep in mind to either not use mobile or being extra careful about issues, from now on. Thank you.Mant08 (talk)13:06, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
How about you start by removing the 'professional level' and 'near-native level' English-language claims from your user page, since neither is even remotely true. And then agree not to edit any more medically-related articles, given that contributing towards such content is also clearly beyond your abilities, and given that editing such important articles (often relied on by readers, rightly or wrongly, as authoritative sources for medically significant detail) requires more than being able to run edits through a spell-checker. It simply isn't possible to compensate for poorcomprehension in a language by writing based on misunderstandings, and expecting this to magically sort itself out. You made an almighty mess of theAnti-inflammatory article, not just with the messed-up title change, but with 'improvements' to the article which were nothing of the sort (I can't link this, as the edits in question seem to have disappeared as the title-change mess was rectified. An admin should presumably be able to find it, and maybe restore it somewhere out of article space for viewing).AndyTheGrump (talk)14:21, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
That's fine by me. I'm sure most admins here are perfectly capable of seeing that your level of English isn't remotely as high as you claim, and that your edits to the Anti-inflammatory article weren't an improvement. Both of which constitute matters entirely within the remit of this noticeboard, no matter how many times you repeat your ill-informed comments about 'personal attacks'.AndyTheGrump (talk)15:04, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment) @Mant08 I also edit on phone and use the "preview" function frequently. I then make sure to read through my edit again after posting. Some mistakes still make it through but they're pretty rare and restricted to Talk pages (if it's a mainspace edit I make a third pass!).
My phone also highlights typos clearly in bright red, so that's another check that I perform. I've spent several minutes reading through this very post to make sure it's ok and corrected three typos before posting.
@Blue-Sonnet I have answered the same question to an ip user already. I am willing to take more care before submissions from now on, which is something that can be seen already, in the submissions i made today at Wikidata and the Greek Wikipedia (Referencing the edit descriptions specifically, in the case of the Greek Wikipedia, which i commonly write them, in English).Mant08 (talk)12:43, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
IP editor 190.97.243.165
190.97.243.165 (talk·contribs) Appears to be editing in good faith but is unfortunately completely unresponsive to numerous notices on their talk page concerning issues with their edits, which include making unsourced changes. While it isWP:DISRUPTIVE, I am hoping that perhaps a short block could direct them to their talk page so that they can address these issues.--TylerBurden (talk)17:03, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
User:Fdom5997 edits a broad topic (languages in general) without apparently knowing the basics of the subject (competence is required). They also quite frequentlyget into edit wars and try to act as if the own articles.
Today I was surprised to discover they don't know something very basic, the difference between aphoneme and aphone. As a result, using a source in a language theyadmittedly don't even speak, they ended up adding factually incorrect information not supported by the source (not only once), which is crystal clear in this regard (seehere andhere). Their edits just can't be trusted, and this has beennotedyearsago on Wiktionary by administratorsUser:Theknightwho andUser:Surjection.
They insist on this (not dropping the stick), and broke thethree-revert rule within 15 minutes onDzubukuá language to re-add the incorrect content. I didn't revert myself to avoid breaking this rule, but I would like someone to review the edit because the user was recentlyblocked for the same reason on a page about another language far from Dzubukuá (Dutch), so I think the issues are not limited to a single extinct Brazilian Indigenous language. There are edit requestshere andhere.
I'm not even mentioning the recurring cases ofincivility when they told me I "need to seek help"[108] and that I "can't take an L"[109]. Something needs to be done, as I intend to improve the articles since I will be working on the languages in question on Wiktionary, but with someone constantly messing it up and blocking strictly source-based edits, it becomes difficult. Thanks,Yacàwotçã (talk)08:32, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
Ok, then why don’t you use a talk page then before you keep resubmitting edits that are only cosmetic and don’t add to the quality of information given?Fdom5997 (talk)06:13, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
I have gotten into similar disputes with the user:
Their belligerence to those who dispute their additions to articles is quite frustrating, and the pattern of assuming ownership is fairly evident. In those discussions, it felt clear to me that the user was more interested in maintaining their "correct version" and simply arguing than actually looking at the sources being presented before them, and it took a tremendous amount of whittling down to get them to work towards an actual consensus. ~oklopfer (💬)19:52, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
Oklopfer, thank you for the comment. Since you showed that the user's behavior is not new, I took a look at their contributions in the Talk and User talk namespaces. OnTalk:Maastrichtian dialect phonology,User:Sol505000 noted that Fdom5997 was only edit-warring and not addressing the points raised there – stonewalling instead – also mentioning that Fdom was editing something "outside of your area of expertise" (competence issue?).
OnTalk:Yonaguni language,User:Eievie noted that Fdom was "pushing for the other format" only because "it was there first" and they "don't like me changing things". Oh, and interestingly in one edit Fdom stated that "what matters is the information that is given, not the look of the charts"[110], even though in the pages where they violated the three-revert rule against me, their motivation was that they considered the tables "sloppy"[111].
OnUser talk:Kbb2,User:Kbb2 said that Fdom "have no business editing anything related to Dutch or regional languages spoken in the Netherlands", which reinforces the issue of competence that has been raised.
According toUser:Tewdar, "Fdom5997 has been modifying IPA charts and phonology sections based on their own original interpretations in opposition to sourced content since I arrived here 6 years ago".
So, in conclusion it seems to me that the user's behavior has been recurring foryears and takes advantage of the fact that this topic has few active users, so that in general the linked discussions rarely reach any consensus. But it seems obvious to me that we should finally reach one. My suggestion is an edit restriction preventing the user from reverting edits that are not obvious vandalism and / or changing the phoneme tables without support from reliable sources. What do you say?@Anachronist: for the record.Yacàwotçã (talk)11:40, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
Fdom5997 was wikihounding me a few years back in relation to phonology edits. There were multiple rounds of me bring the issue to admins and Fdom5997 getting warnings. I'm unsurprised to hear this is part of a broader pattern of behavior.Eievie (talk)18:05, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
The incompetence and bad faith are clear with this one. They can't read the material (which I knew for a fact because I actually speak the language they like to be an expert on), insisted on being the arbiter of truth while showing no understanding of the topic (misuse of terminology, failure to understand the difference between disciplines). They were also intentionally obtuse as a tactic to win an argument, rather than to settle it, by intentionally misterpreting your words and throwing that back at you, repeatedly and aggravatingly, with a "lalalala, can't hear you" attitude, making you confused and frustrated so you will give up. When all fails, they resort to "back off or I'll report you" because how dare you undo their brilliance.Mazamadao (talk)18:18, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
Protecting admin comment: Until Yacàwotçã posted edit requests on the talk pages, it wasn't clear to me what, specifically, the edit wars were about because the reverts included both formatting and content changes, and the arguing was taking place in edit summaries. Both editors are equally at fault in edit warring, failing to engage in adequate discussion. I will issue blocks if either one of them does a revert onDzubukuá language orKipeá language after the protection lifts. ~Anachronist (who / me)(talk)15:14, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
@Anachronist: if I may, how should one resolve the issue if the user continues to be intransigent after the protections are lifted? Note that, unlike – let's say – the conflict in Gaza, this is a topic that only I seem to be interested in, so reaching a consensus is by definition impossible. I've opened edit requests, but no one has responded yet, and considering the lack of interaction in this thread, I imagine it's because, in fact, no one dares to edit the subject due to lack of knowledge and interest (except, precisely, the user who prompted this discussion and has been editing, it seems, without any clue at all).
It's literally me against a user refusing at all costs to admit they're wrong. I even suggested sending an email to the academic author of two theses used as sources, to clear up any doubts about how the table should look (as if the tables in his theses weren't enough for that!), but Fdom5597 hasn't even replied, as if he prefers to keep a non-existent phoneme as if it actually existed.
Is there any way to seek an opinion from someone not involved in the dispute and, therefore, impartial? Because, if there isn't, I fear the errors will be there indefinitely due to the stonewalling of a single person who, I repeat,admittedly doesn't even speak the language in which the sources are written (Portuguese) and apparently doesn't know the basics of the topic they are editing (phonology).Yacàwotçã (talk)08:58, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
The way I see it, both parties were reverting based on different reasons, format versus content. @Fdom5997 could add a comment to the edit request, because now that it's clear what your reasoning is, it isn't clear to me what his reasoning is. I'm happy to moderate the discussion on the talk page. ~Anachronist (who / me)(talk)14:11, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
Editor refusing to communicate
BLOCKED
/64 blocked for 31 hours
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The supposed contested edits have been appropriately explained in thr edit summaries. Conversely, the above editor's justification for their revision relied on an inapplicable policy. Given their extensive contribution to the article, their current actions look to be excessively defensive of the existing text, which hinders productive content review and valid changes.— Precedingunsigned comment added by2003:D3:FF23:88CD:217B:B1D:9A0C:B503 (talk)20:06, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This user repeatedly addsWP:OR to articles and makes uncited additions even though he was warned. He didn't reply to any of his warnings and just continued to his behaviour when he returned making edits one month later. See these diffs:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Archaea_genera&diff=prev&oldid=1318888446 Examples: "Friggarchaeota", "Gefionarchaeota", "Idunnarchaeota", "Candidatus Sukunaarchaeum" might belong to Promethearchaeota, "Tyrarchaeia", "Tyrarchaeales", "Tyrarchaeaceae", "Candidatus Tyrarchaeum" might belong to "Tyrarchaeaceae" and some authorities are WP:OR. The sub-heading "Halobacteriota incertae sedis" is uncited and probably WP:OR except the authorities, which they are also uncited and probably WP:OR.
Two partial blocks placed, page extended-confirmed protected. The article's talk page is far too empty for an article with this amount of recent reverts.~ ToBeFree (talk)01:26, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
All are removing content from Indonesian politicians and military articles. Account creation time stamp. Accounts were not created in order.
Quackedy quack. I have blocked all 4 accounts indefinitely for abusing multiple accounts, and the IP also for a few days.Mfield (Oi!)02:42, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:I do coding so yeah - consistent creation of substandard articles & removal of maintenance tags
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
@I do coding so yeah has been continually creating stub articles (I'd say at least 25) about starfish with significant issues.
They have used only bare URLs, and continued to do this despite my offerhere to show them how to use Cite web.
They have now been mass removing the bare URLs tag and other maintenance tags placed on their articles by myself and others:[114],[115],[116],[117] for example.
I have previously had toWP:DRAFTIFY a few of their articles as they contained zero sources.
Previously, theyinserted an image of a frowny face onto one of their published articles, adding the caption "sorry no taxobox :(" rather than leaving it blank.
It's now counterproductive for this user to contribute to Wikipedia, as editors are spending more time fixing their articles with things like prominentbroken templates, suggesting the editor does not even look at their articles before or after publishing them.
Given that they are a relatively new editor, I think a ban on creating articles would be suitable.
+1, I'm active at the time of day when he is active, and I see a lot of his articles having big problems. I wrote a break down of what he was doing wrong and how he can improve (like a brief, newbie-friendly explanation of layout and references and stuff), but he has been unresponsive and has kept it up.
I agree with a page creation block - this isn't done in bad faith (he's probably just a kid), and I'm sure he has other stuff to offer here. But creating pages isnot something he is good at, and it's just creating a bunch of work for everyone else.EatingCarBatteries(contributions,talk)02:12, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
Yes, the pages are bad, not helped by the fact the editor is creating species pages as well as genus pages for monotypic genera. They've been recreating articles in mainspace after they've been draftified, so we now have an improved article atCalasterias as well as aDraft:Calasterias that I tried to turn into a redirect but of course it didn't work—and similarly an improvedAdelasterias as well as aDraft:Adelasterias that just got re-rejected because the reviewer failed to spot that the first cited ref does indeed state that it's a genus. And I see the editor copying improved material from the draft to the mainspace doublet, so we probably need some histmerges. But they have talk page edits, including thankingEastmain for improving a draft, and "Hi, I am new here, and if you could help me with my pages, that would be great." appears at the top of their user page. And the website they're using to source the articles looks fine to me. So if at all possible, let's try to get them to incorporate the improvements themself. (Maybe there's an issue with generating the citation templates?) And stop defacing mainspace articles with silly smily templates, of course.I do coding so yeah, what do you say?Yngvadottir (talk)04:16, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
They replied on somebody else's talk page 26 days ago. People have been informing them of improvements for their articles for over a week and there has been no response, despite a continual creation of articles.
There is no issue with the website they use (and its certainly an improvement from when they used no sources)
Wehave tried to get them to incorporate improvements themselves to no avail, which is why I am now here, after trying to reach out many times, offering help, and receiving no response.
I would have left it at that if that were all that happened, but now that they have been continuallyremoving maintenance tags from their articles, it's clear they are aware that their articles need improvement and are choosing to instead not only ignore it, but try hide it.
They are clearly aware of everything you and I have stated, including the fact that smiley faces do not belong on a Wikipedia article, but have blatantly disregarded all advice and continued on their path. If they won't respond on their talk page, I am hopeful they will respond hereAesurias (talk)04:22, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I wouldn't call it "disruptively edited." It's just plain straight vandalism, and I'm seeing almost nothing but from this fellow's scant edits. Indef for NOTHERE works just fine. Ravenswing08:22, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
On September 3, Cladeal added the following sentence: "The movie is set in a non-specific state similar toThe Simpsons, the aminated sitcom co-created by Brooks, as well classic political movies likeMr. Smith Goes to Washington orAll the King's Men."
@MikeAllen: first removed the sentence on September 9 citing that it wasunsourced.
This has been the crux of their opposition to the sentence's removal, they are steadfast in that plot is not needing of source. Not understanding that the sentence they're adding isnot a premise or a plot. They are adding in comparisons to other films, which putting to the side istrivia anyway, it is a claim that would need to be supported. All searches seeking out these specific comparisons brought upno results, meaning it is not being cited from anywhere else. Cladeal in later discourse at their talk page would admitthey wrote the line.
This tips me to feel Cladeal has taken anownership view of the page, refusinganyone from removing their edits.I opened a discussion on their talk page, where I asserted in more depth the lack of importance to the sentence, the synthesis of the assertion it's set in an unnamed state when the source Cladeal used doesn't explicitly state this, and that overall it was still unsourced. Cladeal did not engage in this initial discussion for weeks and the issue remained unresolved. On October 5, I returned tomerge the "unnamed state" blurb more into the synopsis and again pulled the unsourced comparisons. I still had issues about the unnamed state part, I looked at the edit as a compromise, figuring they understood the latter half was unsourced.
This is when the discussion at their talk page became more active and was ultimately an exercise in futility where Cladeal refused all to understand the issues with the setence.
MikeAllenreturned to the page, affirming my position that original research was a problem with the latter half of the sentence.
Over two days, myself and Mike talked to them on their page, but on October 29, Cladealreadded the sentence, acting as though an agreement was reached to restore it.
MikeAllenreverted, asserting Cladeal seemed to beWP:NOTHERE and was essentiallyignoring all the editors reverting them.
Unsure what I write on my Talk Page is so concerning for this sort of review.
This edit stood without issue for about a month. He had been insulting me and telling how I couldn't understand his point or wasn't engaging despite realms of back and forth, so to try to neutralize it, I wrote a silly line like "I'm dumb, you're dumb. I suck, you suck. Now that we gotten the insults out of the way, let's get back to the article." He/she didn't care at the time and never made any mention of being offended. It wasn't intended to offend, but if so, I apology.
The editor initially removed it over unsourced. I pointed out the setting of movie isn't required to have a source as its a primary source. He then claimed it was plagiarized fromthis article not noticing the article also copies other parts of the article and was clearly copying from the Wikipedia article. Also the existence of an article copying this part negates the claim nobody would find this interesting or helpful.
I reverted it back to original wording after waited 24 hours for a response since disengaged is taken on concedingWikipedia:DISENGAGE the and this editor had previously done so. None came and this is an editor that usually replies without a minute.Cladeal832 (talk)04:51, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
It's accurate to that it's explanation essay revert was inaccurately using the essay since it's on overboard and inaccuracy, while this provided context with is allowed.
If you want to do a prior bad acts, it's been some time since I'm been in any trouble with the Wiki high-ups and in previous situations the other editor was also blocked. I've never the hard way what is an edit war and what is complying with the be bold and complying with the rules. I'll try to act civilly, but another editor being (self-admittedly) frustrated that he isn't misinformed on the rules isn't my main concern. The rules I've learned the hard way since I sited explanation essay and the higher-up pointed they are suggestive at best and ways to help, but they are not rules and shouldn't be treated as such. You want to make a case for an edit, it has to or at least that's what I hold by the administrative accounts.
I'm got that with starts with the letter "D" and rhythms with hectic and whatever shade I'll get out in the world over spelling and grammar stuff, I still feel a place I could be allowed a little leeway would be on my Talk Page since unsure why didn't what's put to the Talk Page for the article, but I went with it.
This isn't unsourced, this isn't original research, this is pointing forth of point of view, this is plagiarized. That there isn't a citation to somebody involved directly with "Ella McCay" didn't say it word for word is also not a violation of any rule. Again and again, it's so new reasoning when the one before failed on the merits. They have these accusations without any specifics or rewording suggestion. It's always just removed completely despite again, it was there for nearly a month without issue. I get they dislike it a lot. Don't read it.Cladeal832 (talk)04:51, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
Come to that, the source Cladeal832 cites is behind a paywall. Can any non-involved editor see to verify that what happened in Rhode Island a year and a half ago has anything to do with this movie, beyond that it was filmed in Rhode Island? Ravenswing09:17, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
To me it's expanded a bit more than just edit warring. The incivilty, the profound disinterest in engaging, the possessiveness towards the article, it's more a behavior issue for me now.Rusted AutoParts05:49, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
Question for both parties - why is there zero activity on thearticle talk page about any of this? The only correct venue for primary discussion about an article's content is that article's talk page.Mfield (Oi!)05:53, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
I think at the time I had accessed to myself that it was an individualistic issue and that engaging the editor on their talk page was the better format. At the time I hadn't realized there were multiple other editors the user had been reverting.Rusted AutoParts06:02, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
Right but whatever you did then you had the chance to go to the talk page to resolve this before bringing an undiscussed content dispute to AN.Nil Einne (talk)09:48, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
After having already received a full complement of four levels of warning, Dynamismcool began inquiring, deferentially, on their talk page over why their edits were causing problems, so I engaged with them. After several rounds of me explaining that they needed to be sure that their edits were correct before they made them, they asked "After having so many warnings, I'm going to have to ask if I can do edits before I do them. Don't you think?" I agreed that that wouldn't be a bad idea. But then they went right ahead making ill-advised edits (which had become focused on flag images), got blocked, and then proceeded to repeat their behavior after the block was lifted, as GumballNine1Nine noted. Only once (before the block,[123]) did they follow through on our previous discussion by inquiring on any talk page as to the suitability of their intended edit.Largoplazo (talk)13:33, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
I blocked indefinitely. I don't see a point in another temporary block when the first block clearly did not good. If they learn their lesson, they can try to convince an admin in a reasonable unblock request.Drmies (talk)13:37, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
At least five editors, including me, have askedGengeros (talk·contribs) to stop using ChatGPT to add plausible but inaccurate content and realistic but non-existent citations, including on articles related to contentious topics (WP:CT/GG) and biographies of living people. Affected articles have includedCharlie Kirk andAnn Coulter. Gengeros has acknowledged using ChatGPT at least twice (September 15, 2024 andSeptember 12, 2025), but I haven't found any agreement to stop using ChatGPT inappropriately.
I believe that this editor aims to contribute constructively but is lacking specific competence for LLM use (WP:LLMCIR). I would like an administrator to take some action to emphasize the seriousness of repeatedly breaking the verifiability policy, such as a 24-hour block. Thank you.Dreamyshade (talk)17:33, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed.Please do not modify it.
I don't understand why the subsection "Abortion" appears in the section "Political views" in our article onKemi Badenoch. In most of the world outside the US and Poland and a couple of other countries abortion is not a political issue.Phil Bridger (talk)17:50, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
As a Brit, I second PB's comment. Abortion is not a political issue in UK. I have little or no respect for KB's politics, but that subsection is wholly irrelevant and unnecessary.Narky Blert (talk)18:07, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Yes, insofar as it contains plausible but inaccurate AI-generated material relevant to this ANI complaint about inappropriate AI usage. Whether or not abortion ought to be subheaded under a 'political views' header isn't relevant at all and this isn't the place to discuss it; do that atTalk:Kemi BadenochAthanelar (talk)18:40, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
This is pretty black and white stuff and not something we want anywhere near CTOPs. Also noting that they almost certainly used LLMs forthis edit a few days ago. Dreamyshadereverted it for being unsupported by sources (which I cannot verify, but I trust them) and the language used here is very different than this editor's own voice - a few examples[124][125][126]. So the behavior is continuing. Also, this editor was also once blocked for copyright violations.NicheSports (talk)19:00, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
In case anyone's on the fence about AI being used inappropriately, just foundthis:GPT-4o conservatively estimates that this argument influenced approximately 2-5% of the total voters for Proposition 8, helping to secure the narrow margin needed for its passage. So AI is definitely in the mix for at least some of this, and alsowe shouldn't be citing ChatGPT at allGnomingstuff (talk)19:26, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
I am sorry for not fully checking some edits made by ChatGPT. It sometimes creates links that don't work, but based on real links that exist somewhere else or create fake quotes. It is a problem and I hope it can get fixed, but it does help in terms of writing, but sources you need to check. I have been checking recentlyGengeros (talk)23:36, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
@Gengeros Unfortunately this response reinforces my concern about your lack of specific competence for appropriate LLM use. SeeWP:AISLOP: "LLMs can make things up, which is a statistically inevitable byproduct of their design, called "hallucination"." It is impossible for the people who work on ChatGPT to "fix" it to stop it from creating false statements, quotes, and citations. I recommend committing to usingonly your own brain and simple tools like a spellchecker for your Wikipedia editing, and please also stop ignoring people asking you to write edit summaries.Dreamyshade (talk)02:18, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Unfortunately, you were notified about problems going back more than a year ago, and this does not appear to be an isolated event. As a community, we give avery short leash to LLM usage because of the extreme damage it does to Wikipedia, and when someone has misused tools like LLMs such as ChatGPT repeatedly, there's no patience for continued use of those tools. Other editors may feel even more strongly and be in favor of formal sanctions in order to protect the encyclopedia, but I feel that your voluntary agreement to never use LLM assistance on English Wikipedia again would be the minimum expectation now.CoffeeCrumbs (talk)06:25, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
And while you are technically allowed to do so, mass deleting your talk page history for the first time ever just one minute after posting your ANI response, including notifications of very serious LLM misuse that you didn't reply to or address in any meaningful way, is a very bad look.CoffeeCrumbs (talk)06:33, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
@Gengeros: today inSpecial:Diff/1318316726 you added information toTransgender rights in the United States stating that Kansas allowed gender marker change starting on May 1, 1987. This was sourced exclusively to <ref>{{cite book |title=Handbook on Divorce and Annulment Registration in Kansas |publisher=Office of Vital Statistics, Division of Information Systems, Office of Communication Services, Kansas Department of Health and Environment |location=Topeka, Kansas |date=January 1989 |oclc=5137000312982 |author=Kansas Department of Health and Environment |edition=1st |others=Mike Hayden (Governor); Stanley C. Grant (Secretary of Health and Environment); Gary K. Hulett (Under Secretary)}}</ref> which has an invalid OCLC number. How did you find this source and create the citation? I googled and am pretty sure I founda downloadable pdf of this source - it has the exact same name and publish date as your reference. However, it makes no mention of May 1, 1987. It does not seem to specify any date for the claim you made in the article. If I have made any mistake here please let me knowNicheSports (talk)01:28, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
This editor has apparently decided to continue editing in the same contentious area and no longer address anything here at ANI. Is it time to temporary block them from articles until they come here and join the discussion beyond the one vague sentence?CoffeeCrumbs (talk)09:42, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Pblocked from articles for 24 hours. It's great that they acknowledge the problem in their contribution above, but they now need to follow their own advice. Let's see. --Euryalus (talk)10:31, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Hi Euryalus, they added the Kansas content/sourceafter they acknowledged the problems with their earlier edits above. They have not addressed the latest issue.NicheSports (talk)11:37, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Some friendly and hopefully constructive feedback: I'm concerned about the amount of ROPE being granted here. This editor was warned at least 4 separate times this year about hallucinated sources and/or source-to-text integrity issues caused by unreviewed LLM use, ended up at ANI for it, said they would stop, and then immediately (within 6 hours) did it again. Allowing the user to continue editing pushes responsibility for (indefinitely) verifying their edits onto a community already struggling to cleanup LLM content from editors who don't end up at ANI. This isn't like granting rope for spam or promotional edits or edit warring, things that are easily identified. It takes real time to verify article content. As an example, after I tracked down the pdf source for the Kansas info I searched it for terms (gender, trans, male, female) but had no hits, so I read the entire 30 page pdf, finding the relevant content on page 27. And I didn't even share all of the source-to-text integrity issues I found in their edits yesterday, which took me over 2 hours to review. How is this the optimal outcome for the project?NicheSports (talk)17:16, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
It's not, but there's been enough of a minority in the community opposed to truly cracking down on LLM editing, that we don't yet have consensus to treat this with the level of seriousness the LLM danger warrants. Hopefully it's coming around that junk LLM edits infect Wikipedia content like a parasite far more incidiously than most vandalism does. Even the Nazis will at least tell you who they are; AI slop tries to not be identified.CoffeeCrumbs (talk)22:49, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
If there was a human sockmaster famous for bad referencing and style issues who kept cropping up in thousands and thousands of edits, we'd purge any edit with even a sniff of affiliation with prejudice.Athanelar (talk)04:59, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
Especially if they returned from a 24 hour block just to fix the reference itself, but not the underlying citation issue. The date still seems to be hallucinated, but hey, the link is valid now! New to posting here, but I keep an eye on transgender rights article and am not looking forward to trying to fix this mess.~ Argenti Aertheri(Chat?)22:08, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
AsArgenti Aertherinoted there are moreWP:V failures with the first mainspace edit Gengeros made after coming back from their 24-hour block. Neither of the two new sources they provided inSpecial:Diff/1318758795 support the article content they are cited for. The Cornell source[127] does not even support the claim that Kansas ever allowed gender marker change based on identity; the relevant clause in the current regulation is only about correcting errors on the birth certificate. The second source[128], the plaintiff's petition, states that a statute related to sex change on birth certificates was adopted in 1986.NicheSports (talk)15:41, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
To add to that, in theone article I've been cleaning up I ended up reverting a huge section (diff) because he completely reorganized it and in doing so removed nearly everything regarding multiple major issues (driver's licenses and non-binary people). I don't know if it was an accident or not, but it's verging on violatingWP:NPOV. He also added a table created from "scratch", except it was definitely created by AI, because, bluntly, no human would do that to themselves, tables are bad enough without overlapping col and row spans. What isn't just junk is almost entirelywp:primary sources, and of the 85 citations in the table I've salvaged 21, that barely 20%. Just in case I'm coming off as a bit too grumpy, this was one of those citations[1]
^AuthorLastName, AuthorFirstName."Title of the Article".William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal. ArticleVolume (ArticleIssue): PageRange. Retrieved21 October 2025.
This is one of 8+ controversial articles he edited recently (see:Wikipedia:AINB#LLM-assisted edits to LGBTQ-related topics), and he doesn't seem to get that the problem isn't any one specific edit, which means it's going to keep happening. I'd propose a mentor if any of them are willing, in tandem with the current ban, at least until he understands why dates "deduced" from primary sources areWP:SYNTH. There are deeper problems here than simply trusting ChatGPT.~ Argenti Aertheri(Chat?)22:13, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
Hey@Argenti Aertheri: any chance you could move your comment up out of the Proposal sections? You can move mine (this one) as well. Based on the recent exchanges on Gengeros' talk page, I agree withDreamyshade that an unblock is not a good idea now, even with mentorship. Also, thank you very much for taking on the cleanup effort here - as you have shown, it is a major task.NicheSports (talk)22:46, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
Proposal : Gengeros is Banned from Using Large Language Models
Support as proposer. The current partial block serves as triage, but even now, Gengeros is proposing an unblock based on simply doing a better job of using LLMs. Given that the problems with LLMs and Gengeros go back more than a year now, and they've done very little to rectify the issue or evenaddress the issues except when forced, I think a community ban from all LLM use is necessary, and may even make it easier for Gengeros to return to being an editor in good standing. I think we're far beyond "aww shucks, I'll use LLMs better!" territory now.CoffeeCrumbs (talk)01:06, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
Support, obviously; to the extent that LLMs can be used in a constructive fashion they've clearly shown they lack the judgement to do so. But I would also specify that a statement that they understand and accept this ban and will not use LLMs to edit Wikipedia in any capacity; like an IBAN or the like, this sort of bespoke restriction requires buy-in from the editor to function. They've given no indication so far that they'd actually accept such a restriction, so I feel they should have to indicate that in order to be allowed to edit again at all. --Aquillion (talk)03:28, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
Oppose as unnecessary, I think. If they are unblocked and misuse LLMs again they are going to be reblocked whether we have a CBAN about LLMs in place or not. Also, based on my conversation with the user at their talk page about sources I don't think they fully understand why they were blocked, unfortunately. Just not sure any community involvement is needed here. Frankly I hope we can close this out as it is probably unpleasant for all involved and a CBAN is going to drag it out.NicheSports (talk)03:37, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
Support LLMs can in theory be used constructively by editors, however if it's ever again evident he used one at all, then he clearly missed the reasoning for his (technically partial) block. Google still exists, he can do it like he did it before.DarmaniLink (talk)16:31, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Given the disruption caused with the AI use and the unblock request saying they will just use it better I believe there is still cause for concern and that this is necessary.GothicGolem29(talk)03:03, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
Comment I appreciate the goal of this proposal, but it doesn't seem very feasible to try to ban an editor from using LLMs, because other editors don't have a fully reliable way to detect LLM usage. Often there are signs, but sometimes the signs overlap with not-fully-competent unassisted editing. I believe the underlying question is: going forward, is the editor likely to contribute in a way that is more damaging than constructive, where damage includes continuing to edit contentious topics and BLPs without applyingWP:V andWP:OR properly, even if they intend to contribute constructively? If they could review their own past edits and identify several specific things they'd fix based on what people have been trying to explain, that would be a good sign. Otherwise, I don't know.Dreamyshade (talk)05:07, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
Suggestion to admins (not a CBAN proposal): Wrap this up, keep the indefinite block on editing article space
Despite Gengeros' polite efforts to respond to concerns, I have not seen evidence of sufficient competence withWP:V andWP:OR to contribute constructively in mainspace (seeUser talk:Gengeros#Clarification on references requested). Inappropriate use of LLMs made the issue more serious, but I don't think it's the root cause. I recommend leaving the current indefinite partial block in place.Dreamyshade (talk)20:49, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
Was pinged here. You're not proposing a CBAN indefinite block from article space, are you? My interpretation is that you are informally suggesting admins decline Gengeros' most recent unblock request and close this thread. Is that correct?NicheSports (talk)21:12, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
@NicheSports Thanks, yes, I'm suggesting admins decline the most recent unblock request and close this thread. My understanding is that this would result in Gengeros remaining indefinitely blocked from editing article space.Dreamyshade (talk)22:10, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
Got it. I agree with you and support this suggestion. PerSpecial:Diff/1319248632 I don't think it would be appropriate to unblock Gengeros now, but I'd prefer an admin pblock to a CBAN one because it will be easier for them to appeal down the road (preferably according to something like theWP:SO). Btw, I'm going to change this section header to make it clear it isn't a CBAN proposal - hopefully that's okNicheSports (talk)23:04, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
Thanks, that's helpful; I'm less familiar with the nuances of ban types, and I support allowing Gengeros to appeal again someday.Dreamyshade (talk)23:24, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
They've deleted the legal threat and personal attack. I've given them the South Asian contentious topics notice, which they hadn't previously received. — rsjaffe🗣️18:18, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
2606..., you accidentally restored the legal threat they removed. The user can delete warning notices on their userpage: that indicates they have read it. Don't undo deletions by the owner of the page unless it's of items prohibited from deletion (usually it's declined unblock notices). I'm re-deleting the deleted threat. — rsjaffe🗣️18:36, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I recently warned the user for blanking and removing reliably sourced content from multiple articles but realized that they have been served no less than 4 warnings by different users and despite being told that this disruption/vandalism may lead to a block it continues.
Aye, anything of the sort is against policy. We don't really give a tinker's damn therationale behind someone editing against policy and guidelines; just that they're doing it. Ravenswing08:07, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
...I'm, um, a little surprised by this reaction, since exactly this sort of motivation is a known issue in the topic area (it, and its Indian mirror, is an enormous chunk of whyWP:CT/SAexists), and when an editor's edits evidence a distinct pattern indicating something like that,calling it a shovel doesn't make it not a spade. If it was an aspersion made without evidence, it would absolutely be a personal attack; however the contributions here frankly evidence, well,exactly that. That said, and speaking of CT/SA, I see they've never been given a contentious-topic notification, so I have done so. -The BushrangerOne ping only09:03, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
I agree that the like is a common motivation for such edits, but we're none of us mindreaders, and I remain unconvinced that someone's motivation for being a vandal has any particular bearing above and beyond that they're vandals. Ravenswing13:21, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
The sources being used are unreliable as theyPush POV. The information removed are from citations whichPush POV which is a common theme when dealing with South Asian related articles on Wikipedia which meetWP:CT/SA.
You failed to do your due diligence and check whether the two sources for the information removed were from the Indian media outletIndia Today which is a biased source as it is aligned with one of the parties in the conflict of interest and meetsWP:SPONSORED.
The book you claim that has been written byRutgers University Press whose authors areRitu Menon andKamla Bhasin as per their Indian identity can clearly be seen as a party to one of the participants in the South Asian related article and hence cannot be relied upon and can therefore be regarded as meetingWP:RSOPINION. The removed information is also a blanket statement which meetsWP:RS/AC.
4) Your editshere andhere is also the same case of citations meetingWP:SPONSORED
It can be deduced that the edits you made were perhaps like made in good faith and that you were unaware of the true nature of the citations which clearlyPush POV for one of the participants of the topic which meetsWP:CT/SA.
Hence he best resolution on Wikipedia for such highly contentious topics is the removal of all biased information especially those which are from unreliable sources whichPush POV.OSINT-Analyst (talk)18:44, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
I was going to give a teensy bit more rope along the lines of SarekOfVulcan, but the combination of CT/SA violations with thumping on CT/SA is a clear nonstarter. Good block.signed,Rosguilltalk18:54, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Edit warring, misrepresentation of sources, and MEAT at International Police Organization
Topjur01 has been active atInternational Police Organization since August 2023 when they first started the page. As early as October 2023, they clashed withscope creep, accusing them of "manipulating" the pageSpecial:Diff/1181038703. There was anAfD, in which I participated and identified (Special:Diff/1186393489) that the picture presented by the article was very different from the portrayal in reliable sources cited. The three best sources cited for the article, inBalkan Insight,Dnevnik, andRTV Slovenia, assert that IPO is misrepresenting its ties to police organizations, that it has far-right ties, and that it has criminal ties. Two out of three of these sources were added by Topjur01 themselves, either in the initial draft of the article (Dnevnik) or in a subsequent edit (Balkan Insight) where they called itnotable news reports in the edit summary. Despite the fact that these sources do not mince words, Topjur01 sure does, repeatedly removing claims of criminal or otherwise unsavory activity (as evidenced in the edit warring noted above). Their edit summary comments have also been uncollegial, and include inaccurate personal attacks.
Topjur01 is not quite alone in their selective reading of these sources: the IPO evidently stands by them. A cluster of sockpuppet accounts, including some with obvious references to the IPO in their names, has made very similar attempts to scrub the article of references to criminality, far right, or lack of police ties, (diff,diff,diff, and more atWikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Danp2006/Archive). Initially, I assumed that Topjur01 was separate from this disruption, as they have actually edited other topics, but given their return to the article with the exact same editing priority, and that they've ignored theCOI inquiry on their talk page, I think the most likely explanation is that they are in fact affiliated with the IPO, and are engaging in meatpuppetry with other affiliates of the IPO to try to remove anything from the article that would reflect poorly on them. I don't think it's a coincidence that Topjur01 only decided to return to this article after semi-protection was applied to keep out IPs and fresh SPAs. It's also worth noting that Topjur01 was previously blocked for sockpuppetrySpecial:Diff/943616965: I think there is little question that they know perfectly well that what they are doing is contra policy. As such, I think that at minimum they need to be partially-blocked fromInternational Police Organization, and possibly broader topic bans and/or blocks should be considered depending on their ability to come clean about their misrepresentation of the sources provided and their own ties to this subject.signed,Rosguilltalk14:03, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
I came across this editor after reviewing2025 Ekalaka helicopter crash at NPP. There were multiple issues involving sourcesreturning 404s, potential LLM use and questionable sources, some of which were not reliable. The edit history for this article can be viewedhere for reference. Due to these issues, Icontacted the NPR who had marked the article as reviewed despite these problems being present. The NPR had marked it as reviewed, unaware of the issues already present, this was a genuine error on their part. The fault of the issues rests with the author, which in this case was @Ivanhardybirt.
After leavinga polite note on their talk page, I came across the history of editing issues this editor has caused, mostly relating to unreliable sources andWP:BLP violations dating back to mid 2024. There were a few instances of articles being moved back to draftspacehere andhere. However, as a new editor at the time, I don't think this is a major issue. I will provide a timeline below of the most major issues:
During July 2024, Ivan continued to submit the same draft toWP:AfC despite it being declined multiple times. Usually substantial edits need to be made to the draft for a resubmission to actually be legitimate, however Ivan did not do this.
Those declines were performed by three different AfC reviewers: @Jamiebuba, @YouKnow? and @Zingarese. This presents a clear violation ofWP:DE as it means three separate AfC reviewers will have reviewed the same revision of an article that was declined only hours before. It is a waste of the reviewers time and I genuinely feel bad they had to do that.
Ivan finally understands andresubmits a month later at 12:10, 23 August 2024. It is stilldeclined with a note thatIMDb is not a reliable source.
There are a couple other examples such as withDraft:The Diana, it does take time to post all these links so I am going to request that those reading have a look on thetalk page andedit history to see other instances of DE at AfC.
Problematic editing in April 2025 relating to adding birthdates toWP:BLP articles without sources that were notreliable or no sources at all to verify the birthdates:
16:25, 2 June 2025 onAsmongold which was laterreverted due to an ongoingWP:RfC. (I can't find the link for this specific RfC, so I am going to ping @Czello in the hopes they can provide it. I believe it is important for context.)
TheseWP:BLP violations persisted even aftera notice was given by @PamD at the end of May 2025.
My knowledge of this editor started here. I am a member ofWP:AVIATION and always view articles added toTemplate:Aviation accidents and incidents in 2025. Ivancreated the article immediately in mainspace, with sources that returned 404s, or were not reliable, including one from theGOP. After talking with other NPRs, it was determined that LLM had some involvement.
Closing statement
I seriously considered whether to post here, however I decided it is in the interests of the project that problematic edits like these don't continue to jeopardise articles and new badly sourced articles aren't continued to be published to mainspace. Even with notices and warnings, I believe there may be acompetency issue here. I will notify the editor of this AN/I on their talk page once I have submitted this post, and I encourage them to respond here. I have unfortunately only seen two actual responses from this editor in their 600 or so edits, so I hope they do respond here. I am not going to recommend any form of sanction as I personally don't think anything major is required. I wish for this to be a proper moment of change for them, in the hopes that they can become a competent and respectable editor on the project.11WB (talk)05:04, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Significant usage of hallucinated URLs and possibly AI generated texts by Sablc4747
UNBLOCKED, TBAN
Closing as consensus is clear after 6 days. AccordinglyUser:Sablc4747 is unblocked conditionally - is topic banned by community consensus from editing in the Israeli Arab Conflict topic subject area as broadly construed inArab–Israeli_conflict. The editor is also warned to stop adding AI content, and to pay heed toWP:Verifiability andWP:SOURCES. The same restrictions will be noted on their user talk page.Mfield (Oi!) 05:23, 31 October 2025 (UTC)Mfield (Oi!)05:23, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Thanks for this link, I had a recent village pump topic about a similar issue. Do admins find their workload higher due to this?Bogazicili (talk)18:27, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
A LOT of us have higher workloads, having now to chase down every added link Just In Case. This problem is going to keep getting worse, and discrediting Wikipedia more and more, until a tipping point of editors goes full-on draconian and just plain bans the use of LLMs inany editing, full stop. Ravenswing19:38, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
I wouldn't call that draconian, I'd call it an appropriate attempt to safeguard an extremely important bastion of democratic information on the internet, but maybe I'm just a luddite.Athanelar (talk)19:51, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
I'm learning necromancy and bringing back to life Draco himself to legislate on a full LLM ban. Enough is enough. Competence is required. I even say that the templates uw-ai1 through uw-ai4 should be retired and a one-warning-only uw-ai4im should be made. LLM editing is the highest form of vandalism in my view, just by virtue of being much more time consuming to catch than your garden variety vandalism.〜Festucalex •talk00:55, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
@Bluethricecreamman The first diff doesn't actually seem to have any dead links. The others are troubling.
@Sablc4747, you need to respond here with a commitment not to use AI or you may be blocked. I note that on your talk page you have implied that you will not respond here (we'll wait for the discussion outcome,while we wait for my verdict on the Admin page[137]).
Sablc4747, you also seem to have accused Bluethricecreamman ofhounding you[138][139]. FromWP:HOUND,Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy. This applies here. You need to address the errors you have introduced to the encyclopedia and stop deflecting with wording like "your crusade against me".Toadspike[Talk]12:22, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Apologies for first diff, i can get to a link now too. I must have copied it wrong the first time.
Apologies for the late response - my day job is taking a toll on my time...
I'll try to address the issues at hand and hopefully I"ll address all of them, because I've seen quite a few so apologies if I miss anything,
Starting from the end on your last post above - use I use AI from time to time to help, but go over it and verify. May have missed a few things. I wasn't aware it was that big of an issue, and if you take a look at my edits, you'll see most of them don't have issues (at least I think they don't). Anyway, as per the discussion here, I wasn't aware of how big of an issue this is and will, going forward, commit not to use LLMs or AI modules. (though again, today AI is integrated into Google search, Bing, etc, But I'll make sure to verify all links and double check, so I don't think you'll have any issues going forward. That is my commitment to the community. The idea was not to create problems, but just to help with editing, etc. I apologies if this caused any additional work for anyone here. My purpose in Wikipedia is to help (and it's fun doing some edits, and educating. Which you probably knowl.... :-). So I hope this resolves the AI issue with my commitment to refrain from using it,
As for the accusations of gaming the system to for ECR - that's a hard no. I did accelerate my edits for a while, because I had more time on my hands. I think that just by looking at the fact that since I hit the 500 mark, my edits on contentious topics was limited, shows that this was not the purpose. The editing of random articles - I used the list of articles that needed help on (copy-editing, fixing lead sections, etc.) to help the community out. So I hope that solves the issue - I unfortunately have much less time today to edit because of work constraints but I hopet that will changes soon and I can get back to being a more productive member of the community.
As for the issue with Bluethricecreamman, I'll split my response into two parts;
First - I take back what I said, and will delete my comment. The intention was not to get into an argument or insult Bluethricecreamman. So before anything else - let me retract my claims and apologize.
Second - it came out of frustration from an issue that I still don't know how to solve/address. While Bluethricecreamman was focusing on the AI issue, I was trying to correct false information on the page, which Bluethricecreamman kept reverting (first on the issue of using Fox News as a source, even though the specific link carried a video of a child whom the person quoted in the article testified he witnessed the boy being shot dead in front of his eyes. Second time because of the broken links). I specifically requested Bluethricecreamman cooperation to work together in parallel to the AI issue, but go no response, just further issues about the AI. So while we are having this discussion, there is clear, verified, 100% fake news on the article I was trying to correct. Hence my frustration and lashout, for which I again apologies. I would appreciate it if someone experienced could take the time and explain to me what to do in situations like this from now on
So final apologies for this being a long message, but I did try to address everything, I hope this is satisfactory and let me know if anything else is needed from my side. As I said, I'm here to be part of the community and not a burden on it.Sablc4747 (talk)10:00, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
there is a large amount of your previous work to check at this point, to confirm if the sourcing actually supports the fact that is cited. that should be addressed, it is a significant amount of work to check, look, and either re-attribute, correctly source, or revert text.
wikipedia is aboutWikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. the continual deflection towards theGaza Humanitarian Foundation, and looking for sourcing in favor of the stated position (including faked sourcing), instead of listening to policy such as not usingWP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS for contentious claims is missing the point. In both the fake or mixed up citations previous to this article, and in this article,WP:V isn't fully understood yet.
This diff from september seems to trigger a hit for gptzero[140], the structure seems to be AI -like. The citations look like URL links, but there is no website to click, so the info is not verifiable. trying to google one of the supposed titles[141] leads back to the wikipedia page, there is no other source.
this diff triggers an AI hit.[142]. the source exists, but its about teaching reading to children and phenome recognition, not about speed reading. the 400 words per minute figure doesn't appear as far as I can tell.
its possible all of the diff history here needs to be interrogated. I can do more research into this, but time is limited for me. if anyone else could double check this for me, that would be helpful too, but this concerns me.User:Bluethricecreamman(Talk·Contribs)18:36, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
ok, so the first claim added that he rounded cape horn is not in the source that is cited in the lede. it is included here in the source he adds later[143] in the diff, but the fact has a wrong citation as is currently.
The wording between the source added and the added text is similar. Its not copy-right infringement but i'd guess the text was run through an ai to summarize it into wikipedia format.
Hold on, there—if anyone looks at my edit history, they'll see that I use em-dashesconstantly, and I have literallynever used an LLM at all¹ (which, I hope, ought be clear; if not, I think I can prove it a few different ways).
So, I mean... we're not convictingevery edit that has an em-dash, are we? Like, thereare better ways, and/or more criteria with which, to determine AI-usage... right?
¹ the rise of LLMs, in this respect, sort of angers & depresses me: myone dam' talent—English prose—has now been rendered worthless; now anyone can "write"almost as well as I, and my own output no longer makes one think "wow, what an erudite & gifted individual!",² but rather "wow, what an AI-using tool"... (huh? vain?—who, me?)
perWP:AISIGNS andWP:AIDASH, emdash use alone probably isn't enough to determine ai usage. i'm no expert at this, but i think determining AI is like diagnosing a rare disease, the probability of AI given any one sign is low, but the conjunction of multiple signs, previous use of AI, hallucinated URLs, and human judgement is important to determine AI usage. even gptzero is useful here, though its high FPR should be understood.i think any broad fishnet for AI usage such as searching for em-dashes, curly quotes, or throwing everything into gptzero is horrendous and would result in significant and unacceptable levels of false positives.User:Bluethricecreamman(Talk·Contribs)22:10, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
Okay, whew! I know it's sort of vain, but Ireally don't like the idea of people thinking I'm using AI to write my comments/edits, heh. (Had no idea about all the rest of the "signs & symptoms" mentioned on those pages, though—makes me feel like my worry was a bit foolish, d'oh... seems probable to me, now, that the full "diagnostic suite" would misidentify only the very unluckiest of editors!)
As another em dash user—and as someone who is verifiably vehemently anti-LLM for creative content—I'm also annoyed that they've become an AI "tell"...JoelleJay (talk)23:20, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
you need to respond here with a commitment not to use AI or you may be blocked – Wrong sequence of events. They should be blockedright now from everything but project space (or, if it's technically possible, from everything except ANI)until they commit to not using AI. When it comes to AI, we should shoot first, ask questions later.EEng18:52, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Generally I would agree, but here the evidence was not as clear. In their short time here, this user seems to have successfully written sourced content and fixed/checked for dead links when notified. If another admin would like to pblock, though, I will not get in the way, esp. if Blue's new evidence above (which I have yet to review) is strong.Toadspike[Talk]19:24, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
I'm seeing the introductions of dead and fake links, mixing up sourcing, and using 500 edits to enter the ARBPIA space. There is also a lack of engagement with the serious issues involved on ANI at all.Even if it isn't AI, there are times where the sources the user adds do not verify the facts that are added.there are definitely good edits in the mix, but the time and effort to check the good from the bad is frustrating; that even if there is a real citation, that citation won't always point to the fact that is being cited means significantly extra work.User:Bluethricecreamman(Talk·Contribs)22:41, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
[144] another diff. GPTZero suggests this is human, though I see the usage ofcurly quotes, a possible sign of AI. My read is that there may not be much added text for GPTZero to analyze well. Regardless, the claima career revival—reports highlighted that he took a significant pay cut to return to France is not in the first sourcing added at all.User:Bluethricecreamman(Talk·Contribs)22:44, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Having reviewed and declined an unblock request, as I think this is essentially in the community's hands here, I will further give my opinion on the merits of the case. I think that on its own, we can take Sablc4747's commitment to not use AI going forward in good faith. However, I do think that their pattern of editing is indicative of gaming (and I'd be happy to go into the detail of why to any inquiring admin), so their direct denial of the same causes concern. Separately, using AI to rewrite claims about war crimes in a contentious topic area is so irresponsible that it would warrant a topic ban on its own. Thus, at minimum I'm in favor of a tban fromWP:PIA (currently indifferent to whether XC status is restored if the ban is in place), and uncertain whether it is appropriate to restore editing privileges more broadly in the face of what I on investigation believe to be gaming.signed,Rosguilltalk20:17, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Hi all,
I'm trying to review your comments in order to get a grasp of what needs to be done now and moving forward. And I don't get alerts on new posts in this section for some reason, so I need to go in and manually check the posts here, which I found out a bit late... So again, apologies if I missed any calls to action or failed to promptly comment on any relevant posts and questions. I'm also not 100% sure I understand all the back and forth in the discussion in terms of ideas, terminology, etc. So if I'm write or will write things that are not relevant or I misinterpreted something in the thread above, please let me know.
As for the issue at hand, as I said I'm still not clear of what I can do to help remedy the situation. Some posts say I should go over my articles and manually check and verify sources (would be happy to. My mishap my responsibility). Some say others should do it because I can't be trusted to verify myself. And I can't edit the links even I find broken or irrelevant ones. So again - I'm not clear on what I should do now and how.
As for the claims of gaming, I can see why this suspicion would arise (especially when combined with the AI issue), but again - the purpose was not to game the system. At least not intentionally. You'll see from my history that I had almost a full year of no edits in 2024. Simply didn't have time for it. Then I lost my job. Which give me an abundance of free time. Which brought me back to Wikipedia. And even during that period (starting from end of December 2024, there were days and even a week that I did not edit. Many of my edits came from requests on the community portal - articles that requested copy editing, adding sources, etc. Hence some of the edits are very short. Some are longer and researched more thoroughly. The more time I had on my hands and the more I used WIkipedia, the more I edited. And in April I went back to work, hence the drop in frequency of edits. I would argue that if I really had only the 500 mark in site, there are easier and faster ways to go about it, and it wouldn't take so long. So again, if it looks like I was out to game the system - I wasn't. At least not intentionally and planned. I think it's more of coincidence and the timing.
So bottom line people, please help me out. I am committed to playing completely by the rules going forward (reading some of the comments here, I admit I did not fully get the big picture, but I do now and have taken note). But I'm having a hard time following some of the conversations here and again - am not sure what to do next to resolve the situation.
And again, last time I promise - sorry if I missed anything or failed to reply to something,
there appeared to have been mass changes to lede sections to a variety of disconnected articles in march from this user, to reach the 500 edit limit. the articles were randomly chosen and rapid fire editted to hit 500.[146], around 1 march 2025 the edits per day increase rapidly and are hitting random articles, from the initial interest of middle east topics. I don't know if these are AI-generated, from a quick look over, i don't think so, but it seems off as well.User:Bluethricecreamman(Talk·Contribs)20:00, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Some of these are positives on GPTZero (I know its known for a high FPR, but would like someone to take a look).
(Non-administrator comment) Those diffs look like they'd be right at home next to the examples inWP:AISIGNS, though they're missing some more subtle indicators I tend to look out for (which I'm keeping to my chest forWP:BEANS). I think your read of partial human input is spot on.LaffyTaffer💬(she/they)21:02, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Definitely AI, and probably not human reviewed. They're created too fast, they have theverbiage, thekey-words bolding, plus other subtler signs:
AI leads sometimes talk about longer article names as if they are proper nouns or otherwise standalone entities:here,here
Various weird shenanigans withquotes andabrupt cutoffs onsome leads that suggest the text is being copy-pasted (note: this wouldn't really be noteworthy by itself)
This is also concerning; the edit count pattern suggests gaming to me. I opened two at random, and one was this unsourced change to the name of a biographical article[150], which is really worrying. I then opened another three. This one is completely unhelpful[151], this one makes some meaningless changes but also correctly added a comma (but incorrectly placed it inside the italics)[152], this one is a pointless reordering of information and also likely an ECR violation[153].
someone would still have to double check the editor. at that point, it may be easier to let others go through and fix the issues. agree though, that doing such edits/editrequests would show true contrition at the very least, and starting to learn the lesson.User:Bluethricecreamman(Talk·Contribs)15:23, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Extended confirmed needs to be removed until an admin can verify they were legitimate edits given the previous concerns raised and given the use of ai in this topic area a final warning and topic ban is the right and fair choice to hopefully end the disruption.GothicGolem29 (talk)19:04, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
Support, I'd like to see them unblocked, since they have now acknowledged their mistakes, apologized, and committed to not repeating them. However, the other measures are necessary safeguards.Toadspike[Talk]22:13, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
support most of the times, giving rope is a better than indeffing directly. Let's see how it is used. —usernamekiran(talk)11:54, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
Hi
So I was wondering what happens now, given the discussion and conclusions here. It's been a few days since the last entry here. There apparently have been some conclusions and I was wondering if and when they will be implemented, as I'm still blocked. Again, no complaints, just not sure what are the next steps. ThanksSablc4747 (talk)05:03, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Or perhaps at this point just blocked in general. They’ve reverted you again, and you’re now the FIFTH editor they are reverting on that page. Coupled with the antagonism essentially being pointed toward said editors, the refusal to accept why the content has issues, they’re also asserting you’re canvassing input when simply alerting other involved parties to the opening of the thread. I genuinely feel they are NOTHERE anymore to conduct in a cooperative cordial manner. Cladeal has been here since 2006, they are not obtuse to the rules and expectations of the website. They just don’t seem to care.Rusted AutoParts20:29, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
Either way works for me. I'm darkly amused at Cladeal accusing GoodDay of canvassing me, when I looked things over based on the ANI report, and GoodDay pinged mefourteen hours after my own reversion. I see that Cladeal's had several blocks in the past over edit warring, and seemingly they haven't learned from those blocks that Wikipedia doesn't work on the premise of "I'm right, so everyone else is wrong." Ravenswing20:42, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
I hesitate to now call into question the editor'scompetence but I have concerns they're not aware they're talking to more than one person, or confuse one editor for another. As noted they accused GoodDay of "canvassing", and now they're nowasserting the same thing towards myself. In both instances the accused canvassing is just myself and GoodDay alerting involved parties to opened discussions revolving around the page's content and subsequently the editor's conduct. If not a competence issue, it just feels like then they're picking fights just for the sake of picking a fight.Rusted AutoParts01:43, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
Because of their disruptive editing which includes editing against consensus and slow motion edit warring, I have indefinitely pageblocked Cladeal832 fromElla McCay andTalk: Ella McCay. If this type of misconduct crops up on other articles, this editor is at risk of a sitewide block.Cullen328 (talk)02:06, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This user has been changing a bunch of links across a number of pages referencing Prince Andrew toAndrew Windsor. The issue with this change is that it is a disambiguation page, so changing the link doesn't do anything except confuse readers.
They've been asked to stop on their talk page a number of times but are blowing off the messages (or ignoring them), and have continued to change the wikilinks at a fast rate. Their responses to concerns, likethis one, suggest that the user isWP:NOTHERE. Can an administrator please block this user until they engage constructively? Thank you,Aoi (青い) (talk)01:11, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
Not seriously enough forrevoking TPA, which is reserved forcases of continued abuse of their user talk page, or when the user has engaged in serious threats, accusations, or attempts at outing that must be prevented from re-occurring, or in my experience, spamming the unblock queue.Northern Moonlight06:33, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Bending Spoons is an Italian venture capital company. There are a number of questionable behaviours first raised byUser:Zegnar on the talk page:
Special:Contributions/WikiSpooner: Bending Spoons operates a proper COI account, which has edited between August 2024—September 2025 (Vimeo is affiliated). Of these, only the first was done through the edit request process, however the other edits were arguably uncontroversial.
DC Rainmaker reported that Komoot laid of 85% of its staff following acquisition. After this figure was added, three IPs have removed it. All IPs removing it are Italian which is suspect, and did it fairly quickly. All these IPs are assigned to the general location around Bending Spoon's headquarters in Milan.
Added by Finnish IP
Removed by Italian IP inSpecial:Diff/1292924966 after 1 day, readded by Zegnar after 28 days
Removed by Italian IP inSpecial:Diff/1303655084 after 3 days, readded by Dutch IP after 18 days
Special:Diff/1270476860: While the information this user removes was indeed incorrect, the user removing it was also from a Milan IP 4 days after it was added.
For the years before this, as far as my quick scan went, I didn't see anything suspect. It seemed to ramp up right after WikiSpooner began editing. I feel like these factors, in sum, are suspect although not incriminating.
Am I correct? If so,
Should a resolution on the edit war over DCR be determined?
i have ECP protected the article for a month as there have been zero useful edits to the article by non ECP editors recently. This may hopefully either force the company to use the COI account again, or to take to the article talk page.Mfield (Oi!) 05:39, 30 October 2025 (UTC)Mfield (Oi!)05:38, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
FYI in this post you've linked to the COI account as "BendingSpooner" but that account doesn't exist.
Request for third opinion regarding editing restrictions and communication with editor Jauerback about Quantum Helicopters
Third opinion has been provided.@RhonaNewman: if you wish to have your editing restrictions adjusted, please follow the advice given here, and be very mindful about AI usage.StarMississippi15:46, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I request a neutral third opinion regarding my interactions with the Wikipedia editor Jauerback concerning editing content related to Quantum Helicopters. I am affiliated with the company and want to provide neutral, verifiable information, but Jauerback has strongly advised me not to edit any related content, even briefly, and told me to “find another hobby,” which felt dismissive and discouraging. There have been other instances of a similar tone in his communications. My goal is to comply fully with Wikipedia’s conflict of interest and content policies while contributing appropriately. I seek guidance on whether a neutral, sourced article about Quantum Helicopters can be created and how to manage related editing without conflict.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:RhonaNewmanhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JauerbackRhonaNewman (talk)23:44, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
- Make sure you are editing in compliance with Wikipedia's policies on paid contribution, which you can viewhere.
- I wouldstrongly recommend that you utilize theArticles for Creation process for creation of the article in question. That way, before publishing, the article can be reviewed to ensurenotability andneutrality.
RhonaNewman, despite being informed many months ago, you have failed to comply with the mandatory and non-negotiablePaid-contributions disclosure that is necessary to edit about your employer. You are objecting to restrictions that you agreed to in discussions with administrators as a condition of being unblocked back in July. You have failed to fully and frankly answer questions about your use of AI editing tools in September after it was discovered that you added non-existent direct quotations to an article. My third opinion is that you are in a very weak position to complain about the excellent advice thatJauerback has offered you.Cullen328 (talk)01:46, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
Rhona did disclose their COI in theirunblock request. They haven't edited about the business since July as far as I can tell. As I said on Jauerback's talk page, it's not crazy to ask after four months if the unblock condition can be lifted. Rhona is clearly not an avid editor of Wikipedia and quite naturally wants to get back to the work of trying to write about their business. If the unblock condition were lifted, they could do so by writing a draft. Rhona has previously acknowledged that process and agreed to abide by it. Just because someone has used AI and tried to edit about their business without fully understanding Wikipedia doesn't mean we need to be rude or dismissive toward them.voorts (talk/contributions)01:54, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
Voorts, I did not imply that they were crazy or that they had not mentioned their COI but rather that full compliance with PAID has not yet happened. One time use of AI is not a problem. But evasiveness about use of AI is a problem, in my view.Cullen328 (talk)02:19, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
I wasn't trying to imply that you were saying she was crazy. it's a colloquialism. Fair point RE PAID. I agree that the evasiveness with AI is an issue.voorts (talk/contributions)02:21, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
The AI edits are certainly an issue. @RhonaNewman: You should not use AI to generate content for Wikipedia articles. AI is not a reliable research tool because it can flat out make things up. If you're going to write about medical topics, you need to actually read medical journals and cite to them. Random things you find on the internet isn't good enough.voorts (talk/contributions)02:01, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
Rhona, on Jauerback's talk page, you said
My goal was simply to provide information about who we are to outsiders, similar to how companies like McDonald's, Apple, or Amazon are described on Wikipedia [...I] commit to avoiding any promotional content going forward
Wanting to "provide information" about your businessis promotional content, which is forbidden on Wikipedia. The reason McDonald's et al have Wikipedia articles is because they are 'notable' according to ourguidelines on corporate notability, not so that they can provide information about their company. We are an encyclopedia,not the yellow pages. If your business also meets those guidelines, then it can have a Wikipedia article. However, if it met those guidelines then it probably already would have an article. As those guidelines state,the vast majority of businesses do not need a Wikipedia article. Yours is more than likely included.Athanelar (talk)08:32, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Persian Lad and questionable use of Further reading sections
List of massacres in Turkey: They added only one further reading source, which is about small subset of the article.[158] It may be considered against NPOV, since it shows only one group of people as victims and only one group of people as perpetrators
Genetic history of the Middle East: Rather than something about the "whole subject of the article", such as genetics of Middle East, they are adding something about Ancient Egyptians[163][164]
After those user talk page messages, the issue seems to continue inEgypt–Turkey relations, also with an accusation of harassment.[167]
After raising these concerns and reverting some of their edits, they said I am vandalising and harassing.[168] I generally see Persian Lad in the articles I edit or that are in my watchlist. After I saw some issues, I also used their edit history to revert edits inEgypt–Turkey relations. I believe these are covered byWP:HA#NOTBogazicili (talk)18:03, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
I am not going to respond to such absurd accusations. However keeping in mind that you reverted me on another article (Egypt-Turkey relations) justwithin days of that and following my edits on numerous articles and then posting away on my talk page, it gives me the impression you are following me, so I stand by that argument. Also I stand by my claim that Anatolia is a more appropriate for the lead, although I chose not to make an edit war out of it andWP:DROPTHESTICK, but instead you follow me onto Egypt-Turkey relations literallywithin three days and continue escalating things, which I see asWP:HOUNDING. I am open to fair criticism, but I do not appreciate being followed like that and told what to do. Also seeing you're the only one who keeps creating issues with my edits, while nobody else seems to have a problem, show me further evidence of attempted hounding. Also note that user:User:Teflawn actuallythanked me for my edits on Genetic history of the Middle East.--Persian Lad (talk)21:54, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
PS My edit on List of massacres in Turkey wasmonths ago and I chose to move on from that edit, yet he brings it up months later, even the fact that the edit is reverted since months by him. This user is clearly in confrontational mode. I suggest that heWP:DROPTHESTICK--Persian Lad (talk)21:58, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Yes I have ongoing concerns for months about your edits into Further reading sections in line withWikipedia:Further_reading#Considerations_for_inclusion_of_entries. I tried to solve it in your user talk page twice. But it's still ongoing, and that's why it's in ANI now.
You edit articles that I edit or that are in my watchlist. I saw a similar problematic Further reading section edit inGenetic history of the Middle East, used your edit history, and saw that you made a similar problematic edit inEgypt–Turkey relations. This is not HOUNDING.
WP:HOUND:Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles
Besides my concerns about problematic edits, I have 0 interest in you, no offense.
You seem to be following my edits going back months for somebody who's not interested and even bringing up edits you personally removed such as List of massacres in Turkey which wasmonths ago. You bring up somebody else removing my edit to depict me as a contributor no one wants. As if you've never been reverted before. PS Sintashta is Indo-Iranic. Even if the source does not mention it. If you're not familiar with the subject matter, the Sintashta culture is akin to Indo-Iranic culture, even if the source didn't mention it, my edit was not entirely wrong. It would be like changing Trojan Prince Paris's name to Alexanderos, when the two terms are ambiguous, even if the source only mentions either or. But of course you seem to be on a crusade to search out "wrong" edits of mine and mention me on ANI, now two times already, not to mention following my edits and reverting them within days. This to me isWP:HOUNDING. I suggest youWP:DROPTHESTICK instead--Persian Lad (talk)18:54, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Persian Lad, your complaint that these allegations are not timely is undermined by the fact that Bogazicili raised these issues on your user talk page in a timely manner, and you did not give much of a response there. Can you please address the concerns regarding additions of links in{{main}} and Further Reading sections?signed,Rosguilltalk15:02, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment) I have removed the above IP comment as a severeaspersion against Bogazicili. Please let me know if this was out of process or otherwise problematic. Thanks,QuicoleJR (talk)23:12, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
@QuicoleJR: that New Zealand IP hasnothing to do with me. My IP location is nowhere near that country, nor do I know any Wikipedia user in NZL. I can only hope it was not sent by someone to deliberately frame me by paraphrasing my comments.--Persian Lad (talk)22:34, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
The older diffs are relevant, as they demonstrate an ongoing pattern of edits. But by all means, start with the most recent examples.signed,Rosguilltalk04:52, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
I did not respond to his messages on other topics such as Education in Turkey and other diffs because it was not worth fighting over. If he removed those, I saw it as nothing too important. So I ignored it for that reason. He even opened a previous ANI against me which was as unnecessary. It was a complaint against me using a temporary link. Simultaneously, he saved that temporary dead link as a PDF and replaced my link, therebyfixing the very problem he was complaining about. Problem solved. What was the need for that previous ANI or any ANI for that matter? Our most recent conflict was also initiated by him. His citation or even miss citation ofWikipedia:Further readingWP:FR poses serious problems which I will adress if you allow me. But I want your affirmation that you understood my responses to the previous concern you raised about his messages on my talk page.--Persian Lad (talk)03:44, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
@Rosguill:, both those links were relevant to the article topic as they coverboth Egypt & Turkey. The link I added in genetic history of the Middle East discusses the genetic history of Egyptians. The reason I also added it in Egypt-Turkey relations is that it once again pertains toboth the people of Egypt and Turkiye/Turkey. Both Egypt & Turkey are defiend as Middle Eastern countries, geographically. Another userthanked me for those edits. Also as the policy that was cited states:
"Preference is normally given to works that cover the whole subject of the article rather than a specific aspect of the subject, and to works whose contents are entirely about the subject of the article, rather than only partly." Which means it ispreferred, but notrestricted to. Also as the introduction of further reading clearly states:
This page provides additional information about concepts in the page(s) it supplements. This page isnot one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Thereby, I do not believe my edits were in violation of policy, keeping into consideration thatWP:Further reading itself has emphasisedpreference, notrestriction. So I do not see any breach of policy. I am open to third party responses on this unnecessary "issue" that has been brought here.--Persian Lad (talk)03:12, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
Ok, with this response in mind this looks like a content dispute to me and I don't see a basis for sanctions.undoing the revert without opening talk page discussion is bad form, but with only one revert on said page and no relevant discussion from anyone on the talk page I don't think this rises to an ANI-level problem.signed,Rosguilltalk16:59, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
I don't like having to start ANI threads, but this user has a long-term pattern of POV pushing, and several years of warnings have not stopped them. Carter has, since 2021, spent many of their edits pushing their conservative POV on Catholicism-related issues. Their talk page is filled with many warnings they have received for disruptive behavior, including editorialization and incorrect marking of edits as minor, and they received a 24-hour block in May 2025 for edit warring. Unfortunately, none of these warnings have stopped them from continuing this disruptive behavior. I have included a selection of recent (as in, past 2 months) diffs of POV pushing below.
[172] October 2025 edit toRaymond Leo Burke removingperceived from Burke’s claim of alack of reverence in the modern liturgy, instead stating its lack of reverence in Wikivoice.
[177] September 2025 edit toRaymond Leo Burke downplaying Pope Francis's claims and removing similar words from Burke’s response to the ones he added to Francis’s.
The diffs above show that Carter has not stopped disruptively pushing their POV into articles, despite many warnings. Several of those edits were also incorrectly marked as minor, despite Carter receiving several warnings about that as well. Because of this, I unfortunately now believe that sanctions are necessary to prevent further disruption.QuicoleJR (talk)23:06, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
I'm not sure what the issue is here, but I can't "unhat" the collapsed portion to look at the hidden content. Can someone fix this?LizRead!Talk!07:04, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
I've p-blocked CarterSchmelz61 from mainspace for failing to address the substantive concerns that have been presented here.CarterSchmelz61, can you please respond to editors' concerns as described above? Absent any explanation, the POV shifts encapsulated in the edits identified by QuicoleJR do not appear to be justified by your reference-work (or lack thereof), and you have repeatedly failed to use edit summaries and minor-edit tags appropriately.signed,Rosguilltalk17:09, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
@Rosguill: Sorry to bother you, but what is the typical procedure for when a mainspace block is applied to force communication and then the communication never comes? I haven't seen this issue come up before. Thanks,QuicoleJR (talk)03:28, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
QuicoleJR, I don't think we have a clear process. I think leaving the p-block in place essentially addresses the issue, and if they ever come back they will be expected to address the concerns raised here in an unblock request. I'm not opposed to upgrading to a full block if people think that would be more appropriate, however.signed,Rosguilltalk17:01, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
The user hasmessaged me, stating thatthe latest edit on the Negros Revolution had no AI assistance, even thoughGPTZero shows a 100% AI-generated probability, and the text contains the following AI signs:
WP:CONCLUSION:The socioeconomic impact of the Negros Revolution reveals the complex motivations behind regional uprisings during the late 19th century. It was not solely a nationalist struggle but also a calculated effort by local elites to shape the political and economic transition following Spain's withdrawal from the Philippines.
Wikipedia:Signs_of_AI_writing#Outline-like_conclusions_about_challenges_and_future_prospects:Despite its prosperity, the social fabric of Negros was marked by inequity and dependence on colonial administration. [...] When the news of Spain's weakening control spread in 1898, the Negrense elite saw opportunity to assert political autonomy while preserving economic stability.
WP:AIPARALLEL:It was not solely a nationalist struggle but also a calculated effort by local elites to shape the political and economic transition following Spain's withdrawal from the Philippines.
Wikipedia:Signs_of_AI_writing#Rule_of_three:The successful expulsion of Spanish officials was facilitated by the cooperation between sugar planters, local militia, and sympathetic segments of the clergy.
In one of the very clearly LLM-written sections, I'm not finding direct support for the material added to the claimed Larkin book. For the Joaquin reference, pages 188-192 are given, and I see essays about Gregorio del Pilar, but no mentions of Lacson, Araneta, or anything about sugar farmers. I strongly suspect the LLM found legitimate books that could plausibly contain references and just dropped them in. I'd be happy for me to be wrong and Bluewp3 to further clarify where in these books the supporting material is located.CoffeeCrumbs (talk)15:37, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
Found some edit summaries[185][186] where the user seems to write in their own voice, which is clearly different than that used in their mainspace edits. Straightforward case of an editor using LLMs[187] (compare with edit summaries) past multiple warnings and then denying it[188]. If they can acknowledge LLM use in their edit toNegros Revolution and promise to never use LLMs again, then I'd be in favor of giving them another chance as they are quite a new editor. If not, CIR/NOTHERENicheSports (talk)19:01, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
The "ClueBot NG" reverted my edits due to "vandalism"
Hi! So I've been editing the page of the village in Anglesey, Wales called Llanerchymedd, and this bot just randomly deleted half of my edits because I was "vandalising" the page. Unless it's something to do with the "sanitary satisfactions" in Wikipedia, I'm saying upfront I didn't vandalise anything.CreAm1179 (talk)17:49, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
Istrongly recommend that you have a look atcy:Llannerch-y-medd. I don't speak Welsh, but at first sight there may be one or two good sources there which aren't used in enwiki. If you can import reliable information in those from cywiki into enwiki, you'll have done everyone a service.Narky Blert (talk)18:58, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
CreAm1179, your reverted edits failed two core content policies, which areNo original research andVerifiability. Your personal memories of lemonade stands and stones that may possibly be of Celtic origin do not belong in an encyclopedia. The role of a Wikipedia editor is to neutrally summarize what published reliable sources say about a topic.Cullen328 (talk)19:00, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
Yeh okay. You know the thing about a UFO, there IS a source for that. I don't know if it's classified as reliable but it's a source, so I might edit it later if I canCreAm1179 (talk)13:01, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
The people advising you above are quite right,CreAm1179, but I want to emphasise that it's obvious you were editing in a spirit of helpfulness,not vandalising. It was unkind of ClueBot to suggest it.Bishonen |tålk13:26, 31 October 2025 (UTC).
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
For a while now I have reverted almost 40,000 byts of fancruft, original research, and unsourced filler onRoyal Rumble match. A user, or numerous, keep re-adding it for nonsensical reasons despite Wikipedia policy obviously against it.Kntx12 decided to put in the edit summary "Stop being a nerd and freak over sources. It's obvious that people keep on readding the records back, so just stay away from it and don't be a puss, Lemonade."[189] which constitues as a personal attack. Additionally, I have no way of knowing if this user is the one who keeps re-adding the material or not, either way something must be done.Lemonademan22 (talk)19:12, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Pistachiosmiles53 seems to be a SPA who only edited theOwen Tripp andIncluded Health's AFD and page, while Drums4lyfe and Vikingsfan have done a few edits before also going to both of these pages to comment on the AFD.
vikingsfan and drums4lyfe also seemingly did the same typo once in their edits to the owen tripp page, but i'm not sure it really matters?173.206.50.207 (talk)14:51, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
Looks like potential AI usage too. Drums4lyfe and pistachiosmiles both said they're 'open to edits' on the AFD, while both drums4lyfe and vikingsfan said they 'neutralize[d] language.] All three accounts also used the relatively nonstandard all-caps 'KEEP' at the start of their !votes there. I think all three of these accounts are connected to Included Health.Athanelar (talk)15:10, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
you also brought up "similar typos" on drums4lyfe's talk page along withthis page creation that shows that drums4lyfe started their user page with a COI declaration only to then blank it, which i think are stuff that passing admins should also know?173.206.50.207 (talk)18:33, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
Antordutch has been repeatedly warned to stop using LLMs to generate unreviewed, large edits which have been substantially disruptive. Seehere where the added sources didn't exist or failed verification,this edit had Markdown formatting and referred to a source that is completed unrelated, orthis edit with similar issues. Most recently (the edit past the final warning) wasthis which had many clear issues, including reference links that had invalid anchors and did nothing when you clicked them.Perryprog (talk)18:21, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
Yet another case illustrating that LLM usage is a surefire sign that the editor involved should immediately receive an indefinite block onWP:CIR grounds. Anyone who thinksSrijit Mukherji is widely regarded as a game-changer in contemporary Bengali cinema belongs in an article obviously has no idea what is and is not appropriate article content. Seriously: CIR blocknow. This LLM shit needs to be stopped by any means necessary. (The block should have been applied at the first instance of LLM use.)EEng22:26, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
Antordutch, the sources you added didn't exist or didn't support the stated claims. The issue with your writing is that it's not your writing; it's anLLM like ChatGPT's writing that you're using without reviewing the content it's generating. The solution here is that you need to stop using LLMs.Perryprog (talk)13:43, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
No, the solution is an indef on CIR grounds. Sorry, to say it, but this editor can't even compose a sentence in English.EEng05:11, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Competence is not in evidence here. LLMs are a cancer that will eat wikipedia up and kill it. LLM use should warrant an immediate block, only lifted when a user can demonstrate a clear understanding that they can't use LLMs in any situation.Boynamedsue (talk)11:41, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
User:Egyptiankeng chronic good faith but unproductive edits at Grand Egyptian Museum
The saga begins withthis complete rewrite of the article by this user with no attempt to seek consensus or opinions on the talk page or relevant wikiprojects beforehand. The effort put in to this rewrite immediately led the user to develop asense of ownership over the article. Namely there wasthis diff by Craigmac41 to cut the (in their words) overwritten section about the museum closure, which would lead Egyptiankeng towarn them in an edit summary to 'stop vandalising the page' and would eventually culminate inEgyptiankeng making an ANI thread about Craigmac41, where they both ended up scolded for their behaviour.This is where I took an interest in the GEM article andtrimmed down a lot of the promotional and unencyclopedic content.
I'm reluctant to make this report because I know it's going to offend the user and I absolutely believe they are acting with an abundance of good faith, however I think onWP:CIR grounds they should be prevented from editing this particular article for a while, and maybe topics about ancient Egypt more specifically (given their apparent nationalistic interest therein), as they simply don't seem to have a very good understanding of what information ought to be included in a Wikipedia article, and their response to criticism of their content seems to be todemand that specific problems be pointed out (the 'alert' in this case being among othera a promotional language tone tag) or toremove only the content described in the specific policy I linked while re-adding other unencyclopedic content
I don't want to have to keep tweaking this user's edits for them but nor do I want an article about a very important museum to slowly shift back into a promotional, poorly-written piece if this user is left to their own devices. They have themselvesadmitted that they struggle to identify promotional tone and I think it would be appropriate for us to politely, temporarily prevent them from making further edits to this particular page or the Ancient Egypt topic more broadly.
This is a tough one in that this editor clearly wants to make this article better, so it would be very unfortunate to have to remove them from this article for the time being. But I think we need actual acknowledgement of the problems that are present and display an understanding of why these issues are real problems. We didn't get any real acknowledgement of issues in the last trip of ANI, and the editor in fact appeared quite indignant that others get to have just as much a say on this article. I fear without that, we'll either be right back in ANI again very quickly or, if editors are frustrating by the interactions, the article continues to fall into a messy, promotional,WP:TRAVELGUIDE mess.
I'll note that I may have some bias here, in that this editor gotextremely mad at me in the last ANI thread that I was talking about the article problems instead of just Craigmac41 being rude (and pointed out that the purpose of ANI isn't hauling people here for their punishments).CoffeeCrumbs (talk)09:39, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
Inaccurate. Why are you trying to interpret my objection as "being extremely mad"? My objection was about the fact that I filed a complaint about someone who "insulted" me, and I did not return the insult because I thought that if I filed a complaint against him, he would be punished, and his insult to me was described as "mild." Does Wikipedia contain this description of insults?Egyptiankeng (talk)10:33, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
Athanelar, you're accusing me of I have a sense of ownership over the article because I didn't approve of Craigmac41 removing Section: History of Museum Opening Postponement. But this is a statement without context., and I'll assume good intentions. This wasn't a disagreement about a sentence I considered good and Craigmac41 considered bad, or an image I thought good and he considered bad. It was about "information" I felt should be added to the article, while he felt it shouldn't. After he deleted this section twice, I sent him an edit war warning on his talk page and started a discussion on the museum's talk page because I didn't want it to escalate into an edit war. Telling Craigmac41 that it would end in an edit war wasn't a threat, but a warning. This is because, a few months ago, when I first joined Wikipedia, I got involved in one of those wars, and I know they're bad and their results won't satisfy anyone, so I tried to avoid it and explained my point of view to the editor. It's clear (HERE) that I told you I don't consider that article my "personal property," My cooperation with you is evident in my understanding of some of the removals you made and my decision not to try to restore them and I learned new things, such as not adding content that could be considered a tourist guide.
Secondly, you complain about my non-encyclopedic writing style, but you didn't mention that you explaining to me that promotional writing doesn't belong to Wikipedia. I also explained that it was unintentional and simply because English isn't my native language. Avoiding promotional writing is easy. Regarding removing your "who" tag without explaining the actual content of the article, that's incorrect. I explained what the Museums Authority is in detail in the "History of Edits" section, and I didn't realize I had to include that explanation within the article itself. Instead of using my explanation to added into the article, you filed a complaint against me here, which I find uncooperative and cannot interpret in good faith.
Regarding my being prevented from editing the article for a period of time and the specification of "Articles about Ancient Egypt," I honestly don't know where you got the idea that I edit articles about "Ancient Egypt." This is incorrect. I don't recall doing this unless you consider the museum article to be an article about Ancient Egypt, which is a misunderstanding on your part. I study Egyptology, so in the future and now, I believe I know more about Ancient Egypt than you. This isn't boasting; it's simply a clarification because you're judging someone you know nothing about, I see everyone here displaying their country's flag on their pages Ukrainian, Polish, Canadian, etc.—but this is forbidden for Egyptians? And you want to prevent me from writing on the pretext of my nationalist interests?
Once again, at the end of your message, you mention my promotional writing, while I actually stopped this type of "unintentional" writing a long time ago. I removed the notices you placed on the article and explained my reason in the edit history section: the article's language was improved and there was no longer any promotional content.
Honestly, I feel like you're nitpicking. This is evident from your previous attack on me, accusing me of using AI in writing the article and hastily adding a warning label stating it used AI. Despite several editors on this page informing you that they found no AI-generated content, and despite my explanation that I only use AI for personal research, you ignored all of that. This haste in adding those warnings and your failure to remove them after the article was improved is unacceptable, and I see it as proof that you're not trying to cooperate with me.
I fully appreciate all the editors who edited this article, and I wouldn't call what I did "removing their work." The article contained almost nothing more than a section on design, a short introduction, and a little about Tutankhamun. I didn't remove the design section; I kept it because it was good, and I edited the introduction several months ago. I added the rest of the sections from scratch. There was a main heading that focused solely on the museum logo design, which tells us a little about how the article was written and how I improved it by adding new sections, removing duplicate information, and grouping similar information, such as information about the design. I searched for images for the article and added many myself to Wikimedia that weren't there before. I personally contacted random people on social media to get good pictures of the museum.
But unfortunately you ignored all of this and told me that my article needed TNT.
I wrote a complete article (my first one entirely my own):Hussein Abdel Rasoul. It was added to the Tutankhamun article, and I was thanked by one of the editors. I also rewrote the Grand Egyptian Museum article when no one else bothered to do so. I independently searched for images for the article and I'm still searching. I'm learning from my mistakes, such as writing promotional material and adding information that could be considered a tourist guide. I don't know what you think, but I see myself as someone who contributes to the English Wikipedia and tries to improve it.
Although you're not obligated to, instead of writing all that complaint, you could have sent me some basic rules you think would be helpful to me. That would have been much more beneficial than trying to stop me from writing.Egyptiankeng (talk)10:28, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
Instead of using my explanation to added into the article, you filed a complaint against me here, which I find uncooperative and cannot interpret in good faith. This isn't a single occasion. This is me having to revert or copyedit essentially every edit you make to this page in order to bring it up to standard. It shouldn't be my responsibility nor that of any other editor to have to double-check every edit you make, you need to make yourself familiar with relevant policies before you edit and add content. A mistake every now and then is fine, but when essentially every edit you make on a particular page needs a second pass, that's a problem.
I honestly don't know where you got the idea that I edit articles about "Ancient Egypt." I never said as much. It's clear from your profile you have an interest in the subject, and you just said that you're an Egyptologist. My concern is that if you're blocked from editing the GEM article that you'll move on to doing this same thing to some other article within your area of expertise; my suggestion to limit you from editing articles about Ancient Egypt is in the hopes that being forced to edit articles outside of your subject matter expertise will force you to be smaller and more precise in your edits.
I study Egyptology, so in the future and now, I believe I know more about Ancient Egypt than you Completely irrelevant.
but this is forbidden for Egyptians? Nobody said that.
And you want to prevent me from writing on the pretext of my nationalist interests? It's not outlandish to suggest that somebody with such a particularly loudly-voiced passion for their national identity who only edits articles relating to their nation might have a bias in their editing which limits their ability to write with theWP:NPOV expected on Wikipedia.
. I removed the notices you placed on the article and explained my reason in the edit history section: the article's language was improved and there was no longer any promotional content. That is true, you did thathere. However, around the same time you did that you alsoadded the largely unencyclopedic 'Location and visiting' section which I then had to go back and forth with you about removing; this is my whole point. I raise one problem, we resolve it, then you proceed to introduce a different problem, rinse and repeat. Nobody's doubting your good faith or your desire to improve the encyclopedia, it's just that if your edits continually introduce problems that other editors need to solve, then maybe you shouldn't be editing; at least on that particular page.
This is evident from your previous attack on me, accusing me of using AI in writing the article and hastily adding a warning label stating it used AI That's not an 'attack.' I acted in accordance with my best judgement and I was wrong. When others agreed that there was no AI content I made no attempt to argue or protest.
But unfortunately you ignored all of this and told me that my article needed TNT. And I was right, considering I ended up removing thousands of bytes of unencyclopedic content from the article.
I don't know what you think, but I see myself as someone who contributes to the English Wikipedia and tries to improve it. Again, your good faith is not at all in question here.
instead of writing all that complaint, you could have sent me some basic rules you think would be helpful to me. That would have been much more beneficial than trying to stop me from writing. I've been trying to do that, and I'm seeing that it's an uphill battle because every time I work to resolve one issue you created with your edits, you proceed to add another that I then have to spend time correcting again.WP:CIR applies. I'm also not at all 'trying to stop you from writing,' that's why I'm proposing a block from a single article (or at most its broader topic) and not a total block. I completely believe in your good faith and I think you can be a productive editor on Wikipedia, just not on this particular article.Athanelar (talk)15:02, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
WP:NPA Comment on content, not on the contributor, You have no right to comment on my nationality, what I choose to edit, or what I don't, on English Wikipedia.WP:AGF You should assume good faith, but you are doing the exact opposite and making accusations of bias that have no basis in fact.Egyptiankeng (talk)15:46, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
ANI is about behavioral problems so there is no problem withUser:Athanelar commenting on your behaviors instead of content here. In fact, you are not supposed to dispute content on ANI. Additionally, I don’t see why you complain about theircomment on [your] nationality when 1) they did not comment on your nationality, and 2) you are the person who brought up your nationality in the first place.Northern Moonlight16:41, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
I was going to dismiss this as a content dispute, butthis edit crosses the line into edit warring as well. A discussion was open, Athanelar was actively responding, and the edit is knowingly reintroducing content that was objected to. I think Egyptiankeng needs to adjust their approach to both article writing and ANI discussions: slow down, avoidWP:WIKILAWYER, and be briefer.signed,Rosguilltalk18:40, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
There's no edit war, What are you talking about? I restored the Location and Visit section after reading the rule he send to me and removed information like opening hours, etc., leaving only the Location. But he told me again that the Location turns the article into a tourist guide, and I didn't know this because I saw the Louvre Museum article using the title and other details. I stopped restoring the edit and I haven't reopened the discussion about it, and I'm not interested. I don't know why you writing this without context.Egyptiankeng (talk)19:18, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
Re-adding a section that was objected to by another editor (as perSpecial:Diff/1319028558) who is actively engaging on the talk page is edit warring. I’ve reviewed both the article’s edit history and the talk page and do not appreciate your attempt to dismiss my concerns as uninformed. My comment stands, and in case it wasn’t sufficiently clear: you need to stop trying to argue with people who are giving you advicesigned,Rosguilltalk20:00, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
I'm not arguing!, your statement is completely wrong. The page's edit history shows that I only restored the section after another editor explained the rule stating that Wikipedia is not a tourist guide. I restored my edit at 09:41, 29 October 2025, After reading the rule he sent, I removed details such as museum opening hours and noted this in the history edit page. and then the editor removed it again at 15:36, 29 October 2025, indicating that he had opened a discussion on the talk page. From that moment, I never restored my edit. Therefore, the claim that I restored my edit "during the discussion" is false.Egyptiankeng (talk)20:38, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
I was referring to the Location and Visitors section. If you're talking about the Mang section, You're talking about October 27th, while I added the section again on October 29th and made it simpler, not just a revert to an old edit. I also pointed this out, and no one objected to the edit, so I don't understand your problem. Athanelar asked for clarification on the Museums Authority, and I explained what the Museums Authority is, but I didn't know I had to include it in the article.
I clarified what the Museums Authority is after reviewing the Athanelar discussion page's request for clarification. I removed the "Who" field that had been added and included an explanation in the edit history page
WP:WIKILAWYER I explained in detail that I thought the "who" tag meant I had to explain to the editor what it was, so I removed it and explained what the Museums Authority on the edit history page. This happened after I saw the discussion. Don't misuse Wikipedia's rules!Egyptiankeng (talk)23:19, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
I have blocked them for 31 hours. Edit warring, and self immolating above that was bordering on trolling/CIR. This does not preclude discussion on how to best make them a productive editor on the museum's article.StarMississippi23:29, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
Theirresponses, includingtwounblock requests do not inspire confidence that we're on the right track here. I'm wondering if an indef page-block from editingGrand Egyptian Museum would be productive, or if it's just going to generate more wikilawyering and talking themselves into a full indef block.signed,Rosguilltalk14:34, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
Now you see what I've been dealing with on the GEM article. "Hey, I removed X because it's not contributing to the article." "Really? Explain to me exactly what's wrong with it!" "Ok, it seems to contraveneWP:EXAMPLE" "Ok, I removed everything that contravenes the specificWP:EXAMPLE you linked and re-added the rest." "That's still unencyclopedic." "You told me to removeWP:EXAMPLE content and I did, what's wrong now?" Rinse and repeat on the next edit. There's no bad faith here, just an editor who has absolutely no interest in learning forthemselves what not to do and instead insists on doing what they think is right until others teach them otherwise.Athanelar (talk)15:11, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
Unexplained blanking of encyclopedic content on the article "Ready '24" by two experienced users
CONTENT DISPUTE
This is, in fact, a content dispute. There was no vandalism here. The OP is warned that calling content vandalismwhen it is not can be considered apersonal attack, and when it is repeatedly doubled-down on after being told it was not vandalism, it isabsolutely a personal attack.Drop the stick, as further comments in this vein will result in sanctions. -The BushrangerOne ping only18:17, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This is a content dispute. Whether the OP thinks so or not, editors are entitled to remove content, cited or not, which they believe doesn't belong in the article. It is not vandalism. The OP is not entitled to dictate the terms under which they will agree, or to claim that a content dispute is vandalism. The OP is further warned for edit-warring.Acroterion(talk)15:27, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
It was recently reported in several reputable outlets for music news (e.g. Rolling Stone, Billboard) that rapper Cam'ron is suing fellow rapper J. Cole and record label UMG over their April 2024 collaboration "Ready '24"; Cam'ron alleges unpaid royalties and violation of contractual obligations. I wrote a shortLegal action section for the article sourced with a Billboard article, and while I was at it, added aPersonnel section sourced with Tidal, and as well as "June 2022 (Cam'ron's vocals)" to theRecorded parameter of the song's infobox, as this was one of the details in the lawsuit and Billboard article. The following series of events happened:
[190] Binksternet blanks everything I did, no edit summary
[192] Binksternet blanks again, cites "no original research" in edit summary
[193] I start a talk page discussion in which I tag Binksternet and ask why he's citing "no original research" (although I mistakenly say "neutral point of view")
[194] Binksternet responds on the talk page - claims that he blanked everything because "June 2022 (Cam'ron's vocals)" wasn't followed by a citation in the infobox; he says this made him "lose trust" in my editing and decide to blank the rest immediately
[199] I restore everything on the Ready '24 article except the infobox parameter being contested, because again, Binksternet said he was only contesting the infobox parameter and that he blanked everything else only because it was written by me
[200] I place a warning on Binksternet's talk page with the following custom text: "Removing multiple entire sourced and informative sections from an article because they were written by the same editor who wrote a mistake in the article's infobox is not okay, doubly so when there was actually no mistake and you misunderstood what you were seeing."
[201] TheAmazingPeanuts blanks everything I did on the Ready '24 article, says to "take it to the talk page and stop edit warring"
[203] I place a warning on TheAmazingPeanuts' talk page with the following custom text: "Please don't remove multiple sourced and informative sections of an article without giving a reason"
[205] TheAmazingPeanuts blanks the article again, says "Take it to the talk page"
[206] I place another warning on TheAmazingPeanuts' talk page with the following custom text: "If you read the talk page you're referring to, you will see that the content you are removing is not being contested. The only thing that is being contested is a single infobox parameter. The other editor admitted in plain English that they didn't even read any of the other content they removed, and only removed all of it because they didn't like the infobox parameter. In other words, that editor has no issue with the content you are now removing."
I only intend for this post to be about unjustified removal of encyclopedic content, but I must unfortunately pre-emptively warn that TheAmazingPeanuts will claim that I have used "multiple accounts" to edit war. This is a false accusation they have made against me on an admin's talk page (the admin's response was basically "I dunno what you want me to do - the IP editor is using the talk page") and on a request for semi-protection of Ready '24 (which was eventually declined). If you ask TheAmazingPeanuts for examples, you will see that all of their examples are IP edits. I find it deeply concerning that TheAmazingPeanuts, who has had an account since 2014, doesn't know the difference between IP addresses and accounts (and furthermore, that they think the only reason a person's IP address can change on the internet is because they deliberately made it change). I worry that this may negatively inform how they interact with and judge edits by IP editors.2A00:23C8:F11A:7801:9506:48A6:C8B6:A408 (talk)10:39, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
You have a content dispute, not vandalism. Disagreement over what to include isn't vandalism. Also, you were edit-warring. In general, legal assertions are just that, and must be examined carefully to see if there is any basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia article until they're adjudicated. Having a source, or asserting a source, does not guarantee that other editors will agree that something should be included. Since this involves living persons, thebiographies of living persons policy is in play. Since your edits have been contested, coming back a few hours later, after edit-warring, and inserting something over the objections of other editors is problematic. I recommend that you self-revert, resolve this on the talkpage, or take it toWP:DR. Your vandalism warnings were inappropriate - blanking or reverting disputed content is not vandalism.Acroterion(talk)13:42, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
blanking or reverting disputed content is not vandalism
It clearlywas disputed. Go resolve your dispute, stop edit-warring (which you are still doing even if you wait 24 hours) and stop sending vandalism warnings to editors who disagree with you.Acroterion(talk)13:54, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
That isn't what you did, you restored the legal dispute, which is clearly being disputed on the talkpage. ANI is not a venue to argue your dispute over content. Take it to the talkpage, and wait for consensus, or take it to DR if that fails.Acroterion(talk)14:05, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
That isn't what you did, you restored the legal dispute, which is clearly being disputed on the talkpage.
There is no dispute over theLegal action section on the talk page. The only dispute on the talk page was me adding a piece of peripheral information that was included in the legal filing - that Cam'ron's vocals were recorded in June 2022 - to theRecorded parameter of the infobox. Since the start of the talk page discussion, I have not added that parameter back into the infobox.2A00:23C8:F11A:7801:E95C:2CE7:6036:F1B6 (talk)14:09, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
Clearly thereis a dispute over the legal section on that talkpage, you are focusing too much onyour particular edits, which caused other editors to look at the article as a whole and edit it, and which you keep reverting. This is not an issue for ANI.Acroterion(talk)14:17, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
Clearly thereis a dispute over the legal section on that talkpage
No, there isn't. The discussion consists of five comments - three by me, two by Binksternet - and all five of them are about theRecorded parameter in the infobox. Are you, by any chance, reading Binksternet's "Legal claims filed by one side don't mean squat. The important thing is the outcome." remark and thinking that that means the dispute is about theLegal action section?2A00:23C8:F11A:7801:E95C:2CE7:6036:F1B6 (talk)14:21, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Since this has been closed, I've deleted the comment I was writing. Nevertheless, I do have to say this: I do not believe the IP has been treated in good faith in this dispute and it is not purely a content dispute as is being characterized here.Mr rnddude (talk)16:09, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
It would have beenideal if Binksternet had been clearer in the initial edit summary, but there was a discussion almost immediately after the revert, and within a few hours, the IP editor would have no basis to be treating things as "blatant vandalism." By the time it reached ANI, it was clearly a content dispute and using "blatant vandalism" at that point was nothing but a cudgel with which to win a content dispute. Stopping vandalism is triage, not a pretext to win an edit war.CoffeeCrumbs (talk)16:43, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
You haven't introduced any arguments that Mr rnddude hasn't already read in the above discussion. You've just repeated the exact same rhetoric in what seems to be an aggressive ("clearly a content dispute") attempt to shame Mr rnddude for dissent.2A00:23C8:F11A:7801:E95C:2CE7:6036:F1B6 (talk)17:28, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
@AnemoiZZ Yourlack of civility here was obviously not good. I see youapologised for it indirectly, but maybe you'd like to take the opportunity to apologise directly to the offended party.
@Maurice Oly You aren't exactly innocent either, youadmitted to your 'anger getting the better of you' in private messages with this person. Whatever it is that you said, maybe you should also apologise for that.
I don't think there's any ANI-actionable things here, just two hotheads who couldn't de-escalate properly. Shake hands and make up and I think the admins will be happy.(Non-administrator comment)Athanelar (talk)17:54, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
Ok, I apologise for the edit slight edit waring and for not checking the talk page on Duke of York before reverting the edits made by @AnemoiZZ.
FYI: @AnemoiZZ has continued to edit after being pinged here for the opportunity to apologise to @Maurice Oly, and I would personally encourage the admins to take that as continued incivility on their part.(Non-administrator comment)Athanelar (talk)20:43, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Seehere for the legal threat by user OhioGovernorPBF. I can't put this any more simply to report an apparent legal threat from an obvious conflict of interest.Jalen Barks(Woof)22:05, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. I have done it for you.
This is a content dispute. The only thing worth noting is that it concerns edits to the Infobox (a contentious topic). Looking at the article's history (especially the edit war), my advice to you would be to retract this report and to continue discussing the issue on the talk page.M.Bitton (talk)20:10, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Misuse of bot, threats, and draft move – request for review
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I’m reaching out to report a serious case of misconduct concerning the article Muhammad Usman Malik.
I am the second writer of the article. It was originally published in mainspace but was later moved to Draft:Muhammad Usman Malik by the original creator, who used a bot to carry out the move.
This action took place after he began demanding additional payment beyond our agreed amount. When I refused, he threatened me and then used the bot to move the article back to draft — without any valid reason, prior discussion, or review.
This raises several serious concerns:1.Misuse of a bot for personal retaliation, which is a violation of Wikipedia’s automation and conduct policies.2.Blackmail and intimidation, which directly breach the platform’s standards on harassment and paid editing (WP:OUTING, WP:HARASS, WP:PAY).
The article itself remains neutral, meets Wikipedia’s notability and sourcing criteria, and includes multiple independent, reliable citations (The Express Tribune, ARY News, The News, etc.).
•An immediate administrative review of the bot’s misuse and the editor’s conduct, and•Guidance on whether this should be escalated directly to WP:ANI or another enforcement venue.
This situation has created unnecessary distress and undermines the integrity of the editing process. I’d be sincerely grateful for your help in addressing it fairly and transparently.
The OP did mention the article name, Muhammad Usman Malik, but did not link to it. It's now atDraft:Muhammad Usman Malik. It was moved to draft byWhoCaresWhom(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log), an account with 26 edits, almost all of which are on this article or their user page. The move rationale was "needs more sources" which is rather ridiculous as this very short 7-sentence stub has 34 sources. I have not evaluated the quality of the sources. The OP did not notify WhoCaresWhom of this report but45dogs has done so.CodeTalker (talk)21:24, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
Huh. I'd be less about "needs more sources" than "needs morecontent." For purported paid work, this is a mediocre job. For what it's worth, policing paid editing in Better Business Bureau terms being not remotely our remit. Ravenswing21:40, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
revised text
Hello administrators,
I am reporting a serious case of misconduct related to the articleMuhammad Usman Malik.
I am the second writer of the article. It was originally published in mainspace but was later moved toDraft:Muhammad Usman Malik by the original creator, who used a bot to perform the move.
This move occurred without discussion, consensus, or a valid stated reason, and followed a series of demands for additional payment from that editor. When I refused, he began threatening and intimidating me, repeatedly citing his “16 years of experience” on Wikipedia as leverage to pressure and blackmail me. Shortly after, he used his bot account to move the article back to draft space.
‘’‘Key concerns’’’•Misuse of a bot for personal retaliation:The editor appears to have used a bot to perform a page move motivated by a personal dispute rather than any policy-based reasoning, which may constitute a violation ofbot policy andaccountability standards.•Blackmail and intimidation:The editor engaged in coercive behavior by demanding additional payment and invoking his long-term experience to exert pressure. This violatesharassment policy,paid editing guidelines, andouting and privacy rules.•Damage to content integrity:The article meetsgeneral notability guidelines and is supported by multiple reliable sources (The Express Tribune, ARY News, The News). The move appears retaliatory rather than editorially justified.
•I now request an administrative review of both the bot’s use/move logs and the editor’s conduct in this case.
‘’‘Requested outcome’’’
I respectfully request:•An immediate administrative investigation into the misuse of the bot and the user’s conduct.•Clarification on whether this should be further escalated toConflict of Interest Noticeboard or remain under ANI.•Review or temporary restriction of the involved user’s bot privileges, pending evaluation.
This incident has undermined fair editing practices and caused undue distress. I appreciate your time and attention to ensure that this matter is reviewed transparently and in line with Wikipedia’s conduct and automation policies.
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There's a lot of rapid changes being made to the bio-in-queston, at the moment. At this time, the best thing would be to restore the status quo & open a discussion on the talkpage.GoodDay (talk)19:39, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
I've opened that. Just feel it would be prudent to add move protection specifically given we've just had one ping pong move back and forth and it probably won't be the last.Rambling Rambler (talk)19:40, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
No. You have frankly begun edit-warring over this having prematurely closed the RM that I opened barely four hours ago despite there being a clear continuing difference of opinions on the subject and refusing to let it be re-opened.[207][208][209]
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Something is going on, I'm not exactly sure what, atTalk:Turning Point USA#Rob McCoy was not a co-founder. (For those not familiar, this relates to the Charlie Kirk assassination.) There seems to be some sort of off-site canvassing, with a motive that's not obvious to me, and I'm not in the mood to go researching off-site. I've left a note to editors there,[210]. I'd appreciate it if a few administrators could keep an eye on that. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk)22:26, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
Nil NZ is correct. Candace Owens discussed the article in her podcast. You could have simply asked me what brought me to the page and I would have told you, just like I openly toldAnupam after my very first article edit. I'm not up to anything untoward and have nothing to hide. I simply want to improve the article and make it more balanced. I don't usually agree with Owens but I heard her discussing the article and I decided to check it out and then decided that I agreed with some of her issues. That's all there is to it. As for the other editors, I don't know any of them. The person who I asked to come to the talk page edited the article after me and expressed displeasure about the McCoy section in their edit summary. That's why I asked them to join the discussion. I was attempting to avoid the article descending into an edit war. Thanks,Sarah01:06, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
EEng, I guess you are easily confused.[FBDB] I had to revert this, which was even moar confused:[211]. Kinda funny, but I don't know if any admin might think it worthy of a revdel? --Tryptofish (talk)22:28, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
FWIW, if anyone wants to do a deep dive, "Turning Point" as a term has a history, and can be found in the occult literature going back a ways.Gary Lachman spent quite a bit of time documenting the history of right wing conservatives and the occult in the era of Trump inDark Star Rising (2018). In the larger occult literature the "turning point" of magical sigils is often emphasized, with theswastika the most famous, but this is only one of many symbols in this regard.Viriditas (talk)01:40, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This is an Ignore All Rules edit. Any editor that removes or suppresses it, will be reported to the US Congressional inquiry into the manipulation of Wikipedia by foreign agents
The archives confirm that ATMN, Brian K Horton, and another LTA namedMickMacNee are the same person. I suppose they can all be merged, probably under ATMN since they're WMF banned. I'm surprised they don't have an LTA page already; they seem to have been active for decades and have apparently engaged in off-wiki harassment/doxxing of several contributors.ChildrenWillListen (🐄 talk,🫘 contribs)13:23, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
Looking at the history of that article, a part of me thinks we should at the very least semi-protect it, and more likely extended-confirmed-protect it, considering this seems to be a semi-frequent target. —Jéské Courianov^_^vthreadscritiques16:10, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am not sure what those two accounts are up to, or whether one is a sock of the other, or if it is two pals goofing off. But it is disruptive and so I have blocked both accounts for 72 hours.Cullen328 (talk)08:37, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Disruptive behavior
NO ACTION NEEDED
After decoding the LLM mess, the whole kerfluffle is about a single edit changing the film type. A good demonstration of how LLMs destroy meaning. — rsjaffe🗣️17:32, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This appears factually incorrect, and disruptive and intended to mislead as the film is a Holocaust-era drama. The edit may have been made in bad faith or without proper sourcing. Requesting admin review to ensure the article reflects accurate information and to monitor the IP for further disruptive edits.
This is factually incorrect, as the film is a Holocaust-era drama. The edit may have been made in bad faith with intent to disrupt and mislead or without proper sourcing. Requesting admin review to ensure the article reflects accurate information and to monitor the IP for further disruptive edits.— Precedingunsigned comment added by2603:7000:9700:2d51:71ae:5213:e005:198c (talk)12:56, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
This change appears to have been reverted - there does appear to be something very odd about the diff however, as it is (for me) pointing at a completely different article (or rather diffs between two entirely separate articles!).Nigel Ish (talk)13:18, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment) GPTZero, ZeroGPT & Quillbot agree with you 100% (although the short paragraph means the results are less accurate, it's still showing as 99-100% AI-generated on all three).Blue Sonnet (talk)15:37, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I want to report the user “Xjptankman”He keeps saying I have “colleagues” and that I am editing together with other users. This is not true. I edit alone.Here is where he said it on the Matcha talk page:"you and your colleague still haven’t produced proof.."
"Your colleague made the same kind of denial earlier..."
“keep muddying the issue”
“that approach only makes your position not worth considering”
These are incorrect personal claims it’s not part of the topic discussion. This harmed me and suggested I am editing as part of some group. I do believe we needsecondary sources to prove the origin of somethin but he still use inappropriate words to against me.Admin Please look at this. Sorry, I can only edit by phone right now, and I am not able to link directly to the talk discussion page. Thank you.
I want to clarify a few things regarding the report against me.
First, the phrase“you and your colleague” was not meant as an accusation. I only used it because you had already groupedme together with another user (“薔薇騎士団”) in your own comments. I was simply mirroring the way you framed it. I edit alone and have never coordinated with anyone.
These lines explicitly describe the birth of Matcha in Japan. Yet you still claimed the site never said this, which only confuses the issue instead of addressing it.
Third, I need to point out that some of your remarks crossed the line from content discussion into personal attacks:
These are not about sources or article content — they are direct attacks on me. That kind of language is not appropriate here.Xjptankman (talk)02:12, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
As noted in the big banner when you report someone, you need to supply diffs for the disruptive editing and overlinking — rsjaffe🗣️01:47, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
I think you should specify what thing in their contribs, not everyone has the time to check it. I checked and this seems likebiting a newbie as no one has attempted a discussion on their talkpage. Maybe give us what of the contribs contain these issues?
I looked at most of their last 30 contribs and I honestly don't see what you are complaining about. There is a bunch of fiddling with TV station names in articles and in redirects, and adding and replacing logos, and one instance of overlinking "United States". Perhaps the station name edits are incorrect, but not having expertise in the subject, that's not clear to me. You really need to provide diffs that show the disruption.CodeTalker (talk)17:27, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
RGloucester
Last week, after I!voted to procedurally close an RfC,RGloucester (talk·contribs)said that my comments wereunbecoming of an administrator, and thensuggested that I would abuse my admin authority to block editors I disagree with, and that I was trying to chill dissent and force all new PAGs to go throughWikiProject Policies and Guidelines, which I recently revived with the express intent ofsimplify[ing] and consolidat[ing] Wikipedia's policies and guidelines (including the Manual of Style) without changing their substantive meaning. Iresponded and moved on.
Today, I commented in anunrelated RfC that RGloucester started. In that discussion, I suggested that editors who don't have experience with GAN should consider whether they have adequate knowledge to opine about what the quickfail criteria should be.
Now, RGloucester has opened a clearly retaliatoryMFD regarding WikiProject Policies and Guidelines, accusing myself and several other respected editors (including the one who he accused me of trying to silence and "chill") of forming a cabal to overthrow PAGs.voorts (talk/contributions)00:29, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
@SarekOfVulcan: It seems like there's precedent for these sorts of discussions occurring at MFD. SeeWikipedia:Esperanza. In any event, I'd rather just get this discussion over with at MFD rather than having to restart this debate somewhere else. I brought this here because of RGloucester's conduct, not the MFD.voorts (talk/contributions)02:08, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
I concur with theSpeedy closure, because it wasn't really a request to delete the WikiProject, but to mark it historical. I haven't reviewed the WikiProject, but it wasn't a real deletion nomination.Robert McClenon (talk)02:25, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
These sorts of discussions have always occurred at MfD, Esperanza being one precedent, which I cited in my nomination. I did not open the MfD in retaliation, but because the PROJPOL page is being used as gathering space for editors that share an opinion, who may then be canvassed to support a given position in any discussion. The fact that Voorts has seen fit to open this AN/I thread, without even trying to discuss the matter with me, tells one all one needs to know. Who benefits from supressing discussion? I never accused WhatamIdoing or Femke of anything (seehere, where I acknowledged that Femke was acting in good faith, andhere, where I participated in the RfC that WhatamIdoing opened aftermy revert). I simply asked them to attain consensus for the changes they were making. Clearly, that is too much to ask. Let the community make up its own mind.Yours, &c.RGloucester —☎03:50, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
One of the fundamental principles of Wikiprojects is that they should not be activist gathering places. They should be focused on improving the encyclopaedia's content. PROJPOL is a project that claims to want to 'simplify' our policies and guidelines, but what of those in the community who do not think they need simplification? Should we open a separate project for those who want to 'protect our existing policies and guidelines'? There is no community consensus on this issue, and no project should be formed to take one side in a given dispute, hence my reference to the WikiProject Conservatism debacle of many years ago. Instead of accepting what areWP:GOODFAITH objections on their merits, I am brought to AN/I, and the discussion supressed...what does that say about the objectives of this project?Yours, &c.RGloucester —☎04:05, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
User:RGloucester writes:One of the fundamental principles of Wikiprojects is that they should not be activist gathering places.. Where is that principle written? Is it in a policy or guideline? Although many editors would like that to be true, it is not true. We have and have had WikiProjects that are activist gathering places. It is true that these projects have been controversial, but there hasn't been a guideline that shut them down. The two examples that I can think of are theWP:Article Rescue Squadron andWP:WikiProject Portals, each of which has been driven by a philosophy that has not been shared by all editors. The Article Rescue Squadron has had the objective of preventing the deletion of articles. The Portals project has had the objective of maximizing the number of portals. I disagree with both objectives, but we do have those projects, although they are controversial activist gathering places.Robert McClenon (talk)05:29, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
That principle is expressed in numerous precedents, some of which I have cited. One was Esperanza, which was shut down for precisely this reason. Another is WikiProject Conservatism, as run by Lionelt back in the early 2010s. The problems with both of these were that 1), they contravened the principle that'WikiProjects are not rule-making organisations' and do not have any ownership over their scope, and 2), functioned primarily to facilitateWP:VOTESTACKing, something our guidelines do not permit. You can read some of the past discussion in the Wikiproject Conservatism archives.Moxy may be able to provide more details about why PROJPOL itself was originally shut down. I do not think the examples you cite are very good. If anything, the portals project proves my point. It was the subjectof an ArbCom case, because project members continued to try tocreate hundreds of portals in spite of a community decision to stop their creation.Yours, &c.RGloucester —☎05:51, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
Should we open a separate project for those who want to 'protect our existing policies and guidelines'? There is literally nothing stopping you from doing exactly this. Heck, nothing is stopping you fromjoining WikiProject Policies and Guidelines to support the opinion that things are currently not broken! I, personally, don't believe our P&Gs need any sort of across-the-board simplifcation, but if other editors believe they do, I'mnot going to tell them they can't discuss how it could be done. So how, exactly, are editors whodo believe this is necessary supposed to develop proposals to do so? Perhaps by forming a group, where they can workshop ideas to bring them before the community for a formal RfC if they believe they might have a workable proposal. Some sort of...WikiProject, perhaps. -The BushrangerOne ping only06:25, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
I cannot join a project that has a non-neutral scope: if I don't support simplification, how can I join a project thatexplicitly defines that as its goal? Traditionally, policy and guidelines proposals are workshopped at the village pump, precisely for the same reason that these editors attempted to unilaterally demote various guidelines, seeWP:CONLEVEL andWP:PROPOSAL. The idea that I am involved in any kind of censorship is very strange. I wanted to have a discussion to see if there is community consensus for such a project...normally, that would be considered within my rights as an editor. Plenty of Wikiprojects are deleted or marked inactive, numerous MfDs have been opened for similar reasons. Why am I being singled out?Yours, &c.RGloucester —☎06:48, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
A few quick notes:
Wikipedia:A WikiProject is a group of people. A WikiProject is not a "scope". Any group of editors that wants to work together is welcome to start a WikiProject and then work together in whatever way improves Wikipedia. The group can call itselfalmost anything it wants. The group can even call themselves "WikiProject Dogs" and only edit articles about cats, if that's what the group wants. "Competing" groups (with overlapping areas of interest) are encouraged to merge but are permitted to remain separate if they want (e.g.,Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Emergency medicine and EMS task force vsWikipedia:WikiProject First aid).
It is true that the participants atWikipedia:WikiProject Policies and Guidelinesdo not have any ownership over their scope. However, that is true for all WikiProjects. WPMED does not have any ownership over articles in their scope; MILHIST does not have any ownership over articles in their scope; no WikiProject of any kind has any ownership over the pages in their scope. What a group does have is ownership over their own actions: If they want to edit X, then that's okay (same rules as any other editor). If they don't want to edit Y, then that's okay, too (same rules as any otherWP:VOLUNTEER, even if you believe they should support the article Y).
Editors who wish to argue that there is no community consensus about whether policies and guidelines should be simple vs complicated, duplicative vs not, etc., are advised to readWikipedia:Policies and guidelines#Content (a long-standing policy) and probablyWP:NOTBURO, too.
Sure, I "unilaterally demoted various guidelines" – or, more precisely, after a discussion (so not "unilateral"), I 'demoted' pages thataren't guidelines, that never had a properWP:PROPOSAL (required by policy since 2008), and whose page title explicitly violates theWP:Advice page guideline. I don't think I have much to apologize for that, but it doesn't matter to me if you disagree.
I am not the only one who has expressed wariness over the existence of this project. In the very brief time that the MfD was open, at least three editors other expressed concerns. The issue with this project is precisely that it is not like Wikiproject Dogs, which would have a specific scope related to the subject matter it aims to improve, i.e. articles related to dogs. This project specifically takes an activist position, arguing that our policies and guidelines require some kind of consolidation or simplification. This is the equivalent to WikiProject Dogs taking the position that articles about specific breeds of dog should be removed from the encyclopaedia, and then serving as a staging ground to actively remove them. This would be disruptive to the encyclopaedia, and fall afoul ofWP:CONLEVEL. The idea that policies and guidelines 'should be simple' has consensus, but what there is no established consensus for is the idea that they are not simple in their present form, or require substantial rewriting or consolidation.Yours, &c.RGloucester —☎07:45, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
if I don't support simplification, how can I join a project that explicitly defines that as its goal? "I cannot join this project because I don't believe in their primary position. I'm worried that they are going to become an echo chamber." Become a Marxist of theGroucho variety: don't join any club that would have you as a member. More seriously, I rephased your point to its functional meaning to make a point. Dissenting viewpoints are good. Being exposed to viewpoints you don't hold isalso good.Traditionally, policy and guidelines proposals are workshopped at the village pump And when they'renot yet proposals, where are they to be workshopped? Somebody's personal talk page? Off-wiki?I wanted to have a discussion to see if there is community consensus for such a project Fun fact, you don't need community consensus for a WikiProject.Once one has spiraled to the point of being disruptive, consensus can close it down, but itexisting is not a matter for community consensus.Why am I being singled out? Well, part of it is this: you haverepeatedly claimedthese editors attempted to unilaterally demote various guidelines, when this has been, every time, pointed out to have not been the case - which makes youcasting aspersions. -The BushrangerOne ping only08:52, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
Normally, proposals that are not yet proposals are workshopped at the village pumpidea lab.
How is this a 'claim'? Picking out guidelineson the PROJPOL page, andremoving the guideline tag from them, without even bothering to consult with the editors involved in the relevant guideline, and ignoring previous a RfC that resultedin the application of the guideline tag? Ireverted the removal; if I hadn't, there would have been no RfC, as these are little-watched pages in far-flung corners of the encyclopaedia. When the RfC was opened, Iparticipated in good faith. What about my recounting of these events is untrue, or 'aspersions'? Let's go back to the origin of this AN/I. I opened an MfD, and rather than engage, Voorts immediately reported me to AN/I, claiming I attacked Femke and WhatamIdoing. Where are the actionable diffs where I attacked anyone? This is fundamentally a content dispute, but instead I am being accused of having donesomething...but what?Yours, &c.RGloucester —☎09:10, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
Bushranger, it was before our time, but many of our oldest policies and guidelines (back when we made no distinction between the two) were originally workshopped off wiki, usually in IRC or e-mail. It was only when you and I were newbies that there was a big push to have off-wiki conversations "not count".
As one editor from the early days told me, how else could we have a new policy posted one morning and immediately supported by key editors, if that group of editors hadn't spent the night before writing the policy and coordinating their actions?WhatamIdoing (talk)17:10, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
@WAID andThe Bushranger: sort of but the context was quite different. It goes without saying the mailing list was central to a lot of decision-making early on, and then of course the original concept for metawiki was as the place to host all meta-level discussions and some were held there though obviously it didn't stickremember namespaces weren't a thing until Phase II. At the same time there was a lot of spitballing done on-wiki, and a proposal seeing a same day flood of supporters with no opponents was decidedly not the norm.
Much was still initially framed as advice or information, and even as things became more firm was usually an effort to codify practice that emerged as a result of reactive decision-making.
Thinking just on the user conduct stuff, reactivity followed latersometimes much later by documentation was the norm. Isis just issued some legal threats, now what? Throbbing Monster Cock has asked to be sysop, how do we handle that? Wanli is using Wikipedia for file storage, what's the appropriate action here? 24 has reincarnated again is that allowed? And so you get NLT, UPOL, NOTWEBHOST, SOCK, and even BANit took a surprisingly long time to work out what a ban even meant, but that's another tangent. Sure you could say the documentation came about ultimately because of actions Jimbo took as a result of e-mail prodding, but the specifics of documentation were largely worked out here over time.
And neither the mailing list nor the brief foray with metawiki could reasonably be treated as backroom cabaling, not at first anyway. It was advertised known about and accepted. As time went on circumstances changed and practice adapted.
It all also simply mattered less, the general vibe for years was just to let everyone do their own thing as long as it roughly approximated encyclopedia building, and IAR was invoked with much greater frequency.
Even as regards the conflicts during the second-half of the 00s I think the degree of cabaling tends to be exaggerated. Yes sometimes it happened and yes there were people who strove to write policy in a way that got all of their opponents blocked, but that was the exception not the norm.184.152.65.118 (talk)19:35, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
I very much doubt there is ANY project on Wikipedia over which you can't find three editors to "express concern." That being said, you could just as easily (and with just as much accuracy, while we're lining up strawmen) argue that EVERY project involves advocacy. Every project involving a subject seeks the creation and expansion of related articles, without respect to the rest of the encyclopedia.
Andthat being said, come now, we can do without the hyperbole. (Would you appreciate being described as being hellbent on keeping policies and guidelines impenetrable to new editors?) Materially changing the text ofany established policy or guideline would take a great deal of effort, probably a great deal of time, and require the input either through the respective talk pages, the Village Pump or a sitewide RfC of an order of magnitude more editors than have signed up for this project. Are you indeed wary that a handful of editors somehow maintain a sinister hold over the minds of those people, or is the wariness simple disapproval of the project's goals? Ravenswing08:55, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
at least three editors other expressed concerns, that is false. I suggested a wider discussion only to stop this conspiratorial nonsense.Kowal2701 (talk)10:38, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
I'm not going to respond point by point to RGloucester. When I restarted PROJPOL, I made it clear that my intention was to seek community consensus for any changes that the Project proposes. I have now said this several times in several venues to respond to RG. Even if that weren't true, RG still didn't seek to discuss the issue with any of us, ignored those explanations, and instead saw fit to start an MFD where they accused me and others of trying to gatekeep, suppress dissent, and undermine consensus. All of that said, I'd still welcome RG to the PROJPOL talk page if they want to discuss their views civilly and withoutassuming the worst about their colleagues. If RG doesn't want to do that, I would ask RG to voluntarily not interact with me and drop the stick about PROJPOL.voorts (talk/contributions)13:23, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
But this is precisely the point, Voorts. You say that I did not the discuss the issue with 'us', meaning your project. You say that you would 'welcome me' to the project, as if youWP:OWN it. In each discussion, you use this 'us' to other people, myself included. In the first discussion, where I said your remark was 'unbecoming', you bludgeoned the proposer and specifically mentioned thatother editors wanted to write a policy, and that the proposer should not 'monopolise' the proposal. Maybe you did not understand how his remark felt to someone not part of this group of other editors. I will tell you that I perceived it as a threat, and my fears were justified by what's happened here.
Then, at the other proposal, you madea snide remark about GA reviews, basically saying that only those with a pile of GA badges should be able to participate. I will have you know that I have participated in plenty, long before you ever joined the project. Finally, here you mention 'respected editors', as if I do not belong to this 'class', despite my years of service to this encyclopaedia. In this situation, how do you expect me to want to join your project? I have no obligation to go through your project. I opened a discussion in a public place to discuss it. There is nothing wrong or untoward about this. It is the usual procedure for resolving disputes or gaining consensus. If consensus is gained for the project to continue as it is, then of course, I will abide that consensus.
You still haven't provided any diffs for where I accused Femke or WhatamIdoing of misconduct. Is it right to make accusations without supporting them with evidence? You are a lawyer, are you not?
I don't think I own the project. I said "us" because I'm not the only person who's part of the project.
I did not bludgeon @Cremastra (who has since joined WP:PROJPOL, by the way). I civilly discussed the matter and bowed out when it became clear that the RfC would proceed. By the way, it has consistently been my position that we should adhere to RFCBEFORE to discuss proposals, particularly wide-ranging ones.
As I explained to you in the AI discussion, I did not invoke PROJPOL in saying that other editors (e.g., several experienced editors who have been working on these AI issues for years) wanted to workshop the RfC before it continued. PROJPOL has nothing to do with AI.
As I also explained to you, my comment about monopolizing was not in reference to Cremastea personally, and given her response to that thread, it seems like she didn't interpret it that way either.
I brought you to ANI because you've repeatedly impugned the integrity of several editors, assumed bad faith, cast aspersions, and then opened an MFD because (from circumstantial evidence) it seems that you don't like me. I don't know what I did to piss you off. I don't recall ever interacting with you prior to the AI discussion.
My comments in the GA discussion were that editors who have never done a GAN review should think before they opine on what the QF criteria should be/what the needs of GAN reviewers are.
I never said you weren't respected. Look at the list of editors who have joined PROJPOL and tell me that there aren't severl respected editors who you are now accusing of being in an illicit consensus-undermining cabal.
The diffs are the MFD discussion. You very clearly accused WAID of trying to undermine consensus for making abold edit (which, as you know, WAID believes is complaint with our PAGs on PAGs). Then, in the same paragraph where you invoke several disruptive past projects, you accused Femke of seeking to disrupt the encyclopedia byopening an RfC at VPP.
You are allowed to hold whatever opinions you want. You are not allowed to attack fellow editors who are clearly operating in good faith because you believe something sinister is afoot.voorts (talk/contributions)14:32, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
Also, my invitation to discuss this civilly without accusations of bad faith stands. I would still welcome you to PROJPOL; as others in this discussion have said, being exposed to opposing views is very important to seeking a good consensus. If you don't want to voice your dissent in a way that doesn't involve casting aspersions, that's on you.voorts (talk/contributions)14:43, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
I never accused WhatamIdoing of anything in the RfD. I did not even her mention her name. Ilinkedtwo diffs, and made the following statementin some cases they are making these changes without gaining explicit consensus to do so.. No discussion at the village pump, or with the editors involved in each topic area was held prior to making these changes, despite the fact that in both cases, prior discussions had determined that there was a consensus for the guideline tag at each page. My statement stands. I never questioned WhatamIdoing's good faith, which is whyI participated in the RfC when it was opened.
I never accused Femke of trying to disrupt the encyclopaedia, I said that her attempt to demote a guideline merely on procedural grounds without assessing its merits was a good example of overly-bureaucratic behaviour, seeWP:NOTBURO. First of all, Femke did not open an RfC,only a talk page discussion. Femke did not notify WikiProject Automobiles of the proposal to demote this guideline. Idid this on her behalf. Look at my comments in that discussion.What did I say? I said:I appreciate that you and your collaborators are acting in good faith. So again, where are these attacks? Where is the lack of civility?Yours, &c.RGloucester —☎15:11, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
Context matters. Your MfD and the comments at the VPP thread indicate you still believe that PROJPOL is a shadowy cabal seeking to impose its views on others. You're also seeking to shut down a WikiProject because of those cabal assertions and because one editor made bold edits, the other started a discussion to seek consensus that you happen to disagree with, and because you think I'm trying to gatekeep/censor/suppress dissent. Sure, you said in a single post that you think PROJPOL is operating in good faith, but every single argument you've made against it implies the opposite. I think the context is clear. If you don't see it that way, we have nothing more to discuss and I renew my request that you voluntarily avoid interacting with me.voorts (talk/contributions)15:28, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
My argument is based on experience, dealing with past, similar projects. Often times, members of these sorts of groups working in good faith lose sight of the forest by focusing too much on the trees. The result is...trouble.Moxy mentioned this point when you first wanted to revive the project, long before I had anything to do with it. As you can see, I do not necessarily disagree with the substance of some changes being made, which is why I supporteda proposal made by a project member in one RfC. Please also note, that of the pages listed atWikipedia talk:WikiProject Policies and Guidelines#Guidelines that are subpages of WikiProjects, I only reverted the removal of the guideline tag in two cases, i.e. those where a previous discussion or RfC had determine that the pages should have a guideline tag. You can claim that I am 'out to get you' or that I think your project is a 'shadowy cabal', but my actual behaviour shows no evidence of this. The only thing I care about is consensus, and a level playing field. I hope that you can see this, that I am acting in good faith, and that I am not some conspiracy theorist who thinks PROJPOL is going to destroy the encyclopaedia. I simply have legitimate doubts about its function, and seek community review. If you are willing to withdraw this AN/I thread, I will happily begin a community discussion on this subject.Yours, &c.RGloucester —☎15:39, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
As was already pointed out, Moxy was incorrect about the reasons PROJPOL ended. You say editors lose sight of the forest for the trees, yet you have no evidence of that occurring here. The project was literally just restarted and its members hasn't even reached agreement on what they want to work on. I'm not going to withdraw this ANI and bless you going to VPP to start yet another discussion where you can imply that PROJPOL, or any of the editors involved with it, is or will do anything untoward. Editors are allowed to collaborate based on their views and propose changes to the broader community. I have said repeatedly that I think any major changes proposed via PROJPOL will need a wide consensus from the community and I don't think anyone who's part of PROJPOL has suggested otherwise. If, after all of that clarification and explanation, you think myself and other editors are out to impose our views against community consensus, I can only assume that you're continuing to contest the existence of this WikiProject because you don't trust its members or (ironically) you want to prevent editors from working on something you disagree with.voorts (talk/contributions)16:02, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
RG is also incorrect about the allegedprevious discussion or RfC had determine that the pages should have a guideline tag.
Wikipedia:WikiProject Belgium/Brussels naming conventions was apparently promoted because"We told everyone on WPBelgium" and since the WikiProject members agreed with each other, with no outside notification, they thought that was good enough. It's not good enough: A WikiProject deciding amongst themselves whether the ordinary community-wide guidelines apply to "their" articles is literally the example inWP:LOCALCON of what WikiProjects are not allowed to do.
Yes, there were in these two cases "discussions". But there were not discussions that were actuallycapable of "determining that the pages should have a guideline tag". The determination of whether the community wants a community-wide guideline is up to the community, not a handful of people drawn from a biased sample.WhatamIdoing (talk)17:32, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
This is precisely the point. These two pages were tagged after discussion between numerous editors. No one objected to the tag for more than a decade. The question now is do we tear down the work of these editors purely because some procedure may have not been followed ages ago? No, perWP:NOTBURO...we evaluate whether these actually represent the actual practice of editors, which is what guidelines are supposed to be. If not, if no one follows them, demote them. But, to demote them purely for procedural reasons?
It is not obvious to me why aWP:LOCALCONSENSUS at PROJPOL overrides a local consensus elsewhere, especially considering that these are guidelines that were established over time, which is an indication of implicit consensus, perWP:EDITCON. Why does PROJPOL have the authority to unilaterally decide which pages have met sufficient procedural requirements to be a guideline? This is exactly an example of 'forest through the trees' thinking. All I asked for was a discussion, so it could be determined how to situate these pages, whether they were actually useful to editors in the relevant topic area...rather than merely throwing them away without second thought. Somehow, this act is taken as personal attack. Still, this AN/I thread titled 'RGloucester' is open, and yet still, there are no diffs provided. Poor RGloucester.Yours, &c.RGloucester —☎22:20, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
Where are the links to the discussion establishing guideline status for these pages? I found one that has four editors in it, with no advertising outside the group. Is "four editors" what you're calling "numerous"?WhatamIdoing (talk)22:26, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
It is not obvious to me why aWP:LOCALCONSENSUS at PROJPOL overrides a local consensus elsewhere .... Why does PROJPOL have the authority to unilaterally decide which pages have met sufficient procedural requirements to be a guideline? There was no LOCALCON here and PROJPOL doesn't have that authority. Please stop asserting, without evidence, that editors who have joined PROJPOL are trying to dictate their personal views or undermine consensus. (That conduct is whythis AN/I thread titled 'RGloucester' is open.)As I said before, context is important, sohere it is: one editor made a proposal about several pages that they thought shouldn't be guidelines perWP:ADVICEPAGE, WAID agreed, and then sheboldly implemented it. You disagreed, and discussions were opened to seek consensus. That's howWP:BRD works. If that's nefarious or only something a shadowy cabal would do, our entire model of improving the encyclopedia should be scrapped.voorts (talk/contributions)22:40, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
Just in case it's not clear, the two 'sides' were:
A couple of people in a discussion who were correctly applying the relevant polices and guidelines.
LOCALCON is about small groups of editors rejecting or overriding sitewide policies and guidelines for "their" articles. A LOCALCON problem does not involve small groups, or even a single individual, following the sitewide policies and guidelines.
Voorts, you completely misinterpreted my remarks. My point was, a discussion between project members at the PROJPOL project page determined that these pages should not be guidelines. That is the definition of local consensus, as no attempt was made to solicit outside opinions. It is also precisely the logic being used to invalidate other Wikiproject local consensuses. WhatamIdoing explains her rationale, but that is her interpretation of our guidelines and policies. The purpose of discussion is to test whether the community agrees with that interpretation. Where did I say her actions were nefarious? Why put words in my mouth?Yours, &c.RGloucester —☎23:28, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
I quoted your words above where you accused the project of usurping consensus and imposing its own based on two bold edits by a single editor after a short exchange with another editor. Please don't interact with me further.voorts (talk/contributions)01:12, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
I expressedmy concern at the idea that there should be a Wikiproject devoted to rewriting policies and guidelines. But, as you wish. I hope you will come to understand that like you, I have only been acting in good faith.Yours, &c.RGloucester —☎01:20, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
You can hardly start a discussion about an editor at ANI and then ask that editor to not interacti further with you on that very discussion. Uninvolved people can ask this, but doing so yourself and then being surprised that you weren't headed is just wrong. You can hope to have the last word in a discussion, you cannot demand it, like you just did.Fram (talk)10:19, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
Fair enough. I wasn't trying to demand the last word, but I see why it comes off that way. I have nothing left to discuss with RG for the various reasons stated above.voorts (talk/contributions)12:40, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
A Few Comments, Maybe in Reply to RGloucester
I have a few comments at this time, partly in reply to the reply byUser:RGloucester. He wrote:One of the fundamental principles of Wikiprojects is that they should not be activist gathering places. First, I said that the Article Rescue Squadron and the Portals project had been activist gathering places, and I asked where that principle was codified. He replied:I do not think the examples you cite are very good. If anything, the portals project proves my point. I know that the examples are not very good. I said that they were controversial and that I disagreed with them. They illustrate my point that we have projects that are activist gathering places. I am not disagreeing with his point that such activist gathering places are undesirable. His description of how the portals project led to the ArbCom case is partly wrong, but that is not important. Why is he lecturing me about the history of the portals controversy? Who does he think started the discussion of the creation of hundreds of semi-automated portals by the portal platoon? But that is not important.
Second, if anyone disagrees with the emphasis of PROJPOL on the simplification ofpolicies and guidelines, why not discuss neutralization of the purpose of the project, rather than deactivation of the project? The purpose of the project can be changed from discussing simplification of thepolicies and guidelines to a review of the policies and guidelines, including a review of whether they should be either simplified or revised. That could change the project from being an activist gathering place to being a gathering place of editors interested in review of thepolicies and guidelines. I think the policies and guidelines, which have accumulated over two decades, should probably be simplified, but that we don't need to start off with that assumption in order to review them. So I suggest that the purpose of the WikiProject be reworded.
Third, I don't think that anyone is suggesting that anypolicies and guidelines be changed other than by consensus achieved byRequests for Comments. If, on review, it is found that some policy and guideline pages were never actually ratified by consensus, then they should probably be submitted to a new RFC for re-ratification, rather than simply downgraded or deleted. I don't think that anyone is suggesting that a committee or project be given authority to change the policies and guidelines. (If they are, they are wrong.) On the other hand, a WikiProject or task force of a project is often exactly what should do the workshopping of proposed changes before submission to RFC.
Fourth, I have read the original exchange betweenUser:RGloucester andUser:voorts, and it is my opinion that RGloucester was wrong in suggesting that voorts would use the admin tools in bad faith. I thought that a warning would be sufficient, but now I am wondering whether a one-wayinteraction ban is needed.Robert McClenon (talk)03:51, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
I presume you are referring tothis comment. I never intended to suggest that Voorts would use his admin tools in bad faith, and if that is the impression that my comments gave, I apologise. What I was trying to say was that the words of administrators carry additional weight, because, for lowly editors like us, the threat of sanctions is always handing over our heads like the sword of Damocles...
As for your commentary, I havealready proposed that the project scope should be reviewed in a new discussion at the PROJPOL page. If you think that my contribution is not constructive, please let me know.
I'm sorry, RGloucester, you feel unsafe editing Wikipedia as a non-admin. I think that in this discussion we should remember that (1) making occasional mistakes, especially when editing things close to your heart, is perfectly fine, and not necessarily a sign of retaliation and (2) that there is social capital associated with adminship and that it can be more tactful to not bring things to ANI when a friendly discussion on RGloucester could have resolved this too. I agree with WAID on substance wrt to housekeeping around improperly tagged guidelines, but want to recognise that my role hasn't been ideal here. I'm a bit brain fogged and couldn't easily figure out how properly convert the discussion to an RfC midway through, and I should probably have notified the WikiProject myself.—Femke 🐦 (talk)11:39, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
I've been reading this and I still don't know what the problem is with PROJPOL? Not every WikiProject will appeal to everyone and that's OK. I'm sure people think (and I have seen newbies say this too) that WP's policies and guidelines could be made simpler and easier to understand and if people want to make a WikiProject dedicated to it, that's fine. I sucked at math in school and don't like math still but that doesn't mean that I'd want the mathematics WikiProject shut down. Yes there's been WikiProjects that have gone rogue but I've yet to see any evidence here that PROJPOL's gone rogue. No WikiProject needs the RGloucester Seal of Approval to exist (or anyone else's for that matter). Bringing the project page to deletion was especially poor form in my view, and I don't like what RGloucester said above "I cannot join a project that has a non-neutral scope: if I don't support simplification, how can I join a project that explicitly defines that as its goal?" If you don't support the goal of simplification, leave the WikiProject alone? The existence of a WikiProject shouldn't be decided byWP:IDONTLIKEIT, and you trying to delete the page sends the message that you're trying to censor the view that our policies and guidelines aren't easily understandable.♠JCW555(talk)♠04:16, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
HilssaMansen19 has been engaging in long term caste promotion for theKalal caste and its sub-castes such as Ahluwalia.
This editor completely whitewashed theAhluwalia (caste) article written using scholarly sources to a version that glorified the caste and removed all information about their lower caste origin (Compare the versionsorginal &their preferred version). After getting reverted this editor has resumed the edit warring[212][213][214] and posted an incoherent rant making personal attacks and accusations of lying and hypocrisy againstEkdalian.[215]
That is not all. This editor did similar Kalal caste POV pushing onGujarat Sultanate by misrepresenting sources to present the rulers as belonging to Kalal caste only[216][217] and edit warred, in spite of the fact that sources cite various theories for their origin.[218][219][220][221]
non-admin comment I read over the diff on the supposed attacks. I will say that the yelling, (use of caps frequently) was unwarranted. I checked over the article diffs and I didn't see much of a problem, as on Ahluwalia. I know I'm not an admin and that I'm not as experienced, but I do see some problems with the conduct of both users respectively.TheClocksAlwaysTurn (The Clockworks) (contribs)15:47, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
I am not active on daily basis on Wikipedia and checked these edits today.
First of all, you are the one who should be reported for actually making an expanded article with context a stub. As I have clearly written, I am not active in forums, I simply wished to seek a proper answer from another user Ekdalian.
Gujarat Sultanate was a well attributed part which was not added and Ratnahastin the user who raised the discussion themselves checked the sources andadded them later. So you are dragging all the edits here to make it look like you did not vandalize the page.
Initially, my edits (8 months ago) were with with books, census from raj period and news sources, which were reverted with discussions with Abecdare, Utcursch; administrators. I clearly noted my part there and understood their concerns with further additions to be based on only per-policies/guidelines sources.
Next, calling my messages unrelated to you but the topic that were with actually involving an editor who was continuously involved in reverting edits based on Colonial contexts and calling things out of proportion. That editor clearly has bias since they wrote "caste belongs to lower strata" and while reverting additions which were scholarly discussing they are Upper caste now (based on sources pre-my edits as well). There are other sources as well.[222],[223],[224]
On Pattegar, they again used similar wordings where I actually added what was the previous addition before vandalising like edits/heavy changes by other editor which this editor Ekdalian also reverted. I added sources which clearly noted "low caste" wordings in scholarly sources while adding names of the community which were already added before the heavy edits.[225] They then declared some sources as not relevant because they have definitions from colonial times even though modern scholarly sources. Hyprocite wordings, now they think colonial definitions used are not right while using "lower strata" wordings which were Colonial-labelling. Some sources have also noted it that Ahluwalias and Kalals were occupationally fluid but labelled by British colonial ethnographers.
Anyway, I added more sources, then they reverted them again. All this, and no proper discussion but threats to be reported in edit summaries. So if these continuous edits are not proof enough, they continued [links in the ones above editor already provided] support of McKhan user who used AI chatbot TOO LONG messages to continuously harass me by cherry picking words and lines to blow them out of proportion and Ekdalian continuously "supported them."
They may claim they didn't know but current involvement with this (your baseless edits) being an opportunity to actually revert within a few minutes is evident without engaging in discussions.
They used REVERT DESPITE TALK PAGE DISCUSSIONS WITHOUT checking timestamps which are different proving they are lying here and wrongly accusing me not otherwise.
You seemed to have come here post my votes in India-Pakistan 2025 war. Since you have voted after my conversations there. You may say no that you are not doing such here but next you were continuously involved in @Gotitbro user related discussion here who is also active there. This is just to bring it to notice here.
My additions were well discussed and can be checked on talk page discussions with user administrator Utcursch who asked me that since both Kalal and Ahluwalias are "distinct castes now", to add the Kalal history only if it relates to Ahluwalia which I did add.
It was "Kalal POV pushing" titled discussion. The entire page was itself based on Kalals and Colonial labelling of them being close to the outcastes because of being only vinteners. I added data which added actual context since both are distinct in status, Sikh Kalals also being Ahluwalias now but have no history and attribution added here.
The sources continuously mention them as Upper castes, dominant castes irrespective of those which are directly based on Colonial labelling. [added there]
You falsely accused of Kharals being added but the anthropology largest survey of India in recent times (post independence) added Kharrals as Karals which I actually put correctly with source months ago. Later, your edits seem to be based on no discussions and you came here to report without answering discussion related message towards you almost a month ago. [Don't discuss about other users continuous negative involvement edits without discussions but your own where you didn't even respond whether Kharrals or Kharals are the same?]
Also, I have exams/work going on and have been inactive here for a while continuously while being active for short times now. I will be thankful to uninvolved editors and administrators to actually check the COLONIAL CHERRYPICK based SOURCES definitions which users like Ekdalian supports on this page but if don't on other and label them as false or not scholarly vs. Origin, Etymology, Social Status all being sourced and at par with other related pages despite any views. Please don't hesitate to check history of edits and the corrections, edits based on advice of editors like AirShip, Abecdare and Utcursch with continuous harassment here by several users since March/April post my work to expand the stub from no relevant context to actual historical and encyclopedic work, NOT JUST TWO LINES OF LABELLING.
HilssaMansen19, your responses here and atTalk:Ahluwalia (caste) are clearly out of order; I nearly issued a short block for civility violations on the spot. Other editors in good standing are entitled to contest your changes, and if they do so, you are expected to go over it with them in discussion rather than simply edit warring your preferred version in. If there is tendentious argumentation, you can report it; you can't just preempt the discussion whenWP:ONUS is on you to justify your changes and win consensus for them.signed,Rosguilltalk18:17, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
Rosguill, You are right about that. I should have actually reported them since they continuously asked me to do as well in edit summaries as well. This is very frustrating. I actually wrote about continuous involvements of the editor (one instance with latest conversation only) based on their continuous labelled caste pov accusations and reverts with no discussion. I responded nearly after a month andthey came with frustration over their false accusations of me violating talk page while reverting the original revert by Orientls of the page back to stub.
For readers: you can check the edit summary by Ekdalian on Ahluwalia (caste) page mentioned above and time stamps of my first revert edits and talk page discussion. Talk page discussion:[226] edits[227][228] Please check their accusative attack style of talk-page discussion violation which if even once was checked would have proved it wrong and led to disrupting the discussion within few minutes. [Added to give insight on actual base and issue here]Edit warring in spite of the talk page discussion; violation of WP:BRD and POV pushing/caste promotion without caring about consensus
Their continuous negative portrayal of edits, adding their support and no similar wordings towards a user involved in a month long of discussion which was harassment-like continuous long-word unbalanced messages by other user, AI-labelled now by administrator @Newslinger and accusing me of reverting after talking page discussion was the whole point of the conversation including basis of their reverts.HilssaMansen19Irien1291S• spreading wiki love ~Message here; no calls18:47, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
HilssaMansen19, you are again resorting to personal attacks here as well! I edit hundreds of such caste articles on a regular basis! Right from the beginning, your approach has been wrong; that's the reason Abecedare warned you on an article talk page! You haven't learnt from the message/warning and instead engaged in slow edit warring and personal attacks. Let the admins decide whether you should be allowed to edit contentious caste articles. Thanks.Ekdalian (talk)18:58, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
Kindly don't drag every conversation with attacks. Which policy allows you to personally attack a user just because you are editing hundreds of pages giving you a free pass?
Using wordings like, "You haven't learned anything" ortalking about my approach being wrong are the personal attacks even I haven't used. If using words that may read like frustration over your attacks, accusations and portrayls was not personal attacks towards "you" but edits whereas you continuously use words like that"people like you" are doing bad edits so and so. [same conversation with Abecdare where I raised your personal attacks on me going 6-7 months back]
My edits have been with policy based guidelines which I agreed with Abecdare in the same discussion I mentioned thrice already.
You used that discussionbelow (which I have already mentioned above) which is nothing but diverting and cherrypicking the point without explaining where Abecdare actually diverted [here] my question over your personal attacks in the discussion. Your reply appears to be paraphrasing of my reply above by making what I already wrote as the base of the issue here. At the end of the discussion, I agreed with Abecdare and have used only NON-WP:RAJ sources since then.
Using the already discussed points is BLUDGEONING and I have added timestamps for which you accused me of violating to justify your reverts from a well context added page to two line labelled origin and history of the community based on Colonial Authors which is against guidelines itself.HilssaMansen19Irien1291S• spreading wiki love ~Message here; no calls19:31, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
ThanksOrientls, I completely agree with you! The user HilssaMansen was warned quite some time back by adminAbecedare in the talk page of a related article; please checkthis! Abecedare clearly mentioned that the user's "current approach is not productive and is likely to lead to you being sanctioned." Still, the user continued the same kind of POV pushing / caste promotion citing poor sources! HilssaMansen19 has posted DS alert notice on my talk page today in spite of the DS aware (SASG) note at the top of my talk page; they are only engaging in personal attacks on the article talk page instead of focusing on the content! Thanks.Ekdalian (talk)18:28, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
Responding to the ping.HilssaMansen19, I understand that you were in a content dispute with an editor who postedLLM-generated responseson Talk:Ahluwalia (caste), which must have been a frustrating experience for you. Because you did not appear to realise at the time that the other editor's comments were LLM-generated, I can overlook minor lapses ofcivility in your replies in that specific discussion, asWikipedia:Civility § Identifying incivility (WP:IUC) allows us to consider"whether the behaviour has been provoked".However, now that the LLM misuse has been stopped and you are now interacting with other editors who do not appear to be using LLMs, please remember that thecivility policy applies to all of your interactions on Wikipedia, and is enforced even more stringently incontentious topics, includingSouth Asian social groups. Unnecessarily typing words, phrases or sentences in all caps isconsidered shouting, which is highly discouraged, as it is liable to transform a content dispute into a conduct dispute (like this one). PerWikipedia:Dispute resolution § Focus on content (WP:FOC), please"Focus onarticle content during discussions, not oneditor conduct", on article talk pages whenever possible. Instead of postingSpecial:Diff/1319697742, a more civil and constructive way to start the current discussion would have been to propose your disputed edits (ideally in manageable portions that can be discussed individually) along with thereliable sources that support them, withoutmaking extensive accusations of bad faith. — Newslingertalk21:31, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
Thank you Newslinger for your understanding, guiding points and I try to avoid getting into such discussions myself but continuous accusations-labelling makes it hard to not be swayed emotionally. And yes, I will totally avoid getting swayed with emotionally frustratrated replies! Thank you!HilssaMansen19Irien1291S• spreading wiki love ~Message here; no calls23:03, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
I have no opinion on the current matters involving @HilssaMansen19, however I can see there is an issue here which extends back some time. My only interaction with this editor has been through AfC, where IdeclinedDraft:Bagh Singh Hallowalia. Once on 5 August 2025, leading tothis interaction. They alsoreported me to admin @CoconutOctopus for 'without even checking references as a must duty of a reviewer.' and some other things such as being too vague. This was despite the fact Imade clear the reason for my decline was because the sources only constitutedtrivial mentions.
My interactions with @HilssaMansen19 unfortunately left a sour taste in my mouth. I dislike confrontation, so I didn't make a post here about it, as I hoped they would improve. It seems however, that has not come to pass. I wish them well, and I'm sorry for only adding more negativity to this AN/I discussion.11WB (talk)21:22, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
@11WB, Firstly per DRN policies and even in general sense, this is diverting the issue here, "which was discussed with administrators"
It was closed after WB who raised it at the talk page of an administrator with similar wordings without explaining but portraying me negatively while I tried to continuously engage with them peacefully asking to reason andworked on the draft article for hours which is there on the history to only get no reason and same inputs.
They now involved and AFD here as well as all they could despite not looking at how their edits and selective wordings harm and provoke the users
Please stop this. With similar wordings which provide no context and negatively impact on both the work and editor. I kept continuously trying to explain and understand the reason from you which you were unable to provide and still kept declining, of course, that was clearly unwarranted and provoking.[229] and tried to reason with your opinions always welcomed but you despite the efforts continued to be involved there even after waiting for an entire discussion to end (mentioned in the conversation, that they will keep checking the another page's deletion nomination and discussion while I should resubmit if I didn't like their decline and think that it should be accepted; post discussion, they in a little time reverted it; instance of unproductive engagement)[230]
That matter was itself sorted with administrator involvement. They asked of the editor to not decline it again despite previous discussions with allowing hopes for a new reviewer next time.
Administrator asked us to stop the discussion there and not acclerate it further which surprisingly they did again and added it may "negatively influence" at the end which would be the whole purpose.
I assumed good faith but continued declines which were not productive as explained there as well and were not cool in any way.[232] I myself do not engage in confrontation but continuous declines with no context (bitter as you added here) were not productive.
Anyway, that was your input here which is welcome but diverts it to another issue which is falsely represented here but I am not going argue here on that to divert it further.
Are these good faith engagements or trying to wear down the conversation by adding continuous one-sided irrelevant here but without context points. Each word was actually per their involvement edits but this addition here is toinfluence in negative capacity and push the discussion towards the bad influence on the user here myself.
@Newslinger can you please check these messages as this is against the guiding points which you shared yesterday. Whether this negative influence of "negative portryals without context" is right or wrong is not upto me but it is not a consensus or civil base approach of involvement by bringing "points where they were frustratingly declining without explaining questions, continuously involved themselves"?HilssaMansen19Irien1291S• spreading wiki love ~Message here; no calls22:20, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
@HilssaMansen19, unfortunately the way that you have interacted with other editors predates our interaction, as is evidenced here:Talk:Ahluwalia (caste). This was linked above. I have previously had two not so pleasant interactions with you, where you displayed similar behaviour with what is being presented in this AN/I. I am allowed to share this here, whether or not this is something you feel is relevant. I'm sorry you dislike that this discussion is taking place here, however it would really benefit you to take on board what is being said and try to interact with your fellow editors in a more respectful manner.11WB (talk)22:26, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
With non-context conversations added above, I would summarise it as well with diffs following Newslinger's advice above. Also, noting that the continuous personal attack/accusations have negative impact on mental health of editor and not being able to argue continuously to present facts, I was taking a break after that long AI related month long harassment. I kept checking and reading pages with fewer edits only:
I would like to bring the relevant summary here without getting emotionally swayed in long wordings. Editors forget that their "continuous" edits, portrayls mentally affect editors as it has been for me.
The current page is based upon colonial definitions (also added in the page directly, against Wikipedia/Arbitration Committee's guidelines) and was last even refined/ accepted in refined form more than a decade back. They are the sole basis of pre-policies entry here which itself presents no relevant non-colonial labelling details.
About editor who accused and re-reverted the entire page back to stub based on "lie about violation of ongoing talk page discussion":
I have added that user Ekdalian who reverted edits (calling modern sources as using WP:RAJ work and deciding them as "not scholarly or used", wordings may differ, I will add diffs but on Ahluwalia page they continue to get involved wherever users were actually idk if harassing/provoking is the right word to add colonial definitions which are per diffs but may not be the central issue)
It all started with Orientls without even discussing on talk page reverting expanded article back to stub based on one word which they wrote (different from the one added (sourced))[233]
They failed to do so and reported it here rather than discussing it.
Ekdalian jumped within a few minutes/short time without checking or letting discussion even continue to revert it back to stub with further reverts, postreally tiring Chatbot message-discussion involvement which I was not aware of and tried to engage again and again and again but nothing changed in productive way but more accusing style wordings![234][235]: A simple check could have been helpful but editor again used accusation in edit summaries of talk page discussion violation pov edits without checking the timestamps. They did not check it, acknowledge it or self-revert it for a month either but casually accused the revert being of talk page violations despite discussion started and hour later approx and not even letting it continue[236]
The reason I added that discussion now closed by @Newslinger
I did not engage in any "accusative" conversations atleast not on my side with them here or at Pattegar page before that.
On the page, pre-my expansion from the stub-like entry:
There was no context or topic related detailed attribution here but a stub like entry with one line of origin.
Since it was added almost a decade or more back and have remained so for most parts, it could be just not proper addition engagements.
Sources which were added also cited same colonial ethnographers like Rose, Ibbetson as cited by those on Pattegar[237][238], which is quite leaning towards double standards in general sense. If use of sources based on their work is wrong on page, how can it be okay on other? Anyway, I did add other modern sources, yet editors asks to take it to resolution/noticeboard without engaging in discussions as they will continue to revert it and if I do that, it will be reported
They said that they use such wordings as they revert many edits a day, but how does that give anyone right to accuse wrongly and reverting obviously at par with other related pages work on articles of months.
If there is any line not sourced, sources can be added, talk page is there but is not their approach at all unless it was to either revert or in AI-related discussion encouraging chat-bot using editor to edit since they have more knowledge based on their messages (AI/LLM/Chat-bot related).
"People like you" disrupting Wikipedia in so and so related wordings which I quoted was the users attacks in 7-8 months back conversation added above. (I have mentioned that thrice already, since Ekdalian quoted one message which an admin was trying to settle the conversation "after their attacks" provoking, overlooking understanding of administrator and my conversation in their message below)
I wrote that long message on talk page given these prior continuous involvements and unproductive engagements
I am adding these points in clear manner to avoid the continuous additions of them here as diverting messages were added which influence the base of the discussion negatively elsewhere.
Since I was not aware of how to do DRN/or had practice or prior experience in such, I avoided having negative conversations with them and worked to make edits more better to avoid such conversations further. I would like to clarify use of caps as well which I do as I can't use mac here because it says not allowed. Visual editor here keeps showing errors after several messages or using on Wikitexts <> etc, which I also note in edit summaries. I didn't know how to get laptop's IP unblocked. I use caps to highlight the important parts but not to yell. Previously, I tried using Wikitext but half my message was not added and it kept going in bits back (even in this). Thus, I used caps there to highlight. As it was very affecting and emotionally frustrating as well, I put it off after no proper engagement but the discussion was raised here.
Request: Avoiding editing accusations by other editors, I hope for closing this noticeboard as the user themselves did not engage in discussion on query raised. In their defense, it was disrupted by reverts of Ekdalian but I still wish to continue the discussion properly rather than such accusative arguments.
Also, seeking "glory" or "degradation" of any page or group is not the goal of my work but expanding with proper contexts to be added and all sides added at par with guidelines and other long-standing proper articles.
The important part other than continuously justifying in summary points here, please check diffs, if there is any unsourced additions or additional verification, use of talk page discussion rather than reverts should be encouraged. I have bookmarked hundreds of sources and will find wherever required and add them.
I have exams and work going on but I will actually like to work on adding more scholarly sources to avoid, "colonial label portrayls here" and add them wherever needed to actually add more sources for others to read and verify with as well.
I have always started with positive engagements and working on issues if presented right which will make it bludgeon for new comments below as already replied and won't argue on such points. It is tiring but I am sorry for the long message here in summary style.
I didn't notice the timestamps above, I realise my reply came in late. I thought the discussion was still open as it wasn't formally closed yet. I believe the evidence I provided above demonstrates a longer-term communication issue alongside the other links and diffs from other editors here, however it may not be considered severe in this AN/I. If this AN/I was already concluded yesterday, should it be closed by an admin? Thanks.11WB (talk)00:02, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
In light of this, I recommend also reading and following the advice inWikipedia:No personal attacks § Avoiding personal attacks for your future edits. When you find yourself in a conduct dispute, it is more civil to explain why an editor's action does not comply with apolicy or guideline, than to personalise the dispute by making a remark about the editor's perceived intent or motivation. Also, your comments tend to be on the longer side, which increases the likelihood that they are perceived asbludgeoning, so I recommend condensing them to a shorter length by removing extraneous portions (that do not significantly contribute to your argument) before posting.
Newslinger, You are right and I added, they are welcome to respond in previous message. I will stay more on topic here and not argue with them as I added, as it was already resolved at administrators notice on their talk page, concluded with no further engagement in this by administrator. Bringing it here does divert/influence it from the issue of article edits here started after points raised above as it will lead to more diversion if I continue to add replies meaning more BLUDGEONING as advised to be not done by administrator who closed the issue as well. This is just a reply here, I am not adding diffs as they are added above already.
I am hoping for the admins to check the core issue which started with "wrong accusation in reverts" while I agree with being more to the point on editors edits and not on them even if provocation is there or not.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This carries the implication that ENWP will be persecuted in India by the subject of the article unless the section is removed. I also wanna point out that the user seems to have an undisclosured COI with the subject in addition to making undisclosured use of LLM on project pages.--Trade (talk)18:10, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
I will be charitable and argue that the removing the comments was their attempt at immediately retracting the threats of legal action as asked to byDay CreatureTrade (talk)18:16, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
It is worth noting that Divid Naridas is not the person who posted it to the article talk-page. (Instead, they posted it to their own user-talk, and someone else copied it over.)173.79.19.248 (talk)18:53, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
I've INDEFfed, which I was inclined to do when they began editing but decided to give them some rope. They're welcome to file an unblock and show they have an interesting in editing and language abilities to do so.StarMississippi20:00, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
More perceived legal threat on behalf of Vipin Vijay + undisclosured COI + undisclosured use of LLM to make arguments
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Old account compromised
Hello, this one of the rare time where I go out of the fr.wikipedia. These two account are compromised (forgot password) and i want to block them if in theSRG take time and these account are used for vandalism or other things I want to prevent this by infinity block them. Admin request in french. Every information can be found in the SRG.
(edit conflict)The accounts have never been used locally, and once they have beenglobally locked will not be able to edit on any wikimedia wiki. I don't doubt your honesty but there's no real pressing need to quickly block them locally. I'm sure a steward will be along to lock them soon enough.184.152.65.118 (talk)23:05, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
I know it but if by a coincidence they are stolen and even if they dont modify here but the en wikipedia is more important than the french. I forgot to say it for prevent and protect if this happen.Alkmen-Alesia (talk)23:14, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
Higher profile sure, but no more important.
I suppose the concern is that we prefer to focus our energies on actual rather than theoretical problems. Since the accounts will likely be locked within the next 24 hours, unless we have reason to expect them to be used for vandalism during that period extra action is needless. And since they are not autoconfirmed they are of no more concern than many other accounts that vandals may have registered. On the off chance they are used for abuse we have robust mechanisms to address that when it happens.184.152.65.118 (talk)23:29, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
Ok thank you, in the french wikipedia they are block by my demend today technically I have no risk to happen. I was just a bit scared so i do this to prevent if this happen.Alkmen-Alesia (talk)23:34, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
No worries, this can often be a confusing place for newcomers, even more so if your English is limited. You haven't done anything wrong, I was just trying to explain why no immediate action was likely to be taken here.184.152.65.118 (talk)00:30, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
This gets complicated, fast, but I'll try to stay focussed on the immediate issue. Back on Oct 28th, TheArtandVintage started a thread on the Help Desk, asking for help with a formatting question (Wikipedia:Help desk#Sectioning article for museum & Time magazine- Ernest Hamlin Baker), which I attempted to respond to. I say 'attempted' because it seem became clear that TheArtandVintage has difficulties in communicating what they were actually trying to achieve. And as soon became apparent, there was a further immediate and concerning conflict of interest issue: "I own a historical document of Ernest Hamlin Baker"[239] (TheArtandVintage had already declared this CoI on their user page, back in 2013, and had apparently submitted an autobiographical draft in relation to it, subsequently deleted -Draft:Elaina Bensen: New York Telephone Company Pamphlet) My attempts to explain the issue basically got nowhere, however, with TheArtandVintage variously adding confusing digressions regarding "a archive that I cannot disclose", unexplained assertions that the matter was "urgent", "sworn statements", a conversation that had apparently involved a "wikisteward" called "Sheamous" that appears to have no connection to Wikipedia at all, instead being involved with one of the many websites with 'Wiki' in their name, and an odd reference to TheArtandVintage being a "Supreme Court rape victim" - the last not being anything I see reason to doubt, though given the complete lack of explanations to why it was relevant to the Baker article, not something I would have considered appropriate to have discussed. There followed repeated attempts by TheArtandVintage to blank the Help Desk thread entirely, which resulted in a 6h block by admin Hoary.[240]
Conversations regarding this issue, involving several experienced contributors, then turned to TheArtandVintage's talk page, where at last we got some sort of explanation as to the supposed 'urgency' of this editing: "A museum exhibit, press, release, or article, that needs to be updated before a deadline is surely not beyond your comprehension". Meanwhile, a further issue - that TheArtandVintage's user name coincides with her commercial website - was raised, though again the discussion got confusing fast, due to TheArtandVintage's usual lack of clarity and tendency to go off at tangents - including one regarding a 'threat of violence' which was apparently reported to WMF emergency, but not seen as actionable by them, presumably because no connection to Wikipedia contributors was apparent (seeUser_talk:DoubleGrazing#User:TheArtandVintage)
By this point, it seemed apparent to me that TheArtandVintage was attempting to force content into the Baker article to advance the declared CoI, for which they had already stated they had a financial interest: "It also affects the fair market value, or FMV"[241] What exactly it is that TheArtandVintage owns in relation to this illustration, it is however unclear. Copyright? The original artwork? An example of the pamphlet that used it for its front cover - an in-house publication for the New York Telephone Company? Regardless, TheArtandVintage, despite repeated requests for clarification, and repeated attempts to explain why CoI issues needed to be resolved, has however insisted on editing content on this (apparently obscure) pamphlet cover into the article, in an entirely undue manner (e.g. a redlinked article title, for an object for which we have a single source - one with which TheArtandVintage appears to have a connection) which is clearly intended to boost its significance. I attempted to rewrite the relevant section in a more neutral manner,[242], explaining the CoI issue once again, and asking that the CoI issue be discussed on the talk page - with actual verifiable independent sourcing, not vague assertions that they were coming. Rather than the desired result, however, TheArtandVintage restored their promotional edit with further waffle about there being no CoI, in spite of their earlier statements to the contrary.[243]
At this point, I would have to suggest that an article-space page block for the Baker article is the minimum action required. TheArtandVintage seems intent on forcing content through, and apparently on dragging in all sorts of diversionary matters (including unverified allegations against more or less anyone who has commented) to do so. Possibly more sweeping sanctions might be seen as appropriate, if the latter is taken into account, but either way, the first priority seems to me to be to stop TheArtandVintage using Wikipedia to abuse a biography of a long-deceased illustrator to boost the current "fair market value" of one of the illustrator's works which they have stated they own.AndyTheGrump (talk)08:37, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
I am willingly offered to delete the drafted article on multiple occasions. We have submitted formal media request. I just submitted the name request that you have asked.TheArtandVintage (talk)08:49, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
I have willingly offered to delete the drafted article on multiple occasions.
We have submitted a formal media request to press media and business.
I just submitted the name change request you have asked.
I was referring to stewards@Wikipedia.
Which you have never contacted, and therefore would not know his name.
I have reported this in detail to <arbcom-en@wikimedia.org> including the threatening email that I received.
If there is another method to file this report, please alert me as to how to do that.
I have not at any point become verbally abusive, combative, used profanity, trivialized anything, or sexually harassed anyone.
This began as a conversation at the helpdesk about Hot Cat.
I would like to speak to the administrator that answered and offered to assist me in completing this biography and the five museums that have been working on a research archive for four years.
I mentioned the UDA, Universal Declaration on Archives, and USPAP Code of Conduct. I was continued to be accused of “financial stake”.
This is a famous illustrator, with a rich biography, involving museology, American history, and art history,in which all works will be included, which is why the categories became of such importance. WPA, stamps, political cartoons, murals, etc.
I have willingly offered to delete the drafted article on multiple occasions.
We have submitted a formal media request to press@wikipedia.org, business@wikipedia.org.
This is a famous illustrator, with a rich biography, involving museology, American history, and art history, in which all works will be included; which is why the categories became of such importance. WPA, stamps, political cartoons, murals, etc.
I just submitted the name change request you have asked.
I was referring to stewards@wikimedia.org
Which you have never contacted, and therefore would not know his name.
I have reported this in detail to <arbcom-en@wikimedia.org> including the threatening email that I received.
If there is another method to file this report, please alert me as to how to do that.
This began as a conversation at the helpdesk about Hot Cat.
I would like to speak to the administrator that answered and offered to assist me in completing this biography and the five museums that have been working on a research archive for four years.@CaptainEek
I mentioned the UDA, Universal Declaration on Archives, and USPAP Code of Conduct. I was continued to be accused of “financial stake”.
Involving ArbCom would seem premature at least, per their statement that they deal with "serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve", and the community (beyond a few individuals, mostly now being accused of 'harassment') hasn't been involved at all. But whatever, if it goes to ArbCom, I've no concerns, since no evidence has been offered suggesting actual misconduct on my part. And meanwhile, the community (or a single uninvolved admin even) will still have to option to make whatever sanctions seem necessary. Which, given the relentless unverified waffle about 'harassment' (which seems to actually consist almost entirely of attempts to explain policy) at this point should quite possibly involve a block for a few days, while ArbCom decides whether anything is actionable (which I sincerely doubt). I see no reason whatsoever why TheArtandVintage should be permitted to continue to act in this manner, anywhere on Wikipedia.AndyTheGrump (talk)09:18, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
We're all very confused about what it is that you want or are trying to achieve here. For the moment, put aside any harassment concerns and please try to give some concise answers.
What is your connection to the International Council of Archives and Universal Declaration of Archives which you keep mentioning?
What is your connection to the New York telephone company pamphlet illustrated by Ernest Hamlin Baker?
There is a steward who signs emails as Shaemous. While I don't think it's their real name, I think it's still technically PII, so I can't ping them. But I'll shoot them an email if they'd like to commment. --Tamzin[cetacean needed](they|xe|🤷)09:25, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
That would clearly be helpful. Though I'm not entirely sure how the WMF stewards would have any particular remit as far as this issue is concerned? It is surely still an internal en.wikipedia matter, and wouldn't involve anything that needed their particular expertise or access rights.AndyTheGrump (talk)09:33, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
The editor mentioned they've contacted WMF regarding... something to do with all of this, so maybe Shaemous was the one who replied to that enquiry?Athanelar (talk)09:36, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
Just to say that I reported yesterday a possible threat concern to WMF (Emergency@ and Ca@ ) based on the user's comments on their talk page.
I have tried to get them to change their username. It's possible that they may have interpreted that as harassment, which they have claimed repeatedly, without specifying.
Other than that, I don't think I've anything useful to add here. Each interaction I have on this leaves me even more nonplussed than before.
@TheArtandVintage: I've read through the discussions here, and I'd like to try to distill this, because I think there's a lot of people talking past each other here. First, please understand that any emails you send to @wikipedia.org or @wikimedia.org email addresses are, for the most part, unrelated to what we English Wikipedia administrators do. The people who manage those inboxes may be able to give you advice, and in some cases they can take actions as part of a parallel command structure, but they are not part of our decisionmaking process, and most of us can't even see what you send in.What I'd suggest you do is here is forget about anything you've sent in by email, and stop calling things harassment or defamation, and just speak clearly and concisely about what your concerns are here that administrators are able to resolve. Like "I want X to happen but Y is happening instead". I would like to help, but so far it is not very clear what help you are asking for. --Tamzin[cetacean needed](they|xe|🤷)09:56, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
There are major communications issues here which are going to get in the way of any collaborative editing, and are proving to be disruptive. Not to mention the extremely narrow focus on promoting an obscure document and the odd demands that introducing section headers into an article constitute an emergency. And the inappropriate accusations of harrassment of editors who are attempting to maintain WP policies. I think we need to question whetherTheArtandVintage is a net positive for this project.CatfishJim and the soapdish11:32, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
The absoluterefusal of this editor to bother to learn even the most basic things about how Wikipedia works, combined with the astounding amount of hostility and the extremely confusing orders they bark at other editors, leaves me quite pessimistic that, at this time, there's any chance whatsoever they can contribute to English Wikipedia in any meaningful way.CoffeeCrumbs (talk)13:38, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
Indeed, the major issue with TheArtandVintage has always been communication, or rather its failure followed by frustration as they don't get the response they like. For example, Neither 'Hot Cat' nor HotCat appear in the help page thread, despite TheArtandVintage now claiming that this was what they were asking about there. We appear to be accused of failing to read minds, having answered what appeared (after some confusion) to be a question regarding section headers. And see above how TheArtandVintage seems to think that denying accusations that were never made in the first place (e.g. that they had been engaging in sexual harassment, which nobody has ever suggested) is somehow an appropriate response to requests for clarification regarding a conflict of interest they have already declared. On this basis alone,WP:CIR may well apply, even ignoring the unresolved CoI and the evidence-free-accusations of misbehaviour being doled out at random. Participation in a collaborative project requires the ability to communicate, which is clearly lacking to the extent that there seems no realistic hope of this contributor ever being anything more than a time-sink. This almost certainly isn't intentional, but regardless, it makes useful participation essentially impossible.AndyTheGrump (talk)14:21, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
I'm wondering whether some kind of translation failure is happening here - although translation tools are usually pretty good, they struggle with some languages and tone of voice in text can be tricky even when everyone has the same native language. TheArtandVintage could conceivably be getting much more aggressive translated text than would be warranted from the English text. Unfortunately even if this is the case, an inability to communicate for whatever reason is incompatible with editing en-WP.Meadowlark (talk)11:16, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment) That's a very good point, I've once had someone respond unnecessarily aggressively when I suggested it would be difficult for new editors to write neutrally about their own organisation. They even threatened to sue me over it, but things calmed down once it became clear that their translator had made my comments look much harsher than they actually were.
I doubt it is a translation issue, from the details TheArtandVintage has made available. As noted above, their current username is that of their website, and given that they seemed to think it appropriate for people to look at it to confirm details I've done so. It gives details which strongly suggest that we are dealing with a US-based native English speaker.AndyTheGrump (talk)13:06, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
That is clear and well documented patterns of COI editing and also persistent communication issues and refusal to follow policy guidance despite multiple good faith attempts at explanations. So, an article space BLOCK or if not the topic BAN onErnest Hamlin Baker appears warranted to prevent further disruption.ThilioR O B O T🤖talk12:35, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
Further direct evidence of CoI, which I'd missed. TheArtandVintage posted"I own the Ernest Hamlin Baker historical documentary from the everybody wiki" onUser talk:Matt me back on the 29th.[244]Matt was the original creator of the Baker article. 'Documentary' is almost certainly a typo for 'document', and the 'everybody wiki' article being referred to is clearly labelled as a copy ofDraft:Elaina Bensen: New York Telephone Company Pamphlet, created by TheArtandVintage back in early 2013 (I can't link it here, as the website is blacklisted, but search engines find it easily). As I noted earlier, it isn't entirely clear what they own, since it is a pamphlet, but this statement simply isn't compatible with denials like"I was continued to be accused of “financial stake”" above, given that they have explicitly stated that they have exactly that.AndyTheGrump (talk)13:25, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
Why do we waste time on people like this? She's obviously here to promote some collector's item she found in grandma's attic and now hopes to sell.EEng09:07, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
I agree this is clearly aSPA, especially when you review theirdeleted draft. Quite frankly I would've applied aWP:NOTHERE block by now if I had seen the account in the wild and would support any admin doing the same.Glen (talk)08:21, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
Account name change. Please note that TheArtandVintage is nowArtApothecary(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log), after DoubleGrazing carried out their request.[245] Given the obvious issues we've had with communication, I think somebody needs to at least attempt to explain to them that the remaining issues - CoI, repeated evidence-free accusations of misbehaviour, and the rest - have not been resolved, and that being unblocked doesnot mean that they can carry on as before. We still need straightforward answers, and a clear commitment not to try to muddy the waters with diversions: not that I'm expecting anything of the sort, given what has happened so far.AndyTheGrump (talk)11:22, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
I've not been too harsh since time has passed and things may have calmed down, but if anyone thinks I've missed anything important please feel free to add a post below mine.Blue Sonnet (talk)11:48, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
Bruhchamp21
Bruhchamp21 (talk·contribs) has had engaged on multiple edit wars with multiple editors in multiple pages for months. I'm reporting this as I'm uninvolved but I've seen these same pages over and over again for several months and no discussions are taking place, and frankly this is getting ridiculous. For example,Rafael Márquez is still full protected because of this, and thehistory of that page shows how absurd this has gotten.Guillermo Ochoa,Cuauhtémoc Blanco, andHugo Sánchez were full protected for the same reason, and Bruhchamp21 basically waited until their protections expired to resume the edit wars.(CC)Tbhotch™00:52, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
HotRodHundley(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·nuke contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) has engaged in continued disrurptive editing which has now crept into harrassing behavior. Primarily, there is persisent improper insertion of trivial content with an improper YouTube ref atTonetta:[246],[247], and[248] which is likely a 3RR violation. I've also found it appropriate to revert a few other edits atJonah Falcon, includingthis insertion of POV commentary. HotRodHundley has reverted me with what I'd characterize as disingenouous edit summaries, andleft numerous similarly-improper warnings on my talk page. I can easily delete and ignore, but I fear we have someoneWP:NOTHERE that should be evaluated by admins. --ZimZalaBimtalk18:17, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
On the contrary, the "disrurptive" editing is on ZZB's part entirely. Continually removing valid, sourced content, arbitrarily deeming the source "improper" despite it being an interview with the subject of the page, and arbitrarily deeming the content within the source "trivial" consists of vandalism based on nothing more than the vandal's preferences and whims. The user has continued his streak of what one may call "disrurptiveness" by reverting unrelated valid edits on other pages due to what can only be called some sort of developing personal vendetta. I would be fascinated to see this user defend their decision to deem a recording of Tonetta speaking an "improper" source for information concerning Tonetta himself, as they've made no attempt to do so thus far.HotRodHundley (talk)18:24, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
Nope, blocked for 31 hours for the personal attack in the edit summary linked above. (Those two terms get confused enough without extra help. :))SarekOfVulcan (talk)18:53, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Since May 2025, this user has only been editing on the topics ofBhakti Marga andVishwananda. They have often added or reinstated flawed sources, mostly of a certain type:
at least somewhat positive about Vishwananda, often even outright glorifiying
Appearing like legitimate, independent news reports to the outside, but in reality often being (to differing degrees of certainty) press releases of the organisation or its associates.
These sources can only be removed after extremely lengthy and attritioning talk page discussions with the user, and/or with help from WP:3O/WP:RSN.
On the discussion pages of the articles and in edit summaries, they accusedUser:Juremaa and myself of bias and CoI, at times instead of rational argumentation. Examples:[255][256][257]
Some of their discussion entries show in part signs of AI generation. Clearly:[258] less sure:[259][260]
All of these disruptive patterns (and some more) persisted and persist even after multiple attempts to talk to the user about it on article and discussion talk pages.Iluzalsipal (talk)22:26, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
I might appear somewhat zealous in this matter, this is because there have been a plethora of more or less open attempts of BM affiliates to influence these articles on the German and English Wikipedias. For User:Coconutpeople, there is however no direct sign of a CoI, so this should be read more as an explanation of my behaviour than theirs.Iluzalsipal (talk)22:31, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I've indef blocked based on Mfield's initial analysis, and my reading of Baangla's total edits following their transaction. We've seen varying sorts of misbehavior presented in this thread and Baangla has done all the work themself. Baangla has demonstrated they are here to poke the bear, and they seemingly laugh at attempts to assume good faith.BusterD (talk)07:55, 21 October 2025 (UTC) (Striking-through close)
Baangla's edits per day to 11:21 19 October 2025 (UTC)
I'm sad to say it, as I tried to give advice to this editor on slowing down and learning Wikipedia, but ECR should definitely be revoked at a minimum. This editor started this one-character editing spree immediately after being told that edit requests can't be controversial, and then the second they got to 500, they stopped and made edits they couldn't otherwise have been made. They're rude in response to several good faith editors, describing them as stalkers and claimed their one-character edit flood was OK, because of an unrelated comment when Firefangledfeathers simply said the topicMale Mahadeshwara Hills didn't fall under ECR.[272]
Again, I think revoking extended-confirmed is a must, and I'd also urge that Banglaa receive a topic ban fromWP:CT/SA until they honestly gain extended-confirmed access.CoffeeCrumbs (talk)11:44, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
WP:GAMING states that only an edit war or trying to, "enforce a specific non-neutral point of view" is gaming, so it is wrong to accuse me of it as I have not indulged in either. I have not, "deliberately misused Wikipedia's policy or process for personal advantage at the expense of other editors or the Wikipedia community." either (there is no limit on the number of edits an editor can make on wikipedia).-Baangla (talk)11:46, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Again, that is not what it says. You're in an area where almost everybody has actually readWP:GAMING. Your behavior, amongmany listed, not just "edit warring or enforcing a specific non-neutral point of view," is explicitlylisted atWP:PGAME on that page.CoffeeCrumbs (talk)11:53, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Anachronist has typed on my User Talk page that only an admin should revert what is posted there which is why I restored my comment on the, "Articles for deletion" wiki page. That is not exactly a wikipedia article.-Baangla (talk)12:29, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
That was about a specific reversion about an edit request elsewhere. This is, by my count, the fourth time you've mischaracterized someone's quote about rules. I think you could be a good editor, but you need to slow down and learn how Wikipedia works and listen to the advice several people have given you. Instead, you have pushed forward like a bull in a china shop.CoffeeCrumbs (talk)13:54, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
SupportWP:TOPICBAN onWP:CT/SA. We shouldn't be rewarding bad behaviour here. I think this is the minimum set of sanctions thatmight result in Bangla demonstrating they can be a constructive editor. --Yamla (talk)12:28, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
My ECP editor rights have been revoked a few minutes ago, so someone please also let me know how many edits I can make in 24 hours to get those rights back.-Baangla (talk)12:33, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
The only way to re-obtain ECR status once revoked is to apply for it, and right now there is zero chance of that succeeding.331dot (talk)12:41, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
I will not apply immediately but how many edits should I make before I apply for it? Please also let me know how many edits I can make in 24 hours to get those rights back.-Baangla (talk)12:44, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
I think you misunderstood my question. How many edits am I allowed to make once in 24 hours to avoid any allegations like this?-Baangla (talk)13:23, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
@Baangla: Making edits for the purpose of getting ECP editor rights is "gaming the system". That you suddenly changed your editing patterns showed that you were doing this. And it was not just the number of edits per day, but the mix of types of edits that you were making.-- Toddy1(talk)13:55, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
This isn't an allegation. It's clear you're making edits for the expressed purpose of obtaining advanced permissions to be able to contribute to a contentious topic.331dot (talk)15:37, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
You can make as many edits as you like - the key is that they need to beuseful edits, and they need to be in non-ECR areas (and I'd strongly suggest staying out ofcontentious topics as well. Some things you could do that would be very useful are to find sources forunsourced articles orsentences lacking citations; fixingcommon misspellings; or patrolling Recent Changes to revert unsourced edits or vandalism. If none of those appeal, try just reading some articles you're interested in and seeing what can be improved - maybe there's confusing sentences, or the information is out of date, or you think something important is missing - there's always plenty of very useful work to be done and you don't need to be ECR to do it.Meadowlark (talk)03:00, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Note that this requirement is not about merely making edits, it's about demonstrating your knowledge of relevant policies and a collaborative attitude. Your gaming the system and explanations for doint so demonstrate that you don't understand policies. There's zero chance you'll get ECR back in hours.331dot (talk)12:51, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Unfortunatelysupport topic ban; i was concerned over the edits ontalk:Bengaluru, more concerned after looking at the contributions and user talk page, and convinced by the continued arguing and misquoting on this very page.Baangla, please take the topic ban, make it to be temporary by editing other articles entirely away from the subjects you've currently focussed on ~ try Welsh history or the birds of New Zealand or the lives of fifth century saints, whatever you can find to research and write about ~ and show you can be productive and coöperative and sooner than you currently fear you'll be welcome in all areas of the encyclopaedia ~LindsayHello16:17, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity, suppose I get topic banned, can I edit articles about US citizens of Indian origin? My ECR rights have been revoked, so can I edit semi-protected articles or only unprotected articles (unrelated to what I get topic banned from)?Baangla (talk)16:36, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Why would you want to skirt around the edges of this problem rather than staying clear of it entirely? This shouldn't be a question. --Hammersoft (talk)16:47, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Can you? Sure. However, each edit you make will result in increasing blocks for violating a topic ban, until one of two things happens: either you lay off the entire topic, or you end up indefinitely blocked for persistent long term failure to abide by community sanctions. In this latter scenario, you will be unlikely to convince anyone to unblock you, which will result in your indefinite block becoming a community ban, which will more than likely result in you never being able to edit the website again since you would need to convince the community that you’ve reformed (which they will be disinclined to believe) to be unblocked, while any editing you make from other accounts will result in your current account being linked with the new accounts and being indefinitely blocked for violations of our one account policy. Since you’ve expressed an interest in editing ECP related fields you’d be unable to touch those as an ip user like me, so that would in turn leave you with no meaningful way to contribute to the field whatsoever.2600:1011:B1CB:2F9B:D0A2:45F8:89DA:A3C0 (talk)16:53, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Oh dear. Why? Why would you? I suggested a random three out of thousands of possible areas you could edit freely; they were purely symbolic suggestions designed to indicated precisely what i thinkyou should do ~ stay absolutely far away from the area that has got you into trouble ~ and you are ignoring that in favour of testing the boundaries of a potential topic ban? No, don't do that! Within the bounds of civility, i can't be any clearer, but you really need to take on board what every editor who has commented has said: If it relates to India, a contentious topic, or an area which already has behavioural difficulties from other editors, don't go there. Simples ~LindsayHello18:01, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
I will not violate any topic ban, if and when it is imposed but I want to know what the rules say. I have observed that edits by I.P.s' are getting reverted and I certainly would like to keep editing articles with this account itself, without logging out.-Baangla (talk)18:13, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Logged in or logged out, you must follow the editing restrictions we impose on you. The restrictions are imposed onyou as a person, as well as your account. Also, editing logged out can get you into situations that violate rules. You are already having trouble understanding the rules so I'm not going to go into more details, but, simply,don't edit logged out. — rsjaffe🗣️19:54, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Support tban at the least. Besides gaming, Baangla repeatedly shows poor understanding of Wikipedia rules as seen above and inWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1203#Editing unprotected articles. That is not a good situation to be in, particularly when editing in contentious topics. — rsjaffe🗣️ 19:59, 19 October 2025 (UTC) In light of the mentorship going on, I'lloppose tban since extended confirmed has been withdrawn, so Baangla will have to obey the restrictions for non-EC editors. — rsjaffe🗣️21:39, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
There isn't a limit on the number of edits per day. A sequence of constructive minor corrections is justWikipedia:Gnoming. Nothing wrong with that. Gnoming with the intent of rapidly acquiring the extendedconfirmed privilege in order to tunnel through the experience barrier put in front of certain contentious topics articles is often treated as gaming. If your intent is to edit contentious topics articles you can just openly say that. It seems that people don't think you are ready to edit those articles yet. That leaves you with millions of articles that are not covered by theWP:ECR rule in addition to your ability to post edit requests for the relatively small number of articles that are covered.Sean.hoyland (talk)08:19, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
I would advise you to 1, agree to a topic ban, and 2) comply with it strictly and don't edit anything at all to do with the South Asia topic area(this inclues about people of Indian ancestry).331dot (talk)08:53, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Agreed. If I accept the topic ban, will myWP:ECR restrictions be lifted as it will mean that I am being sanctioned twice for the same (petty) offence?-Baangla (talk)09:57, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Probably not. Sanctions are tools to prevent disruption, not punitive tools. If people believe multiple sanctions are required to prevent disruption they will be applied.Simonm223 (talk)10:24, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
ECR needing to be applied for and a topic ban are sanctions that work together. The goal is to keep you firmly out of a highly controversial Wikipedia topic area until you better understand how Wikipedia works and how to collaborate in a Wikipedia environment. This is definitelynot a "petty offense" or a simple technicality.CoffeeCrumbs (talk)11:00, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
I would urge a little compassion. It's fairly clear that Bangla didn't get it. Wikipedia rules are hard/soft - which makes them difficult to negotiate, particularly for some people. I'll take the time to leave a note for Banlga, which may help in the long run. All the best:RichFarmbrough11:09, 20 October 2025 (UTC).
How many edits or how many weeks/months later should I ask for my topic ban to be lifted? How many edits or how many weeks/months later should I ask forWP:ECR restrictions to be lifted? How many edits can I make per day to avoid allegations of gaming (I am retired and can make quite a few edits every day)?-Baangla (talk)11:24, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
What is the procedure to ask for lifting each sanction (I read above that I have to e-mail someone and can't request for lifting theWP:ECR here)?-Baangla (talk)11:26, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
The best guidance I would give you would be to spend at least six months doing non-controversial, non-disruptive edit tasks on Wikipedia prior to asking for either of these sanctions to be lifted. And please note I don't mean walking away from Wikipedia for six months and asking both to be lifted, I mean actually showing you've put in the effort to learn the ropes and contribute constructively. Please rememberWP:NORUSH. One thing that has helped me greatly as an editor over the years are to train myself to think most of Wikipedia as non-urgent.Simonm223 (talk)11:57, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
@Baangla: if you want to be given the extended confirmed user right, you need to apply atWP:PERM/EC. However, your request is unlikely to be granted unless you can demonstrate familiarity with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and a willingness to follow them. This can be be done by showing a good track record of useful edits over a few months.Salviogiuliano12:07, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Okay, how many edits do I have to make for that? Is there a limit on the number of edits I can make per day to avoid allegations of gaming?-Baangla (talk)12:13, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
There's not really any limit as long as they aresignificant edits - i.e. adding useful content or citations. It is when you make too many very small edits which require little or no effort that you may be accused of gaming the ECR permission criteria. I would concentrate on making fewer, but better editsfor a number of months before asking for the EC permision back.Black Kite (talk)12:22, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
They just need to be useful edits. Fixing typos, adding content or sources, etc. I was also falsely accused of gaming a while back for similar reasons, but avoided any punishment and kept my status because my changes were considered constructive. I would not wait a number of months; if you can show that you have made 500 useful edits and have been here a month, it would be blatantly unfair to treat you differently just because you previously added a bunch of macrons.LordCollaboration (talk)19:14, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
•Oppose tban, unless if there is a good reason I am not seeing. The lack of ECR until they make enough useful contributions is already a fine limitation. If the reason is that they don’t understand the rules, then we might as well tban every new user that wants to edit in a controversial topic area. If it’s that they “gamed”, I have seen nothing to suggest they purposely broke this rule, and the issue has already been resolved by removing their XC rights. I don’t see anything to the content space they added that suggests they can’t be a constructive editor.LordCollaboration (talk)19:39, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Before the gaming they were also ignoring the requirement that edit requests must be uncontroversial, despite being told on several occasions, by several editors. This was to the extent that Firefangledfeathers had already noted that he wasclose to being topic banned from South Asian topics due to this. And at least a few of the edit requests werequite controversial. They showed no indication that they understood this requirement.CoffeeCrumbs (talk)02:33, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Someone please let me know, how many times and how frequently can I revert something I feel is wrong and still avoid sanctions?-Baangla (talk)03:22, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
I literally said I didn't think you were Srimonbanik. In any case, if you think I'm hounding you, please make a formal complaint; you're already in the correct forum.
And yes, controversial edits, as defined by edit requests, has been explained to youmultiple times. Between this and the previous sentence, I'm seriously starting to wonder if there's an English fluency problem here.CoffeeCrumbs (talk)06:46, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
•CommentBangla you shouldn't feel the need to respond to every single comment from another editor on this thread. This is a venue for discussion and you won't do yourself any favors by attacking every single comment by another community member. Their opinions are valid. It just results in you appearing to be in opposition to the entire community.Mfield (Oi!)05:33, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
I am not interested, "in opposition to the entire community." but his/her comment got me wondering why a new user who probably can't find this Noticeboard as easily as say, a wikipedia article, suddenly comes and makes a request for an indefinite block.-Baangla (talk)05:48, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
•Support Indef Block On the basis of the reply to my comment above. Until the user can read up on all the policies they are ignoring, and especially in light of potential gaming. Editor clearly has no sense of how to engage or interact with a community project. They are far more focused on deflecting everything onto other editors than considering their own actions. Tban is not sufficient to address greater concerns.Mfield (Oi!)05:59, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Wow you sure seem to like playing with the system, if i hadn't posted that previous comment though and got myself involved, I'd surely have blocked you but I am not going to be baited into doing it for your satisfaction.Mfield (Oi!)06:29, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Indef blocked for gaming this discussion. Subject has demonstrated they are here for some reason OTHER than making an online encyclopedia.BusterD (talk)07:25, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Would you perhaps consider reducing it to a timed block or simply this page? Despite Baangla accusing me ofWP:HOUNDING them, I don't think their participation in this discussion has beenthat egregious; my feeling is that they want to be a productive editor, but is having trouble understanding some of our processes and has difficulty communicating. I'm hoping that the ECR-removal and theWP:TOPICBAN will slow them down enough to learn how Wikipedia works. No complaint, of course, if you simply feel differently than I do on this.CoffeeCrumbs (talk)07:37, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
(edit conflict) My statement closing this discussion (which your edit interrupted) explains my position. I have read each of their edits in the last hour or so. I get the same feelings as Mfield's, not yours.BusterD (talk)07:46, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
After my close, another editor suggested the community might want a say whether Baangla should be CBanned. I'm striking through my close and reopening the discussion.BusterD (talk)09:48, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
The only reason I mentioned it was the first version of my rationale was lost in the edit conflict. This second draft doesn't have the "ooomph" my first version better imparted.BusterD (talk)11:30, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
In this edit I suggested to Baangla they might be mentored as an alternative to further blocking or banning. If you (or any other editor reading this) feels they mightmentor the useraway from gaming edits and towards productive editing, I'd be interested in seeing that happen.BusterD (talk)14:29, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
You may beuniquely qualified to mentor. I'll accept and immediately unblock when you ask me; I'd assist if you wanted help setting it up. If you think my block was unwarranted,User:LordCollaboration, help this editor instead of standing in the peanut gallery. They do need help.BusterD (talk)14:54, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
IMHO the ban discussion should continue, ignoring this newest development for now: I have commenced a mentoring discussion with LordCollaboration on their talk.User:CoffeeCrumbs, you've been around quite a while. If you wanted to help them it would take some pressure off a first-time mentor candidate.BusterD (talk)15:18, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Strangely, that's another reason you'd be an ideal mentor candidate together with LC. Respecting folks we disagree with is exactly why the Foundation servers don't burst into flames every day.BusterD (talk)16:13, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Let's allow this whole mentor idea to percolate through Baangla (who can't post here at this moment). Since LordC had a contrary opinion than mine (and has weathered some personal storms themselves), I suspected they'd be a nicer mentor candidate than I, but still tough. Your offer is noted and much appreciated by everyone here.BusterD (talk)15:49, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
It appears I have one (and possibly two) mentee candidates. I'm letting Baangla and LordCollaboration get acquainted today and if they seem compatible and can make some agreement, I'm going to at least partially unblock Baangla tomorrow. There's every reason to continue discussing Tbans but what I'm seeing so far looks quite promising. Let me report back to this discussion tomorrow and we'll know more.BusterD (talk)19:24, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Tban; oppose Cban I think a topic ban would be useful as an extra guard-rail post ECR restoration but I don't think grounds exist for a cban here. Baangla needs to do some learning and do it quick but they are new and I think a Cban isWP:BITE. I thinkWP:ROPE can be extended here. I would gently recommend Baangla commit to stopping responding to this thread except to answering questions asked by others. Other than that I think losing ECR and a topic ban from the Ctop is enough to avoid disruption.Simonm223 (talk)11:39, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
*Support TBan, Oppose CBan Just to make my feelings more explicit. I don't think there's anything egregious enough to support a full ban at this point. I think someWP:ROPE is reasonable, so long as it's not theWP:CT/SA topic. I hope the editor uses the time while they're indeffed to carefully read and develop anunderstanding of the core policies, beyond just cherry-picking sentences to their benefit.CoffeeCrumbs (talk)12:19, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
I should clarify, given Toddy1 and Ravenswing's notes below, that my supported topic ban is better described as the areas of CT/SA that require extended-confirmed access, not the entirety of the contentious topic of all South Asia content. That's a bit of sloppiness on my part to not mention the specific areaof SA that was ECR covered. I would not want to Banglaa to be topic banned from world cricket or an Indian film, so long as the edits weren't in that area.
Since ECR were already revoked, I guess it would be most accurate to call thisSupport Tban from edit requests inWP:CT/SA instead.CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:37, 22 October 2025 (UTC) With a mentorship arrangement in place,I believe that the extended-confirmed rights being pulled is sufficient for now.CoffeeCrumbs (talk)15:47, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Support CBan andsupport Tban fromWP:CT/SA upon successful unblock after 6 months. This editor's messages here and their own talk page only show they are not going to stay out of any trouble.THEZDRX(User) |(Contact)16:12, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
It is really hard for someone from India to comply with a Tban from South Asian topics. I know of another case where an editor from India got a Tban from South Asian topics. He/she tried to abide with it; his/her breaches included: (1) creating their user page, (2) editing pages about the world cricket governing body, (3) participating in an ANI thread concerning an Indian film. If an editor is from India, lots of what they know about is encompassed by the topic ban, and this is not obvious.-- Toddy1(talk)20:55, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
"Then editors from India shouldn't mess with the rules enough to draw CT bans" is the snippy response, but it's not inaccurate. Ravenswing08:33, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Tban: Regardless of the fact that this discussion will probably end with the user being mentored and watched, I still don't believe they should be allowed to edit anything related toWP:CT/SA. If they showcase an actual willingness to learn and improve and work on themselves more, perhaps in the future, we could have another discussion on this, but right now, the revocation of their ECR rights should remain and they should be topic-banned fromWP:CT/SA. —EarthDude (Talk)12:16, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Since I made this comment, Baangle has openly admitted to only going through with the mentorship to stay unblocked.[273] I am changing my position. I now believe Baangle should beindefinitely blocked. —EarthDude (Talk)17:58, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Wait and see how the mentoring works out before making a decision on a topic ban. It is entirely possible that what has been done is fixing the problem with Baangla's behaviour, and no further action is required. We can always come back to this later, if required.-- Toddy1(talk)10:19, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Support topic ban. His efforts since I wrote the above have convinced me that a topic ban is needed. Though he/she agrees to lots of things, he/she forgets them within hours. I am not sure how good his/her English is; it is possible that he/she does not understand a lot of what his/her mentors are telling him/her. Suggest that he/she is encouraged to edit his/her native language Wikipedia, in combination with English-language Wikipedia. Many of the lessons will be transferable.-- Toddy1(talk)13:04, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
Support indef with topic ban fromWP:CT/SA - Baangla has admitted that he agreed to mentorship only to get unblocked,[274] and is still eager to edit the same controversial area where he was causing trouble.[275] There is no need to waste more time on this.Chronos.Zx (talk)14:28, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
I'd encourage every contributor here to visitUser talk:Baangla#Mentoring and the sections below. Please visitUser talk:LordCollaboration#Uniquely qualified as well. I've seen successful mentoring starting with far less agreement. While I encourage this ANI discussion to continue above, I can show the user is making an effort and is now under constant supervision by at least two editors. If the community ultimately decides to impose a topic ban on this user, I request that we withhold the application of that ban while a good faith mentoring process is underway. We offer the carrot, and we would have a community-approved stick. Discussion about this below?BusterD (talk)12:00, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Thanks, BusterD! My ECR restrictions are still in place. I have promised to ask my mentor before I want to post anything here (on wikipedia) if it is okay, before I actually do so and he has agreed, so I request the other admins to give me aWP:ROPE and avoid any more sanctions apart from what has been imposed already.-Baangla (talk)16:25, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
@BusterD I just want to make sure I understand this - Baangla (who was blocked for gaming the system) is being mentored by you and@LordCollaboration:, a user who has been on Wikipedia since 2020 and has over 2000 edits but only made 24 mainspace edits before June of this year?Counterfeit Purses (talk)16:59, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
This is correct but omits some detail. The user's ECP had already been removed before I arrived, so the OP's valid PGAME complaint was satisfied. I came to the process with zero connection, but after seeing the flippant way Baangla addressed an admin who recommended an indef block, I chose to indef block. (I should not have closed the discussion immediately after, but reverted myself after feedback from another editor.) I was a bit annoyed at LordCollaboration's comments at ANI (which varied widely from my opinion), so when I thought about possible mentors, it occurred to me I might recruit someone who was already demonstrating a sort of support for Baangla. I read up on LordC and saw they'd been in a similar situation but worked themselves out of it. Sounded like destiny knocking. I saw that both editors needed some mentoring, but one had already improved their reputation a bit. I couldn't have known, but LordC was looking for an extra reason to participate. So LordC is helping Baangla (and benefitting themselves) and I'm helping LordCollaboration. Together they have created a starting point for more pagespace experience and I have both their signatures they'll stay out of trouble. Seemed like a very inexpensive victory for the community.BusterD (talk)18:00, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
I've been to user talk:Baangla, read through the later additions/conversation. My, what a pleasure.Baangla, your willingness to learn and eagerness to contribute is precisely what i hoped to see in my previous comment; delighted to have it show forth and i hope it blossoms further as you grow into a long-term member of the community (to which i say, "Welcome!").LordCollaboration, thank you for stepping up to help ~ and for openly speaking for the editor as others were only speaking of restricting him.BusterD, exactly the best sort of admin actions: A swift initial resolution, and a search for a permanent and better one; thank you! ~LindsayHello06:51, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Please don't sound cocky! Baangla, nobody has forced you to do anything. Users make their own choices. If you choose to misbehave in the future nothing we've done together will protect you. This mentoring is about learning to make new and better choices, not defending you against indefinite blocks.BusterD (talk)10:24, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
BusterD, right now there's clear consensus for a TBAN, and I'm not sure this section is getting enough fresh eyes for that to change unless previous participants change their minds to support your proposal. You may want to ping them.Firefangledfeathers (talk /contribs)17:53, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
I'm not generally in the pinging habit. As we both know, my effort to establish mentoring was never contingent on any special favors for Baangla. They have had access to the entirety of Wikipedia for the last day or so. Mainpage still not deleted, and much reasonable interaction. After all, a wikipedian might do worse than to be TBanned from a tempting, familiar subject area where wiki-inexperience could make sustained contributions challenging. Baangla gets through six months as a good wiki-citizen with mentoring, an excellent case might be made on appeal. Better this outcome than any Arbcom remedy.BusterD (talk)19:16, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
@Firefangledfeathers: After I had made quite a few edits to theMale Mahadeshwara Hills article,TonySt reverted some edits and then when you asked him if anything was wrong, he apologized and said that nothing was wrong (seethis) which made me believe that my edits were acceptable and continued doing the same. I hope you can help me avoid any further sanctions now -WP:ECR is already in place. I am also asking my mentors if an edit is acceptable before I add it to the respective article.-Baangla (talk)13:55, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
I am glad to hear that Baangla has undertaken mentorship. I think it was needed. I have no changes to make to ny recommendations as I do think the tban will remain a valuable guardrail and I never supported more enhanced restrictions than that. I hope their mentorship brings them up to speed on WP norms and look forward to seeing them as a productive member of our community.Simonm223 (talk)22:17, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
I hope Baangla is able to make meaningful contributions outside ofWP:CT/SA. This would meaningfully help getting any topic ban lifted sometime in 2026, as well as regaining extended-confirmed status. --Yamla (talk)22:38, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
I don’t think I can be completely neutral here anymore, so I am withdrawing any formal position. But I think a fair review of Baangla’s work over the last several days strongly suggests that they want to be constructive and are capable of doing so.LordCollaboration (talk)22:40, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
I have made some 400 edits from the timeSalvio giuliano imposed theWP:ECR restrictions on me on 19th October, 2025 and nobody has raised any red flag/s with respect to my edits after the restrictions were imposed.-Baangla (talk)05:09, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
This is heart-warming. I am happy to repose my trust inBusterD. We all know that these things don't always work out, but I believe it's worth trying. All the best:RichFarmbrough11:21, 28 October 2025 (UTC).
I agree - and the initial indefinite block that was only lifted on appeal was a key part of it. That was smart thinking by BusterD. It made Baangla understand the true position, and thus put him/her in the right frame of mind to improve.-- Toddy1(talk)15:39, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
I have not indulged in any revert war, ever, I am subject to the restrictions as perWP:ECR now after my ECP edit rights were revoked on 29 October, I am also being mentored by two people, one of who is an admin, so please spare me a topic ban or any other additional sanction (one sanction should be enough).-Baangla (talk)19:16, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
Support mentorship. It's not often that it gets offered and is agreed upon so is always worth attempting before more extreme solutions. Henceoppose CBAN/TBAN while there is a mentorship proposal.Yes I knowWP:INVOLMENTOR rarely works but I've done it myself once and did it help to avoid further ANI topics I'll have you know. Worse can scenario the editor will be back at ANI if problems continue; all I ask is for the mentorLordCollaboration to not engage in leniency and sugar coating, if the outcome or mentorship is in avoidance of more severe sanctions. Also credit toBusterD for providing a lifeline instead of just supporting a community mop up. It's a lot easier to turn a blind eye than do the right thing.CNC (talk)20:11, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
Continued gaming to gain ECP
Baangla is still continuing to game the system by making useless bot-like edits[276][277][278][279][280] in order to regain ECP. He has already made the request to gain ECP after making the aforementioned bot-like edits.[281]
Reviewing those diffs and BusterD's comments, I think the disconnect here is that BusterD was encouraging you to do grammatical fixes, but in the diffs highlighted by Chronos.Zx, you are not actually improving the grammar. Those extra commas are in some cases unnecessary, in some cases simply wrong.signed,Rosguilltalk14:44, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
Baangla is under a misimpression that merely making another 500 edits will allow them to automatically regain extended confirmed permissions. This is not the case. Baangla needs to ask atWP:PERM for a re-granting of the permissions. I'm not ready at this time to see such permissions granted. I'm not granting them myself. LordCollaboration isn't likely to grant them.BusterD (talk)15:57, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
I had removed every comma that was added where opening quotation marks did not follow the comma. The other example you give is something new for me but as per the links I posted above, it seems fine but I will avoid adding a comma in such cases from now.-Baangla (talk)16:04, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
BusterD, I was told by Silvio Guiliano that I had to e-mail some email address for it. Now regarding the number of edits - I did think I had to make a number of good faith edits but if that is not the case, please let me know.-Baangla (talk)16:13, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
Not a “number”; You need to gain the community’s trust that giving you XC status won’t be a problem. That might mean a month showing you can be collaborative and constructive, even if you only make a couple dozen edits to mainspace. Or it could mean hundreds of things like typo fixes (actual ones). There is no number, you just need to focus on making Wikipedia better, and with that will come the trust.
My advice is to forget about ECR. You don’t need it, and it might be detrimental to you even if you did get it; if you made these same comma changes on a more visible article, you probably would have gotten a lot more heat. Spend at least a month constructively editing (and learning how you personally can do that - I think grammar changes are often going to be more difficult for you than some other beneficial changes you have made) and then the community will *want* you to get ECR, because that means more articles you can improve.LordCollaboration (talk)18:20, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
You asked BusterD about typo corrections; instead, you're making grammar changes. Also, programmatically/AI-generated sites such as prowritingaid.com are not reliable. But please disabuse yourself of the notion that making a lot of typo corrections and grammatical tweaks will suffice for you to be granted ECR. You will not be trusted to make substantive edits on ECP and CTOP pages unless you have demonstrated your ability to make substantive edits elsewhere without disruption, and you will not be given ECR merely to enable you to make typo corrections on more pages.NebY (talk)16:15, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
This section demonstrates Baangla's inability to take advice.At 20:11, 28 October 2025 Baangla was told not to commenton the ANI thread again unless if you are asked a question. And he just cannot stop him/herself commenting.-- Toddy1(talk)19:13, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
I second this. I have been keeping outside watch since the thread started, and have also noticed Baangla feels a need to respond to everything. I think this thread should be closed to discourage Baangla from commenting on this anymore (if anyone makes the choice to say something following its closure).CREditzWiki (yap) | (things i apparently did)19:22, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
As supervising mentor, I urge rapid closure as TBAN and whatever other treatment an uninvolved closer feels appropriate. I'm not entirely satisfied with the above sugary response or some of the newest behavior from Baangla, but we don't need this thread active forever.Here's this morning's comment from LordCollaboration. The situation now seems somewhat stable and their edits are being watched by LordC and myself.BusterD (talk)23:12, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
No action required. WhileUser:Coehlinha is almost certainly the same person behindUser:CohenGresserWIki, the latter was blocked for advertising/promotion and having an account representing an organization. TheUser:Coehlinha account would appear to be a personal account, and not one what is shared. Further, they can be educated about conflict of interest and paid editing. I have placed a{{uw-paid}} warning on their talk page. Also, when you make a posting to this noticeboard regarding an editor, you MUST notify that editor. You have not done so. --Hammersoft (talk)18:15, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
@LuniZunie:,@Lavalizard101:; asWP:ROLE notes, an editor can choose a "replacement" account. This implies that the block role account can be replaced by one that is compliant withWP:UPOL. It is not a requirement that an account blocked for aWP:ISU violation be renamed in order to continue editing. How I would have handled it, and had started to handle it, is to request the editor comply withWP:PAID, then make it clear to them they needed to carefully read and closely followWP:COI, in particular that they should make suggestions on updates on the talk page of the article. I don't disagree with Yamla's actions, but now we have a situation where the person was trying to make updates, got blocked forWP:ISU and spam violations, tried to create an alternative account that complied withWP:UPOL, got blocked for sockpuppetry, and now the original role account is blocked as a sockmaster, and the alternative account is blocked as an abusive sockpuppet. The whole thing feels veryWP:BITEy to me. --Hammersoft (talk)20:46, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
Okay, yes in hindsight I don't think I made the best decision reporting them here; so I apologize for that. I will keep this in mind for the future. Thank you for providing your reasoning. Happy editing.–LuniZunie ツ(talk)20:51, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
Lavalizard101/LuniZunie; Meh. Mistakes happen. I make them too. Another mistake; theUser:Coehlinha account that is supposedly a sockpuppet ofUser:CohenGresserWIki was created February, 2024[283]. It was not created to get around the block for CohenGresserWIki, which was createdtoday. This isn't a sockpuppet situation. --Hammersoft (talk)21:05, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
I think my block is appropriate but any admin is free to lift it without consulting me,particularly if you get a commitment from them to followWP:COIEDIT. --Yamla (talk)18:38, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
I'm not saying it's inappropriate. Much as many people think there's specific policy to guide each and every action, the reality is that different admins will handle situations differently. I would have handled it differently. That doesn't make you wrong. My comment about you blocking anyway should not be interpreted as saying I felt you did something wrong. Perhaps I should have worded that differently. Sorry. --Hammersoft (talk)20:36, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Radlrb (alternate account Radlrb33) was topic-banned from "mathematical numbers, broadly construed" a bit over a year ago (see[284]). Two days ago, they engaged in a dispute withAllan Nonymous at42 (number), see this portion of its edit history:[285]. They haveprebutted the obvious inference that this is a topic-ban violation here:User_talk:Radlrb33#Notes_on_some_vandalism_reverts_I_make, arguing that the edits they reverted were "obvious vandalism". Personally I find this uncompelling (I don't think the edits were vandalism). I had abrief discussion with the administrator who administered the ban;Daniel suggested I come here to seek a consensus on the matter.
If others agree, I request a stern warning for Radlrb about their topic ban, and about inappropriately labeling edits as vandalism. --JBL (talk)23:33, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Later edits refer to an "obviously shaky consensus" and de-facto invalidate it because, apparently, having not edited the talk page before invalidates their consensus:[286]
I have repeatedly tried to engage with this editor, which has included:
Completely ignoring my declaration that the article was redirected properly. Also insisting that their charting makes them automatically notable, and saying they're "beyond puzzled" as to why the article was redirected after my in-depth analysis of the sources that were present before Beast from da East's involvement, and pointing out that a proper consensus was reached.
Claims that "references were added" but I do not see any more references than in the previous draft. This still includes uncited references to reviews from Robert Christgau andThe Source which I was unable to corroborate.
This edit, where they claim my edits are invalid because I have been blocked before, followed by whataboutism regarding other stubs I've created in the past.
Another edit implied that my opinion on the article was invalid because I am not an admin, which is farcical on its face. This later escalated to my opinion being invalid because I have been blocked in the past, which just... WTF? Let's also add on the facetious claim of adding sources, which I did not see Beast from da East do in any of their edits.
This has also led to further whataboutism from Beast, who dug up several old album stubs I did 15 years ago and wants to know why those are allowed to exist when the Gambino album isn't. I explained this, multiple times, and still got stonewalled and what-about-ed.
TenPoundHammer, your own edit warring in this deletion-adjacent dispute is extremely problematic, given the context of your TBAN. If you edit war to BLAR again, I'll block you. Someone more familiar with the context might be within their rights to do so right now. No comment on BFDE.Firefangledfeathers (talk /contribs)20:05, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
I've done other similar redirects since the topic ban, and every time I gathered consensus and executed the redirect without anyone expressing concerns that seeking consensus before redirection is close enough to violating the topic ban. This just happens to be the first such one that ended up part of an edit war, and I am not going to revert it any further.
I do understand treading carefully around deletion-adjacent actions, which is why I tried to present as much context here as possible and explicitly avoided any mention of deletion or notability. To me, deletion and redirection are separate entities, which again, I think is proven by the fact that my topic bans for redirection and deletion were entirely separate topic bans. (That said, I can see the argument that they are closer than I'm giving them credit for, and that any redirection on my part can be seen as a "stealth deletion", which is absolutely not my intent. That's why I presented my findings on the artist and albumfirst, and only redirected after I felt consensus was reached.)
I'm sure I'm close to overstepping boundaries already, which is why I've explicitly avoided any talk of deletion or "hey, can someone XFD this for me?" type talk that's gotten me in trouble before. I still think this user's behavior is reprehensible, retalitory, ignorant of policy, and aggressive enough to warrant some degree of action. However, I'm not absolving myself of being in at least a gray area here regarding my topic ban.Ten Pound Hammer •(What did I screw up now?)20:16, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
In regards to the articles in question. The main article about the Gambino Family did not cite any references and was proposed for deletionUser:A.Deira.born then added several references in an attempt to establish notability and save the article. This apparently was not satisfactory for the above user who proposed a redirection in the talkpage which was discussed with one user,User:Nayyn who agreed with the above user and thus the group page and their album were redirected. I stumbled upon this redirect in August and was puzzled as to why the page had been redirected as the group passesWikipedia:Notability (music) which states notability is establised if an artist "has had a single or album on any country's national music chart" I reverted both articles back to their previous state after which Nayyn contacted me, asking me to verify my claims that the album had in fact charted in the top 20 in the United States, and I then added references to both articles to substantiate my claim. Now some months later the above user has been in an edit war and has broken the 3RR (as have I admittedly) with me and threatened me with blocks despite my asks to take it to another forum so other users can discuss the matter.Beast from da East (talk)20:18, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
You repeatedly ignored my pointing out that the sources given by the other editor were insufficient -- they were just directory listings or user-generated content like Discogs, none of which is suitable for an article. Every time I pointed out whatwould constitute a reliable source, you just kept saying "well, I don't know what you're asking for" and didn't bother to try and add anything else.
As I pointed out, some artists chart but never get anything published about them. I can name about a dozen people who've madeHot Country Songs since 1990 but don't have articles because there's just no info on them -- in some cases, I can't even find recordings of their songs!
The fact that the album charted is not what's being disputed. The act has a two-sentence bio on Allmusic and a single review from the same site, and that's literally all I or any other editors could find. I pointed out already that even in old music magazines and newspaper archives, no one else seemed to review the album or say anything about the artist. Did you findany other sources on the act or their album, beyond Allmusic and the sources that are not reliable?
Pointing out that other similar stubs exist is just dodging the question and evoking whataboutism. I also do not appreciate my knowledge of Wikipedia rules being deemed invalid simply because I have been blocked in the past and am currently under a topic ban, or that others' consensus is invalid simply because they hadn't edited the article before. I also don't appreciate being warned with templates.Don't template the regulars.
Again, I see how me touching these articles at all is a bit too close for comfort regarding my topic ban, and I felt a bit of trepidation opening this ANI thread at all. I donot want toWP:BOOMERANG this thing into a block, so I am trying to focus this solely on your behavior and inability to listen when another editor asks you to stop doing something.Ten Pound Hammer •(What did I screw up now?)20:29, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
Just would like to comment on the above users "reprehensible, retalitory, ignorant of policy, and aggressive enough to warrant some degree of action" The artist in question has released an album for a major American record label, the album has charted at #17 on that countries album chart (theBillboard 200) has a review by a major professional music source and all this has been cited. Not exactly what is so "reprehensible." The above user has been given multiple warnings over the course of well over a decade and time and time again has continued to violate the rules Wikipedia has put in place, when is enough enough with this above user? How can a user ilk get away with what they have gotten away with?Beast from da East (talk)20:32, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
I have no particularly strong opinion on whether the page should be a redirect or not, but as @Beast from da East I think correctly argues, the artist does fulfil at least one criteria ofWP:BAND (although I note that the policy says they "may" be notable, not that they automatically are).
What I find more disappointing is that @TenPoundHammer with 20 years on WP and over a quarter million edits stoops to multi-reverting in clear violation of 3RR and seemingly as a repeat of the behaviour that got a just-expired ban. That doesn't excuse Beast, but someone's gotta be the bigger person here. —Arcaist(contr—talk)22:07, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
I'm not excusing my behavior in regards to edit warring which I've never had an issue with in 16 years. But if the above user is consistently being topic banned in regards to deletion-related and redirect issues, what more can be done to prevent it from continuing?Beast from da East (talk)22:13, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Summary: Stable version (5 paragraphs, 2 days old) had **consensus** (WP:CONS). 3 editors **re-added shortened version 4 times** in **tag-team pattern** (WP:EW):
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:Hotgas edit warring and refusing to communicate
User is aSPA whose only edits consist of edit warring onDance in Thailand andTraditional Thai clothing. Resumed editing the same page one day after the previous EW block expired. They were invited repeatedly to discuss on the talk page ([308],[309],[310],[311]) by multiple editors, which they have ignored and decided to plow ahead in reinstating their favorite version of the article instead. They have also falsely accused other editors of vandalism.
I have being constantly adding train boards to Indian Railways trains but this user is constantly reverting my edits. I don't know what is the problem with him. He doesn't do something on his own but is only busy reverting my edits. Admin please look into the matterRaju2789 (talk)21:26, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
I think it's important that we hear from them on why all of their edits today are reverts of your edits but they stopped editing soon after you posted a query on their User talk page wanting to discuss this. You should have also posted a notification about this ANI discussion there but another editor did this for you.LizRead!Talk!22:19, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
I upload the photos of Indian Railways original train board and travel over to India, and take a picture of the train board.
But this user is giving a wrong computer image on it and says it is original. I reverts his editing to stop it for editing and give him a warning for the edits. Please, look into the images on Wikicommons and conform it that it is computer or Real image.
[312][313][314]adding and re-adding population figures in infobox ofSephardic Jews, not reflecting body of article and without source, and in absurd detail (#31 Kosovo: 50; #32 Egypt: 10)
[315][316]adding and re-adding unsourced content indicating retired soccer playerKarim Benyamina's return after 6 years
[318]adding population figures to infobox forMizrahi Jews, again to absurd detail (Iraq: 3; Yemen: 1).
It's not necessarily vandalism in the tightest definition of that but it's extensive (25+ articles) and ongoing. They may not be seeing IP user talk page warnings or they may be ignoring them.NebY (talk)15:27, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
The IP editor persisted but Ponyo's blocked the /64 for 72 hours and, along with other editors, reverted the remaining unsourced changes. Maybe the IP will get the message now. Thanks, all.NebY (talk)12:12, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Isn't that just the new "username" format for temporary accounts, i.e. how IP editors will look like from now on? I've randomly clicked on one of the entries from the list, and went to its talk page. It says that it's the talk page of a temporary account.Nakonana (talk)17:23, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
MacedonLinguist (talk·contribs) was created just 9 days ago and has already amassed a large number of edits in Ancient Macedonia-related topics. They already exhibit unnatural familiarity with Wikipedia, such as edit(war)ing, opening tp discussions, citing sources, and a strong pov, which leads them to collide with a large number of editors, whom they consider as part of a wikipedia conspiracy.
In particular, the userrepeatedly, accross several discussions, accuses editors, or WP as a whole, of regional bias, due to numerical differences between the populations of countries. The assumption is that those who have opposed them are simply citizens of Greece or Bulgaria, and that alone invalidates their position, because the default view of those editors would be opposing to that of MacedonLinguist (which is problematic for many reasons):I strongly believe that there is a regional bias in the article. The population of Greece is 11 million, and that of North Macedonia is 2 million, which inherently creates the illusion of a majority opinion from the Greek perspective [...] There is a well-known debate between North Macedonia and Greece ... On top of that, there is a debate between North Macedonia and Bulgaria ... so people from Bulgaria tend to support the view of Greece. (discussion1,discussion2,discusion3,discussion4). This rhetoric is eerily similar to that of thesuspectedsockmaster a few months ago.
The user has become increasingly disruptive and agressive in their rhetoric. Instances include: reapeatedly claiming fake consensus and alleged lack of participation (diff,diff,example,inthis random section alone several editors express their disagreement/position), harassing editors talkpages with unjustified warnings (diff1,diff2,diff3see alsodiff), removal of other editors talkpage responces (diff,while also threatening to report for disruption (?)), assuming bad-faith and further attempts to present editors as malevolent (diff: "Tag-team edit war",diff:Are you telling me that is ok for some editors to collaborate...), using AI orlarge language model to file reports (example).
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Immediate block of Fdom5997 for blatant incivility
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
ArticleGulf British Academy is at AFD, and single-purpose article creatorUser:LocPoet has been repeatedly moving it, blanking it, and creating new versions under variant titles in main space and user space, creating strings of redirects and user pages for non-existent users.— Precedingunsigned comment added byWikishovel (talk •contribs)05:56, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
As of this reply, User:LocPoet redirects tothis, a page titled "GBA (Gulf British Academy) School in Kuwait" which is a redirect to User:Newredirectpage which isalso a redirect to GBA (Gulf British Academy) School. This is extremely disruptive.Chess enjoyer (talk)06:16, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This person should be blocked for abuse of editing privileges.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This user identifies as a Groyper, which is a group of white supremacists.[319]
[320] Further, they are editing the neutral term "alt right nationalism" to the racist dog whistle "Race realism". Hate is disruptive, so I didn't bother taking it to their user page.All meat is theft (talk)04:07, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
Nick Fuentes believes in Race realism. I provided sources from ADL, Atlantic, direct quotes from his Rumble channel and interviews with him on YouTube. To clarify, I m not racist. I know that might sound contradictory to some of you, considering that I identify as a Groyper; however, to be a Groyper does not mean to support Nick Fuentes 100% on everything. Also, please do not use identity politics to dismiss everything I say here. I have been on Wikipedia for more than a year, with many edits and articles. My objective is not to be a troll. You can again visit my user page to see it as a reference point.
So you identify with the political movement centered on a man who's entire brand is antisemitism and racism, but you very coincidentally don't agree with those parts. What's left, then?Parabolist (talk)11:06, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
Based on Fuentes' expressed views it could be hatred of women, belief in fascist politics, anti-LGBTQ+, religious supremacism. Shadowfax33 may also disavow these other key parts of Fuentes' politics. --Cdjp1 (talk)20:37, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
It should be noted that 'Groypers' are famous for disingenous trolling, and claiming 'I call myself a Groyper but don't believe any of the Groyper stuff' is exactly the sort of well-poisoning that Groypers do in order to pollute discourse around the alt-right.Athanelar (talk)20:39, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
Hey wait a minute, does anyone find it suspicious that a account created less than an hour ago is making an report on an account that was created a year ago?CycoMa2 (talk)04:24, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
I didn't want to talk to them on their page, I avoid white supremacists, but this page said I had to leave that notice and provided code to copy paste.All meat is theft (talk)04:33, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
Agreed. Despite being a sock, OP has a valid point: we shouldn't be welcoming of any editors that self-identity as aGroyper, and appear to be white-washing an article about a prominent alt-right white-nationalist.
If this year had beenAWARE of Contentious Topics I'd have likely topic banned from AMPOL and Poland. As they're not Ipropose we topic ban from American Politics and Poland as a community action. It seems like this user may be able to productively contribute to Wikipedia judging by their edits, but I question whether a self-described Groyper is someone who should be editing in certain contentious topic areas. Best,Barkeep49 (talk)05:02, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
we should be welcoming editors here, despite their identities. And Nil NZ you too should be warned that calling someone racist is a personal attack. The editing needs to be examined. Even if you disagree poitically it is not a reason to block some one. Instead there should be a discussion. And if editing becomes disruptive there should be a warning first.Graeme Bartlett (talk)05:07, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
I would disagree that calling someone a racist constitutes a personal attack *if the subject has already self identified* as a Groyper. From that point it is just a factual statement.Mfield (Oi!)05:20, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
If an editor self identified as a member of the KKK on their page, would it be a personal attack to call them a racist? Obviously not.Parabolist (talk)06:04, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but this argument is asinine (note - I'm calling the argument asinine, not you.) By welcoming a user who overtly expresses their belief that others are subhuman, you're basically telling those "subhumans" that they're not welcome. Should we welcome MAPs, too?King Lobclaw (talk)07:24, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
Support tbanSupport CBAN Until editor can show constructive contributions to the project generally. They have made few recent edits outside of userspace that aren't unilateral and unsupported changes to contentious articles. Furthermore there simply isn't enough other contribution history there to be able to assume much good faith either tbh.Mfield (Oi!)05:49, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
This is ridiculous, assume good faith should be done with zero edit history. It is assume good faith not make editors prove good faith.Czarking0 (talk)17:55, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
I think we're past the point of assuming good faith and are now rather dealing with the question of how much rope the editor should be given after such[321] edits.Nakonana (talk)18:12, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
I understand your concerns, although I disagree. First, I don't recall editing anything about Politics in Poland. Regarding the Nick Fuentes article, the edits that I have done were not all removed; not all of them were controversial. You can check Nick Fuentes' article history. Again, I will repeat, please don't use identity politics to dismiss everything I say here.
Regarding "don't recall editing anything about politics in Poland" – I don't have an opinion (yet) regarding a ban, just wanted to point out that the topic ban proposed by Barkeep49 covers American politics and Poland. The latter is much broader than Polish politics. Many of your edits have been related to Poland. —Chrisahn (talk)08:47, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
Support CBAN. I'm incredibly disappointed by many users' soft-handed response to this. Anyone who openly identifies as a member of a hate group needs to be excluded from Wikipedia with prejudice.Athanelar (talk)12:34, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
Support TBAN from American Politics, Poland, Holocaust, Russia and Ukraine, and PIA, Its a hefty list but all of the ones i am proposing here are related to far right politics in some way.shane(talk to me if you want!)20:27, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
Support CBAN From our article onGroypersThe Groypers, or the Groyper Army, are a group of Christian nationalists andwhite nationalists loosely defined as followers, fans, or associates of Nick Fuentes. (Emphasis mine). I have no idea what parts Shadow actually identifies with, but, none of them are okay. And claiming you don't identify with one of the CORE parts of a group, but call yourself part of it nonetheless, is bullshit.LakesideMinersCome Talk To Me!11:58, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
Support C-Ban As a member of a group the Groypers consider subhuman, I have serious doubts about Shadowfax's ability to work collaboratively with me or other members from targeted groups. We've blocked members for less overt displays. Either Shadowfax really supports what the Groypers stand for (enough that they feel confident openly labelling themself as such, or they're a troll seeking (and succeeding at causing disruption.) Either way, they need to go.King Lobclaw (talk)07:29, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
Support TBAN/Neutral on CBAN. I'm not sure how I would have !voted here if we were only looking at the self-identification piece in isolation. While the group in question is as manifestly racist and idiotic a movement as they come, I would be at least a little uncomfortable assuming which of their particular beliefs we could say an editor was tacitly endorsing merely by associating with that group. Thankfully, the decision is made considerably easier by also looking at the broader context of their actions and comments. A TBAN is definitely the minimum necessary to avoid disruption to the covered areas here. Personally, I'd like to block on the basis of associating the name of Gandalf's noble steed and finest of the mearas with the saddest and most pathetic phenomena that is postmodern meme-based racism...but sadly we lack a guideline for such a crass debasement of art by association with one's own cretinously myopic belief system, so I can't support that with policy.SnowRise let's rap08:24, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
Support topic ban/Oppose community ban - They actually have shown conduct that makes removing them from the topic area important as a preventative measure. But to community ban on this set of facts is a huge stretch for me, as gross as I personally feel that Fuentes crowd is. There needs to be somethingsignificantly more overt than this.CoffeeCrumbs (talk)08:56, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
If you look at my user page, I mainly publish articles on the topics of military equipment. Therefore, banning me from editing the Nick Fuentes page or banning me from editing political topics, I can accept that.Shadowfax33(talk)17:41, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
Support topic ban per SnowRise. This is about editing behaviour and conduct. If the disruptive conduct continues in other areas, a cban can be discussed, and obviously any harassment would be unacceptable, tban or not. Also +1 re profaning the name of the supreme mearh, but we can't do much about that. --bonadeacontributionstalk10:36, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
Support C-Ban why are we tiptoeing with this editor?WP:HID they are a member of a white supremacist group, how can we expect any editor of any other nationality/ethnicity to be okay with interacting with them, that just sends a silent message that we are okay with users who have hateful views.Lavalizard101 (talk)11:57, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
Support CBAN, not merely becausehate is disruptive but because I'm troubled by their contributions toNick Fuentes, all of which appear to be trying to create a more favourable presentation of the leader of the group the editor self-identifies as a member of on their user page. In these contributions we can see:
While some of these were later not restored (namely the first two), the removal of references to white supremacy and categories about Holocaust denial and antisemitism, where both are well sourced in the body, seemingly under the ground thatthe editor considers them "quite far-fetched", are concerning. It seems we're dealing with a POV-push situation involving somebody with well-documented hateful views, and I don't see the benefit of the user remaining in the community.ser!(chat to me -see my edits)12:28, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Cban; while I respect the attempt to provide this editor with a get-out, it is unnecessary to do so when their stated aims are fundamentally at odds with the community. FYI,User:John Antifa, more power.—Fortuna,imperatrix12:35, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
Support C-BAN. I see no reason whatsoever to take Shadowfax33's claims not to be a racist at face value. We go by common definitions of terms, and not by absurd denials which are immediately negated by by blatantly pro-racist editing behaviour. Clearly here to push repulsive and hateful views, in a manner utterly incompatible with any collaborative project.AndyTheGrump (talk)12:40, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
Support CBAN As per above - the diffs are concerning. Everyone is entitled to their own views, however they shouldn't affect our ability to edit in a neutral fashion and I don't think this editor is able to do that.
Additionally, our userpages are where we tell other editors what we want them to know about ourselves; it shouldn't come as a surprise when people take notice of it.
I was blissfully ignorant of the term until today & after looking it up I was surprised that someone openly put that on their userpage.
The group is idealistically opposed to a significant amount of other editors and they put it on anyway.
They say this shouldn't be about identity, but they've openly identified as being part of a group that defines itself as opposing & disparaging other people's identities.
Believe whatever you like, but putting that belief out in the open like this on a community-driven project like Wikipedia doesn't feel appropriate and has brought to light problematic editing behaviour.
Support T-BAN - If editor has indulged in frequently pushing their beliefs across the project? Then a C-Ban would be required.GoodDay (talk)14:17, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
Support C-BAN. A topic ban is appropriate for an editor who is operating in good faith but who is unable to edit constructively on a specific topic. A full ban is appropriate for an editor who is operating in bad faith to subvert the integrity of the encyclopaedia. When I look at edits likethis orthis I see only bad faith. That is an attempt to make Wikipedia less informative by removing facts that they find embarrassing or impolitic for their cause. I would have reverted that as vandalism. They also made a disruptive userbox, which should probably be deleted, atUser:Shadowfax33/Userboxes/Groyper. Clearly they are a net negative to the project and a topic ban is very unlikely to fully solve this. --DanielRigal (talk)15:00, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
Support CBAN. Put yourself in the shoes of an editor who chances to interact with SF and happens to belong to one of those groups which Groypers despise.Narky Blert (talk)15:32, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
Support CBAN the links provided by ser very much shows howhate is disruptive. While I think the TBAN was proposed in good faith (and support it as a minimum), I am afraid that the topics of "American politics and Poland" will be too narrow as they can easily change to other related areas of the Groypers movement, but coming up with a wide enough TBAN to cover that might be too large, which leaves a CBAN as the only rememdy that can address this issue for now.Gramix13 (talk)17:20, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
Support CBAN. Openly associating with a racist group and editing articles to include racist dogwhistles are racist actions in themselves. It makes no difference if the user professes not to be a racist afterwards.Elestrophe (talk)17:45, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
Support TBAN - At a minimum, with the list suggested by shane (American Politics, Poland, Holocaust, Russia and Ukraine, and PIA) as a preferred option. Shadowfax33 self-describes as a member of a hate group, so that should really be more than enough for a CBAN, though WP:HID and the associated WP:NONAZIS and WP:NORACISTS are only essays, so don't carry the weight of policy or guidelines. Beyond Shadowfax33's self-description, looking at their edits where they do edit in CT/AP, they look to be engaged in whitewashing, where for Fuentes' "race realism" they use primary aboutself sources which paint "race realism" as some sort of legitimate position to hold, altered "Islamphobia" to "[Political views] Islam", removes mentions of Fuentes and the Groypers being described as fascists, and seems to engage in OR, placing their political positions in the Groypers article as positions the Groypers hold with no citation to verify such. --Cdjp1 (talk)20:59, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
Support CBAN — Hate is disruptive. There are plenty of online communities where people who subscribe to hateful ideologies can express themselves freely. This isn't one of them, nor should it be.White 720 (talk)22:41, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
Obviouslysupport CBAN. This lot were defeated in the 1940s; they're not welcome here, nor should they be welcome anywhere.Acalamari04:51, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
Would Shadowfax33 be able to avoid a C-BAN, if he promised to 'not' edit pages directly-indirectly related to his beliefs?GoodDay (talk)16:14, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
We don't know whether he could or couldn't refrain from editing in such areas. Example: I'm a republican, yet I don't go around putting up AFDs for monarchy pages. Again, if he promisednot to edit in those areas related tohis beliefs? Would he be able to avoid a C-Ban?GoodDay (talk)16:30, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment) Looking at the article onGroypers, they'd need to be topic banned from half the encyclopedia & I'm not sure that's even feasible. Politics, race, religion, gender, immigration, maybe even X/TikTok...Blue Sonnet (talk)16:59, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
No, he self identifies as a white supremacist. Unless you can name some white people only pages, he will have to interact with us subhumans. Why do you think that it's OK to force everyone else to work with someone who wants us in a gas chamber? You are showing your tail.107.115.5.85 (talk)16:33, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
There is more than racism here. There is also the obvious dishonesty ofclaiming not to be racist while admitting to being aGroyper. Clearly they take us for complete fools but we are not obliged to prove them right by falling for such obviously insincere disavowals.DanielRigal (talk)17:04, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
Oppose any serious sanction as this user has not been disruptive. I agree several of their edits listed here were not improvements toNick Fuentes however Shadowfax engaged in normal discussion after receiving push back on these edits. I find it odd how many people are taking an issue with Shadowfax here but are not actually engaging in talk page discussion with him. I find much of the discussion to be focused on the editor and their beliefs rather than their actual conduct. On several of the topics, Shadowfax was not the only editor supporting their positions onTalk:Nick Fuentes. I believe Shadowfax is here to write an encyclopedia; the editor what reported them is clearly here in bad faith to disrupt the project. I don't think there is sufficient justification for banning Groypers from editingNick Fuentes while allowing democrats to modifyJoe Biden. Of course if members of either group are disruptive we should sanction them on behalf of their disruption rather than on behalf of their group membership. There is a reasonWP:HID is not a policy.Czarking0 (talk)17:57, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
@Czarking0: Let's say another user posted something on their userpage or otherwise openly declared they believe that<foo> people are inhuman scum which must be destroyed or marginalised (The specific "ism" isn't relevant here) andyou were a <foo>. Would you evenwant to try and collaborate with someone whose starting position is "You should not exist"? —Jéské Courianov^_^vthreadscritiques19:12, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
Support CBAN - Allowing someone openly affiliating with a hate group runs the risk of turning Wikipedia into aNazi bar. Had the editor kept this to themselves, it may have been a different story, but espousing views like that tells hundreds of other editors that they are neither safe nor welcome on this project.LaffyTaffer💬(she/they)18:42, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
Support CBAN per Ser!'s links they are clearly trying to push this agenda on Wiki and we cannot allow this sort of disruption fuelled by hate to continue.GothicGolem29(Talk)18:52, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
Oppose CBAN/Support TBAN for APOL - I took abrief look through this user's contribution history. Most of the edits are pretty mundane and about war stuff. He does not fall underWP:NOTHERE from what I've gathered. I haven't seen any evidence presented of him attacking other editors or saying unacceptable or disruptive things. Yes, his edits atNick Fuentes were not good--as in I would have reverted it--especially, the primary source synthesis. But, much of it is not on the level of disruption. Take the race realism thing. I'll stop short of taking an editorial opinion on it, but it was reliably sourced to the ADL. It is factually accurate to say Nick Fuentes identifies as a race realist, so it probably shouldn't be wielded against this editor for wanting that noted in the article nor should it be uses as evidence that he's a racist. However, when looking at the diffs provided by Ser!, I do think it is likely this editor would continue POV pushing in the area. So a APOL tban seems reasonable. A CBAN seems excessive since the editor makes constructive edits outside of the political topics. We do not know what his groyper identification means about his beliefs or prejudices. He claims not to be racist.R. G. Checkers talk00:43, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
It is our duty in building an encyclopedia to document if someone identifies as a racist, antisemite, race realist, etc if reliable sources say so. That doesn’t mean we as editors endorse those beliefs ourselves.R. G. Checkers talk02:41, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
From what I can gather from his user page he may just be a Christian nationalist. Believing the Ten Commandments should be in classrooms (or something to that like) doesn’t mean you’re a Nazi. I, as a matter of personal principle, do not assume the worst in people. There should be extremely strong evidence presented before someone is brandished a bigot, racist, nazi, etc on a public forum. Such evidence is not here.R. G. Checkers talk02:58, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
WP:CIR – would you believe someone is in the ku klux klan, but isn't racist, only into the other aspects of the group? If yes, you should be blocked for competency. If not should be blocked for trolling here and pulling a Groyper move by saying a Groyper isn't a white supremacist.
Yes, I did say I m not racist, also why are you even here? Looking at your edit history, it seems you made the account just to post here.Shadowfax33(talk)17:36, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
It's patently absurd to saywe do not know what his groyper identification means about his beliefs or prejudices. We absolutely do. You can just look at the things that the type specimen Groyper says and the things that other self-identified Groypers say. It's like someone saying "I call myself a Nazi but I don't support the Jew genocide stuff, I just support some of Hitler's other views" while never specifying what those other views are.Athanelar (talk)09:04, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
I mainly publish articles on the topics of military equipment. If you want me to ONLY publish articles on military equipment, and for the time being not edit anything to do with politics, I can do that.Shadowfax33(talk)17:35, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
Comment The fact that Wikipedia would have banned other users for lesser infractions much quicker, and that there is this much support for giving hate groups equal time and space as their targets is disheartening and chilling. Theonus is now on us to accept and tolerate Groypers, Neo-Nazis and whatever else rather on users who hold those views.King Lobclaw (talk)01:49, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
No, to be a Groyper, you have to be a Catholic or be more or less supportive of Catholicism; Nazism is paganism. I know who I am, I m a Catholic.Shadowfax33(talk)17:44, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
Then why the FUCK does it say white nationalist as one of the CORE parts of being a Groyper?
Then why are you a Groyper and not a Traditionalist Catholic or some other type of conservative Catholic instead? There are other options out there if it's just about Catholicism. Why choose a movement that also embraces paganism?Nakonana (talk)18:35, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
larry sanger...
Now that you've clarified you want us to block Larry: that is not going to happen. I concur with asilvering's close of this thread. The only thing that will come of this thread is needless acrimony.voorts (talk/contributions)19:01, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
so it's come to this... i'll just make this report short and simple. focus on one problem. there are plenty more, and plenty of that "plenty more" that would've gotten anyone else blocked as not here or for personal attacks, but it's best to start off with the latest issue ofaspersions, and then go to all the other stuff when (and if) needed, so i'll suggest giving it at least two days before we get to the rest
amid discussions regardingthesis 6, regarding exposing the identities of (doxing) wikipedia's "leaders" — implicitly admins, bureaucrats, arbcom, checkusers, and maybe the wmf, though two other theses (t2 and t9) would accidentally(?) broaden that scope to every editor — in order to expose potential conflicts of interest (y'know, just in case), larry made the questionable decision of accusing admins of taking bribes for editing (diff). when pressed for evidence in that section, larry avoided the question, simply addressing other matters (see further replies on the section)
when pressed in his talk page to back his claim up or strike it by isabelle belato (diff), he erroneously stated to have made no specific accusations (diff), and when pressed by that wonk fromrfd (cogsan, was it?diff), he pointed to the evidence in t6... which doesn't actually have any proof that admins regularly engage in paid editing (disclosed or otherwise) and get away with it, and to"many Wikipedia pages documenting this", whatever that means (diff), and additionally asserted to isabelle that he presented evidence to a completely different thing, which he also didn't actually provide evidence for (diff). he still hasn't actually provided said proof or pointed to the specific sources he's vaguely handwaving at, even though it should be an extremely easy request to fulfill if said proof actually exists
i'll also note that he'd cited the fact that people were arguing against him about this exact topic as proof that he was right (diff), which i couldn't find a good place to put in, but will cite as proof thatcircular logic is at play.frankly, i'd probably be able to use this diff as evidence of trolling, but am too lazy for thatconsarn(talck)(contirbuton s)18:19, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
We all know that Larry is not going to produce any solid evidence of bribery; if he had any, he already would have, rather than hand waving. He also hasn't blamed any individual in particular, so no personal attacks have been made. What would you like to happen here?voorts (talk/contributions)18:35, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
to say that "he hasn't blamed any individual in particular" would imply that accusing admins of regularly taking bribes with no actual evidence isn't an aspersion (which wp counts as a type of personal attack). what i'd like to see happen, as far as this specific discussion goes right now, is it first starting off small in scope (hopefully for at least 2 days as i mentioned before) before the however many other issues are addressedconsarn(talck)(contirbuton s)18:39, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
You came to ANI, which means you are seeking administrative action. ANI is not a forum for yet another open-ended discussion on why Larry's nine theses are bad. If you are not seeking administrative action, I will close this thread.voorts (talk/contributions)18:41, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
...no, this really isn't a good time for a speedy close. this is very much in the realm of "chronic, intractable behavioral problems", action is necessary, and it's unlikely that anything will be done otherwise, so closing it as "shit-stirring" (mentioned off-wiki) will not help. as an aside, to finish the reply i was writing to voorts...
oh, that, fair. ultimately, my suggestion would beblocking for personal attacks, without opposition tonothere (though this isn't what the discussion is about yet), but with mild opposition to banningconsarn(talck)(contirbuton s)18:58, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
Seriously? This essay has been discussedad nauseam and a protracted ANI thread where we dissect everything Larry Sanger has said to find anything that could be deemed unacceptable is not a good use of anyone's time.Elli (talk |contribs)19:00, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello, I am here to reportUser:Lado85 for clear and repeated edit warring atList of current UFC fighters. Even after I’ve asked them to stop on their talk page, they’ve gone and did it again. Their edits have been reverted several times by multiple different users, but yet they continue without consensus from community. This has been going on for the last week plus. Can someone please step in?GOAT Bones231012 (talk)17:42, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
This war began a year ago, but why didn't you reportUser:Alberto González Seguí, who reverts this edit whole year, an who created his account only for this.
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User created his profile only for change Ilia Topuria's flag. His has not other edits. He began this war year ago, changing this flag without reason. There was not problem with flag till this user began his war.
I may not have other edits, but it's because I didn't see the need for it.
On the war topic, you were the one trying to change the established key notes because you didn't like them and therefore, changing other elements on the page.
I didn't create my account just for that, but because I had to create one.
All your contributions are reverting same edit on same page. If you want to talk, why didn't you enter discuss on article's talk page?Lado85 (talk)19:01, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Facepalmoy, vey iz mir-- Deepfriedokra (talk)16:34, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
Done on the basis of edits I saw there myself.signed,Rosguilltalk14:05, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
Moved fromWP:VPR § Supplementary proposal: General warning to WikiProjects Weather and Tropical Cyclones
.jpg){kind=link}
Courtesy ping:Jauerback
Note: the OP tried to retract the report (bydeleting it). Please feel free to close it.M.Bitton (talk)20:40, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
additional links:user:larry sanger/nine theses, andits associated talk page