Someone123454321 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

This is a single-purpose account who, by their own admission, is "biased" against "feminism in Korea in general".[1]. They only ever edit in feminism related topics as seen in theircontributions, and periodically do it over time since June 2025. They always think they are right despite disagreements from practically every user they interacted with, me included. Their usual reaction is demanding explanations to every little single thing they did wrong, saying "I'm sorry" and then go back to their editing without changing.

See theprevious ANI report for them constantly disrupting process. One glaring example is them digging up baseless personal attacks against me from other WikiProject so that they can lie I have "something going on in the past".[2][3] SeeUser talk:Someone123454321#Discussion where they refuse to acknowledge they're being disruptive, rehash the same arguments repeatedly, and make excuses to deflect advices.It's not a policy but rather a recommendation. If it does not make a significant difference and is reasonable, then I can go ahead and make the edit.[4] SeeUser talk:Someone123454321#Editing the article again, LOUT socking where they sock a TA (~2025-39998-12 (talk ·contribs)) to edit the same articles and drag their opponent back to arguments. SeeUser talk:Someone123454321#February 2026 where this week, I gave them the last warning they have CIR issues, and they say I am the problem.

This is a textbook example ofWP:IDHT, pretending to hear but not actually following community input. They're here to waste everyone's time and pick fights. I suggest applying TBAN to them for affected topics so that this can be wrapped up.

Paging@Grapesurgeon, who interacted with this person.Emiya Mulzomdao (talk)12:07, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support TBAN there are times when I agree with this user, but the way they go about all this is so disruptive, exhausting, and combative, it just makes everything harder. We've had to deal with them for nearly a year now and it's made even light edits to these pages nearly impossible, because they battleground nearly every edit with long essays.grapesurgeon (talk)16:22, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The LOUTSOCKing issue is emblematic of their behavior (see thread linked above). At first they tried to lie about it being intentional, then they stopped trying to take that route. They had kept up the LOUTSOCKing for weeks and revised their own edits, it's really unlikely they didn't know they were LOUTSOCKing. It was clearly gaming the system, and that the articles they did it on areWP:CTOPs. This is the kind of underhanded combative behavior we've been dealing with for nearly a year now. It really just needs to end.

Again, I actually disagree with Emiya more often than I do with this Someone user. But Emiya doesn't do these underhanded combative behaviors; I'm able to have a good working relationship with Emiya. The Someone user is too combative on a CTOP to be productive.grapesurgeon (talk)18:10, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

About the bias thing, that was when I first started editing on Wikipedia and did not have enough experiences. I listened to the criticisms I faced and did not edit the Megalia article for a while after that. About what this user said about "something going on in the past", I mentioned that because this user tried to shut down all of my arguments with a single fact that I have been criticized by other people, and wanted to show that everyone faces criticisms at one point. I even apologized if it felt aggressive.[5]

About the LOUDSOCKETING, I had a problem editing on my laptop with this account, so I used the logged off version. However, I never used two accounts at once to make an argument or editing, and did not know that LOUDSOCKING applied even if I did not do that. But once I was informed, I also added that I was the ip user too.[6]Someone123454321 (talk)00:39, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I listened to the criticisms I faced and did not edit the Megalia article for a while after that. You've been pretty consistently editing these feminism articles the entire time, and imo your conduct and familiarity with Wikipedia has not significantly improved. You're still similarly just as aggressive, and you'll apologize for bad behavior and then mostly continue to do the exact same thing. Another apology is meaningless given that you've not really improved until now.

I had a problem editing on my laptop with this account, so I used the logged off version. this is just nonsense and yet another lie.Shoot forgot to log in sorry You said this on your talk page, so which is it, did you forget or did you log and edit intentionally? Just admit that you logged out because you were going back on your word of holding off of editing.

To others reading, I'm being firm because this has been going on for nearly a year now. Weak apologies, excuses, and even blatant lying to dodge responsibility for bad behavior.grapesurgeon (talk)00:49, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

To add on, the warning came after I had reverted the edit from Emiya, as they overwrote what was already agreed upon the talk page, such as Megalia being mentioned in the lead of the article and changed it so that Megalia only seemed to be related to GS25. They were arguing the change to be made in this way throughout the talk, but that was not how it was agreed on. When I accused them of this and went back to revert the changes that were already talked about or the ones that I had sources to back up from and wrote the reasonings(I did not revert the entire change this time as some of those were okay and reverting the entire thing may be seen as disruptive), they they started this in ANI.Someone123454321 (talk)00:59, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

People around tell you to stop making a mess and move on. You keep doing it. ReadWikipedia:Wikipedia is a social club on why this is bad.Emiya Mulzomdao (talk)12:12, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I was not planning on doing anything with the recent edit, but you were the one who went against the already agreed edit and changed it to your likings. I don't really want to spend too much time on this matter either.Someone123454321 (talk)01:20, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There was no consensus. Everyone took a break since things got heated up. You are still holding onto something that can be easily understood if you pay attention. You adhere tothis edit, for example, because you just read the abstract and jump to conclusion, when it's a phrase that appears in the journal itself. This is a recurring pattern in your behaviors. Please stop making people explain to you the same thing dozens of times over something trivial.Emiya Mulzomdao (talk)12:41, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Would really prefer an admin step in. This Someone user is going to keep aggressively lying and stonewallinggrapesurgeon (talk)14:35, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There was no consensus for you to make that change in the first place.[7] I did not want to be doing these either. I simply reverted the changes that you made that was already agreed upon, and I also left a talk page in the article so that we could discuss about it too. Specially this part[8] was already agreed to stay that way, and the other edits were already made before.Someone123454321 (talk)00:49, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's not possible to have discussion when you're unable to do something as basic as admitting you're being disruptive.Emiya Mulzomdao (talk)12:14, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I decided to take a rest from this in the first place unless there was new changes, which you just made. I felt frustrated a lot during our arguments too since you were making the same points over and over again that the sources didn't even support while dismissing all of mine. You act as if I am banned, but that is not the case. I am still allowed to contribute to the article, and you will just say that it is disruptive for just about whatever I do.Someone123454321 (talk)22:15, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also, in this case, the abstract should have been more than enough to make the edit. Abstract gives the summary of the general idea, and it directly quoted "Although this view drew opposition from progressive sources." I don't see why there is a need to add the phrase "and moderate" into the article. But we can talk about it on the topic's talk page, not here.Someone123454321 (talk)09:33, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If you read off abstract and thought you understand the journal, you shouldn't edit in Wikipedia.Emiya Mulzomdao (talk)14:04, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As I have said, abstract gives the summary of the general idea, and it only said progressive. There was no mention of any moderate or whatsoever. That means that the word moderate is just simply unnecessary there. The article's pay walled, so can you quote directly where you got the phrase from? Also, argue this in the article's talk page.Someone123454321 (talk)18:58, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thrilled at the prospect of more functionally pointless bickering in 2026. It's all so worth it; you've really shown the world how evil South Korean feminism is by writing essays about minor wording changesgrapesurgeon (talk)19:44, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That's not even the point here, and most of these were already talked about in the past. Emiya brought it up again for some reason.Someone123454321 (talk)23:42, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

My point is a general one. Another year of this, thank you for doing this to me.grapesurgeon (talk)00:06, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That you only read off abstract means you don't actually know what's written in journals. This is a running theme in your behaviour issues. You turn a blind eye to the most obvious things so that you can continue time-wasting filibusters.Also, argue this in the article's talk page. Behavior issues belong to ANI.Emiya Mulzomdao (talk)10:40, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This argument is clearly about the article, and as I have said, the abstract gives you the important general ideas about the article, and it only mentioned progressive instead of moderate sources. It means that adding the "and moderate" is not even important.Someone123454321 (talk)19:52, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

the abstract gives you the important general ideas Wrong.Emiya Mulzomdao (talk)12:10, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• To get this discussion back on track, Isupport a TBAN from feminism in Korea. It's clear that they are incapable of editing neutrally in this topic area, and their incessant bludgeoning and sealioning in this discussion has only further proved this. --Tulzscha (talk)15:05, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

For years Ilamxan has been engaging in source misuse, whether in the form ofWP:OR orWP:SYNTH. Despite being told countless times about it, they have continued. There is no doubt many more diffs than "just" these.

1. March 2022 createdKurds in Afghanistan, redirected in March 2022 forWP:VER,WP:RS,WP:SYNTH issues and more[9]
2. In April 2022, another article of theirs got deleted[10], one of the reasons being sources not supporting added info
3. In May 2022, another article was deleted for info not supported by cited sources[11]
4. June 2024 MoreWP:SYNTH
5. 5 February 2025 Created theWP:ORAzaris. All the article does it talk about their language and region (which exist in other articles), which makes sense since these people are far from notable, noWP:RS about them as a people exists
6. In 2025 (can't find the exact date) they createdFeyli people, where they combined several ethnic groups together, despite the very citation they had used being against that. Exposed and deleted in October 2025Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Feyli people.
7. March 2025, anotherWP:OR article deleted[12]
8. 5 June 20255 June added info not supported by citation atKurds in Iraq -> exposed and removed in January 2026[13]
9. 5 June 2025 added info not supported by citation atKurds in Iraq -> exposed and removed in January 2026[14]
10. 8 June 2025 created thisWP:OR/WP:SYNTHWP:POVFORK article, where they have recently imported the same material of their aforementioned deletedWP:OR/WP:SYNTHFeyli people
11. 6 October 2025 Distortion of what source said (Simko Shikak)
12. 6 October 2025 Distortion of what source said, also on purpose omitting context (Simko Shikak)
13. 9 October 2025 Distortion of source (Simko Shikak)
14. 10 October 2025 Distortion of what source said, also on purpose omitting context (Simko Shikak)
15. 27 November 2025 adding info not supported by citations atLittle Lorestan
16. 7 January 2026 MoreWP:SYNTH, the cited source did not talk ethnic unrest at all. But because two cleric leaders were of another ethnicity, Ilamxan automatically assumed it must have had been an ethnic unrest and presented it as such (1979 Iranian ethnic unrest)
17. 8 January 2026 Distortion of source (1979 Iranian ethnic unrest)
18. 7 February 2026 Distortion of source atFeyli Lurs, repeat of the same distortion back on 27 November 2025
19. 11 February 2026 Distortion of source (Little Lorestan)

On their talk page they were recently confronted for doing this[15]. However, they ignored it, and when it was brought up recently on 6 February atWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kurdish-Luri identity dispute, they even quitely removed it shortly afterwards[16]. It is really difficult to haveWP:GF at this point.

They have had years to correct their act. And when directly confronted with it, they ignore it. What else is there to do? Their edits do more bad than good. A big issue is Ilamxans source misuse is usually exposed by users who are experienced with these topics and/or has the time and energy to look into it. In other words, a lot of disruptive edits easily go under the radar, and falsely appear as constructive. --HistoryofIran (talk)11:38, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

bumping so it doesn't get archivedKowal2701 (talk,contribs)21:10, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yea that AFD is where I remember this name from. I couldnt figure out the angle there. Have there been any formal warnings? These are two CTOP areas, so some sort of restriction may be on the table, but I like to see a stern final warning is given first and one last chance to shape up. ← Metallurgist (talk)02:04, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, Ilamxan has already been informed of this many times throughout several years. Why would this make any difference? They don't seem to care. And as we speak, Ilamxan just made anotherWP:SYNTH edit[17] (The cited source does not deny that Ali al-Sistani is ofSistani Persian origin (which is itself a possibleWP:OR article, but that's another topic), despite Ilamxan including that. The source simply says that Ali al-Sistani is asayyid and thus an ethnic Arab (which is arguably an misinterpretation/exaggeration of what asayyid is per otherWP:RS, but that's also another topic).HistoryofIran (talk)22:12, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ilamxan, please respond to this thread rather than continuing to edit in related topic areas. In particular, I would hope to see a response regarding the October 2025-February 2026 diffs and respond to the assertion that these edits were not using sources appropriately. On top of the alleged SYNTH/OR issues, there also appears to be more edit warring than appropriate, with most of these interchanges following the pattern of "a) Ilamxan adds text b) HoI removes text c) Ilamxan re-adds text, or adds a subset of it d) HoI removes it again"--rather than proceeding to step c), Ilamxan should be opening discussions on the talk page to address concerns and seek consensus._signed,Rosguill^talk15:04, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yepitsthatguyagain (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log), pretty much all of their edits are adding (and reverting the removal of) questionable images toMutapa Empire which they uploaded.

I removed a few images from the article a couple weeks ago (28 Jan) as part of an ongoing rewrite[18]. They re-add them 10 Feb, after a couple revertswe discuss it on my talk page, feel like I was pretty reasonable (they said some silly things). Then 11 Febthey delete 20,000 bytes by restoring a revision before I'd edited it with the edit summaryUndid revisions by User:Kowal2701 reason: under suspicion of griefing (I'd already made them aware of EW and BRD). Iping them to the talk page to explain, not expecting much. Few hours later their editgets reverted byKwesi Yema, they revert that with no edit summary, then commentHave your language model read it for you. I dont know what legitimacy you think you have but deleting valuable information then having a chat model write a bunch of fodder in its place well its called griefing.

Basically, they don’t care about the article or topic, just whether 'their' images are in the article. I think they'renot here to build an encyclopedia.Kowal2701 (talk,contribs)18:43, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I really do not know what would be a better sanction because I dont know if Southern Africa is a contentious topic.shane(talk to me if you want!)19:39, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If you don’t know something, it’s fine to have an unexpressed thought about it and say nothing. •a frantic turtle 🐢19:56, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have a small suspiction tbh, due to the username it is probably a sockpuppet, because everynon sockpuppet account would have a nonsuspicious sounding name.shane(talk to me if you want!)19:59, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is primarily a content dispute.Augmented Seventh (talk)20:09, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Good oneKowal2701 (talk,contribs)20:18, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Would it be possible to have an admin look at this? If it's not sanction-worthy, what should I've done differently/do now? I've explained myself, tried to compromise, in response to which they blanked weeks' worth of sourced content and restored an OR-ridden version, with no stated reason other than accusing me of "griefing" and using LLMs. The only thing I think I could've done differently was not treat 'my' version as the long-standing one, but as I understand it 2 weeks old is a grey areaKowal2701 (talk,contribs)20:43, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  And again[19]Kowal2701 (talk,contribs)06:28, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It is a content dispute, but it's turned into an edit war. As a thoroughly uninvolved editor who doesn't care about the outcome of the content dispute and was alerted to its existence only due to repeated notifications of new links to an article I'd created (years ago), I'm chiming in to request something be done about the edit war. (Or to volunteer to take this to the edit warring noticeboard, if that's what needs to happen instead.) --Avocado (talk)12:12, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

How is it a content dispute? They're not disputing any of the 20,000 bytes of prose, it's just pettiness/vindictive because I removed some of 'their' images. Along with theSPA background and ridiculous aspersions, they've been reverted by three separate editors (incl. myself). How on earth is that not unconstructive behaviour worthy of sanctions? This is absurdKowal2701 (talk,contribs)12:27, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yepitsthatguyagain claims the20,000 bytes of datais AI content but they fail to provide evidence or further explaination. I believe the administrators should intervene becauseYepitsthatguyagain needs to provide actual evidence to justify such removal.Kwesi Yema (talk)12:36, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

user:Trs9k has now harassed me on my talk page (completely without provocation I might add), even after I have asked them to stop. They then commented two more times on my talk page and then another editor suggested I may take them to ANI, so here we are. I think they need a 1-way IBAN from me at this point and a warning to knock off their harassment. I have left it on my talk page for now until this ANI is resolved. Thank you and sorry to waste time with such things.Iljhgtn(they/them ·talk)20:13, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If I never talk to you again it wouldn't be soon enough. In light of your inappropriate argument with another user on my talk page, I'd like to make that IBAN a two-way. –ⓣⓡⓢ⑨ⓚ21:07, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also those comments were replies to your messages to me. Your framing of my comments is disingenuous at best. –ⓣⓡⓢ⑨ⓚ21:08, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Are you seriously referring to a comment from May 10, 2025 and only JUST NOW deciding to say anything about it to me? I haven't bumped into you or interacted with you in many months, if I am not mistaken, until you popped up out of nowhere and just startedharassing me on my talk page without cause and in relation to a totally unrelated AfD content dispute that I was having in aWP:CIVIL manner with another editor. That is unacceptable, and a one-way IBAN is what is called for when one editor is targeting and harassing another editor in a one-way manner, I have no desire or interest in every interacting with you again, pulling something out of May 2025 now in mid-February 2026 is bizarre to say the least. What am I missing?Iljhgtn(they/them ·talk)21:24, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Someone please tell them I'm not talking to them anymore. Thanks. –ⓣⓡⓢ⑨ⓚ02:29, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

So, in other words, a standard llghtn argument is you replying to what comment they left on your talk page?LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!}21:35, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Trs9k, you have been told by Iljhgtn to stay off their talk page but you returned to poke at them.Stay off their talk page. The only exception is placing a formal notice required by policy. You are very likely to be blocked for harassment if you persist. Is that clear?Cullen328 (talk)21:36, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Crystal. –ⓣⓡⓢ⑨ⓚ22:11, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No, I was replying to thetwo messages below my comment. –ⓣⓡⓢ⑨ⓚ22:15, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

8 months later?Iljhgtn(they/them ·talk)03:39, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia page was modified by user ~2026-96526-3 and FaChol to add this false information about Benchamoul on February 10, 2026.La page Wikipédia en a été modifiée par l'utilisateur ~2026-74926-8 pour ajouter cette fausse information concernant Benchamoul le 10 février 2026.https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jean-Luc_Brunel&diff=prev&oldid=1337551896

Xavier Poussard, dans l’affaire Epstein, avait indiqué que le vrai nom de Jean-Luc Brunel était Jean-Luc Benchamoul, alors que sa filiation était très simple à trouver.Xavier Poussard, in the Epstein case, stated that Jean-Luc Brunel's real name was Jean-Luc Benchamoul, even though his parentage was very easy to trace.

Faits & Documents 472 décembre 2019"La plus ancienne trace que nous avons retrouvée figure dans le Dictionnaire des changements de noms 1957-1962 d’Henry Coston qui relève, le 26 février 1962, le changement obtenu de Jean-Luc Bencharmond en « Brunel »."https://wantedpedo-officiel.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/N%C2%B0472.pdfhttps://wantedpedo-officiel.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/N%C2%B0473.pdfhttps://wantedpedo-officiel.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/N%C2%B0474.pdfhttps://wantedpedo-officiel.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/N%C2%B0475.pdfhttps://wantedpedo-officiel.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/N%C2%B0476.pdfhttps://wantedpedo-officiel.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/N%C2%B0477.pdfhttps://wantedpedo-officiel.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/N%C2%B0478.pdfhttps://wantedpedo-officiel.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/N%C2%B0479.pdfhttps://wantedpedo-officiel.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/N%C2%B0480.pdfhttps://wantedpedo-officiel.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/N%C2%B0481.pdf

page 22 BRUNEL (Benchamoul, Jean-Luc Charles-Raymond) D. 26-2-1962.Henri Coston Dictionnaire-des-changements-de-nom-tome-2-1957-1962https://www.scribd.com/document/576894882/Dictionnaire-des-changements-de-nom-tome-2-1957-1962https://web.archive.org/web/20260211203240/https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/documents.scribd.com/docs/4x49y4nvwg9u8xdn.pdf?response-content-disposition=attachment%3B%20filename%3D%22576894882-Dictionnaire-des-changements-de-nom-tome-2-1957-1962.pdf%22%3B%20filename%2A%3DUTF-8%27%27576894882-Dictionnaire-des-changements-de-nom-tome-2-1957-1962.pdf&X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Credential=AKIAIXSVRPH7S3LLN3RQ%2F20260211%2Fus-east-1%2Fs3%2Faws4_request&X-Amz-Date=20260211T203134Z&X-Amz-Expires=300&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Signature=8a496c04db2eed372be32e0080ce782d9fd120063a614ac40e3844a7b5d168a6

https://egaliteetreconciliation.fr/Faits-Documents-le-second-numero-consacre-a-l-affaire-Epstein-est-disponible-57559.htmlhttps://egaliteetreconciliation.fr/IMG/jpg/F_D472_UNE.jpg

https://faitsetdocuments.com/catalogue/472http://www.librairiefrancaise.fr/en/home/8199-faits-documents-n472.htmlhttp://www.librairiefrancaise.fr/6577-thickbox_default/faits-documents-n472.jpg

Jean-Luc Didier Henri René Brunelhttps://deces.matchid.io/id/4rJXtelH4Anl

Jean-Luc Brunel est le fils du notaire Jean Paul Marie Jules BrunelJean-Luc Brunel is the son of notary Jean Paul Marie Jules Brunelhttps://deces.matchid.io/id/bhbEYoY50Jp5https://x.com/jol_vil/status/1707853583591313894

Sa mere est Genevieve LeprouxHis mother is Genevieve Leprouxhttps://deces.matchid.io/id/XNX-0HlNcWa4BELLINI - Acte du 02/04/2003https://www.pappers.fr/document/telecharger?token=QVlWWHFBcnhCMXZ5ZV9SQUNUMDMwMDA1ODA0NQ&visualiser

Son frére est Arnaud Marie Gilbert BrunelHis brother is Arnaud Marie Gilbert Brunelhttps://www.pappers.fr/recherche-dirigeants?q=Arnaud%2C+Marie%2C+Gilbert+Brunel&date_de_naissance_dirigeant_min=20-11-1947&date_de_naissance_dirigeant_max=20-11-1947

Sa soeur est Agnes Anne Marie BrunelHis sister is Agnes Anne Marie Brunel

Sa demi soeur est Olivia Marie Pascale BrunelHis half-sister is Olivia Marie Pascale Brunel

See page 9 GFA DU DOMAINE DE LUC - Deed of 09/17/2012Voir page 9 GFA DU DOMAINE DE LUC - Acte du 17/09/2012https://www.pappers.fr/document/telecharger?token=QTMxNzY4NTA1NTIwMTIwOTE3OTV8RXhww6lkaXRpb24gZCd1biBhY3RlIGF1dGhlbnRpcXVlfDIzODg1ODQ0&visualiser

Xavier Poussard based his claim on a homonym found in a dictionary of name changes for Emmanuel Ratier or Henri Coston.Xavier Poussard s’était basé sur un homonyme trouvé dans un dictionnaire des changements de noms d’Emmanuel Ratier ou d’Henri Coston.https://www.egaliteetreconciliation.fr/Affaire-Epstein-une-premiere-plainte-deposee-en-France-contre-Jean-Luc-Brunel-de-son-vrai-nom-56638.html

And he admitted his mistake.Et il a reconnu son erreur.https://x.com/jol_vil/status/1707858722427396556https://x.com/jol_vil/status/1707853583591313894

The source below provides no evidence.La source ci-dessous ne fournit aucune preuve.https://www.cide.ch/17-decembre-2020-affaire-jeffrey-epstein-arrestation-de-jean-luc-brunel-benchamoul/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jean-Luc_BrunelI am the brother of Jean-Luc Brunel. As I said, the information about the name change is wrong. On the other hand maybe in the past a certain Ben Chemoul changed his name to Brunel, but he is not someone of my family.— Precedingunsigned comment added byWebcraft2014 (talk •contribs)20:55, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Mon ami, ici on préféré anglais. (My friend, English is preferred here)TheClocksAlwaysTurn (The Clockworks) (contribs)21:02, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@TheClocksAlwaysTurn, what is he saying? The bits I'm getting says it might be a content dispute.ThatTrainGuy1945 (talk)21:11, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

From what I gathered from what I can read, the reporter is saying that it's a content dispute based on the person's last name, and that the reporter is related to Jean-Luc Brunel, specifically that they are his brother. I'm only on an elementary level of French like you, so I may be wrong.TheClocksAlwaysTurn (The Clockworks) (contribs)21:15, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

OP's provided full translation into English on every line. It's a BLP content dispute. OP complains of attempts to have our articleJean-Luc Brunel say that the subject's original surname was Benchamoul, not Brunel. I see that the most recent such edit[20] citeda webpage of an advocacy organisation that itself linked toa French RT report (RT is one of ourWP:DEPRECATED sources) that didn't make the claim that his original surname was Benchamoul. That webpage and report are from 2020; OP says the claim was based on a misreading and has been retracted, which I haven't examined. OP says they're the brother of our subject.NebY (talk)09:17, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Webcraft2014 You seem to have reverted the change so ANI doesn't seem suitable for this issue. Has the text been subsequently re-added? (J-L: ANI, c'estpas pour les problems prolongés. Vous avez supprimé le texte; il y a encore un problem?)MmeMaigret (talk)01:50, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

I suspect this is an undisclosed paid editor. In January, they editedHusain Al-Musallam to shorten the article'sControversy section. This is suspicious, because the article has been persistently targeted byUPE sockpuppets. (Over the past year, majority of "new" editors who made substantial edits to the article were found to be socks.) After the edits had been reverted and the talkpage discussion had stalled, this editor disappeared. Not long after that, another editor disclosed that they had been paid for editing the article and created an edit request. (I am not saying these two are the same person; the chronology is what is suspicious.)

Another suspicious circumstance is that there already were two conflict-of-interest warnings on their talkpage. These are from 6 months ago, and are not related to Al-Musallam. One of them is related toWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Wiideman. Indeed, their comments to the AfD are quite suspicious.

Another interesting fact is that they almost never edit during weekends.

—Janhrach (talk)19:07, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Janhrach

Thank you for taking time to talk on this, first for the case of Steve Wiideman, he is my boss and he didn’t pay me to handle his Wikipedia, I was the one who suggested it to him and when the page got deleted I never tried again.

And for “Husain Al-Musallam”, I was contacted if I can assist to edit the page I said yes and the individual gave me the link, after trying it I told the individual that the page is being monitored and there is high tendency that it will be reverted, getting close to 72 hours after my edit the edit was reverted which I later informed the individual, he promise to pay but due to the reversion the deal was cancelled.

Thank is what happened so far @Janhrach

please let me know what other explanation did you need again.Enochprecious (talk)21:27, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You have to notify all paid edits. Also, beware of possible scams with these things.ThatTrainGuy1945 (talk)21:39, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@ThatTrainGuy1945

i will be careful next time and make sure I give proper detail before I do any editEnochprecious (talk)21:42, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Enochprecious: I understand. Thank you for clarifying the matter.

I have two questions: Do you happen to know if the individual (that contacted you) was acting on behalf of aPR company? What platform/website did they use to contact you?

If you aren't comfortable with answering, then feel free to ignore these questions.

—Janhrach (talk)22:10, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

He is not on behalf of a PR company but on behalf of the main person that isHusain Al-Musallam himself, because I questioned him why he wants it shortened, he response was that it’s too long and the owner wants it shortened as much as possible.

Can you help them to shorten it? @JanhrachEnochprecious (talk)00:42, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If you're editing about your boss, you're a paid editor since your boss pays you a salary.331dot (talk)00:45, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your perspective to this

what I am trying to say is, Steve is already my boss before it come to the Wikipedia, when he mentioned about it in my hearing I told him I will do it for him without any intensional of getting paid because me and him has a very close relationship.

So, me doing it for him we didn’t have agreement of payment for it.Enochprecious (talk)00:50, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is concerning, but perWP:CRITSECTION, it is preferable not to have a controversies section on a BLP. All of that can be easily integrated into the career of the subject and given appropriate weight, which also makes for better reading on an article. ← Metallurgist (talk)02:13, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Metallurgist: The critsection matter is about Al-Musallam's article, not Wiideman's. The latter person is Enochprecious' boss, not the former.Janhrach (talk)09:49, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thats what I was referring to. Its preferable not to have that, so integrating that into the text is fine. Removing it or being paid to do so is another issue... ← Metallurgist (talk)05:39, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If it is part of your job regardless of whether you're getting paid specifically to edit, you are a paid editor and need to disclose or you will be blocked @Enochprecious. It is not @331dot's or my perspective, it is policy.StarMississippi02:13, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Enochprecious It does not matter that your boss does not specifically pay you to make edits or has not instructed you to make edits. (You say he is aware of your actions) Your boss gives you money for your job, so you are a paid editor and you must make a formal disclosure of that. This is a Terms of Use requirement and not negotiable.331dot (talk)02:28, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is definitely wrong on principle (people who flip burgers at McDonalds are not paid editors if they edit the Wikipedia page for McDonalds) but the wrongness is irrelevant because this is obviously a massive COI and no one with a COI on this scale should be making substantive edits directly (whether or not they count as paid editors).~2026-92659-0 (talk)02:43, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

They seem to have a very close relationship with the person who pays their salary. It's one thing if the cashier at Walmart edits about the CEO, someone they are unlikely to meet, it's different if the store manager edits about the district manager, their direct supervisor who can determine their salary. By their own admission this user is editing about their boss with their knowledge. A clear paid editing relationship that is not irrelevant because we are dealing with the Terms of Use.331dot (talk)02:51, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I understand now, I am sorry I was wrong

i should have make everything open from the beginning, then I was new to the system though but I am very sorry.

@331dot @Janhrach @Rsjaffe @Metallurgist @Star Mississippi @ThatTrainGuy1945 @~2026-92659-0Enochprecious (talk)05:53, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Now please readWP:PAID and make the relevant disclosures on your user page.StarMississippi14:46, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I will do that.

thank you and Thanks to everyone who contributed to this❤️Enochprecious (talk)22:33, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

User:Enochprecious#

please check it now I have done it.Enochprecious (talk)10:45, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

An easy test is: would your boss be happy to see you doing that editing at work? The fry flipper, no, you, yes. The fry flipper, not paid, you, paid. — rsjaffe 🗣️03:31, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine a McDonalds franchise owner might be pleased if a fry flipper was editing supportively of McDonalds, altho the situation is more detached than a direct relationship. ← Metallurgist (talk)05:41, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

But not during work, when said employee should be flipping fries. — rsjaffe 🗣️06:27, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Pow-Wow Oak Tree (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views)
• George Koumantzelis (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
• George Nicholas Koumantzelis (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

It appears thatUser talk:George Koumantzelis is back, disruptively editingPow-Wow Oak Tree asUser talk:George Nicholas Koumantzelis.Cielquiparle (talk)07:48, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

User:George Koumantzelis is not, and was never, blocked, and has not edited since 2016; given it's entirely reasonable to consider that in the time since then they lost or forgot their password, creating a new account doesn't count as either sockpuppetry or a failedWP:FRESHSTART, although theyshould disclose the existence of their older account. Now, that said, given some of the edit summaries on their original account, it looks like perhaps theyshould have been blocked, but overall this looks like this may have been better posted atWP:COIN. -The Bushranger_{One ping only}— Precedingundated comment added09:14, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This comment certainly isn't helping their case.Sugar Tax (talk)10:35, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I asked them to please calm down anddiscuss here but they've unfortunately begun edit warring. @George Nicholas Koumantzelis please stop editing and just talk to us here so we can resolve this.Blue Sonnet (talk)11:04, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

And nowthis. Could we get a block here? Thanks.Sugar Tax (talk)11:24, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

User:George Koumantzelis/sandbox proving TPA also needs yoinking.Borgenland (talk)11:51, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wow that's been up there for a decade...

They're very insistent on getting people's contact details, I presume to carry on the argument?

It's always a little weird when I see people ask for real life info - it looks like they're misunderstanding how Wikipedia works and seem to be under the impression that we're professionals or employees of Wikipedia rather than internet randos.

This sort of thing always makes me a little sad, since they could really help to make the article better if they would just calm down and work with us, instead of against us.

The fact that they've beenthis confrontational for over a decade makes me think that unfortunately won't be happening. I've tried one last time anyway.Blue Sonnet (talk)12:03, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked 48 hours, though I honestly doubt they will stop being a menace to Wikipedia afterwards.Borgenland (talk)17:25, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

They've been trying to insert themselves into the article for the last 12 years[21][22], at least a page block from that article is necessary. --LCUActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°17:17, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with this 100% as this is less severe than a full block.

They can still request edits via the Talk page and (hopefully) cause less disruption that way.

Since they've only ever edited this one page, it'll hopefully force them to collaborate and learn how to work with other editors.

They are also free to work on other subjects to gain experience if they wish, and things can be escalated to an indef if it becomes clear that they're not interested in following our policies.Blue Sonnet (talk)18:17, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, this escalated quickly. I've added an indef pblock fromPow-Wow Oak Tree to the existing 48-hour full block. -The Bushranger_{One ping only}23:31, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

DOTCOMsun (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log) has a talk page full of warnings, notices and (in an attempt to get them to communicate) personal messages about various problems with their editing - no sources, unreliable sources, and MOS issues. They haven’t replied or reacted to a single message. Most recently, I’ve tried pinging them in a message, making them aware ofWP:REFPUNCT, but just today they madethis edit, moving commas to after ref tags when they were correctly before the ref tags. Is there any way we can block this user from article space until they start communicating and we can make them aware of the issues with their edits? The problems aren’t major by any stretch of the imagination, but it’s persistent.Danners430_{tweaks made}11:10, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

P-blocked from article space until they communicate.StarMississippi14:54, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

but my edit were correct, comms should after the link not before.DOTCOMsun (talk)04:12, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Did you readWP:REFPUNCT?Northern Moonlight04:21, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Something, rather than someone, appears to beauto-churning draft submissions under Articles for Creation. Seems somewhere betweenWP:CIR andWP:NOTTHERE. New submissions appears a few minutes after warnings.ChrysGalley (talk)12:35, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked. At least one draft was a hoax.331dot (talk)12:57, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot: The behaviour leads me to believe this is the same user as~2026-58793-1 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log) and~2026-43399-9 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log).Aydoh8^{[what have I done now?]}14:03, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've G2-tagged a bunch of the remaining spam drafts. See[23]Aydoh8^{[what have I done now?]}14:04, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

And~2026-54240-1 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)Aydoh8^{[what have I done now?]}14:05, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely sure the drafts are G2, but I'll leave those.331dot (talk)14:07, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked. Underlying IP blocked by another administrator. --Malcolmxl5 (talk)22:25, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Electricmemory (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log) has been warned several times on their talk page about their responsibility perWP:BURDEN to provide sources[24][25][26] - their response has been to start personal attacks[27][28] and start stalking my talk page, replying to two discussions they had no involvement in to leaveWP:POINTY messages[29].

Going by their talk page, this isn’t the first encounter they’ve had on this noticeboard, and they seem to have caused a number of problems with other editors, but I have no knowledge of what they are so that’s by the by. It’s pretty obvious though that this editor needs reminding that Wikipedia has PAGs which aren’t optional.Danners430_{tweaks made}19:11, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

For context - these are the two edits that appear to have triggered this -[30][31]. Otherwise minor really - any other editor I’d simply leave a notice on their talk page, but here left a hand written message as Electricmemory had requested not to be templated (fair enough).Danners430_{tweaks made}19:18, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The policy you're citing says that once unsourced content is removed, it can only come back with an inline citation. I don't understand why you're citing it for someone who adds potentially unsourced content one time and don't revert it back in. I say "potentially unsourced" because it's in a table that has several citations already, and I don't feel like reading websites dedicated to a topic I find boring. Yes, the burden to find citations is on the person who wants to add the content, but someone verbally refusing to acknowledge this is low on my things to block someone over. If the content is already sourced, as Electricmemory says, this could probably be made more obvious, such as using named references (like"Fact 1.<ref name=source/> Fact 2.<ref name=source/>).NinjaRobotPirate (talk)20:01, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I’m confused here - quotingWP:BURDEN:The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material - in this case they’re adding/altering, not restoring material - yes it also covers the removal and return of unsourced content, but the addition in the first place of unsourced content is part of that section.Danners430_{tweaks made}20:09, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am fairly certain it has been explained to you before that the addition of unsourced content and the addition of unverifiable content are not the same. An editor is permitted to add unsourced but verifiable content to an article. They are not permitted to add unsourced and unverifiable information to the article.Katzrockso (talk)15:38, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

However, if unsourced material is challenged it is the responsibility of the editor adding/restoring/altering the material to verify content by providing citations. Unsourced content may be removed at any time. I’m well aware of whatWP:V says. This particular editor however seems to refute its existence (BURDEN being a subsection of V).Danners430_{tweaks made}16:00, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You just stated thatthis case they’re adding/altering, not restoring material. If they are merely adding unsourced material, that is permissible behavior. Unless they are readding material after it has been challenged (i.e. by a reversion), then what is the misconduct here that required bringing this to ANI?Katzrockso (talk)00:55, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Persistently adding unsourced material even after warnings is misconduct very regularly brought to ANI. A quick look through the archives will tell you that. If you don’t like that that goes on, I suggest you raise that as a point to note - however it is something that gets brought here, and regularly ends in sanctions for the editors who refuse to provide sources for their edits. And I have a feeling you didn’t read or ignored the rest of the report I made. We shall wait and see what administrators actually have to say here.Danners430_{tweaks made}07:19, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless - I’m more concerned with the fact they’re adding unsourced content, and when challenged resort to personal attacks. I’m not asking for a block - more that they’re reminded that sources aren’t optional, and ofWP:CIVILDanners430_{tweaks made}20:11, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Following their threat to drag myself to ANI (which I've saved them doing), they appear to have developed a case of ANI flu, and have been offline ever since, so keeping this open to give them a chance to respond (real life happens, I get it)Danners430_{tweaks made}12:53, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there. I've been having long-time problems with a user using multiple IP addresses. Theirmost recent edits regard Bosnian footballerErmin Bičakčić. They have removed relevant content (contract info about him signing for a new club, an image, as well as a separate part about the new club because the "club is not relevant enough and [he] is nearing the end of his career", which is an incredibly subjective and illogic reason). He has also changed the access-date and language format which is currently in use in the vast majority of articles on Wikipedia. They have done this to multiple current and former Bosnian national team players' articles (Bojan Nastić andAdi Nalić most recently). Evidently, their main account has been blocked due to some reason, and for years they've been evading further blocks by using multiple IP addresses. I do not intend to edit war with them, while trying to discuss anything with them on any players' talk page is, unfortunately, not going to work (I've tried before). They are just incredibly stubborn and relentless, and their edits are not contributing to anything. What can be done?Bakir123 (talk)22:31, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, in cases like this, the only thing that can really be done iswhack-a-mole with the new TA socks. -The Bushranger_{One ping only}23:41, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little late to everything, but I was surprised he asked to be VANISHed, but disappointedly moreso when he came back with another account. I thought he had potential as an editor, but not like with behavior like that. I agree with the indef, but I'd leave the door open for a potential return so long as he can prove this behavior won't return in the future. -Neutralhomer •Talk •01:31, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately they've decided to play evasion games and are now back as the TA~2026-10387-34 (talk ·contribs). Very disappointed that simply listening to talk page advice instead turned into block evasion after a botched vanishing and they're now making it worse for themselves.Nathannah •📮23:26, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Since this was an explicitWP:VANISH that has been abused, ought it not be undone now? This request isn't one I'm familiar with making.CoffeeCrumbs (talk)02:41, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There's no undoing it. The vanished account is globally locked and the new account is indeffed.voorts (talk/contributions)03:01, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

IIRC itcan be technically undone, but it's generally considered to be not worth it. -The Bushranger_{One ping only}06:23, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That, and the editor is warned multiple times in the VANISH process what it consists of and its rules; it's not designed to be reversible. Noahbug had plenty of warning and ignored the risks, and here we are.Nathannah •📮15:11, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

AwokenLight (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log) User seems to be NOTHERE. Almost all their activity is to edit war over several months against multiple users, complaining about "cult" control of theYogi Bhajan article, with their version stripping out large amounts of sourced material to frame the subject in the most negative light possible without any sense of balance.Hemiauchenia (talk)06:30, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, that is a complete misunderstanding and mischaracterization. I am simply a yoga enthusiast with an altruistic interest in setting the record straight and have provided a thoroughly well sourced article. True, I never was compelled to edit a wikipedia article before but the inaccuracies in the previous portrayals of Yoga Bhajan were so upsetting and are deeply problematic as well as insulting to victims and dangerous as it could lead more down a confused path. Yogi Bhajan was a proven con-man whose lies and conduct have been exposed as noted in the cited sources, please also see the website "https://abuse-in-kundalini-yoga.com", this info has also been covered in the mainstream media by Vice News and on the HBO Max documentary "Breath of Fire", Bhajan did in fact start what became the 3HO corporation which is described on Wikipedia as controversial and a notably it is well sourced that many unbiased observers consider it to be a cult. Ironically, when Bhajan came to America in the late 60's he was able to take advantage of the lack of information available to the public, nobody could search online and research his history or yoga history. When he was repeatedly accused of sexual abuses 3HO began trying to control the narrative and hide the truth. (the accusations in lawsuits against him include a pattern of genital mutilation of his secretaries most of whom had been born into the cult, separated from their families at a young age, sent to an abusive boarding school before being sent to live with Bhajan, the actual details are far more horrific then has been described in this note or the wikipedia article, please do some researchhttps://abuse-in-kundalini-yoga.com/abuse-and-misconduct-stories/sexual-abuse/). Given the circumstances the article I contributed is a vast improvement, fair and balanced and truthful. In this new age of information let's provide people the opportunity to make informed and factual assessments.AwokenLight (talk)08:31, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your removals of content have been challenged by other editors. That means you have to discuss it and get consensus for the changes you wish to make. You don't simply get to dictate whatyou want an article to look like, and then edit war to get your way. This is a collaborative project, and your limited edits so far have been entirely edit warring.CoffeeCrumbs (talk)09:29, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

i dont understand any of this. i used to be able to edit wikipedia no problem. now it seems impossible.

i tried to edit in honest, exculpatory info about former nba player rick bruson and a bot reverted my edit before i could even add a reference.

reverting to accusations of sexual assault without letting users put in accurate revisions about his innocence is horseshit.

im typing one fingered to provide accurate info for someone i will never ever meet or know. but somehow im a vandal? fu. you want good info for your project? then let good edits happen.— Precedingunsigned comment added by~2026-10256-43 (talk)08:37, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You cited no source, though I'm not sure whether that was the reason ClueBot NG reverted you. Having looked into this, it seems that your edit was correct, and can be sourced.[34] We clearly need to update the article, or possibly remove the section entirely, given the outcome.AndyTheGrump (talk)08:50, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Cluebot is a bot making guesses at what is or isn't inappropriate editing, it isn't always correct.User:Cluebot NG#False positives has more on the issue, and if you want to help improve the bots accuracy you can report the false positivehere. --LCUActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°14:50, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@~2026-10256-43 It's best toprovide your source in the same edit where you add new information if you don't want to be reverted by a human or a bot.ClaudineChionh(she/her ·talk ·email ·global)21:09, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

~2025-34944-01 (talk ·contribs)~2026-10193-78 (talk ·contribs)~2025-34987-33 (talk ·contribs)

I request that the IP range for these three users is blocked indefinitely.

The accounts were previously blocked for 31 hours byMfield, yet when they were unblocked, they immediately returned to adding unsourced/incorrect information on shopping mall articles.

They have also not been responding to the warning messages or the reverted edits that I,Asiess835 andSeasider53 have been giving them. We have warned them at least twice, and as of right now, they have at least 6 warnings total for all the accounts listed for adding unsourced details on their talk pages. Also, they're once again putting something like "Brookfield Properties (50%)Simon Property Group (50%)" on shopping mall articles without providing a source. At this point, I think I can also say their edits violateWP:NOR.

Evidence:

• Eastland Mall Revisions 1338372479 and 1338372140
• King of Prussia Revisions 1338390943 and 1338389991
• Cherry Hill Mall Revisions 336852162 and 1336851716

Evidence of being blocked before:

• Blocked for 31 hours for persistent unsourced content by Mfield

Aspifi (talk)14:52, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

RepeatedWP:PROOF andWP:ENGAGE violationsAspifi (talk)23:56, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Fodbold-fan (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·page moves ·block user ·block log)

Fodbold-fan was indeffed by Sir Sputnik. And has continued on their talk page.Does this warrant removal of TPA?-- the former admin Deepfriedokra (talk)22:30, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to say not yet. The comment is obviously not okay, and I wouldn't have objected had someone else revoked access. At the same time, I'm still holding out hope that at some point in the future they can regain their composure enough to recognize that they've crossed a line here, and follow their own advice about swallowing their pride.Sir Sputnik (talk)22:40, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewed TP and agree. — rsjaffe 🗣️22:43, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I sincerely doubt[59] thinking themselves indispensable to Wiki and then sarcastically gloating about a personal attack post-block makes them any higher than a menace to the project.Borgenland (talk)06:41, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I may have doubts on it as well, but I would be inclined togive them enough rope. The replies were definitely over a line, but I'm hoping they can take a step back then come back in a more civil way. They're one of the few editors who work in the same area I do on enwiki, and I think it would be a shame to at least not give them a little more rope before revoking TPA at this time. • Quinn (talk)23:03, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of the war (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

User has been warned at least 3 times about their editing and failure to useWP:PREVIEW which has resulted in the breaking of numerous pages (note that only 3 of the pages broken are documented, there were many more breaks). See:Special:Diff/1332260740,Special:Diff/1332834399,Special:Diff/1337192800.

On top of that, they have twice been warned about the fact thatcommunication is required. See:Special:Diff/1337192830,Special:Diff/1338516813.

The user in question was blocked for 31 hours byUser:Crazycomputers. Upon the lifting of that block, they immediately resumed making the same types of disruptive edits. Additionally, they still have yet to respond to a single comment on their talk page.

Request indefinite block from the main namespace until user is willing toWP:ENGAGE and be part of the collaborative process.Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing})23:35, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Moved fromWP:AN.Black Kite (talk)09:20, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Last year,User:Kansascitt1225 wasunblocked after 5+ years, then immediately began the same disruptive editing. This resulted in a"topic ban from Kansas and Missouri, broadly constructed."

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1189#h-User:Kansascitt1225-20250606173100

Later that year, user began making the same types of edits for other cities/states. This was reported at ANI but didn't seem to result in any new restriction being officially instated.

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1179#Kansascitt1225

In 2026, user has now again begun making the same POV-pushing edits regarding suburbs vs. cities, etc. They are not explicitly going against the topic ban in Kansas/Missouri, but these are the exact same types of disruptive edits that original resulted in the site and topic bans.

This topic ban needs to be extended to this entire class of urban planning and land use articles and topics, not just the specific states of Kansas and Missouri. Or, the site ban should be reinstated.PK-WIKI (talk)20:33, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If you had a disagreement with my edit why couldn’t you have just talked to me about it instead of reporting it to the notice board for something so minor that didn’t even violate Wikipedia rules? All I did was revert an edit that removed well referenced material and I asked how it was an improvement.Kansascitt1225 (talk)20:44, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) Hi @PK-WIKI, have you got any diffs as evidence?

So far you've pointed to old ANI threads and vaguely hand-waved at an allegation, but you won't get much traction unless you have evidence.

If this is as entrenched and long-running as you say - and not restricted to one topic on top of that - it'll be pretty difficult for others to figure out what you're referring to without spending ages digging through all their recent edits one by one.

If you bring the evidence here then others can take a look, but right now we've not got a whole lot to go off.

I also wonder if this would have been better at ANI, since that's where it was taken to before and has much higher traffic?Blue Sonnet (talk)07:46, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oh - I didn't realize there were two boards. Meant this to be at ANI, like the others. Not sure if it can be moved.PK-WIKI (talk)07:57, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, this is asingle-purpose account that edits only in regard to someWP:RGW feud between cities and their suburbs. Our mistake was applying the topic ban to "Kansas and Missouri", the original target, when the account really needs to be topic-banned from ALL city/suburb land use articles. If you look at their contributions, every single edit is a continuation of theexact behavior that got them site-banned and topic-banned.PK-WIKI (talk)06:59, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how many times the same thing can be explained to the same editor. It's not a particularly complex matter. Editslike this are very clearly biased, and I find it hard to believe that they cannot see this. Never thought I'd see an editor trying to POV push against metropolitan areas in favor of suburbs, but here we are.

Their recent additions toSuburb are another ridiculous example. They added a very general claim to the lede, saying that suburbs "often contain...World Class museums", usingthis home page link to thePalace of Versailles to support their claim.

Despite proclaiming in theirunban request that "I have a disagreement with someone I can talk on the talk page or on their user talk page instead of edit warring", but they very quickly reverted the removal of the above sentences onsuburb without starting a discussion. This has happened on multiple other pages. Despite being more than 5 years older than they were at the time of their block, it appears nothing much has changed.aesurias(ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk)09:33, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

On your example to the Detroit metro area page, I added to the intro that the county with the most jobs in the area was Oakland county, Michigan which is located to the north of Detroit. This wasn’t the page for the city of Detroit, it was for the greater metropolitan area. I thought it was notable to add that the county with the most jobs in the area didn’t even contain the city of Detroit especially because metropolitan areas are based on commuting patterns. As far as the intro on the suburb page, if you thought it was poorly written or confusing or disagreed with part of it, that makes sense to me. I don’t know why it now says it’s “a residential area within commuting distance of a city” when most jobs are in the suburbs in many metro areas and this is extremely outdated for many parts of the world. As far as palace of Versailles, is it not a world class museum in a suburb ? Not sure why we are ignoring that most jobs, wealthy areas and residents are in suburbs in many parts of the world ? It’s where the majority of people spend their lives and exchange goods and services (especially in the United States).Kansascitt1225 (talk)14:58, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wow.~2026-92659-0 (talk)01:45, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is obviousWP:SEALIONING, which was one of the behaviors that resulted in the topic ban. User has edited nothing else since then except in support of the exact same POV but moved to a different city.PK-WIKI (talk)07:07, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Let me describe an example re: museums.

You made the claim that suburbs often contain "World Class museums".

Your chosen source for this was the home page of the Palace of Versailles.

Aside from the fact that its existence well predates the modern idea of a suburb, and the fact that it was not originally a museum, the reference for this should have been a reliable, independent source explicitly staying that suburbs willoften contain what you describe as "World Class museums" (a phrase entirely unsupported by the source).aesurias(ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk)07:19, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I agree that’s a fair assessment. I have no problem with issues like that and someone could have messaged me on my talk page, said something on the suburb talk page or only removed the parts about the museums if that was the issue. It had been on there for a couple weeks already and no one objected to my edit. I wouldn’t have had an issue if someone rewrote the intro to make it easier to understand and removed the part about museums saying that I needed a better source before it can be added again. I thought the address at the bottom of the museum page was enough as it was a suburban address and there are also many more examples I could also provide. The main reason I reverted was because the edit completely removed the well referenced part about suburbs oftentimes containing most of a metro areas jobs, which when I added to the page, I also included that suburbs can be residential as well. This seems much more balanced than simply saying all suburbs are only residential within commuting distance of a city.Kansascitt1225 (talk)07:50, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Why do we waste time with people like this? How about a topic ban from land use, geography, demography, and economics, and transportation, and make it their last chance before a community ban.EEng12:20, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I concur. I looked at their "well-referenced" edit toSuburb and... wow. A whole lot ofWP:OR,WP:SYNTH, andWP:UNDUE. At its most generous, their "more jobs in suburbs" claim conflates US suburbs withall suburbs, as if the US is the only entity with suburbs. The "world-class museums" bit and other amenities seems to be anWP:OVERCITEed list of four examples, as if that makes it a regular feature of suburbs, the source for higher cost of living comes from a small article about only the 100 biggest US metro areas, and so on. If, after this long, they still don't understand what constitutes a sourced statement for geography, they should be prohibited from that area. The "why didn't you just talk to me?" rings hollow when they've reverted and not opened a discussion themselves.EducatedRedneck (talk)12:38, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am requesting intervention because, given the emotionally charged editing and hostility fromUser:CNMall41, I do not believe a productive consensus-building discussion is possible with this user. This is not merely a content dispute but involves concerns related toWP:CIVILITY andWP:PA.

Background

CNMall41redirected this page, stating that the Hindi remake had been draftified, comparing a stub article with a developed article (original Malayalam), both having different coverage, and claiming the release was still a year away. 19 days later, when the official release date was announced, scheduled to release in approximately two and a half months, I restored the article to mainspace. The next series of edits ([60],[61],[62],[63],[64],[65]) by CNMall41 appeared revenge-motivated, removing large portions of material while giving vague edit summaries such as "fancruft", "promotional", and WP:RS.

Recent activity

Edits:[66],[67],[68],[69],[70],[71],[72],[73],[74],[75],[76].

Today I made three edits atDrishyam 3, two of which addressed edits made by CNMall41 about a month ago. I requested that the userclarify the issues on the talk pagebefore continuing. The user immediately reverted and templated me, accusing me of edit warring, without elaborating on the concerns. I stated that I cannot refute vague or imaginary arguments unless the user who raised them explains them, and I asked the user to assume good faith. The user again reverted,accused me of sockpuppetry, and threatened to "report" me, whilewikilawyering rather thanclarifying the objections. Again, I cannot refute a non-existing rationale.

I am disappointed with CNMall41's behaviour. The user uses arm-twisting language andad hominem to suppress a dissenting editor rather than engaging in a civil discussion.

I request administrative assistance and third-party input to address this issue and restore a constructive editing environment.Teegarden's Star b (talk)10:54, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

CNMall is correct that you need to gather consensus to re-add your content to the article. It was reverted, you should have started a discussion on the talk page about it. They have over 100,000 edits and are a very active contributor, I can assure you they were not "revenge-motivated" (I find it unlikely that they even remembered you, the page was likely just on their watchlist)

Nobody is "suppressing" you, either – the editor in question left several cordial messages on your talk page, which were all reverted without a response from you. (although you did claim that one of these messages – where the editor asked you about close editing patterns while assuming good faith – was a "personal attack" in the edit summary while you reverted it and ignored the question).aesurias(ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk)11:07, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

User:Aesurias, 100,000 edits doesn't make someone right.I can assure you they were not "revenge-motivated" - How? Do you have telepathy?I find it unlikely that they even remembered you - really? Those series of edits were made just one day after my edit. CNMall41 was totally wrong about the film's release date and the irrationality about comparing two different pages, the OTHER STUFF. The rest I have addressed in my response below.Teegarden's Star b (talk)13:05, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Teegarden's Star b:, I understand that it can be frustrating when an edit is reverted. Keep in mind that you were told the reason(s) why both on yourtalk page, inthis edit summary, andthis one. You state that there was no elaborating the concerns yet you linked to every edit summary from the previous removals which give reason for such. The restoration of a"constructive editing environment" that you seek can be done simply by you starting a discussion on the talk page to get consensus. I can assure you that objecting to an edit and requesting you followWP:BRD andWP:ONUS like everyone else has to is not a personal attack or retaliation.--CNMall41 (talk)11:14, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also be mindful ofWP:CANVASSING as you didhere. --CNMall41 (talk)11:16, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I was just going to say the same. Whatever this report is about, it isnot about "Indian films in general". --DoubleGrazing (talk)11:19, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually giving the page a break instead of taking it to AfD. This is a content dispute about redirect removals from a page that may fail notability onWP:NFF grounds. First was from anIP in October which was reverted by ClueBot. The second was reverted byme in December but wasobjected to by the filer above. Was also declined by another user atDraft:Drishyam 3 (Hindi film) previously. Instead of edit warring or attempting to draftify, I simply cleaned it up by removing the churnalism and promo which OP linked to above in all the edits where I am accused of retaliating. This was in January but they attempted to add it all back today so I reverted, attempted to get them to use BRD and ONUS, and now we are here. --CNMall41 (talk)11:53, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

User:CNMall41, you have provided no rationale for your claims. I cannot refute non-existent rationale. You cannot escape.WP:UNRESPONSIVE andWP:CAUTIOUS clearly state to explain in talk page before making major changes; instead you chose edit warring. Accusing someone of sockpuppetry without evidence, templating regulars, labelling them as edit warring, threatening to report violates WP:CIVIL and WP:PA. If an editor who is not friends with many users made these kinds of "cordial" messages they would have been blocked. I didn't knew CNMall41 was a favourite here. You are still resorting to wikilawyering. WP:CANVASSING does not include notifying other editors of ongoing discussion to increase participation, and I have not asked anyone to support me. Yes, it affects Indian cinema in general, because the sources you claimed to be unreliable are widely used across Indian film articles in general, and you are personally prejudiced against what you call "churnalism" in Indian films articles "in general".--Teegarden's Star b (talk)12:25, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

you are personally prejudiced against what you call "churnalism" in Indian films articles "in general" ... now who's claiming to be telepathic? Another takeaway I have is that for someone who claims that the Other Guy is wikilawyering, you're throwing out a lot of links. Finally, exactly how interested are you in actual discussion? I was just looking over your talk page, and was struck by how often anyone's concerns were met with simple reversion, often with a snippy edit summary. Ravenswing14:43, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I note that this editor's talk page archives are alitany of warnings and complaining about admin actions. It seems that they don't handle anything that is in opposition to their POV or their edits very well.Black Kite (talk)16:44, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"I didn't knew CNMall41 was a favourite here", I would actually consider myself the opposite but editors are judged on conduct, not favoritism. This would have all been avoided had you started a discussion on the talk page which you are still welcome to do.--CNMall41 (talk)21:05, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:BOOMERANG This is an account that simply hasn’t been able to figure out that the community wants things handled with discussions forming consensus, but the repeated warnings (mostly removed), bad faith assumptions on why things have been done and IDHT behavior (such as this post), and the usual claims of admin bias (since removed from the talk page) are clear evidence that diplomacy isn’t working here. We should consider a block for the original poster for disruptive editing at a minimum, and likely for personal attacks as well since there seems to be a large IDHT issue with the original poster.~2026-10450-11 (talk)13:39, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really know what to do but I'm coming here. It's a bit uncomfortable since I'd rather my other social medias not be public, so I don't want anybody to link it here, but it seems to have spilled over here. I've been being harassed by users on a subreddit over an edit I made a month ago, where I boldly redirected some character's articles to the show's page. This subreddit for the show took offense to this and assumed I did this out of a vendetta against the show, even though I made sure to attach edit summaries. I tried to explain how GNG works (I felt the articles failed GNG as they did not have many/any sources present, and did not seem to have many online from aWP:BEFORE search), but not many people seemed to understand; the lead moderator of the community said he would 'delete' me as I did those articles and permanently banned & muted me (note that I did not delete them), and has repeatedly cast aspersions at me by insinuating that I did it out of a hatred against the show, and has encouraged people on the subreddit to revert my changes and restore the articles. To be fair, I did say they could do this as it was bold redirects on my part - I am concerned however that 1) This will lead to edit-warring 2) This off-wiki harassment turns onwiki.

I've already received many nasty comments and DMs. It definitely disheartens me and makes me lose my spirit as people throw around claims that are not true and fail to understand my perspective, or how GNG works. I don't really know what to do. One editor has begun reverting my redirects, see~2026-10520-42 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log). I understand that linking to the reddit would be best which I'm fine to do with administrators but I'd rather not on a public board. I still don't believe the articles meet GNG but am worried to do anything since one person found personal information about me (offwiki). What do I do?jolielover♥talk15:40, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted the IP editors edits. I looked up and found the Reddit post and your response to it. In general engaging with hostile Reddit users with your personal Reddit account about your Wikipedia editing like that is a very bad idea and exposes you to more harassment than you might have got otherwise. I've personally experienced threatening comments about my editing, so I have a lot of empathy.Hemiauchenia (talk)15:57, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I know, stupid idea, I shouldn't have done it; thanks anyway :)jolielover♥talk16:10, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think the best solution here is to expand the bios inList of Skins characters using the material in so that they more closely resemble the expansive bios inList_of_The_Sopranos_characters for example.Hemiauchenia (talk)

I don't understand why you care about what a bunch of kids on the internet think of you. Think of it this way: I say your username is Bob, and you've made no edits to Wikipedia. What is your reaction? Confusion or something like that, right? What I said isobviously incorrect. Your username isnot Bob, and youhave made edits to Wikipedia. You're not going to feel bad because I said two completely and obviously incorrect things about you, right? In fact, you'll probably ignore my incorrect statements and lower your opinion of me because I clearly don't know what I'm talking about. So, now go do that to other people who say obviously incorrect things about you. Congratulations, you now have athick skin and can survive being criticized on the internet. If you experience harassment on-wiki, I can help deal with that, though.NinjaRobotPirate (talk)19:33, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! While your point of view is understandable, I believe that off-wiki harassment is still something to be taken seriously. Words themselves can have a strong impact (think of bullying for an extreme example), especially if they affect real-life social ties (e.g. outing, calling someone's employer, etc.), as has happened in some harassment campaigns. @Jolielover was also hinting at current and future on-wiki consequences, and we shouldn't ignore their cause: even if the individual on-wiki edits may not constitute harassment themselves, the context of them coming from a harassment campaign is necessary to understand the situation here. It is best to take it seriously now rather than to have to deal with possibly much bigger issues down the line. Calling it a matter of having a thick skin might be overtly reductive, and might even unwillingly come off as dismissive of legitimate concerns.ChaoticEnby (talk ·contribs)20:42, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I admit I don't have the thickest skin; Iknow I should be ignoring these people, yet I don't. I'm working on it.jolielover♥talk03:30, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Think of it as a badge of honour. I suspect most experienced editors have had at least one angry Reddit/Twitter thread about them (here’s one about me from a couple of years back). In terms of what to do: don’t engage with the Reddit community further, especially not with an account which contains PII about you, and they’ll probably move on. If they appear onwiki, deal with them as editors.~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk)10:28, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

See, I don't use this handle anywhere on social media, so I get my various threats, including the occasional death-adjacent one, just to my real name!CoffeeCrumbs (talk)15:39, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

For some time yet there is a dispute going on, or maybe socking, or something else, whatever it is there is regular back and forth editing, reverts and what looks like base edit warring onHaplogroup E-Z827 (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views) with accusations of vandalism inthe history. I don't know the first thing about the topic, but it needs some assistance to get folks to collaborate.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk)16:50, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A TA doing the same editing, ~2025-34312-78, was indef blocked byUser:Giraffer in November. I've blocked the current TA, ~2026-65455-7, for a month, andUser:DNASeer for a week for edit warring and logged out editing. I've semi-protected three of the target articles for three months. As TAs expire, I'm not sure how/whether block evasion applies here - if so, the one-week block on DNASeer should be extended to indef.Fences&Windows23:02, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is my user talk pagehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:GK0001

this userhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Doug_Weller posted several threats of banning my account with no evidence to back it up I don't know how this works but make him stop please.— Precedingunsigned comment added byGK0001 (talk •contribs)18:24, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

From looking at your contribs and the diffs, I see nothing wrong?

@Doug Weller could you kindly provide diffs for the "personal attacks"shane(talk to me if you want!)18:34, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn’t seen this when I posted the below. Nor was I notified. Just look at their contributions atTalk:Star Trek: Starfleet Academy (TV series). Almost all are either attacks or accusations of bad faith.Doug Wellertalk18:55, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@GK0001: Per the notice at the top of this page, you must notifyUser:Doug Weller that you have started this thread; you have failed to do so.—Fortuna,imperatrix18:52, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

sorry I don't know all the nuances of this complicated section, I didn't knew I need to inform this user, I was refraining in getting in further "fights" with him. I think he knows about it now.GK0001 (talk)23:29, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

And while I obviously can't speak for User:Doug Weller, several of GK0001's comments on that talk page are unnecessarly abrasive; each one may not be in and of itself a personal attack, but cumulatively they demonstrate a willingness to personalze the discussion as a first resort: "you probably think of your own situation when calling someone 'unemployed'", "you are instead acting very emotional without adding nothing to the discussion", "you really have a logic problem", "take some time off and calm down. Stop polluting this talk section" and "You reply shows you don't even read and think about what is posted here" suffice as example of what DW might be referring to.—Fortuna,imperatrix19:01, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I just stopped watching tv as I can't cope with my iPad with t his, now on my PC. Yes, those are what I gave them warnings for.Doug Wellertalk19:09, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I told them I would not block them.Doug Wellertalk19:26, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm obviously replying to someone that was provoking me at every step. I didn't knew about this section we are now beforehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Doug_Weller threatened me multiple times on my user page then posted the link to this page. I've not replied to that person anymore as I think he is a friend of this user and they are likely act in tandem, one provoking then when someone lose its temper use his reply to threaten him.

Regardless of the article in question, I've not tried to abusively edit any of the sections I had some questions about and I've used the talk page to express my opinions and proposal and not impose with force anything.GK0001 (talk)23:35, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming bad faith is not a productive approach to any of this. I'm not sure any individual comment by itself was sanctionable, but the general abrasiveness and hostility to comments that led Doug to come here do, in summary, reflect a real problem with how you interact with others here. You need to change this approach; this is a collaborative project, and people who disagree with you on content issues are not adversaries.CoffeeCrumbs (talk)08:30, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As I am involved I can't take action.SeeTalk:Star Trek: Starfleet Academy (TV series). Thanks.Doug Wellertalk18:47, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A little confused, is there some other background here? What are you seeing as a personal attack? I don't see anything in this user's contributions that would constitute a clear personal attack, and certainly not the multiple attacks that would have taken them to the point of the four separate warnings they have received?Mfield (Oi!)18:53, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Diff/1338690685 and[77] do cross into personal attacks when they sayEven if you will you probably never recognize this because dishonest debate is the norm unfortunately;You probably think of your own situation when calling someone "unemployed" in a derogative manner. The other comments on the talk page seem mostly ok, if not necessarily conducive to winning arguments or forming consensus. I think it was correct to issue talk page warnings on the basis of these barbs (although I'm not sure how we ended up with 4 separate warnings, given that I only identified 2 clearly problematic statements on the talk page), so I don't see much basis for GK0001's complaint in the section immediately prior. I'm also not sure this has quite reached the level where it would be appropriate to block or ban GK0001 given the mildness of the incivility thus far and that they are new._signed,Rosguill^talk19:04, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Fortuna identified a few more exampleshere, above, which would be innocuous in isolation but do add up to a persistent pattern that justifies the warnings. As far as sanctions go, I thinkany further insults merit admin intervention, as it should now be clear for GK0001 that they have crossed a line and that they are not allowed to continue in this fashion._signed,Rosguill^talk19:10, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

so wait a minute, you are not seeing the message I was replying to? interestingGK0001 (talk)23:37, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

is confusing becausehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Doug_Weller didn't included examples of my "bad behavior" on my user page because then he would had needed to explain the continues attacks against me from his friend herehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alex_21

look I'm new on this website, I mean as an editor, but letting the Alex_21 running wild on that talk page for days disrupting any honest discussion he can find, including those I've tried to make at some point really gets on someone nerves.GK0001 (talk)23:45, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill as I said, they don't think they did anything wrong and the personal attacks continue.Doug Wellertalk08:43, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.Doug Wellertalk19:11, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Minor but seehttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AReliable_sources&dtnewcommentssince=c-GK0001-20260216180100-WhatamIdoing-20260215214600&dtinthread=1#Proposal_to_remove_rottentomatoes_and_metacritic_websites_from_user_generated_ruleDoug Wellertalk19:17, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed on looking at them overall. Given the account is new, would seem like a single personal warning about expected conduct may have been more appropriate than escalated templated warnings. None of the individual comments seem to me like what would be construed by a new user as a personal attack given the generally sad state of discourse on the wider internet.Mfield (Oi!)19:17, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken. But they don’t appear to think they’ve done anything wrong,Doug Wellertalk19:24, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think the threading may have gotten a bit mixed up here--I'm pretty sure Mfield was originally responding to my comments about further evidence, not Doug's provision of ongoing behavior. At any rate, I have responded in the linked discussion._signed,Rosguill^talk19:27, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, although i think my reply works to both. I don't believe that the conduct merits a block after all the warnings, but i do think the editor needs to be advised directly to read and acknowledgeWikipedia:Civility.Mfield (Oi!)19:29, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I agree thet should not be blocked right now. But they need to stop.Doug Wellertalk19:54, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

please quote what you think breaks wikipedia rules from that comment. I don't understand what was illegal behavior in that comment.GK0001 (talk)23:49, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

there was a lot of unnecessary drama from older wikipedia editors that apparently don't know that the inclusion of those websites is an example....I find it despicable that using wikipedia tools to discuss something triggers threats from people like you is probably some of what Doug was referring to. I'd strongly suggest not phrasing things this way going forward.SarekOfVulcan (talk)14:52, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

GK0001, several experienced editors and administrators in this discussion have identified problematic comments by you, most concisely summarized in these three comments by myself and Fortuna:[78],[79],[80]. Acting as if you have yet to identify anything you have done wrong here does not inspire confidence that you understand our policies concerning personal attacks and civility. You need to course-correct, or you are likely to face sanctions._signed,Rosguill^talk14:53, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Our article atNesfatin-1 is substantially a copyright violation against the references cited, includingthis one. That is, stuff is copy-pasted in, not paraphrased. The material was added back in2013, though, so reverting back to pre-copyvio would essentially gut the article to almost nothing (example). Any other options? The topic is way outside my wheelhouse; I just happened to notice the situation on recent changes patrol.Matt Deres (talk)22:50, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CP, gives interested editors time to rewrite the article on a subpage. This isn't really a question to ask atWP:ANI though.Tenshi! (Talk page)22:54, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the ongoing situation at ITN/C continues less than collaborative, despite the recent CBAN of an editor threatening to recall any admin posting a blurb on a deadly North American storm.

In my support of a blurb for actorRobert Duvall, I noted “The anti-American commenters here are way out of line. Repeat: way out of line. One such who recently threatened to recall any posting administrator over a deadly North American storm was taken to AN/I and WP:CBANed. It’s time to consider warnings and escalating blocks, I feel, for disruptive anti-American statements which feed hate and discourage collaborative editing. [Other editors] all make excellent points in rebuttal to the “old man dies” crap. Those arguments carry no weight, as I see it, and are, again, disruptive, and worthy of sanction discussion. Enough.”

This statement was reworded byUser:5225C to this, (my italics)"Editors should be sanctioned if they oppose my preferred ITN entries" is a very, very interesting approach.

Note their wording in quotes, to imply the statement was mine. I of course said no such thing. I asked for consideration of warnings and escalating blocks. 5225C is twisting my words, which I strongly object to.

My observation that the rewording was dishonest and offensive, and my suggestion that the rewording be struck, was rejected. I feel I have no alternative but to file a request for administrator intervention. Thanks.Jusdafax (talk)03:44, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Correct, you stated quite specifically that you thought warnings and blocks were a suitable response to editors who make arguments you disagree with at ITN. This does not seem to be in dispute. My summary of your comments, absent further clarification, appears to be accurate.5225_C (talk • contributions)03:56, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

At the top of this page it states "This page is for urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems."

This isn't it.TarnishedPath^talk03:56, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict) Tarnished Path: you may disagree with me that rewording my statement (which continues by 5225C just above) is not an urgent incident, but I feel dishonest rewording in quotes, purporting to be my statement, should be struck. I stated originally warnings and sanctions should be discussed. 5225C dishonestly rewords my statement and places it in quotes. And “my preferred ITN entries” … really? Quoting me as saying that? It should be struck, in my view.Jusdafax (talk)04:13, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that 5225 shouldn't have used quotation marks when they were paraphrasing; however this still isn't it.TarnishedPath^talk05:15, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Having been present in the thread when the initial comments were made, what 5225C said seemed to be a reasonable paraphrasing of Jusdafax's comment. Jusdafax's civility was wearing thin on their initial comment at ITN/C, and I think their bringing a fairly benign disagreement here is a massive and pointless escalation, and does give them impression that they're just trying to punish those who disagree with them.–DMartin(talk)04:02, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • I asked that the dishonest purported quote be struck, 5225C refused. “Reasonable rephrasing?” We disagree on the definition of reasonable.Jusdafax (talk)04:23, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just so we're perfectly clear, do you consider your suggestion to consider blocking people who disagree with you at ITN reasonable or not?5225_C (talk • contributions)04:27, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree. If anyone's comment was inappropriate, it was Jusdafax's, who was making threats to ban other users merely for presenting arguments that Jusdafax disagreed with - and don't appear in that nomination anyway. I would not have used the specific paraphrasing that 5225C did, but it's not wildly inaccurate either. If Jusdafax disagreed with it, they should have clarified their intended meaning, not filed an ANI report.Modest Genius^talk11:33, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• (involved at ITN discussion) I agree with TarnishedPath that there is nothing that needs admin attention here. In addition, I find Judasfax's original comments problematic, as they seem to suggest that we should "consider" blocking others for opposing views (anti-Americanism). Ironically, I consider their wordsconsider warnings and escalating blocks just as problematic as the CBANned user. ITN/C has been a divisive place recently but everyone can have their own views and arguments on whether we should post "American topics" or not.Natg 19 (talk)04:16, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comparing my request for consideration of sanctions “just as problematic” as a now-CBAned user who threatened to recall posting admins is an astonishing statement. Wow. I came here to ask a dishonest and offensive quote be struck.Jusdafax (talk)04:30, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • Joseph2302 threatened to recall administrators who posted entries he did not want posted. You said we should consider blocks for editors who oppose entries you support. The two situations are quite similar. You also have not explained what element of my comment was dishonest. I suggest this is because it was, and remains, an accurate summary of your position.5225_C (talk • contributions)04:35, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • When you file a report at ANI,your conduct is just as open to scrutiny as that of the editor you're reporting. -The Bushranger_{One ping only}05:05, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Involved, but as I commented at the ITNC thread, I think Jusdafax is misinterpreting comments being "anti-American" that are actually addressing concerns on media bias that American actors get compared to any other actor of other nationalities, or of any other type of profession, which is part of the consideration we have whether to feature an RD blurb, rather than an attack phrase towards American people. In fact, there's only two comments prior to the one placed by Jusdafax that mention "America" (Humbledaisy and Harizotoh9) and I read both of those as addressing the systematic bias of media concern, not attacking Duvall or Americans in general.Masem (t)04:56, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Barely anyone at the discussion, then and now, made any comment regarding the US. For Jusdafax to then make spontaneous and baseless allegations of "anti-Americanism" is what I find more troubling. They did threaten that anyone engaging in this, again no one did, be sanctioned and then acted upon it by bringing it to ANI; so the paraphrase/read of their comments by 5225C's is entirely valid. To then tack on an entirely unrelated block here is also baffling. A classicWP:BOOMERANG case where Jusdafax needs to reflect back on whatever they have alleged of 5225C on themselves. That this is from someone who has been here for almost two decades is all the more shocking.Gotitbro (talk)06:20, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Seconded. If anyone's comment warranted ANI attention, it was Jusdafax's. Calling for sanctions to be placed upon other users for vague, non-existent 'anti-Americanism' is unacceptable and a plain violation ofWP:CIV.Loytra^✨08:19, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree that Jusdafax's behaviour is more concerning and should be subject to scrutiny primarily because of the following two reasons. Firstly, labelling editors as 'anti-American commenters' and using words such as 'crap' isn't acceptable in a collaborative volunteer environment. I fully get that they were in disagreement with the opinions of some editors, but there are many ways to express it in a polite way (note thatWP:ITNCDONT statesOppose an item just because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. We post a lot of such content, so these comments are generally unproductive., which Jusdafax could have referred to if they felt it was breached). Secondly, this escalation is a warning sign that Jusdafax has little tolerance and may not be ready to accept other opinions. What 5225C did is common on Wikipedia and, if this is the way to deal with every quoted rephrasing of someone else's comment, admins would have no other things to do (this is not even close to the language used in most academic debates). Jusdafax needs to understand that they cannot get offended by any interaction where someone summarises their point and recalls on previous unrelated sanctioned cases to demand similar sanctions. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk)09:29, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• The odd thing here is that Jusdafax is saying thatIt’s time to consider warnings and escalating blocks, I feel, for disruptive anti-American statements which feed hate but on the discussion about Duvall there are only two Oppose !votes that even reference his nationality (this one, which I don't seeany problem with at all, andthis one, which is frankly a terrible rationale whether you include the nationality or not). Given that,where is this alleged anti-American xenophobia that needs people to be sanctioned?Black Kite (talk)10:15, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Judasfax, you'd just summarised others' comments asthe “old man dies” crap, putting "old man dies" in quotes in just the way that you now complain of.[81] Nobody had said "old man dies". You dislike 5225c's representation of your argument; that's your opportunity to step back and consider whether you yourself represented others' arguments fairly and collaboratively. Instead you come here complaining ofdishonest and offensiverewording. Will warning you be sufficient or do we need you to be pblocked?NebY (talk)10:37, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yesterday, I made various edits to theItalian East Africa article. However, I was surprised when I saw thatUser:Historyhiker had reverted all of my content in the article asking me to "explain on talk page".[82] I asked the user to explain himself on his talk page[83], to which he refused to provide a reason and instead directed me to the article's talkpage[84], where he again refused to provide a justification[85][86] and instead opened up a sockpuppet investigation on me[87]. Not to mention he also violated theWP:3RR[88].

Edit:Since opening up this noticeboard,User:Historyhiker has labelled my content "vandalism", called this thread a "smear campaign" and has clearly suggested that I am a sockpuppet (despite the SP investigation being dissmissed)[89]. Personal attacks?Socialwave597 (talk)05:33, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As I am saying in the talk page, I fully agree with this ANI. Over the course of the last months, Historyhiker changed the long-standing version ofItalian East Africa and related articles (likeSecond Italo-Ethiopian War etc). Not only he did this without building any consensus, he openly went against many users countering him in edits (by just reverting) or in the talk pages (even if he requests a talk, he does not care of the discussion), notably in changing the Italian East Africa status to "occupied territory", therefore reducing the scope of the article. His proposal to move the page to "Italian occupation of Ethiopia" was meant to complete this structural change of the article, but failed; nonetheless he has insisted and insists on his rewriting of the intro and infobox. He won't allow any other user to correct his changes, reverting all their edits and accusing them of being socks ofuser:Jheeeeeeteegh. It's true this sock exists, but it's easily indentifiable because he clearly makes one specific type of change (changing "Fascist Italy" to "Kingdom of Italy"). Instead, Historyhiker conveniently accuses anyone who opposes the changes he made as being socks, even when they clearly are not (as can be seen in the failed accusations againstuser:Socialwave597,user:Sabvuo653, anduser:PeppeChannel072). And this on top of the reverting and of the effective "not hearing" in the discussion. That's not how one should proceed when dealing with other users, the onus of this whole thing is on him and he always pretends it's on everyone else.~2026-10619-40 (talk)05:43, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've read that I've been accused of objecting to some of the edits. To avoid any misunderstanding, I'd like to clarify that my last edit to the page in question was on January 10, 2026, when I simply replaced the anthem's .ogg file with a new one.PeppeChannel072 (talk)09:27, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I admit I made the mistake of reverting more than 3 times, which is my only offense. I can address any other issues or questions the admins may have for me.Historyhiker05:56, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I have self-reverted and stand by the statement that both of these are clearly Jheeeeeeteegh. Though I am clearly in violation of 3RR and apologize for it, I would like them to understand that I am not intimidated by them and I do not feel comfortable engaging with them (I have tried to do so when I assumed good-faith). I can provide more information to any admin who is interested, but at this point its very clear it is them (technicals do not show a match, but edit behavior pattern is clear to me). My only request here is that the page is restored until they explain their changes (I stress that this is clearly Jheeeeeeteegh or Jheeeeeeteegh affiliated + this is a long term issue).Historyhiker06:45, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn’t throw the “personal attacks” stone if your example of that is they opened an SPI (which is perfectly valid if a page has experienced SP activity) when you opened the article talk page section under the accusatory title “WP:OWN by Historyhiker”Rambling Rambler (talk)10:41, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think a user that’s been guarding the page from long-term fascist socking should be punished for some ABF. I’ll try to look at some sources and weigh in on the broader disputeKowal2701 (talk,contribs)12:09, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Kowal2701, the problem is that this sock issue cannot be used to revert other edits and accuse clearly innocent users (and insist on accusing them even when they are cleared by admins). The sock is extremely easy to find, he always make some version of the same edit over and over: he changes "Fascist Italy" to "Kingdom of Italy". He just assumes that people disagreeing with him on the rewriting of the page he made a month ago are socks.~2026-10629-24 (talk)13:34, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Historyhiker's first revert was wrong or even ABF, on very contentious articles, it's conventional to talk through changes first (there's evenWP:CRP). I don't think Socialwave's re-revert citingWP:DRNC (an essay, which btw says not to re-revert) was appropriate, nor was re-re-reverting and starting a topic titled with an aspersion and threatening to report, followed by two more reverts gaming 3RR. Historyhiker just needs to talk to some checkusers off-wiki and have their concerns settled. We also need to resolve the wider dispute that rose from mergingItalian occupation of Ethiopia into the article and get some good consensusKowal2701 (talk,contribs)13:55, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all, one thing I am not sure about is how much detail I am allowed to provide. Also I am very eager to provide information about what is going on but do not want to distract from what I am being accused of here. I feel it is appropriate to open a new topic addressing Jheeeeeeteegh and the long term issue. I also have information about the VPN loophole they are using to do this but not sure who is responsible or where to report it? Again I prefer not to do it here because it will distract from what I have been accused of and admitted to. Lastly, as a matter of protocol, what I propose is to roll back the changes in the Italian East Africa page until the accusations are addressed on here and we can have a constructive conversation about the material the editor is trying to add.

So my questions again, how much detail can I provide as evidence in this page in my defense? After this conversation, I would like to open my own topic here about the state of the situation but I am not sure if there are better places to talk about the tools they have been using to evade detection (this might be the right place)? If admins want me to write a response to the accusations, I can provide detailed explanation why this is likely done in bad-faith by Thursday (if its not too far in the week)Historyhiker12:32, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If you’re specifically focused on sockpuppet activity, best dealt with at SPI than here.Rambling Rambler (talk)12:37, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! What about reporting a set of VPN services that are not blocked? It felt like it was not getting enough attention in SPI. Should I just go ahead and ping them again?Historyhiker12:42, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

VPNs?WP:Open proxies noticeboard. —Malcolmxl5 (talk)15:17, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Dsiodsiodsijo (talk ·contribs) continues improperly formatting/adding disambig pages, ignoring notices from four Wikipedians in their talkpage. Also they continue creating articles of dubious notability, which are either speedied or draftified (with snowball chance). IMO must be blocked, to force the acknowledgement/response.--Altenmann>talk 07:46, 17 February 2026 (UTC) --Altenmann>talk07:46, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Davgrx7646

This user today heavily edited numerous articles of airports around the world updating their destination tabs, adding charter (one time, unscheduled) to them. There are literally so many edits and reverting them all would amount to 3RR maybe. So I am reporting this matter here. -https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Davgrx7646&target=Davgrx7646&offset=&limit=500Wikipicked (talk)11:37, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed they were warned early for such edits -User talk:Davgrx7646#c-Canterbury Tail-20260131035600-Persistent badly sourced edits

User talk:Davgrx7646#c-Danners430-20260215142300-February 2026Wikipicked (talk)11:39, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Whoever would have imagined that airport destination lists would become a crapmagnet?EEng12:22, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not saying anything...Danners430_{tweaks made}12:48, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It is worth saying that the vast majority of Davgrx7646's edits are well sourced, although they seem to use social media a lot (not that it's a problem, as they're usually diligent in only using official accounts). However, every so often they do seem to forget and make unsourced edits/

@Wikipicked, one has to ask though - have you tried discussing this with Davgrx7646 before bringing it here?Danners430_{tweaks made}12:50, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia noticeboards

• Noindexed pages
• Non-talk pages that are automatically signed
• Wikipedia move-protected project pages
• Pages automatically checked for incorrect links
• Pages archived using a key