Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

This page is for urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

• Before posting:
  • Consider other means of dispute resolution first
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • If the issue concerns use of admin tools or other advanced permissions, request an administrative action review
  • Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly
  • Still not sure what to do? Seek advice at the Teahouse
• Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.

You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

---

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

Start a new discussion

Gaming the system to achieve extended confirmed status

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

---

I've indef blocked based on Mfield's initial analysis, and my reading of Baangla's total edits following their transaction. We've seen varying sorts of misbehavior presented in this thread and Baangla has done all the work themself. Baangla has demonstrated they are here to poke the bear, and they seemingly laugh at attempts to assume good faith. BusterD (talk) 07:55, 21 October 2025 (UTC) (Striking-through close)

Baangla's edits per day to 11:21 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Date	No. edits per day	Cumulative edits
15 Sep 2025	10	10
16 Sep 2025	3	13
17 Sep 2025	1	14
18 Sep 2025	1	15
20 Sep 2025	14	29
21 Sep 2025	2	31
30 Sep 2025	3	34
1 Oct 2025	1	35
4 Oct 2025	1	36
8 Oct 2025	3	39
9 Oct 2025	1	40
11 Oct 2025	17	57
12 Oct 2025	24	81
13 Oct 2025	13	94
14 Oct 2025	16	110
15 Oct 2025	40	150
16 Oct 2025	54	204
17 Oct 2025	40	244
18 Oct 2025	117	361
19 Oct 2025	145	506

New editor Baangla has been repeatedly warned about his/her violation of the condition of ECR. See User talk:Baangla#Continued violation of ECR and #Warning. Baangla's account was created on 15 September 2025. As shown in the table above, he/she had made a total of 244 edits by close of play 17 October. Since then he/she has made 262 edits to achieve WP:ECP status. Many of these edits have been things like adding macrons to words in articles.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8] This looks like Wikipedia:Gaming the system. At the very least, his/her WP:ECP status should be revoked.-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:31, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

• This matter was being discussed on the talk page of the editor and this editor has done nothing other than misrepresenting policies and the messages made for him. While ECP should be swiftly removed, I would also support indef block based on the SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Souniel Yadav. Chronos.Zx (talk) 11:41, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm sad to say it, as I tried to give advice to this editor on slowing down and learning Wikipedia, but ECR should definitely be revoked at a minimum. This editor started this one-character editing spree immediately after being told that edit requests can't be controversial, and then the second they got to 500, they stopped and made edits they couldn't otherwise have been made. They're rude in response to several good faith editors, describing them as stalkers and claimed their one-character edit flood was OK, because of an unrelated comment when Firefangledfeathers simply said the topic Male Mahadeshwara Hills didn't fall under ECR. [9]

Again, I think revoking extended-confirmed is a must, and I'd also urge that Banglaa receive a topic ban from WP:CT/SA until they honestly gain extended-confirmed access. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 11:44, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

WP:GAMING states that only an edit war or trying to, "enforce a specific non-neutral point of view" is gaming, so it is wrong to accuse me of it as I have not indulged in either. I have not, "deliberately misused Wikipedia's policy or process for personal advantage at the expense of other editors or the Wikipedia community." either (there is no limit on the number of edits an editor can make on wikipedia).-Baangla (talk) 11:46, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Again, that is not what it says. You're in an area where almost everybody has actually read WP:GAMING. Your behavior, among many listed, not just "edit warring or enforcing a specific non-neutral point of view," is explicitly listed at WP:PGAME on that page. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 11:53, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

According to WP:PGAME, making unconstructive or trivial edits to raise your user access level is considered an attempt to game the system. — EarthDude (Talk) 11:54, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

I am new here. I had not read the above as it is not visible overtly. I shall avoid it in future.-Baangla (talk) 12:01, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

It's literally on the page that you quote while asserting a completely untrue meaning of gaming. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 12:03, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

• Extended confirmed revoked. But I also think a topic ban/block is in order... Salvio ^giuliano 12:08, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

  I have not indulged in any revert war, so please spare me that.-Baangla (talk) 12:16, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

  I have not indulged in any revert war. You did today at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2005 Ram Mandir attack.^{09:55 edit,12:08 Baangla reverted EarthDude} -- Toddy1 (talk) 12:21, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

  Anachronist has typed on my User Talk page that only an admin should revert what is posted there which is why I restored my comment on the, "Articles for deletion" wiki page. That is not exactly a wikipedia article.-Baangla (talk) 12:29, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

  That was about a specific reversion about an edit request elsewhere. This is, by my count, the fourth time you've mischaracterized someone's quote about rules. I think you could be a good editor, but you need to slow down and learn how Wikipedia works and listen to the advice several people have given you. Instead, you have pushed forward like a bull in a china shop. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 13:54, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

  Restoring their vote once is a revert war? LordCollaboration (talk) 19:23, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

• Support WP:TOPICBAN on WP:CT/SA. We shouldn't be rewarding bad behaviour here. I think this is the minimum set of sanctions that might result in Bangla demonstrating they can be a constructive editor. --Yamla (talk) 12:28, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

  My ECP editor rights have been revoked a few minutes ago, so someone please also let me know how many edits I can make in 24 hours to get those rights back.-Baangla (talk) 12:33, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

  The only way to re-obtain ECR status once revoked is to apply for it, and right now there is zero chance of that succeeding. 331dot (talk) 12:41, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

  I will not apply immediately but how many edits should I make before I apply for it? Please also let me know how many edits I can make in 24 hours to get those rights back.-Baangla (talk) 12:44, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

  Why do you need it back in 24 hours? 331dot (talk) 12:47, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

  I think you misunderstood my question. How many edits am I allowed to make once in 24 hours to avoid any allegations like this?-Baangla (talk) 13:23, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

  @Baangla: Making edits for the purpose of getting ECP editor rights is "gaming the system". That you suddenly changed your editing patterns showed that you were doing this. And it was not just the number of edits per day, but the mix of types of edits that you were making.-- Toddy1 (talk) 13:55, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

  This isn't an allegation. It's clear you're making edits for the expressed purpose of obtaining advanced permissions to be able to contribute to a contentious topic. 331dot (talk) 15:37, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

  You can make as many edits as you like - the key is that they need to be useful edits, and they need to be in non-ECR areas (and I'd strongly suggest staying out of contentious topics as well. Some things you could do that would be very useful are to find sources for unsourced articles or sentences lacking citations; fixing common misspellings; or patrolling Recent Changes to revert unsourced edits or vandalism. If none of those appeal, try just reading some articles you're interested in and seeing what can be improved - maybe there's confusing sentences, or the information is out of date, or you think something important is missing - there's always plenty of very useful work to be done and you don't need to be ECR to do it. Meadowlark (talk) 03:00, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

  Note that this requirement is not about merely making edits, it's about demonstrating your knowledge of relevant policies and a collaborative attitude. Your gaming the system and explanations for doint so demonstrate that you don't understand policies. There's zero chance you'll get ECR back in hours. 331dot (talk) 12:51, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. They aren't getting it. 331dot (talk) 13:00, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
• Unfortunately support topic ban; i was concerned over the edits on talk:Bengaluru, more concerned after looking at the contributions and user talk page, and convinced by the continued arguing and misquoting on this very page. Baangla, please take the topic ban, make it to be temporary by editing other articles entirely away from the subjects you've currently focussed on ~ try Welsh history or the birds of New Zealand or the lives of fifth century saints, whatever you can find to research and write about ~ and show you can be productive and coöperative and sooner than you currently fear you'll be welcome in all areas of the encyclopaedia ~ Lindsay^Hello 16:17, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

  Just out of curiosity, suppose I get topic banned, can I edit articles about US citizens of Indian origin? My ECR rights have been revoked, so can I edit semi-protected articles or only unprotected articles (unrelated to what I get topic banned from)?Baangla (talk) 16:36, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Why would you want to skirt around the edges of this problem rather than staying clear of it entirely? This shouldn't be a question. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:47, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Can you? Sure. However, each edit you make will result in increasing blocks for violating a topic ban, until one of two things happens: either you lay off the entire topic, or you end up indefinitely blocked for persistent long term failure to abide by community sanctions. In this latter scenario, you will be unlikely to convince anyone to unblock you, which will result in your indefinite block becoming a community ban, which will more than likely result in you never being able to edit the website again since you would need to convince the community that you’ve reformed (which they will be disinclined to believe) to be unblocked, while any editing you make from other accounts will result in your current account being linked with the new accounts and being indefinitely blocked for violations of our one account policy. Since you’ve expressed an interest in editing ECP related fields you’d be unable to touch those as an ip user like me, so that would in turn leave you with no meaningful way to contribute to the field whatsoever. 2600:1011:B1CB:2F9B:D0A2:45F8:89DA:A3C0 (talk) 16:53, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

I think you are speaking from experience.-Baangla (talk) 16:57, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Oh dear. Why? Why would you? I suggested a random three out of thousands of possible areas you could edit freely; they were purely symbolic suggestions designed to indicated precisely what i think you should do ~ stay absolutely far away from the area that has got you into trouble ~ and you are ignoring that in favour of testing the boundaries of a potential topic ban? No, don't do that! Within the bounds of civility, i can't be any clearer, but you really need to take on board what every editor who has commented has said: If it relates to India, a contentious topic, or an area which already has behavioural difficulties from other editors, don't go there. Simples ~ Lindsay^Hello 18:01, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

I will not violate any topic ban, if and when it is imposed but I want to know what the rules say. I have observed that edits by I.P.s' are getting reverted and I certainly would like to keep editing articles with this account itself, without logging out.-Baangla (talk) 18:13, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Logged in or logged out, you must follow the editing restrictions we impose on you. The restrictions are imposed on you as a person, as well as your account. Also, editing logged out can get you into situations that violate rules. You are already having trouble understanding the rules so I'm not going to go into more details, but, simply, don't edit logged out. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:54, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

• Support tban at the least. Besides gaming, Baangla repeatedly shows poor understanding of Wikipedia rules as seen above and in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1203#Editing unprotected articles. That is not a good situation to be in, particularly when editing in contentious topics. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:59, 19 October 2025 (UTC) In light of the mentorship going on, I'll oppose tban since extended confirmed has been withdrawn, so Baangla will have to obey the restrictions for non-EC editors. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:39, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
• Support tban - yeah, they aren't getting it. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 03:22, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

  I was told by an admin on this Noticeboard earlier that I can correct the grammar or spellings but was not told that there is a limit on the number of edits per day which is why I did what I did - please see the discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1203#Editing_unprotected_articles - Baangla (talk) 06:35, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

  There isn't a limit on the number of edits per day. A sequence of constructive minor corrections is just Wikipedia:Gnoming. Nothing wrong with that. Gnoming with the intent of rapidly acquiring the extendedconfirmed privilege in order to tunnel through the experience barrier put in front of certain contentious topics articles is often treated as gaming. If your intent is to edit contentious topics articles you can just openly say that. It seems that people don't think you are ready to edit those articles yet. That leaves you with millions of articles that are not covered by the WP:ECR rule in addition to your ability to post edit requests for the relatively small number of articles that are covered. Sean.hoyland (talk) 08:19, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

  I am subject to the WP:ECR restrictions now after my ECP edit rights were revoked yesterday.-Baangla (talk) 08:46, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

  I would advise you to 1, agree to a topic ban, and 2) comply with it strictly and don't edit anything at all to do with the South Asia topic area(this inclues about people of Indian ancestry). 331dot (talk) 08:53, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

  Agreed. If I accept the topic ban, will my WP:ECR restrictions be lifted as it will mean that I am being sanctioned twice for the same (petty) offence?-Baangla (talk) 09:57, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

  Probably not. Sanctions are tools to prevent disruption, not punitive tools. If people believe multiple sanctions are required to prevent disruption they will be applied. Simonm223 (talk) 10:24, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

  ECR needing to be applied for and a topic ban are sanctions that work together. The goal is to keep you firmly out of a highly controversial Wikipedia topic area until you better understand how Wikipedia works and how to collaborate in a Wikipedia environment. This is definitely not a "petty offense" or a simple technicality. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 11:00, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

• I would urge a little compassion. It's fairly clear that Bangla didn't get it. Wikipedia rules are hard/soft - which makes them difficult to negotiate, particularly for some people. I'll take the time to leave a note for Banlga, which may help in the long run. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 11:09, 20 October 2025 (UTC).

  Thanks Rich. This account of mine on wikipedia is just one month old.-Baangla (talk) 11:18, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

  How many edits or how many weeks/months later should I ask for my topic ban to be lifted? How many edits or how many weeks/months later should I ask for WP:ECR restrictions to be lifted? How many edits can I make per day to avoid allegations of gaming (I am retired and can make quite a few edits every day)?-Baangla (talk) 11:24, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

  What is the procedure to ask for lifting each sanction (I read above that I have to e-mail someone and can't request for lifting the WP:ECR here)?-Baangla (talk) 11:26, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

  The best guidance I would give you would be to spend at least six months doing non-controversial, non-disruptive edit tasks on Wikipedia prior to asking for either of these sanctions to be lifted. And please note I don't mean walking away from Wikipedia for six months and asking both to be lifted, I mean actually showing you've put in the effort to learn the ropes and contribute constructively. Please remember WP:NORUSH. One thing that has helped me greatly as an editor over the years are to train myself to think most of Wikipedia as non-urgent. Simonm223 (talk) 11:57, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
  

  @Baangla: if you want to be given the extended confirmed user right, you need to apply at WP:PERM/EC. However, your request is unlikely to be granted unless you can demonstrate familiarity with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and a willingness to follow them. This can be be done by showing a good track record of useful edits over a few months. Salvio ^giuliano 12:07, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

  Okay, how many edits do I have to make for that? Is there a limit on the number of edits I can make per day to avoid allegations of gaming?-Baangla (talk) 12:13, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

  There's not really any limit as long as they are significant edits - i.e. adding useful content or citations. It is when you make too many very small edits which require little or no effort that you may be accused of gaming the ECR permission criteria. I would concentrate on making fewer, but better edits for a number of months before asking for the EC permision back. Black Kite (talk) 12:22, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

  They just need to be useful edits. Fixing typos, adding content or sources, etc. I was also falsely accused of gaming a while back for similar reasons, but avoided any punishment and kept my status because my changes were considered constructive. I would not wait a number of months; if you can show that you have made 500 useful edits and have been here a month, it would be blatantly unfair to treat you differently just because you previously added a bunch of macrons. LordCollaboration (talk) 19:14, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

  Oh! That's great.-Baangla (talk) 19:20, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose tban, unless if there is a good reason I am not seeing. The lack of ECR until they make enough useful contributions is already a fine limitation. If the reason is that they don’t understand the rules, then we might as well tban every new user that wants to edit in a controversial topic area. If it’s that they “gamed”, I have seen nothing to suggest they purposely broke this rule, and the issue has already been resolved by removing their XC rights. I don’t see anything to the content space they added that suggests they can’t be a constructive editor. LordCollaboration (talk) 19:39, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Before the gaming they were also ignoring the requirement that edit requests must be uncontroversial, despite being told on several occasions, by several editors. This was to the extent that Firefangledfeathers had already noted that he was close to being topic banned from South Asian topics due to this. And at least a few of the edit requests were quite controversial. They showed no indication that they understood this requirement. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 02:33, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

I don't think I made controversial edits. Please show examples of it.-Baangla (talk) 03:20, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

I see that you had some issues with a Srimonbanik (see this edit of yours but I am not Srimonbanik, so please stop WP: WIKIHOUNDING me.-Baangla (talk) 03:37, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Someone please let me know, how many times and how frequently can I revert something I feel is wrong and still avoid sanctions?-Baangla (talk) 03:22, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Interestingly, the Lānaʻi and Malé articles use diacritics (but I am not advocating anything, it is just an observation).-Baangla (talk) 04:13, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

I literally said I didn't think you were Srimonbanik. In any case, if you think I'm hounding you, please make a formal complaint; you're already in the correct forum.

And yes, controversial edits, as defined by edit requests, has been explained to you multiple times. Between this and the previous sentence, I'm seriously starting to wonder if there's an English fluency problem here. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 06:46, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Okay, sorry. I have not indulged in any personal attack (see WP:NOPA) till now and plan to avoid being vengeful in future also.-Baangla (talk) 07:05, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Can you show an example of this? I did not see this mentioned above. LordCollaboration (talk) 11:47, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Very weak indef support? I don’t know, I’m a little on the fence. At LEAST a removal of EC, but I wouldn’t mind an indef. Novalite82 (talk) 05:03, 21 October 2025 (UTC) Checkuser block

You created a new account a few minutes ago, just to request that?-Baangla (talk) 05:21, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

I mean, I see your edits as decently controversial, and I don’t see much effort to improve. Novalite82 (talk) 05:23, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Don't make false allegations.-Baangla (talk) 05:53, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

• Comment Bangla you shouldn't feel the need to respond to every single comment from another editor on this thread. This is a venue for discussion and you won't do yourself any favors by attacking every single comment by another community member. Their opinions are valid. It just results in you appearing to be in opposition to the entire community. Mfield (Oi!) 05:33, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

I am not interested, "in opposition to the entire community." but his/her comment got me wondering why a new user who probably can't find this Noticeboard as easily as say, a wikipedia article, suddenly comes and makes a request for an indefinite block.-Baangla (talk) 05:48, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

• Support Indef Block On the basis of the reply to my comment above. Until the user can read up on all the policies they are ignoring, and especially in light of potential gaming. Editor clearly has no sense of how to engage or interact with a community project. They are far more focused on deflecting everything onto other editors than considering their own actions. Tban is not sufficient to address greater concerns. Mfield (Oi!) 05:59, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

I have read WP:BLOCKPOL and just now https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_guide/Blocking#When_not_to_block - Baangla (talk) 06:19, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Wow you sure seem to like playing with the system, if i hadn't posted that previous comment though and got myself involved, I'd surely have blocked you but I am not going to be baited into doing it for your satisfaction. Mfield (Oi!) 06:29, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! I am a calm, patient person and I promise to be civil and edit articles without causing controversy.-Baangla (talk) 06:32, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

• Indef blocked for gaming this discussion. Subject has demonstrated they are here for some reason OTHER than making an online encyclopedia. BusterD (talk) 07:25, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

  Would you perhaps consider reducing it to a timed block or simply this page? Despite Baangla accusing me of WP:HOUNDING them, I don't think their participation in this discussion has been that egregious; my feeling is that they want to be a productive editor, but is having trouble understanding some of our processes and has difficulty communicating. I'm hoping that the ECR-removal and the WP:TOPICBAN will slow them down enough to learn how Wikipedia works. No complaint, of course, if you simply feel differently than I do on this. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 07:37, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) My statement closing this discussion (which your edit interrupted) explains my position. I have read each of their edits in the last hour or so. I get the same feelings as Mfield's, not yours. BusterD (talk) 07:46, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

  After my close, another editor suggested the community might want a say whether Baangla should be CBanned. I'm striking through my close and reopening the discussion. BusterD (talk) 09:48, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

  My apologies for the poor timing of my response. Just wanted to inquire. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 10:51, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

  The only reason I mentioned it was the first version of my rationale was lost in the edit conflict. This second draft doesn't have the "ooomph" my first version better imparted. BusterD (talk) 11:30, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

  I strongly oppose an indef and strongly disagree that they “gamed” this discussion. LordCollaboration (talk) 11:55, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

  In this edit I suggested to Baangla they might be mentored as an alternative to further blocking or banning. If you (or any other editor reading this) feels they might mentor the user away from gaming edits and towards productive editing, I'd be interested in seeing that happen. BusterD (talk) 14:29, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

  I don't think I'm remotely qualified to do that, but I think that would be a good idea if someone else is willing. LordCollaboration (talk) 14:39, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

  You may be uniquely qualified to mentor. I'll accept and immediately unblock when you ask me; I'd assist if you wanted help setting it up. If you think my block was unwarranted, User:LordCollaboration, help this editor instead of standing in the peanut gallery. They do need help. BusterD (talk) 14:54, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

  Okay, I am willing to if you think I am qualified. Yes, I would need help setting it up. LordCollaboration (talk) 14:59, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

  IMHO the ban discussion should continue, ignoring this newest development for now: I have commenced a mentoring discussion with LordCollaboration on their talk. User:CoffeeCrumbs, you've been around quite a while. If you wanted to help them it would take some pressure off a first-time mentor candidate. BusterD (talk) 15:18, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

  I'd be happy to if they found it acceptable. I'm not sure Banglaa likes me very much at the moment, though. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:33, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

  Strangely, that's another reason you'd be an ideal mentor candidate together with LC. Respecting folks we disagree with is exactly why the Foundation servers don't burst into flames every day. BusterD (talk) 16:13, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

  Let's allow this whole mentor idea to percolate through Baangla (who can't post here at this moment). Since LordC had a contrary opinion than mine (and has weathered some personal storms themselves), I suspected they'd be a nicer mentor candidate than I, but still tough. Your offer is noted and much appreciated by everyone here. BusterD (talk) 15:49, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

  It appears I have one (and possibly two) mentee candidates. I'm letting Baangla and LordCollaboration get acquainted today and if they seem compatible and can make some agreement, I'm going to at least partially unblock Baangla tomorrow. There's every reason to continue discussing Tbans but what I'm seeing so far looks quite promising. Let me report back to this discussion tomorrow and we'll know more. BusterD (talk) 19:24, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

• Support Tban; oppose Cban I think a topic ban would be useful as an extra guard-rail post ECR restoration but I don't think grounds exist for a cban here. Baangla needs to do some learning and do it quick but they are new and I think a Cban is WP:BITE. I think WP:ROPE can be extended here. I would gently recommend Baangla commit to stopping responding to this thread except to answering questions asked by others. Other than that I think losing ECR and a topic ban from the Ctop is enough to avoid disruption. Simonm223 (talk) 11:39, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

*Support TBan, Oppose CBan Just to make my feelings more explicit. I don't think there's anything egregious enough to support a full ban at this point. I think some WP:ROPE is reasonable, so long as it's not the WP:CT/SA topic. I hope the editor uses the time while they're indeffed to carefully read and develop an understanding of the core policies, beyond just cherry-picking sentences to their benefit. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 12:19, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

• I should clarify, given Toddy1 and Ravenswing's notes below, that my supported topic ban is better described as the areas of CT/SA that require extended-confirmed access, not the entirety of the contentious topic of all South Asia content. That's a bit of sloppiness on my part to not mention the specific area of SA that was ECR covered. I would not want to Banglaa to be topic banned from world cricket or an Indian film, so long as the edits weren't in that area.

  Since ECR were already revoked, I guess it would be most accurate to call this Support Tban from edit requests in WP:CT/SA instead. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:37, 22 October 2025 (UTC) With a mentorship arrangement in place, I believe that the extended-confirmed rights being pulled is sufficient for now. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:47, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

• Support CBan and support Tban from WP:CT/SA upon successful unblock after 6 months. This editor's messages here and their own talk page only show they are not going to stay out of any trouble. THEZDRX _{(User) | (Contact)} 16:12, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
• It is really hard for someone from India to comply with a Tban from South Asian topics. I know of another case where an editor from India got a Tban from South Asian topics. He/she tried to abide with it; his/her breaches included: (1) creating their user page, (2) editing pages about the world cricket governing body, (3) participating in an ANI thread concerning an Indian film. If an editor is from India, lots of what they know about is encompassed by the topic ban, and this is not obvious.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:55, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

  "Then editors from India shouldn't mess with the rules enough to draw CT bans" is the snippy response, but it's not inaccurate. Ravenswing 08:33, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Support Tban: Regardless of the fact that this discussion will probably end with the user being mentored and watched, I still don't believe they should be allowed to edit anything related to WP:CT/SA. If they showcase an actual willingness to learn and improve and work on themselves more, perhaps in the future, we could have another discussion on this, but right now, the revocation of their ECR rights should remain and they should be topic-banned from WP:CT/SA. — EarthDude (Talk) 12:16, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

• Since I made this comment, Baangle has openly admitted to only going through with the mentorship to stay unblocked.[10] I am changing my position. I now believe Baangle should be indefinitely blocked. — EarthDude (Talk) 17:58, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

• Wait and see how the mentoring works out before making a decision on a topic ban. It is entirely possible that what has been done is fixing the problem with Baangla's behaviour, and no further action is required. We can always come back to this later, if required.-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:19, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

  Support topic ban. His efforts since I wrote the above have convinced me that a topic ban is needed. Though he/she agrees to lots of things, he/she forgets them within hours. I am not sure how good his/her English is; it is possible that he/she does not understand a lot of what his/her mentors are telling him/her. Suggest that he/she is encouraged to edit his/her native language Wikipedia, in combination with English-language Wikipedia. Many of the lessons will be transferable.-- Toddy1 (talk) 13:04, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

• Support indef with topic ban from WP:CT/SA - Baangla has admitted that he agreed to mentorship only to get unblocked,[11] and is still eager to edit the same controversial area where he was causing trouble.[12] There is no need to waste more time on this. Chronos.Zx (talk) 14:28, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
• Commenting to prevent automatic archiving. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 04:24, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Comment on mentoring progress

I'd encourage every contributor here to visit User talk:Baangla#Mentoring and the sections below. Please visit User talk:LordCollaboration#Uniquely qualified as well. I've seen successful mentoring starting with far less agreement. While I encourage this ANI discussion to continue above, I can show the user is making an effort and is now under constant supervision by at least two editors. If the community ultimately decides to impose a topic ban on this user, I request that we withhold the application of that ban while a good faith mentoring process is underway. We offer the carrot, and we would have a community-approved stick. Discussion about this below? BusterD (talk) 12:00, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Here's the signed agreement. I'm unblocking Baangla completely and immediately. BusterD (talk) 15:36, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, BusterD! My ECR restrictions are still in place. I have promised to ask my mentor before I want to post anything here (on wikipedia) if it is okay, before I actually do so and he has agreed, so I request the other admins to give me a WP:ROPE and avoid any more sanctions apart from what has been imposed already.-Baangla (talk) 16:25, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

I am requesting this because it seems very difficult to avoid the topics I may be topic banned from as per the comments of Toddy1 above.-Baangla (talk) 16:38, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

@BusterD I just want to make sure I understand this - Baangla (who was blocked for gaming the system) is being mentored by you and @LordCollaboration:, a user who has been on Wikipedia since 2020 and has over 2000 edits but only made 24 mainspace edits before June of this year? Counterfeit Purses (talk) 16:59, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes, both are mentoring me. I am also asking @LordCollaboration: if an edit is acceptable on wikipedia before I add it.-Baangla (talk) 17:02, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

This is correct but omits some detail. The user's ECP had already been removed before I arrived, so the OP's valid PGAME complaint was satisfied. I came to the process with zero connection, but after seeing the flippant way Baangla addressed an admin who recommended an indef block, I chose to indef block. (I should not have closed the discussion immediately after, but reverted myself after feedback from another editor.) I was a bit annoyed at LordCollaboration's comments at ANI (which varied widely from my opinion), so when I thought about possible mentors, it occurred to me I might recruit someone who was already demonstrating a sort of support for Baangla. I read up on LordC and saw they'd been in a similar situation but worked themselves out of it. Sounded like destiny knocking. I saw that both editors needed some mentoring, but one had already improved their reputation a bit. I couldn't have known, but LordC was looking for an extra reason to participate. So LordC is helping Baangla (and benefitting themselves) and I'm helping LordCollaboration. Together they have created a starting point for more pagespace experience and I have both their signatures they'll stay out of trouble. Seemed like a very inexpensive victory for the community. BusterD (talk) 18:00, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

I've been to user talk:Baangla, read through the later additions/conversation. My, what a pleasure. Baangla, your willingness to learn and eagerness to contribute is precisely what i hoped to see in my previous comment; delighted to have it show forth and i hope it blossoms further as you grow into a long-term member of the community (to which i say, "Welcome!"). LordCollaboration, thank you for stepping up to help ~ and for openly speaking for the editor as others were only speaking of restricting him. BusterD, exactly the best sort of admin actions: A swift initial resolution, and a search for a permanent and better one; thank you! ~ Lindsay^Hello 06:51, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks (I had to accept or else I would not have been unblocked)!-Baangla (talk) 07:23, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Please don't sound cocky! Baangla, nobody has forced you to do anything. Users make their own choices. If you choose to misbehave in the future nothing we've done together will protect you. This mentoring is about learning to make new and better choices, not defending you against indefinite blocks. BusterD (talk) 10:24, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Note to admins: I am asking my mentors if an edit is fine before adding it to any article, please see this.-Baangla (talk) 17:55, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

BusterD, right now there's clear consensus for a TBAN, and I'm not sure this section is getting enough fresh eyes for that to change unless previous participants change their minds to support your proposal. You may want to ping them. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:53, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm not generally in the pinging habit. As we both know, my effort to establish mentoring was never contingent on any special favors for Baangla. They have had access to the entirety of Wikipedia for the last day or so. Mainpage still not deleted, and much reasonable interaction. After all, a wikipedian might do worse than to be TBanned from a tempting, familiar subject area where wiki-inexperience could make sustained contributions challenging. Baangla gets through six months as a good wiki-citizen with mentoring, an excellent case might be made on appeal. Better this outcome than any Arbcom remedy. BusterD (talk) 19:16, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers: After I had made quite a few edits to the Male Mahadeshwara Hills article, TonySt reverted some edits and then when you asked him if anything was wrong, he apologized and said that nothing was wrong (see this) which made me believe that my edits were acceptable and continued doing the same. I hope you can help me avoid any further sanctions now - WP:ECR is already in place. I am also asking my mentors if an edit is acceptable before I add it to the respective article.-Baangla (talk) 13:55, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

• @Chronos.Zx, EarthDude, Toddy1, CoffeeCrumbs, Simonm223, BusterD, Mfield, LordCollaboration, Rich Farmbrough, Bluethricecreamman, Rsjaffe, LindsayH, 331dot, and Yamla: You're recieving this curtesy ping to notify you that Baangla has tentatively agreed to mentorship, as such you are invited to review your recommendation(s) above and adjust them if you believe that this new information warrants a course correction. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:27, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

  I am glad to hear that Baangla has undertaken mentorship. I think it was needed. I have no changes to make to ny recommendations as I do think the tban will remain a valuable guardrail and I never supported more enhanced restrictions than that. I hope their mentorship brings them up to speed on WP norms and look forward to seeing them as a productive member of our community. Simonm223 (talk) 22:17, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

  I hope Baangla is able to make meaningful contributions outside of WP:CT/SA. This would meaningfully help getting any topic ban lifted sometime in 2026, as well as regaining extended-confirmed status. --Yamla (talk) 22:38, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

  I don’t think I can be completely neutral here anymore, so I am withdrawing any formal position. But I think a fair review of Baangla’s work over the last several days strongly suggests that they want to be constructive and are capable of doing so. LordCollaboration (talk) 22:40, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

  For the information of the others, he is my mentor now!-Baangla (talk) 04:20, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

  I have made some 400 edits from the time Salvio giuliano imposed the WP:ECR restrictions on me on 19th October, 2025 and nobody has raised any red flag/s with respect to my edits after the restrictions were imposed.-Baangla (talk) 05:09, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

  My recommendation to wait and see at 0:19, 23 October 2025 (UTC) took account of the mentoring.-- Toddy1 (talk) 23:19, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

• This is heart-warming. I am happy to repose my trust in BusterD. We all know that these things don't always work out, but I believe it's worth trying. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 11:21, 28 October 2025 (UTC).
  

• I agree - and the initial indefinite block that was only lifted on appeal was a key part of it. That was smart thinking by BusterD. It made Baangla understand the true position, and thus put him/her in the right frame of mind to improve.-- Toddy1 (talk) 15:39, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

  I have not indulged in any revert war, ever, I am subject to the restrictions as per WP:ECR now after my ECP edit rights were revoked on 29 October, I am also being mentored by two people, one of who is an admin, so please spare me a topic ban or any other additional sanction (one sanction should be enough).-Baangla (talk) 19:16, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

• It's already been pointed out to you that this is not true. Please WP:DROPTHESTICK. --Yamla (talk) 19:31, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

• Support mentorship. It's not often that it gets offered and is agreed upon so is always worth attempting before more extreme solutions. Hence oppose CBAN/TBAN while there is a mentorship proposal. Yes I know WP:INVOLMENTOR rarely works but I've done it myself once and did it help to avoid further ANI topics I'll have you know. Worse can scenario the editor will be back at ANI if problems continue; all I ask is for the mentor LordCollaboration to not engage in leniency and sugar coating, if the outcome or mentorship is in avoidance of more severe sanctions. Also credit to BusterD for providing a lifeline instead of just supporting a community mop up. It's a lot easier to turn a blind eye than do the right thing. CNC (talk) 20:11, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Continued gaming to gain ECP

Baangla is still continuing to game the system by making useless bot-like edits[13][14][15][16][17] in order to regain ECP. He has already made the request to gain ECP after making the aforementioned bot-like edits.[18]

We can safely conclude that all the efforts made by the community so far have fallen on deaf ears and this user is indeed a case of WP:NOTHERE as the last block on him concluded.[19] Ping BusterD. Chronos.Zx (talk) 14:26, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

BusterD has said, "Those are often the best sorts of edits. Just assume good faith, and try to do the right thing. If you are confused, ask" which can be seen on my user talk page here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Baangla#Arbitrary_break -Baangla (talk) 14:39, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Reviewing those diffs and BusterD's comments, I think the disconnect here is that BusterD was encouraging you to do grammatical fixes, but in the diffs highlighted by Chronos.Zx, you are not actually improving the grammar. Those extra commas are in some cases unnecessary, in some cases simply wrong. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:44, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

See File:Gaming check - Baangla.png for interest. Sean.hoyland (talk) 15:16, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

As per https://prowritingaid.com/grammar/1008079/Should-I-use-a-comma-before-an-opening-quotation-mark any quotation needs a comma before it; please also read the text under the section, "Commas between direct quotes and attributive tags" on the webpage https://www.grammarly.com/blog/punctuation-capitalization/comma/ - I have also removed any comma that was not followed by an opening quotation mark.-Baangla (talk) 15:39, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

You're misunderstanding those guides, which correspond to statements like Editor A said, "let's discuss". They do not apply to subordinate clauses like Dummett held particular disdain for what he called "the most successful propaganda campaign ever launched", or things that are not quotations such as In 1886, Arthur Edward Waite published The Mysteries of Magic, or French magus Ély Star published Les mystères de l'horoscope. In the latter two, you actually seem to have made a more serious, sloppy error, which is mistaking the wikimarkup for italics as a quotation mark. I'd also suggest that if you're resorting to AI-slop-adjacent grammatical aides, you should not be focusing on correcting grammar on Wikipedia. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:52, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Baangla is under a misimpression that merely making another 500 edits will allow them to automatically regain extended confirmed permissions. This is not the case. Baangla needs to ask at WP:PERM for a re-granting of the permissions. I'm not ready at this time to see such permissions granted. I'm not granting them myself. LordCollaboration isn't likely to grant them. BusterD (talk) 15:57, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

@BusterD LordCollaboration is not an admin. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 16:37, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

I had removed every comma that was added where opening quotation marks did not follow the comma. The other example you give is something new for me but as per the links I posted above, it seems fine but I will avoid adding a comma in such cases from now.-Baangla (talk) 16:04, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

BusterD, I was told by Silvio Guiliano that I had to e-mail some email address for it. Now regarding the number of edits - I did think I had to make a number of good faith edits but if that is not the case, please let me know.-Baangla (talk) 16:13, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Not a “number”; You need to gain the community’s trust that giving you XC status won’t be a problem. That might mean a month showing you can be collaborative and constructive, even if you only make a couple dozen edits to mainspace. Or it could mean hundreds of things like typo fixes (actual ones). There is no number, you just need to focus on making Wikipedia better, and with that will come the trust.

My advice is to forget about ECR. You don’t need it, and it might be detrimental to you even if you did get it; if you made these same comma changes on a more visible article, you probably would have gotten a lot more heat. Spend at least a month constructively editing (and learning how you personally can do that - I think grammar changes are often going to be more difficult for you than some other beneficial changes you have made) and then the community will *want* you to get ECR, because that means more articles you can improve. LordCollaboration (talk) 18:20, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

You asked BusterD about typo corrections; instead, you're making grammar changes. Also, programmatically/AI-generated sites such as prowritingaid.com are not reliable. But please disabuse yourself of the notion that making a lot of typo corrections and grammatical tweaks will suffice for you to be granted ECR. You will not be trusted to make substantive edits on ECP and CTOP pages unless you have demonstrated your ability to make substantive edits elsewhere without disruption, and you will not be given ECR merely to enable you to make typo corrections on more pages. NebY (talk) 16:15, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

OK, thanks!-Baangla (talk) 16:22, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

This section demonstrates Baangla's inability to take advice. At 20:11, 28 October 2025 Baangla was told not to comment on the ANI thread again unless if you are asked a question. And he just cannot stop him/herself commenting. -- Toddy1 (talk) 19:13, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

I second this. I have been keeping outside watch since the thread started, and have also noticed Baangla feels a need to respond to everything. I think this thread should be closed to discourage Baangla from commenting on this anymore (if anyone makes the choice to say something following its closure). CREditzWiki (yap) | (things i apparently did) 19:22, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

My mentor and I have fixed everything and I thank him for everything from the bottom of my heart.-Baangla (talk) 02:11, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

As supervising mentor, I urge rapid closure as TBAN and whatever other treatment an uninvolved closer feels appropriate. I'm not entirely satisfied with the above sugary response or some of the newest behavior from Baangla, but we don't need this thread active forever. Here's this morning's comment from LordCollaboration. The situation now seems somewhat stable and their edits are being watched by LordC and myself. BusterD (talk) 23:12, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

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

User:Astral highway & AI-generated editing

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

I am very concerned with multiple instance of apparent AI-generated edits from User:Astral highway.

1) The user created Anoxic microsites in soil, which returned a 100% probability of AI on Pangram, and was deleted via G15 on October 24.

2) This entire conversation reeks of AI generation. I do not know whether the edits to Bee and Bumblebee were AI-generated or not. Pinging User:Chiswick Chap.

3) This conversation at GA focused on GA reviews which were apparently AI-generated. Talk:Silver Lake (Whatcom County, Washington)/GA1 was also reverted via G15 on october 26. Discussion is ongoing with regards to whether Talk:Canon EOS/GA2 was AI generated or not.

4) This thread created this morning accuses User:Astral highway of creating AI-generated hoax sources at calcareous grassland. The user then admitted to using AI to generate the sources. The response also smells like AI. Pinging User:Steinsky.

These are just the four examples I have witnessed, but this user has made significant edits and article creations across a variety of topics, and every edit should probably be scrutinized at this point. Bgsu98 (Talk) 13:52, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Good morning/ afternoon, depending on time zones.

I'd appreciate if we could be more careful about going from a 'suspicion' about an incident on probabilistic terms, to a damaging generalization like this.

1) You alerted me to a suspicion of LLM citation generation by Pangram (zero suspicion by ChatGPTZero) and asked if I had manually checked all refs. I encouraged you to speedy delete the article rather than risk any harm, as couldn't instantly dig into the issue.

2)You checked this conversation and found no suspicion of AI generation on my talk page, unsurprising for talk generated by me. 'Reeks of...' is an unsafe determination indeed. For the two articles you refer to, that seems to be trying to extend a doubt founded on suspicion in a more damaging way, to human-generated main-space edits. It looks as if you were invited to do this by the person you have 'pinged' into this discussion.

3) I've had a look at this talk about a GA review just now Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#Another seemingly AI-generated review and a couple of things come up. The semantic content of a review (the words)are a wholly different issue to the markup.

In this recent article, Chris Albon and Leila Zia, of the Wikidedia Foundation, encourage editors to make intelligent use of AI. (https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2025/04/30/our-new-ai-strategy-puts-wikipedias-humans-first/) The scope of what they encourage certainly extends to avoiding mark-up errors and assisting neat presentation in formal processes like reviews, which is how I used it here and explains "the lack of Wikitext errors." Like I say elsewhere, we used to have to know some HTML to format some page features, back in the day.

So getting a block of words and headings neat is a courtesy to the reader, not an offense to any Wikipedia principles.

Making neatly formatted review pages doesn't evidence that the reviewer has rushed anything, or that the reviewer's actual words are AI generated. Not at all.

I thought the Silver Lake article was stand-out GA standard and evidenced that. We don't need lots of words to justify a straight-up pass.

My "List signature" doesn't make me a bad guy, even if human evaluators say hey, that that's a stand-out AI concoction. It isn't.

I've had a lifelong interaction with a massive volume of words. This ranges from patient study of super-dry regulatory material, to writing complex metanalyses for formal academic review, to writing in rather freer forms and more engaging forms of expression for less specialized publication out there.

I've also written highly technical material and process flows. All of this has been part of my professional career for as long as I can remember.

I've translated, too, for publication, and in the course of that endeavor, completed a formal study of applied linguistics.

The other GA review I'm conducting Talk:Canon EOS again evidences a detailed and consistent level of care. I didn't rush the thing through, have made constructive comments, read it over in detail numerous times and twice invited the nominator to evidence retrieval of all sources with a timestamp, pointing out that the onus of making sure refs resolve lies with the nominator - even as the GA reviewer will also check carefully after that.

My behavior is not that of someone who wishes to cut corners or damage the Wikipedia project. This thread has the makings of a moral panic resulting from unfounded extension of a specific suspicion to unfounded, widespread & bad faith practice.

For context: I have come across a few cases of failed citations, in which, precisely, a DOI didn't resolve, or that there was a hallucinated paper or journal title, even in GA-class article. That shocked me and appalled me.

That's why my conclusion on (4) references a deeper reason why I have dug into this issue in the last few days.

As a sidebar, we could all get very busy alerting admins to an AI malpractice, every time we see the signature M dash on a page in articles, which is a widespread occurrence. But the ChatGPT thumbprint that everyone knows about, doesn't automatically point to bad-faith content generation that is the existential threat to the Wikipedia project; it can simply mean care for well-presented code.

I'll sign off here, but please note my commitment to this endeavor and its underlying principles. I'd appreciate it if this response could be included as a 'lens' for any scrutiny of my actions.

Astral highway (talk) 15:40, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Astral highway, which responses of yours do NOT use LLM generation? Nobody here wants to talk to a bot instead of the person they are addressing. Hooples (talk) 15:59, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm beginning to think that anyone who is the subject of a complaint regarding LLM generated content and then responds to that complaint with LLM generated slop should be blocked. We keep seeing this over, and over, and over, and over, and over again. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:34, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

That's too soft. Anyone posting article content, or talk-page content, that is AI generated should be blocked on sight, without our awaiting any response, because anyone who thinks AI-generated content is acceptable is ipso facto incompetent. EEng 21:24, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

I gotta say, I don't actually think this is from an LLM. There are some grammatical and punctuation errors scattered throughout that an LLM typically won't make, and missing words (such as the missing I between "as" and "couldn't instantly dig"). This seems more like an attempt to be polite and detailed that got fed a heavy helping of long-windedness. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 17:47, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm human! Astral highway (talk) 17:53, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

You haven't answered the question. EEng 22:32, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

I don’t see any policy reason to collpapse my earlier comment as (entirely unproven) AI generated. My words, written it in good faith and in response to the issue that was put forward, and that’s what it's about. I’m hoping we can stick to WP: AGE, WP:NPA &keep focus on content, per WP: FOC. Please could that collapse be undone for fairness and transparency Astral highway (talk) 17:30, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

No, because you are using an LLM to generate those comments. 173.22.12.194 (talk) 00:57, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

This is a meta-comment, and I've not been part of the discussion - just happened to doomscroll through ANI after visiting a discussion I'd heard about. If you feed an LLM some content, and tell it that you want it to "add a small number of misspellings, grammatical structure errors, syntax errors, punctuation errors, at about what the expectation would be for a high school senior essay", it will dutifully do so, without difficulty. JADP. This is why, in my opinion, we're doomed. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 22:16, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

@User:Astral highway Could you explain more about your discussion here with User:Chiswick Chap? Chiswick Chap says that a number of citations in Bee were changed for seemingly no reason. You respond by agreeing that the changes were "bizarre" and are at first unsure if you made them, and then conclude that you edited source, copied and pasted a block of material to work on offline, then pasted the edited source back into the article, but that somehow changed a number of sources into completely different sources. Can you explain in more detail what you did? I don't see how copying and pasting source would somehow create completely new citations. For reference, Chiswick Chap manually reverts those citation changes in this diff and the two after it. Truthnope (talk) 20:29, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

I don't know what happened; I did something accidental and apologized profusely as soon as I realized. Astral highway (talk) 20:47, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

It would help if you could explain your editing process to show how this accident occurred. If you didn't make these changes yourself, I can only imagine two possible explanations: 1) somebody else got access to your device and made these changes while you weren't paying attention (also known as WP:My little brother did it), or 2) at some point, you copied and pasted the content into a proofreading software and it changed these citations without you noticing. Does either of these explanations sound plausible? Truthnope (talk) 21:23, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

When I say I don't know what happened, I'm pointing to an outcome that makes no sense to me, either then or now. It would be pure conjecture to try to explain it as if part of any rational process. Astral highway (talk) 22:04, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Alright, how about this discussion with User:Steinsky? Steinsky (signature displayed as Joe D) notes three references you added to Black Nore Lighthouse and points out that none of those URLs resolve and that no evidence shows that those sources exist. Your response suggests that you had trouble with understanding how generating references works, but it doesn't address the question of whether or not those references actually exist. My question is, assuming that you did add those references yourself, regardless of any difficulty you had with generating references on Wikipedia, are there underlying real sources that those references correspond to, and if so, can you provide evidence (ideally, URLs), that prove they are real?

Also, can I assume your response means that you did not use any proofreading software to revise your edits, since you are not considering that possibility? Truthnope (talk) 22:35, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

I hadn't clocked those non-resolving refs until Joe D pointed them out, and explained something of what was going on at the time. No proofreading software used. From today: Here's a diff on Blacknore Lighthouse, showing that I removed a wholly uncontroversial statement about the treacherousness of the waters, after I had doubts about supporting it with a reference to something that looks very real (The Admiralty does, precisely, produce such book and charts (no URL avail for it), but that I couldn't have eyes on. I had the choice of 1/leaving a statement that could hardly be contested, 2/ finding a ref that explicitly supported it, or 3/ taking the lot down until I could. I chose that option. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Black_Nore_Lighthouse&diff=1319444652&oldid=1319366853. I dropped in a TV news report on the Brunswick, which did have an URL: https://news.sky.com/story/the-brunswick-ghost-ship-of-christmas-past-11584701. Astral highway (talk) 01:27, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

That doesn't answer my question. I wasn't asking about edits you made today, I was asking about references you added back in 13 September 2025, listed by Joe D in the aforementioned discussion, for which the URLs do not work. Did you create those references? Do those sources actually exist? Truthnope (talk) 01:59, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be dense and I'm digging deep to answer the questions the best way I can. Yes, I created them. I've gone over my processes but there's nothing concrete I can come up with; there isn't something I do that's automatic or engrained that would account for it.

I'm also trying hard to make sense of it from the distance of six weeks ago, when my workflow is now more established and I've worked a few things out.

The Brunswick story stands up with one single news story, which was easy to source, so I am totally a loss as to why it had three citations attached to it.

Of the three, Maritime Journal exists and has a relevant story: https://www.maritimejournal.com/century-old-wreck-uncovered-while-performing-routine-port-company-survey/970620.article?utm_source=chatgpt.com. Of the other two, Historic England exists, is the organization that "listed" the building and is the source of greatest authority on its history, but not the Brunswick story.

On that day, I added refs 14, 15, 16, 19, 23, 24, 26 as well as those in question. These included results from a lengthy search of accounts held on a government website, and you can see I'm active on the page much of the day. The relevance here is that my state of mind was one of adding depth, context and scope to page.

Once this issue was raised, I re-checked the relevant references from that date and corrected the citation. I remain committed to making sure that every reference I add is fully verifiable.Astral highway (talk) 12:04, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

This is, frankly, an unsatisfactory answer. You should not be creating references to nonexistent sources, no matter the state of your workflow. Errors such as typos or mixing up sources are reasonable mistakes, creating entire sources out of whole cloth is not. Even if you claim that you have no idea how this keeps happening (and there are more such cases), then it becomes a WP:COMPETENCE issue that you somehow can't stop adding made up sources. However, I also see utm_source=chatgpt.com in the URL you included, and that, along with this entire conversation, is sufficient evidence to me that you're using ChatGPT to write these responses and to help with your edits, and that it has hallucinated all of these nonexistent sources that you have been unable to explain. Truthnope (talk) 16:41, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

There are two things here. I want neat, ordered code on my page and spend a lot of time trying to fix formatting errors. That is a coding job that I have tried to outsource to an LLM at times, but learned that this may be perilous. I don't need any kind of assistance with my writing or thinking. Nobody is engaging with an bot when they are talking to me.Astral highway (talk) 17:35, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Did you use an LLM to find the Maritime Journal url you included in your previous comment? Truthnope (talk) 17:49, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes. I didn't think I needed to chop off the end of that search result, for that very reason.

Why hide something that isn't a policy vio at all? That shows transparency, nothing else.

The LLM you mention has been around for what, 3 years now? Many serious researchers use it in sophisticated way a smart search engine, and it can help to find the physical location of an obscure journal, or a book, wherever it may be hiding, and similar productive tasks.

I don't take it at face value, but it can be a good assistant in that way, not a master. I haven't used the popular browser for as long as I can remember.

That is absolutely no evidence of my using it to dream up sources. Where I think I may have been over-trusting for a while is in trying to format sources, at which point, it seems in some cases that I'm now aware of, at the point of formatting it can chuck in a non-resolving DOI. So of course I won't be doing that any more.

I have checked every single source for the content I've put out there, bar the handful that came to my notice.

The irony is that I have come across non-resolving DOI's a lot since coming back to Wikipedia, and I found it disturbing, and still do.

I am determined to produce citations that resolve and can be stable, especially as hosts for information disappear or move around.

As well, in an effort to have a nice, clean block of code, at one stage I tried to outsource that sub-task to the LLM, with mixed results. So that isn't something I continued, and all of this learning was weeks ago.

It remains difficult to put citations in without them going awry at times, as I said, because of some templating issues that may be easily resolved if people are from a coding background, but seem to result in a mess of 'cite error' and other redlines. I hope that is totally clear. Astral highway (talk) 18:07, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

The fundamental issue here is that you have consistently generated references to sources that do not exist. Some users believe you used an LLM which hallucinated those sources. You deny this, and instead have no rational explanation for why this has repeatedly happened, which is not a better alternative. Frankly, it doesn't matter which interpretation you take. If you can't reasonably explain why you have a history of making up sources, you can't reasonably promise that you will not continue to do so in the future, and so no editor can reasonably conclude that you have the competence required to edit Wikipedia.

I have to emphasize this: the damage has already been done. You have already breached the trust of your fellow editors by making up sources and including urls that lead to error pages. What you need to do is show that you understand that these mistakes were problematic, and show that you will avoid making these mistakes in the future, which requires you to know how they were made in the first place. Trying to show other edits where you didn't make citation errors doesn't allay concerns about all of the other edits where you did, and talking about your opinions on LLMs or Wikipedia makes it look like you're avoiding talking about the issues at hand. Truthnope (talk) 19:49, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for putting this across so clearly. I willingly acknowledge that those mistakes were problematic and do apologize without hesitation for those cases, as well as for any anxiety and distress that has resulted. That's entirely on me.

How can I can vouch that mistakes won't recur? I've refined my workflow to use verified citation databases. As well, I'll double check for perfect resolution of all citations.

In response to the concerns raised, I did put everything to one side for a few days to recheck everything, as well as with assistance from another person, so as to cover more ground. Astral highway (talk) 22:30, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Well, you've been blocked from editing articles. I'm not an admin, so there's not much I can do to help you there.

There's one thing I want to clarify though: in an earlier comment, you said the following: As well, in an effort to have a nice, clean block of code, at one stage I tried to outsource that sub-task to the LLM, with mixed results. So that isn't something I continued, and all of this learning was weeks ago. Are you saying that all of the earlier hallucinated citations were due to you using an LLM, and that after you saw that the results were mixed, you stopped using it weeks ago? Because that would be the closest thing you've done to taking responsibility and giving an actionable plan for no longer making this error. Truthnope (talk) 00:48, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Again, I'm sorry if I have come across as evasive, that wasn't my intention, not at all. The title of this notice has put me on guard, as it is wide in scope and damning.

When it came to the assertion that it's not even me on my talk page, even though that hunch was disproven entirely it seemed difficult to engage without getting into an exhausting circular discussion.

I understand the need for frank disclosure, and here is what I can say about which sub-tasks I have at times asked for LLM assistance, what I have learned in the process, and what is different now.

1) Sub-task type: asking LLM to format an "already confirmed source with the '"already confirmed correct title, in an attempt to produce a stable DOI.

I discovered that the LLM output can be a fabricated identifier attached to a real article, or a DOI can be guessed when none is present in the publisher record. That is a perverse outcome, exactly in the opposite direction of the intention, which is to produce a stable DOI. I repeat, clearly this is not something I would continue. I rigorously re-checked over all my mainspace edits.

2) I have dug into the Blacknore Lighthous example from 13 Sept. Here my best understanding is that I was subtasking an LLM only to format references that I had already selected. However, it turns out it can complete or expand and corrupt references by adding items it judges to be similar to the existing content, without prompting to do so. I didn't check the outputs on that occasion, and they went under the radar. That was my responsibility. Practice discontinued.

Again, I have re-checked over all edits in the article and they all resolve. The template was reinstated even after I had done this and so I do wonder if that could be removed, as my attempt to do so was reverted.

Evidence for this being the best explanation is that there was no editorial reason for me to include three sources to support a completely uncontroversial story with a readily available secondary source to back it up. I don't do that under any circumstances, but it stands up my point.

Again, now I understand that an LLM doesn't enact instructions as if given a bunch of code, but uses heuristics, I have stopped using it for that sub-task also.

3) Sub-tasking an LLM to put into correct, Wiki mark-up, blocks of references that have already been checked. I now understand that again, even without being asked, the LLM can mark refs as 'retrieved.' Again, I have stopped asking an LLM to enact this sub-task.

These are three specific sub-task categories of using an LLM that apply.

I hope that these illustrations affirm my willingness to take responsibility for what happened, as well as showing what I have learned and what I will do differently. Astral highway (talk) 11:44, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

What do you mean "produce a stable DOI"? DOIs are assigned by the DOI foundation and approved bodies. They cannot be produced by llms. If you are asking an llm to produce anything, that is already beyond formatting. CMD (talk) 00:09, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

It remains difficult to put citations in without them going awry at times No, it really isn't. There's a too (a gadget you can enable, I believe?) that lets you format citations right in the edit window. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:42, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, aware. A minor but time-consuming issue recently was citation correctly formatted but superscript replaced with same-size as text. Other issues I'll categorize offline and work out. Astral highway (talk) Astral highway (talk) 11:57, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Here is a better example. The template on the right of the page (scrolling all the way down) is messed up by my inclusion of a valid PDF, referring to a verified advanced text for radar operatives. That edit and more has been rolled back as nonsense - perhaps because it is in Russian. But on-topic, I'm illustrating a real-life example of working hard to improve an article by adding depth to it, only to encounter this class of error.Astral highway (talk) 12:36, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Astral, we need a clear and direct answer to Truthnope and Joe D's question. You have repeatedly avoided answering this question. We need to know why and how you added those seemingly non existent references. Please note that admins are not the only group active here and the community also takes these issues seriously. The truth - whatever it is - is your best bet here! NicheSports (talk) 02:03, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Phantom nonsense was also added to P-70 radar. Bgsu98 (Talk) 08:29, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

This doesn't seem at all justified. Particularly could I ask for more care when you class a whole set of discrete activities as 'nonsense.' You removed references 4,5,6, here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=P-70_radar&diff=prev&oldid=1319391093. 4) Chernyak is the author of a journal paper with that exact description; I have the PDF and have read it. 5) The P-70 Radar, resolves. 5) Is a highly relevant paper on foundational principles of this type of radar. So these are healthy additions. For wider context, this diff in January 2009 (I was an early contributor to the page) shows great care for it: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=P-70_radar&diff=1319518924&oldid=262747326 In it, I point out that there is a several orders of magnitude error in the operating frequency and this major error should be corrected. This is the posture of someone who cares deeply about information stewardship, as I do. Astral highway (talk) 10:39, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Your 2009 diff shows you confusing pulse repetition frequency with carrier frequency. The radar sends pulses in VHF 70 or 140 times per second, that is not a contradiction. In fact this is backed up by a source you added. [20]

To analogize, if I were to say "hi" to you once every two seconds, the frequency of the "hi"s would be 0.5Hz, while the pitch of my voice would be much higher at ~200Hz.

This seems like a very basic error for someone overhauling radar articles to miss, frankly. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 12:48, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Ah, easily done but looks like you mis-read the original text. It clearly said : The radar operated on two frequencies, 140 Hz [sic] to observe low -altitude targets (aircraft and missiles) and 70 Hz [sic] to observe high -altitude targets. That means the original writer didn't know that would suggest carrier; if [they] did, they wouldn't have stated in a confusing way and would have mentioned the PRF. I do know about and have used PRF for high-power RF systems. Love the analogy though for those who don't know! Astral highway (talk) 16:03, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

So you made the assumption it should be MHz without checking the source at all, didn't notice when reading your own additional sources, and didn't think to double check before you presented this as the posture of someone who cares deeply about information stewardship? Incredibly worrying on top of the other sourcing issues. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 16:44, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

It's conventional to state radio frequency/ band first, then PRF, pulse width etc. PRF doesn't tell you the most important thing. So, going back to 2009 and my diff, I'm showing RF literacy by correcting 70Hz and 140Hz (audio frequencies) to MHz (consistent with the VHF carrier). It later turns out the numbers 70 and 140 are PRF's, but I didn't put those there.

My 2009 edit adds value straight away, by correcting a six orders of magnitude error. Simply put, 150MHz is about 2 metres wavelength, and 150Hz is over 2KM wavelength.Astral highway (talk) 17:23, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

It later turns out no, the source present in the article at the time states that the repetition frequency is 70/140Hz. You did not "add value" by introducing misinformation. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 17:32, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Regardless of the merits, I don't think that edits from 2009 are relevant at all here NicheSports (talk) 17:41, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

• Given the repeated cases of inserting hallucinated references (which if they aren't the result of LLM useage that's worse) and the constant evasiveness and apparent lack of ability to ensure this won't happen again, I have indefinitely pblocked Astral highway from articlespace. If and when they are able to assure these problems will not recur, anyone can lift the pblock. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:42, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

  I note this today. Thank you for prompting me to make a full presentation of the extent and context of my LLM usage and its boundaries. Please understand that my earlier reticence to dig into this was from the broad-brush title of this page and the repetition of some allegations based on 'hunch' alone, as well as needing more time to replicate some tasks off-line to distil my understanding.

  I hope this latest explanation [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#c-Astral_highway-20251031114400-Truthnope-20251031004800 shows me to be a good-faith, transparent and collegiate member of the Wikimedia Project. Astral highway (talk) 12:12, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

  I don't think you've really addressed what you will do differently. I think that a binding promise to not use LLMs for any purpose on Wikipedia is the bare minimum of an expectation. LLMs are an extremely dangerous tool to Wikipedia that you have misused repeatedly and been evasive about, so that should end any use of the tool. You've accidentally had a gun misfire at the family picnic on multiple occasions; the time has come to say you can choose to either leave the gun at home or you no longer are invited to the picnic. Wikipedia articles shouldn't be victimized by your personal journey to discover what subtasks LLMs suck at. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 07:12, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

  I'll try better. I begin by making a binding promise not to use citation formatting or referencing 'assistance' from any LLM.

  My mistakes came from believing that formatting and citation assistance from an LLM could be adopted reliably. I detailed how that was misguided and how 100% I will no longer do that; I worked hard to correct those errors when they came to light.

  I understand and feel the scope of your concern, so I further make a binding promise that I won't use any LLM in a way that affects markup or content on Wikipedia.

  (Please note that I don't need LLM assistance to help me communicate with fellow editors, nor to structure my thoughts, and people are talking to me on my talk pages, not via an LLM, as suggested in some comments.)

  To support my commitment, I emphasize that I'm committing to a reset of workflow to be entirely manual, including manual formatting of citations in the source. Before saving any edit, I will double check that every reference resolves correctly.

  I hope this demonstrates my sincere wish to put things right, as well as to be given a second chance to prove my commitment to the highest standards Astral highway (talk) 11:45, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

  The ambiguity of this statement, and the faux-legalese that gives you loopholes to still use LLM for some things on Wikipedia is highly concerning. As elsewhere in this discussion, it's difficult to gauge just what you're agreeing to; your intention might be to agree to not use LLMs on Wikipedia ever, but it's hard to tell with all the meandering. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:43, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

  Plainly: I will not use LLM's on Wikipedia. Astral highway (talk) 16:37, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

  Please understand that my earlier reticence to dig into this was from the broad-brush title of this page That characterization feels dishonest. Concerns were raised with your hallucinated citations before this ANI report was filed (they were the impetus for the ANI report in the first place), such as in the discussion with Chiswick Chap, the discussion with Steinsky, and this AfC submission in which User:Pythoncoder warned you of the risks of using an LLM, including hallucinations and nonexistent references, and you responded by saying No such method was used. Even if your talk page responses are human-written, the concerns about you using an LLM to edit articles were entirely justified, and you refused multiple opportunites to come clean about your LLM usage. It's unfair to Bgsu98 to characterize this ANI report as being based on a "hunch" when it was actually based on the considerable body of evidence showing you adding nonexistent sources. Truthnope (talk) 22:54, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

  This. Lifting the block would be a mistake. DoubleCross (‡) 01:37, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

  Agreed. This person does not need to be editing Wikipedia. Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:39, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

  Now that my heart is no longer racing from the notification that I've been mentioned on ANI: I've certainly wrongly declined drafts for LLM usage before, but I don't think I'm wrong here. So what we've got here is a user getting blocked from mainspace, repeating the same behavior that got them blocked in other namespaces, and actively trying to obfuscate the truth in the hopes of getting unblocked without actually changing their ways. The use of LLMs to hallucinate a GA review a week ago is a whole new level of deceit that I've never seen before. I would not be opposed to dropping the ban hammer here. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 11:10, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

  As the one who received the GA review... yeah, it stings. I'm a staunch critic (one could even say hater) of LLMs in general, and I honestly completely missed the obvious red flags. I did notice the inaccuracies, like the "most images are from commons" and the references not being live (they all were). The fact that I put more effort into making sure that every single one of the 80+ references I personally added *also* had an archive link, just to satisfy a reviewer that put less time into his "review" than I spent doing that, is genuinely infuriating. I wish I weren't the recipient of such a review, but it is what it is. I just ask that the next person who reviews the article does so in a way that warrants the good faith I had in the last one. Serebit (talk) 17:06, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

  It also hurts because it was the most work I've ever put into a Wikipedia article *by far*, and I had no reference point for what a GA review is "supposed" to look like, so I assumed the weird formatting and inaccuracies were just things I didn't know about or missed from reading about the GA system. Plainly, I feel cheated. Serebit (talk) 17:09, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

  The use of LLMs to hallucinate a GA review a week ago They what? <goes and looks further at contribs> Oh, dear. Given that, should their pass of Talk:Cup of China/GA1 be vacated as well? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:45, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

  We discussed that issue here. I am the nominator of that article. I stand behind Cup of China and welcome any re-inspection. Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:53, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

  It should probably be vacated because of the rest of the discussion in this thread and because of the author of the review being banned from mainspace, though I don't think it shows the signs of an LLM-generated review (plenty of typos, very little actual text, just surface-level short observations). It's just not very well reviewed. The review should be discarded and the article should be put back into the queue for someone qualified to take a look at it. Serebit (talk) 22:56, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

  @Pythoncoder, respectfully, "...repeating of any behaviour on other spaces" isn't true. Please note timings a& sequence:

  30 Oct Mainspace ban 22:42

  31 Oct - my explanation of full extent of LLM usage and context

  1 Nov - further extension of that explanation and a binding promise.

  It' logically impossible to 'repeat' something before another thing, so there isn't a case that I could have "repeated" behaviour (which had not been established in other spaces, beyond a 'hunch') in GA spaces or talk space, after the ban.

  I didn't use LLM's to analyse or review GA spaces and I didn't get an LLM to do GA reviews. That was limited to formatting wiki markup, as a courtesy to the recipient of the review, wishing nice neat blocks of text and formatting.

  I didn't expect that to be an issue as pages are made of markup. Since that time, too, I've been made aware that there is a GA template.

  I didn't use an LLM to communicate on on my talk page and there wasn't any evidence, either, that I did.

  But sticking with now: I repeat what I said two days ago:

  Plainly: I will not use LLM's on Wikipedia. Astral highway (talk) 16:37, 1 November 2025 (UTC)Astral highway (talk) 12:08, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

  You have not fully explained your LLM usage. You still have not answered (after repeated questions here and on your talk page) where these seemingly hallucinated references came from. You have spoken again and again about using LLMs for citation "formatting" but per User:Steinsky's analysis at the link above none of these articles ever existed. Also, per the ANI filing you apparently had a GA review G15'd? I cannot confirm this, or review it, because I am not an admin. @Bgsu98 do you remember which of the G15 criteria was involved? If that indeed happened then how are you saying you did not use LLMs on GA reviews? NicheSports (talk) 13:31, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

  It was Talk:Silver Lake (Whatcom County, Washington)/GA1, which was deleted, but has since been re-created as another user did the review. An administrator should be able to see the history to examine details of the original deletion. Bgsu98 (Talk) 14:32, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

  @The Bushranger can an admin please temporarily restore the deleted version of Talk:Silver Lake (Whatcom County, Washington)/GA1 so we can look at it, in light of Astral's comment above? NicheSports (talk) 14:43, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

   In progress This will be a little tetchy because another editor took over the review (and passed it) and so there's an existing /GA1 for that article. One moment please. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:44, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

   Done it can be reviewed at User:The Bushranger/Silver Lake (Whatcom County, Washington)/GA1 @NicheSports:. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:46, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks for restoring. It is certainly plausible that the review was LLM-generated, but I don't see it meeting any G15 criteria and I am surprised it was deleted on those grounds. I suppose the argument was 1) it is very likely LLM generated 2) the entire page is "communication intended for the user" and 3) it needed to be gotten rid of, so someone stretched on the definition. Which is fair. But I don't think it is relevant to what we do here. NicheSports (talk) 23:00, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

  Here is the thread where this was discussed. Pinging User:David Eppstein, the admin who deleted that GA. Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:07, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

  I see from this diff range that my guess above was pretty close. I agree with the deletion, but the G15 criteria was sufficiently loose that I don't think it should inform a CBAN, which it seems people are considering. But @Astral highway can you please provide a clear answer about how you generated these nonexistent references in your edits to Black Nore Lighthouse? NicheSports (talk) 23:24, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

  Astral highway's comment here on point 2) explains how the nonexistent references on that page were generated. I have dug into the Blacknore Lighthous example from 13 Sept. Here my best understanding is that I was subtasking an LLM only to format references that I had already selected. However, it turns out it can complete or expand and corrupt references by adding items it judges to be similar to the existing content, without prompting to do so. I didn't check the outputs on that occasion, and they went under the radar. That was my responsibility. Practice discontinued. Truthnope (talk) 00:01, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

  Ah, I see. Um, can we really believe that? LLMs hallucinate, yeah, but not when told to create a reference for a real, live URL... NicheSports (talk) 00:07, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

  Oh, I see what you mean. It would help if they could explicitly state what their process of using LLMs was, i.e. how much did they write and what did they ask the LLM to do, though I'm not sure if they plan on commenting further. Truthnope (talk) 01:13, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

  After seeing their explanation I am convinced they are lying about how those references were created. LLMs are not going to hallucinate a phantom url if you provide them a real url and ask them to create a wikipedia style reference using it. NicheSports (talk) 01:29, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

  I'm sure there are some that would, but I agree that most easily accessible models (e.g. GPT) wouldn't. It also strikes me as odd that a user would go to an LLM for that task instead of using one of the many freely available citation generator tools like citer.toolforge.org, which I've used frequently when editing on mobile in source mode. The only reasonable explanation to me is that the references were entirely generated by an LLM. Serebit (talk) 06:50, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

  I've now openly described what I did in concrete terms and very clearly, what I will do differently. I hope in time that can make a difference

  If @Serebit you feel that a page isn't very well reviewed for GA, that is a very different discussion and doesn't need to involve me, and of course you are free to ask someone else to take over the review. I'm not trying to minimize your feelings about what's the right thing to do.

  But to be fair, a decent amount of thought, time and discernment went into it, using only the stuff that's between my ears. The alternative would have been to speed it through as it stood.

  The same applies for Cup of China. That was stand-out well written, and just because I put that across using few words doesn't suggest any co-opting of other resources.

  It looks as if there may be limited productivity in my further commenting here.Astral highway (talk) 11:03, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

  @Astral highway With the extent to which you misled and obstructed the truth prior to your ban, I'm not of the opinion that any of your claims about the veracity of your edits and reviews should be taken seriously. I agree that there's not much reason for you to continue commenting—the decision made by the admins is not going to be revisited anytime soon, and you're only digging yourself a deeper hole by continuing to argue against the conclusions made. I suggest that you take a break from Wikipedia to reflect on your actions instead of trying to convince everyone that our well-founded conclusions are wrong. Serebit (talk) 12:21, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Report on user: Xjptankman

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

I want to report the user “Xjptankman” He keeps saying I have “colleagues” and that I am editing together with other users. This is not true. I edit alone. Here is where he said it on the Matcha talk page: "you and your colleague still haven’t produced proof.."

"Your colleague made the same kind of denial earlier..."

“keep muddying the issue”

“that approach only makes your position not worth considering”

“Please stop spreading misinformation … bring primary sources …” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Matcha#The_origin_of_matcha_is_not_a_matter_of_citing_references%E2%80%94it_is_a_matter_of_expression.

These are incorrect personal claims it’s not part of the topic discussion. This harmed me and suggested I am editing as part of some group. I do believe we need secondary sources to prove the origin of somethin but he still use inappropriate words to against me. Admin Please look at this. Sorry, I can only edit by phone right now, and I am not able to link directly to the talk discussion page. Thank you.

102.23.81.211 (talk) 22:06, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

So sorry I could not provide the diffs now, tmr I will prepare it on PC, thank you! 102.23.81.211 (talk) 22:09, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

I want to clarify a few things regarding the report against me.

First, the phrase “you and your colleague” was not meant as an accusation. I only used it because you had already grouped me together with another user (“薔薇騎士団”) in your own comments. I was simply mirroring the way you framed it. I edit alone and have never coordinated with anyone.

Second, about the sources: I believe my comment that you were “muddying the issue” was justified, because you denied what is clearly written in the source. You said “Also from Japan's Heritage Portal Site … it never said that Matcha did not come from China or Matcha did come from Japan.”

But this is not correct. On that very site it clearly states:

「宇治茶の確立と初期の景観 ～抹茶の誕生～」 (“The establishment of Uji tea and early landscape – The birth of Matcha”)

「碾茶を作る覆下栽培が始まり…『抹茶』を誕生させた。」 (“The cultivation method of growing tencha under cover began, which gave birth to Matcha.”)

These lines explicitly describe the birth of Matcha in Japan. Yet you still claimed the site never said this, which only confuses the issue instead of addressing it.

Third, I need to point out that some of your remarks crossed the line from content discussion into personal attacks:

“obsessively emphasize…”

“why you’re doing this to erase the facts … covering it up.”

“you’ve altered their content to fit your own talking points.”

These are not about sources or article content — they are direct attacks on me. That kind of language is not appropriate here. Xjptankman (talk) 02:12, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Xjptankman (talk · contribs), are you using generative AI in your responses? wound theology◈ 11:44, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

RGloucester

Last week, after I !voted to procedurally close an RfC, RGloucester (talk · contribs) said that my comments were unbecoming of an administrator, and then suggested that I would abuse my admin authority to block editors I disagree with, and that I was trying to chill dissent and force all new PAGs to go through WikiProject Policies and Guidelines, which I recently revived with the express intent of simplify[ing] and consolidat[ing] Wikipedia's policies and guidelines (including the Manual of Style) without changing their substantive meaning. I responded and moved on.

Today, I commented in an unrelated RfC that RGloucester started. In that discussion, I suggested that editors who don't have experience with GAN should consider whether they have adequate knowledge to opine about what the quickfail criteria should be.

Now, RGloucester has opened a clearly retaliatory MFD regarding WikiProject Policies and Guidelines, accusing myself and several other respected editors (including the one who he accused me of trying to silence and "chill") of forming a cabal to overthrow PAGs. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:29, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

RGloucester has also accused @WhatamIdoing (for boldly changing WikiProject tags) & @Femke (for opening a discussion at VPP) of misconduct, so pinging them. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:38, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Closed as WP:SK#1, no rationale for deletion actually given. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:55, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

@SarekOfVulcan: It seems like there's precedent for these sorts of discussions occurring at MFD. See Wikipedia:Esperanza. In any event, I'd rather just get this discussion over with at MFD rather than having to restart this debate somewhere else. I brought this here because of RGloucester's conduct, not the MFD. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:08, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

I concur with the Speedy closure, because it wasn't really a request to delete the WikiProject, but to mark it historical. I haven't reviewed the WikiProject, but it wasn't a real deletion nomination. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:25, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

I also support SarekOfVulcan's speedy closure on this MFD, as it wasn't an actual deletion nomination. sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:39, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

That's why I didn't close this discussion as well, I figured it wasn't done yet. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:40, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

• These sorts of discussions have always occurred at MfD, Esperanza being one precedent, which I cited in my nomination. I did not open the MfD in retaliation, but because the PROJPOL page is being used as gathering space for editors that share an opinion, who may then be canvassed to support a given position in any discussion. The fact that Voorts has seen fit to open this AN/I thread, without even trying to discuss the matter with me, tells one all one needs to know. Who benefits from supressing discussion? I never accused WhatamIdoing or Femke of anything (see here, where I acknowledged that Femke was acting in good faith, and here, where I participated in the RfC that WhatamIdoing opened after my revert). I simply asked them to attain consensus for the changes they were making. Clearly, that is too much to ask. Let the community make up its own mind. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 03:50, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

  WP:TINC Whyiseverythingalreadyused (talk · contribs · he/him) 03:58, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

  One of the fundamental principles of Wikiprojects is that they should not be activist gathering places. They should be focused on improving the encyclopaedia's content. PROJPOL is a project that claims to want to 'simplify' our policies and guidelines, but what of those in the community who do not think they need simplification? Should we open a separate project for those who want to 'protect our existing policies and guidelines'? There is no community consensus on this issue, and no project should be formed to take one side in a given dispute, hence my reference to the WikiProject Conservatism debacle of many years ago. Instead of accepting what are WP:GOODFAITH objections on their merits, I am brought to AN/I, and the discussion supressed...what does that say about the objectives of this project? Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 04:05, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

  User:RGloucester writes: One of the fundamental principles of Wikiprojects is that they should not be activist gathering places.. Where is that principle written? Is it in a policy or guideline? Although many editors would like that to be true, it is not true. We have and have had WikiProjects that are activist gathering places. It is true that these projects have been controversial, but there hasn't been a guideline that shut them down. The two examples that I can think of are the WP:Article Rescue Squadron and WP:WikiProject Portals, each of which has been driven by a philosophy that has not been shared by all editors. The Article Rescue Squadron has had the objective of preventing the deletion of articles. The Portals project has had the objective of maximizing the number of portals. I disagree with both objectives, but we do have those projects, although they are controversial activist gathering places. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:29, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

  That principle is expressed in numerous precedents, some of which I have cited. One was Esperanza, which was shut down for precisely this reason. Another is WikiProject Conservatism, as run by Lionelt back in the early 2010s. The problems with both of these were that 1), they contravened the principle that 'WikiProjects are not rule-making organisations' and do not have any ownership over their scope, and 2), functioned primarily to facilitate WP:VOTESTACKing, something our guidelines do not permit. You can read some of the past discussion in the Wikiproject Conservatism archives. Moxy may be able to provide more details about why PROJPOL itself was originally shut down. I do not think the examples you cite are very good. If anything, the portals project proves my point. It was the subject of an ArbCom case, because project members continued to try to create hundreds of portals in spite of a community decision to stop their creation. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 05:51, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

  Should we open a separate project for those who want to 'protect our existing policies and guidelines'? There is literally nothing stopping you from doing exactly this. Heck, nothing is stopping you from joining WikiProject Policies and Guidelines to support the opinion that things are currently not broken! I, personally, don't believe our P&Gs need any sort of across-the-board simplifcation, but if other editors believe they do, I'm not going to tell them they can't discuss how it could be done. So how, exactly, are editors who do believe this is necessary supposed to develop proposals to do so? Perhaps by forming a group, where they can workshop ideas to bring them before the community for a formal RfC if they believe they might have a workable proposal. Some sort of...WikiProject, perhaps. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:25, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

  I cannot join a project that has a non-neutral scope: if I don't support simplification, how can I join a project that explicitly defines that as its goal? Traditionally, policy and guidelines proposals are workshopped at the village pump, precisely for the same reason that these editors attempted to unilaterally demote various guidelines, see WP:CONLEVEL and WP:PROPOSAL. The idea that I am involved in any kind of censorship is very strange. I wanted to have a discussion to see if there is community consensus for such a project...normally, that would be considered within my rights as an editor. Plenty of Wikiprojects are deleted or marked inactive, numerous MfDs have been opened for similar reasons. Why am I being singled out? Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 06:48, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

  A few quick notes:

  • Wikipedia:A WikiProject is a group of people. A WikiProject is not a "scope". Any group of editors that wants to work together is welcome to start a WikiProject and then work together in whatever way improves Wikipedia. The group can call itself almost anything it wants. The group can even call themselves "WikiProject Dogs" and only edit articles about cats, if that's what the group wants. "Competing" groups (with overlapping areas of interest) are encouraged to merge but are permitted to remain separate if they want (e.g., Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Emergency medicine and EMS task force vs Wikipedia:WikiProject First aid).
  • It is true that the participants at Wikipedia:WikiProject Policies and Guidelines do not have any ownership over their scope. However, that is true for all WikiProjects. WPMED does not have any ownership over articles in their scope; MILHIST does not have any ownership over articles in their scope; no WikiProject of any kind has any ownership over the pages in their scope. What a group does have is ownership over their own actions: If they want to edit X, then that's okay (same rules as any other editor). If they don't want to edit Y, then that's okay, too (same rules as any other WP:VOLUNTEER, even if you believe they should support the article Y).
  • Editors who wish to argue that there is no community consensus about whether policies and guidelines should be simple vs complicated, duplicative vs not, etc., are advised to read Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#Content (a long-standing policy) and probably WP:NOTBURO, too.
  • Sure, I "unilaterally demoted various guidelines" – or, more precisely, after a discussion (so not "unilateral"), I 'demoted' pages that aren't guidelines, that never had a proper WP:PROPOSAL (required by policy since 2008), and whose page title explicitly violates the WP:Advice page guideline. I don't think I have much to apologize for that, but it doesn't matter to me if you disagree.

  WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:33, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

  I am not the only one who has expressed wariness over the existence of this project. In the very brief time that the MfD was open, at least three editors other expressed concerns. The issue with this project is precisely that it is not like Wikiproject Dogs, which would have a specific scope related to the subject matter it aims to improve, i.e. articles related to dogs. This project specifically takes an activist position, arguing that our policies and guidelines require some kind of consolidation or simplification. This is the equivalent to WikiProject Dogs taking the position that articles about specific breeds of dog should be removed from the encyclopaedia, and then serving as a staging ground to actively remove them. This would be disruptive to the encyclopaedia, and fall afoul of WP:CONLEVEL. The idea that policies and guidelines 'should be simple' has consensus, but what there is no established consensus for is the idea that they are not simple in their present form, or require substantial rewriting or consolidation. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 07:45, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

  if I don't support simplification, how can I join a project that explicitly defines that as its goal? "I cannot join this project because I don't believe in their primary position. I'm worried that they are going to become an echo chamber." Become a Marxist of the Groucho variety: don't join any club that would have you as a member. More seriously, I rephased your point to its functional meaning to make a point. Dissenting viewpoints are good. Being exposed to viewpoints you don't hold is also good. Traditionally, policy and guidelines proposals are workshopped at the village pump And when they're not yet proposals, where are they to be workshopped? Somebody's personal talk page? Off-wiki? I wanted to have a discussion to see if there is community consensus for such a project Fun fact, you don't need community consensus for a WikiProject. Once one has spiraled to the point of being disruptive, consensus can close it down, but it existing is not a matter for community consensus. Why am I being singled out? Well, part of it is this: you have repeatedly claimed these editors attempted to unilaterally demote various guidelines, when this has been, every time, pointed out to have not been the case - which makes you casting aspersions. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:52, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

  Normally, proposals that are not yet proposals are workshopped at the village pump idea lab.

  How is this a 'claim'? Picking out guidelines on the PROJPOL page, and removing the guideline tag from them, without even bothering to consult with the editors involved in the relevant guideline, and ignoring previous a RfC that resulted in the application of the guideline tag? I reverted the removal; if I hadn't, there would have been no RfC, as these are little-watched pages in far-flung corners of the encyclopaedia. When the RfC was opened, I participated in good faith. What about my recounting of these events is untrue, or 'aspersions'? Let's go back to the origin of this AN/I. I opened an MfD, and rather than engage, Voorts immediately reported me to AN/I, claiming I attacked Femke and WhatamIdoing. Where are the actionable diffs where I attacked anyone? This is fundamentally a content dispute, but instead I am being accused of having done something...but what? Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 09:10, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

  Bushranger, it was before our time, but many of our oldest policies and guidelines (back when we made no distinction between the two) were originally workshopped off wiki, usually in IRC or e-mail. It was only when you and I were newbies that there was a big push to have off-wiki conversations "not count".

  As one editor from the early days told me, how else could we have a new policy posted one morning and immediately supported by key editors, if that group of editors hadn't spent the night before writing the policy and coordinating their actions? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:10, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

  @WAID and The Bushranger: sort of but the context was quite different. It goes without saying the mailing list was central to a lot of decision-making early on, and then of course the original concept for metawiki was as the place to host all meta-level discussions and some were held there though obviously it didn't stick remember namespaces weren't a thing until Phase II. At the same time there was a lot of spitballing done on-wiki, and a proposal seeing a same day flood of supporters with no opponents was decidedly not the norm.

  Much was still initially framed as advice or information, and even as things became more firm was usually an effort to codify practice that emerged as a result of reactive decision-making.

  Thinking just on the user conduct stuff, reactivity followed later sometimes much later by documentation was the norm. Isis just issued some legal threats, now what? Throbbing Monster Cock has asked to be sysop, how do we handle that? Wanli is using Wikipedia for file storage, what's the appropriate action here? 24 has reincarnated again is that allowed? And so you get NLT, UPOL, NOTWEBHOST, SOCK, and even BAN it took a surprisingly long time to work out what a ban even meant, but that's another tangent. Sure you could say the documentation came about ultimately because of actions Jimbo took as a result of e-mail prodding, but the specifics of documentation were largely worked out here over time.

  And neither the mailing list nor the brief foray with metawiki could reasonably be treated as backroom cabaling, not at first anyway. It was advertised known about and accepted. As time went on circumstances changed and practice adapted.

  It all also simply mattered less, the general vibe for years was just to let everyone do their own thing as long as it roughly approximated encyclopedia building, and IAR was invoked with much greater frequency.

  Even as regards the conflicts during the second-half of the 00s I think the degree of cabaling tends to be exaggerated. Yes sometimes it happened and yes there were people who strove to write policy in a way that got all of their opponents blocked, but that was the exception not the norm. 184.152.65.118 (talk) 19:35, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

  I very much doubt there is ANY project on Wikipedia over which you can't find three editors to "express concern." That being said, you could just as easily (and with just as much accuracy, while we're lining up strawmen) argue that EVERY project involves advocacy. Every project involving a subject seeks the creation and expansion of related articles, without respect to the rest of the encyclopedia.

  And that being said, come now, we can do without the hyperbole. (Would you appreciate being described as being hellbent on keeping policies and guidelines impenetrable to new editors?) Materially changing the text of any established policy or guideline would take a great deal of effort, probably a great deal of time, and require the input either through the respective talk pages, the Village Pump or a sitewide RfC of an order of magnitude more editors than have signed up for this project. Are you indeed wary that a handful of editors somehow maintain a sinister hold over the minds of those people, or is the wariness simple disapproval of the project's goals? Ravenswing 08:55, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

  at least three editors other expressed concerns, that is false. I suggested a wider discussion only to stop this conspiratorial nonsense. Kowal2701 (talk) 10:38, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm not going to respond point by point to RGloucester. When I restarted PROJPOL, I made it clear that my intention was to seek community consensus for any changes that the Project proposes. I have now said this several times in several venues to respond to RG. Even if that weren't true, RG still didn't seek to discuss the issue with any of us, ignored those explanations, and instead saw fit to start an MFD where they accused me and others of trying to gatekeep, suppress dissent, and undermine consensus. All of that said, I'd still welcome RG to the PROJPOL talk page if they want to discuss their views civilly and without assuming the worst about their colleagues. If RG doesn't want to do that, I would ask RG to voluntarily not interact with me and drop the stick about PROJPOL. voorts (talk/contributions) 13:23, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

But this is precisely the point, Voorts. You say that I did not the discuss the issue with 'us', meaning your project. You say that you would 'welcome me' to the project, as if you WP:OWN it. In each discussion, you use this 'us' to other people, myself included. In the first discussion, where I said your remark was 'unbecoming', you bludgeoned the proposer and specifically mentioned that other editors wanted to write a policy, and that the proposer should not 'monopolise' the proposal. Maybe you did not understand how his remark felt to someone not part of this group of other editors. I will tell you that I perceived it as a threat, and my fears were justified by what's happened here.

Then, at the other proposal, you made a snide remark about GA reviews, basically saying that only those with a pile of GA badges should be able to participate. I will have you know that I have participated in plenty, long before you ever joined the project. Finally, here you mention 'respected editors', as if I do not belong to this 'class', despite my years of service to this encyclopaedia. In this situation, how do you expect me to want to join your project? I have no obligation to go through your project. I opened a discussion in a public place to discuss it. There is nothing wrong or untoward about this. It is the usual procedure for resolving disputes or gaining consensus. If consensus is gained for the project to continue as it is, then of course, I will abide that consensus.

You still haven't provided any diffs for where I accused Femke or WhatamIdoing of misconduct. Is it right to make accusations without supporting them with evidence? You are a lawyer, are you not?

As for the project itself, I plan to open a new discussion at the village pump, given that the MfD was closed. I have already spoke to the closer as such. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 13:48, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

• I don't think I own the project. I said "us" because I'm not the only person who's part of the project.
• I did not bludgeon @Cremastra (who has since joined WP:PROJPOL, by the way). I civilly discussed the matter and bowed out when it became clear that the RfC would proceed. By the way, it has consistently been my position that we should adhere to RFCBEFORE to discuss proposals, particularly wide-ranging ones.
• As I explained to you in the AI discussion, I did not invoke PROJPOL in saying that other editors (e.g., several experienced editors who have been working on these AI issues for years) wanted to workshop the RfC before it continued. PROJPOL has nothing to do with AI.
• As I also explained to you, my comment about monopolizing was not in reference to Cremastea personally, and given her response to that thread, it seems like she didn't interpret it that way either.
• I brought you to ANI because you've repeatedly impugned the integrity of several editors, assumed bad faith, cast aspersions, and then opened an MFD because (from circumstantial evidence) it seems that you don't like me. I don't know what I did to piss you off. I don't recall ever interacting with you prior to the AI discussion.
• My comments in the GA discussion were that editors who have never done a GAN review should think before they opine on what the QF criteria should be/what the needs of GAN reviewers are.
• I never said you weren't respected. Look at the list of editors who have joined PROJPOL and tell me that there aren't severl respected editors who you are now accusing of being in an illicit consensus-undermining cabal.
• The diffs are the MFD discussion. You very clearly accused WAID of trying to undermine consensus for making a bold edit (which, as you know, WAID believes is complaint with our PAGs on PAGs). Then, in the same paragraph where you invoke several disruptive past projects, you accused Femke of seeking to disrupt the encyclopedia by opening an RfC at VPP.

You are allowed to hold whatever opinions you want. You are not allowed to attack fellow editors who are clearly operating in good faith because you believe something sinister is afoot. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:32, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Also, my invitation to discuss this civilly without accusations of bad faith stands. I would still welcome you to PROJPOL; as others in this discussion have said, being exposed to opposing views is very important to seeking a good consensus. If you don't want to voice your dissent in a way that doesn't involve casting aspersions, that's on you. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:43, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

I never accused WhatamIdoing of anything in the RfD. I did not even her mention her name. I linked two diffs, and made the following statement in some cases they are making these changes without gaining explicit consensus to do so.. No discussion at the village pump, or with the editors involved in each topic area was held prior to making these changes, despite the fact that in both cases, prior discussions had determined that there was a consensus for the guideline tag at each page. My statement stands. I never questioned WhatamIdoing's good faith, which is why I participated in the RfC when it was opened.

I never accused Femke of trying to disrupt the encyclopaedia, I said that her attempt to demote a guideline merely on procedural grounds without assessing its merits was a good example of overly-bureaucratic behaviour, see WP:NOTBURO. First of all, Femke did not open an RfC, only a talk page discussion. Femke did not notify WikiProject Automobiles of the proposal to demote this guideline. I did this on her behalf. Look at my comments in that discussion. What did I say? I said: I appreciate that you and your collaborators are acting in good faith. So again, where are these attacks? Where is the lack of civility? Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 15:11, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Context matters. Your MfD and the comments at the VPP thread indicate you still believe that PROJPOL is a shadowy cabal seeking to impose its views on others. You're also seeking to shut down a WikiProject because of those cabal assertions and because one editor made bold edits, the other started a discussion to seek consensus that you happen to disagree with, and because you think I'm trying to gatekeep/censor/suppress dissent. Sure, you said in a single post that you think PROJPOL is operating in good faith, but every single argument you've made against it implies the opposite. I think the context is clear. If you don't see it that way, we have nothing more to discuss and I renew my request that you voluntarily avoid interacting with me. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:28, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

My argument is based on experience, dealing with past, similar projects. Often times, members of these sorts of groups working in good faith lose sight of the forest by focusing too much on the trees. The result is...trouble. Moxy mentioned this point when you first wanted to revive the project, long before I had anything to do with it. As you can see, I do not necessarily disagree with the substance of some changes being made, which is why I supported a proposal made by a project member in one RfC. Please also note, that of the pages listed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Policies and Guidelines#Guidelines that are subpages of WikiProjects, I only reverted the removal of the guideline tag in two cases, i.e. those where a previous discussion or RfC had determine that the pages should have a guideline tag. You can claim that I am 'out to get you' or that I think your project is a 'shadowy cabal', but my actual behaviour shows no evidence of this. The only thing I care about is consensus, and a level playing field. I hope that you can see this, that I am acting in good faith, and that I am not some conspiracy theorist who thinks PROJPOL is going to destroy the encyclopaedia. I simply have legitimate doubts about its function, and seek community review. If you are willing to withdraw this AN/I thread, I will happily begin a community discussion on this subject. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 15:39, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

As was already pointed out, Moxy was incorrect about the reasons PROJPOL ended. You say editors lose sight of the forest for the trees, yet you have no evidence of that occurring here. The project was literally just restarted and its members hasn't even reached agreement on what they want to work on. I'm not going to withdraw this ANI and bless you going to VPP to start yet another discussion where you can imply that PROJPOL, or any of the editors involved with it, is or will do anything untoward. Editors are allowed to collaborate based on their views and propose changes to the broader community. I have said repeatedly that I think any major changes proposed via PROJPOL will need a wide consensus from the community and I don't think anyone who's part of PROJPOL has suggested otherwise. If, after all of that clarification and explanation, you think myself and other editors are out to impose our views against community consensus, I can only assume that you're continuing to contest the existence of this WikiProject because you don't trust its members or (ironically) you want to prevent editors from working on something you disagree with. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:02, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

RG is also incorrect about the alleged previous discussion or RfC had determine that the pages should have a guideline tag.

• WP:IRE-CATS was promoted on the basis of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland/Archive 16#RFC: Categorising Northern Ireland under Ireland, which has !votes to "Follow IRE-CATS" (in a disputed CFD) but not a single one that says anything like "Promote to guideline status".
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Belgium/Brussels naming conventions was apparently promoted because "We told everyone on WPBelgium" and since the WikiProject members agreed with each other, with no outside notification, they thought that was good enough. It's not good enough: A WikiProject deciding amongst themselves whether the ordinary community-wide guidelines apply to "their" articles is literally the example in WP:LOCALCON of what WikiProjects are not allowed to do.

Yes, there were in these two cases "discussions". But there were not discussions that were actually capable of "determining that the pages should have a guideline tag". The determination of whether the community wants a community-wide guideline is up to the community, not a handful of people drawn from a biased sample. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:32, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

This is precisely the point. These two pages were tagged after discussion between numerous editors. No one objected to the tag for more than a decade. The question now is do we tear down the work of these editors purely because some procedure may have not been followed ages ago? No, per WP:NOTBURO...we evaluate whether these actually represent the actual practice of editors, which is what guidelines are supposed to be. If not, if no one follows them, demote them. But, to demote them purely for procedural reasons?

It is not obvious to me why a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS at PROJPOL overrides a local consensus elsewhere, especially considering that these are guidelines that were established over time, which is an indication of implicit consensus, per WP:EDITCON. Why does PROJPOL have the authority to unilaterally decide which pages have met sufficient procedural requirements to be a guideline? This is exactly an example of 'forest through the trees' thinking. All I asked for was a discussion, so it could be determined how to situate these pages, whether they were actually useful to editors in the relevant topic area...rather than merely throwing them away without second thought. Somehow, this act is taken as personal attack. Still, this AN/I thread titled 'RGloucester' is open, and yet still, there are no diffs provided. Poor RGloucester. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 22:20, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Where are the links to the discussion establishing guideline status for these pages? I found one that has four editors in it, with no advertising outside the group. Is "four editors" what you're calling "numerous"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:26, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

It is not obvious to me why a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS at PROJPOL overrides a local consensus elsewhere  .... Why does PROJPOL have the authority to unilaterally decide which pages have met sufficient procedural requirements to be a guideline? There was no LOCALCON here and PROJPOL doesn't have that authority. Please stop asserting, without evidence, that editors who have joined PROJPOL are trying to dictate their personal views or undermine consensus. (That conduct is why this AN/I thread titled 'RGloucester' is open.)

As I said before, context is important, so here it is: one editor made a proposal about several pages that they thought shouldn't be guidelines per WP:ADVICEPAGE, WAID agreed, and then she boldly implemented it. You disagreed, and discussions were opened to seek consensus. That's how WP:BRD works. If that's nefarious or only something a shadowy cabal would do, our entire model of improving the encyclopedia should be scrapped. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:40, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Just in case it's not clear, the two 'sides' were:

• A couple of people in a discussion who claimed to have a "consensus" to not follow the relevant policy and to do something that a guideline explicitly says not to do

versus:

• A couple of people in a discussion who were correctly applying the relevant polices and guidelines.

LOCALCON is about small groups of editors rejecting or overriding sitewide policies and guidelines for "their" articles. A LOCALCON problem does not involve small groups, or even a single individual, following the sitewide policies and guidelines.

(Maybe we need to re-write LOCALCON to be somewhat more direct about the distinction between an agreement to violate policies and an agreement to follow them.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:11, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Voorts, you completely misinterpreted my remarks. My point was, a discussion between project members at the PROJPOL project page determined that these pages should not be guidelines. That is the definition of local consensus, as no attempt was made to solicit outside opinions. It is also precisely the logic being used to invalidate other Wikiproject local consensuses. WhatamIdoing explains her rationale, but that is her interpretation of our guidelines and policies. The purpose of discussion is to test whether the community agrees with that interpretation. Where did I say her actions were nefarious? Why put words in my mouth? Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 23:28, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

I quoted your words above where you accused the project of usurping consensus and imposing its own based on two bold edits by a single editor after a short exchange with another editor. Please don't interact with me further. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:12, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

I expressed my concern at the idea that there should be a Wikiproject devoted to rewriting policies and guidelines. But, as you wish. I hope you will come to understand that like you, I have only been acting in good faith. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 01:20, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

RGloucester, please do not WP:SEALION. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:22, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

(I'm not sure how "don't interact with me further" was taken as an invitation to respond either.) voorts (talk/contributions) 01:30, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

You can hardly start a discussion about an editor at ANI and then ask that editor to not interacti further with you on that very discussion. Uninvolved people can ask this, but doing so yourself and then being surprised that you weren't headed is just wrong. You can hope to have the last word in a discussion, you cannot demand it, like you just did. Fram (talk) 10:19, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Fair enough. I wasn't trying to demand the last word, but I see why it comes off that way. I have nothing left to discuss with RG for the various reasons stated above. voorts (talk/contributions) 12:40, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

A Few Comments, Maybe in Reply to RGloucester

I have a few comments at this time, partly in reply to the reply by User:RGloucester. He wrote: One of the fundamental principles of Wikiprojects is that they should not be activist gathering places. First, I said that the Article Rescue Squadron and the Portals project had been activist gathering places, and I asked where that principle was codified. He replied: I do not think the examples you cite are very good. If anything, the portals project proves my point. I know that the examples are not very good. I said that they were controversial and that I disagreed with them. They illustrate my point that we have projects that are activist gathering places. I am not disagreeing with his point that such activist gathering places are undesirable. His description of how the portals project led to the ArbCom case is partly wrong, but that is not important. Why is he lecturing me about the history of the portals controversy? Who does he think started the discussion of the creation of hundreds of semi-automated portals by the portal platoon? But that is not important.

Second, if anyone disagrees with the emphasis of PROJPOL on the simplification of policies and guidelines, why not discuss neutralization of the purpose of the project, rather than deactivation of the project? The purpose of the project can be changed from discussing simplification of the policies and guidelines to a review of the policies and guidelines, including a review of whether they should be either simplified or revised. That could change the project from being an activist gathering place to being a gathering place of editors interested in review of the policies and guidelines. I think the policies and guidelines, which have accumulated over two decades, should probably be simplified, but that we don't need to start off with that assumption in order to review them. So I suggest that the purpose of the WikiProject be reworded.

Third, I don't think that anyone is suggesting that any policies and guidelines be changed other than by consensus achieved by Requests for Comments. If, on review, it is found that some policy and guideline pages were never actually ratified by consensus, then they should probably be submitted to a new RFC for re-ratification, rather than simply downgraded or deleted. I don't think that anyone is suggesting that a committee or project be given authority to change the policies and guidelines. (If they are, they are wrong.) On the other hand, a WikiProject or task force of a project is often exactly what should do the workshopping of proposed changes before submission to RFC.

Fourth, I have read the original exchange between User:RGloucester and User:voorts, and it is my opinion that RGloucester was wrong in suggesting that voorts would use the admin tools in bad faith. I thought that a warning would be sufficient, but now I am wondering whether a one-way interaction ban is needed. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:51, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

I presume you are referring to this comment. I never intended to suggest that Voorts would use his admin tools in bad faith, and if that is the impression that my comments gave, I apologise. What I was trying to say was that the words of administrators carry additional weight, because, for lowly editors like us, the threat of sanctions is always handing over our heads like the sword of Damocles...

As for your commentary, I have already proposed that the project scope should be reviewed in a new discussion at the PROJPOL page. If you think that my contribution is not constructive, please let me know.

I have already agreed to refrain from further interaction with Voorts. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 04:00, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm sorry, RGloucester, you feel unsafe editing Wikipedia as a non-admin. I think that in this discussion we should remember that (1) making occasional mistakes, especially when editing things close to your heart, is perfectly fine, and not necessarily a sign of retaliation and (2) that there is social capital associated with adminship and that it can be more tactful to not bring things to ANI when a friendly discussion on RGloucester could have resolved this too. I agree with WAID on substance wrt to housekeeping around improperly tagged guidelines, but want to recognise that my role hasn't been ideal here. I'm a bit brain fogged and couldn't easily figure out how properly convert the discussion to an RfC midway through, and I should probably have notified the WikiProject myself. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 11:39, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

I'll take RG at their word. I don't think an IBAN is needed. voorts (talk/contributions) 12:32, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

I've been reading this and I still don't know what the problem is with PROJPOL? Not every WikiProject will appeal to everyone and that's OK. I'm sure people think (and I have seen newbies say this too) that WP's policies and guidelines could be made simpler and easier to understand and if people want to make a WikiProject dedicated to it, that's fine. I sucked at math in school and don't like math still but that doesn't mean that I'd want the mathematics WikiProject shut down. Yes there's been WikiProjects that have gone rogue but I've yet to see any evidence here that PROJPOL's gone rogue. No WikiProject needs the RGloucester Seal of Approval to exist (or anyone else's for that matter). Bringing the project page to deletion was especially poor form in my view, and I don't like what RGloucester said above "I cannot join a project that has a non-neutral scope: if I don't support simplification, how can I join a project that explicitly defines that as its goal?" If you don't support the goal of simplification, leave the WikiProject alone? The existence of a WikiProject shouldn't be decided by WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and you trying to delete the page sends the message that you're trying to censor the view that our policies and guidelines aren't easily understandable. ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 04:16, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Move protection needed at Prince Andrew

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

---

• Prince Andrew (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi,

Prince Andrew as a page is getting moved and back due to a breaking news story over his titles. I've opened an RM in the talk but in the meantime please could an admin apply move protection. Rambling Rambler (talk) 19:18, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Admin-move-protected for 1 week as requested. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:08, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Cheers Rambling Rambler (talk) 20:10, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

There's a lot of rapid changes being made to the bio-in-queston, at the moment. At this time, the best thing would be to restore the status quo & open a discussion on the talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 19:39, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

I've opened that. Just feel it would be prudent to add move protection specifically given we've just had one ping pong move back and forth and it probably won't be the last. Rambling Rambler (talk) 19:40, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Erroneous changes are being made to the article within. GoodDay (talk) 19:52, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

There's a lot of mis-informed edits being made to the bio-in-question, as well. GoodDay (talk) 19:41, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

The discussion Talk:Prince_Andrew#Requested_move_30_October_2025_closed_as_moved has now been closed. Could the protection be removed, or could an admin move per consensus? I have also requested a technical move at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests just in case. Vpab15 (talk) 23:40, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

I don’t think the protection being removed after only 3 hours would be a good idea DartsF4 (talk) 23:42, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

No. You have frankly begun edit-warring over this having prematurely closed the RM that I opened barely four hours ago despite there being a clear continuing difference of opinions on the subject and refusing to let it be re-opened.[21][22][23]

You are in the wrong here. Rambling Rambler (talk) 23:43, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Closed as moved by DrKay. 172.97.220.91 (talk) 17:03, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

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

Frachx75

Frachx75 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has got a talk page of nothing but warnings about adding unsourced content and block notices. They were blocked only a month ago, but upon being released from that block they’ve gone straight back to editing without sources: [24][25][26][27]. I feel like this may be somewhat of a lost cause here… Danners430 _{tweaks made} 21:51, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Even in the short time this thread has been open, I’ve reverted another three unsourced additions… [28][29][30] Danners430 _{tweaks made} 22:11, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Is someone able to have a look at this? Danners430 _{tweaks made} 00:02, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Just leaving a message to keep LCSB at bay until this can be looked at - although the user has been quiet since the end of October, so perhaps they've moved on... Danners430 _{tweaks made} 17:25, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Turning Point USA

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

---

• Turning Point USA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Something is going on, I'm not exactly sure what, at Talk:Turning Point USA#Rob McCoy was not a co-founder. (For those not familiar, this relates to the Charlie Kirk assassination.) There seems to be some sort of off-site canvassing, with a motive that's not obvious to me, and I'm not in the mood to go researching off-site. I've left a note to editors there, [31]. I'd appreciate it if a few administrators could keep an eye on that. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:26, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

It appears Candace Owens brought it up in a live stream yesterday, which is being disseminated across social media, e.g. this tweet (which includes part of her video). Nil🥝 23:58, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Nil NZ is correct. Candace Owens discussed the article in her podcast. You could have simply asked me what brought me to the page and I would have told you, just like I openly told Anupam after my very first article edit. I'm not up to anything untoward and have nothing to hide. I simply want to improve the article and make it more balanced. I don't usually agree with Owens but I heard her discussing the article and I decided to check it out and then decided that I agreed with some of her issues. That's all there is to it. As for the other editors, I don't know any of them. The person who I asked to come to the talk page edited the article after me and expressed displeasure about the McCoy section in their edit summary. That's why I asked them to join the discussion. I was attempting to avoid the article descending into an edit war. Thanks, Sarah 01:06, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

This isn't there yet, but it's heading in the direction of a potential minefield, so I'm going to collapse this. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:04, 3 November 2025 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

• I'm confused. How did a bunch of anti-vaxxers in diapers come to name themselves after a film about ballerinas? EEng 22:23, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

  EEng, I guess you are easily confused. I had to revert this, which was even moar confused: [32]. Kinda funny, but I don't know if any admin might think it worthy of a revdel? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:28, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

  FWIW, if anyone wants to do a deep dive, "Turning Point" as a term has a history, and can be found in the occult literature going back a ways. Gary Lachman spent quite a bit of time documenting the history of right wing conservatives and the occult in the era of Trump in Dark Star Rising (2018). In the larger occult literature the "turning point" of magical sigils is often emphasized, with the swastika the most famous, but this is only one of many symbols in this regard. Viriditas (talk) 01:40, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

  Oh, so they're Satan-worshipping anti-vaxxers in diapers. My oversight. EEng 15:23, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

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

User:TheArtandVintage editing in direct contravention of a declared conflict of interest and financial stake.

Ernest Hamlin Baker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

This gets complicated, fast, but I'll try to stay focussed on the immediate issue. Back on Oct 28th, TheArtandVintage started a thread on the Help Desk, asking for help with a formatting question (Wikipedia:Help desk#Sectioning article for museum & Time magazine- Ernest Hamlin Baker), which I attempted to respond to. I say 'attempted' because it seem became clear that TheArtandVintage has difficulties in communicating what they were actually trying to achieve. And as soon became apparent, there was a further immediate and concerning conflict of interest issue: "I own a historical document of Ernest Hamlin Baker" [33] (TheArtandVintage had already declared this CoI on their user page, back in 2013, and had apparently submitted an autobiographical draft in relation to it, subsequently deleted - Draft:Elaina Bensen: New York Telephone Company Pamphlet) My attempts to explain the issue basically got nowhere, however, with TheArtandVintage variously adding confusing digressions regarding "a archive that I cannot disclose", unexplained assertions that the matter was "urgent", "sworn statements", a conversation that had apparently involved a "wikisteward" called "Sheamous" that appears to have no connection to Wikipedia at all, instead being involved with one of the many websites with 'Wiki' in their name, and an odd reference to TheArtandVintage being a "Supreme Court rape victim" - the last not being anything I see reason to doubt, though given the complete lack of explanations to why it was relevant to the Baker article, not something I would have considered appropriate to have discussed. There followed repeated attempts by TheArtandVintage to blank the Help Desk thread entirely, which resulted in a 6h block by admin Hoary. [34]

Conversations regarding this issue, involving several experienced contributors, then turned to TheArtandVintage's talk page, where at last we got some sort of explanation as to the supposed 'urgency' of this editing: "A museum exhibit, press, release, or article, that needs to be updated before a deadline is surely not beyond your comprehension". Meanwhile, a further issue - that TheArtandVintage's user name coincides with her commercial website - was raised, though again the discussion got confusing fast, due to TheArtandVintage's usual lack of clarity and tendency to go off at tangents - including one regarding a 'threat of violence' which was apparently reported to WMF emergency, but not seen as actionable by them, presumably because no connection to Wikipedia contributors was apparent (see User_talk:DoubleGrazing#User:TheArtandVintage)

By this point, it seemed apparent to me that TheArtandVintage was attempting to force content into the Baker article to advance the declared CoI, for which they had already stated they had a financial interest: "It also affects the fair market value, or FMV" [35] What exactly it is that TheArtandVintage owns in relation to this illustration, it is however unclear. Copyright? The original artwork? An example of the pamphlet that used it for its front cover - an in-house publication for the New York Telephone Company? Regardless, TheArtandVintage, despite repeated requests for clarification, and repeated attempts to explain why CoI issues needed to be resolved, has however insisted on editing content on this (apparently obscure) pamphlet cover into the article, in an entirely undue manner (e.g. a redlinked article title, for an object for which we have a single source - one with which TheArtandVintage appears to have a connection) which is clearly intended to boost its significance. I attempted to rewrite the relevant section in a more neutral manner,[36], explaining the CoI issue once again, and asking that the CoI issue be discussed on the talk page - with actual verifiable independent sourcing, not vague assertions that they were coming. Rather than the desired result, however, TheArtandVintage restored their promotional edit with further waffle about there being no CoI, in spite of their earlier statements to the contrary. [37]

At this point, I would have to suggest that an article-space page block for the Baker article is the minimum action required. TheArtandVintage seems intent on forcing content through, and apparently on dragging in all sorts of diversionary matters (including unverified allegations against more or less anyone who has commented) to do so. Possibly more sweeping sanctions might be seen as appropriate, if the latter is taken into account, but either way, the first priority seems to me to be to stop TheArtandVintage using Wikipedia to abuse a biography of a long-deceased illustrator to boost the current "fair market value" of one of the illustrator's works which they have stated they own. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:37, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

I am willingly offered to delete the drafted article on multiple occasions. We have submitted formal media request. I just submitted the name request that you have asked. TheArtandVintage (talk) 08:49, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

I don't recall seeing any offer to delete the draft, though that wouldn't necessarily be appropriate anyway, for what appears to be a legitimate article subject, minus the boosting of one particular artwork. And what is a 'formal media request'? And why are you insisting on continuing to accuse almost all of those who have commented on this issue of 'harassment' - e.g. the latest nonsense aimed at both DoubleGrazing and I in User talk:TheArtandVintage#Conflict of interest regarding pamphlet artwork created by Ernest Hamlin Baker for the New York Telephone company AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:03, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

I'd missed it earlier, but it should be noted that the Baker article isn't a draft - it has been in article space since 2015. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:19, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

I have reported this to harassment with no reply.

I have willingly offered to delete the drafted article on multiple occasions.

We have submitted a formal media request to press media and business.

I just submitted the name change request you have asked.

I was referring to stewards@Wikipedia.

Which you have never contacted, and therefore would not know his name.

I have reported this in detail to <arbcom-en@wikimedia.org> including the threatening email that I received.

If there is another method to file this report, please alert me as to how to do that.

I have not at any point become verbally abusive, combative, used profanity, trivialized anything, or sexually harassed anyone.

This began as a conversation at the helpdesk about Hot Cat.

I would like to speak to the administrator that answered and offered to assist me in completing this biography and the five museums that have been working on a research archive for four years.

I mentioned the UDA, Universal Declaration on Archives, and USPAP Code of Conduct. I was continued to be accused of “financial stake”.

This is a famous illustrator, with a rich biography, involving museology, American history, and art history,in which all works will be included, which is why the categories became of such importance. WPA, stamps, political cartoons, murals, etc.

That is why I asked for assistance at the help desk. TheArtandVintage (talk) 09:05, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

I have reported this to harassment with no reply.

I have willingly offered to delete the drafted article on multiple occasions.

We have submitted a formal media request to press@wikipedia.org, business@wikipedia.org.

This is a famous illustrator, with a rich biography, involving museology, American history, and art history, in which all works will be included; which is why the categories became of such importance. WPA, stamps, political cartoons, murals, etc.

I just submitted the name change request you have asked.

I was referring to stewards@wikimedia.org

Which you have never contacted, and therefore would not know his name.

I have reported this in detail to <arbcom-en@wikimedia.org> including the threatening email that I received.

If there is another method to file this report, please alert me as to how to do that.

This began as a conversation at the helpdesk about Hot Cat.

I would like to speak to the administrator that answered and offered to assist me in completing this biography and the five museums that have been working on a research archive for four years.@CaptainEek

I mentioned the UDA, Universal Declaration on Archives, and USPAP Code of Conduct. I was continued to be accused of “financial stake”.

I have not at any point become verbally abusive, combative, used profanity, trivialized anything, or sexually harassed anyone. TheArtandVintage (talk) 09:16, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Involving ArbCom would seem premature at least, per their statement that they deal with "serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve", and the community (beyond a few individuals, mostly now being accused of 'harassment') hasn't been involved at all. But whatever, if it goes to ArbCom, I've no concerns, since no evidence has been offered suggesting actual misconduct on my part. And meanwhile, the community (or a single uninvolved admin even) will still have to option to make whatever sanctions seem necessary. Which, given the relentless unverified waffle about 'harassment' (which seems to actually consist almost entirely of attempts to explain policy) at this point should quite possibly involve a block for a few days, while ArbCom decides whether anything is actionable (which I sincerely doubt). I see no reason whatsoever why TheArtandVintage should be permitted to continue to act in this manner, anywhere on Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:18, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

We're all very confused about what it is that you want or are trying to achieve here. For the moment, put aside any harassment concerns and please try to give some concise answers.

• What is your connection to the International Council of Archives and Universal Declaration of Archives which you keep mentioning?
• What is your connection to the New York telephone company pamphlet illustrated by Ernest Hamlin Baker?

Athanelar (talk) 09:26, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Exactly how did you report it to harassment? Doug Weller talk 19:54, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

There is a steward who signs emails as Shaemous. While I don't think it's their real name, I think it's still technically PII, so I can't ping them. But I'll shoot them an email if they'd like to commment. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 09:25, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

That would clearly be helpful. Though I'm not entirely sure how the WMF stewards would have any particular remit as far as this issue is concerned? It is surely still an internal en.wikipedia matter, and wouldn't involve anything that needed their particular expertise or access rights. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:33, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

The editor mentioned they've contacted WMF regarding... something to do with all of this, so maybe Shaemous was the one who replied to that enquiry? Athanelar (talk) 09:36, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Just to say that I reported yesterday a possible threat concern to WMF (Emergency@ and Ca@ ) based on the user's comments on their talk page.

I have tried to get them to change their username. It's possible that they may have interpreted that as harassment, which they have claimed repeatedly, without specifying.

Other than that, I don't think I've anything useful to add here. Each interaction I have on this leaves me even more nonplussed than before.

(Sorry if this comment creates an unhelpful tangent in the discussion.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:47, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

@TheArtandVintage: I've read through the discussions here, and I'd like to try to distill this, because I think there's a lot of people talking past each other here. First, please understand that any emails you send to @wikipedia.org or @wikimedia.org email addresses are, for the most part, unrelated to what we English Wikipedia administrators do. The people who manage those inboxes may be able to give you advice, and in some cases they can take actions as part of a parallel command structure, but they are not part of our decisionmaking process, and most of us can't even see what you send in.

What I'd suggest you do is here is forget about anything you've sent in by email, and stop calling things harassment or defamation, and just speak clearly and concisely about what your concerns are here that administrators are able to resolve. Like "I want X to happen but Y is happening instead". I would like to help, but so far it is not very clear what help you are asking for. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 09:56, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

There are major communications issues here which are going to get in the way of any collaborative editing, and are proving to be disruptive. Not to mention the extremely narrow focus on promoting an obscure document and the odd demands that introducing section headers into an article constitute an emergency. And the inappropriate accusations of harrassment of editors who are attempting to maintain WP policies. I think we need to question whether TheArtandVintage is a net positive for this project. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 11:32, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

The absolute refusal of this editor to bother to learn even the most basic things about how Wikipedia works, combined with the astounding amount of hostility and the extremely confusing orders they bark at other editors, leaves me quite pessimistic that, at this time, there's any chance whatsoever they can contribute to English Wikipedia in any meaningful way. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 13:38, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Indeed, the major issue with TheArtandVintage has always been communication, or rather its failure followed by frustration as they don't get the response they like. For example, Neither 'Hot Cat' nor HotCat appear in the help page thread, despite TheArtandVintage now claiming that this was what they were asking about there. We appear to be accused of failing to read minds, having answered what appeared (after some confusion) to be a question regarding section headers. And see above how TheArtandVintage seems to think that denying accusations that were never made in the first place (e.g. that they had been engaging in sexual harassment, which nobody has ever suggested) is somehow an appropriate response to requests for clarification regarding a conflict of interest they have already declared. On this basis alone, WP:CIR may well apply, even ignoring the unresolved CoI and the evidence-free-accusations of misbehaviour being doled out at random. Participation in a collaborative project requires the ability to communicate, which is clearly lacking to the extent that there seems no realistic hope of this contributor ever being anything more than a time-sink. This almost certainly isn't intentional, but regardless, it makes useful participation essentially impossible. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:21, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

I second what AndyTheGrump writes (14:21, 31 October) immediately above. -- Hoary (talk) 22:38, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm wondering whether some kind of translation failure is happening here - although translation tools are usually pretty good, they struggle with some languages and tone of voice in text can be tricky even when everyone has the same native language. TheArtandVintage could conceivably be getting much more aggressive translated text than would be warranted from the English text. Unfortunately even if this is the case, an inability to communicate for whatever reason is incompatible with editing en-WP. Meadowlark (talk) 11:16, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) That's a very good point, I've once had someone respond unnecessarily aggressively when I suggested it would be difficult for new editors to write neutrally about their own organisation. They even threatened to sue me over it, but things calmed down once it became clear that their translator had made my comments look much harsher than they actually were.

They also keep posting the same/similar text repeatedly on their Talk page, which could be a sign of pre-written translation. Blue Sonnet (talk) 11:37, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

I doubt it is a translation issue, from the details TheArtandVintage has made available. As noted above, their current username is that of their website, and given that they seemed to think it appropriate for people to look at it to confirm details I've done so. It gives details which strongly suggest that we are dealing with a US-based native English speaker. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:06, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

That is clear and well documented patterns of COI editing and also persistent communication issues and refusal to follow policy guidance despite multiple good faith attempts at explanations. So, an article space BLOCK or if not the topic BAN on Ernest Hamlin Baker appears warranted to prevent further disruption. Thilio^{R O B O T🤖 talk} 12:35, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Further direct evidence of CoI, which I'd missed. TheArtandVintage posted "I own the Ernest Hamlin Baker historical documentary from the everybody wiki" on User talk:Matt me back on the 29th. [38]Matt was the original creator of the Baker article. 'Documentary' is almost certainly a typo for 'document', and the 'everybody wiki' article being referred to is clearly labelled as a copy of Draft:Elaina Bensen: New York Telephone Company Pamphlet, created by TheArtandVintage back in early 2013 (I can't link it here, as the website is blacklisted, but search engines find it easily). As I noted earlier, it isn't entirely clear what they own, since it is a pamphlet, but this statement simply isn't compatible with denials like "I was continued to be accused of “financial stake”" above, given that they have explicitly stated that they have exactly that. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:25, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Courtesy not-quite-link: https://en.everybodywiki.com/Elaina_Bensen:_New_York_Telephone_Company_Pamphlet -- Hoary (talk) 05:32, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

• Why do we waste time on people like this? She's obviously here to promote some collector's item she found in grandma's attic and now hopes to sell. EEng 09:07, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

  I agree this is clearly a SPA, especially when you review their deleted draft. Quite frankly I would've applied a WP:NOTHERE block by now if I had seen the account in the wild and would support any admin doing the same. Glen (talk) 08:21, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Account name change. Please note that TheArtandVintage is now ArtApothecary (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), after DoubleGrazing carried out their request. [39] Given the obvious issues we've had with communication, I think somebody needs to at least attempt to explain to them that the remaining issues - CoI, repeated evidence-free accusations of misbehaviour, and the rest - have not been resolved, and that being unblocked does not mean that they can carry on as before. We still need straightforward answers, and a clear commitment not to try to muddy the waters with diversions: not that I'm expecting anything of the sort, given what has happened so far. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:22, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Done, as suggested.

I've not been too harsh since time has passed and things may have calmed down, but if anyone thinks I've missed anything important please feel free to add a post below mine. Blue Sonnet (talk) 11:48, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

HilssaMansen19 and caste glorification

HilssaMansen19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

HilssaMansen19 has been engaging in long term caste promotion for the Kalal caste and its sub-castes such as Ahluwalia.

This editor completely whitewashed the Ahluwalia (caste) article written using scholarly sources to a version that glorified the caste and removed all information about their lower caste origin (Compare the versionsorginal & their preferred version). After getting reverted this editor has resumed the edit warring[40][41][42] and posted an incoherent rant making personal attacks and accusations of lying and hypocrisy against Ekdalian.[43]

That is not all. This editor did similar Kalal caste POV pushing on Gujarat Sultanate by misrepresenting sources to present the rulers as belonging to Kalal caste only[44][45] and edit warred, in spite of the fact that sources cite various theories for their origin. [46][47][48][49]

This editor's conduct in the caste topic area is entirely net negative. Orientls (talk) 13:35, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

_{non-admin comment} I read over the diff on the supposed attacks. I will say that the yelling, (use of caps frequently) was unwarranted. I checked over the article diffs and I didn't see much of a problem, as on Ahluwalia. I know I'm not an admin and that I'm not as experienced, but I do see some problems with the conduct of both users respectively. TheClocksAlwaysTurn (The Clockworks) (contribs) 15:47, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

I am not active on daily basis on Wikipedia and checked these edits today.

First of all, you are the one who should be reported for actually making an expanded article with context a stub. As I have clearly written, I am not active in forums, I simply wished to seek a proper answer from another user Ekdalian.

Gujarat Sultanate was a well attributed part which was not added and Ratnahastin the user who raised the discussion themselves checked the sources and added them later. So you are dragging all the edits here to make it look like you did not vandalize the page.

Initially, my edits (8 months ago) were with with books, census from raj period and news sources, which were reverted with discussions with Abecdare, Utcursch; administrators. I clearly noted my part there and understood their concerns with further additions to be based on only per-policies/guidelines sources.

Next, calling my messages unrelated to you but the topic that were with actually involving an editor who was continuously involved in reverting edits based on Colonial contexts and calling things out of proportion. That editor clearly has bias since they wrote "caste belongs to lower strata" and while reverting additions which were scholarly discussing they are Upper caste now (based on sources pre-my edits as well). There are other sources as well. [50], [51], [52]

On Pattegar, they again used similar wordings where I actually added what was the previous addition before vandalising like edits/heavy changes by other editor which this editor Ekdalian also reverted. I added sources which clearly noted "low caste" wordings in scholarly sources while adding names of the community which were already added before the heavy edits. [53] They then declared some sources as not relevant because they have definitions from colonial times even though modern scholarly sources. Hyprocite wordings, now they think colonial definitions used are not right while using "lower strata" wordings which were Colonial-labelling. Some sources have also noted it that Ahluwalias and Kalals were occupationally fluid but labelled by British colonial ethnographers.

Anyway, I added more sources, then they reverted them again. All this, and no proper discussion but threats to be reported in edit summaries. So if these continuous edits are not proof enough, they continued [links in the ones above editor already provided] support of McKhan user who used AI chatbot TOO LONG messages to continuously harass me by cherry picking words and lines to blow them out of proportion and Ekdalian continuously "supported them."

They may claim they didn't know but current involvement with this (your baseless edits) being an opportunity to actually revert within a few minutes is evident without engaging in discussions.

They used REVERT DESPITE TALK PAGE DISCUSSIONS WITHOUT checking timestamps which are different proving they are lying here and wrongly accusing me not otherwise.

You seemed to have come here post my votes in India-Pakistan 2025 war. Since you have voted after my conversations there. You may say no that you are not doing such here but next you were continuously involved in @Gotitbro user related discussion here who is also active there. This is just to bring it to notice here.

My additions were well discussed and can be checked on talk page discussions with user administrator Utcursch who asked me that since both Kalal and Ahluwalias are "distinct castes now", to add the Kalal history only if it relates to Ahluwalia which I did add.

It was "Kalal POV pushing" titled discussion. The entire page was itself based on Kalals and Colonial labelling of them being close to the outcastes because of being only vinteners. I added data which added actual context since both are distinct in status, Sikh Kalals also being Ahluwalias now but have no history and attribution added here.

The sources continuously mention them as Upper castes, dominant castes irrespective of those which are directly based on Colonial labelling. [added there]

You falsely accused of Kharals being added but the anthropology largest survey of India in recent times (post independence) added Kharrals as Karals which I actually put correctly with source months ago. Later, your edits seem to be based on no discussions and you came here to report without answering discussion related message towards you almost a month ago. [Don't discuss about other users continuous negative involvement edits without discussions but your own where you didn't even respond whether Kharrals or Kharals are the same?]

HilssaMansen19Irien1291S • spreading wiki love ~ Message here; no calls 14:09, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Also, I have exams/work going on and have been inactive here for a while continuously while being active for short times now. I will be thankful to uninvolved editors and administrators to actually check the COLONIAL CHERRYPICK based SOURCES definitions which users like Ekdalian supports on this page but if don't on other and label them as false or not scholarly vs. Origin, Etymology, Social Status all being sourced and at par with other related pages despite any views. Please don't hesitate to check history of edits and the corrections, edits based on advice of editors like AirShip, Abecdare and Utcursch with continuous harassment here by several users since March/April post my work to expand the stub from no relevant context to actual historical and encyclopedic work, NOT JUST TWO LINES OF LABELLING.

HilssaMansen19Irien1291S • spreading wiki love ~ Message here; no calls 14:37, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

HilssaMansen19, your responses here and at Talk:Ahluwalia (caste) are clearly out of order; I nearly issued a short block for civility violations on the spot. Other editors in good standing are entitled to contest your changes, and if they do so, you are expected to go over it with them in discussion rather than simply edit warring your preferred version in. If there is tendentious argumentation, you can report it; you can't just preempt the discussion when WP:ONUS is on you to justify your changes and win consensus for them. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:17, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Rosguill, You are right about that. I should have actually reported them since they continuously asked me to do as well in edit summaries as well. This is very frustrating. I actually wrote about continuous involvements of the editor (one instance with latest conversation only) based on their continuous labelled caste pov accusations and reverts with no discussion. I responded nearly after a month and they came with frustration over their false accusations of me violating talk page while reverting the original revert by Orientls of the page back to stub.

For readers: you can check the edit summary by Ekdalian on Ahluwalia (caste) page mentioned above and time stamps of my first revert edits and talk page discussion. Talk page discussion: [54] edits [55] [56] Please check their accusative attack style of talk-page discussion violation which if even once was checked would have proved it wrong and led to disrupting the discussion within few minutes. [Added to give insight on actual base and issue here] Edit warring in spite of the talk page discussion; violation of WP:BRD and POV pushing/caste promotion without caring about consensus

Their continuous negative portrayal of edits, adding their support and no similar wordings towards a user involved in a month long of discussion which was harassment-like continuous long-word unbalanced messages by other user, AI-labelled now by administrator @Newslinger and accusing me of reverting after talking page discussion was the whole point of the conversation including basis of their reverts. HilssaMansen19Irien1291S • spreading wiki love ~ Message here; no calls 18:47, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

HilssaMansen19, you are again resorting to personal attacks here as well! I edit hundreds of such caste articles on a regular basis! Right from the beginning, your approach has been wrong; that's the reason Abecedare warned you on an article talk page! You haven't learnt from the message/warning and instead engaged in slow edit warring and personal attacks. Let the admins decide whether you should be allowed to edit contentious caste articles. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 18:58, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Kindly don't drag every conversation with attacks. Which policy allows you to personally attack a user just because you are editing hundreds of pages giving you a free pass?

Using wordings like, "You haven't learned anything" or talking about my approach being wrong are the personal attacks even I haven't used. If using words that may read like frustration over your attacks, accusations and portrayls was not personal attacks towards "you" but edits whereas you continuously use words like that "people like you" are doing bad edits so and so. [same conversation with Abecdare where I raised your personal attacks on me going 6-7 months back]

My edits have been with policy based guidelines which I agreed with Abecdare in the same discussion I mentioned thrice already.

You used that discussion below (which I have already mentioned above) which is nothing but diverting and cherrypicking the point without explaining where Abecdare actually diverted [ here] my question over your personal attacks in the discussion. Your reply appears to be paraphrasing of my reply above by making what I already wrote as the base of the issue here. At the end of the discussion, I agreed with Abecdare and have used only NON-WP:RAJ sources since then.

Using the already discussed points is BLUDGEONING and I have added timestamps for which you accused me of violating to justify your reverts from a well context added page to two line labelled origin and history of the community based on Colonial Authors which is against guidelines itself. HilssaMansen19Irien1291S • spreading wiki love ~ Message here; no calls 19:31, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Orientls, I completely agree with you! The user HilssaMansen was warned quite some time back by admin Abecedare in the talk page of a related article; please check this! Abecedare clearly mentioned that the user's "current approach is not productive and is likely to lead to you being sanctioned." Still, the user continued the same kind of POV pushing / caste promotion citing poor sources! HilssaMansen19 has posted DS alert notice on my talk page today in spite of the DS aware (SASG) note at the top of my talk page; they are only engaging in personal attacks on the article talk page instead of focusing on the content! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 18:28, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Responding to the ping. HilssaMansen19, I understand that you were in a content dispute with an editor who posted LLM-generated responses on Talk:Ahluwalia (caste), which must have been a frustrating experience for you. Because you did not appear to realise at the time that the other editor's comments were LLM-generated, I can overlook minor lapses of civility in your replies in that specific discussion, as Wikipedia:Civility § Identifying incivility (WP:IUC) allows us to consider "whether the behaviour has been provoked".

However, now that the LLM misuse has been stopped and you are now interacting with other editors who do not appear to be using LLMs, please remember that the civility policy applies to all of your interactions on Wikipedia, and is enforced even more stringently in contentious topics, including South Asian social groups. Unnecessarily typing words, phrases or sentences in all caps is considered shouting, which is highly discouraged, as it is liable to transform a content dispute into a conduct dispute (like this one). Per Wikipedia:Dispute resolution § Focus on content (WP:FOC), please "Focus on article content during discussions, not on editor conduct", on article talk pages whenever possible. Instead of posting Special:Diff/1319697742, a more civil and constructive way to start the current discussion would have been to propose your disputed edits (ideally in manageable portions that can be discussed individually) along with the reliable sources that support them, without making extensive accusations of bad faith. — Newslinger talk 21:31, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

I've collapsed the discussion at Talk:Ahluwalia (caste) § Continued undiscussed disruption post previous AI-discussion harassment and encouraged HilssaMansen19 to start another talk page discussion that follows my advice above, which includes WP:FOC. — Newslinger talk 21:41, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you Newslinger for your understanding, guiding points and I try to avoid getting into such discussions myself but continuous accusations-labelling makes it hard to not be swayed emotionally. And yes, I will totally avoid getting swayed with emotionally frustratrated replies! Thank you! HilssaMansen19Irien1291S • spreading wiki love ~ Message here; no calls 23:03, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the current matters involving @HilssaMansen19, however I can see there is an issue here which extends back some time. My only interaction with this editor has been through AfC, where I declined Draft:Bagh Singh Hallowalia. Once on 5 August 2025, leading to this interaction. They also reported me to admin @CoconutOctopus for 'without even checking references as a must duty of a reviewer.' and some other things such as being too vague. This was despite the fact I made clear the reason for my decline was because the sources only constituted trivial mentions.

A fortnight later, on 20 August, I declined the draft again (which admittedly I should have left to another reviewer, I know this now), leading to them posting a vandalism warning on my talk page, followed by accusations including 'disruptive editing and false projections'. I contacted admin @OwenX about this, and they then posted a lot of text. They finally stopped after @OwenX warned them for misusing templates and bludgeoning in a previous AfD.

My interactions with @HilssaMansen19 unfortunately left a sour taste in my mouth. I dislike confrontation, so I didn't make a post here about it, as I hoped they would improve. It seems however, that has not come to pass. I wish them well, and I'm sorry for only adding more negativity to this AN/I discussion. 11WB (talk) 21:22, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

@11WB, Firstly per DRN policies and even in general sense, this is diverting the issue here, "which was discussed with administrators"

It was closed after WB who raised it at the talk page of an administrator with similar wordings without explaining but portraying me negatively while I tried to continuously engage with them peacefully asking to reason and worked on the draft article for hours which is there on the history to only get no reason and same inputs.

Template:They now involved and AFD here as well as all they could despite not looking at how their edits and selective wordings harm and provoke the users

Please stop this. With similar wordings which provide no context and negatively impact on both the work and editor. I kept continuously trying to explain and understand the reason from you which you were unable to provide and still kept declining, of course, that was clearly unwarranted and provoking. [57] and tried to reason with your opinions always welcomed but you despite the efforts continued to be involved there even after waiting for an entire discussion to end (mentioned in the conversation, that they will keep checking the another page's deletion nomination and discussion while I should resubmit if I didn't like their decline and think that it should be accepted; post discussion, they in a little time reverted it; instance of unproductive engagement) [58]

That matter was itself sorted with administrator involvement. They asked of the editor to not decline it again despite previous discussions with allowing hopes for a new reviewer next time.

Administrator asked us to stop the discussion there and not acclerate it further which surprisingly they did again and added it may "negatively influence" at the end which would be the whole purpose.

Just adding my points here -

Conversation with @CoconutOctopus from the link shared by @11WB - [59]

I assumed good faith but continued declines which were not productive as explained there as well and were not cool in any way. [60] I myself do not engage in confrontation but continuous declines with no context (bitter as you added here) were not productive.

Anyway, that was your input here which is welcome but diverts it to another issue which is falsely represented here but I am not going argue here on that to divert it further.

Are these good faith engagements or trying to wear down the conversation by adding continuous one-sided irrelevant here but without context points. Each word was actually per their involvement edits but this addition here is to influence in negative capacity and push the discussion towards the bad influence on the user here myself.

@Newslinger can you please check these messages as this is against the guiding points which you shared yesterday. Whether this negative influence of "negative portryals without context" is right or wrong is not upto me but it is not a consensus or civil base approach of involvement by bringing "points where they were frustratingly declining without explaining questions, continuously involved themselves"? HilssaMansen19Irien1291S • spreading wiki love ~ Message here; no calls 22:20, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

@HilssaMansen19, unfortunately the way that you have interacted with other editors predates our interaction, as is evidenced here: Talk:Ahluwalia (caste). This was linked above. I have previously had two not so pleasant interactions with you, where you displayed similar behaviour with what is being presented in this AN/I. I am allowed to share this here, whether or not this is something you feel is relevant. I'm sorry you dislike that this discussion is taking place here, however it would really benefit you to take on board what is being said and try to interact with your fellow editors in a more respectful manner. 11WB (talk) 22:26, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

With non-context conversations added above, I would summarise it as well with diffs following Newslinger's advice above. Also, noting that the continuous personal attack/accusations have negative impact on mental health of editor and not being able to argue continuously to present facts, I was taking a break after that long AI related month long harassment. I kept checking and reading pages with fewer edits only:

I would like to bring the relevant summary here without getting emotionally swayed in long wordings. Editors forget that their "continuous" edits, portrayls mentally affect editors as it has been for me.

• The current page is based upon colonial definitions (also added in the page directly, against Wikipedia/Arbitration Committee's guidelines) and was last even refined/ accepted in refined form more than a decade back. They are the sole basis of pre-policies entry here which itself presents no relevant non-colonial labelling details.
• About editor who accused and re-reverted the entire page back to stub based on "lie about violation of ongoing talk page discussion":

I have added that user Ekdalian who reverted edits (calling modern sources as using WP:RAJ work and deciding them as "not scholarly or used", wordings may differ, I will add diffs but on Ahluwalia page they continue to get involved wherever users were actually idk if harassing/provoking is the right word to add colonial definitions which are per diffs but may not be the central issue)

• It all started with Orientls without even discussing on talk page reverting expanded article back to stub based on one word which they wrote (different from the one added (sourced)) [61]
• They failed to do so and reported it here rather than discussing it.
• Ekdalian jumped within a few minutes/short time without checking or letting discussion even continue to revert it back to stub with further reverts, post really tiring Chatbot message-discussion involvement which I was not aware of and tried to engage again and again and again but nothing changed in productive way but more accusing style wordings! [62] [63]: A simple check could have been helpful but editor again used accusation in edit summaries of talk page discussion violation pov edits without checking the timestamps. They did not check it, acknowledge it or self-revert it for a month either but casually accused the revert being of talk page violations despite discussion started and hour later approx and not even letting it continue [64]
• The reason I added that discussion now closed by @Newslinger
• I did not engage in any "accusative" conversations atleast not on my side with them here or at Pattegar page before that.

On the page, pre-my expansion from the stub-like entry:

• There was no context or topic related detailed attribution here but a stub like entry with one line of origin.
• Since it was added almost a decade or more back and have remained so for most parts, it could be just not proper addition engagements.
• Sources which were added also cited same colonial ethnographers like Rose, Ibbetson as cited by those on Pattegar [65] [66], which is quite leaning towards double standards in general sense. If use of sources based on their work is wrong on page, how can it be okay on other? Anyway, I did add other modern sources, yet editors asks to take it to resolution/noticeboard without engaging in discussions as they will continue to revert it and if I do that, it will be reported
• They said that they use such wordings as they revert many edits a day, but how does that give anyone right to accuse wrongly and reverting obviously at par with other related pages work on articles of months.
• If there is any line not sourced, sources can be added, talk page is there but is not their approach at all unless it was to either revert or in AI-related discussion encouraging chat-bot using editor to edit since they have more knowledge based on their messages (AI/LLM/Chat-bot related).
• "People like you" disrupting Wikipedia in so and so related wordings which I quoted was the users attacks in 7-8 months back conversation added above. (I have mentioned that thrice already, since Ekdalian quoted one message which an admin was trying to settle the conversation "after their attacks" provoking, overlooking understanding of administrator and my conversation in their message below)
• I wrote that long message on talk page given these prior continuous involvements and unproductive engagements
• I am adding these points in clear manner to avoid the continuous additions of them here as diverting messages were added which influence the base of the discussion negatively elsewhere.
• Since I was not aware of how to do DRN/or had practice or prior experience in such, I avoided having negative conversations with them and worked to make edits more better to avoid such conversations further. I would like to clarify use of caps as well which I do as I can't use mac here because it says not allowed. Visual editor here keeps showing errors after several messages or using on Wikitexts {{}} <> etc, which I also note in edit summaries. I didn't know how to get laptop's IP unblocked. I use caps to highlight the important parts but not to yell. Previously, I tried using Wikitext but half my message was not added and it kept going in bits back (even in this). Thus, I used caps there to highlight. As it was very affecting and emotionally frustrating as well, I put it off after no proper engagement but the discussion was raised here.
• Request: Avoiding editing accusations by other editors, I hope for closing this noticeboard as the user themselves did not engage in discussion on query raised. In their defense, it was disrupted by reverts of Ekdalian but I still wish to continue the discussion properly rather than such accusative arguments.
  • Also, seeking "glory" or "degradation" of any page or group is not the goal of my work but expanding with proper contexts to be added and all sides added at par with guidelines and other long-standing proper articles.
  • The important part other than continuously justifying in summary points here, please check diffs, if there is any unsourced additions or additional verification, use of talk page discussion rather than reverts should be encouraged. I have bookmarked hundreds of sources and will find wherever required and add them.
  • I have exams and work going on but I will actually like to work on adding more scholarly sources to avoid, "colonial label portrayls here" and add them wherever needed to actually add more sources for others to read and verify with as well.
  • I have always started with positive engagements and working on issues if presented right which will make it bludgeon for new comments below as already replied and won't argue on such points. It is tiring but I am sorry for the long message here in summary style.

Thanks to the administrators. HilssaMansen19Irien1291S • spreading wiki love ~ Message here; no calls 23:32, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

I didn't notice the timestamps above, I realise my reply came in late. I thought the discussion was still open as it wasn't formally closed yet. I believe the evidence I provided above demonstrates a longer-term communication issue alongside the other links and diffs from other editors here, however it may not be considered severe in this AN/I. If this AN/I was already concluded yesterday, should it be closed by an admin? Thanks. 11WB (talk) 00:02, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Responding to the pings again. HilssaMansen19, 11WB is permitted to mention previous incidents here, and you are likewise permitted to respond. After reviewing the details, I do believe that 11WB's declines of Draft:Bagh Singh Hallowalia, while disappointing for you, were in good faith. 11WB took the time to state that your draft was not LLM-generated (refuting another editor's decline) and also provided constructive criticism, advice and encouragement, so I can't see it any other way. As such, 11WB's declines cannot be considered "provoking" in the context of WP:IUC.

In light of this, I recommend also reading and following the advice in Wikipedia:No personal attacks § Avoiding personal attacks for your future edits. When you find yourself in a conduct dispute, it is more civil to explain why an editor's action does not comply with a policy or guideline, than to personalise the dispute by making a remark about the editor's perceived intent or motivation. Also, your comments tend to be on the longer side, which increases the likelihood that they are perceived as bludgeoning, so I recommend condensing them to a shorter length by removing extraneous portions (that do not significantly contribute to your argument) before posting.

To everyone involved in this discussion, in the future, please consider using the arbitration enforcement noticeboard (WP:AE) for conduct disputes in a contentious topic (such as South Asia) when possible, as AE provides a more efficient format for presenting and reviewing diffs of extended interactions. — Newslinger talk 20:15, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Newslinger, You are right and I added, they are welcome to respond in previous message. I will stay more on topic here and not argue with them as I added, as it was already resolved at administrators notice on their talk page, concluded with no further engagement in this by administrator. Bringing it here does divert/influence it from the issue of article edits here started after points raised above as it will lead to more diversion if I continue to add replies meaning more BLUDGEONING as advised to be not done by administrator who closed the issue as well. This is just a reply here, I am not adding diffs as they are added above already.

I am hoping for the admins to check the core issue which started with "wrong accusation in reverts" while I agree with being more to the point on editors edits and not on them even if provocation is there or not.

I will read the links you sent and check the related pages as well. Thank you. HilssaMansen19Irien1291S • spreading wiki love ~ Message here; no calls 20:39, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

User:AnemoiZZ

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

User thinks they can chose which articles editors can and can't edit, user is also rude and after I tried to talk with them about an issue.

See the deleted talk page discussion on their talk page.Maurice Oly (talk) 16:51, 31 October 2025 (UTC) 15:51, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

@AnemoiZZ Your lack of civility here was obviously not good. I see you apologised for it indirectly, but maybe you'd like to take the opportunity to apologise directly to the offended party.

@Maurice Oly You aren't exactly innocent either, you admitted to your 'anger getting the better of you' in private messages with this person. Whatever it is that you said, maybe you should also apologise for that.

I don't think there's any ANI-actionable things here, just two hotheads who couldn't de-escalate properly. Shake hands and make up and I think the admins will be happy. (Non-administrator comment) Athanelar (talk) 17:54, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Ok, I apologise for the edit slight edit waring and for not checking the talk page on Duke of York before reverting the edits made by @AnemoiZZ.

I never said anything rude to AnemoiZZ, it was just the slight edit waring. Maurice Oly (talk) 18:02, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

FYI: @AnemoiZZ has continued to edit after being pinged here for the opportunity to apologise to @Maurice Oly, and I would personally encourage the admins to take that as continued incivility on their part. (Non-administrator comment) Athanelar (talk) 20:43, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

FWIW - anybody can edit or post at Duke of York & talkpage - monarchist or republican. FWIW, I'm a republican ;) GoodDay (talk) 20:06, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for this, I did explain that but the user would not have any of it. Maurice Oly (talk) 20:37, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Vmzp85

Vmzp85 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been at ANI at least three times already - Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive930#User:Vmzp85, WP:UNBROKEN and WP:CIVIL, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1201#Vmzp85 - persistent addition of unsourced/poorly sourced content, edit warring and refusal to discuss and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1143#Vmzp85. Since the most recent discussion, they’ve taken to systematically blanking every warning left on their talk page. While this is of course permitted, it’s also seen as them having read and understood those warnings. However, they are persistently removing sourced from articles without good reason, and refusing to discuss this. They’re also adding poorly sourced and unsourced content, which was the reason for their prior block. What can be done to get this editor to discuss other editors’ concerns about their editing?

Diffs: [67][68][69][70][71] Danners430 _{tweaks made} 16:25, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

And of course par for the course, the ANI notice instantly removed from their talk page. Again of course perfectly valid, but they know this discussion exists. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 16:29, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

They’re now edit warring at Saltillo Airport, despite being told the source they’re using is deprecated - WP:AEROROUTES Danners430 _{tweaks made} 16:33, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Now rather going against WP:CIVIL with a response on their talk page… [72]. Accept I was frustrated when writing my initial post, but this is the second note I left them about this topic and they obviously ignored it. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 20:28, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Yet more… warned the user a number of times about this, but they’re still removing citations from articles without reason, leaving the content unsourced. [73] @Vmzp85 could you please address these concerns?

As an additional twist, I just discovered a dormant second account at User:Vmzp86... edit history shows identical interests, so possibly a dormant sock?Danners430 _{tweaks made} 08:43, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) it looks like they haven't used an article Talk page since 2016, which is unexpected since there are apparently disputes over content.

Last time (one month ago), their response to the concerns raised was "Nothing to say" and they were subsequently blocked by Cullen328. Blue Sonnet (talk) 12:05, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

They did use to use their user talk page, but since the last two ANIs notices have just been summarily deleted, aside from the rather rude response I got linked above. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 12:07, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Is someone able to have a look at this? Danners430 _{tweaks made} 19:54, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

I think Vmzp85 should be blocked from editing in article space. shane (talk to me if you want!) 20:33, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

I have blocked Vmzp85 for three months for disruptive editing such as removing sourced content, adding unsourced or poorly sourced content and refusing to discuss issues with other editors. Cullen328 (talk) 19:35, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

User:Cinaroot reverts on Israel lead section against consensus

Cinaroot (talk · contribs) keeps changing a sentence in the Israel lead to state in WP:WIKIVOICE that Israel is committing genocide ([74], [75], [76]), despite previous RFCs (1, 2) and talk page consensus that such claims should only be attributed. The user cites an RFC from a different article to justify this. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 20:04, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

With due respect, this feels like a content dispute on the usage of Wikivoice, and I recommend getting more people to determine what language to use for the content. That being said, Cinaroot hasn't technically done 3RR yet and you haven't made the attempt at discussing it once more. Conyo14 (talk) 21:42, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

It looks like there was a discussion, late September, between Cinnaroot, Triggerhippie4, and several other users. There does not appear to be a consensus from that discussion. Personally, I'd find it a little eyebrow raising when someone participates in a discussion on a controversial change acknowledging that they *could* start a new RFC on it, but then doesn't do so and when the talk page discussion results in no consensus, makes their preferred changes anyway after a couple weeks when hopefully everyone's forgotten about it. I'll also note that the RFC at Talk:Gaza genocide was specific to the that article -- the question was formulated in explicit reference to the first sentence Should the WP:first sentence of the article have the title in bold as the sentence subject, such as The Gaza genocide is... or should it have an 'X says Y' format, such as...; respondents to that RFC were not asked to address, nor were they addressing, the broader usage of that term project wide. A local consensus in one place at one time, does not overrule a separate local consensus at another place and another time, nor a lack of a general project-wide consensus. Cinnaroot should start a broader RFC if they want to change consensus more broadly; or start one locally if they want to get it specifically for this particular article. Regardless, there's no administrator action to be taken here. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 22:46, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. After making our arguments - and there is no reply from involved editors - a silent consensus was assumed. WP:SILENCE i understand it is a weak consensus. But i think - me and another editor have made strong arguments - but if other editors disagree - they should speak out.

Consensus on Gaza genocide is recent and site-wide - it is explained in Gaza genocide FAQ

The term "Gaza Genocide" is supported by a sufficient number of reliable sources. It is the consensus, not an opinion, that it is a genocide (see discussion). Cinaroot (talk) 03:26, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

If I could bet on the future outcome of a hypothetical RFC on the Israel article, I'd put solid money on it adopting the same or similar language as the Gaza genocide article, sure. But process-wise, if y'all want that to happen someone needs to actually *do* that. It might be a non-issue in any other topic, but this one is basically the mother of all CTOPs, so dotting the I's and crossing the T's here is important regardless of the position on the merits one has. For one thing, doing so might have avoided <waves hand> all of this. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 03:59, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

(Might well have been the first CTOP, come to that.) Ravenswing 06:12, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

If i want a site wide consensus - where should i open the rfc. On Israel talk page or Village Pump or somewhere else ? Cinaroot (talk) 08:25, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

I have already raised this on the talk page, but the user continues to make the change. They cite an RFC from a different article and argue that consensus can change, although no new consensus has been reached in the past month. Triggerhippie4 (talk) 22:49, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

This is lie. They have never engaged me on my talk page - until now to post this notice about admin discussion Cinaroot (talk) 03:17, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

They didn't say they engaged on YOUR talk page. They say that they did on THE talk page. I presume that's the article talk page, and lo and behold, it's indeed been discussed. You want to pull back on that assertion? Ravenswing 03:53, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

my bad. thanks Cinaroot (talk) 04:03, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

This seems like long term edit warring that would belong as a report on WP:AE.

regardless, cinaroot should stop.

agree consensus for gaza genocide was for that specific rfc. If they want to do a broader rfc impacting multiple articles or to do one for the israel arricle they are free to. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 22:57, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

A talk discussion about it happened here Talk:Israel#WP:voice_-_Gaza_genocide-_lede

After 26 days - another user @Rafi Chazon made a revert to original - without getting involved in the talk page - which i reverted asking them to engage in talk.

Another use @DecrepitlyOnward also agree with me about the issue on talk.

Please not that @Triggerhippie4 edit warred with another editor here about the issue. [77]

@Triggerhippie4 has gone silent about the issue on talk. Because of silence from other editors - consensus was assumed.

I have followed all rules. This is a content dispute - not something that needs administrative interference.

@Triggerhippie4 Please use your words on talk page - instead of taking things to admin noticeboard. Cinaroot (talk) 03:13, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

I agree with Bluethricecreamman that perhaps a broader discussion at a project page (or even Village Pump since it's so controversial) should be had. However, I still don't think administrator intervention was necessary here. Conyo14 (talk) 06:19, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

I will open an rfc. But it makes no sense to me - that in Gaza genocide article we can use genocide as wiki-voice - but in Israel we cannot. Infact - in many other articles - we are using gaza genocide as wiki-voice. Cinaroot (talk) 06:25, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Broader RfC-like things with multi-article consequences have worked in PIA in the past, sort of... Standardizing language related to the status of Jerusalem and the legal status of Israeli settlements in Palestine spring to mind. Of course, such a RfC and all participants would be relentlessly targeted off-site by...let's call them pro-Hamas antisemitic Jihadists and pro-genocide/radicalized Israel supporters, using the nuanced language preferred in off-wiki discussions about the topic area. Sean.hoyland (talk) 07:13, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Bruhchamp21

Bruhchamp21 (talk · contribs) has had engaged on multiple edit wars with multiple editors in multiple pages for months. I'm reporting this as I'm uninvolved but I've seen these same pages over and over again for several months and no discussions are taking place, and frankly this is getting ridiculous. For example, Rafael Márquez is still full protected because of this, and the history of that page shows how absurd this has gotten. Guillermo Ochoa, Cuauhtémoc Blanco, and Hugo Sánchez were full protected for the same reason, and Bruhchamp21 basically waited until their protections expired to resume the edit wars. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 00:52, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Can this be responded to? 212.70.110.16 (talk) 13:10, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Unexplained blanking of encyclopedic content on the article "Ready '24" by two experienced users

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

---

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

---

I believe that the editors Binksternet (talk · contribs) and TheAmazingPeanuts (talk · contribs) knowingly flout the Wikipedia policy WP:NOBLANK. This took place 30 October; I waited for the incident to fully cool down before making this report.

It was recently reported in several reputable outlets for music news (e.g. Rolling Stone, Billboard) that rapper Cam'ron is suing fellow rapper J. Cole and record label UMG over their April 2024 collaboration "Ready '24"; Cam'ron alleges unpaid royalties and violation of contractual obligations. I wrote a short Legal action section for the article sourced with a Billboard article, and while I was at it, added a Personnel section sourced with Tidal, and as well as "June 2022 (Cam'ron's vocals)" to the Recorded parameter of the song's infobox, as this was one of the details in the lawsuit and Billboard article. The following series of events happened:

[78] Binksternet blanks everything I did, no edit summary

[79] I restore the edits

[80] Binksternet blanks again, cites "no original research" in edit summary

[81] I start a talk page discussion in which I tag Binksternet and ask why he's citing "no original research" (although I mistakenly say "neutral point of view")

[82] Binksternet responds on the talk page - claims that he blanked everything because "June 2022 (Cam'ron's vocals)" wasn't followed by a citation in the infobox; he says this made him "lose trust" in my editing and decide to blank the rest immediately

[83] My response on Ready '24 talk page

[84] Binksternet response on Ready '24 talk page

[85] My response on Ready '24 talk page

[86] Editing my response on Ready '24 talk page

[87] I restore everything on the Ready '24 article except the infobox parameter being contested, because again, Binksternet said he was only contesting the infobox parameter and that he blanked everything else only because it was written by me

[88] I place a warning on Binksternet's talk page with the following custom text: "Removing multiple entire sourced and informative sections from an article because they were written by the same editor who wrote a mistake in the article's infobox is not okay, doubly so when there was actually no mistake and you misunderstood what you were seeing."

[89] TheAmazingPeanuts blanks everything I did on the Ready '24 article, says to "take it to the talk page and stop edit warring"

[90] I restore the edits

[91] I place a warning on TheAmazingPeanuts' talk page with the following custom text: "Please don't remove multiple sourced and informative sections of an article without giving a reason"

[92] TheAmazingPeanuts removes the warning

[93] TheAmazingPeanuts blanks the article again, says "Take it to the talk page"

[94] I place another warning on TheAmazingPeanuts' talk page with the following custom text: "If you read the talk page you're referring to, you will see that the content you are removing is not being contested. The only thing that is being contested is a single infobox parameter. The other editor admitted in plain English that they didn't even read any of the other content they removed, and only removed all of it because they didn't like the infobox parameter. In other words, that editor has no issue with the content you are now removing."

I only intend for this post to be about unjustified removal of encyclopedic content, but I must unfortunately pre-emptively warn that TheAmazingPeanuts will claim that I have used "multiple accounts" to edit war. This is a false accusation they have made against me on an admin's talk page (the admin's response was basically "I dunno what you want me to do - the IP editor is using the talk page") and on a request for semi-protection of Ready '24 (which was eventually declined). If you ask TheAmazingPeanuts for examples, you will see that all of their examples are IP edits. I find it deeply concerning that TheAmazingPeanuts, who has had an account since 2014, doesn't know the difference between IP addresses and accounts (and furthermore, that they think the only reason a person's IP address can change on the internet is because they deliberately made it change). I worry that this may negatively inform how they interact with and judge edits by IP editors. 2A00:23C8:F11A:7801:9506:48A6:C8B6:A408 (talk) 10:39, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

You have a content dispute, not vandalism. Disagreement over what to include isn't vandalism. Also, you were edit-warring. In general, legal assertions are just that, and must be examined carefully to see if there is any basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia article until they're adjudicated. Having a source, or asserting a source, does not guarantee that other editors will agree that something should be included. Since this involves living persons, the biographies of living persons policy is in play. Since your edits have been contested, coming back a few hours later, after edit-warring, and inserting something over the objections of other editors is problematic. I recommend that you self-revert, resolve this on the talkpage, or take it to WP:DR. Your vandalism warnings were inappropriate - blanking or reverting disputed content is not vandalism. Acroterion (talk) 13:42, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

blanking or reverting disputed content is not vandalism

I agree. The content being blanked wasn't disputed - especially not the song credits 2A00:23C8:F11A:7801:E95C:2CE7:6036:F1B6 (talk) 13:50, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

It clearly was disputed. Go resolve your dispute, stop edit-warring (which you are still doing even if you wait 24 hours) and stop sending vandalism warnings to editors who disagree with you. Acroterion (talk) 13:54, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

The only disputed content has not been added back into the article 2A00:23C8:F11A:7801:E95C:2CE7:6036:F1B6 (talk) 13:56, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

That isn't what you did, you restored the legal dispute, which is clearly being disputed on the talkpage. ANI is not a venue to argue your dispute over content. Take it to the talkpage, and wait for consensus, or take it to DR if that fails. Acroterion (talk) 14:05, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

That isn't what you did, you restored the legal dispute, which is clearly being disputed on the talkpage.

There is no dispute over the Legal action section on the talk page. The only dispute on the talk page was me adding a piece of peripheral information that was included in the legal filing - that Cam'ron's vocals were recorded in June 2022 - to the Recorded parameter of the infobox. Since the start of the talk page discussion, I have not added that parameter back into the infobox. 2A00:23C8:F11A:7801:E95C:2CE7:6036:F1B6 (talk) 14:09, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Clearly there is a dispute over the legal section on that talkpage, you are focusing too much on your particular edits, which caused other editors to look at the article as a whole and edit it, and which you keep reverting. This is not an issue for ANI. Acroterion (talk) 14:17, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Clearly there is a dispute over the legal section on that talkpage

No, there isn't. The discussion consists of five comments - three by me, two by Binksternet - and all five of them are about the Recorded parameter in the infobox. Are you, by any chance, reading Binksternet's "Legal claims filed by one side don't mean squat. The important thing is the outcome." remark and thinking that that means the dispute is about the Legal action section? 2A00:23C8:F11A:7801:E95C:2CE7:6036:F1B6 (talk) 14:21, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

This is a content dispute, so don't expect admins to assist you. M.Bitton (talk) 14:52, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

My report isn't related to the disputed content, which hasn't been added back into the article 2A00:23C8:F11A:7801:E95C:2CE7:6036:F1B6 (talk) 14:56, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

In that case, one could easily argue that this report is about you ignoring WP:ONUS and edit warring. M.Bitton (talk) 15:04, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

WP:ONUS says "The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." I haven't added back the disputed content since I started the talk page discussion 2A00:23C8:F11A:7801:E95C:2CE7:6036:F1B6 (talk) 15:06, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

You ignored the 3R warning that was issued by an admin and continued to edit war. M.Bitton (talk) 15:13, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

You're linking to a second revert, not a third, and reverting vandalism isn't edit warring. 2A00:23C8:F11A:7801:E95C:2CE7:6036:F1B6 (talk) 15:16, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

The article's history speaks for itself, and so does the fact that you continued to edit war after being warned. M.Bitton (talk) 15:19, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

The article's history shows two users blanking significant encyclopedic content without explanation and me fixing the vandalism. 2A00:23C8:F11A:7801:E95C:2CE7:6036:F1B6 (talk) 15:21, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

And your arguments here show you refusing to listen to criticism and doubling-down on the "disagreeing with me is vandalism" argument. You're not helping your case a whit. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 15:24, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

I am extremely open to someone giving an example of disputed content that I put back into the article after opening the talk page discussion. 2A00:23C8:F11A:7801:E95C:2CE7:6036:F1B6 (talk) 15:26, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Have it your way and expect a WP:BOOMERANG. M.Bitton (talk) 15:24, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

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

Since this has been closed, I've deleted the comment I was writing. Nevertheless, I do have to say this: I do not believe the IP has been treated in good faith in this dispute and it is not purely a content dispute as is being characterized here. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:09, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

It would have been ideal if Binksternet had been clearer in the initial edit summary, but there was a discussion almost immediately after the revert, and within a few hours, the IP editor would have no basis to be treating things as "blatant vandalism." By the time it reached ANI, it was clearly a content dispute and using "blatant vandalism" at that point was nothing but a cudgel with which to win a content dispute. Stopping vandalism is triage, not a pretext to win an edit war. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 16:43, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

You haven't introduced any arguments that Mr rnddude hasn't already read in the above discussion. You've just repeated the exact same rhetoric in what seems to be an aggressive ("clearly a content dispute") attempt to shame Mr rnddude for dissent. 2A00:23C8:F11A:7801:E95C:2CE7:6036:F1B6 (talk) 17:28, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

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

Ragnarvrollo

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

---

Ragnarvrollo (talk · contribs) keeps engaging in an edit war at Rapid Support Forces (RSF) where they're against the RSF being "anti-Islamist". Four WP:RS sources are cited stating that the RSF is anti-Islamist, but Ragnarvrollo keeps removing "anti-Islamist" for unconfirmed reasons and refuse to engage at Talk:Rapid Support Forces#Secular and anti-Islamism allegations. If they refuse to comply again, I think they should be banned from editing on this topic and related articles. Wazir Pakhteen (talk) 19:32, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. I have done it for you.

This is a content dispute. The only thing worth noting is that it concerns edits to the Infobox (a contentious topic). Looking at the article's history (especially the edit war), my advice to you would be to retract this report and to continue discussing the issue on the talk page. M.Bitton (talk) 20:10, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

 Note: the OP tried to retract the report (by deleting it). Please feel free to close it. M.Bitton (talk) 20:40, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

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

Misuse of bot, threats, and draft move – request for review

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

---

I’m reaching out to report a serious case of misconduct concerning the article Muhammad Usman Malik.

I am the second writer of the article. It was originally published in mainspace but was later moved to Draft:Muhammad Usman Malik by the original creator, who used a bot to carry out the move.

This action took place after he began demanding additional payment beyond our agreed amount. When I refused, he threatened me and then used the bot to move the article back to draft — without any valid reason, prior discussion, or review.

This raises several serious concerns: 1. Misuse of a bot for personal retaliation, which is a violation of Wikipedia’s automation and conduct policies. 2. Blackmail and intimidation, which directly breach the platform’s standards on harassment and paid editing (WP:OUTING, WP:HARASS, WP:PAY).

The article itself remains neutral, meets Wikipedia’s notability and sourcing criteria, and includes multiple independent, reliable citations (The Express Tribune, ARY News, The News, etc.).

I have already placed a

• request to have it restored to mainspace. However, given the seriousness of these actions, I respectfully request:

• An immediate administrative review of the bot’s misuse and the editor’s conduct, and • Guidance on whether this should be escalated directly to WP:ANI or another enforcement venue.

This situation has created unnecessary distress and undermines the integrity of the editing process. I’d be sincerely grateful for your help in addressing it fairly and transparently.

Thank you for your time and attention — Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.81.230.187 (talk) 21:07, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Are we meant to guess the article and the editor that you're referring to? M.Bitton (talk) 21:12, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

The OP did mention the article name, Muhammad Usman Malik, but did not link to it. It's now at Draft:Muhammad Usman Malik. It was moved to draft by WhoCaresWhom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), an account with 26 edits, almost all of which are on this article or their user page. The move rationale was "needs more sources" which is rather ridiculous as this very short 7-sentence stub has 34 sources. I have not evaluated the quality of the sources. The OP did not notify WhoCaresWhom of this report but 45dogs has done so. CodeTalker (talk) 21:24, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

OP got blocked on sockpuppetry grounds Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Muhammadusmann. Nakonana (talk) 21:27, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

If I am reading the original and revised report right, it would seem WhoCaresWhom is an undisclosed paid editor. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 21:31, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

And a potential sock with “16 years of experience” on Wikipedia. Nakonana (talk) 21:32, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for finding this 45dogs, I didn't notice it myself at first. I've blocked a quantity of accounts as part of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Unclethepoter. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 22:05, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Huh. I'd be less about "needs more sources" than "needs more content." For purported paid work, this is a mediocre job. For what it's worth, policing paid editing in Better Business Bureau terms being not remotely our remit. Ravenswing 21:40, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

revised text

Hello administrators,

I am reporting a serious case of misconduct related to the article Muhammad Usman Malik.

I am the second writer of the article. It was originally published in mainspace but was later moved to Draft:Muhammad Usman Malik by the original creator, who used a bot to perform the move.

This move occurred without discussion, consensus, or a valid stated reason, and followed a series of demands for additional payment from that editor. When I refused, he began threatening and intimidating me, repeatedly citing his “16 years of experience” on Wikipedia as leverage to pressure and blackmail me. Shortly after, he used his bot account to move the article back to draft space.

‘’‘Key concerns’’’ • Misuse of a bot for personal retaliation: The editor appears to have used a bot to perform a page move motivated by a personal dispute rather than any policy-based reasoning, which may constitute a violation of bot policy and accountability standards. • Blackmail and intimidation: The editor engaged in coercive behavior by demanding additional payment and invoking his long-term experience to exert pressure. This violates harassment policy, paid editing guidelines, and outing and privacy rules. • Damage to content integrity: The article meets general notability guidelines and is supported by multiple reliable sources (The Express Tribune, ARY News, The News). The move appears retaliatory rather than editorially justified.

‘’‘Actions taken’’’ • I have already submitted a

• request to restore the article to mainspace.

• I now request an administrative review of both the bot’s use/move logs and the editor’s conduct in this case.

‘’‘Requested outcome’’’

I respectfully request: • An immediate administrative investigation into the misuse of the bot and the user’s conduct. • Clarification on whether this should be further escalated to Conflict of Interest Noticeboard or remain under ANI. • Review or temporary restriction of the involved user’s bot privileges, pending evaluation.

This incident has undermined fair editing practices and caused undue distress. I appreciate your time and attention to ensure that this matter is reviewed transparently and in line with Wikipedia’s conduct and automation policies.

Thank

For the record, the article and draft in question have a history of repeated creation by UPE socks, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Muhammadusmann/Archive and the logs for Draft:Muhammad Usman Malik and for Muhammad Usman Malik. --bonadea contributions talk 21:51, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Tagged the draft for WP:G5 since (as I understand it) both the UPE and their client are WP:3X banned. I'll leave any requests to salt to those more experienced in these matters. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 23:17, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

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

Legal threat at Morocco

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

---

Refer to the link. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 21:44, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

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

Legal threats by COI user

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

---

See here for the legal threat by user OhioGovernorPBF. I can't put this any more simply to report an apparent legal threat from an obvious conflict of interest. Jalen Barks (Woof) 22:05, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

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

User:Alubit reported by User:Mvcg66b3r

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

Disruptive editing; overlinking; weird redirects (Always Fun, iHeartTelevision). Mvcg66b3r (talk) 00:17, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

As noted in the big banner when you report someone, you need to supply diffs for the disruptive editing and overlinking — rsjaffe 🗣️ 01:47, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

@Mvcg66b3r you should know to provide diffs as youhave been reporting people to here multiple times before already 212.70.110.16 (talk) 10:42, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

See contribs Mvcg66b3r (talk) 11:22, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

I think you should specify what thing in their contribs, not everyone has the time to check it. I checked and this seems like biting a newbie as no one has attempted a discussion on their talkpage. Maybe give us what of the contribs contain these issues?

Quoting from the big banner above: Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem212.70.110.16 (talk) 11:31, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

I looked at most of their last 30 contribs and I honestly don't see what you are complaining about. There is a bunch of fiddling with TV station names in articles and in redirects, and adding and replacing logos, and one instance of overlinking "United States". Perhaps the station name edits are incorrect, but not having expertise in the subject, that's not clear to me. You really need to provide diffs that show the disruption. CodeTalker (talk) 17:27, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Openly racist editor Shadowfax33

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

---

Shadowfax33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

This user identifies as a Groyper, which is a group of white supremacists. [95]

[96] Further, they are editing the neutral term "alt right nationalism" to the racist dog whistle "Race realism". Hate is disruptive, so I didn't bother taking it to their user page. All meat is theft (talk) 04:07, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Honestly I think they deserve a block. I am sorry but Race realism 95% of the time is a sign someone is racist. CycoMa2 (talk) 04:21, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Nick Fuentes believes in Race realism. I provided sources from ADL, Atlantic, direct quotes from his Rumble channel and interviews with him on YouTube. To clarify, I m not racist. I know that might sound contradictory to some of you, considering that I identify as a Groyper; however, to be a Groyper does not mean to support Nick Fuentes 100% on everything. Also, please do not use identity politics to dismiss everything I say here. I have been on Wikipedia for more than a year, with many edits and articles. My objective is not to be a troll. You can again visit my user page to see it as a reference point.

Shadowfax33 (talk) 06:58, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

So you identify with the political movement centered on a man who's entire brand is antisemitism and racism, but you very coincidentally don't agree with those parts. What's left, then? Parabolist (talk) 11:06, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Based on Fuentes' expressed views it could be hatred of women, belief in fascist politics, anti-LGBTQ+, religious supremacism. Shadowfax33 may also disavow these other key parts of Fuentes' politics. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 20:37, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

It should be noted that 'Groypers' are famous for disingenous trolling, and claiming 'I call myself a Groyper but don't believe any of the Groyper stuff' is exactly the sort of well-poisoning that Groypers do in order to pollute discourse around the alt-right. Athanelar (talk) 20:39, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Just noting for observers, the ANI notice was placed at User talk:Shadowfax33/Identity rather than User talk:Shadowfax33. While I'm sure they'll see it all the same, it may be worth moving it to their actual talk page @All meat is theft. Nil🥝 04:21, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Added another notice. I'm not sure what the difference is between the pages yet, so if I didn't get it right again please let me know All meat is theft (talk) 04:30, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Hey wait a minute, does anyone find it suspicious that a account created less than an hour ago is making an report on an account that was created a year ago? CycoMa2 (talk) 04:24, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Just look at their edit history.

The first time OP interacted with Shadowfax333 was when they commented on their talk page. CycoMa2 (talk) 04:27, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

It kinda sucks that I found an openly racist editor within minutes of joining. I was hoping for better. All meat is theft (talk) 04:29, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

@All meat is theft It’s just weird talking on their talk page was the first time you interacted with them.

Do you have any other accounts by any chance? CycoMa2 (talk) 04:31, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

I didn't want to talk to them on their page, I avoid white supremacists, but this page said I had to leave that notice and provided code to copy paste. All meat is theft (talk) 04:33, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

@All meat is theft May I ask how you first interacted with this user? CycoMa2 (talk) 04:32, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

I was reading the talk page for Nick Fuentes, and saw talk about race realism. Clicked through, saw a page about god and fatherland. All meat is theft (talk) 04:34, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Oh. CycoMa2 (talk) 04:35, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

God, Honor and Fatherland is the motto of Polish Armed Forces Shadowfax33 (talk) 07:06, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Good point, thank you for bringing this up. I just opened his user talk page and noticed he is blocked as a sockpuppet, I also noticed user

@Children Will Listen

has been talking to him. Do both of you know each other?. Does

@All meat is theft

have multiple Wikipedia accounts?.

Shadowfax33 (talk) 07:04, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Filer has been blocked as a sockpuppet, but I'm not sure if this should be closed yet. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 04:43, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

@ChildrenWillListen Leave it open. CycoMa2 (talk) 05:00, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. Despite being a sock, OP has a valid point: we shouldn't be welcoming of any editors that self-identity as a Groyper, and appear to be white-washing an article about a prominent alt-right white-nationalist.

Per WP:NORACISTS & WP:NONAZIS, I'd support a ban here. Nil🥝 05:01, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

If you look at the articles that I wrote, none of them refer to that matter. Nazism and Groyper identity are separate identities. Shadowfax33 (talk) 07:09, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

If this year had been AWARE of Contentious Topics I'd have likely topic banned from AMPOL and Poland. As they're not I propose we topic ban from American Politics and Poland as a community action. It seems like this user may be able to productively contribute to Wikipedia judging by their edits, but I question whether a self-described Groyper is someone who should be editing in certain contentious topic areas. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 05:02, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Support topic ban as proposed. --tony 05:05, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

we should be welcoming editors here, despite their identities. And Nil NZ you too should be warned that calling someone racist is a personal attack. The editing needs to be examined. Even if you disagree poitically it is not a reason to block some one. Instead there should be a discussion. And if editing becomes disruptive there should be a warning first. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:07, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Normally I'd agree, but WP:HID. 14.177.229.246 (talk) 05:18, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Noting that this IP address is a likely proxy. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 05:20, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

I would disagree that calling someone a racist constitutes a personal attack *if the subject has already self identified* as a Groyper. From that point it is just a factual statement. Mfield (Oi!) 05:20, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

+1 Agreed, in this case it appears more factual than anything – LuniZunie ツ_(talk) 05:22, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

WP:DUCK jolielover♥talk 05:33, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

If an editor self identified as a member of the KKK on their page, would it be a personal attack to call them a racist? Obviously not. Parabolist (talk) 06:04, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this argument is asinine (note - I'm calling the argument asinine, not you.) By welcoming a user who overtly expresses their belief that others are subhuman, you're basically telling those "subhumans" that they're not welcome. Should we welcome MAPs, too? King Lobclaw (talk) 07:24, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

No, I don't believe in racism. Shadowfax33 (talk) 07:27, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

But you openly affiliate with a group rooted in racism and bigotry. I'm sorry, but that's a farce. King Lobclaw (talk) 07:31, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, I agree with on this 100%. Shadowfax33 (talk) 07:25, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Support tban Support CBAN Until editor can show constructive contributions to the project generally. They have made few recent edits outside of userspace that aren't unilateral and unsupported changes to contentious articles. Furthermore there simply isn't enough other contribution history there to be able to assume much good faith either tbh. Mfield (Oi!) 05:49, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

This is ridiculous, assume good faith should be done with zero edit history. It is assume good faith not make editors prove good faith. Czarking0 (talk) 17:55, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Are you serious? Look at what a Groyper is and tell me that identifying as one is 'good faith' in any way Athanelar (talk) 18:04, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

I think we're past the point of assuming good faith and are now rather dealing with the question of how much rope the editor should be given after such[97] edits. Nakonana (talk) 18:12, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

I understand your concerns, although I disagree. First, I don't recall editing anything about Politics in Poland. Regarding the Nick Fuentes article, the edits that I have done were not all removed; not all of them were controversial. You can check Nick Fuentes' article history. Again, I will repeat, please don't use identity politics to dismiss everything I say here.

Shadowfax33 (talk) 07:22, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Regarding "don't recall editing anything about politics in Poland" – I don't have an opinion (yet) regarding a ban, just wanted to point out that the topic ban proposed by Barkeep49 covers American politics and Poland. The latter is much broader than Polish politics. Many of your edits have been related to Poland. — Chrisahn (talk) 08:47, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Support as bare minimum User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 14:32, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Support CBAN. I'm incredibly disappointed by many users' soft-handed response to this. Anyone who openly identifies as a member of a hate group needs to be excluded from Wikipedia with prejudice. Athanelar (talk) 12:34, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Support CBAN per WP:NONAZIS Snokalok (talk) 15:04, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Support TBAN from American Politics, Poland, Holocaust, Russia and Ukraine, and PIA, Its a hefty list but all of the ones i am proposing here are related to far right politics in some way. shane (talk to me if you want!) 20:27, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

If we really want to block them from all these why not simply CBAN them? Topic bans are not cheap. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 21:02, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

I agree on CBAN but can I ask what did you mean by topic bans are not cheap? GothicGolem29 (Talk) 23:16, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Someone's got to observe their edits to make sure they aren't violating their topic ban, and this takes time off of writing articles or performing other administrative tasks. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 02:29, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer I see what you mean. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 02:39, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Support CBAN From our article on Groypers The Groypers, or the Groyper Army, are a group of Christian nationalists and white nationalists loosely defined as followers, fans, or associates of Nick Fuentes. (Emphasis mine). I have no idea what parts Shadow actually identifies with, but, none of them are okay. And claiming you don't identify with one of the CORE parts of a group, but call yourself part of it nonetheless, is bullshit. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 11:58, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Support C-Ban As a member of a group the Groypers consider subhuman, I have serious doubts about Shadowfax's ability to work collaboratively with me or other members from targeted groups. We've blocked members for less overt displays. Either Shadowfax really supports what the Groypers stand for (enough that they feel confident openly labelling themself as such, or they're a troll seeking (and succeeding at causing disruption.) Either way, they need to go. King Lobclaw (talk) 07:29, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Support TBAN/Neutral on CBAN. I'm not sure how I would have !voted here if we were only looking at the self-identification piece in isolation. While the group in question is as manifestly racist and idiotic a movement as they come, I would be at least a little uncomfortable assuming which of their particular beliefs we could say an editor was tacitly endorsing merely by associating with that group. Thankfully, the decision is made considerably easier by also looking at the broader context of their actions and comments. A TBAN is definitely the minimum necessary to avoid disruption to the covered areas here. Personally, I'd like to block on the basis of associating the name of Gandalf's noble steed and finest of the mearas with the saddest and most pathetic phenomena that is postmodern meme-based racism...but sadly we lack a guideline for such a crass debasement of art by association with one's own cretinously myopic belief system, so I can't support that with policy. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 08:24, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

I made the account before becoming a Groyper, so no, your statement is inadequate. Shadowfax33 (talk) 17:37, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Support topic ban/Oppose community ban - They actually have shown conduct that makes removing them from the topic area important as a preventative measure. But to community ban on this set of facts is a huge stretch for me, as gross as I personally feel that Fuentes crowd is. There needs to be something significantly more overt than this. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 08:56, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

If you look at my user page, I mainly publish articles on the topics of military equipment. Therefore, banning me from editing the Nick Fuentes page or banning me from editing political topics, I can accept that. Shadowfax33 (talk) 17:41, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Support topic ban per SnowRise. This is about editing behaviour and conduct. If the disruptive conduct continues in other areas, a cban can be discussed, and obviously any harassment would be unacceptable, tban or not. Also +1 re profaning the name of the supreme mearh, but we can't do much about that. --bonadea contributions talk 10:36, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

• In light of the further discussions, I do not oppose a full community ban. --bonadea contributions talk 10:32, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

• Support CBAN. The user self-identifies as a member of a group led by a prominent white supremacist. Wikipedia's own page on the Groypers describes them as a group of "white nationalists and Christian nationalists". It seems to me that the group's ideology is fundamentally incompatible with being a productive contributor to Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pythoncoder (talk • contribs) 11:43, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Comment - Has the editor-in-queston pushed their possible beliefs, outside their own user/talk page? GoodDay (talk) 11:51, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

This diff was in the original report. 173.79.19.248 (talk) 14:13, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

• Support C-Ban why are we tiptoeing with this editor? WP:HID they are a member of a white supremacist group, how can we expect any editor of any other nationality/ethnicity to be okay with interacting with them, that just sends a silent message that we are okay with users who have hateful views. Lavalizard101 (talk) 11:57, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
• Support CBAN, not merely because hate is disruptive but because I'm troubled by their contributions to Nick Fuentes, all of which appear to be trying to create a more favourable presentation of the leader of the group the editor self-identifies as a member of on their user page. In these contributions we can see:

• removal of reference to hate speech, twice
• removal of a "fascism template, then edit warring (1, 2, 3) over it
• removing a well-sourced reference to "white supremacy"
• removal of categories about the alt-right, holocaust denial, antisemitism and neo-Nazism, twice as well as ones about white supremacy
• most recently, removing references to "alt-right" in lieu of "Race realism" and changing "Islamophobia" to "Islam"

While some of these were later not restored (namely the first two), the removal of references to white supremacy and categories about Holocaust denial and antisemitism, where both are well sourced in the body, seemingly under the ground that the editor considers them "quite far-fetched", are concerning. It seems we're dealing with a POV-push situation involving somebody with well-documented hateful views, and I don't see the benefit of the user remaining in the community. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 12:28, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

• Support Cban; while I respect the attempt to provide this editor with a get-out, it is unnecessary to do so when their stated aims are fundamentally at odds with the community. FYI, User:John Antifa, more power. —Fortuna, imperatrix 12:35, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
• Support C-BAN. I see no reason whatsoever to take Shadowfax33's claims not to be a racist at face value. We go by common definitions of terms, and not by absurd denials which are immediately negated by by blatantly pro-racist editing behaviour. Clearly here to push repulsive and hateful views, in a manner utterly incompatible with any collaborative project. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:40, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

• Support CBAN As per above - the diffs are concerning. Everyone is entitled to their own views, however they shouldn't affect our ability to edit in a neutral fashion and I don't think this editor is able to do that.

Additionally, our userpages are where we tell other editors what we want them to know about ourselves; it shouldn't come as a surprise when people take notice of it.

I was blissfully ignorant of the term until today & after looking it up I was surprised that someone openly put that on their userpage.

The group is idealistically opposed to a significant amount of other editors and they put it on anyway.

They say this shouldn't be about identity, but they've openly identified as being part of a group that defines itself as opposing & disparaging other people's identities.

Believe whatever you like, but putting that belief out in the open like this on a community-driven project like Wikipedia doesn't feel appropriate and has brought to light problematic editing behaviour.

I don't usually vote on CBAN's, but I feel quite strongly about this one. Blue Sonnet (talk) 13:43, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

• Support T-BAN - If editor has indulged in frequently pushing their beliefs across the project? Then a C-Ban would be required. GoodDay (talk) 14:17, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
• Support C-BAN. A topic ban is appropriate for an editor who is operating in good faith but who is unable to edit constructively on a specific topic. A full ban is appropriate for an editor who is operating in bad faith to subvert the integrity of the encyclopaedia. When I look at edits like this or this I see only bad faith. That is an attempt to make Wikipedia less informative by removing facts that they find embarrassing or impolitic for their cause. I would have reverted that as vandalism. They also made a disruptive userbox, which should probably be deleted, at User:Shadowfax33/Userboxes/Groyper. Clearly they are a net negative to the project and a topic ban is very unlikely to fully solve this. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:00, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

  Iv nominated itWikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Shadowfax33/Userboxes/Groyper LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 16:02, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

• Support CBAN. Put yourself in the shoes of an editor who chances to interact with SF and happens to belong to one of those groups which Groypers despise. Narky Blert (talk) 15:32, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
• Support CBAN per Shadowfax33's links. PhilKnight (talk) 16:46, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
• Support CBAN per Ser!'s links. Hate is disruptive. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:56, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
• Support CBAN the links provided by ser very much shows how hate is disruptive. While I think the TBAN was proposed in good faith (and support it as a minimum), I am afraid that the topics of "American politics and Poland" will be too narrow as they can easily change to other related areas of the Groypers movement, but coming up with a wide enough TBAN to cover that might be too large, which leaves a CBAN as the only rememdy that can address this issue for now. Gramix13 (talk) 17:20, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
• Support CBAN. Openly associating with a racist group and editing articles to include racist dogwhistles are racist actions in themselves. It makes no difference if the user professes not to be a racist afterwards. Elestrophe (talk) 17:45, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
• Support CBAN - if you cannot check your biases and hatreds at the door, then how can you collaborate with people who are "isms" you despise? THAT is why hate is disruptive; it makes others unwilling to engage with you for fear they will be harassed while making those willing to engage treat matters in an adversarial fashion. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 19:22, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
• Support TBAN - At a minimum, with the list suggested by shane (American Politics, Poland, Holocaust, Russia and Ukraine, and PIA) as a preferred option. Shadowfax33 self-describes as a member of a hate group, so that should really be more than enough for a CBAN, though WP:HID and the associated WP:NONAZIS and WP:NORACISTS are only essays, so don't carry the weight of policy or guidelines. Beyond Shadowfax33's self-description, looking at their edits where they do edit in CT/AP, they look to be engaged in whitewashing, where for Fuentes' "race realism" they use primary aboutself sources which paint "race realism" as some sort of legitimate position to hold, altered "Islamphobia" to "[Political views] Islam", removes mentions of Fuentes and the Groypers being described as fascists, and seems to engage in OR, placing their political positions in the Groypers article as positions the Groypers hold with no citation to verify such. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 20:59, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

  Enforcement and AN/I routinely block people running an all-CTOPs% speedrun (for the very obvious reason that someone causing that much trouble in that many topic areas isn't doing so unwittingly), and that list very much qualifies (PIA/EE/AP2). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 17:34, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

• Support CBAN — Hate is disruptive. There are plenty of online communities where people who subscribe to hateful ideologies can express themselves freely. This isn't one of them, nor should it be. White 720 (talk) 22:41, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
• 'Wikipedia bans editor who wrote "I Pledge to respect Christian values" on their user page' - some 'reliable' sources widely used in Wikipedia...soon probably. Sean.hoyland (talk) 03:54, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
• Obviously support CBAN. This lot were defeated in the 1940s; they're not welcome here, nor should they be welcome anywhere. Acalamari 04:51, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
• Support CBAN Love the reason above. We don't want hatred here. Doug Weller talk 12:51, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

No, I haven't pushed my beliefs outside my own user/talk page. Shadowfax33 (talk) 17:32, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Would Shadowfax33 be able to avoid a C-BAN, if he promised to 'not' edit pages directly-indirectly related to his beliefs? GoodDay (talk) 16:14, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Racist trolls need to go, so do their supporters. 107.115.5.85 (talk) 16:26, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Someone who believes that people of a certain race are subhuman isn't someone who can edit collaboratively. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 16:27, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

We don't know whether he could or couldn't refrain from editing in such areas. Example: I'm a republican, yet I don't go around putting up AFDs for monarchy pages. Again, if he promised not to edit in those areas related to his beliefs? Would he be able to avoid a C-Ban? GoodDay (talk) 16:30, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

See above. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 16:31, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

If it's not clear, which it should be clear, the answer to if he can avoid a cban should be a "fuck no". LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 16:34, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Looking at the article on Groypers, they'd need to be topic banned from half the encyclopedia & I'm not sure that's even feasible. Politics, race, religion, gender, immigration, maybe even X/TikTok... Blue Sonnet (talk) 16:59, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Ok. GoodDay (talk) 17:02, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

No, he self identifies as a white supremacist. Unless you can name some white people only pages, he will have to interact with us subhumans. Why do you think that it's OK to force everyone else to work with someone who wants us in a gas chamber? You are showing your tail. 107.115.5.85 (talk) 16:33, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

There is more than racism here. There is also the obvious dishonesty of claiming not to be racist while admitting to being a Groyper. Clearly they take us for complete fools but we are not obliged to prove them right by falling for such obviously insincere disavowals. DanielRigal (talk) 17:04, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Very well. GoodDay (talk) 17:08, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose any serious sanction as this user has not been disruptive. I agree several of their edits listed here were not improvements to Nick Fuentes however Shadowfax engaged in normal discussion after receiving push back on these edits. I find it odd how many people are taking an issue with Shadowfax here but are not actually engaging in talk page discussion with him. I find much of the discussion to be focused on the editor and their beliefs rather than their actual conduct. On several of the topics, Shadowfax was not the only editor supporting their positions on Talk:Nick Fuentes. I believe Shadowfax is here to write an encyclopedia; the editor what reported them is clearly here in bad faith to disrupt the project. I don't think there is sufficient justification for banning Groypers from editing Nick Fuentes while allowing democrats to modify Joe Biden. Of course if members of either group are disruptive we should sanction them on behalf of their disruption rather than on behalf of their group membership. There is a reason WP:HID is not a policy. Czarking0 (talk) 17:57, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Democrats aren't inherently bigots. Groypers ALWAYS are. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 18:13, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

@Czarking0: Let's say another user posted something on their userpage or otherwise openly declared they believe that <foo> people are inhuman scum which must be destroyed or marginalised (The specific "ism" isn't relevant here) and you were a <foo>. Would you even want to try and collaborate with someone whose starting position is "You should not exist"? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 19:12, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes Czarking0 (talk) 20:39, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Consider yourself lucky then LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 21:19, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Czarking0 That's the saddest strawman I've seen - and they are plentiful this time of year. King Lobclaw (talk) 14:46, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for looking at this case objectively. Shadowfax33 (talk) 17:34, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

• Support CBAN - Allowing someone openly affiliating with a hate group runs the risk of turning Wikipedia into a Nazi bar. Had the editor kept this to themselves, it may have been a different story, but espousing views like that tells hundreds of other editors that they are neither safe nor welcome on this project.^LaffyTaffer💬(she/they) 18:42, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
• Support CBAN per Ser!'s links they are clearly trying to push this agenda on Wiki and we cannot allow this sort of disruption fuelled by hate to continue.GothicGolem29 (Talk) 18:52, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
• Support CBAN — per Acalamari. Augmented Seventh (talk) 19:31, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
• Support CBAN, since they identify with a racist (among other issues) group and have made massively POV mainspace edits that further the interests of that group. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:33, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
• Appalled to see some users I respect think that we should make this an environment that welcomes open neo-nazis. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 21:29, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

  +1 LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 23:03, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

• Support CBAN because of the specific edits to Nick Fuentes and adjacent pages, as pointed out above. Some editors seemingly need a refresher on the Paradox of tolerance. — Arcaist ^{(contr—talk)} 22:33, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose CBAN/Support TBAN for APOL - I took a brief look through this user's contribution history. Most of the edits are pretty mundane and about war stuff. He does not fall under WP:NOTHERE from what I've gathered. I haven't seen any evidence presented of him attacking other editors or saying unacceptable or disruptive things. Yes, his edits at Nick Fuentes were not good--as in I would have reverted it--especially, the primary source synthesis. But, much of it is not on the level of disruption. Take the race realism thing. I'll stop short of taking an editorial opinion on it, but it was reliably sourced to the ADL. It is factually accurate to say Nick Fuentes identifies as a race realist, so it probably shouldn't be wielded against this editor for wanting that noted in the article nor should it be uses as evidence that he's a racist. However, when looking at the diffs provided by Ser!, I do think it is likely this editor would continue POV pushing in the area. So a APOL tban seems reasonable. A CBAN seems excessive since the editor makes constructive edits outside of the political topics. We do not know what his groyper identification means about his beliefs or prejudices. He claims not to be racist. R. G. Checkers ^talk 00:43, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

  If you think Race Realism is an appropriate replacement text, you need a tban yourself. 107.115.5.85 (talk) 01:08, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

  It is our duty in building an encyclopedia to document if someone identifies as a racist, antisemite, race realist, etc if reliable sources say so. That doesn’t mean we as editors endorse those beliefs ourselves. R. G. Checkers ^talk 02:41, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

  We document if someone is considered racist, antisemite, race realist by reliable sources. We don't have to document if they consider themselves as such. Northern Moonlight 08:43, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

  please explain to me how someone who identifes with a group who's core beliefs are 100% rooted in bigotry isn't a bigot. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 01:14, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

  From what I can gather from his user page he may just be a Christian nationalist. Believing the Ten Commandments should be in classrooms (or something to that like) doesn’t mean you’re a Nazi. I, as a matter of personal principle, do not assume the worst in people. There should be extremely strong evidence presented before someone is brandished a bigot, racist, nazi, etc on a public forum. Such evidence is not here. R. G. Checkers ^talk 02:58, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

  They self identified as a Groyper as you have acknowledged. Read the page. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 03:07, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

  WP:CIR – would you believe someone is in the ku klux klan, but isn't racist, only into the other aspects of the group? If yes, you should be blocked for competency. If not should be blocked for trolling here and pulling a Groyper move by saying a Groyper isn't a white supremacist.

  Note Shadow never said he wasn't a racist, he has only said he doesn't believe in racism. 107.115.5.85 (talk) 06:30, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, I did say I m not racist, also why are you even here? Looking at your edit history, it seems you made the account just to post here. Shadowfax33 (talk) 17:36, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

  It's an IP. They didn't make an account LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 18:17, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

  It's patently absurd to say we do not know what his groyper identification means about his beliefs or prejudices. We absolutely do. You can just look at the things that the type specimen Groyper says and the things that other self-identified Groypers say. It's like someone saying "I call myself a Nazi but I don't support the Jew genocide stuff, I just support some of Hitler's other views" while never specifying what those other views are. Athanelar (talk) 09:04, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

  I mainly publish articles on the topics of military equipment. If you want me to ONLY publish articles on military equipment, and for the time being not edit anything to do with politics, I can do that. Shadowfax33 (talk) 17:35, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Comment The fact that Wikipedia would have banned other users for lesser infractions much quicker, and that there is this much support for giving hate groups equal time and space as their targets is disheartening and chilling. The onus is now on us to accept and tolerate Groypers, Neo-Nazis and whatever else rather on users who hold those views. King Lobclaw (talk) 01:49, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

• Support CBAN - no fucking Nazis. It's as simple as that. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:18, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
• Support CBAN per WP:NONAZIS, Groypers are neonazis. No Nazis on Wikipedia. PersusjCP (talk) 03:08, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

  No, to be a Groyper, you have to be a Catholic or be more or less supportive of Catholicism; Nazism is paganism. I know who I am, I m a Catholic. Shadowfax33 (talk) 17:44, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

  Then why the FUCK does it say white nationalist as one of the CORE parts of being a Groyper?

  Which parts of Groyper appeal to you other then being Catholic? Because otherwise you would not choose to describe yourself as a Groyper other then Catholic? LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 18:20, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

  Then why are you a Groyper and not a Traditionalist Catholic or some other type of conservative Catholic instead? There are other options out there if it's just about Catholicism. Why choose a movement that also embraces paganism? Nakonana (talk) 18:35, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

• Support CBAN "Qui cum canibus concumbunt cum pulicibus surgent." I'm itchy enough as it is. WP:NONAZIS Hiobazard (talk/contribs) 16:32, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

It's been a few days since the first comment calling for a cban, is this able to be closed yet? There seems to be clear consensus for a cban.LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 16:00, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

+1, particularly given that the disruptive editing is ongoing. DanielRigal (talk) 18:32, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

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

ThouShaltEdit and IDHT

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

After a few days of discussion with this user it is clear that no amount of discussion is going to be productive. This concerns mutliple articles.

• Gypsy-Rose Blanchard

  On 22 October they removed information from Gypsy-Rose Blanchard citing several policies one of which was a fake policy (WP:NOTGRAPHIC) [98]. This was reverted several days later by me. TSE then reremoved the information again citing the non-existent policy of WP:NOTGRAPHIC [99] and the editor opened up 2 discussions at the talk page [100] [101]. I asked TSE if they were using AI due to the fake policy being cited. They said they confused it with MOS:GRATUITOUS another non-existent policy [102]. A back and forth discussion on the talk occurred between me and TSE with them ignoring my followup about MOS:GRATUITOUS.

• Factitious disorder imposed on another

  On 22 October they opened a discussion to remove Blanchard from the notable cases citing WP:MEDRS, this was opposed by @Avatar317: as WP:MEDRS doesn't apply. TSE went ahead any and removed the entry twice and was reverted both times. A discussion on the talk page occured betwwen Avatar317 and TSE, with TSE showing signs of IDHT by repeating themselves about MEDRS. TSE then opened up a second discussion to propose removal stating if their standards weren't met in 30 days they'd remove the entry anyway. A back and forth between me and TSE occurred here as well, during this back and forth they attempted to open up a non-neutral malformed (and misplaced) RFC to rewrite MEDRS to their interpretation, which had the rfc template swiftly removed by @Nemov:. TSE can be seen displaying WP:IDHT by repeating themselves about MEDRS despite being told multiple times that MEDRS doesn't apply.

• List of Munchausen by proxy cases

  On 22 OCtober they removed Blanchard from this list for the same reasons as the above, again reverted by Avatar. More back and forth between me and TSE about MEDRS not applying [103] [104].

The main IDHT occurrence is at the FDIA talk page, where the user is refusing to listen. Lavalizard101 (talk) 12:43, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Text generated by a large language model or similar AI technology has been collapsed in line with the relevant guideline and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Response by ThouShaltEdit

Thank you for the opportunity to respond.

This report appears to stem from ordinary content disputes across several related articles in the Blanchard topic area (Gypsy Rose Blanchard, Murder of Dee Dee Blanchard, Factitious Disorder Imposed on Another, and List of Munchausen by proxy cases).

All of my edits were policy-based, discussed on talk pages, and made in good faith under normal BRD procedure.

Below is a summary of each issue with supporting diffs.

----

1. Gypsy Rose Blanchard article

• 22 Oct 2025 (02:03 UTC): I removed explicit, unsourced material describing violent and sexual acts, citing BLP / BLPGOSSIP / UNDUE. My edit summary used the shorthand “NOTGRAPHIC,” a mistyped reference to MOS guidance on gratuitous or salacious detail. (diff 1)
• I acknowledged and corrected that shorthand on the Talk page and clarified that the edit was grounded in BLP / BLPGOSSIP / UNDUE. (diff 2)
• Several days later, Lavalizard101 reverted his own prior removal of unrelated sourced material and added new wording (“some of these claims”) under an edit summary referring to a “non-existent policy.” That rationale did not apply to the content he altered, and the modification was not disclosed in the edit summary.

These diffs show a single, policy-based cleanup and a corrected typo, not a pattern of misuse or disruption.

----

2. Factitious Disorder Imposed on Another article

• 22 Oct 2025: I opened a Talk-page proposal to remove the Dee Dee Blanchard entry from “Notable cases,” citing BLP / MEDRS / BLPCRIME, since no clinical diagnosis or legal finding exists. (proposal diff)
• 23 Oct 2025: I made one bold removal consistent with that proposal. (bold diff) Avatar317 reverted my edit, I reverted once, and Avatar317 then undid my revision. (revert diff) I then stopped reverting and instead added a medical-citation-needed tag to flag the sourcing issue for discussion. Lavalizard101 later removed that tag with the edit summary “singling this case out as needing MEDRS is obviously done for POV reasons.” This shows that I had already moved from reverting to normal maintenance and discussion rather than edit-warring.
• This represents a normal BRD cycle handled through policy-based discussion, not edit-warring. Subsequent edits (Oct 31 – Nov 2) were unrelated maintenance: citation cleanup, neutral wording, and DSM/ICD alignment.

When my later RfC draft was removed for formatting, Nemov advised resubmitting a shorter version or seeking WP:3O, which I followed, showing adherence to dispute-resolution guidance.

----

3. List of Munchausen by proxy cases

• 22 Oct 2025: I made a single BRD removal of the Blanchard entry, reverted by Avatar317, then took the discussion to Talk without further reverts.
• My rationale here differed from the FDIA article because this page is a categorical list. I relied on WP:LISTBIO, WP:CATDEF, WP:ONUS, and WP:BLP, as the list categorizes individuals with a medical or behavioral label despite the absence of any verified diagnosis, and the page itself has no defined inclusion criteria.
• The later MEDRS discussion focused only on whether inclusion implies diagnosis; regardless, the sourcing did not meet core BLP standards.

This was a standard policy-based content dispute conducted through Talk, not disruption.

----

4. Overall conduct

• I have remained civil and transparent in all discussions.
• I have never exceeded 3RR or edit-warred.
• I acknowledged and corrected the one policy-shortcut typo immediately and publicly.
• I redirected discussion toward consensus, sourcing, and neutrality.
• I complied with moderator feedback and dispute-resolution guidance.

----

Summary

These diffs collectively show good-faith, policy-based editing, not disruption or “IDHT.”

This report appears to stem from misunderstanding normal BRD and dispute-resolution processes.

I respectfully ask that no administrative action be taken and that discussion continue productively on the article talk pages.

Thank you for reviewing.

ThouShaltEdit (talk) 05:15, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

ThouShaltEdit: I collapsed your reply because it was generated by an LLM. You need to write replies in your own words, not the words a slop bot tells you to use. DoubleCross (‡) 06:49, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

They should be blocked indef, right now, on CIR grounds. No competent editor could possibly believe posting the above was appropriate. EEng 07:19, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

I was cautious of claiming AI myself from their talk page posts, but the responses here are obvious LLM.

Text generated by a large language model or similar AI technology has been collapsed in line with the relevant guideline and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This report seems to come from normal content disagreements within the Blanchard topic area. All of my edits were policy based, discussed on talk pages and made in good faith under standard BRD. On Gypsy Rose Blanchard, I removed explicit unsourced material per BLP and BLPGOSSIP. My "NOTGRAPHIC" edit summary was an error as I was referring to MOS:GRATUITOUS, which I corrected on the talk page. On Factitious Disorder Imposed on Another, I proposed removing the Dee Dee Blanchard entry because there is no verified diagnosis or legal finding to support the addition in a "Notable Cases" list. After one BRD cycle I stopped reverting, I added a "medical citation needed" tag instead. When Nemov removed the tags on the RfC, I accepted their advice to shorten the request or change it to a WP:3O as an alternative. The tags were not removed for any misconduct. On List of Munchausen by proxy cases, I made one removal based on LISTBIO, CATDEF, and BLP. After being reverted, I took it to talk without further reverts. I've stayed civil, stayed under 3RR, corrected my one typo transparently, and followed dispute resolution steps. These are policy discussions, not disruption. I ask that no action be taken and that discussion continue on the article talk pages. ThouShaltEdit (talk) 07:57, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

There were several instances of productive discussion, the issue is not over misconduct. I did hear everything that was being said but I did not agree with the replies, I stated my lack of agreement in LL's interpretation of the policy, lack of policy in removal of sourced content, revision of removed content which LL's basis seemed to be about "non existent policy" having nothing to do with the content he removed and replaced with modification and no edit summary detailing additional words which changed meaning. LL also used references to what "the Sheriff said at trial," that was found within the article itself as reasoning to remove verifiable sourced content. When this failed, LL began to argue that because a suspect is dead, that they can no longer be investigated and that should be reason enough to label them with a medical diagnosis and abuse claims since the chance was lost upon their death. LL proceeded to explain to me what an investigator's job entails, and LL stated that making public reports is not one of those duties. However, a source from the article shows the Sheriff LL mentioned as making a public statement about the investigation of the deceased individual in a newly discovered long running financial fraud scheme, with no mention of any abuse allegations or a psychiatric diagnosis or even so much as a claim against the deceased. Then LL began to argue with me on another page about whether MEDRS applied to diagnosis, he said it did not and I said that when it comes to living people and the recently deceased, the policy states that Biography of living people rules apply. This is found in Wikipedia: Biomedical Information under "Notable Cases". LL refused to take my interpretation into consideration and began to ask me "How many times do we have to tell you?" and I felt this was his inappropriate and that he was trying to pull me into arguing with him, so I kept the communication policy based and I suggested alternatives such as rewording, and better sources. My refusal to engage in a debate with LL over MEDRS not being applicable to Diagnosis, was not because I didn't hear him or wasn't listening or couldn't take no for an answer. It was because I had moved to different ways that we could possibly come to an agreement such as letting a consensus form, and adding a medical citation needed tag, which he removed before discussion could be had, based on what he alleged was a single minded point of view. I explained to LL that I planned on cleaning up the rest of the list and he said none of the other entries had medical diagnosis, and I explained that at least one of them had a legal finding and that I was working on the rest of the article in the meantime while waiting to move past the one entry, which was there, and still is there. I have been very willing to listen and I have listened. I have tried to remain focused on the content and the sourcing and I have had several other interactions with several other editors which started out with a revert and ended in agreement without further issue. I have never stopped listening or responding politely to LL, though I am not sure that the same can be said for him, I just did not want to cause problems, I wanted to work and be productive. ThouShaltEdit (talk) 12:57, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

I feel like there might be something here worth adding to Wikipedia:signs of AI writing. Though that article might already be comprehensive enough. 🐲Jothefiredragon🔥talk🧨contributions✨log🐉 11:19, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

MOS:GRATUITOUS doesn't exist, as I pointed out at the talk page. Plus you've completely ignored the reason for the IDHT report, you repeatedly made claims of MEDRS despite being told it doesn't apply. Lavalizard101 (talk) 11:06, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I've tried to explain things on their Talk page since I couldn't see whether anyone's gone into detail over the problems with AI yet.

Leaving the link here for reference, in case it gets blanked. Blue Sonnet (talk) 12:42, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

WP:GRATUITOUS does exist, I again, apologize for the typo. The policies which the removal of the content in https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gypsy-Rose_Blanchard&diff=prev&oldid=1318124468 were based on, BLP, and GRATUITOUS have been competently applied. Material that could be considered vulgar, obscene or offensive should not be included unless it still reads like an encyclopedia. Because the material in question is about a living person, the standards are higher, and therefore the sourcing of the material provided should be high-quality, not tabloid, not promotional and even when sourced, if the omission of the material does not create a less informative article and there is other, more suitable material, then the material should be removed. I never saw the reason to argue a policy term that I have already stated was made as an oversight and a typo. I believe that if there is a question about the material removal itself then that is the discussion we should be having. If that makes it appear as if IDHT, I believe this can be shown to be a perception based on a narrowly framed view by looking at all of my interactions with others and how they tend to resolve with agreement or they cease before the limit of three reverts, and with suggestion to find a consensus. I did not stick to one viewpoint after a consensus occurred. You have conflated a discussion regarding MBP with a discussion on FDIA and assumed that I should assume the same consensus would occur on both pages since they are similar topics, however, MBP is a Categorical list as a page, and it is a list containing cases that are of a psychiatric diagnosis, Munchausen by Proxy, and because there is no inclusion criteria included on the page, any entry on the list may appear to readers to ba a diagnosed case. My discussion there was not about MEDRS until you brought that into it, and then told me that I am not listening, and asked me how many times I need to be told. I do not think that is the way to prove that IDHT, it is a way to project your frustration at the extremely well laid out points that I am making when you have no where left to go with your debate. So, when I cease discussion and suggest that a rewrite or a better source might help instead, which I believe is not disruptive and shows I do listen and modify, does not prove your IDHT claim. If there is anything else you would like me to address while here, please feel free to do so. I have always held my composure with you but you've given me an opportunity to say things now, by bringing it here. ThouShaltEdit (talk) 15:01, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

My discussion was not about MEDRS until you brought it up not true, your first talk page note at LMBP brought up MEDRS [105], you claimed MEDRS on each comment at LMBP [106], [107]. At FDIA you have been told by two people (Avatar and myself) that MEDRS does not apply to diagnosis of people, but continued claiming MEDRS 1 2 3 4 5. Lavalizard101 (talk) 15:18, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

It baffles me that anyone thinks that using an LLM makes an argument more persuasive. It doesn't. Rather, the reverse. Narky Blert (talk) 16:12, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

It's part and parcel of their incompetence. It's the reason AI user should result in an immediate, indefinite block. EEng 17:37, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

That's true, I did bring it up in the proposal first, and I apologize for the confusion and for saying that you did. Considering the circumstances, I think it's best if I let my edits and talk pages speak for themselves from this point forward as a defense to your claims. While the administrators work through this matter I will refrain from commenting here further until a decision has been made. ThouShaltEdit (talk) 20:13, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

• FFS, at long last will some admin have the testicles (figuratively speaking, of course) to indef this lying, time-wasting pest? EEng 17:37, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm not experienced enough to know...could this be listed at Requests for Closing? Hiobazard (talk/contribs) 16:55, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Potential legal threat

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

---

When adding an egregious and uncited breach of our BLP policy, which I immediately rolled back, User:Mr Gonk used the edit summary:

This is an Ignore All Rules edit. Any editor that removes or suppresses it, will be reported to the US Congressional inquiry into the manipulation of Wikipedia by foreign agents

Does this fall foul of our prohibition on legal theats? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:53, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

It’s a pathetic one, but I’d say yes given it implies some sort of legal consequence. Rambling Rambler (talk) 12:55, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

For separate reasons, this edit is also unacceptable. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:58, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Block this editor immediately as clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. Bgsu98 (Talk) 12:58, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AttackTheMoonNow again. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 12:59, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Not Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Brian K Horton? Or should they be merged? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:19, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

The archives confirm that ATMN, Brian K Horton, and another LTA named MickMacNee are the same person. I suppose they can all be merged, probably under ATMN since they're WMF banned. I'm surprised they don't have an LTA page already; they seem to have been active for decades and have apparently engaged in off-wiki harassment/doxxing of several contributors. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 13:23, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Probably because of WP:DENY? 212.70.110.16 (talk) 13:38, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Where should such a merge be requested? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:46, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

The SPI helper script can do that I think, or you can ask a clerk to do it. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 14:06, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Looking at the history of that article, a part of me thinks we should at the very least semi-protect it, and more likely extended-confirmed-protect it, considering this seems to be a semi-frequent target. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 16:10, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

WP:CT/BLP applies here, so we totally can. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 16:24, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

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

IP adding unsourced content

2001:56B:9FF1:F056:0:4E:3C00:7601 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been warned by three editors but is still making unsourced additions and changes, restoring them after being reverted. For example

[108][109][110]adding and re-adding population figures in infobox of Sephardic Jews, not reflecting body of article and without source, and in absurd detail (#31 Kosovo: 50; #32 Egypt: 10)

[111][112]adding and re-adding unsourced content indicating retired soccer player Karim Benyamina's return after 6 years

[113]increasing the number of Turkish Jews in Israel from 100,000-150,000 to 280,000, contrary to source

[114]adding population figures to infobox for Mizrahi Jews, again to absurd detail (Iraq: 3; Yemen: 1).

It's not necessarily vandalism in the tightest definition of that but it's extensive (25+ articles) and ongoing. They may not be seeing IP user talk page warnings or they may be ignoring them. NebY (talk) 15:27, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

The IP editor persisted but Ponyo's blocked the /64 for 72 hours and, along with other editors, reverted the remaining unsourced changes. Maybe the IP will get the message now. Thanks, all. NebY (talk) 12:12, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Kang Zhang article seems to be heavily (positively) biased by user Cryptochelys who deletes negative information about Zhang

I previously posted this on WP:BLPN and was told to report it here and on WP:COIN. I am copying my previous statement with minor edits:

I'm worried that the article Kang Zhang has issues of both WP:COI and WP:NPOV. While I don't think the article needs to be necessarily deleted, I think it needs heavy revisions and that Cryptochelys should be banned or at least barred from editing that specific article. I will note the user has also made edits about Zhang on other articles, so perhaps a site-wide ban is in order.

Kang Zhang was created by Cryptochelys shortly after Cryptochelys created their account in 2019, around the time the unethical activities of Kang Zhang fist came to light. The article mentions none of Zhang's numerous notable controversies, and Cryptochelys has continued editing this page deleting any controversial aspect of Kang Zhang's carear. For example, see this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kang_Zhang&diff=prev&oldid=983457408

Cryptochelys claimed that the edit was "unsourced" but the claim had a citation (which Cryptochelys likewise deleted. Cryptochelys has continued to edit the page as recently as August of the year. If you look at pages which link to Kang Zhang, you will find that many of those edits (which positively mention Zhang) were made by Cryptochelys. I find it highly likely that Cryptochelys is either Zhang himself or otherwise someone highly close to Zhang who has a vested interest in biasing the article and removing any negative information about Zhang. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.112.8.60 (talk) 15:34, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Perceived legal threat on behalf of Vipin Vijay + undisclosured COI + undisclosured use of LLM to make arguments

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

---

Divin Haridas (talk · contribs) added several comments to the BLP noticeboard

• "The content in question constitutes a serious violation of Indian law"
• "The matter cited is currently under inquiry at his workplace – the Satyajit Ray Film and Television Institute (SRFTI), Kolkata, under the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India. As far as I know Mr Vipin Vijay has initiated legal proceedings against Mid-Day, the publication quoted as the source of this section, at the High Court of Calcutta, Kolkata, West Bengal, India, for publishing defamatory material, disclosing his identity, and falsifying facts pertaining to the ongoing inquiry. ‘Bengal info’ which is quoted by the Wikipedia(30) has carried news by the Times of India which themselves they removed by now after filed legal notice."
• "Since the matter referred to in the article is sub judice and currently under official inquiry by a disciplinary committee , the publication of his name and related details amounts to a breach of statutory confidentiality punishable under Indian law. The continued presence of this content on Wikipedia therefore directly contravenes both the POSH Act and Wikipedia’s own editorial and privacy standards."
• "The content in question constitutes a serious violation of Indian law"
• "Given the above, i respectfully requests that the section titled “Sexual harassment allegations” be immediately removed to ensure compliance with both Indian statutory confidentiality provisions"

This carries the implication that ENWP will be persecuted in India by the subject of the article unless the section is removed. I also wanna point out that the user seems to have an undisclosured COI with the subject in addition to making undisclosured use of LLM on project pages.--Trade (talk) 18:10, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

They've been attempting to remove their statements. 331dot (talk) 18:11, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

A little bit--Trade (talk) 18:13, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

I will be charitable and argue that the removing the comments was their attempt at immediately retracting the threats of legal action as asked to by Day Creature Trade (talk) 18:16, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

If not for the fact the exact same text was posted to Talk:Vipin Vijay, in the exact same contexts. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 18:45, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

It is worth noting that Divid Naridas is not the person who posted it to the article talk-page. (Instead, they posted it to their own user-talk, and someone else copied it over.) 173.79.19.248 (talk) 18:53, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Nice catch. Any comments? @GoldRomean:--Trade (talk) 18:55, 2 November 2025 (UTC) Trade (talk) 18:54, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

• Any comments? @Divin Haridas:--Trade (talk) 18:26, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
• I've INDEFfed, which I was inclined to do when they began editing but decided to give them some rope. They're welcome to file an unblock and show they have an interesting in editing and language abilities to do so. Star Mississippi 20:00, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

More perceived legal threat on behalf of Vipin Vijay + undisclosured COI + undisclosured use of LLM to make arguments

Sidartha Anubhav (talk · contribs)

• Since the matter referred to in the article is sub judice and currently under official inquiry, the publication of my name and related details amounts to a breach of statutory confidentiality punishable under Indian law. The continued presence of this content on Wikipedia therefore directly contravenes both the POSH Act and Wikipedia’s own editorial and privacy standards. Wikipedia’s governing policies reinforce this legal position: WP:BLP – Biographies of Living Persons WP:OUTING – Privacy a...

Looks like 331dot (talk · contribs) dealt with the user so no further action is required. --Trade (talk) 18:20, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

I disagree. I've requested an SPI. I don't find it terribly co-incidental that Anubhav shows up to remove it with LLM copypasta around the same time Haridas is trying to remove his threats. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 19:00, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

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

User:2.100.92.20

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

---

User talk:2.100.92.20. Contribs are self evident. Just bizarre. Absolutely non-communicative. Extreme CIR or returning LTA. Last 190 edits have all been reverted. Ca ^{talk to me!} 19:10, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

I can think of no explanation for the first lines of these two edits (first, second) other than total incompetence or trolling. Narky Blert (talk) 19:31, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Blocked for a year. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:03, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

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

Problematic IP

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

---

190.212.216.72 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has made over 250 edits to Cultural depictions of Elvis Presley without ever citing a source or using a single edit summary. They have had 4 warnings but all their edits are in article space apart from replying to a welcome message which preceded any of the warnings, so I can't be sure they've seen the warnings. I'm not quite sure what should be done here, but this might be a case of WP:CIR. lp0 on fire () 22:29, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

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

Old account compromised

Hello, this one of the rare time where I go out of the fr.wikipedia. These two account are compromised (forgot password) and i want to block them if in the SRG take time and these account are used for vandalism or other things I want to prevent this by infinity block them. Admin request in french. Every information can be found in the SRG.

Alkmen-Alesia (talk) 22:56, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Are you talking about your own account here? You don't mention what they are. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:05, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The accounts have never been used locally, and once they have been globally locked will not be able to edit on any wikimedia wiki. I don't doubt your honesty but there's no real pressing need to quickly block them locally. I'm sure a steward will be along to lock them soon enough. 184.152.65.118 (talk) 23:05, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

I know it but if by a coincidence they are stolen and even if they dont modify here but the en wikipedia is more important than the french. I forgot to say it for prevent and protect if this happen. Alkmen-Alesia (talk) 23:14, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Higher profile sure, but no more important.

I suppose the concern is that we prefer to focus our energies on actual rather than theoretical problems. Since the accounts will likely be locked within the next 24 hours, unless we have reason to expect them to be used for vandalism during that period extra action is needless. And since they are not autoconfirmed they are of no more concern than many other accounts that vandals may have registered. On the off chance they are used for abuse we have robust mechanisms to address that when it happens. 184.152.65.118 (talk) 23:29, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Ok thank you, in the french wikipedia they are block by my demend today technically I have no risk to happen. I was just a bit scared so i do this to prevent if this happen. Alkmen-Alesia (talk) 23:34, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

No worries, this can often be a confusing place for newcomers, even more so if your English is limited. You haven't done anything wrong, I was just trying to explain why no immediate action was likely to be taken here. 184.152.65.118 (talk) 00:30, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

The account are Hambordia and Hambordiav2

Alkmen-Alesia (talk) 23:06, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Devlet Geray community topic ban violations

Devlet Geray (talk · contribs) was indefinitely topic-banned from topics related to Turkic peoples in February 2021, by EdJohnston (talk · contribs). This followed years of disruptive edits in articles related to the Crimean Tatars and other Turkic peoples. While his indefinite block was lifted in July 2024, the topic ban was intended to remain in place until a separate appeal was made and accepted. However, Devlet Geray's first edit following the lifting of his block contained content that should have been covered by his topic ban. He has continued to edit Crimean-Tatar related articles in the intervening period, with no enforcement of the topic ban whatsoever. His edits include repeated, tendentious and unsourced changes to various articles, with the aim of promoting some kind of point of view. I will note that he removed the notice of the topic ban and unblock request from his talk page, so other editors had no obvious way of knowing that it was still in effect. Almost every edit he has made post unblock falls into the scope of his topic ban. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 00:49, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

The topic ban was related to Iranian-Turkic issues in Asia, while Crimea is definitely in Europe and Crimean Tatars are a European ethnic group. I haven’t touched any topics related to Iranians/Turks in Asia since then. Read carefully, then make appeals in the middle of discussion important for you Devlet Geray (talk) 02:10, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Looking at the topic-ban discussion, I can't actually see any particular reason why the closer limited the scope to Asia, given that this wasn't otherwise discussed, and given the response here (i.e. 'Lol', which comes across as frankly contemptuous), I'd have to suggest that maybe we should consider removing the unexplained and arbitrary geographical limitation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:17, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Having read through that thread, there is literally nothing in the discussion about limiting the topic ban to "in Asia"; indeed the precise proposed wording of the topic ban was all topics related to the Iranian/Turkic world, as the veryone focus of the entire problem was Crimean Tatars. @EdJohnston:, is there a reason you limited the topic ban in this manner? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:40, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

No, the very focus of that discussion were Iranian-Turkic topics (like Old Bulgar Empire, Safavids etc - these issues related to their ethnicity - I was proponent of their Turkic ethnicity in my 2021 edits). That’s the pure reason why the discussion was started by HistoryofIran back then. Plus you cannot ban me for what I have already been banned and then unbanned. My edits on Crimean Tatar topics since unban are not disruptive in any way, instead I created some good written articles and improved other. Yes since unban I mentioned Russian serfdom twice as a historical example discussing the article about slavery, but don’t think this is such an issue. Devlet Geray (talk) 02:47, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

You're partially right; that was the initial focus of the dispute, but the Crimean Tatar issue was also brought up in the discussion; I've slightly modifed my statement above accordingly. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:53, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

At least we can partially agree, I also slightly edited my first claim removing “lol” as an unnecessary emotional phrase Devlet Geray (talk) 03:29, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

The definition of 'Asia' is ambiguous, and not universally agreed upon. However, even if we put that issue aside, topics related to Turkey are specifically included in the topic ban, which should obvious include anything related to the conflict between the Ottoman Empire and Russia. Never mind that you have also made plenty of edits to articles involving what is unambiguously related to Asia, not least of all Deportation of the Crimean Tatars (the Crimean Tatars were deported to Central Asia), or to Nogais, an ethnic group that live in Asia (as well as parts of Europe). Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 03:42, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Nogais live in Europe (Stavropol - Europe, Kuban - Europe, Astrakhan - Europe, Karachay-Cherkes Reublic- Europe, Dobruja - Europe, Dagestan - Europe. So their homeland is Europe, and they are a European ethnic group too) and my edits there were about Crimean Tatars - a European ethnic group. I didn’t touch anything in Asia, and my edits were about Europe. Devlet Geray (talk) 03:46, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

That's clearly incorrect. Anyone can see from the diff you removed these parts (amongst others) from the article with your revert "Crimean Tatars were deported to rural Siberia, Kazakh SSR, and Uzbek SSR (parts of Central Asia)" and "and a further several thousand died in exile in Central Asia" and "In Central Asia, Crimean Tatars continued to be mistreated and starved while in exile by the Stalinist regime.". So this is clearly part of "everything in Asia" which is what the topic ban covered. So the only question is whether Crimean Tatars are "Turkic peoples" or "Iranian peoples", "historic or modern". Our article Crimean Tatars says "are an Eastern European Turkic ethnic group and nation indigenous to Crimea.". So I'm going to say they are. So a clear and unambigious violation of the topic ban even with the questionable limited scope. The topic ban did not say anywhere that the Turkic people needed to be Asian Turkic people. It simply said it had to be something in Asia to do with them. Turkic people dying in Asia, being mistreated and starved in Asia, and yes just being successfully deported to Asia is clearly something that happened in Asia no matter where these Turkic people originated from. Nil Einne (talk) 04:30, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Mister RGloucester, my nickname is Devlet Geray, so use it in the correct way please. Devlet Geray (talk) 02:18, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

For clarity, are you asking people don't shorten your name to Devlet? Nil Einne (talk) 03:52, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

• Yes it’s not my name it’s a nick. If I need familiarity here, I will inform about it. - Devlet Geray (talk) 03:55, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

  A nick is still a form of a name otherwise it wouldn't be "nickname". Also I doubt it's intended as a form of familiarity but instead simply a way to avoid typing out a long name. People do it with my nick name sometimes too. That said it's fine to ask people not to shorten it and that should be respected but you need to be clear what you want since "my nickname is Devlet Geray, so use it in the correct way please" is very unclear. It could easily be referring to a typo or something else. Nil Einne (talk) 04:21, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

I have fixed this as per your request. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 06:14, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

I gotta be honest, instead of arguing over the exact wording of the topic ban, something that I think will just end up as fruitless fighting over words and clauses, the most straightforward resolution seems to me to be one of two options:

• - If the topic ban is no longer needed, remove the topic ban.
• - If the topic ban is still needed, make it Turkic peoples and Iranian people, broadly construed, and remove an ambiguity that doesn't benefit the community or Devlet Geray.

CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 06:23, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

I endorse selecting one of the two choices described by CoffeeCrumbs. And since Devlet Geray seems to be focused on wikilawyering about what is European and what is Asian, I recommend clarifying the topic ban to cover Turkic peoples and Iranian people, broadly construed, eliminating all ambiguity. Cullen328 (talk) 08:48, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Technically speaking, that could potentially be imposed right now as Crimea falls within WP:CT/EE. I seriously considered just doing it earlier, but the fact Devlet Geray was only notified of CT/EE just before this ANI was filed (i.e. had not edited within it after notification at all) made me hesitate. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:59, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

I'd support extending the topic ban especially since it doesn't even seem like the community wanted to limit it in the discussion. That said, I think it's important for Devlet Geray to appreciate they did violate the topic ban as worded unless there's someone else who agrees with the intepretation that something which happened in Asia to Turkic people is somehow not covered by a topic ban on everything in Asia to do with Turkic people etc. The violation might have been long enough ago that it's not clear a short block now will be preventative but they need to appreciate that even if this thread closes with no action they can expect an extended block if they do that again. Nil Einne (talk) 11:33, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Actually I just noticed a very recent violation. This source Devlet Geray reinserted by revert [115] is titled "Genetic differentiation between upland and lowland populations shapes the Ychromosomal landscape of West Asia". Whatever personal definition Devlet Geray wants to use, they clearly don't get to override sources they themselves are using when it comes to the topic ban. So they don't get to reinsert a source which explicitly refers to West Asia when it comes to a Turkic people. I have reverted their topic ban violation as it was still the latest edit. Also I should mention one reason it's important for Devlet Geray to appreciate this is that even with an extended and simpler topic ban, there are still going to be grey areas. Editors who can't even accept unambigious violates of existing topic bans are unlikely to succeed with any topic ban even an extended one with a clearer wording IMO. To be clear, I don't think this should be made a prerequiste for anything but Devlet Geray needs to carefully consider their position if they want to continue to edit here IMO since if they keep up with this whatever happens from here, barring a removal of the topic ban which seems unlikely, they'll likely quickly find themselves in big trouble. Edit: Just to note I said they themselves are using for emphasis, but it wouldn't matter if Devlet Geray is adding or removing the source, it would still be a violation. Nil Einne (talk) 11:48, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Why can't I use a source that have "Asia" in its name? For instance, can I use as a source a book named "History of Europe and Asia" to write article about the history of Europe? It has Asia in its name and it clearly describes history of Asian Turkic peoples. The only phrase I used from the mentioned source is "Three Yamnaya samples belong not only to the eastern branch in general, but to a specific sub-branch identified in a present-day sample from the Crimean Tatar population: I0231 and I0429 are GG625 derived, and I0444 is 17146508 derived (this SNP was identified in the our Crimean Tatar sample but not shown on the tree as the call rate was less than 90%)." It has nothing to do with Asia. Or can't I edit the article Virgin Lands campaign - it's about soviet policy in Kazakhstan, Turkic country? I belive that the primary reason for me that topic ban related to Iranian and Turkic peoples in Asia was given to me because of my edits in the relative topics, not because of my edits about Crimea and Crimean Tatars. Saying that I had "years of disruptive edits in articles related to the Crimean Tatars" for me seems unfair. If there is a proof that my edits on Crimean topics have somehow been disruptive all the time since unban and my articles are a harm to community, only then the extension of topic-ban can be discussed. I admit that some of my edits, one way or another, unintenially fall under the scope of the topic ban as it was intended, I apologize for it, but I am ready to follow restrictions according to a less ambiguous interpretation, I hope we can find a solution that addresses the concerns while allowing me to continue editing in my areas of knowledge. Devlet Geray (talk) 12:31, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

To be clear, I opened this thread because of these two edits, where you accused me of holding 'the desire to proof Russia was right all the time', justified removal of content cited in the article that is inconvenient to some narrative you want to portray by referring to the completely unrelated Russian serfdom, and also completely skewed the lead of the article, adding content that is not supported by the citations you added, all to either right great wrongs or prove a point. The move discussion has nothing to do with it. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 13:07, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

I said it generally, not your desire to prove Russia was right all the time, but the desire generally, not meaning you. I didn't delete nor I add anything, but I pointed out that in the preamble you repeat yourself - a clear unnecessary tautology: "Russia aimed to control the Black Sea and end raids by Crimean slavers into its territory - The annexation ended the centuries-long Crimean slave trade" (referring to the Black Sea slave trade article not to Crimean–Nogai slave raids in Eastern Europe like it's in consensus version), which (repetition) I indicated in the explanation of the edit, and then simply returned the article to the consensus version not changing anything in it. How is serfdom unrelated? If Russia abolished Black Sea slave trade with a kind gesture, then why did it continue from Circassia until 20th century and slavery (we can name it in different ways - krepostnichestvo like in Russian: this had stopped being a requirement by the 19th century, and serfs were by then practically indistinguishable from slaves, or yasırlıq like in Crimean Tatar - the nature is generally the same) form the backbone of the Russian economy until 1861? I'm not promoting any "narratives" as you want to present it, it's again a personal attack on me (discuss my edits, not my personality and not my "desires"), I'm just trying to point out the inconsistencies. Devlet Geray (talk) 13:15, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

You're missing the key part of my point and the examples are not equivalent. In the example you gave, the source covers several different things. By the same token, you could use a source which covers the entire world although Asia is clearly part of the world.

However the source you used is exclusively about something in West Asia as per the title itself. It only talks about stuff elsewhere in relation to something in West Asia otherwise it's irrelevant to the focus of their research.

This is confirmed by reading the source:

Since the Y-chromosomal gene pool of the Yamnaya is represented mainly by haplogroup R1b (as shown for both Yamnaya subpopulations studied to date), the question arises of whether Yamnaya Y-chromosomes also originated from West Asia.

Or frankly even the abstract:

In view of the contribution of West Asians to the autosomal gene pool of the steppe Yamnaya archaeological culture, we sequenced a large portion of the Y-chromosome in haplogroup R1b samples from present-day East European steppe populations. The ancient Yamnaya samples are located on the “eastern” R-GG400 branch of haplogroup R1b-L23, showing that the paternal descendants of the Yamnaya still live in the Pontic steppe and that the ancient Yamnaya population was not an important source of paternal lineages in present-day West Europeans.

In other words, this part of their research is relation to their analysis of whether the Crimean Tartar population has significant paternal contributions from historic Turkic peoples and Iranian people in Asia. Whether the answer is yes or no or we still don't know or something else, this is still clearly covered by the topic ban since either way this is relating the modern people to ancient i.e. historic Turkic or Iranian people in Asia.

Also unless WP:BANEX applies, then edits in violation of a topic ban are inherently disruptive. The community has already decided we don't want you editing the area. The way to demonstrate you can contribute productively in the area is not to violate your topic ban then argue there was nothing wrong with your edits content wise. It's to make edits to other areas of the encyclopaedia and demonstrate you can edit constructively there and then make a successful appeal to the community giving examples of your good non violating edits while explaining why you went wrong last time and how you'll avoid that this time.

If you believe that you can demonstrate a topic ban isn't needed anymore by making perfect edits which are otherwise violating your topic ban, you're seriously mistaken. Editors aren't likely to seriously consider whether your edits are positive or negative when they violated a topic ban, instead you're just going to end up blocked. In fact, IMO your attitude here makes me wonder if expanding the topic ban is even worth it since it unclear you'll respect it. It might be best if we just return to a full site ban.

Nil Einne (talk) 14:24, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Ok, I see your point, I withdraw all my justifications for my edits Devlet Geray (talk) 14:44, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Zenadalada and Bluemoonminnie

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

---

Zenadalada (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Bluemoonminnie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are clearly WP:NOTHERE vandalism only accounts that are probably also the same person. Zenadalada edits a page and says something about a Zen living in the area; Bluemoonminnie reverts it, but then manually reverts it back to include Zen's name. They both vandalized Rathmines, New South Wales within 24 hours of each other. All together, the vandalism is well over 4 edits (to correspond with the 4 warnings they would receive before they are blocked), so I think they should be blocked. jolielover♥talk 07:49, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

I am not sure what those two accounts are up to, or whether one is a sock of the other, or if it is two pals goofing off. But it is disruptive and so I have blocked both accounts for 72 hours. Cullen328 (talk) 08:37, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

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

Disruptive behavior

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

---

• Anonymous IP 2601:647:8100:6c30:5d02:18cd:1d4f:6f9b — edited Truth & Treason to list the genre as “comedy film” ([diff link](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Truth_%26_Treason&diff=1150000000&oldid=1149999999)).

This appears factually incorrect, and disruptive and intended to mislead as the film is a Holocaust-era drama. The edit may have been made in bad faith or without proper sourcing. Requesting admin review to ensure the article reflects accurate information and to monitor the IP for further disruptive edits.

• Anonymous IP 2601:647:8100:6c30:5d02:18cd:1d4f:6f9b — edited Truth & Treason to list the genre as “comedy film” ([diff link](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Truth_%26_Treason&diff=1150000000&oldid=1149999999)).

This is factually incorrect, as the film is a Holocaust-era drama. The edit may have been made in bad faith with intent to disrupt and mislead or without proper sourcing. Requesting admin review to ensure the article reflects accurate information and to monitor the IP for further disruptive edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7000:9700:2d51:71ae:5213:e005:198c (talk) 12:56, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

This change appears to have been reverted - there does appear to be something very odd about the diff however, as it is (for me) pointing at a completely different article (or rather diffs between two entirely separate articles!).Nigel Ish (talk) 13:18, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

The IP is also wrong, it's 2601:600:8500:9430:58F:F4B4:EB98:E406. The markdown formatting makes me suspect this was fed through an LLM. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 13:26, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) GPTZero, ZeroGPT & Quillbot agree with you 100% (although the short paragraph means the results are less accurate, it's still showing as 99-100% AI-generated on all three). Blue Sonnet (talk) 15:37, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

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

User talk:Ayzan Tours And Travels

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

---

Ayzan Tours And Travels (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) user has continued to promospam after their block. Please remove TPA. Lavalizard101 (talk) 13:33, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

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

Cohen & Gresser

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

---

Coehlinha is evading a block. WP:DUCK of CohenGresserWIki

see here– LuniZunie ツ_(talk) 17:54, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

No action required. While User:Coehlinha is almost certainly the same person behind User:CohenGresserWIki, the latter was blocked for advertising/promotion and having an account representing an organization. The User:Coehlinha account would appear to be a personal account, and not one what is shared. Further, they can be educated about conflict of interest and paid editing. I have placed a {{uw-paid}} warning on their talk page. Also, when you make a posting to this noticeboard regarding an editor, you MUST notify that editor. You have not done so. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:15, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

@Hammersoft Isn't this still misuse of an alternative account? – LuniZunie ツ_(talk) 18:20, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

@Hammersoft: CGW was hardblocked so coehlinha is block evasion. Lavalizard101 (talk) 18:41, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

@Hammersoft Very sorry about not adding a notice to their talk page, completely forgot I had to do that. – LuniZunie ツ_(talk) 18:46, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

@LuniZunie:, @Lavalizard101:; as WP:ROLE notes, an editor can choose a "replacement" account. This implies that the block role account can be replaced by one that is compliant with WP:UPOL. It is not a requirement that an account blocked for a WP:ISU violation be renamed in order to continue editing. How I would have handled it, and had started to handle it, is to request the editor comply with WP:PAID, then make it clear to them they needed to carefully read and closely follow WP:COI, in particular that they should make suggestions on updates on the talk page of the article. I don't disagree with Yamla's actions, but now we have a situation where the person was trying to make updates, got blocked for WP:ISU and spam violations, tried to create an alternative account that complied with WP:UPOL, got blocked for sockpuppetry, and now the original role account is blocked as a sockmaster, and the alternative account is blocked as an abusive sockpuppet. The whole thing feels very WP:BITEy to me. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:46, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Okay, yes in hindsight I don't think I made the best decision reporting them here; so I apologize for that. I will keep this in mind for the future. Thank you for providing your reasoning. Happy editing. – LuniZunie ツ_(talk) 20:51, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Creating a new account is only allowed if the username block is a soft block. CGW was not soft-blocked, they were hard-blocked. Lavalizard101 (talk) 21:02, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Lavalizard101/LuniZunie; Meh. Mistakes happen. I make them too. Another mistake; the User:Coehlinha account that is supposedly a sockpuppet of User:CohenGresserWIki was created February, 2024 [116]. It was not created to get around the block for CohenGresserWIki, which was created today. This isn't a sockpuppet situation. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:05, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Its still Block Evasion even if Coehlinha was created prior. Lavalizard101 (talk) 21:10, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Another view is that they are returning to the account that doesn't violate WP:ISU, and not attempting to evade the block. I think WP:AGF applies here. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:22, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Well, User:Yamla blocked anyway. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:16, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

I think my block is appropriate but any admin is free to lift it without consulting me, particularly if you get a commitment from them to follow WP:COIEDIT. --Yamla (talk) 18:38, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm not saying it's inappropriate. Much as many people think there's specific policy to guide each and every action, the reality is that different admins will handle situations differently. I would have handled it differently. That doesn't make you wrong. My comment about you blocking anyway should not be interpreted as saying I felt you did something wrong. Perhaps I should have worded that differently. Sorry. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:36, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Coehlinha has committed to following WP:COIREQ and so has been unblocked. --Yamla (talk) 22:54, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing by HotRodHundley

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

---

HotRodHundley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in continued disrurptive editing which has now crept into harrassing behavior. Primarily, there is persisent improper insertion of trivial content with an improper YouTube ref at Tonetta: [117], [118], and [119] which is likely a 3RR violation. I've also found it appropriate to revert a few other edits at Jonah Falcon, including this insertion of POV commentary. HotRodHundley has reverted me with what I'd characterize as disingenouous edit summaries, and left numerous similarly-improper warnings on my talk page. I can easily delete and ignore, but I fear we have someone WP:NOTHERE that should be evaluated by admins. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 18:17, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

On the contrary, the "disrurptive" editing is on ZZB's part entirely. Continually removing valid, sourced content, arbitrarily deeming the source "improper" despite it being an interview with the subject of the page, and arbitrarily deeming the content within the source "trivial" consists of vandalism based on nothing more than the vandal's preferences and whims. The user has continued his streak of what one may call "disrurptiveness" by reverting unrelated valid edits on other pages due to what can only be called some sort of developing personal vendetta. I would be fascinated to see this user defend their decision to deem a recording of Tonetta speaking an "improper" source for information concerning Tonetta himself, as they've made no attempt to do so thus far. HotRodHundley (talk) 18:24, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Feel free to make your arguments regarding the content on the article's talk page. Meanwhile, edit summaries like this violates our WP:NPA & WP:AGF policies. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 18:30, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

HotRodHundly has been banned for 31 hours Babysharkb☩ss2 I am Thou, Thou art I 18:31, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Nope, blocked for 31 hours for the personal attack in the edit summary linked above. (Those two terms get confused enough without extra help. :)) SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:53, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

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

Edit warring and WP:TEND with Beast from da East

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

---

Beast from da East (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

A while back, I proposed that Gambino Family (group) and their album Ghetto Organized be redirected to No Limit Records discography. I presented my findings on the act and album, and other users agreed per consensus that it was proper. However, Beast from da East (talk · contribs) has come in to edit war and argue.

Here, Beast undid the redirect. Binksternet (talk · contribs) and I have repeatedly restored the redirect, but the user has repeatedly restored it against consensus.

Later edits refer to an "obviously shaky consensus" and de-facto invalidate it because, apparently, having not edited the talk page before invalidates their consensus: [120]

I have repeatedly tried to engage with this editor, which has included:

• Completely ignoring my declaration that the article was redirected properly. Also insisting that their charting makes them automatically notable, and saying they're "beyond puzzled" as to why the article was redirected after my in-depth analysis of the sources that were present before Beast from da East's involvement, and pointing out that a proper consensus was reached.

• After being warned for edit warring, they proceeded to WP:DTTR me

• Claims that "references were added" but I do not see any more references than in the previous draft. This still includes uncited references to reviews from Robert Christgau and The Source which I was unable to corroborate.

• This edit, where they claim my edits are invalid because I have been blocked before, followed by whataboutism regarding other stubs I've created in the past.

Another edit implied that my opinion on the article was invalid because I am not an admin, which is farcical on its face. This later escalated to my opinion being invalid because I have been blocked in the past, which just... WTF? Let's also add on the facetious claim of adding sources, which I did not see Beast from da East do in any of their edits.

This has also led to further whataboutism from Beast, who dug up several old album stubs I did 15 years ago and wants to know why those are allowed to exist when the Gambino album isn't. I explained this, multiple times, and still got stonewalled and what-about-ed.

This is very obvious WP:TEND with a side of WP:IDHT. Repeated ignorance of rules and explanations, constant edit warring, assumption of bad faith. I took this to WP:ANEW but got no response other than from the subject. Pinging @Binksternet: for their involvement. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:51, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

TenPoundHammer, your own edit warring in this deletion-adjacent dispute is extremely problematic, given the context of your TBAN. If you edit war to BLAR again, I'll block you. Someone more familiar with the context might be within their rights to do so right now. No comment on BFDE. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:05, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

I've done other similar redirects since the topic ban, and every time I gathered consensus and executed the redirect without anyone expressing concerns that seeking consensus before redirection is close enough to violating the topic ban. This just happens to be the first such one that ended up part of an edit war, and I am not going to revert it any further.

I do understand treading carefully around deletion-adjacent actions, which is why I tried to present as much context here as possible and explicitly avoided any mention of deletion or notability. To me, deletion and redirection are separate entities, which again, I think is proven by the fact that my topic bans for redirection and deletion were entirely separate topic bans. (That said, I can see the argument that they are closer than I'm giving them credit for, and that any redirection on my part can be seen as a "stealth deletion", which is absolutely not my intent. That's why I presented my findings on the artist and album first, and only redirected after I felt consensus was reached.)

I'm sure I'm close to overstepping boundaries already, which is why I've explicitly avoided any talk of deletion or "hey, can someone XFD this for me?" type talk that's gotten me in trouble before. I still think this user's behavior is reprehensible, retalitory, ignorant of policy, and aggressive enough to warrant some degree of action. However, I'm not absolving myself of being in at least a gray area here regarding my topic ban. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:16, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

In regards to the articles in question. The main article about the Gambino Family did not cite any references and was proposed for deletion User:A.Deira.born then added several references in an attempt to establish notability and save the article. This apparently was not satisfactory for the above user who proposed a redirection in the talkpage which was discussed with one user, User:Nayyn who agreed with the above user and thus the group page and their album were redirected. I stumbled upon this redirect in August and was puzzled as to why the page had been redirected as the group passes Wikipedia:Notability (music) which states notability is establised if an artist "has had a single or album on any country's national music chart" I reverted both articles back to their previous state after which Nayyn contacted me, asking me to verify my claims that the album had in fact charted in the top 20 in the United States, and I then added references to both articles to substantiate my claim. Now some months later the above user has been in an edit war and has broken the 3RR (as have I admittedly) with me and threatened me with blocks despite my asks to take it to another forum so other users can discuss the matter. Beast from da East (talk) 20:18, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

You repeatedly ignored my pointing out that the sources given by the other editor were insufficient -- they were just directory listings or user-generated content like Discogs, none of which is suitable for an article. Every time I pointed out what would constitute a reliable source, you just kept saying "well, I don't know what you're asking for" and didn't bother to try and add anything else.

As I pointed out, some artists chart but never get anything published about them. I can name about a dozen people who've made Hot Country Songs since 1990 but don't have articles because there's just no info on them -- in some cases, I can't even find recordings of their songs!

The fact that the album charted is not what's being disputed. The act has a two-sentence bio on Allmusic and a single review from the same site, and that's literally all I or any other editors could find. I pointed out already that even in old music magazines and newspaper archives, no one else seemed to review the album or say anything about the artist. Did you find any other sources on the act or their album, beyond Allmusic and the sources that are not reliable?

Pointing out that other similar stubs exist is just dodging the question and evoking whataboutism. I also do not appreciate my knowledge of Wikipedia rules being deemed invalid simply because I have been blocked in the past and am currently under a topic ban, or that others' consensus is invalid simply because they hadn't edited the article before. I also don't appreciate being warned with templates. Don't template the regulars.

Again, I see how me touching these articles at all is a bit too close for comfort regarding my topic ban, and I felt a bit of trepidation opening this ANI thread at all. I do not want to WP:BOOMERANG this thing into a block, so I am trying to focus this solely on your behavior and inability to listen when another editor asks you to stop doing something. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:29, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Just would like to comment on the above users "reprehensible, retalitory, ignorant of policy, and aggressive enough to warrant some degree of action" The artist in question has released an album for a major American record label, the album has charted at #17 on that countries album chart (the Billboard 200) has a review by a major professional music source and all this has been cited. Not exactly what is so "reprehensible." The above user has been given multiple warnings over the course of well over a decade and time and time again has continued to violate the rules Wikipedia has put in place, when is enough enough with this above user? How can a user ilk get away with what they have gotten away with? Beast from da East (talk) 20:32, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Beast from da East made seven reverts [121][122][123][124][125][126][127], within a 24 hour period, and

TenPoundHammer made six reverts [128][129][130][131][132][133]. Both have easily exceeded the bright line three revert rule. None of these reverts qualify for any of the exceptions to 3RR. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 21:27, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

That sounds like they both have a block coming, but as they appear to have stopped now, it would be punitive, not preventive. TPH did have a topic ban explicitly forbidding him from BLARing, but it expired some 4 months ago. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:38, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Such flagrant warring between editors who should know better is disappointing and doesn't inspire confidence that warring won't occur at other articles in the future. Regardless of the result of this discussion, a mea culpa from both is needed. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 21:55, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

I have no particularly strong opinion on whether the page should be a redirect or not, but as @Beast from da East I think correctly argues, the artist does fulfil at least one criteria of WP:BAND (although I note that the policy says they "may" be notable, not that they automatically are).

What I find more disappointing is that @TenPoundHammer with 20 years on WP and over a quarter million edits stoops to multi-reverting in clear violation of 3RR and seemingly as a repeat of the behaviour that got a just-expired ban. That doesn't excuse Beast, but someone's gotta be the bigger person here. — Arcaist ^{(contr—talk)} 22:07, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm not excusing my behavior in regards to edit warring which I've never had an issue with in 16 years. But if the above user is consistently being topic banned in regards to deletion-related and redirect issues, what more can be done to prevent it from continuing? Beast from da East (talk) 22:13, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Beast from da East, whatever the answer is, forum shopping is not. And as soon as something is here at ANI, that's probably already the place you're looking for. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:13, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

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

Disruptive behavior from DAR.45m

• DAR.45m (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I have being constantly adding train boards to Indian Railways trains but this user is constantly reverting my edits. I don't know what is the problem with him. He doesn't do something on his own but is only busy reverting my edits. Admin please look into the matter Raju2789 (talk) 21:26, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

I think it's important that we hear from them on why all of their edits today are reverts of your edits but they stopped editing soon after you posted a query on their User talk page wanting to discuss this. You should have also posted a notification about this ANI discussion there but another editor did this for you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:19, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Disruptive behavior of Raju2789

• Raju2789 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I upload the photos of Indian Railways original train board and travel over to India, and take a picture of the train board.

But this user is giving a wrong computer image on it and says it is original. I reverts his editing to stop it for editing and give him a warning for the edits. Please, look into the images on Wikicommons and conform it that it is computer or Real image.

Thank u. DAR.45m (talk) 05:58, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

@DAR.45m @Raju2789

This appears to be a content dispute, which ANI has no way to resolve for you. You could look for a third opinion at the third opinion noticeboard or request resolution at the dispute resolution noticeboard Athanelar (talk) 10:44, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

User:Coconutpeople

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

Since May 2025, this user has only been editing on the topics of Bhakti Marga and Vishwananda. They have often added or reinstated flawed sources, mostly of a certain type:

• at least somewhat positive about Vishwananda, often even outright glorifiying
• Appearing like legitimate, independent news reports to the outside, but in reality often being (to differing degrees of certainty) press releases of the organisation or its associates.

Examples of these types of edits:[134][135][136][137]

Possibly also: [138] [139]

These sources can only be removed after extremely lengthy and attritioning talk page discussions with the user, and/or with help from WP:3O/WP:RSN.

On the discussion pages of the articles and in edit summaries, they accused User:Juremaa and myself of bias and CoI, at times instead of rational argumentation. Examples: [140] [141] [142]

Some of their discussion entries show in part signs of AI generation. Clearly: [143] less sure: [144] [145]

All of these disruptive patterns (and some more) persisted and persist even after multiple attempts to talk to the user about it on article and discussion talk pages. Iluzalsipal (talk) 22:26, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

I might appear somewhat zealous in this matter, this is because there have been a plethora of more or less open attempts of BM affiliates to influence these articles on the German and English Wikipedias. For User:Coconutpeople, there is however no direct sign of a CoI, so this should be read more as an explanation of my behaviour than theirs. Iluzalsipal (talk) 22:31, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Edit warring/disruptive/personal attacking IPs

• 2601:881:8482:6CF0:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 86.155.72.170 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Both of the IP range and IP have been going at each other recently- seems to be mainly stemming from edit warring on List of Are You Afraid of the Dark? episodes, which has recently resulted in a protection that expires on December 3. Despite this, both IPs are now personally attacking each other (see here and here for example). The IP range has also been disruptively edit warring year ranges on List of All That episodes, despite my reverts of their edits as per MOS:TVSEASONYEAR and the article's local usage of year ranges (these edits on the All That episodes article is actually what led me to all of this going on).

Based on the article history of List of Are You Afraid of the Dark? episodes, it seems that the range has also been reverted multiple times (from other editors) for unsourced edits. Not entirely sure where the range's and IP's warring originated, but based off of recent behaviors from both, seems like some sort of blocking is needed for both of these. Magitroopa (talk) 22:25, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Also, it appears this is all the 'response' to this we'll be getting from the one IP... Magitroopa (talk) 23:23, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes, genius. I'm clearly worthy of blocking for making less than five *factually constructive* MINOR EDITS on a tv show episodes page which resulted in me being forced to waste an ungodly amount of my time for the past 3 days repeatedly dealing with a braindead, illiterate troll-spammer.

Cluelessly complain and fail elsewhere you pathetic hypocrite. Reporting you right back. 86.155.72.170 (talk) 23:26, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

This one was previously reminded about civility by myself and another user. tony 23:28, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Just reported the IP after their personal attacks towards others is continuing (here in an ANI thread specifically regarding their behavior??). Clearly their behavior hasn't/will not be stopping after continuing said personal attacks here and being warned multiple times previously. Magitroopa (talk) 23:33, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Genius non-response. Keep the pathetic false-reporting coming. 86.155.72.170 (talk) 23:44, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

FYI, it is not 'false reporting' when your behavior continues to go against no personal attacks. No matter who started all this edit warring, you are the one continuing with personal attacks towards other editors, even continuing to do so in this very ANI thread discussing that issue. While I originally created this ANI regarding yours and the IP range's edit warring/personal attacks, you continuing with that same behavior here is only increasing the likelihood of getting blocked. Magitroopa (talk) 23:50, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

You reported me for telling a *factual troll spammer* to get off my talk page as they repeatedly harassed me and deleted MY OWN REPLIES. Ergo, you are unequivocally *pathetic*.

And big spoilers: I couldn't give the slightest toss about a 3 day old non-account getting blocked. Worthlessly report it forever. 86.155.72.170 (talk) 00:00, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

The IPv6 range edit warred yesterday but seems to have ceased that today. They were also trying to de-escalate the conflict, but 86..., as can readily be seen above, seems to relish conflict. I have blocked 86... for 1 week for personal attacks and am not taking action against the IPv6 range. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 00:13, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

LOL keep miserably failing at life you embarrassingly pathetic, hypocrite geek pricks 92.40.219.154 (talk) 00:42, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

@Rsjaffe: Dunno if it's too large a range or not, but another IP has popped up under 92.40.218.0/23 following the other recent block evasion. Magitroopa (talk) 01:20, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

I have blocked 92.40.218.0/23 Mfield (Oi!) 01:23, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

That range has a worrisome edit history. See, e.g., Special:Diff/1319780678 Special:Diff/1316804820. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 02:05, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Potential Legal threat?

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

---

Freekbob30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) here. Which started from myself removing the content that they placed in here: [146]. I removed because it did not have any reliable sources regarding the subject. The second revert I discussed on their talk page to which they didn't respond and instead added the content back. [147] Third revert (not by me),[148] but I had also pinged them to the Hockey Project's discussion page regarding it. Conyo14 (talk) 22:42, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

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

• "Freedom of Information Act" is the stupidest legal threat we've had in quite some time. EEng 23:48, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Tag-team edit war: Sourced section shortened 4× at Ancient Macedonian language

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

---

Text generated by a large language model or similar AI technology has been collapsed in line with the relevant guideline and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Article: Ancient Macedonian language Status: Unprotected Users involved: NebY (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Khirurg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Sirfurboy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Summary: Stable version (5 paragraphs, 2 days old) had **consensus** (WP:CONS). 3 editors **re-added shortened version 4 times** in **tag-team pattern** (WP:EW):

1. [149] — User:NebY
2. [150] — User:Khirurg
3. [151] — User:NebY
4. [152] — User:Sirfurboy

I reverted **3 times** (no 3RR violation), opened talk: Talk:Ancient_Macedonian_language#Changes in § Macedonian in Classical sources (no consensus).

Evidence:

• Stable version:[153]
• Talk section: [Talk:Ancient_Macedonian_language#Changes in § Macedonian in Classical sources]
• Warnings: [154], [155], [156]

Request: - **Semi-protect page** (7 days) - **Restore stable version** (5 paragraphs) - **Warn all 3 editors** for edit warring

MacedonLinguist (talk) 23:27, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

@MacedonLinguist, please follow the instructions at the top of this page and notify each of those editors of this discussion. Schazjmd (talk) 00:22, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Edit war on Ancient Macedonian language

How should I proceed in the following scenario? Over 6 days, I added 3 sourced paragraphs to a section (supported by high-quality reliable sources), expanding it from 2 to 5 paragraphs total. No editors objected; several even added their own material to represent opposing views. This participation and lack of objection established consensus. The article covers a fiercely debated and politicized topic, and my additions presented well-documented but controversial facts. Up to this all were going well https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ancient_Macedonian_language&oldid=1320095443. Yesterday, User:NebY suddenly shortened the section to 1/5 of its size, removing most sourced content and obscuring key facts. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ancient_Macedonian_language&diff=next&oldid=1320095443 I reverted once again, opened a talk page section titled "Changes in § Macedonian in Classical sources" , and notifiedUser:NebY on their talk page. Today: User:Khirurg re-added the shortened version without discussion https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ancient_Macedonian_language&diff=prev&oldid=1320232271. I reverted once, notified him, and pointed to the talk section. User:NebY re-added the shortened version again https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ancient_Macedonian_language&diff=1320260613&oldid=1320251259 I reverted once and re-notified. User:Sirfurboy re-added the shortened version. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ancient_Macedonian_language&diff=1320264678&oldid=1320264516 I stopped at 3 reverts to avoid violating WP:3RR. Shortened version re-added 4 times by 3 editors in a tag-team pattern No consensus on talk for the change.

I would like the article to be reinstated in the old form MacedonLinguist (talk) 00:22, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

• This appears to be a content dispute. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:07, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

  And indeed, the article was fully protected. Not sure there is anything to do at ANI. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 01:13, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

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

Topic ban violation

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

---

• Radlrb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Radlrb33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Radlrb (alternate account Radlrb33) was topic-banned from "mathematical numbers, broadly construed" a bit over a year ago (see [157]). Two days ago, they engaged in a dispute with Allan Nonymous at 42 (number), see this portion of its edit history: [158]. They have prebutted the obvious inference that this is a topic-ban violation here: User_talk:Radlrb33#Notes_on_some_vandalism_reverts_I_make, arguing that the edits they reverted were "obvious vandalism". Personally I find this uncompelling (I don't think the edits were vandalism). I had a brief discussion with the administrator who administered the ban; Daniel suggested I come here to seek a consensus on the matter.

If others agree, I request a stern warning for Radlrb about their topic ban, and about inappropriately labeling edits as vandalism. --JBL (talk) 23:33, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

The edit they were reverting clearly does not meet the threshold of obvious vandalism (it's not vandalism at all). tony 23:45, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

I have blocked both User:Radlrb and User:Radlrb33 for 72 hours for violating the terms of their topic ban. I've explained the block at User_talk:Radlrb33#Blocked. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:18, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

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

Kane43 intentionally uses unreliable sources

• Kane43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The editor Kane43 has been using Joshua Project as a source on multiple articles since September 2025. I provided a welcome message on their talk page on 9 September with emphasis on reliable sources. But the editor was hostile in response. On that same day, I left a message on their talk page explaining why Joshua Project is an unreliable source but once again, this was met with hostility. On 19 September, I gave a warning about the use of poor sources but this was ignored. Despite the warning, Kane43 has continued to use Joshua Project as a source to change content on articles. Examples of such edits are 1, 2 and 3. Number 4 took place recently on 2 November. Kwesi Yema (talk) 00:04, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

They've also been adding content cited to PeopleGroups.org (another missionary source, per this RSN discussion and the briefest glance at the site) and removing reliably sourced content while saying that sources contradict oral traditions. Then there are comments like "ur not smart kid" and "You’re not even Congolese, yet you’re all over everything related to Congo. You even stalk all our ethnic groups—like bro, are you really okay? Don’t you have any shame?". I suggest blocking as NOTHERE. Woodroar (talk) 03:10, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked Kane43 from article space. The editor is free to make neutral, well referenced edit requests on article talk pages. Cullen328 (talk) 03:47, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Good block. Any time someone asserts a "You're not/don't follow/don't edit X, what business do you have here?" line, that marks the Someone as blockworthy. Ravenswing 06:59, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

If there isn't already a WP:OWB for that, there should be. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:20, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Heh, I've added it to Ravenswing's Laws. Ravenswing 13:27, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

User:Hotgas edit warring and refusing to communicate

Hotgas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), previous 3RR report

User is a SPA whose only edits consist of edit warring on Dance in Thailand and Traditional Thai clothing. Resumed editing the same page one day after the previous EW block expired. They were invited repeatedly to discuss on the talk page ([159], [160], [161], [162]) by multiple editors, which they have ignored and decided to plow ahead in reinstating their favorite version of the article instead. They have also falsely accused other editors of vandalism.

My suggestion is that they should be banned from editing these two pages directly. Northern Moonlight 00:43, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

I have pageblocked Hotgas from Dance in Thailand where their edit warring has been most flagrant and warned them to refrain from edit warring at Traditional Thai clothing. Cullen328 (talk) 04:08, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Persistent, disruptive "flagship" edits at New Mexico State University

Alamo NM has a long history of editing New Mexico State University to claim that it is a "flagship" university. This dates back to 2018 and has often been paired with edits removing "flagship" from University of New Mexico (e.g., [163], [164]) or claims that the two universities are both flagships (e.g., [165], [166]). There was discussion in the Talk pages of both articles last year (UNM and NMSU discussion 1 and NMSU discussion 2) among multiple editors that resulted in consensus that the evidence supported labeling only the University of New Mexico a flagship university. There weren't very many editors in the discussion so it's not a terribly strong consensus.

Since then, Alamo NM has occasionally returned to edit the articles to impose their view without any further attempt at discussion or new evidence e.g. adding "flagship" to the NMSU article, again adding "flagship" to the NMSU article, again adding "flagship" to the NMSU article, again adding "flagship" to the NMSU article and removing "flagship" from the UNM article. Their edits in 2025 have either not used any edit summaries (e.g., [167], [168], [169]) or have used edit summaries that don't mention their addition or removal of this material (e.g., "Updated story"). One of the edits that didn't include an edit summary did include a reference but the document doesn't even mention New Mexico State University; Alamo NM didn't reply to a question about this source in the article's Talk page. Yesterday, an unregistered editor made the exact same kind of edit that Alamo NM has made many times.

This is a clear pattern of edit-warring, misleading communication, and refusal to communicate and collaborate that has escalated to editing while logged out to continue the same behavior. Please block Alamo NM from editing these articles. ElKevbo (talk) 02:59, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Potentially of note is that at least two of the IPs that made these edits, 192.88.140.18 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 192.88.140.15 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), are associated with New Mexico State University. I'd be concerned about paid editing and/or COIs if it's the same user. – Frood (talk) 03:40, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

(rolls eyes) The university's own splash page doesn't assert it's a "flagship" anything. Ravenswing 06:57, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

User:LocPoet

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

---

Article Gulf British Academy is at AFD, and single-purpose article creator User:LocPoet has been repeatedly moving it, blanking it, and creating new versions under variant titles in main space and user space, creating strings of redirects and user pages for non-existent users. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikishovel (talk • contribs) 05:56, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

As of this reply, User:LocPoet redirects to this, a page titled "GBA (Gulf British Academy) School in Kuwait" which is a redirect to User:Newredirectpage which is also a redirect to GBA (Gulf British Academy) School. This is extremely disruptive. Chess enjoyer (talk) 06:16, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Blocked from article space and from page moves. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 06:28, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

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

Immediate block of Fdom5997 for blatant incivility

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

---

Fdom5997 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• "Yeah, you strike me as a purely borderline-obsessive sociopath. You do need to seek help."
• "Shut up. You will leave this and you will accept it or else. Period!"
• "You can shut up, and accept the fact the the chart-format I am submitting, is the correct format. Case closed!"
• "You need to seek help
• "This guy just can't take an L."

Please read the previous, not closed notification where several editors supported some form of sanction against that account. Yacàwotçã (talk) 07:47, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

I have blocked User:Fdom5997 for violations of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, as exemplified by this. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:57, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

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

MacedonLinguist

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

---

MacedonLinguist (talk · contribs) was created just 9 days ago and has already amassed a large number of edits in Ancient Macedonia-related topics. They already exhibit unnatural familiarity with Wikipedia, such as edit(war)ing, opening tp discussions, citing sources, and a strong pov, which leads them to collude with a large number of editors, whom they consider as part of a wikipedia conspiracy.

In particular, the user repeatedly, accross several discussions, accuses editors, or WP as a whole, of regional bias, due to numerical differences between the populations of countries. The assumption is that those who have opposed them are simply citizens of Greece or Bulgaria, and that alone invalidates their position, because the default view of those editors would be opposing to that of MacedonLinguist (which is problematic for many reasons): I strongly believe that there is a regional bias in the article. The population of Greece is 11 million, and that of North Macedonia is 2 million, which inherently creates the illusion of a majority opinion from the Greek perspective [...] There is a well-known debate between North Macedonia and Greece ... On top of that, there is a debate between North Macedonia and Bulgaria ... so people from Bulgaria tend to support the view of Greece. (discussion1, discussion2, discusion3, discussion4). This rhetoric is eerily similar to that of the suspected sockmaster a few months ago.

The user has become increasingly disruptive and agressive in their rhetoric. Instances include: reapeatedly claiming fake consensus and alleged lack of participation (diff, diff, example, in this random section alone several editors express their disagreement/position), harassing editors talkpages with unjustified warnings (diff1, diff2, diff3 see also diff), removal of other editors talkpage responces (diff, while also threatening to report for disruption (?)), assuming bad-faith and further attempts to present editors as malevolent (diff: "Tag-team edit war", diff: Are you telling me that is ok for some editors to collaborate...), using of AI or large language model to file reports (example).

The past few days they have been warned repeadetly, although, just like with the latest sockmaster, the core rhetoric will not change, making wp:nothere obvious. Piccco (talk) 14:20, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

I've blocked them on sockpuppetry grounds, as the evidence clearly matches SolderUnion. Even that aside, the behavior on display here would have been solid grounds for a tban due to their WP:BATTLEGROUND approach. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:07, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

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

Huge collection of likely SOCKS

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

---

In the matter of a few hours, literally THOUSANDS of accounts with the prefix ~2025- were created. At least two of them were blocked (~2025-30834-04 by Lofty abyss & ~2025-28869-77 by Ohnoitsjamie) probably more but I don't have time to scroll through the list of, at this point, over 2,000 users. I fear that these are all WP:SOCKS of each other and should be investigated. See list. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:17, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

You may find this helpful: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Temporary_accounts Hiobazard (talk/contribs) 17:20, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

User:Hiobazard thank you. I doubt I will be the last to raise this issue. I see it was enabled this morning... Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:23, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Isn't that just the new "username" format for temporary accounts, i.e. how IP editors will look like from now on? I've randomly clicked on one of the entries from the list, and went to its talk page. It says that it's the talk page of a temporary account. Nakonana (talk) 17:23, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

@Nakonana: yea Hiobazard educated me on that change a few seconds before you posted. Looks like it was enabled today. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:25, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

It was originally going to be rolled out October 7th, but it was delayed until today. See Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF)#Temporary accounts rollout. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 17:27, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for all the info. Missed the announcement. Sorry for the post. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:28, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

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

This person should be blocked for abuse of editing privileges.

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

---

Special:Contributions/Eyeofraaaaah This person has vandalized multiple pages already and was only created about a week ago. I would say ban for abuse of editing privileges, but banning for solely using an account for vandalism would also work. NotJamestack (talk) 17:38, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Have you tried reporting at AIV? Blue Sonnet (talk) 17:46, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

@Blue-Sonnet Just did. ✅ NotJamestack (talk) 17:54, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Blocked. PhilKnight (talk) 18:14, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

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

User:Lado85 edit warring

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

---

Hello, I am here to report User:Lado85 for clear and repeated edit warring at List of current UFC fighters. Even after I’ve asked them to stop on their talk page, they’ve gone and did it again. Their edits have been reverted several times by multiple different users, but yet they continue without consensus from community. This has been going on for the last week plus. Can someone please step in? GOAT Bones231012 (talk) 17:42, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

This war began a year ago, but why didn't you report User:Alberto González Seguí, who reverts this edit whole year, an who created his account only for this.

I appologize for my reverts, and will not do them more, waiting for result. Lado85 (talk) 18:14, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

This is already at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Alberto_González_Seguí_reported_by_User:Lado85_(Result:_). PhilKnight (talk) 18:16, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

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

User:Alberto González Seguí edit warning

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

---

User created his profile only for change Ilia Topuria's flag. His has not other edits. He began this war year ago, changing this flag without reason. There was not problem with flag till this user began his war.

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Alberto González Seguí reported by User:Lado85 (Result: ) Lado85 (talk) 18:17, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

See section immediately above. PhilKnight (talk) 18:21, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

I may not have other edits, but it's because I didn't see the need for it.

On the war topic, you were the one trying to change the established key notes because you didn't like them and therefore, changing other elements on the page.

I didn't create my account just for that, but because I had to create one.

And to be honest, you really went overboard by reporting me for this, I just wanted a peaceful talk. Alberto González Seguí (talk) 18:52, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

All your contributions are reverting same edit on same page. If you want to talk, why didn't you enter discuss on article's talk page? Lado85 (talk) 19:01, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

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

larry sanger...

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

---

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

---

Larry Sanger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (mainspace article)

additional links: user:larry sanger/nine theses, and its associated talk page

so it's come to this... i'll just make this report short and simple. focus on one problem. there are plenty more, and plenty of that "plenty more" that would've gotten anyone else blocked as not here or for personal attacks, but it's best to start off with the latest issue of aspersions, and then go to all the other stuff when (and if) needed, so i'll suggest giving it at least two days before we get to the rest

amid discussions regarding thesis 6, regarding exposing the identities of (doxing) wikipedia's "leaders" — implicitly admins, bureaucrats, arbcom, checkusers, and maybe the wmf, though two other theses (t2 and t9) would accidentally(?) broaden that scope to every editor — in order to expose potential conflicts of interest (y'know, just in case), larry made the questionable decision of accusing admins of taking bribes for editing (diff). when pressed for evidence in that section, larry avoided the question, simply addressing other matters (see further replies on the section)

when pressed in his talk page to back his claim up or strike it by isabelle belato (diff), he erroneously stated to have made no specific accusations (diff), and when pressed by that wonk from rfd (cogsan, was it? diff), he pointed to the evidence in t6... which doesn't actually have any proof that admins regularly engage in paid editing (disclosed or otherwise) and get away with it, and to "many Wikipedia pages documenting this", whatever that means (diff), and additionally asserted to isabelle that he presented evidence to a completely different thing, which he also didn't actually provide evidence for (diff). he still hasn't actually provided said proof or pointed to the specific sources he's vaguely handwaving at, even though it should be an extremely easy request to fulfill if said proof actually exists

i'll also note that he'd cited the fact that people were arguing against him about this exact topic as proof that he was right (diff), which i couldn't find a good place to put in, but will cite as proof that circular logic is at play. frankly, i'd probably be able to use this diff as evidence of trolling, but am too lazy for that consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 18:19, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

We all know that Larry is not going to produce any solid evidence of bribery; if he had any, he already would have, rather than hand waving. He also hasn't blamed any individual in particular, so no personal attacks have been made. What would you like to happen here? voorts (talk/contributions) 18:35, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

to say that "he hasn't blamed any individual in particular" would imply that accusing admins of regularly taking bribes with no actual evidence isn't an aspersion (which wp counts as a type of personal attack). what i'd like to see happen, as far as this specific discussion goes right now, is it first starting off small in scope (hopefully for at least 2 days as i mentioned before) before the however many other issues are addressed consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 18:39, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

You came to ANI, which means you are seeking administrative action. ANI is not a forum for yet another open-ended discussion on why Larry's nine theses are bad. If you are not seeking administrative action, I will close this thread. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:41, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

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

...no, this really isn't a good time for a speedy close. this is very much in the realm of "chronic, intractable behavioral problems", action is necessary, and it's unlikely that anything will be done otherwise, so closing it as "shit-stirring" (mentioned off-wiki) will not help. as an aside, to finish the reply i was writing to voorts...

oh, that, fair. ultimately, my suggestion would be blocking for personal attacks, without opposition to nothere (though this isn't what the discussion is about yet), but with mild opposition to banning consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 18:58, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Seriously? This essay has been discussed ad nauseam and a protracted ANI thread where we dissect everything Larry Sanger has said to find anything that could be deemed unacceptable is not a good use of anyone's time. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:00, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

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