Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1201

I tried to have an edit made to a pet article for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:LunaEclipse, I also tried to comment on their page but it will not let me comment there, I tried to enter it 3 times each time it returns to my comment with the reply box so I am not sure how I am suppose to inform her of my posting here.

I used two reliable sources CNN and the Washington Post to show that ANTIFA are violent, ^[1] and a youtube video of CNN reporting on their violent nature, ^[2] I also pointed out that the Dutch Parliament today voted to designate them as a terrorist organization.

Why was my request taken off the talk page when I used reliable sources to prove the article needs to be changed, and why is it considered disruptive to request a change to a fact in the article that is clearly wrong unless it is being protected by those displaying POV on it?

Thank you for your consideration.2603:8080:3EF0:8DD0:7400:B3C2:B5D7:4CE2 (talk) 14:15, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

The Antifa (United States) page has been getting an unusually high level of trolling from editors who are apparently suddenly very concerned about antifascist violence. This has included significant levels of WP:NOTFORUM violations of edit requests. This appears to be someone caught in that dragnet. The sources provided are severely insufficient considering the academic literature used to support antifascist views on violence. Simonm223 (talk) 14:21, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

OP blocked for personal attacks here. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:34, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

I’ve edited articles where these trolls tend to lurk. I typically ignore them. 🌙Eclipse (she/they/all neos • talk • edits) 22:53, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

• Killing of Charlie Kirk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Миша Карелин (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Today M.Karelin used acornyms to name the accused (seemingly) in order to bypass Special:AbuseFilter/1382 violation several times. As the RFC to name the accused wzs still ongoing and had yet to be concluded it was still not allowed to name the accused anywhere at the time of the edit

Worth noting that earlier Very Polite Person left a comment suggesting that who who bypass the filter (at the time it was in effect) presumably would be blocked --Trade (talk) 17:00, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

His username is User:Миша_Карелин. I have left the ANI notice on the user talk page for you. Northern Moonlight 17:24, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Sorry! Names got me confused! Trade (talk) 17:39, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Block everyone who tries to bypass Wiki censorship, but also try to ready Wikipedia:Five pillars, I think some people forgot the main reason of this project !! Alas. M.Karelin (talk) 17:45, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

M.Karelin, while accuracy is important, we take WP:BLP very seriously, and for someone not convicted of a crime, we err on the side of caution (note that I am in favor of naming the arrested guy). This was extremely WP:POINTy and while I don't personally feel any sanction would be justified if you acknowledge this and pledge to do better, this kind of aggressively making the point and trying to "hide" an edit so that it isn't caught is disruptive editing. This is a sensitive area, and these types of games make things worse. Being right isn't justification for acting like this. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 17:49, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

He is not charged, but he is under custody. We could simply mention this (referring to the Gov sources), and that would be appropriate. But some people with power here decided to go in a very absurd way, they just forgot the meaning of this project - Wikipedia:Five pillars. This is very sad, wiki is turning into Twitter. M.Karelin (talk) 17:58, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

So the meaning of the project is to ignore the RfC (that you participated in), which is a critical part of dispute resolution, and proceed ahead with including his initials before that RfC was included, even though the edit filter stopped you three times from including his name? --Hammersoft (talk) 18:02, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

There are still rampant BLP violations there and ArbCom has been mentioned by senior admins. We still need maximum eyes on the entire set of pages. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 17:25, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Read my comment bellow. Censorship in Wiki is something horrible now. M.Karelin (talk) 17:43, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Nobody was censoring anything. There was a then-ongoing RfC working to achieve consensus about whether to include the name or not. Do you think it was somehow appropriate to ignore that RfC and include his initials anyway? --Hammersoft (talk) 17:47, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

What is ArbCom gonna do about Kirk's shooting? Trade (talk) 21:29, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Barring presentation of other misbehavior, I don't know that we should do anything here as the RfC was closed in favor of name inclusion. At this point, applying some sort of sanction is very much after the fact. @Миша Карелин: Did you not think the edit filter stopping you from including the name three different times (, for curious admins) was a warning sign not to do this? Come on. Bad form for attempting the work around, and please don't attempt that ever again. WP:BLP is a serious policy with serious implications for the project. Attempting to skirt around walls put in place to prevent behavior is not the way to handle things. Consider yourself admonished for this behavior. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:30, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Not mentioning his name in the Article, when the entire world knows his name already - this not only violation of Wiki rules, but the violation of Wikipedia:Five pillars. You forgot the meaning of WIki. And you blaming me ?? Shame on you. Now you can execute me . M.Karelin (talk) 17:41, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

I fail to see how not mentioning his name in the article, when there was a then-ongoing RfC about the issue, is somehow a violation of WP:5P. Could you please explain that? Three times the edit filter stopped you from adding the name. Yet, you decided to try to work around the edit filter by including his initials? Could you please explain how you thought this was a good idea and how now that you've been admonished for it, you think you've done no wrong? --Hammersoft (talk) 17:45, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

That was very stupid RfC, violating Five pillars and the meaning of this project. When someone is arrested, you can mention his name referring to the Gov resources. That wont violate any wiki rule or any law. You are acting like dictators here. M.Karelin (talk) 18:02, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

So you disagreed with the RfC, and unilaterally decided what was best for the project? Is that how this project works? Ignore the RfC (that you participated in) and just go ahead and do it anyway? Also, calling us dictators is a direct violation of WP:NPA. I strongly encourage you not to violate WP:NPA again. Comment on content, not contributors. I'll place a warning on your talk page so there's no question that you've been properly warned. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:07, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

When someone is arrested, you can mention his name referring to the Gov resources.

Government sources are never inherently trustworthy or RS simply by being government sources. For example, we would not trust implausible statements about Donald Trump from the White House anymore than a reasonable and sane fellow would trust impausible statements about the Russian invasion of Ukraine from the the Kremlin or the persecution of Uyghurs in China from the Zhongnanhai. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 18:08, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

I meant FBI sources. What are you talking about ? What Ukraine ? M.Karelin (talk) 18:32, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

The FBI (or other national equivalent in other states) do not get an automatic presumption of being WP:RS. Every statement by anyone in any source is always subject to equal scrutiny. Being "government" grants zero clout here. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 18:45, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

It's not stupid! It's vitally important, and the potentially ruined lives of innocents are at stake! There is no factoid so important it cannot wait for charges to be filed. We cannot yield from this stand, nor should we. jp×g🗯️ 08:27, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

He is not yet charged, but the info is added. Including some info about his personal life. As of ruining someone's life, his name was circulating in every single mass media source (some even included his mugshot), let alone every social media web site (they all quoted FBI and Utah Governor of course). I don't think we would have ruined his life simply mentioning about his arrest. And that would not violate BLP. I understand, that in sensitive situations like this we should be careful, but I think that RfC was too much restrictive, and probably that's why it is gone now (even before his charges). M.Karelin (talk) 09:54, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Do note that aside from the name bypass, the very thread itself was a BLPVIO as well, trying to add claims about the WP:NPF alleged partner referencing two GUNREL/deprecated sources for it.

They also bypassed the deprecation filter trying to link to something from WP:THESUN and linking to the papers YouTube page instead, which isn’t captured in the deprecation filter. Raladic (talk) 18:02, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

To be honest, I think there's a combination of a several factors here including a very literal use of English (which appears to be a second language that they're less than fluent in leading to communication issues) and WP:RGW tendencies around insisting certain information must be included despite a lack of quality, reliable sources. The fact they decided to just try and breach the edit filter and the endless insistence here that everyone else is wrong gives WP:IDHT too. Rambling Rambler (talk) 18:12, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Concur. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:16, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Ohh, yeah, btw Utah Governor Spencer Cox just confirmed it (BLP violation removed). He was interrogated by the FBI, but was not involve in the crime. Wanna see his statement ? But of course we should not include this in Wiki because CNN, MSNBC and other reliable sources did not mention it yet. OMG, what this project has become ? M.Karelin (talk) 18:37, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Maybe you ought to slow down before you end up getting into risky waters. Just slow down. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 18:46, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

we should not include this in Wiki because CNN, MSNBC and other reliable sources did not mention it yet. OMG, what this project has become ?

If you're struggling to understand the core requirement of information requiring reliable sources per WP:RS that is a significant problem. Rambling Rambler (talk) 18:51, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

OK. FBI is not a reliable sources to at least mention any info about his arrest (and his name). FBI is not a reliable sources to mention any info about (BLP violation removed) (agents spoke about this with some journalist ). Utah Governor Spencer Cox is not a reliable sources (he made an official statement about this too). Then who is reliable sources ?? Plz explain it to me. M.Karelin (talk) 19:07, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

When referring to a criminal case, a statement by an official this early on is not always necessarily a well-tested and veritable claim. They shouldn't be commenting on unverified details anyway, as they can harm the case. Also, the current FBI hasn't quite been following standard procedure in a number of areas recently, and this case has put this on display. We prefer secondary sources about facts, and I don't mean a newspaper quoting a politician or FBI director's speculation. WP:BLP needs to be respected, even for an alleged murderer. Stefen 𝕋ower_{'s got the power!!1!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 19:18, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, this is WP:SEALION to me now. Multiple people have tried to explain the need for reliable sources to you, multiple people have shared the policy with you (even after you have already expressed knowledge of our policies) and instead now it's "just asking questions" territory.

Given this person's behaviour I'd say a TBAN from CTOPs should be considered because even under Assume Good Faith they clearly don't show the capability to edit in a way that doesn't cause issues. Rambling Rambler (talk) 19:19, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Was going to say this then got distracted. What Hammersoft said made a lot of sense at the time but M.Karelin seems to be really trying to talk themselves into a block for some combination of DE (based on I don't hear that)/NOTHERE/BLPVIO. And I was saying this before some of the latest posts. But personally I'm still fine with someone closing this thread before that happens. Nil Einne (talk) 19:18, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

I've been following events on that talk page closely, and between that and his comments here, enough is enough. He has shown for his entire editing career that he simply cannot understand the system of reliable sources, not just regarding Kirk (Here's an example from last year where he used the Daily Mail while complaining about NBC). He has also shown time and time again in this very thread that he refuses to get the point despite several attempts at explanation, and has intentionally bypassed edit filters on more than one occasion. Unfortunately, I think an indef is necessary to prevent further disruption. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:09, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Leaning into a potential WP:CBAN discussion, could you provide some diffs of bypassing edit filters at other times? --Hammersoft (talk) 20:11, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

There's the one that started this thread obviously, but in the same discussion, he made this comment bypassing the filter preventing usage of The Sun by linking to their YouTube channel instead. Hope this helps. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:23, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

• I already pointed out the sun deprecation filter bypass above (user linked to YouTube instead since WP:THESUN's domains are all blocked).
• There was two cases in 2020: Edit filter log - Wikipedia Edit filter log - Wikipedia (tried twice adding the same content, so similar to this time, arguably that was a while back).
• But this one from last year supports the notion that there is a pattern of bad understanding of CTOP requirements - Edit filter log - Wikipedia, which looked like the editor tried to add similarly contentious content based on deprecated source to an election article and arguing with no less than two admins at the time, rather similar to this incidence here. Pinging @Acroterion and @Muboshgu if they have any memory of it.

Raladic (talk) 20:56, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

I vaguely remember this, but as the edit history there shows that I didn't follow up, I must have been distracted by something else or just didn't pay this user any more mind than other disruptive users I encounter. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:20, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Like Muboshgu I remember this, but only as part of the general background of election-related POV pushing by IPs and users. The only thing that stood out to me was the absence of clue from someone who had been around as long as M.Karelin has been here. Acroterion (talk) 21:47, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

In August, @TylerBurden mass-reverted my edits that indicated de facto Russian control of Ukranian settlements that are occupied by Russia in the infobox. I believe that this information should be included de facto because it is always included in a settlement's infobox if it is occupied by another country. Examples include North Nicosia, which is de jure Republic of Cyprus but de facto Northern Cyprus and Katzrin, which is de jure Syria but de facto Israel. After he mass reverted my changes, TylerBurden told me on my talk page that "that's not how infoboxes generally work". When I responded to him that de facto status is always included with infoboxes, citing those examples, he did not respond. Additionally, when he mass-reverted my edits in August, he variously labelled them as "disruptive" or "not providing a reliable source", despite the fact that the information I was adding to the infobox is already included in the rest of the article, and it is not necessary to cite another source in the infobox.

This month, he continues to revert any edit that I make adding this information to the infobox. On the Mariupol article, I cited a source even though it's not neccessary because he was asserting that it is original research, again, even though this information is in the article anyway. Even though I cited a source at that article that says that the city is occupied by Russia, he reverted my edit anyway, claiming that it is "synthesis" of information because the article does not contain the world "de facto". I believe TylerBurden is acting in bad faith because 1) he did not respond to me on the 17th of August, 2) he is absurdly claiming that citing the BBC article is WP:SYNTH on Mariupol even though it clearly supports the information (again, no source is needed in the infobox anyway because the information is already included in the article) and he even said that it original research in his latest reversion. TylerBurden should engage with what I am saying and he must explain why this information should not be included. Cyrobyte (talk) 15:59, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

@Cyrobyte: Please inform TylerBurden of this discussion by way of placing {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ on their talk page.

And as you are (both) now aware, Infoboxes constitute a contentious topic on en.wp. Thank you. —Fortuna, imperatrix 16:06, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

I think you're meant to be informing me about reporting me to ANI, but cool.

I'm not sure what there is to say here other than that Cyrobyte doesn't seem to understand how WP:ONUS, WP:SYNTH or WP:DUE works, I posted on their talk and rather than responding, they chose to edit war.

As far as I'm concered we're still at the level of content dispute, but clearly Cyrobyte feels differently. TylerBurden (talk) 16:12, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

You are citing WP:ONUS to assert your preferred revision after you revert someone's actions in an edit war, even though it should be the other way around. In fact, you have been warned about this on your talk page before. You clearly don't understand how WP:SYNTH works either. You think that me citing a BBC article that says that Mariupol is controlled by Russia to say that it is de facto Russia is synthesis of published material just because the source does not contain that phrase, which is absurd and demonstrates that you are either ignorant of what WP:SYNTH means or you are intentionally citing it in bad faith to fight an edit war. Cyrobyte (talk) 16:26, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you're doubling down on being wrong, you know you can press the links and read them right? You're the one adding the content, it's on you to gain consensus. And you can at least try to be factual with how you have edited, you're not adding "de facto Russia", you're adding "de facto Donetsk People's Republic". For an editor citing due weight when removing content, to use your apparently favorite word, it seems a bit absurd to add a puppet state as "de facto" from a WP:DUE standpoint.

Given that you've now resorted to citing Wikipedia articles for your assertions, perhaps it would also be a good idea to read WP:NOTSOURCE, you could go and edit the article De facto now to say that "TylerBurden is wrong" and it wouldn't be removed unless it's picked up by the people that are generous enough to use their time to patrol recent changes or someone else that happens to notice. TylerBurden (talk) 16:37, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

What are you talking about? In all my edits, I added de facto Russia. Also, I referred to the Wikipedia article for de facto because I want you to read the definition of the phrase. I am not citing it as a source. Just read any definition of the phrase de facto and it should be obvious that if a settlement is occupied by a state then it is de facto that state. Cyrobyte (talk) 18:29, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

@Cyrobyte: In all my edits, I added de facto Russia Thus, per WP:ONUS, if it is disputed, it is on you to form an argument that will help establish consensus for inclusion of the disputed content, not on TylerBurden. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:51, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

It should be included because de facto status always indicated in a settlement's infobox if it is occupied by another country. I already gave many examples. My problem is that TylerBurden is acting in bad faith by mass-reverting my changes and then proceeding to not respond to me when I explained them on 17 August and conjuring up various policies by misrepresenting what they actually say to fight an edit war. Cyrobyte (talk) 01:45, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Even if you think it should be included and you have examples since you are the one making the change you need to build consensus for it.GothicGolem29 (talk) 01:48, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

I am aware of this but I am talking about this here because he is acting in bad faith through multiple tactics. Cyrobyte (talk) 01:56, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

When I first added this information to the infoboxes, TylerBurden mass reverted them using RedWarn for "not providing a reliable source" (even though a source is not needed in the infobox because the information is included in the rest of the article with citations anyway)., etc (+19 more). Then, when I included a source in the Mariupol article, he reverted it making the ridiculous argument that because the source did not contain the phrase "de facto", I was "making" a "WP:SYNTH edit".. After that reversion, he told me that "that's not how infoboxes generally work". After replying to his message explaining why I made my edits and giving the aforementioned examples, he did not respond. Now this month, he continued to blanked revert any changes I made regarding this still without responding to what I said and cite his imagined meanings of various policies. Cyrobyte (talk) 02:17, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

As before: the information has been challenged, and now the WP:ONUS is on you to establish consensus for including the edit you want to make. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:29, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

I feel like Russia already built that consensus... John Antifa (talk) 03:44, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

And when Russia is a Wikipedia editor in good standing, they can join the discussion on whether or not this information should be included in the infobox. Until then... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:18, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

TylerBurden has been known to cite WP:ONUS in order to assert his preferred version of an article in an edit war instead of engaging constructively. This can be observed with him ignoring me after I responded on 17 August. Cyrobyte (talk) 01:53, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Cyrobyte, no matter how right you might be (I don't have an opinion on the content dispute), you need a talk page consensus, per ONUS. If the editors in that discussion can't come to an agreement, consider an RFC. Neither of you should make another revert, and the article should stay in its status quo form until the dispute is resolved. Other than that, ANI does not handle content disputes, so there's not much else to do here. QuicoleJR (talk) 02:22, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Now at NPOV/N. I think the discussion can be continued there. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 06:50, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

This is the second time this user has attempted to get me sanctioned over merely disagreeing in a content dispute. See which was for the exact same issue on the exact same page. Talk sections Talk:Ceredigion#Pronunciation and Talk:Ceredigion#Pronunciation 2 did not lead to any consensus for their edit that they are continually re-asserting (most recently here ) and here . This user's unblock request did say they would take content disputes to ANI , but they were advised, the last time they did this, last year, that they should use DRV. Taking this to ANI again, after that clear advice is disruptive, and their failure to drop the stick in a matter where there is clearly no consensus for their proposed change is also disruptive. Last time around, I kept quiet in the hope sanity would prevail (and it did), but I'd suggest we may be due a WP:BOOMERANG for this repeat performance. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:59, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

• No merit to the report, no consensus found for their change. Next step will be p-block from the relevant changes if needed. Star Mississippi 23:49, 19 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Star Mississippi, I object to you closing this discussion as your comment is one-sided and does not provide any useful insight into the discussion. Summer ^talk 08:16, 20 September 2025 (UTC)
    • That was definitely not the most optimal idea; here's a second administrator to point out this is a content dispute and doesn't belong at ANI. Closed again. Black Kite (talk) 08:22, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

The IP above (contributions) has conducted the following disruptive edits:

First edit: Delays a launch without a source.

Second edit: Delays a launch without a source.

Third edit: Delays a launch without a source.

Fourth edit: Delays a launch without a source.

Fifth edit: Delays a launch without a source.

Sixth edit: Delays a launch without a source.

They have made no other edits, and have been warned by myself (, ) and another editor (). Also ANI notification: .

However, it is not. The following is based on geolocate (for the current IP: )

The IP is part of the 218.52.0.0/16 range, which I determined via . This range doesn't show prior vandalism, but IPs often jump ranges. (Speaking of which, can an IP be banned for block evasion that occured during a block after the block has expired?) If so, I'll file another report here to cover that case.

Anyways, another IP, with a very similar geolocate, was blocked for six months this june.

I filed an ANI report on in April, which I will copy here:

"First, as IP 58.235.154.8, they made a long series of edits delaying Starship flights by one month.

[277], [278], [279], [280], [281], [282], [283], [284], [285], [286], [287], [288], [289], [290], [291], [292], and [293] at Starship flight test 5

[294] instead of delaying a launch, they added a blank section to List of Starship launches

[295] at Starship flight test 6

[296], [297], [298], [299] their usual vandalism at List of Starship launches

[300] adding blank sections to Starship flight test 7. After deleting one of those sections,[301] they wrote "Flight timeline soon".[302][303] They then readded the deleted blank section,[304] with the note "coming soon".[305][306]

[307] they added a launch to a chart in List of Starship launches

[308] at Starship flight test 8

For this, they were blocked twice, first for two months,[309], and then for six.[310]

Then, as IP 211.184.93.253, they continued their vandalism.

[311], [312], and [313]at Starship flight test 8

[314] at List of Starship launches

For this, they were blocked (duration six months. This has not yet expired)

And now, they are repeating their vandalism, as IP 220.92.209.30.

[315], [316], and [317] at Starship flight test 9

[318], [319], [320] at List of Starship launches

The IP is WP:NOTHERE, given their editing history and a history of block evasion.

Warning 1: [321]

Warning 2: [322]

Warning 3 (happened while typing this out): [323]

ANI Notice: [324]

Geolocate of IP 58.235.154.8

Geolocate of IP 211.184.93.253.

Gelocate of IP 220.92.209.30 "

This individual is clearly not here in good faith, and should be immediately blocked for a substantial period of time. Redacted II (talk) 00:21, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Sreedit (talk · contribs · count · logs)
This user talk is full of warnings (from various sysops and users), majority of them are recent. They have been informed about using WP:ICTFSOURCES for Indian film articles but hell bound to not to use them. They are persistent in adding poorly sourced content and use the ECP userright just to abuse it. For example, the page Lokah is under ECP just to stop vandalism and unsourced additons like this user. This is a NOTHERE and disruptive editing. — Benison (Beni · talk) 15:44, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

I notice they ignored my own "last warning" (which I then promptly forgot about myself). Communication is required. And note, it's not that they don't know they have a talkpage; they did post on it once. I've indeffed. Bishonen | tålk 16:49, 20 September 2025 (UTC).

If this happens again in the future, be sure to report them to AIV as well. 98.235.155.81 (talk) 17:04, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

User TonyTheTiger "nullified" my recent vote on the Level 4 Vital Articles talk page for not having an account. As far as I can tell, I did nothing wrong. Retaliation of this kind can't be the sole reason for voting. 217.159.164.134 (talk) 16:24, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

• Comment: This is something we've been discussing on Vital Articles. Wikipedia:Vital articles states "All Wikipedia extended confirmed editors are welcome to propose an article that should be added, removed, or demoted from one of the Level 1-4 vital article lists (which are ECP-protected from here), and/or !vote or comment on any existing proposal. Any editor can make a proposal at Level 5." This suggests IP editors can propose stuff at level 5, and discuss at any level. The essay Wikipedia:IP editors are human too states "On the few occasions when decisions (usually not content-related) on Wikipedia are decided by democracy (e.g. request for adminship, elections to the arbitration committee) unregistered users may not vote; they may participate in the discussions." The vital articles are decided by direct democracy, which I believe would exclude IP editors from voting. My conclusions based on linked discussion, project policy, and the essay is:

1. Should Vital Article talk pages be protected?: Based on existing policy/precedent, no.
2. Question of IP editors: Based on existing policy/precedent, they can make proposals on level 5, and can discuss at any level, however votes from IP editors are not counted, even on their own proposals. For example, two proposals on Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/5/History and geography would require the closer to move the IP editors support to a discussion section, or at least discount the vote when closing.

GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 16:32, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

That seems to be the current practice at vital articles, like it is in other parts of Wikipedia which operate on pure votes. Tony can vote oppose for any reason, and IP votes are seemingly not counted due to sockpuppetry concerns. If you want to get around these issues, you should consider getting an account, as it also comes with a variety of other benefits (see Wikipedia:Why create an account? for more information). Hope this helps. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:37, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Is "any reason" a real policy when it comes to voting? If it is, I would assume it's at least limited to what the user thinks about the article and the nomination. Deliberately "nullifying" the votes of other users would fall outside that scope.

Looking at that talk page, at least one of my votes has been counted before. 217.159.164.134 (talk) 17:29, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

What I meant is that there is no basis in policy to remove Tony's vote here. Also, the policy on IP votes at Vital Articles was, AFAICT, recently changed to only allow IPs to comment, not vote or close. Again, the best course of action here would be to create a free account, as that would also make it easier to communicate with you and would protect your privacy by not disclosing your IP address. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:32, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Comment: Just to clarify, I think the policy was technically always to only allow IPs to comment, and to propose stuff only at level 5, not to vote. I believe as there is no one really training closers and the turn over on vital articles is high, in addition to most people not reading the project page before engaging, we have been erroneously closing while counting IP editor votes. There may be more information on other essays/policy pages besides the one I linked above. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 17:40, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

I'll consider making an account. In closing, I'd say two things:

1. If possible, please make the policy clear for Vital Articles. For instance, TonyTheTiger is also a highly active long-time user. If IP votes are not to be counted, he would not have needed to counter my vote at all.

2. Still, I think what he did there is very rude and in the spirit of vote manipulation. Make of that what you will. 217.159.164.134 (talk) 18:05, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

• Personally, I view voting as an IP as a way to game the system. I am unaware of any policy to exclude their votes from WP:VA totals. At VA, voting does not require reasoning. I could just add my signature and it would count as much as if I wrote a paragraph justification. I bet investigation of IPs at VA would reveal some WP:SOCK activity. If the IPs sign, their votes, I will remove my oppose.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:11, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

  • Comment: 100% agree with the first part. I had submitted two Sockpuppet investigations a few months ago (first, second). What caught my attention was an IP editor reverting my edits, and a regular later admitted that they were the IP. Looking at the voting records of a lot of the regulars on Vital articles has some really odd patterns, with users diving straight into the vital articles after a few minor edits, sometimes on the same day as creation, sometimes after an account is inactive for years. The first sock puppet investigations found a few batches, the second didn't detect anything. I've been taking notes offline per the closer of the second one, who suggested (assuming we don't have a mess of sock puppets) that we could look into what is makes the VA project attractive for people to dive into so quickly. They also suggested adjusting who has eligibility to !vote in those discussions, or how the !votes operate.

  GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 20:23, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

  User:204.195.97.109 is almost surely a SOCK.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:31, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

  • 204.195.97.109 looks like a lot of the IP editors and users I've documented. Again, something could be intrinsically drawing new users to vital, or something else. I smell calamari, but don't have much evidence beyond what is already shared in the investigations. This is why I started the discussion on how to count IP editor votes recently.

  GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 22:45, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

  User:GeogSage, where is that discussion? What was resolved?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:15, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

  Discussion still open on main page Wikipedia talk:Vital articles discussion is titled "Question of IP editors: Should Vital Article talk pages be protected?" GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 01:36, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

  I never said that voting requires reasoning. That was never the issue. And how do you want me to "sign" my vote? 217.159.164.134 (talk) 21:25, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

  User:217.159.164.134 sign by creating an account and signing the same way that you sign your IP now while you are logged in.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:29, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

  I'll leave my activity there as it is. But again, I'll highlight the problem here. If my vote doesn't count, there's zero need to counter it. Just remove it or whatever. Cite the rule. If it does count, then I've done nothing wrong and you are engaging in abusive behavior. 217.159.164.134 (talk) 23:18, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

I find it very peculiar that GeogSage has now taken a part of the discussion here to TonyTheTiger's talk page to comment on my "reaction" . 217.159.164.134 (talk) 00:16, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Not really a meaningful part of the discussion, just thought they needed a beer (metaphorically) after this because I think being the focus of an ANI is stressful. I believe this could have been settled on the Vital Article talk pages, and that taking it to ANI was a bit of an overreaction. With that, everything said on the their talk page is now here as well. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 01:41, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm not talking about beer, I'm talking about the part where you found it necessary to insult me on another page. And I did bring it up on the Vital Article talk pages. Got no reply. 217.159.164.134 (talk) 02:35, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

The post in question says:

"I know that getting involved at ANI can be stressful. I personally think it was a bit of an overreaction by that editor, to say the least, and I wanted to offer a beer metaphorically.

Please tell me, where is the insult? I did offer my opinion of your decision to post here, which while critical was not intended to be an insult. Please note that unsupported allegations can be considered a personal attack.

In terms of bringing it up on Vital Article talk pages, I see your comment, but you didn't really wait very long for a reply. I'm not sure how to respond to it besides saying that the logic people use to justify their vote in the vital article project can be criticized, but I don't see this as retaliation, and don't think the project has much in the way of rules/policy that would stop someone from voting just to spite someone else (I'm pretty sure that happens from time to time). GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:34, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I think that going on another page to talk about me in that manner ("overreaction...to say the least") is an insult. And I think your further threats make that clear enough. There was no need to mention me at all. 217.159.164.134 (talk) 04:10, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

I would not consider that an insult rather them just giving their opinon on the situatuion. GothicGolem29 (talk) 11:36, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

I think context matters here and insults are a type of opinion. From what I gather, the real problem they have with me is that I'm simply not welcome there (Vital Articles). I'm willing to concede that point. I won't edit those pages ever again. 217.159.164.134 (talk) 21:34, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

From the context I have seen from the diffs here it was not an insult. Also, yes insults can be opinions too but in this case it is just an opinon not an insult. GothicGolem29 (talk) 21:51, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

In all honesty and sincerity, I think it's 100% an insult. And him threatening me for seeing it as such is another one. You are welcome to disagree, but that's how I see it. 217.159.164.134 (talk) 22:02, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi IP editor. I recognise that you are a person, just like the rest of us who use pseudonyms, and those few of use who use our real names - this is all one community. So, I will say to you what I would say to an editor with an account, even one with many thousands of edits and Featured Articles and the like: can you see the irony of someone complaining at ANI about another person saying in private that they thought they over-reacted? That's not an insult, it's an opinion. Please let this drop, let them have their metaphorical beer, go have one of your own, and we can all go and do something useful. Girth Summit _(blether) 22:21, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

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

I'm fairly certain Atsme is using LLMs to augment some of her discussions in talk page, which is against WP:LLMTALK. Upon being asked to explain here , she mostly responded negatively here

Note some of this is in CTOP areas.

• First post about PirateWires and Tech4Palestine which seems to indicate AI usage: :

• the analysis seems fine on a cursory look, but the text makes no sense if you think longer about it. Like really think about it.
• Few, if any, contributors here are in a position to make such sweeping determinations of credibility, which inevitably rest on subjective epistemological assumptions, political leanings, and personal beliefs. - AI would generate empty editorialization like this.
• PAGs is not a commonly used acronym
• the acronyms are used randomly, in particular the idea that WP:RSN used to point to another page is nonsensical, the last redirect was to some page in 2012.
• there is a vague statement about how we should use facts instead of opinions, editorializing that is common to AI
• overuse of phrases in WP:AIWTW such as "stands as", "long-standing",

• another comment that seems to be strange

• "unfairly dismissing them due to a dominant consensus" - again, superficial analysis, but WP:CONSENSUS is literally how anything gets done here.
• PAG usage again.
• WP:AICURLY usage (mixed quotes) ("forum’s" vs "I'm")
• WP:AIWTW

• other recent contributions seems to show usage of AI, such as

• you can see mixture of quote types (“substantially duplicative” vs "Nazi gun control") and the overuse of the emdash (—), which is another sign of ai. WP:AICURLY and WP:AIDASH
• Outline structure common to AI writing

Edit: apologies for misgendering atsme i should have paid attention to that. I’ve corrected the text Bluethricecreamman (talk) 18:33, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

I'll disclose I originally identified some of these as suspect with GPTZero, but think cross-reffing with WP:Signs of AI writing seemed to mostly validate this. Don't think this is a false positive. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 18:50, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

No time to look tonight, but Atsme is a woman, didn’t know she was still around.. Doug Weller talk 18:52, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Atsme has used the term PAGs before wide access to AI. But other than that, these examples do contain multiple aspects of AI. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:11, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, fyi @Bluethricecreamman {{gender|Atsme}} = she. That said, it looks like Atsme may have a case to answer here. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:31, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

C'mon HJ - you can't be serious. This is a "witch hunt". GPTZero is highly undependable, and this case warrants a boomerang for disturbing the community for no valid reason. And Doug - it's really good to see that you're still around, too - keep up the good fight - many of us have been praying for you. 🙏🏻 I'm not going to dignify this discussion by getting involved in a tit for tat. I don't need AI to craft arguments for me - I've been a professional writer for over 50 years. I've always presented good arguments, and there are plenty of editors here who can vouch for me, at least the ones who haven't lost arguments as a result. WP:PAGs are the basis for my comments, and why I'm being targeted now. I don't play cancel culture games. I help when I can, but when I do, I'm always reminded of why I stay away. It's mind-boggling to think that WP has stooped this low, but now I know where it's headed, or at least I will after this discussion is closed. Atsme 💬 📧 19:49, 20 September 2025 (UTC)^{This comment did not use any form of AI - my HI is all that was used. Atsme 💬 📧}

Citation needed for 'disturbing the community'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:00, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

• lol* You showed up, didn't you? Atsme 💬 📧 20:04, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

I did. To mock. Feel free to explain why your full-of-yourself claim doesn't deserve mockery. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:09, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

In the above message, you used U+002D (-) as an em-dash, but in the diffs provided in the report, you have used U+2014 (—) instead. Most LLMs generate the latter character. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 20:05, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I know, I get in trouble for the (-) vs (—) which sometimes comes out as -- or ––––– if I've had too much coffee, or it could be (__) or 9_0, and so forth. It's my Mac's keyboard using Shift-Option, and sometimes I get confused when it should be a hyphen vs emdash, or I'm just typing too fast because I've got more important things to do than waste time in a discussion that never should've happened. That's what we're dealing with here when there should be a boomerang and the discussion closed. Look at the filer's UTP - there's a list of new articles that look to me to be bot-created or maybe AI??? In the interim, AfC and NPP are suffering with huge backlogs - now that's what really matters. Atsme 💬 📧 20:47, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

the mac os command for an emdash is opt+shift+-, which requires both hands, and going completely across the keyboard. Its not something done easily when "typing too fast"

On my sandbox, doing the -- doesn't autochange to emdash when using convenient discussions plugin. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 21:01, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

quickly reviewing the ten or so oldest talk space diffs from Atsme, before chatgpt was a thing, I also don't see regular usage of emdash. in contrast, as per ai-signs, there seems an overusage of emdash in that one afd comment i linked above Bluethricecreamman (talk) 21:10, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

• Ok, but what did you mean by This forum, however, significantly diverges from those policies and, to my knowledge, was never adopted by the wider community to replace WP:RSN. The unilateral redirect of WP:RSN to this forum effectively empowers a shifting consensus of whoever happens to participate at the time, resulting in the wholesale deprecation of sources at will? I don't actually think it's AI generated but I do think it's bizarre enough to raise eyebrows. RSN was never redirected, unilaterally or otherwise, and "this forum" is still RSN, surely? --Aquillion (talk) 20:15, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

  Yeah, I've been stuck on this too. I don't understand what is being expressed here. Sergecross73 msg me 20:29, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

  FWIW, WP:RSNWP:RSN originally targeted Wikipedia:Be reasonable when that shortcut was created in January 2007. WP:RSPWP:RSP originally targeted Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets when that shortcut was created in March 2008. In a utopia, Wikipedians would not be usurping shortcuts and all be reasonable, reliable, and respected – even the sock puppets we sometimes party with at in-person conferences. – wbm1058 (talk) 23:12, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

• It is definitely a very strange comment (as I said above, I have no idea what the main point means) but it's worth remembering that LLMs were trained on Wikipedia and similar places. It's not a surprise that many people here just tend to talk Like That. (Also, the fact that PAG is an uncommon acronym makes it less likely to be AI, not more. An AI, having been trained on our text, will use all our most common phrases and acronyms, but not weird offbeat ones.) --Aquillion (talk) 20:15, 20 September 2025 (UTC)
• Having known User:Atsme for a long, long time, there is nothing in these recent comments that seems so stylistically far removed from previous discussions as to warrant an ANI report. BD2412 T 20:20, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

I don't think there is LLM involvement here, the arguments are the kind expected from Atsme. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:23, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

• As I have stated previously on a completely different matter in the Education Noticeboard, people should not be relying on the "findings" from GPTZero or any automated AI checkers. And here's an example of that. Bluethricecreamman is literally relying on AI to gather evidence to try to proof Atsme is using AI against the rules. I guess the irony is lost here. Perhaps time for some trouting? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 21:40, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

  I disclosed my use of gptzero as a cursory read.

  i also acknowledged the high false positive rate and made sure to provide detailed evidence as per sign of ai writing on why it was unlikely the case.

  If i did not disclose i used gptzero, would you take the other evidence i brought seriously? Bluethricecreamman (talk) 21:57, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

• Atsme has previously criticized WP:RSP on WP:RSN, e.g. in Special:Diff/1104705587: "RSP was created without community-wide consensus, or official adoption as a guideline. It's actually amazing that it lasted this long considering it is equivalent to an essay." In the current RSN discussion, Atsme has shifted her criticism to the noticeboard itself in Special:Diff/1311903492: "Historically, we had WP:RSN created and maintained per our PAGs for this very purpose. This forum, however, significantly diverges from those policies and, to my knowledge, was never adopted by the wider community to replace WP:RSN. The unilateral redirect of WP:RSN to this forum effectively empowers a shifting consensus of whoever happens to participate at the time, resulting in the wholesale deprecation of sources at will."
  Any new editor who made the latter argument would be considered for an indefinite block per WP:NOTHERE, as it is ludicrous to argue that a noticeboard that has been used for discussing source reliability since 2007 "was never adopted by the wider community to replace WP:RSN", when the WP:RSNWP:RSN redirect has pointed to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard since July 2007, the reliable sources guideline has referred editors to WP:RSN since May 2007, and the verifiability policy has done the same since November 2007. If Special:Diff/1311903492 were LLM-generated or even LLM-assisted, it would reflect better on Atsme than if it were actually written by her. — Newslinger talk 21:53, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

  Any new editor who made the latter argument would be considered for an indefinite block per WP:NOTHERE. But why? Surely, criticizing the effectiveness of Wikipedia noticeboards is allowed. Unless this is a persistent issue (example), I don't see why one would indef here.

  As for the actual AI complains at hand, isn't AI-generated, and so isn't . I'm not too sure about . Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 22:15, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

  A new editor, not an established one, because WP:NOTHERE takes into account an editor's overall contributions. I'm referring to the "...was never adopted by the wider community to replace WP:RSN. The unilateral redirect of WP:RSN to this forum..." part of the argument, which does not make any sense in the context of RSN's history. — Newslinger talk 22:21, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

  True, but you have to admit it's a far more nuanced complaint than The leftist zealots have control of Wokepedia!!!. I think The unilateral redirect of WP:RSN to this forum... isn't supposed to be taken literally, but rather as a literary device to indicate that the current state of RSN doesn't match its original intent. I don't frequent that place very much, so no comment on validity. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 22:29, 20 September 2025 (UTC)