Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1210
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Doxing threat and NOTHERE
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
~2025-42119-65 has received multiple warnings regarding their violations of WP:NOTGALLERY across about a half dozen temp accounts. When confronted by three editors today, the response was to threaten to dox. They have since resumed restoring their disruptive edits, despite explanations regarding NOTGALLERY, ONUS, and BRD. AIV is not handling this despite both me and a bot reporting the temp. I haven't checked the underlying IPs but consider doing so as multiple temp accounts are part of this. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:05, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
MyNathaniel69: vandalism and problems accepting feedback
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
MyNathaniel69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I became aware of this user quite a while ago when patrolling recent pages, when they had a bit of a clash with other editors over unsourced content and notability. Their trouble accepting feedback was apparent then. They created the page Draft:Tyne and Wear Football Clubs and when the unsourced/notability issues were raised, they expressed that they didn't understand why or how they need to prove notability, which people tried to explain to them.
When warned for inappropriate content on their userpage, their response was to incorrectly insist that they can do whatever they want on their own userpage.
They also showed some evidence of taking reversions/criticism much too seriously, as you can see on User talk:MyNathaniel69 they changed some of the headings of the threads on their talk pages (threads where they received warnings to) "Editing Mistakes" and "More Mistakes"
At one point they were warned for using profanity and proceeded to unconvincingly claim they were 'hacked'
Recently they graduated to this charming vandalism of a page for a school in Sunderland, which given their self-professed status as an 'insider' of another Sunderland school, Sandhill View Academy, suggests some problems.
Speaking of Sandhill View Academy, when I nominated that school's page for deletion at WP:Articles for deletion/Sandhill View Academy they incorrectly accused me of 'horrifically editing' the page to make it worthy of deletion... which, aside from the fact I didn't, my deletion reason was notability. They also recently attempted to directly create a new Sandhill View Academy page into mainspace to circumvent the deletion, which is now at Draft:Sandhill View Academy. I invite the audience to draw their own conclusions about this user's particular interest in that school.
I think this is a classic case of "indef and hope they come back in a few years with a bit more sense" Athanelar (talk) 15:32, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
- Yup, the editor in question's conduct appears to be getting worse, not better. At first, it was simply not understanding or bothering to read any of the the basic policies and guidelines of how Wikipedia works, but they've responded to that early feedback by becoming more hostile and committing more vandalism. A lot of this looks like simple immaturity; from this and their drafts, I suspect that this is a very young editor. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 16:07, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
- Simple to me, indef for now, give them a few years to mature, and then we shall see. I'm highly confident this is a child or very young teen editing. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:13, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
- Come to that, why haven't they been already? If he claims to have been "hacked," that's a compromised account, done deal. Ravenswing 18:07, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
- Good point. Blocked for WP:NOTHERE, though, WP:COMPROMISED applies too. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:21, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
- Come to that, why haven't they been already? If he claims to have been "hacked," that's a compromised account, done deal. Ravenswing 18:07, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
- Simple to me, indef for now, give them a few years to mature, and then we shall see. I'm highly confident this is a child or very young teen editing. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:13, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Attention to Bigg Boss (Telugu TV series) season 9 Page
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The article Bigg Boss (Telugu TV series) Season 9 is currently experiencing repeated vandalism due to the show’s finale scheduled tonight. Anonymous and new users are repeatedly adding fake / speculative winner announcements ahead of the official finale broadcast. Despite reverts by some editors, the misinformation is being reinserted, making this a clear case of event-based vandalism around a high-traffic live event.
At least one mainstream Telugu news outlet has reported that Wikipedia prematurely announced the winner, based on these vandalised edits: https://www.sakshi.com/telugu-news/movies/bigg-boss-9-telugu-winner-reveal-wikipedia-2657185
I primarily got to know about the vandalism through this newspaper article.
Based on this, I request temporary semi-protection or full protection of the article until the finale concludes tonight and official results are announced. I couldn't revert the edits because it is hard to find where these edits disgraced to become vandalism.
Thank you. --Pavan santhosh.s (talk) 11:53, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Requests for page protection might be quicker than ANI. Blue Sonnet (talk) 13:43, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
- Blue Sonnet Thank you. Done --Pavan santhosh.s (talk) 15:51, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Personal attack and refusal to engage per WP:CIVIL
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The editor @Binksternet replied to a policy-based discussion with direct personal attacks and refused to engage substantively. Quoted comment: “Your AI arguments are incoherent crap. Trying to address your post point-by-point would be a time-suck. I am not getting mired in this muck.” This violates WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. My original comment addressed WP:NPOV with academic sources; no policy-based rebuttal was provided. I am requesting administrative review of the conduct. Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3AFar-right_politics#Lead_definition_and_attribution_concerns Jvbpds (talk) 06:24, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
- You should be blocked from editing until you can commit to writing in your own words. How much longer are we going to tolerate this type of nonsense? Generating comments, as the OP has clearly done, should result in an immediate indef. ~2025-42136-74 (talk) 06:34, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) I'm not sure a vague wave to 20th-century academics in what is clearly an LLM-generated comment qualifies as
addressing WP:NPOV with academic sources
. If you want to claim academic backing, you should read the sources yourself, and back it up with specific references to passages and page numbers. @Jvbpds, please review WP:LLMTALK before this becomes a WP:BOOMERANG. You also failed to notify Binksternet of where this discussion is taking place, I have done this for you. 🌸wasianpower🌸 (talk • contribs) 06:44, 21 December 2025 (UTC) - Using AI to answer another editor's question rather than answering it in your own words is not only incredibly disrespectful of the person asking the question, it further only calls into question your competence to be able to contribute constructively to this project at all. If you can't contribute, or even communicate, without resorting to asking an LLM then you should not be editing Wikipedia. Mfield (Oi!) 06:47, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
- No personal attacks were made here. The quoted 'violation' above explicitly addresses your content, not you. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:01, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
- Another disruptive, lying incompetent begging for an indef. But it was thoughtful of them to open a report here themselves, thus saving others the time. EEng 11:19, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
- I agree that an indef is appropriate. Doug Weller talk 12:10, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
- I have INDEFFed for DE. Star Mississippi 15:52, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Repeated BLP violations from User: Green Montanan
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Green Montanan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User:Green Montanan has made multiple BLP violations, especially in the area of WP:BLPCRIME and WP:BLPTALK on the page Talk: 2025 Bondi Beach shooting and his own talk page. He was first warned by User Kaotac (I cannot find the edit that warranted the warning). He was then warned by myself regarding this edit. During our conversation, he repeated the offence multiple times 1 2, both of which were redacted using {{BLP violation}}. The user then removed the redaction and was beyond rude in their edit summary (You need to stop this bullshit). These edits likely need to be removed from the edit history per WP:RVDL, and the editor may need to be blocked to prevent repeated offences.
- Green Montanan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- User talk:Green Montanan (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
- Talk:2025 Bondi Beach shooting (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Youshouldchooseausernamethat (talk) 03:33, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
- The user has reverted another redact Youshouldchooseausernamethat (talk) 03:36, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
- The reason that I placed the warning, was the above discussion with User:BradV at User_talk:Green_Montanan#Speedy_deletion_of_an_attack_page where User:Green Montanan repeatedly places the names of the suspected shooters while also repeating that they are terrorists. I was going to wait a day to give them time to self-redact before taking it to WP:BLPN, but unfortunately, I ADHD'd it out of my head. Kaotac (talk) 06:38, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
- This may be out of date to raise, but I also just noticed that in September, he hatted a conversation with the Administrator User:Zzuuzz with a very WP:UNCIVIL header of "A conversation with an obnoxious administrator whose behaviour was over the top" and the edit note of "collapse this bullshit" [] Kaotac (talk) 14:39, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
- I've blocked Green Montanan indefinitely for repeated BLP violations. It's abundantly clear at this point that they have no intention of abiding by our BLP policies. – bradv 16:10, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Condescending behaviour and stonewalling on talk page of Nikki Benz
There is an absurd line of discussion happening on the talk page of Nikki Benz, regarding the addition of her birthdate. Numerous sources have been confirmed, including multiple verified social media accounts, but still many users have been stonewalling particularly @Sangdeboeuf who claims to support the latest citation as proof of birth, but refuses to edit the article. When asked he arrogantly told me "I'm not your personal secretary". I don't have access to the locked article, so I can't make the changes, I am simply looking for someone who can. Furthermore @Sangdeboeuf uses his supposed authority to throw around wikipedia jargon to intimidate and belittle good faith editorial suggestions and to stonewall based on what comes off as an air of righteousness, particularly around protecting the privacy of subjects, even though they publically shared information regarding their birthdate NUMEROUS times. ~2025-41736-26 (talk) 18:30, 20 December 2025 (UTC)
- You have been told how to proceed numerous times. There's an edit request pending. None of us is required to add something to the article. As I mentioned there, you could have created an account and you'd have been confirmed by now. Please stop with the personal attacks and disruption and move on. Star Mississippi 18:46, 20 December 2025 (UTC)
- Where have I personally attacked someone? Please show me?
- I did sign in with a username, and I still don't have access to unlock the article. How do I get the confirmation? ~2025-41736-26 (talk) 18:51, 20 December 2025 (UTC)
- I've actioned the edit request if only to avoid muddling a content issue (a valid, if utterly trivial, desire to include a sourced birthdate) with a conduct one (obnoxious belligerence from this IP). I'd encourage an admin to look at this /64's contribs in the pre-temp-account era and consider whether the range should continue to have access to Benz' article and talkpage. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 18:52, 20 December 2025 (UTC)
- Second that @Tamzin. I'm not going to since I'm the one who protected the article during the first iteration of this, but the admission of LOUTSOCKING certainly makes it an easier call. Star Mississippi 19:03, 20 December 2025 (UTC)
- As best I can tell, partly from the reddit thread linked at the top of that talkpage, there's a subset of the manosphere who are convinced it is very unusual that any Wikipedians want to apply sourcing/due-weight/BLP standards to pornstars' birthdates, but not at all weird to care very deeply about getting those dates included. They can't even articulate why they want them included, just seems to be a pure culture-war PvP "I want whatever the other side doesn't want" thing. Reading this user's comments (on their named account, on their temp account, and on their legacy IP), I uh... strongly get the impression that they are of that mindset. And, you can call me an elitist if you want, but I really don't think we need to expend much of our resources on humoring people who cause drama over porn. (And I say that with 3 GAs and an FL under the belt about sex and porn.) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 19:10, 20 December 2025 (UTC)
- The birthdate information should be included because it is confirmed numerous times by the subject, and as an encyclopedia this should be included, regardless if others think it's trivial or of low importance. Frankly why is the birthdate of anyone featured? ~2025-41736-26 (talk) 19:28, 20 December 2025 (UTC)
- It is included now. Because another editor found a suitable source, and then we all agreed it was a suitable source, and then I added it. The way that the process is supposed to work. This is unrelated to your long-term belligerence insisting that the same unreliable or obscure sources are suitable despite being shown the applicable policies, instead choosing to cast aspersions on the people trying to enforce those policies. The fact that you "won" the content dispute is coincidental to, and one might even say in spite of, your conduct. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 19:39, 20 December 2025 (UTC)
- Ok, thanks Tamzin. ~2025-42083-34 (talk) 21:48, 20 December 2025 (UTC)
- It is included now. Because another editor found a suitable source, and then we all agreed it was a suitable source, and then I added it. The way that the process is supposed to work. This is unrelated to your long-term belligerence insisting that the same unreliable or obscure sources are suitable despite being shown the applicable policies, instead choosing to cast aspersions on the people trying to enforce those policies. The fact that you "won" the content dispute is coincidental to, and one might even say in spite of, your conduct. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 19:39, 20 December 2025 (UTC)
- The birthdate information should be included because it is confirmed numerous times by the subject, and as an encyclopedia this should be included, regardless if others think it's trivial or of low importance. Frankly why is the birthdate of anyone featured? ~2025-41736-26 (talk) 19:28, 20 December 2025 (UTC)
- As best I can tell, partly from the reddit thread linked at the top of that talkpage, there's a subset of the manosphere who are convinced it is very unusual that any Wikipedians want to apply sourcing/due-weight/BLP standards to pornstars' birthdates, but not at all weird to care very deeply about getting those dates included. They can't even articulate why they want them included, just seems to be a pure culture-war PvP "I want whatever the other side doesn't want" thing. Reading this user's comments (on their named account, on their temp account, and on their legacy IP), I uh... strongly get the impression that they are of that mindset. And, you can call me an elitist if you want, but I really don't think we need to expend much of our resources on humoring people who cause drama over porn. (And I say that with 3 GAs and an FL under the belt about sex and porn.) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 19:10, 20 December 2025 (UTC)
- Second that @Tamzin. I'm not going to since I'm the one who protected the article during the first iteration of this, but the admission of LOUTSOCKING certainly makes it an easier call. Star Mississippi 19:03, 20 December 2025 (UTC)
Keali’i Ah Yat
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This page is blacklisted but the subject is almost certainly notable. He is the starting QB for the Montana State Grizzlies football team who are 12-2 and are playing the the FCS div I championship semi-finals. I am unable to see the page history or why it was blacklisted but can we please have in unblacklisted in draftspace (Draft:Keali’i Ah Yat]]) at least and anything useful in the history restored? Thanks. Here are lots of stories about him on Google News. FloridaArmy (talk) 22:27, 20 December 2025 (UTC)
- @FloridaArmy: The page isn't blacklisted itself, it's just the curly apostrophe you have in there. Try Keali'i Ah Yat / Draft:Keali'i Ah Yat. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 22:32, 20 December 2025 (UTC)
- This isn't the sort of "urgent incident" that belongs at ANI. A better choice would have been to contact any random admin on their talk page. EEng 22:41, 20 December 2025 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) In any case, the name is Hawaiian and should be spelled with an ʻokina (
ʻ): Kealiʻi Ah Yat. The ʻokina shouldn't trigger the title blacklist. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:59, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:NBCFourNewsTeamFan2025 reported by User:Mvcg66b3r
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- NBCFourNewsTeamFan2025 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Disruptive editing; excess detail; gaming the system. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 07:10, 20 December 2025 (UTC)
- Diffs? ~2025-31733-18 (talk) 07:18, 20 December 2025 (UTC)
- Note this was filed immediately after an AIV report for the same user was declined as non-vandalism (without any suggestion to report it here). This is actually the third report about this user by Mvcg66b3r. A previous AIV report was also removed as being inappropriate.
- Overall, this report seems premature for a new user making good faith edits. While the additions are not well-sourced and may be excessive detail, I don't see any evidence of gaming. This report seems really bitey, especially given the lack of substantive edit summaries explaining the reversions of the user's edits, the use of inappropriate warning templates (i.e., using {{uw-spam2}} for a good faith link addition here), and no attempts at any talk page communication from anyone anywhere other than templated messages. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 08:36, 20 December 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Johnfkennedy19171963 request to revoke TPA
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Johnfkennedy19171963 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
--みんな空の下 (トーク) 15:06, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for the report! I believe it isn't needed, as they only made one talk page edit, which wasn't especially disruptive. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 15:19, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
- They did say they were hacked (highly unlikely, given they have done nothing but vandalism the moment their account was created), which would actually be another reason to have them blocked. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1(The Garage) 16:19, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
- Blocked, yes, but I'm not sure if it warrants TPA removal (it would be covered under a global lock, but again, not even clear that the account has actually been hacked). Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:30, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
- If they say 'I was hacked', we have to assume the account is compromised. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:11, 20 December 2025 (UTC)
- Blocked, yes, but I'm not sure if it warrants TPA removal (it would be covered under a global lock, but again, not even clear that the account has actually been hacked). Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:30, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
- They did say they were hacked (highly unlikely, given they have done nothing but vandalism the moment their account was created), which would actually be another reason to have them blocked. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1(The Garage) 16:19, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:Batong1930
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:Batong1930 User talk:Batong1930
has made many deletes that need reviewing
Special:Contributions/Batong1930
Piñanana (talk) 11:51, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
- Nobody is going to 'review' anything based on that. You posted a similar vague complaint on the help desk earlier. What exactly are you expecting to happen? AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:00, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
- If you merely think this person has unnecessarily deleted content, that's a content dispute; see WP:Dispute resolution for guidance. Athanelar (talk) 14:09, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Abuse of LLM by Paleorthodox
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Paleorthodox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Paleorthodox uses WP:LLM. They have claimed on their own talk page that they check everything they write (). Yet at Biblical archaeology I found a hallucinated source, a piece of hallucinated information (there might be more, though), and books WP:CITED without any page numbers or quotes.
The point is not having them sanctioned, but someone checking their past edits.
This source is hallucinated: Schiffman, Lawrence H. (2019). "The Significance of the Dead Sea Scrolls". Journal of Jewish Studies. 70 (2): 195–210. doi:10.18647/3413/JJS-2019. Introduced here: .
This claim is hallucinated: Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman argue that archaeological evidence often contradicts the traditional biblical chronology, especially regarding the patriarchs, Exodus, and conquest of Canaan.
In reality, IF and NAS say those events never happened, not that those were wrongly dated.
Also WP:NPOV issues: glossing over the fact that much of the Bible got debunked by archaeology. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:44, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
- @Tgeorgescu I feel bad, I saw your post on their talk page (which is on my watchlist) and was going to message you about opening a case at AINB. I can help you with that. Although admins should expect we will probably be back here soon given that this user has continued to seriously misuse LLMs past my conversation with them a month ago, and also Special:Diff/1320364851 NicheSports (talk) 00:44, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
- Timing is a key aspect of comedy:
- 06:38, 4 November 2025 –
**Lake Erie Jackals**
,Collectively, these franchises reflect Erie's deep connection to the sport, from grassroots high school tournaments like the Burger King Classic to the city’s evolving presence in professional and semi-professional basketball.
- 06:50, 4 November 2025 – A question from NicheSports:
do you do any review of the LLM outputs?
- 06:52, 4 November 2025 – A response:
Yes, I do actually read what I post and edit accordingly.
- 07:13, 4 November 2025 –
Taken together, Erie’s professional and amateur football history showcases both its enduring passion for the sport and its capacity to produce athletes who succeed at higher levels. The city’s combination of competitive semi-professional play, strong high school programs, and collegiate participation ensures that football remains a year-round fixture in Erie’s sports identity.
fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 01:06, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
- Here () Dever's harsh denial that the Conquest of Canaan happened, Collins' confirmation of Dever's view, and IF and NAS' denial that the Conquest and the Exodus happened, all got replaced with a more pro-Bible POV (getting the stuff about traditional chronology mentioned above). Correction: Collins commenting about Dever already disappeared at . And also did Lüdemann, which makes the POV-pushing obvious: Paleorthodox was censoring the mainstream academic views from the article. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:26, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
- No comment on specifics of claims in the first diff, but the prose fails to impress and is what I would expect of LLM output:
- Here () Dever's harsh denial that the Conquest of Canaan happened, Collins' confirmation of Dever's view, and IF and NAS' denial that the Conquest and the Exodus happened, all got replaced with a more pro-Bible POV (getting the stuff about traditional chronology mentioned above). Correction: Collins commenting about Dever already disappeared at . And also did Lüdemann, which makes the POV-pushing obvious: Paleorthodox was censoring the mainstream academic views from the article. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:26, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
collapsed quotes |
|---|
|
- fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 01:33, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
- Yup, an article which took archaeological WP:SCHOLARSHIP seriously was transformed into pro-Bible smooth talk. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:37, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
- This comment only means you're a skeptic who favors anti-Bible smooth talk with a major bias against conservative scholarship. Sounds like a major POV violation. Paleorthodox (talk) 14:19, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
- "The model of "biblical archaeology" has collapsed. Twenty-first century biblical archaeology is often conducted by international teams sponsored by universities and government institutions such as the Israel Antiquities Authority. Volunteers are recruited to participate in excavations conducted by a staff of professionals. Practitioners are making increasing efforts to relate the results of one excavation to others nearby in an attempt to create an ever-widening, increasingly detailed overview of the ancient history and culture of each region. Recent rapid advances in technology have facilitated more scientifically precise measurements in dozens of related fields, as well as more timely and more broadly disseminated reports.
- A non-LLM user wrote this paragraph very poorly, especially in passive voice. Neither do the statements represent the source material. Moreover, writing like this is intended to censor conservative scholarship. Paleorthodox (talk) 14:35, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
writing like this is intended to censor conservative scholarship
This comment only means you're a skeptic who favors anti-Bible smooth talk with a major bias against conservative scholarship
Then the admins have the duty to explain that context to casual users. Instead, they power-trip and act like the Inquisition.
I want this bullying and false accusations in bad faith to stop
- This is a mix of a clear failure to assume good faith and a battleground mentality. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 15:03, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
- These statements by tgeorgescu are in extremely bad faith and his battleground mentality:
- "Glossing over the fact that much of the Bible got debunked by archaeology."
- "Timing is a key aspect of comedy." Paleorthodox (talk) 06:32, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
- I am the one who said
Timing is a key aspect of comedy
, not tgeorgescu. That other quote does not demonstrate a failure to assume good faith, nor a battleground mentality. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 07:16, 13 December 2025 (UTC)- It does. You clearly intended to mock me instead of seriously discussing the issue at hand. Paleorthodox (talk) 05:26, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
- Mockery was of course not an intent, if you believe otherwise you can query an admin at your discretion, though I would advise against it. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 08:28, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
- It does. You clearly intended to mock me instead of seriously discussing the issue at hand. Paleorthodox (talk) 05:26, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
- I am the one who said
- Restoring the last stable version is allowed. It does not mean that I've checked everything written there by others.
- "Claiming that historical criticism is passé may suggest to some that conservative biblical scholarship has won the “battle” against historical criticism and is now finally vindicated. This may sound appealing in popular circles, but it is not true in academia." Peter Enns . tgeorgescu (talk) 04:57, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
- Yup, an article which took archaeological WP:SCHOLARSHIP seriously was transformed into pro-Bible smooth talk. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:37, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
- fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 01:33, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
- Indef immediately, no questions asked. Hopeless. AI must be destroyed. EEng 10:28, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, including non-generative AI. In fact, microelectronics really have caused us nothing but grief since they were invented. Duly signed, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:52, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
- Are you nostalgic for punch cards? Maybe you want to edit by mail? How would Wikipedia work without microelectronics?/s ~2025-31733-18 (talk) 13:24, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
- In fact yes, I am nostalgic for punch cards. And a lot of things are done quite effectively by mail e.g. chess. EEng 19:15, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
- I agree that Artificial Intelligence shouldn't be used to create Wikipedia content, but what does poor Alan have to do with it? And why must he be destroyed? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:06, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
- Maybe
nongenerative Al
is one of those sad incels we keep hearing about. EEng 15:42, 12 December 2025 (UTC)- Maybe it can call you Betty. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:31, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
- Maybe
- I agree that Artificial Intelligence shouldn't be used to create Wikipedia content, but what does poor Alan have to do with it? And why must he be destroyed? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:06, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
- In fact yes, I am nostalgic for punch cards. And a lot of things are done quite effectively by mail e.g. chess. EEng 19:15, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
- Are you nostalgic for punch cards? Maybe you want to edit by mail? How would Wikipedia work without microelectronics?/s ~2025-31733-18 (talk) 13:24, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, including non-generative AI. In fact, microelectronics really have caused us nothing but grief since they were invented. Duly signed, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:52, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
- Blocked indefinitely from article namespace. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:37, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
- This block is extremely unfair. Is there an actual Wikipedia policy about LLMs, because all I see is bias against new technology. I thought I checked all the sources, and the hallucinated one was an honest mistake. All I see here is a rush to block people who use AI out of an outdated idea of "creativity." Paleorthodox (talk) 14:14, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Writing articles with large language models. Hope this helps. • a frantic turtle 🐢 14:18, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
- Okay, I should have been given a warning instead of everyone acting like I committed a crime and blocking me. That's unfair. Paleorthodox (talk) 14:22, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
- Blocks are supposed to be preventative, not punitive, so if you commit not to use an LLM to write article content, and especially sources (which LLMs seem to have a particular problem with), then you should not be blocked. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:51, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) You're blocked from contributing to articles because your contributions were pushing a non-neutral point of view, and were supported by citations to sources that do not exist. The block is to protect Wikipedia from the damage you were causing; you would have been blocked whether you used an LLM content generator or if you had written these contributions entirely unassisted. Your subsequent comments about skepticism and favouring conservative scholarship don't suggest to me that your POV has anything to do with having an LLM write for you, and doesn't inspire confidence that you would be able to contribute constructively if you were unblocked, but see WP:UNBLOCK for your options. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:53, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
- Imagine LLMs don't exist. Any editor copying and pasting content into Wikipedia without performing adequate review and correction, as evident from WP:V and prose issues, is engaging in disruptive editing. I would expect an editor of your tenure to recognize this. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 14:54, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
- When I wrote my previous comment I assumed that you were blocked just for using an LLM. I now see that there was more to it than that. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:58, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
- No, I was blocked for using an LLM. They simply didn't like that I used a conservative viewpoint. They even pointed out that the source wasn't actually hallucinated, and they could have simply made the correction. Paleorthodox (talk) 06:19, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
- Wrong, that source did exist and should have been corrected. Instead, you claimed it was hallucinated instead of cited incorrectly. When the article makes left-leaning, heavily biased statements like, "The model of biblical archaeology has collapsed," this is certainly not neutral POV. That statement flattens a whole page of research into a nonsensical statement. Paleorthodox (talk) 06:24, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
- Maybe it hasn't collapsed among evangelicals and fundamentalists. In the mainstream academia, it did. Name any Ivy League university, name any US state university, they will agree.
- Citing a conservative scholar is allowed, denying that big chunks of the Bible have been debunked is not. This is all about being in touch with the reality of mainstream archaeology.
this is certainly not neutral POV
—I can assure you that according to WP:GEVAL, the two POVs are by no means symmetrical. What has been excavated from the earth produces a profound asymmetry: we're biased for real, objective evidence. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:56, 13 December 2025 (UTC)- Paleorthodox, I am the administrator who blocked you. When I wrote above that "you would have been blocked whether you used an LLM content generator or if you had written these contributions entirely unassisted", that is, in fact, what you were blocked for. Not because you used a large language model, but how you used it.
- You've written that the hallucinated source above was not hallucinated, that it exists and only the citation needs to be corrected. The doi link in the citation is to the same journal, but a different issue of that journal and a different article entirely, a book review of The Cambridge History of Jewish American Literature. The citation you provided indicates a volume and issue number of that journal, so I looked up its index, and the article you cited does not exist in that issue. In fact, as far as I can tell, while Lawrence Schiffman is a noted expert in the Dead Sea Scrolls, he has never published any article in the Journal of Jewish Studies. Your LLM produced content that fit your prompt, and then invented a citation which superficially appeared from its author and title that it would support the point of view it generated, when in fact on even a cursory review it is obvious that the source does not exist. If you were reviewing your LLM's generated content then you would have noticed, so you either didn't review, or you did review and published the content anyway. I'm not sure which is worse.
- You are blocked because you submitted unverifiable content to Wikipedia in support of your own point of view cited to a source that does not exist, and you remain blocked because you are still defending your inappropriate submission. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:07, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
- @Paleorthodox: The root of the complaint is that there is a big difference between not knowing what WP:CHOPSY teach, and purposefully deleting what WP:CHOPSY teach. tgeorgescu (talk) 08:35, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
- I thought I reviewed everything, but I clearly missed this citation. I wasn't even aware there was a discussion about this until you blocked me. I recant the hallucinated citation. However, when @Tgeorgescu claims that biblical archaeology is irrelevant and misrepresents the field and conservative scholarship, that is merely his subjective bias and should have zero bearing on me staying blocked. Paleorthodox (talk) 17:38, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
- @Paleorthodox That's exactly the danger with using AI: a hallucinated reference can be produced, and if you don't have access to the source, or if you inadvertently fail to check it, the statement that appears to have a reference is not only effectively uncited, but the statement might not even be true.
- That's dangerous for an encyclopedia. David10244 (talk) 06:06, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
- I understand. Paleorthodox (talk) 05:24, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
- No, you merely have an atheistic bias toward anything to do with religion and nearly everything you claimed is demonstrably false. Yale University, for example, studies biblical archaeology in various fields: https://archaia.yale.edu/about. Just admit that you are wrong. There is no such thing as a CHOSPY test beyond Wikipedia, and many Wikipedians abuse this test to silence material they simply don't want to see. It's entirely subjective. Paleorthodox (talk) 17:26, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
- Okay, say WP:BESTSOURCES instead of WP:CHOPSY: there is no excuse from deleting the best sources from the article. E.g. I don't like the POV of that Kaiser guy, but I did not remove him from the article.
- "Modern archaeology contradicts big chunks of the Bible" is not an atheistic POV. It's the reality of what has been excavated from the earth. And I'm not atheist. And of course the intellectually bankrupt apologetics industry engages in denialism: they simply don't like the facts uncovered by archaeology. So, Wikipedia does not cater to apologetics.
- Many Bible professors, who are Christians, will admit that the Bible has all sorts of mistakes in it. There is nothing inherently anti-Christian in that admission.
- And the Google search for
site:archaia.yale.edu bible
does not offer much. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:20, 16 December 2025 (UTC)- "'Modern archaeology contradicts big chunks of the Bible' is not an atheistic POV. It's the reality of what has been excavated from the earth."
- Do you have specific finds and which passages they contradict? This is a sweeping claim. Paleorthodox (talk) 05:13, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
- Wikipedians just WP:CITE WP:RS. It's none of our business to evaluate empirical evidence. Mind that I have included several WP:RS/AC claims in the article. Even from believing Christian scholars. They know full well what WP:SCHOLARSHIP says. Merling and Velázquez are Adventists, Enns and Fiensy are evangelicals, Lynch is probably an evangelical, Carr is a Quaker. While Cohen, Greenberg and Sperling are/were Rabbis.
- And, in general, Wikipedia very much prefers WP:SECONDARY sources to WP:PRIMARY sources. And even WP:TERTIARY sources are preferable to WP:PRIMARY sources. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:25, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
- When I wrote my previous comment I assumed that you were blocked just for using an LLM. I now see that there was more to it than that. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:58, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
- Okay, I should have been given a warning instead of everyone acting like I committed a crime and blocking me. That's unfair. Paleorthodox (talk) 14:22, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Writing articles with large language models. Hope this helps. • a frantic turtle 🐢 14:18, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
- This block is extremely unfair. Is there an actual Wikipedia policy about LLMs, because all I see is bias against new technology. I thought I checked all the sources, and the hallucinated one was an honest mistake. All I see here is a rush to block people who use AI out of an outdated idea of "creativity." Paleorthodox (talk) 14:14, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
- Endorse block. Paleorthodox has indeed misused an LLM to introduce inadequately reviewed content (including hallucinated content) into articles, and an unblock should only be considered if Paleorthodox agrees to the following unblock conditions: a prohibition against using LLMs to edit Wikipedia, and a topic ban from biblical studies, broadly construed. — Newslinger talk 21:30, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
- No, I will not agree to a topic ban. There's a difference between punishment that fits the offense and then adding capricious measures to assuage one's anxiety. Paleorthodox (talk) 05:16, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
- Agreed, just the LLM ban is sufficient here. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:19, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
- When an editor uses LLM-generated content to advance a point of view (which is part of your stated block reason), typical unblock conditions include a prohibition on LLM use and a topic ban from the affected topic area. While you can negotiate these unblock conditions with the reviewing administrator and the rest of the community, it is incorrect to call these unblock conditions "capricious" when they are already the norm. — Newslinger talk 12:38, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
- No, I will not agree to a topic ban. There's a difference between punishment that fits the offense and then adding capricious measures to assuage one's anxiety. Paleorthodox (talk) 05:16, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
- Endorse block for use and abuse of LLM, even though I am, in general, very concerned about tgeorgescu's approach to editing. I agree with a topic ban as well, at least temporarily (six months minimum). Jahaza (talk) 16:24, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
- Well, one of the accusations against me has been
This offending paragraph is written in a non-neutral manner and almost like a ad for the "born-again" movement.
And at Christ myth theory some considered me an enemy of atheism. - My guideline for editing: don't remove the consensus view of the mainstream academia from the article. Am I asking too much? tgeorgescu (talk) 07:30, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
- Well, one of the accusations against me has been
- Indef immediately. Posting a fabricated source should be an instant severing of an effectively vandalistic editor from The Project as a hard and fast rule. Use of generative AI is an existential threat to our hard-earned reputation for veracity. Carrite (talk) 15:44, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
- Policy does not currently support blocking someone for no other reason than that they use an LLM, nor have we ever blocked users for not agreeing with any other editor's ideology, but we do block editors for callously throwing around casual accusations of vandalism. Vandalism has a clear definition on Wikipedia and this is not it. You've been here long enough to know this.
- As I've already said, Paleorthodox is pblocked because they prompted an LLM to write content supporting their point of view and submitted content supported by hallucinated references that they did not review, not just because they used an LLM. This is the third time I've written it.
- I don't agree that an LLM ban is sufficient: Paleorthodox has stated plainly that they intend to continue pushing a conservative viewpoint and favouring conservative scholarship, indicating that they do not understand or intend to purposely violate the neutral point of view policy. The appropriate response is a ban from the topic. If Paleorthodox should also be banned from LLM use, it's because they have demonstrated that they can't or won't use it responsibly. Editing sanctions are not punishment; these sanctions prevent their disruptive behaviour from continuing while still allowing them to edit. It is not currently technically possible to partially block an editor from a topic on Wikipedia, so they either accept the community's restrictions, or they stay blocked from all articles, because that is the bare minimum to prevent the continuing disruption. No element of this is punishment.
- Of course, none of us are impressed by their continued refusal to get the point and casting of aspersions. You cannot argue Wikipedia into capitulation; we're here to maintain stability for editors and to prevent disruption, not to give anyone a fair hearing nor to ensure justice by any definition. You can find users who failed or refused to learn this in Category:Banned Wikipedia users. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 23:38, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User with possible COI keeps adding external links to article text.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Awards2026 (talk · contribs · count) keeps adding external links to Urban Land Institute. Based on article history, they appear to have previously been editing as ~2025-31747-69 (talk · contribs · count). From this question they seem to be unaware that people are reverting their edits or of talk page messages. A block may be needed at this point to get this to stop/get their attention. TornadoLGS (talk) 17:58, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
- For the moment they seem to have stopped. I reported here since they added more ELs to the article after my warning, as well as several prior messages to the TA. Will see if they respond. TornadoLGS (talk) 18:12, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
- Ping me if they return @TornadoLGS
- It may be simplest to protect the article to avoid accidental or deliberate LOUTSOCKING if the named account is blocked. Star Mississippi 19:49, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
- @Star Mississippi: They're back with the ill-behaviour – this time adding advertising wordage. • a frantic turtle 🐢 15:10, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
- named account blocked and article semi'ed to avoid a return to the TA. Thanks @A Frantic Turtle for the ping and love the user name Star Mississippi 15:18, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
- @Star Mississippi: They're back with the ill-behaviour – this time adding advertising wordage. • a frantic turtle 🐢 15:10, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hareie NOTHERE/CIR
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hareie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Posted a draft of their entirely nonsense conlang at Draft:Exleenoniaskæp̄a (one of my conlangs, see user:hareie in wikimedia commons for info.) [sic] then made a draft for... the letter J in their conlang at Draft:Ϳ (Greek) followed by an unintelligible Teahouse question
Nothing more needs to be said, I think. Competence is required, and absent. Athanelar (talk) 02:48, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
- INDEFFED as DE. Star Mississippi 02:52, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User: A Frantic Turtle
A Frantic Turtle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
This user has been acting rudely towards me, and is being uncivil. They have made uncivil and impolite comments on my user page, instead of using a neutral tone. Their concerns are perhaps valid, but they are being impolite and accusing me of things I am not doing. (Ex: Personal attacks.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phlogiston Enthusiast (talk • contribs) 16:49, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
- Can you post the diffs? Northern Moonlight 17:11, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
- diffs: User talk:Phlogiston Enthusiast#c-A Frantic Turtle-20251219162100-Phlogiston Enthusiast-20251219161900 Phlogiston Enthusiast (talk) 17:28, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
- You accused A Frantic Turtle of COI in an edit summary, and when it was pointed out that you misread their talk page, instead of apologizing, you accused them of being hostile. So them pointing out that you made a mistake is being hostile, but you making an unfounded and inaccurate accusation against them is a "simple misunderstanding". Schazjmd (talk) 17:14, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
- No, them titling it 'AHEM' and swearing in the first message, before calling it a personal attack was rude. It is not assuming bad faith to say that a user is being rude to you, either. Again, there was no personal attack, and again, they immediately assumed bad faith within message three by claiming it is the basis for a personal attack. Phlogiston Enthusiast (talk) 17:25, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
- This is also at least the second time that PE has cast WP:ASPERSIONS on another editor, the first being at me which I addressed in the previous section of their talk page here (note that he already apologized for that one). If I'm understanding how both misunderstandings happened: it looks like he's checked edits from RC with "Possible BLP issue or vandalism" tags, but then attributed that tag to a different person's edit, which he then WP:ABF'ed.
- I'm obviously involved, but also nothing here strikes me as actionable other than encouraging that Phlogiston Enthusiast pay a bit closer attention to who made a talk page message or an edit that was tagged as potentially problematic. (An actual apology for the aspersion towards A Frantic Turtle would probably also help clear the air a bit) LaffyTaffer💬(they/she) 17:28, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
- I'd also like to add that the [accusation] was because the OP incorrectly thought Frantic Turtle worked for a random university and edited an article where the only mention of a university is that the subject led a conference held at Harvard Medical School. That is a very far stretch and a poor understanding of COI.
- @Phlogiston Enthusiast - I believe you are here to help build and encyclopedia and have obviously made positive contributions in the short time you've been here. However, I would recommend becoming more familiar with policies and procedures and stop patrolling recent changes until you have a better understanding. It's great that you're eager but spend time adding and editing existing content before diving into recent changes patrolling. PositivelyUncertain (talk) 20:50, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
Bad-faith edits from Horse Eye's Back... again
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Horse Eye's Back (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Back in July, Horse Eye's Back (talk · contribs) was brought to ANI for a pattern of bad-faith editing. User @Salvio giuliano: closed the discussion as a "final warning".
My encounters with HEB began in July 2025 when they tagged U.S. Route 131 with {{primary sources}}, then went on a tirade across various Michigan highway articles with similar tags. This included both of the discussions seen here, where @LilianaUwU: called out HEB for drive-by tagging; HEB claimed the tags were "self obvious" and didn't need a discussion.
Further down the page, they also challenged my removal of their {{More citations needed section}} from the exit list. Again, U.S. Route 131 is a featured article. I have never seen a highway article require citations at the junction list, unless it's for cases like an exit being removed or added or, in the case of this particular highway, a recent rename of a crossroad. When I asked what needed to be cited, they responded literally everything else
and I've never seen anyone cite a road
. When I pointed out the incredulity of their argument, and questioned what citations would satisfy their needs, they just shrugged it off with Thats not my problem. There is no special standard for this unless I am mistaken... That it can't be done without OR is not an excuse for OR
. This alone is absurd, but it goes way deeper.
On Interstate 275 (Michigan), also an FA, they put the same tags on. In the discussion, where they continued to dodge the question and claim the tags were "self obvious" and didn't need clarification. This just led to more circular arguments before I gave up.
By my count, HEB tagged about 20-30 Michigan highway articles (every single one of which is GA- or FA- class) for {{primary sources}} in July 2025, all of which have since been removed.
All of this fed into HEB's claims that maps are primary sources and should not be used in highway articles to verify things such as highway alignment. They tagged multiple Michigan highways, almost all FA- or GA-class, with {{primary sources}} and/or {{notability}}, not once touching discusison pages unless another editor such as myself stepped in first. From what I witnessed, all other editors (see LillianaUwU's edits too on U.S. 131) were met with the same responses: confrontational badgering or ignorance.
On July 15, another editor (@Guerreroast:) called out HEB for their tagging, where HEB claimed that the previous GA nominations were improperly done, and that "five years ago" the community decided maps are primary sources. I was unable to find what discussion this was in reference to. @The ed17: joined the discussion and likewise claimed HEB should gather consensus before mass drive-by tagging articles, to which HEB tried to pull the old "I am rubber, you are glue" argument by saying If you are not willing to have a discussion of each edit then aren't you the one doing drive by editing?
I also joined this discussion by pointing out again the frivolity of their "primary sources" argument, which led to the same waffle about "you can cite a map" even though they had previously claimed doing so at all is OR of a primary source. They then tried to go after Ed17 again with the same "no, YOU're the one mass drive-by editing!" argument.
At Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Using maps as sources, unless I am misreading this extremely long discussion, it seems there is a consensus that maps are being used appropriately as sources on highway articles and there are no concerns with original research, synthesis of ideas, or other impropriety as a source.
In the past couple days, HEB returned to reinstate a drive-by {{primary sources}} tag I removed, and reinstate one at the GA-class M-218 (Michigan highway) around the time JustARandomSquid (talk · contribs) filed a GAR for similar "are maps OR?" concerns as HEB. Naturally, HEB has tried to weaponize this as proof they were right, although as far as I can tell, JustARandomSquid is acting in good faith and was unaware of HEB's concerns.
Since then, they have:
- Repeatedly gone around and reinstated tags that got removed. When I politely asked them to stop, I was met with the same haranguing and bad-faith arguments as usual.
- Randomly jumped into the M-218 GAR with
[Using maps as a source] isn't valid in any of those Featured Articles either, those all predate the modern standard... So none of those actually meet the good or featured article criteria, hence their reassessment. If you could list those dozens of articles it would help us clean up this mess quicker.
- Further claiming in the M-218 GAR that
A majority of editors agreed with me in community discussions. The way you want to use maps is in fact OR. Please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Using maps as sources which established the standing consenus on the issue.
As I understand it, the RFC in question says the opposite: that using maps as a source in an article on a highway is perfectly acceptable - Pinged me three times on Talk:M-65 (Michigan highway), asking me to explain my tag removal
- Pinged me, The ed17, and @Imzadi1979: on Talk:F-41 (Michigan county highway), asking us to explain our tag reomvals (note: F-41 was put through GAR for these concerns but ultimately kept as a GA, indicating there are no obvious issues with sourcing here)
- Posted on my talk page, claiming that
you don't appear to be trying to get consensus for the disputed content you want to include
, whatever that means - Reverted The ed17's removal of dubious drive-by tags
- And of course, started a thread on WP:RSN regarding whether or not maps are a primary source. Since this thread has started, HEB has posted over fifty times in response to other editors. Some of the highlights:
I find such tags useful because they let me know about an issue without having to analyse dozens or hundreds of sources. I'm not aware of any negative impact that such a tag could have, what am I supposed to be weighing the beneficial impact of a valid tag against if there is no harm? So far the only argument made against the tags is that they are inaccurate because DOT maps aren't primary sources... Hence this discussion, its a bit of a chicken and egg issue after all...
So the DOT source is not primary, secondary, or tertiary its not a source at all?
If the article is based largely on primary sources then the use of primary sources is excessive... But it can still be problematic even when the article is not largely based on them.
- When I pointed out the "not my problem" quip on U.S. 131, they somehow thought I was referring to a discusison from 2007 in which neither one of us was involved; a clear bad-faith whataboutism argument if I've ever seen one. They also claimed to not know what I was talking about because I didn't use the word "primary", which is blatant WP:IDHT if I've ever seen it.
- A claim that the editor in the M-218 GAR invalidated my argument that almost no one agrees with HEB's assessment
- A claim that I was approacing HEB with "hostility" and telling them to "shut up and go away" when all I said was
drop the damn stick and walk away from the dead horse.
Again, HEB has responded in their own thread fifty times since beginning it, making the same whataboutism, bad faith, and otherwise confrontational unhelpful edits since I first crossed their path in July.
The last ANI had only one passing mention of HEB's issues with highway articles, which might be why nothing came of it. But the issues here are extremely obvious: WP:TEND, WP:IDHT, WP:SEALION, WP:BLUDGEON... shall I continue?
It's clear that HEB has been a problematic editor for some time, but I feel like focusing on one problem at a time will help to address their edits and prevent the headaches they're causing other editors such as myself.
My proposal would be to initiate a topic ban against HEB, preventing either all edits to highway articles, or at least preventing addition of maintenance tags to them (comparable to Jax 0677's topic ban against maintenance templates). Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:25, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
- 'A claim that the editor in the M-218 GAR invalidated my argument that almost no one agrees with HEB's assessment' I mean, that's not particularly egregious? But yeah, FWIW, I was acting in good faith, I'm genuinely not amazed by the way these articles are sourced, but of course that's outside the scope of ANI. If there's consensus that these maps is ok, effectively edit-warring with maintenance tags is not acceptable. Sorry for contributing to this can of worms, I guess.
- P.S. You forgot to close a wikilink. JustARandomSquid (talk) 20:38, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
- @JustARandomSquid: Don't worry, you didn't do anything wrong. This is strictly about Horse Eye's Back's behavior. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:40, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
- These days there are only a few editors I can think of on Wikipedia who are inevitably a drain on the patience of anyone else participating in a discussion with them, but whom the community has been unable to get its act together and ban. When I started editing, this sort were ubiquitous, but thankfully we've mostly all agreed that people who are chronically impossible to deal with should find other hobbies, because the cost on editor resources from others having to argue with them and burning out in frustration is greater than whatever benefit they provide. I don't really understand why an exception has been made for HEB several times over now—unlike some past unblockables like Eric Corbett or BrownHairedGirl, they don't strike me as someone who brings anything irreplaceable to the table—but if that "final warning" for "a pattern of incivility and uncollegial behaviour" is to mean anything, there's only one way for this to go. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 20:43, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
- I am in general agreement with Tamzin about this matter and think it is worth remembering the specific wording of the late August warning:
there is consensus that Horse Eye's Back has engaged in a pattern of incivility and uncollegial behaviour. Therefore, further instances of subpar conduct on their part should lead to escalating blocks
. The continuation of the "incivility and uncollegial behavior" is well-documented in the diffs presented above. From my perspective, the issue now is how long a block ought to last. I think that disregarding a clear warning, failing to course correct, and immediately continuing the problematic behavior pattern is a serious problem. I recommend a one month block with a warning that block lengths will double each time if the misconduct continues, and that an indefinite block is very possible. Cullen328 (talk) 21:12, 6 December 2025 (UTC)- It's actually troubling that this isn't an indef, which would require discussion instead of waiting it out. It's a problem that we'd consider it something that should get lengthier time-limited blocks on each further behavior issue. With most editors, it would be an indef from the start. Valereee (talk) 22:26, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
- I am in general agreement with Tamzin about this matter and think it is worth remembering the specific wording of the late August warning:
- I have blocked HEB for one month, and I'll expound upon it on their Talk. The short version is the behavior has to stop, and they show no willingness to stop themselves. The reason for the duration is that while they have not been blocked, it's not as if they're unaware of the issue. Star Mississippi 22:12, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
- @Star Mississippi: Do you feel there's merit to HEB facing a topic ban, or would that be left up to whatever happens after the block? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:13, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
- Hi @TenPoundHammer
- There's no harm in opening that discussion here to determine whether there's consensus for it in addition to the block/should they be unblocked/etc. I have no personal opinion on a topic ban as of yet. Star Mississippi 22:28, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
- What topic would that be? M.Bitton (talk) 00:10, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
- As I proposed, topic-banning them from adding maintenance tags and/or editing highway articles. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 00:17, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
- Why "maintenance tags and/or editing highway articles"? Is there a pattern of disruptiveness in those areas? M.Bitton (talk) 00:22, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
- ...did you not read the thread? - The Bushranger One ping only 00:30, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
- My view is that Horse Eye's Back regularly engages in uncollaborative editing behavior in a wide range of topic areas, so topic bans would not be useful tools for correcting this editor's behavior. Cullen328 (talk) 00:35, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
- I did and I understand the reason for the block, but the "maintenance tags and/or editing highway articles" issues are all recent and related (that's why I asked whether there is pattern of disruptiveness in those areas, which to me means something that they usually do in those specific areas). M.Bitton (talk) 00:35, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
- ...did you not read the thread? - The Bushranger One ping only 00:30, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
- Why "maintenance tags and/or editing highway articles"? Is there a pattern of disruptiveness in those areas? M.Bitton (talk) 00:22, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
- As I proposed, topic-banning them from adding maintenance tags and/or editing highway articles. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 00:17, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
- @Star Mississippi: Do you feel there's merit to HEB facing a topic ban, or would that be left up to whatever happens after the block? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:13, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Y knot? --Tryptofish
- Recent? They caused the roads editors to fork back in 2023 for the exact same behavior. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 01:44, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
- Roads editors forked because community consensus wasn't with them. You can't blame HEB. Well, not unless you think they used witchcraft to bend the community to agree with them. ~2025-39890-31 (talk) 04:58, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
- Recent? They caused the roads editors to fork back in 2023 for the exact same behavior. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 01:44, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
- I can't really emphasize enough how this discussion starting a few comments in (and in particular this post from me) exemplify how conversations can go with HEB. They're aggressive and overwhelming. You will feel defensive and badgered, and you may have to explain (in triplicate) our basic editing policies and practices for some reason. It is legitimately exhausting to engage with HEB.HEB knows that these are issues; for example, about two years ago, they said that they'd take concerns "to heart". Since then, they've been admonished and given a final warning over their behavior. Star Mississippi's block is long overdue, in my opinion, and I don't have much faith that HEB is capable of channeling their energy into more collegial editing after it lifts. I hope I'm proven wrong. Ed [talk] [OMT] 04:17, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
- I don't immediately see what is wrong in that discussion you linked. Is there a specific comment where you think things went awry? It looks like HEB is trying to discuss content and specific concerns with individual articles, which seems constructive to me. (t · c) buIdhe 16:17, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
- @Buidhe: The discussion I linked was prominently featured in the OP, which led to HEB being blocked. With respect, I'm not the only one to have seen issues in it. HEB often ostensibly focuses on content in their talk page posts, but they create disruption in other ways. This comment in particular outlines the concerns that I had there. Ed [talk] [OMT] 17:32, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
- To my reading, you're in the wrong in that discussion. You're essentially filibustering the use of maintenance tags and trying to impose WikiProject WP:OWNership on articles. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 17:44, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
- @Buidhe: The discussion I linked was prominently featured in the OP, which led to HEB being blocked. With respect, I'm not the only one to have seen issues in it. HEB often ostensibly focuses on content in their talk page posts, but they create disruption in other ways. This comment in particular outlines the concerns that I had there. Ed [talk] [OMT] 17:32, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
- I don't immediately see what is wrong in that discussion you linked. Is there a specific comment where you think things went awry? It looks like HEB is trying to discuss content and specific concerns with individual articles, which seems constructive to me. (t · c) buIdhe 16:17, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
- I can't really emphasize enough how this discussion starting a few comments in (and in particular this post from me) exemplify how conversations can go with HEB. They're aggressive and overwhelming. You will feel defensive and badgered, and you may have to explain (in triplicate) our basic editing policies and practices for some reason. It is legitimately exhausting to engage with HEB.HEB knows that these are issues; for example, about two years ago, they said that they'd take concerns "to heart". Since then, they've been admonished and given a final warning over their behavior. Star Mississippi's block is long overdue, in my opinion, and I don't have much faith that HEB is capable of channeling their energy into more collegial editing after it lifts. I hope I'm proven wrong. Ed [talk] [OMT] 04:17, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
- Like others above I think that HEB's bad edits are in a wide range of topics, so I don't see that point of banning from only one of them. For example what topic ban could prevent this example of assuming bad faith, after I had the temerity to ask for abbreviations to be expanded? Phil Bridger (talk) 09:56, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
- Because I feel like previous efforts to discuss the matter got bogged down by everyone pulling in a different direction, which is often how discussions go anymore if anyone discusses anything at all. And by focusing on just the ones I was privy to, I feel like we got a bit more momentum. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 16:27, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
- That seems like a reasonable response. I suppose banning from one topic is better that banning from none, although I would prefer to see a general ban come out of this. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:43, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
- Because I feel like previous efforts to discuss the matter got bogged down by everyone pulling in a different direction, which is often how discussions go anymore if anyone discusses anything at all. And by focusing on just the ones I was privy to, I feel like we got a bit more momentum. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 16:27, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Comment: I just want to state that the way maps and spatial data are handled on Wikipedia is pretty problematic in my opinion. The roads issues here are silly, a valid reliable source is a valid reliable source, however broadly the way we handle the discussion of spatial information and the creation of maps on Wikipedia likely needs serious review. I believe the road issue is broadly an issue of the policy not being broad enough to give a clear way to handle the question of citing "where" something is, without relying on OR or Synthesis. There are a lot of places on Wikipedia where we aren't even using a reliable map as the source for where something is, including many of the locator maps on the pages for countries. This has caused problems with updating maps, deciding on which set of borders to use, and the lack of a clear MOS for maps has lead to massive swaths that the most polite literature would describe as "misleading." I regularly use Wikipedia maps in my introduction GIS class as examples of what not to do by having students dissect them based on the current weeks reading, it should not be easy for people with three weeks of training to roast a map here. I hope this discussion and others can eventually lead to this being addressed. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 21:32, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
- Why keep knowledge secret and known only to an elite? Why not help democratize the knowledge needed to make good maps on Wikipedia? Viriditas (talk) 00:34, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
- Folks, ANI is for discussing edit conduct, not for discussing wider policy/practice. Please continue this discussion at a more appropriate venue like the Village Pump. Toadspike [Talk] 00:42, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
- Why keep knowledge secret and known only to an elite? Why not help democratize the knowledge needed to make good maps on Wikipedia? Viriditas (talk) 00:34, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Here because of the previous AN/I issue. There is continual, incessant low-level incivility here...occasionally sufficiently severe enough to be noticed, but never (until just now) reaching levels requiring active intervention. HEB has been allowed enough rope to rig a clipper ship. I just don't know how many more capable, well-meaning, and polite editors need to be scorched before it becomes obvious enough to us that the community must take more serious long-term action. I would support an indefinite block, or, indeed, a CBAN, until this editor demonstrates that they clearly understand, and in the future eschew, the problems they are, deliberately, causing. Hiobazard (talk/contribs) 18:14, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
- I'm partially-involved with respect to HEB (but not regarding any specific incidents mentioned in this thread; see e.g. our interactions at WP:RSN#Flightconnections, Flightradar24 and FlightsFrom - reliable to verify airline routes? and I know I've also been less than impressed with his behaviour in other discussions (but I can't bring the specifics immediately to mind), but I think there is a clear consensus here for some action. What I'm not seeing is a clear consensus for what action. Personally I don't think a simple topic ban is going to be effective as I almost never edit articles related to US roads and so the behaviour with which people have issues is clearly not restricted to just that area. I'm reluctant to recommend full site bans, but given the evidence here and in previous times he's been brought to the attention of noticeboards, I'm unable to articulate a clear reason to oppose one here. Thryduulf (talk) 21:02, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
- I'm with you. I'm currently involved in a content/policy dispute with HEB and am thus reluctant to comment on specific actions. But I feel some action must be taken. Several editors (including below) have pointed out that the last warning was final and the behavior has not changed. Toadspike [Talk] 00:31, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
- Same boat. Have had more than one dispute with HEB in the past, I've avoided them since, and otherwise had enough to say in the previous ANI to not need to repeat that here. Tamzin sums it up well at the beginning and the block by Star Mississippi has somewhat restored my faith in the system for now. CNC (talk) 22:37, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
In the ANI thread from August, linked at the top of this thread, that led to the "final" warning, I expressed the concerns I have had with HEB, and I provided a bunch of specific diffs, which anyone interested can find there. The consensus there was for a "final" warning, not some lesser sort of warning. I hope that "final" means something here on Wikipedia, and I'm not a fan of serial, successive, final warnings. Looking at his talk page, it doesn't look to me like he understands other editors' concerns or is serious about changing. I don't think this is about any particular topic area. If someone wants to propose a site ban, I'll support it. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:12, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
- Also would support. At a certain point an editor, no matter how much good-faith they may have in their contributions to the project, becomes a time-sink when it comes to dealing with other editors, and HEB has long since, unfortunately, become that. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:21, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
I was one of the people who believed that the next incident involving HEB should be a cban. I'm not convinced this is that next incident. To me, this looks like the latest in a long string of efforts by editors in the roads and highways topic area to play by their own rules and bully their way into getting what they want. I believe that HEB should have taken this to a different venue or handed it off to the broader community to discuss, but it's hard for me to say with confidence that he's the problem here. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 02:38, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
- Saying that roads editors
play by their own rules and bully their way into getting what they want
is a personal attack, or very close to it. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 05:04, 8 December 2025 (UTC) - God forbid they write articles about roads. Jeezy o peezy... jp×g🗯️ 19:51, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
Proposal: Indefinite block + standard offer for HEB
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There is clear consensus that HEB has acted in an uncivil manner, crossing a line that the prior "final warning" meant to be inviolable. There seems to also be early consensus that a significant block or ban is the appropriate response. The last AN/I discussion dangled and dawdled and moldered, but the one true takeaway was: "final." I do think that a CBAN is a tiny bit too much, though. Six months (+) is a good chunk of time to make adjustments, and make changes; the standard offer's requirements of clearly understanding the problems, and clearly guaranteeing not to compound those problems in the future means that failure to communicate is failure to be unblocked...which also seems to be consensus, or close to it, so far. I think anything less makes a travesty of all the effort put forth in the most recent AN/I decision. Hiobazard (talk/contribs) 22:23, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
- Support - I was about to comment suggesting a CBAN. Not being involved in the August discussion but having seen it at the time, the fact is a final warning has to be exactly that. If there had been at least a year between that and another good-grounds filing then I'd argue that it's enough time to have another issue without a block, but the fact is it's been less than four months. This is exactly the chronic behaviour that ANI should be blocking over. Rambling Rambler (talk) 22:26, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
- Support - I guess I should formalize this as proposer. I would also support a CBAN if that is preferred, but somewhat reluctantly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hiobazard (talk • contribs) 22:31, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
- An indefinite block placed by community consensus is a CBAN, even if you say it isn't.
Editors who are indefinitely blocked by community consensus, or remain indefinitely blocked after due consideration by the community, are considered "banned by the Wikipedia community".
Toadspike [Talk] 22:37, 8 December 2025 (UTC)- That is a subtle difference (to me) that I, of course, overlooked. I guess if the community decides, administrator discretion no longer applies. My goal would be a 6-month hiatus, with a 'standard offer' way out if proper behavior is promised and lived-up-to. Does anyone have a suggestion that would fit with that, or are we looking at a CBAN as the only realistic option? Hiobazard (talk/contribs) 23:36, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
- If there is an explicit consensus at the time of the block that a single admin may unblock when certain conditions are met, then, if those conditions are met, a single admin may unblock. In this case the proposed conditions are those listed at Wikipedia:Standard offer, explicitly including
clearly understanding the problems, and clearly guaranteeing not to compound those problems in the future
and the understanding thatfailure to communicate is failure to be unblocked
. The block would technically be a cban, but it would be a cban that can, by explicit consensus, be overturned by a single administrator. Thryduulf (talk) 00:02, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
- If there is an explicit consensus at the time of the block that a single admin may unblock when certain conditions are met, then, if those conditions are met, a single admin may unblock. In this case the proposed conditions are those listed at Wikipedia:Standard offer, explicitly including
- That is a subtle difference (to me) that I, of course, overlooked. I guess if the community decides, administrator discretion no longer applies. My goal would be a 6-month hiatus, with a 'standard offer' way out if proper behavior is promised and lived-up-to. Does anyone have a suggestion that would fit with that, or are we looking at a CBAN as the only realistic option? Hiobazard (talk/contribs) 23:36, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
- Support indef, wth conditions as detailed by Thryduulf. As I mentioned above, HEB has become a community time sink. Editors who become time sinks for the community are, no matter how much good faith their contributions are made with, not compatible with a collaborative project. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:05, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
- Support as second choice to an outright ban. As proposed, this would work as Thryduulf has described, and I realize that this is what Hiobazard initially intended, but I disagree with it. I'll support this, as better than nothing, but I would prefer the more rigorous kind of consensus needed to appeal a community site ban, instead of what could be a single admin's decision. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:30, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
- Support as second choice to CBAN. HEB habitually wastes the community’s time, they have been warned and chosen not to heed that warning. ~2025-39355-07 (talk) 00:49, 9 December 2025 (UTC) This editor appears to have made 1 (one) contribution to en.wp. (This one.) -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 02:19, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
- @SashiRolls: you have no way to know that. I expect the truth is quite the opposite since a new editor is unlikely to know about ANI. ~2025-39621-83 (talk) 18:02, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
- And there was me thinking that we had a dress code discouraging the wearing of loud socks to flash mob actions with weighty consequences. You should both feel free to log in to your accounts. -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 19:39, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
- @SashiRolls these are WP:Temporary accounts. Edit counts reflect contributions only from the current browser on the current device and begin from the most recent of 30 days ago or the last time cookies were cleared (which, especially on shared machines, can be every time the browser is closed and/or the user logs out). Thryduulf (talk) 22:44, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
- @SashiRolls: you have no way to know that. I expect the truth is quite the opposite since a new editor is unlikely to know about ANI. ~2025-39621-83 (talk) 18:02, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
- Support indef I reported only on the road and highway related content as it was the only time they crossed my path, and I felt bringing up anything else would cause the discussion to lose focus. I'm glad to see that wasn't the case here and that there is a degree of consensus. I think the fact that their problematic edits extend beyond roads and highways is enough to warrant a total block and not just a topic ban. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:35, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
- Support indef The number of times I check ANI for an issue not related to HEB and then find a post about HEB is alarmingly high. Qiushufang (talk) 04:18, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
- Support. Per Thryduulf, this technically is still a CBAN, just a CBAN that optionally delegates the unban conditions—essentially inverse discretionary sanctions. I'm not sure I see that special-casing as necessary here, but I also don't see it as likely to cause much harm, so, support with or without. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 14:24, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
- Support CBAN. I'm not involved in this particular dispute, nor the previous, but I've had opinions in both in case that makes me involved. I'm otherwise not seeing the need for tailored conditions, this looks like a straightforward case that can follow the usual proceedings. We don't need to be adding any potential leverage for former unblockables here, nor do I think a CBAN is too much. I haven't read why it would be overkill, only why it'd be unclear to oppose. Feel free to enlighten me if I missed something. CNC (talk) 15:04, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
- Support CBAN with Thryduulf's conditions. Hopefully a long break can allow them to reflect in the behavior. We have wasted so much time giving HEB so many chances, and as it's been the community's time wasted it should be the community who determines if they are allowed back.
- LakesideMinersCome Talk To Me! 18:13, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
- Support CBAN. It's been a long time coming, and HEB has been enough of a time sink already. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 21:41, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose CBAN I'm not seeing anything here that couldn't be solved with a topic ban. Let'srun (talk) 02:31, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
Oppose HEB is a voice of reason in a sea of religionists. People are sad because bad. ~2025-39334-84 (talk) 06:57, 10 December 2025 (UTC)Striking proxy vote. Toadspike [Talk] 09:19, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
- Support If you are an ANI lurker for at least six months you'll see that they've been brought to the 'boards before. And if you simply trawl the archives, you can easily see several incidents that HEB has engaged in. HEB is simply a combined WP:UNBLOCKABLES and a professional tight-rope walker, incivil but barely not enough to indef for. Also the last sentence above oppose vote seems to be a personal attack? Idk. ~212.70~ ~2025-31733-18 (talk) 13:29, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
- Support CBAN HEB has been here back in either June or July, and I agree with the temporary account above me, HEB is seriously a issue here, between WP:UNBLOCKABLES and the TA's comparison to a tightrope, I agree with all of the supports above me. shane (talk to me if you want!) 13:35, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose as written. HEB is currently blocked for thirty days, so at the very least, they should be given the opportunity to formulate a reasonable and rational unblock request that addresses the issues raised, and if they are unblocked, then what, we indef them anyway — sorry for your bad luck mate — looks like coal for you this Christmas. This proposal includes the "standard offer", shouldn't they be afforded that same offer with the thirty day block.— Isaidnoway (talk) 17:00, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
- Given the filibustering on their talk page, which includes even more WP:IDHT than before ("what did I do wrong? Please list it out for me" -- (Personal attack removed), I already did that in this very ANI and on your talk page! Multiple times!) I don't think they're capable of forming an unblock request. I honestly think they should have talk page rights revoked, too. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:04, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
- HEB was blocked by a single admin based on the evidence brought into this discussion. This discussion is essentially determining whether that block should have been longer in the first place. Ed [talk] [OMT] 17:47, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
- Support CBAN Per TA, He's an issue.
- Support community ban per my comments above as well as comments I've made in previous ANIs. As I've said, I don't have much faith that HEB is capable of channeling their energy into more collegial editing. That's why my preference is for a community ban, where any appeals would be held on WP:AN for our discussion. The indef block+standard offer proposed in the OP is a distant second for me. Ed [talk] [OMT] 17:47, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose CBAN, overturn block -- Let's go through the evidence:
- The first discussion linked in the OP is Talk:U.S. Route 131/Archive 1#Exit list 2. I don't see any problem with HEB's conduct there. There is no incivility, bludgeoning, etc., and to boot, they're right on the content dispute IMO.
- The thread right above that is Talk:U.S. Route 131/Archive 1#Primary source overuse, wherein LilianaUwU says
You're just pissed that road editors dared fight back against your disruptive drive-by tagging. Now, let me guess, you're gonna go tag Québec now that I've raised a stink like you did with the other editors' respective states?
TPH writes in the OP that this iswhere @LilianaUwU: called out HEB for drive-by tagging;
. So to be clear, this is not incivility, this is "calling out," and it's OK, but HEB's responses were uncivil? I "call out" BS on that accusation. - Next is Talk:Interstate 275 (Michigan)/Archive 1#Primary sources. This is where Ten Pound Hammer starts the thread with
Horse Eye's Back (talk · contribs) has been slathering Michigan road articles...
So it's TPH who is being uncivil and personalizing the debate, not HEB? I don't think so. It's TPH who is being unreasonable in that discussion. - User talk:Horse Eye's Back/Archives/2025/December#Primary sources, where TPH says in the OP here that they "politely asked them to stop". "Politely" means writing
it seems you are desperately trying to WP:BLUDGEON a position
. I don't think that's polite. I don't see any problem with HEB's comments in this discussion, either. - User talk:Horse Eye's Back/Archives/2025/July#Michigan Highways -- no incivility, no bludgeoning, no problems whatsoever here.
- Talk:M-65 (Michigan highway)#Primary source overuse -- in this one, TPH doesn't even respond to HEB's two comments. Again, no incivility, no bludgeoning, trying to discuss the content dispute but TPH doesn't respond. The problem here isn't HEB, it's TPH.
- Talk:F-41 (Michigan county highway)#Primary and notability -- no incivility, no bludgeoning, no problems here, either.
- Then there is the RSN thread, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Are department of transportation maps primary sources about roads?, which HEB started specifically in response to TPH's request for a centralized discussion. I don't see any incivility from HEB here, maybe I missed something. Slight bit of bludgeoning--I count 30 comments from HEB, the next-most-frequent is 18 comments from TPH--but making 12 more comments than the next guy isn't ANI-worthy IMO, and you'd expect the editor who opens a discussion to frequently comment in that discussion. Also, a lot of these are replies to replies.
- The ed17 points to User talk:Horse Eye's Back/Archives/2025/July#Michigan Highways, but like buidhe above, I don't see any problems from HEB here. Buidhe asked Ed for clarification but he hasn't responded, although he has voted to support the CBAN.
- Given the above, I don't understand why Star blocked HEB, and I think Star's refusal to specifically identify examples of incivility at User talk:Horse Eye's Back/Archives/2026/January#December 2025 is an WP:ADMINACCT failure.
- The last ANI, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1198#Propose yellow card for HEB, contrary to the close, was not for a "final" warning. "Final" wasn't in the proposal, and it wasn't in the vast majority of the support votes. It was "just" a warning. The word "final" was something the closer added. HEB objected to the "final" at User talk:Horse Eye's Back/Archives/2025/September#ANI Discussion, where they pointed out that the "final" will be used against him in the future, and lo and behold, in the second sentence of this OP mentions "final warning"...
- At the last ANI, I complained that the CBAN proposal was made by an IP. This time it's an editor with less than 600 edits. Among those 600 edits are 4 CBAN votes (1, 2, 3, 4, the 4th being for an indef of HEB at the last ANI), plus some other sanction votes. Totally kosher...
- A lot of the comments here are blatant "I've never liked this editor"-type comments. I don't understand why this community condones such things.
- I also don't agree with going from formal warning to CBAN with nothing in between. Not even trying to let the month-long block expire and seeing if there is improvement.
- Overall, I see HEB doing the right thing, which is making bold edits, tagging articles that don't comply with policies and guidelines, and then trying to engage in discussion about them. This looks to me like "he disagrees with us in a content dispute, CBAN him!". I don't see any policy violations here at all. Maybe there is something in here that I've missed, but I see no problematic behavior by HEB in the discussions listed above. Levivich (talk) 19:03, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
- Going through your argument point-by-point, most of the points you make, before coming to the previous ANI discussion, are arguments that HEB is actually correct about the maps/roads issue. Reading that, I immediately flashed back to the ArbCom case in which you argued that "being right is enough". Also, a lot of what you argue is that TPH was worse, which is a straight-up WP:2WRONGS ploy. Then you come to the warning coming out of the previous ANI thread. You didn't like the consensus there, but that doesn't get you to argue that we should treat it as if it was something less than what it was. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:31, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
- Support CBAN, per TenPoundHammer and others. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:27, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose further sanctions while HEB is blocked. I felt uncomfortable about the speed with which this took off, and became more so when I noticed the OP had so few contributions (after they thanked me for my comments above). I've looked through HEB's contributions a bit tonight and haven't found anything banworthy, generally finding them to be quite reasonable. I did notice that they'd made over 1000 edits to ANI, which to me is just crazy: this is a surefire way to make enemies fast if you're not a paragon of diplomacy. I agree with those above (Levivich and Isaidnoway in particular ... or even Cullen328 in the previous section) who have suggested taking things one step at a time. If HEB returns, I will leave them a message suggesting they self-impose an ANI ban. I may be wrong about HEB (Tamzin, in particular, makes me wonder), but I don't think this sort of mad rush to delete a user marked for deletion is healthy at all. A warning and a single block (that I still haven't seen justified) in five years. Before that, 2 short blocks with their previous account. As for the current block, if it's unjust it should be lifted (for the record), but taking a one-month break from ANI and en.wp is never a bad idea. The comment Levivich highlights from LilianaUwU above, and the use that is being made of it here, is troubling. -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 20:18, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose further sanctions per @User:SashiRolls. I think we are too quick to ban active editors. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 20:34, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose CBAN from what I've seen, it doesn't seem to be merited at this time. (t · c) buIdhe 21:05, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
- Support CBAN. I've actually agreed with HEB's substantive points on multiple occasions, and have found their persistence beneficial in a few instances of (what I perceived as) POV-pushing by their interlocutors in various other topics over years of editing. But upon reflection, I think that WP:OWB#3 captures the essence of the overall problem here:
One who sometimes makes good edits, but endlessly bickers, threatens, insults, whines, and is eventually banned, will have taken hundreds of hours from other users who would have better spent that time building the encyclopedia.
I've seen too many editors over the years write comments like "I stopped editing in this area because of HEB". It's true that HEB aims at some deserving targets sometimes. But HEB needs to find a way to participate that doesn't involve exhausting other editors with demands to satisfy whatever impulses burn in HEB's heart at that moment. They can start with a convincing unban appeal down the line, one in which they make their own lists of what they could have done differently and better, without demanding that other editors do that work for them. I hope they succeed. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 21:19, 10 December 2025 (UTC) - Oppose further sanctions at this point. I don't often agree with Levivich, but I think they have summarised the situation well here. Black Kite (talk) 21:25, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
- Support: LilianaUwU sums it up: We've been here before, we'll be here again. HEB has a consistent record of bludgeoning and wikilawyering, masquerading as faux-civility, over the years; the fillibuster raised in their favor is unconvincing since precisely the same attitude is being displayed on their talk as was under discussion before when this thread was opened. Not listening to, not hearing, not respecting the community's views. It seems difficult to argue that the current block isn't preventative when if they weren't blocked, precisely the same bludgeoning/wikilawyering would be convoluting this discussion rather than that on their talk. The SO would be useful for both them and the project. —Fortuna, imperatrix 21:57, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose further sanctions per Levivich and SashiRolls. The worst thing I can say about HEB here (at least based on the evidence) is that he chose a weird hill to die on WRT maps as primary sources, and can verge on BLUDGEONing at times. But he at least grounds them in policy and does not resort to personal attacks. As for the ANI issue, I've no objections to a self-imposed ANI ban, should he decide to do this. MiasmaEternal☎ 21:50, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
- Support CBAN: per the evidence presented and previous interactions with HEB, it is clear that they are an immense drain on volunteer time and resources and do not wish to contribute in a constructive and collaborative manner. I see now issue with some of their concerns about sourcing and notability, but indiscriminately tagging articles in targeted batches—a tactic designed to overwhelm users and bully them into submission—is unacceptable. The community needs to draw a clear line in the sand unless we want to bleed away more experienced and motivated contributors. SounderBruce 23:20, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
- Support existing block, Oppose CBAN, largely per my rationale during the August discussion where I proposed the warning that was adopted. I had also supported a one-month block at the time. Levivich is correct as far as my own intentions are concerned; I considered the "yellow card" a formal warning, not a final one. I did expect that we'd be back here, because HEB can't help himself. As I'm fairly sure I've said about HEB, and certainly about other editors, being right is not enough. Mackensen (talk) 23:31, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
- Support ban with the conditions described above. I've thought long and hard about this, but what has tipped me over the balance is a combination of two things:
- The last time they were brought to AI the warning they got was explicitly final and that seems to have been understood by those supporting. I strongly believe that a final warning should indeed mean final, every time. Multiple "final" warnings is one of the ways to end up with an unblockable.
- HEB's conduct on his talk page during this ban. They have chosen not to engage productively but to continue much of the same behaviour that resulted in the block in the first place. When you have been blocked and your net contribution to the encyclopaedia is being examined at ANI, that is the time to be on your absolute best behaviour. If this is an example of HEB's best behaviour then they are not a good fit for a collaborative online encyclopaedia, if this is not their best behaviour then what on earth do we need to do before we see that, and why should we have to put in that much effort and energy to get it when other editors who make at least equally valuable contributions to the project don't require that of us? Thryduulf (talk) 23:51, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
- Comment the one-month block obviously has to stand. The problem is tendentious behavior in response to feedback; Levivich's link to HEB arguing that a "yellow card" is only a formal warning and not a final warning is a perfect example of the problematic behavior. That behavior has continued, in the diffs and in the response to this ANI thread on his talk page.
As far as this being a "CBAN" versus an indef block versus just the one-month block ... the behavior does not seem egregious enough to justify a permanent ban. The intent of the CBAN here seems to be "require a statement rather than just letting him wait out a block". I don't think demands for a properly-formatted apology in six months are helpful; my vote would be for a 1-3 month block. I have no idea if a TBAN from "roads" would help going forward. ~2025-35132-06 (talk) 04:45, 11 December 2025 (UTC) - Oppose: When HEB was brought here last time and given a final warning, that warning was for incivility. Per Levivich's analysis I don't see any of that. TarnishedPathtalk 04:55, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
- Per the close, it was not just for incivility but also
uncollegial behaviour
, noting thatfurther instances of subpar conduct on their part should lead to escalating blocks
. In reality the bar was set quite low for a block hence that has already happened. But what baffles me is that at no point does it seem HEB considers "maybe I shouldn't do this since it'll likely piss people off and I'm on a final warning and all that, even though I'm certain I'm right", instead they either appear a) determined to test the limit of what they can and can't get way with, or b) lack the self-awareness required when working collaboratively with others. The present issue is that they remain convinced that they are right, and thus they shouldn't be blocked for being so abundantly correct, very much echoing the final warning nonsensical discussion from before. Practising that mentality is inherently disruptive to the project and other editors if not obvious, regardless of if they have reigned in some incivility in the process. For example a user makes a bunch of controversial bold move and were given a final warning about it, you'd expect them to actually think twice before making a bold move incase it'd be controversial to do so right? Ie have some self-awareness, given it's compulsory here. If editors are unable to gain that quality after several years, and numerous editors trying to get through to them, I honestly don't know how else we are supposed to cope with such disruption. Hence the point of a CBAN is thus far from punitive, it's specifically trying to solve this inherent problem by requiring an understanding, one that others are convinced of rather than any single admin, before returning to editing. The alternative is expecting an understanding to magically appear in the near future, as this has been tried before with the warning that didn't function as intended. CNC (talk) 15:42, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
- Per the close, it was not just for incivility but also
- Support a community ban after reading HEB's talk page and seeing how they have just continued digging. They were given a formal warning that was agreed to be a final warning. Then they were blocked for a month, and have continued in a way that would often result in pulling talk page access. They had a post-final warning in the form of the month block. Enough is enough. Robert McClenon (talk) 09:11, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
- On that TP, Cullen mentions HEB's blocks as HEJack without being aware that it was for interaction with this policy-violating sockpuppet. I think it was important for HEBack to make it clear that both of their previous blocks were explicitly related to this "faux nez". There are some who say "one must turn the other cheek" when being baited by sockpuppet (as Cullen does say when HEB pointed out the context, presumably based on the
essay
about two wrongs not making a wright). The requirement of such saintly behaviour towards aggressive sockpuppeteers is, in practice, primarily applied to "blockables" in my experience. Users with coffers full of social capital (i.e. the unblockables) tend to be offered a lot more leeway... -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 14:43, 11 December 2025 (UTC)- I mentioned a previous block only because Horse Eye's Back incorrectly claimed that they had never been blocked. Otherwise I would not have brought it up. There is no expectation of "saintly behaviour" from anyone, but everyone knows or ought to know that misconduct by another editor does not justify misconduct by the editor under discussion here. As for "social capital", that comes from collaborative, productive contributions to the project, including refraining from constant bickering. Cullen328 (talk) 19:51, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
- On that TP, Cullen mentions HEB's blocks as HEJack without being aware that it was for interaction with this policy-violating sockpuppet. I think it was important for HEBack to make it clear that both of their previous blocks were explicitly related to this "faux nez". There are some who say "one must turn the other cheek" when being baited by sockpuppet (as Cullen does say when HEB pointed out the context, presumably based on the
- Support when is enough enough? EF5 14:54, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
- Comment This thread is a prime example of the tight-rope walking that can be seen above. At least three people think more sanctions would be too excessive. Where's the line? This kind of behavior is what even some users were indeffed/banned for. HEB seems to be an exception. HEB however is not irreplaceable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2025-31733-18 (talk) 16:51, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
- Support - agree with TA above. A younger account would get blocked for this. I don't blame any admins for not blocking them earlier, but it needs to be done. WP:SEALION, WP:IDONTGETIT. win8x (talk) 16:59, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose I'm not familiar with HEB's history but his behaviour in this incident doesn't seem worthy of an indefinite block to me. He already has a month long block, I'd much rather give an editor a chance to improve following a long block as opposed to making the ban a community ban. Traumnovelle (talk) 18:46, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
- Further comment: win8x is correct that HEB is engaging in sealioning. The whole thing is a mess. Just look at this part:
The better question is whether the use is excessive given the subject matter, and whether the tag actually helps facilitate improvement of the article. GMG 18:41, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
- ~24 of the ~30 citations in the article are to the Michigan Department of Transportation. I've seen excessive defined two ways... Either the majority of sources being primary or the majority of content being sourced to a primary source (both have support in P+G and are the same answer much of the time anyways), this would seem to fall under both majority of sources and majority of content. If tags don't facilitate improvement of articles they shouldn't exist, this is a tag for just this situation and it has community endorsement. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:55, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
- If tags don't facilitate improvement of articles they shouldn't exist, this is a tag for just this situation and it has community endorsement. That's not responsive to the question asked. A tag can be useful in one context and not useful in another. The latter case doesn't invalidate the tag altogether, just the as-applied use case. WP:PRIMARY isn't a blanket ban on primary sources. The policy section enumerates seven different criteria for evaluating when to use primary sources. It's not clear which of these you think are relevant to this article. Point 3 would seem to be directly relevant: A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge.. Point 5 is also relevant: Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them. If DOT sources are primary then that's in play. Is caution warranted? What's the actual concern? Mackensen (talk) 21:14, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
- I find such tags useful because they let me know about an issue without having to analyse dozens or hundreds of sources. I'm not aware of any negative impact that such a tag could have, what am I supposed to be weighing the beneficial impact of a valid tag against if there is no harm? So far the only argument made against the tags is that they are inaccurate because DOT maps aren't primary sources... Hence this discussion, its a bit of a chicken and egg issue after all... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:27, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
- Tags are placed because a problem has been identified and needs to be addressed. They also serve as a warning to readers that the article may have issues. As discussed, relying on primary sources is not, by itself, a problem. Whether the DOT sources are primary or not is something of a side issue, because even assuming that they are you haven't indicated what the actual problem is, or the expected beneficial impact. Mackensen (talk) 22:06, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
And there are probably a bunch of other examples... Also, this section has an WP:ILIKEIT argument (even though WP:ILIKEIT is technically XfD stuff this still applies in spirit) of I find such tags useful because they let me know about an issue without having to analyse dozens or hundreds of sources.
~2025-31733-18 (talk) 20:26, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Close review: Horse Eye's Back
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Horse Eye's Back has complained () that I am involved owing to a comment I made in a WP:RSN discussion that they started, which is related to the highway article citation issue which kicked off the complaint here. I am therefore requesting a review of the close above. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 23:26, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
- It's worth noting that HEB did not request a close review, only Ivanvector seems to want one. Yes, there is some degree of involvement (especially given the tone of your comments in the cited thread). No, you did not particularly faithfully describe the opposers argument about jumping straight from a warning to the nuclear option bypassing escalating blocks. Finally, no, it's unlikely any other admin would have closed it differently at the time you closed it. I would not endorse opening this review as it's just going to lead IMO to more unnecessary heat / bad blood without any possibility of changing anything. :) -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 23:59, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
- Involved endorse Speaking as someone actually involved, having !voted above, if I wasn't involved, I would likely have closed it in exactly the same way Ivanvector did, and I suspect any other reasonable adminstrator would have done the same. In addition I'd argue that claiming that that RSN comment makes Ivanvector 'involved' in this discussion is exactly the sort of behavior from HEB that led to this sanction being imposed in the first place. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:05, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
- Endorse close - WP:INVOLVED is typically for admins who have previously issued sanctions or who have been involved in protracted disagreements, so it doesn't apply here. Additionally, after having a cursory look at the discussion, I don't see any fatal flaws and it appears to be a reasonable summary and within admin discretion. It doesn't matter if another closer would have worded it differently, only that the close was reasonable and within norms. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:10, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
- Endorse, with the caveat that I am very much on a "side" in the discussion that was closed. I've looked at the RSN discussion, and there is nothing that I can detect that would make Ivan a "partisan" with a dog in the fight there. It's just a comment from someone contributing to a content noticeboard. I agree with Dennis that the close was reasonable, and I see nothing wrong with how Ivan handled the discussion at HEB's talk page. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:53, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
- Involved endorse as admin who applied the one-month block. Nothing that followed my block indicated the disruption wouldn't resume when the block ended because HEB does not understand or believe their actions are problematic. The community feels otherwise, and Ivan's close reflects that. I think the decision to have it explicitly not be a CBAn was a good one. Star Mississippi 02:33, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
- Involved endorse as the administrator who recommended a one month block. I refrained from speaking for or against stronger sanctions but the community discussed the matter and has spoken. Ivanvector has done a very good job of analyzing and summarizing the discussion and its consensus. Cullen328 (talk) 07:08, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
- Endorse I did not vote this time around, but I'm the person who last brought HEB to ANI. It's going to be tough to find an editor who has never interacted with HEB, with how vast their contributions seem to be. There is clearly a consensus to block HEB, and the close is not inappropriate IMO. jolielover♥talk 07:37, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
*Endorse there was over 2:1 support for a ban, and the thread was opened for 5 days already. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:54, 13 December 2025 (UTC) Withdrawing in light of other persuasive arguments. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:04, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
- Uninvolved endorse more wikilawyering from a guy who likes to wikilawyer. No surprise there, and no surprise that there's nothing of substance behind it. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:04, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose close. I'm utterly uninvolved: I did not comment in the previous discussions about HEB's behaviour and I'm not involved in the underlying content disputes about maintenance tags/highway articles. Besides, HEB previously supported a topic ban against me , so they are certainly not my best pal. That said, I'd like to point out the following.
- Ivanvector was indeed involved in a content dispute with HEB, which makes a close review appropriate in principle.
- Their close is detailed and well-reasoned, yet they rightly acknowledge that
This is a bit of a complicated discussion to determine consensus
. Roughly one third of the comments (10 out of 30, by my count) expressed opposition to additional sanctions, which is a significant minority. - Two thirds supported either a CBAN or an indef block + SO. However, Ten Pound Hammer's initial proposal of a topic ban on maintenance tags and highway articles was not discussed in depth. If I'm not mistaken, only three editors explicitly rejected it, while one or two endorsed it. While the previous ANI thread focused on civility, here I mainly see issues with bludgeoning and POV-pushing: it's not at all clear that HEB's behaviour with respect to civility has not improved, or that a topic ban would not suffice to prevent disruption. At least, I don't see a clear consensus in the discussion that excludes this.
- HEB is a productive and experienced editor, and blocking them from the whole site should be a last-resort remedy: one to be adopted only when it's clear that nothing else will work. So I think we should reopen the discussion to see if editors can reach a consensus on an intermediate course (tban, possibly also a civility restriction?), or if the community will instead confirm/strengthen its support for harsher measures. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 14:52, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
- Endorse closure, I feel there is no conflict of interest here per WP:INVOLVED, and the community consensus was clear on what to be done with HEB. To claim that Ivanvector was "involved" because of one stray comment is absurd. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 14:56, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
- ETA: Since I was the OP, I guess that makes me involved here, does it not? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 15:08, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
- Comment: I won't make a bolded opinion here; as proposer, that seems inappropriate. I am pleased, however, that this process seemed to go as well as could possibly be expected. Many very experienced editors worked very hard to make sure this thread was open, fair, and civil. In fact, the graceful way in which this proceeded was, to me, a helpful counterpoint to the unfortunate behavior which we have been addressing. Hiobazard (talk/contribs) 16:43, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
- Endorse close (involved). Commenting editorially does not make one involved; it was a comment on sourcing, not a contributor. If IV had advocated against HEB personally in the discussion, it might be different. They didn't, and it isn't. It was also not the "dispute" that WP:INVOLVED is predicated on; that's important. As such, the caveat within WP:INVOLVED applies—that
any reasonable administrator would have probably come to the same conclusion
—as it is realistically impossible to read the consensus above (pace Gitz's "sizable minority") to any other conclusion than that IV came to. —Fortuna, imperatrix 18:32, 13 December 2025 (UTC) - Abstain - (neither endorse nor disendorse) - (not involved whatsoever). There's a clear majority of opinion in this discussion that considers HEB disruptive. I'm less of the view that there's a clear weight of evidence substantiating *all* the accusations levelled warranting the doubling down of sanction (from a one month ban to an indefinite block). A very detailed rebuttal of the evidence was presented and 49 hours later the discussion was closed. There was no significant, elaborated counter to that presented. I accept that there is a context here where ensuring a long drawn out process does not occur - but the substantial shift in views expressed once the rebuttal was presented is stark and another 24-48 hours might well have allowed further response to that rebuttal. Given HEB was already under a one month ban, I can see not unreasonable grounds for a claim that it was a hasty closure. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 23:36, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
- Involved endorse as the anonymous IP who proposed the indefinite block in August. I abstained from !voting this go around since my previous proposal derailed the conversation due to coming from someone without an account and that may have contributed to HEB not being blocked then. ~2025-40588-39 (talk) 23:37, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
- Involved dyspepsia. Since two editors are now complaining that my response to the so-called "very detailed rebuttal" was insufficiently "significant" or "elaborated", I figure I'm entitled to bite back. There's a lot in this entire ANI discussion that demonstrates all the ways that ANI is toxic. We have a clear consensus, although it was not unanimous. It's also clear to anyone who wants to be reasonable that the close was procedurally correct, even if the result does not enjoy unanimous support. Apparently, some editors would like this discussion to go on even longer, because, hey, you never know if something new thrown at the wall will stick. For those who consider the discussion here too quick, brief, and superficial, let me suggest that they open a case at ArbCom. But please let's let the rest of us move on. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:52, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- Involved endorse Consensus has been made, we can actually move on from this now. shane (talk to me if you want!) 13:43, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
Polemic content not related to independent review of close. Dennis Brown - 2¢ |
|---|
|
- Involved overturn and let someone else close it. Someone involved (if only one comment) in the underlying issue brought to this noticeboard shouldn't be deciding consensus on a questionable indef block proposal. And in my view, I don't see HEB's question about being involved as a complaint, but rather an inquiry.— Isaidnoway (talk) 15:43, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- Endorse. HEB's misbehavior and our reliable sourcing policy are not the same issue. Conflating such remote matters would only make enforcing our policies more difficult. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 17:23, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- Uninvolved Overturn - Levivich's analysis raises some serious questions about the accusations as well as the conduct of other editors. I think this new development deserves more time to discuss, and I think we also need to look at the bigger picture. This looks like it might be a case of editors in a certain topic area enforcing their own standards as if they are policy and accusing anyone who disagrees of incivility while being uncivil themselves. Stumbling upon this discussion, I find it very concerning that nobody seems to be able to point out exactly what HEB has done wrong and yet HEB is being further criticized for asking for a clear explanation. –dlthewave ☎ 18:15, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- Taking a closer look at TPH's evidence, it's clear that they're (intentionally or not) misrepresenting the evidence. A central premise of their argument is
"At Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Using maps as sources, unless I am misreading this extremely long discussion, it seems there is a consensus that maps are being used appropriately as sources on highway articles and there are no concerns with original research, synthesis of ideas, or other impropriety as a source."
However, they seem to be overlooking the fact that there is consensus against Proposal 2b,"Satellite layers (i.e. on Google Maps) can be used to reference statements about elements such as ground cover that can easily be verified"
, and nothing in that RfC says that there are no concerns about OR or SYNTH. Their two prime examples, Interstate 275 (Michigan) and U.S. Route 131 both have extensive route descriptions that seem to be largely based on Google Maps satellite imagery. Examples include"In the city of Romulus, I-275 begins to take on a more suburban character when it passes the southwestern boundary of the Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport"
(How would one even quantify that?);"North of this area US 131 crosses the Kalamazoo River and runs past the US 131 Raceway Park, a dragstrip close to the M-222 interchange near Martin"
(How are we deciding which landmarks are significant?);"the northbound carriageway crosses over, then back under, the southbound lanes, forcing traffic through this stretch to briefly drive on the left
(Again, who decided that this short crossover stretch within an interchange on a divided highway is significant?) along with a fairly lengthy description of a discrepancy in the length of I-275 between the Federal Highway Administration, Michigan DOT and various mapping services that no secondary source seems to have seen fit to cover. None of these statements comply with the RfC and it seems entirely reasonable to tag them as overly reliant on primary sources, since maps are still primary sources and should be treated as such. These route descriptions would be considered poorly-sourced cruft that fails WP:DUE if they hadn't somehow become standard practice within this fairly isolated topic area. Additionally, FA and GA articles are not exampt from scrutiny. It seems that we have a WP:OWN issue with folks trying to shut down HEB's attempts to bring these articles into compliance with our P&Gs which understandably led to frustration on HEB's part. Sure, there can be reasonable disagreement over these points, but to characterize HEB's tagging as "bad faith" and insist that certain article sections don't need citations is beyond the pale. At the very least I think that a warning/reminder is in order for TPH. –dlthewave ☎ 04:38, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing this out. And I'd also point out that an admin had already blocked HEB for 30 days, so why the escalation to an indef just 2 days later, what was the urgency in needing to elevate this. Seems to be punitive to me, because with the 30 day block, HEB was already prevented from further disruptive editing.— Isaidnoway (talk) 06:32, 15 December 2025 (UTC)- This is best litigated somewhere else, not ANI. ~2025-31733-18 (talk) 11:51, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, this is best decided somewhere else, but TPH decided to bring it to ANI so here we are. Since their complaint is centered on the idea that HEB's tags were incorrect and maps were used properly in all cases, it's entirely appropriate to evaluate the accuracy of those claims here. –dlthewave ☎ 17:28, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
- I just don't think it is so big of a deal and so clearcut an issue to justify years of dreck; like, an article about a highway having allegedly too detailed a description of the route? Who cares? jp×g🗯️ 20:00, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
- Taking a closer look at TPH's evidence, it's clear that they're (intentionally or not) misrepresenting the evidence. A central premise of their argument is
- Overturn. And again I'll rely on another editor's comment (which is very convenient when communicating in a foreign language):
I find it very concerning that nobody seems to be able to point out exactly what HEB has done wrong and yet HEB is being further criticized for asking for a clear explanation.
Thank you Dlthewave for making it easier for me. AwerDiWeGo (talk) 19:27, 14 December 2025 (UTC)- Section moved from above, by same user, confusing to be in two sections. Dennis Brown - 2¢
- Comment. I agree with Goldsztajn:
A very detailed rebuttal of the evidence was presented ... There was no significant, elaborated counter to that presented.
It's not pleasant to venture here, so thank you Goldsztajn for making it easier for me. I'll add that the above looks like a broken process for deciding blocks or bans in a case like this one, but would prefer not to elaborate on why I think so (this place is scary). AwerDiWeGo (talk) 00:08, 14 December 2025 (UTC)- "looks like a broken process…prefer not to elaborate". Please either contribute in a way that helps further the discussion or just don't comment at all. Below you say "hesitating at labeling this as mob rule because I’m not even sure what 'mob rule' means": why even mention it at all then? ~2025-40643-89 (talk) 07:22, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- I did not elaborate, but highlighted a comment by another editor that makes one of the main points. Any elaboration of an argument here is subject to others labeling it as "bickering", linking to some essay or policy about whatever just for the sake of it, or considered as further proof that whatever sanction was imposed was well imposed (like the comments in the above discussion that point to what HEB continued writing in their talk page; those comments in particular, made by TenPoundHammer and Robert McClenon
and ~2025-35132-06, should be discarded by the closer, in my opinion, because they look much like nothing more than hate comments). AwerDiWeGo (talk) 11:40, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- I did not elaborate, but highlighted a comment by another editor that makes one of the main points. Any elaboration of an argument here is subject to others labeling it as "bickering", linking to some essay or policy about whatever just for the sake of it, or considered as further proof that whatever sanction was imposed was well imposed (like the comments in the above discussion that point to what HEB continued writing in their talk page; those comments in particular, made by TenPoundHammer and Robert McClenon
- "looks like a broken process…prefer not to elaborate". Please either contribute in a way that helps further the discussion or just don't comment at all. Below you say "hesitating at labeling this as mob rule because I’m not even sure what 'mob rule' means": why even mention it at all then? ~2025-40643-89 (talk) 07:22, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- Endorse close, as that was a fairly small involvement on Ivan's part, and even HEB doesn't dispute the content of the close. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:52, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- Involved overturn - First, I disagree quite strongly with
Commenting editorially does not make one involved
. Of course it does; WP:INVOLVED is about not acting as an admin in a topic areas where you participate as an editor. So, someone who regularly edits roads articles can't act as an uninvolved admin in a roads-related sanction discussion. Ivan's RSN comment, alone, is enough to trigger WP:INVOLVED: he is taking a position in a content dispute that is the opposite of HEB's position--in a thread started by HEB. And not only does Ivan take a position, but he saysCleanup-tagging a highway article because it relies on the highway authority's publications is nonsense...
, italics in the original. He called HEB's actions "nonsense." That's WP:INVOLVED. Of course that's not the only example! Ivan is a frequent roads editor, who created Canada Highways Act. He also created many of the articles listed in List of Prince Edward Island provincial highways, like Prince Edward Island Route 6, Prince Edward Island Route 7, Prince Edward Island Route 8, and more. Then there's Old Princetown Road. A quick search of talk pages finds more roads content edits, like: this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this... and more recently, this from six moths ago. Ivan is an active editor of road articles, and don't get me wrong, that's great, we are all grateful for his contributions over many years. But, sorry, it means Ivan can't act as an admin in the topic of roads. Particularly when he's disagreed with HEB in the content dispute that is the basis of the CBAN proposal (the RSN thread). Aside from WP:INVOLVED, I don't see any weighing of arguments in the closing statement; in fact, every paragraph seems to just count heads, talking about how many or how few editors supported or opposed particular positions; this is contra WP:NOTAVOTE. I hope in the close of this review, the closer weighs arguments, because some of the !votes above say absolutely nothing about WP:INVOLVED, and some !votes directly contradict the plain language of WP:INVOLVED. Finally, I think it's pretty weak to blame HEB for "wikilawyering" because he correctly identifies Ivan as WP:INVOLVED. Blame Ivan, not HEB, for the time spent on this close review, which could have been saved if Ivan had just self-reverted his close. Levivich (talk) 23:00, 14 December 2025 (UTC)- Also WP:CANVASSed - I just noticed in re-reading the RSN thread that Ivan was not only WP:INVOLVED, but was also canvassed to this ANI thread by TPH in this comment, where TPH pinged four editors to tell them about this ANI thread, all of whom expressed an opinion in the RSN thread that contradicted HEB. Credit to three out of four of those editors, who did not come and vote on the proposal. The fourth editor, Ivan, closed it. Come on, @Ivanvector: surely you can concede that you (1) have created articles and made edits in the topic of roads/highways, (2) said in the RSN thread that HEB's actions were "nonsense," and (3) were WP:CANVASSed to this ANI thread by TPH's comment. These are three indisputable facts, are they not? Levivich (talk) 00:02, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
- Interesting to see that so many comments have been posted in that discussion even after HEB was blocked. I just counted about 70 comments after HEB was blocked, with people still disagreeing and arguing back and forth even though the blocked HEB wasn't there any more. Isn't that contradictory with the idea that HEB was the problem? AwerDiWeGo (talk) 00:38, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks to Ivan for the forthright response below. Levivich (talk) 18:24, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
- Also WP:CANVASSed - I just noticed in re-reading the RSN thread that Ivan was not only WP:INVOLVED, but was also canvassed to this ANI thread by TPH in this comment, where TPH pinged four editors to tell them about this ANI thread, all of whom expressed an opinion in the RSN thread that contradicted HEB. Credit to three out of four of those editors, who did not come and vote on the proposal. The fourth editor, Ivan, closed it. Come on, @Ivanvector: surely you can concede that you (1) have created articles and made edits in the topic of roads/highways, (2) said in the RSN thread that HEB's actions were "nonsense," and (3) were WP:CANVASSed to this ANI thread by TPH's comment. These are three indisputable facts, are they not? Levivich (talk) 00:02, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
- Endorse because overturning would be needlessly bureaucratic. I doubt another admin would have closed differently. However, waiting for a less involved closer would not have gone amiss. It's incumbent on admins to avoid even the appearance of impropriety in contentious actions. —Rutebega (talk) 05:41, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
- I don't think it is fair to characterise the concerns raised regarding the close, in particular the options for sanctioning, as "needlessly bureaucratic". Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 12:18, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
- Endorse (involved): Agree with Rutebega above. Even if this was reopened I'm betting someone else will close it as "narrow consensus" or something. ~2025-31733-18 (talk) 11:56, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
- Endorse(Not involved): I don't necessarily agree with the indefiniteness of the block, I would have preferred escalating blocks, but that isn't the question being asked. I don't see how any other admin could look at the discussion and come to another conclusion. Reversing would be pointless WP:BUREAUCRACY. -- Mike 🗩 13:46, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
- Endorse, with maybe a trout for User:Ivanvector: yes, Ivanvector may have been 'WP:INVOLVED' in closing the discussion and blocking User:Horse Eye's Back. But, it seems very likely that overturning this and letting an uninvolved another admin close the thread is going to be ultimately a waste of time and effort, as User:Horse Eye's Back would (almost certainly) still end up getting blocked indefinitely anyway. In other words, the outcome would very likely still not change.
I'll just add a quick, but quite important note to my message: there is an LTA, that appears to be either BKFIP or some imitator of them, who occassionally goes after and reverts edits made by User:Horse Eye's Back, often with the edit summary "remove horseshit", "Revert ban evasion WP: BKFIP", "revert incompetent fuckwit" or some variation of them. So if anyone out there is watching edits on articles that HEB has edited and they see reverts from an anon or new account with one of those edit summaries, absolutely revert it, even if it means restoring an edit made by another blocked editor. Regards, — AP 499D25 (talk) 14:22, 15 December 2025 (UTC) - Uninvolved Overturn. WP:INVOLVED is clear that "In general, editors should not act as administrators in disputes in which they have been involved." Commenting on
a BLPthe RSN noticeboard involving the blocked editor is a dispute they were involved in so the close should be overturned and an uninvolved admin close the discussion. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 16:21, 15 December 2025 (UTC)- @GothicGolem29: Just making sure you're aware that Ivan gave an opinion in a content discussion at WP:RSN that the now-blocked editor had started. It was not BLP complaint about/involving said blocked editor. Ed [talk] [OMT] 17:37, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
- Ah apologies I will correct my !vote to be RSN. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 10:27, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
- @GothicGolem29: Just making sure you're aware that Ivan gave an opinion in a content discussion at WP:RSN that the now-blocked editor had started. It was not BLP complaint about/involving said blocked editor. Ed [talk] [OMT] 17:37, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
- Closer's comment - in case anyone gets the impression I'm ignoring this discussion, I'm not; I've been following closely but purposely not commenting so as to not unduly influence the outcome, but I think we're past that. I was aware of having made a drive-by comment in the RSN discussion about a sourcing issue but didn't think anyone could possibly believe that made me involved with respect to the editor who opened the discussion. HEB and I have barely interacted at all other than incidentally on noticeboards like this one, despite both being prolific roads editors (which was also news to me: the common element in the articles that have been itemized here is that they are topics in places where I live or have lived, not [exclusively] that they are roads). I don't remember having been pinged here, I have been dealing with a cross-wiki ping vandal lately and had to go back six pages in my notifications to find it, but it's there and marked read, and diffs don't lie anyways.But it's not my point of view that matters: WP:INVOLVED is about avoiding the perception of bias, and with the evidence all laid out here it is abundantly clear that I crossed a line with respect to that policy. The community needs to be able to trust that discussion closes accurately and neutrally summarize the discussion and are free of bias, especially someone facing a site ban; I failed in that respect, and someone else should re-close.But having already demonstrated that my judgement here is flawed, I should not be the one to determine whether that means reopening/relisting the discussion, whether that relisted discussion should be re-closed immediately or listed for some time for additional comments, whether the close is sound despite my involvement, whether HEB's block should be reset to 30 days pending an outcome, whether a new discussion should be started, or someone even suggested taking the whole thing to Arbcom. Whoever closes this close review should determine on the basis of consensus here what we do next, and that won't be me. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:14, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
- It's unfortunate that some editors above have now successfully thrown as much as they can at a metaphorical dartboard, no matter its usefulness or relevance, in the hope that something will stick and magically create a sense of impropriety. I want to especially highlight the questionable assertions made by Levivich that INVOLVED here covers anyone who has worked in the roads topic area.First off, even a cursory look shows that Ivan dabbles in roads as part of a broader interest in Canadian topics—yes, dabbling, as a road isn't in their top 10 most-edited articles and Levivich had to reach back over ten years for their list of evidence. (I too would look like an active editor on a topic of your choosing if you looked back at the last decade.)But on the broader point, context matters. I am not automatically involved when I use my admin tools on something/someone in the general topic of military history, even though that has been my primary focus area for 17+ years. If Levivich's interpretation had consensus, admins would be actively avoiding all content work. But it doesn't, and for that you can see e.g. Dennis Brown's comment above for how INVOLVED actually works in practice. Ed [talk] [OMT] 15:40, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
- I personally feel like Levivich, Silverseren, and dlthewave have ramped up their tendentiousness in the course of this discussion. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 16:14, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
- I think Levivich is a staunch defender of HEB, every time they are in the same discussion they seem to be on the same side ~2025-31733-18 (talk) 16:32, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
- My read of Ivan's very generous and honorable statement is that he is being careful to follow administrator expectations of accountability to a T. It should not be confounded with indicating that the consensus statement he wrote was factually incorrect. Some people got angry at me about my dyspeptic comment earlier, but my sense that some editors will throw everything at the wall until something sticks is being proved correct. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:23, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
- I think Levivich is a staunch defender of HEB, every time they are in the same discussion they seem to be on the same side ~2025-31733-18 (talk) 16:32, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
- I personally feel like Levivich, Silverseren, and dlthewave have ramped up their tendentiousness in the course of this discussion. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 16:14, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
- It's unfortunate that some editors above have now successfully thrown as much as they can at a metaphorical dartboard, no matter its usefulness or relevance, in the hope that something will stick and magically create a sense of impropriety. I want to especially highlight the questionable assertions made by Levivich that INVOLVED here covers anyone who has worked in the roads topic area.First off, even a cursory look shows that Ivan dabbles in roads as part of a broader interest in Canadian topics—yes, dabbling, as a road isn't in their top 10 most-edited articles and Levivich had to reach back over ten years for their list of evidence. (I too would look like an active editor on a topic of your choosing if you looked back at the last decade.)But on the broader point, context matters. I am not automatically involved when I use my admin tools on something/someone in the general topic of military history, even though that has been my primary focus area for 17+ years. If Levivich's interpretation had consensus, admins would be actively avoiding all content work. But it doesn't, and for that you can see e.g. Dennis Brown's comment above for how INVOLVED actually works in practice. Ed [talk] [OMT] 15:40, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
Uninvolved endorse - I don't buy the notion that drive-by comments or activities from 10 years prior make a strong WP:WIKILAWYERING case over the intricacate technicalities of WP:INVOLVED. If this meets the threshold of INVOLVED, it would be easy to waste everyone's time with endless review nonsense in the future based of someone else clicking "Oldest" on someone's contributions page. Such behaviour seems tenditious and should be discouraged, not encouraged. The close was correct on the merits and I expect that another closer would close the same way. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" (hihi) 17:18, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
Endorse enough is enough. This has been a massive time drain, and as stated by others, it would have been the same outcome regardless. The 10 years prior thing deserves a Template:WHALE LakesideMinersCome Talk To Me! 00:51, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
- The "wp:involved" was not the only concern raised (and for example in my case, I never considered it an issue). Yours and others "10 years prior" comments only address the "wp:involved" question. You fail to address the other questions raised. And I don't think these incompletely-argued !votes should be considered to be at the same level as the well-elaborated arguments, which, at the risk of receiving backlash for bludgeoning and repeating the same things, I'll summarize again here by quoting two other editors:
A very detailed rebuttal of the evidence was presented ... There was no significant, elaborated counter to that presented.
I find it very concerning that nobody seems to be able to point out exactly what HEB has done wrong and yet HEB is being further criticized for asking for a clear explanation.
- AwerDiWeGo (talk) 01:27, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
- Failure to assume good faith and bludgeoning, drive by tagging. As was said in the final warning. LakesideMinersCome Talk To Me! 01:50, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
- "Drive by tagging" is not in itself sanctionable, especially when the tags were appropriate like the ones applied by HEB. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 01:53, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
- When it is disruptive yes it is. LakesideMinersCome Talk To Me! 02:53, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
- As for the bludgeoning concern, I'll again quote other editors:
- The worst case of bludgeoning that Levivich found was on the RSN thread:
Slight bit of bludgeoning--I count 30 comments from HEB, the next-most-frequent is 18 comments from TPH--but making 12 more comments than the next guy isn't ANI-worthy IMO, and you'd expect the editor who opens a discussion to frequently comment in that discussion. Also, a lot of these are replies to replies.
- And MiasmaEternal wrote:
Oppose further sanctions ... The worst thing I can say about HEB here (at least based on the evidence) is that he ... can verge on BLUDGEONing at times. But he at least grounds them in policy and does not resort to personal attacks.
- The worst case of bludgeoning that Levivich found was on the RSN thread:
- AwerDiWeGo (talk) 02:25, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
- Two people, vs the consensus of the previous ANI thread. LakesideMinersCome Talk To Me! 02:54, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
- Two people who actually took the time to analyze the so-called evidence brought here by TPH. Again, that should count more than !votes by others who have been unable to answer the question: What has HEB done since July that's so wrong as to merit these sanctions? AwerDiWeGo (talk) 03:01, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
- Two people, vs the consensus of the previous ANI thread. LakesideMinersCome Talk To Me! 02:54, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
- Regarding the "assuming bad faith" question, there was a link provided above that I didn't read because it's about something that happened in March. As for the allegations by TPH, I'll extract a short quote from the detailed, elaborate rebuttal by dlthewave:
to characterize HEB's tagging as "bad faith" and insist that certain article sections don't need citations is beyond the pale.
AwerDiWeGo (talk) 02:55, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
- "Drive by tagging" is not in itself sanctionable, especially when the tags were appropriate like the ones applied by HEB. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 01:53, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
- Failure to assume good faith and bludgeoning, drive by tagging. As was said in the final warning. LakesideMinersCome Talk To Me! 01:50, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
- Endorse (I didn't !vote above, but I was involved in the RSN discussion mentioned in the original filing). Reopening this only for it to close with the same result is unnecessary bureaucracy. There was a clear consensus that any uninvolved admin would have come to.Katzrockso (talk) 05:48, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
- Uninvolved endorse. I am doubtful that Ivanvector is 'involved' in any meaningful way but the closure is a correct reading of consensus and any reasonable administrator would have read the consensus similarly in my view. I do not think we need to open and reclose the discussion with the same result, the clear consensus here endorsing the closure is a sufficient record. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:11, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
- Uninvolved endorse. A lot of insinuations of impropriety but where's the beef? jp×g🗯️ 20:03, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
- Endorse, the accusation of involved is tenuous at best and the close was an accurate representation of consensus. ~2025-41521-55 (talk) 03:49, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
TenPoundHammer's conduct
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Levivich raises several concerns about TPH's conduct in the events leading up to this including language like "Horse Eye's Back (talk · contribs) has been slathering Michigan road articles"
, and we have "then went on a tirade across various Michigan highway articles"
right here in this ANI filing. More concerning is this unambiguous example of canvassing editors to this discussion:
- 13:29 6 December 2025 -
"@MjolnirPants:, @GreenMeansGo:, @Ivanvector:, @CapitalSasha:: Please see also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Bad-faith_edits_from_Horse_Eye's_Back_(talk_·_contribs)..._again.
- Unambiguous canvassing at WP:RSN.
At the very least, a formal warning about canvassing is in order, and I think their overall behaviour deserves the same scrutiny as HEB's. –dlthewave ☎ 02:58, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
- I've done the required courtesy of notifying TPH of this thread. Ed [talk] [OMT] 03:38, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
- What I see is me neutrally informing related parties of a similar thread, which seems to fall under the
Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)
clause of WP:APPNOTE. I also do not appreciate dlthewave's templating of the regulars here. Nor do I find "slathering" or "went on a tirade" particularly egregious, but if someone is indeed upset by my word choice, then I do apologize and will try to rein it in. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:51, 16 December 2025 (UTC)- It seems contradictory that you think Ivan is a "related party" and has "participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)" but "there is no conflict of interest here per WP:INVOLVED". Levivich (talk) 04:45, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
- To repeat a question which was asked in that thread but never answered: Why those four? –dlthewave ☎ 04:51, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
- That does seem to be an important question, since there were multiple others editors already involved in that RSN discussion, including multiple top level comments that were not included in the pinging in that edit. It appears those selected were chosen due to what their likely stance would be in this discussion. SilverserenC 05:02, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
- I chose them because they were the first four names I saw, simple as that. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 15:23, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
- Pardon me, Ten Pound Hammer, but why on Earth would you do it that way? It strains the bounds of credulity to imagine that a seasoned editor such as yourself would notify participants of a discussion by selecting the first four names that they see (skipping over several others in the process) and that those four would just so happen to agree with you. Most of us are exceedingly careful to avoid any appearance of votestacking by either pinging everyone in the discussion or, better yet, simply leaving a comment and tagging nobody. –dlthewave ☎ 22:31, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
- I chose them because they were the first four names I saw, simple as that. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 15:23, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
- That does seem to be an important question, since there were multiple others editors already involved in that RSN discussion, including multiple top level comments that were not included in the pinging in that edit. It appears those selected were chosen due to what their likely stance would be in this discussion. SilverserenC 05:02, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
- To repeat a question which was asked in that thread but never answered: Why those four? –dlthewave ☎ 04:51, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
- TenPoundHammer, can you explain these removals of HEB's comments in two articles' talk pages: and ? By "explain" I mean "explain", not what you wrote in the edit summaries of those removals (edit summary one:
rv pedantry from indef'd user
; edit summary 2:Rv polemic edits
), which don't explain anything... less so if one reads the deleted comments. -- AwerDiWeGo (talk) 08:11, 16 December 2025 (UTC)- The reason for removal is obvious—the comments are pedantic demands for attention from a now-banned user. Restoring them leaves unresolved sections on article talk pages and is pointless. Johnuniq (talk) 08:30, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
- Can I then strike the word "obvious" from your reply, dear admin, because the reason for striking it is obvious? AwerDiWeGo (talk) 08:48, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
- I don't see any justification for deleting HEB's comments. HEB was not violating a block or ban when they commented (per Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#sockvote) and their deleted comments were not
gibberish, test edits, harmful or prohibited material
per WP:TALKOFFTOPIC. In particular, it's difficult to dispute HEB's comment thatThe highway travels through wooded terrain along its routing
(recently removed) is not supported by this source. This kind of behaviour together with TPH's edit summaries may be indicative of an aggressive approach to editing. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 14:10, 16 December 2025 (UTC)- Most of the comments I removed were HEB haranguing me and/or other editors with the same demanding bad-faith arguments that most other editors agree are the kind of behavior that led to his ban. If there was some wheat in the chaff, then I didn't find it worth keeping, but if other editors think I went too far, then I'll let them stand. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 15:31, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
- How benevolent of you to let the chaff stand. AwerDiWeGo (talk) 21:18, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
- Relax. jp×g🗯️ 20:05, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
- Most of the comments I removed were HEB haranguing me and/or other editors with the same demanding bad-faith arguments that most other editors agree are the kind of behavior that led to his ban. If there was some wheat in the chaff, then I didn't find it worth keeping, but if other editors think I went too far, then I'll let them stand. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 15:31, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
- I don't see any justification for deleting HEB's comments. HEB was not violating a block or ban when they commented (per Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#sockvote) and their deleted comments were not
- Can I then strike the word "obvious" from your reply, dear admin, because the reason for striking it is obvious? AwerDiWeGo (talk) 08:48, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
- The reason for removal is obvious—the comments are pedantic demands for attention from a now-banned user. Restoring them leaves unresolved sections on article talk pages and is pointless. Johnuniq (talk) 08:30, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
- It seems contradictory that you think Ivan is a "related party" and has "participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)" but "there is no conflict of interest here per WP:INVOLVED". Levivich (talk) 04:45, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
- I hatted this section and was (improperly) reverted by AwerDiWeGo. This has nothing to do with the administrative close review, which is why I hatted it as it is a new claim, in the wrong place. I will leave it to others to handle. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:14, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
- This needs to be hatted because otherwise AwerDiWeGo may keep bludgeoning elsewhere in this section. ~2025-31733-18 (talk) 18:03, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
- For transparency, this was my edit in which I undid Dennis Brown's hatting: . And I copy-paste here the edit summary I wrote:
Boldly undid last three edits by User:Dennis Brown: The new subsection that was collapsed was not added as a subsection under the section about the administrative review of the close, but under the top-level section "Bad-faith edits from Horse Eye's Back... again". Please feel free to revert if what I've just done is due to my lack of knowledge of how this works.
AwerDiWeGo (talk) 18:16, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
- For transparency, this was my edit in which I undid Dennis Brown's hatting: . And I copy-paste here the edit summary I wrote:
- This needs to be hatted because otherwise AwerDiWeGo may keep bludgeoning elsewhere in this section. ~2025-31733-18 (talk) 18:03, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not really impressed by TPH's conduct either. Perhaps they should take a deep breath and try not to get worked up enough about highway maps to make a statement implying that the opposing view is insane. JustARandomSquid (talk) 16:59, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
- I would dismiss this as a retaliatory attempt at a "gotcha" by overturn !voters in the above review, weak on the merits, done without the required notification and irrelevant to said close review, and hope that an uninvolved admin re-hats this. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" (hihi) 17:26, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
- I would not. Above I read about a kicker and a hornet's nest. Who is the kicker in your analogy @The ed17:? The original poster at ANI, i.e. Ten Pound Hammer? HEB? And, perhaps more importantly, which of your colleagues are the hornets in your analogy? -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 19:29, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
- In context, is it not clear that both I and the previous commenters are referring to HEB and/or the RSN discussion? The topic of maps as sources is full of strong opinions on all sides, hence the hornet's nest
analogymetaphor. It could have also been expressed as the can of worms remaining open even after HEB's block. Ed [talk] [OMT] 19:52, 16 December 2025 (UTC)- So HEB is guilty of bringing up a topic that others find worth discussing. Maybe that's the clear explanation that I and other editors have been asking for: "All of you beware of bringing up topics that others find worth discussing." AwerDiWeGo (talk) 20:47, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
- That is a completely incorrect reading of what I wrote. That's a surprise to see from a person who I know read the entire back and forth because I was responding to your own comment. I'll repeat that conversation here. You said:
Interesting to see that so many comments have been posted in that discussion even after HEB was blocked. I just counted about 70 comments after HEB was blocked, with people still disagreeing and arguing back and forth even though the blocked HEB wasn't there any more. Isn't that contradictory with the idea that HEB was the problem?
- I said:
The comments in the discussion above make it clear that RSN was only the proximate cause for a block... and it should be no surprise that a kicked hornet's nest keeps stinging even after the kicker runs away.
- In that context, I can't at all see how you'd get the notion that I'm warning people against bringing up controversial topics. What I said was obviously specific to the ideas that HEB was blocked only for their recent edits on RSN + that HEB is not a problem just because the content discussion continued after his block. In the future, please do not twist my words. Ed [talk] [OMT] 21:04, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
- I'll reword my previous comment then: Why is it being so difficult to have any of you answer (in an intelligible manner) the question: What did HEB do that was so wrong as to merit the sanctions they got? AwerDiWeGo (talk) 21:27, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
- For that you need to read what people wrote when supporting the sanctions in this thread, in the previous thread, in the thread before that, etc. Thryduulf (talk) 21:54, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
- I read what's written in this thread, and couldn't find anything about HEB's behavior since July that was so bad as to merit the two sanctions they got. I also read the July ANI discussion (I read it a few days ago) and I absolutely sympathized with jolielover, who was the OP there (first time I use the term "OP", I hope I used it right). However, that was July. I also read your comment above, Thryduulf, where you wrote that one of the two things which, combined, tipped you over the balance, was
HEB's conduct on his talk page during this ban
. Then you tried to explain why... unsuccessfully.(P.S.: I just realized that "sympathized" might be a wrong translation of the Spanish "simpatizar"; what I meant is "I identified with jolielover", "I thought she was right"). AwerDiWeGo (talk) 22:34, 16 December 2025 (UTC)- I'm glad I'm not the only one left scratching my head trying to see the problem after reading the thread. The only evidence seems to be tagging highway articles for excessive reliance on primary-source maps and asking other editors who wanted to keep the content to justify the sourcing. Maybe they didn't say it in the best way but I really don't see the huge conduct issue. –dlthewave ☎ 01:10, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
- I read what's written in this thread, and couldn't find anything about HEB's behavior since July that was so bad as to merit the two sanctions they got. I also read the July ANI discussion (I read it a few days ago) and I absolutely sympathized with jolielover, who was the OP there (first time I use the term "OP", I hope I used it right). However, that was July. I also read your comment above, Thryduulf, where you wrote that one of the two things which, combined, tipped you over the balance, was
- For that you need to read what people wrote when supporting the sanctions in this thread, in the previous thread, in the thread before that, etc. Thryduulf (talk) 21:54, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
- I'll reword my previous comment then: Why is it being so difficult to have any of you answer (in an intelligible manner) the question: What did HEB do that was so wrong as to merit the sanctions they got? AwerDiWeGo (talk) 21:27, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
- That is a completely incorrect reading of what I wrote. That's a surprise to see from a person who I know read the entire back and forth because I was responding to your own comment. I'll repeat that conversation here. You said:
- Back to the question at hand: @The ed17: : you said that you consider HEB to be "the kicker". Would it be fair to assume then that you had TPH in mind as one of the angry nesting hornets in your analogy (cf. his comments cited above: "HEB has been slathering...", "... went on a tirade")? If not "the hammer", then who exactly were you referring to with your "hornet's nest" (sic) ? -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 22:01, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
- I was referring to literally everyone else in the discussion (myself included!). Apparently I was not clear enough before, and you are not assuming enough good faith to see, that I used hornet's nest per its dictionary definition: "
An unpleasant or controversial situation likely to be exacerbated by outside involvement.
" It was not used with any intent of ascribing motives or emotions to anyone or any group of people. It's just a metaphor and an idiom. I proposed an alternative metaphor above, which I'll spell out: 1) HEB opened a can of worms at RSN. 2) HEB was blocked. 3) The can of worms remained open even without HEB's participation. The original reply was specific to this post from another user, and was only intended to rebut the idea that HEB couldn't be a problem because the RSN discussion continued after his block.On the punctuation of hornet's' nests, advice on where to put that apostrophe (if one is used at all) is split. Ed [talk] [OMT] 03:54, 17 December 2025 (UTC)- Fair enough. I did not know that the punctuation placement was a dialect / variant issue. Concerning those stingers that just keep on stinging ("HEB haranguing me [...] with the same bad-faith arguments"), I think we can safely assert that allegedly bad behaviour does not excuse post bannem personal attacks. -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 06:34, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
- I was referring to literally everyone else in the discussion (myself included!). Apparently I was not clear enough before, and you are not assuming enough good faith to see, that I used hornet's nest per its dictionary definition: "
- So HEB is guilty of bringing up a topic that others find worth discussing. Maybe that's the clear explanation that I and other editors have been asking for: "All of you beware of bringing up topics that others find worth discussing." AwerDiWeGo (talk) 20:47, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
- In context, is it not clear that both I and the previous commenters are referring to HEB and/or the RSN discussion? The topic of maps as sources is full of strong opinions on all sides, hence the hornet's nest
- I would not. Above I read about a kicker and a hornet's nest. Who is the kicker in your analogy @The ed17:? The original poster at ANI, i.e. Ten Pound Hammer? HEB? And, perhaps more importantly, which of your colleagues are the hornets in your analogy? -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 19:29, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
- WP:2WRONGS applies here. I have no opinion either way about whether there should be any action taken with regard to TPH. That decision should be made on its own merits. But it has no legitimate bearing on how to evaluate HEB's own conduct. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:26, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
- We evaluate the person bringing the initial complaint all the time and this specific complaint seems related to the whole HEB discussion. So it is fine here. ~2025-38536-45 (talk) 22:37, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
- This doesn't look like means to an end, though. This still looks like editors trying to get their "Ten Pounds" of flesh and not a good faith attempt at preventing disruption. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" (hihi) 21:05, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
- You've contributed three comments here. With all due respect, all three of your comments should be ignored by the closer, because none of them could seriously be considered to contain any rational, valid argument, or to present any evidence, or to contribute anything of value at all. I'm not saying this to attack you; that's not my intention at all, although I admit it could be considered collateral damage of my only intention, which is to say what I honestly think that needs to be said (in this terrible noticeboard that I just discovered this week and wish I could forget). AwerDiWeGo (talk) 06:28, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
- This doesn't look like means to an end, though. This still looks like editors trying to get their "Ten Pounds" of flesh and not a good faith attempt at preventing disruption. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" (hihi) 21:05, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
- We evaluate the person bringing the initial complaint all the time and this specific complaint seems related to the whole HEB discussion. So it is fine here. ~2025-38536-45 (talk) 22:37, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
Off-topic |
|---|
|
- (Replying to the temporary account.) What you say is correct, but what I said does not contradict that in any way. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:49, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
- It's too bad Wikipedia doesn't have a referee to toss 3/4 of the ANI regulars in the penalty box for a five-minute major. Leave Mr. Hammer alone, mob. Mr. Hammer: No vote stacking. This thread needs to be archived. Carrite (talk) 18:55, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
- I actually had collapsed this section, and the now blocked editor reverted me. We are way into bludgeoning territory, in addition to personal attacks. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:43, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
- Dennis Brown, could you focus on the comments that you view as bludgeoning or personal attacks instead of collapsing the whole thing? I would like my original complaint and the appropriate replies from other editors to stand without being lumped in with personal attacks. If there's something inappropriate about my comments or the very existence of this thread, please let me know. –dlthewave ☎ 14:00, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
- Without attempting to speak for Dennis, I think it refers to pretty most things written by AwerDiWeGo in this thread—as either verging on, or actual, incivility—rather than anyone else's comments. —Fortuna, imperatrix 16:44, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
- That covers it. A reading of "bludgeon" will also explain that it is often the quantity of postings itself that can be the problem. The hatting was because that section had nothing to do with the review of the close, which is the purpose of the discussion once it was closed. All this should be obvious if you go back and just look. My hatting wasn't a comment on anyone's civility, it was purely an attempt to prevent this turning into a trainwreck, which it now is since it has gone off the rails and is no longer restricted to an administrative review of a closing. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:49, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
- Without attempting to speak for Dennis, I think it refers to pretty most things written by AwerDiWeGo in this thread—as either verging on, or actual, incivility—rather than anyone else's comments. —Fortuna, imperatrix 16:44, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
- Dennis Brown, could you focus on the comments that you view as bludgeoning or personal attacks instead of collapsing the whole thing? I would like my original complaint and the appropriate replies from other editors to stand without being lumped in with personal attacks. If there's something inappropriate about my comments or the very existence of this thread, please let me know. –dlthewave ☎ 14:00, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
- I actually had collapsed this section, and the now blocked editor reverted me. We are way into bludgeoning territory, in addition to personal attacks. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:43, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
- Noting that the personal attacks from User:AwerDiWeG, already noted above (have they been warned against this?) are continuing on their talk (see edit sumary) even while blocked. Incivility, aspersions, edit warring ... Sigh. —Fortuna, imperatrix 07:37, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
- I have commented in the above closure review and the original block !vote, but I haven't contributed to this section, have not interacted with AwerDiWeGo, and believe this is a clear case of "any reasonable administrator". ADWG's block now 72 hours with talk page access revoked for personal attacks. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:10, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Motion to close
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Can we just close this whole discussion already? HEB has been blocked, there's a clear consensus that Ivanvector's actions were fine, and everything else since then has just been off-topic and/or editors sniping at each other. I see literally nothing to gain by leaving this discussion open any longer. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:17, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
- Support has gotten to the point where its not even discussing the same thing anymore. LakesideMinersCome Talk To Me! 18:57, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
- Isn't it your conduct that's being discussed now? The ownership of articles by stifling legitimate challenges of the sourcing, and the canvassing that led to sanctions against HEB in the first place? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 19:10, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
- HEB's own actions led to them being blocked. TPH was just the latest person to report them. Ed [talk] [OMT] 19:43, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
- That clearly seems to have gone off the rails too. Most of the posts above don't even mention me, and are instead diatribes about whether or not "hornet's nest" should have an apostrophe, or comments on the actions of other editors such as Dennis Brown or AwerDiWeGo. If my actions really were of concern, then surely more of that section would actually involve me and not mostly be so off-topic that it got hatted. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:45, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
- The discussion has gotten very off topic to the point it's unclear to me what is even being talked about LakesideMinersCome Talk To Me! 20:12, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
- Support without prejudice to a new, separate and focused discussion about the conduct of TPH, Dennis Brown, AwerDiWeGo, or anybody else if someone thinks it is required and has the diffs etc to demonstrate this. Thryduulf (talk) 20:33, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
- Support with prejudice. We've had plenty of time for people to throw stuff at the wall, and nothing about TPH or anyone else has stuck. Just a lot of noise. And nothing has stuck in terms of any need to overturn Ivan's close. (Maybe something is sticking with respect to AwerDiWeGo, but
I don't think it's worth spending time or effort onthat's already been dealt with.) Either someone should close this, all of it, or maybe we should just keep this open for a couple of years and wait for the WMF servers to go dark. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:45, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
- Support. Consensus seems clear at this point about the close so I see no reason this should be kept open. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 22:54, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
- Support. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:22, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Please undelete User talk:TheCoolMango
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I requested my user page to be deleted due to there being a global userpage on Meta Wikimedia, howerer, after it was deleted, it caused my talk page to be deleted too! It did not break the rules, just a simple welcome message since i'm a new user, so please undelete my talk page. 🥭 Mango [ talk | edits ] 11:12, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
- @TheCoolMango:, the message at User talk:TheCoolMango asks you to use WP:REFUND, this is not an issue for ANI. TSventon (talk) 11:21, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
TPA
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
NippleBigandHard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This user needs his talk page access revoked as he is miss using his talk page while blocked see this and Untamed1910 (talk) 23:05, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
MetalGod80's again
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
MetalGod80's (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Even though it is not LAyub12 according to a checkuser despite the similar edits, their edits are now vandalism. They seem to ignore the warnings too. This is the first time they've actually vandalized, maybe they just got tired of the reverts and decided to make people mad. Before this it was just unsourced deaths. 77qq 💬 contributions 18:05, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
- I have blocked MetalGod80's for one month for profane, sexualized vandalism. Cullen328 (talk) 23:29, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
"~2025" accounts
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
anybody see a problem here?
no? not at all? is this thing on?
well ok thensoibangla (talk) 05:24, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) @Soibangla, those are temporary accounts. What exactly is the problem here? Chess enjoyer (talk) 05:46, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
- Don’t worry. In a couple of weeks, we won’t get any more ~2025 accounts. Just ~2026 ones instead. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 05:52, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
there's this person: User talk:Okokmasi, who keeps putting not neutral things into this article. Can you tell them to stop because my message didn't work.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
there's this person: User talk:Okokmasi, who keeps putting not neutral things into this article. Can you tell them to stop because my message didn't work. thank you!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ClarityCrusader (talk • contribs) 02:49, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
- I have reported them at WP:AIV as it's likely to be acted on faster there.
- In the future, when reporting at ANI it is useful to include links to specific edits you think are problematic, and for unambiguous vandalism like this, AIV is the better report board. Athanelar (talk) 02:55, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
~2025-35196-16
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- ~2025-35196-16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
The user insists on posting non-referenced ideologies in the Wikidata of the Missão Party: Partido Missão (Q134984491) and the Movimento Brasil Livre: Movimento Brasil Livre (MBL) (Q20135510) . I have warned him several times and he continues, I would like to request that he be blocked on Wikidata. Nicolas Baldin (talk) 15:23, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
- He appears to be a member of that party and movement; they like to portray themselves as moderate, but historians classify them as right-wing, while they adhere to the label of center-right. This user is pulling information out of thin air, not from reliable sources. Nicolas Baldin (talk) 15:26, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
- This is a place to report for conduct on the English WikiPEDIA
- For conduct and issues related to WikiDATA you want to go to this link instead Wikidata:Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard LakesideMinersCome Talk To Me! 15:41, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Promotional account
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Reema.1971 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Abuhasanjahangir (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Abujahangir (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
These three accounts are the same person, a businessman in Canada named Draft:Abu Hasan Muhammed Jahangir.
Mr. Jahangir has been attempting to publish a Wikipedia article about himself for several months, and nearly every edit from each of his accounts in some way mentions or promotes Mr. Jahangir or his business endeavours.
This is an AI-depended, single-purpose account, not here to build an encyclopedia.
Edits by User:Reema.1971:
- July 19, 2025 - first edit mentions Abu Hasan Mohammad Jahangir, and every edit following is about this person.
Edits by User:Abuhasanjahangir:
- First edit was to create Draft:Abu Hasan Muhammed Jahangir.
- Then created an article and added himself as a notable person.
- Suggested he be added as a did you know.
Edits by User:Abujahangir:
- First edit was to draft Draft:Abu Hasan Muhammed Jahangir (2).
- Made edits to Port Alberni, because he is on the organizing committee for a FIFA sports even, see .
- Added himself to a BLP.
- Added himself to a BLP.
- Created, and then repeatedly tried to add himself, to Bangladeshi British Columbians.
- Has made 106 edits to Draft:Abu Hasan Muhammed Jahangir.
Multiple warnings given by editors, especially by User:Timtrent, regarding AI and promotional edits: .
Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 12:28, 20 December 2025 (UTC)
- Support a block, this is ridiculous. Looking for the diff right now, but Mr. Jahangir did claim Reema.1971 was his wife. Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 13:48, 20 December 2025 (UTC)
- I was thinking of the SPI and related evidence - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Reema.1971. Regardless, this definitely is meatpuppetry at this point. Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 13:54, 20 December 2025 (UTC)
- They've used their personal website as a reference too at Bangladeshi diaspora and Fazlur Rahman Sultan .
- At Bangladeshi diaspora the edit summary contained
... per talk consensus (no objections) ...
, despite the fact that their untagged edit request received no response . - At Fazlur Rahman Sultan, Abujahangir made an untagged request , then Reema.1971 answered it
I reviewed the edit request. Since there were no objections, I have added the family information,.
and implemented it .
- At Bangladeshi diaspora the edit summary contained
- Both edits inserted Abu Hasan Muhammed Jahangir also. Not the type of behavior expected of editors who are here. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 14:13, 20 December 2025 (UTC)
- Support block for all three, prefer this to be via the SPI and a more authoritative CU block. I repeat what I said at the SPI:
- I find this to be over the border of sckpuppetry with the intent to self promote. The "wife's account" I find to be implausible. I have been watching attempts at self promotion, determned attempts, with distaste. I feel answers are dissembling and this editor has become time sink. I am not sure that, even if the scks are blocked, the master should remain at liberty to promote themselves. I see WP:NOTHERE
- The editor's multiple alleged appropriate alternate accounts have made their self promotion sometimes hard to follow. AGF says this is accidental, however, I have started to find that as implausible as the 'wife's account', which, for me, is along the same path as 'The dog at my homwework'.
- I had only held back on a report here because I was waiting for the SPI to be resumed. Grateful for the ping. 🇵🇸🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸 14:48, 20 December 2025 (UTC)
- +1 Blue Sonnet (talk) 15:00, 20 December 2025 (UTC)
- @Blue-Sonnet, I think those who form a closing opinion and choose what action to take might appreciate a little prose from you so they might understand your thoughts the better. 🇵🇸🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸 16:21, 20 December 2025 (UTC)
- +1 Blue Sonnet (talk) 15:00, 20 December 2025 (UTC)
- Apologies, my thoughts are broadly the same as yours but I'll be happy to. All these accounts are singularly focused on promotion and don't want to (and arguably haven't) improved Wikipedia as a whole.
- If we take the AGF view, there's a fundamental misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works & what constitutes promotion.
- Even if his wife's account is her own, they cannot be used by multiple people and there's no evidence to show that she'll be editing any differently to her husband. WP:BROTHER could be said to apply in this case - we know what the account did, so that's what we need to go from.
- Additionally, if he is blocked for promotion and has such easy access to her account, there's a significant risk of account compromisation.
- He's promised (twice!) on the draft Talk that he won't promote himself and explicitly said that he will leave the draft alone, but we can clearly see this didn't happen and he continued anyway.
- Multiple warnings either haven't been heeded or understood, this is an SPA that's not here to build an encyclopedia so I sadly see no alternative to blocking. Blue Sonnet (talk) 16:30, 20 December 2025 (UTC)
- Reopened per request. Star Mississippi 19:18, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
- @Blue-Sonnet, Fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four, Sarsenet, Magnolia677, Reema.1971, Abuhasanjahangir, and Abujahangir: I think I have pinged all editors involved or commenting here as a courtesy to inform each that this discussion has been reopened. If I have failed to ping someone, or of you feel that user talk page notifcatin is required, please udertake that task rather than letting me know. I would like to exress gratitude to Star Mississippi for undoing their close. 🇵🇸🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸 20:02, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
- I made this request since Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Reema.1971 was closed with no action taken. I am not criticising that closure. 🇵🇸🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸 20:05, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you for the ping. I've read through their defence and this doesn't allay nor address any of my concerns above. Blue Sonnet (talk) 22:32, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
- Same for me.
The edit , specifically regarding her father (i helped her with consent), Fazlur Rahman Sultan
, by "helped" Abujahangir means accepting their own edit request with Reema.1971's account, while entirely failing to indicate a connection between those accounts. At best it's meatpuppetry, at worst its sockpuppetry.- Drafts for Abu Hasan Muhammed Jahangir alone have been submitted 11 times (with some mainspace moves too ), there are a multitude of edits concerning Abu Hasan Muhammed Jahangir or their
community work
made to existing articles, and all this while blindly copying and pasting output from LLMs (readI never use AI to ... engage in discussions with other editors
this then this or any other talk page contribution from them). - Enough. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 06:34, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
- Same thoughts as Blue Sonnet for me as well. This editor is a timesink and I've seen others blocked for much less. Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 06:44, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you for the ping. I've read through their defence and this doesn't allay nor address any of my concerns above. Blue Sonnet (talk) 22:32, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
- No criticism for the SPI, but this editor has lied over and over again, and I don't think we have to split hairs about whether the puppetry is cloth or meat in order to remove a problematic editor who damages the project. Support a CBAN of a net-negative editor, who only comes here for self promotion, and will tell any falsehood necessary to leave them free to try and push their self promotion through. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 07:03, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
- I made this request since Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Reema.1971 was closed with no action taken. I am not criticising that closure. 🇵🇸🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸 20:05, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
- Indef all these accounts NOW. For crying out loud, why do we waste time on people like this? They're obviously here only to stoke their familial vanity. EEng 11:07, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
- I agree completely with EEng (probably the first time I've said that at ANI!) and have accordingly indef'd all three accounts and deleted the draft. Fir what it's worth, I'd have happily blocked if this had been reported to AIV. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:15, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
- They've appealed but nothing there properly addresses the concerns we raised, plus it's basically a rehash of their SPI response. Blue Sonnet (talk) 12:25, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
- @HJ Mitchell Thank you.
- @Blue-Sonnet WP:ROPE, though they have really done that already. 🇵🇸🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸 14:20, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
- Ah sorry, I'm a tad confused (2hrs sleep & running on fumes today) - do you think they should be unblocked to have more rope, or that I shouldn't have posted a link to their appeal and let it follow the usual process? Blue Sonnet (talk) 14:28, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
- I think they have been indeffed correctly, and I refer to their pre-block use of theor rope. I do wonder if they will formulate a successful appeal. I do not see the existing one as worth consideration.
- I suspect this discussion may have reached its limit and may now be re-closed. 🇵🇸🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸 14:33, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
- Rightio, that makes sense and I totally agree! It would be one heck of an appeal, but I guess it's possible... Blue Sonnet (talk) 15:14, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
- Ah sorry, I'm a tad confused (2hrs sleep & running on fumes today) - do you think they should be unblocked to have more rope, or that I shouldn't have posted a link to their appeal and let it follow the usual process? Blue Sonnet (talk) 14:28, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
- They've appealed but nothing there properly addresses the concerns we raised, plus it's basically a rehash of their SPI response. Blue Sonnet (talk) 12:25, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
- I agree completely with EEng (probably the first time I've said that at ANI!) and have accordingly indef'd all three accounts and deleted the draft. Fir what it's worth, I'd have happily blocked if this had been reported to AIV. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:15, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Section for editors to analyze TenPoundHammer's conduct
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I did not participate in the earlier discussion, nor do I believe I've ever interacted with @TenPoundHammer. While I believe closing the previous "TenPoundHammer's conduct" section was probably the right move to keep discussion on topic, I also believe the concerns raised deserved to be discussed independently & properly resolved. As such, I'm creating a section for just that & will quote @Dlthewave's initial statement.
Levivich raises several concerns about TPH's conduct in the events leading up to this including language like"Horse Eye's Back (talk · contribs) has been slathering Michigan road articles", and we have"then went on a tirade across various Michigan highway articles"right here in this ANI filing. More concerning is this unambiguous example of canvassing editors to this discussion:At the very least, a formal warning about canvassing is in order, and I think their overall behaviour deserves the same scrutiny as HEB's. –dlthewave ☎ 02:58, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
- 13:29 6 December 2025 -
"@MjolnirPants:, @GreenMeansGo:, @Ivanvector:, @CapitalSasha:: Please see also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Bad-faith_edits_from_Horse_Eye's_Back_(talk_·_contribs)..._again.- Unambiguous canvassing at WP:RSN.
Pinging all editors who commented in the previous "TenPoundHammer's conduct" discussion & the following "Motion to close" @TenPoundHammer, Dlthewave, Levivich, Silver seren, AwerDiWeGo, Johnuniq, Gitz6666, Dennis Brown, JustARandomSquid, GhostOfDanGurney, SashiRolls, The ed17, Thryduulf, Tryptofish, Carrite, Fortuna imperatrix mundi, The Bushranger, LakesideMiners, Thebiguglyalien, GothicGolem29, and Malcolmxl5: Apologies if I missed anyone &/or am bothering anyone uninterested in this matter. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 23:20, 20 December 2025 (UTC)
- The close of the above section included the advice
If contemplating opening a new topic, please follow Thryduulf's advice, below: separate and focused discussions, bring diffs.
I see precisely one diff here. I think you're going to need more than that if we're going to re-open this. Black Kite (talk) 23:31, 20 December 2025 (UTC)- Apologies, I was opening this for the sake of previous editor's concerns & initially did not include my own diffs in order to present a more neutral area to resolve the issue. As you've requested me to supply my own however, I will do so.
- Examples of WP:UNCIVIL, WP:GRAVEDANCING, WP:ABF, WP:TPO, & WP:BATTLEGROUND
- 03:45 14 December 2025 - "Rv polemic edits"
- 16:27, 15 December 2025 - "rv pedantry from indef'd user"
- 05:28, 13 December 2025 - "Rv more pedantry"
- "Bad-faith edits from Horse Eye's Back... again" - Title WP:ABF
- "a clear bad-faith whataboutism argument"
- "They also claimed to not know what I was talking about because I didn't use the word "primary", which is blatant WP:IDHT"
- "same whataboutism, bad faith, and otherwise confrontational unhelpful edits since I first crossed their path in July."
- 17:04, 10 December 2025 - "Given the filibustering on their talk page, which includes even more WP:IDHT than before ("what did I do wrong? Please list it out for me" -- (Personal attack removed), I already did that in this very ANI and on your talk page! Multiple times!) I don't think they're capable of forming an unblock request. I honestly think they should have talk page rights revoked, too"
- 16:14, 16 December 2025 - "I personally feel like Levivich, Silverseren, and dlthewave have ramped up their tendentiousness in the course of this discussion."
- 15:31, 16 December 2025 - "Most of the comments I removed were HEB haranguing me and/or other editors with the same demanding bad-faith arguments that most other editors agree are the kind of behavior that led to his ban." Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 00:31, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you. Black Kite (talk) 09:14, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
- Again, what are editors who are insisting on "evaluating"/"analyzing" TPH trying to accomplish by dragging this out? What is the end to these means? If they want formal sanctions, they should propose them post-haste at this point. Agree with Black Kite that this does not at all look like a
focused discussion
. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" (hihi) 00:05, 21 December 2025 (UTC)- Noting that @Butterscotch Beluga: admits in their required notification to TPH that they're
not looking for any specific outcome
. So why bother adding to stress levels? Propose something concrete or close this. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" (hihi) 00:14, 21 December 2025 (UTC)- You don't link the subtle abstraction of quintessence, but prefer the lacing up of concrete shoes, eh Ghost? OK.
- Given that he was blocked by Guerillero in July for violating his XfD topic ban (not his most recent block),
- given that he is guilty of significant massaging of the evidence he provided in the recently closed case (see links, in particular:
- ♯2: where he confuses incivility with "calling out"
- ♯5: where he mischaracterized his approach to HEB as polite),
- given the deletion of HEB's TP comments without policy justification (see Gitz's evidence),
- given that he grossly misrepresented the discussion in his "move to close" by failing to mention that there was an open thread about his behaviour (diff), then disingenuously claimed that I (for example) was engaged in a "diatribe" about apostrophe placement (diff), when in fact I was drawing attention to the fact that his continuing personal attacks of HEB after he was blocked were out of line (diff),
- I would propose that TPH be barred from requesting the deletion of users from topic areas and from participating in debates about the deletion of users from the site, in conformity with the language of his existing topic ban (diff),
I think the citation I provided from @Cullen328: above (diff) suggests that there are long-standing civility and representational problems in discussion of content deletions too, suggesting that this is a consistent pattern. -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 03:35, 21 December 2025 (UTC)"TenPoundHammer is indefinitely topic-banned from all deletion activities, broadly construed."
- First, a polite reminder that I use they/them pronouns. I thought I already had this on my userpage, but apparently I did not until just now, so I am not bothered by this.
- I fail to see how my comments are "massaging of the evidence". Levivich's comment seems to show a highly minority opinion that HEB did nothing wrong. I still think "slathering" or invoking WP:BLUDGEON are, if maybe not the most polite way, then at least not so impolite as to violate WP:NPA. Many other editors agreed that HEB was indeed a problematic editor worth banning, and I feel that all of them did so through little to no influence of my own. Many presented their own evidence, and almost all came to the same conclusion. Furthermore, another whole portion of the previous thread tried to call me out on my behavior, but that section of the thread was promptly shut down.
- The removal of HEB's comments from other talk pages, as I already said, is something I will concede is a questionable action. That was reverted, and I let it stand.
- What the hell is "deletion of users"? I have never seen that term used outside the obvious joke page WP:UFD. I have never seen anyone use that term to refer to a motion for another user to be blocked or banned. You are really straining a definition if you think starting an ANI on a user I think should be blocked is in any way equivalent to XFD or the behavior that got me topic-banned from the same.
- I genuinely do not like that you chose to dig up a seven-year-old post as evidence against me, especially when nothing in said post has anything to do with the issues between me and HEB outside a very tenuous common thread of "conduct". This right here feels like it crossed the line into a smear campaign against me, especially given the farcical "deletion of users" argument right before it.
- Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:24, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
- Sometimes, when bans are clearly written to be very broad and then are broadly construed in addition, readers' brains fall out of the box and just won't fit back inside. :) As for your new pronoun choice, no problem, going forward if I ever speak of you in the third person again, I'll respect it. -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 05:30, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
- You don't link the subtle abstraction of quintessence, but prefer the lacing up of concrete shoes, eh Ghost? OK.
- Noting that @Butterscotch Beluga: admits in their required notification to TPH that they're
- Another example of TPH's actions noted in the prior discussion was this and this edit done practically the moment that HEB was blocked, removing talk page discussion sections from July 2025 where HEB raised concerns of original research, synthesis, and failed verification in highway articles from the use of maps as references. Whether you consider his creation of said sections badgering or, per TPH's edit summary, "pedantry", they are still completely valid issues to bring up on an article talk page and do not at all count as valid removal targets as being vandalism or WP:NOTAFORUM issues. If anything, such actions represent TPH's battleground stance in this road articles topic area that I think is a major concern in the related discussions going on in RSN and elsewhere. SilverserenC 00:23, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
- Here's the extra diffs you were asking for, Black Kite. As for actions to be taken, GhostOfDanGurney, it seems clear to me that TPH should be topic banned from roads related articles. They are exhibiting a massive battleground mentality in response to any discussion brought up relating to the need to have higher quality references in these articles or whether certain roads articles even count as notable in the first place. It seems to me that it was directly the conflict between TPH and HEB in this topic area that led to problems in the first place. SilverserenC 00:26, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
This is not the discussion/section that was suggested, and I see no benefit to a non participant opening it when they are not looking for a specific outcome. Recommend closure unless interested editors are available with the suggested diffs.Disclosure: HEB blocker and I've been involved with admin discussions on TPH in the past, but not Involved that I can recall. Star Mississippi 00:27, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
- I've literally just given further diffs and a suggestion of action. Did you mean this to be a reply to me or was this an EC? SilverserenC 00:30, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
- edit conflict @Silver seren
- Going to fix my indents Star Mississippi 00:32, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
- I've literally just given further diffs and a suggestion of action. Did you mean this to be a reply to me or was this an EC? SilverserenC 00:30, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
- While I indeed wasn't looking for a specific outcome, I do still believe their conduct deserves an outcome. I've also supplied a list of diffs on request in my response to @Black Kite. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 00:36, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
- I don't see why Butterscotch Beluga even started this when they weren't looking for any particular outcome, and I feel like dlthewave's actions against me in both the last thread and this one are far more incivil and retalitory than any of my actions toward HEB or any of the road articles. Dlthewave's actions in particular include repeatedly asking me why I pinged those four editors specifically, then condescendingly responding to my reasoning with
Pardon me, Ten Pound Hammer, but why on Earth would you do it that way? It strains the bounds of credulity to imagine that a seasoned editor such as yourself would notify participants of a discussion by selecting the first four names that they see (skipping over several others in the process) and that those four would just so happen to agree with you.
They also chose to egregiously violate WP:DTTR when informing me of their concern. And regarding dlthewave's comment downthread, made while I was in the process of typing this, I don't see what is to be gained. You seem to be the only editor concerned that my neutral informing of the first four names I saw in any way violated canvassing, even after I pointed out in the last thread how I saw it as WP:APPNOTE. If any other editors think my actions were canvassing, then I will hear them out too, but so far, dlthewave seems to be the only one. - I'm also a bit annoyed at Silver Seren, who seems to be the only other editor in the RSN thread (besides Levivich) with a clear stance on maps being used inappropriately in road articles and made some rather pointed comments in that thread too -- even after other editors cited existing policies, and even after actual cartographers joined in to defend the stance that maps are being used acceptably. I also find it galling that Silver Seren considers my actions "battleground"-like and is calling for me to have a topic-ban from road articles, especially since I hardly edit road articles in the first place, and I don't recall having had any prior issues with that topic. Again, the consensus is extremely clear, and backed up by field experts, that maps are being used properly to cite information on Wikipedia, and I don't see any of my actions on road articles as attempts to circumvent status quo or defend controversial behavior. To Silver Seren's credit, I do see their concern regarding my removal of HEB's comments from various talk pages, even if I still personally believe there was no harm in removing them, and I also commend them for backing away from the RSN thread.
- tl;dr: I think this thread is an attempt to re-light a fire that was already safely put out. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:06, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not interested in a long back-and-forth but I do need to address a few factual issues here:
"Dlthewave's actions in particular include repeatedly asking me why I pinged those four editors specifically"
- I asked TPH 'once' why they pinged those four editors specifically, along with a follow-up question asking why they would ping the first four editors' names that they saw. If I asked the same question repeatedly or asked too many questions, please provide diffs, otherwise please strike that accusation."They also chose to egregiously violate WP:DTTR when informing me of their concern."
- I left a canvassing warning template here which was apparently not well received. Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars is an essay, there's no such thing as "egregiously violating WP:DTTR", but I will try to remember TPH's preference for a more personal message in the future. Feel free to leave any concerns like this on my Talk page, no need to bring it up at ANI." You seem to be the only editor concerned that my neutral informing of the first four names I saw in any way violated canvassing, even after I pointed out in the last thread how I saw it as WP:APPNOTE."
- I'm far from the only editor to raise this concern. Looking through the previous thread, Levivich initially brought it up and Silverseren agreed. I assume you'll hear them out as promised and strike the statement that I'm the only one with this concern."Again, the consensus is extremely clear, and backed up by field experts, that maps are being used properly to cite information on Wikipedia, and I don't see any of my actions on road articles as attempts to circumvent status quo or defend controversial behavior."
- Based on TPH's original ANI filing, I assume this refers to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Using maps as sources. Despite the consensus that maps may be used as sources, there's still room for discussion over 'which' uses of these primary sources is appropriate. One thing is unambiguous, though: There's consensus 'against' Proposal 2B,"Satellite layers (i.e. on Google Maps) can be used to reference statements about elements such as ground cover that can easily be verified."
, and yet TPH saw fit to remove HEB's comment concerning "The highway travels through wooded terrain along its routing" which seems to be based on Google satellite imagery." Likewise, I'm unaware of anything in that RfC or elsewhere that would make this comment regarding primary source overuse so inappropriate that it required removal. The fact that TPH repeated this statement in the orignal filing, and now here, shows a lack of understanding that should be corrected.
- In the spirit of using focused discussion and diffs, I'm not interested in an extended conversation. Please either correct these statements or provide diffs to back them up. Additionally, please refrain from needlessly personal statments such as
"I don't see why Butterscotch Beluga even started this..."
,"I'm also a bit annoyed at Silver Seren..."
,"I also find it galling that Silver Seren..."
and"I think this thread is an attempt to re-light a fire that was already safely put out."
Please simply address the concerns that have been brought forth without the extra commentary. –dlthewave ☎ 04:01, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not interested in a long back-and-forth but I do need to address a few factual issues here:
- I don't see why Butterscotch Beluga even started this when they weren't looking for any particular outcome, and I feel like dlthewave's actions against me in both the last thread and this one are far more incivil and retalitory than any of my actions toward HEB or any of the road articles. Dlthewave's actions in particular include repeatedly asking me why I pinged those four editors specifically, then condescendingly responding to my reasoning with
- Thank you Butterscotch Beluga for reopening this. As the person who opened the original subsection above, I don't have much to add beyond what's already been said, however I do think that a formal warning against canvassing is in order. –dlthewave ☎ 00:45, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
- It is evident from the mammoth HEB discussion above that several editors oppose TPH's removal of HEB's comments. There are claims of diffs showing that something must be done but they miss the point. HEB was indefinitely blocked because they are a timesink with pedantic demands for attention. Others apparently wanted those discussions—that's fine, you are able to reword whatever point you want to make and pull as many scabs off as you can. A discussion this long cannot be productive because uninvolved editors have no hope of evaluating whether TPH was sufficiently out-of-order given that HEB has been indeffed. If TPH is so bad, wait for the next problem and make a report then. This should be closed. Johnuniq (talk) 01:02, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
- I think a warning to avoid the appearance of canvasing would be appropriate otherwise i echo Johnuniq, LakesideMinersCome Talk To Me! 01:34, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
- just so it is clear, I STRONGLY oppose a formal warning for Canvassing. I support a warning for behavior that appears like canvasing because of how minor of a thing this is. LakesideMinersCome Talk To Me! 04:11, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
- Support formal warnings for canvassing and battleground attitude in addition to a clarification that their existing XfD topic ban includes / is extended to discussions about removing users from pages, topic areas, or the site. -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 04:37, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
- That's not remotely what deletion means. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:08, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
- @SashiRolls: Is this the type of comment you want to be making about the editor you're proposing sanctions on? Their pronoun choice isn't at all "new" and the whole comment gives off vibes of qualified acceptance. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" (hihi) 09:00, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
- Agreed, the "brains fall out of the box" comment and treating my pronouns as a "new wish" feel far more WP:NPA violating than anything I've said of late. Between this and thinking that reporting a user to ANI is "deleting a user" and therefore under the jurisdiction of an XFD topic ban, SashiRolls' comments in this thread have been extremely questionable. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 13:13, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose this warning, support Lakeside's proposed warning. TPH should avoid doing anything that will look like a policy violation considering the heat on them right now, with Dlthewave, Lev, and others watching their conduct. ~2025-31733-18 (talk) 07:46, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
- Support formal warning for canvassing. Per the diffs shown I beleive this is necessary but I do not see a need for any sanctions beyond this. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 10:13, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
- Comment/question. Is the "appearance of canvassing" something that happened just once, or is it part of a repeated pattern? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:39, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose a formal warning for TPH. I think that Lakeside's proposal is more then adequate. Additionally, I think that Lev and others should just step back and chill a bit, because their behavior gives the impression of running a witch hunt. --Insanityclown1 (talk) 03:15, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
- lol WTF I didn't even start this thread, or the last one. Levivich (talk) 07:11, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
- Well, you participated massively here ~2025-31733-18 (talk) 14:55, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
- lol WTF I didn't even start this thread, or the last one. Levivich (talk) 07:11, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose any action other than a collective silly-walk trouting. I went over their quarter of a million edits, reviewing the first 100 and the last 100, and found there to be remarkable growth and collaborative skill development. A sometimes-flawed net-positive to the project. -- Augmented Seventh (talk) 03:38, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
- Support formal warning for WP:BATTLE and WP:CANVASS. TarnishedPathtalk 08:31, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose per Johnuniq and the TA, with the expectation that TPH knows certain editors will only be too eager to bring them back here if certain optics continue. I find much of the evidence here to be reaches, especially concerning the BATTLEGROUND claims. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" (hihi) 14:11, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
- Support the gentlest warnings about skirmishes and the appearance of canvassing. This would not have ended up here, likely, on its own. Further, to me, it bears some resemblance to "tit for tat" behavior on the part of HEB's supporters. Nonetheless, there was some inappropriate behavior, and the appearance of some mild further problems; as I see it, the mildest rebuke fits well here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hiobazard (talk • contribs) 15:07, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Wantoninf
- Wantoninf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Not a single constructive contrib and WP:PGAME. --Peterxy（talk） 06:41, 20 December 2025 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) I've come across this editor in the wild after reverting one of their edits - I didn't leave a message or warning on their Talk page, since there are so many already & I saw the ANI notice.
- @Peterxy12, can you please provide diffs of specific edits (maybe 3-5) and a brief explanation for each one? Your post is much more likely to receive attention that way, since others won't want to trawl through someone's entire edit history to try to guess which ones you're concerned with.
- Even if their entire history is bad, presenting examples is still really helpful; that's why you're asked to present diffs in the warning message before you posted here. Blue Sonnet (talk) 11:11, 20 December 2025 (UTC)
- In the absense of diffs I have had a quick look at the user's edits, many of which have been reverted. Even if this user has not been gaming I'm not happy with them being granted the extended confirmed permission, as most edits consist of adding one link to an article and most of the rest create redirects. These do not show well-rounded experience with Wikipedia as envisaged by that permission. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:53, 20 December 2025 (UTC)
- @Blue Sonnet: Thanks for your reply, prefer to his contribs. After beginning that, he creates so many redirect pages (e.g. Special:PermanentLink/1328479755, Special:PermanentLink/1328480413, etc.). Although he was warned by others, the user goes on create a great deal of redirect pages. Give that these contribs are redirect pages, I think he is enough to edit many unconstructive edits. If you don't think these edits can't be deleted, please block the account, thank you. Peterxy（talk） 12:03, 20 December 2025 (UTC)
- I’m only seeing these messages now. I won’t link to [[animated television series]] at ''[[The Simpsons]]'' episodes in future. I thought that linking was constructive. Wantoninf (talk) 12:18, 20 December 2025 (UTC)
- You need to think about whether your edit is improving the article or not - if it's not necessary or helpful in that specific instance then perhaps it's not a good idea. An article with too much information can be just as bad as one with too little.
- The old adage of "quality over quantity" is very important when it comes to encyclopedia articles. Blue Sonnet (talk) 13:36, 20 December 2025 (UTC)
- I'm curious as to why you thought mass-editing hundreds of articles in this manner without even asking anyone else how they might feel about it was a good idea? Especially given that you clearly were not reviewing your Talk page during your massive editing push and evidently didn't notice that your edits were being reverted. DonIago (talk) 15:50, 20 December 2025 (UTC)
- I have removed ECR due to the gaming concerns. @Wantoninf is welcome to re request it through the normal channels once they have a history of constructive editing. Star Mississippi 17:00, 20 December 2025 (UTC)
- Just for clarity, extended confirmed is WP:XC, despite extended confirmed protection being WP:ECP and extended confirmed restrictions at WP:ECR. Somebody should probably do something about that at some point, given it is rather confusing. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:18, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
- I’m only seeing these messages now. I won’t link to [[animated television series]] at ''[[The Simpsons]]'' episodes in future. I thought that linking was constructive. Wantoninf (talk) 12:18, 20 December 2025 (UTC)
User:1RightSider – repeated personal attacks and disruptive conduct
- 1RightSider (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Simoncik84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
I am requesting administrator attention regarding repeated personal attacks and disruptive behavior by User:1RightSider in the context of an editorial dispute at Bolzano.
Instead of focusing on content, the user has repeatedly used edit summaries to make accusations against me, including claims of "nationalistic edits", "discrimination", "bias", and "harassment", without providing diffs or evidence. These comments were made in article edit summaries, not on talk pages, and are not related to describing edits.
Relevant diffs:
- diff link 1 – accusation of “nationalistic edits” and “discrimination”
- diff link 2 – allegation of harassment and instruction not to post on their talk page
- diff link 3 – repeated personal commentary in edit summaries
This behavior appears to violate WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, and WP:AGF. It has also disrupted attempts at dispute resolution, including ignoring the outcome of a DRN closure that explicitly allowed me to edit boldly.
I am no longer engaging directly with the user and am requesting administrator guidance to restore a civil, policy-based editing environment.
--Simoncik84 (talk) 10:37, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
- Please don't use an AI to formulate an ANI complaint. Among other things, you've stated
These comments [...] are not related to describing edits
and then the first diff you link is you complaining about them describing your edits as nationalistic; so evidently they are describing your edits. - Please reformulate this complaint in your own words and add it as a reply. Nobody here wants to engage with whatever your chatbot thinks the problem is, we want to hear what you think the problem is. Athanelar (talk) 11:07, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
- I think that I should clarify what I said. User:Simoncik84 filed two DRN requests about Bolzano with User:1RightSider as the other editor. 1RightSider didn't answer either of them. The filing editor didn't notify the other editor of the first filing, and didn't notify them four days after I said that notification was required, so I closed the dispute. The second time, they did provide proper notice, and 1RightSider still did not respond. Since participation in DRN is voluntary, I closed the dispute as declined, and said that Simoncik84 could edit the article boldly, but should discuss on the article talk page if there were objections to their edits. That was Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_266#Bolzano. I now see that 1RightSider is only discussing via edit summaries, which is not real discussion. I was willing to try to mediate, but it seems that we have one editor who only communicates in edit summaries, and another editor who appears to be using artificial intelligence to complain about communicating only in edit summaries. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:37, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comments. I understand the concern and I'll explain the situation in my own words. The underlying issue is an editorial disagreement about whether "Bozen" qualifies as a bolded alternative name in the lead of the Bolzano article under MOS:BOLDALTNAMES. My position has consistently been that the sources provided do not demonstrate sufficient English-language usage to justify bolding, and I raised this on the article talk page in policy-based terms. What brings this here is not the content dispute itself, but how the discussion has broken down. After extended talk-page discussion and two attempts at DRN (where participation by the other editor did not occur) the disagreement has continued through article edits accompanied by edit summaries that attribute motives to me, for example describing my edits as "nationalistic", "biased" or "harassment"). My concern is that substantive editorial disagreement about sourcing and MOS compliance has been replaced by characterizations of editor intent, often made in edit summaries rather than on the article talk page, where they could be discussed or addressed. This makes it difficult to resolve the issue constructively. I am willing to continue discussing the question of "Bozen" on the article talk page, to follow consensus, or to pursue appropriate content dispute resolution. What I am seeking here is guidance on how to proceed when a policy-based editorial dispute escalates into personal accusations and discussion no longer takes place on the talk page. Simoncik84 (talk) 11:17, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
- You wrote this reply with AI as well. Good lord. Athanelar (talk) 11:30, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
I'll explain the situation in my own words
... said a chatbot. I'm unimpressed and unpersuaded. Narky Blert (talk) 15:39, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
- You wrote this reply with AI as well. Good lord. Athanelar (talk) 11:30, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comments. I understand the concern and I'll explain the situation in my own words. The underlying issue is an editorial disagreement about whether "Bozen" qualifies as a bolded alternative name in the lead of the Bolzano article under MOS:BOLDALTNAMES. My position has consistently been that the sources provided do not demonstrate sufficient English-language usage to justify bolding, and I raised this on the article talk page in policy-based terms. What brings this here is not the content dispute itself, but how the discussion has broken down. After extended talk-page discussion and two attempts at DRN (where participation by the other editor did not occur) the disagreement has continued through article edits accompanied by edit summaries that attribute motives to me, for example describing my edits as "nationalistic", "biased" or "harassment"). My concern is that substantive editorial disagreement about sourcing and MOS compliance has been replaced by characterizations of editor intent, often made in edit summaries rather than on the article talk page, where they could be discussed or addressed. This makes it difficult to resolve the issue constructively. I am willing to continue discussing the question of "Bozen" on the article talk page, to follow consensus, or to pursue appropriate content dispute resolution. What I am seeking here is guidance on how to proceed when a policy-based editorial dispute escalates into personal accusations and discussion no longer takes place on the talk page. Simoncik84 (talk) 11:17, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
- I think that I should clarify what I said. User:Simoncik84 filed two DRN requests about Bolzano with User:1RightSider as the other editor. 1RightSider didn't answer either of them. The filing editor didn't notify the other editor of the first filing, and didn't notify them four days after I said that notification was required, so I closed the dispute. The second time, they did provide proper notice, and 1RightSider still did not respond. Since participation in DRN is voluntary, I closed the dispute as declined, and said that Simoncik84 could edit the article boldly, but should discuss on the article talk page if there were objections to their edits. That was Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_266#Bolzano. I now see that 1RightSider is only discussing via edit summaries, which is not real discussion. I was willing to try to mediate, but it seems that we have one editor who only communicates in edit summaries, and another editor who appears to be using artificial intelligence to complain about communicating only in edit summaries. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:37, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
- The OP should be indefinitely blocked immediately per WP:CIR and WP:DE. There's no excuse for wasting community time by posting AI excrement -- twice. Zero tolerance. AI must be destroyed. EEng 17:34, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
- However, an immediate block on WP:DE and WP:CIR based on just LLM use would be WP:IAR. I presume you want a strict version of WP:LLMCIR as policy? If so, that would cause issues with the deeply divided community, some arguing to carve out uses and outline acceptable uses. But that's quite beside the point here. ~2025-31733-18 (talk) 17:55, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
- What's IAR got to do with it? WP:IAR says, If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.
- However, an immediate block on WP:DE and WP:CIR based on just LLM use would be WP:IAR. I presume you want a strict version of WP:LLMCIR as policy? If so, that would cause issues with the deeply divided community, some arguing to carve out uses and outline acceptable uses. But that's quite beside the point here. ~2025-31733-18 (talk) 17:55, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
- AI slop neither maintains nor improves Wikipedia. Narky Blert (talk) 18:17, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
- IAR in terms of blocking the user. It would be IAR to block the user by sole reason of LLM or that reason just obfuscated with DE and CIR. ~2025-31733-18 (talk) 19:54, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
- There's no obfuscation. Wasting others' time by posting AI excrement is either unintentional CIR, or intentional DE. Take your pick, but there's no place for this person here. AI must be destroyed. EEng 23:07, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
- I also want to block people for AI misuse. However, you can just go to Wikipedia talk:NEWLLM and see just how significant the amount of people are that completely oppose an AI policy or want carve-outs rather than all out banning. Allowing sysops to block people for AI misuse directly would have a snowball's chance in hell of succeeding, so unless we first link AI misuse to DE and CIR (another proposal that has a chance of a snowball in summer) we can't really block it on just that grounds until sufficient evidence mounts up that Simoncik has CIR/DE issues in general independent of AI misuse. ~2025-31733-18 (talk) 04:06, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
- Misuse is misuse, it's disruptive, and its blockable. Period. EEng 18:01, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
- Yes I do agree. But see argument above. It's not wiki policy yet and until it is LLM misuse is technically not a possible reason for a block. But I might be getting too pedantic. And this argumentation ks not something for ANI and should be hatted anyway... ~2025-31733-18 (talk) 20:14, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
- Misuse is misuse, it's disruptive, and its blockable. Period. EEng 18:01, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
- I also want to block people for AI misuse. However, you can just go to Wikipedia talk:NEWLLM and see just how significant the amount of people are that completely oppose an AI policy or want carve-outs rather than all out banning. Allowing sysops to block people for AI misuse directly would have a snowball's chance in hell of succeeding, so unless we first link AI misuse to DE and CIR (another proposal that has a chance of a snowball in summer) we can't really block it on just that grounds until sufficient evidence mounts up that Simoncik has CIR/DE issues in general independent of AI misuse. ~2025-31733-18 (talk) 04:06, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
- There's no obfuscation. Wasting others' time by posting AI excrement is either unintentional CIR, or intentional DE. Take your pick, but there's no place for this person here. AI must be destroyed. EEng 23:07, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
- Oh, but you're wrong. Many LLMs are trained from Wikipedia content. Training LLMs from AI slop is detrimental to AI accuracy. People will use less accurate LLMs less. So, allowing LLM output in content, will help solve the AI scraping problem in the long run. ~2025-41289-78 (talk) 05:38, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
- The problem is that will be detrimental to Wikipedia in the short term and could cause a feedback loop where it's training itself on its own poor edits.
- AI is always going to scrape Wikipedia because it's free content, therefore it makes sense to ensure Wikipedia is as accurate as possible if AI is going to be trained properly.
- It's also not our responsibility to train the AI created by massive corporations. Plus who has to fix the errors it generates whilst it's learning? It's already bad enough that it needs a separate (very busy) noticeboard.
- Allowing AI to train off itself whilst its not editing Wikipedia correctly is just going to slow down its development overall, not speed it up. Blue Sonnet (talk) 07:19, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
- IAR in terms of blocking the user. It would be IAR to block the user by sole reason of LLM or that reason just obfuscated with DE and CIR. ~2025-31733-18 (talk) 19:54, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
- It's generally agreed upon (WP:LLMCOMM) that continuing to use AI for user-to-user communication, especially after being told to stop, is a CIR issue. I don't think sanctions would be unwarranted here. Athanelar (talk) 18:51, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
- AI slop neither maintains nor improves Wikipedia. Narky Blert (talk) 18:17, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
Resolution proposals
Given that nobody seems to have any interest of engaging with the OP's complaint given the AI usage and the discussion has devolved into unrelated debate thereon, I have two proposals as to how to wrap this up;
Prop. 1: close as-is, no case to answer for 1RightSider: OP can come back and submit a complaint in their own words if they still want to.
Prop. 2: Boomerang OP for the blatant WP:LLMCOMM even after specifically being told to reword the complaint without AI. Athanelar (talk) 08:48, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
2, because Simoncik has been dishonest about using AI and apparently cannot bring themselves to write in their own words, signifying WP:DE or WP:CIR. No prejudice to sanctions against 1RightSiderz.Edit at 5:42 UTC : Because of the sincere statement below by Simoncik, I believe no sanctions are warranted now. Still, no prejudice to sanctions against 1RightSider. ~2025-31733-18 (talk) 16:14, 17 December 2025 (UTC)- I dare to answer, maybe if it's too late. English is not my mother tongue, and in order to make my sentences sound clearer and to save time, I sometimes use tools to revise my texts, but the ideas behind what I post here are totally mine. I've been contributing on wikipedia for almost 20 years so far (specially in French). Concerning this discussion with the user 1RightSider, I simply aimed from the very beginning to ask him to provide sources for an edit, which he failed to do imho, avoided any discussions, accusing me, among other, of being a nationalist, and of harrassing him on his talk page, when I simply notified him as the procedures ask me to. I allowed myself to take a look to his talk page and even found a similar case. I simply tried to find a third neutral opinion and to refocus this discussion, and if someone provides me reliable sources about the fact that Bozen is a common toponym used in English to refer to Bolzano, as Bombay for Mumbay, as I've always done in my past years on Wikipedia, I'll immediately shut up. But until then, I cannot. It's absolutely nothing personal against anyone, it just seems illogical to me to lead discussions as this user did. I hope this message will reach out as it is, frank and honest, and help solve this issue. Thank you everyone for your patience and contributions. Simoncik84 (talk) 09:04, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
Prop. 3: Interaction ban between User:Simoncik84 and User:1RightSider. I don't support this option, but it should be considered if they continue to dispute with each other in a way that disrupts the community. (At this point, I think option 1 is in order.) Robert McClenon (talk) 20:27, 20 December 2025 (UTC)
- Without daring to say that my conduct is right (the use of AI to revise posts as I did being apparently prohibited on wikipedia, though I would kindly ask someone to quote the concerned rule, because I am not aware of any such rule), should I then deduce that 1RightSider conduct was right? Because imo it is not, since it disrupts one of wp's most basic rules of providing reliable sources for edits, and discussions must not take place in edit comments and silence in DRN and ANI, i.e. when a user is asked to explain. Simoncik84 (talk) 18:28, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
- The rule against using AI to communicate in discussions like this is WP:LLMCOMM
- There's also WP:I didn't hear that which applies to the fact you used AI to reply to a comment where I specifically asked you to reply in your own words and not with AI. I mean, come on, when you use an AI to write a comment starting with the words
I understand the concern and I'll explain the situation in my own words.
do you not stop and think for a second? Athanelar (talk) 18:44, 21 December 2025 (UTC)- Perfect, thank you for your patience, my bad. Now that all my mistakes were clearly pointed out (again thanks for your patience) what about 1RightSider's behavior? Simoncik84 (talk) 09:23, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
Disruptive editing using #MEUG25
- original title: Disruptive editing from (I think) a Makerere University editing drive
While paroling recently removed COI templates, I noticed two different users who removed templates and used misleading edit summaries. A check of the hashtag shows 54 users have implemented 4888 revisions in the last 4 days. While some of the edits seem perfectly legitimate and productive (such as this one ), there are a large number of low-quality and disruptive edits that use misleading edit summaries. I cannot find an associated project page or explanation for who is coordinating this, but wanted to flag it as this is going to create a significant amount of work to review and undo these edits.Vegantics (talk) 19:27, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
- Google AI suggests this link, which does mention the hashtag: https://outreachdashboard.wmflabs.org/courses/Wikimedia_Community_Usergroup_Uganda/Community_Mega_Wikipedia_Edit-a-thon_2025/home . TSventon (talk) 19:31, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you, I couldn't find anything for the life of me. It's helpful to know where these edits are originating from although I have no idea how the issue should be handled. Vegantics (talk) 19:36, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
- Pinging @MichealKal, @Ssemmanda will, @Kateregga1, @Fiktube, @Sandra Aceng, @NANTUMBWEJ, and @Namulinda Brenda. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 19:38, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
- I usually search up "oaicite" in the search bar to clean up LLM edits and reviewed five of these edits by Tamdra. I removed LLM content from some of them and outright reverted others, since some of them added infoboxes which seemed constructive but included oaicite, LLM formatting issues, and odd duplications of text. HurricaneZetaC 22:12, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
- I flagged this for @Ian (Wiki Ed) on his talk page a few days ago. See User Talk:Ian (Wiki Ed) § Instructor repeatedly adding oaicite refs. It seems this is not WikiEd? Ian asked for some help managing it, I have been traveling and haven't had time (sorry). Agree this is very disruptive, lots of unsourced and/or AI-generated infobox additions, also some actual AI-generated article prose NicheSports (talk) 22:26, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
- Been seeing these come up in the edit filters quite a lot recently, I'd say many of them are very questionable. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 00:48, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
- Yes I spotted some editors use #MEUG25. Some of their edits are questionable, and some of their articles have LLM-like characteristics but I can't know for sure. I do have to point out that they are editing in good faith and I didn't think they intend to vandalize anything. What we need is to get hold of the project leader so they can educate the participant of this project. I tried to find #MEUG25 last night and I can't find any projects related to it. ✠ SunDawn ✠ Contact me! 23:25, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
- SunDawn, look at the second comment in this discussion. The page the link goes to provides some information. Liz Read! Talk! 01:23, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you for the information. ✠ SunDawn ✠ Contact me! 05:26, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
- SunDawn, look at the second comment in this discussion. The page the link goes to provides some information. Liz Read! Talk! 01:23, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
- Hello Community,
- Thank you for raising this and for the time spent reviewing these edits.
- I am one of the project leads for the Community Mega Wikipedia Edit-a-thon 2025 as listed on the Outreach Dashboard.
- We acknowledge that several edits from the Edit-a-thon have fallen below Wikipedia’s quality standards and as project leads, we take responsibility for insufficient guidance and oversight. We have begun immediate corrective actions were we will a call today and guide the community further.
- The Edit-a-thon is focused on expanding Ugandan stub articles and we are not contesting reverts but appreciate the cleanup work by experienced editors. We welcome further guidance on best remediation steps and will remain responsive as we address this and if anyone of you is available to speak to the community, you're most welcome. MichealKal (talk) 04:50, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
- Noted.
- Cordially, Augmented Seventh (talk) 06:22, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
- @MichealKal: Are there "winners" and do they get paid monetarily? Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 14:18, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
- Not really, it is a one week edit-a-thon with an aim of reducing stubs on Ugandan content. At the end, all participants will receive some customised Usergroup swag (like T-shits, cups, key holder etc) Nothing big and nothing monitory. Ssemmanda will (talk) 18:02, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
- Hi @MichealKal — I've also been seeing a lot of edits associated with this edit-a-thon flagged as copyright violations over the last week. Looking through the recent reports, it looks like there have been at least 10 instances of copyright violations added by 7 different participants: . All of them will have already received a notice about copyright policy on their talk pages, but if you are planning on providing further guidance to participants, you might also want to remind them of the importance of writing their edits in their own words without copying from external sources. Thanks. MCE89 (talk) 15:03, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you for pointing this out, I have always emphasized this and will always do. MichealKal (talk) 17:05, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
- @Vegantics: I saw another #MEUG25 question and changed the title here, I hope that doesn't cause any problems. TSventon (talk) 12:50, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
- Just an update, this is still going. One look at my most recent contributions shows that I have to spend time filtering through these #MEUG25 edits. I am also a Ugandan, and this is a bit annoying as I am trying to do my jobs as pending changes reviewer and recent changes patroller, and Special:RecentChanges is being flooded with these disruptive edits Theeverywhereperson (talk here) 09:11, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
- @Theeverywhereperson, Are there specific recommendations that you would like @MichealKal to pass along to their participants that they need to stop doing/change? I, for one, have been frustrated by inaccurate edits summaries and aggressive overlinking. Additionally, are there specific articles that I can help review for quality to help revert some of this disruption? (Feel free to post on my talk page.) Vegantics (talk) 15:26, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
- Perhaps we can stop the edit-a-thon by blocking #MEUG25 using an edit filter until we get a satisfactory response from whoever is managing this? I looked at the course website and I see nothing good coming out of this, unlike WikiEdu which does have a positive impact on many articles. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 15:59, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
- We can do this as a temporary, but we may force stop the edit-a-thon (which is the preferable option) by blocking it through an edit filter, but we can block it until:
- a) there is a satisfactory response
- b) 21:00 UTC, 20 December 2025 as that translates to 00:00 EAT, 21 December 2025, when the competition will officially end.
- I have replied to @Vegantics with some information that hopefully, she will pass on to @MichealKal and potentially quell the disruption this has caused.
- Kind regards, Theeverywhereperson (talk here) 17:08, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
- It should also be noted that the editing by this stopped at 5:04 PM today EAT and has not continued since. Theeverywhereperson (talk here) 17:13, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
- Source is an updated version of the first hashtag. I looked over the statistics and one of the accounts making these changes has made about as many edits as me in 1 week. It took me over a year to reach my current edit count. We should act first as we might end up (in a few weeks time) with a bunch of abandoned ECs, and most of these accounts have already been autoconfirmed. Should we do anything about these accounts practically spamming edits? Theeverywhereperson (talk here) 17:16, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
- Seems I was wrong. They are still editing. Theeverywhereperson (talk here) 17:18, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
- One last thing, I read the times as EAT. They were in fact UTC. Theeverywhereperson (talk here) 17:21, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
- They make several edits instead of just one to inflate their edit count. The last time I saw this happen, people were doing that to game cash prizes. Not sure what they're trying here at this point, since @Ssemmanda will said they don't gain anything monetary by doing so. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 17:21, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
- This editor has added a sentence just to delete it word by word over subsequent edits. Something fishy is definitely going on here. Vegantics (talk) 17:34, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
- That is bad. Maybe the prize is not cash but I would think that there is still a strong incentive to do all of these spammy behaviors. ✠ SunDawn ✠ Contact me! 00:43, 20 December 2025 (UTC)
- Perhaps some participants found the edit-a-thon's Editors Overview and became very competitive. NebY (talk) 13:15, 20 December 2025 (UTC)
- That is bad. Maybe the prize is not cash but I would think that there is still a strong incentive to do all of these spammy behaviors. ✠ SunDawn ✠ Contact me! 00:43, 20 December 2025 (UTC)
- This editor has added a sentence just to delete it word by word over subsequent edits. Something fishy is definitely going on here. Vegantics (talk) 17:34, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
- Seems I was wrong. They are still editing. Theeverywhereperson (talk here) 17:18, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
- Source is an updated version of the first hashtag. I looked over the statistics and one of the accounts making these changes has made about as many edits as me in 1 week. It took me over a year to reach my current edit count. We should act first as we might end up (in a few weeks time) with a bunch of abandoned ECs, and most of these accounts have already been autoconfirmed. Should we do anything about these accounts practically spamming edits? Theeverywhereperson (talk here) 17:16, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
- It should also be noted that the editing by this stopped at 5:04 PM today EAT and has not continued since. Theeverywhereperson (talk here) 17:13, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
- Unfortunately I would support this. There are over 13,000 edits using the hashtag and many of them continue to be low quality and use inaccurate edit summaries. That count doesn't even include edits where users forgot to include the hashtag. Some users appear to be building single sentences over multiple edits in an attempt to artificially boost edit counts, which creates a nightmare for reviewing. Vegantics (talk) 17:20, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
- we need to stop this now. does one of you happen to be an admin? Then we can just block this with an edit filter and stop most of the edits, meaning we may have to abort the edit-a-thon. Please tell @MichealKal that we are planning on doing this. Theeverywhereperson (talk here) 17:24, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
- Hi Theeverywhereperson Kindly note that edit-a-thon is ending in 4hr 20m from now. Then we will do a clean-up starting tomorrow. MichealKal (talk) 17:44, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you for your reply. What are your plans for the clean-up? Any plans set up by the organizers of this edit-a-thon? Are the event conducted under the permission/supervision of the WMF or local Wikipedia chapter? We understand that many of the participants of the event (including you!) have good-faith but we need plans to deal with the problems arising after the event promptly. ✠ SunDawn ✠ Contact me! 00:46, 20 December 2025 (UTC)
- Oh thank you! then since this is done, it may be possible to ask them to go through all of their contributions during this edit-a-thon so that they can just make sure they are satisfactory, then you can check through as well. Theeverywhereperson (talk here) 07:12, 20 December 2025 (UTC)
- Hi Theeverywhereperson Kindly note that edit-a-thon is ending in 4hr 20m from now. Then we will do a clean-up starting tomorrow. MichealKal (talk) 17:44, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
- we need to stop this now. does one of you happen to be an admin? Then we can just block this with an edit filter and stop most of the edits, meaning we may have to abort the edit-a-thon. Please tell @MichealKal that we are planning on doing this. Theeverywhereperson (talk here) 17:24, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
- @Liz Is it possible to get a temporary edit filter to stem this disruptive activity? Vegantics (talk) 17:39, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
- @Vegantics: WP:EFR is thataway →. - The Bushranger One ping only 17:56, 20 December 2025 (UTC)
- Perhaps we can stop the edit-a-thon by blocking #MEUG25 using an edit filter until we get a satisfactory response from whoever is managing this? I looked at the course website and I see nothing good coming out of this, unlike WikiEdu which does have a positive impact on many articles. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 15:59, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
- @Theeverywhereperson, Are there specific recommendations that you would like @MichealKal to pass along to their participants that they need to stop doing/change? I, for one, have been frustrated by inaccurate edits summaries and aggressive overlinking. Additionally, are there specific articles that I can help review for quality to help revert some of this disruption? (Feel free to post on my talk page.) Vegantics (talk) 15:26, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
- Just an update, this is still going. One look at my most recent contributions shows that I have to spend time filtering through these #MEUG25 edits. I am also a Ugandan, and this is a bit annoying as I am trying to do my jobs as pending changes reviewer and recent changes patroller, and Special:RecentChanges is being flooded with these disruptive edits Theeverywhereperson (talk here) 09:11, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
User:Александр Макович WP:NOTHERE
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Александр Макович (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Александр Макович (talk · contribs) spams article talk pages with their speculations despite warnings. Here is the most recent example. 100% of their almost always unreferenced edits in articles are reverted. --Altenmann >talk 19:35, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
- Nice that the comment actually begins with "GEMINI AI" so we know the source. Schazjmd (talk) 19:45, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
- I do not think I have seen any constructive edits by this editor. Typically I just see them post talk page comments promoting fringe theories, often in broken English and often unrelated to the topic. This has been going on for many months now, maybe a year or two. See for example this topic they started at Talk:Republic of Central Lithuania where they say:
This Romans founded Zhmont on Samogitian land ,modern Lithuanians language relative to Indian not Italian
. There are many more examples of this. Mellk (talk) 20:10, 22 December 2025 (UTC)- P-blocked from article and talk space to help them find their Talk in case they can share with us what they're trying to do. Star Mississippi 20:14, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Simtau
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Simtau (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): User Simtau has a conflict of interest regarding the article Ooh Aah... Just a Little Bit, which is the only article they have edited over several years. The user has not addressed the COI, and has repeatedly made unsourced changes to the article, listing self as the song's composer. I googled briefly but could not find a source to back the claims. The user has now made a vague legal threat, so I need to step back. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you, Jessicapierce (talk) 21:09, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
- Blocked for the legal threats. If unblocked, should have p-block from the song where they're unwilling to edit collaboratively. Star Mississippi 21:25, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
- Sounds like a good candidate for a p-block on the article. Ravenswing 21:48, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:Perryminkle back to their usual antics.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Perryminkle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User:Perryminkle, following a weeklong ban, is back to their usual antics on Steven Page—posting unreferenced content, making inappropriate edit summaries, and leaving rude comments on user talk pages. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 23:59, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
- Indef blocked. I will leave a longer explanation there. They keep doing the same thing, this makes the 3rd block. Indef is the only block that will force them to reconsider their incivility and continual addition of unsourced info. Any admin can modify the block as they see fit, hopefully after they have pledged to stop doing this kind of crap. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:16, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
~2025-42360-76
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
~2025-42360-76 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Request to revoke user TPA access. Temporary user blanked talk page after receiving block notification, which I had to revert. --みんな空の下 (トーク) 02:58, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:Harishseelan
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Harishseelan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Harishseelan is repeatedly adding unsourced content to Naagin (2015 TV series) , despite multiple warnings . They were previously blocked for edit-warring on the same article. Media Mender (talk) 15:40, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
Blocked x 1 week. There is a wall of messages and warnings going back years. Zero communication. If this resumes, I would support an indef. -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:38, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
LLM use and PA by User:Accusermanager
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Accusermanager (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has not that long of an edit history, but the majority of their edits seem to be AI generated. See AI edit summary with some weird duplicate use of citations, the bolding, whatever this TP message is, claims to "comply with policy" via AfC (diff) and then proceeds to move to mainspace anyways, more TP messages ("going forward"), every edit from this one onwards... interested editors may refer to the contribs for some roasted duck.
Their draft is currently at AfD where everyone agrees it is AI generated, and the first version of the draft included numbered headings and other WP:AISIGNS. In response to this warning I posted on their talkpage, the user has come back with increasingly machine-generated and dumbfounding replies and now resorted to, for some reason, two blank replies followed by personal attacks and aspersions of socking. Fermiboson (talk) 13:35, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
- It only proves that I’m not familiar with Wikipedia editing; after two mistakes, I reposted again.Your accusation that large language models create articles is completely slanderous. Accusermanager (talk) 13:38, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
- You're clearly using AI to write comments like the ones linked above. Please don't take us for fools, we see more than enough AI writing to be able to identify it. I would strongly advise you come clean about your AI use, because if you continue to deny it despite the blatant signs, the only outcome here is going to be an indefinite block. (Non-administrator comment) Athanelar (talk) 13:57, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
- First, every piece of content is drafted by me—every sentence, every paragraph—whether it’s for Wikipedia or our current discussion and debate. If a large language model could draft such professional financial knowledge, especially financial expertise not found anywhere online, then the world would be ridiculous. Accusermanager (talk) 14:02, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
- Again, you are fooling nobody.
- Indef this editor and let's be done with it. (Non-administrator comment) Athanelar (talk) 14:05, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
- Your editors also show another characteristic: they never make constructive content suggestions. It’s either maliciously rolling back others’ work or deleting newly created articles. Accusermanager (talk) 14:08, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
- If you can't even do as simple a thing as being honest about your use of AI, nobody is going to take the time to patiently give you constructive content suggestions; we're going to revert the AI slop you're shovelling into articles and move on.
- Your choice at this point is to be honest about your AI usage and actually try to seek feedback about how to edit productively, or to continue digging a hole for yourself, in which case as soon as an admin finally deigns to look at this thread, you will be indefinitely blocked from editing. (Non-administrator comment) Athanelar (talk) 14:11, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
- I don’t believe that a senior, experienced person can’t tell the difference between a human and a machine. And it’s not as if I’m getting paid by Wikipedia—I’m contributing knowledge voluntarily. If my account is blocked, the loss is Wikipedia’s. Content edited by a senior financial professional is simply not something a machine can produce. Accusermanager (talk) 14:16, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
- Are you using some kind of grammar checker like Grammarly, or a machine translation tool like Google Translate, to produce your edits?
- It is evident without a shadow of a doubt that the edits you are creating are not produced by a human alone, and every time you continue to insist as much you are only digging yourself a deeper hole. You need to be honest about any tools you're using to assist your editing process so we can assess them properly. Athanelar (talk) 14:20, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
- You’ve already started maliciously rolling back all my previous edits—a purely destructive act. Accusermanager (talk) 14:23, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
- Pretending to be a temporary user again? IP‑linked! A ridiculous conversation—as if you were the owners of Wikipedia. We’re all just users. Arguing with you here is a waste of my life and has already cost me sleep. Accusermanager (talk) 15:06, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
- I don’t believe that a senior, experienced person can’t tell the difference between a human and a machine. And it’s not as if I’m getting paid by Wikipedia—I’m contributing knowledge voluntarily. If my account is blocked, the loss is Wikipedia’s. Content edited by a senior financial professional is simply not something a machine can produce. Accusermanager (talk) 14:16, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
- Your editors also show another characteristic: they never make constructive content suggestions. It’s either maliciously rolling back others’ work or deleting newly created articles. Accusermanager (talk) 14:08, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
- First, every piece of content is drafted by me—every sentence, every paragraph—whether it’s for Wikipedia or our current discussion and debate. If a large language model could draft such professional financial knowledge, especially financial expertise not found anywhere online, then the world would be ridiculous. Accusermanager (talk) 14:02, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
- You're clearly using AI to write comments like the ones linked above. Please don't take us for fools, we see more than enough AI writing to be able to identify it. I would strongly advise you come clean about your AI use, because if you continue to deny it despite the blatant signs, the only outcome here is going to be an indefinite block. (Non-administrator comment) Athanelar (talk) 13:57, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
- I reverted some of their first edits back in November for being obviously LLM generated and not being adequately sourced. The continued denial despite blatant evidence of LLM usage is troubling. The edit summaries are particularly revealing: I cannot see a reason a person would write
Here’s what actually changed, step by step: --
orHere’s the breakdown: ---
before listing out every change made in the edit. If they admitted to using AI and moved on, that would be one thing, but the continued lying about it approaches CIR. IsCat (talk) 14:00, 26 December 2025 (UTC)- The another Hong Kong student account that rolled back my previous content has finally appeared. Your accounts all seem to share one thing: “Hong Kong student.” Coincidence? Can a large language model really be so capable of historical memory and analysis?! Accusermanager (talk) 14:05, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
- What? Are you accusing me of sockpuppeting? IsCat (talk) 14:07, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
- You were just stating things—are you talking to a robot? You can’t even tell the difference between a human and a machine. Accusermanager (talk) 14:10, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
- Are these... automated replies? This reads like a complete nonsequitor. Why are you asking me if I'm talking to a robot? I was talking to you. I feel like you are digging a deeper hole right now. IsCat (talk) 14:13, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
- You’ve completely forgotten what you said earlier. You previously insisted that the content creation and the discussion were all generated by a large language model. Accusermanager (talk) 14:19, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
- You are conflating me with a different editor. I did not say that. Regardless, I can see this is going nowhere productive so this will be my last reply to you. IsCat (talk) 14:30, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
- You’re now even trying to maliciously undo content from two months ago that you failed to revert at the time—this is nothing but deliberate vandalism. Accusermanager (talk) 14:34, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
- What edits by IsCat do you believe are deliberate vandalism? From what I see, IsCat hasn't reverted anything by you in nearly a month. Please provide specific diffs. Vague accusations aren't going to help. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:50, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
- I can't help but feel that your username is very accurate to what you are doing — you are accusing people repeatedly and casting aspersions. This much aspersions without getting blocked is not that common... ~2025-31733-18 (talk) 14:57, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
- Pretending to be a temporary user again? IP‑linked! A ridiculous conversation—as if you were the owners of Wikipedia. We’re all just users. Arguing with you here is a waste of my life and has already cost me sleep. Accusermanager (talk) 15:07, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
- You’re now even trying to maliciously undo content from two months ago that you failed to revert at the time—this is nothing but deliberate vandalism. Accusermanager (talk) 14:34, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
- You are conflating me with a different editor. I did not say that. Regardless, I can see this is going nowhere productive so this will be my last reply to you. IsCat (talk) 14:30, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
- You’ve completely forgotten what you said earlier. You previously insisted that the content creation and the discussion were all generated by a large language model. Accusermanager (talk) 14:19, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
- Are these... automated replies? This reads like a complete nonsequitor. Why are you asking me if I'm talking to a robot? I was talking to you. I feel like you are digging a deeper hole right now. IsCat (talk) 14:13, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
- You were just stating things—are you talking to a robot? You can’t even tell the difference between a human and a machine. Accusermanager (talk) 14:10, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
- What? Are you accusing me of sockpuppeting? IsCat (talk) 14:07, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
- The another Hong Kong student account that rolled back my previous content has finally appeared. Your accounts all seem to share one thing: “Hong Kong student.” Coincidence? Can a large language model really be so capable of historical memory and analysis?! Accusermanager (talk) 14:05, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
- Accusermanager has disclosed that
AI tools were used only to help refine the wording and improve the readability of the text.
in their talk page. Ca talk to me! 14:44, 26 December 2025 (UTC)- It is perhaps worth noting that many LLM chatbots suggest the wording "used only to help refine the wording and improve the readability of the text" or similar when asked to come up with a defence for using LLM-generated slop in an essay or article. • a frantic turtle 🐢 14:47, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
- And yet in this thread categorically denies their use at all. Athanelar (talk) 14:49, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
Please help me
I am being targeted and maliciously ganged up on by either a single person using multiple accounts or a group of acquaintances (labeled as “Hong Kong student”). They are even systematically reverting all of my previous editing contributions. Accusermanager (talk) 14:29, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
- Accusermanager (talk) 14:42, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
- where？The previous post?
- The articles being rolled back include, but are not limited to:
- Money Services Business
- Money Transmitter
- …
- I will not attempt to edit and improve them again, because this is evidence of malicious vandalism. If the community takes no action against this purely destructive behavior, then so be it—we’ll just have to continue letting imperfect or even incorrect knowledge be presented to the world. Accusermanager (talk) 14:43, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
- This is the least AI generated message I've seen from this user, so that's a good sign. @Accusermanager, I again ask that you be straightforward with your editing behavior. We do want you to continue contributint to Wikipedia, but we also want to ensure that your contributions can be of high quality. guninvalid (talk) 14:44, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
- Pretending to be a temporary user again? IP‑linked! A ridiculous conversation—as if you were the owners of Wikipedia. We’re all just users. Arguing with you here is a waste of my life and has already cost me sleep. Accusermanager (talk) 15:06, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
Pretending to be an IP user again?
I'm sorry?? My username is guninvalid. You can see it in the signature of my comment. guninvalid (talk) 15:08, 26 December 2025 (UTC)- I will stop continuing to argue with people who are a complete waste of time. Accusermanager (talk) 15:10, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
- Accusermanager, nobody is pretending to be an IP/temporary account user. Your accusations are not helping your position. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:09, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
- I will stop continuing to argue with people who are a complete waste of time. Accusermanager (talk) 15:11, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
- That's good to know because your arguments are not helping things. Now, moving forward; will you be using AI/chatbot/LLMs to create content? --Hammersoft (talk) 15:13, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
- I will stop continuing to argue with people who are a complete waste of time. Accusermanager (talk) 15:14, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
- That's good to know because your arguments are not helping things. Now, moving forward; will you be using AI/chatbot/LLMs to create content? --Hammersoft (talk) 15:13, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
- I will stop continuing to argue with people who are a complete waste of time. Accusermanager (talk) 15:11, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
- Pretending to be a temporary user again? IP‑linked! A ridiculous conversation—as if you were the owners of Wikipedia. We’re all just users. Arguing with you here is a waste of my life and has already cost me sleep. Accusermanager (talk) 15:06, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GiantSnowman cosmetic edits
I've now warned GiantSnowman (talk · contribs) at least twice now about making semi-automated comsetic edits to articles: User talk:GiantSnowman/2025#Edit to Kathleen O'Melia and User talk:GiantSnowman/2025#Cosmetic edits; I also remember raising this at a recent ANI thread about GS that I can't find. Yet it continues: Special:Diff/1313884803/1327221927. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:30, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
- Beginning in a few hours, GS will be on vacation. Just noting, so people know it's unlikely GS will be responding here. Perhaps re-raise this when they return? --Hammersoft (talk) 23:42, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
- The vacation notice says he'll be back tomorrow, not that he's leaving tomorrow. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:47, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
- Ah, right. I saw heavy activity today from them so I assumed (and read too fast) the 14 meant beginning. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:53, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Is GS still under the restriction banning cosmetic edits? The only sanction I see logged at WP:EDR is an Arbcom sanction banning reverting without an edit summary and blocking an editor who hasn't been appropriately warned, and an admonishment (but not a restriction) from a laundry list of things which did not include cosmetic edits. I'm also pretty sure I remember GS being restricted from cosmetic edits, but that's not in the log. Maybe we should also have a log of restrictions that have been rescinded, just for things like this. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 00:16, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- @Voorts: I'm guessing the thread you referenced in your initial comment (but weren't able to find) was Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1199#User:GiantSnowman mass-changing "committed suicide" including in quotes, against consensus? Daniel (talk) 03:06, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- Yes. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:27, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- @Voorts: I'm guessing the thread you referenced in your initial comment (but weren't able to find) was Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1199#User:GiantSnowman mass-changing "committed suicide" including in quotes, against consensus? Daniel (talk) 03:06, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Is GS still under the restriction banning cosmetic edits? The only sanction I see logged at WP:EDR is an Arbcom sanction banning reverting without an edit summary and blocking an editor who hasn't been appropriately warned, and an admonishment (but not a restriction) from a laundry list of things which did not include cosmetic edits. I'm also pretty sure I remember GS being restricted from cosmetic edits, but that's not in the log. Maybe we should also have a log of restrictions that have been rescinded, just for things like this. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 00:16, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- Ah, right. I saw heavy activity today from them so I assumed (and read too fast) the 14 meant beginning. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:53, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
- The vacation notice says he'll be back tomorrow, not that he's leaving tomorrow. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:47, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
- The documentation for Template:Use mdy dates specifically states that the
|date=parameter is "The month and year that the article was last checked for inconsistent date formatting." An edit like Special:Diff/1313884803/1327221927 is therefore appropriate if the article was checked and no inconsistencies were found. ANI is not the place to change how the template works. See also Wikipedia talk:Bot policy/Archive 29#Systematic mass edits to hidden category dates, where much the same discussion was had two years ago (at another place that wasn't the right place to change how the template works). Anomie⚔ 00:14, 14 December 2025 (UTC)- What is even the point of checking articles for consistent date formatting? This seems like a holdover from ancient days, before the citation templates automatically converted the formatting based on which use dates template was in place. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:44, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- Dates outside of citation templates may still need checking. Anomie⚔ 00:59, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- The citation templates automatically convert? Then why do I still very frequently come across citations with "2025-12-14" date format? Is there a setting I need to fix? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 01:28, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- My understanding is that if the article has a {{Use DMY dates}} or similar template then any dates in citation templates should display in the specified format if the template code recognises them as a date in a place it is expecting a date. It does change the wiki code in any way and it will not impact the display of the date in titles, quotes, etc. Thryduulf (talk) 02:38, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- @Thryduulf: did you mean "does not change the wiki code"? Narky Blert (talk) 03:26, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- I did, yes. Whoops! Thryduulf (talk) 09:47, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- Hey you're right, they do! Learned something new today (well, yesterday I guess). I also didn't know we can build a template that changes its appearance based on the presence of other templates on the page. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:36, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- I did, yes. Whoops! Thryduulf (talk) 09:47, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- @Thryduulf: did you mean "does not change the wiki code"? Narky Blert (talk) 03:26, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- The citation templates can in fact be set to convert dates into the numeric format, or to convert some of the dates (the access-dates and archive-dates) into that format while leaving the rest long. It is one of the standard date formats that we allow. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:55, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
- My understanding is that if the article has a {{Use DMY dates}} or similar template then any dates in citation templates should display in the specified format if the template code recognises them as a date in a place it is expecting a date. It does change the wiki code in any way and it will not impact the display of the date in titles, quotes, etc. Thryduulf (talk) 02:38, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- The citation templates automatically convert? Then why do I still very frequently come across citations with "2025-12-14" date format? Is there a setting I need to fix? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 01:28, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- Dates outside of citation templates may still need checking. Anomie⚔ 00:59, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- @Anomie:, unfortunately, you left out part of the documentation from Template:Use mdy dates which negates your statement. The entire bit that you quoted the first part of reads:
The parameter...is intended to track the most recent month and year in which an editor or bot checked the article for inconsistent date formatting and, if any inconsistencies were found, fixed them to comply with this template's date formatting preference
(emphasis added). If a more recent check than the previously-listed date had no inconsistencies found that needed to be changed, the date should not be updated. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:42, 14 December 2025 (UTC)- I noticed that they appear to be using one of the scripts. Using it will automatically change the template even i nothing else was changed. I use the same script but I only use it in combination with other edits. CambridgeBayWeather (#1 deranged), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 04:41, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- That doesn't negate Anomie's statement. It instructs that if inconsistencies were found to fix them; but does not say not to update the template if the check didn't return any inconsistencies. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:54, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- That's how I read it too: the requirement is to fix any found, but finding any is not required to update the date. And besides that, I was looking at the TemplateData, which says in full
The month and year that the article was last checked for inconsistent date formatting. May use "{{subst:DATE}}" template instead
with no confusing extra clause. Anomie⚔ 14:05, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- That's how I read it too: the requirement is to fix any found, but finding any is not required to update the date. And besides that, I was looking at the TemplateData, which says in full
- This is obviously an (&&(||)) statement, not an &&. ~2025-40832-95 (talk) 03:20, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
- What is even the point of checking articles for consistent date formatting? This seems like a holdover from ancient days, before the citation templates automatically converted the formatting based on which use dates template was in place. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:44, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- Edits like these are annoying and contrary to MOS:DATERET: Special:Diff/1324127980.
- I would like to stop having to clean up after editors using scripts to make useless edits, not least because I have to go and look up the stupid fix every time and that's not easy to do when I've editing on my tablet. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 08:29, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- To my reading Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Retaining existing format does not apply to yyyy-mm-dd dates but is saying don't change dd-mm-yy to mm-dd-yy 0and vice versa. As to being useless that's something else but look at reference 13 on Muriel Hannah ""Native scenes specialty of outstanding artist"'. Fairbanks Daily News-Miner. December 3, 1958. p. 100. Retrieved 2025-09-26 – via Newspapers.com." is somewhat jarring. And the way it looked before the GiantSnowman edit was even worse. While they may be cosmetic they aren't really useless CambridgeBayWeather (#1 deranged), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 08:56, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- Per MOS:DATE yyyy-mm-dd is perfectly fine in places like templates, so yes, changing it by script without regard for context is a DATERET issue. I agree with GLL. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:05, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- @CambridgeBayWeather The fact that editors find dates written in a format they're unfamiliar with "jarring" is why we have DATERET. As Parankayaa says, that date format is fine in templates, especially given that they automatically format themselves. If you'd like to pressure the media wiki developers to make the retrieved parameter also format according to the date tag, then you may go and do that. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 23:45, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- I see you missed the point. I am very familiar with all three types of writing dates. Canada use both the US and British format and my job involves the yyyy-mm-dd format, and is the one I use in day-to-day life, so it;s not that one type is jarring. What is jarring is that there are two different types used in the same reference. It should be consistent. As you point out Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Retaining existing format covers this where it says "If an article has evolved using predominantly one date format, this format should be used throughout the article, unless there are reasons for changing it based on the topic's strong ties to a particular English-speaking country, or consensus on the article's talk page." Also on Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers in the section "Access and archive dates" ( it allows for all three date type and does not prevent two different types in a reference. However, I merly pointed out that it looks jarring or, if you prefer, odd. CambridgeBayWeather (#1 deranged), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 04:18, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
- @CambridgeBayWeather And I see you missed mine. And, given you said "worse", while pointing to a revision where all the reference date formats were consistent, I'm not entirely sure I understand what you can possibly find objectionable other than the YYYY-MM-DD format. Can you explain? GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 04:32, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, because the reference date formats were not consistent. Going back to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers in the section "Publication dates" just above the "Access and archive dates", again unlinkable. The full line says "Publication dates in an article's citations should all use the same format, which may be:" (my bolding) and then gives the choices. Looking at this which is the same I linked above, references numbered 3, 8, 20, and 29 use the US format and the others use yyyy-mm-dd. So based on the MOS it does require fixing. The should all be US or all be yyyy-mm-dd. CambridgeBayWeather (#1 deranged), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 05:24, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
- If 4 out of 30 references use a date format and all 26 over use the exact same one, then it should be obvious to anybody actually reading the page which citation format was intended. I'm sorry that the four references bothered you so much; if you'd like to fix them to YYYY-MM-DD in the current version, you are more than welcome to. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 05:35, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
- GiantSnowman tried that following the line (but all-numeric date formats other than yyyy-mm-dd must still be avoided). and here we are. CambridgeBayWeather (#1 deranged), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 06:32, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
- If he tried to change all the reference dates to YYYY-MM-DD, he did a spectacularly bad job at it... GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 06:36, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
- Because according to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers he didn't have too and it expressly says under "Consistency":
- Publication dates in an article's citations should all use the same format, which may be:
- the format used in the article body text,
- an abbreviated format from the "Acceptable date formats" table, provided the day and month elements are in the same order as in dates in the article body
- the format expected in the citation style being used (but all-numeric date formats other than yyyy-mm-dd must still be avoided).
- Publication dates in an article's citations should all use the same format, which may be:
- So he was following the MOS and above you are telling me to do exactly the same thing. And it of course conflicts with other things that Wikipedia says and comes down to which has more authority / precedence Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers or Wikipedia:Citing sources. CambridgeBayWeather (#1 deranged), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 07:08, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
- YYYY-MM-DD is a date format explicitly allowed in citations, as per the text you yourself are quoting. The citation style used in the templaates was overwhelmingly YYYY-MM-DD. And GS knows that he wasn't meant to change it away from this- he was explicitly told this at the last AN/I thread. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 07:14, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
- My apologies. You're right. I completely misread that line. CambridgeBayWeather (#1 deranged), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 08:43, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
- @CambridgeBayWeather No worries, and sorry you had to witness my brain short circuiting! (real talk, you can pry YYYY-MM-DD out of my lifeless hands, I grew up in an British household in an immigrant & Alaska Native community. It's, like, the only version of a date formatting I can use consistently at this point
) GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 09:01, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
- Similar. I immigrated to Canada from the UK and everybody in the house but me is Inuk. I only use yyyy-mm-dd except for the horrendous format on Nav Canada forms which uses yymmddhhmm. CambridgeBayWeather (#1 deranged), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 09:37, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
- @CambridgeBayWeather No worries, and sorry you had to witness my brain short circuiting! (real talk, you can pry YYYY-MM-DD out of my lifeless hands, I grew up in an British household in an immigrant & Alaska Native community. It's, like, the only version of a date formatting I can use consistently at this point
- My apologies. You're right. I completely misread that line. CambridgeBayWeather (#1 deranged), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 08:43, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
- YYYY-MM-DD is a date format explicitly allowed in citations, as per the text you yourself are quoting. The citation style used in the templaates was overwhelmingly YYYY-MM-DD. And GS knows that he wasn't meant to change it away from this- he was explicitly told this at the last AN/I thread. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 07:14, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
- Because according to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers he didn't have too and it expressly says under "Consistency":
- If he tried to change all the reference dates to YYYY-MM-DD, he did a spectacularly bad job at it... GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 06:36, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
- GiantSnowman tried that following the line (but all-numeric date formats other than yyyy-mm-dd must still be avoided). and here we are. CambridgeBayWeather (#1 deranged), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 06:32, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
- If 4 out of 30 references use a date format and all 26 over use the exact same one, then it should be obvious to anybody actually reading the page which citation format was intended. I'm sorry that the four references bothered you so much; if you'd like to fix them to YYYY-MM-DD in the current version, you are more than welcome to. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 05:35, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, because the reference date formats were not consistent. Going back to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers in the section "Publication dates" just above the "Access and archive dates", again unlinkable. The full line says "Publication dates in an article's citations should all use the same format, which may be:" (my bolding) and then gives the choices. Looking at this which is the same I linked above, references numbered 3, 8, 20, and 29 use the US format and the others use yyyy-mm-dd. So based on the MOS it does require fixing. The should all be US or all be yyyy-mm-dd. CambridgeBayWeather (#1 deranged), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 05:24, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
- @CambridgeBayWeather And I see you missed mine. And, given you said "worse", while pointing to a revision where all the reference date formats were consistent, I'm not entirely sure I understand what you can possibly find objectionable other than the YYYY-MM-DD format. Can you explain? GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 04:32, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
- I see you missed the point. I am very familiar with all three types of writing dates. Canada use both the US and British format and my job involves the yyyy-mm-dd format, and is the one I use in day-to-day life, so it;s not that one type is jarring. What is jarring is that there are two different types used in the same reference. It should be consistent. As you point out Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Retaining existing format covers this where it says "If an article has evolved using predominantly one date format, this format should be used throughout the article, unless there are reasons for changing it based on the topic's strong ties to a particular English-speaking country, or consensus on the article's talk page." Also on Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers in the section "Access and archive dates" ( it allows for all three date type and does not prevent two different types in a reference. However, I merly pointed out that it looks jarring or, if you prefer, odd. CambridgeBayWeather (#1 deranged), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 04:18, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
- The script documentation seems to suggest it will still mess with the wikicode of publication dates in refs despite cs1-dates=ly. It feels like a hangover from the time before citation templates would auto-format dates. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 21:09, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- In which case the script needs changing so as to not overwrite cs1-dates=ly. GiantSnowman 17:55, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
- I think that this should be a broader discussion and that the TBAN proposal won't address the underlying issue, however if you continue to use a script that you know misbehaves you should be paying close attention to its output. This specific problem with YYYY-MM-DD dates has been raised and acknowledged before . REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 22:36, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
- In which case the script needs changing so as to not overwrite cs1-dates=ly. GiantSnowman 17:55, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
- To my reading Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Retaining existing format does not apply to yyyy-mm-dd dates but is saying don't change dd-mm-yy to mm-dd-yy 0and vice versa. As to being useless that's something else but look at reference 13 on Muriel Hannah ""Native scenes specialty of outstanding artist"'. Fairbanks Daily News-Miner. December 3, 1958. p. 100. Retrieved 2025-09-26 – via Newspapers.com." is somewhat jarring. And the way it looked before the GiantSnowman edit was even worse. While they may be cosmetic they aren't really useless CambridgeBayWeather (#1 deranged), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 08:56, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
How lovely for Voorts to start this thread when 1) I am not really online and 2) without recently discussing with me first. As I have said previously, my interpretation of the template documentation (and supported by e.g. Anomie and Mr rnddude here, and others elsewhere) is that edits like this are permitted. If the community agrees otherwise, then I will obviously not make such edits in the future. Just because you find something annoying is not a reason to drag me to ANI. GiantSnowman 09:22, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- Also as was flagged by somebody at a previous discussion, this is not WP:COSMETICBOT, this is "the "administration of the encyclopedia", such as the maintenance of hidden categories used to track maintenance backlogs". GiantSnowman 09:34, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- I didn't see your vacation thing until after I posted this at ANI. I also didn't think another post on your talk page would have changed anything. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:19, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- Voorts has already raised this issue on GS's talk page. —Fortuna, imperatrix 19:20, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, 2 months ago - and they never replied to my response. GiantSnowman 19:36, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- Noting that GS gave Voorts a non-response 2 months ago. —Fortuna, imperatrix 20:17, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- No, it wasn't. Stop ABFing. GiantSnowman 20:44, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
How lovely for Voorts to start this thread when ...
: ABFing max out. —Fortuna, imperatrix 20:50, 14 December 2025 (UTC)- Respectfully, what would you say if you were on holiday and had barely edited and a ANI thread had been started about you? GiantSnowman 17:56, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
- That's why I stopped advertising (on en.wp) whenever I'm on vacation or travelling for work because someone could start an ANI or admin recall against me in my absence and without ability to properly defend. Sorry that someone tried to "vacation snipe" you, GiantSnowman. OhanaUnitedTalk page 19:32, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
- Respectfully, what would you say if you were on holiday and had barely edited and a ANI thread had been started about you? GiantSnowman 17:56, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
- No, it wasn't. Stop ABFing. GiantSnowman 20:44, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- Your response was to again deny there was an issue. I didn't see the point in arguing further. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:17, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- "I didn't see the point in arguing further, so I waited 2 months then brought you to ANI in order to argue further". GiantSnowman 20:45, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- I didn't come here to argue. I saw the edit in my watchlist, and I came here to make a report. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:47, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- Sorry but that's embarrassingly disingenuous. GiantSnowman 20:51, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- The only thing I've now argued about with you is whether I intended to argue with you. In my view, your edits are in contravention of COSMETICBOT, as I've stated in the past. If I'm wrong, the community will say so. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:02, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
If I'm wrong, the community will say so.
Since you asked, and with my BAG hat on: An edit such as Special:Diff/1313884803/1327221927 is not in violation of WP:COSMETICBOT, as it qualifies as substantive per the "administration of the encyclopedia" bullet. Edits that combine such a change along with some cosmetic changes (such as changing of YYYY-MM-DD dates to another format where the cite templates will auto-reformat them) are also not in violation of WP:COSMETICBOT, as they include a substantive change along with the cosmetic changes. Whether or not those date changes contravene WP:DATERET or are allowed by MOS:DATEUNIFY does not affect WP:COSMETICBOT. Anomie⚔ 23:00, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- The only thing I've now argued about with you is whether I intended to argue with you. In my view, your edits are in contravention of COSMETICBOT, as I've stated in the past. If I'm wrong, the community will say so. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:02, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- Sorry but that's embarrassingly disingenuous. GiantSnowman 20:51, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- I didn't come here to argue. I saw the edit in my watchlist, and I came here to make a report. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:47, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- "I didn't see the point in arguing further, so I waited 2 months then brought you to ANI in order to argue further". GiantSnowman 20:45, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- Noting that GS gave Voorts a non-response 2 months ago. —Fortuna, imperatrix 20:17, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, 2 months ago - and they never replied to my response. GiantSnowman 19:36, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- As I said in that September ANI thread.
I don't think we need, at this time, an explicit prohibition of use of automated tools by GS, but they should bear in mind that "once is an accident, twice coincidence, but three times is a pattern" and this is at least, that I am aware of the second time - they must take more care with the use of automated editing tools, because a third recurrence will likely see a sanction proposed with regards to automated tool useage
. GS is continuing to make these pointless, or nearly pointless, cosmetic edits, with no sign of taking on board any of the concerns the community has raised with them on at least three occasions; I actually wrote this up yesterday but tabled it in hopes of a constructive response from GS. My hopes were low but they have been met by the especially combative reponses above, and thus that time has come. I formally propose that GiantSnowman be topic-banned from using automated or semi-automated tools, including but not limited to scripts, to perform edits on Wikipedia. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:06, 14 December 2025 (UTC)- I have already said that "If the community agrees otherwise, then I will obviously not make such edits in the future". However, nobody has actually explained why these edits contradict COSMETICBOT, whereas a number of editors have explained why they do not. Furthermore, where is the evidence that my use of such script(s) is disruptive and merits a topic ban? GiantSnowman 21:14, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- Support topic ban, I am not satisfied with User:GiantSnowman's responses to the accusations of useless semi-automated edits above. — AP 499D25 (talk) 10:22, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
- Support topic ban. These problems have been going on for years, and all we get in response is IDHT and blaming the script ("In which case the script needs changing" above). To throw another example onto the pile, this edit rigorously enforced the dmy date format, to the extent that it modified the name of a proper noun. This is completely unacceptable. Toadspike [Talk] 16:03, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
- Firstly, I'd suggest that your assertion that changing 'June 4' to '4 June' is disruptive editing of a proper noun is at best huge stretch, given it's not actually a proper noun, the date format on the article you link is '4 June', and '4 June is used in reliable sources (e.g. Matthew Fellion and Katherine Inglis (2017). Censored: A Literary History of Subversion & Control. British Library. p. 353.
The night of 3 June and morning of 4 June 1989 saw the government deploy the army...
). - Secondly, I repeat my above concern (which nobody appears to have bothered to consider) that the proposed topic ban is too wide. A ban from all scripts would significantly hinder normal editing (e.g. I couldn't use Reply to reply to talk page posts, couldn't use ReFill to fix references, couldn't use HotCat to fix categories etc. etc. - all things which have not formed part of the discussion here (because there are no issues!)) to the point where I would likely simply just stop editing.
- Thirdly, as I said yesterday, I am away for a long weekend after today, not back till very late on Sunday at the earliest. Given the toll this discussion is having on me, I'm not sure I will actually bother to return. GiantSnowman 17:59, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
- I deliberately chose the order I used to highlight the significance of that date; I suppose "June 4th" could make it even clearer. That is the common name of the event in both English and Chinese, and the name used in the lead of our article and the titles of related articles.
- I accept that maybe my intention wasn't clear, but I do take issue to the change, which you marked as minor and which I have now reverted. At the very least this illustrates that these edits are not helpful; in my view it also shows how they can be a waste of editor time and harmful to readers. Toadspike [Talk] 18:19, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
- If you take issue with an edit, you are free to revert and then we discuss (and I could have provided my justification, had you needed it - but you've ignored it as it doesn't suit your agenda). That's kinda how things work around here. Jumping from that to a topic ban on all scripts? Sweet. GiantSnowman 18:25, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
- @GiantSnowman I'm pretty sure no one is seriously suggesting you can't use the Reply tool.
- Please do take the break. Stress from an encyclopedia is not worth it. Star Mississippi 18:20, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
- "GiantSnowman be topic-banned from using automated or semi-automated tools, including but not limited to scripts" - WP:REPLYTOOL is a script. I would therefore be banned from using it, should the topic ban be passed. Fram below also suggested I be banned from all MOS edits - how on earth could I comply with that?!
- It doesn't matter. No matter what I do or say is twisted, and it's clear the community doesn't appreciate me and doesn't want me here. GiantSnowman 18:23, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
- Firstly, I'd suggest that your assertion that changing 'June 4' to '4 June' is disruptive editing of a proper noun is at best huge stretch, given it's not actually a proper noun, the date format on the article you link is '4 June', and '4 June is used in reliable sources (e.g. Matthew Fellion and Katherine Inglis (2017). Censored: A Literary History of Subversion & Control. British Library. p. 353.
- If someone proposes to change the documentation of the date format templates to be clearer that updating the date without making any changes is not a useful edit, please ping me so I can support it. The defense of these edits is always bizarre to me. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:42, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- If the purpose of the date change is to indicate to others going through the "review date formatting" backlog that the page has been checked and doesn't need to be checked again for a while, it may in fact be a useful edit. Whether there's a "better" way to accomplish that would be a matter to discuss with people who work that backlog. Anomie⚔ 23:09, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, nobody on the 'useless' side has explained why. GiantSnowman 17:56, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
- I explained why both times on your talk page. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:02, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
- No, you have not. You just say "you're violating COSMETICBOT" and leave it at that - me and others here have already explained why COSMECTICBOT does not apply (or, at least, we think it doesn't), which just seems to fall on deaf ears. GiantSnowman 18:12, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
- First time I discussed this issue with you:
I was referring to the edits to the citations, which are cosmetic edits since it didn't change any displayed text. MOS:DATE and MOS:DATEUNIFY also say the format YYYY-MM-DD is acceptable for use in citations.
- Second time:
I've previously advised that cosmetic edits like this are not helpful and violate WP:COSMETICBOT. It's much easier to consistently type in YYYY-MM-DD instead of MMMM DD, YYYY, and existing styles should be retained. Edits like this, which clog up editors' watchlists, are even less useful. While I appreciate that you want to clean up articles appearing on the main page, there are better ways to go about doing that.
- First time I discussed this issue with you:
- voorts (talk/contributions) 20:40, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
- No, you have not. You just say "you're violating COSMETICBOT" and leave it at that - me and others here have already explained why COSMECTICBOT does not apply (or, at least, we think it doesn't), which just seems to fall on deaf ears. GiantSnowman 18:12, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
- I explained why both times on your talk page. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:02, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, nobody on the 'useless' side has explained why. GiantSnowman 17:56, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
- If the purpose of the date change is to indicate to others going through the "review date formatting" backlog that the page has been checked and doesn't need to be checked again for a while, it may in fact be a useful edit. Whether there's a "better" way to accomplish that would be a matter to discuss with people who work that backlog. Anomie⚔ 23:09, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- I thought what Rhododendrites described was already true / common sense, but if there needs to be an RFC or something to affirm the obvious, let's do it. Updating the dates on maintenance templates is real churn on editor attention for no discernible benefit, and is an unhelpful cosmetic edit. Alternatively, if this can just be acclaimed by consensus, let's do it, but in the interim stop any of these types of edits. SnowFire (talk) 05:54, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
- I have already said that if there is consensus that such edits should not be made (and I do not think ANI is the place for that discussion), I will not make these edits. GiantSnowman 17:57, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
- To me this reads as "Yes, there needs to be an RFC to affirm the obvious, because otherwise I will keep doing it". But perhaps I am misreading. Was that your intention? —David Eppstein (talk) 00:19, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
- I think his intention was 'I want crystal clear consensus on whether modifying dateformats in templates are an issue, rather than conflicting opinions'. ~2025-31733-18 (talk) 17:59, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
- To me this reads as "Yes, there needs to be an RFC to affirm the obvious, because otherwise I will keep doing it". But perhaps I am misreading. Was that your intention? —David Eppstein (talk) 00:19, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
- I have already said that if there is consensus that such edits should not be made (and I do not think ANI is the place for that discussion), I will not make these edits. GiantSnowman 17:57, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
- How many indefinte restrictions does one admin need, I wonder. A topic ban or any other restriction imposed here would merely augment GS's arbcom-imposed restrictions on their use of the rollback and blocking tool. (Logged.) —Fortuna, imperatrix 17:40, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
- Molehill. Respectfully. —Rutebega (talk) 22:53, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
- I agree with Rutebega, this seems blown out of proportion to me. The first example given is of GS thanking Voorts for correcting him and the second was GS seeking clarification on what the consensus is around this practice which was not responded to. I think it would have made more sense to warn him and/or respond to all of his inquiries rather than institute a sanction against him. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 17:22, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
- He thanked me the first time then repeated it. The second time he basically asserted there was no issue despite my explaining the issue. I also haven't asked for a sanction here. I merely reported the issue. I'd be happy if GS said "sure, I'll stop". Surely there are better ways an editor of GS's experience can spend their time than patrolling the front page to run unnecessary "audits" that don't actually improve content. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:33, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
- Your opinion that these are "unnecessary audits" is not supported by others here, or COSMETICBOT, or the template documentation itself etc. If it annoys you so much - when I tidy up 5-15 articles per day on the main page - simply ignore me. GiantSnowman 18:16, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
- Your edit to Addie Viola Smith didn't tidy up anything. It changed the date in a single template and did nothing else. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:28, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
- Your opinion that these are "unnecessary audits" is not supported by others here, or COSMETICBOT, or the template documentation itself etc. If it annoys you so much - when I tidy up 5-15 articles per day on the main page - simply ignore me. GiantSnowman 18:16, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
- He thanked me the first time then repeated it. The second time he basically asserted there was no issue despite my explaining the issue. I also haven't asked for a sanction here. I merely reported the issue. I'd be happy if GS said "sure, I'll stop". Surely there are better ways an editor of GS's experience can spend their time than patrolling the front page to run unnecessary "audits" that don't actually improve content. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:33, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose Agree with Rutebega and Gjb0zWxOb. We are approaching WP:BIKESHED territory. OhanaUnitedTalk page 19:23, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
Other issues
While we're at it, can we also please get him to stop with the complete removal information from articles just because the MOS says it should be in a different location? I have reverted these (found through the use of the incorrect edit summary), don't know if there are others in the same vein with other edit summaries. ... Fram (talk) 09:56, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
- I already thought this was familiar somehow... I raised the exact same issue in 2021 as well, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1075#GiantSnowman prefering style over content?, starting with "Having just seen an edit by GiantSnowman on my watchlist, I get really concerned about their preference of style over content. Here they cite the MOS as a reason to remove the birth and death place from the first line of the article. Fine, I suppose (I haven't checked the MOS), but the result is that the information is completely removed from the article. "... No idea how to tailor a topic ban for this one, perhaps a ban on removal of content based on MOS issues? Fram (talk) 10:16, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
- Those removals are fine.
the result is that the information is completely removed from the article
Not a big deal if you ask me. Anyone can add the places of birth and death to the body of an article. Robby.is.on (talk) 11:10, 17 December 2025 (UTC)- Really???? It is more important to follow a manual of style rule than to have the information in the article? What a dreadful attitude to article writing. Fram (talk) 11:15, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
- Agreed. I was under the impression that the purpose of an encyclopaedia (or at least, of something aspiring to be one) was to provide relevant information to readers, rather than as a platform for some sort of game involving arbitrary rule-mongering. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:26, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
- It's "relevant information" but not essential. As the MOS indicates, the goal is to have the places of birth and death in the body but not in the lede. Removing them from the lede gets us closer to that goal. Robby.is.on (talk) 11:35, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
- April 1st is still 4 months away, you know? In what way does removing information from an article "get us closer" to having that information in the body of the article? I guess if a "see also" section is placed after the references, you would also simply remove it because that would bring us closer to having it at the right spot somehow? The place of birth and death may not be essential, but it is undoubtedly of more value than having a MOS-compliant opening sentence. Pretending that an article is better after this or this is really troublesome. Never mind that these changes cause us to have categories unsupported by the article, which is a worse MOS violation than having the place of birth in the lead sentence... Fram (talk) 11:45, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
- You reverted the first of the two diffs, an MOS-compliant edit, instead of adding the birthplace to the body. That's disruptive.
Never mind that these changes cause us to have categories unsupported by the article, which is a worse MOS violation than having the place of birth in the lead sentence...
Is it though? Before GS removed the birthplace from the lede there wasn't just an unsourced category (many users don't care about categories, let alone see them if they're on mobile devices), the birthplace in the lede was also without an inline citation; to me that's undoubtedly worse. - This issue is tangential to the initial report. It's a distraction that is not helpful to the person who made the initial report. And I can imagine it feels like a pile-on for GS. Robby.is.on (talk) 11:57, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
- It's hardly tangential, it's a pattern of making unwanted or unnecessary edits based on some one-sided reading of instructions. Fram (talk) 13:49, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
- MOS-compliant vandalism is still vandalism. Deliberately removing information from an article because it is placed in the wrong spot is vandalism. I hope the worst you do is defending this type of edits from someone else, and aren't doing the same as well. Fram (talk) 13:51, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
- I have to agree with Fram here. It is more important that the article contain correct, relevant information (ideally sourced) than it conforms to the manual of style (which is explicitly a guideline not a straightjacket). If some information in the article is in the wrong place, move it don't remove it. Thryduulf (talk) 15:01, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
(ideally sourced)
Not just "ideally". WP:Verifiability is not optional. Robby.is.on (talk) 17:43, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
I hope the worst you do is defending this type of edits from someone else, and aren't doing the same as well.
The Françoise Chandernagor article has zero inline citations and two external links, of which one is usurped and one contains no text. You restored the unsourced birthplace in your revert there. To me that is more 1 April than anything GS has been accused of here. Robby.is.on (talk) 17:43, 17 December 2025 (UTC)- Nope, that’s not even remotely close to being vandalism, but your comment above is a personal attack. ~2025-41378-93 (talk) 18:45, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
- I have to agree with Fram here. It is more important that the article contain correct, relevant information (ideally sourced) than it conforms to the manual of style (which is explicitly a guideline not a straightjacket). If some information in the article is in the wrong place, move it don't remove it. Thryduulf (talk) 15:01, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
- You reverted the first of the two diffs, an MOS-compliant edit, instead of adding the birthplace to the body. That's disruptive.
- April 1st is still 4 months away, you know? In what way does removing information from an article "get us closer" to having that information in the body of the article? I guess if a "see also" section is placed after the references, you would also simply remove it because that would bring us closer to having it at the right spot somehow? The place of birth and death may not be essential, but it is undoubtedly of more value than having a MOS-compliant opening sentence. Pretending that an article is better after this or this is really troublesome. Never mind that these changes cause us to have categories unsupported by the article, which is a worse MOS violation than having the place of birth in the lead sentence... Fram (talk) 11:45, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
- It's "relevant information" but not essential. As the MOS indicates, the goal is to have the places of birth and death in the body but not in the lede. Removing them from the lede gets us closer to that goal. Robby.is.on (talk) 11:35, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
- Agreed. I was under the impression that the purpose of an encyclopaedia (or at least, of something aspiring to be one) was to provide relevant information to readers, rather than as a platform for some sort of game involving arbitrary rule-mongering. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:26, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
- Really???? It is more important to follow a manual of style rule than to have the information in the article? What a dreadful attitude to article writing. Fram (talk) 11:15, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
In response to Fram's points, already adequately rebutted above by Robby (for which I am grateful):
Firstly, my edit summary is NOT incorrect - MOS:OPENPARABIO says (albeit within the MOS:BIRTHPLACE sub-section, but that is nevertheless part of OPENPARABIO), that Birth and death places [...] should be mentioned in the body of the article [...] but not in the opening brackets alongside the birth and death dates
. I do not see how me editing to comply with the Manual of Style is disruptive. Calling it "MOS-compliant vandalism" seems way over the top. See WP:NOTVAND.
Secondly, in cases where the information is sourced, I do relocate it - example here. In all of the examples above, I removed it completely because it was unsourced. Again, I do not see how editing in-line with policies about sourcing is disruptive.
As Robby points out, we have policies like WP:BLP (Be very firm about the use of high-quality, reliable sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Contentious material about living (or, in some cases, recently deceased) persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion
) and WP:BURDEN (All content must be verifiable. A fact or claim is "verifiable" if a reliable source that supports it could be cited, even if there is no citation for it in the article at the moment. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing one inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution [...] facts or claims without an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports them may be removed. They should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source
).
So all that Fram has done above is mass revert my good faith changes, in breach of MOS, and in breach of policies regarding BLP/V, by re-adding unsourced content to articles, including a number of BLPs. That makes the encyclopaedia better how? I'd invite an uninvolved admin to BOOMERANG but I'm sick of this unnecessary drama/griping. Nobody is benefitting. So, I'd instead invite Fram to self-revert, and move the (sourced!) place of birth to the prose.
Thirdly, the way that Thryduulf has approached this matter (sensible, neutral, gentle advice and guidance) is far more appreciated and welcome than the approach of others here, and is a much more productive way of dealing with any issues. So yes, Robby, it does feel like a pile on (e.g. someone re-raising something which annoyed them 4 years ago, and being unjustly accused of vandalism). GiantSnowman 18:15, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
- "Firstly", your edit summary says "birth/death dates not in opening brackets - MOS:OPENPARABIO" (emphasis mine). Please tell me again how that is not incorrect? Fram (talk) 18:38, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
- Secondly, " in cases where the information is sourced, I do relocate it [...] In all of the examples above, I removed it completely because it was unsourced." Yeah, you tried that same line of defense last time as well, and it was incorrect then and it is incorrect now..
- The BLP/V defense is extremely weak. You didn't remove this out of any concern over these policies, which would apply to nearly everything in those articles. Furthermore, deleting uncontroversial material without ay attempt to even find a source or to tag it with CN is disruptive. The place of birth or death of people who have died a long time ago is not something that would warrant instant removal even if WP:V was your actual concern and not an excuse you are abusing now. Fram (talk) 18:48, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
- Thirdly, "someone re-raising something which annoyed them 4 years ago, ": yes, you promised you would do better then, and it turns out that this is false. You clearly have no intention of voluntarily changing your approach here (or above) just like with many other issues over the years. That's why you have your restrictions, because only brute force seems to succeeds in stopping you. Fram (talk) 18:51, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
- I clearly meant 'places' (it's a drop-down summary saved on my browser, hence why it's wrong every time, I've simply never noticed - and neither has anybody else until today given it's not been flagged previously), and I'll make sure in future it's corrected, and I will also make it clear that if I'm removing the place of birth completely, I'll make clear why. I am not comfortably simply moving unsourced content around, and BURDEN makes it clear I am absolutely fine to just remove it. GiantSnowman 18:56, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
- BURDEN comes into play when verifiability is challenged. You didn't do any of this until today. You removed sourced and unsourced information equally. You did not care about any other unsourced information (e.g. removing the place but not the date), making it obvious that WP:V was not your concern with these edits at all. And in general, removing easily sourceable information instead of trying to find a source or giving people an alert that things need a source (by adding CN or another tag) has been judged disruptive editing in the past (if it is a pattern, not a one-off removal). Fram (talk) 19:13, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
- I'll hold my hands up and apologise on Lara Lewington (I didn't scroll down enough on the source, although if you think that's adequately sourced to her own website, for a BLP, more fool you), but I will not have my editing or my motives questioned, I will not have this mis-construed as some kind of disruptive patten, and especially not with false accusations of vandalism still floating about.
- You say "You did not care about any other unsourced information" - well, I can't win can I? If I'd have stripped the article of everything unsourced, you'd no doubt have complained about that. GiantSnowman 19:26, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
- You, er, have a problem with sourcing a non-contentious place of birth to someone's own website? You are aware of WP:ABOUTSELF, right? "More fool you", sure... And yes, I will "question" your motives if it is obvious that you were not going after these places of birth or death because of WP:V concerns, but because of MOS concerns. Denying this would be rather ridiculous. Fram (talk) 19:30, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
- Then how do you explain my example (and there are more, I simply don't have the time to crawl through years of contribs) when I re-located rather than removed? That does not tally with your theory. GiantSnowman 19:37, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
- You, er, have a problem with sourcing a non-contentious place of birth to someone's own website? You are aware of WP:ABOUTSELF, right? "More fool you", sure... And yes, I will "question" your motives if it is obvious that you were not going after these places of birth or death because of WP:V concerns, but because of MOS concerns. Denying this would be rather ridiculous. Fram (talk) 19:30, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
- BURDEN comes into play when verifiability is challenged. You didn't do any of this until today. You removed sourced and unsourced information equally. You did not care about any other unsourced information (e.g. removing the place but not the date), making it obvious that WP:V was not your concern with these edits at all. And in general, removing easily sourceable information instead of trying to find a source or giving people an alert that things need a source (by adding CN or another tag) has been judged disruptive editing in the past (if it is a pattern, not a one-off removal). Fram (talk) 19:13, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
- I clearly meant 'places' (it's a drop-down summary saved on my browser, hence why it's wrong every time, I've simply never noticed - and neither has anybody else until today given it's not been flagged previously), and I'll make sure in future it's corrected, and I will also make it clear that if I'm removing the place of birth completely, I'll make clear why. I am not comfortably simply moving unsourced content around, and BURDEN makes it clear I am absolutely fine to just remove it. GiantSnowman 18:56, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
Suppor topic ban as proposed by the Bushranger (or a wider one or second one to encompass MOS edits as well). Just now, they made this script-assisted dates edit, where the only change was to change a title in a reference to an incorrect one. Enough is enough. Fram (talk) 19:33, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
- A genuine error which I've already self-reverted when I realised. GiantSnowman 19:36, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose topic ban for the moment as people are having conflicting opinions on whether this counts as WP:COSMETICBOT at all. There needs to be an agreement among nigh everyone in this thread that it counts as WP:COSMETICBOT — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2025-31733-18 (talk) 20:18, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
Draft:Kyle McAdam: writing a page in your userspace, then histmerging it with a later creation by another editor in mainspace, moving it to draft (no idea why), and reverting it to your own version, all gives a distinct whiff of WP:INVOLVED use of the tools as well. Fram (talk) 20:36, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
- @Fram Could you start a new section or subsection for all the seemingly unrelated findings from your recent enthusiastic digging? — DVRTed (Talk) 20:49, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
The unhelpful attitude towards editing is still way too present as well, sadly. Since 20 October, the article Giannis Anastasiou has in the section "Managerial statistics" an entry for his stint at Panetolikos, sourced like all the other entries in that list. His managerial career is also listed in the infobox, without sources (which is normal for an infobox). But for some reason GiantSnowman doesn't allow anyone to add it to the infobox. They have reverted this on 23 October, 8 December and today, each time leaving a message that they were unable to find a source. I have now readded it with a source in the infobox, but none of this should have been necessary, and the information could have been in the infobox for two months already. And this looks to be typical. The reverts at Reece James are dubious (the source perhaps isn't the best, but it's not as if the information isn't correct or relevant, as evidenced by . Same goes for this revert; it may be unsourced, but it is clearly true(. Such reverts are not helpful (and in the Anastasiou case simply and repeatedly wrong).
These are not diffs found through extensive digging, these are the three most recent reverts they made, all this evening. Fram (talk) 19:44, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
- You should familiarise yourself with WP:BURDEN. Robby.is.on (talk) 20:47, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
- Apart from the fact that this is hardly relevant here (burden is mostly about how others should deal with it after removal, and the first two examples were already sourced anyway), have you actually read it? Things like "If you think the material is verifiable, you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before removing or tagging it"? People are always talking about collaboration, but instead we get lazy removals of easily verifiable, relevant information, discouraging new or newish editors. Fram (talk) 22:02, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
If you think the material is verifiable, you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before removing or tagging it
Yes, it's encouraged and I like to do it but it's not mandatory. Robby.is.on (talk) 22:12, 18 December 2025 (UTC)- Which doesn´t explain why you think I should familiarize myself with BURDEN when 2 of the 3 examples were sourced anyway, and the 3rd one was so trivial to check. Why do you believe that, if someone is today in their last 3 edits clearly unhelpful, and in one of those has been equally unhelpful and wrong for 2 months now, that your reply was in any way a useful answer? Not the first time in this discussion, above you were wrong about verifiability as well. Fram (talk) 22:28, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
- Apart from the fact that this is hardly relevant here (burden is mostly about how others should deal with it after removal, and the first two examples were already sourced anyway), have you actually read it? Things like "If you think the material is verifiable, you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before removing or tagging it"? People are always talking about collaboration, but instead we get lazy removals of easily verifiable, relevant information, discouraging new or newish editors. Fram (talk) 22:02, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
- The Reece James revert is a bit of a nothing burger. Given the context that the infobox is a summary of the body, the Style of play section currently states
James began playing as a striker, moving to become a winger, then a midfielder, before becoming a right back.
and per the source you suggested in his own words...one day it just clicked and I've been a right-back since
. The implication is that he has played midfield, not that this is his current position, which is what the infobox parameter is effectively based onmost common position or positions
, while the sourcing is recent from October. I'd agree that back in April until then (or maybe even sooner) it would have qualified in the article and therefore in the infobox, maybe even in the first sentence at a push, but it's not his current position anymore. I also probably wouldn't of reverted twice myself, but I definitely wouldn't of tried to restore it after being reverted either. I'm otherwise not seeing any issues with reverting unsourced BLP edits per other examples, I do find it contentious to make claims about living people being a manager of X or former manager of Y without adequate sourcing.For context I see the script-based editing as something the community considers a problem, unlike these edits. CNC (talk) 17:22, 19 December 2025 (UTC)- It's not his current position any more? "James leaving injuries behind and becoming midfield star for Chelsea", 5 December 2025. As for the other edits, you seem to want to have your cake and eat it as well. On the one hand you claim that the infobox should reflect the article (good), but when at Giannis Anastasiou the infobox is changed to match the article, you have no issue with that being reverted either... Fram (talk) 17:48, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
- My bad I didn't notice that for Giannis Anastasiou, you're right those are bad reverts. I'll put the cake away now. As for James, then this needs to be added to the article and summarised to the infobox. I was basing my judgement on what was in the article and the sources you provided, which was unconvincing. I ignored the primary source if not obvious as we're not desperate for sources here, and because they would say that wouldn't they to promote their asset? And if I'm honest I don't like Premier League either as primary, as arguably they are also invested in saying that, given the PL is owned by Chelsea among other clubs, so it's hardly independent. Sure you could call Adrian Clarke an expert, sort of, but he's being paid by a corporation to publish a column about the corporations interests. How about some independent secondary up to date sourcing? To be clear I'm not saying it's not true, only that to me it fails DUE even if V is there. If there wasn't any better sourcing, then sure we'd run with primary but we're past that now based on coverage. CNC (talk) 18:15, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
- It's not his current position any more? "James leaving injuries behind and becoming midfield star for Chelsea", 5 December 2025. As for the other edits, you seem to want to have your cake and eat it as well. On the one hand you claim that the infobox should reflect the article (good), but when at Giannis Anastasiou the infobox is changed to match the article, you have no issue with that being reverted either... Fram (talk) 17:48, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
Looking at other very recent reverts, I see e.g. this revert for "natioalistic vandalism". Considering that the first source in the article lists him as both English and Congolese and the second one only as Congolese, the revert back is at least just as much or just as little "nationalistic vandalism" as the edit was.
Or here he reverts "false stats" when someone claimed that Kevin Larsson had scored 11 goals for JMU, and GiantSnowman reverted back to 6. Too bad that the source in the article lists 1 goal (2022), 5 goals (2023) and 5 goals (2024), for a total of 11, not 6. Of course the IP, who only tried to improve the article, gets escalating vandalism warnings. The previous time they were reverted, GiantSnowman called their correction "nonsense".
It appears that the restriction against reverts without edit summary and against blocking has only lead to making incorrect reverts with edit summary, but not to any real improvements. Fram (talk) 15:15, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
- Re: Kevin Larsson, GS is not wrong describing the edit as false stats for two reasons. Firstly the stats were stated as being correct
as of 17:36, 26 January 2024
, but given 5 of those goals were in 2024 after this date, this fails verification plain and simple (it's wrong). Secondly, even if the timestamp had been updated, it would be still be wrong due to the number of appearances that has increased to 56 (from 39). Not forgetting the rest of the stats that would need updating to also be accurate for the timestamp. Ie it's not just considered good etiquette to update all team stats when updating, it's a basic requirement for verification purposes, and one of the reasons we have timestamps in order to try and mitigate this chronic problem. So in these cases, if editors are going to incorrectly update infobox stats that fails verification, it's routine to reverts these tbh. Yes it's naturally a lot better if just updated, but overall better correct than incorrect, even if outdated. - I'm not defending the edit summaries or vandal-templating here, it would be better explained why the edit was wrong and thus reverted, and it certainly isn't vandalism, it's clearly a good faith edit done badly, twice. However it is best to correctly warn users from making these disruptive edits to infobox stats as editors can and have been blocked for continuing to do this (it's a relative problem in the topic area for reference sake, leading to inaccurate statistics across BLPs). So I'm not going to pretend I would of done much different other than explaining the reason for reverting properly in the edit summary or on talk page as I have done in the past with editors, ie if I'm not going to undertake the edit they are attempting by doing all the work for them. CNC (talk) 16:42, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
- The 2024 date is for the League stats, not for the college stats which already listed 2025 stats as well anyway. The football project seems to have made a way too complex system they try and fail to maintain or explain correctly. But people trying to help get reverted and warned. And the Congo edit wasn´t wrong or at least was an improvement, it better reflected the sources than the earlier version. Fram (talk) 17:09, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
- It's technically club statistics:
A timestamp at which the player's infobox club statistics are unambiguously correct
or at least that's how's it's used as an unwritten etiquette, applying the college stats caveat ofall competitive matches
rather than league for these, as there is no timestamping option for college stats. So I'd argue GS's revert was better than the reverted edit, but I can see how others would also disagree with it based on subjective nature of timestamp/accuracy. But either way, claiming a player scored 11 goals in 39 goals (when it was 56) is wrong and a far cry from unambiguously correct. - I agree the footy project does have complex mos, and it's not easy to explain to others, nor very intuitive. Also generally agree that if one can't be bothered to explain why an edit is nonconstructive/wrong, when it's not obvious and a template isn't covering it, then one shouldn't be reverting. And even if that's what a lot of editors in that topic area engage in (and worse such as not even paying lip service to explaining reverts), the difference is they are not held to same standards. CNC (talk) 17:51, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
- It's technically club statistics:
- The 2024 date is for the League stats, not for the college stats which already listed 2025 stats as well anyway. The football project seems to have made a way too complex system they try and fail to maintain or explain correctly. But people trying to help get reverted and warned. And the Congo edit wasn´t wrong or at least was an improvement, it better reflected the sources than the earlier version. Fram (talk) 17:09, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
- OK should probably walk away now, just wanted to comment on the footy related edits. Granted there are bad reverts per Fram and Giannis Anastasiou, presumably by mistake, but twice unfortunately. There are also legitimate reverts of edits that do not conform to the MOS of football BLPs, by that I mean edits that fail V, DUE or INFOBOXPURPOSE. Overall from the diffs of reverts provided, as well as subsequent warnings, I'd say it's about the average standard for editing in that topic area, one which is fairly common for macho style bold reverting (often with no edit summaries at all), which makes it below the standard expected of admin conduct. No opinion on the topic ban proposal as it's unrelated. CNC (talk) 18:29, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
- Support topic ban, anyone exercising some basic common sense would had stopped making these pointless edits after the previous ANI. Cavarrone 09:34, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
- I feel like I am going insane shouting into the void here, but I repeat, very simply, for the benefit of the closing admin more than anything:
- 1) It was been repeatedly explained, by me and others (e.g. Anomie/CBW) why these edits are NOT "pointless", do NOT violate COSMETICBOT, and are fully in-line with the documentation of the relevant {{use DMY}}/{{use MDY}} templates. It increasingly feels that those !voting have not actually read the discussion at all, but instead simply seen a couple of editors moaning and said "yeah, OK then, good enough for me to pile on".
- 2) I have expressed concerns about the proposed scope of the topic ban (i.e. from ALL scripts, not just the one in discussion), which again nobody has dealt with, and it feels like those !voting have not actually considered this.
- This is not aimed at Cavarrone, they are just the unlucky person to have commented most recently! GiantSnowman 17:13, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
- @GiantSnowman, I'm trying to understand your argument – can you explain what this edit accomplished? – bradv 17:28, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
- Of course - the template documentation says
The parameter |date= is intended to track the most recent month and year in which an editor checked the article for inconsistent date formatting
. So, for the diff you query, I undertook the audit and updated the date to show that that had happened. This tells any other editor doing the same that the article has been checked this month. Indeed, this is the purpose of the script in discussion here, as the template documentation also saysAfter an article is tagged, periodic script runs clean up formats, correcting any new introductions since the last edit using the script, and updating the tracking date parameter in the [...] template
. GiantSnowman 17:34, 22 December 2025 (UTC)- I'll also add that such edits are fully exempted from WP:COSMETICBOT, being
the "administration of the encyclopedia", such as the maintenance of hidden categories used to track maintenance backlogs
. GiantSnowman 17:42, 22 December 2025 (UTC)- regardless of whether they're exempted, since there is some concern about these edits would you be willing to stop doing them at least while the ANI discussion is running? Continuing to add more edits isn't going to help resolve this discussion in one direction or another. Star Mississippi 17:51, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
- So your argument is that edits like these don't violate WP:COSMETICBOT (in which case COSMETICBOT clearly needs to change, as it is toothless). But I'll ask again – what does an edit like this accomplish? In what way does it contribute to the production of an encyclopedia? Furthermore, is there a limit to frequency and scope of these changes? In other words, should we be updating these tags every month on all six million articles? – bradv 22:35, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
- Not quite, my argument is that these edits are within the template documentaion/intention, and not prohibited by COSMETICBOT. As for purpose -
Use of this template is part of a continuing effort to monitor the date formats used in articles, to assist in maintaining consistent formatting within an article
. As for frequency - I am not aware. I presume a bot at one point did or was intended to monitor this? Personally I make, on average, I'd estimate 10 edits per day using this script, of which only a small number are the so-called 'pointless' date update of the template. And to clarify, I do not edit the same articles month after month - now that is pointless...! Generally, if I have seen that an audit has been performed recently (2-3 months usually), I move on. - After this evening, note that I am largely away for Xmas, with limited time (more so on 26th I hope). GiantSnowman 18:04, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
- You say "audit", but do you actually do an audit? If the tool you're using goes through the article and finds that nothing needs to be updated, why save the edit? This one, for instance – what's the point of checking the article and announcing that nothing needed to be fixed? Who does this help? (And please don't tell me again that they're not prohibited – that's not my question.) – bradv 18:29, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
- That date change reflects
the most recent month and year in which an editor checked the article for inconsistent date formatting
. It helps other editors undertaking similar audits in the future - otherwise what is the point of having a date in the template at all? GiantSnowman 18:49, 23 December 2025 (UTC)- So a pointless edit, just to save other people from making the same pointless edit. Will you agree to stop this, or do I need to propose an editing restriction? I'll note that there are at least two editing restrictions for this exact behaviour logged at WP:EDRC, so there's a clear precedent here. – bradv 18:58, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
- That date change reflects
- You say "audit", but do you actually do an audit? If the tool you're using goes through the article and finds that nothing needs to be updated, why save the edit? This one, for instance – what's the point of checking the article and announcing that nothing needed to be fixed? Who does this help? (And please don't tell me again that they're not prohibited – that's not my question.) – bradv 18:29, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
in which case COSMETICBOT clearly needs to change, as it is toothless
With my BAG hat on: No, it does not clearly need to change, and it is not toothless. The clause was included for good reason during the rewrite in 2017. The clause was discussed again, in the context of the specific edits you dislike, in 2023, and again there was no consensus to change the policy. You're welcome to bring it up again at WT:BOTPOL if you think consensus may have changed, but you'll probably have to do better than "I don't agree with these specific edits affecting a few specific templates" to establish that it has. You're also welcome to start a discussion about the templates' documentation calling for the edits that you don't understand, but the templates' talk page or a Village pump would probably be better for that than ANI. Anomie⚔ 19:10, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
- Not quite, my argument is that these edits are within the template documentaion/intention, and not prohibited by COSMETICBOT. As for purpose -
- I'll also add that such edits are fully exempted from WP:COSMETICBOT, being
- Of course - the template documentation says
- @GiantSnowman, I'm trying to understand your argument – can you explain what this edit accomplished? – bradv 17:28, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
- Generally support topic ban, but not a full one from script use. As the template documentation says, GS's edits to the date templates are the intended use of that parameter. But removing unsourced birth/death places while leave unsourced birth/death dates is not good. If you can't tell that you're leaving data that's invalid by your definition (though as pointed out above, not by WP:V's), then that's a script you shouldn't be running. And if you're pulling data that doesn't appear anywhere else in the article, you should think twice about it. So, if someone can craft a topic ban that covers GS's disruption while leaving his helpful edits, I'm for it. Otherwise, I may change my !vote. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:05, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
- Sorry @SarekOfVulcan: I don't quite follow your comment - to clarify, the 'MOS edits' I make re:place of birth are 100% manual, totally unrelated to any script use... GiantSnowman 18:09, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
Inappropriate behavior from GrandePinguino
I've made some changes to the Nicki Minaj article, after which GrandePinguino reverted with two major edits: for the first they reverted what I changed from the lead, writing "Like the majority of people who voted. (violation of WP:OTHER) Unnotsblr for the lead (WP:Unnotsblr is not actually a rule)" in the edit summary. , while for the second they removed other important information and context with no edit summary nor reason given. I then explained to them that the rule they attempted to cite doesn't actually exist -- and why it clearly makes sense to include it there, as well as that they mistakenly appealed to WP:OTHER, among other problems with their reasonings. They then reverted my changes with the summary "Restoring my other changes after disruption by other user" .
I then looked at their user contributions, and saw they only had 50 edits, and in one of them, they removed information about someone praising Hitler and calling Jews "expendable" , with their edit summary saying " unnotable outdated story, WP:NOTNEWS". The fact they saw someone praising Hitler as "unnotable" shows they are not doing this in good faith.
Even though the majority of their edits seem normal (especially before becoming autoconfirmed), they also had some other weird edits, like removing philanthropist from Mrbeast for no reason .
It seems quite possible that they are violating WP:NOTHERE and WP:CIR among other rules.
Wikieditor662 (talk) 06:21, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
- "The media, taking the incident out of context, suggested it was a drunken tirade when in fact it was in line with the theme of the night, a risqué comedy roast", so the comments were part of a comedy routine. Not sure what the issue with the other stuff is, another user also just removed it again https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nicki_Minaj&diff=prev&oldid=1329032628 It seems more like you are edit warring to force content into the article GrandePinguino (talk) 06:28, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
"The media, taking the incident out of context, suggested it was a drunken tirade when in fact it was in line with the theme of the night, a risqué comedy roast",
That statement is unsourced. Even if that were true, it would not explain why your given reasoning was "unnotable", such event would still have been notable either way.another user also just removed it again
No, they removed the part from the lead because they disagreed with it being there, which is unrelated to the reasoning you gave (such as a made-up rule) and other stuff you removed.It seems more like you are edit warring to force content into the article
see WP:ACCUSE.
- Wikieditor662 (talk) 06:37, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
- Your whole thread is also an accusation. What do you even want from meGrandePinguino (talk) 06:40, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
- The problem is the level of evidence, not that you can never report anyone. I do not believe there is any evidence I was edit warring, even if you disagree with my actions. However, you removed a crucial fact about someone supporting Hitler (or allegedly supporting, if your uncited material is correct, but even then the point stands) and mocking Jews and victims of HIV, among other things -- all of which you said this was
unnotable
. These are NOT the same. Wikieditor662 (talk) 06:43, 23 December 2025 (UTC)- Have you even read this section https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Fane#Controversy — Preceding unsigned comment added by GrandePinguino (talk • contribs) 06:45, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
- @GrandePinguino @Wikieditor662 Please refrain from using ANI as a venue to continue your argument. If you have points relevant to the alleged misconduct here to present, then do so; but please don't continue to argue about your content disputes here, as it will only make the thread harder to navigate and assess for admins and uninvolved editors. (Non-administrator comment) Athanelar (talk) 13:38, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
- I agree with Athanelar. It looks like you jumped ahead several steps, Wikieditor662, by bringing this to ANI at this point. If you disagree about content on an article, discuss it on the article talk page. Right now, this looks like you are looking for reasons so that GrandePinguino can be sanctioned which is not "urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems". I'm tempted to close this complaint but will leave it open right now in case any other editors have any comments. Liz Read! Talk! 20:32, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
- @GrandePinguino @Wikieditor662 Please refrain from using ANI as a venue to continue your argument. If you have points relevant to the alleged misconduct here to present, then do so; but please don't continue to argue about your content disputes here, as it will only make the thread harder to navigate and assess for admins and uninvolved editors. (Non-administrator comment) Athanelar (talk) 13:38, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
- Have you even read this section https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Fane#Controversy — Preceding unsigned comment added by GrandePinguino (talk • contribs) 06:45, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
- The problem is the level of evidence, not that you can never report anyone. I do not believe there is any evidence I was edit warring, even if you disagree with my actions. However, you removed a crucial fact about someone supporting Hitler (or allegedly supporting, if your uncited material is correct, but even then the point stands) and mocking Jews and victims of HIV, among other things -- all of which you said this was
- Your whole thread is also an accusation. What do you even want from meGrandePinguino (talk) 06:40, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
- I can't see anything here beyond a content dispute. In particular not everyone who praises Hitler or mocks Jews or victims of HIV (of whom there are, unfotunately, many on all counts) is necessarily notable. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:42, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
Unexplained content removal, addition of unsourced content, other disruption by Rosali3008
Rosali3008 (talk · contribs · count) Has made a number of unexplained content removals from articles, in some cases replacing it with unsourced content (, , , . The latest removal is after a final warning for vandalism, though this might not be per se vandalism. This user also made a copy-paste page move from draft space, replacing a disambiguation page. , . They have not responded to any comments on their talk page. TornadoLGS (talk) 03:58, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
- Hello, TornadoLGS,
- Rosali3008 is a brand new account. Did you try starting a discussion with them and explaining policy before coming to ANI? I only see templates on their User talk page. Most people do not respond well to a series of impersonal templates vs. talking to them like a human being. Liz Read! Talk! 04:11, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
- @Liz: I figured the warnings, template or not, were sufficient prior notice. The level 3 and 4 warnings seem simple and direct. TornadoLGS (talk) 04:20, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
- I reverted one of their edits earlier & saw all the warnings, so I've just left this bespoke message as a last resort. I included a Spanish translation after I noticed their edit summaries aren't written in English.
- If this doesn't work, then perhaps a short block to get their attention until they respond? Blue Sonnet (talk) 04:25, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
- I saw those edit summaries too. Some of the text they added to articles, though, suggests a good understanding of English unless they are using a LLM. Checking the global account, they have more edits here than on ES, and far more edits on Wikidata. TornadoLGS (talk) 04:35, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
~2025-37832-67
~2025-37832-67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Vandalism. , and another links as well.--СтасС (talk) 08:23, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
- FYI for the future: for unambiguous vandalism WP:AIV is the better report board, things are seen and actioned much quicker there. (Non-administrator comment) Athanelar (talk) 09:30, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
- OK.--СтасС (talk) 09:32, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not seeig any obvious disruption since their most recent (level III) warning. That said, they have not responded to any of the previous messages/warnings. So I am not inclined to give them much more leeway if this resumes. -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:32, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
- OK.--СтасС (talk) 09:32, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
Disruptive editing and sockpuppetry by newly-created accounts in 2025 Honduran general election
I had warned 1-day old Fyyuuu (talk · contribs) for calling the election despite no official proclamation being issued and for vandalising the results table to prove their point . As soon as I revert them for making another hoax edit , 2-month old Mtumkuuu (talk · contribs) suddenly barges in my talk page falsely accusing me of vandalism and threatening to block me before restoring the unsubstantiated edit . Borgenland (talk) 05:53, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
- You reverted all results of the election without having interacted with the article before and you claim you reverted [] obvious vandalism made by the user aforementioned but you did not do that. I regularly update those results and thus I warned you. Mtumkuuu (talk) 06:20, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
- You only began editing on the article today and only to restore disruptive edits by Fyyuuu . I have been regularly updating the article for that has been in my watchlist for more than a month before your one-day old friend suddenly began proclaiming a winner despite not being supported by any RS and going so far as to wreck the results table . Am I right then to assume that you are maliciously socking in this article or lying outright about your activity here? Borgenland (talk) 06:25, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
- For reference ~2025-32362-67 (talk · contribs) has been disruptively editing and WP:FORUM on Talk:2025 Honduran general election and acting as an SPA for one candidate in the election , the same candidate being favorably edited by Fyyuuu and the edit restored by Mtumkuu. Borgenland (talk) 06:31, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
- You only began editing on the article today and only to restore disruptive edits by Fyyuuu . I have been regularly updating the article for that has been in my watchlist for more than a month before your one-day old friend suddenly began proclaiming a winner despite not being supported by any RS and going so far as to wreck the results table . Am I right then to assume that you are maliciously socking in this article or lying outright about your activity here? Borgenland (talk) 06:25, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
- I have infdef blocked Fyyuuu and Mtumkuuu for sockpuppetry as Mtumkuuu's last comments make it likely they are the same account. Mfield (Oi!) 06:31, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
- Is Mtumkuu allowed to wipe their block notice for sockpuppetry? Borgenland (talk) 06:41, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
- @Borgenland: No, he is not. I've restored warnings deleted without explanation. Achmad Rachmani (talk) 06:58, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
- Why? Unless it's one of the very few explicit exceptions, WP:BLANKING allows users to remove warnings and notices from their own talk pages without any explanation required. It can be considered rude to do so in a lot of contexts, but it's certainly allowed. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 09:05, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
- @CoffeeCrumbs: Becuase I need to keep warnings on other users' talk pages. But now I added an {{older}} tag to these pages. Achmad Rachmani (talk) 09:09, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
- Can you clarify why your need to keep your warnings on other users' talk pages supercedes WP:BLANKING which explicitly allows users to remove such warnings, without any explanation? CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 09:19, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
- @CoffeeCrumbs: Achmad Rachmani (talk) 09:30, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
- I understand plain vandals and plain DEs are allowed to do that. It’s the first time I’ve seen a sock/sockmaster doing that so I am concerned on whether they are trying to hide traces of dishonest behavior. Borgenland (talk) 09:31, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
- Warnings are for reading, after all, not as scarlet letters, even for bad faith editors who are rightfully blocked and should remain so, and we've always inferred that the deletion indicates awareness of the warning. It's frequently a moot point with the notorious sockmasters because WP:TPA is removed quite regularly. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 09:47, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
- Meanwhile the offending user is continuing to deny any wrongdoing by pretending they haven’t been issued a block notif, falsely claiming to be the hero in this story and contradicting themselves at the same time while making personal attacks towards @Mfield. . Borgenland (talk) 14:24, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
- I didn't say this wasn't a terrible editor. Only that they can remove stuff from their page. And if they lie about it, it's just a diff away. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:27, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
- I didn’t mean to throw shade, I just put it here in case anyone happens to review things there but unwittingly fail to get the whole picture. Borgenland (talk) 15:45, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
- I didn't say this wasn't a terrible editor. Only that they can remove stuff from their page. And if they lie about it, it's just a diff away. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:27, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
- Meanwhile the offending user is continuing to deny any wrongdoing by pretending they haven’t been issued a block notif, falsely claiming to be the hero in this story and contradicting themselves at the same time while making personal attacks towards @Mfield. . Borgenland (talk) 14:24, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
- Warnings are for reading, after all, not as scarlet letters, even for bad faith editors who are rightfully blocked and should remain so, and we've always inferred that the deletion indicates awareness of the warning. It's frequently a moot point with the notorious sockmasters because WP:TPA is removed quite regularly. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 09:47, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
- Can you clarify why your need to keep your warnings on other users' talk pages supercedes WP:BLANKING which explicitly allows users to remove such warnings, without any explanation? CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 09:19, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
- @CoffeeCrumbs: Becuase I need to keep warnings on other users' talk pages. But now I added an {{older}} tag to these pages. Achmad Rachmani (talk) 09:09, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
- Why? Unless it's one of the very few explicit exceptions, WP:BLANKING allows users to remove warnings and notices from their own talk pages without any explanation required. It can be considered rude to do so in a lot of contexts, but it's certainly allowed. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 09:05, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
- @Borgenland: No, he is not. I've restored warnings deleted without explanation. Achmad Rachmani (talk) 06:58, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
- Is Mtumkuu allowed to wipe their block notice for sockpuppetry? Borgenland (talk) 06:41, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
2 Way WP:IBAN
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello, I am requesting a WP:IBAN between myself and User talk:Revolving Doormat. I hope this is the right venue for this. We both have a disagreement on an article and I have decided to stay away from that article. But this has turned into more such as accusations of bad faith from both sides and him following me around to various other articles including a nomination at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 December 21. I do not believe this is productive for anyone and I asked on his talk page to comply with WP:IBAN which states "Users can generally request that another user not contact them, and if the circumstances are reasonable and typical, then the users should cease contact with each other. If that request is not immediately effective at halting contact, then the affected user can request an interaction ban." See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Revolving_Doormat&diff=prev&oldid=1328647952. He did not follow through. See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2025_December_21&diff=1328648856&oldid=1328647682 and here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Strongsville_City_School_District&diff=1328648398&oldid=1328645718 and here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Revolving_Doormat&diff=prev&oldid=1328648006. I do not believe that the arguing and dispute is going to come to a successful resolution, and that is why I have decided to stay away from the article that is in the dispute. At this point, I just don't want to be followed around Wikipedia by the user in other areas. I would respectfully ask for a two way ban. I want to assure you that my ultimate goal is to stop communication and the dispute so that we can both go on to having productive edits on this project. I believe that the back-and-forth is not productive and it is impeding my ability to focus on productive edits. I'm also tagging the user here, but I am not putting the notice on their talk page as I have already in invoked WP:IBAN. I would ask a neutral 3rd party to notify them. Docmoates (talk) 02:05, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
- Note: I've notified the editor in question so they have a fair chance to respond. IsCat (talk) 02:21, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you. Docmoates (talk) 02:32, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you @IsCat.
- TL;DR, I am not following this editor anywhere or harassing them. They opened an AfD on Strongsville City School District which I voted WP:Snow keep. I was the second voter. They accused the first editor of attacking them for suggesting they hadn't followed WP:BEFORE and me for asking them to truncate a long response with bold and underlined formatted text because they thought I was saying they sounded robotic for pointing out the formatting looked LLM generated (which I only meant made it unduly long and confusing due to the practice in an AfD to bold the votes.
- I performed a WP:CLEANUP. They added a bulleted list of material to the page which was WP:UNDUE and subject to WP:CRIME and WP:NCRIME, which I explained to them. They linked me their essay at Special:Diff/1328601839, I saw the redirect from Wikipedia space to their User space. I was recently reading the policies on redirects due to a different redirect issue from an invented term for infrared triangle, so I followed the policy for the deletion process since it didn't fit. They moved it to Wikipedia space and I voted keep as it was moot.
- Special:Diff/1328645718 is clearly a personal attack, on which they doubled down Special:Diff/1328648398, but since reverted since I sought help afterward from another editor. Revolving Doormat (talk) 02:39, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
- And I maintain that characterizing removing content about Strongsville High School that only had a
press releasePR statement from the school district and advising that it belonged on the High School's page asThe fact that you are trying to censor a teacher engaging in an inappropriate relationship involving a student when it meets policy for inclusion is deeply concerning
(out of the other 5 or so bullet points I also removed) is clearly meant to insinuate that I am some kind of a child predator. Accusing me of censorship alone is unacceptable, as I clearly did none of these things. Revolving Doormat (talk) 02:44, 21 December 2025 (UTC) Revolving Doormat (talk) 03:53, 21 December 2025 (UTC)- I wanna note that two out of the five bullets (that were removed) were about an inappropriate relationship. "staff member was placed on paid administrative leave after allegations of an inappropriate relationship involving a student at a prior place of employment" and "current teacher and former Strongsville High School football coach was indicted in Geauga County on sex-related charges involving an alleged relationship with a student under 13" See: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Strongsville_City_School_District&diff=prev&oldid=1328621331. 2/5 is a 40% chance I picked one of those two when addressing the issue. I just addressed one of the issues out of frustration given the user had just escalated to the Request for discussion on a totally unrelated issue. I take responsibility for not addressing all of the bullet points, which I should've done. However, I had invoked a request under WP:IBAN to cease communication, and therefore did not want to continue engaging. I'm allowed to be concerned about the removal of something that I believe complies with policy. That does not mean I am calling someone a "child predator" which is a false accusation and not WP:AGF. The user is making an assumption based on his own beliefs, but there's no facts to support what my intentions were. It is just an assumption. WP:AGF says "should not attribute the actions being criticized to malice unless there is specific evidence of such” Here there is no proof that I was trying to somehow correlate he is a "child predator." My objections were to "trying to censor" an article that I believe it "meets policy for inclusion" and that is "concerning." Swap out inappropriate relationship for any of the bullet points removed and you come to the same outcome. Docmoates (talk) 03:16, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
- Per WP:PERSONALATTACKS:
Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done. When in doubt, comment on the article's content without referring to its contributor at all.
Revolving Doormat (talk) 03:43, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
- Per WP:PERSONALATTACKS:
- I wanna note that two out of the five bullets (that were removed) were about an inappropriate relationship. "staff member was placed on paid administrative leave after allegations of an inappropriate relationship involving a student at a prior place of employment" and "current teacher and former Strongsville High School football coach was indicted in Geauga County on sex-related charges involving an alleged relationship with a student under 13" See: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Strongsville_City_School_District&diff=prev&oldid=1328621331. 2/5 is a 40% chance I picked one of those two when addressing the issue. I just addressed one of the issues out of frustration given the user had just escalated to the Request for discussion on a totally unrelated issue. I take responsibility for not addressing all of the bullet points, which I should've done. However, I had invoked a request under WP:IBAN to cease communication, and therefore did not want to continue engaging. I'm allowed to be concerned about the removal of something that I believe complies with policy. That does not mean I am calling someone a "child predator" which is a false accusation and not WP:AGF. The user is making an assumption based on his own beliefs, but there's no facts to support what my intentions were. It is just an assumption. WP:AGF says "should not attribute the actions being criticized to malice unless there is specific evidence of such” Here there is no proof that I was trying to somehow correlate he is a "child predator." My objections were to "trying to censor" an article that I believe it "meets policy for inclusion" and that is "concerning." Swap out inappropriate relationship for any of the bullet points removed and you come to the same outcome. Docmoates (talk) 03:16, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
- To be frank, I don't think a discussion about a redirect is that serious, let alone an excuse to talk to another editor this way. I was quite patient with this editor whose comments are immediately and needlessly combative.
- To @Eureka Lott's vote and suggestion that they did not follow WP:BEFORE:
So you’re going to continue being disrespectful since you have no idea what I did or did not do. Should I make assumptions about who you are or what your behavior is? That’s uncalled for. If you have so many reliable sources, why are you not working to fix the article? See: Wikipedia:No personal attacks#What is considered to be a personal attack? which states "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence.
Special:Diff/1328461423 - To my AfD vote with enough sources to establish notability across many years and various events, one of which was a Federal Court
casedecision cited hundreds of times over the last 50 years:By this argument, anyone who files a lawsuit would be notable for purposes of creating an article.
Special:Diff/1328582839 - To my response to that, linking the relevant policies used for my vote:
You might want to reread the policy.
Special:Diff/1328591078 - To my clarification that I meant the formatting and unduly lengthy of the post in AfD was making the page hard to read:
you should research rather than being discriminatory
Special:Diff/1328601839 - To my reversion and advising about the proper page and the possible implications of WP:CRIME and WP:NCRIME, and request for the editor to exercise WP:BRD and discuss it on the talk page:
Stop edit warring if you have concerns take them to the talk page
Special:Diff/1328621823 - To my RfD:
Also -- I am going to ask you once to please not engage in WP:Harass#Hounding. Reverting my edits across pages, Afd's, nominating my redirects, etc has turned into harassment.
Special:Diff/1328644991
- To @Eureka Lott's vote and suggestion that they did not follow WP:BEFORE:
- And to be clear, what I reverted was at Special:Diff/1328613724, which were the bullets that only pertained to the high school, which I checked for the whether they were WP:DUE at the district, and advised they belonged at the high school instead.
- Not once did @Docmoates, at any point, WP:AGF, he argued frivolously against every source @Eureka Lott offered, discounted mine combatively without any policy, and did not one time discuss the content.
- I'm not saying I wish to interact with this user, but I have not done what they said, and their conduct was unwarranted from the start. I was patient and they reacted like everything was a personal attack on them. Rather than anything to do with the fact that this is an encyclopedia and we're just here to work on it. Revolving Doormat (talk) 03:30, 21 December 2025 (UTC) Revolving Doormat (talk) 05:06, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
- He doesn't get to say what this discussion is about and why I brought it before you. I left him and the article alone at 16:20. He took the next action following me to another area of the project at Rfd rather than letting things go. He did so at 18:42. I left. He continued. After his last revert, I had no communication whatsoever. I left the subject mater. He escalated it but doing the Request for discussion. I had not communicated with him, made edits, or had any contact with him prior to being followed to an unrelated area of the project. If @Revolving Doormat does not object to a two way communication block ("I'm not saying I wish to interact with this user") then that solves our problem and an admin should administratively close with the ban. Also it is worth noting that what he assumes is "combative" is me being direct:
- "By this argument, anyone who files a lawsuit would be notable for purposes of creating an article." was a legitimate concern for open season to have any lawsuit qualify for articles on Wikipedia.
- "You might want to reread the policy." because I believe he misunderstood. This is not an attack. He is assuming tone.
- "you should research rather than being discriminatory" because he made unfounded accusations of AI LLM which neurodivergent people are accused of all the time.. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Strongsville_City_School_District&diff=prev&oldid=1328580007 and WP:NDAI. You can't accuse me but then say I attacked you by implying there are other factors to consider.
- "Stop edit warring if you have concerns take them to the talk page" but lets give the full quote of what I said "Stop edit warring if you have concerns take them to the talk page per Wikipedia:NEGOTIATE" is a legitimate request per Wikipedia:NEGOTIATE. The dishonesty and manipulation by not providing the full context is wrong.
- "Also -- I am going to ask you once to please not engage in WP:Harass#Hounding. Reverting my edits across pages, Afd's, nominating my redirects, etc has turned into harassment." I had previously made this request to invoke WP:IBAN on his page but he continued despite policy that says "Users can generally request that another user not contact them, and if the circumstances are reasonable and typical, then the users should cease contact with each other." He continued.
- Docmoates (talk) 03:49, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
- Also the following statement is a second false statement by @Revolving Doormat. "he argued frivolously against every source @Eureka Lott offered..." I stated "Good secondary coverage for the district ... Cleveland.com pieces (rebuilding project; student drug testing; 2015 school moves)" so again another misleading and mischaracterization. Docmoates (talk) 04:05, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
I left him and the article alone at 16:20. He took the next action following me to another area of the project at Rfd rather than letting things go.
- Excuse me. I didn't know we were in some kind of argument, I wasn't watching your edits or tracking time or feeling the need to get away. I cannot even say what else I was doing at the time, other than the fact that I had the tab open to read the essay you asked me to read at Special:Diff/1328601839:
I just spent the last hour drafting an essay to help educate people like you who may not understand how neurodivergent people can sound like ai. Take a read at WP:NDAI
. I didn't criticize the essay. I merely nominated the redirect that was from Wikipedia space to your Userspace for discussion due to what I read on WP:XNR. You moved it, I withdrew it. - I believe there's nothing left to document here, and if anyone has any further questions, please ping me. It's the middle of the night here, so I won't be able to respond until tomorrow. Revolving Doormat (talk) 04:08, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
- "I didn't know we were in some kind of argument..." You knew I was frustrated. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Revolving_Doormat&diff=prev&oldid=1328621823 Docmoates (talk) 04:13, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
- No, I did not; please do not assert my thoughts and feelings, which you cannot possibly know. If you read my response at Special:Diff/1328623012, I was genuinely trying to be patient and help you understand why I removed the content, despite that my edit summaries were rather clear. I then added an entry to the article's talk page. I would appreciate it if you would stop replying to every single thing I post with something new and just let other editors sort this out. Revolving Doormat (talk) 04:22, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
- You mean like you did when you said I claimed you were a "child predator" which I never said. Per your own words "please do not assert my thoughts and feelings, which you cannot possibly know." Docmoates (talk) 04:24, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
- I said you claimed I was censoring (without evidence). You framed that claim with a sinister insinuation by cherry-picking the incident of sexual misconduct of an adult with a minor (out of the 6 or 7 total bullet points I removed) and claiming your were concerned by my behavior, all while leaving out that I advised you that because it was about the high school, it belonged in the existing article about the high school. I'm not claiming to know anything other than exactly what you did. I'm not going to continue to argue about this. Revolving Doormat (talk) 04:58, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
- You’re claiming sinister actions with absolutely no evidence of what was going through my head or my reasoning. You have set a double standard. Docmoates (talk) 05:03, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
- All of this is irrelevant to my request that we not have contact. All you had to do was give me some space. That’s all I asked for and you couldn’t do just that. Docmoates (talk) 05:05, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
- I actually didn't reply to you once I saw your request for an interaction ban, which wasn't until after I asked another editor for their advice/assistance with what to do because of your post on the district's talk page.
- To be clear: I'm not alleging your reasoning for your actions. I don't care why you did it or what your intent was because I don't think there's any justification for it. Revolving Doormat (talk) 05:17, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
- All of this is irrelevant to my request that we not have contact. All you had to do was give me some space. That’s all I asked for and you couldn’t do just that. Docmoates (talk) 05:05, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
- You’re claiming sinister actions with absolutely no evidence of what was going through my head or my reasoning. You have set a double standard. Docmoates (talk) 05:03, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
- I said you claimed I was censoring (without evidence). You framed that claim with a sinister insinuation by cherry-picking the incident of sexual misconduct of an adult with a minor (out of the 6 or 7 total bullet points I removed) and claiming your were concerned by my behavior, all while leaving out that I advised you that because it was about the high school, it belonged in the existing article about the high school. I'm not claiming to know anything other than exactly what you did. I'm not going to continue to argue about this. Revolving Doormat (talk) 04:58, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
- You mean like you did when you said I claimed you were a "child predator" which I never said. Per your own words "please do not assert my thoughts and feelings, which you cannot possibly know." Docmoates (talk) 04:24, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
- No, I did not; please do not assert my thoughts and feelings, which you cannot possibly know. If you read my response at Special:Diff/1328623012, I was genuinely trying to be patient and help you understand why I removed the content, despite that my edit summaries were rather clear. I then added an entry to the article's talk page. I would appreciate it if you would stop replying to every single thing I post with something new and just let other editors sort this out. Revolving Doormat (talk) 04:22, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
- "I didn't know we were in some kind of argument..." You knew I was frustrated. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Revolving_Doormat&diff=prev&oldid=1328621823 Docmoates (talk) 04:13, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
- He doesn't get to say what this discussion is about and why I brought it before you. I left him and the article alone at 16:20. He took the next action following me to another area of the project at Rfd rather than letting things go. He did so at 18:42. I left. He continued. After his last revert, I had no communication whatsoever. I left the subject mater. He escalated it but doing the Request for discussion. I had not communicated with him, made edits, or had any contact with him prior to being followed to an unrelated area of the project. If @Revolving Doormat does not object to a two way communication block ("I'm not saying I wish to interact with this user") then that solves our problem and an admin should administratively close with the ban. Also it is worth noting that what he assumes is "combative" is me being direct:
- And I maintain that characterizing removing content about Strongsville High School that only had a
- I want to also note that there has now been a new false allegation made against me. The user claims that I referred to them as a "some kind of child predator." See: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Star_Mississippi&diff=prev&oldid=1328650056 This is simply false and defamatory. I stated that I had a concern with us removing content about a teacher who had an inappropriate relationship with a student. I believed that that was concerning. At no time did I assert that the individual was a child predator or defending a child predator. I said that their behavioral actions of removing the content was concerning. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Strongsville_City_School_District&diff=prev&oldid=1328651816. In fact, I specifically stated that the censorship is what I'm concerned with. This is bad faith dishonesty and a miss characterization of my words. Docmoates (talk) 02:36, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
- I was made aware of this situation when @Revolving Doormat (RD) posted on my Talk after we got acquainted in some content areas this week. While @Docmoates is a newly active account, their combative nature is a longtime issue. No outing, it's all documented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mmoates/Archive.
- I did not recognize this account name when I stumbled on their CSD patrolling recently and then by watching their Talk I became aware of their short term block earlier this week. The issue is not specifically this school district or 2025 University of Oklahoma essay controversy but their desire to go 0-100 in a short window. From what interaction I've had with RD, I feel confident in sayinig they're not the issue here. One way IBans are a mess, but I don't think RD should be precluded from editing because of Doc's reactions to it. I will be offline for the evening shortly and may be limited tomorrow, but I'll try to check back in. Star Mississippi 02:37, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
- @Star Mississippi - Can you at least admit that his accusations on your talk page that I called him a child predator or false? Docmoates (talk) 02:38, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
- I also want to note that @ToBeFree noted the block that is referred to was a "unnecessary block" that lasted less than an hour. I am simply asking that communication between the two of us cease because it's not productive. A one-way ban is not necessary because I am not going to be anywhere near that article. I'm asking that they not have the ability to engage with me in other areas of Wikipedia for the short term. Which, according to policy, I have the right to request. It says "Users can generally request that another user not contact them, and if the circumstances are reasonable and typical, then the users should cease contact with each other." I don't know why anyone would advocate for this individual continuing to communicate with me when we can all agree that it is not in the best interest of anyone. Docmoates (talk) 02:44, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah, please ignore the block. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:46, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
- @Docmoates you may be confusing two things here. The IBan (one way or dual) has nothing to do with the specific article and everything to do with whether you and @Revolving Doormat can interact with one another anywhere on the project. You may know that, but I wanted to be clear since it's not clear from your comment where you reference the article at AfD. Star Mississippi 02:51, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
- No, I understand completely, @Star Mississippi. I'm saying that in good faith, I will stay away from the Afd and article. I just don't want to be followed anywhere else as I cool off like the Request for discussion. I'm willing to stay away from that subject matter altogether. I'm simply asking for some space from this user. Had this just been an article issue, I would've bowed out which I did for several hours. But then the user decided to take a step further and open a request for comment on a completely unrelated issue. I ask you to take note that my last edit on the page was at 16:20. I have not edited since. I was stepping away from the subject matter. It was not until I was followed to a separate area of the project that I got frustrated. He did that at 18:42. So for two hours, I stayed away from a dispute because I didn't want the drama, and then the user took an additional step to further escalate the tension. Docmoates (talk) 02:58, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
- that makes sense. Thanks for clarifying, @Docmoates Star Mississippi 03:06, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
- No, I understand completely, @Star Mississippi. I'm saying that in good faith, I will stay away from the Afd and article. I just don't want to be followed anywhere else as I cool off like the Request for discussion. I'm willing to stay away from that subject matter altogether. I'm simply asking for some space from this user. Had this just been an article issue, I would've bowed out which I did for several hours. But then the user decided to take a step further and open a request for comment on a completely unrelated issue. I ask you to take note that my last edit on the page was at 16:20. I have not edited since. I was stepping away from the subject matter. It was not until I was followed to a separate area of the project that I got frustrated. He did that at 18:42. So for two hours, I stayed away from a dispute because I didn't want the drama, and then the user took an additional step to further escalate the tension. Docmoates (talk) 02:58, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
- This morning @Docmoates's userpage history is gone. Does this restore his anonymity? I ask because after understanding the block history. I'm not sure how to share concerns beyond that he edited Eagle Mountain-Saginaw Independent School District before his clean slate, for example. One of the pages @ChildrenWillListen expressed concerns over LLM editing below is a high school in that district. Revolving Doormat (talk) 10:37, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
- I currently can't dig into this as much as I'd need to before supporting an interaction ban. In general, at very least on an informal level supported mostly by human decency, if someone wants a two-way interaction ban (which implies being fine with their side of that ban), the other side should have extremely good reasons to act in any other way than as if the IBAN had been formalized. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:46, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you, @ToBeFree. I could not agree more.
- In good faith, I have agreed not to go anywhere near that article. So the only reason for communication would be if that individual wants to come and do something outside of that article that relates to me. I can't see how that would happen in good faith when things are heated. I am just asking from some space from the user. I've agreed not to edit the article and the issue with regards to the Redirects for Discussion has been withdrawn by the user. I'm not sure why we would need more communication at a time when things are heated, and I have withdrawn myself from the dispute in question. Docmoates (talk) 02:49, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
- Also as a note, I have stopped watching the article in question. Docmoates (talk) 03:19, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
- I’m gonna make one last statement for tonight. I’m not sure why all the allegations are going back-and-forth between myself and I’m accountable for that and the other users. I made a request that there be no contact and that’s all I was asking for. I’m simply asking for some space. Rather than this, be a conversation about taking some space it’s turned into personal attacks about everything that they believe that I’ve done wrong, but I feel like that further shows that instead of addressing key issues we’re going off topic into things that are completely irrelevant. I followed policy by asking for no communication and that policy was violated, so I made the request here.That’s it. If there are content disputes, those are for a different venue. Docmoates (talk) 04:49, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
AI use
A more concerning issue is @Docmoates's potential undisclosed use of LLMs to create new pages. See the discussion at User talk:Docmoates/Archive 3 § Rapid article creation for more details. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 04:11, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
- This has no basis in fact. It is also unrelated to the conversation at hand. Have a nice night. Docmoates (talk) 04:15, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
- You can see our comments here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Docmoates/Archive_3. Removing unfounded allegations with no evidence from main talkpage. Docmoates (talk) 04:20, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
- In addition to what I've mentioned at Docmoates's talk page:
- Qualified Applied Behavior Analysis Credentialing Board:
Third party commentary on QABA exams, including discussion forums and provider blogs...
fails verification and reeks heavily of LLM phrasing. Most people won't cite a single Reddit post as "discussion forums (note the plural) and provider blogs". This pattern can also be seen atOnline discussion forums and ABA news blogs have similarly framed Texas's recognition of QABA as a significant development in the credentialing landscape
, again being sourced to a single Reddit post (also notice that there was no ABA news blog(s) cited).The inclusion of QABA in state laws has also intersected with debates about DEI standards and professional ethics. Some professional organizations and commentators have scrutinized statements made by QABA representatives in regulatory hearings and have urged careful evaluation of how different credentialing bodies address issues such as equity, cultural responsiveness, and consumer protection.
is also obvious LLM output, especially when you see the sources cited for that. - Anna Stadler:
Interviews have described Stadler working on an original television concept that she hopes to write, act in and eventually direct, with plans to collaborate with additional writers
, again, is sourced to a single questionable interview, not multiple. Also noteShe has also taken college business courses online and has been described as a member of Phi Theta Kappa honor society, reflecting an emphasis on academic achievement alongside acting
(emphasis mine) - Aaron Kinsey:
Local coverage in Midland also reported the appointment and the term end date
fits the same pattern as the rest of the verification issues we've seen so far, which is WP:AIWEASEL. Notice how the term end date is not actually provided here at all, only a vague allusion that it was reported.In January 2024, Kinsey removed an item related to a proposed American Indian/Native Studies course from the SBOE agenda shortly after becoming chair, citing his request for additional time to review the course; the article quoted other board members expressing concern about delay in the approval process
(emphasis mine). Notice how the paragraph went from what it's actually talking about into source critique just like before. - Sarah Hollenstein Career and Technology Center:
Local reporting has described partnerships between HCTC and regional employers, trade organizations, and postsecondary institutions aimed at aligning student training with workforce needs.
, same old. The reference to this, https://fortworthbusiness.com/education/career-center-partners-with-industry/, is also a hallucinated URL. Some more hallucinated refs include references 4, 6, 11 (redirects elsewhere), 12, 13, 14, and some others. They later removed these references, claiming they were errors caused by https://www.citationmachine.net, when that tool can't even generate CS1/MediaWiki citations. They never provided the right URLs for these supposed sources, which also makes this claim suspect. - Licensed behavior analyst (rewritten):
Media investigations have identified cases of insufficient supervision, misuse of restrictive procedures, and inadequate training among unregulated ABA providers, further motivating regulatory action
, same old. Just like the previous example, several references are hallucinated, including refs 10, 16, 17, 21, 24, 26. The sourcing was "fixed", again, by removing the hallucinated citations without providing valid replacements. We also have LLM phrasing such asRegulatory reviews show that state laws vary in accepted examinations, supervision definitions, title protections, and technician regulation
. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 05:13, 21 December 2025 (UTC)- Excellent examples, thank you. Augmented Seventh (talk) 06:15, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
- @ChildrenWillListen Citation machine works somewhat identically to the Wikipedia automatic ref generation, you can put in a link, a DOI, or ISBN and it will collect the data if it can and populate fields. Otherwise you have to fill in the fields yourself. It doesn't produce code though, only plaintext in MLA, APA, Chicago, etc. The only other option is to export a whole bibliography into a Word Document. Citation machine cannot hallucinate citations either, you have to select the citation multiple times and confirm all of the entries. It is a rather arduous process which is why most of us use reference management software instead. Revolving Doormat (talk) 10:44, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
- Some non-article space examples:
- User:Docmoates/Neurodivergence, AI-like perceptions, and editing practice:
This isn't about asking for special treatment. It's about keeping the conversation grounded in things we can actually evaluate:
, which is standard GPT5 sentence structure. Also note the abrupt stop atIf there's a disagreement <newline> When disputes come up, [...]
, which looks like unfinished/cut AI output. - Wikipedia:Neurodivergent Voices and AI Assumptions: This is probably the only page that actually uses CitationMachine.
Even if your focus is neurodivergence rather than language background, this study matters because it shows a broader point: [...]
, sounds like AI communication intended for the user, as if the AI is talking to Docmoates's prompt about creating a Wikipedia essay.In the context of an essay about neurodivergent people being mistaken for LLMs, ...
is yet another example of this. - Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/NeuroLanguageBot: Transcludes a template {{BRFAbot}} which doesn't actually exist, and it is obvious that the rest of the request is also generated using an LLM, with broken formatting all over the place, and failing to follow the template all requests should use. Four out of five diffs of the bot that was supposedly run on Docmoates' account are all practically vandalism (, , , ). Surely a human would see that these changes are not doing what they're supposed to do.
- It's fairly ironic to see they've used AI tools to write an essay claiming they've never used AI
in order to draft, rewrite, paraphrase, summarize, or clean up article text
. I feel we're being played at this point. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 06:00, 21 December 2025 (UTC)- Thank you for going to the trouble of cataloging these tells. My recent experiences with this user were bewildering and were demonstrably bad-faith gaslighting in the extreme.
- I 100% support the assertion that this user has been playing everyone involved. And that conclusion was reached before learning of their multi-year history of vandalism, sockpuppet armies, and multiple resulting indefinte blocks. Ahhwhereami (talk) 10:12, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
- FYI Special:Diff/1328468646 was the edit in question - I actually only mentioned WP:LLM because of the formatting and it making the page so long, which reminded me of how ChatGPT superfluously uses similar headings making it hard to read. However, I find it strange that they argued in this rebut of the voter's sources that
notability weight will mostly come from the independent, secondary, in-depth reporting about the district... not the press releases
, then argued against my reversion of material that only contained a PR statement from the district at Special:Diff/1328619732 that they were WP:DUE at the district, rather than the high school becausethese reference District level statements that were issued
. This contradiction is odd. Revolving Doormat (talk) 04:38, 21 December 2025 (UTC)- Because they were still news articles not press releases. There is a major difference. A new source covering a statement made by an entity is different than an entity releasing a press release. Docmoates (talk) 04:41, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
in-depth reporting about the district... not the press releases
is the contrast I am talking about. I removed the articles as undue because they lacked in-depth reporting about the district, instead only containing a PR statement from the district. These are two opposing positions. Revolving Doormat (talk) 05:02, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
- If you look closely, the two references are from a Cleveland news source not directly from the district. Docmoates (talk) 04:43, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
- Because they were still news articles not press releases. There is a major difference. A new source covering a statement made by an entity is different than an entity releasing a press release. Docmoates (talk) 04:41, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
- Docmoates is obviously lying in denying AI use. An indefinite block for lying, incompetence, disruption, and just plan wasting everyone's time is in order. Zero tolerance. EEng 11:14, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
- Comment Another editor referred to his behavior as WP:GASLIGHTING and that about sums it up. For example, @Docmoates keeps saying that followed him around WP because of some kind of drama with him as a contributor. It is hard for me to believe that he thinks that when this is exactly what he did to @JTtheOG who nominated Brad Polumbo for AfD just 3 days ago. He frivolously took a page that J created to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rod Bockenfeld 3 minutes after asking J
How is this different from your article here: Rod Bockenfeld?
at Special:Diff/1328120149.
- When reading Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Moates (2nd nomination), these two comments really stuck out to me as analogous to what he is doing here, just with a different aim:
Moates is very clever. If he chooses a career in politics, he will go far. He has identified a collection of data sources to seed with weak facts, then harvest proof of the notability of his organization.
First you have to read through a score of references to find out who he really works for. Then the references list has to be pared for all the self-referential entries. Then you have to search the White House Correspondent's Association website to discover whether he's been thrown out yet. The result will be the outing of a crank. Then disassembly of the walled garden.
- He may not be creating an WP:AUTOBIO, but the manufacturing of a misleading narrative that obscures his underlying agenda is obvious, whether it's turning routine editing decisions into personal conflicts or covering his tracks with the AI use by lying about citation machine or accusing other editors of discrimination by bringing up WP:LLM. I've not seen him declare his actual COI with Eagle Mountain-Saginaw Independent School District or his apparent COI with Eagle Mountain High School due to it being in the district either. Are there more COIs? I don't know if I have a vote, but I am opposed to the 2-way IBAN and sincerely believe that he is WP:NOTHERE.Revolving Doormat (talk) 13:48, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
- Courtesy link to the other pertinent historical content I read at Talk:White House press corps/Archive 1#Michael Moates in case this ever comes up again. Revolving Doormat (talk) 16:02, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
- The sources at User:Docmoates/sandbox/Michael Moates are interesting, especially https://www.thedailybeast.com/michael-moates-qanon-guy-accused-of-inappropriately-texting-teens-quits-campaign, which raises WP:CHILDPROTECT concerns. And before someone asks it isn't WP:OUTING if they added the source themselves and are very vocal about their identity as that subject. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 16:11, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
- Courtesy link to the other pertinent historical content I read at Talk:White House press corps/Archive 1#Michael Moates in case this ever comes up again. Revolving Doormat (talk) 16:02, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
- Comment: In light of this info, Docmoates has retired. They may return, as Docmoates or someone else. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 14:53, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
- They're back from their retirement to move back the articles I've draftified to mainspace. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 16:41, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
- They're mass-reverting all my mainspace edits. Can we please block? Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 16:49, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
Done. Blocked per WP:NOTHERE. – bradv 16:55, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
- Pinged you at Special:Diff/1328743675 on my talk page. Moates is going on a retaliatory rampage with TAs. Revolving Doormat (talk) 17:01, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
- Noting they've now created a named account Test121sjzbdh to harass Revolving Doormat as well. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 18:05, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
- Pinged you at Special:Diff/1328743675 on my talk page. Moates is going on a retaliatory rampage with TAs. Revolving Doormat (talk) 17:01, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
- They're mass-reverting all my mainspace edits. Can we please block? Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 16:49, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
- They're back from their retirement to move back the articles I've draftified to mainspace. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 16:41, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
Propose C-Ban
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Enough is enough with Moates. Whether or not we're disregarding ToBeFree's short block, it's clear that their disruption (including gaslighting and incivility) and socking, now coupled with AI use have worn thin. Star Mississippi 15:19, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
- Support as proposer to enforce "retirement" which we've seen before. Star Mississippi 15:19, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
- and to be clear, there's no cause for any action against @Revolving Doormat and no need for an IBan unless RD wishes for one. Star Mississippi 15:21, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
- Might I request the offending comment he made at Talk:Strongsville City School District be redacted? That's my only wish from this debacle. Revolving Doormat (talk) 15:29, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
- For whichever admin sees this the diffs I am asking to have redacted are Special:Diff/1328743675 Special:Diff/1328648398 Special:Diff/1328651816. Hopefully these are self-explanatory. But ping me if you have a question. Revolving Doormat (talk) 17:08, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
- Redacted the first (the one on your talk page) and revdel'd the diffs in which the accusation was present. The remaining two while personal attacks do not rise to the level of requiring revdel, IMHO. (Note that you can redact comments left on your talk page yourself.) - The Bushranger One ping only 22:14, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
- For whichever admin sees this the diffs I am asking to have redacted are Special:Diff/1328743675 Special:Diff/1328648398 Special:Diff/1328651816. Hopefully these are self-explanatory. But ping me if you have a question. Revolving Doormat (talk) 17:08, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
- Might I request the offending comment he made at Talk:Strongsville City School District be redacted? That's my only wish from this debacle. Revolving Doormat (talk) 15:29, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
- and to be clear, there's no cause for any action against @Revolving Doormat and no need for an IBan unless RD wishes for one. Star Mississippi 15:21, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
- Support as involved per above, but one of many subjected to the behavior of this editor. No one should ever have to deal with this again. Revolving Doormat (talk) 15:23, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
- Support. I have no reason to believe this "retirement" will stick as this user has socked in the past. IsCat (talk) 15:29, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
- Support per LLM usage and previous history of sockpuppetry. HurricaneZetaC 15:43, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
- Support LLM use can be forgiven if remedied. Lying and incivility aren't a remedy. Aiding their retirement benefits the project. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 16:18, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
- Support: I generally don't vote in CBAN discussions, but I've seen what I have to see, both onwiki and off, to realize this person may not be here to build an encyclopedia in a conducive manner. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 16:22, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
- Support their retaliatory mass reversion of ChildrenWillListen's edits showed up on my watchlist. NicheSports (talk) 16:56, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
- Strong Support Gaslighting and constanly having personal attacks on @Revolving Doormat: is unacceptable. Also their continued creation of LLM AI slop is unacceptable. I fully support an indefinite ban of the accused from Wikipedia. Also I recommend an IP ban and a IP range ban to bar them from further use of sockpuppets. Felicia (talk) 16:58, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
- Strong Support. This has gone on long enough this is clearly necessary given their mass reversion of ChildrenWillListen's edits, incivility and lying about LLM use. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 17:09, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
Oppose I don't think that recent conduct raises to the level to warrant a community ban.— BillHPike (talk, contribs) 17:14, 21 December 2025 (UTC)- Striking my !v after seeing recent socking under Test121sjzbdh — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 18:29, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
- Support. Dishonest, and WP:NOTHERE. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:21, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
- Support as blocking admin. – bradv 15:39, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
- Support There is no more deserving candidate for CBAN than this one. Hiobazard (talk/contribs) 15:58, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
- Support, it's clear that they're not willing to work within our policies and norms, regardless of which account they use. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:29, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
- Support. In the hope of turning a light snowfall into a blizzard. I have strong opinions on LLMs (kill them with fire!), but I do not base my !vote on that. Nor do I base it on the incivility, much of which I cannot view. Decisive for me is a statement like
This has no basis in fact
(referring to alleged AI use), which in my judgment was conclusively refuted by evidence from CWL in particular. An editor who cannot be trusted to be honest has no place here. Narky Blert (talk) 17:00, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Move articles to draftspace?
I moved some of their more obvious AI-generated articles to draftspace, but they moved them all back before getting themselves blocked by going on a revert spree. Per WP:DRAFTOBJECT I need consensus before moving them back again. Should I re-draftify the articles, should I leave them be, or something else? Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 17:19, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
- Draftify. There are serious concerns over LLM usage by this editor, who has now been blocked as NOTHERE. The articles recently moved to mainspace should be draftified so that they can be reviewed to ensure that they do not contain LLM hallucinations. IsCat (talk) 17:23, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
- With the primary authors of those articles blocked, I would think AfD might be a better approach. I took a brief look at Anna Stadler, and it is sourced entirely to interviews and user-generated content. – bradv 17:24, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
- I have a question. If what they'd done was to heap AI-generated excrement into existing articles, we'd be able to simply mass-rollback them. So how comes it, if they inject similar crap into project space via newly created articles, that we have to go through some tiresome AfD process? EEng 19:14, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
- Because if they were edits to existing articles they would remain visible in the history indefinitely for anyone to review. Although I suppose if labelling it slop is not contentious (but not obvious enough for G15) the articles could go through PROD instead. That's quicker than AfD, and still gets more eyes on them than unsubmitted drafts do. – bradv 19:30, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
- (I said excrement, not slop. Slop is too generous.) Prod sounds like a good path then. EEng 19:34, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
- You're right, sorry for watering it down. – bradv 19:36, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
- Watering down the excrement is never a good idea. Revolving Doormat (talk) 21:07, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
- You're right, sorry for watering it down. – bradv 19:36, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
- (I said excrement, not slop. Slop is too generous.) Prod sounds like a good path then. EEng 19:34, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
- Because if they were edits to existing articles they would remain visible in the history indefinitely for anyone to review. Although I suppose if labelling it slop is not contentious (but not obvious enough for G15) the articles could go through PROD instead. That's quicker than AfD, and still gets more eyes on them than unsubmitted drafts do. – bradv 19:30, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
- I have a question. If what they'd done was to heap AI-generated excrement into existing articles, we'd be able to simply mass-rollback them. So how comes it, if they inject similar crap into project space via newly created articles, that we have to go through some tiresome AfD process? EEng 19:14, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
- Delete under CSD G15 - LLM-generated pages without human review: Reblocked under NOTHERE for undisclosed AI usage, therefore no reason to believe the spirit of the requirement has been adhered to Rambling Rambler (talk) 23:10, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
- G5 requires that the creator be banned or blocked at the time they created the article, which they were not. – bradv 23:13, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
- We can't do that since their slate has essentially been wiped clean as a result of their standard offer appeal. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 23:13, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
- @Bradv @ChildrenWillListen I've changed it to G15. The talk page suggests they've only just been caught out for SPI activity and not that they've been reblocked after a standard offer. Given they're believed to have tried to hide their AI usage I believe under the spirit of the CSD criteria we should count that as having lacked proper review. Rambling Rambler (talk) 23:23, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
- @Rambling Rambler @ChildrenWillListen this is (part of) why I proposed the CBan. The "I wasn't globally banned" loophole that allowed them to cause this round of disruption is one that needs closed. I'm not going to CSD these as I'm Involved, but I certainly support this to save seven days of community time Star Mississippi 23:45, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
- @Star Mississippi exactly. This isn’t a situation that warrants wide participation but basic cleanup following a bad faith editor. Rambling Rambler (talk) 00:30, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
- FWIW if I had been on my laptop when their reversions came across my watchlist I would have re-draftified without seeking consensus. I don't think the way they were put back into mainspace counts as a WP:DRAFTOBJECT-ion given the blatantly bad faith editing that then led to socking minutes later. Unless anyone objects I'll give people a few days to CSD AfD or PROD what they see fit and will then re-draftify the rest (after confirming there is a valid DRAFTREASON). NicheSports (talk) 23:49, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
- I've sent a few to AfD, prodded a few, and G15'd at least one. I don't see the point of sending them to draftspace to wait for more socks to show up – best to just clean it up now. – bradv 23:54, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
- What should happen to Draft:Hannah Cox and Draft:Brad Polumbo (2) (which I () and JTtheOG suggested to move to) now? They won't be worked on anymore and are exact copies of Hannah Cox (should be undeleted) and Brad Polumbo, both of which are at AfD. HurricaneZeta alt (talk) 00:35, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
- Agreed. I've restored the mistakenly deleted article, reopened the AfD, and redirected the duplicate drafts (including Draft:Brad Polumbo, which has entirely different content but concerns the same person). – bradv 00:46, 22 December 2025 (UTC) Courtesy ping to the deleting admin, User:Whpq. – bradv 00:48, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
- At that, Wikipedia:Neurodivergent Voices and AI Assumptions was at MfD and was also deleted as G5. Looks like all the others were undeleted already. HurricaneZeta alt (talk) 01:07, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
- Agreed. I've restored the mistakenly deleted article, reopened the AfD, and redirected the duplicate drafts (including Draft:Brad Polumbo, which has entirely different content but concerns the same person). – bradv 00:46, 22 December 2025 (UTC) Courtesy ping to the deleting admin, User:Whpq. – bradv 00:48, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
- What should happen to Draft:Hannah Cox and Draft:Brad Polumbo (2) (which I () and JTtheOG suggested to move to) now? They won't be worked on anymore and are exact copies of Hannah Cox (should be undeleted) and Brad Polumbo, both of which are at AfD. HurricaneZeta alt (talk) 00:35, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
- I've sent a few to AfD, prodded a few, and G15'd at least one. I don't see the point of sending them to draftspace to wait for more socks to show up – best to just clean it up now. – bradv 23:54, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
- DRAFTOBJECT is an essay, it can be perfectly ignored if you have good reasons like here. No need to search consensus first. Fram (talk) 14:33, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
- Handled (?): all drafts that docmoates moved back into mainspace have now been speedied, prodded, BLAR'd, or taken to AfD. The same also applies to their 2025-era creations that ChildrenWillListen had not draftified - see xtools - with one exception, Eagle Mountain High School, which bradv and I agreed would be kept at AfD so we left in mainspace with an ai-generated tag. Unless we want to discuss what happens if anything at AfD is kept, I think this is sorted. NicheSports (talk) 17:07, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
Discussion about the initial close
For the record, I was explicitly supporting a community ban, above and beyond a simple indefinite that can be undone by an uninvolved administrator. This editor's behavior was beyond the pale, both for targeting a member of the community and now the bigotry, and I think as a result, it's fair that the community, including Revolving Doormat if they choose to comment at that time, get to have a say if there's even a plausible unblock request. Perhaps I am the only one, but I do not consider this a moot issue. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 10:42, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
- I also urge @Jahaza to reconsider that this is moot because this variation of the user was indef'd because he was harassing @ChildrenWillListen during the CBAN proposal with reversions everywhere in the main space to the point where it was disruptive and necessitated the indef. He has been banned before and has come back numerous times. There is no reason to believe he will not be back again, either to request he be unbanned and it be taken up by an admin unaware of this incident, or with another WP:CLEANSLATE that is acknowledged by an admin with another WP:STANDARDOFFER because they don't know. The only way to ensure any decision includes the community that saw or were subjected to his behavior, is with a CBAN. Revolving Doormat (talk) 12:06, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
- It also seems necessary to point out that this person (he is also the co-plaintiff corp) sued Facebook for banning him for his behavior across Meta platforms pertaining to Qanon. He was banned on X/Twitter for harassment and inciting violence. (not outing, user created a WP:AUTOBIO in previous sockpuppeting and he recreated it in his sandbox, which was posted above and contains this source.) Revolving Doormat (talk) 12:17, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
- I also urge @Jahaza to reconsider that this is moot because this variation of the user was indef'd because he was harassing @ChildrenWillListen during the CBAN proposal with reversions everywhere in the main space to the point where it was disruptive and necessitated the indef. He has been banned before and has come back numerous times. There is no reason to believe he will not be back again, either to request he be unbanned and it be taken up by an admin unaware of this incident, or with another WP:CLEANSLATE that is acknowledged by an admin with another WP:STANDARDOFFER because they don't know. The only way to ensure any decision includes the community that saw or were subjected to his behavior, is with a CBAN. Revolving Doormat (talk) 12:06, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
- I agree, this seems premature. There was an ongoing CBAN discussion, which requires to be open for 24 at a minimum in cases of SNOW per the CBAN policy.
For site bans, the discussion must be kept open for 72 hours except in cases where there is limited opposition and the outcome is obvious after 24 hours.
There was also a discussion of what to do with the pages created by the user, which appeared to be ongoing. The original IBAN request was moot, but the subsequent discussions were not and a close appears to be in violation of policy. IsCat (talk) 12:09, 22 December 2025 (UTC)- Bad NAC - Multiple issues were clearly still under discussion including how best to deal with their AI slop. Rambling Rambler (talk) 13:21, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
- I'm uninvolved in this case (albeit I discovered it after closing the Strongsville AfD) but I agree that the close, while in absolute good faith, was premature, and have reopened it in its entirety. Cheers, —Fortuna, imperatrix 13:24, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
- @Fortuna imperatrix mundi: re: your edit summary here , community bans usually require 72 hours,
except in cases where there is limited opposition and the outcome is obvious after 24 hours
; not 48. The revert was of course cromulent though as it had not yet been 24 hours and ignored the consensus to ban. As it's now been over 24 hours with a very clear consensus, I'll be going ahead and closing the community ban as imposed, but will leave the discussion overall open for potential discussion re: what to do about the pages. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:30, 22 December 2025 (UTC)- @The Bushranger, I think the pages are pretty well sorted – feel free to close the whole thing if you're so inclined. – bradv 23:00, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
- @Fortuna imperatrix mundi: re: your edit summary here , community bans usually require 72 hours,
- And a follow-up question: as Mmoates is globally locked, should Docmoates be requested for a glock as well? - The Bushranger One ping only 22:37, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
- From a baby editor: If the "fruit of the poisoned tree" flows from sockmaster to sockpuppet accounts, it would seem that any block, ban, or other sanction would flow similarly, likely with increased duration or severity, to the satellite accounts as well. I tried, in a limited way, to find precedent, but did not succeed. Hiobazard (talk/contribs) 22:56, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
- A global lock was previously requested for this account (before a rename request) , but was not implemented due to a WP:STANDARDOFFER request. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 23:15, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
- From a baby editor: If the "fruit of the poisoned tree" flows from sockmaster to sockpuppet accounts, it would seem that any block, ban, or other sanction would flow similarly, likely with increased duration or severity, to the satellite accounts as well. I tried, in a limited way, to find precedent, but did not succeed. Hiobazard (talk/contribs) 22:56, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Skywolves, xenophobic behaviour, using AI to write, removal of WP:RS, violation of WP:SYNTH
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Skywolves (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Skywolves clearly has issues with anything Iranian/Persian related, removing sourced info related to it and attacking others of that background. They use AI to write both their comments and write their edits, as well violate WP:SYNTH. They strongly deny all of these, but I have evidence. I fail to see how they are a net positive to this project. All this achieved with only 44 edits.
First, their personal attacks / anti-Iranian/Persian remarks. At what point does this get to WP:ZT? Randomly attacking others for their background.
- How can a user named Historyofiran be a moderator? Surely he is not impartial?Especially on Turkish pages, why are the moderators not European citizens but Iranians from this 3rd World country? These guys are doing their best to distort history.
- I call on the Iranian vandals who took over Wikipedia. / Even though you know that these are the Turkic state, you are creating a fake history for yourself. If you are going to write a fake history, then go and delete the Mogol from the Ilhanians wkipedia pahe and write the Iranian
- I believe that you gonna "Persianize" wikipedia someday
- Stop lying, stop misleading people. You always make false accusations. Notice that they say "always", I don't even know this person. Which I'll get into later.
Now onto their disruptive edits (removing info that they dislike/don't agree with, conveniently all Persian related):
- Uyghur Arabic alphabet: removal of "Perso" from Perso-Arabic script , claiming that there is no "such thing as the Persian-Arabic alphabet" in the diff. Yet Wiki has an article of it, and what it linked to (Uyghur Arabic alphabet) also supports that.
- Aq Qoyunlu: removal of sourced "Persianate" twice
- Seljuk Empire: removal of sourced Turco-Persian, changing it to Turco-Islamic
While I don't know Skywolves, they apparently "know" me, in the sense that they've been watching (stalking) me for quite some time, as seen in this diff . To make it short, in the diff they post various links of my different interactions, including one dating back to 2023, as well as a Reddit thread about me. All in an attempt to "bring evidence" to support their attacks against me.
And now to the AI generated comments and edits. Hopefully you should have a good idea by now how this user writes. Just to be safe, here's another example of how Skywolves truly writes .
- In their attempt to bend WP:GS/AA so that they could edit (cause more disruption) in articles related to that, they write this . Now the grammar is suddenly on a much higher level, written more robot like and in bolded bullet points, typical of AI. According to GPTZero, "We are highly confident this text was AI generated".
- At Perso-Turkic war of 627–629, they persistently attempt to connect the events of this war to the collapse of the Sasanian Empire, as well as other things (eg mentions of the events at Tbilisi and Derbent), despite it not even being backed by the citations they add (WP:SYNTH). My edit summaries has a short summary of their source misuse . During the first two times they were reverted, they added more and more random citations, which indicates that the info they added was never based on any source to begin with, and is also likely AI generated. On their fourth attempt at adding it , they seemingly and finally removed the WP:SYNTH bits of the info, which now unsurprisingly makes it completely unrelated to the article, making it seem misplaced and barebones. Not to mention at least some parts of it now are directly copy pasted from the cited citations, again suggesting that the previous info not supported by the citations was not based on anything and was likely AI-generated.
After I told them to please refrain from adding info not supported by citations and list a few relevant policies, they reply with a long AI-generated comment trying to justify their edits and accusing me of several false stuff, such as claiming that I said that one of the citations (the Holmes one) is an "internet source", whatever that means. Frankly, that whole comment is just sheer WP:GAMING and disingenuous, but my report is getting too long. They also wrote another similar AI-generated comment shortly afterwards . --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:43, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
- Dear admins, I have already received a warning for the section called personal attacks, but HistoryofIran brings this issue to the again and puts me under suspicion again, I do not think that I will be sentenced to a penalty again for an issue for which I was warned: please take a look at the warning that Rosguill made for me:
- User talk:Skywolves#c-Rosguill-20251208165200-Skywolves-20251208162100
- User talk:Skywolves#c-Rosguill-20251129190200-Navigating ECR
- 2. Regarding the "disruptive edits" in the section, yes, I did these, but later on, I definitely did not do anything that would violate our Wikipedia policy. Since I was a new member, I could not see the sources properly. I left my edits after seeing the sources. Without getting into an argument because I knew I was wrong and stopped editing.
- 3.HistoryofIran says he doesn't know me, dear admins, but I think he knows me because he constantly comes to my user page and warns me about irrelevant policy: first one, second one and third one or he warns other users, especially about (WP:GS/AA), he constantly warns me about issues that are not irrelevant, and he constantly warns his new users under this policy and undoes their edits. Please take a look here:, Users constantly warned new users that they were not relevant to GSS/AA and made excuses for their reversions (Armenians even warned issues 1000 years old from the Azerbaijan issue with this warning).
- 4.He has attacked me with this since the first day when he repeatedly told me that I was using AI, but I do not think it is right for him to do these repeatedly without any evidence Please take a look here: first one and second one
- 5. Today, he made a personal attack on me in a way that cannot be understated and threat me. Then he changed this message. Please see the before and after changes. 1. and my message then he edited his mesage 2. then he edited tihs message again for proper his report 3.
- Yes, dear administrators, let's talk about the reason for my complaint today. The changes I made about the Perso-Turkic war of 627–629 were retracted many times by HistoryofIran and various reasons were written, so I corrected all of them and published my changes again. Even though the changes I published were completely attributable and taken from reliable sources, an excuse was constantly found and I edited them using my good will. But he constantly reverted these changes by finding an excuse. Please check the changes one by one below.
- His First Revision: He reverted the changes by saying "not even remotely mentioned in the link, which is a barely two page review, not even an actual published source" to the source I added. I maintained my composure and uploaded it again, replacing my source, which was a paid book, with a source freely accessible on the internet and I added and updated one more reference, this time the undo was performed as follows.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Perso-Turkic_war_of_627%E2%80%93629&diff=1328563385&oldid=1328554748
- this time reason were "rv, the info loosely follows the first citation, see WP:SYNTH. Like your previous citation (the review), the second citation doesn't even remotely talk about this either." However, I have since revised the text from the bottom up and supplemented it with additional citations, even though my original citations were, in my view, already adequate.
- And again, with the same excuse, he undid my recovery for the 3rd time.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Perso-Turkic_war_of_627%E2%80%93629&diff=1328616427&oldid=1328608032
- And instead of discussing it with me on the talk page, he made the following warnings that had nothing to do with me: His message in my talk page today. And I tried to explain to him in a gentle manner what I was doing and what he should do, and I told him that we should find a middle ground (my respond). And suddenly he started attacking me and started saying that I was using Ai etc. Dear administrators, I have made all the edits I have made so far with references on a solid basis, I do not think I have done anything to deserve these accusations. His Respond
- /////////////////////////////////////
- Dear administrators, I may have made some mistakes in the past, I may have tried to solve my problems by wrong way. But after @Rosguill warnings rosguill warn to me , I corrected myself and I am working to bring Wikipedia to a better place. As you can see from the chat that opened on my talk page today, I definitely avoided fights but No matter how peaceful I acted, somehow I was found guilty.
- I object to the fact that issues for which I was previously warned are being brought up again and presented as if they are new. I appeal to your sense of fairness. I had already been warned for my past mistakes. I kindly request that your assessment be based on the matters that occurred after that warning. Skywolves (talk) 13:37, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
- 1. It does not matter if you were warned before, any conduct at the whole of your account history can be looked at and an admin can determine that you need to be blocked. In fact this can be an indictment because you continued your behavior after being warned.
- 2. This seems to be an excuse for unjustifiable racism and xenophobia
- 3. Anyone can access your user talk page e.g. in comments. This does not mean that they are stalking you. You seem to not understand that your talk page is accessible to anyone, and can be found easily.
- 4. Your AI usage is pretty easy to detect, and besides WP:LLMCOMM exists and applies here. Never ever use AI to write comments.
- 5. HistoryofIran has the right to bring you to ANI. Especially because you are being racist! Racism is not tolerated here, and anyone who is here to push their racist views is not here to build an encyclopedia.
- In conclusion:
- I Support an indefinite block or even CBAN on this POV-pushing WP:NOTHERE, disruptive and wikilawyering menace. ~2025-31733-18 (talk) 15:33, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
- 1-My first criticism concerns the user named historyofiran. It is an objection to the assumption that this user can be considered impartial, and it questions whether they should be granted broad authority to make generalized judgments in writings related to Turks.
- 2-In the second tagged message, the expression “Iranians vandals” was used in response to an act of vandalism observed in an article concerning the Safavid period, and this constituted a contextual and justified criticism. In Iran, states are generally labeled as “Persian” due to the language they used. However, this raises the question of the Ilkhanate, which was established in Iran: why is it referred to solely as a Mongol state, despite Persian being used as its administrative and literary language? My statements are absolutely not racist; they do not target any individual or any nation. The criticism is directed exclusively at the act of vandalism itself.
- 3-None of my texts were generated using artificial intelligence chatbots. They are entirely my own thoughts and original work. The only tool I used was a translation software (Gramerly), which was employed solely to improve grammatical accuracy and linguistic clarity.
- 4-Turkish states established empires in various regions spread across a vast geography; one of these was Iran. I am making edits in these areas. You cannot portray me as an enemy of Iran based on the numerous edits I have made in this field. I support these arrangements with various sources. I am interested in military history and base my edits on reliable sources.
- As I said before, I have no animosity towards anyone or any nation and I don't find it appropriate for it to be portrayed that way. Regarding the personal attack I allegedly committed previously, I stated that I was warned about it before and did not continue. The user who is currently complaining had made these complaints before and I received a warning; I did not engage in any further behavior after that, but the issues for which I received warnings are being brought up again. Please review the warnings I received below; the topics they are complaining about have already been discussed and I received warnings.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Skywolves#c-Rosguill-20251208153800-HistoryofIran-20251208123200
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Skywolves#c-Rosguill-20251208165200-Skywolves-20251208162100
- And note its aggressiveness toward new members of history:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:HistoryofIran#c-Rosguill-20251211045800-Suggestion_re_issuing_warnings
- He wrote his comment “Turkic bit overlap heavily with”
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:HistoryofIran#c-HistoryofIran-20251219182000-Rosguill-20251211045800 Skywolves (talk) 16:35, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
- HistoryofIran, like every other editor or administrator, has not been "granted broad authority to make generalized judgments in writings related to the Turks." Also, Grammarly uses AI. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 17:12, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
- I used Grammarly in real life in many of my academic studies, and even many professors use this software to edit texts grammatically., If grammatical correction is prohibited in wikipedia, I will not use it again sorry.
- Yes you are right, I respect your opinion. I'm just saying that this isn't about hostility towards Iran or any nation, it's was about user which name historyofiran. I don't think it's right for me to be portrayed as a racist here. What I am trying to tell you is that I have already received a warning in the past because of these issues (WP:PA, WP:NPA, WP:NOPA) (1 2. , 3.), but now I am being complained about the same reasons being brought up again thats not fair. There is a user here who took back 3 of my edits with various excuses and eventually (I fixed all of them proporly and tried find middle way) he decided report me again about racism and the issues I had been warned about in the past. 1
- he suddenly started attacking me on the talk page (There were no reason he suddently threat me then he change his message this one un edited his message 1) Just tell me this, why did this person suddenly start saying he was going to report me and say I'm done with you? While I was talking to him very calmly, he suddenly started attacking?.
- Despite my previous objections, I am once again facing similar allegations. If the warnings I received in the past are deemed valid, I could be subject to another investigation for matters I have already been tried for, potentially facing a new ruling. I am trying to avoid Representing old issues as new (Because while I was trying to edit a section, it was unjustly taken back many times, and each time I tried to make it more appropriate by giving appropriate references, and they want me to be punished by bringing up old issues again. Instead of being punished again for the issues I was warned about, I want to be judged about the rightness of the issue on which today's debate arose. ) Skywolves (talk) 19:02, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
- Unrelated to your discussion, but as a fellow human, on and off wiki, I'd rather read imperfect human text than vapid generated AI slop. Revolving Doormat (talk) 20:08, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
- Yes sir you are right. AI has become so ingrained in our life that we are disgusted when we see it. I read the text many times which I have written and try to write it more accurately in order to express myself better to the opposite side and to prevent even the slightest grammatical error so far. I get help from applications such as Gramerly (Eventhou I have been use gramerly before ai feature) to choose the right word but being more natural and making mistakes has become a more accepted thing in our age. I never thought it would cause such a problem, I am experiencing a new enlightenment. Skywolves (talk) 20:24, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
- I'd rather see you use your own words than to see ChatGPT style AI slop. Using AI slop isn't going to help your case. Felicia (talk) 20:28, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
- Think of it like if all you ever heard was one voice. Everything generated by AI has the same voice. Yours is better and your grammar won't get any better without practice. Revolving Doormat (talk) 21:06, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
- Agreed. I am not perfect with my grammar, I have regressed over the past few years. But using AI slop won't help the accused. I remember the late 2000s to the late 2010s when we didn't have all this AI slop. 2019 is when I turned 18, back then AI slop was in its early stages, but before 2019, there wasn't AI slop. Some aurgue AI slop started in 2020, but it really started in 2019. Felicia (talk) 21:44, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
- Yes sir you are right. AI has become so ingrained in our life that we are disgusted when we see it. I read the text many times which I have written and try to write it more accurately in order to express myself better to the opposite side and to prevent even the slightest grammatical error so far. I get help from applications such as Gramerly (Eventhou I have been use gramerly before ai feature) to choose the right word but being more natural and making mistakes has become a more accepted thing in our age. I never thought it would cause such a problem, I am experiencing a new enlightenment. Skywolves (talk) 20:24, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
- Unrelated to your discussion, but as a fellow human, on and off wiki, I'd rather read imperfect human text than vapid generated AI slop. Revolving Doormat (talk) 20:08, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
- HistoryofIran, like every other editor or administrator, has not been "granted broad authority to make generalized judgments in writings related to the Turks." Also, Grammarly uses AI. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 17:12, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
- Briefly acknowledging that I’ve been pinged in relation to this case both here and at participants user talk pages. I am traveling and will try to review this when I get the chance, although other admins are welcome to address the situation in my absence. signed, Rosguill talk 19:08, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
WP:TLDR of Skywolves' responses;
They finally admit to the use of AI, but only partially for their "grammar", despite it being blatantly obvious the linked comments are heavily AI-generated. They still haven't admitted to using AI in their first edits at Perso-Turkic war of 627–629, and thinks me asking them to adhere to WP:SYNTH and not cite sources that doesn't support the added info as an "excuse". They haven't admitted that the current version of (non-AI, partially direct copy-paste) text they added there is not even related to the article now.
They think there is no problem with them being a xenephobe/racist; since 1) they were (with zero evidence) referring to people who were making "vandalism" 2) my name having "Iran" in it obviously gave them the green light to do that 3) they already got warned for it. They only stopped with it because they found out there would be consequences, a xenephobe/racist doesn't suddenly change in the blink of an eye. Hell, as shown above, this user has been stalking for likely quite some long time, no doubt in a hateful way. After all, I am here to "lie", "mislead", "distort history", "always make false accusations", "Persianize" and worst of all sins, from a "3rd World country". And despite all this, Skywolves is quick to cry wolf about my "attacks" (which they're yet to show an actual diff of).
This user is WP:NOTHERE. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:08, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
- Dear historyofiran, I absolutely did not use any AI program or grammarly type software in any of the edits i made to wikipedia articles. all of the content I added to articles was written entirely by me and properly supported with sources. However i did use grammarly in my wikipedia discussions such as conversations like the one I am having with you because i try to express myself as clearly as possible and choose the most appropriate word to explain myself to people. I tried to keep my text s as clear and explanatory as possible. As I already stated aboveI openly admitted that I used Grammarly in my discussions. If there is going to be any sanction, the resp ected administrators will see this themselves, so i do not think there is any need for you to repeat it.
- Additionally I kin dly ask you to please stop contiunio to insulting me. What do you mean by “cry wolf”? Skywolves (talk) 21:36, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
- Please refrain from engaging in WP:BLUDGEON. HistoryofIran (talk) 21:43, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:Takumi2025
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Takumi2025 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This user Takumi2025 is attempting to vandalize car articles by changing a discontinued production to a current one. Please block this user. Krzys123456 (talk) 10:02, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
- This is not the place for vandalism report, i have help you to report the user to Wikipedia:AIV. Destinyokhiria 💬 12:18, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
DaveZ123
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- DaveZ123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- JackonLee54 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JackonLee54/Archive. These two accounts pretty clearly belong to same person. They're basically single purpose accounts being used to farm translation material for and to promote their own personal blog. They're not really here to edit Wikipedia; many of their edits are adding links to their blog or asking people who speak other languages to translate things for them, meant for their blog.
They're pretty clearly sockpuppeting, but JackonLee54 hasn't been active on enwiki within 90 days so not eligible for SPI block. I propose permanent block for both accounts. grapesurgeon (talk) 14:16, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
- 90 days is with regard to checkuser data. This still belongs at SPI. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:20, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
- Imo even beyond the sockpuppeting there's behavioral issues that can be addressed here. grapesurgeon (talk) 15:33, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
- They can be blocked based on their behavior at SPI if an admin determines it's probable they're a sock. The whole point of SPI is so thet we don't need to have a discussion here about an existing sockmaster and their puppets. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:03, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
- Also, you haven't provided any diffs. I suggest you refile at SPI with diffs. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:06, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
- It's because the diffs are in the SPI report I linked above. Could you look at that investigation and especially at @Asilvering:'s last comment in it? grapesurgeon (talk) 16:09, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
- I see. I should've looked at that first. I still think recent diffs are needed. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:12, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
- here they are a few weeks ago requesting people translate stuff for his blog again. That's basically all he does on Wikipedia; ask people to do things for his blog and promote it grapesurgeon (talk) 16:36, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
- I don't think we need recent diffs to block someone who has basically only ever been here to promote, well, whatever this is, and to waste volunteer time. @Grapesurgeon, you might cross-post this at WP:KOREA? WT:PNT? -- asilvering (talk) 20:05, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
- I see. I should've looked at that first. I still think recent diffs are needed. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:12, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
- It's because the diffs are in the SPI report I linked above. Could you look at that investigation and especially at @Asilvering:'s last comment in it? grapesurgeon (talk) 16:09, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
- Also, you haven't provided any diffs. I suggest you refile at SPI with diffs. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:06, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
- They can be blocked based on their behavior at SPI if an admin determines it's probable they're a sock. The whole point of SPI is so thet we don't need to have a discussion here about an existing sockmaster and their puppets. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:03, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
- I asked because this report is from July and people can change their editing behaviors. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:22, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah, it seems to me that they are probably the same user based on asking people to "review" their transliteration blog, but so what? JackonLee54 has made a total of nine edits since 2020, and none since September 2024, more than a year ago. Just using multiple accounts is not sockpuppetry, the user needs to be using them disruptively, and I see no evidence of that. DaveZ123 seems to be finding users who list proficiency in certain obscure Asian languages on their user pages and asking them for help translating material, and they have more than 5,000 contributions to the incubator wiki for potential new language projects, as well as contributions to numerous other language wikis. WP:AGF is still a policy here. Evidence of disruptive behaviour, or I'm closing this. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:03, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
- I gave the evidence. The user's primary activity on the English Wikipedia is requesting things from others that are unrelated to Wikipedia for their own personal benefit. They posted on my talk page asking me to translate something without disclosing what it was for, turns out it was for a personal project. . This kind of nonsense is their primary activity on the English Wikipedia. If they're somewhat more helpful on other wikis, that's nice for those wikis, but on enwiki they're not noticably helpful, and for disciplinary stuff here we deal with enwiki specific activity. Korean is not an obscure language, it's not like by asking me this they're documenting something very rare. They're doing this to develop and promote their blog. They've also been promoting their blog by posting links to it across various wikipedia articles (I recently scrubbed some more of them), which gives inaccurate information about various languages (it gives inaccurate information about both Chinese and Korean, I speak both). Not really loving the tone of your comment, as if I didn't provide this information up front and I'm just wildly flailing around accusations. Please read my posts closer before treating me like this. grapesurgeon (talk) 21:41, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
- @Ivanvector, this isn't a sockpuppetry report. That's already been done. This is a report on the behaviour of this person. -- asilvering (talk) 21:57, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
- And I'm not seeing what the problem is with this behaviour. They're asking for help with translations, and using those for testing new language edition wikis at the incubator, where they are an administrator (they're a "test-admin", I'm not sure what that means). They also happened to post a link to a transliteration blog, once from what "evidence" has been provided, five months ago. This is what you think we should base a block on? When I said "obscure" languages I did not mean Korean, obviously. I was referring to the series of userbox templates they recently created for speakers of the Shughni language, their years of activity creating test wikis for smaller languages on the incubator, as well as script rendering templates they created here years ago (as in 2016) for alphabets like Limbu and Sharada. They are asking users here who have noted that they speak these languages. I ask again - what is wrong with that? As far as I can tell DaveZ123 asked grapesurgeon for help once, and they're posting at ANI about it. I'm considering blocking grapesurgeon for assuming bad faith, to be honest.
- DaveZ123 may not be contributing much to English Wikipedia but they are clearly contributing to the Wikipedia movement, and we do not block users for asking for help. I don't understand why this is here at all. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 22:24, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
- ??????? Blocking me? You may as well block asilvering too while you're at it; they're the one who suggested I take this to ANI.
- Can other admins chime in? Frankly Ivanvector's behavior has been inappropriate here. May take up discussion of Ivanvector's behavior elsewhere if it escalates further. grapesurgeon (talk) 22:54, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
- Let's be clear: I'm not doing this because that user posted on my talk page. I don't mind odd requests. I do mind a pattern of like >80% of their behavior being requesting things from others for personal gain. If I had spotted this elsewhere and this user never interacted with me, I would have still filed the report grapesurgeon (talk) 22:58, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
- It's not for personal gain. Ivan just explained what the translations are being used for. Seems like they're doing something beneficial for the community. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:03, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
once from what "evidence" has been provided
Not just one, much more than once. This is just from a recent round of removals; more were removed in the past. They've tried this numerous times. Also, the request made to me was not for Wikipedia or the community; it was for personal gain. They need to disclose that better.- What I will concede is that they're more helpful than I thought they were being. However, I'm still not a fan of how they're doing things for personal gain and not disclosing that properly. If others think the good outweighs the bad, I'm willing to retract report, but I may open a separate report about Ivanvector.
As far as I can tell DaveZ123 asked grapesurgeon for help once, and they're posting at ANI about it.
is a bad faith assumption and Ivanvector wrote their last comment especially in a needlessly condescending and inappropriate way. I didn't treat Ivanvector this way first, Ivanvector avoidably escalated this. I'd like to ask Ivanvector to deescalate this first or I'll begin discussions about whether their behavior has been inappropriate here grapesurgeon (talk) 23:24, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
- @Ivanvector, this isn't a sockpuppetry report. That's already been done. This is a report on the behaviour of this person. -- asilvering (talk) 21:57, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
- I gave the evidence. The user's primary activity on the English Wikipedia is requesting things from others that are unrelated to Wikipedia for their own personal benefit. They posted on my talk page asking me to translate something without disclosing what it was for, turns out it was for a personal project. . This kind of nonsense is their primary activity on the English Wikipedia. If they're somewhat more helpful on other wikis, that's nice for those wikis, but on enwiki they're not noticably helpful, and for disciplinary stuff here we deal with enwiki specific activity. Korean is not an obscure language, it's not like by asking me this they're documenting something very rare. They're doing this to develop and promote their blog. They've also been promoting their blog by posting links to it across various wikipedia articles (I recently scrubbed some more of them), which gives inaccurate information about various languages (it gives inaccurate information about both Chinese and Korean, I speak both). Not really loving the tone of your comment, as if I didn't provide this information up front and I'm just wildly flailing around accusations. Please read my posts closer before treating me like this. grapesurgeon (talk) 21:41, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah, it seems to me that they are probably the same user based on asking people to "review" their transliteration blog, but so what? JackonLee54 has made a total of nine edits since 2020, and none since September 2024, more than a year ago. Just using multiple accounts is not sockpuppetry, the user needs to be using them disruptively, and I see no evidence of that. DaveZ123 seems to be finding users who list proficiency in certain obscure Asian languages on their user pages and asking them for help translating material, and they have more than 5,000 contributions to the incubator wiki for potential new language projects, as well as contributions to numerous other language wikis. WP:AGF is still a policy here. Evidence of disruptive behaviour, or I'm closing this. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:03, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
- Imo even beyond the sockpuppeting there's behavioral issues that can be addressed here. grapesurgeon (talk) 15:33, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
It looks like this person has one more account.
- A-eng (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
See these edits from A-eng (added links to "transliterationisfun.blogspot..."): , , , Here's various links to their blog that I removed. Below, ~2025-42803-03 linked more examples of their blog being added. grapesurgeon (talk) 23:24, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
The URL for their blog was originally "transliterationisfun.blogspot...", but was later changed to "transliterationtools.blogspot...". See these edits:
- Pe̍h-ōe-jī page: "isfun" added by JackonLee54, later changed to "tools" by DaveZ123
- Pha̍k-fa-sṳ page: "isfun" added by JackonLee54, later changed to "tools" by DaveZ123
- Kienning Colloquial Romanized page: "isfun" added by JackonLee54, later changed to "tools" by DaveZ123
~2025-42803-03 (talk) 22:48, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
- That account last edited over 5 years ago. Again, not socking. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:50, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
- As someone wrote above,
this isn't a sockpuppetry report. [...] This is a report on the behaviour of this person
. - The main issue is that they are mainly here to promote their conversion tools on their blog. They have been adding links to their blog (see this and this, if you still don't think the above links are sufficient). It appears that they are not really here (or, are no longer here) to build an encyclopedia. I don't understand why there are people not finding this kind of behavior problematic. ~2025-42542-17 (talk) 23:26, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
- Ivanvector explains that these questions may be contributing (in a particularly minor and indirect way) to Wikipedia by potentially helping start Wikipedias for more obscure languages. However, the way DaveZ123 is conducting this (using multiple accounts, not properly disclosing what this information is being used for), and the fact that they're also partially doing this to support their own blog, still feels wrong to me. I think there's probably a middle way here that Ivanvector is not discussing; feel like we need DaveZ123/JackonLee54 to explain why they're doing the things they're doing, as well as to warn them to disclose properly to others the reasons behind their requests and to get them to use only one account. I don't like the idea of this discussion ending with no action being done grapesurgeon (talk) 23:32, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
- As someone wrote above,
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Talk:2025 Bondi Beach shooting
Can we please get some help with the non-stop WP:RMs at 2025 Bondi Beach shooting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) that are being launched? We're up to I think five in less than a day, and we had one that ran for a week that was closed just yesterday with a conclusive decision, and we already have editors trying to overturn it. This is disruptive and the community deserves a break from this. I closed the current RM as disruptive and was reverted, and do not wish to edit war over a talk page. Consensus can change, but can we please give it at least a week? —Locke Cole • t • c • b 04:04, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
- OP participated in the discussion to build this RM and didn’t raise these concerns there. So far this one is getting better support than any of the others. Mikewem (talk) 04:56, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
- @TarnishedPath, the instigator of the latest RM, did not participate in that discussion. The discussion you linked to is barely four hours old. I did not raise these issues because TarnishedPath did not state they were going to start yet another RM in such short order or I'd have objected.
So far this one is getting better support than any of the others
Might it be from the fatigue? Luck? I'll likely not !vote in that RM as to me it's exhausting having been through so many so rapidly for no good reason when we had one closed after a week just yesterday! Consensus can change, but it's not unreasonable to expect a decision to stand for more than a few hours... —Locke Cole • t • c • b 05:15, 23 December 2025 (UTC) - And now we have swearing from OP Mikewem (talk) 17:37, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
- What are you looking to achieve with that comment? We don't have a prohibition on swearing in discussions. Ed [talk] [OMT] 17:42, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
- I guess they think it's beyond the limits of WP:CIV? ~2025-31733-18 (talk) 18:04, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
- I don’t claim that this is “extreme verbal abuse”, but it is profanity directed at another contributor. We do have a prohibition on that in WP:UNCIVIL
Even a single act of severe incivility could result in a block, such as a single episode of extreme verbal abuse or profanity directed at another contributor, or a threat against another person.
- I’m not asking for them to be blocked for this, because it’s not severe (in my judgment). But I am asking that we discourage continuing this kind of behavior. “Be polite” is right there at the top of the Talk template. The comment was not polite. Mikewem (talk) 18:18, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
- What are you looking to achieve with that comment? We don't have a prohibition on swearing in discussions. Ed [talk] [OMT] 17:42, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
- @TarnishedPath, the instigator of the latest RM, did not participate in that discussion. The discussion you linked to is barely four hours old. I did not raise these issues because TarnishedPath did not state they were going to start yet another RM in such short order or I'd have objected.
- Just for the sake of illustrating why this has ended up here, Locke Cole procedurally closed the most recent RM as being disruptive, which beyond an invocation of WP:IAR is not allowed under WP:RMEC. They stated in said close that they would take this issue to ANI if they were reverted, despite the obvious problems with such an early procedural close, especially when they already proposed a moratorium on RMs for the page, which no-one else supported. I also note that of the RMs following the original 14 December one, this is the only one which has not resulted in immediate unanimous opposes, which I would take as a fair indicator that this one isn't disruptive as of yet. As above so below 05:10, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
- RMEC is an essay, not a WP:PAG. The moratorium
no-one else supported
was closed rapidly with the RM it was closed with. I'd like to think a longer discussion might have resulted in support for at least a one or two week break... as to the results so far, I suppose if you keep flipping coins enough times you'll get heads. —Locke Cole • t • c • b 05:19, 23 December 2025 (UTC) - Look at the block log of the user. Blocks over aggressive conduct dated back to 2005. The user is a repeated offender who shows signs of WP:NOTHERE. Had it been a newbie they would have been indeffed on spot. ~2025-42738-41 (talk) 12:00, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
- No, they would not have. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:11, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
- RMEC is an essay, not a WP:PAG. The moratorium
- People need to chill out and stop letting their politics affect their editing. Reopening RMs right after another has closed or while another is open is disruptive. The moratorium discussion should not have been closed with 3 !votes. That is not even close to being enough to invoke SNOW, particularly when all of the editors opposing are involved in the RMs. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:31, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
I agree with the OP. The constant haggling over back-to-back RMs is taking editors away from the more important task of making the article correct and comprehensive. A moratorium is needed. WWGB (talk) 04:59, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
- I support what WWGB wrote. This is naturally n emotional issue in Australia right now, and time is needed to allow things to calm down. HiLo48 (talk) 05:05, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
- There is no possible universe in which a RM which currebtly has 5 support !votes and 1 oppose !vote is disruptive.
- The notice at the top of this page clearly states
This page is for urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems.
- I have engaged in none of that. OP needs a hard trouting for closing an RM out of process and for filling this illconcieved report. TarnishedPathtalk 05:11, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
- It's disruptive because we just closed an RM less than a day ago, then proceeded to have four more RM or RM-like discussions (with one still open, which I participated in in good faith). That also, in case you missed it, qualifies as
chronic, intractable
behavior. —Locke Cole • t • c • b 05:18, 23 December 2025 (UTC)- Locke, what administrative action are you requesting here? tony 05:27, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
- Procedural close of the open RM and ideally some sort of statement that the current consensus can stand for at least X days/hours. Otherwise, what's the point of holding a week-long discussion if we're just going to turn around and repeat it until the people opposed get the result they want? As WWGB stated above, this obsession with the title is keeping editors from working on improving the article. —Locke Cole • t • c • b 06:23, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
- Admins can't unilaterally impose a moratorium. There needs to be a consensus or at least a strong sentiment for it. See WP:MORATORIUM. Ed [talk] [OMT] 06:26, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
- I might be reading a different WP:MORATORIUM, but this exact situation seems to call for it. Further, I see at least two WP:DISRUPTSIGNS in play here; tendentious editing and not accept consensus/community input. —Locke Cole • t • c • b 07:03, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
- Admins can't unilaterally impose a moratorium. There needs to be a consensus or at least a strong sentiment for it. See WP:MORATORIUM. Ed [talk] [OMT] 06:26, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
- Procedural close of the open RM and ideally some sort of statement that the current consensus can stand for at least X days/hours. Otherwise, what's the point of holding a week-long discussion if we're just going to turn around and repeat it until the people opposed get the result they want? As WWGB stated above, this obsession with the title is keeping editors from working on improving the article. —Locke Cole • t • c • b 06:23, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
- @Locke Cole what was disruptive was your out of process close as an WP:INVOLVED editor. Particular after had already been 5 support !votes. TarnishedPathtalk 12:07, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
- @TarnishedPath Negative, I was attempting to end the disruption. —Locke Cole • t • c • b 16:42, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
- That's rarely what WP:RMCOI achieves fyi. CNC (talk) 18:47, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
- Involved closes on contentious topics do the opposite of that. TarnishedPathtalk 00:10, 25 December 2025 (UTC)
- @TarnishedPath Negative, I was attempting to end the disruption. —Locke Cole • t • c • b 16:42, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
- Locke, what administrative action are you requesting here? tony 05:27, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
- It's disruptive because we just closed an RM less than a day ago, then proceeded to have four more RM or RM-like discussions (with one still open, which I participated in in good faith). That also, in case you missed it, qualifies as
- It's not the best sequence of events I've ever seen, but I'm not seeing a problem with the most recent RM. It's very much not related to the speedily closed and immediately prior RMs. It's also a quite different proposal to and builds upon the primary previous RM. Ed [talk] [OMT] 05:53, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
- Per Ed, this isn't what a disruptive RM looks like. The article is 9 days old, yes there have already been speed/snow closes of RMs for this recently, but this is also relatively normal for a recent event. The current RM has a different focus than the previous, noting that in the main RM the close noted (only yesterday)
A number of editors also proposed changing the descriptor "shooting" to something else, such as "terror attack", terrorist attack", "massacre", or "attack", or adding "Hanukkah". There is no prejudice to further discussion on alternatives to "shooting".
(emphasis added). Thus not seeing an issue. CNC (talk) 18:42, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
- Per Ed, this isn't what a disruptive RM looks like. The article is 9 days old, yes there have already been speed/snow closes of RMs for this recently, but this is also relatively normal for a recent event. The current RM has a different focus than the previous, noting that in the main RM the close noted (only yesterday)
- Not disruptive. In an RM proposing a move to Y, you can say "Move to X," where X != Y. Andre🚐 06:11, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
- +1 Very much this. In fact this could have happened in the RMs which were opened on the 22nd and 23rd, if they weren't closed out of process. Both those previous RMs got all of 3 !votes before being closed before many page watches had a chance to chime in. TarnishedPathtalk 00:06, 25 December 2025 (UTC)
User: ~2025-42633-78
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The user repeatedly disruptively edited the young adult wiki page in ways that bordered on blantant vandalism. Said they were trying to help but did not respond to talk page messages. Continued to not explain edits. Has been warned 3 times. Used 97% chance AI generated post on talk page that did not explain their edits. FloblinTheGoblin (talk) 15:25, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
- Please provide diffs per the instructions at the top of the page. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:13, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
- @Voorts The user only has 10 edits, 9 to the article in question. It's unexplained content removal plus the addition of unsourced original research. qcne (talk) 16:25, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
- Oh yeah I forgot to mention, the specific things are unexplained content removal and addition of irrelevant details despite being warned not to. FloblinTheGoblin (talk) 21:17, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
- Oh sorry.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Young_adult&diff=prev&oldid=1329102005
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Young_adult&diff=prev&oldid=1329102492
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Young_adult&diff=next&oldid=1329102624
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Young_adult&diff=next&oldid=1329105553
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Young_adult&diff=next&oldid=1329105835
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Young_adult&diff=next&oldid=1329106056
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Young_adult&diff=next&oldid=1329106491
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Young_adult&diff=next&oldid=1329106792
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Young_adult&diff=next&oldid=1329104839 FloblinTheGoblin (talk) 16:27, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
- Additionally, here is their talk page comment. FloblinTheGoblin (talk) 16:30, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
- @Voorts The user only has 10 edits, 9 to the article in question. It's unexplained content removal plus the addition of unsourced original research. qcne (talk) 16:25, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:Exsap 3RR violation after warning
Exsap has violated WP:3RR at Royal New Zealand Armoured Corps after receiving multiple warnings, including a 3RR warning. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:14, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
- blocked for 31 hours voorts (talk/contributions) 15:19, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
- As a note, they were edit-warring and being disruptive, so good block, but they were at three reverts, not past 3RR. Back-to-back edits with no other editors' in between them count as a single revert. - The Bushranger One ping only 17:48, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
- There was a TA that seemed to pretty clearly be this editor as well,so I think they passed 3RR, but I blocked just for edit warring in general, not specifically as a 3RR violation. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:26, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
- Ahh, I'd missed that - good catch. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:24, 25 December 2025 (UTC)
- There was a TA that seemed to pretty clearly be this editor as well,so I think they passed 3RR, but I blocked just for edit warring in general, not specifically as a 3RR violation. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:26, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
Astro Alpha Plus
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Astro Alpha Plus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
What should we do with this account? It seems either it's compromised or a LTA. The account still normal until few days ago, they created an attack page, which is similar to a LTA behavior. They also did the same thing on other projects and got blocked from there too. Someone also reported them to the SRG, but no action has been taken yet and this account is still active on enwiki. Nvdtn19 (talk) 06:55, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
- Agreed based on behavior, I have blocked the account as compromised, we'll see what they say. Mfield (Oi!) 06:59, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
{{Checkuser needed}}: Something weird is happening here. They edited in their usual topic area a minute before they created the attack page, and made another normal edit a few seconds later. The vandalism at ranges several months. Is this account really compromised? Are there multiple people logged into it at the same time? Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 16:01, 24 December 2025 (UTC)- Yeah, I just rechecked their contributions. Looking at this edit, it's clear that this is the main topic they contribute to, and they also created an attack page 2 minutes later. Most of the attack pages (with their style) created using temporary accounts in other wikis are also from Malaysia IPs. You may open an investigation if there's something not right, I'm also doubting about this account. Nvdtn19 (talk) 16:39, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
- I used CheckUser and all of the underlying IP addresses geolocate to the same country, so it doesn't look compromised. Interestingly, they are an exact match to Chew Yan Heng (talk · contribs) on multiple IPs. PhilKnight (talk) 18:52, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
- Chew Yan Heng is now globally locked. — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:16, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for clarifying. I also reported Chew Yan Heng to stewards and they're also locking it now. It's unexpected that a regular account can silently become a LTA like that. Nvdtn19 (talk) 00:03, 25 December 2025 (UTC)
- I used CheckUser and all of the underlying IP addresses geolocate to the same country, so it doesn't look compromised. Interestingly, they are an exact match to Chew Yan Heng (talk · contribs) on multiple IPs. PhilKnight (talk) 18:52, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah, I just rechecked their contributions. Looking at this edit, it's clear that this is the main topic they contribute to, and they also created an attack page 2 minutes later. Most of the attack pages (with their style) created using temporary accounts in other wikis are also from Malaysia IPs. You may open an investigation if there's something not right, I'm also doubting about this account. Nvdtn19 (talk) 16:39, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:O1SYT1
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- O1SYT1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This user is clearly WP:NOTHERE. They first started out by making changes to articles by adding their own, low quality images, of themself. (1, 2). Then, once they got warned for this, began mass producing clearly unreviewed LLM generated content such as Dr. Mark Hansen, Draft:Swanson Elementary School, and Holes In My Feet. – LuniZunie(talk) 00:25, 25 December 2025 (UTC)
- I also G15'd an article about themselves at O1S. I assume based on the topics here/edits to what appears to be a friend's sadndbox this is a fairly young editor screwing around who doesn't understand the purpose of Wikipedia. Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 00:41, 25 December 2025 (UTC)
- I've speedy deleted the articles they created. PhilKnight (talk) 00:47, 25 December 2025 (UTC)
- This may be a bit premature since the user was not given much time to respond to warnings. They went quiet after the first couple edits on December 19. After that, their first warning on the 24th was at 00:08 UTC and they seem to have stopped editing as of 00:13. That's a span of only 5 minutes. So they may have gotten the message at this point. But a block may be warranted if disruption continues. I also added G11 and A9 to the CSDs on those pages. They have been disruptive on the Commons with personal file uploads and copyright violations. TornadoLGS (talk) 00:50, 25 December 2025 (UTC)
- @TornadoLGS Apparently, this may not be their first account however. See User:O1SYT. – LuniZunie(talk) 00:52, 25 December 2025 (UTC)
- @LuniZuni: user logs show that account also has an interest in the Milwaukee area. Looks like a WP:DUCK to me. TornadoLGS (talk) 00:55, 25 December 2025 (UTC)
- Blocked. PhilKnight (talk) 00:59, 25 December 2025 (UTC)
- @TornadoLGS Just as a heads up, you pinged my doppelgänger. – LuniZunie(talk) 01:13, 25 December 2025 (UTC)
- @LuniZuni: user logs show that account also has an interest in the Milwaukee area. Looks like a WP:DUCK to me. TornadoLGS (talk) 00:55, 25 December 2025 (UTC)
- @TornadoLGS Apparently, this may not be their first account however. See User:O1SYT. – LuniZunie(talk) 00:52, 25 December 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
DRV discussion invitation
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A user on DRV, voorts, suggested that I take EEng to ANI if I object to their talk page size. Consider this post as my.
There has been a previous discussion over the talk page size: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1060#EEng's talk page size. The editor "promised some housekeeping" back in January 2021, which never materialised.
You are invited to share your insights about deleted archive pages at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2025 December 24. Please do not discuss this issue here. Szmenderowiecki (talk · contribs) 21:35, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
- I said you should bring this to ANI if EEng refuses to clean up his talk page. You didn't even bother asking EEng to do so before filing the DRV and then this. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:40, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
- He clearly refused to do so for the past four years or so, so... Szmenderowiecki (talk · contribs) 21:48, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- For the record, when Szmenderowiecki says (above) that I
"promised some housekeeping" back in January 2021, which never materialised
he shows that (a) dates confuse him (the discussion he linked was March 2021, not January), and (b) he doesn't know how to read a page history -- see for the 163 threads I archived, as promised, cutting the page in half. Or maybe Szmenderowiecki's just lying. Only he can tell us which it is.
- It's funny. Just the other day I was thinking, "Gosh, probably about time to do some archiving." But now that this latest display of dumbfuckery has come hard on the heels of an editor reporting me to the police yesterday for "advocating gun violence" (see here), I think I'll wait another year. EEng 00:26, 25 December 2025 (UTC)
- Notwithstanding how Szmenderowiecki went about this, I agree that your talk page is getting a bit long and would appreciate if you could cut it down a bit. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:37, 25 December 2025 (UTC)
- OK, voorts, since not a creature is stirring, and the stockings are hung by the chimney with care, and the children are nestled all snug in their beds, and Santa says you've been good this year, I'll give it a go. EEng 02:44, 25 December 2025 (UTC)
- Well aren't you a sweetheart! Hey man im josh (talk) 02:50, 25 December 2025 (UTC)
- OK, voorts, since not a creature is stirring, and the stockings are hung by the chimney with care, and the children are nestled all snug in their beds, and Santa says you've been good this year, I'll give it a go. EEng 02:44, 25 December 2025 (UTC)
- Notwithstanding how Szmenderowiecki went about this, I agree that your talk page is getting a bit long and would appreciate if you could cut it down a bit. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:37, 25 December 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Unknown FG persistent block evasion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Unknown FG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Unknown XG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- ~2025-42072-68 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- ~2025-42780-54 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Unknown FG was indef p-blocked from article space per a previous ANI discussion. They quickly started up a new account, Unknown XG, which I thought was so obvious as to be a possible WP:JOEJOB, but which SPI found was likely related. After I reverted their block evading edits, they started using a temp account, then a second one after the first was blocked (example page history). I'm posting here looking for advice and because I'm not sure if SPI is the right place for logged-out block evasion -- I'm not sure what sort of rangeblocks could be possible since the switch to temp accounts, and since they're editing a large number of pages I'm not sure if requesting protection is appropriate. For what it's worth, their edits are in the WP:CT/SA area, but not in either of the ECR subareas. Jay8g [V•T•E] 20:45, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
- SPI can be used for TAs, but if they're sufficiently obvious you will usually get a nicer/quicker reaction at AIV. Izno (talk) 00:08, 25 December 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Another inappropriate user talk page reply
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Sweaty balls for real (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Request to revoke user TPA --みんな空の下 (トーク) 10:40, 25 December 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
AWARE TA continually making unsupported edits
~2025-41964-93 and ~2025-42116-37 are the same editor, they've been making unsupported changes to figures at List of equipment of the Kosovo Security Force such as etc. They were made aware of WP:CT/EE and warned multiple times on both talk pages , but have ignored all warnings and made more unsupported changes today . fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 18:58, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
- Semi-protected by Yue for one week. Left guide (talk) 22:16, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
- This is a constant problem across a LOT of "List of equipment of..." type articles. In my experience, the articles are woefully undersourced with all sorts of wild claims about the equipment. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:16, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
- Agree in general, but the disruption seems uniquely high for this Kosovo list. This is my third report at ANI concerning editors there, not to mention all the IPs, TAs, and sockpuppetry (multiple groups in that SPI). I also keep List of equipment of the Albanian Armed Forces on my watchlist, and despite having nearly double the yearly pageviews, the disruption is less than a half that of the Kosovo page. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 04:58, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
- Possibly because it's Kosovo, and Kosovo has... a lot of recognition issues. ~2025-31733-18 (talk) 06:00, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
- Note that Kosovo falls under WP:CT/EE, so admins, we have additional tools to help deal with this. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:41, 25 December 2025 (UTC)
- This editor has returned as ~2025-42997-72 (TAIV used), and made an unsupported change and removal to Kosovo Security Force which they have attempted before . As stated before, this editor has been made aware of the Balkans and Eastern Europe contentious topic multiple times , and this page is also covered by that contentious topic. Would an admin please block the underlying /64? fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 12:56, 25 December 2025 (UTC)
- Note that Kosovo falls under WP:CT/EE, so admins, we have additional tools to help deal with this. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:41, 25 December 2025 (UTC)
- Possibly because it's Kosovo, and Kosovo has... a lot of recognition issues. ~2025-31733-18 (talk) 06:00, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
- Agree in general, but the disruption seems uniquely high for this Kosovo list. This is my third report at ANI concerning editors there, not to mention all the IPs, TAs, and sockpuppetry (multiple groups in that SPI). I also keep List of equipment of the Albanian Armed Forces on my watchlist, and despite having nearly double the yearly pageviews, the disruption is less than a half that of the Kosovo page. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 04:58, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
Obvious neutrality in the Iran–Israel war article
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello, The article Iran–Israel war appears to violate WP:NPOV due to its biased tone and presentation. Additionally, the majority of the sources used are themselves non-neutral, which may also breach WP:BIASEDSOURCES and the general expectation of source neutrality.
I ask the administrators to investigate.
thank — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2025-42559-23 (talk) 17:36, 25 December 2025 (UTC)
- From WP:BIASEDSOURCES:
Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject.
Discuss on the article talk page if you like, but note that WP:ANI does not deal with content issues. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:42, 25 December 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Insulting
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Graffiti Boy 33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has left inapproporiate comments on the edit summary, which violates WP:PA. In addition, this user keeps putting down their personal opinions in Wikipedia, which leads to fail WP:OR. Camilasdandelions (talk!) 02:18, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
- You should warn editors before bringing them to ANI. I have warned the editor to cease making personal attacks. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:27, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:Farard edit-warring, WP:NOTHERE behaviour
Farard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I rarely report new editors this quickly, but this one has made it clear they're currently WP:NOTHERE: rapidly edit-warring, openly ignoring feedback and warnings, and making some minor personal attacks along the way. All their edits involve removing mentions of one ethnicity (Berber), including in cited content, and adding unsourced attributions of another ethnicity (Arab). This has occurred across multiple articles in the last few hours, including:
- Hawwara (, , , ),
- Dhulnunid dynasty (, , , )
- Al-Mamun of Toledo (, , )
- Taifa of Toledo (, ), etc.
If their point has any merit, they can take a step back and discuss this on a relevant talk page with reliable sources. So far they've done the opposite:
- They've been warned multiple times on their talk page from myself and another editor (, , , ), to which their only response has been blanking twice (, ).
- When I invited them to dicuss at Talk:Dhulnunid dynasty, they responded by blanking my comment there as well ().
- Their only other responses, in the edit summaries of their edit-warring, have been to characterize other editors' reverts as "berberist" and "vandalism" (, , , ).
R Prazeres (talk) 04:35, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
- Indef block as NOTHERE and having no competence Editing-wise, it seems that their style of editing is incompatible with wikipedia, and they are acting like a child when called out for their general wrongdoing.
- I will also call this a WP:CIR issue due to their personal attacks at other editors, calling their revets "berberist" is a personal attack in my book.
- so Indef block as WP:NOTHERE and having no competence. shane (talk to me if you want!) 04:59, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
Unconconstructive edits
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article pages User:Sharath bhai, venky vittahal and dsri0123
- Dsri01234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Venky Vittal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Sharath bhai (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
All accounts always vandlism even received three revert rules by one one cares and continous vandlism, when ip users vandalism simply block by admin, but these three users always add unsourced content no one should would take care? Please block this three wikipedian users and save wikipedia. ~2025-42750-84 (talk) 18:15, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
- Note: Also posted at AIV and AN; declined at AIV, further addressed at AN. ~2025-42867-79 (talk) 01:45, 25 December 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Disruptive editing , improper content removal, and vandalism
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello, i would like to report @Онеми for Vandalism and Disruptive editing with him raiding and vandalizing pages about Mongolia, and improper content removal, contrary to multiple Wikipedia policies.
The editor has repeatedly removed or altered sourced historical content across several Mongolia-related pages and drafts, while providing either no discussion or inadequate policy justification. Claiming it to be "Falsification of History" or just "fiction".
1.Disruptive editing of drafts and quality degradation (WP:DISRUPTIVE, WP:V) However, he has added misinformation and remove important data from certain pages with examples of Draft:Kazakh–Oirat Wars and Draft:First Kazakh-Dzungar War — Which he has reduced the quality of the page which was accepted as a C-Tier article into a draft page; removing cited material, added or altered statements without citations and Reduced article quality, resulting in demotion from a C-class state to a draft-level quality. These changes were not accompanied by sourcing improvements or Talk-page discussion, contrary to WP:V and WP:DISRUPTIVE.
2. Disruptive removal of sourced content (WP:DISRUPTIVE, WP:CONSENSUS) On List of wars involving Mongolia, User:Онеми removed entire historical sections (including Rouran, Khitan, Mongol Empire, successor khanates, and Post-imperial Mongolian nations not to forget Oirat States) with the edit summary/diff: “It has nothing to do with Mongolia and each event is stretched into a separate column.”
This constitutes a unilateral scope redefinition of the article, effectively redefining “Mongolia” to mean only the 20th-century modern state, without prior Talk-page discussion or consensus, in violation of WP:CONSENSUS and WP:BRD. The editor believes “Mongolia” should mean only the modern sovereign state, not historical polities. Which appears often and is explicitly rejected in many articles Comparable lists (e.g., List of wars involving China, Iran, Russia) include pre-modern and predecessor states, showing that inclusion of historical polities is standard editorial practice and not exceptional. 3. Improper content removal without addressing sources (WP:V, WP:ONUS) and Original research and false criteria for inclusion (WP:OR, WP:SYNTH) As when a different user confronts them on their talk page, he has claimed that "other states and tribes from the years 1000–1200 that are similarly unrelated to the history of Mongolia; to confirm a connection, an authoritative source must be provided that identifies Mongolia as the successor to these entities. Furthermore, states such as the Golden Horde, the Ilkhanate, and the Timurid Empire have no relation to the Khalkha Mongols, and historians do not write about such succession at all (if I am wrong, please provide sources that name the Khalkha Mongols as a successor to these states)." This introduces an editor-defined criterion that is not required by policy and disregards broader Mongolic political and ethnic continuity recognized in mainstream historiography. Wikipedia does not require a modern ethnic subgroup to be named as a “successor” for historical relevance. This means original research or WP:OR, rather than reflecting how historians classify steppe entities/states.
4. Failure to resolve disputes through discussion (WP:BRD, WP:TPDISC) I have warned them before on their own Talk-Page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:%D0%9E%D0%BD%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%B8#Vandal_about_Draft:Kazakh%E2%80%93Oirat_Wars) that if they raided other pages again, i will make a report it to Wikipedia Administrators. Regarding his own talk page — it features concerns regarding misinformation, deleting pages and drafting pages as they have inadequate source and more. his shows a pattern of repeated removals without discussion, violating WP:BRD and failure to use Talk pages.
I request administrative review of this editor’s conduct and, if deemed appropriate, the following remedial actions: • A formal warning or admonishment regarding disruptive removal of sourced content and unilateral scope redefinition • Guidance or restriction requiring prior Talk-page consensus before making major removals or redefining the historical scope of Mongolia-related articles • Restoration of removed, reliably sourced content pending consensus discussion These measures would help prevent further disruption while allowing disputes to be resolved through established processes.
For these at best, he should receive an indefinite block and remove all of his pages from the main space or perhaps delete them as they are inadequately sourced. MunkhtushigTheGreatMongol (talk) 06:49, 25 December 2025 (UTC)
- You will need to notify the co- collaborator of this wp:content dispute report, on their user page. Augmented Seventh (talk) 07:21, 25 December 2025 (UTC)
- You say you've warned this editor previously then gave a link to a warning from a different, blocked editor. You've not been on their Talk page with this account.
- That blocked editor worked on those articles but you didn't. Is that your previous account?
- Also, please don't use AI to generate ANI reports. Blue Sonnet (talk) 09:41, 25 December 2025 (UTC)
- MunkhtushigTheGreatMongol is a WP:MEATPUPPET of sock-blocked Shadow. 547. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:03, 25 December 2025 (UTC)
- Ohno, I had a feeling when I saw the articles they were writing. The blocked editor says on their Talk page that they commissioned MunkhtushigTheGreatMongol on Telegram to write this report, which would be Wikipedia:PROXYING. Blue Sonnet (talk) 14:06, 25 December 2025 (UTC)
- Together, alongside the Khan of the universe etc. account, they should be taken as a sockfarm and blocked accordingly by administrators. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:10, 25 December 2025 (UTC)
- Ohno, I had a feeling when I saw the articles they were writing. The blocked editor says on their Talk page that they commissioned MunkhtushigTheGreatMongol on Telegram to write this report, which would be Wikipedia:PROXYING. Blue Sonnet (talk) 14:06, 25 December 2025 (UTC)
- I have blocked @MunkhtushigTheGreatMongol for 48 hours for proxying. A longer block may be justified by the potential paid editing aspect, but I am currently busy and not able to investigate. CU involvement would be appreciated. Toadspike [Talk] 17:04, 25 December 2025 (UTC)
- If there's off-wiki evidence of paid editing, please send it to WP:COIVRT. -- asilvering (talk) 20:01, 25 December 2025 (UTC)
- I have nothing beyond the word "commissioned" on User talk:HorseBro the hemionus. I do think the proxying here was a good-faith mistake from two editors who didn't know better, neither of whom is a native English speaker, so I'm not inclined to press for answers on what exactly was meant by "commissioned". I only hoped a CU could confirm that this is indeed meatpuppetry, not sockpuppetry. Toadspike [Talk] 22:01, 25 December 2025 (UTC)
- Munkhtushig and Shadow are as
Unrelated as they come. And no immediately obvious alt accounts for either of them. -- asilvering (talk) 00:44, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
- Munkhtushig and Shadow are as
- I have nothing beyond the word "commissioned" on User talk:HorseBro the hemionus. I do think the proxying here was a good-faith mistake from two editors who didn't know better, neither of whom is a native English speaker, so I'm not inclined to press for answers on what exactly was meant by "commissioned". I only hoped a CU could confirm that this is indeed meatpuppetry, not sockpuppetry. Toadspike [Talk] 22:01, 25 December 2025 (UTC)
- If there's off-wiki evidence of paid editing, please send it to WP:COIVRT. -- asilvering (talk) 20:01, 25 December 2025 (UTC)
- This has turned into a WP:BOOMERANG, but additionally, this report is purely a content dispute. If you disagree with another user's edits, invite them to a discussion on that article's talk page to reach a consensus on what should be done. Good faith edits, even if you disagree with them, is WP:NOTVANDALISM, and it would be inappropriate to call those edits "raiding". You need to resolve content disputes on the talk page, not on this noticeboard.Truthnope (talk) 03:59, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Harassment by Luka Maglc
The user Luka Maglc reverted my edits on three separate pages that he never edited prior to the past few days. In the final revert that I linked (George Washington), Luka directly quoted another user (Binksternet) who had the exact same edit summary . Luka also posted the same edit warning on my talk page as Binksternet . Luka also asked Binksternet to come after me twice: User talk:Binksternet#User Bill Williams is removing well sourced material across wikipedia, User talk:Binksternet#How do I report User:Bill Williams. Luka has a history of disruptive editing; here he says ("If these pages say created by No... that's me") and admitted he is this same user as User talk:No No No No Name fu#October 2024. I'm requesting that he be warned to immediately cease his harassment. Bill Williams 11:01, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
- Maybe I'm missing something, but I'm not really seeing much of a case here beyond a content dispute of sorts. I do, however, see Bill Williams accusing Luka of stalking and sockpuppetry, while telling off (without apparent irony) Binksternet for alleged personal attack and making accusations without evidence.
- That said, I do think Luka ought to make a point of leaving edit summaries, esp. (but not only) when reverting edits, and I will go and remind them of this. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:26, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
- I opened an SPI because I legitimately believed he was sockpuppeting, so I didn't make a personal attack by accusing him of sockpuppeting; the SPI was deleted due a lack of evidence, and I apologized for opening it incorrectly. As for Binksternet, he did make accusations without evidence by claiming that my edits across Wikipedia are driven by bias (i.e. accusing me of bad faith) without backing up his claim. Regardless, I'm more concerned by the fact that Luka is clearly following me to revert my edits, unless he just so happened to go to the George Washington article after the Donald Trump article like I did. Bill Williams 11:34, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
- You literally said two hours ago
"I suspect they're a sockpuppet and I'm going to report them as such"
, and you're admitting here that there was lack of evidence to back this up. And then you turn around and complain that others"make accusations without evidence"
against you. Surely what's sauce for goose, is also sauce for gander? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:47, 26 December 2025 (UTC)- As I said above, I already apologized for my mistake. You're comparing my actions to Luka's even though they are nothing alike. My accusation was Luka is being disruptive with multiple accounts, and I provided evidence for that accusation. I filed an incorrect SPI because although Luka is a disruptive editor who was disruptive with a different account, the other account wasn't blocked, so it doesn't qualify as sockpuppeting. I was not fully aware of the meaning of sockpuppeting, and I incorrectly assumed that sockpuppeting is equivalent to disruptively editing with multiple accounts, regardless of them being blocked or not. Now I am aware of the true meaning and I'll use the term properly in the future. Bill Williams 12:02, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
- You literally said two hours ago
- I opened an SPI because I legitimately believed he was sockpuppeting, so I didn't make a personal attack by accusing him of sockpuppeting; the SPI was deleted due a lack of evidence, and I apologized for opening it incorrectly. As for Binksternet, he did make accusations without evidence by claiming that my edits across Wikipedia are driven by bias (i.e. accusing me of bad faith) without backing up his claim. Regardless, I'm more concerned by the fact that Luka is clearly following me to revert my edits, unless he just so happened to go to the George Washington article after the Donald Trump article like I did. Bill Williams 11:34, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
Disruptive behavior/harassment
Hi, the user Mr.User200 has been showing quite a lot of disruptive behavior against me (feels more like harassment right now). Reverting edits without the usage of edit summaries/zero explanations, stalking my edits and doing the same thing over and over again: , , , and . He has been doing this despite the fact that I asked him several times at his own talk page to stop it: . There are probably many more cases where he edits or reverts content without explaining anything at his edit summaries. He has been doing this for several weeks now, and now he is accusing me of being a sockpuppet account of a account I didn’t even know it existed, due to some wording/grammar similarities at two of my edit summaries (out of like the 1,300+ edits of mine), at the page of: User talk:El C (see: User with disruptive edits behaviour). He wants to start a investigation against me, which I’m fully open for as I know to be fully innocent, but is such behavior normal and acceptable? From his user page I can see that he seems to be acting as a sort of a ‘’sockpuppet police’’, without him even being a admin. Many of his edits are without any edit summaries, and then he accuses me of showing disruptive behavior when I edit something, even when having used the talk page.
I would really appreciate it if someone could help me out with this. Because right now, it looks like he’s trying to change the topic from his own disruptive editing behavior to me being a alleged sockpuppet, which I am not. Woxic1589 (talk) 13:06, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
Editor using bad and abusive language and reverting edits without any proper sources and citations
Miniryuuuu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Miniryuuuu
Uncivil and personal attacks in edit summaries, I want to report repeated uncivil edit summaries by user: @Miniryuuuu directed at me and other editors also. This behavior violates WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA.
Here are the diffs:
At me, on the Mahasu (region) article, abusive as well as xenophobic remarks:-
*diff 1 - "Stop removing our culture and identity. You Shimlaite moron (xenophobic remark and abusive language)
*diff 2 - "Yeah bro we get ur useless area has no prominent peaks" (claimed such things without any sources and citations)
Abusive language used by @Miniryuuuu to other editors also:-
*diff 1 - "Tirthan Valley and Tirthan Wildlife sanctuary are different things, and why are you adding unnecessary links idiot."
*diff 2 - Tentative ain't a big thing idiot
*diff 3 - Lmao kangra has zero UNESCO world heritage sites, stop this stinky PR
*diff 4 - These Punjabis have unreal obsession with us 😭
I have not resoponded to this editor in any kind and I am trying to edit and contribute in neutral way and constructively.
Requesting action on this editor to stop this unethical behaviour. 502hsuya (talk) 13:42, 25 December 2025 (UTC)
this won't change the fact lmao. We are not part of your ugly area. I hope you could something in reality as well. Mahasuvi saaaar, part of Shimla saar Miniryuuuu (talk) 13:45, 25 December 2025 (UTC)
- Minryuuuu blocked for personal attacks. Acroterion (talk) 13:53, 25 December 2025 (UTC)
- @Acroterion I request you to kindly block him for indefinite period as he is trying to distort the facts based on proper citations and sources. He is distorting things on Wikipedia which is totally unacceptable, he will continue show this behaviour, as he is showing this for a long time, with other editors too. As he has reverted major important content with citations in Mahasu (region) page. Wikipedia is a place for neutral information and editors must abide by neutrality, not any sort of propaganda which can be misinformative to the viewers and readers of Wikipedia. 502hsuya (talk) 14:48, 25 December 2025 (UTC)
- Let's see how they do when the block expires. They've made constructive edits elsewhere, and should have a chance to alter their behavior toward other editors. Acroterion (talk) 14:55, 25 December 2025 (UTC)
- @Acroterion Mini's behaviour is clearly bigoted on ethnic grounds, even down to the "saaaaar" thing which is an anti-Indian meme (here being used against a particular region of India, I suppose)
- I don't think a timed block is wise; someone with such obvious bigotry should be required to apologise and demonstrate an understanding of the problem with their behaviour before they resume editing. Hate is disruptive. Athanelar (talk) 14:25, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
- He is again continously removing content from page Mahasu (region) from his IP address @~2025-42920-84
- diff 1- "Wrong information without source, No sources claim these were part of Mahasu region"
- etc 502hsuya (talk) 14:58, 25 December 2025 (UTC)
- He is posting unnecessary misinformation. None of his links support the claim that Kullu and Mandi were parts of Mahasu. Even if you check any sites. Even you won't find the map he used except wikipedia. The map of Mahasu in other sources is completely different, only Wikipedia shows different map. Wikipedia is most trusted source and I just called him out for misinformation. My language was bad i accept it but you can reconfirm the misinformation it doesn't take much time. This is the case of cultural invasion and theft. ~2025-42946-99 (talk) 15:08, 25 December 2025 (UTC)
- This looks a lot like an admission of block evasion. ANI does not resolve content disputes. But protecting the encyclopedia from editors who act with incivility and then evade blocks is ANI's concern. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:12, 25 December 2025 (UTC)
- TA blocked, account block extended. Acroterion (talk) 17:29, 25 December 2025 (UTC)
- @Miniryuuuu, I would strongly urge you to log out and take some time away from Wikipedia and recenter your thoughts and feelings. A content dispute first turned into a 72-hour block for personal attacks. And now the 72-hour block has turned into a seven-day block for block evasion and disruptive editing. As many editors going full tilt into an active dispute discover, there's no medal or any kind of benefit to speedrunning an indefinite block.
- If you believe that content here should be moved into a different connection, the only way one can do that is by having a voice in the creation and editing of that content. And that only happens when you're an editor in good standing, so if you truly care for what the articles here say, then being an editor in good standing is the way to be able to advocate for that. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 19:00, 25 December 2025 (UTC)
- I looked through Miniryuuuu's contributions and felt it appropriate to delete three edit summaries with personal attacks directed at editors they were reverting. Edit summaries such as this one and this one indicate to me likely prejudice and an unserious attitude towards working collaboratively. I think the other responding admins have already being quite generous giving second and third chances by not issuing an indefinite block, as the problematic behaviour did not begin recently. Yue🌙 (talk) 22:04, 25 December 2025 (UTC)
- Note that ~2025-42946-99 above was also Miniryuuuu WP:LOUTSOCKING. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:46, 25 December 2025 (UTC)
- User:Acroterion blocked ~2025-42920-84 for block-evasion. Locus of the behavior for this ANI item seems to be Mahasu (region). DMacks (talk) 23:36, 25 December 2025 (UTC)
- Note that ~2025-42946-99 above was also Miniryuuuu WP:LOUTSOCKING. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:46, 25 December 2025 (UTC)
- I looked through Miniryuuuu's contributions and felt it appropriate to delete three edit summaries with personal attacks directed at editors they were reverting. Edit summaries such as this one and this one indicate to me likely prejudice and an unserious attitude towards working collaboratively. I think the other responding admins have already being quite generous giving second and third chances by not issuing an indefinite block, as the problematic behaviour did not begin recently. Yue🌙 (talk) 22:04, 25 December 2025 (UTC)
- This looks a lot like an admission of block evasion. ANI does not resolve content disputes. But protecting the encyclopedia from editors who act with incivility and then evade blocks is ANI's concern. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:12, 25 December 2025 (UTC)
- He is posting unnecessary misinformation. None of his links support the claim that Kullu and Mandi were parts of Mahasu. Even if you check any sites. Even you won't find the map he used except wikipedia. The map of Mahasu in other sources is completely different, only Wikipedia shows different map. Wikipedia is most trusted source and I just called him out for misinformation. My language was bad i accept it but you can reconfirm the misinformation it doesn't take much time. This is the case of cultural invasion and theft. ~2025-42946-99 (talk) 15:08, 25 December 2025 (UTC)
- Let's see how they do when the block expires. They've made constructive edits elsewhere, and should have a chance to alter their behavior toward other editors. Acroterion (talk) 14:55, 25 December 2025 (UTC)
- @Acroterion I request you to kindly block him for indefinite period as he is trying to distort the facts based on proper citations and sources. He is distorting things on Wikipedia which is totally unacceptable, he will continue show this behaviour, as he is showing this for a long time, with other editors too. As he has reverted major important content with citations in Mahasu (region) page. Wikipedia is a place for neutral information and editors must abide by neutrality, not any sort of propaganda which can be misinformative to the viewers and readers of Wikipedia. 502hsuya (talk) 14:48, 25 December 2025 (UTC)
LLM use and PA by User:Accusermanager
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Accusermanager (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has not that long of an edit history, but the majority of their edits seem to be AI generated. See AI edit summary with some weird duplicate use of citations, the bolding, whatever this TP message is, claims to "comply with policy" via AfC (diff) and then proceeds to move to mainspace anyways, more TP messages ("going forward"), every edit from this one onwards... interested editors may refer to the contribs for some roasted duck.
Their draft is currently at AfD where everyone agrees it is AI generated, and the first version of the draft included numbered headings and other WP:AISIGNS. In response to this warning I posted on their talkpage, the user has come back with increasingly machine-generated and dumbfounding replies and now resorted to, for some reason, two blank replies followed by personal attacks and aspersions of socking. Fermiboson (talk) 13:35, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
- It only proves that I’m not familiar with Wikipedia editing; after two mistakes, I reposted again.Your accusation that large language models create articles is completely slanderous. Accusermanager (talk) 13:38, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
- You're clearly using AI to write comments like the ones linked above. Please don't take us for fools, we see more than enough AI writing to be able to identify it. I would strongly advise you come clean about your AI use, because if you continue to deny it despite the blatant signs, the only outcome here is going to be an indefinite block. (Non-administrator comment) Athanelar (talk) 13:57, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
- First, every piece of content is drafted by me—every sentence, every paragraph—whether it’s for Wikipedia or our current discussion and debate. If a large language model could draft such professional financial knowledge, especially financial expertise not found anywhere online, then the world would be ridiculous. Accusermanager (talk) 14:02, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
- Again, you are fooling nobody.
- Indef this editor and let's be done with it. (Non-administrator comment) Athanelar (talk) 14:05, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
- Your editors also show another characteristic: they never make constructive content suggestions. It’s either maliciously rolling back others’ work or deleting newly created articles. Accusermanager (talk) 14:08, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
- If you can't even do as simple a thing as being honest about your use of AI, nobody is going to take the time to patiently give you constructive content suggestions; we're going to revert the AI slop you're shovelling into articles and move on.
- Your choice at this point is to be honest about your AI usage and actually try to seek feedback about how to edit productively, or to continue digging a hole for yourself, in which case as soon as an admin finally deigns to look at this thread, you will be indefinitely blocked from editing. (Non-administrator comment) Athanelar (talk) 14:11, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
- I don’t believe that a senior, experienced person can’t tell the difference between a human and a machine. And it’s not as if I’m getting paid by Wikipedia—I’m contributing knowledge voluntarily. If my account is blocked, the loss is Wikipedia’s. Content edited by a senior financial professional is simply not something a machine can produce. Accusermanager (talk) 14:16, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
- Are you using some kind of grammar checker like Grammarly, or a machine translation tool like Google Translate, to produce your edits?
- It is evident without a shadow of a doubt that the edits you are creating are not produced by a human alone, and every time you continue to insist as much you are only digging yourself a deeper hole. You need to be honest about any tools you're using to assist your editing process so we can assess them properly. Athanelar (talk) 14:20, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
- You’ve already started maliciously rolling back all my previous edits—a purely destructive act. Accusermanager (talk) 14:23, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
- Pretending to be a temporary user again? IP‑linked! A ridiculous conversation—as if you were the owners of Wikipedia. We’re all just users. Arguing with you here is a waste of my life and has already cost me sleep. Accusermanager (talk) 15:06, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
- I don’t believe that a senior, experienced person can’t tell the difference between a human and a machine. And it’s not as if I’m getting paid by Wikipedia—I’m contributing knowledge voluntarily. If my account is blocked, the loss is Wikipedia’s. Content edited by a senior financial professional is simply not something a machine can produce. Accusermanager (talk) 14:16, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
- Your editors also show another characteristic: they never make constructive content suggestions. It’s either maliciously rolling back others’ work or deleting newly created articles. Accusermanager (talk) 14:08, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
- First, every piece of content is drafted by me—every sentence, every paragraph—whether it’s for Wikipedia or our current discussion and debate. If a large language model could draft such professional financial knowledge, especially financial expertise not found anywhere online, then the world would be ridiculous. Accusermanager (talk) 14:02, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
- You're clearly using AI to write comments like the ones linked above. Please don't take us for fools, we see more than enough AI writing to be able to identify it. I would strongly advise you come clean about your AI use, because if you continue to deny it despite the blatant signs, the only outcome here is going to be an indefinite block. (Non-administrator comment) Athanelar (talk) 13:57, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
- I reverted some of their first edits back in November for being obviously LLM generated and not being adequately sourced. The continued denial despite blatant evidence of LLM usage is troubling. The edit summaries are particularly revealing: I cannot see a reason a person would write
Here’s what actually changed, step by step: --
orHere’s the breakdown: ---
before listing out every change made in the edit. If they admitted to using AI and moved on, that would be one thing, but the continued lying about it approaches CIR. IsCat (talk) 14:00, 26 December 2025 (UTC)- The another Hong Kong student account that rolled back my previous content has finally appeared. Your accounts all seem to share one thing: “Hong Kong student.” Coincidence? Can a large language model really be so capable of historical memory and analysis?! Accusermanager (talk) 14:05, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
- What? Are you accusing me of sockpuppeting? IsCat (talk) 14:07, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
- You were just stating things—are you talking to a robot? You can’t even tell the difference between a human and a machine. Accusermanager (talk) 14:10, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
- Are these... automated replies? This reads like a complete nonsequitor. Why are you asking me if I'm talking to a robot? I was talking to you. I feel like you are digging a deeper hole right now. IsCat (talk) 14:13, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
- You’ve completely forgotten what you said earlier. You previously insisted that the content creation and the discussion were all generated by a large language model. Accusermanager (talk) 14:19, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
- You are conflating me with a different editor. I did not say that. Regardless, I can see this is going nowhere productive so this will be my last reply to you. IsCat (talk) 14:30, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
- You’re now even trying to maliciously undo content from two months ago that you failed to revert at the time—this is nothing but deliberate vandalism. Accusermanager (talk) 14:34, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
- What edits by IsCat do you believe are deliberate vandalism? From what I see, IsCat hasn't reverted anything by you in nearly a month. Please provide specific diffs. Vague accusations aren't going to help. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:50, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
- I can't help but feel that your username is very accurate to what you are doing — you are accusing people repeatedly and casting aspersions. This much aspersions without getting blocked is not that common... ~2025-31733-18 (talk) 14:57, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
- Pretending to be a temporary user again? IP‑linked! A ridiculous conversation—as if you were the owners of Wikipedia. We’re all just users. Arguing with you here is a waste of my life and has already cost me sleep. Accusermanager (talk) 15:07, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
- You’re now even trying to maliciously undo content from two months ago that you failed to revert at the time—this is nothing but deliberate vandalism. Accusermanager (talk) 14:34, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
- You are conflating me with a different editor. I did not say that. Regardless, I can see this is going nowhere productive so this will be my last reply to you. IsCat (talk) 14:30, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
- You’ve completely forgotten what you said earlier. You previously insisted that the content creation and the discussion were all generated by a large language model. Accusermanager (talk) 14:19, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
- Are these... automated replies? This reads like a complete nonsequitor. Why are you asking me if I'm talking to a robot? I was talking to you. I feel like you are digging a deeper hole right now. IsCat (talk) 14:13, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
- You were just stating things—are you talking to a robot? You can’t even tell the difference between a human and a machine. Accusermanager (talk) 14:10, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
- What? Are you accusing me of sockpuppeting? IsCat (talk) 14:07, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
- The another Hong Kong student account that rolled back my previous content has finally appeared. Your accounts all seem to share one thing: “Hong Kong student.” Coincidence? Can a large language model really be so capable of historical memory and analysis?! Accusermanager (talk) 14:05, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
- Accusermanager has disclosed that
AI tools were used only to help refine the wording and improve the readability of the text.
in their talk page. Ca talk to me! 14:44, 26 December 2025 (UTC)- It is perhaps worth noting that many LLM chatbots suggest the wording "used only to help refine the wording and improve the readability of the text" or similar when asked to come up with a defence for using LLM-generated slop in an essay or article. • a frantic turtle 🐢 14:47, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
- And yet in this thread categorically denies their use at all. Athanelar (talk) 14:49, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
Please help me
I am being targeted and maliciously ganged up on by either a single person using multiple accounts or a group of acquaintances (labeled as “Hong Kong student”). They are even systematically reverting all of my previous editing contributions. Accusermanager (talk) 14:29, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
- Accusermanager (talk) 14:42, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
- where？The previous post?
- The articles being rolled back include, but are not limited to:
- Money Services Business
- Money Transmitter
- …
- I will not attempt to edit and improve them again, because this is evidence of malicious vandalism. If the community takes no action against this purely destructive behavior, then so be it—we’ll just have to continue letting imperfect or even incorrect knowledge be presented to the world. Accusermanager (talk) 14:43, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
- This is the least AI generated message I've seen from this user, so that's a good sign. @Accusermanager, I again ask that you be straightforward with your editing behavior. We do want you to continue contributint to Wikipedia, but we also want to ensure that your contributions can be of high quality. guninvalid (talk) 14:44, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
- Pretending to be a temporary user again? IP‑linked! A ridiculous conversation—as if you were the owners of Wikipedia. We’re all just users. Arguing with you here is a waste of my life and has already cost me sleep. Accusermanager (talk) 15:06, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
Pretending to be an IP user again?
I'm sorry?? My username is guninvalid. You can see it in the signature of my comment. guninvalid (talk) 15:08, 26 December 2025 (UTC)- I will stop continuing to argue with people who are a complete waste of time. Accusermanager (talk) 15:10, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
- Accusermanager, nobody is pretending to be an IP/temporary account user. Your accusations are not helping your position. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:09, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
- I will stop continuing to argue with people who are a complete waste of time. Accusermanager (talk) 15:11, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
- That's good to know because your arguments are not helping things. Now, moving forward; will you be using AI/chatbot/LLMs to create content? --Hammersoft (talk) 15:13, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
- I will stop continuing to argue with people who are a complete waste of time. Accusermanager (talk) 15:14, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
- That's good to know because your arguments are not helping things. Now, moving forward; will you be using AI/chatbot/LLMs to create content? --Hammersoft (talk) 15:13, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
- I will stop continuing to argue with people who are a complete waste of time. Accusermanager (talk) 15:11, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
- Pretending to be a temporary user again? IP‑linked! A ridiculous conversation—as if you were the owners of Wikipedia. We’re all just users. Arguing with you here is a waste of my life and has already cost me sleep. Accusermanager (talk) 15:06, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Another request to revoke TPA
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
ArsonDivine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
--みんな空の下 (トーク) 08:53, 28 December 2025 (UTC)
- Done -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:00, 28 December 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
EC gaming by Steppeherder
Steppeherder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I had warned Steppeherder to avoid making cosmetic edits to inflate his edit count after having made him aware of the extended confirmed restriction for the south asian contentious topic (caste and military history). Yet , he is continuing to make such edits to inflate edit count which include mass welcoming new editors that have not even made their first edit (User talk:ClContributorTH,User talk:Lausewitsch,User talk:Nakarinkampoopong), backlinking (incorrectly). Zalaraz (talk) 15:24, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
- @Zalaraz, You are getting me wrong. This was not my purpose. I just like to welcome newcomers using welcome template, patrolling for recent changes, and for Backlinking after getting aware I do not link pages incorrectly. Steppeherder (talk) 15:44, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
- @Steppeherder, I don't think the welcoming tool was intended to be used this way (welcoming users with no edits), otherwise the welcome message would be posted automatically to all new users by the system. (Non-administrator comment) Deltaspace42 (talk • contribs) 16:35, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
- I agree with you @Deltaspace42 but there is welcome (no edit) template available, i.e. I think to use it for welcome users with no edit. Steppeherder (talk) 16:52, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
- @Steppeherder: If you are talking about Template:Welcome-no-edits, its description says that it is "intended for new users who have created their user page, but have not yet contributed elsewhere". So they have to make at least one edit, in articles or their user space. Deltaspace42 (talk • contribs) 16:59, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
- I agree with you @Deltaspace42 but there is welcome (no edit) template available, i.e. I think to use it for welcome users with no edit. Steppeherder (talk) 16:52, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
- @Steppeherder, I don't think the welcoming tool was intended to be used this way (welcoming users with no edits), otherwise the welcome message would be posted automatically to all new users by the system. (Non-administrator comment) Deltaspace42 (talk • contribs) 16:35, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
Twister Swagger
Twister Swagger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) First of all, this user reverted my edit which removed poor cited refs in Out the Window. According to WP:CS, the citation should be cited well, but actually this is not a main reason. The main reason is the source doesn't seem to verify the song's genre perfectly (per WP:EXPLICITGENRE), so I removed it from the infobox. However, this user kept reverting it back, calling my edit as "funny", and further removed huge amount of the contents from Background section and even the reliable source which is listed in WP:A/S.
At first, I put them back and explained the reason for it in edit summaries, but the user still insisted their opinion and repeated the same action. So I stopped reverting, and warned this user not to keep repeating edit war on Out the Window (and this warning was immediately removed by this user). And then, I opened the discussion to address these problems mentioned above. However, this user ignored it, and started to edit other articles such as Tinashe, 333 (Tinashe album), BB/Ang3l (as these articles are in my watchlist, I could watch this user's edits). Sometimes I reverted their action when it seems to be inappropriate such as citing unreliable source[a], wrong information or removing non-problematic contents. (And for now, I also stopped reverting those, as it seems to make unnecessary edit wars.)
This user explained me on Teahouse that they will reply on the discussion in Out the Window soon, telling me to "be patient". This is fine, but the problem is that this user still makes another disruptive edits in various articles, yet not participating in the discussion. This user even opened new discussion in WP:R/S to protest again my edits. About this, an another user commented that Twister Swagger is getting "awfully close to WP:ASPERSIONS". Also, another editor said in Teahouse that Swagger had made a "significant mistake", saying his edit summary was "missing a lot of information". (I added these to show that even other users also think this user's behaviour is not that proper.)
Per these reasons, I decided to report this user as they keep making disruptive edits in various articles and avoid to participate in discussion in which they are directly involved. Causing various, disruptive edits and even opening new discussions, but saying, just wait, doesn't seem ideal to me at all.
- Actually, it was my bad that I misunderstood the source is in unreliable source section. But it was discussed many times with various editors (including me), and it was determined to be unrelible source. (But I forgot to put this source in Unreliable source list)
Camilasdandelions (talk!) 16:27, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
- You started a discussion on a topic we were both previously edit-warring over. Once the discussion began, I stopped reverting edits. I asked you to be patient after you began making repeated edits, as I had not yet replied to the discussion you opened just an hour earlier. I specifically requested “a little patience.” Now, only an hour later, I am being cited on the Administrators’ noticeboard/Incidents for adding a factual, verifiable commercial perspective (something that is fully sourced and neutral) to musical articles unrelated to that discussion.
- 1) You are accusing me of citing unreliable sources, yet in the same text, you contradict yourself and even apologize.
- 2) You are accusing me of adding “wrong information” to the BB/Ang3l article because I added that it failed to chart on the Billboard 200, but the album in fact did not chart on that chart. My statement is based on verifiable sources and reflects the album’s commercial performance accurately.
- 3) Regarding the claim about “removing non-problematic content,” with only three reviews available, a sentence such as “BB/Ang3l received positive critical reception, with reviewers highlighting its focus, intimacy, and Tinashe's creative control” overstates the reception, as it implies a general critical consensus that cannot be supported by so few sources.
- I believe this is a mischaracterization of my actions, as my edits adhere to Wikipedia’s guidelines. Twister Swagger (talk) 16:39, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
- I would not care if you just keep editing other articles without unnecessary edit wars with me, and would stay in patient as you wanted. You just started to edit bunch of articles that I am highly interested in (as you see in my user page), but actually there's no problem with it. The problem is, however, as I stated above, you kept reverting and making unnecessary edit wars as well as a new discussion in WP:A/S to protest my action. Such behaviours are totally incomprehensible to me, and even perhaps, to other users. That's why I decided to listen and follow an administrator's decision.
- For number 2, you first put absolutely wrong information that Joyride did so, and you even acknowledged that you did mistake on writing these. Plus, even though your edits are cited, some of your edits are still inapproporiate, that's why I, and an another user, reverted them. For 3, if it is overestimated, the article would not pass GA status, at all. Also, there's no even guidelines which say like "If the album received under five reviews, type of these stentences cannot be used." Camilasdandelions (talk!) 16:53, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
- As long as my edits are accurate and verifiable, I am allowed to edit articles according to Wikipedia policy - If you are interested in certain articles, does that mean I am supposed to be banned from editing them simply because we were involved in a minor edit war? What are you talking about? (Wikipedia:Ownership of content??)
- Regarding point 2, I did not add wrong information. I initially confused the album’s name with another, which is a distraction error that can happen to any editor on Wikipedia. I corrected this mistake, and the information is and has remained accurate. It seems to me that you are mischaracterizing my actions
- Regarding point 3, I believe it is misleading to present the album as having received a general “critical response” when it was reviewed by only three critics. In my view, that is not sufficient to support a statement implying widespread positive critical consensus, and this aligns with common sense editorial standards on Wikipedia. Twister Swagger (talk) 17:12, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
- 1. "... but there's no problem with it.", "The problem is, [...] you kept reverting and making unnecessary edit wars as well as a new discussion in WP:A/S to protest my action."
- 2. "I initially confused the album’s name with another ..." -> which means that it eventually caused an incorrect information that Joyride didn't enter the Billboard 200. See, after you fixed the title, I didn't revert it.
- 3. In "BB/Ang3l received positive critical reception, with reviewers highlighting its focus, intimacy, and Tinashe's creative control", there is no words talking like the album received a lot of reviews from critics, such as "genereally", "many", or even "widely".
- P.S. the case 3 should be discussed in BB/Ang3l article, not in here, so I'm not going to mention about this anymore. As I need to sleep soon, I'll reply on 5-6 hours later if further replies are commented. Camilasdandelions (talk!) 17:27, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
- 1) If "there's no problem with it." why are you bringing that shit up like it is a problem (mischaracterization of my actions- part 1)
- 2) I believe it is clear that my edits were made in good faith. I also believe that you presented them as if I were attempting a deliberate maneuver or misconduct - it misrepresents my intent and actions. (mischaracterization of my actions- part 2)
- 3. "I'm not going to mention about this anymore. As I need to sleep soon" - guess what, I also have responsibilities outside Wikipedia. The issue is not that you needed to log off, but that within roughly an hour of opening the discussion—and before I had a chance to respond—you escalated the matter to multiple venues (Teahouse, this page, administrators). This contributed to the mischaracterization I am addressing here, simply because I did not reply immediately. Goodnight Twister Swagger (talk) 17:44, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
- 1) ... "shit up"?
What's wrong with you,I didn't say it is problematic, and you knew it. - 3) So, you opened an another discussion again.. Camilasdandelions (talk!) 17:50, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
- "What's wrong with you" sounds like a personal attack. I opened a discussion with another user regarding a single edit we disagreed on. First, you had concerns about edit warring, and now you have concerns about opening discussions. It seems inconsistent. Twister Swagger (talk) 17:54, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
- My apologies. I didn't know it would be perceived as PA to you, as I'm not a native of English-based countries. By the way, hope you know that I had continuously concerned about both cases since the first comment: "This user even opened new discussion ...". Camilasdandelions (talk!) 18:01, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
- I do not accept the apology, as it comes across to me as an attempt to shield yourself while behaving impulsively—something that seems particularly evident today. My concern is not merely about wording, but about how my actions have been characterized throughout this exchange. Twister Swagger (talk) 18:08, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
- My apologies. I didn't know it would be perceived as PA to you, as I'm not a native of English-based countries. By the way, hope you know that I had continuously concerned about both cases since the first comment: "This user even opened new discussion ...". Camilasdandelions (talk!) 18:01, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
- "What's wrong with you" sounds like a personal attack. I opened a discussion with another user regarding a single edit we disagreed on. First, you had concerns about edit warring, and now you have concerns about opening discussions. It seems inconsistent. Twister Swagger (talk) 17:54, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
- 1) ... "shit up"?
- I believe this is a mischaracterization of my actions, as my edits adhere to Wikipedia’s guidelines. Twister Swagger (talk) 16:39, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
Disruptive move maneuver on Kennedy Center
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Apparently a disruptive maneuver was used to have page John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts moved without discussion to Kennedy Center. The new page name got locked which caused move dispute. Requesting the incident to be investigated. ANTIFA20262ND (talk) 23:22, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Harassment by Constable-Savage
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Constable-Savage (talk · contribs · count) apparently took offense to a warning and decided to start harassing Meters (talk · contribs · count) on their talk page. The whole exchange is at User talk:Constable-Savage#December 2025. I'd recommend blocking and revoking TPA as this is clear WP:NOTHERE behavior. TornadoLGS (talk) 22:10, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
- A simple templated warning for blanking sourced content and continuing to inappropriately mark edits as minor resulted in immediate attacks. After two rounds I told them to stop pinging me, only to receive three more pinged attacks. Note the somewhat similar thread a few months ago with user:John at User talk:Constable-Savage#Minor edits, where John was accused of obsessive harassment and trolling. Meters (talk) 22:28, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
Defence against harresment claim
Hello, this is on the advice of another editor to put my case forward in here.
I was contacted tonight around 2200, Boxing Day in the UK by another editor calling themselves "Meters", who was starting to object to a reversion to the article for the movie "X-Men: First Class".
I left the second revision because I wasn't interested in an edit war, however Meters then took it on themselves to directly message me and complain about a completely different article that I altered (in a positive way, or so I thought).
This other editor has to own the fact that if you are going to make - as I quoted "sarky comments", which there was no need for, then expect to be given the brush off.
They then kept repeatedly responding and threatening to bar/block me on Wikipedia - which is nothing more than harassesment by them.
Yes, I did answer back to every reply but the other editior, I am afraid was the instigating element and should have known better.
Happy Christmas to whoever reads this.
~2025-43181-86 (talk) 22:45, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
- I have put this as a subsection since it is the same case as the report above. First, @Constable-Savage:, it's best to stay logged in for these discussions. Second, the above is an entirely inaccurate summary of the interaction. Meters made two reversions of with edit summaries that were perfectly routine , . Constable-Savage then proceeded to hurl insults at Meters in response to a warning, as they have done with previous warnings per the above. TornadoLGS (talk) 22:57, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:CFA Removing unblock requests
| LTA doing LTA things. Best to deny recognition. (non-admin closure) SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 01:37, 30 December 2025 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. CFA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
|
Hitiste2023 chronic disruptive editing
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am worried about Hitiste2023 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). As seen on their talk page, there are many instances of pages they've created being deleted or moved to draft for not being notable. This seems to keep happening. User has history of copyvios, and was warned about disruptive editing in December 2024, February 2025, March 2025, and October 2025. User has been warned several times about editing using LLMs, and has created several pages using LLMs, in violation of WP:NEWLLM. User consistently links to disambiguation pages, creates nonsensical citations, makes uncited claims, and makes edits that need to be either entirely rewritten or removed. User has 110 reverted edits.
I will give a few examples of diffs that show user making more work for other editors or being disruptive.
- User wrote a poorly sourced section, which another user removed and merged , to which user ignored and added section back
- User added large amounts of uncited content and made erroneous list which made more work for future editors
- On the same page as above user deleted sourced information and replaced it with unsourced
- User created page which cites wikipedia, and needed extensive cleanup
I could go on but this post would end up being far too long. I believe this behavior to be chronic, as it seems to go back as far as the editor has been on Wikipedia. User has been warned many times, and either does not respond or argues.
Thank you for your consideration, feedmepaperr (talk) 04:24, 27 December 2025 (UTC)
- I have indef'd the editor for WP:CIR and left them a message to explain why. Mfield (Oi!) 04:32, 27 December 2025 (UTC)
- oh, that was quick. thanks. feedmepaperr (talk) 04:35, 27 December 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Request for Immediate Removal of Content Violating Indian Law
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Dear Sir/Madam,
I am writing to formally request the immediate removal or anonymisation of content in the following Wikipedia article which discloses the identity of a survivor of sexual assault:
Article link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhavana_(actress)
Disclosure of the identity of a victim of sexual offences is expressly prohibited under Section 228A of the Indian Penal Code. The Supreme Court of India, in Nipun Saxena v. Union of India (2018) and subsequent judgments, has issued binding directions that such identifying details must not be published on any platform, including online and digital media, irrespective of the survivor’s public status or later statements.
The continued availability of this content constitutes a violation of Indian criminal law and a continuing infringement of the survivor’s right to privacy and dignity. I therefore request urgent removal or oversight-level suppression of all identifying information from the article and its revision history, and seek confirmation of the action taken.
Yours sincerely, — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2025-36974-19 (talk) 05:47, 27 December 2025 (UTC)
- I am blocking your account as a standard measure for legal threats, if you feel you have a valid complaint you should email legal@wikimedia.org Mfield (Oi!) 05:55, 27 December 2025 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) Wikipedia is based in the United States and is not subject to Indian law. Also, Section 228A of the Indian Penal Code does not apply because the section is based on statements already made public by the victim. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:56, 27 December 2025 (UTC)
- I believe just because WMF is US based doesn't mean it's not subject to other countries' laws. See m:Legal/Legal Policies#Applicable Law Determination. (Agree with Mfield's response tho.) Levivich (talk) 06:10, 27 December 2025 (UTC)
- I never cease to be amazed at the number of contributors who seem to think that the jurisdiction of Indian courts extends to California. Particularly when a more reasonable request to look into the matter of concern might well have had a productive response. Though quite possibly not in this case, considering that the victim of the assault seems to have been keen to talk about it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:04, 27 December 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Disruptive edits regarding Kennedy Center RM by ANTIFA20262ND
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
ANTIFA20262ND (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has repeatedly been explained to about my closure of the Kennedy Center RM and has continued to post on multiple locations trying to overturn the closure to move to another title. Just hours after the first RM's closing (with a clear consensus for not moving in my opinion), they opened another RM, proposing a move of the title to one which explicitly was stated in the first RM and did not get consensus. This RM was speedy closed, after which they were told that the RM immediately after the previous one was improper.
Following this, they claimed that the title could be changed back to the title before the bold move and was advised against pursuing it due to the RM having consensus for the current title. Despite this they continued advocating for this and made a report here on ANI saying that the move was disruptively manuevered, this was quickly closed by voorts. Even after this, they requested the removal of the move protection for the Kennedy Center page on RFPP, ignoring all the previous advice.
This ignoring of advice and continued failure to drop the issue on this despite being told off many times (also by a TA here) brings me here as the next step, as this is simply disruptive at this point and it doesn't look like they will drop the issue. HurricaneZetaC 01:37, 27 December 2025 (UTC)
- This is a moot. I only finding out what is happening to page title on Kennedy Talkpage. Requesting ANI to be closed asap. I haven`t edit Kennedy Center ever since last move request 24 hours ago. HurricaneZeta is trying to suppress users "talk page discussion" that does not favor the individual likings. Mikewem created a concern about how a page was moved to Kennedy Center. ANTIFA20262ND (talk) 01:54, 27 December 2025 (UTC)
- @ANTIFA20262ND: You are not
only finding out what is happening to page title
. You are trying to reopen discussions that have already been closed. As other editors have told you, there was a discussion to move the page to its current title, and there is not consensus for a different title. If you do not stop trying to change the article's title, you will be blocked for disruptive editing. Please do not insert your politics into editing Wikipedia. Wikipedia articles are written from a neutral point of view and follow what reliable sources say, not what any politician proclaims. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:58, 27 December 2025 (UTC)- Hi voorts, just popping in to note that this ANI thread appears to be concerning the question of a return to the 23 years stable title. English may or may not be Antifa’s first language, and they are a very new editor.
- Antifa did propose an RM that was counter to the recently established consensus, I agree that was not the best thing to do. But they appear to not be advocating for that anymore, which is what we ask of editors when we ask them not to beat a dead horse. Mikewem (talk) 02:07, 27 December 2025 (UTC)
If you do not stop trying to change the article's title, you will be blocked for disruptive editing.
I only requested move one time through the process and haven`t request another one after another as ANI claimed. I never mention I support Republican or Democrat in any of my edits for the reason to get it move. Still no edits in Kennedy center ever since. ANTIFA20262ND (talk) 02:10, 27 December 2025 (UTC)
- You twice said on talk page that an editor could boldly revert the move, and then requested that move protection be removed and started an ANI thread about it. Your intention was clearly to revert the page move. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:18, 27 December 2025 (UTC)
- I am allow discuss concerns on talk page unless you want me just edit in the Kennedy Center page without further discussion. If I processed like 10 more move request then it would be disruptive. ANTIFA20262ND (talk) 02:23, 27 December 2025 (UTC)
- It is disruptive to open an RM discussion immediately after another one has been closed where your proposed title was considered, but rejected. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:26, 27 December 2025 (UTC)
- I disagree that they're not advocating for a page move anymore, per the evidence provided above. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:10, 27 December 2025 (UTC)
- HurricaneZeta never went to my user talk page to highlight the concerns. Just skipped right to ANI report. I like this ANI Case to be closed asap with HurricaneZeta putting highlight of concerns first before doing another ANI. ANTIFA20262ND (talk) 02:17, 27 December 2025 (UTC)
- @ANTIFA20262ND: You are not
- This is a moot. I only finding out what is happening to page title on Kennedy Talkpage. Requesting ANI to be closed asap. I haven`t edit Kennedy Center ever since last move request 24 hours ago. HurricaneZeta is trying to suppress users "talk page discussion" that does not favor the individual likings. Mikewem created a concern about how a page was moved to Kennedy Center. ANTIFA20262ND (talk) 01:54, 27 December 2025 (UTC)
- I am not going to close this thread until you respond to my concerns because I need to be sure that you will not continue to make disruptive edits. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:21, 27 December 2025 (UTC)
- You have to link me all disruptive edits that I committed so i can properly look at each one. I went through normal process for those actions. I never did something like change title of page without discussion, re-open a "REQUESTED MOVE". remove lock protection even through i cant or delete edits disruptively. ANTIFA20262ND (talk) 02:28, 27 December 2025 (UTC)
I never did something like...re-open a "REQUESTED MOVE"
Then what is this? – LuniZunie(talk) 02:38, 27 December 2025 (UTC)- Never re-opened a closed move request by removing the codes. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AKennedy_Center&diff=1329558791&oldid=1329489070 ANTIFA20262ND (talk) 02:41, 27 December 2025 (UTC)
- As said by Voorts, the concern was:
It is disruptive to open an RM discussion immediately after another one has been closed where your proposed title was considered, but rejected.
– LuniZunie(talk) 02:43, 27 December 2025 (UTC)- Trump Kennedy Center is not same as Trump-Kennedy Center ANTIFA20262ND (talk) 02:45, 27 December 2025 (UTC)
- You shouldn't try to be technically correct in these. Both titles, with or without the hyphen, are in the same spirit, and both do not have consensus. The hyphen is a minor change to the title anyway. Additionally,
I never did something like change title of page without discussion
is because you can't, imo your intention was pretty clear when you made the request to remove move protection. HurricaneZetaC 03:11, 27 December 2025 (UTC)
- You shouldn't try to be technically correct in these. Both titles, with or without the hyphen, are in the same spirit, and both do not have consensus. The hyphen is a minor change to the title anyway. Additionally,
- Trump Kennedy Center is not same as Trump-Kennedy Center ANTIFA20262ND (talk) 02:45, 27 December 2025 (UTC)
- As said by Voorts, the concern was:
- Never re-opened a closed move request by removing the codes. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AKennedy_Center&diff=1329558791&oldid=1329489070 ANTIFA20262ND (talk) 02:41, 27 December 2025 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)Relitigating closed RM. Request for removal of protection. Given your persistant WP:WIKILAWYERing here it's clear that you don't believe your actions were disruptive, and thus we have no guarantee that your disruption won't recur. Accordingly I have indefinitely blocked you from Kennedy Center and Talk:Kennedy Center until you can convince us that you do understand that your actions were disruptive and that they will not recur. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:44, 27 December 2025 (UTC)
- Just for the record that New RM title was not part of that closed RM from Dec 18 and submitted page protection change only once and never did it again. ANTIFA20262ND (talk) 02:54, 27 December 2025 (UTC)
- The constant need to have the last word is not doing anything to encourage anyone that you are here to contribute constructively, especially when you are arguing technicalities on a heated move discussion, against consensus, in a contentious topic area, when you have basically no meaningful edit history. Unless you are collecting scout badges for breaking community policies. Mfield (Oi!) 03:20, 27 December 2025 (UTC)
- Not saying any ANI Admins doing anything wrong. They are performing their duties as they should. I am trying figure how ANI starter quickly jumped to ANI without even discussing on my talk page about any of stated claims including a title that was never proposed, claimed constant move or page request on this ANI report. Reviewing "Before Posting" on WP:ANI such as "Consider other means of dispute resolution first" should of been first step. ANTIFA20262ND (talk) 03:32, 27 December 2025 (UTC)
- An editor brought up the renaming issue on your talk page 14 hours ago and you didn't respond at all. This is a community project, and failing to respond to other editors will appear like you are ignoring them and issues then get escalated to noticeboards such as this. Mfield (Oi!) 03:38, 27 December 2025 (UTC)
- [Talkpage] before ANI ANTIFA20262ND (talk) 03:39, 27 December 2025 (UTC)
- This is your talkpage before the AN/I. Note the section RM of Kennedy Center that you had not responded to. Mfield (Oi!) 03:43, 27 December 2025 (UTC)
- Had concerns about that TA since December 14 sudden participation involving a political article and Jimmy Wales. Unless that TA is HurricaneZeta. My final findings - Believe ANI Report should not move forward since HurricaneZeta never once posted on my talk page about the stated concern before this ANI. ANTIFA20262ND (talk) 03:54, 27 December 2025 (UTC)
- Please drop the stick and put away the boomerangs. Casting aspersions and slinging mud will not help you here. CNC (talk) 03:57, 27 December 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah we are done here, I tried. I have indef'd the editor for continually arguing against established policies and demonstrating WP:NOTHERE tendencies absent any significant contributions to the contrary. They can argue the case in an unblock request, but enough time has been wasted arguing here. Mfield (Oi!) 04:36, 27 December 2025 (UTC)
- Please drop the stick and put away the boomerangs. Casting aspersions and slinging mud will not help you here. CNC (talk) 03:57, 27 December 2025 (UTC)
- Had concerns about that TA since December 14 sudden participation involving a political article and Jimmy Wales. Unless that TA is HurricaneZeta. My final findings - Believe ANI Report should not move forward since HurricaneZeta never once posted on my talk page about the stated concern before this ANI. ANTIFA20262ND (talk) 03:54, 27 December 2025 (UTC)
- This is your talkpage before the AN/I. Note the section RM of Kennedy Center that you had not responded to. Mfield (Oi!) 03:43, 27 December 2025 (UTC)
- Not saying any ANI Admins doing anything wrong. They are performing their duties as they should. I am trying figure how ANI starter quickly jumped to ANI without even discussing on my talk page about any of stated claims including a title that was never proposed, claimed constant move or page request on this ANI report. Reviewing "Before Posting" on WP:ANI such as "Consider other means of dispute resolution first" should of been first step. ANTIFA20262ND (talk) 03:32, 27 December 2025 (UTC)
- The constant need to have the last word is not doing anything to encourage anyone that you are here to contribute constructively, especially when you are arguing technicalities on a heated move discussion, against consensus, in a contentious topic area, when you have basically no meaningful edit history. Unless you are collecting scout badges for breaking community policies. Mfield (Oi!) 03:20, 27 December 2025 (UTC)
- Just for the record that New RM title was not part of that closed RM from Dec 18 and submitted page protection change only once and never did it again. ANTIFA20262ND (talk) 02:54, 27 December 2025 (UTC)
- You have to link me all disruptive edits that I committed so i can properly look at each one. I went through normal process for those actions. I never did something like change title of page without discussion, re-open a "REQUESTED MOVE". remove lock protection even through i cant or delete edits disruptively. ANTIFA20262ND (talk) 02:28, 27 December 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Seb az86556 not responding to my request to move my sandbox page on the Navajo Wikipedia after two months
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Seb az86556 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I tried to move my user page sandbox 'nv:Choyoołʼįįhí:PK2/Sandbox' to 'nv:Choyoołʼįįhí:PK2/sandbox' on the Navajo Wikipedia but I couldn't because for some reason, the following warning comes up:
'You do not have permission to move this page, for the following reason:
"Choyoołʼįįhí:PK2/Sandbox" cannot be moved to "Choyoołʼįįhí:PK2/sandbox", because the title "Choyoołʼįįhí:PK2/sandbox" has been banned from creation. It matches the following disallowed titles list entry: (?!(User|Wikipedia)( talk)?:|Talk:)\P{L}*\p{Latin}.*[^\p{Latin}\P{L}].* <moveonly> # Latin + non-Latin'
, which I told Seb az86556, an admin on the Navajo Wikipedia but not this one, about and asked them to move it for me instead because of that, in this edit, but for some reason, they still haven't done that yet after two months. -- PK2 (talk; contributions) 09:18, 27 December 2025 (UTC)
- PK2 We cannot help you with issues on the Navajo Wikipedia, a separate project with its own editors and policies. You will need to address this there using whatever process they have to do so. 331dot (talk) 09:20, 27 December 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:Sugar Tax ignoring me and saying I'm not building an encyclopedia.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Ive been falsely accused of being WP:NOTHERE by the user User:Sugar Tax. Please help me, I googled that you go here to solve stuff admin stuff like this Ahmad Rajeed (talk) 19:07, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
- Courtesy link: Sugar Tax reported Ahma Rajeed to AIV. Schazjmd (talk) 19:10, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
- thanks Ahmad Rajeed (talk) 19:12, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
- AS your talk page demonstrates, multiple experienced contributors have advised you that your behaviour has been inappropriate. You have already been blocked once for adding unsourced content, and you currently only have 64 edits, few of which are to article space. You would probably be well advised to leave editing Wikipedia until such time as you are able to understand how Wikipedia works, and to contribute more usefully. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:29, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
- My apologies for being so blunt, but the only things you've added is stuff like unsourced sentence fragments that appear to be your opinion about something, and when asked repeatedly to source edits and read about how Wikipedia works, you have responded with increasing belligerence. This is a project to build an encyclopedia. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 19:38, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Another inappropriate user talk page reply
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Cxnhdixrc3r3cfr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Please revoke TPA from this account --みんな空の下 (トーク) 11:52, 27 December 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:Normal rookie
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Normal rookie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Filing this here per Zackmann08's suggestion. I recently found these temporary accounts, which may be Rookie's attempt to evade a block or use a sockpuppet:
- ~2025-42687-06 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- ~2025-43086-44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
The edit patterns of these accounts are similar to those of the blocked account. For example:
- In Special:Diff/1329505720, the edit is similar to Rookie's edit here Special:Diff/1324894987, where they added a nowrap template to the candidate names or by editing the election table on BLP in general (see Rookie's history on election table here).
- They also appear to be editing to preserve the previous bloated layout on article Anwar Ibrahim cabinet, continuing the edit patterns from the edit war that occurred prior to the block.
While I can only assume, it might be helpful if someone with CheckUser access could verify IP usage. Since the temporary accounts primarily edit on mobile, it may be worth checking the IP addresses when Rookie edited an article from a mobile device.~2025-43115-97 (talk) 16:28, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
- The temporary accounts are the same editor (TAIV used, I'm not a checkuser). A CU cannot publicly connect TAs and user accounts. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 16:53, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
- Not a CU, but
Looks like a duck to me. - blocking the underlying IP there. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:38, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
- Not a CU, but
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
And another one
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
~2025-43284-51 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
(revoke TPA) --みんな空の下 (トーク) 12:14, 27 December 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Adding tags at 2025 Bangladesh anti-Hindu violence
- 2025 Bangladesh anti-Hindu violence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I wanted to ask for opinions from the admins regarding tagging. The contentious article struggles with several issues, including potential WP:BLPCRIME violations which have been raised at the article's talk page by at least two editors. The article's creator @Jībanmṛta: believe adding maintenance tags to the article is disruptive. Can any admin clarify? Thank you. Avidanalyst (talk) 05:10, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
- This is a content dispute regarding the inclusion of sourced incidents in 2025 Bangladesh anti-Hindu violence. The reporting editor, User:Avidanalyst, along with one other editor, has been attempting to remove the article's Infobox and tag-bomb heavily sourced sections, claiming that incidents of temple vandalism, murti vandalism and attacks on Hindu homes are not "anti-Hindu" unless the source explicitly uses that exact phrase, even when the context (attacks on idols, minority persecution reports) makes it obvious.
- Current consensus on the Talk page involves myself, TryKid, and Win Kyaw opposing these removals and tags. Despite this 3-to-2 standing, Avidanalyst has continued to re-add multiple disruptive maintenance tags ({{dubious span}}, {{Disputed inline}} covering full parts as well as three others) without providing any counter-sources to dispute the reliability of the cited references (which include USCIRF, national dailies, BHBCUC etc.).
- I have repeatedly asked them on the Talk page to provide sources that contradict the text per WP:BURDEN, but they have refused, instead insisting that their personal doubt justifies the tags. I think this is a misuse of maintenance templates to WP:FILIBUSTER a consensus they dislike. I have not engaged in edit warring and have focused on Talk page discussion, urging them to self-revert their disputed changes unless they have nothing except their personal opinion. Jībanmṛtamessage 06:04, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
- You should not even be editing this topic, with the exception of uncontroversial, WP:EDITREQUESTs. You were warned about this a few days ago. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 09:08, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
- @CoffeeCrumbs@Aquillion If you are talking about this notice, it only says "(1) Indian military history, or (2) social groups, explicitly including caste associations and political parties related to India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal" are restricted for users with less than 500 edits. I am not editing any pages under these topics. Does this article fall within this areas? Avidanalyst (talk) 15:30, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
- These are broadly construed, not merely limited to castes and political parties, but social groups. The topic involves groups of people who interact with one another, share similar characteristics, and collectively have a shared unity in that grouping. Religious groups by their very nature are groups of people who have a common set of shared beliefs and explicitly identify themselves, both personally and as a group, as part of that religious group. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:41, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
- I think we're currently in a bit of a grey area regarding the "social groups" ECR. In 2012, the community decided to create a general sanctions regime for South Asian social groups, and the initiating discussion was focused on castes, caste-like community groups, and political parties. Recently, ArbCom absorbed the general sanctions regime into their own contentious topic and imposed ECR.
- It's unclear to me that ethno-religious conflicts that don't majorly feature castes or political parties are included. A broad reading of "social groups" to me does include religious communities, ethnicities, and nationalities, but that I acknowledge that interpretation would lead to a massive expansion over the community's initial intention. There are probably few notable disputes in the history of South Asia that do not include nationality, ethnicity, religion, castes, political parties, or military conflict. So we'd be in a position where practically all of the South Asian contentious topic is under ECR.
- Sorry to go so broad, but I think it's important that we discuss. For the record, I do support EC protection of 2025 Bangladesh anti-Hindu violence and application of ECR, and I plan to take both actions soon. Hoping to hear especially from other uninvolved admins with their interpretation of the contentious topic. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:03, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
- I recently asked at ARCA regarding the "political parties" part of SASG/GSCASTE, and the consensus was that elections, which involve political parties (and thus were intepreted by some as falling under the ECR, hence my asking the question), do not fall under SASG's "broadly construed". This would make sense to me as similar:
religious communities, ethnicities, and nationalities
do fall under SASG/GSCASTE as "social groups" and thus are under ECR, but events involving them do not. - The Bushranger One ping only 17:56, 24 December 2025 (UTC) - I think it's a real problem if religous groups are not part of the ECR area. It's the religious issues between the Mughals and the Marathas that fuels much of the Sambhaji-related problems that directly led to the case in the first place. If it's not applicable, then a lot of what's been done in terms of keeping non-EC out of this area can't actually be done, and we're talking narrowly construed, not broadly. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 19:30, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
- I agree with this reading, and would add that it’s not a problem that essentially all of South Asia’s conflicts fall within this ECR criterion. There’s much more to South Asia than its political disputes, and the political disputes are indeed contentious. I think that the recent ARCA ruling on elections vs political parties was a very confusing outcome that will likely cause us multiple headaches before ultimately being revised; it is not feasible to divide groups and groups’ activity. Maybe it would work if all of the SA social group disputes were questions of “is Subject part of Group A or Group B”, but that isn’t the main component of most disputes in the area: the disputes largely concern violence and politics between groups, ie their activities. signed, Rosguill talk 19:55, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you to everyone who chimed in here. The ARCA thread Bushranger launched was interesting reading. I came to the conclusion that this case is different enough from the routine election pages ArbCom commented on that a different outcome is reasonable. I protected and tagged the article and tagged the talk page. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:39, 27 December 2025 (UTC)
- I recently asked at ARCA regarding the "political parties" part of SASG/GSCASTE, and the consensus was that elections, which involve political parties (and thus were intepreted by some as falling under the ECR, hence my asking the question), do not fall under SASG's "broadly construed". This would make sense to me as similar:
- @CoffeeCrumbs@Aquillion If you are talking about this notice, it only says "(1) Indian military history, or (2) social groups, explicitly including caste associations and political parties related to India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal" are restricted for users with less than 500 edits. I am not editing any pages under these topics. Does this article fall within this areas? Avidanalyst (talk) 15:30, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
- Note that another party has brought Avidanalyst's conduct on this page to AE. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:05, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
Request to decline unblock request, revoke TPA
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Obscene username --みんな空の下 (トーク) 22:29, 27 December 2025 (UTC)
Also more: --みんな空の下 (トーク) 22:34, 27 December 2025 (UTC)
- Warsi.seo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- ~2025-43274-06 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- ~2025-43331-64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- The first one is an LTA that I won't name per WP:DENY, but the second one is a run-of-the-mill SEO spammer for which I don't think TPA revoke is necessary. However, I would've username blocked, as it looks like their name matches an SEO agency. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:22, 27 December 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
BoyDannyOh, SPA, BLP issues, IDHT
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
BoyDannyOh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a new user who appears to be effectively solely here (see their edit history ) to insert a claim into the biography of businesswoman Nicole Junkermann that she allegedly flew on three occasions on Jeffrey Epstein's jet Lolita Express in 2002, citing court documents (a clear violation of WP:BLPPRIMARY) and a book published by a tiny publishing house known for works promoting conspiracy theories by an author known for writing for a fringe website that has published disinformation . They have repeatedly edit warred against multiple users trying to remove the content, which has resulted Junkermann's page ending up temporarily fully protected . Despite the fact that everyone has told them in the BLPN discussion they opened Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Nicole_Junkermann that this content is not appropriate for the article, and that they have to abide by consensus, they have refused to respect consensus and drop the matter, and continue to repetitively argue the point against Wikipedia's actual policies and guidelines, despite being informed about WP:IDHT. At bare minimum, I think that a topic ban from Jeffrey Epstein is probably necessary to avoid further disruption, but I would not oppose an indef. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:41, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
- Aren't you violating BLP yourself by mentioning she flew on the plane? Trade (talk) 23:55, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
- Do you have something actually useful to contribute to this discussion? I am only repeating what is already in the BLPN thread. I'm only mentioning it in the context of this ANI thread for the purposes of discussing user behaviour, which is unlikely to be widely read. I have added "allegedly" if this helps allay your concerns. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:00, 27 December 2025 (UTC)
- Getting back on topic, and regarding BoyDannyOh, clearly not getting it. Personally, I'd go with WP:NOTHERE, given the evident refusal to take any notice of what they have been told. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:04, 27 December 2025 (UTC)
- I would also support a WP:NOTHERE block. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:06, 27 December 2025 (UTC)
- There is no reason to open this case as I was just arguing in a civil manner. If other editors do not agree with me then clearly I will respect their opinion and my proposals will not be added. All this is very unnecessary and unfriendly. BoyDannyOh (talk) 00:23, 27 December 2025 (UTC)
- Civility wasn't the issue. Your repeated refusal to accept that Wikipedia policy doesn't permit the edits you have been making was. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:25, 27 December 2025 (UTC)
- This is your interpretation of things. I wait for other editors to have their opinion. BoyDannyOh (talk) 00:31, 27 December 2025 (UTC)
- Actually, it doesn't matter here if you wait for other editors to have opinions or not, as you are the topic of this discussion, not the controller of it. You did, however, fail to pay attention as editor after editor told you that what you wanted to put in was not appropriate, did not go with our policies and guidelines. You chose not to hear that, kept expecting that we'd have to jump through your hoops to convince you. You made up your own bizarre guidelines for what is acceptable. Limitations to keep you from wasting editors' time is quite reasonable at this juncture. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 01:43, 27 December 2025 (UTC)
- This is your interpretation of things. I wait for other editors to have their opinion. BoyDannyOh (talk) 00:31, 27 December 2025 (UTC)
- BoyDannyOh, you've also been engaging in edit warring. Since December 23, you've conducted no less than 14 reversions at Nicole Junkermann. You're very lucky to have not already been blocked for the over-the-top edit warring. The issue isn't anyone being unfriendly with you. The issue is your editing is causing people to have great concern about your editing and your intent. This must end. Either you agree to abide by our policies and guidelines here, especially with regards to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, or you won't be editing here. It's that simple. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:31, 27 December 2025 (UTC)
- That's why I have raised my case in the noticeboard of Biographies of living persons for other editors to say their opinion. All this is very unnecessary. BoyDannyOh (talk) 00:35, 27 December 2025 (UTC)
- On the contrary, discussing what action to take following a repeated refusal to accept core Wikipedia policy appears to have been entirely necessary, since only now are you apparently accepting that you were in the wrong. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:39, 27 December 2025 (UTC)
- What is absolutely, categorically unnecessary is you trying exceptionally hard to brute force the Epstein association into the article at least 10 times. When did you think it might be a good time to stop trying to do that? 20 times? 100? 1,000,000? Wikipedia is a collaborative editing environment. You can not and will not brute force your way around here trying to force an article to say what you want it to say, most especially on biographies of living people. Your behavior is dramatically out of line. If you're not able to see that, if you actually think what you were doing was inline with our policies, then there is a serious WP:CIR issue here and you probably shouldn't be editing here. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:44, 27 December 2025 (UTC)
- That's why I have raised my case in the noticeboard of Biographies of living persons for other editors to say their opinion. All this is very unnecessary. BoyDannyOh (talk) 00:35, 27 December 2025 (UTC)
- Civility wasn't the issue. Your repeated refusal to accept that Wikipedia policy doesn't permit the edits you have been making was. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:25, 27 December 2025 (UTC)
- There is no reason to open this case as I was just arguing in a civil manner. If other editors do not agree with me then clearly I will respect their opinion and my proposals will not be added. All this is very unnecessary and unfriendly. BoyDannyOh (talk) 00:23, 27 December 2025 (UTC)
- I would also support a WP:NOTHERE block. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:06, 27 December 2025 (UTC)
- Getting back on topic, and regarding BoyDannyOh, clearly not getting it. Personally, I'd go with WP:NOTHERE, given the evident refusal to take any notice of what they have been told. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:04, 27 December 2025 (UTC)
Obstinate refusal to abide by what looks to be a couple consensuses on the same narrow issue indicates that a user is unable to function in a cooperative project. An editor doing this on a BLP regarding a high-profile issue where the allegations are deeply damaging to someone's public image makes this all the worse. Block on all the policy grounds mentioned above. ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:50, 27 December 2025 (UTC)
- I have blocked BoyDannyOh for one month for BLP violations. In addition to their repeated violations of BLP policy, they have been edit warring, editing against consensus, and repeatedly attempting to use unreliable sources. The editor has been advised to spend the next month learning more about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Cullen328 (talk) 01:42, 27 December 2025 (UTC)
Proposal: Topic ban from Jeffrey Epstein
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
In addition to the one month block given by Cullen above, I propose that BoyDannyOh be indefinitely topic banned from Jeffrey Epstein, broadly construed, due to their apparent fixation with the issue and potential for serious harm to BLP subjects. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:55, 27 December 2025 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:55, 27 December 2025 (UTC)
- Support. Clearly necessary, given the circumstances. If BoyDannyOh wants to contribute to Wikipedia, there are plenty of other topics to demonstrate m amore appropriate way to do so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:08, 27 December 2025 (UTC)
- Support given all that has transpired. --Hammersoft (talk) 04:08, 27 December 2025 (UTC)
Support And Epstein DID kill himself, and Trump IS NOT in the files.~2025-43069-52 (talk) 04:15, 27 December 2025 (UTC)- Support, with the corollary that BoyDannyOh can be unblocked upon assenting to such a tban and that the tban can be appealed through conventional channels. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:59, 27 December 2025 (UTC)
- Support The continued WP:IDHT at the BLPN thread shows this is the bare minimum that's needed. FDW777 (talk) 06:54, 27 December 2025 (UTC)
- Comment As the blocking administrator, I will refrain from formal support of additional sanctions. However, I do not oppose this topic ban. Cullen328 (talk) 07:42, 27 December 2025 (UTC)
- Support based on the discussions above --Lenticel (talk) 01:19, 28 December 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
33aircharter - 3RR breach, blatant ignoring of WP:V, administrator impersonation and sockpuppetry
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
33aircharter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is what one might call a veteran of Wikipedia - not by edit count, but by their time in the project. Their talk page goes back to 2015, when they were warned multiple times for not providing sources. Reading through this talk page, they have never learned, and the talk page is littered with notices and warnings about reliable sources.
Most recently, they have been edit warring on Piarco International Airport, restoring content which was removed because it was unsourced for multiple years - . During this time they reached a level 4 warning for adding unsourced content. Finally, an unregistered editor reverted for a fourth time with the edit summary sources will be added
- at the exact same time, 33aircharter responded on their talk page I am adding sources leave it alone
, and left a note on my own talk page reading I am adding sources stop reverting my edits or as admin I will remove you
. This not only makes it blatantly obvious that they logged out for the fourth revert specifically to hide the fact they were breaching 3RR, but also means they're impersonating an administrator (which they aren't - they're merely Extended Confirmed like any other regular user) in order to threaten myself on my talk page. A few minutes later, they're logged in and editing the same page again.
Now I've obviously got no problem whatsoever if sourcing is being improved on an article, but I'm seriously concerned with the pattern of behaviour that's being displayed - this user was warned about WP:V over a decade ago, and has persisted in ignoring the policy ever since, going by the pile of notices and warnings. They also can't claim not to have seen them - the majority have been replied to, and they've even got into heated arguments with other editors. Given this pattern of behaviour, can a (real) administrator please at the very least have a strong word with them that this must stop? Danners430 tweaks made 15:33, 28 December 2025 (UTC)
- I have temporarily blocked 33aircharter (talk · contribs) for 3 days. They've been aware of edit warring issues since at least 2019 and should know better. I've also explained WP:BURDEN to them and informed them that continuing as they have been will result in being blocked again. I have also blocked their temporary account at ~2025-38108-77 (talk · contribs) since it was used in a vain attempt to circumvent WP:3RR. Hopefully this puts an end to this. If not, please re-report. Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 16:03, 28 December 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Croystron again
Croystron (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
First off, an awful lot of Croystron's edits are against MOS:INFOEDU, MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, and/or MOS:OVERLINK, and don't have edit summaries (e.g. this one, this one, and this one). Second, they continued such behavior even though I had tried my best to warn them explicitly. Third, Croystron has been editing Wikipedia for more than two years but, as Rexo noted in a previous ANI discussion against them, had only used a talk page once. Fourth, the ANI discussion I've already linked shows a rough consensus that they're worth another block, no? Thedarkknightli (talk) 15:05, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
- @Thedarkknightli, have you made any attempts to discuss this with them since the previous ANI thread? – bradv 06:36, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, I have, see and .
- A timeline: ANI 1, Block 1, ANI 2, Block 2, Reply, ANI 3.
- The first warning they received since their only reply: User talk:Croystron#October 2025. Thanks, Thedarkknightli (talk) 11:38, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
- Replying as I've discussed this editor before - even ignoring the quality of their edits, I'm really concerned by the above pattern:
- They've been blocked twice for lack of communication.
- We've only had one single response from them - the "reply" diff above where they promised in November 2024 that they would communicate with other editors.
- This post is the only time they've ever used a Talk page of any sort.
- They've never used an article Talk page either.
- This is their fourth ANI.
- This behaviour really needs addressing.
- They've had a timed block and continued without communicating.
- They had an article block, promised to collaborate once then continued without changing their behaviour.
- Even now, they continue to edit without responding to any warning notices nor have they come here to discuss. They are working in complete isolation on a community-driven project.
- Communication is required. Blue Sonnet (talk) 11:04, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
- Replying as I've discussed this editor before - even ignoring the quality of their edits, I'm really concerned by the above pattern:
- Quick post to say that they're continuing to edit after my last attempt to ask for any sort of communication from them.
- Can an admin please poke their head in & take a look? They've shown absolutely no intention to communicate with anyone else, breaking their promise from the last block.Blue Sonnet (talk) 12:50, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
- Wow. That's a remarkable lack of communication. Blocked from Articles and invited to discuss here. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:08, 27 December 2025 (UTC)
- I declined their unblock request on the basis they should start to use article talk pages to show they understand their purpose. PhilKnight (talk) 17:00, 28 December 2025 (UTC)
- Wow. That's a remarkable lack of communication. Blocked from Articles and invited to discuss here. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:08, 27 December 2025 (UTC)
- Can an admin please poke their head in & take a look? They've shown absolutely no intention to communicate with anyone else, breaking their promise from the last block.Blue Sonnet (talk) 12:50, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
Anonymous user who is a caste warrior
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
@~2025-43234-19 this user keeps on making POV-motivated caste-based edits despite me and multiple other editors reverting them. They keep editing articles related to the Ahluwalia caste and ruling dynasty, pushing their viewpoint that they were Jats, despite reliable sources saying otherwise. MaplesyrupSushi (talk) 18:41, 28 December 2025 (UTC)
- Coming to ANI just 4 minutes after opening a discussion on their talk page is premature. ~2025-43585-89 (talk) 18:54, 28 December 2025 (UTC)
- @~2025-43585-89 - You have been engaging in edit warring on Jassa Singh Ahluwalia's page despite me and two other editors reverting you. You have not explained your removal of content on that page nor any other. MaplesyrupSushi (talk) 18:55, 28 December 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah, they're not wrong though. Blocked. Black Kite (talk) 18:56, 28 December 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Repeated disruptive editing
Ajitsinghbhagat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User has repeatedly been breaking Infoboxes by inserting UNKNOWN parameters into them.
Multiple warnings (1, 2, 3) have gone unheeded.
A recent batch of 18 edits had to be bulk reverted because they ALL inserted invalid parameters. I understand the edit in and of itself is a relatively minor issue, but they represent a pattern of behaviors:
- Refusal to listen to repeated warnings/advice
- Refusal to ENGAGE by not responding to/heeding warnings/advice
- Refusal to understand that PREVIEWing is required to not break things
I would also note the many, many warnings on the users talk page about disruptive editing and the need to use WP:PREVIEW that have all gone un-heeded. While I absolutely want to AGF here, the dozens of warnings over the past few months show that this user is not paying attention or listening to those trying to help them. Recommend/request a temporary block to get the message across that this type of behavior is disruptive and needs to stop. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 06:26, 27 December 2025 (UTC)
- Reading through their talk page, it seems this user very rarely replies to concerns about their editing, and even more rarely do their replies actually address the concern raised. Though there isn't a total lack of communication, I still consider this a failure to communicate. I suggest blocking from mainspace to force communication; not sure if that should be temporary or indef. Toadspike [Talk] 10:16, 27 December 2025 (UTC)
- As mentioned in this LLM noticeboard discussion concerning disruption on banking pages, Ajitsinghbhagat does use an LLM for their edits which results in prose like
The branch distribution reflects an emphasis on rural credit and inclusion programmes.
andThe identity boasts symmetry, stability and craftsmanship. Key elements include[:] Upward Arrow, symbolizing Progress and Growth ...
(etc). - When warned about improper LLM use at Disney Star , they replied
it is not llm generated edits
. The edit is here, some described issues are here, instances where Ajitsinghbhagat has addedutm_source=chatgpt.comreferences to that page are here and here. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 13:22, 27 December 2025 (UTC)- I checked that last edit and confirmed there were multiple hallucinated references. Given that they then said they hadn't used LLM, I'm pblocking from article space. I don't know what it will take to regain trust after an act like that, but by not doing a full indef, I'm giving them a chance to reply here. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:45, 28 December 2025 (UTC)
- User:Rsjaffe much appreciated. Hopefully they come back and can do better... Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:48, 28 December 2025 (UTC)
- I checked that last edit and confirmed there were multiple hallucinated references. Given that they then said they hadn't used LLM, I'm pblocking from article space. I don't know what it will take to regain trust after an act like that, but by not doing a full indef, I'm giving them a chance to reply here. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:45, 28 December 2025 (UTC)
Other eyes regarding Reyhna Malhotra article
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Over the last day, User:Starkid 2k:
- Attempted to modify a birth year on the Reyhna Malhotra article four times . In each case, they failed to provide a reliable source to support the claimed birth year.
- While this was going on, a discussion occurred on Talk:Reyhna Malhotra where the person claimed "we are from her direct team". With that admission, I placed at {{uw-paid}} warning on their talk page .
- They ignored the warning and decided to continue editing by saying
"We are from her team and legal team please stay out of it , better don't change her age if you change we will report your account to the wikipedia"
. - Since they were obviously failing to comply with WP:PAID, I blocked them for that and repeated violations of WP:BLP in repeatedly adding unsourced information. I didn't consider the vague "legal team" comment as part of the block.
- I placed the appropriate block notice on their talk page along with a further explanation of why they were blocked and what they should do next .
- A little less than two hours later, they created an obvious sock with User:Reyhnapandit, and once again attempted to add a birth year to the article
- They also posted to the article's talk page, claiming three websites as reliable sources to support the claim.
- I blocked the account as a block evading sockpuppet and directed them to return to their original account to request an unblock (see User talk:Reyhnapandit) and reverted their block evading edits.
I've found other sources indicating other possible birth years as 1982 and 1992 (). I'm not looking for assistance in untangling all the possible sources. I am looking for another set of admin eyes to ensure I'm not too far down in the weeds on this. User:Starkid 2k has been notified of this discussion. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 05:31, 28 December 2025 (UTC)
- I semi-protected for 90 days which should render the socking moot for a while. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 07:08, 28 December 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:Dynamismcool
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Dynamismcool (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Dynamismcool (talk · contribs · logs · block log) is a user who has been editing for over two months, almost exclusively in the realm of flags and coats of arms. This user has been accumulating a steady stream of warnings since 22 October for disruptive editing and edit warring, and has been blocked twice: for 24 hours on 29 October, and then indefinitely the next day. Dynamismcool was responsive throughout, and I believed that, rather than any intent to create problems, the issue might be a learning curve for them in terms of understanding how things work here and when it's appropriate to edit and when not to. So after the user plaintively expressed regret, a passion for contributing and a desire to learn how not to be disruptive, even after a couple of admins had denied unblock requests, I put in my two cents that Dynamismcool be given another chance, and eventually they were.
Unfortunately, Dynamismcool has continued with behaviors after having promised multiple times not to engage in them, and continues to edit in the area (flags and coats of arms) even after additional cautions from me and guidance kindly provided by User:Blue-Sonnet, who suggested that Dynamismcool shift their focus away from that area, since they kept having problems with it, to something like the Typo Team—and Dynamismcool had agreed. In addition, this is after it was already clear that the user often didn't have a solid reason for the changes they were making—they didn't know they were correct, they just seemed right.
The most recent incidents:
- See my discussion at User talk:Dynamismcool#Edit warring with yourself re edits by Dynamismcool to Flag of Georgia (country). The first edit was, according to the edit summary, to "[add] the version from most pages", which might seem reasonable. But then, a couple of days later, apparently disagreeing with their own reasoning for the first edit, they changed it to a Pantone version. After User:LeontinaVarlamonva restored the original version, Dynamismcool proceeded to change it to one of the other files—and then to another one—and then to another one, effectively self-edit-warring. This seems a clear sign of aimless editing and disregard for my earlier emphasis on not making edits without a solid reason for why they were making them and without knowing that they were correct and that they would be undisputed.
- A 19 December edit to Germany replaced the file displayed for the flag with the edit summary "Added RGB version". The next edit to that page was a reversion of that by another user on the grounds that the change had been "not explained". On 21 December, still failing to follow guidance about remaking edits after a dispute, restored their version with the edit summary "Readded RGB version". Yet another user changed it back on 25 December] with the edit summary "i dont know why we use the rgb version, if theres a reason, keep it". Dynamismcool again change to the RGB version the next day, but again without providing a reason.
- After all of this trouble with their own edits, Dynamismcool, who in all cases had come across as meek and wanting to appease, suddenly launched this attack on another user for their edits in the same area. I don't know whether there was any justification for issuing a warning to User:VanMeowington, but at this point Dynamismcool isn't one whose judgment of another user's behavior can be trusted, and the tone of the warning, in the nature of an ultimatum, was unwarranted.
At this point, I think that consideration should be given to blocking Dynamismcool from editing altogether:
- Their disruptive behavior continues.
- They've been given and then squandered many chances to change their approach.
- Even if they are acting in good faith, within their capacity to understand what that involves and to do so, it hasn't been enough, and the problem has become one of a lack of competency.
Pinging the admins involved in the previous blocks and unblock requests: User:Callanecc, User:Drmies, User:DoubleGrazing, User:Significa liberdade, User:Asilvering. Largoplazo (talk) 18:34, 28 December 2025 (UTC)
- This was a last-chance unblock, so, while I really appreciate that you wrote out all of this (it will be helpful to future unblocks admins for sure), a quick word at an admin talk page would have done. I'll reblock, alas. Thank you for your patience. -- asilvering (talk) 19:13, 28 December 2025 (UTC)
- @Asilvering Oh! Ha. Thanks, understood for future reference. Largoplazo (talk) 21:24, 28 December 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
And another request to revoke TPA
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Obscene username --みんな空の下 (トーク) 17:29, 28 December 2025 (UTC)
- What's wrong with "I fixed it" and "Noooooo!!!!"? Admins will only revoke TPA if the user has been highly disruptive / uncivil with the edits to their talk page. Those responses are neither personal attacks nor outright vandalism. — AP 499D25 (talk) 23:15, 28 December 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
EC gaming by User:Pritik Wiki
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Pritik Wiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This user came to my attention through their LLM usage (including using an LLM to deny using an LLM) but while looking through their contribs to find more unreviewed LLM usage, I realised that they'd gamed EC privileges in order to begin editing in caste-related articles.
They're currently at 522 edits at time of writing. Prior to hitting the 500 mark, their contribs consist of a huge number of minor edits, including this null edit, and lots of minor copyedits.
Immediately after they gain EC, though, we see this likely unreviewed AI-generated edit on Kapol community, a caste-related article.
They suddenly go from adding 1-10 bytes per edit to 981 bytes in a single edit to a caste-related page immediately after gaining EC privileges. Textbook WP:GAMING I think, and they ought to have their EC revoked. Athanelar (talk) 11:22, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
- An aware editor gaming EC to copy-and-paste LLM output containing hallucinations (Small-Scale Credit in Western India doesn't appear to exist) into a WP:CT/CASTE-subject page is highly unconstructive behavior. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 13:06, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
- https://gamingcheck.toolforge.org/ graphs make it obvious. EC revoked, can reapply after 500 useful edits. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 04:33, 27 December 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Legal threats and uncivil comments under WP:GS/ACAS by User:Tom Joseph Tomas Kaka
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Tom Joseph Tomas Kaka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Tom Joseph Tomas Kaka makes a series of edits on Toma Tomas under WP:GS/ACAS, and leaves a talk page message . I manually revert the edits and respond to his message , highlighting my reasoning. To summarize, Tom replaced/removed the term "Assyrian" with other identity names, added unsourced information, and is asserting that other editors have an agenda as the article in question concerns his grandfather. I also leave an alert to ACAS on their talk page to let them know about the contentious topics area and procedure .
In response to my reply, Tom makes a legal threat against me: I will be moving to follow a defamation case and legal actions on surayeproject3 and will inform wikipedia upon it. This is enough of defaming and ruining my grandfather's legacy to fit your narrative.
After notifying Tom of WP:NLT, they continue to cast aspersions of agenda-building and bad faith editing . After another editor urges Tom to withdraw his legal threat, his next reply states "Enough is enough with this group, they have attacked my Chaldean Catholic church and have attacked other topics. They are the ones causing a division between our Chaldean, Assyrian and Aramean people. This group has been manipulating articles. I posted the reasons why I changed the info. There is no one currently alive in this world that knows about my late grandfather more than I do. I will grab sources, I will even make sure there are websites with PROOF PICTURES INVOLVED to show this group they cannot touch this LEGEND.
"
Tom has failed to address the initial concerns regarding his edits to the Toma Tomas page, and has instead asserted ownership over the article due to his familial relationship to the subject. Tom is also assuming bad faith acting by accusing "this group" of "causing a division between our Chaldean, Assyrian and Aramean people", which has nothing to do with this article at all. I will await further replies from other uninvolved editors/admins. Surayeproject3 (talk) 05:13, 29 December 2025 (UTC)
-
Thats perfectly fine, :). @Surayeproject3 I am in contact with them now as well.
Response to the notice of this ANI posting on their talk page. This is worded quite vaguely, and I construe this as a personal threat given the talk page discussion. Surayeproject3 (talk) 05:18, 29 December 2025 (UTC)- It is not a threat. It is perfectly fine that they are discussing this issue. See once again you are twisting my words. Now you are defaming me in front of the public eye and this talk. You are twisting my word. Now I am going to construe this as a personal defamation case and purposely trying to hurt character. Tom Joseph Tomas Kaka (talk) 05:21, 29 December 2025 (UTC)
- I have indef'd Tom Joseph Tomas Kaka (talk · contribs) for legal threats at this point. If they are willing to retract the threats I would support blocking them from the article in question as they are clearly unable to manage COI. Mfield (Oi!) 05:26, 29 December 2025 (UTC)
- It is not a threat. It is perfectly fine that they are discussing this issue. See once again you are twisting my words. Now you are defaming me in front of the public eye and this talk. You are twisting my word. Now I am going to construe this as a personal defamation case and purposely trying to hurt character. Tom Joseph Tomas Kaka (talk) 05:21, 29 December 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:OCDD persisetent disruptive editing in many ways
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
OK. So there was this discussion back in September which has links of a previous ANI threads against OCDD. Since then, there has been a lot of warnings for them, particularly this month. This could fall under WP:ANEW, but it is more than just that so quite frankly I think this falls under disruptive editing report, which I am pretty sure falls under incidents. Here are the reports: , , even removing RFD tags rather than just drafting under the RFD tag: (Admins should be able to see the revision history of deleted history at Isha Malviya). And here are the rest of the reports: , , , , . This could fall under either WP:ANI or WP:ANEW, but since some reports relate to one, some relate to the other, I thought I should just do this. Oh, and here is another one related to unexplained removal with no edit summary: . Oh, and this thread Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1196#User:OCDD 31 July 2025 has a bunch of links do disruptive editing. Particularly the links numbered from 219 to 241. Anyways, I propose this user at minimum be blocked from editing Laughter Chefs – Unlimited Entertainment, but with persistent disruptive editing and long history of many warnings, I wouldn't be against them being either blocked for maybe 3 weeks which is one week longer than the last non partial block, here is the full list of block history: , I wouldn't be against an indefinite block for persistent disruptive editing. Servite et contribuere (talk) 04:37, 28 December 2025 (UTC)
- Being blocked from a page that I have updated with refs and correct info is laughable. This user has persistently harassed and stalked me. It’s no wonder they started another discussion about getting me blocked. It is to be noted they were also blocked for being disruptive and not following the three revert rule. OCDD (talk) 15:51, 28 December 2025 (UTC)
- OCDD
It is to be noted they were also blocked for being disruptive and not following the three revert rule.
Quite frankly it is to be noted that you were blocked for 2 weeks on that same discussion. But anyways, let's just get to the fact on Laughter Chefs – Unlimited Entertainment shall we? On this revision here: , if you are making updates, why can't you specify that in your edit summary rather than waiting for someone to revert it than specify. It would be way less time consuming if you described every edit. Not everyone knows about the subject of the article and some users making reverts will be doing recent changes patrolling. So we probably wouldn't be here if you actually summarised your edits so we don't have to check what every edit is. Otherwise when looking at the changes, a lot of us might feel overwhelmed looking at all the changes and not understand why these changes were made. Having to read other editors minds on major changes can be overwhelming. So please, even a small edit summary on each edit helps. Servite et contribuere (talk) 16:03, 28 December 2025 (UTC)- You’re assuming every edit of mine is wrong. It’s not my responsibility to validate you. Your obsession with me has gone beyond boundaries. Your stalking and harassing is abhorrent. OCDD (talk) 16:11, 28 December 2025 (UTC)
- OCDD
You’re assuming every edit of mine is wrong.
I am totally not. I can't even tell whether they are good or not because you almost never use an edit summary. I do generally revert undiscussed major changes when I see them. It is better to be safe than sorry. I am far more likely to revert edits without edit summaries than ones without. Anyways, something I discovered is that you were never given a proper welcome, so here are some pages you might find helpful:- Introduction
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- How to write a great article
- Simplified Manual of Style
- Your first article
- Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
- Feel free to make test edits in the sandbox
- and check out the Task Center, for ideas about what to work on.
- And for a user-friendly interactive help forum, you can see the Wikipedia Teahouse Servite et contribuere (talk) 16:17, 28 December 2025 (UTC)
- OCDD
- You’re assuming every edit of mine is wrong. It’s not my responsibility to validate you. Your obsession with me has gone beyond boundaries. Your stalking and harassing is abhorrent. OCDD (talk) 16:11, 28 December 2025 (UTC)
I have updated with refs and correct info
. It would be good if you used edit summaries like: "Update" or "Correct to what source says" in an edit summary rather than just assuming others will figure it out for themselves. It might not seem like much but it would go a long way. Thank you. Servite et contribuere (talk) 16:09, 28 December 2025 (UTC)- Also you are stalking my edits. Every day. Otherwise you wouldn’t be checking on half the pages you are doing now. Whether it’s your jealousy or simply your little ego. You specifically stalk me, revert all my edits, claim they are wrong even when they are not and are desperate to get me blocked for no reason. Use your energy somewhere else. Especially when I couldn’t care less about you and your edits. Leave me alone. I’m tired of you. OCDD (talk) 16:13, 28 December 2025 (UTC)
- OCDD
OCDD has a history of WP:NOTLISTENING and not wanting to collaborate with anyone else, instead insisting that whatever they do is correct. Their talkpage must have had 30+ warnings (although OCDD blanks their talkpage frequently, so these aren't easily countable). Enough disruption from OCDD to require admin input. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:04, 28 December 2025 (UTC)
- Casting personal attacks at ANI against the editor who reported you is a bold strategy, Cotton. I notice in the previous discussion linked above they made the same stalking accusations against Servite, were told multiple times to provide evidence or drop the claims, and each time only doubled down on, functionally, 'because I said so' (along with further personal attacks). It's clear at this point they are not compatible with a collaborative encyclopedia and I have indef'd. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:30, 29 December 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Frequent Lack of Civility from User:Donenne
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:Donenne has frequently engaged in uncivil behavior against multiple people and me despite continued warnings against it. This has been an ongoing issue for years. From their talk page alone we can see messages relating to attacking other users in December 2016, August 2018, and December 2025. These may seem like distant dates, but this user only has 607 edits it total since the creation of their account in 2015.
Their personal attacks against me started here and this resulted in a 72 hour block as shown here. In spite of their block they immediately continued their attack and called me "mentally disabled" here. This case has been filed in response to their most recent attack in which they stated "Apologies, my silly little cognitively-impaired pet goldfish" here. They also added "if reading isn't your thing for whatever reason" five minutes later here. Jon698 (talk) 05:04, 29 December 2025 (UTC)
- I have blocked them for a week for the personal attacks. Wider concerns about whether they merit a ban as NOTHERE should be addressed here by the community given their block history and limited contributions, alternately another admin can expand my block if they feel it merits more. Mfield (Oi!) 05:11, 29 December 2025 (UTC)
- I indef blocked him. As per the block log: "Being a net negative to the project. Inability to function in a collaborative environment." I also expanded a bit on their user page. We don't need personalities like this here. I can handle rude, crass, even obscene, but not this crap, and I feel the community would agree with my action here if we bothered to have a full out discussion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 09:47, 29 December 2025 (UTC)
- +1 I think there's no question on this one. Anyone who refers to another editor with a slur should be indeffed without question from the start until they present a grovelling apology, the initial 72-hour ban was far too lenient, and there's no reason to follow it up with yet another timed ban if the first one provided no improvement. Athanelar (talk) 11:35, 29 December 2025 (UTC)
- @Dennis Brown, the user has now threatened another editor on their talk page (as well as saying they'll sock).
TPA needs to go as well.TPA revoked by Bishonen. (updated 13:27, 29 December 2025 (UTC)) fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 12:45, 29 December 2025 (UTC)- If there's one thing I detest more than blatant personal attacks, it's people who put the thinnest veil of plausible deniability over it and then try this "not touching you, can't get mad" routine like nobody can see through it. Athanelar (talk) 13:20, 29 December 2025 (UTC)
- Quite. It's not merely that that unblock request was sheer bullshit. It's the insult inherent in Donenne imagining that any admin would swallow it. Ravenswing 17:08, 29 December 2025 (UTC)
- If there's one thing I detest more than blatant personal attacks, it's people who put the thinnest veil of plausible deniability over it and then try this "not touching you, can't get mad" routine like nobody can see through it. Athanelar (talk) 13:20, 29 December 2025 (UTC)
- @Dennis Brown, the user has now threatened another editor on their talk page (as well as saying they'll sock).
- +1 I think there's no question on this one. Anyone who refers to another editor with a slur should be indeffed without question from the start until they present a grovelling apology, the initial 72-hour ban was far too lenient, and there's no reason to follow it up with yet another timed ban if the first one provided no improvement. Athanelar (talk) 11:35, 29 December 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Richafrican adding unreliable sources
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Richafrican (talk · contribs) has been repeatedly warned by different editors on their talk page and in edit summaries that they are using unreliable sources like the WP:Joshua Project (Joshua Project). They continue to do so, changing other sources in the process: Logo people --Rolluik (talk) 11:57, 29 December 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for this, I had never heard of Joshua Project before and it hadn't occurred to me to check if they were listed on RSP. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 12:20, 29 December 2025 (UTC)
- Note the offending user's repeated WP:IDNHT and WP:OWN behavior . A block for EW may be warranted. Borgenland (talk) 13:02, 29 December 2025 (UTC)
- They've continued reverting people (likely over WP:3RR on a few pages by now), and responded to me with whataboutism on their talk pages. Not sure if an AN3 report is appropriate, given that this ANI is already open. Would appreciate an admin taking a look at this though. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 14:43, 29 December 2025 (UTC)
- User talk:Richafrican#Banda people, either the offending user is having WP:CIR issues or some trolling is happening with whataboutism (thrice), gaslighting and a sudden inability to respond to this message board or see the WP:JOSHUAPROJECT shortcut to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, not to mention them suddenly haranguing involved editors on their respective talk pages. Borgenland (talk) 16:08, 29 December 2025 (UTC)
- And for good measure, they vandalized a whole article [] before complaining why I reverted them for vandalism and demanding honesty from me . Borgenland (talk) 16:18, 29 December 2025 (UTC)
- And instead of addressing these concerns in the proper forum, they have now been continuously haranguing me on my talk page User talk:Borgenland#Wikipedia edits. Borgenland (talk) 16:50, 29 December 2025 (UTC)
- And now they admitted planning to sock . Borgenland (talk) 16:57, 29 December 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah, I think i have more than 5 encrypted devices I will always laugh bud and you'll never know who's who makes it clear that this editor is not here to participate in a collaborative project. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 17:00, 29 December 2025 (UTC)
- And now they admitted planning to sock . Borgenland (talk) 16:57, 29 December 2025 (UTC)
- And instead of addressing these concerns in the proper forum, they have now been continuously haranguing me on my talk page User talk:Borgenland#Wikipedia edits. Borgenland (talk) 16:50, 29 December 2025 (UTC)
- And for good measure, they vandalized a whole article [] before complaining why I reverted them for vandalism and demanding honesty from me . Borgenland (talk) 16:18, 29 December 2025 (UTC)
- User talk:Richafrican#Banda people, either the offending user is having WP:CIR issues or some trolling is happening with whataboutism (thrice), gaslighting and a sudden inability to respond to this message board or see the WP:JOSHUAPROJECT shortcut to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, not to mention them suddenly haranguing involved editors on their respective talk pages. Borgenland (talk) 16:08, 29 December 2025 (UTC)
- I think a clarification of a possible WP:UPE is also crucial here. Richafrican asked to be allowed to "do [their] job"
and when asked about being a WP:PAID editor, responded that they were not paid to edit Wikipedia, a very specific tailoring that is familiar to anybody who has interacted with paid editors who do not wish to fully disclose their status. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 16:59, 29 December 2025 (UTC)responded that they were not paid to edit Wikipedia
- Unless I missed something, they never actually said this. I didn't get much of an answer. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 17:04, 29 December 2025 (UTC)
- Crap, hang on, striking, read something too fast on my phone. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 17:06, 29 December 2025 (UTC)
- They've continued reverting people (likely over WP:3RR on a few pages by now), and responded to me with whataboutism on their talk pages. Not sure if an AN3 report is appropriate, given that this ANI is already open. Would appreciate an admin taking a look at this though. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 14:43, 29 December 2025 (UTC)
Personal attacks
. speaks for itself. Borgenland (talk) 17:08, 29 December 2025 (UTC)
- And Diff/1330131823 as well, I think that is a personal attack. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 17:11, 29 December 2025 (UTC)
- A lying sock trying to be terminated by cop. Borgenland (talk) 17:13, 29 December 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah, these are egregious personal attacks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:12, 29 December 2025 (UTC)
- Indeffed for egregious personal attacks. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:13, 29 December 2025 (UTC)
- On some level, it's quite helpful when editors convincingly dissipate any uncertainty about their suitability for participating on Wikipedia. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 17:15, 29 December 2025 (UTC)
- WP:IDNHT at 1:15 . Borgenland (talk) 17:16, 29 December 2025 (UTC)
- Indeffed for egregious personal attacks. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:13, 29 December 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:Erichaaaoo creating fictional drafts about airlines and airports
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Erichaaaoo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This editor has created the following drafts that have a hatnote stating that they are about fictional airlines, fictional airports, or fictional airline routes. These include:
- Draft:Air Borneo
- Draft:Kuching Stephen-Adenan International Airport
- Draft:Airports in Sarawak
- Draft:Airports in Malaysia
These have been (correctly) taken to MFD by User:Spiderone, where the comment has been made by more than one participant that this is a conduct problem, and MFD is not a conduct forum. They aren't in article space, but could get into article space if a reviewer misses the hatnote. Draft space is not a place for fictional drafts (although drafts about fiction are another matter).
I don't like the idea of partially blocking an editor from draft space, but some sort of sanction seems to be in order. Is a topic ban from airports, airlines, and air transportation in order? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:58, 29 December 2025 (UTC)
- They should just be blocked, since this is almost their sole purpose. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:26, 29 December 2025 (UTC)
- Agreed. They also seem completely indifferent to any of the many, many warnings they have received about this. I see someone else has already indefblocked them - the drafts need to be fast-track deleted per WP:SNOWBALL. — The Anome (talk) 23:21, 29 December 2025 (UTC)
- Agreed, i have indef'd them and came back to see The Anome was in process of doing the same. Mfield (Oi!) 23:28, 29 December 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Howard the Duck repeatedly makes personal insults; does not show remorse or take accountability
Howard the Duck (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Comment towards me on Maloi's AfD discussion: "I know the Philippines is in a learning crisis right now, but WP:BANDMEMBER is clear and should be undersatood by sixth grader..."
- Comment towards me on Maloi's AfD discussion: "Again, that the Philippines is an deep learning crisis is on full display here, and that's very sad to see."
- Another user, @AdobongPogi, called Howard the Duck out for personal attacks: "I also want to note that personal attacks don’t contribute constructively to the discussion. This is an objective assessment based on available references and Wikipedia's guidelines."
- Howard the Duck proceeded to make a personal attack on AdobongPogi as well, insulting that user's "reading comprehension."
- Referred to me and other editors such as @Royiswariii, who advocated for Bini members' solo articles to be kept, as "despicable!" here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sophia_Laforteza
I understand that arguments happen on Wikipedia. I have gotten pretty annoyed at certain things myself, but as you can see here for example (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:XG_(group)), I bowed out of a discussion of my own volition because I recognized that I've been in conflict with the editor who responded before. I did not believe that the discussion would be civil, so I willingly left.
Howard the Duck, however, has continually crossed the line far beyond what is acceptable on Wikipedia. This person does not know who I am. We are simply strangers volunteering to edit on a website. Him repeatedly insulting my educational background, as well as using extreme terms like "despicable" to describe me and others over freaking Wikipedia articles, is incredibly inappropriate.
I have also asked him today not to use terms like "trash" in discussions here and he has only doubled down, not even apologizing for making targeted ad hominem attacks against me and other editors: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gwen_(Filipino_singer)
The fact that I do not know who this person is beyond Wikipedia, yet he has made targeted attacks upon my education and character across various discussions, honestly makes me feel unsafe. Bloomagiliw (talk) 11:34, 28 December 2025 (UTC)
- I know there's a difference, but "despicable" refers to the actions of people who had resurrected an article justly deleted after an AFD discussion. Another user understood it, saying "Yes, already aware of that pattern of behaviour at AfDs" (emphasis mine). This is the pattern of behavio(u)r cited by Paper9oll.
- Using the word "trash" to refer to WP:PRIMARY sources is allowable because it is trash". If the user is gravely offended by the usage of this word, which doesn't even refer to his/her work, that's... concerning.
- This user also unilaterally told me not to comment on an AFD. Again, that's concerning. Howard the Duck (talk) 11:41, 28 December 2025 (UTC)
- "Despicable" and "trash" are extreme, emotional language. Even if you excuse it by saying that you were just describing my "actions," "despicable" is an extreme word to describe it. "Trash" is also subjective, not objective, and not constructive either. How helpful is insisting that articles by reliable sources like The Philippine Star are "trash"?
- Also, you insist that I unilaterally told you not to comment on an AfD, I very very very clearly stated "I am kindly asking you not to comment unless you make an effort to be polite."
- The way you keep on justifying your actions is the real concern. All of the "concerns" you have about me are related to editing some articles on Wikipedia.org. I am talking about your language and behavior that cross into personal attacks that genuinely make me feel unsafe, especially because it is clearly targeted. I need you to understand that the world is bigger than this website. Bloomagiliw (talk) 11:46, 28 December 2025 (UTC)
- @Bloomagiliw Wikipedia, to my knowledge, has no guideline against people using 'extreme' language which doesn't otherwise violate CIVILITY/NPA. Calling a source 'trash' is perfectly acceptable, whether it's helpful or productive is another matter.
- That said, @Howard the Duck, you have strategically declined to comment on your insinuations towards this user's level of education, which absolutely is a personal attack, and I'd strongly advise you take the opportunity to address, retract and apologise for those comments here. (Non-administrator comment) Athanelar (talk) 11:51, 28 December 2025 (UTC)
- Understood re: the language bit.
- But see? This person absolutely refuses to take a shred of accountability or show remorse. "Again, that the Philippines is an deep learning crisis is on full display here, and that's very sad to see" is blatantly a personal attack towards me and other editors who advocated for Maloi's page to be kept. Even if you disagree, that's no excuse to make remarks like that. But he's still refusing to take accountability and is now claiming that it's not a personal attack when it was clearly targeted towards me, as everyone else can see.
- He is doubling down and saying you need to take it in context. The full discussion is linked in my original complaint above. Even within context, it is a personal attack and the others called him out for it even then too.
- Understood re: the language bit.
- "Despicable" and "trash" are extreme, emotional language. Even if you excuse it by saying that you were just describing my "actions," "despicable" is an extreme word to describe it. "Trash" is also subjective, not objective, and not constructive either. How helpful is insisting that articles by reliable sources like The Philippine Star are "trash"?
Bloomagiliw (talk) 12:01, 28 December 2025 (UTC)
- @Bloomagiliw: FWIW, some articles in the Philippine Star, Inquirer, ABS-CBN, GMA News, the New York Times, the Guardian, etc, are trash, and deserved to be called as such. I absolutely fail to understand how this concerns you.
- As for "targeted", I fail to see that, as I have never reverted your edits, nor follow you everywhere. I didn't even start the AFD in question. (I CSDed the article earlier this year, but someone else it's a different article, but same subject, from before, so I desisted.)
- @Athanelar: To put into context, the discussion happened in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maloi. My statements on "the Philippines is in a learning crisis right now" is true, and "WP:BANDMEMBER is clear and should be undersatood by sixth grader" may not be true (it may be too complicated enough to be grasped). I fail to see how is a personal attack, even if it is a reply to the user concerned, as it doesn't concern that user as my comment was vote for deletion. Howard the Duck (talk) 11:57, 28 December 2025 (UTC)
My statements on "the Philippines is in a learning crisis right now" is true, and "WP:BANDMEMBER is clear and should be undersatood by sixth grader" may not be true
- I read the discussion, and we both know precisely what your intention was in stating this in response to Bloomagiliw there; it was a jab at them. It absolutely concerns that user, because your implication is very evidently to imply that the user is unereducated due to being Filipino but should still be able to understand WP:BANDMEMBER.
- And that's not to mention your following, much more obvious statement;
Again, that the Philippines is an deep learning crisis is on full display here, and that's very sad to see.
which, if it wasn't obvious enough in its intention, also follows you sayingWP:Competence is required. Until you display this
- It is deeply insulting that you would try to take both myself and Bloomagiliw for a fool by trying to 'contextualise' your comments as anything except what they were. Again, I strongly advise you retract and apologise for these comments. (Non-administrator comment) Athanelar (talk) 12:05, 28 December 2025 (UTC)
- Right, first of all the comments made by Howard the Duck at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maloi were absolutely unacceptable and may have been reason for a sanction if they had been highlighted at the time. However, that was 7 months ago and no action is going to be taken over that unless the behaviour persists. I'm not sure I can see any examples of that here - calling out the quality of sources or edits, whether true or not, is not a personal attack (though, again, I'm somewhat perplexed by the bizarre
I absolutely fail to understand how this concerns you
comment above). If there are recent examples of actual personal attacks, could we see them here, please? Black Kite (talk) 12:22, 28 December 2025 (UTC)- FWIW, labelling a reference as "trash" absolutely does not concern Bloomagiliw, unless there's something I do not understand about his relationship with the cited reference. Howard the Duck (talk) 12:50, 28 December 2025 (UTC)
- I might direct you to the comment just above where, when their personal attacks were highlighted, not only do they not retract or apologise for them, but they're actively trying to downplay them; which, regardless of the age of the initial incident, doesn't suggest good things about their future conduct. Athanelar (talk) 12:24, 28 December 2025 (UTC)
- No, their attempt to claim that it wasn't an insult does them no credit when it is clear to anyone that it was. However, I am more looking for more recent issues of similar incivility. Black Kite (talk) 12:26, 28 December 2025 (UTC)
- Hello, apart from what Athanelar said, Howard the Duck was also called out here (December 14): "Whether a personal attack or not, bringing up the content someone edits on Wikipedia on a discussion for something completely unrelated to said topic as a rationale is uncalled for and immature." (NegativeMP1 said this regarding a comment that Howard the Duck made about Royiswariii.)
- Discussion here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ang_Pag-ibig_Kong_Ito
- He also alluded to Roy and me (basically the people whom he considers uneducated Bini fans) here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sheena_(singer)
- That one isn't as blatant, but paired with everything else, it does show how much he targets us even though he insists he doesn't. He said that Sheena's article name should be renamed Bini Sheena "even though that would mean absolutely violent illogical opposition by their fan/editors here" (despite the fact that it has never been done on Wikipedia, e.g. Jennie (singer)'s article should never be called "Blackpink Jennie" even though the media often calls her that).
- Him calling our actions "despicable" over some notability disagreements was also pretty recent. Again, I get that not everyone will agree with me on Wikipedia, but "despicable" is a really strong word and it's evident that he makes a lot of unprovoked pointed insults about me and other editors even though he himself has acknowledged that he focuses on DYK and not writing pages.
- Last but not the least, you can see that he never apologizes or takes accountability even when multiple other people (even outside the so-called uneducated Bini fans he often grumbles about) call him out. Bloomagiliw (talk) 12:37, 28 December 2025 (UTC)
- Hello, apart from what Athanelar said, Howard the Duck was also called out here (December 14): "Whether a personal attack or not, bringing up the content someone edits on Wikipedia on a discussion for something completely unrelated to said topic as a rationale is uncalled for and immature." (NegativeMP1 said this regarding a comment that Howard the Duck made about Royiswariii.)
- No, their attempt to claim that it wasn't an insult does them no credit when it is clear to anyone that it was. However, I am more looking for more recent issues of similar incivility. Black Kite (talk) 12:26, 28 December 2025 (UTC)
- Calling a source "trash" isn't a problem. The "learning curve" comments ARE over the line. It comes across as racist, in fact. Had I seen it when it was fresh, I would have reacted in some way. It's degrading to a people, even if you only meant it towards an individual. I'm surprised as I've seen Howards good work at WP:Tambayan Philippines, and while he may vigorously defend his ideas, I haven't seen this kind of comment before. It's a bit stale, but still worth mentioning that future instances like this would likely result in sanctions. This is the kind of comment you see in bad FB expat groups and doesn't belong here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:58, 28 December 2025 (UTC)
- Howard the Duck, I am in general agreement with Dennis Brown and Black Kite. You are avoiding sanctions now because the worst of the identified problems took place months ago. But you have been an active and productive editor for 20 years and you know that assuming good faith of your fellow editors is required, unless you can present convincing evidence of bad faith. Yes, editors often call poor quality sources "trash" but if you do that as part of an effort to intimidate and embarass editors you are in a content dispute with, then that is going too far. It may be true that the Philippines (like other countries) is in a learning crisis, but saying that in a context that implies that editors you disagree with are therefore somehow poorly educated and incompetent, then you have gone way too far. So please take this discussion as a warning to you, and a reminder that this is a collaborative project, and disagreements on the notability of various topics need to focus on the sources and the content, instead of trying to marginalize and humiliate editors who disagree with you. Cullen328 (talk) 03:49, 29 December 2025 (UTC)
- As seen on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maloi, I have instructed, at least once, that if they found offense on my comments, they should go to the appropriate drama board and have me reported. This was willfully not followed, and now these same people are demanding actions for something that was done months ago, on something I have personally told them to do, that they intentionally did not follow. I won't describe these (non)actions as something that can offend these people, but this clearly illustrates how it is to deal with these people.
- I will continue to describe sources as trash, and no such prohibitions exist here. If people are offended that a source is trash, and they have personally nothing to do with that reference, there's nothing I can do about it. I can understand that you can illustrate it as "intimidating and embarassing", but just like what I said, if that editor has nothing to do with the reference, this should not be a problem.
- As for WP:AGF, early on, I have stumbled upon an on-Wiki discussion about having these articles "being optimized for Google search bresults". I can't find that now, as these were some months ago, but this does not bode well for WP:NPOV by these same people who have not disclosed WP:COI, if indeed that is their purpose in creating and maintaining these articles.
- I can understand actions against me, and won't have an issue about it, for past actions, but anything actions against me "for future actions" is Orwellian. Howard the Duck (talk) 10:11, 29 December 2025 (UTC)
- This is going to be my final response here. You can see that HTD still refuses to apologize or take accountability in any manner.
- I would like to clarify that when the Maloi AfD happened, my account was less than a year old. I was still learning the ropes on Wikipedia, though it must be said again - even as a newbie, I'd already produced numerous articles conferred with higher quality assessments than HTD's in his almost twenty years of being a Wikipedia editor.
- I was also advised by my family to log out because being berated by a clearly much older stranger who keeps making personal attacks against my education and character online had an impact on my mental health. At the time, I tried to shake it off. I'm a student volunteering on this website out of pure passion and desire to expand its coverage of Filipino-related topics. And even if he insists 10 times over that my work here is worthless, others don't think so. I contribute useful things to this site, for free.
- He keeps bringing up (petty, easily resolvable) things that we've supposedly done that go against website policy, to deflect. Not once in this entire thread has he conceded to any wrongdoing whatsoever. In every comment, he deflects. At every opportunity to apologize, he deflects by bringing up irrelevant things that do not matter in the real world. It seems he still does not understand that his behavior goes beyond the website. The things he's brought up about things like us supposedly going against NPOV do not matter beyond Wikipedia. His aggression and personal attacks upon a group of young and passionate people (most of us who edit the Bini-related articles he lambastes unprovoked are students, as indicated on our user pages) have an impact upon us beyond Wikipedia.org. We are real people. He has been verbally harassing real people over some pop culture-related articles on Wikipedia.org and persists in gaslighting us, refusing to show any remorse whatsoever. That is the problem.
- I hope the admins here can see that. Bloomagiliw (talk) 10:28, 29 December 2025 (UTC)
- I also want to add this from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ang Pag-ibig Kong Ito when HTD vote as keep:
this song, which is a classic OPM hit across 4 decades, is certainly more notable than the Bini songs that the AFD proposer propagates
. Is this enough that he's clearly violating the five pillars of Wikipedia?Respect your fellow Wikipedians, even when you disagree. Apply Wikipedia etiquette, and do not engage in personal attacks or edit wars. Seek consensus, and never disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Act in good faith, and assume good faith on the part of others. Be open and welcoming to newcomers. Should conflicts arise, discuss them calmly on the appropriate talk pages, follow dispute resolution procedures,
. HTD doesn't do that and because he's 10+ years of editing here. But, it does it mean you will insult the newcomers of editors here. - Also, Bloomagiliw, I am very sorry if you feel you mistreated here, you can take a wikibreak if you want. ROY is WAR Talk! 10:58, 29 December 2025 (UTC)
- I hope sysop take actions fairly and I am willing to support block him either temporary or indefinite block. ROY is WAR Talk! 11:02, 29 December 2025 (UTC)
- I'd have to say that you, Royiswariii, are absolutely not a newcomer, at least now.
- I have not made edits, much less edit wars(!) on articles these editors edit (except for tagging these articles to PROD/AFD/whatever).
- These editors say they have the "desire to expand its coverage of Filipino-related topics", then put such articles to AFD (as illustrated by yourself above). I'd very much love to WP:AGF on that... but can't. We have dearth of coverage of 1980s Filipino pop culture, while selected 2020s pop culture is covered in excruciating detail even passing off WP:PRIMARY as WP:RS. We'd have to walk the talk here. You can't just say you guys have the "desire to expand its coverage of Filipino-related topics", then AFD said perfectly notable Filipino-related topics. Again, I won't say anything here that may be offensive to such editors, but their records stand. Howard the Duck (talk) 11:22, 29 December 2025 (UTC)
- Howard the Duck In what ways you do an AGF? And you're trying to avoid the sanctions what you'll get. I know I am not a newcomer, but at least I do admit my mistakes here. This evidences and accusations to you and admit your mistakes and not apologizing to Bloomagiliw. This evidences to you is clearly violating The Five pillars of Wikipedia, WP:UNCIVIL, WP:NPA. Also,
absolutely not a newcomer, at least now.
andWe'd have to walk the talk here. You can't just say you guys have the "desire to expand its coverage of Filipino-related topics", then AFD said perfectly notable Filipino-related topics.
are not a excuse here on your unacceptable behavior. ROY is WAR Talk! 11:37, 29 December 2025 (UTC)- I'd have to say, is threatening to exclude legitimate comments on AFDs (even with no authority?) a violation of what you had linked? I'd really want to know. Howard the Duck (talk) 12:28, 29 December 2025 (UTC)
- It is most certainly inappropriate for a non-admin to make any threats of 'excluding' another editor's comments for bludgeoning, but this WP:NOTTHEM is immaterial to the accusation of personal attacks, which you have continuously been denying and avoiding despite the blatant evidence. Athanelar (talk) 13:16, 29 December 2025 (UTC)
- As stated above, if community would impose sanctions against my past actions, I have no problem with it. Howard the Duck (talk) 13:38, 29 December 2025 (UTC)
- The point is that I think everybody would be satisfied and there would be no need for any sanctions if you'd simply acknowledge you acted wrongly in insulting the other editors and apologise to them. As has been pointed out you haven't had any recent instances of personal attacks, the only reason the reporting editors are still pushing things is because you aren't taking accountability. Athanelar (talk) 14:06, 29 December 2025 (UTC)
- There's absolutely no satisfaction in me pointing out that these editors, who would say that they've created WP:FAs and WP:GAs refused to (1) heed the suggestion to report here once the actions happened, (2) understand that WP:BANDMEMBER does not satisfy the subjects of the prior AFDs. The fact that the Maloi AFD reached no consensus despite one editor commenting delete after the final relist is pitiful, then the Gwen AFD did went into delete, only to be overturned unilaterally by the very same person who created this complaint overturning WP:CON because the subject "appeared on a talk show".... and now we have another AFD on it and another person on this discussion is threatening to exclude legitimate comments on AFDs.
- People here are complaining about collaborative spirit and accountability. There's your collabortive spirit. There's your accountability.
- Again, I'd be fine with any saction given by the community here. Howard the Duck (talk) 14:17, 29 December 2025 (UTC)
- (1) heed the suggestion to report here once the actions happened
- I already explained that my family told me to log out and I was new, so I wasn't familiar with the drama board at the time. I tried to ignore it. Maybe this wasn't the right course of action, but I am still the aggrieved party here. I did not "willfully disobey" you or whatever you're painting the situation as.
- And again, you keep bringing up stuff solely related to Wikipedia. I brought it here because you crossed the line into personal insults. I have repeatedly said this: I am a person. I am a person. I am a person. I am a real, living, breathing person whose real life beyond this website you attacked. It seems you do not understand this still.
- Wikipedia is just a website. Even if I had broken a million rules on here (which I haven't), even if everything I contributed to this website had no merit or value (it's not), I am still a person. Nothing I do relating to Wikipedia articles gives you the license to say the things you've said and continue to say.
- I told myself I wouldn't check here again, but this is unbelievable. All of this and you're still whining about stuff that has zero weight outside of this website. I have also repeatedly apologized for making editing mistakes (even recently) and continue to learn. Meanwhile, the stuff you said about/to me attacks me behind the screen.
- Why are you using me supposedly AFDing '80s stuff (I never have) or again, resolvable, non-personal things to justify personally attacking me? Are you truly incapable of grasping that every time you decide to berate other people's education, intellect, and moral character all because of some pop culture content dispute on a website, it has consequences behind the screen? Bloomagiliw (talk) 14:31, 29 December 2025 (UTC)
- I did not specifically name you as someone "supposedly AFDing '80s stuff". To backtrack, I've said "These editors say they have the 'desire to expand its coverage of Filipino-related topics', then put such articles to AFD" (emphasis mine)... I suppose this is a synthesis of what you and Royiswariii had said here... something the references on the articles you are pushing to be kept apparently do not have.
- FWIW, backtracking on the second Gwen AFD, it was not just Royiswariii who had motioned to unilaterally exclude my comments on the AFD, but that also includes you.
- Look, I know you guys want to keep the article for one reason or the other, but excluding legitimate comments on AFDs? Pointing out to other editors that were misled by the the "Source assessment table" that all virtually all references are primary sources despite what it says?
- Again, I'm fine with sanctions on me on my past behavior; if the community thinks there should be, I would suggest to do it expeditiously. Howard the Duck (talk) 14:45, 29 December 2025 (UTC)
- Also, none of my statements had the intention on impinging on the moral character of anyone; if someone interpreted it that way then I would extend my sincerest apologies. Howard the Duck (talk) 14:50, 29 December 2025 (UTC)
- So this is the only thing that matters in the world? If an article meets GNG on Wikipedia, and not all the personal attacks you've made towards other editors, whose entire lives apparently exist on Wikipedia.org?
- I did not motion to exclude your comments. You can gaslight me and others all you want, but it says there on the page that I was requesting you to voluntarily bow out of the conversation (as I have) unless you try to be more polite.
- But even if I did "motion to exclude your comments," it does not matter. It's an AFD about a pop culture page on a website. Does this justify everything you've said? Is Wikipedia so important to the world that it gives you a pass to treat others cruelly?
- You say now you sincerely apologize "if someone interpreted it that way." It's not just someone. It's not just me. Everyone saw it and found it degrading, if not outright racist.
- I do not believe that you are sincere, especially because you're still refusing to address your comments about my education (only mentioning moral character in that lukewarm apology a dozen gaslighting comments later). Also,, your initial reply to Athanelar about how "maybe the WP:BANDMEMBER page really is just too complicated for others to understand" is still a thinly veiled dig at my competence and intellect. I guess if the admins here won't do anything, well, I hope editing on Wikipedia and degrading other real people over petty disputes brings you fulfillment. Bloomagiliw (talk) 14:52, 29 December 2025 (UTC)
- I did apologize if you interpreted my statements as impinging on your moral character. You are the only here who had inserted my judgment of your morality in this discussion. True, other people have personally reached out to me that it may have been read as "racist" (despite me being Filipino as well!), or "insulting", but I don't dwell on morality of other people.
- I seriously want to know what "sanctions" do you want? Topic, time-based bans? We have an ongoing AFD that I am party with. Is this how I can "bow out of this one" so that other people can "exclude your comments", "your" meaning "mine"?
- Again, I know you guys want to keep the article, and probably have some articles move to more SEO friendly article names, but this is what the community would decide upon. Howard the Duck (talk) 15:44, 29 December 2025 (UTC)
- Howard the Duck, everyone does see it as racist. I knew you were Filipino, which is why I parsed my comments as I did, although that doesn't excuse the comment. (See Self-hating Jew) What matters is how it looks to others, who don't know you are Filipino, and THAT does come across as racist, even if that wasn't the intent. If you get anything from this, you need to understand that you come across a bit too intense. This has been true with my personal interactions with you as well. For your own good, you need to learn to dial it back a notch or two in order to collaborate with others. I'm saying this as someone who appreciates the work you do, but doesn't always agree with how you do it. As someone who is probably willing to cut you more slack than the average person, but I realize you are getting really close to getting sanctions, and I would prefer you didn't, but only if you can compromise a bit. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:46, 29 December 2025 (UTC)
- The point is that I think everybody would be satisfied and there would be no need for any sanctions if you'd simply acknowledge you acted wrongly in insulting the other editors and apologise to them. As has been pointed out you haven't had any recent instances of personal attacks, the only reason the reporting editors are still pushing things is because you aren't taking accountability. Athanelar (talk) 14:06, 29 December 2025 (UTC)
- As stated above, if community would impose sanctions against my past actions, I have no problem with it. Howard the Duck (talk) 13:38, 29 December 2025 (UTC)
- It is most certainly inappropriate for a non-admin to make any threats of 'excluding' another editor's comments for bludgeoning, but this WP:NOTTHEM is immaterial to the accusation of personal attacks, which you have continuously been denying and avoiding despite the blatant evidence. Athanelar (talk) 13:16, 29 December 2025 (UTC)
- I'd have to say, is threatening to exclude legitimate comments on AFDs (even with no authority?) a violation of what you had linked? I'd really want to know. Howard the Duck (talk) 12:28, 29 December 2025 (UTC)
- Howard the Duck In what ways you do an AGF? And you're trying to avoid the sanctions what you'll get. I know I am not a newcomer, but at least I do admit my mistakes here. This evidences and accusations to you and admit your mistakes and not apologizing to Bloomagiliw. This evidences to you is clearly violating The Five pillars of Wikipedia, WP:UNCIVIL, WP:NPA. Also,
- I also want to add this from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ang Pag-ibig Kong Ito when HTD vote as keep:
- Cullen328, I just want to add that Howard the Duck have a warning due to improper humor at AfD about his comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ang Pag-ibig Kong Ito:
If that's a personal attack, where's the Kobe Bryant soft GIF?
. Is this obvious that he's clearly violating the WP:NPA? I'm sorry to say this but it clearly that they protecting Howard the Duck even he's clearly wrong. I don't want to be uncivil here but I am just saying the truth. I already block here because of improper humor and I got a lesson for that and I said that I will not do that again. (For example:Talk:Bini (group)/Archive 1 § Requested move 29 January 2025:I can't understand this, and my apologies to foreigners if they can't as well (LOL).
) Howard the Duck insulted me many times and I prefer not to add here on ANI because I know the outcomes that "it is my fault" of being uncivil and not Howard the Duck. I understand that he's 10+ years here on Wikipedia and doing great on Tambayan Philippines and I gave a credit on that. But, it doesn't mean he can insult anyone even the new editors here on Wikipedia and this accusations on this can't take this seriously. I am really sad that they are taking sides to HTD even he's clearly wrong. I know that maybe I will get a warning for uncivil but I really can't take this anymore for being silent. I am not asking to block him but at least gave him a last warning. ROY is WAR Talk! 06:59, 29 December 2025 (UTC)
Gdb25
Gdb25 (talk · contribs) has been linking this Google Docs archive in various articles, pointing out that it was "supplied directly from [Ireland's] classification office via email". I don't think it's appropriate to use Google Docs as sources on Wikipedia, and I don't think there's any immediate way to verify that claim. I also do not know if there are precedents for the permitted use of this kind of citations in other articles. Xexerss (talk) 05:20, 28 December 2025 (UTC)
- It's absolutely not; that document can easily have been tampered with, and all we have is Gdb25's word of its provenance. I've reverted those cites that haven't already been done. Ravenswing 07:17, 28 December 2025 (UTC)
- Agreed. Goodle docs is a major virus vector for malicious emails and other links. I don't know why it isn't blacklisted, I can't think of a valid use for it here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 07:49, 28 December 2025 (UTC)
- Not sure if Google Sheets falls under Google Docs (the url being docs.google.com/spreadsheets), but I used it in an emoji article after the Unicode Consortium uploaded emoji-use statistics to a Google Sheet. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 08:29, 28 December 2025 (UTC)
- It is, and it shouldn't be used. It isn't a reliable source, and it is a system that allows anyone to upload a virus and then post it, with zero accoauntability, zero vetting, zero safety. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:54, 28 December 2025 (UTC)
- I disagree with the idea that this isn't a reliable source, it's just an extension of this website post. Perhaps you mean "Google Sheets" is not a reliable source rather than this particular sheet/set?
- I can understand blacklisting Google Sheets if, even if there are legitimate cases for linking, we can't distinguish between them and the illegitimate ones on our end and not blacklisting will send some readers to pages that will give their devices viruses? In my technical ignorance I don't see how someone can be uploading a virus to this particular page unless they request editing permissions for this specific page and are granted them by the Unicode Consortium. If that's not true, and there are ways around that, then that would also affect my reliability assessment. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 13:56, 28 December 2025 (UTC)
- That would probably be an exception, though most organizations will convert it from sheets/xlsx to pdf. If it comes from an untrusted source or has less editing restrictions like 'anyone with link can edit' then the source would be untrustworthy.
- P.S.: This discussion doesn't belong here and should probably be in WP:RSN. ~2025-31733-18 (talk) 15:19, 28 December 2025 (UTC)
- It is, and it shouldn't be used. It isn't a reliable source, and it is a system that allows anyone to upload a virus and then post it, with zero accoauntability, zero vetting, zero safety. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:54, 28 December 2025 (UTC)
- Not sure if Google Sheets falls under Google Docs (the url being docs.google.com/spreadsheets), but I used it in an emoji article after the Unicode Consortium uploaded emoji-use statistics to a Google Sheet. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 08:29, 28 December 2025 (UTC)
Just a general comment: occasionally one finds sources in Google docs/sheets/files linked from other web sources that can be considered reliable. In such cases, I think the linked Google files can also be considered equally reliable, and should be linked when they give more detailed information than the source they came from, but the provenance of the link must be included in the reference. Google files with no provenance should not be considered reliable. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:12, 29 December 2025 (UTC)
- But can you easily VERIFY the source from Google Docs? The answer is no, and that is the problem. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:48, 29 December 2025 (UTC)
- If the reference includes a link to the web page where you found the google docs link, then you can easily verify that the google doc is linked from that web page. The answer is yes. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:53, 30 December 2025 (UTC)
- Is the average person going to be able to tell that it is verified or fake? Average reader, not average editor. That is what this is all about, the reader, and our duty to protect them. I would still say it should be blacklisted, and individual instances whitelisted because it's pretty easy to abuse. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 04:15, 30 December 2025 (UTC)
- Would you treat a Microsoft Word file from the organization differently? The key factors are access restriction and reliability of the original source. It would be unlikely that a person at the Unicode Consortium would vandalize a document published by them.
- PS.
- This argument should be at WP:RSN. ~2025-31733-18 (talk) 05:16, 30 December 2025 (UTC)
- Is the average person going to be able to tell that it is verified or fake? Average reader, not average editor. That is what this is all about, the reader, and our duty to protect them. I would still say it should be blacklisted, and individual instances whitelisted because it's pretty easy to abuse. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 04:15, 30 December 2025 (UTC)
- If the reference includes a link to the web page where you found the google docs link, then you can easily verify that the google doc is linked from that web page. The answer is yes. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:53, 30 December 2025 (UTC)
- But can you easily VERIFY the source from Google Docs? The answer is no, and that is the problem. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:48, 29 December 2025 (UTC)
Propaganda
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Dhurandhar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
UNDUE / POVPUSH
Of the five sources cited for the claim “with some critics calling it propaganda”, only The Wire explicitly labels the film as propaganda. BBC attributes the characterization to a content creator (Bilal Hussain), Britannica uses qualified language (“whereas others have described it as propaganda”), and The Hindu and Indian Express do not clearly or directly apply the term. Per WP:UNDUE and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, this appears to represent a minority viewpoint and should be moved out . ~2025-43713-66 (talk) 09:29, 30 December 2025 (UTC)
- I know nothing about this film and have no interest in Indian or Pakistani politics. The statement "only The Wire explicitly labels the film as propaganda" is false because the statement in the body of the article that "Nissim Mannathukkaren, writing for The Hindu, characterised the film as propaganda" is true. So, your analysis has at least one error. Perhaps there are other errors. Either way, the purpose of a lead is to summarize the body of an article, and it seems to be the case that a sizable part of the body addresses the propaganda label question. But you should post your concerns on the article talk page, not here. This page is for 'urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems'. Sean.hoyland (talk) 09:49, 30 December 2025 (UTC)
- DO NOT DELETE OTHER USERS COMMENTS. This is still a content dispute and should be handled on the talk page. ~2025-43914-01 (talk) 10:00, 30 December 2025 (UTC)
- This is forum shopping by Jvknilapu. There was no consensus on the talk page to include their OR paragraph. ~2025-43914-01 (talk) 10:08, 30 December 2025 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) The above warning is referring to this edit by the '66 TA. The dispute in question is Talk:Dhurandhar#Extended-confirmed-protected_edit_request_on_29_December_2025. I'm pretty sure the actions of Jvknilapu (talk · contribs) (who '01 alleges to be the same user as '66) requires some kind of administrative action, since there is alleged forum shopping and Jvknilapu reverted a comment there. Can we get a checkuser on '66? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 10:22, 30 December 2025 (UTC)
- i didn't reverted any comment still i stand with my opinion , the film is largely accepted by audience and that reflected in its box-office collection and good much ratings, some youtubes and Movie reviewers said it as Propaganda but maximum supported and Praised the film Jvknilapu (talk) 10:34, 30 December 2025 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) The above warning is referring to this edit by the '66 TA. The dispute in question is Talk:Dhurandhar#Extended-confirmed-protected_edit_request_on_29_December_2025. I'm pretty sure the actions of Jvknilapu (talk · contribs) (who '01 alleges to be the same user as '66) requires some kind of administrative action, since there is alleged forum shopping and Jvknilapu reverted a comment there. Can we get a checkuser on '66? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 10:22, 30 December 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Consistent Vandalism by Kautilya3
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Kautilya3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been unilaterally overriding editorial consensus built across Talk page for "Dhurandhar (2025 film)". And committing edit warring. He's selectively cherrypicking sources by unfair weighting and shifting commentary to the lead section, which is irrelevant to the larger discourse. He is deleting discussions on the Talk Page too. Please guide on how to approach this conflict and resolve it. ~2025-43309-16 (talk) 04:20, 28 December 2025 (UTC)
- Regarding the recommended editing practice, please see WP:BRD. Talk page messages should discuss the article content, either new or old. They should not discuss editors, much less make personal attacks. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 04:30, 28 December 2025 (UTC)
- You're overriding editorial consensus across all editors on the page, to selectively push and highlight the sources you wanted to highlight. There were no personal attacks against you. However, this constant edit warring and dismissing and reverting edits made by other users, and unilaterally creating new sections should be considered as solid ground for revoking user privileges for Kautilya3 to maintain strictly non-opinionated and research-based reputation of Wikipedia ~2025-43309-16 (talk) 05:34, 28 December 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what should be done at the article but preventing everyone other than Kautilya3 from editing there would probably be a good start. Those other contributors should spend more time thinking about the advice that Kautilya3 has provided. The redactions of off-topic minor personal attacks was normal and desirable. Johnuniq (talk) 05:09, 28 December 2025 (UTC)
- Advocating for all editors to be banned from editing except the ones you agree with is textbook definition of censorship ~2025-43309-16 (talk) 05:35, 28 December 2025 (UTC)
- Clear POVPUSH. A temporary topic ban WP:TBAN on Kautilya3 would be consistent , given sustained POVPUSH in wikivoice. ~2025-43713-66 (talk) 09:08, 30 December 2025 (UTC)
- Advocating for all editors to be banned from editing except the ones you agree with is textbook definition of censorship ~2025-43309-16 (talk) 05:35, 28 December 2025 (UTC)
| SakuraSmart has been indef'd per WP:CIR/WP:NOTCOMPATIBLE. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:35, 29 December 2025 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Catalan/Spanish labels in the lead sentence of biographies of Catalan subjects 2
- CFA1877 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This user has a persistent pattern of removing anything related to Catalonia in the lead, often done without any explanation (no edit summary/talk page message), e.g. special:diff/1326368052, special:diff/1327926517, special:diff/1316650702 (framing their version of the article as "stable" when it's their version that's disputed), special:diff/1315051014, etc. They were warned about this pattern being inappropriate back in July, but evidently nothing changed.
I think this person needs a topic-ban. sapphaline (talk) 08:52, 30 December 2025 (UTC)
- Having looked at a few of the diffs and the "warning", I don't see a firm consensus for "Catalan" for the article cited. While I think the editor's behaviour is not ideal, I get the impression this is a content dispute rather than a matter for admin intervention. Is there any other misbehavior you want to cite here? — The Anome (talk) 11:30, 30 December 2025 (UTC)
- "Is there any other misbehavior you want to cite here" - yes; there was also this incident one year ago, when they removed all information related to Catalan people from the Demographics of Spain article, despite it being due and properly sourced, and used the same "stable version" reasoning to excuse edit warring with another editor. sapphaline (talk) 12:00, 30 December 2025 (UTC)
- Unlike someone else, I'm not a special purpose account created in May of this year to edit discreetly while simultaneously creating a false sense of consensus in coordination with other users. Precisely, there's no consensus for the abuses some users perpetrate here. As stated by The Anome, this is not ideal. I don't like spending my time correcting other users' abuses, but I like it even less when Wikipedia is abused for political purposes. Furthermore, it's curious how well an account created just six months ago knows me. Nothing suspicious about that. CFA1877 (talk) 14:11, 30 December 2025 (UTC)
- You won't achieve the outcome you want by making up conspiracy theories about me being a "special purpose account" (as if I only edit articles related to Spain/Catalonia) and my alleged private collaboration with "other users" (who are these users?) or diminishing other people's contributions by calling them "abuses". Please assume good faith. sapphaline (talk) 15:50, 30 December 2025 (UTC)
- Unlike someone else, I'm not a special purpose account created in May of this year to edit discreetly while simultaneously creating a false sense of consensus in coordination with other users. Precisely, there's no consensus for the abuses some users perpetrate here. As stated by The Anome, this is not ideal. I don't like spending my time correcting other users' abuses, but I like it even less when Wikipedia is abused for political purposes. Furthermore, it's curious how well an account created just six months ago knows me. Nothing suspicious about that. CFA1877 (talk) 14:11, 30 December 2025 (UTC)
- "Is there any other misbehavior you want to cite here" - yes; there was also this incident one year ago, when they removed all information related to Catalan people from the Demographics of Spain article, despite it being due and properly sourced, and used the same "stable version" reasoning to excuse edit warring with another editor. sapphaline (talk) 12:00, 30 December 2025 (UTC)
User using racial slurs and vandalising
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:Mister Barnett has been leaving abusive messages including racial slurs on multiple talk pages. Needs banned asap, will porbably also need revdels.–DMartin 07:07, 2 January 2026 (UTC)
- (Personal attack removed) Mister Barnett (talk) 07:08, 2 January 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Offensive Edit Summaries
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User is already recently blocked. Requesting revision deletion of these offensive and uncivil edit summaries by User:Luecompania, per WP:RD2. Revisions: 1; 2; 3; 4; 5; 6. Thanks, Marincyclist (talk) 01:08, 1 January 2026 (UTC)
- Sorted. —Cryptic 01:22, 1 January 2026 (UTC)
- Thank you! Marincyclist (talk) 01:24, 1 January 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
No action on vandalism and Unjustified ban on users
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The previous discussions regarding vandalism on 'Dhurandhar(film)' were closed prematurely without investigating the issue, and identifying the central problem. @Kautilya3 unilaterally created a new section despite objection from other editors on its relevance, consistently edit warred and reverted others' edits, and used Youtubers as Wikipedia:Reliable sources for adding irrelevant commentary to the lead section. There have been atleast 4 documented reports against him for the same. Yet the actions were taken against the other editors citing technicalities, for @SakuraSmart, myself and others banning us from further contributions. I'm new to Wikipedia but it has a reputation for being strongly fact-based, can any admin investigate this sequence of events from a neutral and rational point of view? This seems incredibly one-sided ~2025-43309-16 (talk) 14:45, 30 December 2025 (UTC)
- ANI has already looked at the problems on this article twice in the last few days, and nobody has yet to support your description of events, seeing this as a normal content dispute that ought to be resolved with the WP:DR process. ANI is not a slot machine; you can't just keep making the same complaint until you win the jackpot and get what you want. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 16:02, 30 December 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:Luigimario03
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Luigimario03 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Editor made inappropriate comments about me in this edit summary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Assadzadeh (talk • contribs) 04:18, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for bringing this to the administrator's notice board. Please always remember to sign your comments by adding four tildes to the end of it (
~~~~)and notify the subject for your comment on their talk page. I have done it now, usingTo comment on the issues at hand, the user's comments were completely inappropriate. (Editor's user link: Luigimario03 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)){{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~, but please remember to read and obey the edit notices in future. - (Non-administrator comment) Youshouldchooseausernamethat (Youshouldtalk) 04:39, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
- They already did leave a note on the talk page. Above the section titled "december 2025" Insanityclown1 (talk) 05:38, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
- Missed it. My bad Youshouldchooseausernamethat (Youshouldtalk) 05:42, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
- They already did leave a note on the talk page. Above the section titled "december 2025" Insanityclown1 (talk) 05:38, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
- Here is another example of a personal attack. Please refer to the edit summary. Assadzadeh (talk) 06:53, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
- I think that it’s safe to say looking at the diffs and @Luigimario03’s talk page that they are exhibiting behavior incompatible with the goals of Wikipedia. Insanityclown1 (talk) 08:20, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
- It's certainly amusing to see a chap with just 600 edits jeering at anyone for lack of experience. Certainly his attitude in responding to you does -- as you said -- dig him a deeper hole. Ravenswing 09:00, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
- I think that it’s safe to say looking at the diffs and @Luigimario03’s talk page that they are exhibiting behavior incompatible with the goals of Wikipedia. Insanityclown1 (talk) 08:20, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
- Looking at their talk page, they've also been warned in the past for OWNy behaviour, to no avail. Athanelar (talk) 09:30, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
- Luigimario03 has used either belligerent or out-of-line edit summaries for quite some time now. See, for example, this edit summary claiming to prohibit anyone else from changing the edit (which led to two talk page notices to quit it). Then there were a series of edit summaries threatening to "report" anyone who changed the edits. There have also been others accusing anyone who disagrees with the user's edit of engaging in "arbitrary editing." The foregoing are just examples, but in general, the user's overall attitude smacks of WP:NOTHERE. 1995hoo (talk) 20:47, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
- These are from 2024, do you see more recent examples of this behavior, 1995hoo? Liz Read! Talk! 21:03, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
- Sure. I cited older ones to make the point about this being a long-term issue, but here's one from just over a month ago that speaks for itself. If you look at the user's contributions, you'll see a lot of edit summaries like "correction" or similar when there was nothing wrong with what was already there and instead the user was changing something based on personal preference. 1995hoo (talk) 21:08, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
- @Liz You should also take a look at the user's chat page. After I tried to give them an opportunity to retract their comments and apologize, they doubled down and started slinging insults. Insanityclown1 (talk) 21:22, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
- Here is the diff prior to removal of the personal attacks. Again, I think it speaks for itself. 1995hoo (talk) 21:45, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you for the responses, Insanityclown1 and 1995hoo. It looks like rsjaffe is watching this situation evolve. Liz Read! Talk! 01:28, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah, if this editor hadn't had any worthwhile contributions, it would have been a quick indef. I see this as one last chance to reform. However, the editor edits intermittently, so we may not get something back before this is archived. If the editor does come back and attacks (e.g., on talk pages), contact me or refile here and we'll take care of things quickly.
- We value our contributors and don't want those with poor behavior to drive good people away. On the other hand, we also try to salvage people who might become good contributors when we think we can. I'm hoping the current p-block will allow us to proceed without distressing you all. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 02:37, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you for the responses, Insanityclown1 and 1995hoo. It looks like rsjaffe is watching this situation evolve. Liz Read! Talk! 01:28, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
- Here is the diff prior to removal of the personal attacks. Again, I think it speaks for itself. 1995hoo (talk) 21:45, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
- I'm giving them a chance to respond, though I am deeply concerned by their behavior. The current block should be enough to stop the disruption yet allow them a chance to join this discussion and agree to reform their behavior. We'll see. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:44, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
- Good evening colleagues, I acknowledge that my behavior was serious and I would like to apologize to you all, and especially to user @Assadzadeh, for what I said about them. A situation I recently experienced in my life opened my eyes and changed my behavior as a human being. Now I promise to learn more and avoid repeating the same mistakes as much as possible. I believe this community belongs to everyone and that things happen in life for a reason (to learn, confirm, etc.). I hope you can forgive me, and Merry Christmas to all (if you celebrate this time of year). Best greetings. Luigimario03 (talk) 06:55, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
- I am greatly encouraged by your words. Civility is very important in Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia:Civility carefully. Disagreements are common when editing, and you must understand that you won't always "win" a disagreement, even you when know you are right. I, too, get frustrated at other users at times, but I try not to reply in an unkind manner. I take a break, touch grass, and come back when I'm calmer. And always comment on the content. Don't make comments about the person writing the content.
- We depend upon sourcing for information, and sometimes people personally know information that's more recent than reliable sources contain, but we can't use that info, as frustrating as that is. See WP:DR for more info about dispute resolution processes.
- Before unblocking you, I'd like you to apply the lessons you learn from the civility policy and tell me how you would do things differently here: Special:Diff/1322699035, where you were frustrated by someone reverting your edit and wrote an unkind note. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:15, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
- Good evening colleagues, I acknowledge that my behavior was serious and I would like to apologize to you all, and especially to user @Assadzadeh, for what I said about them. A situation I recently experienced in my life opened my eyes and changed my behavior as a human being. Now I promise to learn more and avoid repeating the same mistakes as much as possible. I believe this community belongs to everyone and that things happen in life for a reason (to learn, confirm, etc.). I hope you can forgive me, and Merry Christmas to all (if you celebrate this time of year). Best greetings. Luigimario03 (talk) 06:55, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
- These are from 2024, do you see more recent examples of this behavior, 1995hoo? Liz Read! Talk! 21:03, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Repeated PA in a CT space
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
~2025-37459-53 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) The tempuser participated in an AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indian hegemony) covered by strict WP:CT/SA sanctions. When sourcing/LLM issues were raised by me for a why a deletion should be considered, started making and has continued to make repeated personal attacks and cast aspersions. This despite being explicitly told multiple times to Wikipedia:Comment on content, not on the contributor, but clearly did not and continues.
Listing the PAs in order:
If this is a heated or personal topic for you, I suggest taking a temporary and voluntary step back from the topic as a whole.
Comes out of nowhere to make personal comments.
this looks suspiciously like nationalist editing.
Previous framings of these articles as being centred around Bangladesh further suggests to me a rather strong WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality motivated by nationalist editing.
Again, feels like they're engaging in nationalist editing.
Continues with other baseless aspersions and personal attacks.
I extended as much WP:ROPE as I could but with the user still treading the same path, bring this here. This is a contentious topic and with the user clearly not being new (handily citing enwiki P&G), sanctions and striking of those PAs should be correct course of action. Gotitbro (talk) 22:35, 29 December 2025 (UTC)
- The user is clearly WP:NOTHERE as can be seen by this serious, baseless and vile accusation of racism after they were informed of this ANI thread:
Gotitbro (talk) 05:32, 30 December 2025 (UTC)I will reiterate that this seems motivated by nationalism/ antipathy towards Bangladeshi nationals.
- None of these you have listed are personal attacks, they are not speaking to anything outside of your editing. Personal attacks are comments directed at you personally and don't include criticism of the basis for any of your edits. Mfield (Oi!) 05:35, 30 December 2025 (UTC)
- If baselessly suggesting racial animus out of the blue is not covered by PA or sanctionable otherwise, we have a problem. This is disruptive behaviour nonetheless at a contentious topic no less. Gotitbro (talk) 05:45, 30 December 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Unnecessarily reverting edits, personal attack and abusive language
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
An editor named @Amberlit12 trying to defame and unnecessarily reverting edits since many days, he thinks that i am doing edits because of some personal enmity or something else, he is reverting edits properly cited and calling me xenophobic without any evidences of such. I am watching his behaviour for many days, when I complained about this to an editor @Timtjtim, he said this:- "when you are not from our state and don't know much about our culture and language .how can you edit our state Wikipedia Page on Unverified and unreliable source data will not be accepted .you are xenophobic and highly obsessed with a particular region while diminishing other .keep yourself out from our state wikipedia pages . Do one thing declare whole our state as mahasu and kauravi speaking state stupid Fellow"
Kindly, take needed action against him 502hsuya (talk) 11:59, 28 December 2025 (UTC)
- You have not provided any diffs, which makes it very difficult to judge the context. Please provide diffs for 2-3 such instances as you describe. This will make it much more likely that your report gets serious attention. Also, be very careful when using words like "defaming"; that sounds very close to a legal threat, which are expressly prohibited on Wikipedia. Instead, based on the quote you provide, you may wish to describe Amberlit12's statements as personal attacks. Finally, reverting on its own is not prohibited, but if they keep doing it, it may be an edit war; if some of your diffs show a back-and-forth revert pattern, that may be actionable. EducatedRedneck (talk) 14:40, 28 December 2025 (UTC)
- I've just warned them for the above personal attack. @502hsuya please provide diffs for the remainder of your report, other editors can't dig through the history to find which ones you're referring to. Blue Sonnet (talk) 14:54, 28 December 2025 (UTC)
- Actually it's pretty clear on the personal attack front:
- "forceful addition of data and xenophobia toward a language race and culture will not be tolerated .” (edit summary)
- "Forceful edition of Data And a xenophobia Toward a race language and Culture was done by previous editor" (edit summary)
- Possible edit warring & unexplained reversions at Rishikesh, Kauravi dialect, Uttarkashi district and Nainital district (you'll see when you look at the edit history for the articles).
- I've not looked at the content of the reversions, just providing some links until/unless 502hsuya provides further clarification. Blue Sonnet (talk) 15:14, 28 December 2025 (UTC)
- (ec) Just poking around in edit histories gives - this may be relevant - claiming ownership of "our state wikipedia pages" and accusing others of xenophobia. Also see the edit summaries [] and [], which do not seem appropriate, no matter whether the content is correct. And isn't this a contentious topic?Nigel Ish (talk) 15:19, 28 December 2025 (UTC)
- I have fixed the prohibited word and write personal attack by replacing that. Firstly, he was reverting the edits unnecessarily again and again, the ones which were done by me, and some of the ones done by other editors too, all of which were not xenophobic. He was reverting edits of Jaunpuri, Uttarkashi, Kashipur, Kauravi dialect, etc.
- The diffs in which he did personal attack:
- diff 1 - []
- diff 2 -
- diff 3 -
- diff 4 - User talk:Timtjtim#c-Amberlit12-20251227133100-502hsuya-20251224154700
- Kindly check 502hsuya (talk) 16:12, 28 December 2025 (UTC)
- As i have earlier reported about this editor named @Amberlit12, he once again reverted ny edit on Jaunpuri dialect and abused me in Garhwali language, this is highly highly abusive language which he used to me. This is one of the highly insultive and abusive language used to any person in Garhwali.
- I am directing the diff here, kindly translate it through AI or anything and check, what he said:-
- diff
- Kindly, check it and block him indefinetely from editing as this is not at all acceptable from any editor on any neutral contributive place for editing like Wikipedia.
- Requesting admin review under WP:NPA and WP: Harrasment
- Thank you 502hsuya (talk) 10:01, 29 December 2025 (UTC)
- I gave them a general warning before I saw your post, my translator & Gemini didn't have a great time figuring out what they wrote & it came out nonsensical. When I prompt it to use Garhwali it's still a little vague, but I definitely see now what you're getting at - there's no way that's not a personal attack of some sort. Blue Sonnet (talk) 15:18, 29 December 2025 (UTC)
- Once again reverting edits, its edit warring again, on the same page Jaunpuri dialect (Garhwali)
- 502hsuya (talk) 16:05, 30 December 2025 (UTC)
- I gave them a general warning before I saw your post, my translator & Gemini didn't have a great time figuring out what they wrote & it came out nonsensical. When I prompt it to use Garhwali it's still a little vague, but I definitely see now what you're getting at - there's no way that's not a personal attack of some sort. Blue Sonnet (talk) 15:18, 29 December 2025 (UTC)
Kindly check it
- I am from India, I know exactly what he said, as I understand the language but to clarify you, I translated it in Gemini and it says this:-
- "पुडि ब्वे रन्दा खसमा अपडि ब्वे यख नि चिगा ।फुण्ड मोरी अपुड राज्या मा"
This phrase is in Garhwali (a language spoken in Uttarakhand, India). To answer your question directly: Yes, it is abusive. Specifically, the first part of the sentence contains a common but vulgar slur used to insult someone's mother or character. Breakdown of the Meaning While it is difficult to provide a word-for-word translation without using profanity, here is a general sense of what the sentence conveys: The first half: Uses highly offensive language directed at a woman (specifically referring to her character or "selling" herself). The second half: Roughly translates to "Go die in your own kingdom/place" or "Perish in your own land." Context In Garhwali culture, these words are considered very "low" or "foul" language. They are usually spoken during heated arguments or when someone is extremely angry and intends to humiliate the other person. Would you like me to help you understand more about the Garhwali language or translate something else into a more polite version?
Word to word translation:- To understand why this is offensive, we have to look at the specific Garhwali terms used. The sentence is constructed using heavy slang and derogatory verbs. Here is the word-to-word breakdown: 1. The Slurs पुडि (Pudi): This is a vulgar slang term for female genitalia. It is used here as a dehumanizing way to address a woman. ब्वे (Bwe): This means "Mother." When combined with the previous word, it becomes a direct insult to the listener's mother. रन्दा (Randa): Derived from "Randi," this is a common South Asian slur for a prostitute or a woman of "loose" character. खसमा (Khasma): Literally means "Husband" or "Owner," but in this context, it implies a "pimp" or someone who lives off the earnings of a woman. 2. The Actions अपडि (Apdi): Meaning "Your own." यख (Yakh): Meaning "Here." नि चिगा (Ni Chiga): This is a localized way of saying "Don't show" or "Don't bring." In this context, it translates to "Don't show your face here" or "Don't bring your [vulgarity] here." 3. The Curse फुण्ड मोरी (Phund Mori): This is a harsh curse. Mori means "to die" or "perish." It is essentially saying "Drop dead" or "Go to hell." अपुड राज्या मा (Apud Rajya Ma): Means "In your own kingdom/land." The Combined Meaning When put together, the sentence translates roughly to: "You [vulgar slur] mother, don't show your [vulgarity] here. Go drop dead in your own land." Why it is highly offensive: Maternal Insult: Like many regional dialects, attacking the "Mother" is considered the highest form of disrespect. Sexualized Shaming: It uses words like Randa and Pudi to strip away a person's dignity. The "Death" Curse: Telling someone to "go die" (Phund Mori) is a serious verbal assault in hill cultures (Pahari/Garhwali), often believed to bring bad luck. Would you like to know the polite or "Shuddh" (clean) Garhwali way to tell someone to go away or leave you alone?
Now, Kindly decide that is it a personal attack and insult or not 502hsuya (talk) 15:48, 29 December 2025 (UTC)
- the latest diff definitely calls for a block. also, Miniryuuuu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was recently at ANI (4-5 days ago). There is a high probability of socking. I propose a week long block (for rope), ACB. —usernamekiran (talk) 17:10, 29 December 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, it might be socking, but it seems that he is sockpuppet of Neonmen1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who has recently been blocked indefinetely for disruptive editing and the main thing is that, if such abusive language gets ignored then it is against the policies of Wikipedia, as if someone abuses in English or any recognised language, he/she gets blocked immediately, but if someone abuses in other language, then such things should matter too, if not that's not at all justifiable.
- Hope for the right to happen.
- Thanks! 502hsuya (talk) 04:49, 30 December 2025 (UTC)
- I have initiated an SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Neonmen1. courtesy ping to previous blocking admins @Acroterion and Jauerback:. —usernamekiran (talk) 17:45, 30 December 2025 (UTC)
- I have blocked Amberlit12 as a result of the SPI. PhilKnight (talk) 18:46, 30 December 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User demanding apology, apology already given
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This is regarding comments I made here in a recent discussion, archived at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1210#DaveZ123. I made two pointed comments regarding a user being accused of socking and being here only to promote their blog. User grapesurgeon observed user DaveZ123 adding links to their Blogspot website to several articles and asking other users to review its content. On a cursory look it did appear that this was all they were doing at least for the past several months, and admin asilvering (who processed that SPI) then suggested that new evidence shouldn't be required to block someone "who has basically only ever been here to promote [their website] and to waste volunteer time." I came across the discussion at that point and interjected that actually DaveZ123 is a somewhat prolific contributor to other language projects, and notably to test wikis in obscure languages with non-Latin scripts, that they were approaching users on English Wikipedia (the largest wiki) who noted that they were proficient in those languages and asking them for help, and that their blog was a transliteration tool for those languages. It happens to be hosted on Blogspot, a free(ish) webhost, but it seems to me it would fit in quite well on toolforge, if that site worked consistently. I commented that we should assume good faith, and that if no evidence was available that they were being disruptive that I would close the discussion.
Grapesurgeon didn't like the way that I said that, and that's fair, I spoke harshly to asilvering in response to their suggestion that we didn't need evidence to block. After the discussion was closed they followed up on my talk page (see User talk:Ivanvector#Discussion about behaviour), and although I have apologized for my inappropriate threat to block them for assuming bad faith, tried to provide context for my replies to asilvering and noted that the admin is welcome to discuss my tone with me if they wish, and have tried to engage with their concern about DaveZ123, they are continuing to demand an apology.
In my most recent reply I asked again why they don't just try to talk to DaveZ123 about their concerns; I noted in the earlier discussion that "DaveZ123 asked grapesurgeon for help once, and they're posting at ANI about it." As far as I can tell that remains true, grapesurgeon hasn't tried to talk to DaveZ123 at all. Grapesurgeon ignored that completely and is now threatening to report me if I do not apologize to their satisfaction, and I do not intend to do so.
I would like for grapesurgeon to either talk to DaveZ123 about their concerns, or drop it already. My offer to help remains on the table, but I am already hearing the New Years Eve fireworks in the distance, and so my final edits for this dumpster fire of a year will be the compulsory notices. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 23:20, 31 December 2025 (UTC)
- Let's be clear; my asking for you to apologize is not about how you spoke to asilvering, it's about how you spoke to me AND asilvering. You were speaking to me as well rudely.
- I will stop talking about DaveZ123 entirely with you from now on. I'll talk to DaveZ123 about it. I literally never said I wouldn't. In fact, I was hoping that DaveZ123 would participate in that ANI thread, but they haven't at all. Is that my fault somehow? Also,
DaveZ123 asked grapesurgeon for help once, and they're posting at ANI about it.
Holy moly what an aspersion, I had explained myself before, but apparently you completely ignored it. Why do you get to make those kinds of assumptions about me? You accused me of making assumptions before and threatened to block me; you get to make these now without fear of getting blocked? - Really un-adminlike behavior for much of this. Really disappointed. It really should not have taken me reaching out to you to partially own up to your behavior, and even now you're still doubling down on parts of it. Please don't treat others like this again.
- I'll drop it now. grapesurgeon (talk) 23:51, 31 December 2025 (UTC)
- To be clear, explanation of why I think Ivanvector was also being rude to me: . Why on earth would you use my words sarcastically to be rude to asilvering?? That wouldn't make sense; they're my words, not asilvering's. You were being rude to me. You still haven't adequately explained that. Really bizarre way to double down. grapesurgeon (talk) 00:01, 1 January 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Utter nonsense by Runningonbrains
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
So over at WP:RFPPI I requested that Oklahoma City bombing be protected for fair amounts of disruptive editing. User:Runningonbrains rejected the request because there wasn't enough activity to justify protection, despite the page's history blatantly proving otherwise. When I showed him clear examples of vandalism, he told me those were made "more than 2 weeks ago", which is utterly pathetic logic given that the page has been vandalized for MONTHS. I therefore propose that ROB's decision is overturned, and that the page is protected. JHD0919 (talk) 17:29, 30 December 2025 (UTC)
- I welcome anyone to overturn my decision if they find it was incorrect, but according to my understanding of protection policy, unless the request is related to arbitration enforcement, protection should only be used to prevent ongoing disruption. Fifteen days without vandalism is way beyond the timeline of what I'd consider "ongoing disruption". RunningOnBrains(talk) 17:38, 30 December 2025 (UTC)
- What would we do in cases of long-term disruption by multiple anons or SPAs with edits spaced out over weeks or months? This is an issue on some articles, possibly in part to game the protection guidelines. Genuine question, not meant to be rhetorical or critical. Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 17:58, 30 December 2025 (UTC)
- We do have pending changes, which is probably the solution. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 18:23, 30 December 2025 (UTC)
- What would we do in cases of long-term disruption by multiple anons or SPAs with edits spaced out over weeks or months? This is an issue on some articles, possibly in part to game the protection guidelines. Genuine question, not meant to be rhetorical or critical. Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 17:58, 30 December 2025 (UTC)
- JHD0919, regardless of the merits of your request, this is no way to talk to, or about, a fellow editor, someone who's volunteering their time and carrying a heavy load. Drmies (talk) 17:40, 30 December 2025 (UTC)
- There is no active disruption at that article. Consider giving the protection policy a once over, but more importantly please familiarize yourself with the civility policy, as your words here and at RPP/I are absolutely out of line. tony 18:15, 30 December 2025 (UTC)
- I see problematic edits in December, but not the last 2 weeks. Declining at this point is not unreasonable. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:53, 30 December 2025 (UTC)
- I don't know who Runningonbrains is, but anyone who can take this barrage of incivility without batting an eyelash was probably a good choice as an admin. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:20, 30 December 2025 (UTC)
- If it wasn't already obvious, I'm really sorry for my incivility here. Like I said above, ROB's rejection of the request pissed me off, and I became angry at them as a result. What I should have done is accept the decision and move on, which is what I usually do when at RFPP. If admins here decide a BOOMERANG is necessary, I will not argue with that. JHD0919 (talk) 23:37, 30 December 2025 (UTC)
- JHD0919, in my view, you have shown a good understanding of your mistake and no boomerang is needed. As for Runningonbrains, I do not recall running into this administrator before, but the project is vast. I for one appreciate your level headed attitude, and I wish you well. Cullen328 (talk) 23:50, 30 December 2025 (UTC)
- JHD0919, getting angry about something is no justification for allowing yourself to violate WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. I appreciate your understanding you crossed the line. I don't think a boomerang block is necessary here given that, but if you continue such behavior in the future you can expect tolerance for it will be lower. As to the denying protection, Runningonbrains was absolutely correct in denying the protection. There is no ongoing disruption on the article that warrants protection. The last time vandalism was done on the page was 15 days ago . There's no ongoing vandalism from multiple vectors to be dealt with. In fact, there's no ongoing vandalism at all and only 2 edits in the last two weeks.
"Applying page protection solely as a preemptive measure is contrary to the open nature of Wikipedia and is generally not allowed"
(WP:PREEMPTIVE). If we preemptively protected articles that have been subjected to a fair bit of vandalism in the past, we would have probably 80-90% of the top 10k most popular pages on the project protected by now. This is distinctly against what Wikipedia is meant to be. Wikipedia is always experiencing vandalism. Always has, always will. It's not a reason to preemptively protect things. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:01, 31 December 2025 (UTC) - I agree that no BOOMERANG is necessary. We can chalk this up to lessons learned and move on. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:31, 31 December 2025 (UTC)
- If it wasn't already obvious, I'm really sorry for my incivility here. Like I said above, ROB's rejection of the request pissed me off, and I became angry at them as a result. What I should have done is accept the decision and move on, which is what I usually do when at RFPP. If admins here decide a BOOMERANG is necessary, I will not argue with that. JHD0919 (talk) 23:37, 30 December 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Abuse of the category "Internet memes"
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
TriFusion (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
It appears this user is mass-categorizing as "internet memes" a large number of unrelated articles. Judging by their edit history, they're either confusing the concept of internet memes with internet popularity or adding the category to articles about anything that has some sort of local meme. Some articles already included in narrower subcategories. Solaire the knight (talk) 02:13, 31 December 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Another request to revoke TPA
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The spongecar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) --みんな空の下 (トーク) 03:32, 31 December 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.