Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1211

Fdom5997 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User was blocked for a week less than two months ago for a pattern of incivility and disruptiveness on linguistics pages, as reported by numerous editors, following these previous AN/Is:

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1205#User:Fdom5997 problems
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1205#Immediate block of Fdom5997 for blatant incivility

They continue to issue personal attacks (for example in Special:Diff/1327990754, Special:Diff/1328437229) and are now engaging in blatant WP:DAPE (Special:Diff/1328444858, from a responding editor). Their talk page further shows they have continued disruption post-block. The examples I have given here are nonexhaustive, and I can provide more diffs if necessary. Besides myself, the other two editors they have most recently been hostile and/or disruptive towards are Kwamikagami and Kepler-1229b, as shown in the diffs I have provided here. ~ oklopfer (💬) 23:53, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Comment: Although apparently ignorant of elementary linguistic concepts, if we're to go by their comments in discussion, Fdom does provide a service in reverting more grossly ignorant edits. However, any linguistic article that they substantially edit will need to be checked against their sources to verify that they didn't misunderstand it, something we don't need to worry about for most linguistics editors. When we add to that their disruptive behaviour in refusing to abide by long-standing consensus, and repeatedly edit-warring with others who correct their misunderstandings, Fdom is a net negative contributor. I would prefer that they agree by consensus and seek clarification when reverted, rather than being blocked, but a block would be preferable to the enormous task of reviewing their bad edits if they continue with this behaviour. — kwami (talk) 00:19, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

comment: while I second the opinion of in general working towards consensus over blocking, their comment No you shouldn’t be going through all of the language pages. It is a complete waste of time and as if you have nothing better to do with yourselves and your other personal time. Give it up. It is way too big of a task to handle. struck me as particularly frustrating, and was what brought me to open this report. It speaks to me as large disinterest in working collaboratively when others disagree with them. ~ oklopfer (💬) 00:49, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

Ok. It is one thing to *disagree* with me (which is fine and would probably lead to me wanting to have a productive conversation over), but here, you all are presenting your disagreements as facts and rules. You doing that, is not productive in sparking interest in working collaboratively, it just seems like you are picking sides and refusing to hear other stances. Fdom5997 (talk) 04:05, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

This is because they are guidelines generally followed by publishing linguists, and therefore, Wikipedia articles. I never presented this as a "fact". The term "fact" is inapplicable to the situation.

Also, you never provided a reasoning for why we should add allophones to phoneme charts, when that defeats the literal purpose of such a chart. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 08:06, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

Well I did not hear or see any of this being referred to as a “disagreement” or anything up to debate, as we were all arguing before. Nobody stated this as anything as such, and you all were acting as if whatever was in the consensus already, shouldn’t be challenged. Furthermore, do these charts necessarily need to display only the phonemes? To be clear, I am well aware that these “rules” or “guidelines” are considered to be incredibly necessary for licensed publishing linguists doing actual linguistic fieldwork where they do *need* to strictly publish both a distinguished phonetic chart and phonemic chart. But here, this is more of a summarized or generalized phonology section within a language article on a public online encyclopedia. No actual linguist out there would ever use an article from our site as a source or citation.

As for my reasoning why I think *some* allophones (specifically notable or common ones) should be allowed in the charts, I view this as a way of previewing either more of, or the rest of the sounds of a language in a chart, not just only seeing the phonemes. It can be seen as a way of convenience among some readers, because then they can easily get an idea of what more of the sounds of the language are by reading a chart. Although I do believe with that being said, it is very important to transcribe them and mark them correctly and don't forget the accurate transcription. For example if they are allophones, then use phonetic brackets [] or even parentheses () or even tildes (~) to mark them as allophones. But I also believe that the use of footnotes could also be permitted to explain the phonetic context of the sound as well. For that, I also believe that maybe we should be referring to them as “phonological charts” rather than “phonemic” or “phonetic” ones. But no matter what it is, at the end of the day, as long as the chart is properly sourced and written, and with the correct sounds and correct transcriptions, it should be pretty important for viewers across the aisle to be able to read and understand. And also provided that there are at least notes on the allophones below the chart, for context and detailed explanation.

That is my full viewpoint on this subject matter, feel free to agree or disagree. Fdom5997 (talk) 08:58, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

And we do include allophones, as you're perfectly aware. It's just not acceptable to confuse them. — kwami (talk) 11:44, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

I don’t confuse them at all.

And does that mean they can also be in the chart? Fdom5997 (talk) 10:45, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

Can you please address the behavioral issues I have brought up here? This was brought to the board not to continue content disputes, but to address how you have been responding to said disputes. I do not feel any of this excuses the suggestion that we should all "give it up" and do something else with our lives, rather than genuinely try to improve the articles, because it is "way too big of a task to handle" - those comments are very much in the vein of WP:DAPE. Furthermore, the edit warring and name calling continues to come up, and have been a problem for a long time according to previous AN/I reports that I linked, with several editors all pointing to the same pattern of behavior; it is all very disruptive, and despite your reply here, it has not made many editors feel they are "free to disagree" with you. Are these things going to change?

I also want to note that in fact I have seen plenty of "actual linguists" use WP articles as citation. If both the field and community consensus here are against your opinion, and you want to change that consensus, then it should really be done on the talk pages of the WikiProjects involved. What has being going on currently is extremely unproductive in resolving disputes. ~ oklopfer (💬) 15:26, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

Yes I do address them and I do apologize. And as long as I am able to still include *some* allophones (properly marked) in the phonological charts, then yes things should be able to change on my end. This has already been done by other linguists as I have seen, so I truly don’t think this really should be an issue. Yes you and other editors have a right to disagree with my takes, but when you do, do not be stating your opinions as facts or rules, because then you lose all the credibility when it comes to having an open and honest discussion. And at the same token, I sense a bit of gaslighting and contradiction going on as well. It is insulting to me being told that I “don’t know the difference between an allophone and a phoneme”, when I clearly do, however the point I am trying to make is that not all the charts should have to be written as phonemic, they should be considered to be rather generally “phonological”. Again this is an article site, not formal linguistic fieldwork. Just because I am including allophones in the charts, does not at all mean that I am presenting them as phonemes. Then while I am being told that the allophones should not be in the chart, I am then told either “they can be in the chart but reduced to notable allophones” or “they can be in the chart, but marked as allophones” which is exactly what I am doing, and have done the whole entire time. This is quite frustrating because I am being told one thing, and then immediately told another.

As far as improving the articles, while I do assume what you all are doing is good faith, I don’t feel that this is really that much of an “improvement”. If you’re gonna improve an article, then I suggest you do more edits regarding fixing the information as per the source cited, or even adding more info from another cited source. Fdom5997 (talk) 11:27, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

That is precisely what we have been doing, and again you called such edits garbage after this report was opened: Special:Diff/1328636080 ~ oklopfer (💬) 13:22, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

Ok, with the Central Kilimanjaro language, I was wrong to call it that, however I did sense a quite a bit if contradiction on @Kwamikagami‘s end when he transcribed a phonemic /d/ as /d͇/, and the dental /l̪/ as /ɫ̪/ (it’s only velarized freely). Weird because he’s been preaching to me all this time to not confuse the phonemese with allophones, and yet here, he did exactly that by narrowly-phonetically transcribing them. Fdom5997 (talk) 06:14, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

You apparently still don't know the difference between a phoneme and an allophone. It doesn't depend on the narrowness of transcription. — kwami (talk) 07:30, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Yes it does, and what makes you keep asserting that? You can’t even admit yourself. Fdom5997 (talk) 07:55, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

I never even remotely implied that allophones should be in phoneme charts. I stated that they can be presented in a separate chart specifically for allophones which you can find in many linguistics publications. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 03:03, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Did I even imply that you did? No. But to address your info, yes in many linguistic publications. But this is a general phonology section not a linguistic pub. If you want to include a separated phonetic and phonemic chart on an article, that is fine. But it should also be acceptable to create phonological charts with some notable allophones, properly marked. Fdom5997 (talk) 06:19, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Also, just to add to what you said, I have never seen any linguists out there cite Wikipedia. In fact I highly doubt there are any. It is already considered unprofessional, and not at all a primary source. Fdom5997 (talk) 11:32, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

As an example, here is Martin J. Ball, former president of the ICPLA, who has led the charge for the extIPA, using the Wikipedia article on sibilants as citation: doi:10.3138/jcspeech.29303 (p. 114, citation at p. 117; though if you don't have access, this can also directly be seen under the References header of the summary page) ~ oklopfer (💬) 13:36, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

That is not a language page. This is a page that displays all of the possible sibilant sounds. And even if he did cite this, he likely started off by saying “according to Wikipedia..” but with more context. Fdom5997 (talk) 06:22, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Just from reading the exchange on Fdom's talk page, the general flavor I get is of other editors notifying Fdom of community consensus and requesting they conform to it, while Fdom asserts that it's a bad consensus and they shouldn't have to abide by it. To whit, when advised their edits were against established guidelines, they replied, What “guidelines”? It’s all just useless red-tape. and one reply later That's a pathetic rule though. Their reply here of And as long as I am able to still [do some of my disputed action], then yes things should be able to change on my end. smells like "as long as I get my way, we can work together." If they are unwilling to abide by consensus, it may be time to start escalating blocks to induce their cooperation. EducatedRedneck (talk) 13:32, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

Note that Fdom has now expanded their POV war to Choni language. So yes, it does appear so. — kwami (talk) 14:09, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

Can we please just try to be open to discussion first before you proceed to cause a POV war here. Fdom5997 (talk) 06:24, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

For the record regarding the contradiction from @Kwamikagami, he responded telling me the following:

We'd need to reduce them to notable allophones, but who decides which are notable? This is exactly what I have been doing. Who decides? Well the answer to that is the allophones that are the most common. And should they be taken away even if they are not “decided”? I don’t think so.

If there are to be allophones in sound charts, then they will need to be clearly marked as allophones which is exactly what I have been doing but yet it is still being overlooked. Fdom5997 (talk) 06:41, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

AFAICT you have never clearly marked them as allophones. If you had, we wouldn't be here.

"The most common"? So for English we should change /r/ to (at least) [ɹʷ ɻʷ ʒ ɹ ɻ ɹ̥ʷ ɻ̊ʷ ʃ ɹ̩ ɻ̍], which all occur in the most basic vocabulary?

And /l/ to [l l̥ ɫ ɫ̩]? Hmm, I wonder how many "most common" allophones I have missed. — kwami (talk) 07:02, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

No, not all of those allophones. *One* of them. Fdom5997 (talk) 07:05, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

We can't choose one, or we won't show any allophony. So it has to be at least two. But which two? How do we decide? — kwami (talk) 07:22, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Is that two, including the main sound plus the allophone? I say we choose one sound plus another allophone, and the rest, we list in the description. Fdom5997 (talk) 08:03, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

As far as you can tell. Well then, what is that based on? Fdom5997 (talk) 07:08, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

It's based on your many many bad edits, with you arguing and even edit-warring over bad edits, the edits that multiple people have warned you about. Come on, stop playing stupid. "As far as I can tell" because I haven't reviewed all of your edits -- perhaps you got it right a couple times. But we're not here because your edits have been 100% wrong, not even because they're mostly wrong, but because of your refusal to collaborate with other editors. — kwami (talk) 07:25, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

What “many many bad edits”? And I’m sorry, but I am allowed to question a consensus. And who says I need to collaborate with editors that I question their motive? Can’t I just debate first? Fdom5997 (talk) 07:59, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

While they have not responded here yet, I am noting that Fdom has opened a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linguistics#Allophone sounds in phonology sections in regards to wanting to change the consensus, which although it is mostly a rehashing of what has been stated here, is definitely a step in the right direction.

Because it is a rehashing, I am cautious that the conversation has the potential to devolve back to where we have ended up over the last few weeks, as all of the involved editors here (including myself) have already firmly stated our stances, but hopefully others can join in to provide their opinions, too.

@Fdom5997, I ask (plead, even) that whatever the outcome is from the discussion, that it is kept respectful and strays away from name calling, and that edit wars are avoided in favor of said good faith and constructive discussion. I am still certainly bothered by what has felt like attempted page ownership and rather blatant discouragement of others trying to improve articles, but (for me at least) this can be set aside if this new discussion can remain in a positive tone, and that whatever the resulting consensus is, is respected.

I think it is important for us all (again, including myself) to be mindful of what is stated in the short WP:MOLE essay: Encyclopedia writers tend to be detail oriented, precision-loving creatures. At times we can become excessively upset at relatively small defects. ~ oklopfer (💬) 03:52, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

Well, they did edit one of their comments here, so I assume they've seen my question. I hope that it's as you said, that the behavior is improving. If it does not, the dramaboard will remain for a subsequent report. EducatedRedneck (talk) 14:35, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

@EducatedRedneck: They're not improving, and I think it's time for another block.

At Shawi Arabic, I reverted yet another error of Fdom's, where sources say dialects have either a 2-way or a 3-way contrast among short vowels, and Fdom conflated them to create a 4-way contrast that AFAICT is not supported by any source. Fdom reverted me to restore their edit, without an explanation or sourcing; an anon IP pinged me on the talk page and reverted Fdom. Fdom first responded with 'You shut up, snitch', then deleted the talk thread and reverted the article again with the edit summary 'shut up, snitch'.

So we have violations of SYNTH, edit-warring, civility, and whatever policy prohibits deleting another user's comments.

I'm now going to go through Fdom's recent edits, though I'd prefer not to waste more time with this nonsense. — kwami (talk) 05:44, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Oh, and they're also edit-warring with Kepler-1229b at Wounaan language over the very point that they started the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linguistics#Allophone sounds in phonology sections for. Does that count as bad faith? Plus they're still edit-warring at Choni language. — kwami (talk) 05:51, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

That was put in BRACKETS to properly transcribe the allophone. Learn to listen Fdom5997 (talk) 05:53, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Don't play stupid. The discussion you started at the wikiproject is over just this point, and you know that consensus so far is against you. IDIDN'THEARTHAT is not a defense for edit-warring. — kwami (talk) 05:57, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

It’s okay to disagree. But I’m sorry. You’re trying to out-bad-faith me here and not listen to a word I said. Maybe you are the one with the bad-faith. Especially since you’re refusing to hear my proposal, and want me blocked just because of it. That is pretty bad faith tbh. Fdom5997 (talk) 06:06, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

I think this example of continuing to play stupid supports my recommendation that you be blocked. — kwami (talk) 06:17, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

How am I even playing stupid? Seriously? Fdom5997 (talk) 06:19, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

You pretend that you don't understand what people are objecting to. If you're truly too stupid to understand, you're too stupid to edit WP, so that's not a very good strategy. — kwami (talk) 06:30, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, and yet I am the one in bad-faith. You keep insisting I am stupid. But yet somehow “playing stupid”? Well no I’m not stupid, and neither playing it. I know what people are disagreeing with me on. And now you are officially the one who is now acting in bad-faith by slandering me and accusing me with all of this nonsense. Yes, I do admit that I am pretty defensive and emotional, and there are quite a few times where I need to control it, especially whenever your arguments and edits are correct. But here, this wasn’t that. It was a bad-faith edit from an anonymous user, that wanted to start another fit. Well, unlike you, I will not stoop that low. Fdom5997 (talk) 06:40, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami not for anything, but I didn’t even get to speak in my own thread on Project:Languages. Not to rudely react to those disagreeing though. But this snitching was clearly all in bad-faith to target me. Fdom5997 (talk) 06:18, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

That's the mentality of a psychopath: that when others object to your bad behaviour, it's all some sort of conspiracy against you, that somehow you're the victim of the consequences of your behaviour. — kwami (talk) 06:24, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Ok wait. Now you’re resorting to calling me a “psychopath”? And you’re not being bad-faith?

Be honest, the only reason why your siding with the anon user, is because that bad-faith edit from them was in your favor. Yes it was a bad-faith edit from them towards me. Not out of a genuine disagreement. If it was that, then they would have simply started a discussion with me, instead of hound me with my edits, and try to start another fire on here. Fdom5997 (talk) 06:31, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

No, I said that your argument was that of a psychopath. Whether you actually are one I have no idea. But now you're continuing that argument as if you were -- people who disagree with you are out to get you; it can't possibly be because they honestly disagree with you.

But that's rather beside the point: if you're going to edit WP, you need to abide by the collaborative norms that WP sets out for you. If you fail to do that -- regardless of whether you're incapable of it or merely unwilling -- then you can´t continue to edit here. — kwami (talk) 06:39, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Ok no. This was an anonymous user. A lot of times, the no-name anonymous users are very likely the most troublesome. Like I just said, if it was an honest genuine disagreement, then they would have just talked to me. But they didn’t. Instead they hounded me and my edits to cause commotion.

So other than that, I do not see anyone else who disagrees with me being out to get me. But honestly though, I do kind of question your true motive too, by how you’re dismissing my arguments, hurling accusations and slanders towards me, and also even contradicting yourself too. Fdom5997 (talk) 06:49, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

No. It’s not bad faith. There’s a reason why I transcribed the allophones in the chart (correctly by the way), and yet you want me blocked just because you disagree with me. That says a lot about you. I started that thread, to publish a proposal of mine, and to create a new consensus.

What WAS bad faith was that trolling no-name snitch user who caused this. Fdom5997 (talk) 06:01, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

No. That was changed to on in parentheses as a marginal sound, supported by Younes and Herin, 2016. Yes I have the source. And yet some anonymous snitch IP user caused this. You should not want me blocked just because of this. It is a disagreement. So let’s solve it. Fdom5997 (talk) 05:51, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

If you had any interest in solving it, you would have attempted to do so. — kwami (talk) 05:57, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

And yet of course you dismiss the first sentence I wrote here. Crickets Fdom5997 (talk) 06:02, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

ON THE TALK PAGE, EDIT-SUMMARY OR BY SUPPLYING A REF IN THE ARTICLE. Playing stupid in this thread doesn't make us think you're too stupid to understand what we're saying, it only demonstrates bad faith. — kwami (talk) 06:21, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

I was angry and defensive because an anonymous user snitched on me in bad faith. Yes I admit that. If I was really playing stupid, then I wouldn’t admit that. Fdom5997 (talk) 06:26, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

I suspect that you'll say whatever you think will enable you to get your way for a little bit longer, while continuing to ignore the collaborative process of WP. The fact that you don't consistently play stupid means nothing other than to demonstrate that you're not acting in good faith. — kwami (talk) 06:33, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Maybe because you’re just assuming all of that (perhaps because you struggle with that yourself), and ignoring the fact that most of my edits are not in bad-faith.

And if I was not “consistently” playing stupid, then why should I even play stupid at all? Fdom5997 (talk) 06:54, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

I suggest you two stop replying to each other. Kwami, you may wish to strike the "mentality of a psychopath" comment, as it does seem to approach WP:PA. Fdom, the same goes for your "perhaps because you struggle with that" comment. For both, I don't think the back-and-forth is convincing any bystanders, and is just discouraging other editor participation; let your evidence speak for itself. EducatedRedneck (talk) 14:43, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

You're right. — kwami (talk) 22:24, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

@EducatedRedneck number one, maybe we need a new consensus, and number two, why shouldn’t we be able to question the first consensus? I just started a thread where I professionally addressed a proposal of mine. Some may disagree with it (which is fine), but as I am seeing right now, all of the bad faith attacks are being directed towards me, and here I am trying to defend myself, but yet I am accused of doing bad-faith. Seriously, we just need to stop with this. It’s ok if we feel differently about the status-quo. Fdom5997 (talk) 06:12, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

We can't really have a consensus for mutually exclusive propositions such as showing allophones in tables titled consonant phonemes - see e.g. Choni language#Phonology. It makes no sense, and at the very least the table should be renamed if we want to add allophones. If you edit war over things like that (or for any other reason really) - yes, you are being disruptive. I'm no saint in that regard either (this is why I won't say you should be blocked, and it's not up to me to decide anyway) but I do try to control myself, even when I think I'm right. Try to cool off, take a walk, go to gym. Works for me. Sol505000 (talk) 11:21, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

@Fdom5997, let's put aside any allegations of bad faith on either side for now. Yes, you are allowed to question consensus, as described in WP:CCC which I linked above, but generally that's done through discussion, not editing. Until the new consensus is established and accepted by other editors, you have to abide by the old one. You started a discussion; that's good. You've also been editing as if the discussion was already resolved; that's bad. Wait for the discussion to resolve. It may be a while. If you don't, it's very clearly WP:DE and you are likely to be blocked for it. Think of it as like changing a law. The old law may be bad, but until the new one is passed to change it, breaking the old law will still land you in jail. Change the law first, then act under the protections of the new law. Does that make sense? EducatedRedneck (talk) 14:51, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

It is clear that I, along with @Kwamikagami and @Oklopfer, are in disagreement over this new consensus that Fdom has attempted to introduce. We should have had this discussion back in November to properly decide on a new consensus, but it appears we have started just now. Fdom's initial attempts to modify consensus via editing have very consistently been met with edit-warring from editors who disagree. After just a few instances of this, the best decision would have been to stop editing those articles and start a discussion somewhere. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 18:00, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

All I can see is that you're still edit warring instead of using the talk page: , . Sol505000 (talk) 18:24, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

I reverted one of those edits and tagged the other as {cn}. The one I reverted, Fdom just restored with the summary 'we just discussed this at WikiProject. Enough now', presumably meaning that they think this discussion gives them permission to edit-war against consensus. Can we block them now please? — kwami (talk) 21:40, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps block them for now. - BᴏᴅʜıHᴀᴙᴩ ^talk 21:45, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. Despite Fdom's attempts to discuss their new consensus, they continue to edit war over the topic, implying that the discussion at WPLANG is settled, when that couldn't be farther from the truth. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 22:21, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

They're now edit-warring on my talk page, after I've told them twice to stay off. Should I file at 3RR, or is this ANI report enough? — kwami (talk) 22:33, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

If this edit warring goes on for any longer, then that may be appropriate. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 23:33, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

I left a message on their talk page asking them to stop jumping this gun, and their response was a somewhat frustrating admittance that they haven't actually read most of the responses. The haste to act despite the discussion still very much ongoing, combined with the recent warring, does not signal a strong interest in building new consensus. It seemed like they had stepped back for a few days and upon return adjusted their conduct (I appreciated their comments earlier in this thread recognizing that they have reacted emotionally and defensively), but it has now devolved almost entirely back to where this report began. I want to have faith that they can improve, but the falling back to old habits so quickly does not embolden that faith. ~ oklopfer (💬) 23:43, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

I think that I agree too. They need a wake-up call, otherwise they won't stop edit warring and treating fellow editors worse than dogs. Both are a recurring pattern. Sol505000 (talk) 22:38, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Request 2 week block of Fdom5997. The lack of substantive response here to the concerns, continuation of the behavior, continued ignoring of consensus, and past record (the last block was 1 week in November for personal attacks, previous pblock was 2 weeks for edit warring) indicates that they have not yet learned that policies such as WP:EW and WP:CON are not optional. EducatedRedneck (talk) 01:11, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely I considered a shorter length, but this pattern has been going on since at least 2021. I have no belief that it will stop after this discussion or won't come back once a block expires because it keeps happening.

• December 2021 ANI report for wikihounding and edit warring over IPA tables -- no action
• December 2022 Same user reports new issues -- final warning given
• January 2024 Same user reports further issues -- archived without comment
• January 2024 Previous report got raised by an admin and another admin provides an example of Fdom being uncivil to another editor -- blocked for 48 hours
• August 2025 (1) Another user complains about tendentious editing and personal attacks -- archived without action
• August 2025 (2) User brings it up again -- admins comment but archived with no action
• August 2025 (3) Apparently unrelated to prior reports, p-blocked from one page for edit warring.
• October 2025 User report for tendentious editing and incivility -- page protected
• November 2025 User reports incivility -- blocked for one week

In the current incident, while the ANI report is still open and after saying they want to work towards consensus, Fdom continues hounding kwami and edit warring (,). If you go through the noticeboard threads I linked above, this is a pattern you'll see. Based on all of that, I think Fdom is not willing to follow our policies, despite saying they will. If a temporary block were to expire, I think the incivil and tendentious editing would still come back because that's what happened twice in the last few months. In the mean time, fixing errors and reimplementing consensus is taking up editor time while some get hounded for it. If Fdom would like to continue contributing in the future, they will need to convince an administrator in an unblock request that they can edit competently in accordance with our policies on dispute resolution, civility, and not hounding others. — Wug·a·po·des 07:19, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Moved from WP:AE.

Har1MAS1415 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) constantly adds bad references, including but not limited to forum posts and random Youtube videos.

1. 18:34, 15 March 2025 Adds content to a BLP using a random person's video on Youtube as a reference
2. 18:42, 15 March 2025 Adds content to a BLP using a random person's video on Youtube as a reference
3. 00:26, 16 March 2025 Amends content at a BLP using a forum post as a reference
4. 13:48, 16 March 2025 Adds forum posts as references at a BLP
5. 14:33, 17 March 2025 Adds content to a BLP using a random person's video on Youtube as a reference
6. 12:58, 18 March 2025 Adds content to a BLP using a random person's Facebook post as a reference
7. 18:40, 18 March 2025 Adds content to a BLP using a forum post as a reference
8. 21:49, 17 September 2025 Adds a forum post as a reference to a BLP
9. 16:08, 16 September 2025 Adds content to a BLP using a forum post as a reference
10. 15:53, 16 September 2025 Adds content to a BLP using a forum post as a reference
11. 11:45, 10 November 2025 Adds content to a BLP using a forum post as a reference
12. 19:37, 10 November 2025 Adds a forum post as a reference to a BLP, claiming These people wouldn't say these things if they were making it up.
13. 16:01, 27 December 2025 Adds content to a BLP using a random person's Facebook post as a reference
14. 16:20, 27 December 2025 Adds a random person's Youtube video (of them unboxing a plastic model kit!!) as a reference to a BLP
15. 19:36, 27 December 2025 Adds a forum post as a reference to a BLP
16. 19:45, 27 December 2025 Adds a forum post as a reference to a BLP

There's many more diffs, but I was wary of the 20 diff limit at AE. They have repeatedly dismissed objections to their bad referencing. FDW777 (talk) 16:22, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, you could post diffs all day with this editor, who has shown absolutely zero understanding of WP:V. They've never responded directly to criticism, and have only once ever participated in a talk page; their very first edit in which they sourced age by simply declaring that they know it's true. I think a temporary partial block with directions to come discuss at ANI is necessary, otherwise I see no reason to think this won't simply be ignored. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 16:36, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Given they are unresponsive to warnings, dating back months on end and there are no changes in the behavoir, I have indef'd until such time they can engage and confirm their understanding of policy. -- Amanda (she/her) 18:06, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Well the block has prompted a response, which doesn't inspire much confidence that they understand the problems with their editing. FDW777 (talk) 20:28, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

I'm still hopeful if this editor actually engages with the problem and reforms, they'll be a positive contributor; I really believe that they want to build an encyclopedia. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 22:07, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

	This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
=== Report regarding User:=== @Kowal2701 I am reporting @Kowal2701 for disruptive editing and systemic bias against Benin Kingdom history. The user has been weaponizing the "Speedy Deletion" (db-ai) tag to suppress legitimate, sourced historiography regarding the Ogiso Dynasty. The core issues are: Dismissal of Verified Sources: The user has repeatedly claimed academic sources do not exist. I have provided the ISBN for Archaeology and Ethnohistory in Nigeria (Okpoko, 1984, ISBN 978-0860542483), yet the user continues to tag articles like Ogiso Ere and Ogiso Orire for deletion. Restoration of Vandalized Content: The user has attempted to revert Ogiso Igodo and the List of Ogiso to versions that were previously vandalized, removing academic citations in the process. Systemic Bias: The user is enforcing a "shortened" history of Igodomigodo that contradicts documented Ughoron palace records. It is a logical contradiction to acknowledge the Oba dynasty and the arrival of Oranmiyan/Oduduwa while attempting to erase the 1,000-year administrative foundation (such as the introduction of the Ada and Eben) that preceded it. I am requesting that an Administrator review this user's pattern of dismissing valid ISBNs and using deletion tags to win a content dispute. This behavior is preventing a neutral, sourced representation of Edo history. Kingnovalova (talk) 16:28, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Please do not use a large language model to communicate on Wikipedia. Please see the WP:LLMTALK guideline.

Also, the ISBN you provided is for a completely different book, Society and settlement in Wales and the Marches, 500 B.C. to A.D. 1100. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 16:36, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Miyanky445, also this report (along with all their edits) are LLM-generated. That ISBN is for "Society and settlement in Wales and the Marches, 500 B.C. to A.D. 1100 (BAR British series)" 1984. Kowal2701 (talk) 16:37, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

@SuperPianoMan9167 Kingnovalova (talk) 16:39, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Um, why did you ping me? Did you forget to write the rest of your comment? SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 16:41, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

@SuperPianoMan9167 Kingnovalova (talk) 16:49, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

@SuperPianoMan9167 Kingnovalova (talk) 16:54, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Please stop pinging me unless you have a comment to go along with the ping. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 16:55, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Kingnovalova (talk) 16:56, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

You seem to have written your comment in the edit summary instead of in the reply box. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 16:59, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

(SuperPianoMan9167): I apologize for the confusion with the ISBN. I am posting from my phone and I accidentally grabbed the code for the Wales book because of an indexing error in the BAR 1984 catalog. I am a rea@SuperPianoMan9167l person, not an AI, and that was just a manual mistake on my part. Please look at the actual book titles: Archaeology and Ethnohistory in Nigeria (Alex Okpoko, 1984) and Great Benin: The Age of Ogiso (OCLC 39281874). Kingnovalova (talk) 17:04, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

That OCLC number belongs to Netlife : Internet citizens and their communities. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 17:08, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

One good thing to come out of this is that I was not aware of "The Benin Monarchy: An Anthology of Benin History" 2018 (published by the monarchy) which we may be able to use with attribution Kowal2701 (talk) 16:42, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

@Kowal2701 Kingnovalova (talk) 17:00, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Kingnovalova, you are writing your comments in the edit summary and not the reply box, so they aren't showing up on the page. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 17:02, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Please stop the "sockpuppet" and "AI" accusations. Just because I made a mistake with a library code doesn't mean I am not a real researcher. I am an Edo person trying to document the history of the Ogiso Dynasty and the foundation of Igodomigodo. These are real books and this is my real history. Let's focus on the Ughoron records and the academic sources like Jacob Egharevba instead of calling me names.@Kowal2701 Kingnovalova (talk) 17:05, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Multiple editors have confirmed you are using large swaths of unreviewed LLM generated content in editing articles and in creating them. I have confirmed this as well. This ends. Now. Carefully read Wikipedia:Large language models before editing articles again. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:36, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

• WP:BOOMERANG situation, suggest page creation block at least for User:Kingnovalova; Ogiso Orire and Ogiso Ere are very clearly AI-generated, along with the above post. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:18, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

  Imo they should just be blocked as a sock, they're Possilikely like the two socks of Miyanky which were blocked yesterday that also used LLMs, and their ping of Vanderwaalforces here (VWF is usually the one dealing w Miyanky's socks) despite this account never having interacted with him AFAICT Kowal2701 (talk) 17:48, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

  @Kowal2701 you see what I am talking about, already accusing me of suck puppetry just like you did to the others; I didn't break any rules so I can't be blocked yes I used ai to correct my punctuations. Which I didn't know was against the rules and I made mistakes on the isbn I have been gathering which I accept and I will ensure that never happens again. However kindly stop vandalising Edo page Kingnovalova (talk) 17:53, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

The problem is you aren't ensuring it doesn't happen again. You keep on using AI hallucinated sources. I have given you a final warning on your talk page. Either this behavior ends or your editing articles on Wikipedia ends. Your choice. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:57, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Noting that Kingnovalova attempted to blank this section. I restored it. EducatedRedneck (talk) 17:57, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Wow. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:59, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

TattooedLeprechaun (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is going ballistic!! Not sure if this account got compromised, but it seems like a bot blanking and replacing talk pages with a notification of an AfD... HurricaneZeta^C 14:26, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

User blocked until this can get sorted out with some kind of rationale explanation. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 14:29, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Also, for the record, there's no need for any admin to consult with me about unblocking. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 15:19, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Doesn't look like compromise to me, they have edited in the field of UK TV channels previously. I'm going to AGF and say they just wanted to let the contributors of the article know about the AfD and ended up sending out 947 (by my count) notifications. IsCat (talk) 14:33, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Given the lack of tags on the edits though, maybe they used some kind of bot (without approval)? HurricaneZeta^C 14:37, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Seems so, no wikieditor tag or any other editor-related tag on their edits (which is normally there). Tenshi! (Talk page) 14:43, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

This is absolutely a bot (or a WP:MEATBOT). They made nearly a thousand edits in 11 minutes. Also, they notified themselves of the afd. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 14:47, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

It was probably an ad-hoc script run on the history page, hence notifications to "Powered", "Wikimedia", "Privacy", "(newest" etc when it ran off the end of the list. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 14:59, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

What a way to end 2025! I find it completely wild that the usage of a bot completely backfired on the user's behalf (yes, I got the notification as well and deleted any previous ones). I think if they knew they had to send out a message asking if a specific page should be deleted, they could just ask the most noteworthy users and contributors, not every single IP or user who’s edited on there. Luigitehplumber (talk) 15:08, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Yes, 947 is correct, including 2 nonexistent users. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 14:41, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Maybe needs mass rollback of edits, they've wiped out a lot of talk pages. grapesurgeon (talk) 14:35, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

I tried mass rollbacking but it's already done now. HurricaneZeta^C 14:35, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

I did the mass rollback but it won't touch (a) pages subsequently edited and (b) pages that did not previously exist. For (b), I think Special:Nuke can be used, but I've never attempted it before. --Redrose64 🦌 (talk) 14:41, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

It looks like it can be used for this HurricaneZeta^C 14:45, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

I just deleted 500 of the newly-created pages, to make it easier to find the ones that actually need to be reverted. I'll check after those clear the queue and see how many more I need to get. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:25, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Ok, there were only 7 extras. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:28, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of DTT channels in the United Kingdom has been notified of this ANI. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 14:43, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

It's not a compromised account. It's just someone running an unauthorized bot. They should probably stay blocked until they can explain why running unauhorized bots they found on the internet somewhere is a bad idea, but anyone should be able to do that with two minutes of thought. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:01, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

TL just explained on their talk page that ChatGPT helpfully provided a script for them to run to notify editors. Schazjmd (talk) 15:43, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Would support an unblock after multiple trouts and a warning to not use LLMs or unauthorized bots. HurricaneZeta^C 15:48, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

I think that's enough trouts now for just this (or perhaps not enough, given that nobody has presented an actual {{trout}}!). After all, Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers#How to avoid biting #9 cites the then–StackOverflow Product Director. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:14, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Looking at the talk page, TL has since been caught block evading by a CU, so the idea of trouting TL for the bot edits appears to have since gone cold. Hx7 17:56, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Now CU-blocked, so that's unfortunate. HurricaneZeta^C 18:19, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi. User:Uprising internationalizer's user page currently says "Zionists beware, you're in for a scare. Hahaha." It also says "This user supports the Axis of Resistance and thinks that zionism is a genocidal terrorist ideology for inbred pedophile scum." This seems to violate WP:CIVIL, and could be interpreted WP:VIOLENCE and possibly WP:HATESPEECH.

The user also currently has a total of 11 edits, many of them related to ARBPIA, for example here, here, here and here. Nehushtani (talk) 11:53, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

I have blocked the user indefinitely as an arbitration action. Blatantly not here to build and encyclopedia, and personal attacks. CoconutOctopus talk 13:56, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

see this transphobic edit by User:~2025-43959-80 that is referencing a "meme" that soyjak.party users use when talking about trans people killing themselves here, and this other edit ~2025-30597-01 (talk) 13:36, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Blocked as NOTHERE, and the worst message removed. Don't think it quite hits revdel level but I won't argue if another admin thinks it does. CoconutOctopus talk 13:44, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

I did revdel it. As a side note, that talk page is a dumpster fire. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:13, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello all,

I was involved in the translation and improvement of Liyue (Genshin Impact) to GA status earlier this year, and woke up today to find that Gnomingstuff (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) believed it was made by an AI, having marked it with {{AI-generated}} at . They started a discussion on the article's talk page and also mentioned the use of WP:AITELLS as a reasoning behind their beliefs, but did not point out any other reason why they believe the article as it currently stands to be AI-generated (which it is not, I would know) per WP:COMMUNICATE. It seemed drive-by in nature. I had a look on their talk page, and it seems that while they have been correct at times in deducing whether or not an article is made up of AI slop or not (and I am very appreciative of that), the fact that multiple editors have come on their talk page and questioned their decisions is concerning to me. There are a multitude of legitimate reasons for using the wording described at WP:AITELLS. As @EnTerbury said at User talk:Gnomingstuff#salar de uyuni, it would be easier and much less of a hassle for other editors for them to simply fix the suspected AI edits themselves.

Tagging people who have had discussions with them on their talk page so they can weigh in if they want to: @Owais Al Qarni, AnyGuy, The Blue Rider, Xexerss, GreenLipstickLesbian, Sundayclose, Kanyfug, Wound theology, Itsdsni, Prince of Erebor, Mtjannetta, EnTerbury, Jm307, Oroboros74, and NegativeMP1

Additionally, their callous treatment of others at User talk:Gnomingstuff#Stop deleting text in mass with the rationale of "AI slop" and User talk:Gnomingstuff#Query about revert is also of concern. Gommeh 📖   🎮 19:37, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Note that I already left a message at their talk page regarding the drive-by tagging, hoping that would work without more drastic action being required for the time being. My personal concerns regarding the matter can be found there (and also Talk:Mean (song)); I already did what I felt was appropriate for the situation so I likely won't participate too much in this. λ NegativeMP1 19:45, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

What? The tag says This article may incorporate text from a large language model.. Yes he could've elaborated on the specific signs (and I hope Gnoming explains his work process re mass tagging), but frankly this shows complete disregard for his expertise and how much overwhelming shit he has to wade through as arguably the most prolific of one of a handful of users tackling this humongous (and existential) problem while the community dithers. The conversations on his own talk page are non-starters, and mass pinging people only makes me think you realise how weak of a report this is. Kowal2701 (talk) 21:43, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Sure, I can elaborate on specific signs; I usually don't, because it leaves the impression that the actual wording is the problem rather than the substance or the source-to-text integrity, but there are signs. I don't speak Chinese, so I am the wrong person to do the work of whether the article is a faithful translation from the Chinese or how accurately it represents the Chinese-language sources -- which is why I tagged it, so someone who does speak Chinese might. But since LLM translations come out sounding like LLM text, in a way that "normal" machine translations don't, they are easy to identify based on linguistic tells:

• Additionally, the sandstone peak forest of Zhangjiajie aligns with Liyue's theme of the Geo element: The "aligns with" phrasing is very characteristic of LLM output -- specifically, LLM output in 2024 -- and not nearly as characteristic of writing prior to the advent of LLMs. (Source) The "Additionally," beginning a sentence is also characteristic of AI writing, albeit a weaker indicator on its ownh.
• The development team believed that entering Tianheng Mountain and discovering Liyue Harbor would create a strong visual and spatial contrast, highlighting Liyue's natural and cultural heritage -- The participial phrase at the end is very characteristic of LLMs, and "highlighting X's cultural heritage" especially so. (Source 1, source 2.)
• Several documentary shorts showcasing the process of these artisans creating their works will also be released - "Showcasing" is yet another word far more common in AI writing than pre-AI writing ((source), and the promotional tone of this sentence is also indicative of LLM output -- although again, I don't speak Chinese, so I don't know whether the promotional tone is being imported from the original article.

There are plenty more where this came from -- but again, they are not themselves the issue, they are just pointers to potential deeper problems with the sourcing. Gnomingstuff (talk) 21:56, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

This is, of course, all besides the point. We are not discussing the page mentioned in particular, or even if you were justified in adding the AI disclaimer tag. wound theology◈ 01:05, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

They’ve been asked, repeatedly, to provide examples, so no, it’s very much not “besides the point”. ~2025-43610-64 (talk) 01:08, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Even conceding that the page is entirely AI generated slop and should be deleted, this is not the place to discuss that. Gnomingstuff should have given his rationale on the talk page or in the |reason= tag, not here at the AN/I thread. wound theology◈ 01:18, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

246 words (not counting the WP:CANVASSING of potential haters in paragraph two) and not one of those words answers the underlying question of whether you used AI or not. (see below)

As far as "drive-by tagging," it seems that one simply cannot win. (Before someone seizes upon the semantics: in the colloquial sense, not the WP:BATTLEGROUND sense.) If you add the AI-generated tag, people complain about that because you're "drive-by tagging." If you edit or remove the AI-generated material (which is recommended on Template:AI-generated, particularly on BLPs or contentious topics) people complain about that because you're removing content. If you point out potentially problematic areas of an article and why they are problematic, people complain that "well maybe it isn't AI!" without addressing the substance of the complaints. You. cannot. win.

As far as "callous treatment," if I request that someone not spam my talk page, and their response is to continue to spam my talk page, that's sending a clear message of "I don't care what you think." Gnomingstuff (talk) 21:44, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

They actually clearly said it is not AI generated, so I'm not sure why you're insinuating that they're dodging the question.

The rest of your response here is mostly irrelevant. If you are going to tag content as potentially AI-generated, you should state your reasoning. If you don't, especially if you refuse to when prompted, no pun intended, then it is clearly a case of drive-by tagging. If people disagree, that is their prerogative. After all, it's not about WP:WINNING. wound theology◈ 21:52, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Got it, apologies, I missed that part.

That being said, the text somehow came out exactly how AI-generated or AI-translated text in mid-2024 would come out -- which is not an accusation of bad faith, a lot of translation tools are not transparent about the mechanism doing the translating. DeepL, for instance, is LLM-based, but a lot of people who use it aren't aware.

So a helpful piece of information, then, would be to mention what translation tool was used. Gnomingstuff (talk) 21:58, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

This is entirely irrelevant, again. The issue is not about whether or not you were correct to suspect that the page was AI-generated or assisted. Please understand this. wound theology◈ 01:19, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

I mean, it would certainly be more productive than this thread. Gnomingstuff (talk) 03:26, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Exactly. While I'm sure we all appreciate anti-AI edits, perhaps it would be best to fix what you suspect to be AI-generated text yourself instead of tagging the article, especially if it wouldn't be obvious to the average editor. If you do decide to tag it, I'd strongly consider using the |reason= tag to indicate what part(s) you think is AI-generated. In my opinion (though this is only an opinion and you're free to disagree on this) the {{AI-generated}} tag should only be applied where the use of AI would be obvious (nonexistent references, etc.), not purely based on style or wording used.

I was not the person who originally wrote the article last year and as such I don't know what tool they used. Regardless, I doubt it's very important now as the article has been edited significantly, and AI-generated text should have been removed as part of the GA process. Gommeh 📖   🎮 22:08, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

As I mentioned, I do not speak Chinese. "Fixing" the text, here, would entail comparing the English translation to the Chinese article at the time of creation to see whether there were any mistranslations, and ideally also comparing the English text to the sources -- most of which are also in Chinese -- to make sure there are no source-to-text integrity issues. Without doing that, it's impossible to know what and how much needs to be "fixed." Even without a language barrier, this is several hours' work at minimum. Impose a language barrier, and it becomes several hours' work at minimum by someone who can only read half the material.

So, unless I become fluent in Chinese, it is not possible for me to fix this particular article. However, I do fix other articles. And then people yell at me for that. Gnomingstuff (talk) 22:15, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Well, I was obviously pinged and as such going to sit this out, but I think gnomingtuff's words here speak for themselves: anybody who so much a questions an edit of theirs is an unappreciative "hater". I appreciate what they do and, working in copyright cleanup myself, do get their frustration, by it's no excuse to so outwardly ABF. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 21:54, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

To clarify, I meant it as "canvassing anyone I think might be a hater." Gnomingstuff (talk) 21:59, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

I doubt they will assume bad faith - I took care to include people who have thanked you for your contributions and I've also had quite good experiences with a few of these people myself. A few of them I know well enough to trust they'll let me know when I screw up regardless of my relationship with them. They're more than capable of staying neutral in discussions like this. Gommeh 📖   🎮 22:13, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

• Comment: This editor has unfortunately demonstrated they are not willing to listen. They have repeatedly used profanity when communicating with other editors or have been unnecessarily hostile: (1, 2, 3, 4). More editors that I can count have advised them to change their method of applying banners to articles: (1, 2, 3, 4, 5). No one has "spammed" their talk page, it is simply editors fed up with an editor who won't change their approach. Something can only be said so many ways. If they don't wish to collaborate, as they have made clear on their user page, perhaps a collaborative project like Wikipedia isn't the best place to be. Their objective is good, their application is not. 11WB (talk) 22:06, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

  I am willing to listen, as long as people are willing to listen to me. What usually seems to happen is I say things and they just do not seem to even register at all.

  For instance, I specifically clarified I said "you can't win" in the colloquial idiomatic sense, in the sense of "no matter what you do, it's wrong," and not in the WP:BATTLEGROUND sense... and then someone indeed comes along and implied that I meant it in the WP:BATTLEGROUND sense, as if what I said just didn't exist. Clearly I should have just said "damned if you do, damned if you don't"; I don't think we have a WP:ETERNALDAMNATION. (Ironically, I can sympathize with people using LLMs on this; I imagine it's freeing to have an external agent do the walking on eggshells.)

  Or another example: It is incredibly frustrating to say "if you point out specific phrasing indicative of AI writing, people get the impression that the phrasing is itself the problem," and then to have someone come along to do exactly that, asking why I didn't just change the phrasing. Benefit of the doubt, maybe it's a cross-posting issue this time, but this exact misunderstanding happens often enough that it's one of the first things mentiond on the WP:AISIGNS page. (Before anyone asks: no, I didn't write that part.)

  As far as spamming, it is frustrating to get five pings in around ten minutes (each of which also generates an email) faster than I can address any individual one, especially when I am trying to do something else, and then to step away from Wikipedia and come back to several more. I don't think it's reasonable to expect no one to ever comment on my talk page, but I do think it is reasonable for someone to stop when asked to stop. It's basic courtesy. I would do the same for anyone else.

  As far as profanity, tone policing and sealioning are just as incivil. Frankly, I would much rather people swear at me. It would be less stressful. Gnomingstuff (talk) 22:43, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

  The frequency of notifications—which can be turned off—are only resulting from the frequency of banner applications. Your responses at this AN/I are not really acknowledging what the main issues are, rather you seem to only really be focusing on LLM use in articles. This point is understood by everybody here. This AN/I isn't about the larger issue regarding LLM use in articles, it is about how your methods of applying banners and poor communication are affecting other editors on the project. 11WB (talk) 22:55, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

  Based on this discussion it seems like people are unlikely to react well to my turning off notifications.

  As far as applying a lot of banners... there's a lot of AI-generated content on Wikipedia. Given that there are almost 1 billion monthly active users of ChatGPT, it would be more surprising if there wasn't. I am not inventing this stuff. It already existed. The only thing that tagging does is inform editors (and readers!) about it.

  And -- yet again -- -- people also seem to yell at you if I don't tag an article and instead edit the content. There seems to be no possible action one can take with regard to AI-generated content that will not get one yelled at, rather than to just see it and say nothing. (which I also do, frequently; for everything I tag, there are several other articles I don't, whether because I didn't think it was AI or because it seemed minor. I have often wondered whether I should just keep a running log of every article I have looked at and what decision I made, in the futile hope that maybe someone will believe me on this.) Gnomingstuff (talk) 23:03, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

  I'd be interested in seeing a diff of someone complaining about you not doing something. --Onorem (talk) 23:35, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

  Pretty much any of the "why are you deleting my article?" comments. Gnomingstuff (talk) 23:47, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

  Your example of someone complaining about you not doing something is...people complaining about you doing something? wound theology◈ 01:40, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

  ...except that what I said was "if I don't tag an article and instead edit the content". I don't understand what isn't clear about that. Like what is even happening here. Gnomingstuff (talk) 04:03, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

  If I may offer a suggestion, but given how volatile an AI accusation is, if the page is being actively edited perhaps leading with a talk page discussion may be best. Looking at the active editor's history may also be useful, as Gommeh is very active in the Genshin Impact end of the VG project, but is also a newer editor too, so suddenly finding something tagged without understanding what the exact problem is... well it's understandable to react poorly. I get you're a busy guy, but a little bit of consideration can go a long way.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:10, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

  I usually do that if it's a high-profile article, like a GA or a FA; for a while I was making talk-page comments for everything, but it was seeming like an enormous amount of effort for unclear reward. If it's a GA or FA I also do some spot-checking right away, if there are non-paywalled sources to do that with. Admittedly I have probably been a bit overly frustrated in those cases -- not at any individual editor, more the overarching situation of the WMF soliciting donations by advertising itself as human-written when that's not a guarantee even for the most prominent articles. I apologize for that. Anyway, I can start doing this again, but it's probably going to result in a lot of repeating myself.

  I do take editors' history into account; if they're reasonably active I usually leave a message basically just mentioning WP:LLMDISCLOSE. But I'm somewhat hesitant to do all that much of this considering it once caused someone to accuse me of stalking. (And I didn't even go through that editor's history in that case. Damned if you do, etc.) Gnomingstuff (talk) 23:24, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

  "As far as profanity, tone policing and sealioning are just as incivil. Frankly, I would much rather people swear at me. It would be less stressful." I don't think this is a good defence for using profanity, even if frustrated. There is no reason to ever swear on the project. This is covered in policy, namely WP:IUC, point A. Your counterpoint regarding tone policing and sealioning I don't think wash I'm afraid. If an editor is spoken to with profanity, they have a right to criticise that choice of words. I hope that you are able to continue contributing to Wikipedia, but in a way that doesn't cause friction with others. I am going to exit this AN/I now, so I will wish you a happy new year and I hope to see you around in the future under a more positive light. 11WB (talk) 23:38, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

  You can’t possibly be serious to suggest that it’s never appropriate to swear in the project. Just walk away if that’s the stance you’re going to take. ~2025-43610-64 (talk) 01:12, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

  The only reasons I could imagine would be if you are well acquainted with a person, the cursing is mild (damn, for instance) or if the other person is an extremely bad person or did something especially foul that caused a particularly harsh reaction. I don't think any linked interaction could be said to be either. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 05:58, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

  ...says the woman whose user page comtains the word "shit" in the first line (at my screen size). Phil Bridger (talk) 21:14, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

  I'm clearly talking about in the context of conversation with people. Not only that, but I would say that "shit" as an alternative to "stuff" pretty squarely falls into mild cursing. This is just so silly, why would you even reply to me with this? Cukie Gherkin (talk) 22:33, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

  this is admittedly turning into a bit of an aside, but the fact that profanity is used is irrelevant compared to how it's used. "this is a good article" and "this is a good fucking article" are effectively the same sentence, as are "get out of my talk page" and "get the fuck out of my talk page". of course, i do still think the sentences presented before were "totes unbodacious broski", but i'd think that regardless of the presence of the Fuck Word™ consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 20:49, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

  As usual consarn says something that I don't quite understand but I'm sure is right. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:20, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

  @Consarn, I should have clarified this before. I have an issue with profanity said to somebody. In general it is not an issue if used to describe something, such as in your example. The diffs showing @GS using profanity were said to another editor, they weren't describing something. WP:IUC covers the use of profanity when it is said to someone and not the alternative, more acceptable use case. 11WB (talk) 21:39, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Comment I will say that I think @ing other people who may have been aggrieved by Gnomingstuff may have been a step too far, as it could result in dogpiling from people who don't like him. With that said, I feel like some of t these edits speak for themselves. In this discussion alone, Gnomingstuff seems to have been too cavalier in reading through Gommeh's grievance and in turn accused them of not denying it, despite pretty clearly having done so. Using the term "haters" is a pretty incendiary term, as it implies that anyone @'d may be prepared to act in bad faith or make a bad faith assumption without justification. As far as their edits are concerned, I think their efforts are commendable to address AI issues, but they are doing so in a way that seems disruptive. One such issue I spotted was the use of rollback in a way that rollback is not designed for. If this was to be considered a valid use of rollback, it would either require that the edit reverted be vandalism or that Gnomingstuff made a clear and explicit edit summary explaining why they removed the content. Not only would this make the edit in keeping with the expectations, but also would have made it less likely that GreenLipstickLesbian would need to ask why the content was removed (granted, I think that GLL also objected to the rationale for removing the content). I believe a large part of what's causing conflicts with this user is that they do not do a good job explaining why they're doing what they're doing. The article talk page discussion I learned of this conflict in, Talk:Liyue, the user made vague allusions to AI signs, but never clarified what the signs were. As it is, the article either has AI signs or doesn't have AI signs, but in either case, it may be difficult for someone to be able to see what Gnomingstuff is referring to, and is thus difficult to actually resolve.

When the discussion actually happens, Gnomingstuff seems to have a rather strong reaction, even in discussions where the person they are reacting to is not having a strong reaction themselves. One of these strong reactions involves the user cursing at someone and telling them to stop bothering them. This, compounded with a comment on their user page reading ""Courtesy ping" is an oxymoron. I would like the courtesy of being left alone to do my tasks in peace", makes me feel like the user is not receptive to being questioned about their edits. On their user page, they also exclaim how much they dislike arguing and insisting they know what they're talking about so should be left in peace to edit. That's not entirely problematic, but if you wish to be left alone, your edits have to consistently not be questionable. If a user is going to be making claims of AI content without elaborating, they're inevitably going to become involved in arguments.

Any result from this ANI, in my opinion, should involve Gnomingstuff being more able to engage calmly in arguments and explaining clearly why they are making the edits they are making. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 22:42, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

The rollback thing was not a case of AI-generated article text -- I don't use rollback on AI-generated edits to articles, even the obvious ones, for the exact reason you mentioned -- but an instance of talk page spam. I do not want to relitigate its being talk page spam, but I agree that I probably should have manually reverted in that case. There is nothing I can do about that now.

As far as elaborating on AI tells, as you were writing this I was in the process of (re-)explaining why that isn't really productive: it makes people hyperfixate on the specific phrasings and sentences, rather than seeing them as code smells toward potential deeper issues. Most of what I do is pretty much just applying WP:AISIGNS, particularly the parts of it that are backed up by research. There are only so many ways you can say "please just read this article," and it seems like even when I do say that it doesn't matter. Gnomingstuff (talk) 22:56, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

I wasn't contending that you were undoing an edit relating to AI content, my only point was that it should have been manual or with an edit summary, which we don't seem to disagree on. As far as the second point, even if we assume that's the case, what's going to happen is that you'll keep getting disputes and talk page messages about this, which evidently is not something you want to have happen. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 23:00, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

It definitely was not my intent to cause any sort of dogpiling, although in retrospect I can see why it may have had that effect - if it did, that was on me.

Any result from this ANI, in my opinion, should involve Gnomingstuff being more able to engage calmly in arguments and explaining clearly why they are making the edits they are making. Agreed, nothing more than that should come of this discussion. To avoid accidentally creating any more drama, I won't be commenting further on this thread. Gommeh 📖   🎮 23:23, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Got it -- apologies if that came off a bit harsh. Gnomingstuff (talk) 23:29, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Comment I will disclose up-front that I am an active participant in WP:WikiProject AI Cleanup and therefore a 'colleague' of Gnomingstuff's. Feel free to take that into consideration as you read my response here.

1. Gnomingstuff is an unparalleled subject matter expert on AI-generated text here on Wikipedia, who has done a truly impressive and admirable amount of legwork and research into signs of AI writing. I trust their judgement without a doubt on matters of AI generated text, especially so with the quotes they've provided here, which I agree absolutely reek of AISIGNS. They're hardly some unqualified random firing shots in the dark.
2. You argue that it would be much less of a hassle for other editors for them to simply fix the suspected AI edits themselves but if GS were cruising around Wikipedia indiscriminately removing content from pages because they suspect it's AI I doubt you'd be happy either. 'Drive-by tagging' is a happy medium which flags up the issue for review while also being very easily removable if you disagree with their judgement. If you're curious as to why exactly they tagged a particular article for AI-generated text -- well, that's what their talk page is for. It's no different from any other maintenance tag; if you disagree with it, then ask the person who put it there why they did, and if you can come to an understanding, then remove the tag.
3. I think mass-tagging involved editors in this case was definitely a misstep. I don't know if I'd call it canvassing, but your goal here should be to get uninvolved editors to review their conduct, not to drag up people who've already had disagreements with them. Getting one or two in here in order to back up your point is maybe justified, but tagging fifteen editors is a bit overkill.

Overall, I'm not really sure what your charge against them here is? If it's just eating a succulent Chinese meal occasionally making a bad judgement call about tagging an AI article, I think that's well outweighed by the countless positive contributions they've made to AI cleanup; nobody can be right 100% of the time.

I also don't think your examples of them being 'callous' are really all that bad - certainly not enough to substantiate a need for admin action. Athanelar (talk) 23:11, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

• When one is using a type of tag that is vague and unactionable without details, such as the "may have AI text" tag is, it should be required that a talk page discussion be also made to explain in detail the issue. Otherwise, the tag is completely unactionable and should be perfunctorily removed by any other editor as such. The same is true for tags like Neutrality/POV, Hoax, Content/Disputed, ect. Which is why those templates also specifically say to refer to the talk page section that is expected to be made right after by the tagging editor. The fact that the AI-generated template doesn't have similar language is a major oversight and a disruptive problem. Silverseren^C 00:05, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

  I mean, I agree with you in theory. (I have my own issues with the wording of the template, and I think there is a lot of confusion and contradictions between the instructions on the template, WP:AIC, WP:LLM, WP:NEWLLM, etc.)

  That said, the actionability is pretty much the same in every case. Any AI-generated text needs extensive review for source-to-text integrity, hallucinations, close paraphrasing, editorializing, tone problems, etc. So the required talk page section would essentially be that sentence over and over again... i.e., a template.

  In an ideal world, pointing out the exact tells would suffice as an explanation. But in reality that usually just leads to people either quibbling about whether they're tells and whether people can do them too, people just band-aid fixing those sentences and not doing the aforementioned review, and/or people just getting in their feelings in general. Gnomingstuff (talk) 00:46, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

  Considering the #1 response I see to AI tells being pointed out (even literally in this thread) is "well, people can write like that too" yes, I don't think pointing out specific AI tells really helps. Athanelar (talk) 00:50, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Comment WP:BOOMERANG for aspersions, canvass and frivolous accusations. These attacks reinforces the very good work by Gnomingstuff and the importance of AI Cleanup WikiProject. Ixocactus (talk) 00:20, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Oppose You seem to be trying to actively ignore the issues with Gnomingstuff's driveby tagging, disruption of articles that don't have AI content, and unhelpful/angry responses when called out on it by multiple different editors. Defenses of "but they do good work" is a terrible argument for when someone also does something wrong. Silverseren^C 00:25, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

I don't really feel like this is necessary or likely to de-escalate anything. Gnomingstuff (talk) 00:27, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

I'm concerned with this statement: the fact that multiple editors have come on their talk page and questioned their decisions is concerning to me. Yes, many people have complained on G's talk page, but mostly (I lurk there) without reason. Analyzing a few threads associated with those you tagged:

• Owais Al Qarni: has an open CCI investigation and a case at AINB; as documented at AINB, this user has almost certainly has lied, repeatedly, about massive LLM misuse, potentially the most extensive misuse of LLMs in the project's history. They haven't edited since the copyright issues were identified, otherwise there would probably have been an ANI filing about this editor
• AnyGuy: G was very cordial here, no problems
• The Blue Rider: G was correct to add the tag. I documented (on the thread) a dozen examples of problematic prose that was likely LLM-generated either at source in the Portuguese article or during translation
• Xexerss: G was absolutely correct to add the tag as the user disclosed LLM use. I then documented a dozen issues with the LLM-generated content at Talk:List_of_GetBackers_characters#LLM-generated_content

That's not to say that Gnomingstuff's responses are always perfect. I think their responses in the conversation with GLL (although not about LLMs) in particular were not great and they can be reminded that WP:CIVIL is a policy. But I think there are better ways to lead to a good outcome for all parties and the project than this filing at ANI. I would suggest the following

• To @Silver seren's point: Opening an admin-mediated (?) conversation at WT:AIC about whether mass-tagging of articles with the {{ai-generated}} tag is acceptable, or whether examples of LLM-generated content must always be provided while doing so
• Informal reminder for Gnomingstuff to be less prickly. My main suggestion @Gnomingstuff - if someone comes to you on your talk page and you are frustrated, you don't have to respond yourself. Ping a friendly from WP:AIC - there are quite a few of us, as you can see from this thread :) - and we can come offer a second opinion on the article in question

NicheSports (talk) 00:27, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Comment maybe WP:TROUTs for OP? I saw Gnomingstuff put a discussion down with info for the Liyue genshin article, though he could have added additional evidence. an article being suspected of AI is not necessarily disqualifying, its the other concomittant stuff like hallucinations, failed verifications, and CIR issues that are more concerning. Gommeh should not be canvassing. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 00:29, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

I didn't canvas at all. Canvassing is deliberately trying to get people to give a certain opinion. My comment was "tagging so they can weigh in if they want to", not "tagging people because I'm pretty sure they'll support me". I could care less if they agreed with me on this or not. I only believed they may be interested in providing insight into their interactions with G that may be helpful to the discussion. Gommeh 📖   🎮 01:58, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Gommeh, your pinging of a non-neutral selection of 15 editors in your initial post is not compliant with the canvassing guideline, as you selected editors on the talk page who were in a LLM-related dispute with Gnomingstuff. For instance, among the four editors who participated in User talk:Gnomingstuff § Stop deleting text in mass with the rationale of "AI slop", you opted to ping Oroboros74 (whose recent article edits are indeed LLM-generated, per the discussion at Talk:Nasandratrony § First major update), but not the two other editors, one of whom gave Gnomingstuff a barnstar for their AI cleanup work and the other of whom is a WikiProject AI Cleanup member. — Newslinger talk 03:02, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

You're right. I'll save everyone else the trouble and self trout. Gommeh 📖   🎮 03:14, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Yeah I realize that, apologies. (I haven't responded to any of the several dozen pings that I am currently sitting on because I just do not have the patience to argue about things right now; this thread obviously is time sensitive and is an exception.) But I also don't feel like it's anyone else's responsibility to answer my own messages for me, and I definitely wouldn't want to be roped into something like that myself, so I don't know. Gnomingstuff (talk) 00:54, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

I was honestly shocked to see the sheer volume of "why did you tag my article" questions you get when I looked at your talk page upon seeing this thread, and speaking for myself I'd certainly be fine helping to thin that out if need be. Athanelar (talk) 00:57, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

@NicheSports: I did not use any LLM in writing the article, neither for the Portuguese Wikipedia version nor during the translation, and I don’t appreciate my hard work being dismissed yet again without substantial elaboration. The article is now a GA and no issues regarding LLM use were raised during the review.... The Blue Rider 01:24, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

@The Blue Rider I don't think this is the appropriate place to have this discussion. Above, I described the text as "likely" LLM-generated, not definitely. I documented the extensive issues with NPOV language here , issues you addressed before the article passed at GAN. My point is not to state definitively that some of the text was LLM-generated or denigrate your work, my point is just that Gnomingstuff's decision to tag it was reasonable given the state of the article at that time. NicheSports (talk) 01:35, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

My point is: is very dismissive of an editor to tag your work as LLM-generated without explanation and, even more, reiterating as "likely LLM-generated" after I already told you both that it wasn't; I won't comment further. The Blue Rider 01:42, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Comment While Gnomingstuff (talk · contribs) is clearly doing something valuable for the project, I have noticed -- both here in this talk thread and in my previous interaction with them -- that they do not seem to think they need to give a rationale for their tags. I noticed this first on Worship of heavenly bodies, where they added the banner without a |reason= tag, and when prompted, simply further claimed that the editor who wrote the page was known for adding AI text. When I further prodded them on their talk page, they did give solid rationale, but consistently ignored the point that it would be useful to actually understand why [they were] making such claims [...and it is] unrealistic to expect [other editors] to do a blame analysis of the page and try to understand your reasoning. Here they seem to fail to grasp this as well. Their first comment here was mostly irrelevant and only served to complain about people disagreeing with edits, with their reasoning for not giving reasons (point[ing] out potentially problematic areas of an article) is that people complain that "well maybe it isn't AI!" without addressing the substance of the complaints. Upon pointing out this was irrelevant, they reiterated to me that the article written by Gommeh (talk · contribs) appeared how AI-generated or AI-translated text in mid-2024 would come out.

The basic fact of the matter is that adding a tag without a reason, explanation, or rationale is WP:DRIVEBY tagging. Simply restating information already implicit in the tag, or telling inquiring users to do the work themselves, is not sufficient. This is entirely separate from the question of whether the tag actually belongs there. Gnomingstuff could have a 100% accuracy rate and this problem would still stand.

Gnomingstuff should not continue adding tags without reasons or with insufficient reasoning. If this is too much work, they should refrain from it altogether. If someone else is going to have to do the work of identifying and explaining why a page is or isn't generated by AI, then the tag is functionally useless. wound theology◈ 01:49, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. Gnomingstuff is clearly doing valuable work (can't stress that enough), but the fact remains that several editors are concerned about the fact that there had been no communication whatsoever about what specific parts of the article Gnomingstuff believed to be AI-generated, regardless of whether Gnomingstuff was correct or not. Communication here is key, otherwise what's the point in having the tag?

This I think should be a general expectation as well, not just for Gnomingstuff but for everyone who works to remove AI slop from Wikipedia. Especially in cases where some parts of an article are clearly not AI-generated and some parts might be, it's very important to clarify which parts you're talking about so as to avoid confusion. Gommeh 📖   🎮 02:12, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

I agree with the last part -- this is why I include a diff or state that the issue originated in version 1. I started doing this around... September? October?, so in some earlier edits I may not have, apologies. Gnomingstuff (talk) 03:51, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

There are several problems with this:

A) I am not identifying anything that anyone who reads WP:AISIGNS and the sources cited there is not also equipped to identify. It says something that there are multiple people in this thread who have addressed questions about tags I've left, without my explaining why I tagged them. Seriously, it's the same stuff almost every time.

B) I (or anyone else) am not the only person able to provide evidence. There is another person with basically perfect knowledge of how they made their edit: the person who made the edit. It seems very pointless to write a 500-word essay on every AI-indicative phrase in an article, then have everyone litigate those 500 words, when the person who created the article could use 4 words and a couple seconds to say "yes, I used AI" (which they were supposed to have done in the first place).

C) There seems to be no amount of explanation or reasoning that is enough for people. There have been multiple instances of people literally saying they used AI and yet demanding anyway that I provide evidence of the thing they themselves stated. (The case you point out isn't quite one of those, but the editor in question did indeed disclose AI use elsewhere.) I have not noticed any difference in how people respond regardless of how much granularity I go into. Gnomingstuff (talk) 02:22, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Gnomingstuff, I highly appreciate your extensive work in AI cleanup, but please understand that accusing an editor of LLM use without giving a specific reason when asked is a form of casting aspersions. If you could identify at least one specific indicator of AI use, ideally on the article talk page, while adding the {{AI-generated}} tag, then that would be sufficient to justify the tag and prevent a conduct report like this one from being filed against you. (The removal of that specific indicator would not be sufficient to address the issues introduced with the LLM-generated content, of course, but this is separate from the fact that you are expected to substantiate your conduct-related claims.) Also, if you get frustrated enough to want to type a comment like this in a discussion with an editor who is making LLM-generated content additions, then it would be more productive for you to escalate the dispute to an appropriate noticeboard instead of replying with an abrasive message that would be cited in a conduct report. Please keep this in mind going forward. — Newslinger talk 02:56, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

This is yet another thing I keep trying to get across and failing to get across: Unless someone decides to be evasive and disruptive about things, or I guess if they are doing something that falls under WP:NEWLLM now (much of what I find is older), the issue with AI-generated text is one of content, not of conduct. I really do not care who makes any particular edit. I'm not "accusing an editor" of any misconduct, or claiming anything about whether they are editing in good faith. I have zero interest in trying to get someone in trouble and I have negative interest in "escalating" anything. What I care about is the text.

I don't know what comment you are referring to because your link is broken but I am willing to apologize for it without knowing what it is. Gnomingstuff (talk) 03:44, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

This seems to be a fundamental disconnect here: if you are (for want of a better term) 'accusing' content of being AI-generated, you are accusing the editor who added it of using a LLM to generate content. It may well not be your intent, but that is how the majority of other editors will read a 'this article likely contains AI content' tag - it is, de facto, an accusation. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:07, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

And the fundamental disconnect I am trying and failing yet again to point out is that "accusing the editor of using a LLM to generate content" is not accusing them of misconduct, because Wikipedia does not currently consider LLM use to be a conduct matter except in limited circumstances. It is pointing out that some text shows signs of being LLM output and that the text is more likely than usual to contain issues. Gnomingstuff (talk) 04:19, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

I was referring to this comment. Blocks are only applied in response to conduct problems, so the fact that editors on this noticeboard are regularly blocked for LLM misuse (with multiple examples on every recent archive page) does indicate that such misuse is often seen as misconduct, and that allegations of LLM use need to be adequately substantiated. — Newslinger talk 04:40, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

I would note that blocks are preventative rather than punitive, and that admin blocks for LLM usage are generally given to stop futher damage and prevent the clean up that may be required on the part of other editors if the user will not desist. Community bans for LLM usage are based on a wider set of concerns, speaking to competence, verifiability, accountability and other issues. Mfield (Oi!) 04:49, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Imo, a bright line is if someone’s edits are obviously LLM-generated but they deny using one. Rather than banging your head against the wall, that should probably be a report stating you want them to disclose usage and promise not to use them in future, where admins/community members can apply a bit of pressure/patiently explain things. Btw, adding text that violates core policies is absolutely a conduct issue Kowal2701 (talk) 06:59, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Also, maybe you could make a talk page template that explains that the problem is not the signs but what the signs indicate, and all you have to do is paste article text into the relevant template parameters. That might even be better for tracking because people remove AI tags when they wouldn’t remove your comment Kowal2701 (talk) 07:04, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Gnomingstuff, no matter how much you Wikilawyer that you are not accusing them of misconduct, and no matter how much Wikipedia does not currently consider LLM use to be a conduct matter, that does not change the fact that the Wikipedia community widely considers LLM use to be a conduct matter, and thus the Wikipedia community considers these tags to be a misconduct accusation. Either provide evidence for your AI tags or do not use them. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:47, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

This is weirdly escalatory in a thread that uncharacteristically is long but productive and heading in a good direction otherwise. ~2025-31850-11 (talk) 12:10, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

...except the Wikipedia community does not? It literally does not. As of right now, the English Wikipedia stance on AI-generated text is this:

• We have no policy on AI-generated text (images are different).
• As of late November we have one guideline, WP:NEWLLM, that discourages users from creating AI-generated articles from scratch. It's unclear how enforceable that is, and there's an ongoing discussion about that.
• We also have a couple of essays, such as WP:LLM, that are not enforceable

Meanwhile, since 2023 there have been dozens of discussions, several RfCs, and probably millions of words' worth of discussion trying to come to a consensus about the Wikipedia community's stance. So far there has not been consensus to impose any more restrictions than this. Gnomingstuff (talk) 20:49, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

agree here with gnomingstuff. AI is highly associated with misconduct, but beyond WP:NEWLLM, its not misconduct in and of itself right now. It feels a bit like wikilawyering, but it really does seem like a gray area.
disagree that accusing editors of using AI is harmless, either, it does cause some mental anguish, even if AI is not always misconduct. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 21:18, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

believe me I have been as frustrated as anyone about how it's been over three years and the community still has not managed to come to much of a consensus, and how so many people seem to think that we have policies about AI (for or against) that we just... don't. so to read "actually, the community does have a stance, so stop wikilawyering by saying it doesn't" is a massive mindscrew

anyway, all of this is laid out in WP:AIPOLICY if you don't believe me Gnomingstuff (talk) 21:36, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

@Gnomingstuff just one small point: while its true nobody's been able to come up with an exact wording to document the enwiki attitude towards AI, most uses are widely viewed as disruptive. The current policy is much more akin to our COI PAGs: while its true that you can technically edit articles with which you have a COI, admins still block for it and it's a valid reason to pull advanced rights like NPR, AP, or sysop. Likewise, going around tagging a bunch of articles because somebody cited a source often used by UPEs 'because somebody needs to check for problems' or COI tagging articles edited by an active editor, and not escalating to COIN or AN, could be disruptive as well. Also, while it's true that you can use an LLM and be completely fine (I myself have used ChatGPT to generate reference templates when citoid doesn't work and I'm feeling very lazy), when you add the specific, incredibly prominent AI generated template, you are saying that you believe the other editor added (or is incredibly likely to have added) copyright issues, fake references hoax material, ect. An those are most certainly conduct issues, and block worthy conduct issues at that. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 23:04, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

the Wikipedia community widely considers LLM use to be a conduct matter – The community has never sanctioned any editor just for LLM use. Disruptive editing empowered by LLM misuse? Yes. LLM use alone? Not once.

There are many editors who openly edit using an LLM, they remain unsanctioned because LLM use is not considered a conduct issue. Were I to report such an editor (like Викидим for example), I would be trouted (or worse, and justly so) for making a nonsense report. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 13:20, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

In certain cases, using LLMs to improve one's own writing consistency could improve clarity. A proper citation could help. Ahri Boy (talk) 13:26, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

I don't think this is accurate at all.

Persistently adding unsourced claims to articles is a conduct issue, that doesn't mean that adding {{unsourced}} is equal to accusing a particular editor of 'misconduct'.

The same goes for {{ai-generated}}. The tag purely says "This article may incorporate text from a large language model." which is very transparently a statement on content, not conduct.

Someone who takes that as an allegation of misconduct on their psrt rather than a comment on the quality of their contributed content is evidently not engaging with the criticism correctly. Athanelar (talk) 13:27, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Except in this case, Gnomingstuff often singles out particular users and will mark all pages they've substantially contributed to as potentially AI-generated. Again, they're undoubtedly good at this, but it is qualitatively different than {{unsourced}} or similar. wound theology◈ 14:23, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

The reality of LLM usage is that someone who substantially uses it once will substantially use it often. You can take a look at some of the tracking subpages of the noticeboard at WP:AINB and you'll see serial offenders with the same modus operandi across dozens or hundreds of articles. I've been slowly chipping away at WP:AINB#Lamp21 for example, where a now-blocked user created over 200 articles on various Thai mysticism topics wholesale using AI.

You're assuming that GS is going and mass-tagging these users' contribs purely because they found a single article with AI signs, but that's ABF -- I think it's much more likely that when GS finds a user adding LLM content, they quite rightfully look through that user's contribs and find other articles with AI signs and promptly tag those too. Athanelar (talk) 15:06, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

I don't disagree here that those who use LLMs are apparently unable to stop using it (I'm in some of the same Buddhist circles as Lamp21, incidentally, and it was a problem even outside of Wikipedia). The primary problem here is whether or not they state their rationale and reason for believing that a particular article is (partially) AI-generated. This goes for {{NPOV}} or {{unsourced}} as much as it goes for {{AI-generated}}. wound theology◈ 15:21, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Usually what I do is this (sorry for verbosity):

• I find this stuff through searching for tells in combination, opening any article where the search result summary seems immediately questionable -- which is not every article, by a long shot. For instance I have one search tab open with pivotal and fostering, both of which tend to occur together in 2023-2024 AI text (source for these specific words and the fact that such "AI vocabulary" words tend to co-occur in text). There's a search result that reads "...played a pivotal role in nurturing and developing [article title], and in fostering..."; that's worth checking. Another reads "Swain, Sherlee. "History of Adoption and Fostering in Australia by Sherlee Swain."; obviously that's probably normal. Et cetera. If a search is turning up a lot of false positives I usually bail on it.
• I see whether the text was added after 2023 (it almost always is), skim through the rest of the edit, and tag accordingly. Then I will sometimes tab to that user's contributions and spot check the kind of diffs that AI often shows up in: new articles, large content additions, especially if made in quick succession, anything with an AI-esque edit summary, etc. Obviously I only look at stuff after 2023, and I also try to see whether there's a cutoff date where the editing style changed (fairly common).
• If there's something unambiguous (utm param, etc), or if large concentrations of extremely pronounced AI stuff show up over and over again, then yes, I will go through the rest of their edits, although it might take me a while since I have dozens of tabs open at any given point. Usually in this case I will leave a note that the user's other edits around X date are part of that pattern.
• Otherwise, I leave things alone unless I happen stumble across more edits by that user in regular AI-text searching. (This is pretty common.) I usually err on the side of not checking all the edits, in part because checking dozens or hundreds of articles is an absolute pain in the ass.

Special cases:

• If it's a Wiki Ed course I sometimes will go through the rest of the edits from the course. Given that one poll suggests that almost 90% of students use ChatGPT on assignments now (and most professors would tell you the same), it's pretty common for student edits to be AI.
• Unfortunately, the Newcomer Tasks gamification structure encourages people to pump out edits fast. And if someone wants to pump out edits fast then AI is a good way to do that. So I'll sometimes check those too.
• If something is not immediately obvious as AI, but it's sandwiched between similar edits that are, then per Occam's Razor it's really unlikely they added one AI article, wrote one by hand, and then went back to using AI. Generally I'll leave a comment along those lines that this article is maybe not immediately indicative but their stuff before and after is.

Gnomingstuff (talk) 21:16, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

This is a helpful description of your process; thank you. It should probably be saved somewhere other than the depths of a drama-board thread. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 21:43, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. I should probably write it all up somewhere - I have various notes like User:Gnomingstuff/AI tells or User:Gnomingstuff/AI experiment here and there but nothing formalized. I just don't want to give the impression that it's some kind of official recommendation or anything -- a lot of it is a work in progress, and a lot of it is incredibly specific in a way that's easy to misinterpret. Gnomingstuff (talk) 22:25, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

In regards to A: this is just a bad argument. It wouldn't stand for any other policy or tag -- if someone was drive-by tagging NPOV banners, I am not identifying anything that anyone who reads WP:NPOV and the sources cited there is not also equipped to identify would not be an appropriate rationale.

In regards to B: while indeed, you are not the only person able to provide evidence, there is a crucial difference here: you are the one adding the {{AI-generated}} banner. No one is asking you to write a 500-word essay on every AI-indicative phrase, we are asking you to use the damn |reason= tag and the talk page. Something like |reason=Negative parallelism, smart quotes, overuse of em-dashes, prompts left in is more than enough.

In regards to C: this is just irrelevant and unproveable. Yeah, people think they WP:OWN articles, we all have to deal with it. You aren't special in this.

To conclude: I will reiterate with emphasis that you do not seem to think [you] need to give a rationale. But you do, and no one is asking you to write essays or please everyone. We're asking that if you are going to leave a banner tag, use the damn |reason= tag. You don't even have to respond if someone disputes it. wound theology◈ 09:06, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

I'm fine with using the reason= tag. Admittedly I don't really see much of a distinction between putting it in the edit summary (what I am currently doing), in that tag, and/or in the talk page summary, I would pretty much be saying the same stuff either way, but if that matters to people, it matters to people I guess. Gnomingstuff (talk) 21:18, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

I personally don't think it makes a huge difference in which of those places the explanation is given, other than edit summaries being a bit easier to lose/overlook in the accumulation of revision histories. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 21:41, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

I think it makes a difference. Tags can hang around for awhile. Editors shouldn't have to trawl through the edit history to try to find the edit that added the tag so as to find an explanation in the edit summary. A reason= in the tag saves a lot of time. Schazjmd (talk) 23:20, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

I've started doing this. One thing to note is that apparently anything you put there doesn't show up if Template:Multiple issues is being applied, so I've been pulling the AI-generated template out for lack of a better option, hopefully that is OK. That said, the "Custom text" section of that template says I shouldn't be adding extra commentary. ("Don't use it to add more than an article maintenance template says, since what is said should be concise and article maintenance templates usually are.") God I hate how inconsistent everything is, damned if you do damned if you don't, etc. Gnomingstuff (talk) 00:35, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

I think that's referring to the {{ambox}} template, which makes a box that can be filled freeform, not the (opaquely-named) 1= parameter, which allows additional text to be added to one of the items in a {{multiple issues}} box. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 02:46, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

This is a very inappropriate response, I think, and only highlights my opinion that you do not seem to think [you] need to give a rationale. This is not an issue of other users caring about meaningless minutia. Schazjmd (talk · contribs) is correct, it gives other editors who will attempt to solve the issue at hand less work to do, hence why it is there in the first place. wound theology◈ 16:10, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

• Comment: I don't think this rises to blockable. Gnomingstuff should be more mindful and start using the |reason= more and maybe get a trout or warning for being a bit too WP:BITEy/being a bit on the edge of being WP:CIVIL but otherwise there is no reason to block. Wading through huge wads of stuff makes people tired, and tired people are a lot more irritable. Keep that in mind. ~2025-31733-18 (talk) 12:29, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

  Next time, OP, be sure that you analyze the edits carefully. Don't jump into conclusions. I would have tossed a trout at you @Gommeh. A peaceful WP:ENGAGE could resolve disputes without tagging specific people. Ahri Boy (talk) 13:11, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

• Comment I don't see anything actionable here. I suggest closing the thread with a reminder that everyone should be explaining their edits, most of us slack off on that to some extent, no explanation is guaranteed to satisfy everybody, and a clear indicator in a place like a |reason= field can help other editors know where to get started fixing a problem. In the cases it hand, it seems like |reason=AI tells, including but not limited to..., indicating that checking source-text integrity is necessary would go a long way. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 21:31, 29 December 2025 (UTC)
• Question for @Gnomingstuff: I agree with @Stepwise's comment above, however I am concerned that most of @GS's responses have been about LLM at large on Wikipedia, rather than addressing the issues directed at them specifically (this has been pointed out during this AN/I by both @Bushranger and @wound theology ). This AN/I is not about LLM use at large, or about how templates are worded, or about guidelines and policies that should or not be implemented for AI. It is fundamentally about how @GS communicates with other editors on the project. @GS, the work you do is tiresome and draining. If you find yourself in a situation where you don't want to communicate with people–rather than respond in a way that could be considered uncivil, or as you have a few times, use profanity–will you commit to walking away from Wikipedia to de-stress and return once you are no longer feeling burned out? (I know I said I'd walk away from this AN/I, but having read the following discussions, I felt the need to ask this.) 11WB (talk) 22:02, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

  I'm already doing that -- like I mentioned I am sitting on about 24 notifications currently because I just do not currently have the energy right now to argue about stuff, especially after all this. Some of them are probably fine, I don't know, I haven't clicked the menu lately to check. There are also other backlogs to work on instead. Gnomingstuff (talk) 22:38, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

just to clarify, i did not suggest for them to fix the articles themselves. i understand why they wouldnt, and acknowledge the importance of the tagging. i am simply mindful of the snowball's chance in hell that anyone would come across an article with such a low-effort template banner wikilinking to generic cleanup babble completely unrelated to the article's actual issues. the banner needs to do two things, (1) mention, however unspecific, the issues with the article, and (2) outline, however unspecific, how to fix it and at what point to remove the banner. currently, it does neither. EnTerbury (talk) 02:10, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

• One change that doesn't seem to have been mentioned is adding the tag to the relevant section, rather than the lead, if possible. CMD (talk) 23:00, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

  I do that where possible. In many cases it's not possible. This is an example, that's basically the entire article. Gnomingstuff (talk) 00:24, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

• Comment I know I'm likely late to the party, but I want to say that our interaction was cordial and largely a non-issue, just a small rollback mistake that I brought to his attention as someone who appears to not be a vandal, and one I felt I should mention to avoid any potential conflict in the future. I don't really have the time I fear to wade through the issue at hand, I've seen how complicated and exhausting Wikipedia drama can get just by casually reading talk pages (Stanley Kubrick is a comical one), and I'm just here to correct small errors, flesh out articles, and complete detailed lists. I guess Gnomingstuff should explain his edits more often, that is part of the reason I messaged him since I wasn't sure if my edit was accidentally caught in the rollback, or if it was part of the reason for the rollback (it was the former). Maybe be more nice to people, thought I haven't experienced any rudeness or obstinance myself. AnyGuy (talk) 00:43, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

• DarkFlames10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Udit Narayan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

DarkFlames10 (talk · contribs) is a SPA who has taken up ownership of Udit Narayan, repeatedly using LLMs to expand the article with poorly reviewed content . They have been dishonest about this on their talk page , been non-collaborative at the article talk page , and edit-warred over the {{ai-generated}} tag that Fylindfotberserk and I have placed on the article. The edit summary from the last reversion on the 24th claimed that the tag was not justified because of WP:V and WP:RS, as if CNN is going to write an article about their abuse of LLMs on wikipedia. I left them a final warning on their talk page but today they removed the tag again , so here we are. At a minimum this user needs to be p-blocked from the article in question. NicheSports (talk) 17:39, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

The article certainly gives the appearance of being filled with promotional pap. Regardless of whether it is LLM-generated (which seems plausible) or not, the whole thing needs trimming down, and rewriting in an encyclopaedic manner: I'd recommend reading WP:NEWSORGINDIA with regard to some of the sourcing too. If DarkFlames10 is unhappy with that, I can only suggest that maybe they should consider taking their fandom elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:02, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've restored the tag, for now. Removal of tags, more than once despite warnings is disruptive. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:12, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

I've started a cleanup pass of the article, I got the lead done but now I'm busy for a little bit; I'll get to the rest when I can. Athanelar (talk) 18:34, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

Note that a significant part of what User:Athanelar has removed has been restored . - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 13:52, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I have restored my version and instructed this user about WP:ONUS

@DarkFlames10 You need to cease editing the Udit Narayan article for the time being and come and discuss things here at ANI. Athanelar (talk) 15:17, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

Editor has once again resumed editing at Udit Narayan despite my pinging them both here and on their talk page to cease editing and engage here at ANI. Their edits have been innocuous, but still. I think an admin really needs to pblock them at that article until they engage. Athanelar (talk) 12:12, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Narayan's music has seamlessly transitioned into the digital era, finding new life and a global audience through streaming platforms ... His voice retains a potent nostalgic appeal for modern creators ... A striking example of this digital resurgence occurred in 2025 is one of many such edits made after this ANI was opened, continued blind use of an LLM. Such issues have been pointed out before, but DarkFlames10 has elected not to listen.

Imagine copying-and-pasting LLM junk into an article, and then when challenged try to make it other editors problems: highlight what needs to be changed . Will make job easy . What section ? ... Point out what to re write ? (note the grammar compared to their edits). Honestly, this editor is not competent enough to avoid being disruptive, they even challenged an {{ai-generated}} tag on the grounds that the tag was not WP:V and WP:RS compliant, seriously.

Requesting an admin take some form of independent action so we can avoid going through a tedious cir cban routine. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 12:32, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

They've also been removing citation needed tags and adding sources that don't make the claim they're attributing it to, here's one I fixed earlier: .

I removed the "only singer to win in three decades" claim - sources state he won over three decades, but not that he's the only person to do so.

Similar issue here , this time a claim has been added that isn't in the sources (one is a 404 & the other doesn't appear mention it at all).

That would make sense if the sources/information came from AI & weren't being checked before being added. It also means that almost all their additions since the rollback were not an improvement to the article. Blue Sonnet (talk) 13:14, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Given that they're continuing to disruptively edit after multiple attempts to call their attention here and there's thus far no admin eyes on this thread, I'm pinging a couple of admins I've seen around recently; @331dot @Black Kite @Hammersoft can we please get this editor pblocked from Udit Narayan to force them to come here and discuss? Athanelar (talk) 14:59, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

I have partial blocked them from all of mainspace due to their insistence on inserting LLM generated content and refusal to engage other editors regarding the issue. Partial blocking them only from Udit Narayan would be inappropriate since the behavior they are exhibiting is incompatible with editing articles in general, not just Udit Narayan. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:24, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Gone from editing for a couple of days, they have returned after being blocked for LLM usage to make an unblock request...using an LLM. <sigh> --Hammersoft (talk) 12:03, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

User:Waxdude3's usage of the R slur

there's also this edit, which seems like a jab at "trans rights are human rights" gauging from this edit that uses soyjak.party language

finally, there's that edit which seems like WP:NOTHERE ~2025-30597-01 (talk) 21:52, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Oop, you beat me to it, I posted about the same user in the previous thread. Athanelar (talk) 22:03, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

I have indefinitly blocked Waxdude3 as not here, and revoked their talk page access. Cullen328 (talk) 22:26, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Harrz rejected my improvements on Draft:Tornadoes in the United Kingdom, claiming to finish it even though it would’ve been G13’d without me. This is a violation of WP:OWN. I won’t revert him again per 3RR but this is not acceptable.Florida Fan2026 (talk) 20:01, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Diffs? ~2025-31733-18 (talk) 20:03, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Florida Fan2026 (talk) 20:13, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

An article last edited in November is not at risk of G13 any time soon. Why are you trying to rush an incomplete draft to AfD anyway? REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 20:16, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

I fear I won't be getting an answer to this REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 20:19, 2 January 2026 (UTC)