Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1214
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Vandalism
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:~2026-70921-0 has continued to vandalize Springfield Anglican College 8 times, despite numerous warnings. Thank you for your time Dafootballguy (talk) 01:30, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
- In future, instead of posting here, post on WP:AIV for obvious vandalism. Faster. grapesurgeon (talk) 01:39, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Continued unattributed translations, failure to communicate
MicNickBell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
MicNickBell has been warned seven times since June 2025 for unattributed translations (June, July x 3, January, February x2), most recently for PACE Platform for Dialogue with Russian Democratic Forces, and has not responded to any of them. Indeed, MicNickBell has never edited their talk page. The user already has an article-specific block due to failure to communicate. Given the volume of unheeded warnings, I propose an mainspace block for this user until they communicate, acknowledge the warnings and agree to correct attribution going forward. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:20, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
Zweinler
Zweinler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
The user was repeatedly adding content from the infobox back into the infobox. I tried to contact them, but they didn't respond. Then they repeated the same behavior. I warned them again, but they still didn't respond, and they repeated the same behavior. Even after the admin warned them, they continued with the same behavior. They have 124 edits, 116 of which have been reverted, indicating a serious problem. Kajmer05 (talk) 16:21, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
- They repeated the same behavior after the latest vandalism warning. Kajmer05 (talk) 16:44, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
- In their latest edit they remove sourced content and replace it with unsourced. I would support a block from article space. PhilKnight (talk) 19:49, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
Possible artificial amplification on Waldorf-related content
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 |
|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | |
|
I have observed unusually high support activity on Waldorf-related content that may merit administrator review:
The observed patterns may violate Wikipedia policies on **sockpuppetry** or **gaming the system**, and I request an administrator review to determine if any action is needed. ~2026-72852-7 (talk) 22:41, 2 February 2026 (UTC) | |
- Clearly AI generated, plus a healthy dose of hallucination... what do you mean thumbs up and thumbs down and votes? IndigoManedWolf (talk) 22:44, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
- What are you even talking about? Or your obvious LLM? You're describing patterns in features that, unless I'm losing my marbles, don't even exist on Wikipedia. This is like giving a bad review to a cheeseburger you bought at Mattress Discounters. This is unusually batty even by the low standards of chatbots. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 22:47, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
- Sorry, we're just out of Waldorfs. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:54, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
- Plenty of Statlers, though. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:15, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
user:Cimbebas
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Cimbebas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Massive undisclosed LLM usage, continuing over many months. WP:NOTHERE, maybe? sapphaline (talk) 15:44, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
- I can see no evidence whatsoever that you have attempted to communicate with this contributor. Why not? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:08, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
- There was a warning on their talk page in July of 2025; they didn't answer it and simply continued to add unsourced/LLM-generated content. sapphaline (talk) 16:34, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
- That 'warning' says nothing whatsoever about LLM use. Please read the notes at the top of this page, and don't start threads here until you have at least attempted to make the contributor aware of what the issue is. We don't pre-emptively block people for lack of awareness of policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:39, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
- There was a warning on their talk page in July of 2025; they didn't answer it and simply continued to add unsourced/LLM-generated content. sapphaline (talk) 16:34, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Cimbebas hasn't been communicating with anybody, as far as I can tell. That alone, is problematic. GoodDay (talk) 16:50, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
- So is the failure of other people to actually explain what the issue is. As far as I'm aware, not being able to read minds has never been a legitimate reason to bring anyone to ANI. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:01, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
User name violation
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User Pp suck123 very clearly violates user name policy and has been doing vandalism. Thank you for your time. Dafootballguy (talk) 03:12, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:Faktisious not responding to talk page warnings
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Faktisious (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
@Faktisious seems to be a new editor that's trying to edit Wikipedia in genuine good faith; they might need some guidance on editing, though, as tens of their edits were reverted by multiple (seasoned) editors. The issue being that the user didn't respond to their talk page and keeps on editing.
The user is doing incremental small edits so there're ~20 diffs, so I'll just link diffs to the reverting edit as that'll allow us to see the sum of the user's edit streak.
In Disorganized schizophrenia -
In Schizophrenia -
I would recommend a block from article mainspace until the user respond to their talk page messages (or here, or literally anywhere at all).
iris 2:23a. 海盐沙冰 / aka irisChronomia / Talk 18:22, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- Courtesy ping to @BlockArranger - thought you might have something to comment (e.g., history of vandal to the article). Also thanks for being the veteran antivandal for these two articles ;) 海盐沙冰 / aka irisChronomia / Talk 18:27, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- Thank you, @IrisChronomia, for the thoughtful courtesy. It makes me glad to see that you appreciate my efforts! BlockArranger (talk) 19:09, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- It may be worth noting for anyone engaging with this that some time ago I launched a sockpuppet investigation regarding the user in question, whom I suspect to be a sock; for further information, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Djahidou01. This is because the user has extensively engaged with the same content that @Djahidou01's socks have engaged with. It is, of course, rather suspicious when several users repeatedly add, remove and edit almost exactly the same content, while always failing to add citations. BlockArranger (talk) 19:07, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- I've blocked this user for 36 hours for the repeated addition of unreferenced content. As many of you here may know, my history of offering and providing new and struggling users with assistance and support, assuming good faith in borderline or even "rocky" cases and situations, and my application of WP:ROPE is well-documented here. However, when I see repeated attempts to appropriately warn the user regarding their edits, along with repeated good-faith messages to address repeated issues and offer the user assistance, have fallen on deaf ears - and when I see edits like this and this are continuing to be made despite the repeated communication attempts, a block in this case is appropriate - if anything, to (hopefully) get the user's attention by putting a stop to their ability to make contributions for a bit. If disruption from this user continues to occur after the block expires, and with no communication being made from them, a block for a longer duration can always be applied. I hope that the user will stop, listen, and reach out and respond on their user talk page so that matters can come to a positive conclusion. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 20:35, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Vandalism at Vox (political party) by (probably dynamic) IP user
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Vox (political party) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
In the last few days, the article Vox (political party) has been subject to vandalism by a range of IP users (which, at this point, can be easily duck-tested into being the same person). Chronology of events:
- It started with apparently harmless edits by @~2026-72767-2 changing the ideology field in the infobox from "far-right" to "right-wing" (diff diff);
- I reverted them arguing than that edit was
not what sources say
(diff); - This was responded by @~2026-72989-6 with two blatantly hostile edits claiming that
Nobody gives a shit about your far-left sources
(diff diff), the two of them using that same edit summary; - The edits were responded with a revert and a fairly straightforward statement claiming that
Ok, so through your edit summaries (two, actually), your edits can be regarded as conducted in bad faith and tantamount to vandalism. Keep behaving like this and you will be reported where due
(diff), together with a warning at IP's talk page (diff); - This was replied by @~2026-74907-6 with two edits (again), stating the exact same
Nobody gives a shit about your far-left sources
(diff diff).
Clearly WP:NOTHERE, but the fact that they keep editing under different IP accounts made me come here rather than straight to WP:AIV, as a range block and probably page protection would be warranted at the same time to prevent disruption from continuing. Impru20talk 15:50, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- ~2026-72767-2 is on a proxy, while ~2026-72989-6 and ~2026-74907-6 are quite far apart (roughly on the other side of the planet from each other). A range block won't work. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 16:21, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- I've semiprotected the article for 2 weeks to keep the riff-raff out and blocked the latest temp account for a week, think that's about the best we can do. Follow up if the disruption carries over to the talkpage. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:24, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
ChitoCastillo1234
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
ChitoCastillo1234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
I regretfully bring this user back to ANI following this recent ANI report.
After being blocked from article space, they're trying to get around this restriction by creating new Talk pages for the article they want to create, them grafting them onto any article that mentions their chosen subject. They then edit the Talk page as if it were a main article.
This results in forks like Talk:The Master Cutter and Talk:Hari ng Tondo - I've deleted the text from one and they just re-added it here.
I'm not sure if it's possible to just delete these new Talk pages entirely, so I'd appreciate if someone more experienced could please check these two Talk pages out for me?
Beyond this, they are either adding broken links to article Talk pages at the end of other people's signatures, the top of their Talk page or working on (non-notable?) drafts for forthcoming TV series.
As before, they remain completely unresponsive to Talk page messages. Blue Sonnet (talk) 14:19, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- The disruptive editing, combined with the lack of communication, is certainly disruptive. Sadly, I don't think a block from Talk pages would be enough, as they might move on to doing the same thing in another namespace. They clearly know about their user talk page, but choose to not respond to any of the concerns there, which I believe is incompatible with a collaborative project. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 14:29, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- Agreed, I was thinking of a full block since even their draft work isn't great.
- Most of their draft work involves basic edits like adding/updating cast listings, or a single edit before sending someone else's draft to AFC.
- I'm not seeing any edits that could argue against a block.
- They know about their Talk page because they're actively editing it, we've just got a fundamental CIR issue here that we can't address because they won't communicate. Blue Sonnet (talk) 14:34, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- ive notified the blocking admin from the articlespace block. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 18:13, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- They know about their Talk page because they're actively editing it, we've just got a fundamental CIR issue here that we can't address because they won't communicate. Blue Sonnet (talk) 14:34, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- From Draft:Never Say Die (Philippine TV series), the reason why Afc templates were deleted without using an edit summary. ~2025-32431-94 (talk) 15:29, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- Blocked as WP:NOTHERE. Bishonen | tålk 18:25, 3 February 2026 (UTC).
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Targeted BLP violations
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- OnnichanYamete (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
An editor has been violating BLP on a variety of articles about Jewish public figures:
- Quentin Tarantino (re-added, arguably worse, after it was removed)
- Terry Richardson
- Andrew Gold
- Harvey Levin (their initial addition was potentially readable as good faith, but they undid - without giving reason - my edit to make it more BLP-compliant, which looks less good in the wider context)
When the issue was raised with them on their talk page, they responded belligerently and with antisemitic conspiracy theories, and essentially vowed to keep doing the same thing. I think this is a fairly clear case of WP:NOTHERE. --AntiDionysius (talk) 10:38, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- Well that was an indef that I didn't spend a lot of time thinking about. Black Kite (talk) 10:53, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Kevincook13
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Kevincook13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This user is what is known as a mathematical crank: they hold some very peculiar ideas about mathematics (and infiniteness in particular), and all of their edits to Wikipedia rotate around those ideas in an obsessive way. The main effect of this is a sort of endless argumentation on talk-pages, interspersed with disruptiveedits to article space. It is hard to get a sense of this from individual diffs, but let me try.
This all starts with the article 0.999... in 2016; there is a WP:FRINGE view, totally rejected by mainstream mathematics, that this quantity is different from 1. Kevincook13's very first edit to Wikipedia was to add a link to their personal website disputing this view. This sparked discussions User_talk:Kevincook13#Recent_edit_to_0.999... and Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard/Archive_58#0.999..._Academic_and_common_sense_POV and User_talk:Sammy1339#Apparent_conflict_of_interest, all of which are worth reading to get a general sense of what interacting with Kevincook13 is like (I particularly like the last one and its bizarre accusation of a COI). After a long hiatus, they returned in 2025 at Talk:0.999.../Archive_20#Image where again someone had to close the discussion to get them to desist in the face of universal opposition. There was then another lull in disruption while they wrote the article Finiteness, which I have not investigated closely (maybe it's fine, their problem is with the notion of infinite things). The lull ended while they tried to get it moved into main-space; you can see their abuse of AfC editors here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Archive_60#Reviewer_behavior.
Following the approval of the draft, we get to the modern phase of disruption, which begins with this disruptive edit back on the subject of 0.999.... Here we have subtle POV-pushing (according to this edit the sequence (3, 1, 4, 1, 5, 9, 2, 6, ...) of digits of pi is not a sequence because it is not finite) and here we similarly have the idea that one can only refer to a recursive process, not the infinite sequence generated by that process. They then shifted to edit-warring the same POV about sequences , followed by incoherent changes to Set (mathematics) and Finite set, and most recently these bizarre edits to the disambiguation page Set. All of these have been accompanied by repetitive WP:1AM WP:BLUDGEONing, primarily at Talk:Sequence#What_is_a_sequence? and Talk:Set_(mathematics)#Writing_to_a_general_audience.
I don't know what the right sanction to request here is, but there has been a lot of mathematics editor time wasted trying to deal with Kevincook13 and I am quite sick and tired of it. --JBL (talk) 20:34, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
- Potentially relevant previous ANI discussion. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:45, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
- It does not appear that a p-block from mainspace would stop them from badgering @JayBeeEll and other math editors. Cook has shown no willingness to change their conduct toward their fellow editors, assuming bad faith at every step. I think we're unfortunately in indef territory. Star Mississippi 22:47, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
- Since article talk pages are a significant part of the problem, a simple article namespace block won't work. Some of their contributions are beneficial and @Kevincook13 did contribute one page: Finiteness, but in looking at the relative contributions there, it is @BD2412's contributions that changed it from a multiply rejected draft to an article--most of the meat of the article is not @Kevincook13's contributions.
- The only other thing I could think of is a word count restriction on article talk pages, say 500 words per topic, and no more than one topic created per month. Any thoughts on that? — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:58, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
- Kevincook13 caused a great deal of disruption in April 2025 at the Articles for Creation talk page, and then in October 2025 at WP:ANI, by complaining that we did not accept his draft on Finiteness, and then by sealioning about why we did not accept his draft, and by accusing the AFC reviewers of treating him with contempt. The AFC reviewers were in agreement that he had been treated respectfully. After I had rejected his draft, and then changed my rejection to a decline, I offered to accept his draft subject to AFD. He did not accept that offer. I am not sure why. He then flounced off, and came back six months later to report the AFC reviewers to WP:ANI. If he is to be given credit for Finiteness, which was largely improved by BD2412, he should also be given discredit for being rude and demanding. I also note that most of his recent edits to articles have been reverted. My opinion as a computer scientist (and so a student of set theory) is that his edits to Set (mathematics) were properly reverted because they degraded the article. The links to both the AFC talk page discussion and the ANI discussion are shown above. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:41, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
- Articles on topics too impossibly abstract to write about are my specialty. I will say that once I took over the writing on Finiteness, I did not get a sense of ownership or pushback or attempting to impose his own quirky views from this editor, though they did continue to work on the article. BD2412 T 04:48, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
- Kevincook13 caused a great deal of disruption in April 2025 at the Articles for Creation talk page, and then in October 2025 at WP:ANI, by complaining that we did not accept his draft on Finiteness, and then by sealioning about why we did not accept his draft, and by accusing the AFC reviewers of treating him with contempt. The AFC reviewers were in agreement that he had been treated respectfully. After I had rejected his draft, and then changed my rejection to a decline, I offered to accept his draft subject to AFD. He did not accept that offer. I am not sure why. He then flounced off, and came back six months later to report the AFC reviewers to WP:ANI. If he is to be given credit for Finiteness, which was largely improved by BD2412, he should also be given discredit for being rude and demanding. I also note that most of his recent edits to articles have been reverted. My opinion as a computer scientist (and so a student of set theory) is that his edits to Set (mathematics) were properly reverted because they degraded the article. The links to both the AFC talk page discussion and the ANI discussion are shown above. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:41, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
- Wisely or not, I want to give a little background on the underlying mathematical questions. It appears to me that Kevin's (I'm going to assume his name is Kevin and he uses the pronouns usually used by persons named Kevin) basic issue is that he rejects the notion of completed infinity. That is not in itself a crank position. It was probably the majority position well into the 19th century. These days it's a distinctly minority position but not entirely outside the Overton window.
- The frustrating thing is that he doesn't seem to acknowledge that this is even a position he's taking. His view appears to be that completed infinity is logically impossible, and that "completed" implies "finite" by virtue of its meaning. This is a position I am not familiar with among modern thinkers, and again, he doesn't even seem to frame it as a position; he simply suggests that words like "collection" automatically imply finiteness, and that we should organize our articles as though this were universally agreed upon. --Trovatore (talk) 02:00, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
- Thank you for the explanation, Trovatore. It doesn't change my opinion on whether he should be banned, but it explains how he got into this dark alley. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:37, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
Proposal 1: Site Ban of Kevincook13
I propose that User:Kevincook13 be site-banned from the English Wikipedia for a combination of talk page and project page disruption and attempts to edit in areas where they have less knowledge than they think that they have. A single-admin indefinite ban is too likely to clog up their user talk page with unblock requests.
- Support as proposer. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:41, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
- Support They demonstrate a poor understanding of the topic area, and have no edits outside of it. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:25, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
- Support I remember well the drama of this editor's Finiteness draft last year, in which that draft acted as the Gnostic Leviathan, ranging wide and consuming noticeboard souls every time the community didn't agree with this editor on something. I feel little has changed. I don't think a lighter sanction such as a topic ban from mathematics would be effective, since I think this editor's approach to community disagreement is the driver of the other problems. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 03:39, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
- Leaning oppose; I am not inclined to support a site ban when a lesser measure such as a topic ban or a ban on specific spaces could potentially achieve the same effect, while giving the editor the opportunity to better learn to work collegially, and to make improvements where still permitted. In practice, if an editor is irreparably fixated on a particular area and is prohibited from editing in that area, they will cease to edit entirely. I don't yet know what kind of editor Kevincook13 is in that regard. BD2412 T 04:46, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
- Support Competence is required but has not been demonstrated. Hellbus (talk) 05:56, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
- Support Reading over their editing history, it seems various standard but inconvenient definitions are conveniently changed to, trust me it's true. Augmented Seventh (talk) 06:01, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
- Seems a little excessive. This editor is a bit frustrating to deal with but mostly at an emotional level; the actual disruption is manageable. I don't particularly like to see people banned just for having unusual views combined with an argumentation style that takes them for granted; I think that wide a net will catch people who probably ought to be able to contribute. Maybe try something else first? --Trovatore (talk) 09:56, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose a TBAN from mathematics would suffice. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:32, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose agree with a TBAN. And going straight to a siteban in a matter of 5 hours, without a response from them seems excessive.— Isaidnoway (talk) 13:39, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
- Considering the various months-long gaps in their contribution history, waiting for a response might be futile. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:05, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
- Support I am persuaded that
this editor's approach to community disagreement is the driver of the other problems
and so am inclined to think that lesser measures would be insufficient. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 21:01, 30 January 2026 (UTC) - Support This user has never been here to do anything other than fight over mathematics. A topic ban would either be equivalent to a site ban or cause more community time enforcing the ban. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:12, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
- Weak support (as opener of the ANI discussion). Thanks to multiple people above for pointing out some more missing context, including some clarifications about the article Finiteness. My main hesitation in proposing something like this was the indication that they had one positive contribution, but in fact almost all of that article is not their work, and the smaller part that is theirs still has some embedded NPOV issues. So in the end I don't really see any advantage of preserving their editing privileges. --JBL (talk) 19:56, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support. If the user is exclusively editing within this topic area, then a topic ban will be functionally equivalent to a site ban. Sugar Tax (talk) 22:35, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support site ban. His comments on the proper use of disambig pages lead me to believe that the disruption would follow him to any other topic he wasn't banned from. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:06, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
Proposal 2: Topic-Ban
Since some editors think that a site ban is excessive, I will offer the alternative proposal that User:Kevincook13 be topic-banned from mathematics, broadly construed.
- Weak Support as an alternative to site ban. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:46, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
- Support It is impossible to determine if they will be more productive in a different topic area; we should give the benefit of the doubt, since they have demonstrated a poor understanding of infinity and have not demonstrated a lack of understanding of anything else. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:15, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
- Support, clearly warranted based on the issues raised. BD2412 T 20:44, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
- Support. I'm undecided on site ban as of now, but definitely, at the least, needs a tban from mathematics. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:57, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
- Support as a minimum necessary step. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 21:02, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
- Support however it would need to be made clear to Cook how a topic ban works, that it's not just the articles & Talks, but badgering the editors as well. I think this will function as a site ban since it does not appear he's interested in editing anything else, but I'd like to see if he can be productive in another area. Star Mississippi 00:23, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
- Well, I watched an editor who got topic banned from Iran- and Turkey-related topics repeatedly violate it and get indeffed. But if that user was from a Turkic-speaking country, then I have hope that they have other interests. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:15, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
- Support A mathematics tban is appropriate here. CONFUSED SPIRIT(Thilio).Talk 20:19, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
- Support - give them some rope and a chance to work elsewhere for a bit. If they continue, further sanctions can be considered. Blue Sonnet (talk) 22:11, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
- Support (as opener of this ANI discussion) without any reservations. --JBL (talk) 19:57, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support, noting that this should also include discussion pages. The only contribution in this area that people have identified as potentially positive is the initial draft of finiteness. But that initial draft was so far from usable as to demonstrate inadequate competence to contribute positively in this area. And the recent attempts at contribution to articles on sets and sequences are no better. I don't see any history of contributions to non-mathematical topics but maybe this will give him a chance to stop being distracted by King Charles' head. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:28, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support If the site block proposed above doesn't happen, I would support this as well. Hellbus (talk) 20:06, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
TA user sealioning about potential articles
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
~2026-73469-7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
It's hard to describe the issue here. On both this and a previous TA I don't recall from heart, this user has established a pattern of infodumping about subjects of interest to them on the Teahouse and wondering aloud whether someone will be kind enough to create the article for them, always responding that it would be 'too hard' for them to do it themselves. The information they provide tends to be useless for actual article creation; such as with 'radqueer,' a topic of particular interest to them.
They display very pronounced IDHT behaviour, such as when a user patiently tried to explain why their approach would not result in success and their response was simply to advise the user to contact a radqueer discord to get more information to create an article with.
This odd pattern of behaviour has become, I think, disruptive. They're persistently wasting editor time, refusing to listen to feedback and are evidently NOTHERE Athanelar (talk) 20:43, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
- This is probably ~2025-43053-85 with a new TA. They are both on a common range, and share similar styles of disruption. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 20:49, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
- That's the one I was thinking of, yes. Indeed that editor was also fixated on Denno Senshi Porygon and Radqueer, so I think they can be safely blocked as a block evasion of the earlier TA. Athanelar (talk) 20:56, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
- Yeah, seems right. Blocked. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:03, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
- That's the one I was thinking of, yes. Indeed that editor was also fixated on Denno Senshi Porygon and Radqueer, so I think they can be safely blocked as a block evasion of the earlier TA. Athanelar (talk) 20:56, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Pointy disruption by 2026-70381-3
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
~2026-70381-3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (also currently editing as ~2026-77567-2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), after having their additional of "colonial" repeatedly rejected at British rule in Ireland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and refusing for days on end to actually provide any references (see discussion at Talk:British rule in Ireland#Colonialism is now going on a pointy spree removing the word "colonial" or similarfrom other articles, such as this, this, this and this, despite being told in no uncertain terms here that doing so would be a bad idea. FDW777 (talk) 18:19, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
- Both blocked. They were using a proxy behind one of the TAs as well. Black Kite (talk) 19:19, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
use of unsourced content
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
~2026-75190-8 (talk · contribs)
I found this IP account 2026-75190-8 spamming unsourced and repetitive content on page for the NFL Pro Bowl I have already gone along and reverted the edits that this user has made Thedevilif (talk) 13:19, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
- OK. It looks like they've gone away, their last edit was ten hours ago. — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:42, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
@Thedevilif: You placed a warning on their talk page. Subsequent to that they didn't edit. Then you reported them here at WP:AN/I? Per the top of this page, this page is for urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems. A single warning placed by you after which they didn't edit does not qualify. Please follow Wikipedia:Dispute resolution if problems persist. Closing this thread as very premature for this noticeboard. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:43, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Persistent addition of unsourced content by Galaxian999990
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Galaxian999990 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Keeps adding unsourced content to articles, continued after final warning and hasn't responded to warnings. Recent examples of addition of unsourced content: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Waxworker (talk) 07:07, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
- Indefinitely blocked from mainspace. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:52, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
RakowskiC
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
RakowskiC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Do we have a lot of interest in emphasizing the foreignness of certain political figures and edit-warring about it? check check check, check check check, check check check. Do we have a lot of arguments about how the great replacement theory is a thing? check check check. Even without the edit-warring and relentless failure to appreciate that Wikipedia is based on reliable sources rather than original research, it should be clear that this person is a net negative and should be escorted off the project ASAP. --JBL (talk) 22:07, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
- My edits were neutral, reasonable, properly sourced, and about transparency. RakowskiC (talk) 22:23, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
- And repetitive and WP:IDHT. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:27, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
- You’re denying a basic fact that Ilhan Omar was a citizen of Somalia for a portion of her life from 1982. I was willing to compromise. You just don’t want to include this fact. ~2026-70792-0 (talk) 22:30, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
- I never denied that. Indeed, I looked through pages of Google to find a reliable source. Didn't find one. So we cannot include it. Don't see a reason for inclusion anyhow. By claiming I denied it and still failing to provide a source, you are again demonstrating WP:IDHT. I suggest you change your path. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:37, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
- 1. She was born in Somalia. Several sources say “Somalia born”.
- 2. Her father was Somali (god bless his soul). He was in the Somali military even. Several sources include this.
- 3. She is a member of a specific clan there.
- 4. Under nationality laws of Somalia, she was at the very least a citizen of Somalia until at least she naturalized. Then Somalia removed the prohibition on dual citizenship in 2012.
- 5. there is no record of revocation/renunciation of Somalia citizenship.
- 6. She was in Somalia for at least 9 years.
- 7. she is heavily involved in Somali politics.
- 8. Her U.S. citizenship is heavily contested because it is confirmed there is no record from USCIS of her father’s naturalization that she claims she piggy backed off which you refuse to allow into the Wikipedia page. But I don’t want to challenge her U.S. citizenship.
- 9. I tried to compromise and all I wanted to put in the citizenship box is
- Somalia 1982-unknown
- United States 2000-present. I don’t understand why we can’t put an EFN or something to support it if we all agree she was a citizen of Somalia for at least a portion of her life. RakowskiC (talk) 22:47, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
- 10. She also has referred to the President of Somalia Hassan Sheikh Mohamud as “our president” when addressing a Somali crowd speaking Somali. On several occasions, she claims to be Somali. If this were a white man claiming to be American and referring to President Trump as “our president”, we wouldn’t doubt he’s a U.S. citizen. Why are we doubting that Ilhan Omar is Somali? RakowskiC (talk) 23:33, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
- Please read WP:SYNTH. Also, be very careful about plain reading of law. Tomatos are botanically and scientifically a fruit, but according to the US Supreme Court, are a vegetable. This is hardly the only case so counterintuitive. Laws don't always mean what they seem like they should. That's why we rely on WP:RS, not our own interpretations. EducatedRedneck (talk) 23:40, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
- We don't doubt anything, or know anything, Wikipedia only summarises what is found in other sources. What you need is a source that says "Omar is a Somali citizen" or words to that effect. You can't use your own piecing together of different points to prove it, that's not what Wikipedia does. You need to read WP:Verifiability, WP:Reliable Sources, and WP:No Original Research, they explain (some part) of how to edit. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 02:47, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
- It seems particularly sad that on the talk page RakowskiC had claimed there is insufficient sourcing to show Omar is a US citizen. But Omar has been repeatedly accused including by the US president, of marrying her brother either to help him gain US citizenship or for her own citizenship. Nil Einne (talk) 10:03, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
- Her Wikipedia page refuses to cite that it is confirmed that USCIS confirmed there is no record of her father’s naturalization which directly contradicts her claims of how she obtained citizenship. RakowskiC (talk) 15:26, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
- It has already been explained to you countless times that Wikipedia does not permit us to include our original research, including synthesis of information from mutliple sources. You cannot include the claim that Omar is (or indeed was) a Somali citizen unless a reliable secondary source explicitly states as much. Even if it is logical to infer as much from Somali citizenship law, to make and include that inference is original research. Athanelar (talk) 15:41, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
- I have not tried to put it yet. I am looking for a source that points out she at one point held citizenship in Somalia. You need to stop making disruptive edits. RakowskiC (talk) 16:00, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
- It has already been explained to you countless times that Wikipedia does not permit us to include our original research, including synthesis of information from mutliple sources. You cannot include the claim that Omar is (or indeed was) a Somali citizen unless a reliable secondary source explicitly states as much. Even if it is logical to infer as much from Somali citizenship law, to make and include that inference is original research. Athanelar (talk) 15:41, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
- Her Wikipedia page refuses to cite that it is confirmed that USCIS confirmed there is no record of her father’s naturalization which directly contradicts her claims of how she obtained citizenship. RakowskiC (talk) 15:26, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
- It seems particularly sad that on the talk page RakowskiC had claimed there is insufficient sourcing to show Omar is a US citizen. But Omar has been repeatedly accused including by the US president, of marrying her brother either to help him gain US citizenship or for her own citizenship. Nil Einne (talk) 10:03, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
- 10. She also has referred to the President of Somalia Hassan Sheikh Mohamud as “our president” when addressing a Somali crowd speaking Somali. On several occasions, she claims to be Somali. If this were a white man claiming to be American and referring to President Trump as “our president”, we wouldn’t doubt he’s a U.S. citizen. Why are we doubting that Ilhan Omar is Somali? RakowskiC (talk) 23:33, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
- I never denied that. Indeed, I looked through pages of Google to find a reliable source. Didn't find one. So we cannot include it. Don't see a reason for inclusion anyhow. By claiming I denied it and still failing to provide a source, you are again demonstrating WP:IDHT. I suggest you change your path. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:37, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
- You’re denying a basic fact that Ilhan Omar was a citizen of Somalia for a portion of her life from 1982. I was willing to compromise. You just don’t want to include this fact. ~2026-70792-0 (talk) 22:30, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
- And repetitive and WP:IDHT. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:27, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
- RakowskiC, you don't seem to be responding appropriately to your position right now. A very experienced editor has made a case that you are exhibiting WP:NOTHERE behaviors. The way I see it, there are three behaviors of concern:
- At the end of the day, it's not "truth" that judges whether you can edit here, it's the community. You would be better served by explaining how you'll adopt the community's standards rather than trying to insist your edits are correct. If you like, I can discuss on your talk page how to challenge a long-held consensus, but if you want to edit at all, you need to convince other editors that you can play by their rules, not your own. EducatedRedneck (talk) 16:37, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
- Your edits were, reasonably-speaking, not transparent; transparently-speaking, non-neutral; neutrally-speaking, improperly sourced; and proper sourcing shows them to be non-transparent. IndigoManedWolf (talk) 22:36, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
- Wanting transparency around dual citizenship does not make me, (a non-white man with several citizenships myself) an ethno-nationalist or a Nazi. That’s absurd. We need to find a solution instead of having users like Athanelar baselessly reverting my perfectly good cited additions about the dual citizenship of other politicians like Bernie Moreno, the senator who wanted to ban dual citizenship.
- If you have a figure like Ilhan Omar and you only have citizenship: United States (2000-present) and she being born in 1982, one would likely incorrectly assume that before 2000 she was stateless her entire life which is completely false and unacceptable because there is no source that she was stateless. RakowskiC (talk) 17:09, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
- On the internet, nobody knows you're a dog. None of us can see you or your details, all we have is your behavior to go on, and it's the same used by ethno-nationalists. And again, Athanelar is not baselessly reverting; that's an WP:ASPERSION. They are reverting because WP:ONUS, citing WP:UNDUE. You can disagree, but that doesn't make them baseless. You need to change your approach, quick, because each response of yours makes me think JBL is right, and that you're a poor fit for this encyclopedia. EducatedRedneck (talk) 17:21, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
- Rakowski looks like a Polish name to me. That must be proof that this editor has Polish citizenship. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:16, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
- Quite. And since that means that they're a foreigner -- a foreigner from a former Communist dictatorship, with a current right-wing reactionary president -- they must be an agent provocateur intent on destabilizing the United States Congress. Guess what, @RakowskiC -- Phil Bridger and I have provided exactly as many reliable, independent sources backing our assertions as you have.
Now all silliness aside, I'm curious: why is this so very important to you? What is your compelling reason for stipulating that Omar is a Somali citizen, no matter that you've been unable to come up with reliable sources claiming so? Ravenswing 13:21, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
- Dual citizenship is extremely important to include for all political figures. Now please stop removing my correct cited edits on the Republican Bernie Moreno. RakowskiC (talk) 15:22, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
- Who are you talking to? Neither Phil Bridger or Ravenswing have edited your edits to Bernie Moreno (from what I can see). Also, daul citizenship is not that important for all political figures. Finally, no relaible sources for Omar being a Somali citizen, per Ravenswing above me. ThatTrainGuy1945 (talk) 19:15, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
- Dual citizenship is extremely important to include for all political figures. Now please stop removing my correct cited edits on the Republican Bernie Moreno. RakowskiC (talk) 15:22, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
- Quite. And since that means that they're a foreigner -- a foreigner from a former Communist dictatorship, with a current right-wing reactionary president -- they must be an agent provocateur intent on destabilizing the United States Congress. Guess what, @RakowskiC -- Phil Bridger and I have provided exactly as many reliable, independent sources backing our assertions as you have.
- Hate is disruptive and his editor's activity shows an inability to compartmentalise their stances on these issues and avoid it affecting their on-wiki behaviour. Get rid of 'em. Athanelar (talk) 14:47, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
- This isn’t hate. Pointing out dual citizenship for all politicians is good. You deleted my properly cited edits to Bernie Moreno. It was already cited in the article that he renounced his Colombian citizenship at age 18. In fact that was the most previous edit and I know that because I’m the one who put it. RakowskiC (talk) 15:29, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
Pointing out dual citizenship for all politicians is good.
Why is it good? Nakonana (talk) 15:35, 2 February 2026 (UTC)- Because citizenship is a neutral fact that helps the reader understand the politician or any figure to be honest. RakowskiC (talk) 16:06, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
- Why and how would knowing the dual citizenship of some Bernie Moreno guy help me — a European who has never heard of that guy — understand that politician? And why would simply knowing his place of birth not do the trick? Why do I need to know that he was born in a country other than the US and that he has dual citizenship? What additional understanding does the knowledge about the dual citizenship add for me? Nakonana (talk) 20:05, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
- Because citizenship is a neutral fact that helps the reader understand the politician or any figure to be honest. RakowskiC (talk) 16:06, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
- The entire point here is your focus on placing undue weight on politicians' former citizenship status. Athanelar (talk) 15:38, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
- This isn’t hate. Pointing out dual citizenship for all politicians is good. You deleted my properly cited edits to Bernie Moreno. It was already cited in the article that he renounced his Colombian citizenship at age 18. In fact that was the most previous edit and I know that because I’m the one who put it. RakowskiC (talk) 15:29, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
- I support the initial report. RakowskiC has demonstrated a persistent inability and unwillingness to adhere to core Wikipedia policies, specifically WP:NOR and WP:V. Across multiple articles, they attempt to insert claims based on their own legal synthesis or insist on including details like inferred citizenship for which no reliable secondary source is provided, despite extensive explanation from multiple editors. Their focus also aligns with known conspiracy theories like the Great Replacement, which is violation of WP:FRINGE. This constitutes original research. When their edits are reverted per policy, they re-argue and re-insert, creating a disruptive pattern of tendentious editing. Their focus on emphasizing the foreign origins or citizenship of a particular set of politicians, against consensus and policy, introduces a systemic bias into articles. They have been given ample opportunity to understand policy but continue to argue against the fundamental rules of Wikipedia. This is disruptive behavior, and a net negative for Wikipedia's integrity. Luka Maglc (talk) 16:50, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
What's the overall consensus for infoboxes of politician bios, concerning former citzenships? Is it 'include' or 'exclude'? GoodDay (talk) 16:43, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
- Based off Mark Carney, I would assume it’s to include former too. ~2026-72920-3 (talk) 16:54, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
- I would assume it would be simply to refer to WP:DUE. Katzrockso (talk) 17:25, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
Athanelar
This user removed my correct properly cited edits to the history of citizenship on Bernie Moreno for no reason. It is easily verifiable as there are multiple sources that Bernie Moreno renounced his Colombian citizenship. This is disruptive editing. RakowskiC (talk) 15:35, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
- Hi! I invite you to read on the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. I will combine this with the previous report. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 15:43, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
- You should consider WP:ONUS. Basically, if something is disputed, it stays out of an article until the consensus says it should be in. EducatedRedneck (talk) 16:20, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
- Reverting an edit is not in itself disruptive, even if it's properly cited, if someone reverts your edit I would always suggest starting a discussion on the articles talk page. Being verifiable is something that all content requires, but it doesn't guarantee inclusion (see WP:VNOT). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:09, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
- His reason was purely ad hominem instead of looking at the content itself. RakowskiC (talk) 17:19, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
Not here?
Looking at the TAIV data for Special:Contributions/~2026-70792-0 makes me think this user isn't here to contribute to an encyclopedia and needs to be dealt with. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 17:22, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
Done: Underlying IP blocked. It's a hard block so RakowskiC won't be able to get back to us for a bit. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 19:18, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
- Blocked as a WP:LOUTSOCK Doug Weller talk 19:24, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
- Interesting that he replied to O3000, Ret. in the first person. Must have slipped up realizing he wasn't signed in per Doug. ThatTrainGuy1945 (talk) 21:21, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
- Given the repeated blatantly obvious loutsocking there, combined with the overall disruptiveness and unwillingness to listen demonstrated above, I've indef'd RakowskiC. If they make a turnabout when it comes to clue in unblock requests, my blessing to anyone willing to offer them WP:ROPE. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:24, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:ILoveRichardSimmons persistent vandalism of recently deceased comedy actors' pages
I first encountered User:ILoveRichardSimmons last week when he blanked out almost all of the work I and some others had been doing on the recently deceased Floyd Vivino's page. This reversion was fixed by User:Ad Orientem.
Today, I noticed that ILRS blanked 6953 characters of key information from Catherine O'Hara's page. Her death was announced today.
According to User talk:ILoveRichardSimmons, this user has received ten (10) warnings (six level 4) this month for disruptive editing, ownership of articles, adding unsourced or poorly sourced information, vandalism and conflict of interest at Richard Simmons, Rebecca Shoichet, Blake Clark, Britt McKillip, Floyd Vivino and Catherine O'Hara with no explanation.
He has also made tendentious, unsourced and reverted edits at Tenacious D's page, Rose Marie McCoy, Sandrine Dixson-Declève and more
Other users who have given warnings include User:GregariousMadness, User:Waxworker, User:Augmented Seventh, User:Sugar Tax, and User:Loriendrew.
The user was blocked from editing entirely for 48 hours last week and is currently blocked by User:EvergreenFir from editing the page List of My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic characters.
I attempted to communicate with ILRS about why they blanked out the Floyd Vivino content, they replied with one sentence: I meant to revert it to insert the recent death template.
They never replied again and received several more warnings since then.
Considering that this person is targeting pages of recently deceased comedy actors and shows like My Little Pony, I think it oculd be time to escalate to a broader topic ban of some sort. This is someone who is WP:NOTLISTENING. I fear this will end in something higher than a topic ban, but I will let others come to a consensus about that. Please discuss. Kire1975 (talk) 05:00, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
- I think this has reached the point where graduated sanctions are appropriate, a topic ban from biographies of entertainers or recently deceased individuals or more broadly from BLPs would be a reasonable with the understanding that further violations could justify a longer sitewide block. CONFUSED SPIRIT(Thilio).Talk 05:19, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
- Regardless of whether something comes of this or not, I've just left a CTOP notice on their user talk for BLPs (which covers the recently deceased). The next time their behaviour is outside of community norms, please take it to WP:AE. TarnishedPathtalk 10:12, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
- Thank you for the suggestion User:TarnishedPath, I have taken it to WP:AE. Never done that before, please contribute and/or make suggestions if you catch any error of mine. Regards, Kire1975 (talk) 07:55, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
- I closed the enforcement request, as it is substantially similar to the current discussion, and because ILoveRichardSimmons has been indefinitely blocked from article space by rsjaffe per his comment below. There is more context in my explanation on Kire1975's user talk page. — Newslinger talk 14:40, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
- Thank you for the suggestion User:TarnishedPath, I have taken it to WP:AE. Never done that before, please contribute and/or make suggestions if you catch any error of mine. Regards, Kire1975 (talk) 07:55, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
- I recently reported this user to WP:AIV due to their persistent disruptive editing. Copy and pasting from that report: This user has been vandalizing Discord (My Little Pony). They first nominated the article for speedy deletion, then after being told that the article passes GNG, did not show any indication that they understood the Wikipedia policies. A week later, they tried to blank the article with no explanation. They continued to make other edits removing the Wikilink to the article multiple times. –GM 11:38, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
- There are, at the very least, some serious WP:CIR concerns here. The level of disruption at Catherine O'Hara is shocking. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:42, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
- This editor seems to be a cackler, loki-style. I have followed along with their editing, as I am studying to learn how this type of disruptive editing is currently being handled by the community and sundry sysops and administrative types. Following. Augmented Seventh (talk) 21:19, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
- Could you elaborate a litte bit on what "cackler, loki-style" means? Kire1975 (talk) 22:18, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
- Basically think Loki as in the God of mischief. In other words, this editor is trolling and wasting our time, and laughing about it. RickinBaltimore (talk) 22:57, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
- Indeed. Apologies for being less than clear. I was referring to perceived mischief, as described by RickinBaltimore. I first encountered the editor during his publication of hagiographic content on fitness guru Richard Simmons' article. Augmented Seventh (talk) 02:08, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
- Could you elaborate a litte bit on what "cackler, loki-style" means? Kire1975 (talk) 22:18, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
- ILRS has now made more edits. The first one I looked at changed Blake Clark's birthday to "February 32". This after being given a warning by User:Waxworker on January 17. Kire1975 (talk) 06:45, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
- The editor also has a habit of editing a letter or a word and then quickly reverting themself for no legitimate reason. This has been done recently on Hey There Lonely Girl, My Name Is Earl, Once on Pepsi & Shirlie, and at least once on Call of the Cutie, the last one with the edit summary
The second blank means her butt.
Kire1975 (talk) 06:53, 2 February 2026 (UTC)- This edit summary and the unconstructive edits to Blake Clark are enough to conclude that ILRS is being disruptive, whether from competence issues or intentionally is not relevant. Blocked from mainspace, and hoping for some answers from them. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 11:38, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
- I've ensured this WP:GAMING will not lead to an automatic grant of extended-confirmed status. They are free to manually apply, once they meet the criteria going forward. This was done as a regular admin action. --Yamla (talk) 20:18, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
- This edit summary and the unconstructive edits to Blake Clark are enough to conclude that ILRS is being disruptive, whether from competence issues or intentionally is not relevant. Blocked from mainspace, and hoping for some answers from them. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 11:38, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
- The editor also has a habit of editing a letter or a word and then quickly reverting themself for no legitimate reason. This has been done recently on Hey There Lonely Girl, My Name Is Earl, Once on Pepsi & Shirlie, and at least once on Call of the Cutie, the last one with the edit summary
Continued edit warring on Eleven (Stranger Things) despite consensus-building efforts.
Involved editor: User:Gooperman
Article: Eleven (Stranger Things)
I am reporting an ongoing edit-warring issue involving User:Gooperman on the article Eleven (Stranger Things). On 10 January 2026, I opened a discussion on their talk page discussion after the repeated removal of the phrase “main protagonist,” outlining why the wording is commonly used on Wikipedia in ensemble narratives and asking for policy-based objections or sourcing if the wording was inappropriate. User:Gooperman replied briefly with the assertion that “a character is either the protagonist or not,” but did not cite any Wikipedia policy or guideline and did not engage with the substantive points raised in the discussion.
Despite the discussion remaining unresolved, User:Gooperman continued reverting the wording. I then sought a third opinion from User:Alex_21, who reviewed the situation, warned User:Gooperman for edit warring, and advised that discussion should take precedence over continued reverts. After this warning was issued, User:Gooperman has edited again and continues to remove the disputed wording without responding on either the article talk page or their user talk page, and without attempting to reach consensus.
I have stopped reverting and am seeking administrative assistance because the editor continues to revert disputed content during an active discussion and after receiving an edit-warring warning. I am requesting intervention to halt the edit warring and allow the issue to be resolved through discussion or appropriate dispute resolution. Overandoutnerd (talk) 20:13, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
- I've explained myself in all my edit summaries, other editors have reverted you for the sane reason at other pages (other pages are linked to at my talk page), you never explain yourself in an edit summary, you just revert, and you're the only one to surpass the 3-revert rule. I'm not returning to this conversation.Gooperman (talk) 20:23, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
- Please, if you're going to bring something to ANI, don't make it an AI-generated report. I went through your past contributions and I am pretty sure you are using an LLM to generate your responses and longer requests. This looks to me like whatever tool you have used would have added the "fine points" of procedure, such as in your very last sentence, although that I am not so sure of. I think your request here is borderline when it comes to WP:AITALK. In either case, you are not making your point here on your own, and so I am not so sure that you comprehend what other people (including Gooperman) have told you. IndigoManedWolf (talk) 22:26, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
- This. I thought the request was AI first glance, but I was in a rush, and didn't want to cast aspersions. @Overandoutnerd, AI slop nonsense costs everyone time, and lowers our patience when dealing with it. Please stop using LLMs. Also, CIR to edit Wikipedia in a positive way and be a net force for good.
- Also, on another note, wouldn't this be for the dispute page, and not ANI?
- Thirdly and finally, your claims for certain pages containing the phrase "main protagonist" have all been reverted (albiet by Gooperman, I admit), and I'm not sure of any pages that contain that phrase anyways.
- Overall, no more LLMs. ThatTrainGuy1945 (talk) 01:43, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- User:ThatTrainGuy1945: You didn't look properly. As I've already stated... his "main protagonist" edits were reverted by others than myself as well. Check Walter White (Breaking Bad), Jake Sully, and even Eleven (Stranger Things) please and thank you.Gooperman (talk) 03:24, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- Alright. Walter White: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Walter_White_(Breaking_Bad)&diff=prev&oldid=1336252893 & https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Walter_White_(Breaking_Bad)&diff=prev&oldid=1332276190, both you reverting his edits. Jake Sully: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jake_Sully&diff=prev&oldid=1336252955 & https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jake_Sully&diff=prev&oldid=1332276227, you again.
- I would go on, but I seem what you mean by other people reverting his edits: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jake_Sully&diff=prev&oldid=1332276227, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Walter_White_(Breaking_Bad)&diff=prev&oldid=1334367923.
- Btw, isn't main protagonist redudant anyways? If it's an ensemble cast, then there's not really a "main" protagonist. If it's a single protagonist, then there's no need for main. ThatTrainGuy1945 (talk) 12:54, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- User:ThatTrainGuy1945: You didn't look properly. As I've already stated... his "main protagonist" edits were reverted by others than myself as well. Check Walter White (Breaking Bad), Jake Sully, and even Eleven (Stranger Things) please and thank you.Gooperman (talk) 03:24, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- Looking at the edit history of the article, I see a revert calling the edits "vandalism", followed by revert, revert, revert (between both users) - and with no explanation in the edit summary from either of them as to why. See the response I made here to Overandoutnerd's user talk page. Responding to the discussion started on the user talk page and seeking wider input and collaboration by other editors will be what's needed in order for the dispute at-hand to come to a conclusion. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 21:00, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
Unsourced edits
Cificis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This user has been multiply warned (or even blocked) by other contributors by adding unsourced contents or being disruptive (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, etc). However, they added unsourced genres again in Stateside (song), and I don't think this user is going to be constructive in Wikipedia anymore. Camilasdandelions (✉️) 12:05, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
- I agree. It's time for an indef block to protect Wikipedia. This editor doesn't seem to change with repeated warnings and a previous block. Sundayclose (talk) 15:29, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
- Pining @331dot and @Coolmarc who warned or banned this user in the past. Camilasdandelions (✉️) 01:12, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
Non-English edits
ملک محمد ذیشان بھچر (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
This user is exclusively adding content in Urdu pertaining to a new article about Tilloker:
- , , and at "Tilloker"
- at Wikipedia:Stub
An attempt to warn the user that this is the English Wikipedia was ineffective. They should be blocked and directed to urwiki. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 10:51, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
Persistent edit warring in the WP:CT/IRP area, including to push a POV on a BLP page
Tasasiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I first encountered this user edit warring on 2025–2026 Iranian protests, where they fiercely stonewalled the inclusion of Reza Pahlavi in the infobox, along with other coverage of his involvement in these protests in the lead/body:
- 08:31, 4 January 2026
- 18:54, 4 January 2026
- 10:50, 5 January 2026
- 16:54, 6 January 2026
- 09:19, 7 January 2026
- 09:21, 7 January 2026 - here they removed coverage of a slogan being chanted with the edit summary “Promoting the protests are about Pahlavi is not WP:DUE” (?)
- 09:45, 7 January 2026
- 11:32, 7 January 2026
- 11:35, 7 January 2026
- 18:49, 7 January 2026
- 22:40, 7 January 2026 - here they remove a full paragraph from the body as well, telling another editor to “please stop edit warring” (!)
- 22:46, 7 January 2026
- 08:26, 8 January 2026
- 15:00, 8 January 2026
- 15:59, 8 January 2026 - "Kindly refrain from further edit warring" (!)
- 21:19, 8 January 2026
- 07:51, 9 January 2026
- 10:44, 9 January 2026
- 11:48, 9 January 2026
- 12:30, 9 January 2026
At some point during the above edit warring, Tasasiki started an RFC with a question several editors (including me) objected to. Under this RFC two other editors raised their own concerns regarding Tasasiki's neutrality:
There is also a potential WP:TAGTEAM concern here, as a separate account which was subsequently blocked as a sock was edit warring with the same goals of scrubbing Pahlavi from the infobox + removing coverage of pro-Pahlavi slogans, you can see that case here
Three weeks later, Tasasiki is now edit warring on Reza Pahlavi, where they have inserted a strongly critical paragraph at the end of the lead, notably highlighting a couple of overtly polemic articles. They have re-inserted the content following reversion 3 times:
- 14:30, 17 January 2026 - reverts a different editor
- 11:51, 31 January 2026 - this time overriding my reversion
- -following this they posted a WP:COI warning on my user talk page
- -I subsequently reverted again, started a discussion on the talk page noting my NPOV concerns and clear WP:V issues with 2 sources being cited, and responded on their user talk page noting their recent edit-warring and encouraging them to read the WP:BLP policy closely
- 10:00, 2 February 2026 - they re-insert the material a 3rd time
- -Following this, they reply to the talk discussion "Sourced information belongs in the article, regardless of whether DiodotusNicator approves of it." -- so, refusing to address any of my points and ignoring the fact that a separate editor was the first to revert the content, along with a 3rd editor replying to the talk discussion that the version of the lead without this polemic content "seems fair enough for current moment."
- -They also reply to me on their user talk page , accusing me of "POV pushing and the whitewashing of Pahlavi's reputation." I find this highly ironic considering I didn't even know the Pahlavi dynasty had a pretender in exile a month ago, while I had already encountered Tasasiki edit warring over Pahlavi's coverage in the protests page.
In any case, I believe it's clear that Tasasiki is not approaching this contentious topic from a neutral perspective, and a tban from WP:CT/IRP seems well justified. DiodotusNicator (talk) 08:02, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- There has been a lot of pro-Reza Pahlavi pov pushing since the 2025–2026 Iranian protests started. From the start, there have been attempts in that page to portray Pahlavi as the movement's leader, even though the sources back then did not confirm this (I don't know now, I stopped checking). A lot of the links cited above by DiodotusNicator are about this. Here is some general pov pushing by DiodotusNicator in that page:
- To be honest, I really don't care about that page anymore, which is why I stopped editing it.
- The issue I'm having with DiodotusNicator now isn't their pro-Pahlavi pov pushing, but their attempts to whitewash widely covered information concerning Pahlavi, such as the Israeli-linked influence campaign using fake accounts:
- It's obvious that DiodotusNicator doesn't want this information in Wikipedia, and his solution to removing it is getting editors like me banned. Tasasiki (talk) 15:42, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- Tasasiki is still attempting to misrepresent the issue they were stonewalling as "attempts to portray Pahlavi as the movement's leader", this was never the case and can be observed in the RFC they started, where many editors attempted to explain the difference between "the movement's leader" and "a lead figure that should be covered in the infobox."
- They claim one of these diffs "Deletes that Pahlavi is a monarchist" - I removed "Monarchists:" from in front of Reza Pahlavi as there was no indication in the sources that only "monarchists" were being lead by Pahlavi; this was original research at best.
- The first diff is removing cites to WP:ALJAZEERA where it is being cited for content related to PIA, as I was under the (since-corrected) impression that sources RS/PS states to be biased on a CT should not be used at all.
- Note that the information regarding the influence campaign, which Tasasiki is claiming I am "removing" from the Reza Pahlavi page, has not been touched in the article body.
- DiodotusNicator (talk) 18:16, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- The dispute in the Iran Protests page was about whether they had "no centralized leadership" vs putting only Pahlavi as the "lead" or "leading" figure. Guess which one DiodotusNicator pushed for, even though most sources back then said the protests had no centralized leadership. About my RfC, it got consensus.
- Here is a second diff of DiodotusNicator removing that Pahlavi is part of the monarchist faction.
- The other points are pretty obvious. There is no proper reason to remove widely-covered content in the lead or in the body. Tasasiki (talk) 18:38, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- Now they claim their RFC "got consensus". Rosguill's closing statement: "There were also some objections to the RfC's framing, noting that while there's no basis for calling him the leader, there is evidence supporting claims that he is a leader." - i.e., the question they asked was obviously not a neutral presentation of the dispute. I did not "push for" anything, I joined other editors expressing objection to the slanted question.
- Per WP:BLP, there is actually plenty of reason to remove content that does not strictly adhere to NPOV, V, and NOR.
- DiodotusNicator (talk) 18:48, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- So, instead of acknowledging any issue with their own conduct, they continue to cast aspersions that I am "whitewashing" or POV pushing myself. DiodotusNicator (talk) 18:24, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- also obvious WP:ARBECR vios. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 17:01, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- n.b. they don't appear to have been made aware of WP:PIA prior to this thread being opened. I have since notified them that these topics are off-limits. signed, Rosguill talk 17:09, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- yeah, they should not be penalized for that actually. saw an alert, but its for iranian politics User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 17:26, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- DiodotusNicator's whitewashing is of no importance then? Tasasiki (talk) 17:34, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- ani is about conduct not content. WP:boomerang could apply if you bring diffs though User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 17:40, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- DiodotusNicator's whitewashing is of no importance then? Tasasiki (talk) 17:34, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- yeah, they should not be penalized for that actually. saw an alert, but its for iranian politics User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 17:26, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- n.b. they don't appear to have been made aware of WP:PIA prior to this thread being opened. I have since notified them that these topics are off-limits. signed, Rosguill talk 17:09, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- Ok, reviewing all the diffs:
- From OP:
- Special:Diff/1331066900 is aligned against Pahlavi, but there's no evidence that this diff was made tendentiously and a reasonable objection was expressed in the edit summary.
- Special:Diff/1331131186, ditto #1
- Special:Diff/1331251337, potentially problematic if there's evidence of edit warring, as this is basically the same edit as #1 a few days later. However, this edit summary points at the talk page, and based on the relevant talk section at the time includes Tasasiki's reasoning and no policy-based objection to removing "return of Pahlavi" from the infobox
- Special:Diff/1331501949, similar to the situation at 1 and 2, here they are reverting a transparently tendentious edit, noting the inline-comment right next to the insertion of Pahlavi
- Special:Diff/1331630399, this begins to look more like problematic edit warring, although in general there appears to have been a lack of consensus on the question of Pahlavi's inclusion in the infobox at the time (see ), and other editors appear to also bear part of the blame.
- Special:Diff/1331630531, essentially the same situation as the prior edit, as these appear to have been made consecutively.
- Special:Diff/1331632844, noting that this is at a different article than the prior edits, and that there was no prior discussion on the talk page, and that they're addressing a contradiction within the infobox, this feels like it's the same situation as #1,2
- Special:Diff/1331642602, while it may have been advisable at this point to take a step back at this point, ConflictFan appears to be in poorer form here, as they asserted that the mention of Pahlavi was removed accidentally (Special:Diff/1331641345), when this was clearly not the case: they were removed with a clear objection by Tasasiki (Special:Diff/1331630399), then silently re-added by ConflictFan (Special:Diff/Special:Diff/1331638631). I can AGF on ConflictFan's part as there were some intervening edits, but given that Tasasiki had made their position clear on the talk page and ConflictFan effectively ignored it, it's hard to find fault with Tasasiki here.
- Special:Diff/1331643000, essentially ditto prior. Tasasiki should likely have disengaged, but the editor they were reverting here was committing a foul by readding Pahlavi without engaging on the talk page
- Special:Diff/1331699446, ditto prior
- Special:DIff/1331734329, ditto prior. At least Apsa 54 did engage on the talk page, but obviously there was no consensus for addition at this time.
- Special:Diff/1331735127, now they're both blatantly edit warring
- Special:Diff/1331807394, see #1,2,7
- Special:DIff/1331852256, this seems like a similar case to 12 and 13, although I'm unable to identify exactly when the text was readded
- Special:Diff/1331860280, ditto prior
- Special:Diff/1331908407, ditto prior
- Special:Diff/1331987051, ditto 9, 10, 11
- Special:Diff/1332004793, ditto prior, and the reverted TA was later blocked for vandalism
- Special:Diff/1332011648, see #1,2,7,13
- Special:Diff/1332016804, ditto 9, 10, 11, 17, 18
- Regarding the edits at Reza Pahlavi, the balance of the talk page at the time of the January edits favors Tasasiki's edits; however, at the time of the Feb 2 edit, there was clearly no consensus for their additions and that edit was thus not appropriate.
- From OP:
- The other two final diffs of other editors accusing Tasasiki of tendentious editing are unconclusive as evidence. All told, Tasasiki is clearly engaging in borderline edit warring, but they've also been better about engaging on the talk page than nearly anyone that is taking issue with their edits. On that basis, I think a logged warning about edit warring would be appropriate.
- On to Tasasiki's diffs:
- Special:Diff/1333650863, this is very bad form on DiodotusNicator's part, both given WP:ALJAZEERA, and that, even if the citation was objectionable, the correct method would be to leave the citation in and add {{bsn}} or to remove both the citation and the claim; replacing the citation with {{cn}} is never the right move. That having been said, this could just be inexperience rather than tendentious action
- Special:Diff/1332010496, this was the edit that prior diff #19 was responding to--much like OP diffs 1, 2, 7, 13 and 19, it's consistent with a viewpoint but not in itself evidence of POV-pushing unless it is demonstrated that the edit was clearly unreasonable or otherwise tendentious.
- Special:Diff/1332015363, ditto prior. It probably would have been better to open a discussion, but this is a justified edit, particularly given the high level of activity on the page making it less than clear what is still contested and what isn't.
- Special:Diff/1333118373, ditto prior.
- Special:Diff/1335734477, objecting on BLP grounds for rather mild criticisms of a clearly WP:PUBLICFIGURE is bad form. Note, Tasasiki's edit here included reference to Israeli activity, which is a PIA breach, but Tasasiki was not aware of this until much later.
- Special:Diff/1335900740, this objection is procedurally superior with the accompanying talk page comments, and I think that the removal of the criticism in this edit is valid. However, I'm a bit troubled by the reinsertion of the unequivocal
He has been the most prominent leader of opposition
while credulously engaging with sources on the talk page that clearly undermine that claim.
- So, overall, the boomerang case is weak, generally lacking evidence of actual tendentious editing, although I would note that the last two diffs come off as WP:WIKILAWYERING, which could become a problem if it becomes an incessant pattern. But at this time, based on the available diffs, I don't think there's anything to merit a sanction more serious than an informal warning. signed, Rosguill talk 18:56, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
However, I'm a bit troubled by the reinsertion of the unequivocal He has been the most prominent leader of opposition while credulously engaging with sources on the talk page that clearly undermine that claim.
- Could you elaborate on this? DiodotusNicator (talk) 19:05, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- At Talk:Reza_Pahlavi#NPOV,_Verifiability_issues_in_the_lead, you raise valid objections regarding the
while critics argue
clause. In doing so you cite direct quotes from Jacobin to make a case against Tasasiki's preferred claims; this is valid insofar as the argument recognizes that pro-Pahlavi sentiments were present and significant; they do not, however, make the case thatHe is the most prominent leader of the opposition
, and do seem to undercut such a suggestion when you quote statements likeWe shouldn’t under any circumstances think that the monarchists speak for all Iranians — they certainly do not.
IMO, the cleanest edit from you in this situation given the assembled sources would have been to remove the text beginning withwhile critics argue
, but leaving in the wording ofHe has been described as a prominent opposition figure during the 2025–2026 Iranian protests
signed, Rosguill talk 19:14, 3 February 2026 (UTC)We shouldn’t under any circumstances think that the monarchists speak for all Iranians — they certainly do not
- As should be expected given WP:JACOBIN's editorial position, this is not a neutral framing; I quoted the piece to showcase how even this avowedly non-neutral piece provides a compelling argument against the idea that Pahlavi's support is not organic.
- For why this is not a neutral framing, there is plenty in the article body covering Pahlavi's advocacy for a democratic transition. Quoting from our article:
- In 2024, Pahlavi told the BBC that he prefers that Iran would choose to remain a republic, since he views this political system as more meritocratic.
- According to Australia's ABC News, Reza Pahlavi believes in the establishment of a secular, democratic and liberal Iran.
- According to the university of Navarra, Pahlavi "has refused to commit to the restoration of the monarchy".
- This is the same reason I reverted his categorization under "Monarchists:" in the infobox on the protests page; this is an objectively non-neutral framing that seeks to portray him as desiring to restore the monarchy first and foremost. DiodotusNicator (talk) 19:30, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- Wrong. Pahlavi is a monarchist, and gaslighting here can't change that fact. You tried to remove that from the protests page, while also trying to portray Pahlavi as the protests' leading figure, even though most sources were saying there was no centralized leadership. Tasasiki (talk) 19:42, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- I don't think you're helping your case here. signed, Rosguill talk 19:48, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- I quoted directly from Wikipedia's own article, but Tasasiki insists that I am "gaslighting". Another excellent example of a WP:BATTLEGROUND and POV warrior mentality that is clearly not conducive to editing a contentious topic. DiodotusNicator (talk) 20:04, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- You trying to ban me here for adding reliable sources you didn't like is all the things you're calling me above. Tasasiki (talk) 20:08, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- "In exile, Pahlavi has remained a potent symbol for monarchists." Tasasiki (talk) 20:10, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- You trying to ban me here for adding reliable sources you didn't like is all the things you're calling me above. Tasasiki (talk) 20:08, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- These are not unreasonable arguments, but at the time on the talk page, you did not address this aspect of the edits in question, nor was this dispute about the inclusion/exclusion of "Monarchists" in the infobox: it was about the characterization of Pahlavi as "a prominent opposition figure" vs. "the most prominent leader of opposition" (and also whether to include criticism of Pahlavi). You did not provide arguments supporting your position on the first question, only the second, but your edit changed both. It's also worth noting that the source you provide in the edit itself , although it does assert that Pahlavi is
the most prominent opposition figure
, also includes extensive coverage of divisions in the Iranian opposition, including explicit criticisms of Pahlavi that largely echo the text you objected to in the article, and also including quotes from supporters of Pahlavi who openly endorse him as a monarchist figure (as well as coverage explaining his somewhat broader appeal). I am troubled by the attempt to portray this specific WaPo article as backing the characterization of Pahlavi as a unifying or democratic figure, as that's just not what the article says in its totality. signed, Rosguill talk 19:47, 3 February 2026 (UTC)- "attempt to portray this specific WaPo article as backing the characterization of Pahlavi as a unifying or democratic figure" - I'm now highly confused. I didn't even originally add the sentence I reverted to; sure, I understand I should have selectively reverted, but I have not made any such attempts as you've described here. DiodotusNicator (talk) 19:50, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- My bad, I mistakenly assumed that you had added the source in question given the repeat reversion. Nevertheless, you should be careful to check sources whose use you are supporting when engaging in an editing dispute, as you are responsible for their content if you are re-adding it. signed, Rosguill talk 19:56, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- Wrong. Pahlavi is a monarchist, and gaslighting here can't change that fact. You tried to remove that from the protests page, while also trying to portray Pahlavi as the protests' leading figure, even though most sources were saying there was no centralized leadership. Tasasiki (talk) 19:42, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- At Talk:Reza_Pahlavi#NPOV,_Verifiability_issues_in_the_lead, you raise valid objections regarding the
- Looking over the diffs again:
- beginning with 5. Special:Diff/1331630399 - the disussion that @Rosguill notes here massively raises my suspicion of WP:TAGTEAMING, as Tasasiki and the sock mentioned above trade off replies while arguing against two other editors attempting to explain the problem with their WP:STONEWALLING. DiodotusNicator (talk) 22:29, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- For better or for worse, additional examples (ideally, across multiple articles) are needed to demonstrate that behavior crosses the line into inappropriate TAGTEAM, as opposed to just being two people coinciding on a given opinion in good faith (which is in itself fairly likely on a top-of-the-news topic like this). Given that the sockpuppet has already been blocked, this specific vector seems unlikely to be an ongoing cause of future disruption, so unless you already have evidence in hand of this same interaction occurring elsewhere, I don't think this is the most productive line of inquiry. signed, Rosguill talk 22:38, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- Indeed; DiodotusNicator initially tried to block me for adding well-sourced material he disagreed with, and now he's hinting that I'm a sockpuppet. That's classic battleground behaviour. Tasasiki (talk) 22:47, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- Sure, this very well could be the convergence of two unrelated editors (not being facetious), but given the history of socking in the WP:CT/IRP area, which I encountered a second time just recently, I think a CheckUser would be prudent. DiodotusNicator (talk) 23:08, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- I see DiodotusNicator tag-teaming with Iskandar323 in that recent incident - #Special:Diff/1334278145 - #Special:Diff/1334336368 - a CheckUser would be prudent there as well. Tasasiki (talk) 10:03, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
- I don’t think this is going to be a productive avenue to explore, indeed it may be construed as a personal attack and you should strike it. — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:54, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
- I see DiodotusNicator tag-teaming with Iskandar323 in that recent incident - #Special:Diff/1334278145 - #Special:Diff/1334336368 - a CheckUser would be prudent there as well. Tasasiki (talk) 10:03, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
- For better or for worse, additional examples (ideally, across multiple articles) are needed to demonstrate that behavior crosses the line into inappropriate TAGTEAM, as opposed to just being two people coinciding on a given opinion in good faith (which is in itself fairly likely on a top-of-the-news topic like this). Given that the sockpuppet has already been blocked, this specific vector seems unlikely to be an ongoing cause of future disruption, so unless you already have evidence in hand of this same interaction occurring elsewhere, I don't think this is the most productive line of inquiry. signed, Rosguill talk 22:38, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
Original research and personal attack by 2nightmania (also WP:NOTHERE)
2nightmania (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
User:2nightmania has demonstrated that he is WP:NOTHERE and is consistently adding original research to articles, which I warned on the user's talk page twice on original research alone (overall four times). Yesterday, the user responded: "Man screw you. “Original reasearch” shut up."
The clear lack of accepting guidance on editing, warnings from me and other editors, and lack of compliance to Wikipedia policy leads me to believe this editor is not here to build an encyclopedia.
Additionally, on House of Black I was told by this user: "Lemonademan22 stop saying they are still active. They’re not. They disbanded months ago. Nothing on AEW shows that the stable is still active. Black is gone, Matthews is injured, King is in a tag team with Bandido and Hart has her own stable so stop already."
I reverted this edit, and warned the user whom then responded with the personal attack.
The original research I warned the user for:
Warnings: Lemonademan22 (talk) 12:03, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
- Oh good, professional wrestling. ~2025-31850-11 (talk) 12:49, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
- I've just gone through a bunch of this guy's edits. Have they EVER added a source for anything, reliable or not? It looks like they're just dashing right to the keyboard for post-TV show updates, each and every time. Ravenswing 14:09, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
- I checked 50 edits. No, they do not use sourcing for anything. This appears to be a case of I-saw-it-myself-so-its-true; see this as evidence of that. They've been warned about using reliable sources but have ignored the warnings. @2nightmania: You can either choose to use citations to reliable sources for material you add to an article that is contested or you can find yourself blocked from editing this project. There is no middle ground on this, and no amount of "screw you"'s or "cmon man"'s are going to get around this. Here, we rely on Wikipedia:Verifiability, not what you saw. Are we clear? --Hammersoft (talk) 14:20, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
- I might have blocked I’d I’d seen their behaviour. IMHO I will be surprised if they can justify their actions. Doug Weller talk 17:07, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
- @Doug Weller The user in question has continued taking jabs at me in the edit summary. Lemonademan22 (talk) 22:48, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
- @Hammersoft Please see an uncivil jab in an edit summary. Thanks. Lemonademan22 (talk) 00:28, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
- I am a rather staunch advocate of adherence to WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. But, this edit summary is not enough to block someone for. However, @2nightmania: if you can't be bothered to follow WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, then it's clear you shouldn't be contributing. I strongly suggest you stop with your uncivil comments. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:45, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
- Of course, but given everything else here, not looking for a ban but perhaps a temporary topic ban? Lemonademan22 (talk) 00:50, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
- I am a rather staunch advocate of adherence to WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. But, this edit summary is not enough to block someone for. However, @2nightmania: if you can't be bothered to follow WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, then it's clear you shouldn't be contributing. I strongly suggest you stop with your uncivil comments. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:45, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
- I might have blocked I’d I’d seen their behaviour. IMHO I will be surprised if they can justify their actions. Doug Weller talk 17:07, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
- I checked 50 edits. No, they do not use sourcing for anything. This appears to be a case of I-saw-it-myself-so-its-true; see this as evidence of that. They've been warned about using reliable sources but have ignored the warnings. @2nightmania: You can either choose to use citations to reliable sources for material you add to an article that is contested or you can find yourself blocked from editing this project. There is no middle ground on this, and no amount of "screw you"'s or "cmon man"'s are going to get around this. Here, we rely on Wikipedia:Verifiability, not what you saw. Are we clear? --Hammersoft (talk) 14:20, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
- Worth noting in case anyone here is unaware that professional wrestling is a community-designated CTOP. WP:GS/PW Athanelar (talk) 16:29, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
This user is continuing to edit, but still has not responded here and has yet to add a single source to any of their edits. I recommend a block from article space until they respond here. -- Mike 🗩 13:04, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
- Agree with Mike: looks like a clear-cut case for an immediate indef to me. Jusdafax (talk) 11:48, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
- I also agree with Mike that a block from article space is necessary to get them to respond here given they have not responded so far and have continued to make unsourced edits. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 22:22, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
- Done. Doug Weller talk 10:29, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
- The reason I didn’t respond was because I didn’t know what ANI meant. I kept seeing respond to ANI but had no clue what it was till now. 2nightmania (talk) 05:29, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
- Any of the pings would have guided you here, as would the link that was posted on your talk page that notified you of the ANI discussion. In any case, I think the article space block was a good outcome for Wikipedia; you should not be editing until you demonstrate you understand Wikipedia's requirements for sourcing, or how to constructively address real concerns that are made about your editing. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 06:20, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
- Even if you didn't notice the links on your talk page or the pings (which I don't believe), why didn't you simply ask the people trying to communicate with you on your talk page? — Czello (music) 10:38, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
- If you don’t believe me then that’s fine but like I said, I didn’t know what it was till now but point is I’m here now. 2nightmania (talk) 15:51, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
- The reason I didn’t respond was because I didn’t know what ANI meant. I kept seeing respond to ANI but had no clue what it was till now. 2nightmania (talk) 05:29, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
- Done. Doug Weller talk 10:29, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
- 2nightmania's behavior is common among new users who start editing PW articles: Refusing to learn and follow WP guidelines, viewing WP as a wrestling blog/database, and/or WP:CIR. In my opinion, creating a special welcome messages for this kind of wrestling fans could be helpful. For example, a verbose message with links to WP:PW, WT:PW, WP:PW/RS, and WP:PW/MOS. Not a magic solution but still better than nothing (no excuses). --Mann Mann (talk) 03:53, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
Persistent sourcing issues
Rickyharder (talk · contribs) has been warned multiple times not to add unsourced information, typically pertaining to biographies. After the last notice left by myself, they made another unsupported addition. It seems that Rickyharder is more adept at removing warnings (which they're permitted to) than reading them. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 07:41, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
Edit warring, personal attacks by Chanchu0518
Chanchu0518 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a relatively new user who mostly makes edits related to the taxonomy of fossil reptiles (an area that is currently the subject of major scientific controversy) and has strong opinions about how their taxonomy should be presented, particularly in the taxoboxes of articles (which comprise the majority of their edits). I edit in the same topic area and have come into conflict with them over their attempts to insert their taxonomic views into articles. After previously attempting to interact with them assertively but collegially back in June last year , I sent them an edit warring notice in December over their edits to the Parareptilia taxobox (A topic I made a post on the talkpage to try and resolve ). Chanchu0518 took this very personally and has since lashed out at me when I disagree with their edits. When I today I reverted an edit the Sauria article they made in May last year (which I had previously disagreed with at the time), after discussing with another Wikiproject paleontology member on Discord, Chanchu reverted with the edit summary Please don't withdraw it again
, and made an edit warring notice to my talkpage, despite the fact I reverted their edit over half a year later
Chanchu0518 subsequently accused me of being a dictator
, and [treating] science articles as their private property
despite the fact that I made a post the Tree of Life wikiproject talkpage to try to gain consensus on the issue. , where again somebody else has disagreed with Chanchu0518's position and nobody has supported them.
Chanchu0518 clearly has no interest in acting collegially, as their edit history shows that they are primarily interested in inserting their own views into articles and then reverting other users who disagree with them. I think they need at minimum a stern talking to by experienced users that they should not edit war their own views into articles when they have been contested, nor should they make clear personal attacks such as calling users "dictators". I would not oppose a topic ban from animal taxonomy. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:46, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
- The subject matter is beyond me but I am glad they are not editing in a field I’m familiar with. I se User:Kiwi Rex has also.encountered this editor. Doug Weller talk 18:37, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
- Hemiaucheni retracts other people's edits very frequently; I don't understand why he can keep doing it.
- But when I retracted his edits a few times, He immediately claimed that I had caused an editorial warChanchu0518 (talk) 10:41, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
- And As early as 2009, a paper supported the view that Weigeltisauridae belonged to Sauria, and I recall that a small number of other papers have also supported this view since then. Chanchu0518 (talk) 12:01, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
A small number of other papers
? I haven't looked in to this dispute, but Wikipedia goes with the mainstream view, i.e. what most researchers say, not a small number. And we disagree civilly, talking on the talk page, not edit-warring and insulting. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:16, 1 February 2026 (UTC)- He was the one who kept retracting many people's edits from other entries. Chanchu0518 (talk) 12:42, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
- I agree with Phil Bridger on this. Personally attacking other editors (even regular established ones) and edit warring are not the way to resolve situations like this. sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:33, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
- He was the one who kept retracting many people's edits from other entries. Chanchu0518 (talk) 12:42, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
- I really couldn't stand it Chanchu0518 (talk) 12:47, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
- Just like Weigeltisauridae,Although which has received support from only a few papers, what exactly is wrong with marking it with a question mark? Chanchu0518 (talk) 12:51, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
- Why can he accuse me of starting an edit war when I retract 5 items, but he retracts 50 items he also believes his actions are entirely reasonable. Chanchu0518 (talk) 12:57, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
- Just like Weigeltisauridae,Although which has received support from only a few papers, what exactly is wrong with marking it with a question mark? Chanchu0518 (talk) 12:51, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
- Can someone explain to Chanchu that his continued posting on my talkpage about content issues is not productive and not likely to lead to useful results? When I stated as such , he wrote a complaint against me on my own talkpage as if he was at ANI, blatantly misrepresenting my opinion that posting on my talkpage was not going to lead to useful results as an attempt to insult him. . I think this may be WP:CIR as Chanchu does not appear to be a fluent writer of English (e.g. ). Hemiauchenia (talk) 11:09, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
- Done. Doug Weller talk 11:17, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
Apo1
- Apo1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I have redirected some pages created by Apo1 for being poorly written and cited by unreliable sources (e.g. this article that contains many poor sources cited and isn't notable) and many articles that they have created were also AI generated. I have warned Apo1 on their talk page and also explained to them the issues with their articles. several others warned Apo1 for different violations as well. they appear to fail to understand and fix the problems with the articles they have created, yet they continue reverting edits and pushing their POV without addressing the issues. R3YBOl (🌲) 16:14, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
Targeting
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This user User:Soyadı may be a sockpuppet based on their editing behaviour because the account was created only about 15–16 hours ago yet and it is already making advanced edits using twinkle which is unusual for a new user.
Additionally, User:Bech07 has previously attacked on The Filmy Charcha in the same way. This suggests there may be a personal issue involved while I agree with the AfD process but I believe this behaviour is suspicious and could harm.🌟 𝒯𝐻𝐸 𝐵𝒪𝒮𝒮! 17:41, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
RichardBi0129 - pagemove disruption
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
RichardBi0129 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This user was temporarily blocked from moving pages in November after a spate of disruptive moves. They did another pair of disruptive moves earlier this month, and then just did this with no discussion or rationale given. There was a brief discussion regarding a page split, but no consensus had been reached and this user did not participate in it.
This user has never attempted to discuss or explain anything (zero user talk or project talk edits, and the only article talk page edits are moves), and has never used an edit summary that wasn't a default one. Between the disruptive moves and refusal to communicate, they should be blocked indefinitely from moving pages. --Sable232 (talk) 00:22, 8 January 2026 (UTC)
- Indefinitely blocked from page/file moving with the right of appeal in three months. See the notice on their talk page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:06, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
- Are admins allowed to set a minimum appeal time for non-CTOP actions? Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 00:07, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
- @ChildrenWillListen That's actually a very good question. I have seen it done and have, albeit rarely, set limits on block appeals though never longer than six months out of deference to WP:SO. That said, while WP:SO seems to suggest that some limits do exist, I can't find anything that explicitly allows admins to set a time limit on appeals absent consensus in a community based discussion. As I lean towards strict constructionism when it comes to conferred authority, I am inclined to say that no such authority exists. I will therefor strike that limitation. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:45, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
- @Ad Orientem: I was posting this in another thread but decided to add it here instead. They have started doing cut-and-paste page moves Still no further comment. A full block may be warranted at this point. TornadoLGS (talk) 19:11, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
- Diffs: (, , , ) TornadoLGS (talk) 19:13, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
Indeffed -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:36, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
- Just adding on since this thread hasn't been closed, it appears the account is a sockpuppet and I've opened an SPI Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/毕明明. TornadoLGS (talk) 01:15, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
- @ChildrenWillListen That's actually a very good question. I have seen it done and have, albeit rarely, set limits on block appeals though never longer than six months out of deference to WP:SO. That said, while WP:SO seems to suggest that some limits do exist, I can't find anything that explicitly allows admins to set a time limit on appeals absent consensus in a community based discussion. As I lean towards strict constructionism when it comes to conferred authority, I am inclined to say that no such authority exists. I will therefor strike that limitation. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:45, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
- Are admins allowed to set a minimum appeal time for non-CTOP actions? Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 00:07, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Persistent disruptive and unsourced editing by TA ~2025-33620-38
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- ~2025-33620-38 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Despite receiving numerous warnings in November 2025, December 2025, and January 2026 (including a uw-unsourced4 warning on January 20, 2026 (), this temporary account has not responded to any of the messages and continues to make unsourced and/or disruptive edits. Since that L4 warning on the 20th, in addition to the changes that I noticed, reverted (), and added another level 4 warning for to their talk page (), they had also had four other article edits reverted for similar reasons ( and ) that weren't paired with warning messages. (Disclosure: I had reported this as vandalism through AIV last night but was instructed to put it here instead.) Orxenhorf (talk) 21:53, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
- They haven't edited for six days and their TA was created three months ago - could they be on a new TA by now? Blue Sonnet (talk) 23:00, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
- I have no idea if there is a way behind the scenes to check IPs, persistent cookies, or something else to determine if they have or not. Digging through the revision history of Suniel Shetty, I suspect you may be correct though. A set of nearly identical changes has been repeated on that article by a series of temporary accounts.
- ~2025-34880-12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on 29 November 2025 and 15 January 2026 .
- ~2025-33620-38 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on 5 December 2025 , 6 December 2025 , 10 January 2026 & , 11 January 2026 , 18 January 2026 , and 19 January 2026 .
- ~2025-39154-14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on 17 December 2025 , and 31 December 2025 .
- ~2026-40634-0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on 25 January 2026 .
- ~2026-61253-6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on 28 January 2026 .
- ~2026-68711-9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on 31 January 2026 .
- The repeated changing the birth name from "Sunil" to "Suniel", the middle initial to a name without removing the period, the addition of movie names, and sometimes altering the text "returned to Tamil films after 18 years" to say "36 years", or the Hindustan Times citation with the title "Exclusive: Suniel Shetty to play don in Welcome to the Jungle", from "to play don" to "to play Raja Chauhan", or a variation thereof, make me suspect these are all the same person. It looks like Fylindfotberserk and Waxworker have done the majority of the reverts on these edits, so I'm going to drop a notice on their talk pages to see if they have anything to add. Orxenhorf (talk) 01:10, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
- @Orxenhorf To answer your question, yes, there is WP:TAIV, but that's not even needed here since it's literally the same edits being made every time. HurricaneZetaC 03:28, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
- I may be forgetting their original ID, but this IP range has been editing disruptively a significant amount of time. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:30, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
- @Fylindfotberserk: You officially have my sympathies. I was attempting to see if I could find an originating account and ended up in a very deep hole. There is a chain of edits on one article that makes me think they've been around since at least June 4, 2024. Text along the lines of "The film was remade (the next year after the edit)", changing through time as "2025", "2026", and "2027", keeps getting added there. Orxenhorf (talk) 19:43, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
- I may be forgetting their original ID, but this IP range has been editing disruptively a significant amount of time. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:30, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
- Knowing the individual IP addresses is not likely to be helpful given they are editing with a mobile and mobiles are typically assigned dynamic IP addresses but even without seeing the IP addresses, I am satisfied that these TAs are the one individual. In the circumstances, if an article is being persistently disrupted, page protection would seem to be the way to go. — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:26, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
- P.S. Noting (because I’ve just checked), there are a number of blocks in place but obviously they are largely ineffective because the individual is editing with a mobile that has, as I say, dynamic IP addressing assignments. — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:35, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
- And following up on that, as the disruption to Suniel Shetty has been ongoing since November and the page came off three months protection in October, I have protected it for a further six months. Other articles may be disrupted by this individual and protection can be requested in the usual way. — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:55, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
- @Malcolmxl5 Thank you very much. I just noticed you did them while I was writing up requests in a note pad. Orxenhorf (talk) 22:14, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
- @Orxenhorf To answer your question, yes, there is WP:TAIV, but that's not even needed here since it's literally the same edits being made every time. HurricaneZetaC 03:28, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
- I have no idea if there is a way behind the scenes to check IPs, persistent cookies, or something else to determine if they have or not. Digging through the revision history of Suniel Shetty, I suspect you may be correct though. A set of nearly identical changes has been repeated on that article by a series of temporary accounts.
- ~2026-68711-9 is definitely the current in-use account. I just reverted edits similar to previous ones on Welcome (film series) (), Dhamaal (film series) (), Indra Kumar (), and Raj & DK () that were made within the last few hours. Looks like several page protection requests are in my future. Orxenhorf (talk) 21:34, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
- I’ve given all of these some protection as well as blocking the ~2026-68711-9 account. — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:13, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:Trivialist and his war on pages with the term "lost media"
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Okay, I get that lostmediawiki is not a reliable source, but I've seen his recent contributions, and he seems to be removing the term "lost media" from any page he can find with that term. Regardless if it is considered "lost" by LMW or not. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 00:03, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
- When you bring a report to ANI, you must notify the user(s) you are reporting. I just now notified Trivialist via the corresponding user talk page. IndigoManedWolf (talk) 00:29, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
- Also, it doesn't look like you have allowed time for a discussion with Trivialist (a mere four! minutes between your talk page message and your report here). For content disputes such as this, that is the first step. The second step isn't bringing it to ANI either, but rather seeking other means for dispute resolution. IndigoManedWolf (talk) 00:31, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
- ロドリゲス恭子 - I came to the same conclusion as IndigoManedWolf when reviewing the discussion, but I'll also say that I understand why you might've felt inclined to immediately bring attention to this matter here. Ideally, you do need to give the other user a reasonable time and a reasonable chance to review the concerns you expressed to them and respond before immediately escalating the situation. However, I believe what may have urged you to immediately raise concerns here is when you took a look at Trivialist's recent contributions and saw a lot of recent edits where Trivialist has removed this kind of content from a number of other articles. I could understand where someone might feel a sense of urgency after seeing that information, and with the mindset that this matter needs to be raised for attention quickly.
- The important thing to remember is that no edits are permanent; if it's determined that Trivialist's removal of content from articles about "lost media" is inappropriate, these changes can easily be restored. With that said, this is an issue that's in "content dispute" territory, which means that the best way of resolving the issue at-hand is to follow Wikipedia's dispute resolution protocol; discuss your concerns, work things out with Trivialist respectfully and civilly, and ask for input and comments by uninvolved third-parties if things come to an impasse. And hey, check it out! Trivialist responded to the message that you left on their user talk page! ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 01:06, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
- Thank you for clearing that up! I'm sorry if I jumped to ANI too soon. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 01:28, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
- ロドリゲス恭子 - There's no need to apologize; you had the integrity and best interest of the project at heart, and that's all that anybody here could ever ask for. We all make mistakes and none of us are perfect. I mean... shoot, I've been on this project for 19 years, and there are a handful of users who will 100% vouch for me when I say that I've made wayyyyy more than my fair share of mistakes on Wikipedia over that time. ;-) Let me know how things go with your discussion with Trivialist regarding your concerns. I'm more than happy to provide any input or assistance if needed. :-) Best - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 04:31, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
- Thank you for clearing that up! I'm sorry if I jumped to ANI too soon. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 01:28, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Harassment
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Padgriffin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
following the Harassment i am receiving from this editor Padgriffin of deleting every article i posted without following Wikipedia pillars ,It's a violation of free ending pillar.
Secondly am still busy running projects as an facilitator and I have a good knowledge of not violating any pillars ,
Coming from different countries I feel like he is using his powers of having so many groups of moving,deleting articles as he cant even make his research against South African notable people
He is even deleting articles of people who are been sponsored by Wikipedia the is a swip project thats runs throughout the world just becuase i wrote about the people of south africa he she doesnt know it doesnt give him her rights to remove my articles just becuase he she doesnt know those people lastly respect is one of the Wikimedia Foundation pillars we cant allow editors which they call death of the people an incident ,South Africa singer johny mokhali was notable during 80s ,lazarus kgagudi was notable in the 70s 80s those are the South African singers he doesnt know about and he cant even improve articles before deleting them ,i feel like am been harrassed by him becuase i cant even edit freely as am scared he she will strike again ,one of the Wikimedia pillars is free online editing but for me in the past days i feel like its padgriffin editing as he is watching my page as a hawk, the next thing am scared about he will.block my account ,administration lets protect other editors am an extended confirmed user with 2152 edits and counting in the past 4 days 6 of my articles that are been there for more than 4 days with other editors eding them they are been deleted ,nominated for deletion, moved to draft without a valid points, we cant expect every notable person to have sources from.books ,newspapers some are having sources from the newspapers only ,some notable person they dont have biographies as they were notable in the 70s 80s which is my targeted audience that ones ,please protect me articles like Amanda Manku, cedric fourie,Matthews Manamela, thabiso molokomme, Johnny Mokhali, Lazarus Kgagudi, Durban taxi crash,Lebogang Boemo, Bravo le roux ,are all been deleted or nominated and they are meeting all Wikipedia pillars Diphaphang (talk) 03:01, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- Note that you were required to notify the editor of this posting. I have posted a message notifying them. Mfield (Oi!) 03:14, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- Padgriffin is not an administrator and cannot
block my account
. Also ifa violation of free ending pillar
means what I think you're trying to say, you may want to read WP:FREESPEECH. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:23, 3 February 2026 (UTC)- noted that ,what am saying is as for free speech yes but this one ,seems like every edit am doing for padgriffin is wrong ,we cannot delete articles of people or place them into drafts without researching ,lets go back to.this swip project where Wikipedia is in it ,deleting a notable person who is in the projects means that if I nominate deletion on someone from India while am in South Africa ,or someone.from South Africa I dont know about what must I.do I must improve the article not to.be lazy and feel like this editor has way less edits he she mustn't create articles no that's not how Wikipedia respect pillar works ,nowadays she he is watching every single edit I made and its getting worse becuase the only thing he do is to move amd delete ,seems like he want me to stop editing ,he want me to think Wikipedia isn't for some of us Diphaphang (talk) 03:33, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- Padgriffin has reason to express suspicions, given the contrast between article content and OP's communications, all of which are barely comprehensible. I think some sort of WP:BOOMERANG on grounds of CIR/LLM problems is in play here, along with a serious failure to understand notability issues. Borgenland (talk) 04:36, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- It seems obvious enough from looking at Diphaphang's talk page that this isn't an issue with Padgriffin - multiple other experienced contributors have been starting threads there since 2024, regarding content which clearly isn't suitable for article space. Diphaphang, ignoring what everybody has been telling you and then making out that you are being 'harassed' isn't going to work. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:56, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- First off, my pronouns are they/them. It's on my userpage, I would appreciate if you showed me the courtesy of respecting that.
He is even deleting articles of people who are been sponsored by Wikipedia the is a swip project thats runs throughout the world
- Notability is not inherited. I'm assuming you're referring to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lebogang Boemo- just because they work for an organization that also has worked with the WMF does not make them notable, and the numerous Delete votes reflect that.
we cant expect every notable person to have sources from.books ,newspapers some are having sources from the newspapers only ,some notable person they dont have biographies as they were notable in the 70s 80s which is my targeted audience that ones
- I can barely decipher what you're trying to say here but if a person doesn't have WP:SIGCOV then they're probably not notable.
and feel like this editor has way less edits he she mustn't create articles no that's not how Wikipedia respect pillar works
- I'm not sure what you're trying to imply here but given your references to your edit count, I would like to note that edit counts do not represent any inherent status or rights, but as of writing I have 21,979 (+1) edits on the English Wikipedia. I am also a New Page Reviewer, which is how I found your articles to begin with.
- I don't think you understand the WP:Five pillars given your constant references to them when they're clearly not relevant, and your apparent view that WP:5P3 means that you can "freely edit", as in free speech, when it does not say that.
- You have been told numerous times by editors to address the notability concerns, which you have consistently ignored. It's extremely hard for me to believe that the article content isn't LLM-generated given that most of your messages are riddled with grammar mistakes and typos, yet the article content is perfect.
- In addition, your claims that you're apparently running a WMF-sponsored workshop is also quite alarming given the quality of your output and apparent lack of understanding of basic policy.
- I believe that there is a blatant WP:CIR problem here and a WP:BOOMERANG is probably in order. Padgriffin Griffin's Nest 10:51, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- is that what you think ,that i cant understand the policies wow I understand them very clearly ,to you notable people is like the politicians nah its not but well I can its the way you operate i wonder who.are those editors that cried about notability MOTHO FELA MAKGETHA (talk) 10:57, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- Comment: OP has been changing their signature twice in this discussion which I find malicious. Borgenland (talk) 11:07, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- I changed that becuase first signature was my real name so I changed it, MOTHO FELA MAKGETHA (talk) 11:12, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
your claims that you're apparently running a WMF-sponsored workshop is also quite alarming given the quality of your output and apparent lack of understanding of basic policy.
- Their user page states
I am a facilitator primary and secondary facilitator at Basesotho projects helping or teaching new editors and recruiting them on how to edit Wikipedia in our home languages
so, charitably, they may be more familiar with the rules/norms of certain non-English Wikipedias which they are erroneously applying here. In any case, if they are involved in an official capacity with some kind of WMF project, the WMF probably needs a heads up about this discussion. Athanelar (talk) 11:10, 3 February 2026 (UTC)- my real name even if its get heads up ,I used my real name and I changed it or I wasn't suppose to change it ? Well if this discussion makes other editors think I dont know English its okay again I feel disrespected but was the last time talking in the discussion as my real name i won't hesitate again when coming to it ,that first signature its my real name and its not up for discussion forgive me if its makes you feel disrespected but its not up for discussion ,Wikipedia if it want my real identity I will only show them ,as for padgriffin I dont like the way we treating articles we must improve them before making any editor feel like she he is not accepted on Wikipedia MOTHO FELA MAKGETHA (talk) 11:19, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- It's not about respect or disrespect, but about the realities of writing an encyclopedia in the English language.
- I couldn't say how much of it is a language barrier, but even before this particular incident, you have reacted in a hostile manner to substantive comments about your editing. Multiple editors have expressed very serious concerns to you about your edits, and you repeatedly reframe those concerns as disrespect or harrassment. Your talk page discussion with Deltaspace42 last month was particularly inappropriate, and could have very easily resulted in a block. You have continually shown a poor understanding of English Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
- Perhaps you don't mean to come off as hostile towards others, but it's the very real impression others get, as I do from reading your edits for the first time. I don't get the impression that you truly understand any of the policies you've been trying to discuss here. You appear to have even misconstrued why people were slightly annoyed that you changed your signature; it had nothing to do with people wanting you to use your real name, but that it can be extremely confusing to people, in a discussion about your conduct, that you're three different people. It's not natural to click on someone's user/talk page links just to check if they're suddenly identifying as a different person than two hours ago. And given your hostility towards this editor, there's a natural suspicion that changing your name multiple times was to give an impression that multiple editors are making complaints, not just you.
- I'm not quite sure what the best outcome is here. I don't think this rises to the level of requiring a community ban at this time, but given how you react when criticized, I'm not sure you'd actually use a timed block to better understand English Wikipedia rules. Perhaps a restriction from writing drafts and/or a restriction from article space would be productive? CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 12:25, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- I took the time to read that thread, it is one thing to be a WP:BATTLEGROUND editor, it is a whole new level to continue such behavior and pretend not being WP:CIR. A pity that their failure to recognize this has led to this pillory called ANI. Borgenland (talk) 14:23, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- I'll never fully understand why people want to edit Wikipedia in languages they don't speak fluently. I could comfortably live in Berlin speaking only German, but I certainly wouldn't want native German speakers reading my attempts to write entire articles in an encyclopedia in German. Whether writer or reader, that's not a good experience for anybody. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:44, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- It's basically the Wikipedia version of the Dunning–Kruger effect. Sugar Tax (talk) 22:14, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
- There's that (the Dunning–Kruger effect) and also English's status as a world language, which leads to people editing Wikipedia in English rather than in their native language. I speak Polish pretty fluently, having spoken it most days for nearly half a century, but wouldn't want to afflict the readers of Polish Wikipedia with my many errors in writing. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:55, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
- more Dunning–Kruger effect in another botched ANI by OP. Borgenland (talk) 13:55, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
- There's that (the Dunning–Kruger effect) and also English's status as a world language, which leads to people editing Wikipedia in English rather than in their native language. I speak Polish pretty fluently, having spoken it most days for nearly half a century, but wouldn't want to afflict the readers of Polish Wikipedia with my many errors in writing. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:55, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
- It's basically the Wikipedia version of the Dunning–Kruger effect. Sugar Tax (talk) 22:14, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
- I took the time to read that thread, it is one thing to be a WP:BATTLEGROUND editor, it is a whole new level to continue such behavior and pretend not being WP:CIR. A pity that their failure to recognize this has led to this pillory called ANI. Borgenland (talk) 14:23, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- Something doesn't add up further, a picture in this OP's AFD'ed articles Lebogang Boemo, contains a similar tarp and information with User:SANKOMOTA's (original OP name) userpage, specifically both being affiliated somehow with the same institutions (SADILAR and North-West University). COI perhaps? Borgenland (talk) 11:26, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- And now User talk:SANKOMOTA#Question about multiple accounts. Borgenland (talk) 12:40, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- Yeah, it definitely seems like there's an (inadvertently revealed) COI here with those articles. WP:AGF would lend credence to the idea that the other accounts are other members of this workshop, as the edit patterns seem to be tangentially different, albeit of the same sloppy quality. Padgriffin Griffin's Nest 12:59, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- And now an attempted coverup . 13:12, 3 February 2026 (UTC) Borgenland (talk) 13:12, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- that was mistake MOTHO FELA MAKGETHA (talk) 13:18, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- How is that a "mistake?" You didn't just accidentally delete the entire section, you actually wrote an edit summary "deleted the page." I'm getting less inclined to assume good faith. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 13:29, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- that was mistake MOTHO FELA MAKGETHA (talk) 13:18, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- And now an attempted coverup . 13:12, 3 February 2026 (UTC) Borgenland (talk) 13:12, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- Yeah, it definitely seems like there's an (inadvertently revealed) COI here with those articles. WP:AGF would lend credence to the idea that the other accounts are other members of this workshop, as the edit patterns seem to be tangentially different, albeit of the same sloppy quality. Padgriffin Griffin's Nest 12:59, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- And now User talk:SANKOMOTA#Question about multiple accounts. Borgenland (talk) 12:40, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- my real name even if its get heads up ,I used my real name and I changed it or I wasn't suppose to change it ? Well if this discussion makes other editors think I dont know English its okay again I feel disrespected but was the last time talking in the discussion as my real name i won't hesitate again when coming to it ,that first signature its my real name and its not up for discussion forgive me if its makes you feel disrespected but its not up for discussion ,Wikipedia if it want my real identity I will only show them ,as for padgriffin I dont like the way we treating articles we must improve them before making any editor feel like she he is not accepted on Wikipedia MOTHO FELA MAKGETHA (talk) 11:19, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- I have partially blocked @SANKOMOTA from article space. DE, CIR. This is to stop the current disruption while discussion continues here. Star Mississippi 13:55, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- In addition, I also believe that the filer is not being honest about using multiple accounts. The editor was asked about making very similar edits as other accounts and, apparently misintepreting it as a concern about editing on the same IP address rather than the same edits, they responded
I only use SANKOMOTA at our museum where the wifi connection is,and we have only 1 wifi connection i dont use those other accounts aren't mine.
- I find it very hard to believe that there are four unique individuals using the same museum IP address to Wikipedia at around the same time, with handles in all capital letters, similar levels of apparent English fluency, and a passion for writing about local traffic accidents and Lebogang Boemo. Assuming these do in fact come from the same IP address, of course. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 13:55, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- I went ahead and filed at SPI in order to keep this discussion from getting too bloated. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:38, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- If anyone’s wondering, it has been confirmed. Borgenland (talk) 02:51, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
- I went ahead and filed at SPI in order to keep this discussion from getting too bloated. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:38, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- The SWiP project mentioned is tracked here: , including which pages have been edited. And here is more: SWiP Project. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:13, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- The SWIP project appears to be aimed at increasing the corpus in underrepresented languages of South Africa. English is not one of those underrepresented languages and I'm puzzled why SWIP participants are editing en.wiki. — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 09:43, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
- It's definitely odd that a project designed to fight English hegemony on South Africa has edited the second-most articles on English Wikipedia. The second most words added is for the SWiP Project itself. I don't see SANKOMOTA among the editors listed, so perhaps I'm doing something wrong? CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:46, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
- It's possible that editors in the project also end up editing enWiki outside of the workshop- I'm not sure how it's tracked. Not sure how SANKOMOTA is tied to them if they're not listed though. Padgriffin (Squawk) 19:01, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
- The list of Facilitators includes User:Kuningi, who... is banned from enWiki for being a vandalism-only account? User:Gogontsi is also listed and has uploaded a picture to Lebogang Boemo, so that does suggest that they are tied to the project. Pinging @Bobbyshabangu: (since you're the only one with the event coordinator role) for comment so we can figure out what's going on. Padgriffin (Squawk) 19:11, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
- You have to look at the filter log to see what User:Kuningi was doing, essentially they were attempting to overwrite the Itsoseng article with Tswana language text, which of course isn’t at all helpful. Probably a big misunderstanding. — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:28, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
- Reminder that blocks are not bans. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:13, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
- The list of Facilitators includes User:Kuningi, who... is banned from enWiki for being a vandalism-only account? User:Gogontsi is also listed and has uploaded a picture to Lebogang Boemo, so that does suggest that they are tied to the project. Pinging @Bobbyshabangu: (since you're the only one with the event coordinator role) for comment so we can figure out what's going on. Padgriffin (Squawk) 19:11, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
- It's possible that editors in the project also end up editing enWiki outside of the workshop- I'm not sure how it's tracked. Not sure how SANKOMOTA is tied to them if they're not listed though. Padgriffin (Squawk) 19:01, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
- It's definitely odd that a project designed to fight English hegemony on South Africa has edited the second-most articles on English Wikipedia. The second most words added is for the SWiP Project itself. I don't see SANKOMOTA among the editors listed, so perhaps I'm doing something wrong? CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:46, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
- The SWIP project appears to be aimed at increasing the corpus in underrepresented languages of South Africa. English is not one of those underrepresented languages and I'm puzzled why SWIP participants are editing en.wiki. — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 09:43, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
- User has created a new thread at WP:ANI#Unblocking of my account. Padgriffin (Squawk) 11:32, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
- What an imaginative way to commit suicide by cop. Borgenland (talk) 13:52, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Unblocking of my account
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I respectfully appeal my block and sincerely apologising for engaging in sock puppetry as I'm was sharing my device with other Wikipedia users I have been teaching to edit. I fully understand that this violated Wikipedia’s policies and undermine the community trust.I take full responsibility for my bad actions and regret them deeply.I have also met and discussed with one of our Wikipedia community language leader and got advised about the danger of allowing people to use my device
I assure you that this will not happen again,if I get another opportunity for editing , i will follow Wikipedia’s policies, edit with transparently,respect and contribute in good faith.
Thank you for considering my appeal, and I humbly ask for forgiveness and another chance to contribute positively
SANKOMOTA (talk) 10:12, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
- For info, this is what I said when declining this user's appeal on UTRS just earlier:
"And lastly, you have only been blocked from editing in the main article space. This allows you to create new article drafts and put them through AfC review, as well as to make edit requests via existing articles' talk pages. I suggest you do that for a while, to demonstrate that you have gained a sufficient understanding of our various policies and guidelines and overcome the problems which led to your block. For now, I am declining your appeal."
- I did also instruct them to appeal on their talk page, but apparently that bit didn't stick. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:20, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
- appreciate your response and efforts thank you SANKOMOTA (talk) 10:22, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
- as for my appeal didn't use the machine,I even encountered the same thing before I was.been blocked was told I dont know English i must stick to my home language its so sad to see that some people are been so undermined like that but it's okay will accept that I dont belong into free encyclopedia and I dont have to learn how to edit Wikipedia ,as we don't improve articles anymore as wikipedians we only need articles that arent need to be improved but articles are been changed on daily basis SANKOMOTA (talk) 12:15, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
- Note that this appears to be a continuation of the discussion above that led to their pblock from article space. They don't appear to have responded (or even acknowledged) the various concerns given in that thread, beyond a bad attempt at deleting the entire thread once it turned against their favor, then resubmitted Draft:Bravo Le Roux to AFC (which was rejected as only minimal changes were done since the drafification), then changed their user page to read
I am a Wikipedia [sic] from Africa who is making sure African stories are told by Africans and not European false narrative
which is pretty blatant WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. They also appear to now be trying the "Little Brother" defense (Little Editor?) for the sockpuppeting, something that was not brought up previously, and have yet to participate in any of the AFDs. Padgriffin (Squawk) 11:29, 5 February 2026 (UTC)- padgriffin its not like am being little brother defense,I was advised by most experienced language leader that some of things indeed violated the policies,some are looking as advertised or promotional content was advised to remove such,as for removing the whole content of discussion was a bad move which I deeply regret and apologies to everything I wronged ,as for socketpuppet I wasnt aware that sharing my device with other users is a bad move but I have released that that made several accounts to be blocked from editing main space
- Submission of the article wasn't like to disrespect other editors or administrative team ,sometimes harsh move padgriffin doesn't solve anything but to be a mentor sometimes helps.Am only pleading for another chance to edit as i cant learn editing when am blocked becuase i wont know what is needed and not needed,please SANKOMOTA (talk) 11:42, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
- See DoubleGrazing's message above and declining your message. ~2026-75700-9 (talk) 14:57, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
- Repeatedly trying to intimidate and cast personal attacks and aspersions on a respected editor who tried to save you from ridicule by removing poorly-written content made by you without remorse and pretending you don’t know why they got deleted in the first place and instead blaming your shortcomings on “lying” Europeans doesn’t bode well for your attempts at WP:ROPE. Borgenland (talk) 15:03, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
- I accepted my fate and I apologize for any inconvenience,hope you will find my forgive sincere as I love to be a Wikipedian and help others to grow Wikipedia ,forgive for my actions and mistakes SANKOMOTA (talk) 15:07, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
- You can be forgiven and get unblocked. To be unblocked, you have to show that you can edit productively. To do that, the best way is to find things on the wiki that need to be fixed or improved, and submit well-written WP:Edit requests. After doing this for a while, the community can judge the quality of your edits. If they're good, that would make an unblock much much easier.
- You'll have to do this because the falsehoods, socking, and WP:GAMING-style edits have eroded the community's trust in you. There aren't many who will take your word that you'll be better; you have to show it. EducatedRedneck (talk) 15:29, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
- I accepted my fate and I apologize for any inconvenience,hope you will find my forgive sincere as I love to be a Wikipedian and help others to grow Wikipedia ,forgive for my actions and mistakes SANKOMOTA (talk) 15:07, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
which is pretty blatant WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS.
I don't agree with that. Wikipedia:Systemic bias exists and we should welcome editors willing improve the situation. Robby.is.on (talk) 11:46, 5 February 2026 (UTC)- Am not saying I should be unblocked but I believe everyone has a mistake ,I never been blocked before and I usually spend my time trying so hard to be an experienced Wikipedian ,its been bad 3 days of my life without Wikipedia SANKOMOTA (talk) 11:50, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
- That's what I was implying robby ,but I won't do anything as my account has been blocked and its okay ,for us to be the greatest Wikipedians we started somewhere,the blockage for me dont think was necessary ,I can state my reasons ,I have been called that I dont know English, that made me feel like unwanted and with a matter of seconds I was blocked ,some editors cried about the changes name diphaphang is my real name and made a terrible mistake to post it ,as for.editing I have been doing minor editing with the help of other English Wikipedians whom they will fix if they occur errors same as I did to others its not like I was starting to edit i have 2186 edits at the moment been promoted to.be extended confirmed user with no blockage for the past 2 years SANKOMOTA (talk) 12:01, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
- Since you're bringing up your edit count as somehow being evidence that you're a good editor, it should be noted that a large percentage of your edits was changing one letter at a time in an apparent attempt to inflate your edit count. For example, on January 21st alone, you made more than 250 one-letter changes, done in an consecutive manner to very slowly remove words/sentences a single letter at a time. The only reason that nothing was said is that since you already had extended-confirmed access, it didn't affect anything important on Wikipedia. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:25, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
- I thought ever edit counts SANKOMOTA (talk) 14:27, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
- Counts for what? The point of Wikipidia is not WP:EDITCOUNT. Were those 250 one-letter changes more helpful for the encyclopedia than one 250-letter change? EducatedRedneck (talk) 14:42, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
- I suspect they were for vanity. SANKOMOTA has inflated their contributions to Wikipedia in other comments and pumping up their edit count for bragging rights seems to be in line with that. Look like 700-800 edits or so, but they weren't really disruptive since there were no editing rights to be gained and they did it in their sandbox so it didn't hurt other editors working on an article. I only brought it up since SANKOMOTO specifically brought up their edit count as a possible mitigating factor in their conduct. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:55, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
- Out of 1830 edits, 835 were to their sandbox alone, 343 were to User:SANKOMOTA/Exploring ideas 2 (Mostly also just 1-character edits), and 361 have been deleted, possibly due to the deletion of User:SANKOMOTA/Exploring the ideas which was speedied for spam. Just counting the surviving pages, a whopping 1196 (65.4%) of edits fall into that category, with the actual number probably being higher due to the deletion of the 3rd page. I can't see how that is remotely constructive. Padgriffin (Squawk) 15:07, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
- padgriffin thought user page is where I can draft until a Wikipedian shown me deltaspace told me I should use sandbox I didn't know that user page isnt for drafting but after I was told that that isnt where I.can save what ever am drafting I deleted them and accepted the teaching course SANKOMOTA (talk) 15:15, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
- The problem isn't you using your userspace to draft. The issue is you using 301 consecutive edits to remove a few citations in said draft. Padgriffin (Squawk) 15:22, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
- padgriffin thought user page is where I can draft until a Wikipedian shown me deltaspace told me I should use sandbox I didn't know that user page isnt for drafting but after I was told that that isnt where I.can save what ever am drafting I deleted them and accepted the teaching course SANKOMOTA (talk) 15:15, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
- Counts for what? The point of Wikipidia is not WP:EDITCOUNT. Were those 250 one-letter changes more helpful for the encyclopedia than one 250-letter change? EducatedRedneck (talk) 14:42, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
- I thought ever edit counts SANKOMOTA (talk) 14:27, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
- Since you're bringing up your edit count as somehow being evidence that you're a good editor, it should be noted that a large percentage of your edits was changing one letter at a time in an apparent attempt to inflate your edit count. For example, on January 21st alone, you made more than 250 one-letter changes, done in an consecutive manner to very slowly remove words/sentences a single letter at a time. The only reason that nothing was said is that since you already had extended-confirmed access, it didn't affect anything important on Wikipedia. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:25, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
- There's systematic bias, and there's outright calling it a "European false narrative", especially in the context of their past comments, though that's just how I've interpreted it given how incoherent their messages have been. Padgriffin (Squawk) 14:52, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
- seems like every thing am writing its wrong ,when am changing it again its wrong let me just leave that as blank with all due respect .I hope that won't make other editor raise why I deleted that becuase now I dont know what must I do seems like an attach on everything while am.trying to resolve the matter politely SANKOMOTA (talk) 14:56, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
- If only the editor was indeed willing to improve the situation by not creating LLM drivel and proving that it was LLM drivel when they try to deny it while bragging about their abysmal comprehension of the English language here and how their WP:NOTHERE antics make them indispensable to this project. Borgenland (talk) 14:56, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
- I feel you are threatening me and abusing your power as an experienced Wikipedian. Instead if focusing on teaching me you are full of criticism. I am here to grow African content, which is lacking and which YOU have been doing nothing about.
- I have changed my talk page as you suggested,but you are still having a problem. I will report you as I feel you are harrasing me. If needs be, I will also stop editing on Wikipedia. It's Wikipedia that needs me and not the other way Around. And maybe editors like you can have fun ... SANKOMOTA (talk) 13:34, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
- @SANKOMOTA, "
It's Wikipedia that needs me and not the other way Around
", please read Wikipedia does not need you. Deltaspace42 (talk • contribs) 13:38, 5 February 2026 (UTC)- Wikipedia doesn't only exist in English thats where most of editors gets wrong ,yes I feel like this is an harassment indeed ,but then I think I should report this to Wikimediaza ,as you people think Wikipedia only exists in your countries only amd notable people people are only in your countries only ,yes Wikipedia za needs me SANKOMOTA (talk) 13:45, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
- You're not blocked from all Wikipedia sites, only the English version. And yes, your English is very poor, you've been extremely hostile in response to legitimate concerns about your editing on English Wikipedia, and you've shown a very poor understanding of English Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
- Your explanation of your sockpuppetry is inconsistent with the facts. Let's assume good faith and accept the extremely unlikely story that three other editors who shared your device all had a random desire to edit in the exact same topics as you, nearly the same time as you, with the same fractured English, all capitals names, and (in at least one of them) same hostile attitude. In this scenario, you clearly knew about it, and when asked about it directly on your talk page, you denied any connection.
- While you seem extremely disgruntled about the widespread concerns about your English fluency, your struggles to speak the language very well is what allows us to have the kindest interpretation of events. If you were actually a master of the English language, that would mean you're choosing to write like this, intentionally communicating very rudely, and refusing to understand our policies. It's almost certainly your poor English that has kept your block limited to just article space.
- Your block is only partial in order to give you the chance to improve that you ask for. You can make constructive WP:EDITREQUESTs in line with Wikipedia guidelines. If you show in your edit requests an improved understanding of how English Wikipedia works and your English is improved, while showing improved conduct and no deceptive editing patterns, you would not have a difficult time having your full editing rights restored at some point.
- The approach you're taking instead can only lead to sanctions that don't leave you with an easy path to demonstrating what value you can bring to English Wikipeda. Is that really what you want? CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:15, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
- Wikipedia doesn't only exist in English thats where most of editors gets wrong ,yes I feel like this is an harassment indeed ,but then I think I should report this to Wikimediaza ,as you people think Wikipedia only exists in your countries only amd notable people people are only in your countries only ,yes Wikipedia za needs me SANKOMOTA (talk) 13:45, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
- @SANKOMOTA, "
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Matúš Šutaj Eštok
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The page for Matúš Šutaj Eštok is currently experiencing a massive wave of coordinated vandalism. A popular Slovak satire website has encouraged its audience to target the entry, leading to a flood of bad-faith edits. Most of the disruption consists of satirical nicknames and false biographical information being added by anonymous IP addresses and new accounts. I am requesting that administrators increase the protection level. Dasomm (talk) 11:50, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
- Have you tried Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, it might be quicker? Blue Sonnet (talk) 12:10, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
- Ah thanks, but there are no more edits, it looks like, its not necessary anymore. Dasomm (talk) 13:22, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
- @Dasomm. I looked at this earlier and passed over it as, like you say, it didn’t seem necessary but there’s been a few more bad faith edits so I’ve protected the page for a few days. — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:57, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
- Ah thanks, but there are no more edits, it looks like, its not necessary anymore. Dasomm (talk) 13:22, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Harassment & personal attacks by Margarita byca
Margarita byca (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User:Margarita byca reverts all my edits simply because I was blocked before . After warning her of Wikipedia:Harassment#Hounding at her talk page , she is still reverting my eidts . I provided my explanations for my contructive edits, but she is now attacking me more saying I'm "politically motivated". Please help. H2v5o68z (talk) 01:27, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
- User H2v5o68z keeps removing photos from Shenyang article for some bogus reasons, ie "Too many photoes". This user has been spotted before by vandalizing other articles, like Beijing, University of International Relations and others. They have been banned before at least TWO times, and they keep changing username to avoid detection. Thank you. Margarita byca (talk) 01:59, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
- My recent edits on Shenyang was to improve article quality by replacing unneutral and inappropriate photoes with better suitable photoes . User:Margarita byca is confusing this with "adding more photoes". In addition, Beijing, University of International Relations are longtime ago, even not related here. H2v5o68z (talk) 03:21, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
- I concur that the OP who reported Margarita should probably be looked at. Their previous name was EditQ and from my brief interactions with them they have made questionable edits in the past and have also had run ins with other editors like @Esiymbro: who I know are of good repute. Qiushufang (talk) 02:58, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
- Where did you interacted with me? User name change is totally legal in Wiki. It was done by admin. I'm not hiding anything. The old user name redirect to the current name. H2v5o68z (talk) 03:21, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
- And before March 2025, their username was E2568.
- This user is constantly changing their username and blanking talk page to avoid detection.
- I think that none of their edits can be trusted. Margarita byca (talk) 15:22, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
- That's it. All User:Margarita byca wants to do is to trace me and revert my constructive edits. That is harrassment and personal attack. My user name change was done via admin. It was not changed for any reasons related to you, and it is totall fine with Wiki rules. User talk page is a private space. I can delete anything you left there that I feel inppropriate or harassing. I think it is necessary for admins to take actions on User:Margarita byca to prevent her from harrassing me. H2v5o68z (talk) 00:18, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- In my opinon, you are violating WP:PGF pHLOGISTON eNTHUSIAST (tALK pAGE) 19:34, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
- Margarita is violating it, I mean to say. pHLOGISTON eNTHUSIAST (tALK pAGE) 19:42, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
- @Margarita byca And you are failing to assume good faith, and violating WP:3RR in your edits. Reversion of vandalism not counting against 3rr is reserved for clear cut cases of vandalism. What you have been reverting is closer to a content dispute than it is vandalism. Further still, calling those edits vandalism can be counted as a personal attack, as well as the fact that you are casting apsersions by calling the edits politically motivated. I highly recommend you seek dispute resolution, rather than continuing to do what you are right now. That a user has been blocked before does not justify your edits/reversions. — Dædαlus+ Contribs 23:05, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
- Where did you interacted with me? User name change is totally legal in Wiki. It was done by admin. I'm not hiding anything. The old user name redirect to the current name. H2v5o68z (talk) 03:21, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
- How could replacing File:Jiǔ-yībā Lìshǐ Bówùguǎn九・一八歴史博物館106997.jpg with File:辽宁省博物馆06418.jpg, replacing File:Xinle culture 348.JPG with File:Shenyang Olympic Sports Center Stadium drone view 1.jpg be vandalism? User:Margarita byca has never provided any reasons why these are vandalism. All she said was "YOU HAVE BEEN BLOCKED TWICE IN THE BAST FOR VANDALISM. YOU EDITS ARE NOT TRUSTED". It is purely personal attack. H2v5o68z (talk) 03:27, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
- Both editors have been warned for edit-warring on Shenyang. If they resume the edit-war, there will be blocks. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:01, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
- Margarita byca is still attacking me saying I've been vandalising , despite admin's warning H2v5o68z (talk) 00:41, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- They've been given a very sternly worded final warning. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:17, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- Margarita byca is still attacking me saying I've been vandalising , despite admin's warning H2v5o68z (talk) 00:41, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
Elisha the FRICKIN Gamer a fake page
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The title Elisha the FRICKIN Gamer described as a non-existent program which has been the subject of a hoax campaign since June of last year one or more individuals has been creating pages for it on various sites primarily wikis by pasting the same block of ungermatical texts into each one furthermore the page falsely credits and actor named Mark krysko as a voice performer for this bogus work. It takes no more than a few minutes of research on the web too determine that no mention of Elisha the FRICKIN Gamer three days June and most days from mid July to late August 2025 — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-81355-7 (talk) 03:33, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- @~2026-81355-7: The pages Elisha the FRICKIN Gamer and Draft:Elisha the FRICKIN Gamer never existed; are you sure you have the correct title? Do you have any recent examples (with links) on the English Wikipedia? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:40, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- Well, here's something funny; the creator of the hoax on simple Wiki, ~2026-81641-7, appears to be related to the poster of this ANI, ~2026-81355-7. They share an IP. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 06:06, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- Indeffed the TA and blocked the IP x 3 months. -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:17, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Insult by Acoolusername2025 @ Talk:Elliot Rodger
Acoolusername2025 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Please see Special:Diff/1336287348 where Acoolusername2025 just directed me to Sybau (shut my bitch ass up). TarnishedPathtalk 23:37, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) I'll note for the record that I removed the personal attack. Chess enjoyer (talk) 23:45, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
- Also, given the indentation and quote, I'm pretty sure that was directed towards @~2026-46232-4, not TarnishedPath. Not that that makes the comment acceptable. Chess enjoyer (talk) 23:51, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
- I've left a warning on their talk page. While bad, in isolation it's not enough to apply a block. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:03, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- I agree. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 20:47, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- You must, of course, exercise your administrative prerogative as you feel appropriate, but I'm not sure if I can agree with the underlying assessment. That phrase not only includes an unambiguous and somewhat serious PA, but the message as a whole is hostile, volatile, and more than a little threatening in tone. It is completely counter to project standards and objectives and I have a hard time seeing how we can expect that user of being likely to just reform into a collegial participant in the project from here. All of which is to say that I don't think a block is certainly mandated, but had someone applied one, I personally would not have blinked an eye. There is no place for intimidation in our community or processes. SnowRise let's rap 21:44, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
- I will note as well that @Shoot for the Stars is displaying some concerning behaviour in that same discussion, taking up an attitude of ownership and disregarding WP:ONUS in their oddly single-minded insistence on including a dubiously encyclopedic image of Rodger's corpse. Quotations like
the [...] images WILL NOT be removed.
andRodger went into his attack fully knowing he was going to murder other people. I find it highly perplexing that people are getting offended for a scumbag who murdered innocent people because his body is on Wikipedia.
are concerning, andDo not remove the photo until we reach a consensus here.
shows a completely inverted understanding of ONUS. Athanelar (talk) 11:29, 3 February 2026 (UTC)- p.s., I would imagine the sense of ownership here is coming from the fact their entire edit history of late has been dedicated to improving the article about Rodger and trying to get it upgraded to GA Athanelar (talk) 11:40, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- AFAIK that image has been there for some time. ONUS applies to those proposing changes, not those arguing for the stable version. TarnishedPathtalk 11:50, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- The image was added by SFTS themselves, who obtained it via an FOIA request to the police department, as they stated in the talk page. In this case that means they are the one proposing the change, not simply advocating for a pre-existing status quo. Athanelar (talk) 11:56, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- And by "some time" you mean "a month" it seems, as I checked some revisions around 31st Dec/1st Jan and the image was not present. Athanelar (talk) 12:02, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- A month is more than enough to constitute being stable. TarnishedPathtalk 12:03, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- I would appreciate if you could point to the policy or guideline which supports the idea that content becomes grandfathered in and ONUS no longer applies simply because nobody challenged it in the first month.
- At least four separate editors are contending this image's inclusion, and so far no argument for inclusion has been presented stronger than "It should be kept because it's already there." Athanelar (talk) 12:08, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- In my discussions with other editors it has always been clear to me that ONUS operates on those arguing for change. If it didn't I could strip any article to nothing and then put the perverse argument that anyone who wanted to improve it by reversion must obtain consensus per ONUS. That's not the way the community operates in practice.
- Ps, I found the edit where the image was placed into the article. It's at Special:Diff/1331229514 which was 5 January. That makes the version with the image stable. TarnishedPathtalk 12:13, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- It's a strawman to act like this is equivalent to some isolated and absurd act of vandalism. At least four editors are contending the content, with specific arguments as to why the image isn't encyclopedically valuable enough to justify its inclusion. The counter-arguments have thus far been little more than handwaving at NOTCENSORED and PERTINENT without any actual arguments as to why the image is pertinent. To continue to argue that ONUS doesn't apply has no grounds in my eyes. If nothing else, the editors aeguing for inclusion are simply outnumbered by those arguing against. If you have an actual argument for why the image should be included, then present it: because if your position has now devolved to "it should be there because it's already there" then that speaks volumes. I don't see why you are so adamant to argue that ONUS doesn't apply. Athanelar (talk) 12:18, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- A month is more than enough to constitute being stable. TarnishedPathtalk 12:03, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- Who obtained it is of no relevance. Whether the image constitutes part of the stable version is of relevance. That is the only consideration when it comes to ONUS. TarnishedPathtalk 12:03, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- WP:ONUS states in its entirety
The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.
It makes no mention of stability at all, so who obtained (and is trying to include) the content in fact seems like the only relevant thing. The content is disputed ergo the responsibility for seeking consensus is on the person(s) wanting to include it. Seems fairly clear cut to me. Athanelar (talk) 12:10, 3 February 2026 (UTC)- See above. TarnishedPathtalk 12:13, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- WP:ONUS, however it is interpreted, only applies while a topic is under discussion. Just conclude the discussion (if it hasn't happened already) and then there is no need to worry about it. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:15, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- Yeah, I'm afraid I have to agree with Athanelar here: your interpretation of how WP:ONUS works is out of step with the clear text and typical application of the PAG. I think the content/dispute resolution guideline you might be thinking of is WP:BRD, which does somewhat interface with the idea of longterm, stable versions having some (vaguely defined) priority. Even then, the idea has always been so nebulous (somewhat by design) that there is no firm definition of what constitutes the longterm version; it's more of a guiding principle meant grease the skids to put a stop to a shortterm conflict until a consensus discussion can take place (which all parties should work towards withing established DR processes, once a dispute arises). I would say personally, in my experience, I do not think most veteran editors would consider a month enough time to consider a change to constitute a "longterm, stable version of the article/content". But again, the idea was never to create firm metrics. In the end, the solution here is exactly as Phil identifies: pursue a discussion and resolve the situation that way as quickly as is feasible (which sometimes is not quick at all, but then you're not exactly fresh off the boat and don't need me to tell you that). All of that said, you (or whoever the comment was directed at) should never have to deal with comments like the one that you brought here, and if this behaviour continues, I hope you will report again and get a stronger community response. I think that comment suggests an attitude of attempted intimidation, and that sort of thing should not be countenanced here. SnowRise let's rap 21:44, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
- This discussion is resolved now in any case. A few other experienced editors chimed in arguing for non-inclusion. TarnishedPathtalk 23:52, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
- See above. TarnishedPathtalk 12:13, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- WP:ONUS states in its entirety
- And by "some time" you mean "a month" it seems, as I checked some revisions around 31st Dec/1st Jan and the image was not present. Athanelar (talk) 12:02, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- The image was added by SFTS themselves, who obtained it via an FOIA request to the police department, as they stated in the talk page. In this case that means they are the one proposing the change, not simply advocating for a pre-existing status quo. Athanelar (talk) 11:56, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- This doesn't really belong on ANI. MrDenjiLover 🪚 (talk / edits) (Non-binary) 07:14, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- You've ensured it will be for another few days by commenting. It would have been auto-archived tomorrow. Cheers. TarnishedPathtalk 08:49, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
Repeated copyright violations by Pcartoon678
Pcartoon678 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I came across Pcartoon678's expansion of David Desrosiers at New Page Review and removed a copyright violation. (I also had to remove some unsourced negative material about a living person.) In leaving a talk page warning on copyright, I noticed that this user has been warned repeatedly over the previous six months for copyright violations (diff, diff, diff). A closer look at their recent edits revealed WP:CLOP as well. They have never responded to any of these warnings, and they only responded once to one of the many warnings about non-free file uploads on the page. Since the copyright violations are an ongoing issue, I suggest a block from articlespace until understanding of copyright improves. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:24, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
Disruptive behavior, WP:OWN, and Vandalism-mongering by User:AmigoKike2026
I am reporting User:AmigoKike2026 for a pattern of disruptive behavior and "ownership" of the article Opinion polling for the 2026 Peruvian general election. The user has committed the following policy infractions: Transcedent (talk) 01:16, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- And no infractions listed. @Transcedent just to remind you. Also, you didn't notify them. I've done it for you. ThatTrainGuy1945 (talk) 01:57, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- Noting that Transcedent has a number of warnings regarding Peruvian election articles, along with a previous 72h block from @ToBeFree:. Also outside some templating and a couple of unhelpful messages to AmigoKike2026 on their talk page (just changing a count of reverts?), this is their one and only engagement on the actual article's talk page, the equivalent of 'go away', which isn't a proper use at all. Transcedent, you are required to use the talk page to gain consensus for your changes. It's not voluntary, and "deleted data" and "thanks for your attention" are completely useless to anyone trying to discuss any page changes. Nathannah • 📮 02:19, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- Reverted the edit as the table is completly thrown off by your edits. Please discuss edits AND preview any future edits made to tables on a page. Nathannah • 📮 02:29, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- The IDICE Poll appeared correctly on the phone screen; however, after using the "Desktop" function, the photo of candidate Fernando Olivera was displayed excessively large, distorting the entire table. If the image is removed, the table will likely load properly. Transcedent (talk) 04:41, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- (thanks for the ping. I have no opinion on this.) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 06:40, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- Reverted the edit as the table is completly thrown off by your edits. Please discuss edits AND preview any future edits made to tables on a page. Nathannah • 📮 02:29, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- Noting that Transcedent has a number of warnings regarding Peruvian election articles, along with a previous 72h block from @ToBeFree:. Also outside some templating and a couple of unhelpful messages to AmigoKike2026 on their talk page (just changing a count of reverts?), this is their one and only engagement on the actual article's talk page, the equivalent of 'go away', which isn't a proper use at all. Transcedent, you are required to use the talk page to gain consensus for your changes. It's not voluntary, and "deleted data" and "thanks for your attention" are completely useless to anyone trying to discuss any page changes. Nathannah • 📮 02:19, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- Perhaps this is a Spanish-language thing, but the username of the reported user is a bit shocking to me. Buddy Gripple (talk) 13:43, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- It's short for Enrique likely and a common shortening of that name, so it's completely benign. Nathannah • 📮 13:50, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- See wikt:Kike and Kike (given name). Two syllables, not one as in the English-language slur. Narky Blert (talk) 14:50, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- In English language contexts it will sometimes be changed to Quique, but awareness of the benefits of doing this is not broad. signed, Rosguill talk 15:58, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- Also Kiki. In UK, i don;t think I've ever heard the slur, or seen it used outside historical literary contexts. Narky Blert (talk) 18:07, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- It's short for Enrique likely and a common shortening of that name, so it's completely benign. Nathannah • 📮 13:50, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- Excuse me but you unfortunately keep editing the page and insisting on putting an entire candidate gallery, which is not viable in . Check the other opinion polling pages from past elections, none use all the candidates. Specially when this Peruvian election has 36 candidates. Come on. You have already been blocked for insisting on your edits that only disrupt the page. Thank you. AmigoKike2026 (talk) 18:59, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
Personal attacks by TheSecondBrother2
I am reporting TheSecondBrother2 for making persistent personal attacks and casting aspersions based on nationality, which violates WP:NPA. Instead of engaging constructively when I raised concerns regarding his account standing, this user immediately resorted to ad hominem attacks, characterizing me and another editor @Demetrios1993: as "Greek and serbian nationalists"
conspiring to "block Albanians."
He explicitly accused me of "clearly trying to push [my] serbian nationalisms"
and made baseless accusations that "all the serbians and greeks here are very well connected with their canvassing."
" This kind of rhetoric, which frames editorial disagreements as a national conflict and accuses editors of off-wiki conspiracy without a shred of evidence, is a clear violation of WP:NPA and WP:BATTLE. Such hostile, battleground mentality is disruptive and prevents collaborative editing, and I request administrative intervention to address these personal attacks. FranéRogoz (talk) 18:36, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- Yeah, this just sounds like they're being racist at you. pHLOGISTON eNTHUSIAST (tALK pAGE) 18:57, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- The above user literally returned to my page after I commented on his Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Insurgency in Karadak–Gollak (1941–1951) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Prapashticë as well as other countless nationalistic biased edits which do not aspire to a constructive wikipedia. This user also attacked me here in bad-faith . That is why I replied. Maybe it was harsh, but I didn't meant to be uncivil, in which any case I apologise. He has also been spamming the same comment about me on the current sockpuppetry investigations about me. TheSecondBrother2 (talk) 19:01, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- I don't think that excuses insulting an entire race of people. pHLOGISTON eNTHUSIAST (tALK pAGE) 19:03, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- Explaim to me again where did I insult an entire race of people, please? I insulted only the nationalists! TheSecondBrother2 (talk) 19:06, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
all the serbians and greeks here are very well connected with their canvassing.
[178] pHLOGISTON eNTHUSIAST (tALK pAGE) 19:07, 6 February 2026 (UTC)- Yeah, I meant the nationalists here in wikipedia! I apologize if that came off wrongly. Of course not every greek or serb is a nationalist (be it in Wikipedia or not). TheSecondBrother2 (talk) 19:10, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- This still isn't acceptable behavior. It both accuses FranéRogoz of being a nationalist, and insults an entire group of people based on ethnicity and beliefs. This is almost certainly a WP:PA. pHLOGISTON eNTHUSIAST (tALK pAGE) 19:16, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- Well, if someone is aggressively obsessing over me (and spamming about me for me to get at any cost blocked regarding my edits here), of course I will start being suspicious and lose good-faith. I already apologized! Did they apologize to me too? Why aren't you saying anything about their behavior as well? Excuse me, but you are not coming off as unbiased! TheSecondBrother2 (talk) 19:20, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- Firstly, I am being entirely unbiased to the best of my ability. I know neither you nor Rogoz. Also, even if someone is, in your opinion, insulting you, this does not give you the right to personal attacks. Thirdly, you should present diffs if you believe this to be a WP:Boom. Fourthly, Your aggressive wording and liberal use of exclamation marks does not help you here, and I would recommend against it. pHLOGISTON eNTHUSIAST (tALK pAGE) 19:25, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- I am sorry, but what am I reading? I am being aggressive? Why? Because I used the word "please" with you? You are not convincing about being unbiased. And I already apologized.
- They said to me:
- "And honestly, given the repetitive nature of this disruption and your specific style of pushing these debunked revisionist narratives, I have to ask, which number account is this for you, considering how many times you’ve likely been blocked for this exact same behavior?"
- How is this not an attack? It literally breaks assuming good-faith. I am sorry, but I won't be replying anymore to you. Take care. TheSecondBrother2 (talk) 19:31, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- Okay. Firstly, WP:NOTHERE. Second, This is not an attack because you have an open sock-puppet investigation. Third, if you read the SPI, they present reason to believe you are not on your first or second block. Fourth, as I explained already, the way you come off as aggressive is formed by your use of rude-sounding language, your excessive use of exclamation marks, and your offensive stance in every single comment I can see you having posted. Fifth, accusing someone of being biased is a violation of WP:AGF, and is entirely baseless. Pinging @FranéRogoz for comment. pHLOGISTON eNTHUSIAST (tALK pAGE) 19:36, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- The comment was done, before he saw the sockpuppetry. He believes I am another user different from all the sock masters I am accused off. So yes, indeed it is an attack. I will kindly suggest you to analyze the case wholy and not be so quick to judge.
- Fourth, as I explained already, the way you come off as aggressive is formed by your use of rude-sounding language, your excessive use of exclamation marks, and your offensive stance in every single comment I can see you having posted
- I literally apologized. I am sorry, but I don't think social interactions are your forte.
- Fifth, accusing someone of being biased is a violation of WP:AGF, and is entirely baseless.
- I accused him for that after he attacked and spammed about me. I should not have to explain this everytime. TheSecondBrother2 (talk) 19:42, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- I don't know anyone here, but I second the impression that you are coming off as aggressive. It may not be your intent, but that's the vibe your messages give off. I recommend you ask here that no action be taken for a day or two so you can take a wikibreak. Don't edit during that time, and when you come back try to address this filing again, as dispassionately as you can. People will be more receptive to what you have to say if you can say it in the way they want (i.e., only the facts, no emotions). EducatedRedneck (talk) 19:56, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks for your advice. Can you please explain how is apologizing for my mistake aggressive? I think I am missing a cultural barrier here. I can assure you that I am not emotional at all. I think now that I am being too direct. TheSecondBrother2 (talk) 20:01, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- The fact of apologizing was not. However, phrases such as
I am sorry, but what am I reading?
come off as confrontational and escalatory.Excuse me, but you are not coming off as unbiased!
reads as disparaging another editor's motives. Referring to another editor asspamming about me for me to get at any cost blocked
is, at best, a failure of WP:AGF, and at worst an WP:ASPERSION. These are just the first examples I found. I hope this helps you make sense of why people are referring to your behavior as aggressive. EducatedRedneck (talk) 20:21, 6 February 2026 (UTC)- Thanks. I was just genuinely dumbstruck when I read that I was being aggressive, hence my question. I will take a break first and hope I won't get blocked! TheSecondBrother2 (talk) 20:41, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- The fact of apologizing was not. However, phrases such as
- Thanks for your advice. Can you please explain how is apologizing for my mistake aggressive? I think I am missing a cultural barrier here. I can assure you that I am not emotional at all. I think now that I am being too direct. TheSecondBrother2 (talk) 20:01, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- I don't know anyone here, but I second the impression that you are coming off as aggressive. It may not be your intent, but that's the vibe your messages give off. I recommend you ask here that no action be taken for a day or two so you can take a wikibreak. Don't edit during that time, and when you come back try to address this filing again, as dispassionately as you can. People will be more receptive to what you have to say if you can say it in the way they want (i.e., only the facts, no emotions). EducatedRedneck (talk) 19:56, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks for the ping. Just to clarify the timeline and evidence: on 4 february, in this diff , TheSecondBrother2 directly names me "FranéRogoz" while complaining about articles I've edited Koplik War, Luma Operations (1912), the exact same topics that multiple indefinitely blocked socks repeatedly targeted with edit wars and disruption. In that same message, they openly admit:
""Btw this account is new because my password somehow doesn't work anymore on the old one."
- My later comments identifying the pattern were entirely based on that self admission and clear behavioral matches. Pointing this out with diffs is fully policy compliant WP:SOCK and WP:SPIit's not a personal attack, just evidence-based reporting.
- By contrast, the repeated accusations of
""serbian/greek nationalists"
and""very well connected with canvassing"
come with no diffs, no evidence at all just assumptions about editors' real life nationalities. That's the clear WP:NPA violation, and it persists even after partial apologies. FranéRogoz (talk) 20:00, 6 February 2026 (UTC)- Losing an account after one day is not an evidence for sockpuppetry.
- Even if you suspected that, you should have reported me first, have it confirmed, instead of immediately attacking me.
- The evidence for my accusations against you, were your repeated spams in the sockpuppetry investigations and your accusatory tone in the article's page, which I already linked. You were simply being rude/agrressive and not constructive. TheSecondBrother2 (talk) 20:07, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- The simple fact is that any experienced editor would raise an eyebrow at a brand new account that openly says
"this account is new because my password somehow doesn't work anymore on the "old" one"
while immediately naming me and diving straight into the exact same obscure, highly controversial articles that multiple indefinitely blocked sockpuppets have obsessively targeted for weeks. Spotting that pattern and posting the same diff-supported evidence on the relevant open SPI pages is not "spamming," not "attacking," and certainly not rude, it is exactly what WP:SOCK and WP:SPI expect and encourage editors to do. It is my right and responsibility as an editor to point out clear behavioural evidence of block evasion. - What is not normal, and not allowed, is responding to legitimate sockpuppetry concerns by repeatedly labelling other editors
"greek and serbian nationalists"
who are"very well connected with their canvassing"
and conspiring to"block Albanians,"
with zero evidence or diffs provided, just assumptions about real-life ethnicity. Those are classic personal attacks and ethnic stereotyping that violate WP:NPA, and they make me the target of unfounded hostility simply for doing ordinary editorial oversight. I’m the one being subjected to baseless nationality-based accusations here, not the other way around. Administrative action is needed to address these persistent personal attacks. FranéRogoz (talk) 20:24, 6 February 2026 (UTC)- You are free to be suspicious how much you want. Report it first, have it confirmed then make the derogatory/accusatory comments about me. Even if I was a sockpuppet, that doesn't justify your wrongdoing.
- I repeat, the evidence lies in your attempts to get me blocked at any cost. You could have opened your won investigation instead of spamming everywhere about me. I am not replying anymore to this. The admins can decide. TheSecondBrother2 (talk) 20:34, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- I haven't attacked you, insulted you, or written anything derogatory or accusatory, calling that "wrongdoing" or "spamming" is just not true. All I did was point out a very legitimate concern that any regular editor would notice: a brand-new account openly saying "this is a new account because my password somehow doesn't work anymore on the old one", while naming me directly and jumping into the exact same controversial articles that multiple blocked sockpuppets have targeted before. I backed it up with the diff every time and posted it on the relevant open SPI pages, that's exactly what WP:SOCK and WP:SPI encourage us to do.
- Instead of calmly explaining or denying any connection, you immediately labelled me and @Demetrios1993 as "greek and serbian nationalists" who are "very well connected with their canvassing" and conspiring to "block Albanians", with no evidence at all, just assumptions about our real-life nationalities. That's a serious personal attack and clear violation of WP:NPA. If someone raises a good-faith sockpuppetry concern with actual evidence, the normal response is to address it politely and deny the accusations of puppeteering in a completely civilized manner, not lash out with nationality based accusations against other editors. Admins, I think the difference here is pretty clear. FranéRogoz (talk) 21:14, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- If you have a legitimate concern, you post it in the right place, namely the sockpuppets boards, you don't need to spam it everywhere, even on article talk pages! At least I am admitting my wrongdoings here and apologized. YOu on the other hand are not being reflective of your actions at all. Take care! TheSecondBrother2 (talk) 21:16, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- You keep saying I "spammed", but sharing the same clear evidence (your own words about the new account and password) on a few relevant pages is completely legitimate, any editor would do it when something raises red flags. As for your apology, right after, you wrote "I insulted only the nationalists!" and "I meant the nationalists here in Wikipedia!", that's not a full apology, you're still insulting and calling people nationalists.. You're labelling me and @Demetrios1993as nationalists based purely on assumed ethnicity, with zero evidence or reason. That's outright nationality-based attacks with no basis whatsoever, and a serious violation of WP:NPA. I'd ask admins to look these ethnic accusations against me and @Demetrios1993 and handle them accordingly. FranéRogoz (talk) 21:35, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- There is no point in me talking further about this. Again take care. TheSecondBrother2 (talk) 21:38, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- You keep saying I "spammed", but sharing the same clear evidence (your own words about the new account and password) on a few relevant pages is completely legitimate, any editor would do it when something raises red flags. As for your apology, right after, you wrote "I insulted only the nationalists!" and "I meant the nationalists here in Wikipedia!", that's not a full apology, you're still insulting and calling people nationalists.. You're labelling me and @Demetrios1993as nationalists based purely on assumed ethnicity, with zero evidence or reason. That's outright nationality-based attacks with no basis whatsoever, and a serious violation of WP:NPA. I'd ask admins to look these ethnic accusations against me and @Demetrios1993 and handle them accordingly. FranéRogoz (talk) 21:35, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- If you have a legitimate concern, you post it in the right place, namely the sockpuppets boards, you don't need to spam it everywhere, even on article talk pages! At least I am admitting my wrongdoings here and apologized. YOu on the other hand are not being reflective of your actions at all. Take care! TheSecondBrother2 (talk) 21:16, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- The simple fact is that any experienced editor would raise an eyebrow at a brand new account that openly says
- Okay. Firstly, WP:NOTHERE. Second, This is not an attack because you have an open sock-puppet investigation. Third, if you read the SPI, they present reason to believe you are not on your first or second block. Fourth, as I explained already, the way you come off as aggressive is formed by your use of rude-sounding language, your excessive use of exclamation marks, and your offensive stance in every single comment I can see you having posted. Fifth, accusing someone of being biased is a violation of WP:AGF, and is entirely baseless. Pinging @FranéRogoz for comment. pHLOGISTON eNTHUSIAST (tALK pAGE) 19:36, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- Also. the singular diff you presented is not a personal attack. pHLOGISTON eNTHUSIAST (tALK pAGE) 19:27, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- Firstly, I am being entirely unbiased to the best of my ability. I know neither you nor Rogoz. Also, even if someone is, in your opinion, insulting you, this does not give you the right to personal attacks. Thirdly, you should present diffs if you believe this to be a WP:Boom. Fourthly, Your aggressive wording and liberal use of exclamation marks does not help you here, and I would recommend against it. pHLOGISTON eNTHUSIAST (tALK pAGE) 19:25, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- Well, if someone is aggressively obsessing over me (and spamming about me for me to get at any cost blocked regarding my edits here), of course I will start being suspicious and lose good-faith. I already apologized! Did they apologize to me too? Why aren't you saying anything about their behavior as well? Excuse me, but you are not coming off as unbiased! TheSecondBrother2 (talk) 19:20, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- If you think it's appropriate to be freely speculating about, commenting on, or referring to the nationalities of other editors without very compelling reasons, you're not going to have an enjoyable time here. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 19:36, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- Also, using them as insults is not helping. pHLOGISTON eNTHUSIAST (tALK pAGE) 19:38, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- I did not speculate about that without compelling reasons, I was based on their actions. I am still new here and learning. TheSecondBrother2 (talk) 19:45, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- This still isn't acceptable behavior. It both accuses FranéRogoz of being a nationalist, and insults an entire group of people based on ethnicity and beliefs. This is almost certainly a WP:PA. pHLOGISTON eNTHUSIAST (tALK pAGE) 19:16, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- Yeah, I meant the nationalists here in wikipedia! I apologize if that came off wrongly. Of course not every greek or serb is a nationalist (be it in Wikipedia or not). TheSecondBrother2 (talk) 19:10, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- Explaim to me again where did I insult an entire race of people, please? I insulted only the nationalists! TheSecondBrother2 (talk) 19:06, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- I don't think that excuses insulting an entire race of people. pHLOGISTON eNTHUSIAST (tALK pAGE) 19:03, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- TheSecondBrother2, it is very simple. You should not make any personal comments about other editors, e.g. about perceived ethnicity or perceived nationalism. If you see a disruptive editor you should report them. The report should include only evidence in the form of diffs (WP:DIFF) and objective explanation of the evidence. Whether an editor is doing nationalist editing or not is up to admins and the wider community to decide, not up to you.
- I suggest that both you and FranéRogoz focus on uncontroversial articles until you gradually gain enough experience to better handle such disputes. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:28, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- Thank you very much! I think having a billion sockpuppet investigations about me in one single day kinda made me paranoid. I think I will follow your advice and read the wikipedia policies again! TheSecondBrother2 (talk) 20:38, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
Revoke TPA
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Please revoke the talk page access of Muhskk, as they are a sock of Alakmarsaify, who is WP:3X banned. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 15:24, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- Done. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:07, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Incessant recreation of a salted draft
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Kindnessloveandcompassion (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Draft:Nishi Chawla (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
The linked draft is salted. Not one to be dissuaded, the linked editor currently has 3 drafts about the same person ongoing.
User:Kindnessloveandcompassion/sandbox
Draft:Nishi Chalwa (sic)
Draft:Nishi Chawla (writer)
Nishi Chawla has also previously been deleted under G11 in 2017
Given that endless declines, rejections and deletions have failed to dissuade this editor, I think at least a pblock from page creation is in order, if not an indef given that they are an SPA on this topic. Athanelar (talk) 13:38, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- Also relevant is User:Thesolicitors a blocked sockmaster who is one of those who created one of the previous Nishi Chawla draft iterations. Athanelar (talk) 13:40, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- There's also Draft:Nishi Chawla-Writer and Draft:Nishi Chawla - Writer. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:00, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- DE is DE regardless of underlying reasons, indeffed. Star Mississippi 16:59, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- ETA: MFD filed in lieu of SPI paperwork due to master's age, but no objection if someone wants to go that route and we get a G5 Star Mississippi 17:09, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- Based on a comparison to non-stale suspected socks and CU log data on the master, Kindnessloveandcompassion is technically unrelated. I assume they're just chasing the same UPE payout as the other group. Note, however, that they are socking as Writernc1958, Kindnessloveandcompassion and Kindnessloveandcompassionmercy are all
Confirmed to each other.-- Ponyobons mots 17:27, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- Based on a comparison to non-stale suspected socks and CU log data on the master, Kindnessloveandcompassion is technically unrelated. I assume they're just chasing the same UPE payout as the other group. Note, however, that they are socking as Writernc1958, Kindnessloveandcompassion and Kindnessloveandcompassionmercy are all
- ETA: MFD filed in lieu of SPI paperwork due to master's age, but no objection if someone wants to go that route and we get a G5 Star Mississippi 17:09, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:Stolze324 – 100% vandalism @BLP
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Stolze324 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This brand new user (08:39, 5 February 2026) has 100% vandalism edits, chiefly attacking Derrick Evans (politician). Diffs consist of any of their edits there, e.g. 1336938631 with edit summary: "Spelling":
| − | In January 2017, he was hired to be | + | In January 2017, he was hired to be the head jock strap cleaner for the [[Virginia Tech Hokies football]] team. |
- Handled. Next time, a report of a simple vandal like this could go to WP:AIV. It'd get faster attention there, typically. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 02:59, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Movie cast list needs monitoring
For a while now, a poster with the handle Tunaboy45 has been posting incorrect information on the page for the movie Deliver Us From Eva. Adding Mel Gibson to the cast list saying he’s in it, based on an incorrect citation on Mubi’s cast list page. They have since removed that, but Tunaboy45 continues to add it. Can someone lock the page or ban that user as they’ve been warned before about making incorrect edits? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2025-42304-63 (talk) 01:10, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
User Afoyoas
Afoyoas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This user has frequently (10 to 20 times?) added spam advertising links into articles. Mostly external links to travel agencies, mostly in Africa? Some examples of edits where they added advertising external links:
Some (all?) of the links point to a travel agency for tours of Africa. I'm not sure if ANI is the place to post this. But it would be nice if an admin could warn or block the user from doing this in the future. Noleander (talk) 02:07, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
User:M.Bitton conduct
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The conduct of M.Bitton on Talk:Imane Khelif is becoming disruptive and not conducive to building a reliably-sourced encyclopedia.
Additionally, this user is removing any criticism of their conduct from their user talk page, with rude messages in the edit description, see for example https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AM.Bitton&diff=1336849244&oldid=1336849097. ~2026-82094-7 (talk) 10:03, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- Shouldn't you log into your regular account to make this report? It's hard to take someone serious if they log out as to avoid scrutiny of their own actions. As for deleting comments on their user page, with "take a hike", there is nothing actionable about that, as it is well within policy. You are complaining, while hiding behind anonymity, but you aren't saying specifically what the problem is. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:23, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- I can't believe I just wasted 5 minutes reading through the whole thread at Talk:Imane Khelif.
- M.Bitton is bordering slightly into OR with their argument but...their argument is also fairly logical and understandable?
- The other editors are basically saying "I don't care that these 2 things appear to contradict themselves to you, I'm just going to follow one version of what Khelif said and disregard the other". Why not simply use both sources and explain in wikivoice how she seemingly contradicted herself?
- I agree with everything @TarnishedPath said on the Khelif talk page. It is of course important to avoid synth and OR but it's also helpful to use logic and critical thinking ... most importantly, this is simply a dispute over sources, and M.Bitton is clearly not being "disruptive". aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 11:24, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- @Aesurias, thankyou for your assurance that I'm not out of my mind thinking that there is a genuine conflict. I think that the second paragraph of WP:BLP very much applies to this circumstance:
- Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages. The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores the material.
- I can't believe that multiple editors have chosen to revert to their preferred version, in violation of BLP, especially after WP:BLPUNDEL has been explicitly called out.
- Of note, there is at least one editor who has been topic banned from GENSEX involved in the dispute.
- For interested editors, I've made a request at WP:RFPP/I for full page protection given the edit warring and BLP violations and started a discussion at WP:BLP/N.
- I am truly sick and tired of the culture war shit going on with this article. I had nominated it for WP:GA to see if I could get it up to that standard, but at this point I'm fucking over it. TarnishedPathtalk 11:32, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- I cannot help but suspect that at least some of the other editors (excluding the one who is banned from GENSEX as we clearly know their viewpoint) may be basing their argument off their personal views – this is not me accusing them of acting in bad faith, but perhaps they hold strong views on what Khelif's sex is and are therefore unable to grasp M.Bitton's understandable confusion with the sources. I say this because I cannot see any other reason why a group of editors would completely ignore such valid logic. aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 11:38, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- If you fail to understand the perspective of one person, bias might be a reasonable explanation. If the behaviour of a group of experienced editors makes no sense to you, well…maybe you need to reexamine your own priors. Riposte97 (talk) 12:02, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- Experienced editors? I think not. TarnishedPathtalk 13:47, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- I have no prior viewpoint on Khelif's sex, I have never edited GENSEX topics in my life and in fact I would guess that I hold a more moderate stance on the topic than 99% of Wikipedia – this is besides the point.
- I wouldn't call any of you "experienced" (one of you is quite literally banned from the topic but tried to immediately engage in the conversation anyway), because if you were truly experienced editors you would never behave or react in the way you did, throwing out accusations of disruption and NOTHERE for a long-term editor known (at least to me) for their nuance. aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 21:28, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- If you fail to understand the perspective of one person, bias might be a reasonable explanation. If the behaviour of a group of experienced editors makes no sense to you, well…maybe you need to reexamine your own priors. Riposte97 (talk) 12:02, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- I cannot help but suspect that at least some of the other editors (excluding the one who is banned from GENSEX as we clearly know their viewpoint) may be basing their argument off their personal views – this is not me accusing them of acting in bad faith, but perhaps they hold strong views on what Khelif's sex is and are therefore unable to grasp M.Bitton's understandable confusion with the sources. I say this because I cannot see any other reason why a group of editors would completely ignore such valid logic. aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 11:38, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
RFC
There is an RFC at Talk:Imane Khelif#RfC: SRY gene. Editors are invited to participate. TarnishedPathtalk 02:26, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
About the User:citation bot
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This bot has been malfunctioning and I know it is already blocked. I see talk pages and I see a lot of reports of bugs. WikiWorkerBees (talk) 04:01, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- I'm not sure why this is being discussed here – the bot has been blocked for days and I believe issues are being worked on. aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 04:10, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Revoke tpa
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
TheYoghurtIsBack (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – blocked as a vandal-only account; unblock request is inappropriate --みんな空の下 (トーク) 04:57, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:Vanshu7002 on BHU and other pages
The summary of the matter is that the user keeps uploading his SVG logo on BHU (among other pages), which is not accurate to what the already existing PNG/actual logo is. I have raised the matter on the article's talk page, but they choose to ignore discussion there and rather go through with edits. On top of that, the user has further moved to CSD the PNG logo (which is already WP:NFC). Further, the user does not provide any edit summaries (or provides misleading), and acts like owning the page (Hope your query is resolved now, or final revision has been done) instead of engaging in constructive discussion.
On a closer look, I find that he's been doing the same with various pages (uploading weird SVGs, example see this). Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits (T) 10:24, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- User4edits the allegation of weird SVG files being uploaded by me are verified by validator itself. Stop this fake allegations already please. As a fellow editor I respect you and your works but you have no right for harassing and cyberbullying another editor just because your pride was hurt in the process. Think and give valid reason before placing aligations again. Thank you. Vanshu7002 (talk) 10:51, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- Wild fantastical allegations of "harassment and cyberbullying" are not going to help you here.
- Do you have any policy-based or logical arguments as to:
- 1) why you are uploading bizarre images and adding them to pages when the existing ones are fine?
- 2) what the watermark on unused non-free logo is, and why you uploaded it?
- aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 11:28, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- Also sir @Aesurias You can see or review the SVG file that I provided in Banaras Hindu University and compare it to the PNG file provided by either @User4edits or the official website lrovioin the source of the logo. I don't not think there is anything wrong in it. I have given the reasons for other concerns sir Vanshu7002 (talk) 01:07, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- @Aesurias:
what the watermark on unused non-free logo is
I don't see any visible text watermark on that image (i.e., nothing saying "Copyright 2010 John Doe"). Are you implying that the almost imperceptible (at infobox size) lines on that image (mentionedbelow) are a form of invisible watermark? (I mean, they almost look intentionally inserted, not like normal "scribbles".) If so, do you know what it says and/or what it decodes to? OutsideNormality (talk) 02:28, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- @aesurias Thank you for clarifying your concerns. I’ll respond point-by-point and keep this focused on content and policy. Vanshu7002 (talk) 11:47, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- Vanshu7002 (talk) 11:49, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- Regarding uploading or adding logos/images:
- I only upload or add logos when there is a clear encyclopedic or quality-based reason to do so. This includes cases where an article has no logo at all, or where the existing image is low-resolution, inaccurate, or technically unsuitable. The intent is to improve visual completeness and accuracy, consistent with Wikipedia’s image use and quality guidelines.
- For example, the Bihar Engineering University article previously did not contain any logo. In such cases, adding an official logo sourced directly from the institution’s official website helps with clear identification of the subject and improves the article’s completeness, provided the file is accurate and policy-compliant. This was not a replacement of an existing image, but the addition of missing visual content from an official source.
- All logos uploaded by me are taken from official institutional websites or officially published materials. Where an existing logo or image is already present, accurate, and high quality, I do not insist on replacement.
- All SVG files uploaded by me pass SVG validation and do not contain hidden elements, scripts, or non-standard constructs. If there is a specific technical concern with any individual file, I am open to correcting it once it is clearly identified.
- Regarding the unused non-free logo with a watermark:
- That file was never added to any article and remains unused. A watermarked logo is clearly unsuitable for article use, and if it does not meet the non-free content criteria, deletion is appropriate under the non-free content policy. There was no intention to use a watermarked file in mainspace, and I have no objection to its removal.
- If there are concerns about specific uploads, it would be most productive to discuss them on a file-by-file basis with direct links, so the discussion can remain specific, technical, and policy-based. My goal is to improve encyclopedic quality, not to create disputes.
- Thank you. Vanshu7002 (talk) 11:53, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- If there was no intention to use a watermarked file in mainspace, may I ask why you uploaded a watermarked file to begin with? Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:04, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- Respected sir @Chaotic Enby I just added a logo not a watermark or maybe my knowledge is less in technical terms but File:JU logo(1).svg is a logo from the official website itself that I intended to add just like how Jawaharlal Nehru University or Jamia Millia Islamia pages has but was reverted by the page holder I don't know how and so I left the page untouched. There was no other intention to it. I just wanted that all the Wikipages of top educational institution should have a consistency in giving information (I sometimes do favour universities in Bihar as well since I am a native and also a medical student connected to Bihar University of Health Sciences). And I am not an A.I and I apologise that I did used A.I previously because of my uncertainty to what exactly to say. Thank you for your time sir @Chaotic Enby Vanshu7002 (talk) 00:42, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- Additionally, non-free files are deliberately kept at a low resolution to comply with fair use. Replacing them with a higher resolution version is not only unnecessary, it is a violation of the very same non-free content criteria that you mention. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:07, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- Yes sir @Chaotic Enby I agree that files are kept at low resolution to meet the non-free content criteria and that is not a problem for anyone since higher resolution is auto-corrected by @Datbot to comply with the guidlines. I only provide SVG files that retain quality even at low resolution. Sometimes the SVG logo might have problems that I might overlook like the problem in Shree Narayan Medical Institute and Hospital logo or other files that I provided. I will make sure to correct the mentioned problems and other inconvenience caused by me. Thank you for your time sire @Chaotic Enby Vanshu7002 (talk) 00:53, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- @Vanshu7002: please do not use LLM to generate your contributions, we have no interest in conversing with some text-prediction-algorithm. The reason (well, a reason) why this discussion is taking place is to understand the rationale behind your edits, and AI cannot tell us what's going on in your head. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:29, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- This ^ it's fairly obvious having a look between their first response and this one that we are not talking to a human anymore aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 21:25, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- Sir@DoubleGrazing I get what you mean and I will not do that again I was just too unsure of what I had to write and so I did used A.I but me rn is real and I have provided the reasons for my edits already Vanshu7002 (talk) 01:02, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- If there was no intention to use a watermarked file in mainspace, may I ask why you uploaded a watermarked file to begin with? Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:04, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- Addendum: A cursory look at user's contributions has led me to multiple SVGs with weird lines. See above C in "medical", in the bottom right. Also the good-faith seems a bit off here, as there is an already fine SVG at File:Jawaharlal Nehru University Logo.svg, but for some reasons, the user placed multiple CSDs on the file. @Aesurias may want to see this addendum as well. Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits (T) 11:57, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- @aesurias I understand what has gone wrong and I will reflect on my behaviour and will not add any other low quality/bad/unnecessary SVG logo on other pages. My intention was always to provide better logos for educational institutions on their wikipages and not to harm or show behaviours of owing any of the pages. I sincerely apologise for my actions and past behaviours and all unnecessary words I have used during any conversation. Thank you. Vanshu7002 (talk) 12:43, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- Can you please stop replying with AI-generated text, you're not answering the questions you're being asked because the AI doesn't know what those answers are - all it can do is guess, and it's guessing incorrectly.
- You (or the AI) asked for specific examples with direct links so you could address each one individually, so please follow through with that promise.
- Can you please read through the questions you've been asked and answer them in your own words?
- It doesn't matter if your English isn't perfect, we need to hear from you directly without a chatbot standing in the way. Blue Sonnet (talk) 18:59, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- Too late. Anyone who thinks that they can use AI to communicate is ipso facto incompetent to contribute in any way. Indef immediately. They can appeal in 12 months. EEng 19:14, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- They are not blocked yet? But if they get blocked and need to appeal, one might also want to discuss such statements. Nakonana (talk) 20:13, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- Good that you pointed that out, but all please note: that's from four months ago. EEng 20:25, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- Sir @Nakonana I never had any intention of causing harm to the community members or myself it was only a emotional instability that caused me to write this statement when an edit by me done on a page that lacked correct and efficient information was reverted and I already forgot the incident. I still apologise if anyone's sentiment was hurt by me unknowingly Vanshu7002 (talk) 00:59, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- I am not a bot talking right now and the statement given by me were merely done out of frustration during the initial days of joining the community were my edits were reversed. I am sorry for that period too. And I am new to the community and I didn't even knew what to say here and that I didn't even knew such a query site existed on Wikipedia. I am genuinely not want to cause any trouble sorry for the inconvenience that has happened because of me Vanshu7002 (talk) 23:48, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- They are not blocked yet? But if they get blocked and need to appeal, one might also want to discuss such statements. Nakonana (talk) 20:13, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- Ok first of all I am not an AI speaking to you right now respected sir. During several days of surfing on Wikipedia page specially on pages of educational institutions I have seen differences in logos and their qualities in it. On proper look even when the guidline says the logo/file does not need to be detailed SVG logos did make a difference. PNG files were blurry and did not shown much details that other educational institutions wikipages which had SVG files have been showing as it is an SVG file and quality does not change even when resolution is set on low and I am complying to it. My works on Bihar University of Health Sciences and Bihar Engineering University can be taken as an example. I started working on SVG files. Some of the wikipages that previously lacked logos like Bihar Engineering University or Shree Narayan Medical Institute and Hospital I added logos but not every time I was able to rectify or check for errors (like weird lines mentioned by User4edits) the other files that has similar cases I did corrections and re-uploaded it like in Bihar Engineering University or Bihar University of Health Sciences or other works done by me. The watermark problem that I am still unaware as to where it exactly happened might be the lack of re-check of the uploaded logo by me. I understand what the administration says and I will do the corrections again and I will mention it properly instead of hastening the process. Respected sir I sincerely apologise again for the trouble I caused and I will make sure everything is done under check. Thank you for your precious time. Vanshu7002 (talk) 00:13, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- Sorry I forgot to tag sir @Aesurias and sir @Blue-Sonnet
- I will correct the edits I have done wrong and will not cause any inconvenience to other respected editors like sir @User4edits on the same community whose contribution for the same nation as mine is commendable. I have also gave an apology to sir @User4edits on his talk page Vanshu7002 (talk) 00:20, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- Too late. Anyone who thinks that they can use AI to communicate is ipso facto incompetent to contribute in any way. Indef immediately. They can appeal in 12 months. EEng 19:14, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- These "SVGs" the user is uploading are literally just wrappers for PNGs (some of them, like File:Snmih Logo.svg, seemingly upscaled), sometimes with random lines strewn about. This applies to the files referenced in this very thread: File:JU logo(1).svg, File:Lbkmch Upscalemedia-transformed (1).svg (notice the "Upscalemedia-transformed" in the filename), File:Snmih Logo.svg and probably others. File:BHU official seal (1).svg has no line, while File:BEU Patna logo.svg has a line (hair?) baked into the embedded PNG. Actually, based on the compression artifacts present in File:Bihar University of Health Sciences Logo.svg, it seems like some (not all) of these SVGs are wrappers for JPEGs (or possibly WebP) encoded as PNGs, which is even worse for image quality.
- Vanshu7002: what tool (or tools) are you using to create these SVG files? OutsideNormality (talk) 02:02, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- BHU svg seal is also not entirely accurate as in upscaling, the SVG has blots of color in areas which are suppose to be transparent (as seen in PNG.).
- As also mentioned in my addendum comment above, I don't understand the user's intention to somewhat forcibly push SVGs (which are nohow close to a simple poor little sweet PNG), and that too SVGs created by them. Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits (T) 05:57, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- also, @Vanshu7002, can you pls tell me why you CSD'ed this and this file under incorrect heads. Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits (T) 06:10, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- @aesurias I understand what has gone wrong and I will reflect on my behaviour and will not add any other low quality/bad/unnecessary SVG logo on other pages. My intention was always to provide better logos for educational institutions on their wikipages and not to harm or show behaviours of owing any of the pages. I sincerely apologise for my actions and past behaviours and all unnecessary words I have used during any conversation. Thank you. Vanshu7002 (talk) 12:43, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
WP:AWARE editor continually violating extended confirmed restriction
TheInspectorInCity (talk · contribs) was made explicitly aware of the extended confirmed restriction applied to Indian military history , they ignored this and continued making violating edits , they were warned again (as well as for edit warring), they again restored violating edits , were warned again , and today have again made another violating edit . fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 23:09, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- I posted a final warning. Given that this has only been over a day or so, I'm incline to think a final warning is appropriate. If this happened over a week, a block would certainly be warranted. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:34, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- I mentioned about shelling there in May 2025. How does it require to became extended confirmed for it ? TheInspectorInCity (talk) 06:43, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- You've already been informed four times, five if you count this report. Looks like a WP:CIR issue. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 07:02, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- I didn't did anything about Indian military. I am saying that I mentioned about shelling in Kolti district in May 2025, so how does it require to be extended confirmed in it ? TheInspectorInCity (talk) 07:10, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- Please confirm that you do not understand how this edit involves the Indian military. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 07:16, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- @TheInspectorInCity Who was it that shelled the Kolti district? The Indian military. Therefore the topic falls under the extended confirmation restriction. EvergreenFir (talk) 15:21, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- I didn't did anything about Indian military. I am saying that I mentioned about shelling in Kolti district in May 2025, so how does it require to be extended confirmed in it ? TheInspectorInCity (talk) 07:10, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- You've already been informed four times, five if you count this report. Looks like a WP:CIR issue. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 07:02, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
User:Occisors at Luigi Mangione
Occisors (talk · contribs) keeps deleting sourced information from Luigi Mangione despite an ongoing discussion at the talk page. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 16:13, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
- I put a CT first alert on his talk page. I didn't see any prior alerting of him regarding CT. there's also a request to semiprotect the article at WP:RPP -- Aunva6talk - contribs 16:36, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
- I normally do place warning tags beforehand, but in this case I had already warned the user in the discussion at Talk:Luigi Mangione#Subject's nationality. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 16:39, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
- Hi, so Ivan is not being truthful here. As I have explained in my message below, Ivan seems to be doing this in retaliation. I saw you have reverted my edits and I kindly ask that you undo that. Because the information on this wiki page is now incorrect. The "sourced" information Ivan speaks of, was either not sourced correctly, didn't back up the claims it claims to, or is unreliable. Multiple users have reverted Ivan's edits before. And Ivan has already been temporary banned from this page for similar behavior. Occisors (talk) 16:46, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
- I kindly ask you to assume my good faith. I’m not reverting or reporting you for fun or vengeance, I’d rather focus my time on more important things tbh. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 16:53, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
- I have tried assuming good faith for a long time and in that good faith, I have asked you, multiple times, to explain your reverts and you have not, you have not provided sources, you have not provided explanations, nothing, no reason for reversions. How is anyone supposed too assumer good faith, especially, after you clearly intentionally have also lied here and on the user board about my reversion of your ONE edit?
- Let me summarize:
- -someone else made an edit on nationality (i.e. Mangione is an Italian-American dual citizen), this edit has been up for a few days
- -you decided to change it "boldly" even though NO ONE on the talk page on this topic has agreed with you
- -someone else reverted this edit of yours
- -you reverted it back (idk how many reversions there were, but then:
- -I reverted your edit to someone else's edit you originally reverted (i.e. Mangione is an Italian-American dual citizen)
- -you changed it back to your edit and then claimed the consensus has been reached and everyone agreed with you on the talk page
- -I checked the talk page and saw that it was not true, as before, no one was agreeing with you
- -Then you started edit waring and also deleting all of the other edits that I made (which were unrelated to the subject's nationality) for no reason
- -I have brought this up in the talk page and asked you to explain yourself and your deletion of all my edits
- -You then proceeded to lie that I was the one who made all the reversion's because I wanted that only my edit was up -which is not true and is easily checked in edit history. Essentially, projecting your own wrongdoings onto me. For the millionth time, the edit was not "mine" and multiple users have reverted your edit. Meanwhile, you are the only who thinks the page should stay up as it is now.
- -I asked for another user (who's been monitoring this page to prevent edit warings) to step in,& the user told to stop all edits until consensus is reached.
- -For this you reported me on this page, once again, lying about your edits being "sourced", so that someone on here without the knowledge of the situation steps in and reverts the page to your edits. Essentially, ONCE AGAIN, as you have before, editing the page by proxy when you're not allowed to in order to avoid getting banned and you have already been temporary banned at least once from this page (merely a week ago) for the same edit waring behavior. Occisors (talk) 18:26, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
- I kindly ask you to assume my good faith. I’m not reverting or reporting you for fun or vengeance, I’d rather focus my time on more important things tbh. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 16:53, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
- This is absolutely not true. The information removed was either unsourced or incorrect or IvanScrooge98's original and biased research - which is not allowed on wikipedia. Ivan has already been temporary banned at least once from editing the page in question because he was the one who edited the certain information on this page while there was "an ongoing discussion". I cannot see how this is good faith "report" when Ivan has been reverting and changing all of my edits - edits which have been sourced - clearly in retaliation because I have reverted his incorrect original researched edits. Furthermore, Ivan claims I keep deleting sourced information "despite an ongoing discussion at the talk page", however Ivan is the one who made these unsourced edits "boldly" (as per his words) despite NO ONE in the talk page agreeing with Ivan. In other words, Ivan is accusing me of something he is guilty of. MULTIPLE users have reverted Ivan's edits. But even then, on the talk page, Ivan straight up claims that I am the "only one" who did that, just because I'm the most recent one? I don't know. I wasn't even the one who made the edit which even has changed over with his original research. This is just straight up gaslighting, I know we have to assume good faith, but there's just no explanation to this behavior especially after all the unfounded accusations on the talk page and now a report here. Ivan has also previously, while banned, used my talk page to ask me to make edits on this page, which I have now learned to be against wikpedia rules.
- I have provided sources to back up my claims, while Ivan only uses their opinion with nothing to back it up. The very few sources (links to a few wiki pages) Ivan has provided, ended up contradicting Ivan's claims. Occisors (talk) 16:41, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
- Nope. I applied changes to the article as the discussion was going in the direction that there was no consensus to refer to the subject as “Italian-American”, changing the article to mention his Italian citizenship only marginally. It was an attempt to give each thing its due weight. What seems to be gaslighting is cherry-picking the few sources that refer to the subject by his double citizenship while contextually undoing all my edits, in addition to removing other pieces of sourced information. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 16:52, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
- I suggest you both discuss at the article talk page and come up with a consensus before making further edits. it looks to me like you're both edit warring. you're both at the 3RR line. i strongly suggest either starting an RfC or taking it to the dispute noticeboard -- Aunva6talk - contribs 17:05, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
- "I applied changes to the article as the discussion was going in the direction" please stop with this gaslighting, this is insane. NO ONE was agreeing with you. Once again, at least 5 different users, not just me, have made edits/reverted your edits on subjects nationality, none of which agree with you.
- "is cherry-picking the few sources that refer to the subject by his double citizenship" this absolute insanity, I have provided sources where the subject themselves refers to themselves as Italian-American dual citizen.
- "contextually undoing all my edits, in addition to removing other pieces of sourced information." what is literally wrong with you? You are the one doing this, and I have already told you all of this on the talk page and in the comment above, you just pretty much took my messages and switched them up. Please stop lying. The only edit of yours that I have edited was about the subject's nationality - multiple users have done so - meanwhile you are THE ONLY user who is unhappy about this. You are the one who has reverted all of MY edits in retaliation - including edits that were completely unrelated to the subjects nationality, this can literally be check via edit history. And now you've made this baseless report to admin's board - after I have asked someone to step in to mediate in the talk page - as another form of retaliation and in order to have your edits reinstated by someone on here, who's not familiar with the topic, by hoping they believe when you say you provided "sourced information" when it's actually your biased opinion based on your original research.
- This is absolutely appalling behavior, and not what wikipedia is about. I have spent hours of my time editing that page and looking up the sources, especially, for the legal topics, which contained incorrect/outdated info, and which you did not edit, in order to make it more correct and accurate. And you came in and started reverting them all because of your hurt feelings. You provided no reliable sources to back your claims, except for your opinion. I have already edited the page once because YOU asked for it specifically. I have no issue with doing that because I know that Wikipedia is supposed to accurate and unbiased. If you wanted to have your edit remain, you should have found reliable sources to back it up, instead of lying, deleting all of my edits in retaliation, and now making these reports here to waste everyone's time and have your incorrect edits reinstated without consensus.
- If anyone needs to be reported here, it's you, you have already been banned from this page for edit warring - and it happened only like a week ago. Occisors (talk) 17:24, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
- @Occisors, please consider using {{tq|text goes here}} for quotes - it marks them clearly
like this
without coming across as shouting. Meadowlark (talk) 01:16, 3 February 2026 (UTC)Thank you, I didn't know this. I appreciate that!
:D Occisors (talk) 11:49, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- @Occisors, please consider using {{tq|text goes here}} for quotes - it marks them clearly
- Nope. I applied changes to the article as the discussion was going in the direction that there was no consensus to refer to the subject as “Italian-American”, changing the article to mention his Italian citizenship only marginally. It was an attempt to give each thing its due weight. What seems to be gaslighting is cherry-picking the few sources that refer to the subject by his double citizenship while contextually undoing all my edits, in addition to removing other pieces of sourced information. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 16:52, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
- I suggest requesting an dispute resolution or 3rd opinion to keep this content dispute as content dispute. It's okay and there is no deadline. We may not need to start discussing each others' behaviour here (where AN/I is for). 海盐沙冰 / aka irisChronomia / Talk 17:10, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
- MOS:CITIZEN is pretty clear on this issue; I don't think we need dispute resolution, as Occisors edits violate the aforementioned policy. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:27, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
- Okay, then explain how it's "pretty clear on this issue" ? MOS:CITIZEN has been discussed in the talk page regarding this, and my edit (and other people's edits, mind you - idk why you even said that the edits were mine-is this Ivan's alt account?) were not found in violation of that. Occisors (talk) 18:07, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
- @Occisors why would you accuse OhNoitsJamie of being Ivan's alt? A quick look at OhNoitsJamie's profile shows that they are an administrator. Making accusations like that with no evidence isn't allowed, see WP:ASPERSIONS. Stockhausenfan (talk) 18:35, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not a battleground and who's right or wrong does not matter as long as the encyclopedia gets improved; personal grievances can hurt the collaborative environment and getting emotional ("heated") often curtail one's ability to improve Wikipedia.
- Ultimately, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. 海盐沙冰 / aka irisChronomia / Talk 18:51, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
- Okay, then explain how it's "pretty clear on this issue" ? MOS:CITIZEN has been discussed in the talk page regarding this, and my edit (and other people's edits, mind you - idk why you even said that the edits were mine-is this Ivan's alt account?) were not found in violation of that. Occisors (talk) 18:07, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
- MOS:CITIZEN is pretty clear on this issue; I don't think we need dispute resolution, as Occisors edits violate the aforementioned policy. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:27, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
- I've tried to read the relevant talk page discussion, but keep getting put off by the large bolded text. Occisors, can't you see that your formatting automatically makes people "side" against you before they've even read a word that you've written? Please write in normal text. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:49, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
- Yes, Occisors should cut out the bolding. EEng 16:14, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
- he seems to be much better about it now that he knows about the tq template. overall seems to be much more inclined to civilly discuss content. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 16:49, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
- <cough> Occisors should cut out the bolding. EEng 02:24, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- At least I got it the first time, but you must admit that it's one of your more feeble efforts. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:19, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- <cough> Occisors should cut out the bolding. EEng 02:24, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- he seems to be much better about it now that he knows about the tq template. overall seems to be much more inclined to civilly discuss content. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 16:49, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
- Yes, Occisors should cut out the bolding. EEng 16:14, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
User:Inforgetmenots
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Inforgetmenots (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
The vast majority of this user's edits are only introducing minor grammatical errors to pages (such as changing a comma to a semicolon where the comma is correct, vice versa, or incorrectly removing an umlaut). They aren't responding to warnings or messages given on their talk page, and are making these edits repeatedly with a high frequency (to the point where it's a bit hard to keep up with). I initially reported to WP:ARV assuming this was vandalism but was told to open a discussion here, since these edits could be good faith. Merlin04talkcontribs 05:28, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:SillyLaws
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- SillyLaws (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This user keeps adding misleading userboxes and topicons to their userpages claiming that they are an administrator and functionary (and edit warring to restore them). I came across them when they added themselves to WP:List of administrators/Active. They also vandalised my user page and are edit warring to repeatedly blank another users' userpage . Can we get some admin action here? Thanks. Sugar Tax (talk) 09:19, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- Blocked by Lofty abyss. — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 09:41, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- Man those people will do anything to make others mad nowadays. It's just sad. Aspifi (talk) 12:28, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Another LLM editor editing disruptively and deceptively
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Bruteforce7700 (talk · contribs) was asked on 3 November 2025 about their LLM use after indicative issues were found in pages they created such as Midwest Rock & Roll, Burn (Papa Roach song), and Killing Fields (song) . Bruteforce7700 replied clearly that they don't use AI for any of my contributions to Wikipedia
. This is despite the fact that there is clear evidence to the contrary, including the addition of two utm_source=chatgpt.com sources in March 2025 .
After a large language model noticeboard discussion was opened , I performed a detailed review and tagging of a different recent creation of theirs in which I found pervasive source-text integrity issues . I then left a very clear warning on their talk page about disruptive LLM use, using the tagged page as a clear examples of the problems involved .
The very next day Bruteforce7700 used an LLM to create another article which contained two utm_source=chatgpt.com sources and multiple other source-text issues, these issues were detailed and very clear warnings were given .
Today I've checked one of their recent creations and found yet more source-text issues and overstated LLM rephrasing at The Best Is Yet To Come (Hinder song). Outright WP:V failures were tagged in this edit, for examples of the rephrasing see the In an interview with MTV News ...
, A review from PluggedIn.com ...
and Ultimate Guitar reviewed the song ...
statements and accompanying sources. Enough. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 02:48, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- To repeat myself from a thread below, any editor who uses a chatbot and then denies it is WP:NOTHERE. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:22, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- I'll go you one better: Any editor who uses a chatbot is a WP:CIR case, and should be indeffed on sight, immediately, with no appeal for 12 months (since that's the minimum conceivable time it might take for competence to accrue from its degraded state). No need to wait for a denial (or affirmation, for that matter). EEng 05:42, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that is a good idea. People get falsely accused of using AI (particularly non-native speakers and neurodivergent people). Imagine being a newbie trying to help the encyclopedia, but because you wrote too formally or didn't know you can't use normal markdown, you get a scary block message saying that Wikipedia doesn't want you here for at least 12 months. Would you want to come back? QwertyForest (talk) 09:47, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- Fully agree that we need to clamp down on AI/LLM - zero tolerance. GiantSnowman 09:58, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- I second that new users might just not be aware of WP policy regarding LLM use. There have been more than one case where people dropped the LLM use once the policy has been pointed out to them. Nakonana (talk) 11:50, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- This is raised as a possibility very often, but I have yet to see any indication that the false positive rate is remotely high enough to justify all the editor time we constantly waste on dealing with AI slop. Athanelar (talk) 13:01, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- And instituting a "shoot on sight" rule won't reduce the amount of AI slop one byte's worth. We're reactive here: we operate at ANI when there's a complaint about damage already done. Turning autoindefs over to the most fanatic headhunter just isn't Wikipedia's way. Ravenswing 13:11, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- I don't support EEng's idea (and, to be fair, I suspect EEng doesn't truly expect it to ever happen either) I'm just very tired of people weaponising neurodivergence in this discussion. "Won't somebody think of the poor hypothetical autist who can't help but write in lists of three and constantly meaninglessly equivocate about media coverage" is not a counterpoint of any worth to calls to restrict AI editing. Athanelar (talk) 13:16, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- I would like to kindly request that you please strike out what you wrote in quotations, or at the very minimum the a-word that you used for being a slur. What you wrote in quotes comes off to me as a bad faith generalization of our neurodivergent editors by creating a straw man to represent that group as supposedly incompetent. We should not be demeaning neurodiversity just to make arguments for stronger limits towards AI usage on Wikipedia. Gramix13 (talk) 16:42, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- I am a neurodivergent editor, and if you think the purpose of my quotation was to 'demean neurodiversity' or depict neurodivergent editors as incompetent, I don't know what to tell you.
- The whole point I'm making is that these kinds of arguments depict neurodivergent people as helpless or incompetent in a way that isn't fair or sensible. It's not true at all that neurodivergence means you'll write like an AI. Athanelar (talk) 17:49, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- I would like to kindly request that you please strike out what you wrote in quotations, or at the very minimum the a-word that you used for being a slur. What you wrote in quotes comes off to me as a bad faith generalization of our neurodivergent editors by creating a straw man to represent that group as supposedly incompetent. We should not be demeaning neurodiversity just to make arguments for stronger limits towards AI usage on Wikipedia. Gramix13 (talk) 16:42, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- I don't support EEng's idea (and, to be fair, I suspect EEng doesn't truly expect it to ever happen either) I'm just very tired of people weaponising neurodivergence in this discussion. "Won't somebody think of the poor hypothetical autist who can't help but write in lists of three and constantly meaninglessly equivocate about media coverage" is not a counterpoint of any worth to calls to restrict AI editing. Athanelar (talk) 13:16, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- And instituting a "shoot on sight" rule won't reduce the amount of AI slop one byte's worth. We're reactive here: we operate at ANI when there's a complaint about damage already done. Turning autoindefs over to the most fanatic headhunter just isn't Wikipedia's way. Ravenswing 13:11, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- Nope. I'm hardcore about LLM usage, and I'm firmly in the camp of that it should be banned from Wikipedia for ANY purpose. But c'mon: we're not going to shoot on sight any newbie who dares to use LLMs, just like we don't shoot on sight any other newbie for running afoul of the many rules -- written and unwritten -- we have here. I agree about how to handle newbies who are lying, but that's another matter. Ravenswing 13:08, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- This is made all the more ironic by their mission statement on their user page. From what I've read so far, I'd be minded to give them an indefblock on the basis of WP:NOTHERE, but I'll wait for now to see how this discussion pans out. — The Anome (talk) 13:11, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- Oh, sure, that "My approach to contributing" bit is pure ChatGPT, no error. But we're not talking a newbie here; we're talking someone who's been around over a decade, and should know better. Ravenswing 13:15, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- It really does read as very AI-generated, emdashes and all. Their self-generated logo looks AI-generated too. I note that their account really seems to have "woken up" to rapid contribution in 2025, which is consistent with LLM use. — The Anome (talk) 13:22, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- I would support the indef too. AI or not, there's just too much failed verification and sourcing issues, and we wouldn't give that much leeway even to an editor not using AI.For that matter, the logo is pretty definitively AI-generated: tons of little AI distortions here and there, but the eagle having four claws on one foot and three on the other is pretty much the biggest giveaway. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:01, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- This is made all the more ironic by their mission statement on their user page. From what I've read so far, I'd be minded to give them an indefblock on the basis of WP:NOTHERE, but I'll wait for now to see how this discussion pans out. — The Anome (talk) 13:11, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that is a good idea. People get falsely accused of using AI (particularly non-native speakers and neurodivergent people). Imagine being a newbie trying to help the encyclopedia, but because you wrote too formally or didn't know you can't use normal markdown, you get a scary block message saying that Wikipedia doesn't want you here for at least 12 months. Would you want to come back? QwertyForest (talk) 09:47, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- I'll go you one better: Any editor who uses a chatbot is a WP:CIR case, and should be indeffed on sight, immediately, with no appeal for 12 months (since that's the minimum conceivable time it might take for competence to accrue from its degraded state). No need to wait for a denial (or affirmation, for that matter). EEng 05:42, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
POV-pushing, (Neo-)Nazi whitewashing and apologia
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
@My very best wishes wants to label Denis Kapustin (militant) an antifascist. Kapustin has been banned from the EU/Schengen area for neo-nazi activism and is labeled as a neo-Nazi by reliable sources across the political spectrum. Should he be described as a Neo-Nazi himself or as antifascist?
diff Someone who risks his life every day by fighting on the war against the actual neo-Nazi is de facto an antifascist.
diff. Nobody should have to waste time arguing against blatantly ridiculous claims such as these. I don't know where Mvbw finds the gall to write such filth. TurboSuperA+[talk] 21:32, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- All of a sudden (after reading the ANI notice) had to take a break from Wikipedia on account of "personal issues". diff TurboSuperA+[talk] 21:42, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- @My very best wishes That response to the ANI notice on your talk page is not a good look. I would encourage you to come here and participate in this discussion. The discussion is not going to go away and your side is important. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:12, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- Personally I'm getting a bit bored of the fifteen-year-long cycle of Mvbw getting banned from topic areas (mostly regarding Eastern Europe), given another chance, and then getting banned again. As a probably incomplete history: ARBEE 1RR'd (2009, as Biophys); 1RR overturned (2009); adverse FoF (2009); partial ARBEE TBAN (2010); AE block (2011); TBAN lifted (2011); partial ARBPSEUDO TBAN (2014); TBAN lifted (2014); partial ARBEE TBAN (2023); AE block (2023); block extended and TBAN widened (2023, full disclosure my close of an AE consensus); TBANs lifted (2024). So we're on a... fifth chance here? At least? It's really hard to believe that there's any level of constructive editing that could outweigh this degree of long-term disruption, largely concentrated in a single topic area. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 22:29, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- Not to mention the instances of the same behavior that never got reported on admin noticeboards, like the discussion thread starting from this comment or the thread Talk:Alexei Navalny/Archive 2#Navalny leaving Yabloko where MVBW tried to get mentions of Navalny's nationalists views and those views being the reason for his kick out from Yabloko removed from the article (or somehow shortened or misleadingly rephrased).
- I'm surprised that someone from the original Eastern European mailing list case is still editing around WP to remove/soften nationalistic attitudes after so many years. Nakonana (talk) 12:22, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- Also this sub thread from one of the above linked discussions. Nakonana (talk) 12:36, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- Yeah, though you linked it, it may have been better not to selectively quote MVBW's reply which was actually
Someone who risks his life every day by fighting on the war with neo-Nazi is de facto an antifascist. But can he be a "far-right" himself by his political views? Yes, sure.
And that was in reply to your comment, which wasOh fuck off.
. So I'm not entirely sure who comes out looking better from this, frankly. Black Kite (talk) 22:41, 6 February 2026 (UTC)I wouldn't say that's an unreasonable response considering that we directly call the claim that Ukraine is a neonazi state Russian propaganda.(edit: thought the RVC was like a PMC or smtn) MetalBreaksAndBends (talk) (contribs) 22:53, 6 February 2026 (UTC)- To be clear, Mvbw is saying that Kapustin cannot be a neo-Nazi, and in fact is an antifascist, because he fights against Russia, not because (as I think you're supposing?) he fights against Ukraine. (I see the confusion, as Kapustin is a Russian national.) However, this is still horrible logic, defying WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and common sense. (No part of being a neo-Nazi precludes fighting against an authoritarian regime with its own neo-Nazi elements, and fighting an authoritarian regime does not automatically make someone an antifascist.) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 22:58, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- Yup! I thought the RVC was like the PMC version of that one Russian biker gang who did a rally (in crimea, I think) where they marched in swastika formation. MetalBreaksAndBends (talk) (contribs) 23:10, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- To the contrary, I said that the same person can be a far-right/neo-Nazi himself and fight against guys who are arguably neo-Nazi but came from another country. That is what sources say, and I linked them. And this is basically a common place that apply to certain fighters from Azov, etc. I did not say he must be described as an "antifascist" on the page (this all depends on consensus). I only said this is complicated and politely asked for the opinion of others. The reaction by TurboSuperA+ was unexpected. My very best wishes (talk) 23:13, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- I think this might be a language issue, the definition of anti-fascism I believe most people are working with here is that the person is ideologically opposed to fascism, not that they are simply fighting fascists. Is that the definition you were using? MetalBreaksAndBends (talk) (contribs) 23:23, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- Good point, and to be honest, I do not really know the answer. Would all members of Italian resistance movement be automatically counted as "antifascists", independently on their personal views? I thought they would. Obviously, we are talking not about a "authoritarian regime with its own neo-Nazi elements", but about a regime described in multiple RS as whole as fascist. Here is the page for Russia, and it says this "Part of a series on Fascism" - per consensus I assume. My very best wishes (talk) 23:40, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- You want us to believe you don't know what "antifascist" means? TurboSuperA+[talk] 00:55, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- OK, I striked through a part of my comment at NPOVNB to clarify what I actually meant. My very best wishes (talk) 03:39, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- You're perverting language, making a mockery of reason and exploiting good will of editors to push a pro-Nazi agenda. You're not here to build an encyclopaedia, you're here to corrupt it. It makes me sick to my stomach that you do it so shamelessly. TurboSuperA+[talk] 05:10, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- TurboSuperA+ If you're going to accuse someone with 57,000 edits of being NOTHERE / here to push a pro-Nazi agenda (i.e. something that if true could get them indeffed), I suggest you come up with a lot more than you're presenting here, or strike that, because otherwise it's a pretty obvious PA. Black Kite (talk) 09:45, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- Mvbw attempted to remove the neo-nazi label from Denis Kapustin, despite overwhelming number of reliable sources labeling him a neo-nazi.
- Here they removed the "far-right" label of Stepan Bandera.
- Here they are repeating a talking point about a Jewish Russian inventing gas chambers. This comes straight from a Holocaust denialism website. Do I have to explain how "well actually, Jews invented the gas chambers" is Nazi apologia?
- In a similar vein, here they are equivocating Nazi Germany's gas chambers to something that happened in the Soviet Union. Do I have to explain how equivocating Nazis and those who defeated them serves Nazi narratives? How long until we go from "Nazis and Soviets were the same!" to "Well... Soviets were worse than Nazis" to "Nazis weren't so bad because they fought the evil Soviets!" to "Actually, Nazis were the good guys". If you think that Nazis and their apologists will just barge in screaming "Hitler was right!" then you're naive. This is how it happens, bit by bit they revise history, gaslight people and try to make narratives like "Neo-nazis can be antifascists" palatable.
- Here Mvbw introduces an edit that claims Nazi-Germany's invasion of USSR was "pre-emptive":
Hitler's intelligence identified the USSR's preparations to attack Germany. Therefore, the Wehrmacht had drafted a [[preemptive war]] plan based on Hitler's orders as early as mid-1940
- TurboSuperA+[talk] 10:20, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- I have a lot of experience throwing people off Wikipedia because they're obviously mired deeply in NONAZIS territory. None of those diffs show someone "pushing a Neo-Nazi agenda". For example the second diff isn't "repeating a talking point about a Jewish Russian inventing gas chambers", they're pointing out that it exists on ru.wiki in a conversation in which they also said
As about the "invention", I personally have no idea. They could be invented or independently reinvented in any countries. We can only quote what RS say about it.
You have extrapolated that to him saying "Jews invented the gas chambers". Which is false, and another PA on top of the original one. I strongly suggest you reconsider what you're saying here, please. Black Kite (talk) 11:49, 7 February 2026 (UTC)None of those diffs show someone "pushing a Neo-Nazi agenda".
- I respectfully disagree. You commented on the one diff, what about the others: removing "far right" label from Stepan Bandera, removing "neo nazi" label from Denis Kapustin and inserting content about the Nazi invasion of USSR being a "preemptive war"? Mind you, this is an editor who has repeatedly been blocked/banned from the topic area of Eastern Europe and subtopics. Even if Mvbw isn't pushing a pro-Nazi POV (and alignment with pro-Nazi talking points is just a coincidence), why are they making edits such as those, or arguing on talk pages using arguments like "this neo-nazi is de facto an antifascist"? Is it to provoke? Is it to annoy, to troll? To test limits of what can be said on Wikipedia? In any case it is disruptive. TurboSuperA+[talk] 12:34, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- I have a lot of experience throwing people off Wikipedia because they're obviously mired deeply in NONAZIS territory. None of those diffs show someone "pushing a Neo-Nazi agenda". For example the second diff isn't "repeating a talking point about a Jewish Russian inventing gas chambers", they're pointing out that it exists on ru.wiki in a conversation in which they also said
- The Nazis were bad guys, however, after studying history a bit, I don't know of many true "good guys." The Soviet Union committed their own atrocities. The United States committed atrocities. The UK has committed atrocities. France has committed atrocities. China has committed atrocities. The U.S. and Canada had concentration camps for citizens of Japanese ancestry, I've heard more then one person defend them for not being as bad as the Nazi death camps, which is not a bar I want to use for something being okay. It is hard to point to the origin of the concept of the concentration camp itself, but Second Boer War concentration camps operated by the British empire would be a start. The historic precedent of British camps don't make the Nazi ones any less bad, and pointing out bad things the USSR did doesn't excuse the Nazis any more then Nazi concentration camps excuse American ones. Another example, did you know Hitler often drew comparisons between the "need" for German expansion and American "Manifest Destiny" ? The difference is the U.S. genocide against Native people and conquest of Spanish/Mexican land was mostly successful. American manifest destiny does not make the Nazi aggression and ethnic cleansing any less bad, and Nazi genocide should not make us feel morally superior because about our own.
- Countries take notes from each other (Hitler wasn't that smart, he didn't pull these evil concepts from the luminiferous aether), history looks like a contest to see who can get away with claiming the moral high ground and play victim while out doing the last atrocity committed by our species. I haven't looked at how reliable the sources are that are in the links you provided, but it does look like sources were provided. We should not let the Nazis take all the credit for the bad things that have been invented, when reliable sources exist we should discuss them in all their complexity per WP:BALANCE. We should not leave stuff out just because it might somehow make the Nazis look less cartoonishly evil. This is a content dispute over sources, it probably belongs on the article talk page. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 10:59, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
The Nazis were bad guys, however,
- There it is, folks: "Nazis were bad, but..." TurboSuperA+[talk] 11:04, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- TurboSuperA+ If you're going to accuse someone with 57,000 edits of being NOTHERE / here to push a pro-Nazi agenda (i.e. something that if true could get them indeffed), I suggest you come up with a lot more than you're presenting here, or strike that, because otherwise it's a pretty obvious PA. Black Kite (talk) 09:45, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- You're perverting language, making a mockery of reason and exploiting good will of editors to push a pro-Nazi agenda. You're not here to build an encyclopaedia, you're here to corrupt it. It makes me sick to my stomach that you do it so shamelessly. TurboSuperA+[talk] 05:10, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- OK, I striked through a part of my comment at NPOVNB to clarify what I actually meant. My very best wishes (talk) 03:39, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- You want us to believe you don't know what "antifascist" means? TurboSuperA+[talk] 00:55, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- Good point, and to be honest, I do not really know the answer. Would all members of Italian resistance movement be automatically counted as "antifascists", independently on their personal views? I thought they would. Obviously, we are talking not about a "authoritarian regime with its own neo-Nazi elements", but about a regime described in multiple RS as whole as fascist. Here is the page for Russia, and it says this "Part of a series on Fascism" - per consensus I assume. My very best wishes (talk) 23:40, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- I think this might be a language issue, the definition of anti-fascism I believe most people are working with here is that the person is ideologically opposed to fascism, not that they are simply fighting fascists. Is that the definition you were using? MetalBreaksAndBends (talk) (contribs) 23:23, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- Tamzin Aye, just to be clear I'm not saying that I think MVBW is right about this, only that it isn't clearly problematic as the OP was making out. Black Kite (talk) 23:31, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- To be clear, Mvbw is saying that Kapustin cannot be a neo-Nazi, and in fact is an antifascist, because he fights against Russia, not because (as I think you're supposing?) he fights against Ukraine. (I see the confusion, as Kapustin is a Russian national.) However, this is still horrible logic, defying WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and common sense. (No part of being a neo-Nazi precludes fighting against an authoritarian regime with its own neo-Nazi elements, and fighting an authoritarian regime does not automatically make someone an antifascist.) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 22:58, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
Here's 51,000 redditors agreeing that storming the beaches at Normandy makes one an antifascist. It's a not unpopular meme -- see, e.g. Occupy Democrats repeatedly getting tens of thousands of engagements from variations of it. MVBW might be *wrong*, and I have no idea whether they're being disingenuous or not, but it's pretty silly to suggest that the logic they're claiming to use is unthinkable when it structurally parrots a pretty common point of view. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 06:32, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- I am not sure what was the reason for this complaint. I did make one revert on one page recently , but no one really objected (some others re-edited this text, which is fine). I also believe that my comments on the article talk page and NPOVNB were supported by references provided by me and others. In more detail, TurboSuperA+ reverted one of my edits on the page and started a discussion on article talk page . I took part in this discussion, which seem to result in a consensus. At the very least, I did not edit anything on the page. Then, TurboSuperA+ started a new a thread at WP:NPOVNB asking for a community input. I replied to him on WP:NPOVNB: ,, with supporting references. Do you think my comments were in any way wrong or problematic? I believe that the subject should be described as "far-right" and never said otherwise. Some other participants of the discussion at article talk page think the same. My very best wishes (talk) 22:55, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
Question: is there a reliable source anywhere that says he is "de facto an antifascist?" If so, it would be easy enough to state that some sources consider him a neo-Nazi, while others have disputed it due to his involvement in fighting other groups. Side note, I know it is the literature, but I really don't like that "Nazi" and "neo-Nazi" has become a synonym for "fascist" or "authoritarian." I know we live in a world where anything can mean anything, and nobody even cares about etymology, but I think it dilutes the label of Nazi to use it so broadly.
- GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 23:26, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- You beat me to it. The question is what RS say, not what we think the definition of anti-fascist is. This is a content dispute. MVBW needs to provide RS if they propose a change. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:31, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- I'm biased on this issue as someone with Russian-Jewish roots, but in this case, Kapustin was directly involved in right-wing neo-Nazi organizations that attacked minorities and were linked to Russian white nationalist groups. Including participating in the promotion of a clothing brand for the far-right in Eastern Europe. Solaire the knight (talk) 23:35, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- I have never heard of the person until this post, and probably will not remember their name after it. Sounds like a person I wouldn't want to share space with, and his direct involvement in these attacks should obviously be included if we have a good source. I'm just saying if a reliable source contradicts that narrative/label, we can and should mention it. Emphasis on reliable source. Like EvergreenFir said, this seems like a content dispute. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 00:31, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- I don't think it will be difficult to find sources positioning him as simply right-wing or far-right, since after the start of war, a number of similar figures and organizations began presenting themselves in the media as having renounced radical positions and set their sights on fighting Putin. Although this is clearly far from "anti-fascist," as Kapustin directly opposes the left and actively talking about "Jewish conspiracy." But as I've already said, I'm biased on this topic and don't want to touch on it in any way more due to the risk of a conflict of interest. Solaire the knight (talk) 00:39, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- It is not a content dispute. It is about Mvbw calling a known neo-Nazi an "antifascist". Why? I don't know. Trolling? Provocation? Whitewashing neo-Nazis? In any case it is disruptive. It is absurd. We're supposed to discuss whether some vile neo-Nazi could be considered "de facto antifascist"? That kind of abhorrent idea should not be entertained. TurboSuperA+[talk] 00:46, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- People are complicated and dynamic, and one cultures monster might be another's hero (George Washington was given the nickname Conotocaurius (Town Destroyer) by the Iroquois, but is venerated, almost deified, by the U.S. mainstream today). Branding someone with a single label is usually an oversimplification. I don't know anything about this person, but if reliable sources exist that contradict the mainstream, they can/should be mentioned. Emphasis on reliable sources. If Mvbw wants to make a claim, ask them for recites (sources). GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 01:06, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- AGF is not a suicide pact. TurboSuperA+[talk] 01:21, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- WP:BALANCE: "when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both points of view and work for balance." GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 02:42, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- There is no source that would describe a neo-nazi as antifascist. If I said "red is blue" and "up is down", would you ask me for a source? TurboSuperA+[talk] 04:59, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- And that's why it's not in the article. No one is agreeing with MVBW. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:30, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- How could anyone agree or disagree to include if I never suggested to include this in the article? If I wanted to do it, I would first find some supporting sources. That was just my argument during a discussion, and I striked it through now for clarity . My very best wishes (talk) 06:28, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- And that's why it's not in the article. No one is agreeing with MVBW. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:30, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- There is no source that would describe a neo-nazi as antifascist. If I said "red is blue" and "up is down", would you ask me for a source? TurboSuperA+[talk] 04:59, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- WP:BALANCE: "when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both points of view and work for balance." GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 02:42, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- AGF is not a suicide pact. TurboSuperA+[talk] 01:21, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- People are complicated and dynamic, and one cultures monster might be another's hero (George Washington was given the nickname Conotocaurius (Town Destroyer) by the Iroquois, but is venerated, almost deified, by the U.S. mainstream today). Branding someone with a single label is usually an oversimplification. I don't know anything about this person, but if reliable sources exist that contradict the mainstream, they can/should be mentioned. Emphasis on reliable sources. If Mvbw wants to make a claim, ask them for recites (sources). GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 01:06, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- I'm biased on this issue as someone with Russian-Jewish roots, but in this case, Kapustin was directly involved in right-wing neo-Nazi organizations that attacked minorities and were linked to Russian white nationalist groups. Including participating in the promotion of a clothing brand for the far-right in Eastern Europe. Solaire the knight (talk) 23:35, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- You beat me to it. The question is what RS say, not what we think the definition of anti-fascist is. This is a content dispute. MVBW needs to provide RS if they propose a change. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:31, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
Here's 51,000 redditors agreeing that storming the beaches at Normandy makes one an antifascist
- Were any of those people who stormed the beaches at Normandy self-avowed National-Socialists who have a Neo-nazi clothing brand and are banned from Europe for neo-nazi activism? What a stupid take. TurboSuperA+[talk] 09:33, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- I don't think you want to get into just how racist and bigoted the average American was in the 1940s compared to today. They still had segregated ranks in the military, the KKK was much more popular then today, and the American Nazi party was not insignificant before the war. Henry Ford is one example of a person who had pre-war sympathies with Nazi ideology, and I would be surprised if you did not find anyone sympathetic to the fascists in the ranks of American soldiers storming Normandy, many of them were fighting because that was what they were told to do, not because of deeper ideological reasons they personally had. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 11:04, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- That's why it is a reddit meme, and not some academic paper saying that all American soldiers in WWII were "anteefa". The meme was made/spread because of the whole "Antifa is a terrorist organisation!" shit that is coming from Trump&Co. TurboSuperA+[talk] 11:25, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- You want an academic source? Try Chakraborty, referenced here:
The Second World War, Chakraborty says, “was actually an anti-fascist war. And that is why a spectrum of very different ideologies,” which were often at odds with one another before the war, “actually came together to fight the fascists by bringing up a united front.” That’s why it’s critical, he says, to identify the “fascists of today” and build alliances that “can actually fight these ideologies.”
. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 17:42, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- You want an academic source? Try Chakraborty, referenced here:
- That's why it is a reddit meme, and not some academic paper saying that all American soldiers in WWII were "anteefa". The meme was made/spread because of the whole "Antifa is a terrorist organisation!" shit that is coming from Trump&Co. TurboSuperA+[talk] 11:25, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- I don't think you want to get into just how racist and bigoted the average American was in the 1940s compared to today. They still had segregated ranks in the military, the KKK was much more popular then today, and the American Nazi party was not insignificant before the war. Henry Ford is one example of a person who had pre-war sympathies with Nazi ideology, and I would be surprised if you did not find anyone sympathetic to the fascists in the ranks of American soldiers storming Normandy, many of them were fighting because that was what they were told to do, not because of deeper ideological reasons they personally had. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 11:04, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- Kids read Wikipedia for information. Then when articles like
According to survey of adults 18-39, 23% said they believed the Holocaust was a myth, had been exaggerated or they weren’t sure
orOne in five Americans aged 18-29 believe that Adolf Hitler had “some good ideas”
get published, everyone puts on a Surprised Pikachu face. It is a direct result of this "Were they really Nazis if they fought the real fascists? I am very interested in civil discussion on this topic!" bs that is creating an illusion that Nazis and Nazi crimes are up for debate. I don't know what's worse, ignoring that it is happening or actually falling for the "I'm just asking questions!" schtick. TurboSuperA+[talk] 11:23, 7 February 2026 (UTC)- You're upset at MVBW for their crappy comment. They've struck the comment. The matter should be resolved now. EvergreenFir (talk) 15:15, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- Is it resolved? I think the matter of TurboSuperA+'s egregious incivility violations in this thread are certainly a matter for discussion. This is someone who is referring to other editors as correction: writing "filth", and making absolutely uncivil personal attacks like
You're perverting language, making a mockery of reason and exploiting good will of editors to push a pro-Nazi agenda. You're not here to build an encyclopaedia, you're here to corrupt it. It makes me sick to my stomach that you do it so shamelessly.
In response to me pointing out that the language in question is in fact a commonly used meme, his response was to immediately respond with a personal attack calling that a "stupid take." I have not seen a single apology from Turbo in this thread for any of that behavior. Frankly, at this point, I think sanctions are warranted against TurboSuperA+ for his behavior in this thread alone. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 17:34, 7 February 2026 (UTC)- Where did they refer to other editors as filth? ---Sluzzelin talk 17:43, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- Slight correction: referring to them as "writing" filth. Hardly better.
I don't know where Mvbw finds the gall to write such filth.
from the very top of this thread.⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 17:45, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- Slight correction: referring to them as "writing" filth. Hardly better.
- Where did they refer to other editors as filth? ---Sluzzelin talk 17:43, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- Is it resolved? I think the matter of TurboSuperA+'s egregious incivility violations in this thread are certainly a matter for discussion. This is someone who is referring to other editors as correction: writing "filth", and making absolutely uncivil personal attacks like
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Personal attacks and offensive username by User:MullaShop
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:MullaShop has made repeated personal attacks on the article Kotdwar shop name controversy Also, the username "MullaShop" contains "Mulla", which is a derogatory term and offensive, especially in this context. This violates WP:NPA (personal attacks) and WP:USERNAME (offensive usernames). ButterflyCat (talk) 18:16, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- vaublocked Mfield (Oi!) 18:28, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- Thank You! ButterflyCat (talk) 18:34, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- Maybe after block. User use temporary account and doing same thing ButterflyCat (talk) 18:44, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- I added an IP block that should halt that stuff. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:10, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- I have semi protected the page for a week also due to similar edits from TAs since Mfield (Oi!) 20:17, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- @Mfield @Rsjaffe Thank you so much.. ButterflyCat (talk) 20:22, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- I feel like I'm missing something here, but what exactly is offensive about the username? I don't think I can ever recall seeing the term "Mulla" being used in any context before. Sugar Tax (talk) 18:46, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- wikt:mullah says that, within India, it is a religious slur. That meaning would appear not to have travelled far beyond the country. • a frantic turtle 🐢 18:53, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- In the Indian context, the word “mulla” is highly sensitive and is often used as a derogatory slur to provoke or mock Muslims, especially during communal tensions or violence. In this case, the word was repeatedly inserted into the article Kotdwar shop name controversy, which itself concerns a recent communal issue in Uttarakhand. Given this context, the edits appear deliberate and provocative rather than constructive, and are reasonably likely to offend and disrupt, contrary to Wikipedia policy. ButterflyCat (talk) 18:55, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- Did you use an LLM or AI chatbot to write this comment? Multiple AI-checkers seem to think so. You really shouldn't do that. Buddy Gripple (talk) 19:36, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- commonsense..The reply was not generated by a chatbot. The term “mulla” has only been translated into a globally understood language. The entire comment is not AI-generated; the information was found from available sources. ButterflyCat (talk) 19:42, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- Did you use an LLM or AI chatbot to write this comment? Multiple AI-checkers seem to think so. You really shouldn't do that. Buddy Gripple (talk) 19:36, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- See List_of_religious_slurs Mfield (Oi!) 19:48, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- It is truly disheartening to see such hatred being expressed even on reputed platforms :( ButterflyCat (talk) 19:56, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- (UK perspective, different ethno-religious background.) "Mullah" can be a title of respect, but can also be a slur. Context matters. Narky Blert (talk) 21:19, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- I understand that in some regions the term can be a title or even part of surnames. My reference was specifically to its commonly derogatory usage in the Indian context, where context and intent are crucial. ButterflyCat (talk) 21:28, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- (UK perspective, different ethno-religious background.) "Mullah" can be a title of respect, but can also be a slur. Context matters. Narky Blert (talk) 21:19, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- It is truly disheartening to see such hatred being expressed even on reputed platforms :( ButterflyCat (talk) 19:56, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- I think the first concern about the username should be on UAA. MrDenjiLover 🪚 (talk / edits) (Non-binary) 01:18, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Death threats by an IP
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User talk:Zuck28#c-~2026-87541-5-20260209111100-Are you also mulla? Please check also there is another IP with similar behaviour. See User talk:ButterflyCat#c-~2026-88087-7-20260209110900-This is account is Operate Terrorists Zuck28 (talk) 11:17, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- This seems to be related to #Personal attacks and offensive username by User:MullaShop because its the filer's talk page where the IP is posting. Nakonana (talk) 11:36, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- I came here to report two temporary accounts making similar edits at User talk:ButterflyCat. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:46, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Vandalism on the article Mandarin Chinese profanity
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Mandarin Chinese profanity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The unsourced material removed was not contentious, but the editor Altenmann (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) insists on deleting 39000 bytes from the article, much of which have stood for years, instead of either seeking a consensus before doing so.
Besides myself, other editors have disagreed with his actions and he continues reverting anyways. I am requesting that he be temporarily blocked from editing the article and to keep the original version prior to his edit in place, as his edits are extremely destructive.
Some removed content actually was referenced in the sources at the bottom of page, just not cited inline. None of this warranted multiple nukings of the article against the wishes of other editors.
Deathying (talk) 23:50, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- This is a content dispute being discussed on the article's talk page. The most productive approach would be to take Altenmann's advice and add words as sources are found for them. As he pointed out, that article had been tagged for sourcing problems since 2015. Schazjmd (talk) 23:57, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- Is there any specific policy that says after certain time you can just nuke the essence of an article once a notice has been up for enough time?
- The fact that most of the text stood for years indicates its not contentious enough where people are demanding it to be cited.
- Altenmann took a extremely aggressive approach and blanked out anything without an inline citation to the point where the article is more inaccurate (by omission) than it was prior. Deathying (talk) 00:11, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- ignoring that this discussion is now spread across 3.5 different pages and how confusing that can get, which of the removed contents are mentioned in references? that'd be a good idea to maybe perhaps possibly fix by being more specific in the article, like by using said references as inline citations or something. really, that article should be almost entirely reworked as its referencing is a mess, and you seem to be in a pretty good spot to help with it consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 00:05, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) First of all, Deathying, Altenmann's edits aren't WP:VANDALISM and to call them that is a serious personal attack. Please look at the definition of vandalism. Secondly, you're on 3RR today. You have been reverted by 2 editors. Altermann is on 2RR and has only been revertred by you today. Not a good look for you. Thirdly, you appear from the talk page to have no answer to Altermann's legitimate point on WP:BURDEN. DeCausa (talk)
- I can revert three times and I've stopped reverting, that is totally fine. Altermann has also reverted three times against two editors as well, just not all today. He has a history of sock puppetry. I do not. Not a good look for you that you selectively ignore information like this. Deathying (talk) 00:15, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- he... what? from the logs i can find, he does have a bunch of stuff that mentions sockpuppetry... but that's from his time as an admin (up to 2010). where he blocked people for sockpuppetry. as in not something a sock would normally do. where'd you get this from? consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 00:29, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- , but that was 16 years ago, and shouldn't be used as ammunition in obvious content disputes. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 00:39, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- i don't know if it's funnier that that block is almost old enough to consent. or that it seems to have happened when he was an admin (which i guess would imply why he wasn't an admin by 2013, but not say much about it by now) consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 00:44, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- User:Sugar_Tax conveniently intervened on the article, 1 minute after one of my reverts, just so happens to use Twinkle just like the editor I am in dispute with, despite it being rare and unlikely to come across so quickly on a low traffic article like that, which highly suggested to me he was an alt of Altennmann used so his version could win without violating the 3RR.
- I was mostly concerned about this rising to the level of vandalism, not sock puppetry, and the edit notice was just to document my suspicion. I am not interested in trying to prove that definitively because I do not have the tools to do so. Deathying (talk) 00:43, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- If you look at the revision history Tags only Altenmann and Sugar Tax have ever made edits recently with the "Twinkle" tag. Deathying (talk) 00:46, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- WP:TWINKLE is a general-purpose utility tool that most Wikipedians use. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 00:51, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- this doesn't really work when you consider that twinkle use is really common (i use it all the time lol) and watchlists are a thing. it's the honestly kind of boring explanation to the "wikipedia ninja reverting stuff within seconds" joke. having altenmann's talk page in my watchlist (ironically because twinkle automatically adds alerted pages when nominating stuff for xfd venues) is how i found this discussion, for example consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 00:51, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- If you look at the revision history Tags only Altenmann and Sugar Tax have ever made edits recently with the "Twinkle" tag. Deathying (talk) 00:46, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- , but that was 16 years ago, and shouldn't be used as ammunition in obvious content disputes. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 00:39, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- he... what? from the logs i can find, he does have a bunch of stuff that mentions sockpuppetry... but that's from his time as an admin (up to 2010). where he blocked people for sockpuppetry. as in not something a sock would normally do. where'd you get this from? consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 00:29, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- I can revert three times and I've stopped reverting, that is totally fine. Altermann has also reverted three times against two editors as well, just not all today. He has a history of sock puppetry. I do not. Not a good look for you that you selectively ignore information like this. Deathying (talk) 00:15, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
POV warrior TA
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Special:Contribs/~2025-34656-77 is engaging in POV editing relating to post-'92 US politics, such as making unsupported claims relating to Trayvon Martin, and removing objectionable content en masse. This user has been given over 5 warnings through multiple months, and a block would probably be in order at this point. Somepinkdude (talk) 17:22, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- Indeffed. Acroterion (talk) 17:39, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Agpigeon recreating declined AFCs and draftified articles
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Agpigeon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User has repeatedly created poor quality articles, often with little to no sourcing and obvious grammar/spelling errors. E.g. Blue Star Paros. Several of them have been draftified, including that article (Draft:Blue Star Paros) and Nissos Rodos (Draft:Nissos Rodos).
After getting declined at AFC for those articles, they simply circumvent AFC and recreate in mainspace without significant improvement.
I'd like to propose that their ability to create new articles directly in mainspace be blocked and that they should consistently go through AFC until they learn the process. grapesurgeon (talk) 05:40, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- P-blocked from mainspace. Reasonable solution. Star Mississippi 15:57, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- Agpigeon posted on my talk page with personal attacks and a legal threat. Written in greek, so I machine translated, but I suspect accurate grapesurgeon (talk) 19:25, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- And blocked fully. CoconutOctopus talk 19:31, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- Agpigeon posted on my talk page with personal attacks and a legal threat. Written in greek, so I machine translated, but I suspect accurate grapesurgeon (talk) 19:25, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Multiple MOS violations and factual errors by User:KissingNotorius82
- KissingNotorius82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Plus multiple TAs before account creation, all of which I cannot keep track of nor list here
- Hatsune Miku: Colorful Stage! (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This user has repeatedly, both as a series of TAs before creating this account and as this account, removed band logos from this page in a disruptive manner, citing "copyright" when all of the affected logos are defaulted to the public domain per COM:TOO. I have already started a discussion regarding this dispute, but the user has not replied, instead ignoring User talk page pleas and continuing to make edits that violate multiple MOS guidelines, including MOS:QUOTE, MOS:CAPS, MOS:OLINK, and MOS:BADDATE among others, across many different subjects on Wikipedia. I feel like this is now starting to become a case of WP:IDHT and am requesting some administrative assistance in order to get this user to start using a Talk page. Jalen Barks (Woof) 00:25, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
- I'll also add that with this edit, the user added a deliberate factual error. Loafiewa (talk) 18:44, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
- Even as this ANI is still up, the user continues these random violations of manual of style. You can notice both a violation of MOS:BADDATE and a change of quote to something not actually said here and a violation of MOS:OLINK here. Very easily a concerning WP:IDHT case, and I'm getting really tired of reverting them constantly! Jalen Barks (Woof) 20:49, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
- I agree that it's an issue. I thought that their edits after this thread was opened would be less controversial but their work on other articles has introduced errors (diff 1, diff 2, both reverted). They have no contributions to talk pages anywhere. I would support a partial block until we receive explanation or any communication at all from this user. -- Reconrabbit 14:42, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
- This user is still making the same edits even as I write this. This needs to be stopped! Also, I've gone ahead and expanded this thread's title to reflect the problem in question. Jalen Barks (Woof) 15:43, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- I am now calling an SOS on this issue, as this user is still making nonsense edits and not responding here! We need to WP:CIR this now!!! Jalen Barks (Woof) 05:11, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
Hew Mun Weng
Hi all,
This user (Hew Mun Weng (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) I am discussing about has been blocked once before for blanking stats tables without an explanation in edit summaries (see e.g.). After that block, it seemed like this user is still doing it (e.g.) despite advice being given on this talk page. I'm sure not all edits made are blanking stats tables, but this is certainly a repetitive issue which has resulted in the recent block. It doesn't happen very often though but I thought a review may be necessary in case I see something like this happen in the future. Cheers, Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 17:27, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
- This user has a long history of disruptive edits, with plenty of warnings from multiple editors and previous blocks - and they have never changed or responded. I suggest a longer block. GiantSnowman 17:08, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
- Wider input here would be appreciated. GiantSnowman 12:58, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but as someone completely oblivious to this topic, would you mind explaining to me why it is important to retain the rows with 0 appearances (and therefore 0 goals) in tables titled "Appearances and goals by club, season and competition" for past (i.e. non-current) seasons? If anything, removing them seems to improve the readability of the tables. Or are these "empty" rows somehow important for continuity? Thank you! Drake178 (talk) 14:57, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
- It's in the MOS, because if we exclude the parent rows for loans, then a situation where somebody signs for a club and is immediately loaned out would make it appear that they are on loan from the previous club i.e. misleading. GiantSnowman 19:38, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
- Found it. Personally, I'd recommend linking that page to the actual WP:MOS (as in putting it here, for example) to avoid the potential misinterpretation of that abbreviation. Also, for the record, in the second diff linked by the OP, the editor tried to work around the problem you note by leaving the first of the empty rows in place. Anyway, thank you for your time! Drake178 (talk) 02:02, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- It's in the MOS, because if we exclude the parent rows for loans, then a situation where somebody signs for a club and is immediately loaned out would make it appear that they are on loan from the previous club i.e. misleading. GiantSnowman 19:38, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but as someone completely oblivious to this topic, would you mind explaining to me why it is important to retain the rows with 0 appearances (and therefore 0 goals) in tables titled "Appearances and goals by club, season and competition" for past (i.e. non-current) seasons? If anything, removing them seems to improve the readability of the tables. Or are these "empty" rows somehow important for continuity? Thank you! Drake178 (talk) 14:57, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
- Judging by this, I think they might deserve a indef. MrDenjiLover 🪚 (talk / edits) (Non-binary) 01:02, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- Wider input here would be appreciated. GiantSnowman 12:58, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
Rms mauretania2 1938 cunard
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Rms mauretania2 1938 cunard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This was not dealt with before it was archived.
The editor continues to add uncited information here and was just encouraged by User:7&6=thirteen to continue his behaviour. Llammakey (talk) 12:37, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
- Llammakey False. Untrue. I said that he should make constructive edits with citations and learn how to do it. We need more competent editors. Being put up for public shaming drives them away. The linked edit has nothing to do with me. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:21, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
- I'm not going to get into what you said or didn't say when it is there in black and white on their talk page. There have been multiple editors who have linked pages (including myself) where the editor in question can inform themselves. WP:COMPETENCE matters. There has been no engagement, no attempts to change, just the same old same old. I am trying to deal with this poor editor. They can be restricted to draft space where they can play around with editing tests all they want. If you want to go in and check everyone of this editor's edits and produce citations to help them along and correct any incorrect information, by all means, do that. But that has not been the case and I do not want to play cleanup everyday when I am trying to do my own work. Llammakey (talk) 13:30, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
- I don't have a dog in this fight. Llammakey I hope you get your wish, and also that Rms mauretania2 1938 cunard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) learns to be competent and continues to contribute. The encyclopedia needs you both. I wish you both luck and continued good editing. Cheers! 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:14, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
- @7&6=thirteen How can you say you have no dog in the fight when you leave a message saying:
- 1. their edits are valuable and welcome, when their talk page is littered with issues; and
- 2. illegitimi non carborundum.
- I wonder why you felt the need to encourage someone whose edits are repeatedly problematic and who has failed to respond to anyone who has left a message on their talk page (including you) and, worse still, failed to respond to an ANI incident. MmeMaigret (talk) 09:28, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
- I don't have a dog in this fight. Llammakey I hope you get your wish, and also that Rms mauretania2 1938 cunard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) learns to be competent and continues to contribute. The encyclopedia needs you both. I wish you both luck and continued good editing. Cheers! 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:14, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
- I'm not going to get into what you said or didn't say when it is there in black and white on their talk page. There have been multiple editors who have linked pages (including myself) where the editor in question can inform themselves. WP:COMPETENCE matters. There has been no engagement, no attempts to change, just the same old same old. I am trying to deal with this poor editor. They can be restricted to draft space where they can play around with editing tests all they want. If you want to go in and check everyone of this editor's edits and produce citations to help them along and correct any incorrect information, by all means, do that. But that has not been the case and I do not want to play cleanup everyday when I am trying to do my own work. Llammakey (talk) 13:30, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
- There is no prohibition against adding uncited material to Wikipedia. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:24, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
- Of @Rms mauretania2 1938 cunard’ 550 edits, almost none have edits summaries.
- The only ones with edit summaries are the initial ones for the pages they created - each of which was PROD’d, AfD’d or moved to draftspace. Despite the previous ANI, which should have serve as a warning, they have continued in this vein. MmeMaigret (talk) 00:14, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
- This is a bad take. Communication is not optional, and when uncited additions are reverted the onus is on the one introducing the information to provide a source. And we should not be encouraging people to add unsourced information in mainspace. WP:V is a core policy and uncited material cannot be readily verified. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:12, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
- Because I don't. I have only told User: Rms mauret1nia 2 1938 cunard to learn how to edit and persist in constructive editing. Including citations. We need to encourage new editors. But what you choose to do is beyond me.
- P.S., You made a choice. You never left a message on my talk page, which is a requirement at WP:ANI; compare who has "failed to respond to anyone who has left a message on their talk page (including you) and, worse still, failed to respond to an ANI incident." I deny that.
- Finally, the full context of all my edits to that talk page is available here. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:59, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
- I agree that it's better to encourage people rather than complain about them. In that spirit please lets not get into wikilawyering. The fact that you replied showed that you had seen this discussion, so there was no need to inform you. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:26, 2 February 2026 (UTC
- Yes, I am aware of it.
- Sorry, but I disagree.
- However, WP:ANI is clear on this requirement. That MmeMaigret affirmatively chose to misstate about it to this agency shows its import. That I found it does not excuse MmeMaigret's conduct here.
- I've provided MmeMaigret with notice of this discussion on her talk page. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:18, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
- @7&6=thirteen Sorry I don't understand why you have tagged me. What is that that I have chosen to mistake about what? I don't even understand your comment. I mentioned you above on the 30th above on a different thread of this incident. Is that what you are referring to? Are you suggesting that I misquoted your comment on @Rms's talk page. MmeMaigret (talk) 20:59, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
- The above rules say: " When you start a discussion about an editor You must leave a notice on their talk page. A ping is not enough." [Emphasis original.]
- You falsely wrote, and I quote: "failed to respond to anyone who has left a message on their talk page (including you) and, worse still, failed to respond to an ANI incident."
- I tried to sugar coat this, but you want to know why you were given a notice. There you have it. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:56, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
- @7&6=thirteen I wasn’t referring to you. My comment “failed to respond…” was about @Rms mauretania2 1938 cunard, who this ANI incident is about. MmeMaigret (talk) 23:23, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
- MmeMaigret In that case, I stand corrected. I apologize for invoking ANI and notifying you about it.
- Understand that in the context of your earlier comments that I understood that I was included.
- But I will take this as your admission that this ANI is not about me at all, and that there was no need for me to respond (despite your earlier question).
- Cheers. 00:23, 3 February 2026 (UTC) 7&6=thirteen (☎) 02:10, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- @7&6=thirteen I wasn’t referring to you. My comment “failed to respond…” was about @Rms mauretania2 1938 cunard, who this ANI incident is about. MmeMaigret (talk) 23:23, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
- @7&6=thirteen Sorry I don't understand why you have tagged me. What is that that I have chosen to mistake about what? I don't even understand your comment. I mentioned you above on the 30th above on a different thread of this incident. Is that what you are referring to? Are you suggesting that I misquoted your comment on @Rms's talk page. MmeMaigret (talk) 20:59, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
- I agree that it's better to encourage people rather than complain about them. In that spirit please lets not get into wikilawyering. The fact that you replied showed that you had seen this discussion, so there was no need to inform you. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:26, 2 February 2026 (UTC
- WP:Verifiability is indeed a core policy Trainsandotherthings, but I can't quite see how it is relevant.
- "A fact or claim is "verifiable" if a reliable source that supports it could be cited, even if there is no citation for it in the article at the moment." Whether or not a claim is cited has no bearing on whether it meets our verifiability policy.
- Similarly, I can't see how "when uncited additions are reverted the onus is on the one introducing the information to provide a source" is relevant; as far as I can see, Rms mauretania2 1938 cunard has never reverted a reversion of one of their edits. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:24, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
- My issue here isn't with 7&6=13, but with Rms mauretania2 1938 cunard for being unable or unwilling to engage with other editors in any way. I don't know if we're looking at a WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU situation or not, but communication is not optional, even if you're going to consider adding unsourced material not inherently sanctionable. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:18, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
- Because I don't. I have only told User: Rms mauret1nia 2 1938 cunard to learn how to edit and persist in constructive editing. Including citations. We need to encourage new editors. But what you choose to do is beyond me.
- I think @7&6=thirteen was just trying to be encouraging to the user in good faith. Could they have communicated it better? Yes, the message could be—and has been—misinterpreted as approval of bad behavior.
- As for @Rms mauretania2 1938 cunard, I sincerely wish you to begin implementing the suggestions everyone have given at your talk page. —Opecuted (talk) 13:21, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- 7&6=thirteen's behaviour was completely appropriate and calling them out in an ANI is not constructive, and distracts from the actual issue. Any misinterpretation of their contributions is down to the reader. Rms mauretania2 1938 cunard, on the other hand, is not acting in a collaborative way and is harming the encyclopedia. pburka (talk) 22:53, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- Yup, 7&6=thirteen's choice (and manner) of engagement with that user is completely unproblematic, and it was frankly absurd for the OP to have even cited it in their complaint. All Thirteen did was attempt the same thing everyone else is attempting on that user talk (trying to encourage some compliance with basic editorial norms), but decided to do so with a more cheerful and encouraging tone. That's not just understandable, but laudable. It may also prove to be ineffectual, but its their time to risk wasting if they so choose. Everyone else's sharper or more neutral requests/rebukes on that user talk are also completely appropriate, as far as I reviewed, but were also clearly not getting the responses that were hoped for. Again, this user may just prove to be one of that (quite sizable) category of user who just never engages--many of whom the community has to take action against to forestall disruption that results from their lack of communication, and a small portion of whom mange to colour within the policy lines while being mute. But the idea that Thirteen is somehow in the wrong for showing a warmer tone in their efforts to educate this user: again, absurd. As to the content policy issue at play, I think AirshipJungleman29 has already captured the nuances of how that works accurately above. SnowRise let's rap 22:06, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
- Thank you for the insult Snow Rise. I will remember that. Llammakey (talk) 15:08, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
- If you're trying to sound creepy, it's working. EEng 13:52, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- What? Nobody insulted you. You fundamentally mischaracterized the conduct of another community member, a complete bystander to your dispute, in an ANI request, and several of us have felt the need to correct that peculiar and misleading observation. That is not a WP:PA nor any other form of insult; it is simply a lamentable fact, and nobody created the need for it to be pointed out except you yourself. Look, if you weren't previously aware of it, let me inform you now: one of the basic bits of the process at ANI is that if you file a report, the resulting discussion is not necessarily confined to the conduct of the party against whom you are seeking action. Your conduct also becomes fair game. And frankly, if I am to be perfectly honest with you, at this point I am at least as concerned about your propensity for antagonism against parties who aren't even tangentially involved in your dispute but just happen to be in the vicinity (first at the user talk and now here), as I am about the conduct of our mute colleague here--which may be problematic and need restraining, even lacking clear policy violations, but concern me less than an experienced editor taking such an excessively WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality into a minor content dispute that they A) throw shade at another editor in an ANI complaint for doing not being as hostile in their efforts to improve another's editor's approach, B) double down on it when objection was (quite reasonably) made by the accused party, and C) taking umbrage with other community respondent's who dare to point out that this is all out-of-proportion, misdirected, and non-productive. You need to keep some perspective here: neither the project nor your personal editorial experience see a net benefit from this editor being improved or temporarily blocked or whatever, if you, in the process, create excessive disruption and antagonistic dynamics for no productive need. SnowRise let's rap 03:42, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- If you're trying to sound creepy, it's working. EEng 13:52, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- Thank you for the insult Snow Rise. I will remember that. Llammakey (talk) 15:08, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
- The editor in question just re-entered the exact same information that he had previously been reverted for. Behaviour is not changing at all. Llammakey (talk) 15:13, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
- I too have came across this editors uncited information on many articles and multiple users have tried to talk to the user on their wiki talk page about unsourced material and they have not yet responded to any of them. Something has to be done about this user. Hope we can come to some sort of agreement.Brotherbenz (talk)
- 564 edits to mainspace, 52 edits to Draft space, no edits anywhere else. However people talk to them on their talk page may be irrelevant, they might not be reading anything posted there. CMD (talk) 04:37, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- I think that might be the case here, the notification bell is tucked into a corner where someone might not even notice its existence. —Opecuted (talk) 12:43, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- When I started editing Wikipedia we had the orange bar of doom, which was impossible to miss. I'm nostalgic for those days. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:06, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- Now they've created List of lake freighters (selected ships), which is nothing but 8 links to ships the user happens to like and has already been tagged for CSD A3. How long are we going to let this disruption continue? We need a mainspace block to force communication. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:28, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- Also, Draft:SS Thomas F. Paton screams LLM-generated (and is misspelt). They've been submitting drafts with zero sources (Draft:SS Frank Purnell). Their uploads on Commons are likely all copyvios as well, I just confirmed their most recent upload is one. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:31, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- SS Frank Purnell is a copy-paste job from greatlakesships.wordpress.com/frank-purnell-2. Enough is enough, we need a full indef. We cannot tolerate copyright violations on top of all the other disruption this user has been responsible for. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:39, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- Also, Draft:SS Thomas F. Paton screams LLM-generated (and is misspelt). They've been submitting drafts with zero sources (Draft:SS Frank Purnell). Their uploads on Commons are likely all copyvios as well, I just confirmed their most recent upload is one. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:31, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- I think that might be the case here, the notification bell is tucked into a corner where someone might not even notice its existence. —Opecuted (talk) 12:43, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- They've continued to edit on unsourced material on multiple articles; all with no recourse or response on any of the talk pages. Something needs to be done about this user and fast.Brotherbenz (talk)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'm noting this edit on my user talk for the sake of the record, since while the issues with the reported party have been staunched by the block, I am concerned the OP's behaviour during this discussion suggests that we might see them at ANI again. SnowRise let's rap 05:09, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
Using an LLM to justify inappropriate LLM use
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Cdkvsdph (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User is adding misleading and hallucinated LLM content into articles. When questioned at Wikipedia:WikiProject AI Cleanup/Noticeboard#User:Cdkvsdph, they posted an LLM-written response trying to argue that citations are not required to actually verify article content. They have since restored the WP:NEWLLM articles that were draftified. At some point we need to start blocking these LLM abusers on sight. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 00:38, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- It's getting closer, but sadly, I don't think the community is quite there yet. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 00:41, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- I’m there, for one. Using walls of LLM-generated text to communicate on a talk page is a sign that a user does not have the minimum level of competence to communicate about work on the project. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:58, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- If nothing else, using an LLM that does not respond meaningfully fails WP:COMMUNICATE. Their response to the failed verification is particularly egregious of missing the point. EducatedRedneck (talk) 01:02, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- The user in question has been warned at least once before posting the latest LLM wall of text. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:16, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- Ok, I added pages that didn't exist, and this is what I get in return, and even if it was ai (which you haven't prove) wouldn't change any of the points. And even if the articles were ai, then help fix and remove the ai parts if it is such a problem, rather than delete important pages which need reporting. And how did I fail to response to the point. Still so many accusation no proofs. Cdkvsdph (talk) 01:21, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- Can you demonstrate that? Cdkvsdph (talk) 01:23, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- The user in question has been warned at least once before posting the latest LLM wall of text. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:16, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- Ah yes, lets say a ad-hom because that is helpful to meaningful dialogue. Cdkvsdph (talk) 01:22, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- It’s not ad hominem to point out a situation in which a user repeatedly fails to demonstrate competence in editing and communicating, because competence is required. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:29, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- You said "user does not have the minimum level of competence to communicate about work on the project", which is obviously a abusive ad hom, you are attacking my competence rather than the actual content of my writing. I do not know why you think you can verbally bully me and get away with it, do you do It often? Cdkvsdph (talk) 01:39, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- It’s not ad hominem to point out a situation in which a user repeatedly fails to demonstrate competence in editing and communicating, because competence is required. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:29, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- If nothing else, using an LLM that does not respond meaningfully fails WP:COMMUNICATE. Their response to the failed verification is particularly egregious of missing the point. EducatedRedneck (talk) 01:02, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- "llm abuse" is not a well-defined term, but the those that repeatedly lie are often blocked, those that fake sources are also blocked. CMD (talk) 01:38, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- I’m there, for one. Using walls of LLM-generated text to communicate on a talk page is a sign that a user does not have the minimum level of competence to communicate about work on the project. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:58, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
At some point we need to start blocking these LLM abusers on sight
– I'm going to start saying again what I was saying on and off months ago: anyone who uses AI at all to create either talk page posts, or article content, should be blocked on sight, immediately, indefinitely, period. Why? Because no one who's ever done that has ever been reformed into a useful editor. Why? Because anyone who does that is, ipso facto, incompetent -- no one with any clue as to what Wikipedia is about could possibly think that AI use has any place here. After a year, minimum, they can appeal by showing us that they've gained some clue. If we don't start doing this very, very soon, we will drown in AI sewage. EEng 01:38, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
Indeffed - We do not need to waste volunteer time cleaning up after AI slop. -- Whpq (talk) 01:42, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Post close comment: A bit of a tangent, but there are still people who argue that it is not OK to wholesale ban LLM use because "dyslexic people should be allowed to use LLM" and "if a user uses LLM to post on a talk page about an error should not be punished for doing so" albeit it might be different from this kind of case...
Rhinocratt09:58, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
c- Those people are wrong. "Dyslexic" countenances a wide range of levels of impairment, but if it makes it impossible for someone to read and write English, then having a monkey at a typewriter produce something they are unable to read and correct is of zero value -- decidely negative value, actually. And while it may be that history has recorded an isolated instance in which an AI-genetated talk-page post was not, in fact, a waste of time, that doesn't outweigh all the instances in which it was. EEng 13:49, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- Second post-close note: this was a sock. If anyone sees similar editing, consider reporting at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Famous editor123456. Girth Summit (blether) 13:48, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:Talkdiva – Undisclosed LLM misuse, bludgeoning, wikilawyering
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Talkdiva (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robootology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User talk:Talkdiva (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
- Talk:Robootology (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
- Robootology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
I'm reporting this user now to prevent more hours of human editor time being sucked up by this user's chatbot. They have posted multiple duplicate !votes and comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robootology which, in itself, suggests careless copy-pasting of chatbot output without the slightest attention or care. Their comments at the AfD contain LLM greatest hits including:
- Liberal use of unlinked WP: shortcuts including an irrelevant reference to WP:CONCEPT
- Summaries of the summary of media coverage with no attempt at addressing the actual concerns raised about RS (1, 2)
- Unfounded accusation of bias/racism
Their comments at their user talk (1, 2) and Talk:Robootology (1, 2) include the same denials of LLM use and non-compliance, with added logical self-contradiction. Whatever bot they're using, it hasn't learned about AITALK.
Their rewrite of Robootology (after the AfD was started by Dclemens1971) stinks of 2025/2026–era AI tells:
- Overly vague passages that don't really tell us much about the concept or book (however, some of this vagueness was already present in the version created by Gregpolk)
- Excessive description of the book's media coverage, rather than actually summarising the coverage
- A See also section with unlinked phrases vaguely related to the topic
I feel I've already spent more time and thought replying to this user and compiling this report than they have in generating multiple paragraphs of slop. Engaging with mindless drones like this is not a good use of editors' time. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 02:54, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- Block, delete, salt - Yeah this painfully obvious LLM use. The layout of the article is every generic LLM output format for Wikipedia, and their comments on AfD have that detached "I wrote for this you" style of response. Rambling Rambler (talk) 02:59, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- I forgot to include Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Reliability of The Narrative Matters, The Buffalo Criterion, where I first came across this article and user. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 03:12, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- Thank you for reporting this, @Claudine. I was reluctant to file since I am involved as the AfD creator. This editor is an WP:SPA focused on Rob Redding and topics related to him, and appears to be engaged in some kind of advocacy for the subject. I also consider the aspersion cast about racial bias to be false, inappropriate and inflammatory. Finally, any editor who blatantly uses chatbots to communicate and then lies about it to the community is WP:NOTHERE and should be blocked. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:19, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- Blocked I have indef'd Talkdiva for undisclosed LLM usage, abuse of community process and general NOTHEREness. Mfield (Oi!) 03:24, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- and I have speedily closed the AfD as an obvious G15. Mfield (Oi!) 03:39, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks @Mfield. FYI, Talkdiva revised an earlier version of it created by a different editor (just as bad, notability-wise) but that I doubt was AI-generated, so there are probably a couple revisions that don't qualify. (And WP:NOTBURO withstanding, I'd honestly prefer for it to be deleted via AfD now rather than be eligible to have another version brought back and have to AfD it again.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:40, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- Yeah the previous version could easily have been speedied instead for notability during the few days it had existed, even if it had not been turned into AI slop instead. Def doesn't seem to have enough coverage to merit an article anytime soon. Although if anyone feels it merits letting the AfD run full term instead I'll revert the closure. Mfield (Oi!) Mfield (Oi!) 03:47, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- Nope, just making sure everything is done in good order. Thanks for the prompt attention to this! Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:03, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- Yeah the previous version could easily have been speedied instead for notability during the few days it had existed, even if it had not been turned into AI slop instead. Def doesn't seem to have enough coverage to merit an article anytime soon. Although if anyone feels it merits letting the AfD run full term instead I'll revert the closure. Mfield (Oi!) Mfield (Oi!) 03:47, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks @Mfield. FYI, Talkdiva revised an earlier version of it created by a different editor (just as bad, notability-wise) but that I doubt was AI-generated, so there are probably a couple revisions that don't qualify. (And WP:NOTBURO withstanding, I'd honestly prefer for it to be deleted via AfD now rather than be eligible to have another version brought back and have to AfD it again.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:40, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- and I have speedily closed the AfD as an obvious G15. Mfield (Oi!) 03:39, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- One of my favourite habits of LLMs is their almost self-conscious tendency to deflect and insist that the use of AI isn't relevant. From this user's talk page:
Speculation about editors or how comments are written isn’t relevant to AfD and doesn’t affect the outcome. Let’s keep the discussion centered on sources and policy.
Athanelar (talk) 11:36, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Post-close non-admin comment: Talkdiva has continued to reply with an LLM and deny LLM use in their unblock appeal, as well as repeat their accusation of anti-Black discrimination. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 23:06, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- I've been trying to work with them on their appeal for a while but they just won't admit to using AI - even though their recent responses appear to infer they've been using it. They've (or, more likely, the AI has) now latched onto a COI question I've asked and are saying that they've got a COI because they've read Rob Redding's books? They're just not making any sense. This screams AI to me, especially since I asked it, not the blocking admin. Blue Sonnet (talk) 12:34, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- Due to their continued posting of LLM-generated comments without disclosure, I have declined Talkdiva's latest unblock request and revoked their talk page access. — Newslinger talk 15:31, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- Damn, guess they can no longer live up to their username. Sad day. Rambling Rambler (talk) 15:40, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- I mean, isn't eventual revocation of TPA, becoming an aetherial editor, the eternal, unavoidable transfiguration of any who identify as a talk diva? It's the fulfilling of a destiny, the closing of the circle. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 16:12, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- Damn, guess they can no longer live up to their username. Sad day. Rambling Rambler (talk) 15:40, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- Due to their continued posting of LLM-generated comments without disclosure, I have declined Talkdiva's latest unblock request and revoked their talk page access. — Newslinger talk 15:31, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- I've been trying to work with them on their appeal for a while but they just won't admit to using AI - even though their recent responses appear to infer they've been using it. They've (or, more likely, the AI has) now latched onto a COI question I've asked and are saying that they've got a COI because they've read Rob Redding's books? They're just not making any sense. This screams AI to me, especially since I asked it, not the blocking admin. Blue Sonnet (talk) 12:34, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Use of unreliable source
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to be trying to engage in an edit war with me over a modern imaginary sketch of Mahfiruz Hatun (File:Mahfiruz.children.jpg) provided by an unreliable source the blogger Melike de Chimay, who is known to falsify and invent claims about historical female figures in the Ottoman Empire. Furthermore, their responses to my concerns show no understanding whatsoever, and it seems to me that they are trying to brush the issue off. D3enji (talk) 16:15, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- The user tries to pass his beliefs as facts without sources. He doesn't listen while advised that his beliefs are not facts and can't be taken into consideration. I have pointed out that he needs sources to show his claims, but it seems he doesn't understand or he doesn't care about it. The claims he has quoted now here, themselves are his beliefs as he doesn't cite a source and he himself doesn't stop in such a behaviour while informed that his edits need proofs. I leave this situation to those who are in charge so to end this "show" which has been up for too much. MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 18:42, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- I'm not seeing any discussion from either of you on the Talk page of the article, perhaps try that first? There are Wikipedia:Dispute resolution processes if this fails, such as getting a third opinion.
- ANI is a high-visibility noticeboard for long-term behavioural issues where all else has failed, admins can't help with content disputes here - especially when you haven't tried to build a consensus yet.
- Please go to the Talk page of the article to try to talk this out first. Blue Sonnet (talk) 18:49, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Billirams NOTHERE
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
All of Billirams (talk · contribs)'s edits seem to promote their "rAM Time theory" and something about pyramids. They went dormant in 2024 but they're back and have started doing this again. Laura240406 (talk) 17:05, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- also, Ram Time theory Foundation (created by the user) as been CSD'ed as A7 Laura240406 (talk) 17:09, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- Page deleted, user blocked for NOTHERE. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:34, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA by AndyTheGrump
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
During an ongoing discussion at WP:RSN, Andy dropped an uncivil comment in the middle of the discussion, it contained profanity and a borderline personal attack.
Their comment: "Your map is unambiguous synthesis, created by your own personal interpretation of multiple sources, and it will remain so, regardless of how much repetitive bullshit you post claiming otherwise. As for other maps, it is blatantly obvious to anyone who take the trouble to look that maps and other images have routinely been used to insert WP:OR, synthesis, and outright misinformation into Wikipedia for decades. This needs to be stopped."
For context, this user also seems to have a history. . Noorullah (talk) 19:45, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- Any claim that a map created through the interpretation of 62 different sources isn't blatant synthesis (and quite obviously unverifiable for that matter) is self-evident bullshit, and will remain so regardless of how much repetitive bluster is posted claiming otherwise. I suggest that Noorullah21 reads WP:BLUDGEON, and accepts the consensus from the discussion at WP:RSN that the map doesn't belong in an article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:54, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- Uncivil, yes. A personal attack? No. He's saying the (information) is bullshit, not you @Noorullah21. Andy lives up to his name, but this is not going to go anywhere productive for either of you as it's neither block nor dramaboard worthy. I really suggest moving on from this discussion and potentially the map as @AndyTheGrump is not alone in his assessment per that thread Star Mississippi 19:59, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- I'm willing to move on from the map and its discussion but I don't appreciate the uncivil tone which makes the discussion (in general) far less welcoming. Noorullah (talk) 20:06, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- OK, but what is the outcome you're looking for her @Noorullah21. I'm asking in all seriousness. Asking Andy to apologize? Even if that happens, he'll snark again. Maybe it will be block worthy, but probably not. He's aware of that line. I don't believe in forced apologies from adults personally. Star Mississippi 20:27, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- @Star Mississippi I'm not looking for any specific outcome nor an apology, I shared the piece I found concerning was all. Noorullah (talk) 21:16, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- "Bullshit" is not a profanity but a word quite frequently used in academic political discourse. Compare for example Harry Frankfurt, On Bullshit (2005), a serious and well-regarded book published by Princeton University Press and referenced in the section "Bullshit" in our article False or misleading statements by Donald Trump. If Andy says no worse than Harry Frankfurt, he's fine IMO. Bishonen | tålk 21:39, 8 February 2026 (UTC).
- Was "bullshit" really the word you were complaining about? I have known much more profane words come out of the mouths of nuns. This is supposed to be a workplace, not a kindergarten. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:12, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- If you weren't looking for a specific outcome (or even the idea of one) then was it really worth bringing it up here? Rambling Rambler (talk) 22:15, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- "Bullshit" is not a profanity but a word quite frequently used in academic political discourse. Compare for example Harry Frankfurt, On Bullshit (2005), a serious and well-regarded book published by Princeton University Press and referenced in the section "Bullshit" in our article False or misleading statements by Donald Trump. If Andy says no worse than Harry Frankfurt, he's fine IMO. Bishonen | tålk 21:39, 8 February 2026 (UTC).
- @Star Mississippi I'm not looking for any specific outcome nor an apology, I shared the piece I found concerning was all. Noorullah (talk) 21:16, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- OK, but what is the outcome you're looking for her @Noorullah21. I'm asking in all seriousness. Asking Andy to apologize? Even if that happens, he'll snark again. Maybe it will be block worthy, but probably not. He's aware of that line. I don't believe in forced apologies from adults personally. Star Mississippi 20:27, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- I'm willing to move on from the map and its discussion but I don't appreciate the uncivil tone which makes the discussion (in general) far less welcoming. Noorullah (talk) 20:06, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
IP edits on Pretty Rhythm
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Recently, the linked page has been flooded with IP edits adding the star symbols within Kiratto Pri Chan. Unfortunately, I cannot put all of the IP numbers here, nor do I know how. The star symbol is indeed official and used by many reliable sources, but MOS:JAPAN thumps this, so it should be removed. Despite this, the IP users keep adding the star symbol no matter how hard I and the other editors there tried to revert them. However, at best, editors want that to be changed are free to revise the change on talk page of that guideline or start discussing on village pump. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 16:55, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- Semi'ed for a month since this is here already, but please use WP:RFPP in the future. Star Mississippi 16:58, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Long term, persistent disruption of Guafo Island article
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The Guafo Island article has frequently been targeted by users whom are adding unsourced information about the apparent meme of the island on Tiktok. This has been going on for well over 2 years and some months now, and such edits are consistently reverted. Sockpuppets have also tried to edit war this in, with little success. I believe this article should definitely come under administrator scrutiny.
See the full edit history starting especially from January 2025.Plasticwonder (Cat got your tongue?) 16:56, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- Semi'ed since we're here, but please use RFPP going forward. It won't help with the latest named account, but don't see enough by established editors to warrant ECR. Star Mississippi 17:01, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- Thank you. I figured I'd come here as the edits are more sporadic and long term, and as the edits aren't overt vandalism, wouldn't meet RFPP requirements for protection (like for example, 3 high schoolers joking around on an article at the same time). Guess I was wrong! Plasticwonder (Cat got your tongue?) 17:07, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Eastmain's use of generative AI in mainspace and draftspace
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Eastmain (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Caught using AI both pre-block and post-unblock (and they were unblocked with a restriction to no longer use AI). Would be helpful to get more eyes on this, to help figure out the scope of cleanup needed, and to gather evidence for a possible re-block. Evidence:
- User talk:Eastmain#February 2026
- User talk:Eastmain#Creation of hoax drafts under alternate account
- User talk:Eastmain#AfC notification: Draft:Aphanostoma pulchra has a new comment
- User talk:Eastmain#Praeconvoluta
–Novem Linguae (talk) 13:40, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- Well, isn't it sad when a long-established editor goes this route. Considering these repeat violations, including post-block, I feel like Eastmain should have their new page reviewer status revoked at minimum. They admit to letting some pretty massive red flags through, not ideal for a new page reviewer; worth noting they've had autopatrolled revoked in 2023;
many articles being deleted recently, probably needs additional checking going forward
. I'm also not confident in their ability to not use AI considering their use post-block. I think a block from draft and mainspace may be needed. jolielover♥talk 14:08, 7 February 2026 (UTC)- I've revoked NPR. -- asilvering (talk) 08:50, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- I argued that the previous unblock was far too lenient. Unfortunately, I've been proven completely right. This is inexcusable when Eastmain just agreed not to use LLMs as an unblock condition. Indef them (including their alts / former socks) with a minimum of one month before allowing an appeal. It's clear the rope extended to them with the very lenient unblock was taken advantage of. For context, Eastmain operated undisclosed alt accounts from 2018 until this month, and also created hoaxes with LLMs. I'm still aghast that a 20 year veteran would act in this manner. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:10, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- As the administrator who unblocked them, I sadly have to agree with you. I expected better of an established editor, and, with how they broke our trust in the days immediately following that additional chance, I don't see any other way out of it. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 14:15, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- This is bananas. I've re-indeffed them. IMO they should never have been unblocked in the first place so quickly after being caught socking, but what do I know? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:05, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- @Premeditated Chaos: The blocks should also be applied to Eastmain2 and Eastmain3, the alt accounts which were (wrongly, in my opinion) unblocked as well. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:27, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks for catching that, I didn't realize we'd unblocked the socks they misused as well. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:31, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- One of the unblock conditions imposed by Asilvering was
"the connections between the accounts will be made clear on their userpages"
. I went ahead and added alt account userboxes to all three, but it should be noted that Eastmain never seems to have acknowledged or complied with the condition even after being asked directly . –dlthewave ☎ 17:50, 7 February 2026 (UTC)- It's a bit hard to hide when your alts have been renamed to "Eastmain2" and "Eastmain3", so I wasn't planning to worry too much about that one. But since we've already had a spectacular failure to follow unblock conditions, I'll go ahead and put sock templates on them instead. -- asilvering (talk) 09:02, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- One of the unblock conditions imposed by Asilvering was
- Thanks for catching that, I didn't realize we'd unblocked the socks they misused as well. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:31, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- @Premeditated Chaos: The blocks should also be applied to Eastmain2 and Eastmain3, the alt accounts which were (wrongly, in my opinion) unblocked as well. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:27, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- This is bananas. I've re-indeffed them. IMO they should never have been unblocked in the first place so quickly after being caught socking, but what do I know? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:05, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- As the administrator who unblocked them, I sadly have to agree with you. I expected better of an established editor, and, with how they broke our trust in the days immediately following that additional chance, I don't see any other way out of it. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 14:15, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- Maybe stretching good faith beyond reason, but is it possible they just didn't understand that Acrobat summary is an LLM? I certainly know people who don't really understand where LLM, chatbot, AI, GPT, chatgpt, openai, generative ai, etc. start/end. Just in case, for the sake of this block condition, Eastmain: if something says AI, LLM, generative, or any of these terms and it's producing language in some fashion (whether a wikipedia article, a definition, a summary, a lit review, etc.), it's covered by the restriction. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:32, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- I want to try believe this but I am struggling to do so. Adobe make an effort to highlight the fact that Acrobat summary is an AI tool – they actually call it an "AI summary generator" on the main page. aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 06:49, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- From my own experiences I have seen people of all ages not notice AI tools being labeled as such. It's definitely a form of banner blindness where people just click away from new feature popups and don't realize they're using them in some cases, often since they're focused on the document itself. Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 09:15, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- Based on his reply to my block message, I think he knew full well what he was doing but just thought he was doing it better. The fact that it wasn't better is the cherry on top of the sundae of our wasted time. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:21, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- It's definitely a good re-block. To continue Chaotic Enby's metaphor from the talk page discussion, after the latest significant breach of trust it's time for the Last Chance Saloon to cut this editor off; they don't have to go home, but they can't stay here. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 09:31, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- Based on his reply to my block message, I think he knew full well what he was doing but just thought he was doing it better. The fact that it wasn't better is the cherry on top of the sundae of our wasted time. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:21, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- From my own experiences I have seen people of all ages not notice AI tools being labeled as such. It's definitely a form of banner blindness where people just click away from new feature popups and don't realize they're using them in some cases, often since they're focused on the document itself. Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 09:15, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- I want to try believe this but I am struggling to do so. Adobe make an effort to highlight the fact that Acrobat summary is an AI tool – they actually call it an "AI summary generator" on the main page. aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 06:49, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User talk:Joyous!isawful
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Would an admin remove talk page access? User is being awful. Thanks. -- the former admin Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:04, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- Here's a fuller example. Thanks. -- the former admin Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:08, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
~2026-88901-5
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
~2026-88901-5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Entire contrib history consists of WP:HOUNDING, harassment, and (most recently) threats. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 02:28, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Brand new editor failing to follow BRD
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Logoshimpo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
On multiple occasions (Special:Diff/1336866573, Special:Diff/1336866902, Special:Diff/1336867938 & Special:Diff/1336862030 are just 4 examples of many) this user has removed massive amounts of data from templates without any discussion or real explanation. When those edits were reverted, they have subsequently reverted the revert (Special:Diff/1337229150, Special:Diff/1337228637 and others) in direct violation of WP:BRD.
I have attempted multiple times (here & here) to engage with this clearly new and inexperienced user. Rather then heeding the advice and warnings, they have simply counter accused and blanked the warnings from their page.
Most recently the user has once again removed data without any explanation. When I reverted it (with a VERY clear edit summary) they once again immediately reverted my edit, once again in violation of WP:BRD.
To avoid any legitimate accusations that I am the one edit warring, I am going to abstain from simply reverting their edit despite it CLEARLY being in violation of WP:BRD.
Courtesy ping to MarconiCheese who also tried to educate this user on their need to respect the process and not proceed with this style of editing Special:Diff/1337229085/1337338928.
I request that an admin intervene and help this inexperienced user understand that WP:BRD is part of how Wikipedia works and that repeatedly reverting edits that you don't like is unacceptable. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 03:36, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- an edit summary was supplied at the first 4 diffs that you supplied. i was just made aware of the talk page discussion by marconicheese just now. this edit was posted in direct reply to any an response i would make on your user page . Logoshimpo (talk) 03:44, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- Are you trying to say that "arbitrary cutoff" is a 'real explanation'? That doesn't mean anything. aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 03:51, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- but i started the talk page discussion. Logoshimpo (talk) 03:54, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- Are you trying to say that "arbitrary cutoff" is a 'real explanation'? That doesn't mean anything. aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 03:51, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- further discussion of his edits here and here Logoshimpo (talk) 03:47, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- i removed those warnings per WP:DTR and WP:BLANKING. Logoshimpo (talk) 03:51, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- The fact that you don't understand what DTR is (namely, an essay rather than a guideline/rule) may indicate that you are not, in fact, a "regular" as defined in DTR. If anything, Zack's assumption about your relative lack of experience was an attempt to justify your behaviour so that you would be treated nicer at ANI... aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 03:58, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- that's not totally the issue. i am allowed to remove my warnings per wp:blanking. Logoshimpo (talk) 04:03, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- The fact that you don't understand what DTR is (namely, an essay rather than a guideline/rule) may indicate that you are not, in fact, a "regular" as defined in DTR. If anything, Zack's assumption about your relative lack of experience was an attempt to justify your behaviour so that you would be treated nicer at ANI... aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 03:58, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- "Failure to use WP:EDITSUMMARY" was your incorrect edit summary as i stated "concision" in my edit summary. Logoshimpo (talk) 03:53, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- i've glanced at MarconiCheeses post but will take a deeper look into it and possibly respond. Randy Kryn has been involved in this issue and here are his reponses in my support: . Logoshimpo (talk) 04:01, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
Logoshimpo has 3,185 edits with account created on 24 July 2022 so "Brand new" doesn't seem right. However, the core point is correct—anyone who thinks it is a good idea to edit war on a template is behaving like a brand new user. @Logoshimpo: Get consensus before repeating these edits to avoid a block. Please let me know if there is further disruption. Johnuniq (talk) 03:59, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- As mentioned above, I perceive Zack's description of "brand new" as a much-too-generous attempt to protect the editor from more serious repercussions because in reality, they should know better. aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 04:01, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Leopoldofbelgium23
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Leopoldofbelgium23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
After I stopped the editor from inserting their personal opinions on the page Jizya (diff), I tried to familiarize them with the site's policies. With this comment, the editor clearly demonstrates that they are WP:NOTHERE. They are really just here to spread their hateful POV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StephenMacky1 (talk • contribs) 09:28, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
IP 2026-88392-1 continuing vandalism and harassment in Hathibada Ghosundi inscriptions
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Hathibada Ghosundi inscriptions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. ~~
• User/IP: 2026-88392-1 • Article: Hathibada Ghosundi inscriptions • Issue: Repeatedly removing well-sourced content and adding promotional or unsourced content after multiple warnings issued on their registered account User:Trustworthy Unbiased. The user is now editing from IP 2026-88392-1 and has used harassment language in edit summaries, including "son of who*e". See- • Evidence / diffs: • Request: Administrator intervention — warning, monitoring, and block if necessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TeaToasst (talk • contribs) 12:41, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- Was this created by a LLM? shane (talk to me if you want!) 14:43, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- @TeaToasst was this report created by AI? shane (talk to me if you want!) 15:47, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- The notice should go on the IP's talk page, I've added it there for you Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 14:52, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- Additionally, I'm counting ~2026-88392-1 and ~2026-88634-1 together for edit-warring purposes (which I am allowed to disclose). Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 15:00, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- @Chaotic Enby User:Anonymous5991 seems to be the same user and should also be counted. I'm going to rfpp the page and hopefully restore a stable version... – LuniZunie(talk) 15:11, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- I am a new user. Sometimes I use AI to help make my sentences clearer. All those Other users are repeatedly reverting that Wiki article that misrepresents the sources and is not supported by the cited references. If you don’t have time, I request that you check the translation and the citation provided for it (see page 204). ~2026-88634-1 (talk) 15:13, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- You've been repeatedly edit-warring, which is wrong even if you are correct on the merits (which I haven't checked). Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 15:21, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- I've gone ahead and restored an earlier version for now. – LuniZunie(talk) 15:25, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- Why am I considered wrong? I just corrected the information that was completely changed by User TeaToasst about a week ago based on the citations already provided in the article. The whole article had been misrepresented by him. You don't even need to check the entire article.Just look at the translation section and compare the original translation from the cited academic source (page 204) with the version he added which is based on his own religious interpretation and has nothing to do with the actual inscription. ~2026-88634-1 (talk) 15:57, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- @~2026-88634-1 You haven't addressed a single issue other than the AI. Instead, you've continued to post that you are a new user and use AI to help. We don't need the same message in multiple places, we need you to actually address what we are saying. – LuniZunie(talk) 15:28, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- I believe I have already addressed this issue several times in my edits. User TeaToasst added his own opinion that are not supported by the given cited sources. For example: Compare the translation he added with the cited original text Epigraphia Indica Vol XXII (1933–34) page 204 and with Benjamín Preciado-Solís’ translation in the cited book page 23. Much of the other information he added is also not supported by any of the cited sources. ~2026-88634-1 (talk) 15:41, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- Luni is presumably talking about the issues brought up about your behavior, such as abusive language, sockpuppetry and edit-warring. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 15:43, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- @~2026-88634-1 Per the above by Chaotic Enby. I'm not concerned about the content dispute, it's the language, sock puppetry, and edit warring that's the problem. The content dispute and AI talk issues can be dealt with later, as the article is currently restored to a stable revision and the AI talk is not directly in the public eye. But, the other actions are a problem that need to be addressed, as they do create issues with the mainspace which is directly in view of the public. – LuniZunie(talk) 15:58, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- I believe I have already addressed this issue several times in my edits. User TeaToasst added his own opinion that are not supported by the given cited sources. For example: Compare the translation he added with the cited original text Epigraphia Indica Vol XXII (1933–34) page 204 and with Benjamín Preciado-Solís’ translation in the cited book page 23. Much of the other information he added is also not supported by any of the cited sources. ~2026-88634-1 (talk) 15:41, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- You've been repeatedly edit-warring, which is wrong even if you are correct on the merits (which I haven't checked). Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 15:21, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- I am a new user. Sometimes I use AI to help make my sentences clearer. All those Other users are repeatedly reverting that Wiki article that misrepresents the sources and is not supported by the cited references. If you don’t have time, I request that you check the translation and the citation provided for it (see page 204). ~2026-88634-1 (talk) 15:13, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- @Chaotic Enby User:Anonymous5991 seems to be the same user and should also be counted. I'm going to rfpp the page and hopefully restore a stable version... – LuniZunie(talk) 15:11, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- Additionally, I'm counting ~2026-88392-1 and ~2026-88634-1 together for edit-warring purposes (which I am allowed to disclose). Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 15:00, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- @EvergreenFir, thanks for the block. Should Anonymous5991 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) also be blocked as a likely sock? Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:09, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- Might as well EvergreenFir (talk) 16:10, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
Vandalization of an article
- TeaToasst (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Repeatedly adding interpretations to the Hathibada–Ghosundi inscriptions article that are not supported by the cited academic sources. Primary references such as Epigraphia Indica Vol. XXII (1933–34), pp. 198–205, and Preciado-Solís (The Krishna Cycle in the Puranas, p. 23) are being misrepresented despite concerns raised on the article’s Talk page. ~2026-88634-1 (talk) 14:53, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- Hi! Vandalism has a specific meaning on Wikipedia, and this appears to be a content dispute. Additionally, while not responding on the talk page isn't ideal, they haven't edited that page since, and the one comment you left there appears to be LLM-generated. In fact, before posting on that talk page, you seem to have been edit-warring with several other users over the article, which isn't ideal. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 14:57, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- I am a new user. Sometimes I use AI to help make my sentences clearer. All those Other users are repeatedly reverting that Wiki article that misrepresents the sources and is not supported by the cited references. I request you to go to the translation and the citation given under it (Go to page 204) ~2026-88634-1 (talk) 15:11, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- Hi! Vandalism has a specific meaning on Wikipedia, and this appears to be a content dispute. Additionally, while not responding on the talk page isn't ideal, they haven't edited that page since, and the one comment you left there appears to be LLM-generated. In fact, before posting on that talk page, you seem to have been edit-warring with several other users over the article, which isn't ideal. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 14:57, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
Request for full protection due to repeated unsourced edits
User TeaToasst has added interpretations to this article that are not in the cited sources. Epigraphia Indica Vol XXII (1933–34) page 198–205 shows the site is Vaishnava and the inscription only has the letter [i] (reconstructed as Yajina). Preciado-Solís Page 23 does not include jina. Please check the cited sources. Thr whole article is full of misinformation that doesn’t match the sources linked with it. ~2026-89715-2 (talk) 15:07, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- @~2026-89715-2 Please stop creating multiple sections about the same issue. Also, you should use the correct venue, and please also don't forumshop. – LuniZunie(talk) 15:14, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- I am sorry for the inconvenience. I am a new user/editor and not fully familiar with Wiki's options. So I took help from GPT which brought me here to make a complaint. I did not mean to bother you at all. ~2026-88634-1 (talk) 15:23, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Revoke tpa
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
~2026-88713-5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – blocked as a vandal-only account; reverted talk page vandalism after block --みんな空の下 (トーク) 04:18, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- Done. In general I wouldn't bother worrying about a bit of venting but silliness shouldn't be encouraged. Johnuniq (talk) 04:21, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Suppress
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
and need removal Electricmemory (talk) 04:42, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
NOTHERE User:Fancy car
User:Fancy car has only made disruptive edits.
- Blanked Template:Cars in India (that is in use) and made it a redirect to Category:Cars in India (has been speedy'd). Probably in response to their template Template:Cars in Russia being nominated for deletion and the nominator's comment.
- Blanked Wikipedia talk:Speedy deletion and made it a redirect to Wikipedia:Speedy deletion
- First attempted a cut-and-paste move of Volga (marque) to Volga (brand). Could be an honest mistake and was reverted, but then they posted on an admin's talk page making a baseless request to have the user who reverted the edit to be indef'd (that message has later been removed as vandalism).
- Created a seemingly unnecesary fork of Wikipedia:Sandbox in project space. It is currently nominated at MFD
TruenoCity (talk) 03:01, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- The user appears to have stopped editing after the most recent warning. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:15, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
Concerns about editing on Native American topics (User:Yuchitown)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
|
This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus. The Bushranger One ping only 03:04, 12 February 2026 (UTC) |
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | |
|
I am a genealogist working with state-recognized Native communities and have serious concerns about the conduct and bias of User:Yuchitown on Native American topics. 1. Independent reporting An article by journalist Sherry Robinson, “Wikipedia editors push offensive language to delegitimize some Native American Tribes,” describes a small group of Wikipedia editors, including User:Yuchitown, as repeatedly reclassifying state-recognized and unrecognized tribes as “heritage organizations,” misrepresenting sources, and applying policies in ways that delegitimize Native communities.[1] The article also discusses disputes with Lipan Apache and other Texas tribes over statements such as “Texas has no legal mechanism to recognize tribes” and the treatment of state recognition.[1] [1] Sherry Robinson, “Wikipedia editors push offensive language to delegitimize some Native American Tribes,” archived at https://www.tumblrviewer.co/blog/webfactor.html 2. My specific concerns On articles such as Lipan Apache Band of Texas Texas Band of Yaqui Indians and related Texas tribal articles, I have also seen patterns that match the behaviors described in that article:
I recognize that content must follow WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:RS, and I am not asking for promotional wording or unsourced claims. I am asking for uninvolved administrators to review whether there is a systemic bias or misuse of policy by User:Yuchitown (and possibly other involved editors) in this topic area. 3. Requested action I would appreciate:
I am trying to follow process and avoid personal attacks. I would welcome suggestions from uninvolved editors on how best to address this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SevenGenerationsResearch (talk • contribs) | |
- You neglected to sign you posting. Please use ~~~~ at the end of messages to insert your signature.
- You used AI to write your message. AI comments tend to not correctly reflect the poster’s intent and muddle interpretation of policy. We ask you to write in your own words so we can know what you really intend.
- You didn’t provide any links to evidence of the problem, as requested when you filed this.
- Your AI posting included a hallucinated link. The link doesn’t point to a page.
- Please try again in your own words. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 02:34, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, this is old news from 2023/2024. See e.g.
- Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1118#Spam, Vandalism and Bullying By Native Tribes
- Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America/Archive 26#This WikiProject has been mentioned off-wiki
- Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2024-06-08/Opinion
— Chrisahn (talk) 03:07, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
- Could be Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TelGonzie. I’ll file a report. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 03:40, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Blatant admin abuse on 2026 United States Senate election in Colorado
| Discussion started by WMF-banned LTA. (non-admin closure) SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 17:07, 11 February 2026 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. What Drmies did is despicable! He blatantly picked a side in the edit war even though WP:FULL protection would work better here since it’s a content dispute. This is highly unbecoming of an administrator. ~2026-94009-0 (talk) 16:21, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
|
Transphobia at Talk:2026 Tumbler Ridge shooting
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
NamelessPsychopath (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Requesting an indef as WP:Hate is disruptive. Nil🥝 12:25, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
- some randoms thought my english was bad and apparently came to the conclusion I'm not transphobic but I am and I'd prefer people didn't generalize stuff about me, I only said I was transphobic so they wouldn't accuse me of being some lgbt supporter and I have a right to my own opinion so I believe I do not deserve to be banned NamelessPsychopath (talk) 12:40, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
- Comment - NP's personal politics should be largely irrelevant here. My problem is with the potentially severe BLP violation in repeatedly and insistently naming an individual as a mass killer (although carefully kept only to Talk), and with the (to my eye) obvious concern-trolling tone of many of this user's comments, as shown in the second diff above. For those reasons, as well as for their generally disruptive and disrespectful engagement on the Talk pages, I support the proposed indef. GenevieveDEon (talk) 12:44, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
- Indeffed. TBH the second of those diffs is enough for an indef even without the previous behaviour. Black Kite (talk) 12:46, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
NP's personal politics should be largely irrelevant here.
Peoples' personal politics are irrelevant until they feel the need to tell us all about them. Nobody gets to hide behind "I have a right to my opinion" if they go around saying things limeI only said I was transphobic so they wouldn't accuse me of being some lgbt supporter
- Wikipedia is a collaborative project where everybody is welcome; including trans people. That means we have a responsibility to create a safe and inclusive environment for all, and forcing trans people to edit alongside idiots whose 'personal politics' include believing that transness is fundamentally wrong in some way.
- So no, they were in block territory the second they decided to shout from the rooftops that they're a transphobe. Your right to swing your fist ends at my face. Athanelar (talk) 14:58, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
- I agree that the issue is naming the person based off the person that is a major BLP violation and in my opinion supersedes the disruptive conduct that was made with the announcing being a transphobe. I think everyone has beliefs they should keep to themselves on wikipedia Motherwell6 (talk) 15:26, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
- Addendum - Noting that NP has now been indef'd, could we have a revdel cleanup at the article Talk page, please? GenevieveDEon (talk) 12:45, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
- A bunch of TPs and SPAs are now appearing to try and readd the same unsourced material, often with similar abusive language. I'd appreciate some admin support, please. GenevieveDEon (talk) 13:29, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
- The article itself is protected for a few days. The talk page had one recent comment that had to be revdel'd. I don't think a protection of the talk page is warranted just yet. Of note; I've declined their unblock request. There's no quarter for hatred here. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:49, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
- @Hammersoft: Thoughts on revdelling the now-removed name of the shooter on the talk page per BLPCRIME? Precedent tends to be inconsistent in this field. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:52, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
- It's a lot, but I've done it. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:12, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
- @Hammersoft: Thoughts on revdelling the now-removed name of the shooter on the talk page per BLPCRIME? Precedent tends to be inconsistent in this field. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:52, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
- The article itself is protected for a few days. The talk page had one recent comment that had to be revdel'd. I don't think a protection of the talk page is warranted just yet. Of note; I've declined their unblock request. There's no quarter for hatred here. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:49, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
- I told him about the 6 months and standard offer, but now he just threatened to block evade by going to a different city/property
- diff
shane (talk to me if you want!) 19:34, 11 February 2026 (UTC)6 months is still kind of long, I might as well give up or go to another property I own in another city to ban evade my ip
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
TPA revoke
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This guy needs a TPA revoke. – LuniZunie(talk) 03:23, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
- Context: LTA, impersonation, unblock request trying to impersonate. etc. – LuniZunie(talk) 03:26, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
- Also @MakaylaHippo1998, you shouldn't really edit war with vandals on their own talk page, it's not like they're going to do much anyway. Just WP:DENY and leave the page vandalized. ~~kewl sock(anti-pro-air)(no talk) 03:27, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
- Actually, the revert you just made goes against WP:NOTWALLOFSHAME ~~kewl sock(anti-pro-air)(no talk) 03:29, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
- I am not sure that this is a productive avenue to explore. — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:34, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
- Thank you all for your assistance. In fact, I also realized that we shouldn’t revert too frequently, but rather wait until an administrator has blocked the user before reverting. On jawiki, there is even a specific template (ja:Template:荒らしの差し戻し) reminding editors not to repeatedly revert LTA edits before an admin block. We really should keep WP:DENY in mind… though in reality, at moments like this, few people manage to stay clear-headed enough to remember that. 浅村しき (talk) 03:34, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
- @ShuQizhe Mind helping me xwiki – LuniZunie(talk) 03:36, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
Done Talk page access revoked. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:31, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Please see and update
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi I am a reader of the wire when i open Insta handle it say it is blocked over legal demand Thw wire Insta handle is blocked in India. Hingolddiki (talk) 06:50, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
- This doesn't seem like something we can help with, sorry. This board is for topics relating to the English Wikipedia, typically regarding user conduct. jolielover♥talk 06:57, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:Retro music11
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retro music11 (talk · contribs) account remains concerning and is heavily destroying multiple pages wherein numerous editors have contributed over years. Requesting admin check on this account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BellaNYork (talk • contribs) 04:11, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
- For reference, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BellaNYork. And please note that neither admins nor anyone else is obliged to check accounts based on nothing but vague allegations. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:17, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Continuing unsourced and disruptive edits by TA user
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- ~2026-68711-9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Prior ANI report: Persistent disruptive and unsourced editing by TA ~2025-33620-38
Temporary account user continues to make unsourced alterations to Indian cinema and actor articles. ~2026-68711-9 just came off of a 1-week block and has resumed the same behavior.
New edits on ~2026-68711-9:
- Jimmy Sheirgill diff
- Sushant Singh diff
- Sushil Pandey diff
- Bhushan Patel diff
- Vikram Bhatt diff
Orxenhorf (talk) 21:32, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User page used for political advocacy (User:SavetheSouthofIndia)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The user page User:SavetheSouthofIndia appears to be used for explicit political and ideological advocacy, including activist slogans. Wikipedia user pages are not meant to serve as platforms for advocacy or promotion of political causes. This may be inconsistent with guidance at WP:USERPAGE#What user pages are not for and WP:NOTHERE. Requesting administrative review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monsieurupanshu (talk • contribs) 21:14, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) @Monsieurupanshu This account was blocked one year ago as a sockpuppet...what more should be done? The userpage could be blanked, but this would all only attract more attention on it. HurricaneZetaC 22:09, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- They were a confirmed sock of GujaratiHistoryinDNA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) so I replaced the page with that tag; doubtful that anyone is coming there anyways, but we have many appropriate ways to deal with it, including that. Nathannah • 📮 01:16, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Blocked editor copy+paste spamming GS draft on other Wikimedia projects
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The user Wlaak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was topic banned from WP:GS/ACAS in May of 2025. In September, they were indeffed from English Wikipedia for the use of a sockpuppet account, DavidKaf. Simultaneously, a meatpuppet account was blocked, and as recently as December 2025, two other accounts were grouped with off-Wiki coordination. In October 2025, Wlaak was globally locked/blocked; however, their block has since been rescinded from late January.
The crux of disputes that led to GS/ACAS was the Draft:Aramean people, which Wlaak had written. Since their global block was rescinded, Wlaak has taken the initiative to copy and paste the draft on various different Wikipedia projects. This includes the Kurdish Wikipedia, the French Wikipedia, the Arabic Wikipedia, the Simple English Wikipedia, and the Italian Wikipedia. Prior to their global block, they had also pasted the draft's contents into the Turkish Wikipedia through their sock account DavidKaf (and just in general), as well as the German Wikipedia. Off-Wiki evidence has previously been sent to the Arbitration Committee, including on today's date, which not only shows off-Wiki canvassing, but also motivations of anti-Assyrian sentiment behind editing. I can't go into further details than that with respect to WP:OUTING, but this has been going on since last year and has continued to the present, and appears to be the primary motivation behind what has been happening so far.
Essentially, the same behavior from confirmed socks is happening again from the main account, across various Wikipedia projects. There are also off-Wiki concerns of racism and coordination involved. I hope that there will be some address to the situation; this entire saga has been going on for nearly a year now and is starting to become very frustrating. Surayeproject3 (talk) 20:11, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- There's nothing anyone on English Wikipedia can do about edits on other projects. You'd have to raise that either on each project individually, in a global ban proposal on meta, or with the steward who lifted the global block (Johannnes89). I guess I'd try talking to Johannnes89 on Meta and ask him for advice since he seems at least vaguely familiar with the situation. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:05, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
- Also @Surayeproject3, you can file a Global ban RFC on Meta. Ahri Boy (talk) 04:41, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
State-backed interference on Kaja Kallas
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Recently, the EU East StratCom Task Force put out a statement (see https://x.com/EUvsDisinfo/status/2020487309024448836?s=20) that essentially urges people to brigade pages such as Kaja Kallas, among others. Their main contention seems to be Kallas being born in the Estonian SSR instead of Estonia. There is a RfC that resulted in it staying Estonian SSR. I put it on the talkpage, and people at the help desk told me to put it here. Expect a bunch of new users attempting to """""fix"""""" it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexChillOut (talk • contribs) 14:01, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- Using the threat of the other side brigading as an excuse to brigade is certainly... something. And that's how, worryingly, "fighting against disinformation" can be used to push a political/nationalistic POV. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 14:49, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- No matter what the topic is? I'm confident that English Wikipedia won't be arm-twisted into anything. GoodDay (talk) 14:55, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- It's definitely happened before. See the Indian court case a year ago. Electricmemory (talk) 16:04, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- Wooh boy. I feel like I've seen the same fight over putting SSR vs country three different times this month. Luckily the Kallas page is protected until June. Others might need the same. ThatTrainGuy1945 (talk) 15:38, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- It's pretty much all the same discussion. Estonian state media reported on the news that wiki infoboxes say "Estonian SSR" instead of "Estonia" and people started to try to fix it, and also posted a bunch of threads on reddit, and now apparently it continues on Twitter. Nakonana (talk) 16:41, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- Same nationalist bs that goes on with Kosovo/Serbia et al. Kosovo is only internationally recognized by half the planet yet people born there are listed as being born in Kosovo. Her birthplace is listed as "Estonian SSR" because that's what they called themselves, regardless of foreign recognition... not a difficult standard to follow. Electricmemory (talk) 16:11, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- The article is already protected, so I don't know what you're expecting to be done here, I also don't think comments you are making on the talk page of that article like "obviously it shouldn't be changed just because the EU said so, if anything them making this statement means it really shouldn't be changed" are productive for the RfC. People seem eager to overhype the actual disruption being done on that article through brigading, if it actually starts the talk page can be protected as well, until then this is pointless. TylerBurden (talk) 18:28, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- I've been intermittently monitoring the situation regarding renaming Baltic States during USSR occupation/control and, knock on wood, the situation so far is pretty minor. There are people removing SSR, but the activity is sporadic. As an aside, the RfC really should have been about how to refer to the countries during USSR control throughout the article, not just in infoboxes. The policy arguments expressed in that RfC discussion were all about geo names in general, not specific infobox rules. As a second aside, the closer did encourage those unhappy with the SSR names to put forth an RfC for adding a footnote regarding the legality of the USSR control during that period, which would be a useful addition and would address at least some of the angst regarding the name. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:37, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- "because that's what they called themselves". Really? :) I was born during the Russian occupation time, as many other Estonians, and I have a strong suspicion that Estonians know a bit better how they called something than some foreigners, who have never even bothered to look at what authoritative sources say on the topic.
- The number of false and misleading claims made in this topic on Wikipedia is absolutely staggering (inc. what was said by the newbie who started this topic).
- This is also a clear reference to why this RfC failed spectacularly. Not only did it ignore the complexity of the topic and alternative solutions to the problem, but it also did not even get to what sources actually say. Uninformed opinions are not really a way to decide on a topic that deals with factual material. And now we have to deal with the results. Ivo (talk) 20:05, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- The applicable policy is WP:WIAN. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:32, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- I would advise you to avoid personal attacks against other editors. Whether you like the consensus or not, it is the consensus reached through RFC.Electricmemory (talk) 20:40, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- Yes, that RfC (created by a POV-pushing user who is now blocked) was closed on a slight favour to the SSR + Soviet Union option... while ignoring the biased setup, limited participation, and simply counting votes instead of looking at the argumentation. That is exactly why this controversy arose. Anyone who has spent some time and effort looking at developments around this should know that there was hardly any consensus, and there are plenty of Wikipedians who consider that RfC a failure. Ivo (talk) 21:50, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- The editor you mentioned, is not blocked. GoodDay (talk) 21:59, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- Isn't that irrelevant anyway? They were not blocked at the time. Ironically, the only vote that should clearly be disqualified (the 3 Löwi sock puppet) voted the opposite way. LordCollaboration (talk) 23:23, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- If you want to challenge the close, follow the procedure at Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Challenging other closures. AN/I is not the place to challenge a close. And if you're not going to go through the processes prescribed by Wikipedia to change the conclusion, then you shouldn't complain about the conclusion, as that is ineffective and is wasting your time and ours. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:09, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- The editor you mentioned, is not blocked. GoodDay (talk) 21:59, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- Yes, that RfC (created by a POV-pushing user who is now blocked) was closed on a slight favour to the SSR + Soviet Union option... while ignoring the biased setup, limited participation, and simply counting votes instead of looking at the argumentation. That is exactly why this controversy arose. Anyone who has spent some time and effort looking at developments around this should know that there was hardly any consensus, and there are plenty of Wikipedians who consider that RfC a failure. Ivo (talk) 21:50, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- I've been intermittently monitoring the situation regarding renaming Baltic States during USSR occupation/control and, knock on wood, the situation so far is pretty minor. There are people removing SSR, but the activity is sporadic. As an aside, the RfC really should have been about how to refer to the countries during USSR control throughout the article, not just in infoboxes. The policy arguments expressed in that RfC discussion were all about geo names in general, not specific infobox rules. As a second aside, the closer did encourage those unhappy with the SSR names to put forth an RfC for adding a footnote regarding the legality of the USSR control during that period, which would be a useful addition and would address at least some of the angst regarding the name. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:37, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- For the countries of the UK we use, for example, "Wales" not "Wales, United Kingdom" or "Wales, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland"; "Soviet Union" is just as unnecessary here and can be removed. The "SSR" is part of the history of Estonia, so the more general name is just as acceptable. Peter James (talk) 20:19, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- Well the difference there is that Wales is not an "independent" state but a devolved region of a unitary nation. The USSR was nominally as federal union of nation states so the RSFSR wasn't the same as the Ukrainian SSR.
- It also doesn't have the significant break factor that is useful here in terms of recognising a extraordinarily different period of national history that we have when it comes to former parts of the USSR. Another example would be how we recognise a break between the Weimar Republic and Nazi Germany because of that fundamental change from a liberal democracy to a fascist totalitarian dictatorship despite it happening within the same borders. Rambling Rambler (talk) 21:27, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- Nitter link for those that don't want to open Twitter: https://xcancel.com/EUvsDisinfo/status/2020487309024448836
- --Gurkubondinn (talk) 23:02, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- THank you Gurkubondinn. ThatTrainGuy1945 (talk) 01:34, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Frequent unsourced details, introducing inaccurate details, and potential sockpuppetry
users
- ~2026-83027-4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- ~2025-34944-01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- ~2025-34987-33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- ~2026-60001-1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I would like to request that the IP range for all four of these temporary accounts are soft blocked. Despite multiple warnings I have gave them about the need to cite sources and not introduce incorrect information, they have continued to do so since November 2025. I also believe it's potential sockpuppetry because all three accounts have similar edits and similar grammar. They have also kept doing this whenever editing mall ownership and management: "(company) (50%) (another company) (50%)". Particularly, for most of their edits, they would always put something like "Brookfield Properties (50%) Simon Property Group (50%)". They would also put "Decline and Closure" whenever a section of a mall article explains store closes, even if the mall itself hasn't permanently closed. The wording "Decline and Closure" could potentially lead to confusion that the mall itself closed permanently.
The following edits they have introduced inaccurate/unsourced details in include:
- Tulsa Promenade Revision 1337001338
- West Oaks Mall Revision 1335224474
- Francis Scott Key Mall Revision 1336670378
- The Falls (mall) Revision 1332347958
- Smith Haven Mall Revision 1324497756
- Franklin Mall Revision 1330208037
These are the warnings I have sent them:
I have reverted many of their edits and gave them at least three warnings on one of the accounts, yet they continue to introduce unsourced details. I am reporting them to ensure that the platform does not continue to have unsourced and inaccurate details introduced into it.
Aspifi (talk) 04:00, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- (Redacted)
- You need to notify them of this conversation if you haven't already, as mentioned in the headers on this page. I'd also highly recommend, for the sake of readability, moving the account names out of the section header and listing them in the body of this complaint instead. DonIago (talk) 04:04, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- Yes, because across all 4 accounts they follow similar edits without using edit summaries as well as similar grammar and all say (6-10 temporary accounts) at the top of their contribution pages. Aspifi (talk) 04:17, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- While these are clearly the same editor, the fact that the periods of contributions don't overlap at all suggests it's just a single editor ending up with a new TA due to clearing cookies, a different device, or other reasons, rather than engaging in disruptive sock-puppetry. Mfield (Oi!) 04:24, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- That or they just have different devices across their usage. Aspifi (talk) 04:25, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- Because I have noticed that occasionally one account does multiple edits and then another does, not a constant creation of new accounts. Aspifi (talk) 04:27, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- This is indeed one of those situation where TAs make it more confusing. I am going to block all of the TAs for 31 hours to see which one if any gets their attention. Mfield (Oi!) 04:31, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- I'll also provide the additional ones if I can find them because they did have more than four temporary accounts, but their names are hard to remember. Aspifi (talk) 04:32, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- They can respond on one of those talk pages if not here once the blocks expire. Mfield (Oi!) 04:33, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- None of them have responded or made any further edits. In fact, they haven't been responsive to any messages on their talk pages. They're probably either intentionally making these edits for disruption/vandalism, as almost all of their edits have been reverted for inaccurate/unsourced details, or they're just misunderstanding the history of the companies it attributes mall developers to, as General Growth Properties acquired Rouse in 2004, then Brookfield acquired GGP in 2018, which probably means they think every Rouse mall is owned by Brookfield. Aspifi (talk) 02:24, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
- This is indeed one of those situation where TAs make it more confusing. I am going to block all of the TAs for 31 hours to see which one if any gets their attention. Mfield (Oi!) 04:31, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
Concern regarding repeated redirects by User:502hsuya
- 502hsuya (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I recently reviewed my watchlist and noticed that User:502hsuya has been repeatedly converting articles into redirects. Some recent examples include:
St. John in the Wilderness (Nainital) —
Jagwal —
In one of the edits they mentioned the article was a “stub,” but I don’t think being a stub is a valid reason to redirect a mainspace article, and some of these redirects also seem to have been done without proper discussion or consensus. I’m raising this here so that an admin or experienced editor can take a look at this editing pattern and give guidance! Jesus isGreat7 06:10, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- I redirected stubs and the articles which had less citations or no citations, if you or anyone find any problem in it, you can redirect them. As I don't have any sort of malice or problem with it, and I am open for discussion. 502hsuya (talk) 06:21, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- Usually no citations is countered by finding citations rather than simply redirecting. Also, less citations = find more citations. THank you for being civil about it though. ThatTrainGuy1945 (talk) 02:38, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
- Also, don't redirect things and then not add any info to the incoming page. THat doesn't help anyone. ThatTrainGuy1945 (talk) 02:39, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
- If you want to turn an article into a redirect, nominate it at WP:AFD first. You shouldn't make these kinds of changes without discussing it. (Non-administrator comment) Rosaece ♡ talk ♡ contribs 07:13, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
- Usually no citations is countered by finding citations rather than simply redirecting. Also, less citations = find more citations. THank you for being civil about it though. ThatTrainGuy1945 (talk) 02:38, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
Alternate-history sandbox
- Captain 10763 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
The user is doing nothing except adding alternate-history election infoboxes to their sandbox. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:23, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- So? That's what sandboxes are for. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:25, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- Okay, I've asked the user to apply their {{Infobox election}} crafting skills to article space. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:29, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- Alt history sandboxes are consistently deleted at MfD. They are not allowed for multiple reasons. Relevant policies/guidelines include WP:FAKEARTICLE and WP:NOTWEBHOST. There is also a relevant discussion currently ongoing at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#Alternate_History_in_Sandboxen. Bait30 Talk 2 me pls? 19:39, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- @Bait30 The user seems to be creating and deleting them, not leaving them which would fall under FAKEARTICLE and NOTWEBHOST. I don't really see a problem with someone adding and deleting stuff in their sandbox. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:41, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- I'm not sure how that doesn't relate to NOTWEBHOST. Also WP:UP#GOALS. Bait30 Talk 2 me pls? 19:59, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- If nothing else, there's WP:NOTWEBHOST. Other resources exist on the internet to serve as a medium for their elaborate make-believe; even minor drain on this project's technical resources is reason enough to stamp this kind of behaviour out when identified, though I tend to agree that the bigger concern is the possibility of fake historical "facts" being misrepresented as real, merely by virtue of being found under our domain; that clearly runs counter to our educational mission. SnowRise let's rap 20:10, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- I'm not sure how that doesn't relate to NOTWEBHOST. Also WP:UP#GOALS. Bait30 Talk 2 me pls? 19:59, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- @Bait30 The user seems to be creating and deleting them, not leaving them which would fall under FAKEARTICLE and NOTWEBHOST. I don't really see a problem with someone adding and deleting stuff in their sandbox. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:41, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- Easy WP:NOTHERE. Northern Moonlight 20:04, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- They've hardly made any edits at all and have barely even had a chance to be a constructive editor. Also, nobody has politely explained the situation to them. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:37, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
- Well, I don't see anyone suggesting a sanction. But apparently there's a group of these users coordinating on Reddit and teaching each other how to utilize sandboxes and wikimarkup to document their fictional nations, most of whom will end up being paradigmatically WP:NOTHERE. The scale of the problem does not seem to be huge, at least not to date, but I think it's a good thing someone opened the discussion at the village pump, because I do believe we should be nipping this in the bud with clear messaging. SnowRise let's rap 05:13, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
- It would appear that the 'clear messaging' would most appropriately be posted in the Reddit thread, though unfortunately we don't normally do that. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:30, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
- There's no reason why anyone as an individual shouldn't post there. It just wouldn't be "official". Phil Bridger (talk) 10:04, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
- It looks like someone already has. I don't know whether this will have any effect. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:14, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
- We could also probably incorporate WP:NOTALTHIST (which I found because I was about to propose it should be made) into the user sandbox guidelines, so we have something succinct to point people toward or quote in deletion discussions. Athanelar (talk) 10:44, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
- It would appear that the 'clear messaging' would most appropriately be posted in the Reddit thread, though unfortunately we don't normally do that. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:30, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
Repeated disruptive editing past fourth warning
Adithyam503 (talk · contribs) has disruptively edited past their fourth warning. They repeatedly remove or change budgets of Indian films without reason, among other things. For specific examples (diffs), they removed sourced content three seperate times on Varanasi (film), without edit summary or discussion, made an unsourced change to the budget of Kantara: Chapter 1, made numerous unsourced changes to the former (shown in this diff where someone reverted all of those edits plus others by other people), made more unsourced budget changes, and numerous other issues. 𝓕𝓵𝓸𝓫𝓵𝓲𝓷 (Talk to me! · My contribs) 16:40, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
- Also, I might not be related, but I think an indefinite or temporarily block should help the situation. Mastercane F X (talk) 17:04, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
AstroidXD02 gaming XC
AstroidXD02 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has admitted here that they have made 500 pointless MOS violations solely in order to gain extended confirmed status: "Honestly idc because i was doing those edits just to get extended Confirmed user since now i get it i won't even goona do it again lol.
" In the same thread they said they could not understand a clear explanation of what overlinking is. They have not yet done anything with their shiny new XC status, but I don't think their first 500 edits have gained them the necessary experience to use it. CodeTalker (talk) 17:31, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
- nah Not all of them are pointless many of them are useful AstroidXD02 (talk) 17:32, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
- Just grabbing one item, I'm seeing a problem. It's hard to AGF when edits include adding United States to the same infobbox with two edits, then again add it to another spot in the same infobox with a third edit. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 17:52, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
- Well Iam Apologizing for my mistake if i have done anything wrong So Please take my apology and forgive me if i have done anything wrong. AstroidXD02 (talk) 17:58, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
- I've removed the status. Several edits were just adding pointless wikilinks, in multiple edits when one would have done, and which were later reverted as non-MOS-compliant.
- @AstroidXD02: you need to make, in my estimation, another 100 meaningful, useful edits, and you can then ask for your extended confirmed status to be reinstated. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:59, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
- Please add that status i Promise i would never goona do this again Please everyone makes mistakes and then learn from it please i would never goona make this mistake again Please return the status AstroidXD02 (talk) 18:05, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
- It's not a "mistake", at least not an innocent one, when you purposely game the system. And you made this a pretty easy call for me, by admitting yourself that you were gaming. The fact that you would even want to game XC is already something of a red flag; actually doing it is obviously worse. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:09, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
- please just one time if i do this again just ban me? Instead Please give me the status back i would never do it again Please try to understand it was an mistake i accept it and Please trust me i would never goona do this again Just once if i do it ever again just ban me. AstroidXD02 (talk) 18:12, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
- Hi! This isn't a punishment, we're not refusing to give you this status for breaking the rules, but because your edits haven't shown the experience that we expect from an extended confirmed user. Not having this status doesn't restrict you from anything that a new user can do. And, once you make some more substantial edits, you will be able to request the status back, as these will allow us to see that you have gained the experience required. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:28, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
- Why are you so keen on getting EC status? You only have to make 100 useful edits to prove your competency.
- EC status is meant to show that you've got the experience to edit Wikipedia competently but you've unfortunately tried to get around that by making useless edits.
- It seems fair that you've been asked to prove that you're entitled to get that status back after contributing properly.
- You've made a mistake, so now you just need to fix it - work hard and I'm sure that you can get it back. Blue Sonnet (talk) 18:30, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
- Fine. i would make those 100 edits with proper things not useless one but you guys have to make sure that even if it takes me more then a month or year whenever i complete it and ask to get it back you'd have to immediately have to restore my status then. AstroidXD02 (talk) 18:37, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
- The only promise that anyone can make in good faith is to listen to you and consider the edits you make honestly and fairly. Insisting that an administrator would "immediately have to restore [your] status then," is too far; nobody knows what if any issues might arise between now and then, and as a volunteer project, answering requests can take a significant amount of time. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 19:38, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
- Fine. i would make those 100 edits with proper things not useless one but you guys have to make sure that even if it takes me more then a month or year whenever i complete it and ask to get it back you'd have to immediately have to restore my status then. AstroidXD02 (talk) 18:37, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
- AstroidXD02, the decision has been made. This is not a game. Now, go make at least 100 productive, useful edits (not pointless edits) and only then ask for extended confirmed status to be restored. Cullen328 (talk) 18:33, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
- I feel like before we can call this done it would be worth figuring out why @AstroidXD02 was so determined to get ECP in the first place. Any comment, Astroid? Athanelar (talk) 20:10, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
- please just one time if i do this again just ban me? Instead Please give me the status back i would never do it again Please try to understand it was an mistake i accept it and Please trust me i would never goona do this again Just once if i do it ever again just ban me. AstroidXD02 (talk) 18:12, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
- It's not a "mistake", at least not an innocent one, when you purposely game the system. And you made this a pretty easy call for me, by admitting yourself that you were gaming. The fact that you would even want to game XC is already something of a red flag; actually doing it is obviously worse. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:09, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
- Please add that status i Promise i would never goona do this again Please everyone makes mistakes and then learn from it please i would never goona make this mistake again Please return the status AstroidXD02 (talk) 18:05, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
Temporary account ~2026-94197-2 leaving odd messages on my talk
~2026-94197-2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
~2026-94197-2 has left a message stating "talegeram hack" on my user talk. See User talk:TarnishedPath#Talegeram hack. The temporary account appears to be operating of an IP that is a proxy and part of the TOR network perhaps. TarnishedPathtalk 14:07, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
- Not TOR, but yes a proxy, rangeblocked. Black Kite (talk) 14:23, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
Warning from editor, harassment after participation in an arbitration enforcement discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 | This discussion has been disrupted by block evasion, ban evasion, or sockpuppetry from the following users:
Their comments should be excluded from assessments of consensus. |
Glebushko0703 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has now left two message on my talk page following my participation in an arbitration enforcement directed against them here. The arbitration enforcement was closed, as it was apparently created by a sock (without my knowledge, but the points were all still very valid). Glebushko0703 has retaliated against my statement at the arbitration: first with a warning template to try to intimidate me, and secondly with a lengthy message telling me that This is your final warning...
after I directly told them to stop. This is an ongoing issue with this user harassing a segment of Wikipedia editors and has a number of warnings, blocks and bans for similar behavior. I will not be harassed or intimidated for freely participating in discussions, which I have every right to do so. ExRat (talk) 13:14, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
Did the arbcom not recently say that any editor of standing can refile invalid arbitration requests if there is valid evidence? There are editors of standing who disagree with the behavior of the complained editor, so there should be a valid case for an investigation into what really happened. ~2026-63592-1 (talk) 13:29, 29 January 2026 (UTC)- @ExRat: I'v contaced Gigman & recommended he apologize to you, for causing any stress. GoodDay (talk) 15:25, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
- I did not have time to read the full report before it was removed, but despite being written by a sock account, it did have valid points based on what I did see. The behaviour on display here is obviously not ok, and I am also not impressed by their recent activity on Talk:List of pro-Russian political parties where they have been failing to WP:AGF, argued to remove clearly relevant links while failing to provide any policy/guideline based arguments but instead their personal opinion, such as here going on a WP:SOAPBOX about these parties, singling out German far-right party AfD as a party that "just want good relationship with current Russian government to benefit their own country" (not a remotely WP:RS supported statement).
- There's a history of disruption here and it seems to keep growing. TylerBurden (talk) 16:39, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
- As a general rule, an Enforcement thread discovered to be filed by a sock is closed without prejudice to an editor in good standing filing a new thread with similar evidence. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:42, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
- @GoodDay: Apologies, but I am unaware if you are an administrator or not. If not, I would like the intervention of an administrator. A simple apology at this point is unacceptable to me. I don't know if you're his mentor or not, but you do a lot of running defense on their behalf. If you're an administrator, this discussion needs to go further, preferably with an administrator with less of a friendship bias with Glebushko0703. ExRat (talk) 16:52, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
- I'm not an administrator or a mentor, but I have tried to help Gigman control his temper (i.e not post out of emotion). Had I been on-line & known that he had contacted you at the time, about your AE comments? I would've immediately told him to back off. Unfortunately, these events took place, while I was away. GoodDay (talk) 20:20, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
- I do appreciate your attempts on this. I wish he had been more willing to follow your advice. LordCollaboration (talk) 20:34, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
- I'm not an administrator or a mentor, but I have tried to help Gigman control his temper (i.e not post out of emotion). Had I been on-line & known that he had contacted you at the time, about your AE comments? I would've immediately told him to back off. Unfortunately, these events took place, while I was away. GoodDay (talk) 20:20, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
- I was hoping to avoid this, but since it is continuing against other users, I should note that the harassment against me continued for a day after the last thread a couple weeks ago was closed, despite their promise to stay away from me: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Houndering suspicion. For some background (most of which can be found in that thread), they continually insinuated absurd things about me, in particular that I might be a sock puppet. Then they edited one of my comments in an RFC "just for fun". They were blocked from my talk page and told to stay away from me, after which they opened that thread accusing me of "houndering". That was closed with Glebushko0703 being told they were on "thin ice". One admin proposed they be banned indefinitely another said
If you can't get your conduct under control, an indef is likely."
One editor told themit's probably best that you drop the stick instantly and stay away from LordCollaboration and anything related to LordCollaboration for 72 hours at the minimum. Just edit something else, a completely different area for a few days (or weeks) to avoid LordCollaboration. And just pretend that LordCollaboration doesn't exist, so to speak.
- Glebushko0703 agreed to this, hence why it was closed; their responses included,
I will strike this RFC and just avoid contact with the user.
andI will drop te stick and just ignore that user from now on then.
- Less than 12 hours later, with zero interaction from me, they edited my same comment in the RFC discussion, to collapse my table. After I undid the collapse and told them to stop, they instead started a discussion to collapse my table and said I "expressed [my] opposition in very perculiar matter". At this point, I was preparing to re-open the ANI thread, but another user intervened and talked to them and they apologized and said they would take a week long wiki break. Then they somehow emailed me, asking me to strike my comments so that an admin didn't see it. I again almost made a report, but held off, since they seemed to be legitimately taking a break, and I was sick of this. After they returned, they have not commented on me as far as I am aware, (although they did comment to another user something that indicated to me that they felt they did nothing wrong with harassing me,
"Be careful with your "mights" and suspicions, Ivanvector hates these words"
). LordCollaboration (talk) 17:09, 29 January 2026 (UTC)- Blocked. Anyway, let's take care of Glebushko0703's harassment here and now, as their messages to ExRat are unacceptable. Glebushko0703 is blocked for personal attacks or harassment (which they have form for, see ) for 72 hours. Bishonen | tålk 17:15, 29 January 2026 (UTC).
- Should just be indeffed, clearly not fit for a collaborative project. 3 or 4 blocks for personal attacks and harassment over the course of 3 months, as well as a few for edit warring, is evidence enough. Kowal2701 (talk) 18:02, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
- Seconded. They've been given ample second chances, more than we typically would given that the case could be made that they were under duress via offsite harassment, but any clemency that would have bought them has been exhausted at this point. signed, Rosguill talk 18:12, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
- Agreed, unfortunately. They are still saying "Warns is the least I can do". Same for my situation, where they don't seem to think they did anything wrong, they just (partially) backed off after two blocks, one threat of an indef, and after I said I was starting an ANI thread. There is no reason to expect this to stop. LordCollaboration (talk) 18:19, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
The account Hogopolo strikes me as a sock of Glebushko. All of the edits are restoring the reverted edits of Glebushko when they were blocked. Check carefully and you would notice it. ~2026-63386-0 (talk) 18:22, 29 January 2026 (UTC)- Hogopolo's edits were on 22 October and 27 January; Gigman wasn't blocked either time from what I can see. LordCollaboration (talk) 18:27, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
- Using an undisclosed second account to restore one's disputed edits is sockpuppetry, regardless as to whether the master account was blocked at the time. In this case the results are
Inconclusive due to proxy use.-- Ponyobons mots 18:34, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
- Looking at it, the claim
All of the edits are restoring the reverted edits of Glebushko
is false. The account has five edits; only the most recent one is reverting to a Glebushko version. All of the first four were edits to pages Glebushko had never previously edited. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:53, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
- Looking at it, the claim
- Using an undisclosed second account to restore one's disputed edits is sockpuppetry, regardless as to whether the master account was blocked at the time. In this case the results are
- Hogopolo's edits were on 22 October and 27 January; Gigman wasn't blocked either time from what I can see. LordCollaboration (talk) 18:27, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
- Should just be indeffed, clearly not fit for a collaborative project. 3 or 4 blocks for personal attacks and harassment over the course of 3 months, as well as a few for edit warring, is evidence enough. Kowal2701 (talk) 18:02, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
- Blocked. Anyway, let's take care of Glebushko0703's harassment here and now, as their messages to ExRat are unacceptable. Glebushko0703 is blocked for personal attacks or harassment (which they have form for, see ) for 72 hours. Bishonen | tålk 17:15, 29 January 2026 (UTC).
Proposal: Glebushko0703 site ban
| This discussion has been disrupted by block evasion, ban evasion, or sockpuppetry from the following user:
Their comments should be excluded from assessments of consensus. |
In the thread that LordCollaboration refers to above, archived at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1212#Houndering suspicion, I proposed that Glebushko0703 should be banned from the site due to their ongoing harassment of LordCollaboration, their repeated insistence that they needed to call out Estonian editors for sockpuppetry despite having never produced a shred of evidence and after having been blocked for that near the end of December, and because their tendentious campaigning had led two administators to ban them from their talk pages, and they were now doing it on my talk page. See my post here for more background. I mentioned that I was ill at the time and wasn't going to monitor the discussion; I was shocked honestly when I logged in the next day and saw that voorts closed the whole thing as "withdrawn"; I did not withdraw, but was still too ill to follow up.
It's rather clear now that nothing will stop Glebushko's bizarre campaign against Estonians, evidenced by this most recent block for the same thing targeted at a different user. Therefore I propose again that they be banned from Wikipedia. And I will revert if someone closes this early again.
- Support as proposer. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:05, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
- I suggested an indef block above, but would frame my concerns as being primarily about a consistent pattern of personal attacks and otherwise less than civil engagement, rather than a
bizarre campaign against Estonians
. signed, Rosguill talk 19:11, 29 January 2026 (UTC)- @Ivanvector: the complaint filed by Gigman was withdrawn. I shouldn't have closed the thread since you had proposed a CBAN. That was my mistake. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:22, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
- Support per Ivanvector (and my comments above). LordCollaboration (talk) 19:48, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose - A site ban is too harsh, IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 20:31, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
- Support CBAN per comment above, prefer Rosguill's reasoning. They received their first 5 blocks (2 for WP:PA, 2 for edit warring, 1 for WP:DE) before the Estonia debacle, it doesn't mitigate for much Kowal2701 (talk) 21:06, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
- Support - clear-cut case of aggresive POV-pushing. sapphaline (talk) 21:14, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
- Support. Glebushko0703 is rewriting history and is spearheading a coordinated campaign against Baltic nations. ~2026-64380-6 (talk) 21:21, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
- This should have nothing to do with that RfC and I do not see where we are even discussing the RfC with regards to the issues. Please consider amending this to focus on the above discussion. --Super Goku V (talk) 21:37, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
- I'm kinda concerned about IP comments at this report & at ExRat's talkpage (kudos for ExRat ignoring the IP). There have been (over weeks) IPs reverting Gigman's implementation of said-RFC on Baltic bios, which Gigman has reversed. I'm not suggesting sock-puppetry or meat-puppetry, but I think we should consider dismissing IP comments appearing in this ANI report. GoodDay (talk) 21:46, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
- Just for absolute clarity, I have nothing to do with any sock puppetry or meat puppetry even tangentially, and if anyone has any notion that I do, I happily welcome any sort of investigation. ExRat (talk) 22:06, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
- Nobody thinks you're using puppets or working with any puppets. I'll defend you, if anybody does think that. GoodDay (talk) 22:10, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
- Nah. As GoodDay said, this has been something that has been going on for weeks now since the RfC ended. Just a number of anonymous editors who seem to not fully understand how Wikipedia works to my understanding. --Super Goku V (talk) 22:11, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
- It probably is a good idea to do so. --Super Goku V (talk) 22:08, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
- WP:ASPERSIONS any accusations of sockpuppetry need to be substantiated and you cannot discount comments based on these aspersions ~2026-64380-6 (talk) 17:18, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
- Just for absolute clarity, I have nothing to do with any sock puppetry or meat puppetry even tangentially, and if anyone has any notion that I do, I happily welcome any sort of investigation. ExRat (talk) 22:06, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
- Still SUPPORT ~2026-64380-6 (talk) 15:07, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
- I'm kinda concerned about IP comments at this report & at ExRat's talkpage (kudos for ExRat ignoring the IP). There have been (over weeks) IPs reverting Gigman's implementation of said-RFC on Baltic bios, which Gigman has reversed. I'm not suggesting sock-puppetry or meat-puppetry, but I think we should consider dismissing IP comments appearing in this ANI report. GoodDay (talk) 21:46, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
- This should have nothing to do with that RfC and I do not see where we are even discussing the RfC with regards to the issues. Please consider amending this to focus on the above discussion. --Super Goku V (talk) 21:37, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
- Neutral. The behavior against LC and others is beyond the pale, and ordinarly I'd either support, or not become involved at all and simply close the discussion when it came to its end. However, the IP !vote abote illustrates what stays my hand. Gigman/Glebushko has been one of the primary editors helping to (for want of a better term) "enforce" the 'Baltic states infoboxes' RfC result; and there is an obvious campaign against it on WP:RGW grounds. Now, whether or not that campaign is coordinated is open to question (and some of the claims made that it is have been...mm...questionable), but I can't help but fear that banning Glebushko, no matter how justified when taken on its own, could wind up becoming a case of feeding the nabobs. I would support an outright interaction ban with LordCollaboration, and perhaps with ExRat as well. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:03, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
We can't control how people discuss us off-wiki; such discussions should just be ignored as inevitable noise, and they definitely shouldn't be acknowledged on-wiki, especially when deciding whether to block someone or not. sapphaline (talk) 22:11, 29 January 2026 (UTC)but I can't help but fear that banning Glebushko, no matter how justified when taken on its own, could wind up becoming a case of feeding the nabobs
- No canvassing is not something that should be ignored, when reports about a certain user are published in state-media news, and reddit, because canvassing affects debates on-wiki. I wouldn't call this case as necessarily "coordinated" but rather describe it as publishing several highly visible reports with a lot of people who share the same opinion, and then ending those reports with an open-endedness along the lines of "now do with that information whatever you want". It's not "coordinated" in the classic sense, but more like throwing a bait into a hungry crowd who'll likely take the bait. Nakonana (talk) 13:30, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
- The nabobs are going to shoot their mouths off no matter what, because that's what they do -- we're seeing in American universities now exactly how far the right wing, for example, really meant their cries about censorship and cancel culture. If we suspend our conduct policies when it comes to "right-thinking" individuals, that's what will hand the aforementioned nabobs extra ammunition. Ravenswing 01:39, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
| Comment by block-evading sockpuppet — Newslinger talk 20:32, 30 January 2026 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
- The December RFC initiated by Glebushko was flawed, as was its close. There are good reasons to "campaign" against it. – Chrisahn (talk) 13:35, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
- I believe it is coordinated — see also this user's contribs:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Silesianus ~2026-64380-6 (talk) 14:57, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
- The current Russian campaign against the Baltics on Wikipedia is well known:
- https://balticsentinel.eu/8394326/wikipedia-s-baltic-battle-estonian-journalists-warn-of-coordinated-pro-soviet-edits-lithuania-reports-similar-targeting
- I'm not part of any coordinated movement, just appalled that Wikipedia is allowing this to continue. ~2026-64380-6 (talk) 15:10, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
- Support per Ivanvector's evidence. Failing that, there should be a topic ban from anything remotely connected with Russian attempts to destabilize European countries including poking Estonian editors. Johnuniq (talk) 22:05, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
- Support. Glebushko0703 has been a persistently disruptive and combative editor for months. He has been blocked, topic banned and reprimanded numerous times for harassment and edit warring in just a few short months. He refuses to abide by warnings and even polite suggestions. He has been given more chances to amend his behavior than many editors. It is clear by his statements that he doesn't believe he is doing anything wrong. Enough is enough. ExRat (talk) 22:06, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
- Support indefinite ban, per IvanVector. -Mardus /talk 10:36, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
Support site ban. Oppose site ban, support indef block. Extremely biased, aggressive, incapable of WP:AGF. The bias alone wouldn't justify a ban – we're all biased. But the user has been blocked many times and hasn't improved. Often suspects conspiracies, sock puppets etc. behind any opposing views and takes a combative stance. The behavior of this editor simply isn't compatible with a collaborative project, and it's unlikely to change. — Chrisahn (talk) 11:21, 30 January 2026 (UTC)- I changed my !vote from "Support site ban" to "Oppose site ban, support indef block" after this message by the user. Sounds sincere. Maybe Glebushko can learn and change. In the message, Glebushko wrote "I need some rest and a break from Wikipedia, a long one". That's what an indef block and the WP:standard offer are. In light of the previous blocks, that seems appropriate. — Chrisahn (talk) 14:22, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
- Longer quote from the message by Glebushko:
- Let this message serve as my lament for everything that happened. I feel sorry and I apologize to everyone I could've harmed or made upset, and for my disruptiveness, stuborness and overall donkey-like behaviour and cheeky comments. I don't want to re engage in any kind of discussions anymore, I just need this moment of my life to pass to become more restrained again. All I wish for now, is to save the ability to edit my own page and to lay down. I need some rest and a break from Wikipedia, a long one. But I do truly wish I could return someday, and if somehow I do, I promise it will be different and mature.
- — Chrisahn (talk) 14:32, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
- I think it's important to note that Glebushko0703 was also apparently extremely sorry for his conduct and the multiple warnings he received for his interactions with LordCollaboration. Scroll up to LordCollaboration's statement and see how that turned out. ExRat (talk) 22:11, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
- Longer quote from the message by Glebushko:
- I changed my !vote from "Support site ban" to "Oppose site ban, support indef block" after this message by the user. Sounds sincere. Maybe Glebushko can learn and change. In the message, Glebushko wrote "I need some rest and a break from Wikipedia, a long one". That's what an indef block and the WP:standard offer are. In light of the previous blocks, that seems appropriate. — Chrisahn (talk) 14:22, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
| Comment by block-evading sockpuppet — Newslinger talk 20:32, 30 January 2026 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
- The first quote was posted on my talk page. I don't think Glebushko thought I was Estonian, and I don't think Glebushko is against Estonians in particular. It goes much further than that. Glebushko apparently sees conspiracies and enemies behind pretty much any opposing views, and often reacts very aggressively. — Chrisahn (talk) 13:29, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
- Support per comments posted by the IP above; Gigman is clearly on some sort of WP:RGW crusade. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:30, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
- Support from Arbcom, by ExRat: *Following the closing of the RFC:Manual of Style/Baltic states-related articles that they created, Glebushko0703 has threatened to create a Wiki article about a reporter named Ronald Liive of Eesti Rahvusringhääling (ERR, Estonian Public Broadcasting, referring to it was "Yellow Press") for reporting on the RFC for the sole purpose of harassing/irritating Mr. Liive:
That Mr. Ronald Liive seems like a very active journalist, should we create a Wiki page about him?
andThat's why I think he won't oppose the creation of his own article on Wikipedia, but over there he will be listed as born in Estonian SSR unfortunately.
- Has proposed to User:GoodDay that they form a club called the "Wikipedia Anti-Nationalist Estonian Movement (WANEM)" to allegedly
counteract socks and POV pushing
and threating to edit war (dif1)
- I don't think that this is an individual that should be editing Wikipedia based on these comments as well as their proven track record of disruptive and WP:TENDENTIOUS behaviour that have led to numerous temporary blocks during a short period of time, and I don't buy their sudden remorse given that they were more than happy to double down on their behaviour until it started being clear it would have the consequences of an indef block. --TylerBurden (talk) 14:31, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
- Comment. Full disclosure, Glebushko emailed me asking me to participate in this discussion (I can even share the email). I don't know if that counts as canvassing, but I see it as a cry for help. I agree with everyone else that the personal attacks and their overall behaviour is unacceptable. The block was deserved and so was this ANI report. I'd like to note that a lot of editors voting support for an indef ban have had content disputes with Glebushko and are on the opposite side of the Baltic biographies infobox debate, so this may be seen as an attempt to remove an editor with whom they disagree, especially cause that is being cited by some as the reason for the indef support. I also think The Bushranger makes a salient point about this encouraging battleground behaviour.
That said, I agree with GoodDay that a siteban is too harsh (at the moment). Therefore I propose a TBAN from Baltic topics (very) broadly construed (below). I haven't looked too deeply into it, but as far as I can see, the problematic behaviour is contained in this topic area. Glebushko was also talked about on national television in Estonia. Perhaps that could have exasperated the situation. In any case, they need a (long) break from the topic. With a TBAN two things can happen: 1) if they are on Wikipedia only to edit about Baltic states, then the TBAN is essentially a CBAN; 2) they find other topics to edit. Either the problem lies with them or with the contentious topic, a TBAN would help determine which it is. The proposer of the indef, Ivanvector said17:06, 31 January 2026 (UTC) TurboSuperA+[talk] 15:43, 30 January 2026 (UTC)"nothing will stop Glebushko's bizarre campaign against Estonians"
. But isn't that exactly what TBANs are for, to stop [disruptive behaviour] against [topic]? It has been said that they got their blocks before the Baltic debacle, but that isn't exactly true. Their very first block was 26 October 2025, after they've had disputes in the Baltic topic area.- There were similar issues on "anti-Russian sentiment", with a block for edit warring there. And the most recent issue seems to have originated in "List of pro-Russian political parties". I think Russia and the former USSR are areas where they feel very strongly about, the Baltics are just part of that. An indefinite topic ban on Eastern Europe + the Baltics might be okay. The "advise" needs to be stronger as well (required, unless if an editor says otherwise), and perhaps a ban on talking about sock puppetry outside SPI. LordCollaboration (talk) 16:01, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
- "May be seen as an attempt to remove an editor with whom they disagree", coming from you of all people, is rather funny. There are obviously massive issues with this editor aside from any kind of content dispute, so I think bringing this kind of argument into it is rather silly. TylerBurden (talk) 16:37, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
- I asked for a warning for you at AE, never did I ask for a ban or block. I recognise the behavioral issues with this editor (and I say as much in my comment). I just think the issues might be limited to the topic area and dispute, since the editor hasn't been blocked in their ~4 years of editing, until they got themselves into a dispute re: Baltics, when they received several blocks in a short period. If you and other editors think the TBAN should be expanded, I won't oppose it. I also proposed an indefinite TBAN, which means Glebushko would have to appeal it after 6+ months. Even upon successful appeal the restrictions should be removed gradually, i.e. TBAN for Baltic BLPs should remain for another six months, or something like that. TurboSuperA+[talk] 16:55, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
- Well I'm sure you would have mourned my loss. Either way it's not about me, you are speaking about the editor in question as if we're talking years of productive editing, the vast majority of their edits are from September 2025 onwards, before that the editing was sporadic and many of them are reverted. This is not a veteran editor but an editor that got involved in a contentious topic and evidently got in over their head, and decided that harassing people would be appropriate because they felt so wronged by people following actual Wikipedia policy. TylerBurden (talk) 17:24, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
an editor that got involved in a contentious topic and evidently got in over their head, and decided that harassing people would be appropriate because they felt so wronged by people following actual Wikipedia policy.
- I agree with your assessment. That's why I think they should be indefinitely banned from the topic area in question, and if the restrictions are eventually lifted they should be lifted gradually. TurboSuperA+[talk] 17:29, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
- Glebushko has been given every opportunity to pull back from this. They have chosen not to. We have ways to deal with coordinated meatpuppetry and external agitators; Glebushko was instructed repeatedly on how to engage with these processes but repeatedly refused to do so, even after having been sanctioned multiple times. Wikipedia is not a platform for waging ideological wars, no matter if you think you are on the "right" side or not. This is a user who does not belong on Wikipedia, in any topic. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:27, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
- Well I'm sure you would have mourned my loss. Either way it's not about me, you are speaking about the editor in question as if we're talking years of productive editing, the vast majority of their edits are from September 2025 onwards, before that the editing was sporadic and many of them are reverted. This is not a veteran editor but an editor that got involved in a contentious topic and evidently got in over their head, and decided that harassing people would be appropriate because they felt so wronged by people following actual Wikipedia policy. TylerBurden (talk) 17:24, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
- I asked for a warning for you at AE, never did I ask for a ban or block. I recognise the behavioral issues with this editor (and I say as much in my comment). I just think the issues might be limited to the topic area and dispute, since the editor hasn't been blocked in their ~4 years of editing, until they got themselves into a dispute re: Baltics, when they received several blocks in a short period. If you and other editors think the TBAN should be expanded, I won't oppose it. I also proposed an indefinite TBAN, which means Glebushko would have to appeal it after 6+ months. Even upon successful appeal the restrictions should be removed gradually, i.e. TBAN for Baltic BLPs should remain for another six months, or something like that. TurboSuperA+[talk] 16:55, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
- TBAN from anything concerning Central/Eastern European politics, no CBAN, give rope. On talk page, Gigman posted this:
Yes, I admit for the past few months I mostly edited Russia related articles and tried to highlight Russian point of view, because I feel like it's the one being neglected the most in the lights of current events, but I don't think everything about it is wrong or straight up lies
With this attitude, any editing not only in the Baltic areas but in any Central/Eastern European topic having anything to do with Russia is going to get him in trouble. Obvious targets are stuff like Euromaidan and the Suwałki Gap. But there are less obvious examples, too. Kosovo may be impacted because Russia's media and govt often justifies their annexation of Crimea by referring to the so-called "Kosovo precedent". And it goes on.
However, they seem to have repented, if under pressure, and I didn't see anything that would suggest them causing problems in areas like, I don't know, chemistry, entomology or transport. If they can edit biographies of sports people from Moldova without causing issues about stuff like Transnistria or Russian ethnicity, I think it will be better to retain them. If they want to edit articles about Canadian case law - great.
But if issues persist, then CBAN may indeed be advisable. Szmenderowiecki (talk · contribs) 18:27, 30 January 2026 (UTC) - Support I believe his behaviour is unacceptable - both the behaviour towards other users, and the quite bizzare rulebreaking edits to Estonian-related articles. Everyone has bias, but this user has shown they are unable to control it, and will get agressive when confronted. wojtekpolska1013 [talk page] 20:43, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose site ban;
ConditionalSupport for an indefinite block: Given Glebushko0703's recent comments on their talk page, theydo appear tomight be sincere that they have messed up and have taken responsibility. Thus, I am opposed to a site ban.I have decided to support the TBAN below with extra conditions, but given that I am not convinced that there will be enough support for it,I am putting an indefinitebanblock as mysecondpreference here as I believe that Glebushko0703 should be given a second chance in such a situation. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:19, 31 January 2026 (UTC)- I have amended my earlier comment. The indefinite block in now my preference given the lack of support for a TBAN. --Super Goku V (talk) 18:09, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
- Support Looking at some of the directed behaviour against editors, this behaviour is not acceptable for wikipedia editors. AT LEAST a site ban is warranted. Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:15, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
- Support as per nomination. Failing that, an indefinite topic ban from all Baltic, Russia and Soviet Union related articles should be considered. - Neptuunium (talk) 12:28, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
- Support. History of incivility and insincere apologies that isn't limited to the Baltic topic area. Indefinite doesn't mean forever, they can always learn from this, spend their time doing something else, and once they feel ready to treat others with respect they can appeal the ban, per WP:STANDARDOFFER. TurboSuperA+[talk] 17:15, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
- Support — At least for 6-12 months, but not opposed to an indef — Sadly, I must proffer my first-ever "support" opinion for an SBAN. The evidence provided by the opener speaks for itself. While getting into heated arguments and "spirited" (shall we say) debates are part and parcel to the Wikipedia experience, I would expect better from an apparently competent editor with thousands of edits and 5 years of "service". Perhaps they are apologetic, perhaps they aren't. We can't know. All we can know for certain is their behavior. It is easy to sit-back and call for moderation when you are not the victim of accusations, etc. Having recently dealt with an IP editor doing this, I have to say, it is surprisingly stressful (I say this as someone that has "seen the elephant") and deserves a strong response by the community, not simply some finger-wagging and promises that we'll "keep and eye on it" (to be clear, I'm not accusing anyone of inaction). I won't comment on the Baltic state controversy (and related editing) as I don't know enough about it to opine and, frankly, while it may have served as a catalyst, I think we should focus more on "Gigman's" behavior(s). I strongly second TurboSuperA+'s contention that Gigman can — and perhaps should — appeal, in due course and with all appropriate contrition. I think Gigman could learn from this and I hope they do. I've said things on this site which I regret, but I have always either apologized and attempted to make it right (by acknowledging what I did incorrectly/what rules I violated and stating what I will do to improve myself/my behavior) or I have simply restrained myself. I have gone — as countless other editors have — 11, 12 years without any disciplinary action or proposals for such against me. Point being; It is possible to make a mistake but not allow it to snowball. I see an inability to refrain from such "snowballing", here, at least currently. (This is longer than I expected and I apologize to the closer for rambling-on) MWFwiki (talk) 21:42, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
I would expect better from an apparently competent editor with thousands of edits and 5 years of "service".
They aren't actually that experienced if you check their contributions. They registered in 2021 but weren't active until 2023, and even then they were hardly active. Of their 2790 or so edits roughly 2000-2500 were made between October 2025 and January 2026. So their account is more like that of a 3-4-month-old newbie than a 5-year-old veteran. Nakonana (talk) 13:11, 1 February 2026 (UTC)- They made over 500 edits between August 2023 and February 2024. I would consider that active. LordCollaboration (talk) 14:10, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
- Comment by Glebushko0703 After seeing all my deeds from the side, inculding the old ones, I feel embarassed to say the least. Back then I've barely known what this site is about and how to behave on it. It is true that past few months was my most active usage of Wikipedia thanks to that Infobox RfC and follow up discussions, and I have gained a lot of knowledge because of it compared to my previous experice. It wasn't enough to prevent violations, but it was enough to change how I view Wikipedia. I had a habit of constantly testing the waters of what is and what is not allowed instead of reading the rules, that's the root cause of my problems with other editors. Now I understand that Wiki is not a place for cheeky jokes, vague implications, or gathering evidence on users who contradict your point of view. Instead, things here should be described neutrally, taken literally and with the consideration of others.There is a part of primaraly non-wiki community that is motivated to keep me from editing because of that RfC they're dissatisfied with . In the light of that, I doubt I will be able to return to editing, I don't think it will be allowed to happen if there's a voting. I know I don't deserve mercy after everything I did, but I ask for your understanding. I really wish I could return, but I also wish that the possibility of my returning wasn't under such a big question.I have never experienced any long-term blocks before. The closest I get to that was a page ban that was lifted after few days. I should be punished, but I ask you to consider a compromise. TBAN will clearly not be appropriate in my case, but a 6-12 months duration block was mentioned above. I'm not trying to downplay my sentence, I just want to get my act together, learn the rules and come back, while having the ability to sleep at night. I don't know how to win your trust. Gigman (talk) 19:22, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
- Regarding "vague implications" - Yesterday:
"I'm not sure how relevant was that information, but I will not speculate about the intentions behind all this effort on behalf of @LordCollaboration".
LordCollaboration (talk) 19:01, 1 February 2026 (UTC) There is a part of primaraly non-wiki community that is motivated to keep me from editing because of that RfC they're dissatisfied with...
As far as I can see, only one person in this conversation has come from outside of the Wikipedia community and had their comments stricken. This conversation is about your behavior. Please don't deflect from that. ExRat (talk) 19:29, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
- Regarding "vague implications" - Yesterday:
- Suppport CBAN. His behavior is too harsh to continue making content. A long history of incivility makes him be eligible for a CBAN. Ahri Boy (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 11:14, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose as convincing evidence of current misbehavior, serious enough for the sanction, has been provided. He explained his "final warning" comment by saying,
Just to clarify, "the final warning" indicated that I will not leave any further warnings on their page, "This was your final warning" not "this is your final warning" (as seen on the notice board) as if I warned them again
. Maybe it's a stretch, but I find the explanation believable, taking into account that he is not a native speaker. Glebushko's attitudes towards sockpuppetry are understandable, as he was targeted by two long-term abusers. Contrary to the statement in his block log, he didn't continue to accuse LordCollaboration of being a sock in January, he accused him of hounding.The concern was brought up to three different admins but was dismissed without a proper examination, IvanVector instead proposed to indef him. Finally, the claim about abizarre campaign against Estonians
is baseless. Kelob2678 (talk) 14:13, 4 February 2026 (UTC)- How do you oppose action taken against an editor on the grounds of actual evidence being provided for their misbehavior? You may want to look at this again. TylerBurden (talk) 17:31, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
- One of the key pieces of evidence was the persistent accusations against LordCollaboration. When I voted, I genuinely thought that the accusations were somewhat justified, which redeemed Glebushko0703's behavior. Now, I see that this was not the case. However, I still believe that CBAN is too harsh. Kelob2678 (talk) 19:10, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
- How do you oppose action taken against an editor on the grounds of actual evidence being provided for their misbehavior? You may want to look at this again. TylerBurden (talk) 17:31, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
Alternate proposal: TBAN
Glebushko0703 is indefinitely topic banned from Baltic, Russia and Soviet Union topic areas, very broadly construed. They are not allowed to edit articles (and their respective talk pages) that are in any way related to Baltic states and those topic areas, their history or geography. They are not allowed to participate in RfCs or discussions about Wikipedia's Policies and Guidelines or Manual of Style if those discussions are in any way related to the Baltic aforementioned topic areas. They are advised to stay away from editors with whom they've had content disputes in the topic areas. 19:32, 30 January 2026 (UTC)TurboSuperA+[talk] 15:43, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
- Conditional support - If necessary (a t-ban), I'd recomend it initially be for 1-month. If interaction with editors breaks down after that? then 2-months, etc etc. GoodDay (talk) 15:57, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
- Way too lenient, I understand that you are on this editors talk page trying to mentor them and apparently vote similarly in RfC's, but we're talking serious misconduct that should lead to at the very least a topic ban. I think either would be a fair verdict in this case. TylerBurden (talk) 17:27, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
- A gradual 1-month, then 2- months etc, would be best, no matter who the editor is & which side of a content dispute they're on. We must remember that such measures are to be preventative, not punitive. GoodDay (talk) 18:14, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
- In certain cases, sure, but not after several blocks in three months in the same topic area. TurboSuperA+[talk] 18:17, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
- FWIW, aren't such blocks suppose to be gradual in length, when they're handed out? I mean 72 hrs, is the last one. GoodDay (talk) 18:45, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
- It's not a block, it's a topic ban. The editor can technically edit in the topic area, but they aren't allowed to. If they do, they risk an indefinite block, which an Administrator can apply unilaterally, without community discussion, iirc. TurboSuperA+[talk] 18:49, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
- Alright, but the t-ban should at least be modified. Gigman's implimenting consensus (via 2025 RFC), isn't disruptive. The problem is his interactions with editors in the topic area, which include commenting on editors in those topic areas. Therefore, a restriction on commenting on editors & their supposed motives, whould be more accurate. GoodDay (talk) 18:54, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
The problem is his interactions with editors in the topic area, which include commenting on editors in those topic areas. Therefore, a restriction on commenting on editors & their supposed motives, whould be more accurate.
- That's not how it works. This is a collaborative project and civility is one of the core principles of Wikipedia. Glebushko was already sanctioned for his behaviour towards others (blocked several times). Now we're discussing which steps to take to ensure it doesn't happen again. TurboSuperA+[talk] 19:06, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
- Well, I'm just one voice. It's out of my hands as to what the community decides, concerning Gigman. I've tried to help smooth his rough edges :( GoodDay (talk) 19:09, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
- Yea you're one voice not based on any kind of Wikipedia policy, but just being sympathetic to the reported editor, honestly it's not a good look. Then again any reasonable administrator would see the same. TylerBurden (talk) 10:29, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
- Well, I'm just one voice. It's out of my hands as to what the community decides, concerning Gigman. I've tried to help smooth his rough edges :( GoodDay (talk) 19:09, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
- A restriction on commenting wouldn't work. There's also been edit-warring and other aggressive behavior. Editing without commenting doesn't work, and the commenting would very likely devolve into aspersions, trolling and similar stuff again. — Chrisahn (talk) 19:15, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
- Alright, but the t-ban should at least be modified. Gigman's implimenting consensus (via 2025 RFC), isn't disruptive. The problem is his interactions with editors in the topic area, which include commenting on editors in those topic areas. Therefore, a restriction on commenting on editors & their supposed motives, whould be more accurate. GoodDay (talk) 18:54, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
- It's not a block, it's a topic ban. The editor can technically edit in the topic area, but they aren't allowed to. If they do, they risk an indefinite block, which an Administrator can apply unilaterally, without community discussion, iirc. TurboSuperA+[talk] 18:49, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
- FWIW, aren't such blocks suppose to be gradual in length, when they're handed out? I mean 72 hrs, is the last one. GoodDay (talk) 18:45, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
- In certain cases, sure, but not after several blocks in three months in the same topic area. TurboSuperA+[talk] 18:17, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
- I agree, far too lenient for actions of this magnitude. ~2026-64380-6 (talk) 18:19, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
- A gradual 1-month, then 2- months etc, would be best, no matter who the editor is & which side of a content dispute they're on. We must remember that such measures are to be preventative, not punitive. GoodDay (talk) 18:14, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
- Way too lenient, I understand that you are on this editors talk page trying to mentor them and apparently vote similarly in RfC's, but we're talking serious misconduct that should lead to at the very least a topic ban. I think either would be a fair verdict in this case. TylerBurden (talk) 17:27, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose a topic ban (indef block and standard offer is appropriate), but if there is one, it should definitely include Russia and Soviet Union, broadly construed, and the Baltic countries, broadly construed. The editor is too emotionally invested in these subjects to consistently edit with a cool head. At least that's been the case in the last couple of months, and it's unlikely to change soon. We may reconsider in six months or so. — Chrisahn (talk) 19:21, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
- I have now modified the proposal, per your and LordCollaboration's comments. I think I have said everything I have to say and won't comment any more unless someone pings me or asks me a question directly. TurboSuperA+[talk] 19:35, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose per my comments above (tied to this edit). Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:27, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
Conditional Support over an indefinite block: The conditions that I feel would be appropriate given the multiple incidents are an indefinite TBAN and a 12-month restriction on appealing the TBAN, with additional appeals requiring a 6-month restriction since a prior TBAN appeal. I believe that would be sufficient to deter future incidents and prevent those that have occurred from re-occurring. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:07, 31 January 2026 (UTC)- Striking given that even the proposer of the TBAN is withdrawing, I don't see a path forward where a consensus for this will form over a site ban or an indefinite block. --Super Goku V (talk) 18:04, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose, don't think it's appropriate to be stealth canvassed here by the person reported, and then make a more favourable proposal to them. Trout incoming Kowal2701 (talk) 14:23, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose - I was considering switching my vote to this (with some small caveats), but took a look at their edits to see if "the problematic behaviour is contained in this topic area". Unfortunately, it seems like this is effectively the *only* mainspace area they have edited since they became active again in late 2025. But they were also active from August 2023 to February 2024, where they overwhelmingly edited a different topic, WP:DOY. The behavior seems exactly the same. Almost immediately, they called another user an "asshole". Then they got into a dispute with another user who was undoing unsourced additions by Gigman on the page December 25, which Gigman then edit warred over. Gigman told them to "add sources yourself", to "go to hell", called them "either too lazy or incompetent", and said they "decided to cry like a little baby". This got them a level 4im warning for personal attacks and an edit warring warning from another editor. Gigman denied any of this was a personal attack and accused the other editor of provoking them into an edit war. They then removed the other editor's post on a talk page (because it mentioned them), which got them a warning for editing others' comments. They then removed it two more times. Finally, Gigman took it to that user's talk page and asked them to remove it, apologizing very nicely for their behavior. The other user thanked Gigman for the apology and archived it. Shortly after, they got into another dispute with the same user on the page February 4 (over Gigman using "onthisday" to add material) after which Gigman removed the conversation on that user's talk page and told them to "touch some grass". The other user said, "I took your first apology at face value, which I now realise was to my regret." Gigman responded again, "I just have a feeling you just like to undo, even more than your backyard." And then responded to another user on their talk page, saying, "Seems like Undo must be his biggest contribution to this platform". Gigman then got a warning for edit warring on the February 4 page. Gigman went to that user's talk page and called them "the main sign of 'decline of this project'". Finally, they said, "I want to say, that from now on, thanks to you and other of 'your type', since I only get revertions and warnings for trying to do something, I will never ever make any further contributions on Wikipedia, except undo the ones I see breaking the rules." And then became mostly inactive until late 2025. This is all the same behavior and concerns - personal attacks, bad faith, removing comments, edit warring, accusations of being provoked, and returning to the same behavior after they get what they want following an apology. LordCollaboration (talk) 16:45, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
- Withdrawing/oppose proposal, per LordCollaboration's comment above. I thought Glebushko was being sincere and made mistakes recently, but it looks as though they're simply manipulative and lack the maturity to work collaboratively. The insincere apologies are particularly bad. I admit I did not look into their behaviour and took their remorse at face value.TurboSuperA+[talk] 17:04, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose. As noted by others in this discussion, there is a very long history of extremely disruptive and uncivil behavior on Glebushko's behalf, that is frequently followed by what appears to sincere apologies when he feels as though he's going to encounter some sort of consequence for his actions. Those apologies seem to merely be a pattern of manipulation. This is evident in LordCollaboration's examples just above, his interactions with LordCollaboration himself, and with me via his talk page. ExRat (talk) 22:12, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
- Note: Moved a comment to a new section below. --Super Goku V (talk) 22:20, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose Because they're back on doubling down, people may deserve a second chance, but there's already been another meltdown. --TylerBurden (talk) 17:47, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
User talk page
Refactored by Sgv
Punish me if this is breaking the rules, but I created an account to inform someone that Glebu blanked his talk page, which seems to add that he was being insincere. IHeartVideoGames (talk) 21:28, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
- @IHeartVideoGames: Users are allowed to blank their own talk page under WP:OWNTALK and WP:UOWN. There are certain things that cannot be removed. I am unsure if block warning can be blanked, but that would be might only concern that I can think of if they did erase it. --Super Goku V (talk) 22:20, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
- "I am unsure if block warning can be blanked" That in particular is what caught my attention; in the future, other editors may not be aware of his past behavior from an immediate glance.
- But I only wanted to bring this up since it seemed relevant to said user. Apologies if all of this counts as derailing. IHeartVideoGames (talk) 22:25, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
- Gigman is still blocked for another few hours & so hasn't yet responded at this ANI report on him. As for blanking his own talkpage? He has his own reasons. GoodDay (talk) 22:39, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
- Seeing as there isn't a problem after all, should this subtopic be collapsed or removed? IHeartVideoGames (talk) 23:04, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
- We can leave this alone and let it get archived with the rest of this some time in the future. If anyone wants to collapse it or close it for whatever reason, then so be it. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:36, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
- Seeing as there isn't a problem after all, should this subtopic be collapsed or removed? IHeartVideoGames (talk) 23:04, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
- Generally, any editor can check the edit history for a user's talk page and see if they blanked anything, so blanking isn't necessarily going to be good at hiding things.
- In any case, while you do say below that there wasn't a problem, I do have time now and should mention that WP:KEEPDECLINEDUNBLOCK explains what cannot be removed. (Of course it was a screen lower or two from what I saw on my phone.) --Super Goku V (talk) 03:43, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
- About a month ago, I happened to see LordCollaboration asking Glebushko to retract a threat to report them for sockpuppetry. This was the first time that I intervened to warn Glebushko to stop accusing others of sockpuppetry without evidence. They blanked my warning seven minutes later, and continued talking to LordCollaboration as though I had not warned them at all. Later, after they continued with their unsupported sockpuppetry accusations and I blocked them, they removed the block notice and an extended explanation I left, and for the duration of the block used their talk page to continue discussing a content dispute as though they were not blocked. I'm posting this to show that Glebushko has a history of removing scrutiny from their talk page, and I evidently am not the only one to have noticed. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 23:16, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
- Gigman is still blocked for another few hours & so hasn't yet responded at this ANI report on him. As for blanking his own talkpage? He has his own reasons. GoodDay (talk) 22:39, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
- Restored from archive so this can be properly closed, please. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:21, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks for restoring this. I agree that it needs to be addressed properly. It would be great if an admin could take the time to make a decision. Thanks! — Chrisahn (talk) 13:26, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
- Was there a consensus regarding me? To be honest, I even forgot this discussion was still ongoing. By this point enough time has passed for me to edit the sort of things I usually edit, without eastern european stuff or re-engaging with editors. Gigman (talk) 15:09, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Possible CIR issue
User:Lxbaguette has been making edits that are adding commentary to articles (diff), as well as unsourced edits that conflict with the rest of the page (diff). I came across them when they created this draft, which was clearly AI-generated without any human review. If they cannot show that they have moved on from these editing patterns, a block would be in order. Somepinkdude (talk) 00:49, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
Failure to communicate as required.
EtVVV (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User has repeatedly broken pages by inserting CAT:UNKNOWN params. Despite at least 4 warnings on their talk page, they have continued this pattern of editing. Additionally they have failed to respond to ANY attempts to communicate. Request a namespace block unless and until user acknowledges the warnings and understands that communication is required. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 03:40, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
Constant null and poor quality edits from temporary account
~2025-42043-50 (talk · contribs) has pretty clearly been the same person since December, despite it being a temporary account. The vast majority of their edits are seemingly null like this or actively degrade article quality like this . They never use edit summaries and have not responded to two warnings left on their talk page or explained their actions. Not a candidate for AIV as the edits aren't overtly vandalism. - The literary leader of the age ✉ 01:16, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
- If the first edit was a null edit, then your revert was an equally null edit. Why would you do that? The second edit looks like a (very small) improvement to me - I would have gone further and deleted the unnecessary filler word 'also' at the same time. The worst that can be said about this user is that they dislike the Oxford Comma. ~2025-43585-89 (talk) 06:08, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
Compromised account?
RayAdvait (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Ray has been making numerous disruptive edits (that violate WP:BLP) at Keith Terrett, going as far back as December (e.g. this & this).
Today they posted on the article talk page, asking to please not be banned as many of my peers are trying to prank Keith Terrett (our secondary school music teacher) through this
and to Please do not block my account as it is my passion, and stopping random pranks not conducted by me should not result in blocking of my account.
(emphasis mine).
There has been disruption from other accounts as well today, but given the above message, further explanation is needed from Ray, as it's clear that either: a) the user thinks it's okay to vandalise a BLP as a prank
; or b) their account has been compromised since December. Nil🥝 06:26, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
- Either way, this is unacceptable; even if the account is not compromised attempts to "run interference" for friends (while engaging in the same "pranks") is a no-no. Blocked indef. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:05, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
WP:AWARE editor ignoring extended confirmed restriction
FunnyTeaher (talk · contribs) unknowingly violated the extended confirmed restriction applied to Indian military history , they were then explicitly made aware of this restriction , they violated it again , were warned again and specifically stated they would refrain from editing info related to the Indian military
, violated it again , were warned again , violated it again . Standard warnings and discussion have failed, admin action seems necessary. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 01:48, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
- come on I have not made any edit since the final warning ~2026-92146-6 (talk) 02:16, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
- The most recent edit was made 7 February, the last warning was given 3 February, the most recent post to FunnyTeaher's talk page by another user was 4 February. You're not logged in, have you responded to the wrong report? fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 02:31, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
- I think the capitaliztation is the same person. @~2026-92146-6, if you're FunnyTeaher, please try to avoid using a TA. ThatTrainGuy1945 (talk) 02:39, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
- Ya I am the same person from that account. I am not gonna make any edits from now ig so its all up to you guys.👍 FunnyTeaher (talk) 03:17, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
- That ain't a "throwaway" account as what I believe was assumed by you when you said "TA" FunnyTeaher (talk) 03:20, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
- Also, I believe I have already been blocked. Never mind. 😊 FunnyTeaher (talk) 03:21, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
- @FunnyTeaher: You are not currently blocked, but that may well be the outcome of this discussion. Also, the abbreviation "TA" refers to a temporary account: what happens when you edit at Wikipedia without logging in. It's the account named ~2026-92146-6. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiDan61 (talk • contribs) 12:56, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
- Also, I believe I have already been blocked. Never mind. 😊 FunnyTeaher (talk) 03:21, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
- That ain't a "throwaway" account as what I believe was assumed by you when you said "TA" FunnyTeaher (talk) 03:20, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
- Ya I am the same person from that account. I am not gonna make any edits from now ig so its all up to you guys.👍 FunnyTeaher (talk) 03:17, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
Username
I read in a redditt forum that Wikipedia had username naming rules . Somebody pointed out that my user name is not proper beacuse it has a name sounding like dick like ddiki. I am not sure if this is acceptable or not . Hingolddiki (talk) 06:11, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
- Your username is fine. We’re all aware that the Scunthorpe problem exists. • a frantic turtle 🐢 06:25, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
- See WP:USERNAME. It doesn't seem to be any problems in your username to me, but what do you mean by linking "dick" to a unrelated article? Xzkdeng (talk) 06:27, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
- I wouldn't call the Dick Cheney article unrelated. I would however suggest that it was somewhat pointy, and suggests that Hingolddiki is fully aware that Dick is an entirely appropriate name, being a common abbreviation for Richard. I'd also advise against anyone taking the slightest bit of notice of anything said on Reddit regarding Wikipedia policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:35, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
User:Guile's Theme
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Guile's Theme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I will be linking to comments instead of diffs since the editor has a habit of repeatedly revising their talk posts.
My main concern is that the editor is strongly failing to assume good faith.
I reached out to the editor to give some pointers regarding bludgeoning, having been participating in a discussion with them. When I followed up a week later, they accused me of harassment: this essentially constitutes WP:HUSH
. Further outreach by me would be unproductive. Outreach by anyone "opposed" to the editor in that discussion will also, it seems, be unproductive; when @FactOrOpinion warned them not to game the system with lots of trivial edits to talk pages, the editor accused them of harassment (calling the gaming comment meritless and pointless and just WP:HUSH or harassment
; (you're only here on my talk page vs
[another editor] because you have a vested interest in silencing me
) After FactOrOpinion referred the editor to WP:REDACT as proper procedure in the context of the editor's revision of their replies, the editor took harassment accusations to FactOrOpinion's talk page, saying Please stop attempting to engage in WP:HUSH and User space harassment
.
The editor has conflicted with others including @Mikewem, threatening the latter with a User review
over bad faith argumentation
. Highlights from this thread include I suppose trying to go on the offensive when you can't or won't defend your conduct is one strategy
and Oh boy, looking at your user history I can already see why you're nervous. This seems to be an established pattern with you.
The editor accused @Billheller of resort[ing] to gaslighting and petty attempts at intimidation and brigading absent any solid logic or evidence for your claims mostly because I'm advocating for a change you don't agree with.
Tangentially, the editor's mass revisions to their comments are functionally WP:PGAMING, though the user does say that gaining permissions isn't their intention (I didn't know or care
[perms as function of edit count] existed
).
I can't speak to the conduct of the editors that this editor is conflicting with (except that FactOrOpinion's comments at the editor's talk page were unambiguously reasonable)—I haven't followed the long chains of long replies this editor is party to at the article talk.
I wouldn't go so far as to say the editor is WP:NOTHERE, but their discussion behavior needs to change in order to more consistently contribute in a way that isn't disruptive.
I think trying to help newer editors is more productive because disruptive behavior is less entrenched. It is not my hope here to get Guile's Theme blocked; it's my hope that they'll stop digging. It's just that apparently my talking to them won't lead to that. Uninvolved people are probably best placed to achieve a good outcome from this; I don't plan on commenting further here, and would urge the people I pinged to not relitigate the content dispute here Placeholderer (talk) 21:13, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
- I have nothing positive to report about this user’s conduct. Though I do believe that new editors can learn to be better, and that learning is part of the process, I have little confidence that a positive outcome is possible here.
- My main immediate ask would be to speedily revoke their ecp on GAMING grounds. GT has a habit of rapid-fire consecutive edits to the same comment. I would count each case of consecutive edits as one edit, though for ease, I would just restart them at 0
- Pinging admins who previously engaged with GT for their thoughts- @Doug Weller: @ToBeFree:
- I’ll also add a link to the AI noticeboard post that I started: Wikipedia:WikiProject AI Cleanup/Noticeboard#User:Guile's Theme Mikewem (talk) 22:11, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
- I was considering bringing them here for gaming. Whatever they say, their behavior suggests this. Doug Weller talk 09:38, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
- Feel free to elaborate on what actual grounds to give me a fair chance to defend myself from this apparent witch hunt. My edit/comment history has been consistent since I created the account and I find it funny people want to accuse me of gaming a system I never knew the details of/how it exactly it worked. Per my comments last night I didn't even know there was an 'edit count' system and had to look up what 'EC system' meant. Also, I don't think having edit powers would fix anything as anything on that article becomes an edit war if not hashed out in extremely long tedious talk page talks that practically amount to WP:Stonewalling so it wouldn't even matter anyway because the process would end up being exactly the same?? IE I have no motive. And when I participate in talk page discussion then I'm accused of bludgeoning. So apparently the only thing I'm allowed to do is shut up while being accused of everything. What a wonderful place Wikipedia is. I'd clearly be missing out on so much I were blocked here. Guile's Theme (talk) 10:06, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
- I was considering bringing them here for gaming. Whatever they say, their behavior suggests this. Doug Weller talk 09:38, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
- Oh, it's them. I'm surprised noone has blocked them yet. I've been annoyed by their behavior on Mikewem's user talk page alone too much to do so uninvolvedly. Here's a permalink to the chaos. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:14, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
- I support a block. I probably would have blocked if I weren't involved. Doug Weller talk 09:40, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
- I'm going to echo broadly what has been said about GT by @Mikewem, @Placeholderer and @ToBeFree. Unfortunately, this user has been very argumentative, hostile and pedantic in his zeal to push edits without consensus. Simply look at his edit history. 185 edits to a single talk page since January 30th (It's early February 11th for reference.)
- He has done very little on Wikipedia that is constructive and even less that could be considered substantial contributions. Instead he has engaged in battleground tactics attacking other editors' comments on Talk pages literally going line by line picking apart other users' arguments. This has led to massive wasted time replying to this user who seems to have nearly unlimited time to argue on the most minute of phrasing.
- The totality of this user's edits would, in my view, lead a reasonable administrator to either institute a contentious topics ban that includes Talk Pages or an indefinite ban. I'm not generally in favor of indefinite bans for newer users, but this individual has clearly shown that he is not at all interested in building an encyclopedia. His edits demonstrate that instead, he is interested in engaging in ad hominem attacks, pedantic discussions about the phraseology of other users' comments and generally disruptive behavior. If you (the administrator reading this) are unable to immediately set this user on the 'righteous' path towards becoming a positive member of the Wikipedia community, you should ban them indefinitely. We have too much of this kind of misbehavior on Wikipedia. I'd say simply look to the page: Talk: Killing of Alex Pretti. It's illustrative of this user's contributions. Bill Heller (talk) 04:58, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
- There is a lot to unpack here, but let's start here;
I haven't followed the long chains of long replies this editor is party to at the article talk.
-Placehorderer - Ok, so for starters, how can you POSSIBLY in good faith accuse me of bludgeoning if you haven't even actually read what I've written to asses it if it or is not? If your ONLY metric to accuse me of bludgeoning is that I have the most comments/text on a talk page that is totally wrong as bludgeoning is far more nuanced than that. Something you should know as an experienced editor.
- Of course, I asked you to specify where/how I was bludgeoning. You didn't specify. So you were ignored. And would be/should be again if you CAN'T EVEN BE BOTHERED TO READ the things you accuse people to be bludgeoning over... How can I not feel like I'm being harassed when I'm being accused of stuff by someone who just admitted to not even reading what he is accusing over? Bizarre and surreal, to quote Marshal Mikhail Tukhachevsky when he was sentenced to execution, "I feel I'm dreaming".
I reached out to the editor to give some pointers regarding bludgeoning
- Placehorderer- As it says on the bludgeoning page, accusing someone of bludgeoning is uncivil. And bludgeoning is much more nuanced than commenting the most on the talk page which is the ONLY evidence you offered on that point so thus I dismissed it as shallow and unfair. Which frankly, if your only basis is text count, it absolutely is. Finally when he made the 2nd comment/warning I had only been replying to comments that directly replied to me to defend things I had already said on February 6th or earlier, ie 4/5 days ago, making it entirely improper; I had already been making efforts to reduce my interactions on the page and only replying to direct replies to myself for awhile. Which combined with his inability to be specific, and now admission of no even reading, causes me dismiss his warnings as improper and improper warnings can constitute User Space Harassment or HUSH.
this essentially constitutes WP:HUSH
- me- Because I had only been replying to direct replies to myself for 4 days and because he could not give specific examples of where I was actually occurring in bludgeoning I ignored and dismissed his concerns and did indeed accuse him of essentially WP:HUSH for trying to silence me without proper cause. He clearly didn't take that too well.
them not to game the system with lots of trivial edits to talk pages
- Placehorder- I consider this harassment because it is monumentally unfair to accuse me of both commenting and replying too much but then say I intentionally make trivial edits in an effort to 'game the system' which I did not even know existed or cared until they brought up to me last night. Also feels like they are trying to nitpick a little since this was not the complaint they led with.
you're only here on my talk page vs [another editor] because you have a vested interest in silencing me
-me- I stand by this; I don't take editors I'm been in actively in a debate in for over a week telling me to be silent as unbiased. Of course they'd like that. And it is improper for them to come to my talk page and pretend to be any sort of neutral or uninterested party.
the editor to WP:REDACT as proper procedure in the context of the editor's revision
- Placehorder- I don't believe I violated REDACT; I didn't change the context of any replies. I fix typos and rephrase the exact same meaning so it more clear and did it less than 2 minutes after the previous reply. That same user has been spamming me to read this and that policy, I warned him to not make any more undue comments on my talk page, and when he did so I took it as an attempt to rage bait, troll, or user space harass, which I already made clear after his first response when I brought up WP:Hush, warned him I would, and I quoted that section of the policy against such on his talk page.
The editor has conflicted with others including @Mikewem
- placehorderer- And the source of that conflict was a reply by him after he made an extremely dubious edit that is now somewhat the topic of a huge RFC in which he said,
"Just noting that I didn’t find any compelling arguments in your first or second WP:WALLOFTEXT, so I didn’t read any of them after that, and I haven’t read this one either."
That isn't good faith engagement in my book, sorry if that is in anyway divisive but calling what I write 'walloftext' is also disingenuous and pretty bad faith imo. Just refusing to engage and making bald denials absent logic or reason while abusing protected edit powers. Also, for whatever it is worth, Mikewen has the most alarming user history of ANY I have ever seen on Wikipedia and that someone like that is allowed to so heavily influence contentious articles with their documented heavy bias is alarming for the state of Wikipedia in my opinion and does a LOT of damage to my overall perception of and faith in Wikipedia. "I suppose trying to go on the offensive when you can't or won't defend your conduct is one strategy"
-me (Placehorderer is accusing me of threatening Mikewen with this quote)- ?? How is this a threat? This is a comment I made after Mikewen's reaction to me accusing him of lack of good faith based on his last reply I quoted was to counter accuse me immediately for being a sock puppet, ie going on the offesnsive after not defending his conduct. Bizarre stating a complete truth at that moment is somehow a 'threat' in your eyes. And the conduct he was not defending or explaining was, per my reply in the same discussion Placehoderer omitted in order to take me out of context,
"By any chance does (the counter accusation of Mikewen about me being a sockpuppet) any of this go anyway to explaining you selectively choosing to remove key contextual info from the Background of an article and instead bury it at the end of the article leaving only the indirect reference of it on the grounds of 'no consensus for double mention'; where was the consensus on which of the double mention to remove?"
- This is just taking quotes out of context and misrepresenting them. Simple as that.
resort[ing] to gaslighting and petty attempts at intimidation and brigading absent any solid logic or evidence for your claims mostly because I'm advocating for a change you don't agree with.
- quote from me used by placeholderer- Yes, because again you neglect to comment that puts this into context ie several users coming to badger me on Mikewen's talk page over policy required warning before potential dispute escalation. And when Bill said,
Harassing other users is a violation of Wikipedia:HUSH
, when I was doing the warning on the talk page per procedure before escalating the dispute, and then Bill said,Guile's Theme has made something like 25 article space edits in his time on Wikipedia. I'm not some 100,000 edit guy but I make a point not to rock the boat, engage in consensus and understand that being reverted or having my ideas not be reflected in the consensus is part of the Wikipedia process. I'll echo WP:BOOMERANG.
-Bill - I interpreted those 2 comments, as well as those as others who bandwagoned onto the warning I made on Mikewen's talk page, as an attempt to essentially scare/intimidate me into not trying to escalate the dispute regardless of having proper grounds to do so or not. As well as also trying to silence me based on my number of edits and 'not rock the boat' ignoring any merit in argumentation or logic which just felt very improper and basically what they tell whistleblowers to keep them quite.
- In general it should be noted almost every single person Placehorder pinged is one with whom I have had adversarial interactions with in the last week or so in the course of a singular talk page debate. Mikewen and Bill I've already touch on, but I also had a tiff with ToBeFree over him repeatedly calling me or insinuating I was a 'hallucinating' AI or relying on such, or that English was not my native language, all of which I found to be demeaning and pejorative to say the least.
Simply look at his edit history. 185 edits to a single talk page since January 30th (It's early February 11th for reference.)
- Bill- Number of edits is a poor metric, my edits have been constructive in improving and refining what I'd written and fixing typos and this feels like a nitpick rather than anything substantive. As I've already said elsewhere I'm big into the writing is rewriting school and things can always be improved upon and refined and my edit history has always been consistent. I believe it is impossible to say I'm suddenly trying to game the system in response to whatever dispute is going on over the Killing of Alex Pretti article when my edit history was similar back in October when I was heavily involved in other talk page discussions, where no such protected edit was required.
Unfortunately, this user has been very argumentative, hostile and pedantic in his zeal to push edits without consensus.
- Bill- This is all completely untrue or unfair. Everyone is argumentative on the talk page as if you don't have something to argue there is often little reason to comment. I've not been hostile, I would actually posit I've been accused of bias and pushing a narrative more often than I've accused any individual editor of doing so although I have alluded to it in a more general sense although I often provided examples when I did so; like the placement of responses of politicians not in the response section but rather in the investigations section in order to preface the January 13th video in question. Nothing has been pedantic either although some of the responses I've had to deal with certainly were. I guess I do feel a certain 'zeal' in that I clearly believe in a position and so do the majority given the lopsided results of the RFC thus far.
He has done very little on Wikipedia that is constructive and even less that could be considered substantial contributions.
- Bill- I feel that is very unfair, you yourself most of your edits are on talk pages, and if we go by total text count my account, only 4/5 months old, might match or exceed yours that has been around since 2006 and has only a little 672 edits in total. So if we are going to talk about who has a lack of substantial or constructive contribution, relative to their time here, between the two of us it certainly would not be me.
he is interested in engaging in ad hominem attacks,
- Bill- Please quote where I did this even once?? If you can't then everything you just wrote is similarly suspect...
- If this all proves to be unfounded I hope it becomes seen as part of a campaign of harassments against me that arguably started when I first commented on Mikewen's user page back around Feburary 2nd and if so that WP:BOOMERANG is applied if applicable. Guile's Theme (talk) 09:38, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
- Please see WP:TLDR. Also, if your defense of a bludgeoning accusation is to write almost 2,500 words, more than twice what every other editor in this discussion has written combined, you may be doing something wrong. EducatedRedneck (talk) 12:00, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
- I'll just quote myself,
Honestly the next thing I expect is that I'm going to be told I'm bludgeoning, 'gaming the system', or being aggressive for defending myself here... It would fit the pattern.
- I'm dealing with accusations and comments from multiple people, obviously as the common denominator and defender here I'm either the one to respond and defend myself or let their accusations hang uncontested. Also, I'm pretty sure it is stated somewhere in policy you CANNOT be bludgeoning the process when defending yourself in dispute resolution. Pretty sure I read this somewhere last night I cannot find at the moment. But my prediction came true anyway. And again, read the bludgeoning page, it is so much more nuanced that 'whoever writes the most'=bludgeoning... Guile's Theme (talk) 12:12, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
- A few things:
- I didn't accuse you of bludgeoning, but I did note that using a 100 L tank to try to clean up a 10 L spill is a bad look. It also begs the question: if you thought this response would generate more heat for you, why did you do it?
- This isn't a decision between 2.5 k words and no response. This is a decision between 2.5 k words and making your point with much fewer. (
- What you reference is the "Administrative leeway" provision of WP:BLUDGEON, which also states it's not bludgeoning
if their responses are individually reasonable and necessary, and not just repetitive and argumentative.
. - WP:BLUDGEON also states,
If your comments take up one-third of the total text or you have replied to half the people who disagree with you, you are likely bludgeoning the process
. So yes, number of replies or volume of text is highly germane.
- You may have good points. But per WP:TLDR, I highly doubt you'll get anyone to read them if you post such volume. Maybe it's not right, but it is what's practical. You can't expect volunteers to read through a novella when two paragraphs would do. EducatedRedneck (talk) 12:27, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
but I did note that using a 100 L tank to try to clean up a 10 L spill is a bad look.
- It just feel more than a little bit of hyperbole. My responses aren't 10x what I'm replying to generally and if I'm allowed the exception here in self defense, which I believe I somewhat am, I'm going to take it.
if you thought this response would generate more heat for you, why did you do it?
- ?? It sort of just sounds like I damned if I do, since then I'm talking too much, and damned if I don't, since then I'm not explaining or attempting any self defense here, so if I'm damned either way I'd rather do than don't? Or perhaps I'm not grasping your precise meaning with this?
This is a decision between 2.5 k words and making your point with much fewer.
- I'm fine with that in principle, but vague generalizations are unhelpful. I've asked for specifics from everyone and been given few if none. Where am I being egregiously lengthy in my replies relative to comments I'm responding to on the talk pages in question? I'm sure that is true for some of them, especially the ones earlier/further back in time when I was first expressing my opinion on the page, but since then has it really been an egregious issue?
- Also, I'd point out my engagement with the current Shooting of Alex Pretti talk page amounts to; 1 protected edit request on the 2nd of Feb, my !vote and reasoning in the RFC, a response to 2 other other !votes in the 20+ votes, and a response to a response to one of the votes. Everything else have been me replying to direct replies to myself in defense of things I'd already said.
if their responses are individually reasonable and necessary, and not just repetitive and argumentative.
- The core definition appears to be, "Typically, this means making the same argument over and over and to different people in the same discussion or across related discussions."
- Where have I done this really? I've asked for examples and beyond being accused of such when I reread the Alex Pretti talk page I don't see myself really doing this. So please be more specific if not my knee jerk reaction is to regard this as unfounded and therefore uncivil/rude.
If your comments take up one-third of the total text or you have replied to half the people who disagree with you, you are likely bludgeoning the process.
- Ok, I don't take up 1/3rd of the total text, and replied to 2 of the 6,7,or 8 (some !votes unclear exactly) who voted differently than myself in the RFC. So I don't meet either metric there. So when I start to feel this lacks substance and specifics and either dismiss it or find it tantamount to harassment am I going to be accused of being aggressive or rude, or something else?
you can't expect volunteers to read through a novella when two paragraphs would do.
- My responses aren't usually that long individually on that talk page. And I also tend to quote what I'm responding to a lot to better contextualize my responses, like I'm doing here, inflating text count length. Most my responses on that talk page have actually been in reply to a single user who keeps responding to my own comments with different complaints/counterpoints while also responding to a handful of others, many here now in this discussion. Guile's Theme (talk) 13:16, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
- Another wall of text, I see. Okay, you don't have to take my advice, but don't be surprised if your responses don't gain traction. The last thing I'll point out is that your posts don't have to cover every contingency. If something is unclear, people will ask, and you can explain then. As is, your posts here are so long few will read them. A mediocre defense a quarter the length is better than a great defense nobody reads. EducatedRedneck (talk) 13:25, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
- Wall of text is pejorative absent proper rational, like me saying you write to little to communicate anything of substance. I'm sorry that we have different opinions on what constitutes appropriate discussion and that we have obviously different amounts of stake and therefore interest in this discussion to warrant the effort. But that isn't my fault. Being longer than you like isn't bludgeoning unless you can argue how it is needlessly so more specifically. Guile's Theme (talk) 13:28, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
- This is a fundamental misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works. It doesn't matter which argument is the most convincing, it matters which convinces the most people. Wikipedia is ruled by consensus, not truth, which is why I've advised you that your approach is counterproductive. EducatedRedneck (talk) 13:31, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
- I don't disagree, but I don't see the relation between this point and the unsubstantial accusations of bludgeoning. So it tends to feel like moving the goal post. Guile's Theme (talk) 13:32, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
- This is a fundamental misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works. It doesn't matter which argument is the most convincing, it matters which convinces the most people. Wikipedia is ruled by consensus, not truth, which is why I've advised you that your approach is counterproductive. EducatedRedneck (talk) 13:31, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
- A few things:
- I'll just quote myself,
- Boomerang? Who should be blocked? Doug Weller talk 12:21, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
- I didn't say blocked, but any penalty that is ultimately deemed appropriate if they are ultimately deemed of have made unfair/improper warnings thus harassing my user space, if that comes to pass, or those who were brigading and attempting to intimidate me on Mikewen's page, or any who otherwise have acted in bad faith here or on any of the associated talk pages. Clearly I don't make the rules or decisions around here. Guile's Theme (talk) 12:25, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
- Please see WP:TLDR. Also, if your defense of a bludgeoning accusation is to write almost 2,500 words, more than twice what every other editor in this discussion has written combined, you may be doing something wrong. EducatedRedneck (talk) 12:00, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
- There is a lot to unpack here, but let's start here;
- I have removed Guile's Theme's extended confirmed permissions, with a note on their page. If any admin wants to block, I have no objection. Bishonen | tålk 09:50, 11 February 2026 (UTC).
If any admin wants to block, I have no objection.
- Feel free to elaborate on what actual grounds to give me a fair chance to defend myself from this witch hunt. Guile's Theme (talk) 10:05, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
- You seem to believe that there's a group of users harassing you. There's not. You have been accussed of GAMING for ECP, and instead of calmly discussing it with these users, you have been aggressive and downright rude. You threatened Mikewem (perhaps using a LLM), were demeaning to Bill, and have basically turned your nose upright at this report on you. Bishonen is saying that there are less merciful admins out there who would block you for GAMING and NOTHERE. ThatTrainGuy1945 (talk) 11:16, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
You have been accussed of GAMING for ECP
- This is misrepresentative. Placerhorderer says in the creation of this that his primary concern was lack of assumption good faith, not gaming a system. His warning on my page accused of bludgeoning, and then when they couldn't or wouldn't substantiate that late last night the goal post was moved by another user I've been in a debate with for a week to 'edit count gaming' in a way I believe is impossible to substantiate the accusation as;
- 1)My own edit history last night shows I didn't know what the 'EC' system was, I edited it later once I learned what it was.
- 2) Making unfounded accusation is itself uncivil and hostile; my comment and edit history now is entirely consistent with that of last October when I was heavily involved in a discussion over a page that did not require any sort of permissions.
- 3)The nature of the Alex Pretti article currently is such that EVERYTHING becomes an edit war if not hashed out in long tedious discussion in the talk page that often amounts to Stonewalling; which is to say having edit powers would change absolutely nothing about the process of getting changes in the article anyway which is to say I have no real motive at all to gaming the system even if I were fully aware of it at the time... Guile's Theme (talk • contribs) 11:31, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
you have been aggressive and downright rude
- Please quote where I have been aggressive; I consider all these unfounded accusations and attempts to silence me much more rude and thus tantamount to harassment. Which improper warnings constitute and of which at least bludgeoning most certainly was.
You threatened Mikewem
- I did not, I believed I was encountering an example of bad faith and abuse of protected edit privilege so I did the first step in dispute resolution and submitted a warning in his talk page, maybe I didn't use the correct or outdated terminology but I was acting according to what I honestly and in good faith believed Wiki policy to be. Note you again used the pejorative of for some reason assuming I used an LLM to do such which I do not understand at all. Also by your logic you are not threatening me now also? This is the quote that lead me to believe he was potentially not engaging in good faith; "
Just noting that I didn’t find any compelling arguments in your first or second WP:WALLOFTEXT, so I didn’t read any of them after that, and I haven’t read this one either.""
In addition to his shaky reasoning for very controversial edits. were demeaning to Bill
- All I said was that I didn't respect his edit history in the context of what I felt was him trying to intimidate or silence me while ridiculing my own edit history. It was still probably untowards and I have not done anything of the sort with anyone else since that encounter 8 days ago. This is after he accused me of "You've escalated and doubled down and it's not working out for you. My suggestion is that you quit while you're behind. Read up on WP:PG and learn the rules of the road here" and "In fact, you wrote no less than five comments on that RfC-You're clearly unhappy about not getting your way." He was constantly accusing me of being upset for merely responding and clearly had a gear to grind with me BEFORE I said what you called 'demeaning' towards him... context is everything but none of the witch hunters here seem to care much for it.
and have basically turned your nose upright at this report on you.
- I have explained myself. Was me doing anything other than saying I'm guilty of everything I've not actually done the only way you would have not have perceived me to be, "turned your nose upright"??
- Honestly the next thing I expect is that I'm going to be told I'm bludgeoning, 'gaming the system', or being aggressive for defending myself here... It would fit the pattern. Guile's Theme (talk) 11:28, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
- You seem to believe that there's a group of users harassing you. There's not. You have been accussed of GAMING for ECP, and instead of calmly discussing it with these users, you have been aggressive and downright rude. You threatened Mikewem (perhaps using a LLM), were demeaning to Bill, and have basically turned your nose upright at this report on you. Bishonen is saying that there are less merciful admins out there who would block you for GAMING and NOTHERE. ThatTrainGuy1945 (talk) 11:16, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
- Well, I wasn't going to weigh in with an opinion, but GT talked me into it. Here are some numbers for the bludgeoning accusation: In this RfC, at the time of writing there are 109 total comments, comprising 10,049 words. Of that, 23 comments comprising 2,821 words are from GT. That's over a quarter of all text in the RfC discussion section. The next highest comment counts are 14, tied between Pincrete and FactOrOpinion. I have no calculated word counts for them, but I suspect they'd be much lower. So the original concerns about bludgeoning clearly had a basis, and may even be sanctionable.
- More telling is their response to any criticism, which reeks of WP:BATTLEGROUND. A gentle attempt to course-correct bludgeoning was met with WP:ASPERSIONS that others were "trying to silence [them]". There's been a lot of WP:SEALIONING as well, with the "Please explain" or "please quote where I did this thing". Their denial of GAMING may be genuine, or may not be, but either way the behavior is problematic. As they've indicated they didn't know or care about ECP, I don't think there's any harm in revoking the status.
- As for paths forward, talking to them, even here on ANI, does not seem to be effective. I think a short block (say 31 h) is necessary to get the message across that Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and they need to rethink their approach. If the behavior continues, escalating blocks can be applied as-needed, but hopefully an administrative action will make it clear to them that the community has clearly defined norms, and they must abide by them or else find a new hobby. EducatedRedneck (talk) 14:18, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
- Thank you for providing stats the prove I've not bludgeoned by any metric.
That's over a quarter of all text in the RfC discussion section.
- The exact amount is 26.1% of the text, and the metric given as an example in the blugeoning page is 1/3rd, ie 33.33%, and there are many much more nuanced reasons aside from text my comments do not fulfill at all.
More telling is their response to any criticism
- I've asked for the criticism to be substantiated, which it almost never if ever was that I can see.
A gentle attempt to course-correct bludgeoning
- If the accusation of bludgeoning is not properly substantiated it is incivil and harassment. Which no one has yet substantiated in anything beyond vague claims of text count, which even by that metric I don't pass the 1/3rd example so what is going on here beyond people having ego driven vendettas? I have nothing else to go off. Your own response/opinion now is apparently because I didn't roll over and agree with your criticism/suggestions of bludgeoning that you would not substantiate in any detail beyond vague text counts.
There's been a lot of WP:SEALIONING
- I'm sorry but what? Asking people to actually substantiate what they are accusing me of beyond generalized unspecific accusation is sealioning? Idk how else to respond to that but 'unreal'.
As for paths forward, talking to them, even here on ANI, does not seem to be effective.
- Because nothing has been substantiated at all. Not even a little that I can see. So I'm not going to roll over for no reason so others can paint what I've done or said w::You've done ith disingenuous brush. Guile's Theme (talk) 14:31, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
nothing has been substantiated at all
You've done an effective (but not very efficient) job of doing that all on your own. I'm placing a 60-hour block so you and ANI can have a rest from the frank verbosity and repetitive bludgeoning of even the teensiest implication that you're not abiding by project norms. Please learn to respect the time and advice of other volunteers. Acroterion (talk) 14:35, 11 February 2026 (UTC)- Point of clarification: it seems there's a misunderstanding of where WP:BLUDGEONING says
If your comments take up one-third of the total text or you have replied to half the people who disagree with you, you are likely bludgeoning the process
. That "one-third" is not to say that it's only bludgeoning if comments exceed 1/3 the discussion Placeholderer (talk) 14:52, 11 February 2026 (UTC)- +1 Denying the antecedent perfectly captures this. EducatedRedneck (talk) 15:10, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
- As a reminder/footnote, extended-confirmed is not "EC", it's WP:XC, despite ECR and ECP being things. Somebody should probably do something about that confusing discrepancy at some point... - The Bushranger One ping only 01:03, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
- That's a bit of a surprise. How can we fix that? I see that WP:EC is a dab page. Doug Weller talk 10:12, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
- IMO it makes sense to just indefinitely blocking Guile's Theme. I'm sure many here know I have a tendency to write long comments but even I have difficulty defending their responses here which have shown no understanding over editor's concern over their length. More importantly their defence over their bludgeoning, that it doesn't quite meet the 1/3 mentioned as an example, shows no understanding of the essay and quite legitimate concerns over their behaviour. Taken together with everything else they've said, it doesn't seem likely they'll improve & will instead just keep being disruptive on this collaborative project. Editors need to have some ability to understand guidance being given & to respond to concerns & adjust their behaviour and for whatever reason GT has none. Nil Einne (talk) 02:57, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
- I wasn't aware of the temp block when I replied. I feel it's fine to try but don't have much hope as even the responses to the block show IMO. Nil Einne (talk) 03:39, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
- Their response to their short block has been WP:SOAPBOXing about the evils of Wikipedia, more aspersions (example) and massive WP:IDHT. I think there are active indications their behavior won't change in 60 hours, and so the block should be upped to indefinite. They should also be warned that further WP:PA on their talk page will result in loss of WP:TPA. They've stated their intent to go to Musk's LLM propaganda playground, so I suggest we hasten them on their way. EducatedRedneck (talk) 13:37, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
- Indeed. Since they prefer editing Grokpedia, we might as well encourage them on their way. —Fortuna, imperatrix 13:54, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
- Their response to their short block has been WP:SOAPBOXing about the evils of Wikipedia, more aspersions (example) and massive WP:IDHT. I think there are active indications their behavior won't change in 60 hours, and so the block should be upped to indefinite. They should also be warned that further WP:PA on their talk page will result in loss of WP:TPA. They've stated their intent to go to Musk's LLM propaganda playground, so I suggest we hasten them on their way. EducatedRedneck (talk) 13:37, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
- I wasn't aware of the temp block when I replied. I feel it's fine to try but don't have much hope as even the responses to the block show IMO. Nil Einne (talk) 03:39, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
- I hate to say it, but this all feels very BITEy to me. While I agree that Guile is bludgeoning, I don't think that it's on purpose in any regard. I believe that this user is interpreting the policy far more literally than it's intended to (ie: 30% rule), and could use some specific and concrete advice. They are clearly acting in good faith and need some assistance instead of a block.
- @Guile's Theme: It can be extremely tempting, or even feel necessary, to elaborate on your point as much as possible in order to prevent misunderstanding. However, especially on Wikipedia, this often achieves the opposite effect. As for replies of where you could be more succinct, is a good example. You respond to every single point made against you with tons of information, most of which is either redundant or unnecessary commentary. While I can easily see why you replied to everything, the fact is that doing so is against the bludgeoning policy, even if it's to defend from accusations. Try to keep the number of replies to a minimum, even if doing so would mean letting some accusations go unresponded. Instead, try to identify the main issues that the reply or accusation is bringing up, and respond to those. Any statement that you could start with "As I've already said elsewhere" should be removed, or very occasionally replaced with a link to your previous statement (only if it has not been raised in the current discussion). Verbatim quotes should be kept to a minimum if possible; use difs or the comment you're replying to instead.
- The first two paragraphs of the example above could easily be replaced with "I'm confused as to why I'm here, given that you haven't read my statements on the talk pages you linked. As far as I'm aware, I haven't bludgeoned because I had only been replying to direct replies in conversations I was already involved in." My recommendation is to write your reply down in a separate document, then look at the word count. As you said, word count isn't the only metric for bludgeoning, but it's an extremely good indicator that you are.
- As for the 30% metric on BLUDGEON, it's a vague guideline rather than a hard rule. Really, you should aim to have about 10% or less of the words in any given conversation, excluding 1:1 convos and similar situations. The best guideline to follow is the "nutshell" template at the top of that page guideline. JarJarInks٩(◕_◕)۶Tones essay 18:21, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
- +1 while I think the bludgeoning, overly literal interpretations, and overall difficulty with staying cool can be obnoxious, Guile does appear to be acting in good faith, and putting myself in their shoes I can understand the impulse to be quite defensive given the circumstances. I think they could turn around to becoming a more productive and collaborative editor if given the right guidance by an experienced editor who's willing and able to put the time in for it. I'm willing, but not able, I've been drafting replies either here or their talk page for the last day and have struggled to find phrasing that wouldn't have a high risk of further fanning the flames. JarJarInks's above advice to Guile is far more helpful than anything I'm capable of writing. ᴸᵃᶠᶠʸTaffer💬(they/she) 18:32, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
They are clearly acting in good faith and need some assistance instead of a block.
I think the issue is that they got advice, in spades, in this thread, and doubled down. Their good faith isn't in question, only their compatability with this collaborative project. If their response to being informed they're breaking policy is to deny that every other editor's interpretation of policy is wrong, they're WP:NOTHERE. (Points 4 and 7 of that link apply.) I could be wrong in that assessment, but it would behoove them to show that, rather than just assert it. EducatedRedneck (talk) 18:43, 12 February 2026 (UTC)- Meant to reply to this with my below comment, sorry! JarJarInks٩(◕_◕)۶Tones essay 22:03, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
- Those factors were what I weighed in choosing a block term. I reckoned they deserved a chance to work through all this, and 31 or 48 hours was probably not enough time, they'd just go back to what they were doing. I hope to be proven right. Acroterion (talk) 00:03, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
- I think that this is a fairly good sign that this user has the potential to become a net positive to the project. It’s unfortunate that it got to this point, but I truly believe that this was mainly an issue of taking the BLUD 30% line too literally. If I was this editor, I’d be pretty pissed that everyone keeps telling me that I’m wrong when the rules explicitly give a hard red line that I haven’t crossed. I think that more time reading Wikipedia talk pages and learning about wiki culture could really make a difference here. JarJarInks٩(◕_◕)۶Tones essay 21:53, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
- I agree about the bludgeoning, and I think having a mentor could be very helpful. The main concern of Placeholderer, who opened this discussion, “is that the editor is strongly failing to assume good faith.” There are other examples beyond those that Placeholder gave, such as here. I’ll add another concern: periodically violating WP:NPA (e.g., “willfully obtuse to the point of being disingenuous,” “a clearly intellectually dishonest and non-objective response”). So if you're going to mentor them, it would be great if you can help them with these issues too. FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:33, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
- I think that this is a fairly good sign that this user has the potential to become a net positive to the project. It’s unfortunate that it got to this point, but I truly believe that this was mainly an issue of taking the BLUD 30% line too literally. If I was this editor, I’d be pretty pissed that everyone keeps telling me that I’m wrong when the rules explicitly give a hard red line that I haven’t crossed. I think that more time reading Wikipedia talk pages and learning about wiki culture could really make a difference here. JarJarInks٩(◕_◕)۶Tones essay 21:53, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
- OK, wow, that's a lot of sealioning and bludgeoning. While I will agree it does appear to be in good faith that doesn't make it good comportment. Suggest a topic ban from contentious topics might encourage them to find less argumentative ways to engage with the encyclopedia. Simonm223 (talk) 18:45, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
ConiferFoods user block
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello admins!
I was wondering: Is it possible to revert User:ConiferFoods's block? I can see that ConiferFoods did nothing wrong. No sockpuppetry, or even no vandalism. My research gets to me that Conifer Foods is a Seattle-area based private company that owns famous brands Fisher and Snoqualmie Falls. A lover of all puppies big and small, also known as RimesWithOrange (talk) 01:15, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
- I don't see this as likely to happen. This is clearly a violation of WP:U as the name of a company, and the block is only a soft-block, meaning they can create a new account under a different conforming name, or request a username change to be unblocked. Umby 🌕🐶 (talk) 01:21, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
- Exactly. If you look at ConiferFoods' sandbox, you can see that they are working on a Fisher wikipedia. Does this not indicate clearly that they are Conifer Foods themselves? A lover of all puppies big and small, also known as RimesWithOrange (talk) 01:37, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
- @RimesWithOranges Given that in your sandbox you began a draft about one of Conifer's subsidiary companies and promptly blanked it, are we to understand that you are affiliated in some way with this company and therefore that user? Athanelar (talk) 01:40, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
- Yes. I understand. I am affiliated with that company but not directly. I help. But No, I am NOT ConiferFoods A lover of all puppies big and small, also known as RimesWithOrange (talk) 01:41, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
- Well, you can inform whoever is ConiferFoods that usernames which represent companies are forbidden under our username policy. Athanelar (talk) 01:44, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
- Yes, I will! Thanks! A lover of all puppies big and small, also known as RimesWithOrange (talk) 01:44, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
- So what do they change it to so it still implies that it is still related? A lover of all puppies big and small, also known as RimesWithOrange (talk) 01:46, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
- They can do something like "Rachel from Conifer Foods", assuming they're an employee. Sesquilinear (talk) 01:56, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
- OK thanks! But is that allowed? A lover of all puppies big and small, also known as RimesWithOrange (talk) 01:57, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
- and how do you rename? a link pls? A lover of all puppies big and small, also known as RimesWithOrange (talk) 01:59, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
- From WP:ISU:
usernames are acceptable if they contain a company or group name but are clearly intended to denote an individual person, such as Mark at WidgetFactory ...
- Rename instructions are included in the block notice on User talk:ConiferFoods, refer to the
If you prefer to change the username of this account
section. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 02:02, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
- From WP:ISU:
- They can do something like "Rachel from Conifer Foods", assuming they're an employee. Sesquilinear (talk) 01:56, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
- And would you mind un-blocking coniferfoods now? And how do they change the username? A lover of all puppies big and small, also known as RimesWithOrange (talk) 01:48, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
- Well, you can inform whoever is ConiferFoods that usernames which represent companies are forbidden under our username policy. Athanelar (talk) 01:44, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
- I mean that no, I am absolutely NOT ConiferFoods. I cannot say more, though. Thanks. A lover of all puppies big and small, also known as RimesWithOrange (talk) 01:43, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
- Please have a look at WP:COI and WP:PAID. Disclosure may be required from you to edit on behalf of Conifer Foods according to Wikipedia's terms of use. MrOllie (talk) 02:24, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
- Guys. I quit wiki. Okay? sry for trouble. A lover of all puppies big and small, also known as RimesWithOrange (talk) 16:50, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
- Please have a look at WP:COI and WP:PAID. Disclosure may be required from you to edit on behalf of Conifer Foods according to Wikipedia's terms of use. MrOllie (talk) 02:24, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
- Yes. I understand. I am affiliated with that company but not directly. I help. But No, I am NOT ConiferFoods A lover of all puppies big and small, also known as RimesWithOrange (talk) 01:41, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
- Geez. ConiferFoods is Confirmed to:
- And one can only assume Rowsby Woof is the same user. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:48, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
- @NinjaRobotPirate: is there a reason these accounts have been left unblocked? - The Bushranger One ping only 07:32, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
- While it's a softblock (meaning creating another account is allowed), their dishonesty around alternate accounts is very much not ideal. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 07:48, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
- They shouldn't be allowed to create another account, when they are already being dishonest about using multiple accounts.— Isaidnoway (talk) 08:57, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
- Considering just above RimesWithOranges explicitly said
I am absolutely NOT ConiferFoods
this is without a doubt deceptive socking and imo all the accounts should be blocked until we get a proper explanation here. Athanelar (talk) 09:27, 12 February 2026 (UTC)- Or possibly a co-worker? Nakonana (talk) 10:00, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
- I could speculate on what's going on here, but I won't. Not because I'm a Checkuser but because it seems to me that those usernames and user pages indicate that we're not dealing with a 40 year old employee sitting at a cubicle. I think that's enough said about that on my end.
Ordinarily, I'd block someone who said "I'm not X", but they end up confirmed to X. The denial makes it sock puppetry because now you're evading scrutiny. But I don't think any of these accounts have done anything worse than wasting some of our time. Anyone could block them as a normal admin action if they're feeling less charitable than me, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:45, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
- I could speculate on what's going on here, but I won't. Not because I'm a Checkuser but because it seems to me that those usernames and user pages indicate that we're not dealing with a 40 year old employee sitting at a cubicle. I think that's enough said about that on my end.
- Guys, i am related to COniferFoods. Pls delete those other accounts. Okay? I got rid of those. PLS. Im done with this. OKAY? A lover of all puppies big and small, also known as RimesWithOrange (talk) 16:46, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
- GUYS I QUIT WIKI. IM OVER. DELETE ALL MY ACCOUNTS. PLS ARCHIVE THIS. ILL SIGN OUT OF MY ACCOUNT RIGHT NOW. OKAY? A lover of all puppies big and small, also known as RimesWithOrange (talk) 16:51, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
- pls delete everything except Saxon Doggy. That is family business. I will tell ConiferFoods to rename. Okay? ~2026-96253-5 (talk) 21:02, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
- What are you even talking about? Also, to the above above you (whom I'm presuming is still you), please don't use caps. We don't scream here (no one can hear you). ThatTrainGuy1945 (talk) 21:20, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
- We can't delete accounts. There is courtesy vanishing, but that requires an account to be in good standing. I would have shrugged and agreed with NRP that these are confirmed but "non-hostile" multiple accounts, but given the above chucking of toys out of the pram, my good-faith here has come to an abrupt end and I'll be blocking the various accounts mentioned above. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:10, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
- What are you even talking about? Also, to the above above you (whom I'm presuming is still you), please don't use caps. We don't scream here (no one can hear you). ThatTrainGuy1945 (talk) 21:20, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
- Or possibly a co-worker? Nakonana (talk) 10:00, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
- While it's a softblock (meaning creating another account is allowed), their dishonesty around alternate accounts is very much not ideal. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 07:48, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
- @NinjaRobotPirate: is there a reason these accounts have been left unblocked? - The Bushranger One ping only 07:32, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Disruptive editing and removal of sourced data by AmigoKike2026.
|
This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus. Athanelar (talk) 09:40, 10 February 2026 (UTC) |
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | |
|
Urgent: Proposal to Restructure the Peruvian 2026 Presidential Polls Section and Resolve Disruptive Editing
| |
Note: I accidentally posted this while logged out. This is my report. Transcedent (talk) 07:34, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
- Please do not use AI chatbots to formulate your report here. If you are indeed so concerned about another editor's behaviour, the least you can do is have the decency to present your concerns in your own words. Athanelar (talk) 09:39, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
- WP:LLMTALK. Please. Don't talk to us through AI. People who do often find tools typically constructed with airfoil sections and designed to spin about an axis perpendicular to the direction of its flight coming back at them.
- Also, you tried to copy and paste this same thing to the talk page. Don't forum shop.
- (Also, wow, do you do anything besides work on Opinion polling for the 2026 Peruvian general election? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Transcedent&target=Transcedent&offset=&limit=500) ThatTrainGuy1945 (talk) 13:00, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
- They also have admitted they use their phone to edit, which for trying to edit and preview a table, is always going to be the worst combination of device and screen to edit. Please edit using a regular PC, or at the very least, a tablet, so you're able to see and preview changes before committing them. Nathannah • 📮 01:20, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
- It should also be noted that this is the second time you've filed a complaint about this editor without either providing a single diff demonstrating the behavior you claim or properly notifying this editor as you are required to do. You were told this just a few days ago. If you keep doing this, a WP:BOOMERANG might be in order. I went ahead and notified AmigoKike2026 since you neglected this responsibility. In addition, ANI does not directly resolve underlying content disputes, so the discussions of content should remain on the talk page, not here. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 10:55, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
I don't speak Spanish, so maybe there's a benign explanation, but at first glance, there's a real WP:ATTACKNAME problem with AmigoKike2026.BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 17:16, 10 February 2026 (UTC)- Already mentioned on the first thread, it's shortened from Enrique and is a common Spanish language shortening of that name. No issue. Nathannah • 📮 17:44, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks! BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 16:26, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
- See Kike (given name). Black Kite (talk) 18:50, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
- Already mentioned on the first thread, it's shortened from Enrique and is a common Spanish language shortening of that name. No issue. Nathannah • 📮 17:44, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
Epstein AFD canvassing on Reddit
Admins should be aware of this Reddit thread on r/dystopia and cross-posted to r/ProgressiveHQ, summoning Redditors to protect several Epstein-related articles at AFD. This will be something to keep an eye on. QuicoleJR (talk) 03:27, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- Notifying @Significa liberdade aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 03:49, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- Post got removed from the subreddit.
- Violated their rules on no misinformation ironically enough. LakesideMinersCome Talk To Me! 17:14, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
- The progressive HQ one that is LakesideMinersCome Talk To Me! 17:21, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
- Conspiracies, armchair enthusiasts and "experts" (emphasis on the quotations) sums up the entirety of crime and investigative Reddit. It'll blow over; I'm sure they'll find something else to speculate over soon enough. EF5 17:27, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
- Great, more sound and fury. Be on the lookout people, but at the same time, truth and AfD will win in the end. ThatTrainGuy1945 (talk) 02:46, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
- Conspiracies, armchair enthusiasts and "experts" (emphasis on the quotations) sums up the entirety of crime and investigative Reddit. It'll blow over; I'm sure they'll find something else to speculate over soon enough. EF5 17:27, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
- For ease, here is the r/dystopia post which is still active as of writing. ᴸᵃᶠᶠʸTaffer💬(they/she) 18:00, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
- Huh, someone over there doesn't like me in particular, it seems. Also, I think they're claiming I'm an Israeli plant/spy? I think? They also don't know how ClueBot talk page archiving works. SilverserenC 05:03, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
- If it's something I don't like, it must be a *spins the wheel* Israeli/Qatari/American/Chinese/Emirati spy jolielover♥talk 05:16, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
- All of the above. Silver is clearly playing all sides. toby (t)(c)(rw)(omo) 05:18, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
- I mean, that's how they come out on top. ThatTrainGuy1945 (talk) 11:08, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
- It's exactly the same as the "you aren't a liberal, so you must be a fascist!" logic that runs rampant. Can't forget "Russian Mossad agent"... EF5 13:52, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
- All of the above. Silver is clearly playing all sides. toby (t)(c)(rw)(omo) 05:18, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
- If it's something I don't like, it must be a *spins the wheel* Israeli/Qatari/American/Chinese/Emirati spy jolielover♥talk 05:16, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
- Huh, someone over there doesn't like me in particular, it seems. Also, I think they're claiming I'm an Israeli plant/spy? I think? They also don't know how ClueBot talk page archiving works. SilverserenC 05:03, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
- The progressive HQ one that is LakesideMinersCome Talk To Me! 17:21, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
- Just noting that an additional reddit thread has appeared on the subreddit r/Epstein (post was WP:OWH against Significa Liberdade) and was deleted within the last 15 minutes. This link has the search parameters I've been using to monitor Reddit discussions on this topic (plenty of unrelated threads). mdm.bla 16:45, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
- From what I've seen in my own cursory searches, Significa Liberdade seems to be the primary target(though as Silverseren notes, not the only target) for the majority of these posts since she started the AfDs in question. How dare she act in line with the long standing policies of the site she's using instead of the whims of users on an unrelated site(hopefully obvious sarcasm) ᴸᵃᶠᶠʸTaffer💬(they/she) 17:05, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
Danthemankhan - yet another Tumbler Ridge transphobia issue
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This is some serious bullshit and warrants an immediate indefinite block. Hate is disruptive, and talking about transphobia as a type of resistance is well over the line. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:42, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) I just wanted to quickly note that I removed his comment from the talk page by reverting it. His comment was incredibly disgusting, and has zero place here. TheClocksAlwaysTurn (The Clockworks) (contribs) 17:44, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
- indef'd. Mfield (Oi!) 17:44, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
- Beat me to the report. Thank you for the swift indef. Viva la horde, ~ GoatLordServant(Talk) 17:45, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
- indef'd. Mfield (Oi!) 17:44, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
- 21 year old account, too. This incident is really bringing these people out of the woodwork. Athanelar (talk) 17:48, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) It's especially sad since he had a userbox that said he was an eagle scout. Seems he forgot the scout law... TheClocksAlwaysTurn (The Clockworks) (contribs) 17:52, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
NOTHERE transphobic IP
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
~2026-74681 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Relm (talk) 15:02, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
- yeah.. the edits are fairly forumy User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 15:04, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
- It's the third editor that has been on ANI since 2026 Tumbler Ridge shooting broke out. Might there be some sock/meatpuppetry going on? Borgenland (talk) 15:42, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
- Its probably not the nonsense dude who said he was going to sockpuppet but this TA was created in like december or something shane (talk to me if you want!) 15:55, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
- (Non-Administrator comment) It might just be the usual transphobia when a mass shooting by someone who is trans occurs. TheClocksAlwaysTurn (The Clockworks) (contribs) 15:59, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
- It's the third editor that has been on ANI since 2026 Tumbler Ridge shooting broke out. Might there be some sock/meatpuppetry going on? Borgenland (talk) 15:42, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
- Independently of this report, having come across their forum-y and disruptive edits, I hard-blocked the IP for 2 weeks. It's not immediately clear to me whether the early January and December edits from this IP are actually the same person--those comments were much less pointed and disruptive, but do seem to have similar lexical patterns. signed, Rosguill talk 16:08, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Disruption of Peruvian Presidential Electoral Polls section regarding Sensor Poll
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Transcedent (talk) 20:07, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
Well, thanks for the links and the explanation. For anyone following along, this is Opinion polling for the 2026 Peruvian general election, where the OP has just been blocked for edit-warring. Black Kite (talk) 20:15, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
St. Viator High School and TonyJohnson406
- St. Viator High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- TonyJohnson406 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Editor TonyJohnson406 continues to add non-neutral content and non-notable people. Editor and article were previously reported to WP:COIN but that report, which garnered no discussion nor resolution, was recently removed by a bot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skywatcher68 (talk • contribs) 20:12, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
- A partial block might be beneficial here. It's all very basic unsourced and non-notable additions. They haven't found their way to a talk page yet despite a few different editors trying. Here's some random diffs:
- 2026-02-12T19:59:47Z (this one includes apparent childrens' names)
- 2026-02-12T14:46:29Z
- 2026-01-28T19:42:30Z
- --tony 20:25, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
Blocked from editing St. Viator High School. -- Whpq (talk) 20:44, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
User Solaire the knight - WP:IDHT (specifically WP:SEALIONING and WP:SATISFY), failure to respect WP:ONUS, WP:UNCIVIL language, language barrier related WP:CIR, casting WP:ASPERSIONS
Solaire the knight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Bringing here because I'm quite simply at the end of my ability to WP:AGF.
The above user was given an indef block in August 2023, due to their repeated conduct issues including a strong failure to "get the point", and were unblocked after an appeal a year later in part due to insisting they would address this behaviour. Following an extended interaction with them however I don't believe this to be the case.
Yesterday I attempted to make what should be regarded as very uncontroversial and pedestrian edits to an article to improve a section entitled "reviews" by first removing the currently present non-reviews and then later adding formal reviews by various publications. This resulted in them reversing the meaning of WP:ONUS and insisting I must justify the removals aspect, repeatedly restoring the challenged material, and I stupidly responded in kind which led to two-weeks edit-warring blocks (single article for me, full for them). Full ANEW report for context here.
Following this block they almost immediately started making backhanded remarks about myself on their talkpage, changing their stance to suddenly that they were fine with the core of my changes except now the issue was that I had poorly written it and for them to accept the changes I must "consistently rewrites it instead of just a chaotic collection of opinions"
, and later tagged me with "I'm very glad you've finally raised some genuine concerns"
(suggesting my previous removals were bad-faith) after I had left a general message of my content concerns on the article talk page for anyone to respond to (including evidencing that what they claimed were "authoritative sources"
demonstrably weren't according to WP:VGRS), that certainly now feel designed to try and bait me into making a combative response on their talk page.
The admin who administered the initial blocks subsequently decided to downgrade Solaire's block to simply an article mainspace block which enabled them to go to the article talk page where they have immediately begun asking for endless justifications for my changes in a manner that has simply become WP:SEALIONING in nature.
- First in response to my initial information they ask that
"I'd like to ask you to elaborate on the criticisms you raised about the text"
- When I restate the issue they then claim I never raised it before and need more information to understand my issue (while kind of bizarrely suggesting I might have a "conflict of interest").
- When I show previous edit summaries once again detailing my issue and that they had previously understood it, suddenly those are mere "points" and now
"I want to hear your arguments to support them"
. - After I rebut that this is resembling WP:SEALIONING because I had already shared links to support my argument (namely sharing a link to the publication's review to prove the item on the article wasn't their review) they then claimed that
"you can't just provide a pure link and then expect users to research and justify your thesis for you"
which carries the absurd suggestion that somehow sharing a publication's review isn't proof of it being their review. - As part of this final comment they then later edit in
"I will also repeat that we're discussing the potential for expanding the cited reviews and their conclusions, not restoring old references"
insinuating they're just reversing the entire discussion, that in fact the sources they had only just admitted weren't reliable nor reviews are now in fact reliable reviews, and once again reversing the meaning of WP:ONUS where it's for me to get their consensus to remove challenged material.
The throughline of all of this is quite simply a pattern that no matter what evidence I present it is always never enough and they just move to yet another question I need to WP:SATISFY, write increasingly impenetrable responses that completely distort what you say, and then when out of questions they just go back to their initial position as though nothing you've said matters. Either they are 100% genuine in their claims they are unable to understand any of what I'm saying (which suggests a truly unassailable language-barrier), or this is just stonewalling designed to grind you down so you either lash out and get blocked (which I initially allowed to happen like an idiot) or give up and their preferred version remains because they assert there's no consensus to remove content (the opposite of policy).
At this point I think this is the latter behaviour, and there should be consideration of reimposing the indef block. Rambling Rambler (talk) 20:06, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- The more I interact with this user, the more I become convinced that they perceive our dispute as a fundamentally personal conflict, where any compromise or agreement on their part would be a loss to their fundamental opponent. Because any attempt I make to convey my point of view or respond to their incessant accusations is met only with further bad faith, escalation of the conflict, and a virtually open refusal to discuss or even engage in any kind of interaction. Even now, they are actually discussing not so much the debates surrounding the article, but my personality and my motives in themselves. Moreover, judging by our discussion, the user's argumentation is noticeably adaptive and largely depends only on what I answer, rather than on some original position. For example, they only start talking about consensus or burden of proof when I mention that after reverting an edit, they should starting discussion instead of reverting it again. They attempt to analyze the authority of sources only after I point out that our dispute wasn't about the authority of sources. In fact, the user simply makes statements or actions based on momentary thoughts (for example, in one comment he not-so-subtly implies that the text removal is based on their WP:OR personal assumptions about the neutrality and bias of reviews) or desires and only then begins searching for any arguments or passages in the rules that could at least formally confirm their correctness (You can also see how he copies complaints about me from my old discussion, although he never mentioned it before). This remains within the framework of a dispute about a dispute, just as the discussion of the article ended at the level of the initial points, whose development or argumentation the user so desperately avoids. Moreover, throughout the entire discussion, the user stubbornly refuses any attempt at collaborative discussion and consensus, perceiving WP:ONUS as an assertion that only those adding text should provide any arguments, while those deleting it are free from the need to prove anything at all and can even act as a unilateral judge of the latter's edits. My regular requests to substantiate their claims and to explain that I cannot argue with unstated theses were ignored. Instead, the user simply demonstratively repeating the same statements, highlighting certain words in bold when I somehow questioned his opinion. When he actually accused me of asking him to justify his opinion instead of offering to look for arguments for him in defense of his position in one of the links and directly asked him about it, he simply stopped the discussion and created this topic. And all this with the constant personal attacks, speculation about motives (for example, even when the administrator informs them of a compromise on my part, their first reaction is to assume manipulation on my part), and attempts to demonize me in the eyes of other users, for example, by explicitly claiming that my past bans for edit wars by default make any of my reversals of other people's edits a malicious edit war. I won't deny it, I'm no saint, and that's obvious. But after all these personal attacks, the demonstrative refusal to discuss the matter, and the bad faith bordering on bullying and gaslighting (and in one case, a user actually directly stated that they were ignoring good faith in my address, since I wrote a request to the administrators about their edit war), my patience is practically exhausted. The tendency to project one's behavior onto opponents, such as warning about an edit war after the fourth revert in an article, researching my talk page and blocks to find dirt on me after accusing me of haunting, or accusing me of uncivil language after constant personal attacks on one's part, is already trivial. Especially considering this user behaves similarly in other pages. I apologize if my text may seem like a hard to read wall of text, I'm just really tired after several days of this antagonistic manner of communication that constantly requires me to prove that I have no malicious intentions. Solaire the knight (talk) 20:20, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- You complain about Rambling Rambler antagonizing you and that it's become a personal conflict because they refuse to compromise, basically laying the conflict at RRs feet. But just yesterday you reverted RRs edits to an entirely different page and, when warned about adding info from unreliable sources (cause that's what your edit did) by an uninvolved party, you fully acknowledged that you had never edited the page and only followed RR there to make a point. That is disruptive. PositivelyUncertain (talk) 21:30, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- Note: manifestly disruptive. Augmented Seventh (talk) 02:34, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- This is our only interaction in other articles, and I agreed with another user who deleted this text again, but this time with a reasonable justification. If you believe that the mere discovery of a controversial edit in another user's edit history is destructive, then this sets a precedent that viewing someone else's edit history is destructive in general. I openly admitted I was wrong and have not interacted with RR in any other articles. Meanwhile, they continue to deliberately exploit old disputes involving me to copy and paste accusations from there and use them to demand my ban. Isn't that destructive? I wasn't the author of this text and agreed that the edit was a mistake after speaking with another user. Was another bad faith comment from RR enough to make it an objective crime which refutes any of my arguments and substantiates any accusations against me? Solaire the knight (talk) 21:45, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- I'll also add the above response shows another issue with their behaviour that should be considered, namely where despite that comment's signature saying it was submitted at 20:20 UTC they have since then significantly altered the comment several times (along with several other minor changes), demonstrating not only impenetrability along the lines of WP:CHUNK but also could be argued as fundamentally misleading because it means you'll respond to one version of a reply and then only look later through the diffs and find it's now completely different to what you thought it said. Rambling Rambler (talk) 21:36, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- Please stop looking for any rules or opportunities to accuse me of any violations. This is not a battlefield or a debate about who can accuse the other more powerfully. Solaire the knight (talk) 21:45, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- This is quite specifically the appropriate venue to raise your behaviour. And repeatedly making significant changes to previously posted comments (especially without disclosing that in edit summaries, which you typically leave blank) is an aspect of your behaviour that needs to be discussed here. Rambling Rambler (talk) 21:57, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- I'm adding diffs and minor clarifications before my reply, which hasn't been responded to yet. The rules don't prohibit editing your comments, especially since no one has responded yet and the edits don't fundamentally alter them (Your edit comments also are mostly either empty or contain an short "reply"). You've already submitted a request to ANI and are demanding my permanent block. Accusing me of even more violations under the rules you've found or further suggesting my bad faith won't change anything. Besides, this will only further escalate into bullying. Solaire the knight (talk) 22:00, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- This is quite specifically the appropriate venue to raise your behaviour. And repeatedly making significant changes to previously posted comments (especially without disclosing that in edit summaries, which you typically leave blank) is an aspect of your behaviour that needs to be discussed here. Rambling Rambler (talk) 21:57, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- Please stop looking for any rules or opportunities to accuse me of any violations. This is not a battlefield or a debate about who can accuse the other more powerfully. Solaire the knight (talk) 21:45, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- The page you directly linked to states:
This policy does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards.
- Please do not make accusations based on policies you haven't fully read. MetalBreaksAndBends (talk) (contribs) 21:37, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- It's such a mess here, so I wanted to clarify, were you addressing this comment to me or RR? Solaire the knight (talk) 21:45, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- It was in response to your statement "for example, in one comment he not-so-subtly implies that the text removal is based on their WP:OR" MetalBreaksAndBends (talk) (contribs) 21:47, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- They used this argument as justification for removing the text, so I pointed it out. But I didn't use it as a direct accusation in the original research because they didn't add it in the end. Solaire the knight (talk) 21:52, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- Then why would you include it? The implication is that RR was engaged in improper conduct by engaging in OR (also, not exactly sure if that would be considered OR). MetalBreaksAndBends (talk) (contribs) 22:02, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- I wanted to emphasize that our own opinions about the bias or non-neutrality of authoritative sources must be proven; otherwise, they're just assumptions. In the heat of the moment, I forgot which rules explicitly explain this, so given the user's tendency to overuse references to rule titles, I chose a similar one. Solaire the knight (talk) 22:07, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- Then why would you include it? The implication is that RR was engaged in improper conduct by engaging in OR (also, not exactly sure if that would be considered OR). MetalBreaksAndBends (talk) (contribs) 22:02, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- They used this argument as justification for removing the text, so I pointed it out. But I didn't use it as a direct accusation in the original research because they didn't add it in the end. Solaire the knight (talk) 21:52, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- It was in response to your statement "for example, in one comment he not-so-subtly implies that the text removal is based on their WP:OR" MetalBreaksAndBends (talk) (contribs) 21:47, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- It's such a mess here, so I wanted to clarify, were you addressing this comment to me or RR? Solaire the knight (talk) 21:45, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
"The admin" is now aware and doesn't need a notification about this thread. Nor is he particularly interested in getting involved further. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:25, 6 February 2026 (UTC)- I also expected the user to continue the discussion after asking you to let me return to the discussion. But it seems the user basically rejects any discussion or communication in general that doesn't follow their rules entirely. Solaire the knight (talk) 20:32, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- I read through the discussion at Talk:Highguard and can understand RR's frustration. I don't think it's exaggeration to describe Stk's contributions to that discussion as "sealioning". Schazjmd (talk) 21:41, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- They asked me to justify returning the text, and I asked them to explain their reasons for removing it so I could formulate a response. After that, the user simply refused to continue the discussion, claiming I was intentionally breaking the rules and that I alone should be working toward consensus. Even after I agreed to forgot about returning the previews, they again began insisting they should be removed (and accuse me of bad intentions for trying to supposedly justify it), ignoring the fact that we'd already passed that stage and were discussing expanding the source description. Where's the sealioning? What POV am I promoting? I even agreed to a compromise, while they initially took a defensive position and interpreted any answer I gave as bad faith. Solaire the knight (talk) 21:52, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- Their reasoning appears to be quite clear from the first comment alone, that the previews are unreliable due to circumstances surrounding them and don't match post-release reviews, thusly they should be replaced with full reviews. MetalBreaksAndBends (talk) (contribs) 22:04, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- Technically, yes, they claimed that the previews were biased because journalists were positively biased in them. But this was all based on their personal opinion, and they refused to elaborate or provide any arguments. Although, by that logic, they could just as easily have said that any reviews are biased, because if you were to develop the idea, you could argue that media will write positive reviews to continue getting games for free (which they directly stated in one of the comments), and gaming sites were indeed accused of this after a series of positive reviews for Highgard. Ultimately, I agreed to retract these previews, suggesting to the administrator that they make the user's version the status quo (they reverted to the pre-conflict version when they defended the page). But when I returned to the discussion, the user again accused me of bad faith and refused to continue the discussion, claiming that I wanted to return the text to the article, even though it was no longer the subject of discussion. Solaire the knight (talk) 22:17, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- I suggest you show a diff of where I
"claimed that the previews were biased because journalists were positively biased in them"
pretty quickly given I never did any such thing. - Also as shown in the diffs in my initial report above, your "suggestion" my changes were re-instated was predicated on the expectation I rewrite it because you regarded it as poorly-written which isn't an offer of a compromise but a backhanded insult. Rambling Rambler (talk) 22:23, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- The diff to this is already in my answer, you directly assume that full reviews are more neutral because the journalists allegedly did not receive the codes and are therefore less positive. At the same time, I never said your text was poorly written. I suggested expanding it, because after removing the detailed previews, you essentially created one large section from a series of short quotes from various sources. I didn't like the collection of quotes without any development of the topic, yes, but there was not a word about "poorly written" and if you complain that I allegedly distort your words, I would also ask you not to distort mine (not to mention that if criticizing edits is an insult, then you've been insulting me nonstop for days now). Solaire the knight (talk) 22:27, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- It's not an assumption, "The initial review in progress was based on hands-on play during a pre-release preview event hosted by Wildlight Entertainment, which provided travel." . MetalBreaksAndBends (talk) (contribs) 22:37, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- We discussed the Gamespot review, as you can see in the link. Not IGN. But what prevented them from providing the same link and explaining it the same way you did now? Instead of immediately going on the defensive and essentially declaring that I should be the alone trying to reach a consensus, while they weren't required to any interaction? That's exactly what I expected, and the issue could have been resolved right from the start. You provided the link after just a couple of comments, without any conflict or argument. Even though you weren't even involved in the argument. Solaire the knight (talk) 22:47, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- You didn't ask for a link, you said:
I can't refute claims that weren't raised in the first place. How can I understand what exactly is causing your objections if you refuse to elaborate on them in the first place? Your comments are very general and lack specifics, so I want to know what exactly is causing your objection. Consensus is reached by both sides, not unilaterally, where one side sets vague conditions and the other has to guess what will satisfy the other. This pattern is already verging on WP:OWNBEHAVIOR.
- Something I can barely understand in context and does not contain words "proof" or "link".
- Also, Gamespot makes no disclosure of how they played the game. They either were flown out like IGN, got a code (with no indication of such), or had the guy play the game and write the review in like 5 hours, max. MetalBreaksAndBends (talk) (contribs) 23:03, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- Did I really have to ask for a link? I simply asked the user for some kind of argumentation so I could formulate my answer based on it, whether I agreed or disagreed, etc. Does this preclude using link and explaining it as an argument in any way? They were free to justify their answer however they wanted, as long as it was within the rules and not based solely on personal opinion. Ultimately, the user essentially replied that they provided the link, meaning I had to study it myself to understand what they meant. In other words, I essentially started searching the review for their arguments instead of them. Is that normal argumentation? And I repeat, why did you make so much more progress in the discussion with a couple of comments in a short exchange than RR did in several days? If he had brought up all the arguments that you back then, this conflict wouldn’t be happening at all. It would have ended in a couple of hours. Solaire the knight (talk) 23:10, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- He stated that he had already offered an argument in his where he brought up codes. From this, it can be presumed that he believed he had already brought up a proper argument. So, stating it further would not lead to the receipt of any productive information. As to why I'm having an easier time, I can only speculate. It may be because I spend my time dealing with children literal and mental (Only some of them). It may be because my time is basically unconstrained, so getting the meaning of your messages which can be a bit long and unclear is easier for me, it could be something else or some combination.
- Category:Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests
- MetalBreaksAndBends (talk) (contribs) 23:39, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- This was the original cause of the dispute. As you can see from my attempt at compromise, I wasn't aiming to restore previews at any cost or prove their absolute validity. What initially bothered me was that the user had started an edit war by deleting a large amount of text with sources and only superficially justified it. Then, they simply refused to engage in any discussion with me, interpreting the rule they cited as "only the one, who adding text must provide arguments and attempt to reach consensus," while they supposedly could only offer formal justifications for deletion and nothing more. I don't want to smugly read tea leaves, but if I had seen such arguments from them back then, I would have found them sufficient justification for their position, and I would have calmly moved on to discussing full-fledged reviews. But the user reacted antagonistically to me from the very first reply, while simultaneously continuing to wage an edit war. So, being an emotional person, I also got involved in the heated argument, and as you can see, it didn't end well. I really tried to reach at least some kind of compromise on this, but they just immediately wrote me down as a personal enemy and I don’t know how to change that. This makes me despair. Solaire the knight (talk) 23:56, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- Did I really have to ask for a link? I simply asked the user for some kind of argumentation so I could formulate my answer based on it, whether I agreed or disagreed, etc. Does this preclude using link and explaining it as an argument in any way? They were free to justify their answer however they wanted, as long as it was within the rules and not based solely on personal opinion. Ultimately, the user essentially replied that they provided the link, meaning I had to study it myself to understand what they meant. In other words, I essentially started searching the review for their arguments instead of them. Is that normal argumentation? And I repeat, why did you make so much more progress in the discussion with a couple of comments in a short exchange than RR did in several days? If he had brought up all the arguments that you back then, this conflict wouldn’t be happening at all. It would have ended in a couple of hours. Solaire the knight (talk) 23:10, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- We discussed the Gamespot review, as you can see in the link. Not IGN. But what prevented them from providing the same link and explaining it the same way you did now? Instead of immediately going on the defensive and essentially declaring that I should be the alone trying to reach a consensus, while they weren't required to any interaction? That's exactly what I expected, and the issue could have been resolved right from the start. You provided the link after just a couple of comments, without any conflict or argument. Even though you weren't even involved in the argument. Solaire the knight (talk) 22:47, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
I never said your text was poorly written.
- Yes you did, you wrote "as long as the user consistently rewrites it instead of just a chaotic collection of opinions." That is saying it's poorly written. But the more important item is the other thing you've said:
The diff to this is already in my answer, you directly assume that full reviews are more neutral because the journalists allegedly did not receive the codes and are therefore less positive
- Oh look, not only does that diff absolutely not show me claiming
"journalists were positively biased"
nor as you also falsely claim about me that I wroteyou could argue that media will write positive reviews to continue getting games for free (which they directly stated in one of the comments)
- All I had said, as shown in that diff, is that I viewed it as "misleading" to place a more positive preview piece in the article's reviews section than that same publication's more-mixed full review.
- Absolutely NOWHERE did I ever claim they were writing positive reviews to get free games, so I suggest you retract that IMMEDIATELY Rambling Rambler (talk) 22:43, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- You insist that your interpretation of my words can be proof of their meaning, yet you insist that I can't interpret your words unless you said them verbatim. Don't you sense a certain contradiction here? Again, I never said your text was poorly written. All I said is that I didn't like the way you compiled opinions from sources, nothing more and nothing less. Also, please read carefully and refrain from using bold and caps to create emotional pressure in the discussion: my text about free games was a theoretical argument that we could have used just as well if we had based the entire discussion on personal opinion without argumentation. Solaire the knight (talk) 22:47, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
(which they directly stated in one of the comments)
is not a "theoretical argument", but you directly accusing me of making accusations of journalistic bribery to get my way. RETRACT IT Rambling Rambler (talk) 22:52, 6 February 2026 (UTC)- My clarification "he stated this directly" was about our discussion of Gamespot, not about my further development of the argument. If you still don't understand this, you can look at my answer above, where I use this diff as a reference to your words about the codes. You read my answer, right? Solaire the knight (talk) 22:57, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- You insist that your interpretation of my words can be proof of their meaning, yet you insist that I can't interpret your words unless you said them verbatim. Don't you sense a certain contradiction here? Again, I never said your text was poorly written. All I said is that I didn't like the way you compiled opinions from sources, nothing more and nothing less. Also, please read carefully and refrain from using bold and caps to create emotional pressure in the discussion: my text about free games was a theoretical argument that we could have used just as well if we had based the entire discussion on personal opinion without argumentation. Solaire the knight (talk) 22:47, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- It's not an assumption, "The initial review in progress was based on hands-on play during a pre-release preview event hosted by Wildlight Entertainment, which provided travel." . MetalBreaksAndBends (talk) (contribs) 22:37, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- The diff to this is already in my answer, you directly assume that full reviews are more neutral because the journalists allegedly did not receive the codes and are therefore less positive. At the same time, I never said your text was poorly written. I suggested expanding it, because after removing the detailed previews, you essentially created one large section from a series of short quotes from various sources. I didn't like the collection of quotes without any development of the topic, yes, but there was not a word about "poorly written" and if you complain that I allegedly distort your words, I would also ask you not to distort mine (not to mention that if criticizing edits is an insult, then you've been insulting me nonstop for days now). Solaire the knight (talk) 22:27, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- I suggest you show a diff of where I
- Technically, yes, they claimed that the previews were biased because journalists were positively biased in them. But this was all based on their personal opinion, and they refused to elaborate or provide any arguments. Although, by that logic, they could just as easily have said that any reviews are biased, because if you were to develop the idea, you could argue that media will write positive reviews to continue getting games for free (which they directly stated in one of the comments), and gaming sites were indeed accused of this after a series of positive reviews for Highgard. Ultimately, I agreed to retract these previews, suggesting to the administrator that they make the user's version the status quo (they reverted to the pre-conflict version when they defended the page). But when I returned to the discussion, the user again accused me of bad faith and refused to continue the discussion, claiming that I wanted to return the text to the article, even though it was no longer the subject of discussion. Solaire the knight (talk) 22:17, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- Their reasoning appears to be quite clear from the first comment alone, that the previews are unreliable due to circumstances surrounding them and don't match post-release reviews, thusly they should be replaced with full reviews. MetalBreaksAndBends (talk) (contribs) 22:04, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- They asked me to justify returning the text, and I asked them to explain their reasons for removing it so I could formulate a response. After that, the user simply refused to continue the discussion, claiming I was intentionally breaking the rules and that I alone should be working toward consensus. Even after I agreed to forgot about returning the previews, they again began insisting they should be removed (and accuse me of bad intentions for trying to supposedly justify it), ignoring the fact that we'd already passed that stage and were discussing expanding the source description. Where's the sealioning? What POV am I promoting? I even agreed to a compromise, while they initially took a defensive position and interpreted any answer I gave as bad faith. Solaire the knight (talk) 21:52, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- I read through the discussion at Talk:Highguard and can understand RR's frustration. I don't think it's exaggeration to describe Stk's contributions to that discussion as "sealioning". Schazjmd (talk) 21:41, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- I also expected the user to continue the discussion after asking you to let me return to the discussion. But it seems the user basically rejects any discussion or communication in general that doesn't follow their rules entirely. Solaire the knight (talk) 20:32, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- Comment - Given this comment here where they accuse me of making accusations about journalists being bribed without any evidence and refusing to retract it multiple times, I'm also adding WP:ASPERSIONS to this complaint. Rambling Rambler (talk) 23:12, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- This isn't even funny anymore. I explained to you why you misunderstood my comment, but you continue to pushing this exceptionally bad faith on me, even using it as a pretext for accusing me of breaking yet another rule. Why do you hate me so much? What have I ever done to you? Do you want to drive me to some mental breakdown or force me to ask for a block myself to stop this atacks? Solaire the knight (talk) 23:18, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- Your "explanation" is quite obviously nonsense. You wrote as one sentence:
Although, by that logic, they could just as easily have said that any reviews are biased, because if you were to develop the idea, you could argue that media will write positive reviews to continue getting games for free (which they directly stated in one of the comments), and gaming sites were indeed accused of this after a series of positive reviews for Highgard.
- These are things I never said, asked quite bluntly you retract them, and you have refused twice. Rambling Rambler (talk) 23:38, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- You have every right to disagree with my explanations, just as I disagreed with your interpretation of my words above. That's fine. But that doesn't mean you have any right to constantly search for malicious intent in my words, speculate on my motives, or regularly passive-aggressively demand justification from me when you accuse me of breaking yet another rule you've discovered. While you're once again trying to escalate our conversation into a toxic personal conflict, one of the other users in this section was able to achieve far more progress with me in discussing sources in a couple of comments than we could in two days of constant arguing. Solaire the knight (talk) 23:47, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- This isn't even funny anymore. I explained to you why you misunderstood my comment, but you continue to pushing this exceptionally bad faith on me, even using it as a pretext for accusing me of breaking yet another rule. Why do you hate me so much? What have I ever done to you? Do you want to drive me to some mental breakdown or force me to ask for a block myself to stop this atacks? Solaire the knight (talk) 23:18, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- This is such a shame, cause he has a cool username. pHLOGISTON eNTHUSIAST (tALK pAGE) 16:17, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
I realize that this has already become a wall of text, but I have had past interactions with Solaire, and the pattern described here is not limited to the dispute above. This past autumn, there was a similar problem, at Talk:Woke#How to word the section header. It should have been a straightforward discussion about the best way to word the header of a section within the page. It wasn't. With Solaire on one side of the issue, and multiple editors, not just me, on the other, it included Solaire "warning" me falsely about edit warring, attributing a consensus view of how the section should be handled to individual editors supposedly pursuing nefarious agendas, and personalizing things that no one else regarded as personal. As noted above, there is an English-as-a-second-language issue, that extends into WP:CIR. Like the OP here, I feel that the CIR issues have exhausted my WP:AGF, and I'm starting to see this as a WP:NOTHERE problem. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:49, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- In that discussion, I was the first to point out that it had become strangely personal and had devolved into a protracted dispute, despite my repeated attempts to find a compromise. And unlike my opponents, I was the only one who was not involved in the debates surrounding the articles about American politics and was not in conflict with any of the authors. Every time I offered a more tolerable solution, either the old user insisted on continuing the dispute at any cost, or, after reaching some sort of consensus with them, a new one would appear and start all over again. Moreover, I'm surprised you didn't mention that the dispute ended with a consensus with me, after which I even deleted the page from my watchlist to avoid any further recurrences. If the issue was successfully resolved by mutual compromise and consensus and I didn’t even touch on this topic again at all, then what other questions could there still be for me? Unless you're implying that the very fact that I disagree with a this or that user should mean I don't understand English well, since otherwise I'm always wrong by default. Solaire the knight (talk) 00:02, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- I realize that this must be very difficult for uninvolved admins or editors to parse. But it's civil WP:SEALIONING, and framing things in a very unreal way. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:09, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- You questioned my ability to participate in the project in notable topic, and I spoke up in my defense. Unless you're implying that I'm at fault by default, I'm not sure how that breaks any rules, especially since I was ultimately the one who closed the dispute and hasn't touched the article since. Solaire the knight (talk) 00:14, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- I realize that this must be very difficult for uninvolved admins or editors to parse. But it's civil WP:SEALIONING, and framing things in a very unreal way. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:09, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
Proposal to solve the problem
It seems like this discussion has calmed down enough after all this heated debates, so I want to make a proposal to just resolve this and forget about it like a bad dream. My dialogue with MetalBreaksAndBends above has already significantly resolved the issue, as the user directly or indirectly presented the necessary arguments and we discussed them. So, given that after this entire dispute, I no longer have any desire to touch this article or participate in any further discussions with RR, given their clearly negative attitude towards me, I am therefore prepared to completely withdraw any further claims or questions to Highguard and refrain from making any future edits to this article, in order to prevent any further communication and disputes between us. I am still blocked from article space until February 19th, so if no one minds, I will simply remove the article from my watchlist and use the remaining time as a wiki vacation to restore my mental state in peace after this dispute. Solaire the knight (talk) 01:16, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support CBAN for Solaire - If this had been an isolated issue and had their proposal come sooner there's a good chance I could've been amenable to a self-agreed period of absence and voluntary disengagement. However I do not think this is likely to resolve the now clear underlying issues that are wider than the initial incident I opened this with.
- The discussions with MetalBreaksAndBends reads as though Solaire still refuses or fails to understand how their conduct has caused matters to reach this point, where despite Metal repeatedly pointing out the ways Solaire was causing communication issues they instead look to be taking it as evidence this is still everyone else's fault. For instance when Metal pointed out Solaire wrongly accused myself of breaching WP:OR, Solaire then tried to somehow blame me for it.
- The fact Solaire used this discussion as an opportunity to cast completely new WP:ASPERSIONS about myself makes this hard to see as genuine contrition. Even looking at their talk page they've had the issue of WP:ASPERSIONS come up recently elsewhere too.
- Tryptofish's additions further demonstrate Solaire's behaviour is not limited to this one interaction but something that is happening consistently. Even in Solaire's reply they're referring to others in discussions as "opponents" which again suggests Solaire is not willing to genuinely work collegiately and instead see discussions as something to be won or lost.
- On Solaire's talk page last August, Sergecross73 made the following remarks to them that I believe are apt here:
"I honestly believe that there is a significant language barrier that is preventing you from communicating clearly. Editors don't seem to understand what you're saying, and you don't seem to understand what's being told to you. And that's completely hindered your ability to be persuasive. And what's worse, your tone of writing constantly sounds irritated and accusatory. Your talk page suggests I'm far from the first person to observe this."
. Even when given this advice Solaire got terse with them.- Overall this all suggests an inability for Solaire to actually make the changes necessary to positively contribute to this project going forward. Rambling Rambler (talk) 02:34, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- Since you continue to display such confrontational behavior even in response to my attempts to somehow smooth things over, and even continue to escalate the accusations of violating old or new rules against me despite my clear demonstration that I perceive this behavior as borderline harassment, I hereby expressly declare my refusal to engage with you in any way. You are clearly deliberately escalating the conflict with me in every way possible, and I simply no longer see any way to normalize our interactions. Therefore, regardless of the administrators' response to my proposal, I will refrain from any further interaction with you. You will probably continue to try to provoke a reaction from me even after this answer, but I can now guarantee with a clear heart that you will not receive any further response from me. I'm sorry, but I have no other choice. Solaire the knight (talk) 02:40, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- I don't think we really have a formal ban proposal yet, but I too am ready to support a CBAN based on WP:CIR and WP:NOTHERE if other editors are inclined to go that route. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:36, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- I understand your point, but I've long since abandoned any "ideological" conflicts and try to avoid arguments if they become too heated. This, I believe, is also evident in the link you provided, where I one-sidely left the discussion. I can't deny my many poor decisions in this particular dispute, but I'd also like to point out that other user's antagonistic behavior from the very first reply and his deliberate choice of bad faith also significantly worsened the situation and minimized the possibility of resolving it peacefully. I consider CBAN excessive, but I would appreciate some mentoring or conflict resolution assistance from more experienced users. I try to avoid any conflict situations, but sometimes I just find myself alone in difficult debates and don’t know who to ask for help. Solaire the knight (talk) 23:49, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose CBAN. I encountered Solaire in the past after they raised a concern about some article content, which I was able to improve after they explained their reasoning. I found it to be a civil interaction throughout and it left a positive impression. Reading through this particular incident, I find it less so, but I think a CBAN is too much, especially given that blocks are meant to be preventative, not punitive. Solaire has promised to refrain from further interaction in this area and to address their handling of conflicts. It's clear that after being mentioned in ANI and article-blocked, they're going to be under a lot of scrutiny; I think they should be given the opportunity to prove that they can edit constructively with this understanding that any sign of further conflict will probably result in a longer and/or more permanent block. Crestfalling (talk/contribs) 00:40, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- Solaire has promised to refrain from further interaction in this area and to address their handling of conflicts.
- @Crestfalling the issue here is that we've already gone through this before with them.
- In May 2023 they were given a final warning at ANI for disruptive editing that "includes edit-warring, harassment of other editors, general incivility, and inability to collaborate appropriately with others"
- In August 2023 they were given an indef block at ANI for disruptive editing on grounds of "edit warring, unsourced content, and refusal to get the point."
- In August 2024 this was lifted after an unblock request in which they promised to no longer undertake the actions that earnt it in the first place.
- This leaves us at where we are now where they had a two week full block put on them for disruptive editing which in part related to failing to respect policy, and then when that was downgraded to just article-space after they promised to take part in reasonable discussion on talk pages they immediately returned to disruptive behaviour and ended up at ANI for it within a handful of hours.
- The unfortunate reality is they have shown they are unable to stick to their promises of improving their behaviour, so I don't believe any solution should involve one up to their own discretion. So if you're still opposed to a CBAN are there any level of restriction that you may feel should be imposed? Rambling Rambler (talk) 01:41, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- @Rambling Rambler That's a good question. After reviewing both this thread as well as the context you linked to, my proposal is 1) A 1RR restriction and 2) A talk page limit of 400 words or 3 posts (whichever is less) regarding adding or removing any piece of disputed content.
- Many of the concerns that have been raised here, as well as in past discussions, have to do with edit warring as well as escalating content disputes, particularly in a sealioning way. The two restrictions proposed address those directly, with the second restriction being the most narrow one I could think of to address talk page sealioning. 400 words or 3 posts is more than enough to clearly make a point and allow others to weigh in.
- Either Solaire follows these restrictions, which is proof that they're improving their behavior and didn't need a CBAN, or they don't, in which case these restrictions are unambiguous enough that another ANI case is going to be an open-and-shut result. As I mentioned above, I think Solaire has the genuine capability to be a constructive editor, and this would allow them to focus on avoiding what led to this ANI report in the first place.
- @Solaire the knight Please see above. I regret having to propose this, but the only alternative being mentioned at present is a CBAN, so the situation somewhat speaks for itself. There are many editors who already de facto follow these two restrictions. I'd also advise you to take a break from this thread, since I understand that it's probably frustrating and you're likely coming off as more direct than you're intending. If you do reply, please consider explaining on how you'll avoid disputes in the future, rather than going over the past. You don't have to take this advice, but it comes from someone with experience in conflict resolution. Crestfalling (talk/contribs) 19:31, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- Thank you for your reasonable and polite response. I will heed your advice and limit my participation here to minimize any further escalation or antagonism between me and other users. Regarding conflict resolution, I am currently discussing potentially extending my ban to article spaces until the end of the month or beyond, until I discuss the matter with other experienced users and administrators and optionally take a Wiki break. I'm not entirely sure how this character or post limit would work, but overall I'm fine with the idea if it helps me avoid excessive comments. Speaking about 1RR, I don’t see any problems with at least a temporary limit on revert edits on my part. This could minimize edit wars involving me and help me resolve issues through communication and consultation with more experienced users, at the very least. Solaire the knight (talk) 19:44, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- @Crestfalling thanks for taking the time to consider this. While I personally think a CBAN would still be my primary response, if the restrictions you've proposed were on a community basis (i.e. it would have to come back to ANI or appropriate forum to be removed) I could be amenable to those if that looked to be the consensus here.
- My reticence still remains at the fact Solaire still doesn't seem to be understanding how their behaviour is the problem here. In their reply to you above they mention 'discussing an extension to their ban'. On the post in question though they've written "I'd like to learn how to respond appropriately to overly emotional and active users within the rules" which comes across as saying "I'm only acting this way because the other people are irrational" which highlights a continued failure on their part even now to actually view others editors in a collegiate manner that is required here even if you disagree with them. Rambling Rambler (talk) 20:17, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- I appreciate the explanation. As far as I'm aware, sanctions proposed in a community forum can't be overturned except by community consensus, as can be seen at the top of the page about "Editing Restrictions". As such, any appeal of these restrictions by Solaire would require community consensus at the same forum, and a violation of them would generally result in a block.
- I agree that Solaire's wording here comes off as being confrontational, and would advise them to avoid this and reconsider their comment, since characterizing others as overly emotional rarely results in civil resolution. With that being said, the reason I still stand by my opinion is that in the same comment (as well as the one right above yours), it seems that they're making an effort to improve; they're asking for mentorship, amenable to restrictions designed to minimize conflict, and directly mentioning the importance of resolving issues through communication as well as responding appropriately and following the rules.
- I'm putting some faith that actions speak louder than words here. If Solaire productively edits the encyclopedia without conflict, then that's evidence that they know what problematic behavior to avoid. If they don't, then I doubt any admin is going to strongly hesitate on blocking. I generally extend a lot of good faith to people who promise to do better and explain how they plan to do it; I hope this helps to explain my point of view here, even though I also understand the reasoning for your perspective and its validity. Best, Crestfalling (talk/contribs) 04:19, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- @Crestfalling those are the standard restrictions, but there have been some cases of late where it's been worded following ANI in such a way to allow unilateral removal by an admin after a standard appeal. Just wanted to make it explicit we shouldn't do that here. Rambling Rambler (talk) 14:29, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support CBan for StK's demonstratable inability to work in a collaborative environment, as evinced by their continuing to cast aspersions in a thread founded on their predication for casting aspersions. (Among other things.) —Fortuna, imperatrix 06:11, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- Good afternoon. The user accused me of this based on bad faith, ignoring my explanations of misunderstanding, although in general most of the accusations of misconduct in this thread came mainly from their side. Or can you point out any points that I missed? I also find it odd that I'm being accused of being uncooperative when the dispute essentially began with the OP interpreting ONUS as absolving the deleting party of any need for cooperation and directly interpreting any attempts I made to compromise as malicious, continuing to violate bad faith (including ignoring my positive contributions and successful collaboration with other users outside of this conflict, as demonstrated by Crestfalling, or when I sincerely thanked MetalBreaksAndBends for successful progress made in resolving the conflict even though they were critical of my position above). Moreover, this accusation was not in their original topic, as I described in my answer, they added it later when they were looking for additional rules that they could accuse me of violating. So, even if we don’t discuss whether this accusation is justified or not, it arose in response to my answer, and was not originally dedicated to my activities on the project. although what I described already in itself is worthy of WP:ASPERSIONS, given the user's constant attempts to convince others of my exceptional destructiveness and to beg for my block at any cost, constantly assuming bad faith, generalizing our personal conflict to all my activities on the project and collecting links to rules I supposedly can violated. Solaire the knight (talk) 06:22, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- Please see WP:BLUDGEON. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:42, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- Good afternoon. The user accused me of this based on bad faith, ignoring my explanations of misunderstanding, although in general most of the accusations of misconduct in this thread came mainly from their side. Or can you point out any points that I missed? I also find it odd that I'm being accused of being uncooperative when the dispute essentially began with the OP interpreting ONUS as absolving the deleting party of any need for cooperation and directly interpreting any attempts I made to compromise as malicious, continuing to violate bad faith (including ignoring my positive contributions and successful collaboration with other users outside of this conflict, as demonstrated by Crestfalling, or when I sincerely thanked MetalBreaksAndBends for successful progress made in resolving the conflict even though they were critical of my position above). Moreover, this accusation was not in their original topic, as I described in my answer, they added it later when they were looking for additional rules that they could accuse me of violating. So, even if we don’t discuss whether this accusation is justified or not, it arose in response to my answer, and was not originally dedicated to my activities on the project. although what I described already in itself is worthy of WP:ASPERSIONS, given the user's constant attempts to convince others of my exceptional destructiveness and to beg for my block at any cost, constantly assuming bad faith, generalizing our personal conflict to all my activities on the project and collecting links to rules I supposedly can violated. Solaire the knight (talk) 06:22, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose CBAN. User has tried to deescalate.
Rhinocratt19:24, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
c - I have a feeling that this ANI discussion will not go anywhere, partly because we are getting input from editors who do not really understand what is going on. I'm sure we'll be back here again in a few months. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:16, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
- Weak oppose CBAN I read (almost) all of the above, and looked at the ANEW section, following links to many diffs. Now that my WP:SEALIONING-induced headache has abated, I agree that StK has engaged in problem behavior involving: WP:IDHT, WP:SEALIONING, WP:SATISFY, WP:LAWYER, and WP:ONUS. My biggest concern is the very clear WP:HOUNDING, though. Following someone around and targeting their edits specifically because you didn't like what they did elsewhere is definitely hounding, and is evidence that the focus is on winning some joyless, vapid contest(s) instead of building an encyclopedia. I don't think any of that is persistent enough, yet, to CBAN this editor. My preference is a block for weeks to months from the entire project in the hopes that StK would have some time to thoroughly read some of the above WP: pages, and the pillars, and some essays without the concurrent need to WP:BLUDGEON this and other threads. The minimum, for me, would be WP:ROPE with a clear, concise, blunt warning that, if they misuse said cordage, the repercussions should be expected to be severe. Hiobazard (talk/contribs) 20:38, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
- @Hiobazard I know you've mentioned WP:ROPE and a preference for a months long block but this did happen not that long ago. Would this therefore not be a case where they've had that already and this is, as said in the essay "they've already gotten all the rope they need; the hangman is just asleep at the lever"? Rambling Rambler (talk) 20:53, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
- Oh, of course I may be wrong, or !voting against eventual consensus. But, if there isn't the stomach for more severe sanctions, and I do indeed personally feel that we're not quite there yet, this feels like a reasonably fair possible solution. Of course, it may just lead to another pinniped-induced headache in the future. As always, just my $0.02. Hiobazard (talk/contribs) 20:59, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
- @Hiobazard I know you've mentioned WP:ROPE and a preference for a months long block but this did happen not that long ago. Would this therefore not be a case where they've had that already and this is, as said in the essay "they've already gotten all the rope they need; the hangman is just asleep at the lever"? Rambling Rambler (talk) 20:53, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
Vandalism by ~2026-93951-2
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
All of this user's contributions have been vandalism. Riposte97 (talk) 23:36, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
- It’s a VPN. I’ve applied a rangeblock. — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:53, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:A63538356 only editing their user page, supporting ethnic cleansing
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A63538356 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I came across this user today who seems to have existed for ~2 years and has only ever edited their user page - over this time said page has had all manners of strange, irrelevant, and worrisome content, including the phrase "Extremely ruthless Ethnic cleansing is my administration and governance priority" (added here and removed here), and claims of being the descendants of a laundry list of notable figures (removed here). They certainly don't seem to be here to build an encyclopedia. Merlin04talkcontribs 08:13, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
- Since they've only edited their userpage to state, among other things, that they're from Sirius and are the ruler of the universe, I've blocked them as WP:NOTHERE. Acroterion (talk) 13:32, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
- I wonder whether they met Stockhausen while at Sirius. Stockhausenfan (talk) 15:06, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:Passion4mi
Severe WP:CIR problems. Poor understanding of English and Wikipedia in general. I can’t find a single edit that isn’t problematic or at least questionable/pointless. Reported here instead of at the vandalism noticeboard as they seem to at least be acting in good faith. Dronebogus (talk) 00:01, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
Mmemaigret concerns (again)
This is the 2nd time I'm reporting Mmemaigret's incivility and disruptive editing tactics (and now discussion tactics) to ANI.
After her re-engaging in discussion on the page Talk:Bahamian_English, after a few months of us cooling down, I was hoping for a tentative attempt at actual consensus. Instead, she's berated me with gish gallop-style questions towards no apparent purpose and when I (foolishly?) assumed good faith and answered, has most recently ended with a curt You have no idea what you are talking about.
After that moment, I thought "Do I go to ANI:Incidents or Dispute resolution"? But then I realized... there's no specific topic she seems to be disputing. She's just angry or trolling. So here we are again.
In an even earlier ANI discussion where she attacked me, disinterested user Liz told her If you want to have an article version that is 100% yours, I'd suggest creating your own blog or website where only your editorial opinion matters. I'm sure there are plenty of subject knowledge experts on Wikipedia who maintain their own sites off-Wikipedia where they don't have to edit according to the strict policies and guidelines present on this platform.
Then, disinterested user Ravenswing likewise told her: ...many editors exaggerate their expertise/credentials, a large factor in why WP:OR is a core policy of Wikipedia. Take a look at my user page. I list a number of credentials there. And for all you know, I'm lying about all of them. That's why I don't barge into hockey talk pages and claim my experience means I should get my way. That's why I don't barge into legal talk pages and claim my experience means I should get my way. My having published or contributed to a dozen RPG books doesn't mean I get to barge into RPG talk pages and claim my experience means I should get my way.
In October, when I reported Mmemaigret, disinterested user Phil Bridger simply told her Nobody has a monopoly on THE TRUTH™, not even MmeMaigret
. Pineapple Storage, true to the anxieties he expressed in the October thread, has not edited the Bahamian English or Bahamian Creole pages since, scared off by MmeMaigret's behaviors. For the umpteenth time, she is sabotaging attempts at building consensus or legitimate discussion on these two pages. Wolfdog (talk) 00:21, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
- @Wolfdog This is an abuse of process and should have been referred to another forum such as a 3d party opinion.
- (1) Your categorisation of this dispute is misleading. After your latest edit summary of 8 February "How much more pussy-footing doing we need to do?" , I started a discussion with you, with which you engaged for days. I pointed out to you that few of your edits to these two pages are sourced (19 and 44 times respectively). I showed you in a table each change you have made to the first sentence of the lead of the Bahamian English page in the last 5 years and the change you have been pushing since October 2025. I showed that not only was that change inconsistent with the changes you yourself made over the course of 5 years, it is inconsistent with the consensus reached after the merge discussion. Moreover, I have previously pointed this out in an edit summary that it doesn't make sense. I asked you twice to explain what you think Bahamian English is, and what you think Bahamian Creole English is, so that you can explain how Bahamian Creole English can sit alongside Bahamian English rather than being one of the varieties. Instead your first response, which included "It's hard for me to not feel like you're willfully playing dumb here", was to avoid the question. When I didn't take the bait and pointed out that you hadn't actually answered my question, you responded with your own bit of inferential reasoning (ie original research) which is supported by no sources. The reason we are really here is because you've finally realised after 5 long years that you don't know what you're talking about and you're upset because I said "You have no idea what you are talking about".
- (2) You have also miscategorised what Pineapple Storage said at the last ANI. Pineapple Storage pointed out that that they've never edited either of the pages and has only discussed matters on the talk page. In addition, Pineapple Storage said they didn't want to be involved in ANI because they thought ANI was a nuclear option that should avoided and only used as a last resort. Something you clearly didn't note.
- (3) At that last ANI which you brought, you also miscategorised the dispute when you claimed that I edited the page without reaching a consensus but I showed that you had in fact edited the page 9 times without reaching a consensus before I edited the page (removing your unsourced and incorrect material).
- (4) What you really should have done is request comments on your latest pronouncement:
Bahamian English is any of the dialects of English native (or if you prefer, that have developed over the last few centuries) in the Bahamas. Bahamian Creole is a language native to the Bahamas that developed with English as its dominant lexifier, while blending features from other languages and developing some of its own entirely unique features in grammar, word usage, phonology, etc. Like many situations of creolization, English and Bahamian Creole are now interlinked in a creole continuum, with plenty of diversity. Are your questions answered? Wolfdog (talk) 02:54, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
- But then that would have been unlikely to have had the effect you wanted, since others may have pointed out that you were wrong. MmeMaigret (talk) 01:56, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
LLM talk by LRQ 98
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- LRQ 98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This editor appears to be using an LLM to generate discussion comments at Talk:Derek Chisora#Nationality. Symptoms include:
- Non-denial denial
- Liberal use of emdashes
- Unlinked all-caps shortcuts
- Tone
- Unicode bullet points rather than markup
- 100% AI score from GPTzero
The comments are disruptive:
- Claimed that policy says one thing. I pointed out with quotes that the guidelines being cited actually say the opposite (MOS:NATIONALITY and MOS:ETHNICITY being aliases). The response was a repetition of the argument.
- Said that I wasn't supporting the other involved editor's position, when in fact I had made my support unambiguous in bold text.
- Said that a BBC article "Opens with Chisora’s Zimbabwean origins & British identity foregrounded in the biographical framing." The article actually only mentions Zimbabwe once in the middle.
Complaints have been made in the past about other types of behavior:
- Disruptive editing
- Logged-out editing under a previously-blocked IP address
- Unexplained content removal
Uhoj (talk) 20:58, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- Hi. I’d like to briefly clarify my involvement.
- • All of my comments were written by me personally. I have not used any automated tools or language models to generate discussion posts.
- • This is a content dispute about MOS:NATIONALITY, & I have participated on the article talk page in good faith. I have not edit‑warred, & I have followed BRD.
- • Any disagreements raised here relate to interpretation of policy, not conduct. I have not made personal attacks, & I have not engaged in disruptive behaviour.
- • I’m happy to continue resolving the underlying content issue through the appropriate venue, such as DRN or an RfC, where multiple uninvolved editors can weigh in.
- I will not comment further unless an administrator has questions. LRQ 98 (talk) 22:16, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
All of my comments were written by me personally. I have not used any automated tools or language models to generate discussion posts.
Despite my best efforts to WP:AGF, I don't believe you. Narky Blert (talk) 17:07, 10 February 2026 (UTC)- There have been repeated reverts of the same material:
- I forgot to mention rampant failure to use edit summaries despite being nudged. Uhoj (talk) 23:33, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- I will never understand thinking it's a good idea to respond to concerns about your LLM usage using an LLM. Athanelar (talk) 09:37, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
- Am i eligible to take part in discussions Hingolddiki (talk) 10:33, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
- Hi! Regarding your first point, you stated in one of your comments that:
As for WP:LLMCHAT: it discourages using AI to generate comments without editorial oversight. Every word I’ve posted has been reviewed, fact-checked, & grounded in policy
, which I took as implying that you did use AI to write comments, but reviewed them yourself. As this appears to contradict your latest clarification, is there something I have misunderstood? Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 14:06, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
- Those talk page comments drip with LLM. Then they come here and use AI to lie about using AI. Could we please not go through the whole rigamarole of finger-wagging and several rounds of getting more evasive slop replies, and just block? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:52, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
- These could hardly look more LLM generated. They don't seem to be "reviewing" their LLM chunks all that well given how often they misquote or make up policy and the editor having said they check their LLM output and don't use LLM output at all. There's an odd changeover in their talk messages around 1/20, when all ands are suddenly replaced in new messages by &. I wonder if this is an attempt to try and look less LLM-y, even though it would be kind of odd for someone so deep in the uncanny valley of formality to just forget how the word "and" works. In any case, this editor has no business touching articles at this time. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:51, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
- Indef'd for disruptive editing. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:45, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks You @Toast1454 Hingolddiki (talk) 05:31, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
- Robots replaced blue collar jobs, no cries , new normal. AI replacing white collar job , little cry as of now, again would ne new normal in coming years. My 2 cents. Hingolddiki (talk) 05:42, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks You @Toast1454 Hingolddiki (talk) 05:31, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Possible AI usage in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Davey Magras and weird/fishy article deletion attempts in Davey Magras.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Nanana77678 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- ~2026-55203-7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Davey Magras (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Davey Magras (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
I'm not sure if this is the correct place to put this, but in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Davey Magras a possible AI chatbot was used by @Nanana77678: for the AFD. They claim that it wasn't AI after it collapsed with them removing the collapsed template and replacing with Using a text formatter to format manually collected notes does not qualify as LLM generated content. The following reference audit was done manually by clicking each individual reference. Please do not collapse this. Thank you.
. This would be later on replaced with The following reference audit was done manually by clicking each individual reference. Please do not collapse this. Thank you. I am disabled and use speech to text and text formatting tools to write.
.
The article Davey Magras has also been attempted PROD and speedily deleted by different TAs, with both being declined. Something seems kind of weird/fishy about this, as two TAs and a new account really want this article to be deleted even after being told the article is fine to keep twice.
Note: as writing this it seems like WP:IDONTLIKETHAT type deletion plus something weird is going on here. — MysticCipher87(alt-account) Talk? 16:07, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
- Administrators, please intervene. This user is effectively attacking my credibility solely because I require more assistance than others to write. This borders on hounding and is a failure to focus on content. I am asking for these personal attacks regarding my use of assistance tools to stop immediately so we can actually discuss the validity of the article in question.
- EDIT: I didn't expect to have my account and message attacked for requiring the use of assistance tools. I thought I would be welcomed here, so I was anxious and made numerous revisions to my response to ensure my text-to-speech output was clear and formatted well. Penalizing a new user for refining their comments to be legible is the definition of failing to assume good faith. Nanana77678 (talk) 16:59, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
- I wasn't trying to attack you by any means due to my inability to detect tone when I'm typing or when I am reading due to me being autisic. If you want I could withdraw this ANI. — MysticCipher87(alt-account) Talk? 17:11, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
- I'm just going to delete my account. I'm sorry to have tried. Nanana77678 (talk) 17:13, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
- Please don't delete your account. — MysticCipher87(alt-account) Talk? 17:14, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
- I'm just going to delete my account. I'm sorry to have tried. Nanana77678 (talk) 17:13, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
- I've got to say that the arguments put forward by Nanana77678 seem a lot more Wikipedia-policy-aware than I've typically seen from a Chatbot. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:01, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
- The article lacks sources to back the arguments. Please fix it. If he truly advocated and there is proof that the extension was due to his advocacy - that is great and worthy. Being a driver in a developmental series alone does not qualify as significant. The suspicion is that the sources are invalid and the claim appears to have been made up to validate the page after the page's existence was challenged. I'm not sure if it's a promotional or marketing group creating these driver's pages for a fee, but they all seem oddly similar. Nanana77678 (talk) 17:09, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
- I'm going to ignore the small minded attacks on my necessary use of assistance tools. I do hope the mods will intervene. I'm not sure if this is coordinated hounding, but it's not okay. Nanana77678 (talk) 17:10, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
- Watch out for personal atttacks there, buddy. Also, "mods"? ThatTrainGuy1945 (talk) 18:36, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
- I've got to say that the arguments put forward by Nanana77678 seem a lot more Wikipedia-policy-aware than I've typically seen from a Chatbot. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:01, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
- I'd like to see more respect and delicacy both from OP and the other participants of that AfD towards someone who has openly declared being disabled and using assistance tools. WP:BITE is a guideline after all. I get the impression that some people have tunnel vision concerning AI; sure AI causes lots of problems on Wikipedia, but not to the point where we should forget about civility. Stockhausenfan (talk) 17:17, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
- I posted this comment before I saw the new comment by OP; I'm glad that the issue was acknowledged; it's just unfortunate that it looks like the damage has already been done and Nanana77678 no longer wants to edit Wikipedia. Stockhausenfan (talk) 17:20, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
- Nanana77678 has exercised their right to vanish, and MysticCipher87(alt-account) (they had stopped using their main account) has retired. A damned shame in both cases. MysticCipher apologised above and offered to withdraw this posting, and the AfD is proceeding with considerations of notability. This should probably be closed. Yngvadottir (talk) 02:12, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
- If any admin is passing by, I would like this ANI to be withdrawn. MysticCipher87(alt-account) (talk) 12:56, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
TPA
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User talk:~2026-96655-5 Leonidlednev (T, C, L) 01:18, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Breeboi - transphobia on current events
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Breeboi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Another person needing an indef irt the recent shooting. These two diffs alone warrant an indefinite block. Hate is disruptive. QuicoleJR (talk) 03:43, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
- 24 edits solely in Talk Pages since 2022 and mostly non-constructive edits such as . Surprised this took long. Borgenland (talk) 03:56, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
- Blocked as WP:NOTHERE. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:07, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.