Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1220
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) resumption of the very things that had led to their 1 year topic ban
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
पाटलिपुत्र (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Keep in mind that Pataliputra has been here since October 2016 and has 84k edits and still does stuff like this, even after being topic banned for it. I have never seen them once take responsibility for their actions, including in the previous ANI thread in spring 2024, in which they kept doubling down, and eventually got topic banned for a year . To make it very short, in that ANI thread it was shown that Pataliputra had violated WP:OR, WP:SYNTH and WP:ASPERSIONS, as well as having a long history of imposing/spamming their uploaded images into articles to seemingly promote them. Not much has changed since.
WP:OR/WP:SYNTH
|
# 13 June 2024 This was exposed while Pataliputra was topic banned, though I still feel it is worth mentioning, as it shows how easy it is for them to falsely appear as constructive in articles not regularly watched by users experienced with the topic.
|
The Sultanate of Rum case
- 23 February 2024 Not long before their one year ban, Pataliputra violated WP:SYNTH/WP:OR, and WP:NPOV at Talk:Sultanate of Rum. In short, they wanted to replace "Turco-Persian" with "Turkic", ignoring the plethora of WP:RS on the Turco-Persian aspect of the kingdom, not even bothering to read its meaning (which they still haven't understood after 2 years, we'll get to that) and randomly cherrypicked whatever they could find at Google ebooks, not even bothering to verify if they're WP:RS or not, let alone relevant excerpts by experts. After being exposed for it and shown many WP:RS that went against them, they conveniently left the thread.
But recently, they have made another attempt at it , replacing "Turco-Persian" with "Turkic", now claiming that the Turco-Persian cultural synthesis of the Sultanate of Rum was a "later phenomenon", ignoring countless WP:RS and even basic maths . Another user also called them out for WP:OR .
Amongst many other disruptive things in the talk page , Pataliputra heavily engaged in WP:SYNTH, making their own personal interpretation of what "Turco-Persian" means, citing 4 sources which passingly mentions "Turco-Persian", but which did not explain its meaning .
Hell, the first citation didn't even refer to the Turco-Persian culture, it referred to a government (Safavid Iran) being divided amongst the Turkmens and Tajiks, which is also why it says "condominium"... but Pataliputra didn't want to understand that, and which is why its important to not violate WP:SYNTH, but Pataliputra didn't care. They doubled down on their WP:SYNTH interpretation .
Mind you, the sourced lede (citing Robert L. Canfield) of Turco-Persian tradition already and pretty clearly explains the meaning of "Turco-Persian" (which I also reminded Pataliputra of ), but Pataliputra clearly places their own WP:SYNTH above or on par with that of a scholar.
Ultimately, in that thread, a WP:CONSENSUS was reached between me and the two other participating users , in which ethnicity and culture was to be left out of the start of the lede. Did Pataliputra honor that consensus? Not at all. They afterwards made this edit , under the dishonest and frankly confusing edit summary "The term "culturally Turco-Persian" has apparently never been used in the academic literature in relation to the Sultanate of Rum (WP:OR). Replacing it with "extensive Turco-Persian culture". See Talk Page "Google Books hit rates..."
Oddly enough, they they didn't even ago ahead with the changes they had been advocating (replacing "Turco-Persian" with "Turkic") in the talk page, instead randomly adding "Sunni Muslim" to the lede...?
Image spam
Image spam |
|---|
|
#6 June 2025 Adds a unrelated image to the infobox of a person, as if it was an illustration of her, even though it is not. Conveniently uploaded by them
|
Quote spam
Pataliputra has a long history of adding random, unhelpful quotes, eg;
WP:TIMESINK
Even in minor stuff, Pataliputra continues to serve as a WP:TIMESINK, constantly forcing clean ups to be made afterwards.
|
#23 June 2025 Puts a massive unhelpful quote and a completely different citation format in a WP:GA article
|
Conclusion
I don't think Pataliputra is ever going to stop until they littered articles with WP:OR/WP:SYNTH, wall of quotes and images uploaded by them only. In other words, something a la this mess of an article, which they defended in their previous ANI report . That seems to be their view of an ideal Wikipedia article. As I recall saying once, if someone did a deep dive in Pataliputras edits (which would take countless hours), they would find tons of disruptive edits like these. This is why Pataliputra has gotten more called out in Iranian and Indian related articles than Eurasian related articles, due to more experienced users watching over the former.
I propose a similar topic ban that Pataliputra received last time, but that it this time lasts indefinitely instead of a year; topic-banned from adding any images as well as editing any Central Asian, Iranic, and Turkic articles. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:08, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
- After spending about an hour digging into all of this, I have a similar conclusion to HoI, and would Support an indefinite topic ban of the recommended scope. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 17:49, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
- Support Per nom. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:40, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
Placeholder
I will respond here. User:HistoryofIran has a serious harassment problem. Give me a few days. पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 17:51, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
- I’ve called countless users out for disruption, you are not an exception. Dismissing it as “harassment” is yet another attempt at not taking responsibility for years of disruptive conduct. HistoryofIran (talk) 18:02, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
Response by पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk)
User:HistoryofIran is an adept of putting together moutains of diffs and systematically spinning them in order to "build a case" against someone. But if you look at each of them in detail you will see nothing but the usual editorial and content dispute. On ANI, HistoryofIran relies on building “mountains of evidence” with only marginally relevant claims and difs, simply accumulating accusation in hope they will stick in the end. This was quite accurately exposed by User:AirshipJungleman29 last time: "I honestly don't see much evidence presented..." . This is tantamount to WP:HOAX, and amounts to misleading other contributors and Administrators at ANI.
Just to put things into perspective (excercising my right to WP:BOOMERANG), User:HistoryofIran is apparently still a student in the process of trying to pass his exams, per his own admission while apparently wasting his precious study time expounding Iranian greatness on Wikipedia (as his single-purpose user name “HistoryofIran” aptly suggests). He is quite arguably a pan-Iranian WP:POV-warrior, who systematically aggrandizes Iranian cultural prowesses, and in particular tries to play his role in the millennial fight between Iranian and Turks in Asia (in which I have no dogs, except for trying to be fair to all parties…).
Last time, I originally trusted the ANI process and thought the accusations would lead to nothing, but they did lead a 1-year ban. I am forced to think otherwise now, and defend myself. For my part, I have been a student of history for more than 60 years, now retired, but trying to contribute the little I know to this meritorious encyclopedia.
User:HistoryofIran harassment
In the typical Talk Page, in response to nearly every comment I make, User:HistoryofIran systematically slams me with accusation of WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, and threats of WP:ROPE and bringing me to ANI.
Two years ago, User:HistoryofIran effectively brought me to ANI and obtained a 1 year ban from Central Asia history, on charges of using too many images (OK…, and for the record I've reduced image usage since then), using insults (I wrote in the proceedings "Like it or not, and I'm sorry if I hurt some Armenian sensitivities, the presence of Islamic decorative elements in Armenian architecture is a well-known and ubiquitous phenomenon...", curt language admittedly, but not an insult…), and around the subject of Ani (no pun intended) using as a source a website ("Virtual ANI") by an expert in the field (the world-known independent researcher Steven Sim), a source also used by institutions such as UCLA's Promise Armenian Institute, which had been used by Wikipedians for more than 20 years on that very Ani page, but which was deemed WP:OR when I used it myself.
And now, in every interaction on Wikipedia page and Talk Page, I get a litany of WP:OR, WP:SYNTH accusations from User:HistorofIran, as well as continuous threats of WP:ROPE and WP:ANI (see for example the Sultanate of Rum Talk Page).
User:HistoryofIran WP:GAMING of ANI process
User:HistoryofIran has been abusing the ANI system in order to get rid of those he perceives as opponents. ANI is set up automatically to archive sections after 72 hours of inactivity (“ Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III.” ). However, User:HistoryofIran had been systematically WP:GAMING the ANI system by repeatedly setting up huge DNAU (“Do Not Archive Until”) code for my case at ANI, spreading over a period of 1.5 months (the case started on April 1 2024):
- DNAU extension 10 days (4 April-14 April
- DNAU extension 12 days (14 April-26 April)
- DNAU extension ? days (14 April-? April) with edit “01:05, 14 April 2024 diff hist Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents Not sure when or why this was removed?” (post deleted and crossed out by an Admin)
- Called out for abusing DNAUs 18 April
- DNAU extension 8 days (1 May-8 May)
- Advocacy of DNAUs as a decisive tool to get people blocked (total gaming of ANI rules) 2 May “I can name you countless threads which have led to the block of someone thanks to a DNAU” !!!
This resulted in my case remaining active for more than 1.5 months, including several weeks at the top, although there were very few new comments from other users, in contravention of the normal ANI rule that a case without comments for 72 hours should naturally elapse. This seems to be a regular tactic used on numerous other target users by User:HistoryofIran: (20 days (10 April-30 April))
The effect is to give undue and huge visibility to cases which barely arouse the interest of other contributors and Admins at ANI, in the hope to glean from the huge traffic of that page a few comments (1-2 comments a week) that will give the illusion of a large, important, serious case. In effect, according to normal practices, my case would have lapsed at least 5 times, due to its essentially unremarkable character. This way, cases are drawn out nearly indefinitely, contrary to ANI rules, giving extra visibility to a case which does not raise major concern or traffic, until an unsuspecting Admin finally closes as a “community consensus” a case of a few complaints artificially drawn out in the space of 1.5 months ). This WP:GAMING behavior has been vigorously criticized by other users, especially User talk:AirshipJungleman29“It is not your responsibility of clerck this page on behalf of the administrators by altering this intended feature of how ANI functions but remained without consequences.
Still gaming/ other WP:GAMING technique: “Bumping so it doesn’t get archived” . Disingenuous….
User:HistoryofIran: WP:HOAX
I have long suspected that the refusal to describe the Sultanate of Rum as a “Turkic state”, despite all the sources in support , amounts to a WP:HOAX and a perversion of historical facts and academic sources, apparently with the intention of artificially inflating the importance Persian cultural influences, to the detriment of Turkic political reality (WP:POV).
The primary description of the Sultanate of Rum as a Turkic state is supported to a huge extent by all major reliable sources (Concrete examples, Hit rates) Conversely, virtually no historian seems to support a description of the Sultanate of Rum as an Iranian/ Persian state, or even a Turco-Persian state (only 1 hit in all available Google Books/ Google Scolar sources). Of course, within the context of this Turkic polity, there was also extensive Persian influence, and we can describe an extensive Turco-Persian culture, or a Persianate culture. But claiming that the mention a “Turco-Persian culture” dispenses from mentioning that the Sultanate was a “Turkic state” is also an intellectual fallacy, an illogical pretext to reject the mention of the expression “Turkic state”. Besides the fact that “culture” is not equivalent with “political entity”, multiple example show that “Turco-Persian culture” is not coincidental with “Turkic state”.
On the attempt to systematically use “Persianate” as a primary descriptive of Central Asian states see .
An example: fake sourcing for “Persianate” in the Jalayirid Sultanate article
User:HistoryofIran systematically adds “Persianate” as a primary qualifier for most Central Asian dynasties. A clear example is how he added "Persianate" to the descriptive of the Jalayirid Sultanate ("The Jalairids were a Persianate Mongol Jalayir dynasty” ), based on a single source which only explains that the Jalariyids strongly ‘’’influenced’’’ Persian art: actual quote: “considering the historical legacy of the Jalayirids without touching on their role as artistic patrons would be to ignore a central aspect of their contribution to the cultural history of Persianate society.”
So… to contribute to Persianate society….. makes one a “Persianate dynasty”??? Highly misleading bordering on WP:HOAX, just for the sake of overemphasizing “Persianate” in all articles related to the Middle East and Central Asia. Being “a Persianate dynasty”, is not at all the same things as “being an important contributor to Persian culture”. I corrected to “The Jalayirids were great contributors to Persianate culture…”, but this “Persianate dynasty” hoax remained on Wikipedia for several years. Clearly not driven by sources, but driven by an agenda.
Misleading with “Persianate” Aq Qoyunlu claim
The Aq Qoyunlu are presented as "a culturally Persianate,[17][18] Sunni[10] Turkoman[19][20] tribal confederation" whereas the source specifically explains that the dynasty became progressively more Persianate as it invaded Iran: “With the conquest of Iran, not only did the Āq Qoyunlū center of power shift eastward, but Iranian influences were soon brought to bear on their method of government and their culture.” It would be better to reformulate this sourced statement rather than slap "culturally Persianate" or "Persianate" on all such pages.
User:HistoryofIran: False accusations of rule breaking
User:HistoryofIran systematically accuses perceived opponents of rule breaking, even when untrue, and refuses to discuss when confronted with the actual text of Wikipedia rules. Recently again, and quite representatively, User:HistoryofIran accused me: “you randomly added three citations, two with unnecessary quotes, as usual disregarding policies”. . I explained to him on his Talk Page that footnotes with relevant quotation from the source are actually encouraged by Wikipedia, as they improve verifiability, directly quoting WP:ANNOTATION: "A footnote may also contain a relevant quotation from the source. This is especially helpful when the cited text is long or dense. A quotation allows readers to immediately identify the applicable portion of the reference. Quotes are also useful if the source is not easily accessible." .
He nevertheless disregarded the explanations and deleted my post , taking again the opportunity to accuse me groundlessly: "I'm not going to waste time telling you about policies, only for you to continue violating them" . Hmmm....
Conclusion
User:HistoryofIran is a POV-warrior with an agenda to promote Iranian greatness at the expense of other cultures. He misuses sources (WP:HOAX), and systematically attacks perceived opponents with mountains of pseudo "proofs" and false accusations. He systematically WP:GAMES the ANI system in order to gain an advantage through DNAU manipulations. I'm OK with content disputes, and arguing differences of point of view is actually a good part of Wikipedia, but please do something to stop this user from harassing users who do not necessarily share his opinions. Thank you पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 19:36, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
- And there was the WP:ASPERSIONS I was waiting for. You did the exact same towards an Armenian user in the previous ANI thread, which you got strongly criticized for and even doubled down on ("Does Pataliputra's personal attack ("hurt some Armenian sensitivities") merit a sanction on its own?" / "It definitely reads like a personal attack and I encourage you to retract that comment" / "Pataliputra replied about their casting WP:ASPERSIONS personal attack with casting aspersions yet again"). Seems you are the only one who saw it as "curt language" and not an insult. Attempting to portray me as immature by bringing up me being a student (I'm a physio student) and me being a "pan-Iranian WP:POV-warrior" (perhaps you want to look up the meaning of Pan-Iranian) due to my username is ironically pretty immature in itself, as well as desperate. And as also expected, you are denying responsibility of the disruptive edits you have done, exact same you did last time.
- As for the Aq Qoyunlu diff (which is from 2017), I agree it could have been done better, that was my mistake. The Jalayirid diff (which is from 2020) about the Jalayirid source seems valid enough, how do you form a central aspect of contribution to cultural history of Persianate society without being part of it..? Though I'm open to being wrong. And as you are already aware, when I suggested the start of the lede of Sultanate of Rum be devoid of culture and ethnicity (as seen in the article I recently overhauled and which I also mentioned, Khanate of Kokand, where I could easily add Persianate, but chose not to), I was proposing it to be the same in other articles as well , though that would not be practical for you to mention. And this proposal, which ended up being WP:CONSENSUS, was violated by you as seen up above.
- I'm not going to address your WP:REHASH about the Sultanate of Rum discussion, fact of the matter is you violated WP:SYNTH/WP:OR and went against WP:CONSENSUS.
- If you had not been disruptive, you would not have gotten topic banned, DNAU or not. The thread was massive, which makes it less likely for others to read, and thus higher chance for it to auto archive, which you were relying on in order to avoid consequences of your massive disruption. Everyone ultimately agreed that you had done some sort of disruption in the topic ban proposal , you also omitted that bit. Also, this report is ultimately about you, are you going to address the many diffs of you? HistoryofIran (talk) 20:14, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
- QEDK's wording is unclear, but to me it looks like Pataliputra's restriction on image-adding was meant to be permanent. In any case, I'm increasingly convinced that Central Asian ethnicities, especially relating to the "Turkic" dispute, should fall under some form of community-designated general sanctions. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:34, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
- @पाटलिपुत्र: I don't have any dog in this fight and I don't know enough about the topic area to comment on the merits of either side's case, but mentioning HistoryofIran's status as a student to discredit him is a grossly unacceptable personal attack and you should retract it. Civility is one of the core tenets of the project. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:31, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
In summary, exactly like last ANI report, Pataliputra throws WP:ASPERSIONS, takes zero responsibility, hoping this huge report to eventually auto-archive so that they can get away with it. This time while omitting details their previous report that led to their ban, all while indicating that they're the more mature user. I know this thread is long, but I would highly appreciate more input. --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:10, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
Follow up
I have put the diffs into a collapsible box, should hopefully make it more reader friendly. I know this is very long, but there was unfortunately no better way of presenting it. Would appreciate an admin looking into this. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:40, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
Topic ban proposal
Noting the general agreement over the behavioral issues of पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra), and the earlier ANI where most users supported a topic ban, I am proposing an indefinite topic ban for पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) from Central Asian, Iranic, Turkic, Armenian, and Caucasus articles. Zalaraz (talk) 10:04, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
- Support as proposer. Zalaraz (talk) 10:04, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
- Support for indefinite topic ban. Clearly the previous one-year topic ban was insufficient to produce a change in the editor's approach. The resumption of mass removals and the rejection of consensus-building on talk pages indicate a fundamental issue of WP:Idht. When an editor treats a topic ban as a mere 'waiting period' rather than an opportunity for reflection, the community must prioritise the stability of the encyclopaedia. LeónGonsalvesofGoa (talk) 15:40, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
DeleteSupport - Necessary now because the past temporary topic ban failed to work. NavjotSR (talk) 16:26, 5 April 2026 (UTC)- Delete? Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 16:33, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
- Support now that there's a proposal to weigh in on. Hellbus (talk) 20:45, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
- Support I was particularly surprised by the personal attack against HOI, it was rather condescending and not at all acceptable. Someone else being a student doesn't ameliorate your own behaviour, and students are allowed to have hobbies and other pasttimes - I'm a little shocked that I have to say that to anyone. Regardless, a timed TBAN didn't work so we're left with this option (I'm not a fan of timed bans for this reason, there's little incentive to change behaviour & it often resumes once the ban/block expires). Blue Sonnet (talk) 15:34, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
- Support Bunker mentality; whataboutism; no insight into their own problematic behavior; casual aspersions; prior block for similar reasons; continued wikilawyering. We're way beyond a preponderance of the evidence. Hiobazard (talk/contribs) 16:31, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
Randi ki Aulaad Ravensfire
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.
Randi ki Aulaad Ravensfire (talk · contribs) isn't very happy with me, probably because they're the next account from simple:Special:Contributions/Suhana_Khan_Actress on simple that's an extremely obvious Alakmarsaify sock and going on a bit of a temper tantrum. Would an admin mind blocking them for the personal attack in the user name? Thank you. Ravensfire (talk) 19:23, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
- @Ravensfire I have blocked the user because it seems they are only using this account for harassment. Please let me know if anything else is needed. – Epicgenius (talk) 19:30, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
Reporting User:Sachinkumarsm for personal attacks
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.
Sachinkumarsm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Apparently reverting changes against WP:COMMONNAME policy is being 'biased' . And when I clarified again about the policy and informed them of possible WP:CIVIL and WP:PERSONALATTACKS (), they resorted to derogatory remarks and outright racism against me / people from northern parts of India, calling them 'BIMARU', 'Illegal immigrants', 'Pakistani', 'Bangladeshi', etc ( ). I see a case of WP:NOTHERE. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 19:42, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
Blocked 31 hours for personal attacks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:02, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
- Sorry to necro, but there's a further PA on their Talk page, where they've unfortunately doubled-down on attacking Fylindfotberserk: Blue Sonnet (talk) 03:44, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
- Necro? So you're one of us too, eh? Welcome! We meet under the full moon at the old cemetery at midnight. EEng 15:00, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
- Hehe, you have no idea - one of my colleagues calls me "Pod" ("Princess of Darkness") because I burn from standing too close to a 50watt lightbulb... Blue Sonnet (talk) 18:39, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
- Necro? So you're one of us too, eh? Welcome! We meet under the full moon at the old cemetery at midnight. EEng 15:00, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
- And the OP started joining in with the PAs, so he got the same block length. If anyone wants to increase the original block, be my guest. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:20, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
- I've revoked TPA from Sachinkumarsm for blatantly inappropriate use of their talk page while blocked. The block is still set to expire tomorrow, but both are on the line for a longer block if the disruption resumes.To OP, I expected much better from someone with your experience than
Have some basic reasoning skills before commenting
,There is a reason why we are at the top, much above Karnataka
orNo wonder non-Kannadiga immigrants are taking high end jobs in Karnataka.
Regarding the latter two, attacking someone for their state/ethnic origin is absolutely unacceptable. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 13:28, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
- I've revoked TPA from Sachinkumarsm for blatantly inappropriate use of their talk page while blocked. The block is still set to expire tomorrow, but both are on the line for a longer block if the disruption resumes.To OP, I expected much better from someone with your experience than
- Has someone told @Blue-Sonnet and @CoffeeCrumbs they're doing god's work? Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 13:24, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
- I don't know if the blocked editor would agree, but I'll keep going as long as it's helpful & reduces the admins workload in any way - it seems CC & I make a good team too 😁 Blue Sonnet (talk) 13:30, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
- At least when we're unsuccessful, we can commiserate with each other! CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:07, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
- Sadly, it seems that talking even 10% of blocked editors off the wall would be a gross overestimation of the success rate! CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:06, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
- I don't know if the blocked editor would agree, but I'll keep going as long as it's helpful & reduces the admins workload in any way - it seems CC & I make a good team too 😁 Blue Sonnet (talk) 13:30, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
Vindictive RfC titles
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.
At WP:CRIC, we have just been informed that a discussion has begun about an RfC called User:BilledMammal/Lugstubs3 (Olympian stubs), and that it will be followed by User:BilledMammal/Lugstubs4 (cricketer stubs). I have no objection to a discussion about whether mass-created stubs should be redirected to a team/club list. In fact, I support the idea.
What I do object to is the way that Lugnuts is still being pilloried by BilledMammal's RfC titles. There's another one which names me, but I'm here to defend myself if I want to (I don't). Lugnuts is not here, and he should be treated with respect. Whatever Lugnuts may have done that was "wrong", he was a good writer of sports and film articles who got his facts right. What is more, when he joined Wikipedia, the emphasis was on quantity, not quality, and creation of stubs was viewed favourably, because we were creating articles that were placeholders for development. Okay, it did get out of hand, and the goalposts shifted.
All of BilledMammal's RfC titles need to be renamed. This Lugstubs3 thing should be called something like User:BilledMammal/Olympicstubs# and the forthcoming Lugstubs4 should be User:BilledMammal/Cricketstubs#. These alternatives are descriptive of the RfC scope, which means they are both relevant and respectful. Something BilledMammal should have considered as an alternative to being vindictive. Jack (talk) 20:19, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
- Have you tried talking with BilledMammal before coming here? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:31, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
User:Danield2727 being reported over 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.
- Danield2727 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Examples of pages vandalized or given unconstructive edits: , , ,
Comments: I believe this might be a kid who is editing on Wikipedia, and may not understand any of the form of policies and guidelines on Wikipedia, however this user has been warned by me, BrandNewSaint and Gatemansgc regarding unconstructive edits, and has so far ignored every warning. All of their edits have been reverted for the same issue. Unsourced, and poorly written, unconstructive editing.
Recommending a temporary block, or at least some form of limit to editing. Accounts first edits were only done beginning yesterday. JLN2026 (talk) 18:46, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
- I feel as though a report to AIV would have been quicker but still, seems like this is user is NOT HERE. -BrandNewSaint (talk) 18:50, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
- @BrandNewSaint I'm still fairly new on when it comes to having to report other users. Am I able to make a notice to both boards? Or would I have to strike one out, to repost on the AIV? JLN2026 (talk) 18:54, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
- I think it is better to stick to one board and the decision it comes to, otherwise it can be seen as forum shopping for the answer you wanna hear. Another thing to mention though, is that the user hadn't reached the final warning stage (right now we're at level 2 because a previous warning wasn't formatted for April, could be at 3). BrandNewSaint (talk) 18:57, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
- @BrandNewSaint I'm still fairly new on when it comes to having to report other users. Am I able to make a notice to both boards? Or would I have to strike one out, to repost on the AIV? JLN2026 (talk) 18:54, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
Use of Talk:Saturday Night Live UK as a chatroom by ~2026-21196-49
~2026-21196-49 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Is attempting to use Talk:Saturday Night Live UK as chat room. They seem to believe that those removing their chat are the problem. Discussions on the anon's talk page are not resolving it.
- 05:20, 7 April 2026
- 04:16, 7 April 2026
- 23:58, 6 April 2026
- 16:21, 6 April 2026
- 07:02, 6 April 2026
- 01:25, 6 April 2026
- Also left a message on Dmartin969 (talk · contribs)'s talk page which is a bit of a personal attack. 05:10, 7 April 2026
BTW: Posted here per this instruction. Can someone please make wp:NOTFORUM clear to the anon? Thank you Adakiko (talk) 07:58, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
- I've gone into their user talk and started a conversation. I suspect this is just a very inexperienced editor who doesn't understand the difference between discussing the show itself vs. discussing the article about the show. I've asked them to please discuss with me there at their user talk before starting up again, ping me if they start in at article talk again. Valereee (talk) 11:19, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks, Valereee. While the first two reverts () made sense, I think the subsequent reverts may have been a bit heavy-handed. They did make an effort to discuss article content ("let me stress that my intent is to get someone to CORRECT these issues in the article!"). A better, de-escalatory response would have been to explain our policy against original research and ask for reliable sources discussing the topics they raise, which Valereee has now done on their talk page. Toadspike [Talk] 16:24, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
- Yeah this seems... pretty clearly not a NOTFORUM issue? If they're explicitly talking about changing the article, it might be a poor suggestion but it isn't NOTFORUM. (Plus, they came back; most people who just want to complain about a TV show don't because they think they sent their email to the showrunners or whatever.) Gnomingstuff (talk) 02:03, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
- I think regardless of their original intention their conduct is not appropriate. They've left responses verging on persona attacks, and don't seem interested in listening. The templates left on their talk pages contain links to appropriate policies and places to ask questions, but rather then doing that they left increasingly aggressive/ride messages and continued their behaviour. –DMartin (talk) 18:16, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
- It looks like they've decided they don't want to pursue this matter further.
- Since they're clearly not interested in editing Wikipedia, hopefully this is the end of it and this report can be closed? Blue Sonnet (talk) 21:11, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
- I'm always hoping to find we can pull someone in who seems basically well-intentioned but is confused about what we're doing here. Valereee (talk) 21:42, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks, Valereee. While the first two reverts () made sense, I think the subsequent reverts may have been a bit heavy-handed. They did make an effort to discuss article content ("let me stress that my intent is to get someone to CORRECT these issues in the article!"). A better, de-escalatory response would have been to explain our policy against original research and ask for reliable sources discussing the topics they raise, which Valereee has now done on their talk page. Toadspike [Talk] 16:24, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
Poor edits and total lack of response from Kyleinu20007
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.
Kyleinu20007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Since User:Kyleinu20007 started in November last year, almost every edit has been either pointless or detrimental (though they aren't an obvious vandal, as the occasional edit is good). They appear to be building up an edit count with make-work stylistic edits such as changing the heading of novel articles from "Plot" to "Plot summary" or "Synopsis", fiddling around with short descriptions Special:Diff/1336237041, and changing written-out numbers to figures Special:Diff/1347365272. Where such edits are undone, with explanation, the editor frequently re-reverts without comment Special:Diff/1325518468, Special:Diff/1329201404, Special:Diff/1329217286. There are also multiple recent examples of unsourced added material, eg Special:Diff/1346225514.
Their talk page is full of warnings, including an admin warning, but there has been no response whatsoever to anything. You might think that they have never found their talk page, but they do understand edit summaries and use them to edit war, Special:Diff/1335844191, Special:Diff/1335844534. Given the lack of useful contributions and the complete absence of interaction, I would like to see this editor blocked to force them to discuss these issues on their talk page. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:28, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
- I will add here that the reported user has never edited a Talk page or User talk page. It is possible they are completely unaware of these pages. -- Reconrabbit 18:39, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
Lazarbeem, endless WP:SYNTH and WP:TENDENTIOUS editing across contentious topics
Lazarbeem (talk · contribs) Has been warned numerous times particularly about their issues with sourcing, including in contentious areas like WP:RUSUKR/WP:CT/EE and WP:BLP, these issues have been persisting for at this point for over a year, despite some apparent efforts to improve them, particularly Lazarbeem seems to be unable to stick to these policies when it comes to Ukraine related articles, where they are very active in covering deaths related to Ukraine's military and various controversies surrounding it. They also have a history of introducing WP:UNDUE content that usually reflects this type of content that they are interested in. I will provide diffs below that demonstrates how this has looked over time.
In September 2025, makes two (1) (2) on International Legion (Ukraine), one of them adding inappropriate content to an ″Extremism″ section, and the other adding a WP:BLP violation indicating that a member who is not firmly established as such in the source as a criminal, in both instances coming to their own WP:SYNTH conclusions and labels.
October, gets into a lengthy dispute on Antifa (United States) after adding a far-left political label to the lead and infobox of the article adding terrorist designations to the infobox of the article, where after arguing with multiple editors upon being reverted, they eventually agree to stop after Slatersteven tells them they are WP:BLUDGEONING.
November, adds ″British volunteer″ to describe author of source on Pokrovsk offensive describing the Russian propaganda value of the campaign, a dismissive description that is once again WP:SYNTH. Also makes this edit on Russian Volunteer Corps, claiming in the infobox that the corps is ″allied″ with ″Active Clubs″, which is not a single organization in the first place.
January 2026, adds WP:CRYSTALBALL category to International Legion (Ukraine), saying the unit was disbanded on 31 December, citing a reference published on 9 December. Later the same month, adds blatant WP:SYNTH to Foreign fighters in the Russo-Ukrainian war, citing a source for Serbian participants to volunteers from Sweden and Turkey, neither country being mentioned anywhere in the source. What stuck out a bit here is that when they were again warned on their talk page, they did not even bother attempting to explain themselves or act bewildered as was the usual response to prior warnings.
February, they return to Antifa (United States), where they add terrorist designations to the infobox of the article, is again reverted and is asked by Simonm223 to stop edit warring on the page, their WP:POV is also pointed out here.
March 2026, is blocked by ToBeFree from 2026 Iran conflict for two weeks due to edit warring on the page after repeatedly inserting a claim by the Iranian regime of 560 killed or wounded American personnel into the infobox. Adds WP:UNDUE and outdated content about ″Ukrainian misinformation campaign″, ″Western media″ and Ukraine being ″quieter″ about military fatalities than Russia to the main article for the war Russo-Ukrainian war (2022–present), the content already being present on Casualties of the Russo-Ukrainian war which by their ″copyedit″ summary they were evidently aware of.
And the two most recent events I will include here are also from March, and concern Lazarbeem changing Andalusi cities being ″conquered″ into being ″liberated″ on Al-Andalus, quite the 180 in description there which was reverted as a ″frivolous POV″ edit by R Prazeres. In the second they again altered content based on WP:SYNTH, removing the mentioned hundreds of accounts of Russian military personnel executing their own soldiers, and replacing it with specifically the amount of identified servicemen, which they still managed to nonetheless reduce by 1.
I believe that at this point Lazarbeem has showcased that their disruption (across as demonstrated, several different CT's) is chronic, there has been no lack of other editors pointing out their mistakes to them nor chances to improve, and given that their disruptive editing more often than not happens to occur in these particularly sensitive topics, I'm not sure what the solution could be other than an indefinite block or at least some very tight editing restrictions. --TylerBurden (talk) 19:02, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
- I've run into this editor a few times lately and it hasn't been the most pleasant experience. I've little to contribute that @TylerBurden hasn't already said but I would point out this interaction: User_talk:Ecrusized#Canada_and_the_Iran_War where, after being blocked from the Iran page, they tried to persuade another editor to insert edits on their behalf claiming the sources confirmed that Canada had been
attacked by Iran
when, in fact, the sources provided suggested no Canadian soldiers had, at that time, been injured or targeted. Simonm223 (talk) 19:18, 1 April 2026 (UTC)- I can explain the Iran war thing. Basically CBC News reported that Canadian military personnel may have been involved in the opening strikes on Iran and that Canadian soldiers were present in Qatar and Bahrain at the time of the strikes on those nations. (Did Canadian exchange officers participate in U.S. Iran strike planning? DND says no, but questions linger | CBC News). Also, Canada's defense minister confirmed on 3 March 2026 that Canada had suffered no casualties (Canadian troops in Middle East ‘are all fine’ amid Iran war, McGuinty says - National | Globalnews.ca). Lazarbeem (talk) 01:07, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
- If I need to (or am allowed to) say anything else please let me know Lazarbeem (talk) 01:11, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
- Lazarbeem, allowed definitely. I think in most cases, WP:GAB is a pretty good guide for responding to concerns raised by others at ANI about one's behavior. If you carefully and truly manage to follow the advice from the guide for appealing blocks, that may be beneficial; any of the behaviors described as negative in that guide are also negative here. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:24, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
- I guess I should just wait for a reply for now Lazarbeem (talk) 01:29, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
- So the reason I brought up that interaction was because of two behavioural issues. I'm highlighting this so you can see the locus of concern.
- Representing a statement saying that
Canadian troops in Middle East 'are all fine'
as a source supporting that Canada was attacked by Iran is misrepresenting a source. Perhaps you didn't intend to misrepresent the source but, frankly, it's actually evidence to the contrary - that Canada had not been attacked by Iran. - You went to the page of another editor to ask them to make an edit on your behalf to a page from which you were blocked from editing. That's a thing you should not do. Simonm223 (talk) 14:20, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
- For number 1: But what about the CBC source which said that Canadians were present at sites attacked by Iran?
- And for number 2: I did not know that and I apologize. I only asked because Canada's position on the Iran war has been very confusing, which is actually why I created the article: Canada and the 2026 Iran war (somebody renamed it to Canada in the 2026 Iran war) Lazarbeem (talk) 14:31, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
- The presence of Canadians in Qatar and Bahrain is not evidence Iran attacked Canada. All the article says is that there were "up to" 18 Canadian servicemembers involved in a CENTCOM exchange program who were in the countries at the time of the attack. The article also notes the Government denied any Canadian servicemembers were involved in attacking Iran and then the second article you shared indicated no Canadians were injured in Iranian strikes. All your sources demonstrate is that it would have been physically possible for Iran to have accidentally injured a Canadian while attacking Americans. But that hypothetical did not come to pass. If you are going to participate in CTOPs going forward then it's really critical you read a source carefully before trying to use it to support an extraordinary claim like adding Canada to an infobox as having been attacked in a war. Simonm223 (talk) 14:38, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
- Representing a statement saying that
- So the reason I brought up that interaction was because of two behavioural issues. I'm highlighting this so you can see the locus of concern.
- I guess I should just wait for a reply for now Lazarbeem (talk) 01:29, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
- Lazarbeem, allowed definitely. I think in most cases, WP:GAB is a pretty good guide for responding to concerns raised by others at ANI about one's behavior. If you carefully and truly manage to follow the advice from the guide for appealing blocks, that may be beneficial; any of the behaviors described as negative in that guide are also negative here. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:24, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
- If I need to (or am allowed to) say anything else please let me know Lazarbeem (talk) 01:11, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
- I can explain the Iran war thing. Basically CBC News reported that Canadian military personnel may have been involved in the opening strikes on Iran and that Canadian soldiers were present in Qatar and Bahrain at the time of the strikes on those nations. (Did Canadian exchange officers participate in U.S. Iran strike planning? DND says no, but questions linger | CBC News). Also, Canada's defense minister confirmed on 3 March 2026 that Canada had suffered no casualties (Canadian troops in Middle East ‘are all fine’ amid Iran war, McGuinty says - National | Globalnews.ca). Lazarbeem (talk) 01:07, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
- Well, as I have been named, I will reposnd: yes, I had to warn them, but they also agreed to stop (and did so). Slatersteven (talk) 10:22, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
- They also went on to disrupt other articles, so feel free to add your input if you feel it is relevant to what happened there. TylerBurden (talk) 18:26, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
- I can only comment on my interactions with them, and that was it took a lot of work but they eventually stopped. Slatersteven (talk) 13:59, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
- They also went on to disrupt other articles, so feel free to add your input if you feel it is relevant to what happened there. TylerBurden (talk) 18:26, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
- Multiple editors were and are still edit warring on 2026 Iran conflict. I don't know about the rest. Overall it seems like someone who is involved in multiple contentious topics. Guz13 (talk) 18:47, 4 April 2026 (UTC)
- It's normal to be involved in multiple contentious topics, the problem are the described policy violations across them. TylerBurden (talk) 12:52, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
Proposal: Warning
While I do somewhat agree with Tyler Burden that Lazarbeem's comportment had not been optimal I do think, per Slatersteven, that they are prepared to listen and learn. Certainly they should avoid trying to circumvent blocks (and avoid the sorts of action that cause blocks) and Certainly I hope they are listening regarding being far more careful regarding use of sources in CTOPs. But I don't really, personally, see ongoing disruption after this thread. Suggest they be given a warning to improve and then we close this out. Simonm223 (talk) 14:44, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
- Support as proposer. Simonm223 (talk) 14:44, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
- Support a warning. Guz13 (talk) 00:32, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
- Support support as at least some kind of formal action taken, talk page warnings have not worked, which is why after over a year I proceeded here, because despite the politeness and apparent willingness to improve, we run into the same issues eventually again and again. Hopefully a logged formal warning can do the trick then. --TylerBurden (talk) 15:46, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
POV pushing and whitewashing by Patriotparty1776
Patriotparty1776 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
This user, who previously has a block for edit warring, is edit warring and POV-pushing on various communist articles. They have mass removed the word "concentration" from "concentration camp" in a variety of Gulag articles, often deleting sources or even removing the word when "concentration camp" is in the title of the article. (A small selection of examples, though there are many more: ) Other edits have involved whitewashing certain regimes. Most recently they have taken to edit warring on On the Juche Idea. They have reverted multiple editors on this (albeit some a few weeks ago), all to deleted well-sourced information and replace it with obviously unreliable WP:PRIMARY sources.
I have attempted several times to communicate with this user on their talk page, but they consistently blank it. They rarely use edit summaries to explain their edits (only ever doing so when other users request they explain their edits), and do not use article talk pages to justify their edits.
They are clearly here to push a pro-tankie POV and I do not believe they are here to build an encyclopedia. — Czello (music) 08:35, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
- hello, I'm just coming in to thank Czello for this Incident notice. Some of the pages targeted by Patriotparty1776's vandalism happened to be on my watchlist, and I've begun to see a pattern of disruption. As I looked into the user's latest contributions, I was astonished to witness a very deliberate and systematic attitude of POV-pushing and disruption, for quite a lot of pages. I was going to come to this page and alert admins to this concerning behaviour. I'm glad Czello has taken the time to deal with these edits, one by one, including by patiently writing on PP1776's talk page (edits that the user has systematically blanked, e.g. here). Such users harm the reputation of Wikipedia. best, -- Womtelo (talk) 09:05, 8 April 2026 (UTC).
- I've blocked the account for 72 hours. BusterD (talk) 09:23, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
- Thank you. If you or anyone else could revert to the stable version of On the Juche Idea that'd be great, given that they have inserted unambiguously unreliable sources while deleting academic sources. — Czello (music) 09:29, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
- Reverted. Lavalizard101 (talk) 11:00, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
- Thank you. If you or anyone else could revert to the stable version of On the Juche Idea that'd be great, given that they have inserted unambiguously unreliable sources while deleting academic sources. — Czello (music) 09:29, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
- I've blocked the account for 72 hours. BusterD (talk) 09:23, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
Other edits have involved whitewashing
— side note: the statement you linked in your first diff is completely unreferenced. One would be justified in removing it entirely, even without accusations of whitewashing, as long as the paragraph is unsourced. (Also note: I'm not saying that the whitewashing didn't happen in this case, I'm just pointing out the lack of a reference.) Nakonana (talk) 16:17, 8 April 2026 (UTC)- I would concur that the "whitewashing" of Slánský trial consisted of removing from wiki-voice in the lead what is sourced to the opinion of a single historian. It's not unsourced (sources do not have to be in the lead) but a single historian's opinion regarding guilt or innocence is an awfully weak standard to make an assertion in wikivoice. Likewise this edit is compliant with WP:NPOV by removing the WP:WEASEL word "notorious". Edit warring over whether to call gulags concentration camps is awfully silly. As always Wikipedia should follow reliable sources in naming and, as such, BusterD's block was appropriate. But I think certain editors of articles about Soviet history have a tendency to mistake attempts toward improved neutrality as being a "POV push". Simonm223 (talk) 16:31, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
- Ah, I didn't notice that the statement was in the lead. But a single historian's opinion stated in wiki voice is definitely also off as you say. From just skimming through the article, it looks like three people were rehabilitated, but the lead states that all 14 were innocent, if I'm getting that right?
- And the other diff was also problematic as pointed here and as I have noted on the article's talk page (because the article is missing about two centuries in the history section and is just about the Gulag but not about the human settlement). Nakonana (talk) 16:44, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
- I will say that the description of the edits to On the Juche Idea was 100% on-point and after Patriotparty1776's block expires they should absolutely avoid such comportment going forward. Just... let's remember that even a broken clock is right twice a day. Simonm223 (talk) 16:47, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
- I would concur that the "whitewashing" of Slánský trial consisted of removing from wiki-voice in the lead what is sourced to the opinion of a single historian. It's not unsourced (sources do not have to be in the lead) but a single historian's opinion regarding guilt or innocence is an awfully weak standard to make an assertion in wikivoice. Likewise this edit is compliant with WP:NPOV by removing the WP:WEASEL word "notorious". Edit warring over whether to call gulags concentration camps is awfully silly. As always Wikipedia should follow reliable sources in naming and, as such, BusterD's block was appropriate. But I think certain editors of articles about Soviet history have a tendency to mistake attempts toward improved neutrality as being a "POV push". Simonm223 (talk) 16:31, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
User:Wamalotpark – Edit warring, tendentious editing, wikistalking
User:Wamalotpark has a long history of tendentious editing with regards to MOS:GEOLINK and other areas of the MOS. See his talk page history, which he has blanked after every posting, warning, complaint, discussion, etc. My first interaction with Wamalotpark involved him changing the style of (for example) [[Stockholm, Sweden]] to [[Stockholm]], Sweden on a number of articles I have written, citing MOS:GEOLINK. If Sweden (in this case) were actually being linked, then he would have a point, but as [[Stockholm, Sweden]] and [[Stockholm]], Sweden actually go to the place (Stockholm), MOS:GEOLINK does not apply here. He has at this point reverted some of these articles three times, ignoring WP:BRD. Finally, he has clearly engaged in wikistalking, as he has gone through my edit history and targeted dozens of articles, which have been promoted as Featured Articles or Featured Lists. If this deliberate stylistic choice were truly contrary to any aspect of the MOS, surely the folks at FA or FL would have raised an objection. I have promoted dozens of articles using this format and have never had a complaint. Please advise Wamalotpark to put down the club and quit targeting me. Bgsu98 (Talk) 07:11, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
- You edit warred by consistently reverting my edits. I like to blank my page for aesthetic reasons which is allowed. Also, featured articles can be edited and do not mean they are perfect or any suggestions to edit them are unwarranted. "Surely they would have raised an objection" is just false.
- MOS:GEOLINK where it states
- Paris, France (
[[Paris]], France)
- Paris, France (
- [[Paris]], France is preferred as it links only under "Paris", there is no "France" in the article's title.
- Any major article uses the [[Paris]], France, style. The only exception I have seen are articles that you work on. It would be preferred to match other high quality articles, though I realize that is not the only factor.
- Not only that, it follows the manual of style more closely, allows readers to understand the links they are clicking easier (cities that are major vs smaller and need state/country disambiguation), and allows for linking of countries that do not exist anymore such as West Germany after say, Berlin, which is allowed. Wamalotpark (talk) 07:16, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
- I update articles following this MOS on thousands of pages and you are a very rare person to raise objection to this. If these cities I am updating had states/countries in their article titles, they would be left alone. There is nothing wrong with say Perris, California, or London, Ontario, but when it comes to something like London, then "London, England" would be preferred as "England" is not in the article title. Wamalotpark (talk) 07:21, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
- Look at an extremely prominent and also featured article such as Elizabeth II's lead. It reads "in Mayfair, London," not "in Mayfair, London," because the Mayfair article does not have "London" in its title. Wamalotpark (talk) 07:25, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
- I update articles following this MOS on thousands of pages and you are a very rare person to raise objection to this. If these cities I am updating had states/countries in their article titles, they would be left alone. There is nothing wrong with say Perris, California, or London, Ontario, but when it comes to something like London, then "London, England" would be preferred as "England" is not in the article title. Wamalotpark (talk) 07:21, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
You were bold, I reverted, and you responded by again reverting, instead of the preferred discussion. Again, WP:BRD applies to everyone, not everyone except you. Additionally, as has been stated repeatedly at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking, there is no provision against [[Stockholm, Sweden]] to [[Stockholm]], Sweden as long as the style is used consistently in the article, since, again, only Stockholm is being linked. Your "bull in a china shop" editing is most unappreciated. And no, I am clearly not the only editor who has a problem with your editing based on the slew of complaints you have in your talk page history. Bgsu98 (Talk) 07:35, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
- I've had maybe a few people over thousands of edits inquire about MOS:GEOLINK when it comes to this specific niche. Most have come to an understanding of the reasoning. Also, "The BOLD, revert, discuss cycle (BRD) is one of many optional strategies". I decided to discuss with you on your talk page after explaining my edits further in reversion summaries. Wamalotpark (talk) 08:21, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
- There is also no provision against "Stockholm, Sweden" so it is better to more closely follow the MOS:GEOLINK where it states
- Paris, France (
[[Paris]], France)
- Paris, France (
- Wamalotpark (talk) 08:26, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
- I don't follow MOS stuff so have no comment on the correctness of anything which is probably a good thing since this is ANI. But I will say while you're right that technically you're not required to follow BRD, where this falls through is you're not allowed to edit war. If you continue to edit war you're likely to be blocked and considering your history, you're working your way up to an indefinite block. You also should not be making mass changes if they're disputed or otherwise not clearly supported by wide consensus. Finally a strategy which involves you trying to discuss on user talk pages is a terrible one since no one is required to discuss content disputes on their talk pages. If you're not willing to discuss in appropriate places like the talk pages of the relevant pages or in other appropriate places (e.g. Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking for disputes of geographical linking in a wide set of articles) then you should refrain from making those edits. As an additional note, while you're entitled to clear your talk page, it's a little silly defend yourself as no one has a problem with your edits when it's clear from your talk history a lot of people have disputed various edits of yours. I don't know if anyone else has disputed these particular types of edits, I don't know how long you've been making them and how widespread. But it's a defense that falls flat with a talk history like yours. If you're going to continue to use such a defense I'd strongly suggest you set up talk page archiving so editors can at least more easily access what people have approached you about before. Nil Einne (talk) 10:36, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
- BTW this is not acceptable. If you are making changes to an article, which includes restoring an earlier version, then you are as responsible to start the discuss as anyone else. You cannot make changes but expect someone else to initiate the discussion. Nil Einne (talk) 10:40, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
- Noted. I believe the topic is currently only disputed within the "figure skating" topics due to Bgsu98's claim of "deliberate stylistic choice that does not violate any wikipolicy", whereas outside of that topic they are not opposed or perhaps uninterested. I immediately edited my comment from "no one" to "very few" people have opposed any MOS:GEOLINK edits on this before anyone saw, as I realized I have had a few people question it in the past and that was wrong to claim, but with the ratio of opposers vs not being so small when looking at this MOS topic I have focused on for years I have had exceedingly rare mentions on anything I edit regarding it. I assume following MOS:GEOLINK, in combination with the fact that outside these figure skating topic articles, virtually all, for a lack of a better word, "high quality", perhaps "notable" articles follow the MOS:GEOLINK that I try to help with, it is acceptable. Generally, the links I edit are separate, like London,/ England, and removing England's link is clear cut. It is quite rare to have the links in the "deliberate stylistic choice" that Bgsu98 insists on within figure skating articles, but seeing how their article ownership history is being brought up by others now, I see why those specific articles have such an oddly different stylization now. I will let you and the other ANI experts determine what needs to be done. Overall I am here to improve Wikipedia, and think an RfC for this specific topic to introduce an "X" indicating avoid in MOS:GEOLINK to a link like "Stockholm, Sweden" or "Los Angeles, California", would be a way to improve it. Wamalotpark (talk) 01:23, 4 April 2026 (UTC)
- I don't follow MOS stuff so have no comment on the correctness of anything which is probably a good thing since this is ANI. But I will say while you're right that technically you're not required to follow BRD, where this falls through is you're not allowed to edit war. If you continue to edit war you're likely to be blocked and considering your history, you're working your way up to an indefinite block. You also should not be making mass changes if they're disputed or otherwise not clearly supported by wide consensus. Finally a strategy which involves you trying to discuss on user talk pages is a terrible one since no one is required to discuss content disputes on their talk pages. If you're not willing to discuss in appropriate places like the talk pages of the relevant pages or in other appropriate places (e.g. Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking for disputes of geographical linking in a wide set of articles) then you should refrain from making those edits. As an additional note, while you're entitled to clear your talk page, it's a little silly defend yourself as no one has a problem with your edits when it's clear from your talk history a lot of people have disputed various edits of yours. I don't know if anyone else has disputed these particular types of edits, I don't know how long you've been making them and how widespread. But it's a defense that falls flat with a talk history like yours. If you're going to continue to use such a defense I'd strongly suggest you set up talk page archiving so editors can at least more easily access what people have approached you about before. Nil Einne (talk) 10:36, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
- There is also no provision against "Stockholm, Sweden" so it is better to more closely follow the MOS:GEOLINK where it states
- Wamalotpark seems incorrect on the issues relevant to this noticeboard (the edit-warring and perhaps the wikihounding) but correct on the content merits: "Stockholm, Sweden" is a little clearer than "Stockholm, Sweden", especially as a non-US city for which the American "[City], [State]" designation is uncommon. There is in this case no reason to use the redirect instead of a link to the article title. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:42, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
- It is a deliberate stylistic choice that does not violate any wikipolicy, since (in this case) Sweden is not actually linked. None of the editors at FAC, FLC, or GAN have raised any complaint with the literally dozens of articles that have proceeded through any of those forums. Bgsu98 (Talk) 13:15, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
- Yes, I read your original comment. To repeat, your "deliberate stylistic choice that does not violate any wikipolicy" is less clear than Wamalotpark's alternative. To be clear, that does not excuse their tendency towards edit-warring. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:34, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
- It is a deliberate stylistic choice that does not violate any wikipolicy, since (in this case) Sweden is not actually linked. None of the editors at FAC, FLC, or GAN have raised any complaint with the literally dozens of articles that have proceeded through any of those forums. Bgsu98 (Talk) 13:15, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
- This seems like a content dispute that might be resolved by starting an RfC over at WT:MOSLINKS. I don't see why it had to escalate to ANI, there seems to be some disagreement over where to have a discussion (article talk, edit summaries, user talk...), but there was communication happening and a discussion was started on a user talk page that wasn't finished. (Non-administrator comment) ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 13:01, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
- The wikistalking is what escalated it. Bgsu98 (Talk) 13:20, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
- I get that. I personally don't see indications that the edits were intended to cause you distress per HOUNDING, they seem like good faith attempts to improve the articles by following the MOS as the editor understands it (and as reasonable editors might interpret it). Its also not clear to me that you're being "targeted" as it were, it seems like they've been on a gnoming streak editing pages per their interpretation of GEOLINK. You might disagree that the issue they're correcting is a problem, and I can see why its annoying to you given that you have a different understanding of the MOS, but I don't think it amounts to hounding behavior. ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 14:04, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
- I should add, the edit warring issue I do understand ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 14:06, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
- I get that. I personally don't see indications that the edits were intended to cause you distress per HOUNDING, they seem like good faith attempts to improve the articles by following the MOS as the editor understands it (and as reasonable editors might interpret it). Its also not clear to me that you're being "targeted" as it were, it seems like they've been on a gnoming streak editing pages per their interpretation of GEOLINK. You might disagree that the issue they're correcting is a problem, and I can see why its annoying to you given that you have a different understanding of the MOS, but I don't think it amounts to hounding behavior. ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 14:04, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
- The wikistalking is what escalated it. Bgsu98 (Talk) 13:20, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
There is also the issue that these are Featured Articles and Lists. "While featured articles ... are open for editing like any other, they have gone through a community review process as featured article candidates, where they are checked for high-quality sources, a thorough survey of the relevant literature, and compliance with the featured article criteria. Editors are asked to take particular care when editing a featured article; it is considerate to discuss significant changes of text or images on the talk page first." Bgsu98 (Talk) 13:44, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
- I hope you don't consider adjusting a link or two a "significant change of text" Bgsu98? You may not know that this is a popular subject at the minute, with another prolific FA contributor up at ArbCom for, allegedly, reverting edits with incivility on the grounds they need no improvement, having passed through the FA process. Looking at your contributions, I'd warn you to take care; in the past week only, you have:
- Reverted a good-faith attempt to add an image with the edit summary "just awful"
- Decreased the length of a section title with the edit summary "decreasing nonsense"
- Twice reverted good-faith (and as far as I can see, correct!) attempts to add a medal table at 2026 World Figure Skating Championships with the edit summaries "What in fuck's name is this nonsense???" and "inaccurate nonsense"
- Reverting a good-faith attempt to add future competitions with the supremely unhelpful edit summary "Nope"
- Against talk page guidelines, removing all evidence of a past GA nomination from the article's talk page, presumably because it was unsuccessful?
- As far as I can see, not one of these edits, again all from the past week only, have come with a single consensus-building talkpage post. For someone who, according to their talk page, is currently experiencing significant stress and wishing to work in areas less prone to conflict, you appear to be doing the opposite? I'd be careful if I were you, especially considering ToBeFree blocked you a month ago for pretty much the same issues. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:22, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
- Twice reverted good-faith (and as far as I can see, correct!) attempts to add a medal table at 2026 World Figure Skating Championships with the edit summaries "What in fuck's name is this nonsense???" and "inaccurate nonsense" There are 16 medals awarded at the World Championships; this user added a table that listed 69 medals, including ones awarded to figure skating powerhouses like Venezuela, Senegal, Trinidad and Tobago, Cuba, Greece, and Colombia. So, no, not in any way correct. Bgsu98 (Talk) 14:37, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
- I must have looked at the second link twice. Was that inaccurate nonsense too? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:52, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
- 24 medals awarded with the competition not yet over? Yes. Bgsu98 (Talk) 14:54, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
- It seems to agree perfectly well with the "Medal summary" section below, which having clearly stated "Medals are awarded to the skaters or teams who achieved the highest overall placements in each discipline." gives the 24 medals awarded with the competition not yet over? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:02, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
- AirshipJungleman29: Maybe you are right? All I know is I was sitting in the arena at Worlds, and the same editor again added a table that listed more medals than what are awarded while the competition was still going on. If what you say is true, then that edit was likely in good faith, and I apologize; but the first one was, IMO, disruptive editing.
- I'm going to address your other concerns because it wouldn't be fair for me to just argue against the one while ignoring the others.
- Point taken.
- Point taken.
- We just discussed that.
- That IP is a frequent guest who has been informed that we do not add upcoming years on the results tables until the event is near. This may have been his first edit to that article, but not his first edit of that type to the FS articles. I knew even before I clicked on the circle where it was going to geolink to.
- I honestly was not aware that that was not allowed? As you can see if you examine the GA, I agreed with the reviewer's choice to fail it.
- Look, I don't want to quarrel with you; I actually like and respect you. I have tried to make a concerted effort to not "show ownership" over articles except to insist that ones I have brought to FA, FL, or GA continue to maintain that standard. I am not so arrogant as to think that any of those articles can't be improved upon, and you are right. The matter of Stockholm, Sweden vs. Stockholm, Sweden is not at all significant, and is not a hill I'm willing to die on. What galled me was that Wamalotpark has a talk page history littered with complaints about just this sort of editing, there are multiple discussions occurring at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking about this while he continues to push through his edits as if there is only one acceptable style, and he escalated the matter by targeting in rapid succession numerous articles I had done: 2015 Trophée Éric Bompard, World Junior Figure Skating Championships, 2022 World Figure Skating Championships, Hungarian Figure Skating Championships, British Figure Skating Championships, U.S. Figure Skating Championships, Figure skating at the 2022 Winter Olympics – Team event, World Figure Skating Championships cumulative medal count, and lots more. Those edits are being made without community consensus (as evidenced by the pushback he has received), whereas these articles do have community consensus in the sense that the FAC and FLC communities have not once voiced any objection to this style in dozens of nominations. But, I am done arguing over this matter. I am leaving tomorrow to go to Cologne, and I have to finish getting ready. If you have any other concerns, please feel free to contact me. Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:48, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
- All I'm saying is be careful in the future, in edit summaries especially. There are many cases of prominent content contributors being removed from the project for incivility; I don't want to see another. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:14, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
- It seems to agree perfectly well with the "Medal summary" section below, which having clearly stated "Medals are awarded to the skaters or teams who achieved the highest overall placements in each discipline." gives the 24 medals awarded with the competition not yet over? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:02, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
- 24 medals awarded with the competition not yet over? Yes. Bgsu98 (Talk) 14:54, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
- I must have looked at the second link twice. Was that inaccurate nonsense too? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:52, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
- Twice reverted good-faith (and as far as I can see, correct!) attempts to add a medal table at 2026 World Figure Skating Championships with the edit summaries "What in fuck's name is this nonsense???" and "inaccurate nonsense" There are 16 medals awarded at the World Championships; this user added a table that listed 69 medals, including ones awarded to figure skating powerhouses like Venezuela, Senegal, Trinidad and Tobago, Cuba, Greece, and Colombia. So, no, not in any way correct. Bgsu98 (Talk) 14:37, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
- (Ping received, thanks! I'm currently not having a closer look; I'm sure others can deal with this if needed.) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:48, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
- Why not install(ing) Green Redirects that makes redirects green? That's it. —KuyaMoHirowo (talk • contribs) 00:57, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
- It appears Bgsu98 has received another WP:BOOMERANG. If this happens again I'm thinking they need a strict 1RR or 0RR instated, or even a topic ban from figure skating, as alluded to in my earlier complaint. ToBeFree's block resulted from my earlier complaint showing a similar long-term pattern of this sort of behavior.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:55, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
- @AirshipJungleman29: I do not wish for this conversation to end without discussing the long-term nature of this problem so it'd be nice if you commented how this goes with what you found. Jasper Deng (talk) 02:26, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
- What? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:01, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
- I wasn't sure whether you had seen the full extent of Bgsu98's problematic behavior. IMO, the time for warnings for that behavior is possibly past now. Jasper Deng (talk) 23:53, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
- Why? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 06:54, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
- They clearly didn't learn much from the block. Multiple editors are experiencing difficulty editing skating articles because of his incivility and WP:OWN behavior. I don't think your exchange with them above is materially changing things either. They're experienced and know better. So why are we allowing them to continue this behavior? Jasper Deng (talk) 19:38, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
- Why? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 06:54, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
- I wasn't sure whether you had seen the full extent of Bgsu98's problematic behavior. IMO, the time for warnings for that behavior is possibly past now. Jasper Deng (talk) 23:53, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
- What? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:01, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
- @AirshipJungleman29: I do not wish for this conversation to end without discussing the long-term nature of this problem so it'd be nice if you commented how this goes with what you found. Jasper Deng (talk) 02:26, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
MacArthur featured article overstatement
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.
Today's FA states Truman's firing of MacArthur created a "constitutional crisis." This is incorrect, as the president may fire any military officer for any reason. Using this terminology not only goes far beyond the language of the main article in this respect but also devalues the true severity of an actual constitutional crisis. Ariwen (talk) 03:31, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
User talk:GuardianH
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.
@~2026-22309-71 is making obscene threats over there. -- Melchior2006 (talk) 11:03, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
- I have blocked that account and User:~2026-22272-54. Probably proxy jumping socks of User:WordPolice and User:Autismhealer. If it continues, maybe someone can throw up temporary page protection. Sasquatch t|c 11:12, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
Personal attacks by Kinnimeyu
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.
- Kinnimeyu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
See this and this. Thank you, SeaHaircutSoilReplace 04:49, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
I made a mistake here...
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
So I was unaware that merge discussions are now in the AFD space because I rarely perform merge discussions, and a bot did all of the work for me by creating this AFD page that I didn't mean to create. I genuinely was unaware that this RFC even existed and that this would happen as a result. As I have already done my one XFD per day by having PROD'd an article earlier, I now have two questions:
- Is this understood to be an honest mistake that won't be held against me?
- Should this be removed/closed or left to stand?
Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:36, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
- (Non-admin comment) I'd say for the first is to TROUT, and not do any further action. For the second, probably just remove the violating AFD/Merge TheClocksAlwaysTurn (The Clockworks) (contribs) 20:41, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
- I wouldn't hold it against you, TPH. I don't think ArbCom would either, for a number of procedural reasons.
- I do think the discussion should be procedurally closed, though. MEN KISSING (she/they) Talk to me, I don't bite! - See my edits 20:57, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
- I have acted boldly and closed the discussion and trouted TPH. 🚂ThatTrainGuy1945 Peep peep! 21:07, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
- I endorse this. MEN KISSING (she/they) Talk to me, I don't bite! - See my edits 21:13, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
- I have acted boldly and closed the discussion and trouted TPH. 🚂ThatTrainGuy1945 Peep peep! 21:07, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
- I agree with the others that this shouldn't result in more than a trout. But since XFD has expanded compared to how it was when the restriction was put in place, it may be best to go to ARCA in order to clarify if merges should be counted as part of the restriction. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 21:38, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
User:Newman120 offensive comments on talk 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.
User:Newman120 continues to restore very offensive content on their talk page. Here is what they are reverting to add back: . Please revoke their talk page access. See User talk:Newman120 and please revoke TPA and delete the revisions. Servite et contribuere (talk) 06:11, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
- This user is a long-term abuser, creating sleeper accounts to perform regular and page-move vandalism. I think they're related to this SPI. Talk page access probably should have been blocked in the first place. There's also continued cross-wiki abuse. StartOkayStop (talk) 06:16, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
Persistent addition of unsourced content by ~2026-17365-61
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.
~2026-17365-61 (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. Waxworker (talk) 01:40, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
- Blocked. Was evading previous blocks, which makes it easier. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:34, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
Transphobia and POV pushing from ToughTerty85
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.
ToughTerty85 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
ToughTerty85 made some awful POV edits to Women's Declaration International trying to sanitise the article. The worst edit was this one which refers to a named person with a transphobic slur and is probably worth a block in itself. After reverts the focus shifted to the talk page where they made a personal attack and a big rant. They continued to kvetch on the talk page and defended their use of the slur. They even used another (lesser) slur when doing so. This seems to be a significant element of trolling here, in that they are pretending not to understand very obvious problems. Now they are making POV edits to the article again, albeit a little more subtly. They have two final warnings and that hasn't stopped them. They use extremely unhelpful edit summaries that are probably intended to confuse or deceive, e.g. this one. I think this needs to be stopped. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:33, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
Reporting User:~2026-20131-23 for 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.
- ~2026-20131-23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User has been warned 5 times regarding vandalism poorly sourced on Wikipedia, examples of vandalism or addition of poorly sourced content are all within here , primarily adding birth dates and birth locations, without proper sourcing. Several users have warned them to stop doing so, but with no response and user continues to add poorly sourced content. JLN2026 (talk) 21:26, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
- Blocked from mainspace, as they haven't seen either the many warnings on their talk page or the comments in the articles themselves (e.g. Special:Diff/1347838503, Special:Diff/1347961378) telling them to not add unsourced dates of birth. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:36, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
Behavioral issues concerning JasonMacker
Unfortunately, this self-proclaimed "rant"
directed towards me (direct linky because diff wasn't working — it's collapsed -- now moved here) by JasonMacker is deeply inappropriate for numerous reasons, primarily AGF (I don't think anyone is convinced by the dripping sarcasm), beating the horse, and simply not being polite in the slightest, particularly on a CTOP. In well over a decade on Wikipedia I've only ever been spoken-to like this by another editor (and taken them to ANI) one time. I'm not sure what else to say as I feel their "rant" speaks for itself, particularly a self-admitted "rant". I'm not requesting the guillotine (nor do I feel it necessary or appropriate), but appropriate sanctions to nip this sort of behavior in the bud would instead be requested. — MWFwiki (talk) 21:43, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
- Just a note that the link links to a null edit to the Main Page. VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 21:58, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
- You're really assuming good faith here by immediately running to ANI and accusing me of misbehavior. But I'll tell you what, I'll move the rant to your talk page, since it's directed primarily towards you. JasonMacker (talk) 23:17, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
- If by "running to ANI" — again, a clear need to review WP:CIVIL — you mean reporting your now self-admitted inappropriate behavior (why move it, otherwise?) then, yes, I am. I would prefer if you didn't edit things currently subject to this post, but you will obviously do what you will. I will not be interacting with you further. — MWFwiki (talk) 23:23, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
- Indeed, step one can be acknowledging that a rant occurred. / Augmented Seventh (talk) 05:55, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
- Disputed content is now here: BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 23:42, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
- Original thread is here:
- I'm not seeing anything massively egregious beyond a trout for being a bit sarcastic & lengthy in their response? Not an ideal reaction but not egregiously unacceptable.
- I'm not sure this is ANI-worthy either - there's not been any evidence presented that shows an urgent or chronic (long-term) behavioural problem that requires administrator intervention.
- We often say that ANI should be a last resort, not the first & here they've come straight to ANI without trying to talk things out or cool things down.
- I get that MWFwiki is understandably upset, but what exactly are admins supposed to do here? Usual admin sanctions (indef, T-BAN, P-block etc.) would feel like a massive overreaction for this one single post. Blue Sonnet (talk) 03:02, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
- I don't feel that way, obviously. I feel a short block to get it on-record is perfectly appropriate. I feel their conduct is quite egregious. Otherwise, you don't feel that making-fun of me is so? It was not made in good faith; it was made purely in an attempt to mock me. This is textbook WP:BULLYING and frankly, I don't feel obligated to confront someone attempting to create such an environment. I don't make it an habit of coming here, so I can't say that this is an overreaction on my part. Indeed, this individual had now doubled-down and continued their conduct on this page, after attempting to obsfuscate/hide their behavior. This was such a wildly aggressive tirade (relative to the discussion, to be clear) that if not addressed, this conduct will become long-term, as they are able to act however they wish without consequence.They are experienced enough to know that this conduct is not appropriate. If it had started on my Talk page or had been a newer editor, I would have likely ignored it. — MWFwiki (talk) 03:14, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
- Can you let us know which specific parts you think are problematic? I was reading through it before and got the same impression as Blue Sonnet, but I might be misunderstanding it. I also note that blocks are preventative, not punitive, so I don't think a
short block to get it on-record
would be fitting unless there's evidence of ongoing disruption? MolecularPilot Talk 03:19, 7 April 2026 (UTC)- The entire message was simply grammar policing (what, five seperate times? What does that have to do with the infobox of the 2026 Iran war? This is clearly simply spite) and condescending language in an attempt to bully me into either changing my opinion or leaving the discussion (which they've succeeded in) all while masquerading as a response. A nearly one-thousand word "rant" (again, their words, not mine) on an RfC directed at me is not appropriate. I'm prepared to deal with some snark; a thousand words of it purely directed at me, I'm not, and I don't feel that I should be. Coming here and continuing the condescension vice simply apologizing — which I would have accepted — is not appropriate. Moving the content after I've filed here is not appropriate. I readily cede that this is not the end of the world. The assertion regarding preventative versus putative measures I agree with; such an extensive and aggressive response over a relatively low-key discussion is pretty wild; A mild sanction is perfectly appropriate, in my opinion. Reviewing past behavioral sanctions is not punitive, in opinion. Regardless and as I mentioned previously, in over a decade here, I've been to ANI once (and it was far more serious, I will admit), so I can't say that I am overreacting. — MWFwiki (talk) 03:42, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
- I don't think you are overreacting, and yes, it was genuinely not a nice message, and you didn't deserve it, the grammar policing and snark was extreme. I can understand why you feel this way about it. I think a trout and stern warning (for them) is definitely in order, I'm not sure on the issue of a block, so maybe it's better for admin to assess that. MolecularPilot Talk 03:47, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
- I don't disagree with that, and I thank you for understanding. I agree, I would be happy with an admonishment. I feel they are an asset to Wikipedia and a good editor but I also feel that behavioral-issues often occur separate from content-issues... this sort of thing can spiral. — MWFwiki (talk) 04:01, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
- Agree on everything you've said - I am not comfortable with someone being blocked for one problematic edit that doesn't involve a clear personal attack/copyvio etc., since that would mean far more blocks being handed out (& very busy admins!).
- They really shouldn't have moved the post around, but they did explain where it was being moved to so it's not really hiding/obfuscation when you announce it at ANI.
- I support a trouting at most, unless any other problematic behaviour comes to light. Blue Sonnet (talk) 04:06, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
- I don't think you are overreacting, and yes, it was genuinely not a nice message, and you didn't deserve it, the grammar policing and snark was extreme. I can understand why you feel this way about it. I think a trout and stern warning (for them) is definitely in order, I'm not sure on the issue of a block, so maybe it's better for admin to assess that. MolecularPilot Talk 03:47, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
- The entire message was simply grammar policing (what, five seperate times? What does that have to do with the infobox of the 2026 Iran war? This is clearly simply spite) and condescending language in an attempt to bully me into either changing my opinion or leaving the discussion (which they've succeeded in) all while masquerading as a response. A nearly one-thousand word "rant" (again, their words, not mine) on an RfC directed at me is not appropriate. I'm prepared to deal with some snark; a thousand words of it purely directed at me, I'm not, and I don't feel that I should be. Coming here and continuing the condescension vice simply apologizing — which I would have accepted — is not appropriate. Moving the content after I've filed here is not appropriate. I readily cede that this is not the end of the world. The assertion regarding preventative versus putative measures I agree with; such an extensive and aggressive response over a relatively low-key discussion is pretty wild; A mild sanction is perfectly appropriate, in my opinion. Reviewing past behavioral sanctions is not punitive, in opinion. Regardless and as I mentioned previously, in over a decade here, I've been to ANI once (and it was far more serious, I will admit), so I can't say that I am overreacting. — MWFwiki (talk) 03:42, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
- Can you let us know which specific parts you think are problematic? I was reading through it before and got the same impression as Blue Sonnet, but I might be misunderstanding it. I also note that blocks are preventative, not punitive, so I don't think a
- I don't feel that way, obviously. I feel a short block to get it on-record is perfectly appropriate. I feel their conduct is quite egregious. Otherwise, you don't feel that making-fun of me is so? It was not made in good faith; it was made purely in an attempt to mock me. This is textbook WP:BULLYING and frankly, I don't feel obligated to confront someone attempting to create such an environment. I don't make it an habit of coming here, so I can't say that this is an overreaction on my part. Indeed, this individual had now doubled-down and continued their conduct on this page, after attempting to obsfuscate/hide their behavior. This was such a wildly aggressive tirade (relative to the discussion, to be clear) that if not addressed, this conduct will become long-term, as they are able to act however they wish without consequence.They are experienced enough to know that this conduct is not appropriate. If it had started on my Talk page or had been a newer editor, I would have likely ignored it. — MWFwiki (talk) 03:14, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
- I'm going to be brief and 'impolite'. JasonMacker, in future: brevity. There should near never be a need to scroll to read one post. MWFwiki, your complaint is principally hyperbole: 'deeply inappropriate', 'quite egregious', 'wildly aggressive'. The post is long-winded and 'snarky', but nothing more. I find your own description here rather more disconcerting than the rant:
This is misrepresentation. The bulk of the 'rant' addresses your arguments as you snarkily remarked on:The entire message was simply grammar policing (what, five seperate times? What does that have to do with the infobox of the 2026 Iran war? This is clearly simply spite) and condescending language in an attempt to bully me into either changing my opinion or leaving the discussion (which they've succeeded in) all while masquerading as a response.
I'll note that you didn't even try to address my concerns, address the soruces, (sic) or answer my questions
. Moreover, you are claiming to have been bullied out of a discussion that you are still actively posting in as you claim to have left. This is outright manipulative. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:26, 7 April 2026 (UTC)- Yes, you are indeed "impolite." I take offense to all of your categorizations and opinions. I was stating, factually, that they had not answered my questions, yet posed numerous to me. How this is "snark[y]" is beyond me. My use of italics are per MOS - as emphasis - any assumption otherwise is a failure to AGF.Secondly, I am no longer engaging with the discussion with them, or at all. My choice to return to the page — attempted bullying aside — is hardly "outright manipulation" (and to be abundantly clear, when I made that comment, I had indeed left the discussion entirely; I have since decided to return sans engagement with JasonMacker). — MWFwiki (talk) 08:14, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
I take offense to all of your categorizations and opinions
(emphasis added) – And you don't think that's hyperbolic! What possible offense are you taking to my opinion thatthere should near never be a need to scroll to read one post
for example? If being factual is sufficient, then there is hardly any concern to be had with even the nitpicks from Macker. Without condescension intended, it is a fact that the semi-colons were misused, that one of your statements is a sentence fragment, and that there is errant capitalization. But, these weren't necessary to harp on. Similarly, there is a difference between 'you haven't addressed my argument' and 'you didn't even try' which you wrote. One is rather less civil than the other. And thus also rather more likely to elicit it in return.My use of italics are per MOS - as emphasis - any assumption otherwise is a failure to AGF
– I have no idea what this is meant to mean. I haven't remarked on your use of emphasis, nor for that matter does MOS apply to talk page conversations so it wouldn't be relevant anyway. Finally, regarding your 'choice to return', edits are time-stamped. You posted the quoted comment (at 03:42, 7 April 2026) barely ten minutes before your next post (at 03:55, 7 April 2026) in said discussion. The 'rant' was posted at 04:56, 6 April 2026 whilst you were inactive (until 1930) and you posted on the discussion page at 21:22, 6 April 2026 just two hours later. The declaration that you were bullied into leaving is dependent upon not reading the discussion or ignoring the fact that you posted both after seeing the rant and after saying you had been bullied off the talk page. The hyperbole is just there in service of selling off this molehill of an issue for the price-tag of the Matterhorn. Now, I have said my piece, and have not a fraction of the charity to afford this that Blue Sonnet does, but her analysis (aside minor nitpicks) is pretty well spot on. There is nothing for administrators to do here. If someone wants to throw trout, they can do it without seeking permission. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:05, 7 April 2026 (UTC)- Yes, I take offense to all of what you said in your self-admitted impolite statement. So... a one-thousand word diatribe is alright at an RfC... as long as you feel it is. Except when it gets too long? But even then, it's still alright? Because you feel it is. WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF don't matter.
"Hyperbolic"
- I'm not even going to comment on this."[I]t is a fact that the semi-colons were misused"
- I dispute this but it has no place in this discussion or at an RfC, certainly not five times.Again, you seem to be under the impression that I don't have free will. This user was attempting to bully me out of the discussion. That they ultimately failed is my fault? Again, you're choosing to ignore the fact that I have disengaged from them. I made the statement and decided I was not indeed not going to be kept out of an otherwise productive discussion with otherwise polite editors. I am sorry that you find fault with this."I have no idea what this is meant to mean. I haven't remarked on your use of emphasis"
- yes, you did. You decreed My response was "snarky" likely because I italicized "my." In what world could"I'll note that you didn't even try to address my concerns, address the soruces, or answer my questions"
be otherwise considered "snarky?" Because they "didn't try?" They did not. If they felt that this was not civil enough, I would have happily apologized, as I have done previously on that very page. I have apologized dozens of times (that's probably an exaggeration on my part) on Wikipedia over the years, and usually, quite deservedly so. Two wrongs don't make a right. — MWFwiki (talk) 18:57, 7 April 2026 (UTC)- I'm not going to respond to all of this, but I will explain briefly why:
[Y]es, you did. You decreed My response was "snarky" likely because I italicized "my."
. Reading that was a What??? moment. No, that's not it. The snark was already identified to you:you didn't even try
. There are several instances in the above of responses to inferred statements that do not exist. The same applies to your description of the interaction between you and JasonMacker. His post is lengthy, snarky, harps on minutiae, and is unproductive. It appears to be spurred by your saying that he 'didn't even try' to respond to your arguments. But the rest, like that he was being 'wildly aggressive' or trying to 'bully you into leaving the discussion' is at best hyperbolic. Whether you want to consider that you have a skewed impression of the interaction or not is up to you. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:37, 8 April 2026 (UTC)- You are welcome to your opinion(s). Sanctions are preventative. Where does conduct that is -- in your own words --
"lengthy, snarky, harps on minutiae, and is unproductive
go? Particulalry for an experienced editor and particularly on a CTOP (which is largely why I'm here, frankly)."I'm not going to respond to all of this"
-- Something we can agree on, I suppose. — MWFwiki (talk) 03:24, 8 April 2026 (UTC)- Responding only to the question asked. For an isolated incident, generally: nowhere. It is neither urgent nor chronic and determining intractable requires a pattern. I see no indication on their talk page that anyone has ever raised a civility concern to them previously. AN/I is usually not a first port of call. Options included ignoring the rant, responding to it with a comment raising your concerns, or posting to the user's talk page with a notice/warning (either template or handwritten). All of those are preferred to the 'straight to the WP:DRAMABOARD' (that's a redirect to this page) approach. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:32, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
- You are welcome to your opinion(s). Sanctions are preventative. Where does conduct that is -- in your own words --
- I'm not going to respond to all of this, but I will explain briefly why:
- Yes, I take offense to all of what you said in your self-admitted impolite statement. So... a one-thousand word diatribe is alright at an RfC... as long as you feel it is. Except when it gets too long? But even then, it's still alright? Because you feel it is. WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF don't matter.
- I'm honestly still trying to unpack all this and keep thinking I've missed something. I'm still not sure what that would be.
- As far as I can tell, this situation started with MWFwiki wanting the label "Attacked by Iran" in the infobox.
- Jason replied asking why other similar labels shouldn't be used instead, then stated they
...are clearly arbitrary POV-pushing labels and should be removed.
- MWFwiki responds by saying that other labels are used in the article, then retorts
I'll note that you didn't even try to address my concerns, address the soruces, or answer my questions.
This is where the dispute seems to begin, I presume MWFwiki wasn't happy at the "POV pushing label" comment. - Another editor takes issue with MWFwiki's claim that
We're trying to over-complicate the IB by utilizing some vague assertions of NPOV-issues as justification
and feels the "Attacked by Iran" label is biased. - After some discussion, another editor also chimes in to disagree with MWFwiki's argument.
- The "rant" then happens .
- If the italics are the sarcasm, it has to be said that MWFwiki started using it first and Jason was merely copying it in their response to mirror that aspect.
- MWFwiki insisted that Jason address literally everything in their opening post (it was phrased rather pointedly as
I'll note that you didn't even try to address my concerns, address the soruces, or answer my questions
- note the italics) so that's what happened. Jason was instructed to go over every single concern, every source and every question in that opening post. - Normally, such a long reply post could be seen as aggressively pedantic, except this is exactly what MWFwiki explicitly told them to do. Jason mirrored MWFwiki's use of italics to emphasise the word "address" in a similarly sharp way (
it's wrong, and doesn't address any of the numerous concerns raised above
), with Jason pointedly describing when they had trouble discerning what was a question, a concern or a statement due to perceived grammar issues (Also, I had to read it a few times to understand wtf you were saying. Next time, put your auxiliary verb next to the main verb
). - The rest of the rant is rather nitpicky, but remember that Jason had just been told to address pretty much everything written in MWFwiki's original post, so they had to nitpick to some large degree.
- Honestly, both editors were sharper then they should have been and didn't respond to each other in an ideal way.
- MWFwiki, I don't think Jason seriously expected you to give a justification for every theoretical label they suggested, it read like a rhetorical question & those were just examples. When you responded telling them to address every concern, source and question in your post, it didn't come off as rhetorical and looked like you were telling Jason to actually go through it with a fine-toothed comb. So they did, using the same general tone as the post where you gave that instruction.
- You were both at odds with each other from the get-go and allowed things to escalate, this was the unfortunate result.
- If I've missed anything important out of this analysis let me know, but this is how it appears to me as an outside viewer who's spent the best part of an hour trying to understand what's happened and give both editors a fair shot. Blue Sonnet (talk) 08:28, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
- I will try to keep this brief. No, you're not missing anything, and I appreciate you reading through everything. I was, at no point, being sarcastic. I am not a sarcastic person, and I take the MOS relatively seriously. I think a quick perusal of my edit history will confirm the former and hopefully the latter. I utilize italics solely for emphasis and "underlining-but-not." I was not being sharp nor confrontational. I simply don't expect to answer numerous questions when my own went un-answered. Indeed, my noting this was merely to point-out that I was unlikely to engage if they weren't willing to do address my concerns. This was not a request to do so, it was a mere remark.Two things can be true. They can be responding to my reply - which I have every right to have made, obviously - and they can be doing-so in an inappropriate, condescending manner in an attempt to bully or otherwise try to embarrass me, harping on (alleged) minor grammatical mistakes and mirroring - as you say - my writing style in an attempt to... do what, exactly? I don't have a problem with them having responded; they have every right to have made a reply, and as you can see from the Talk page in-question, I can happily engage with others I disagree with/that disagree with me. It's the totality of the manner and tone I take issue with, then the continued condescension (here) vice a simple apology, then moving the content. — MWFwiki (talk) 08:39, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
- I get that you didn't mean to be sarcastic, it just looks like that's how it was taken on their side with the copying of italics. I think I've done all I can here anyway so I'll leave the rest to others/admins. Blue Sonnet (talk) 08:47, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
- I will try to keep this brief. No, you're not missing anything, and I appreciate you reading through everything. I was, at no point, being sarcastic. I am not a sarcastic person, and I take the MOS relatively seriously. I think a quick perusal of my edit history will confirm the former and hopefully the latter. I utilize italics solely for emphasis and "underlining-but-not." I was not being sharp nor confrontational. I simply don't expect to answer numerous questions when my own went un-answered. Indeed, my noting this was merely to point-out that I was unlikely to engage if they weren't willing to do address my concerns. This was not a request to do so, it was a mere remark.Two things can be true. They can be responding to my reply - which I have every right to have made, obviously - and they can be doing-so in an inappropriate, condescending manner in an attempt to bully or otherwise try to embarrass me, harping on (alleged) minor grammatical mistakes and mirroring - as you say - my writing style in an attempt to... do what, exactly? I don't have a problem with them having responded; they have every right to have made a reply, and as you can see from the Talk page in-question, I can happily engage with others I disagree with/that disagree with me. It's the totality of the manner and tone I take issue with, then the continued condescension (here) vice a simple apology, then moving the content. — MWFwiki (talk) 08:39, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
- Yes, you are indeed "impolite." I take offense to all of your categorizations and opinions. I was stating, factually, that they had not answered my questions, yet posed numerous to me. How this is "snark[y]" is beyond me. My use of italics are per MOS - as emphasis - any assumption otherwise is a failure to AGF.Secondly, I am no longer engaging with the discussion with them, or at all. My choice to return to the page — attempted bullying aside — is hardly "outright manipulation" (and to be abundantly clear, when I made that comment, I had indeed left the discussion entirely; I have since decided to return sans engagement with JasonMacker). — MWFwiki (talk) 08:14, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
- I looked at the linked comment and Jason wrote "So, you seem confused here.". That is a violation of WP:CIV. Guz13 (talk) 15:37, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
- Okay,
- JasonMacker, please don't criticize editors based on punctuation/grammatical errors. I know plenty of editors here who prefer to write in all lowercase, or who enjoy using slang. And I know a few, such as myself, who like starting sentences with conjunctions. I'm sure you weren't trying to refute MWF based on typos, but dedicating so much of your message to pointing out these errors gives the appearance that you're trying to do so.
- MWFwiki, there was no need to immediately come to ANI over this. I echo Blue Sonnet here: whether or not it was your intent, you were, in fact, requesting that Jason respond to your arguments in detail. I'm sure if you had explained to Jason why you felt their response was inappropriate, amends could have been made immediately.
- To each of you: editing gets hot sometimes. It's both of your responsibility to avoid escalating matters and try to lower the temperature whenever you can, especially when working in a contentious topic. And I think both of you could do a little better in that regard.
- What I see has happened here, is that you each have made enemies of eachother over what could have been simple misunderstandings. I think the best course of action is for you two to mutually disengage from this squabble. I don't see any need for sanctions. MEN KISSING (she/they) Talk to me, I don't bite! - See my edits 18:30, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
- Frankly, yes,
"[..]dedicating so much of your message to pointing out these errors gives the appearance that you're trying to do so[...]"
the appearance of incivility is incivility, and is half of my point, alone."[T]here was no need to immediately come to ANI over this"
- obviously, I disagree. They are an experienced enough of an editor to know better. Further, I don't believe I have any obligation to respond to an editor that is attempting to bully me, especially on a CTOP."I'm sure if you had explained to Jason why you felt their response was inappropriate, amends could have been made immediately."
- They did have that opportunity, here. I would have happily-accepted and withdrawn my complaint. Instead, they chose to double-down and move the content in-question. I am well aware editing gets hot; there is still no reason to speak to anyone in that manner. No one else responded to my statements in such a manner. A "rant" directed at a user on an RfC is not appropriate. An experienced editor should not conducting themselves in this manner, particularly on a CTOP. — MWFwiki (talk) 18:36, 7 April 2026 (UTC)- Is moving the rant from the highly visible RfC to a less visible page not a courtesy? I actually thought that was rather collegiate of Jason to do. MEN KISSING (she/they) Talk to me, I don't bite! - See my edits 02:55, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
- Edits subject to ANI should not be touched or "moved". Regardless, if it's not an issue, why move it? It was only moved once brought here. Apart from which, it takes away from the framing as it was originally: A giant lime-green bar spanning across the screen labeled "JasonMacker's rant, addressed to MWFwiki" -- diff, here -- without even touching on the content -- is not appropriate. Apart from which (again), it was "highly visible" for about 20 hours. — MWFwiki (talk) 03:20, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
- There is no such requirement that edits subject to scrutiny at ANI not be touched. That's part of the reason why it's better to link to problematic comments using the revision in which the comment was created, rather than to the page.
- I didn't mean to imply I thought Jason's comment was anything less than inappropriate. It was inappropriate. MEN KISSING (she/they) Talk to me, I don't bite! - See my edits 04:03, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
- Best-practice is to refrain from editing or moving a post which has been replied-to, and to otherwise utilize strikethrough for deletion or underlining added content (as I've done once or twice above). I, personally, would see being taken to ANI as a "response". And, I as I mentioned, it disrupts the framing of the post. It comes across slightly differently when simply placed on a (user) Talk page, sans the lime-green collapse-bar and the "rant" label. While this is the least of my concerns, I felt I owed you an explanation as you have been nothing but exceedingly respectful and patient.Regardless, sanctions are preventive. If an experienced editor is - on a CTOP - is making "rants" directed at specific users that are (in everyone else's words, not mine) "inappropriate", "snarky", "aggressively pedantic", "lengthy", "harp[ing] on minutia", "genuinely not a nice message, and you didn't deserve it, the grammar policing and snark was extreme", and is a "violation of WP:CIV", (and I tried my best not to take anyone out-of-context) then what does this behavior evolve into without being addressed? If this had been an inexperienced editor, not on a CTOP, and/or if it had been relegated to My User Talk page first... I wouldn't be here. I don't think nipping problematic behavior in the bud is a problem. I've edited for a long time, and I've been here precisely on other time. I can't say I'm prone to overreacting as one user (not you) suggested above. I hardly think a light sanction or an "official" warning is inappropriate, here. — MWFwiki (talk) 04:44, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
- You should refrain from deleting a comment that other people have replied to (as in, on the same page), because you would either have to delete other people's comments, or cause confusion by removing the context for other people's comments. If the only response has been a discussion on another page, you don't have to worry about those things, so it's okay to retract something you've said by deleting it. MEN KISSING (she/they) Talk to me, I don't bite! - See my edits 06:26, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
- My argument would be that a post subject to ANI should be treated with care. For what it is worth, two editors, above, opined that they should not have moved the content. Frankly, I would interpret being taken to ANI over a specific comment as a "reply". My reply was here and I requested that they not move the content.
"[O]r cause confusion by removing the context"
- It did, indeed; it disrupted my comment here, did it not? When they knew the content was subject to ANI. And indeed, as I've said, it does remove important context... it presents quite differently on my Talk page versus the original RfC page (where it was for 20 hours and where it would have remained had it not been for this post). If one is not aware of or willing to "sift" through the diffs, that context might just be lost. Regardless of the status of that - I'm rather content to agree to disagree on the status of moving content in this scenario - again, if they felt the need to remove it, then surely they could have chosen to at least offer an apology. — MWFwiki (talk) 06:38, 8 April 2026 (UTC)- Ah, yes. That's part of why the standard is to link to revisions, not pages. That, and linking to a revision is more stable. For example, if Jason does end up having more problematic behavior later on, someone might want to link to this ANI report, and the thing you're linking to in your original comment might be archived by then.
- An apology for moving the content, or for what they said? This is another thing I wanted to bring up: you've asked a few times that Jason offer you some sort of apology. The thing is, editors have pride. It's hard for someone to directly admit they have done wrong, and it's hard for someone to admit to someone they disagree with that they have wronged them. It's an unfortunate flaw with being a human being, and it is not always a realistic thing to expect from fellow editors. All we really need to know is that Jason understands his behavior was problematic, and I do find some weak evidence of that.
- I do think a warning for Jason would be warranted. I also still think this entire ANI report is making a bit of a mountain out of a molehill, though. I'd like to see this thread closed soon, and I have a proposal to that effect based on how I and other editors here have responded. MEN KISSING (she/they) Talk to me, I don't bite! - See my edits 07:09, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
- My argument would be that a post subject to ANI should be treated with care. For what it is worth, two editors, above, opined that they should not have moved the content. Frankly, I would interpret being taken to ANI over a specific comment as a "reply". My reply was here and I requested that they not move the content.
- You should refrain from deleting a comment that other people have replied to (as in, on the same page), because you would either have to delete other people's comments, or cause confusion by removing the context for other people's comments. If the only response has been a discussion on another page, you don't have to worry about those things, so it's okay to retract something you've said by deleting it. MEN KISSING (she/they) Talk to me, I don't bite! - See my edits 06:26, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
- Best-practice is to refrain from editing or moving a post which has been replied-to, and to otherwise utilize strikethrough for deletion or underlining added content (as I've done once or twice above). I, personally, would see being taken to ANI as a "response". And, I as I mentioned, it disrupts the framing of the post. It comes across slightly differently when simply placed on a (user) Talk page, sans the lime-green collapse-bar and the "rant" label. While this is the least of my concerns, I felt I owed you an explanation as you have been nothing but exceedingly respectful and patient.Regardless, sanctions are preventive. If an experienced editor is - on a CTOP - is making "rants" directed at specific users that are (in everyone else's words, not mine) "inappropriate", "snarky", "aggressively pedantic", "lengthy", "harp[ing] on minutia", "genuinely not a nice message, and you didn't deserve it, the grammar policing and snark was extreme", and is a "violation of WP:CIV", (and I tried my best not to take anyone out-of-context) then what does this behavior evolve into without being addressed? If this had been an inexperienced editor, not on a CTOP, and/or if it had been relegated to My User Talk page first... I wouldn't be here. I don't think nipping problematic behavior in the bud is a problem. I've edited for a long time, and I've been here precisely on other time. I can't say I'm prone to overreacting as one user (not you) suggested above. I hardly think a light sanction or an "official" warning is inappropriate, here. — MWFwiki (talk) 04:44, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
- Edits subject to ANI should not be touched or "moved". Regardless, if it's not an issue, why move it? It was only moved once brought here. Apart from which, it takes away from the framing as it was originally: A giant lime-green bar spanning across the screen labeled "JasonMacker's rant, addressed to MWFwiki" -- diff, here -- without even touching on the content -- is not appropriate. Apart from which (again), it was "highly visible" for about 20 hours. — MWFwiki (talk) 03:20, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
- Is moving the rant from the highly visible RfC to a less visible page not a courtesy? I actually thought that was rather collegiate of Jason to do. MEN KISSING (she/they) Talk to me, I don't bite! - See my edits 02:55, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
- Frankly, yes,
Personally--and I don't know if this issues more from my formal background in linguistics or my personal experience of the personalities which tend to deploy this rhetorical tactic--but I take an extremely dim view of superfluous, pedantic grammar monitoring of strangers with which one finds themselves in dispute. I think it is just one of the pettiest and most tedious means by which some try to score ancillary social points in the context of a clash of personalities. Jason, just don't do it here: while it may or may not violate policy or community norms in a given instance, it certainly is never helping whatever larger point you are trying to make, if it doesn't involve actual forward facing prose. Bluntly, you are only devaluing your own position in any dispute (and your image as a contributor generally) by including this nonsense, as well as underlining your name in red for any community member looking at a dispute after the fact.
That said, having read through the entirety of this thread and the underlying dispute from which it arose, it is pretty clear that MWFwiki's response has been, to put it mildly, completely out of proportion to anything which was said at any point in the dispute. MWF, if Jason's final comment in that thread, the one you principally cite in your opening post, is your idea of the kind of severe and intractable violation of community guidelines that are meant to be resolved in this space, you need to recalibrate. If you think that the observations from various respondents above from which you took so much offense (but all of which were perfectly civil) were impolite or unreasonable, you need to recalibrate.
To clarify, MWF, you seem to be of the opinion that throughout the underlying dispute, your style of commentary can be fairly summarized as cool, detached, and dispassionate whereas Jason's was hostile and needlessly snide. Indeed, I don't doubt that is what you subjectively experienced from your end of the dispute. However, bluntly, I think I can summarize the feedback above and my own by saying that is not what has been observed from the outside. There is maybe a gnat's eyelash's worth of distance between the tone of your comments and theirs in that flash-in-the-pan dispute. I would classify both as clearly suboptimal and more indicative of a combative posture on the dispute than of effort to have a meeting of the minds, but also well, well bellow the threshold of violating any behavioural policy or community norm in a way that requires community attention.
Now, that initial miscalculation is one thing, but the manner in which you have pushed back against the resulting feedback above significantly heightens concerns. The amount of volunteer time that has been wasted above managing your feelings for not being completely vindicated in your perspective is so out of proportion to the underlying event so as to raise serious questions in my mind at least about your ability to navigate disputes without consuming inordinate amounts of community resources. To be frank, if the posts in question are all that it takes to illicit this level of reactivness from you, and you are that level of resistant to community efforts to keep things in perspective, you should definitely reconsider participating in controversial areas like WP:PIA. Indeed, even in more sedate topic areas, you can routinely face much more aggressive commentary requiring thicker skin than you've displayed here, and I am surprised to have to be explaining this to a ten year veteran of the project. And I don't think I am alone in that assessment: I rather suspect you owe MK some thanks for putting a cap on this matter with their proposal, because to my eye, you were steadily working your way up to a WP:boomerang out of sheer inability to WP:drop the stick. SnowRise let's rap 09:22, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
- +2. Thank you for putting it more eloquently and bluntly than I could muster. MEN KISSING (she/they) Talk to me, I don't bite! - See my edits 10:40, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
- Jesus, Snow Rise, and I thought I was being direct. You have expressed in sharper and more articulate terms effectively my own perspective. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:32, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
- If I have been able to faithfully capture the sentiment of others, I am glad. As to the bluntness, it is something I have recognized in myself of late. I can only speculate that it is partly the result of being, as of recent years, largely back out of the worlds of academia and organizational roles and into private practice. One becomes daily reminded that you do few favours by beating around the bush. It's no doubt that and the normal ravages of time. ;) SnowRise let's rap 13:00, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
- Honestly, I was starting to feel this way as well - especially after my initial investigation & post, which genuinely took over an hour because I just couldn't find anything egregious that would warrant an ANI report (IMO).
- I'm honestly surprised that this thread hasn't been allowed to die down naturally - we should be able to move on from this & get back to editing Wikipedia or dealing with cases that truly warrant ANI attention.
- This is nowhere near as severe as the other cases on this page, yet it's taken up more volunteer time than 90% of them. Blue Sonnet (talk) 15:42, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
- If I have been able to faithfully capture the sentiment of others, I am glad. As to the bluntness, it is something I have recognized in myself of late. I can only speculate that it is partly the result of being, as of recent years, largely back out of the worlds of academia and organizational roles and into private practice. One becomes daily reminded that you do few favours by beating around the bush. It's no doubt that and the normal ravages of time. ;) SnowRise let's rap 13:00, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
- While obviously I disagree with most of your characterizations of me/my conduct, I also respect consensus enough to be willing to take feedback, and I appreciate everyone having taken the time to do so, especially you, Snow Rise, as well as Blue-Sonnet, and yes, doubly-so for MEN KISSING. I do indeed appreciate MK's work, here, and I have always appreciated ANI volunteers' efforts and don't wish to waste anyone's time (and cede that I may have done so). Having said that, I do wish to address two items;1. I never called anyone "impolite." I was quoting the editor's own statement about their comment. So, I suppose you could say I was agreeing with their own assessment of their conduct.2. Regarding my experience on Wikipedia; I would have hoped that would also indicate how I truly felt about this situation, given that I certainly don't make it a habit of coming here. I have additional reasons for coming here early that are related to my previous experience here, but I have already rambled-on long enough.Regardless, I am content with the apparent outcome and I will most certainly take the advice given, as well. I apologize, with all humility, to anyone I offended or that otherwise felt their time was wasted by my conduct, and I am willing to make said apology more personal if so requested. — MWFwiki (talk) 18:58, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
- I always find it admirable when someone cares deeply enough about a subject that it elicits strong emotions - you obviously care a lot about Wikipedia and the work that you do here.
- I can't imagine that anyone reading this thread hasn't been in a similar situation, where our feelings make it difficult to see things objectively or dispassionately.
- We've all had times where we didn't realise just how tightly we have been gripping onto a certain view, and it takes a strong person to be able to step back and say "yep, I probably should have walked away from that earlier than I did, I'm going to learn from this experience".
- If that happened today, then I don't consider my time to be entirely wasted. Blue Sonnet (talk) 19:35, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
Proposal
A proposal to close out this thread with:
- JasonMacker is warned not to post incivil comments such as .
- MWFwiki is reminded to consider alternatives, such as those listed in the header, before filing a report against an editor at ANI.
MEN KISSING (she/they) Talk to me, I don't bite! - See my edits 07:22, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
- Support as proposer. MEN KISSING (she/they) Talk to me, I don't bite! - See my edits 07:22, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
- Support — as filer — Assuming there is some acknowledgment of inappropriate behavior. — MWFwiki (talk) 07:31, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
- Support CONFUSED SPIRIT(Thilio).Talk 07:41, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
- Support It looks like Jason hasn't been online since yesterday; I've got a feeling it's pretty unlikely that we'll hear from them again here, so this will hopefully draw a line under the incident & allow everyone to move on. Blue Sonnet (talk) 07:45, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
- I took a break from Wikipedia to cool off, as I felt that I was too frustrated to continue being a productive editor in the meantime. I will happily support any and all ANI recommendations for me. JasonMacker (talk) 21:55, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks for coming back to the discussion, I think that was probably a good idea in this case.
- Having two stressed-out editors at a dramaboard would have just made things worse, thankfully looks like everything's sorted out now. Blue Sonnet (talk) 00:17, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
- I took a break from Wikipedia to cool off, as I felt that I was too frustrated to continue being a productive editor in the meantime. I will happily support any and all ANI recommendations for me. JasonMacker (talk) 21:55, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
- Support although I think MWFwiki needs to better recognise that their behaviour here has started to get way more disruptive than JasonMacker's incivility. Nil Einne (talk) 08:18, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
- Support. Although, frankly, had I been the one framing the proposal, I would have certainly worded it so as to contain a warning for MWFwiki, whom I would argue has raised far more red flags here with regard to their approach to handling personal disputes. SnowRise let's rap 09:22, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
- Support, although MWFwiki should realize that they also have come very close to getting in trouble too. 🚂ThatTrainGuy1945 Peep peep! 11:33, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
- Support - I admit I went too far and let anger take me to a place I shouldn't have gone.--JasonMacker (talk) 21:56, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
- I appreciate that and I apologize for frustrating you. I genuinely think you are a strong editor and given your relative experience was primarily why I reacted so strongly to your response. That being said, I can acknowledge my role in all of this and I hope we can move-on. — MWFwiki (talk) 00:12, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
- Despite my fairly sharp criticism for both of you above, I want to say that I am very impressed with both of you for being willing to reach toward a mutual mea culpa. It is a result that we see in this space far too infrequently, and a resolution that is clearly as ideal as can be hoped for in the circumstances. Because of the extent of my commentary above, I do not believe it would be appropriate for me to close this discussion, but if I was able to, I would comment that in the final analysis it appears that this dispute merely caught you both at a bad moment and does not appear to reflect on your general attitudes as collaborators. SnowRise let's rap 01:25, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
- I appreciate that and I apologize for frustrating you. I genuinely think you are a strong editor and given your relative experience was primarily why I reacted so strongly to your response. That being said, I can acknowledge my role in all of this and I hope we can move-on. — MWFwiki (talk) 00:12, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
- Support as proposed. Guz13 (talk) 21:59, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
Disruptive edits
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Jakstone53221 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been removing my edits and claiming that ABS-CBN Studios is not a production company even though this link says so https://entertainment.inquirer.net/662586/joshua-garcia-ivana-alawis-love-is-never-gone-to-premiere-on-may-8/amp. It is for the Love Is Never Gone series. I don’t think he’s reading the sources and just adds whatever he wants. He also claims he created the article but the truth is I was the one who created the article. So please make this guy understand if not block him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miamiwin (talk • contribs) 14:33, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
- Why did you ignore the discussion that they started? M.Bitton (talk) 14:43, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
- (Non-admin comment) This seems more like a content dispute to me. Jakstone did violate crystal ball in a small way, with the gut feeling. Also, there is no article ownership principle (Wikipedia:Ownership of content). TheClocksAlwaysTurn (The Clockworks) (contribs) 14:45, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
- Looking over it this is just mostly a content dispute, boiling down to the reported user doing a WP:SYNTH here. Both should calm down and resolve it the article's* talk page instead of coming straight to here, and also stop reverting each other while it's in dispute. BrandNewSaint (talk) 14:45, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
- Building on this: If this dispute is a large issue, then maybe try going to the dispute resolution noticeboard? TheClocksAlwaysTurn (The Clockworks) (contribs) 14:47, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
- The answer will be the same regardless if I answered the talk page because it’s the same statement from his talk page. So the answers will be the same. I told him what he can understand and he should read the official sources and news articles. He won’t calm down and will keep doing what he is doing. I don’t think he’ll ever calm down. I can be calm. I don’t know about him. I hope a higher up can explain how things work on Wikipedia because after I told him about rules he thinks he’s still right I don’t know what to do. Miamiwin (talk) 14:53, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
- If the both of you can't come to a consensus on the dispute, try taking it to the dispute resolution noticeboard. There you both can make your cases, and a volunteer will help you. And please remember, owning an article does not exist on Wikipedia. I'm directing the ownership part to you and Jakstone. Please assume good faith, as accusing someone of not following the rules isn't civil. TheClocksAlwaysTurn (The Clockworks) (contribs) 14:58, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is built on collaboration - talking to other editors then reaching a decision on what to do.
- You need to talk to each other on the article Talk page, where others may join in and help you reach a consensus.
- If you can't reach a consensus, then you follow dispute resolution processes and whoever mediates can clearly see the discussion history in one place.
- You can't refuse to collaborate or talk to each other, if everyone did that Wikipedia would stop functioning completely. Blue Sonnet (talk) 15:27, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
- For example: If someone throws a curved-angular throwing stick that commonly returns to the thrower, and someone next to them doesn't catch it before it slams into the thrower's nose making it broken, then nothing good would come of it. TheClocksAlwaysTurn (The Clockworks) (contribs) 15:37, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
- It seems that I am forced to remind my esteemed fellow editors once again that Arbcom has authorized escalating blocks for the use of coy circumlocutions for boomerang. EEng 15:49, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
- Aw, but they're fun & educational!
- Anyway I hope this is the end of it, since the article history page from today is a confusing mess of reverts - there are 46 edits in the last 12hrs alone, when it barely hits three a day on average... Blue Sonnet (talk) 15:59, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
- Oh jeez, I've definetly done that before...
- But yeah, this is a content dispute. Hope it's the end too. 🚂ThatTrainGuy1945 Peep peep! 16:01, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
- Aye, you win some and you lose some. Seems I got struck in the nose by a boomerang myself. Anybody got some Tylenol, or maybe the ArbCom decision log that banned circumlocutions for boomerang? TheClocksAlwaysTurn (The Clockworks) (contribs) 16:04, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
- I'm not sure EEng was being serious, it just happens so often at ANI that we're running out of synonyms & they're getting rather expensive. Blue Sonnet (talk) 16:30, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
- If a boomerang were to strike a clock, would that clock be hit with a block? Or would this terrible attempt at poetry, be nothing but a stupid attempt at tomfoolery? (At least it isn't a haiku!) TheClocksAlwaysTurn (The Clockworks) (contribs) 16:35, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
- If boomerang should strike a clock would that clock receive a block? Burma-shave EEng 01:11, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
- If a boomerang were to strike a clock, would that clock be hit with a block? Or would this terrible attempt at poetry, be nothing but a stupid attempt at tomfoolery? (At least it isn't a haiku!) TheClocksAlwaysTurn (The Clockworks) (contribs) 16:35, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
- I'm not sure EEng was being serious, it just happens so often at ANI that we're running out of synonyms & they're getting rather expensive. Blue Sonnet (talk) 16:30, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
- Did they really do that? That's funny. MEN KISSING (she/they) Talk to me, I don't bite! - See my edits 21:04, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
- I think I just took a joke as serious. Woops! TheClocksAlwaysTurn (The Clockworks) (contribs)< TheClocksAlwaysTurn (The Clockworks) (contribs) 21:06, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
- "Circumlocution" sounds like it's the word for the thing a boomerang does, to be honest. MEN KISSING (she/they) Talk to me, I don't bite! - See my edits 21:19, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
- So a boomerang, boomeranging on the person trying to avoid boomerang. Say that 10 times fast TheClocksAlwaysTurn (The Clockworks) (contribs) 21:21, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
- No, thanks, I'm in a public library. Wait what the heck is this AnI report about? I was distracted by the promise of ArbCom trivia. This should be closed as premature, it's just a content dispute. MEN KISSING (she/they) Talk to me, I don't bite! - See my edits 21:28, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
- I had the two go to the article talk page and hopefully they’re trying to work it out there. If they can’t, they most likely will head to DRN. So yeah, this ANI can probably be closed TheClocksAlwaysTurn (The Clockworks) (contribs) 21:32, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
- No, thanks, I'm in a public library. Wait what the heck is this AnI report about? I was distracted by the promise of ArbCom trivia. This should be closed as premature, it's just a content dispute. MEN KISSING (she/they) Talk to me, I don't bite! - See my edits 21:28, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
- So a boomerang, boomeranging on the person trying to avoid boomerang. Say that 10 times fast TheClocksAlwaysTurn (The Clockworks) (contribs) 21:21, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
- "Circumlocution" sounds like it's the word for the thing a boomerang does, to be honest. MEN KISSING (she/they) Talk to me, I don't bite! - See my edits 21:19, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
- I think I just took a joke as serious. Woops! TheClocksAlwaysTurn (The Clockworks) (contribs)< TheClocksAlwaysTurn (The Clockworks) (contribs) 21:06, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
- It seems that I am forced to remind my esteemed fellow editors once again that Arbcom has authorized escalating blocks for the use of coy circumlocutions for boomerang. EEng 15:49, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
- For example: If someone throws a curved-angular throwing stick that commonly returns to the thrower, and someone next to them doesn't catch it before it slams into the thrower's nose making it broken, then nothing good would come of it. TheClocksAlwaysTurn (The Clockworks) (contribs) 15:37, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
WP:HOUNDING, personal attacks, negative comments about other editors being autistic or from Africa, and issues with the copyright policy from User:Louiscope
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.
Yesterday, Louiscope copied material from an external website, and was reverted by User:The4lines. []
They responded by going to several pages the4lines had edited recently, blanking or removing random content with WP:POINTy edit summaries about the copyright policy, for which I left them a warning about WP:HOUNDING and said I would escalate to AN/I if they didn't stop.
Another editor, User:Theeverywhereperson left them an anti-vandalism warning about inadequately explained content removal on one of those articles.
They have responded to that revert by re-reverting, with an edit summary saying Obviously explained, is it not in your language??? Austin user
and leaving a post on the other editor's talkpage, which includes the lines Warming about your Austin! Enjoy your day African girl! Love from the other side of the REAL world! Much stricter place as it's much richer!
Note that Theeverywhereperson notes on their userpage that they have autism, and are from Uganda. While Louiscope's spelling leaves something to be desired, it's very clear that this is what they're referring to. Normally I would wait for more warnings for disruptive editing and personal attacks, but comments about other editor's race, autism, and WP:HOUNDING are unacceptable. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 10:25, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks for reporting. After I reverted one of these seemingly vindicative content removals they left an odd message on my talk page and replaced the warnings on their talk page with "No one knows you guys. Love, someone known." Seems to me to be a disruptive and non-constructive user. Rccn (talk 10:42, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
Undone Rolled back their removal. Theeverywhereperson talk here 11:22, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
- As clear a case of WP:NOTHERE as you're ever likely to see, based on a review of the user's edits. Sławomir Biały (talk) 10:54, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
- Blocked indefinitely. Attacking someone based on their origin and autism is blatantly inappropriate. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 10:55, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
- Just saw this on my user talk page, though, and I'll remove it and replace it with (personal attack removed). Can someone revdel for me? Theeverywhereperson talk here 11:05, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
- I also rolled back their (mostly) blanking of the page. I know this tactic very well. If only I didn't have to use rollback to exercise authority and mean business. Theeverywhereperson talk here 11:12, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
- I have revdeled the edit. Lectonar (talk) 13:07, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks GreenLipstickLesbian for reporting, and acting quickly everyone. The4lines |||| (talk) 14:12, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
- I have revdeled the edit. Lectonar (talk) 13:07, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
- I also rolled back their (mostly) blanking of the page. I know this tactic very well. If only I didn't have to use rollback to exercise authority and mean business. Theeverywhereperson talk here 11:12, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
- Just saw this on my user talk page, though, and I'll remove it and replace it with (personal attack removed). Can someone revdel for me? Theeverywhereperson talk here 11:05, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
Disruptive edits, POV pushing and edit warring
This is happening on the Agbada page with @Oluwafemi1726 disregarding sourced content and talk page discussions to push POV and edit war. He is reverting back and forth. It is best that page is locked. Dolpina (talk) 15:51, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
- Hello @Dolpina and Wikipedia moderators. Talk:Agbada the talk page is here.
- To start off, the edit i edited originally said " and much of their use has been associated with Islamic influence. " https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Agbada&oldid=1347754688 i edited that single sentence, by adding a direct quote saying " their uses have been described as “embroidered gowns with Islamic influence”. "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Agbada&oldid=1347774724. the original poster is trying to argue that, i'm "disrupting", and diverting the frame of the text.
- The edit I made only revised a single sentence that already discussed Islamic influence by replacing the wording “been associated with Islamic influence” with a quotation that more clearly reflects and reiterates that same idea. It did not introduce a new focus or make Islamic influence the central topic of the page, but simply clarified how that specific sentence expresses the existing content. The intent was to improve how that point is conveyed without changing the overall scope of the article or its broader balance of sources and perspectives. I don’t know how removing a sentence thats Already talking about islamic influence and putting a quote that reiterates it better, is making it a “central point”, or even changing the article, when i edited a specific sentence that is already talking about islamic influence.
- A simpler example would be if a text on the history of jazz in europe said “jazz music in Europe developed through influence from African American traditions,” and I replaced that sentence with “jazz in Europe comes from African American influence,” presented as a quotation supported by a source. This would restate the same idea more directly while also adding cited wording to back up the claim and make it more authoritative. If someone kept reverting that change, it would be similar to rejecting a clearer phrasing that is both equivalent in meaning and better supported with evidence. While the op is trying to my to argue like the wiki edit i changed said “agbada has no islamic influence”, and i changed it to “agabada has islamic influence”. The sentence i changed is already talking about the same thing. Could you please look into this, as it feels like my edits may be getting reverted in bad faith due to prior discussions or personal bias rather than the substance of the change.
- Now Sohvyan , has edited the sentence to say "and they have been described as embroidered robes with both Islamic and non-Islamic influences." https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Agbada&oldid=1347911320https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Agbada&oldid=1347911320
- He is deliberately adding "non-islamic", keep in mind the sentence that was there originally only highlighted that it had islamic influence, which @Sohvyan wrote him self, and my edit, didn't change any of that, It did not introduce a new focus or make Islamic influence the central topic of the page, but simply clarified how that specific sentence expresses the existing content. Now he has added "non-islamic" to the context, which im sure if i try to revert, his stance will be that im trying to change the central point of the argument, to make it seem like im adding islamic influence, or making islam the center point of the argument (as he tried earlierbefore in the talk page Talk:Agbada"There is no reason to quote Islamic influence as a central point here when the article isn't about islamic influence "despite the fact, the sentence i removed was only editing the islamic influence on it, and replacing a sentence with a quote).
- The crux of the argument is : the original sentence was "and much of their use has been associated with Islamic influence." i edited to i edited that single sentence, by adding a direct quote saying " their uses have been described as “embroidered gowns with Islamic influence”. That is the argument, over one sentence, that is already talking, and confessing there is islamic influence, i replaced with a quote. Oluwafemi1726 (talk) 16:15, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
- I really don't understand how you have managed to make this such a big issue.
- My original quote was "much of their use has been associated with Islamic influence." much, here obviously has the nuance of implying that yes this exists, but it is not all. You removing that nuance and replacing the source with your own, left no room for other influences cited by other sources, taking away from the original point. I added the source you removed back, kept the one you added, as well as referenced an additional one, to keep the point that both Muslims and Non-muslims have influenced the robes, but for whatever reason you seem persistent on removing any source that you didn't add there. It's been incredibly disruptive. Sohvyan (talk) 16:40, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
- when you said "much of their use" the central point is still highlighting the islamic influence. But you know to be fair, i will concede and say we can reverse it back to much of their use has been associated with islamic influence, as i believe most of the page was generally neutral, and better written than the previous edits. i don't think it was a big deal, as it was only one sentence, before it turned into this. Oluwafemi1726 (talk) 16:49, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
- You are still editing the article after this comment, now you are adding sources to the article as if to hide your disruption. You didn't concede anything, if you are keeping the sources I added in my latest edit, also keep what they say, namely that the robes have both islamic and non-islamic influence. I don't understand why you are trying to muddy the article by further adding sources while this ANI is open. This is the disruption I'm talking about. Sohvyan (talk) 17:19, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
- when you said "much of their use" the central point is still highlighting the islamic influence. But you know to be fair, i will concede and say we can reverse it back to much of their use has been associated with islamic influence, as i believe most of the page was generally neutral, and better written than the previous edits. i don't think it was a big deal, as it was only one sentence, before it turned into this. Oluwafemi1726 (talk) 16:49, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
- Sohvyan and Oluwafemi1726 are both edit-warring and should have both been reported to WP:EWN. The rest is a content dispute that needs to be resolved on the article's talk page. Schazjmd (talk) 16:52, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
Persistent disruptive editing by Arif1997
- Arif1997 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Over the past 9 months, Arif1997 has received escalating warnings, from multiple editors, because of: original research, sources that fail verification, sources that are unreliable, and unsourced additions and changes. Their editing includes topics related to the Bangladesh military, so they've also received a South Asia contentious topics notice. They have not replied to any of these.
Today, in a series of edits to List of equipment of the Bangladesh Army they inflated the organization's capabilities by adding two weapons systems:
- HQ-16, citing sources that say Pakistan has the system, not that Bangladesh does
- PHL-16, citing an undefined named reference
They also added an irrelevant reference for the HQ-9 that says nothing about the HQ-9 or about Bangladesh.
My impression is that they are either not here to build an encyclopedia or not competent to do so. Whatever the case may be, their persistent disruptive editing of a contentious topic while failing to communicate is harming the encyclopedia. --Worldbruce (talk) 20:05, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
- Those access dates don't look right - "access-date=2021-07-20" & "access-date=10 April 2024"?
- Going through their history, the date hardly ever matches the date of the edit itself, inferring that they're taken from elsewhere and aren't being checked before addition.
- They don't add prose to articles so I'm not sure whether they're using AI or just straight cutting & pasting?
- After looking at their history, I've got similar concerns in addition to the ones raised above:
- They've had a third of their edits reverted (40 of 125)
- Worryingly, they've been here for more than four years and have never used a Talk page of any sort. Communication is required, yet they haven't spoken to another editor even once (nor used edit summaries) despite multiple warnings from July 2025 onwards.
- They're editing in an isolated bubble and that can't continue.
- Can an admin please block them from articles until they communicate, or consider an indef on competency grounds? Blue Sonnet (talk) 21:39, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
- Both those references are simply lifted from List of equipment of the Pakistan Army; the ref titles come up on search. Both were added on the access-date dates, by separate editors as the different choices in citation suggest. Arif1997, why did you copy Pakistan sources into the Bangladesh article?? Yngvadottir (talk) 23:06, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
- Support block until they come here to communicate, or support indef under CIR. 🚂ThatTrainGuy1945 Peep peep! 15:40, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
- Block and revert edits, please. Arif1997 has continued to edit, again adding military equipment with sources that don't support the additions. I've just reverted the addition among others of a listing based on this source, which doesn't mention Bangladesh; and also doesn't mention Egypt, but Arif1997 copied the table section and ref from Egyptian Air Defense Forces, where it was added last year by IP 68.195.58.132, who also edited List of equipment of the Bangladesh Army. They were reverted there, and I've taken out the bit at Egyptian Air Defense Forces, but their other contributions should be inspected for source misuse. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:10, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
CristianA.Castillo - Obvious case of WP:CIR including Copyright 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.
CristianA.Castillo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This may seem BITEy in nature but warranted in this case. The above account was created four days ago and quite simply shows a basic lack of competence when it comes to the purpose of Wikipedia.
- Attempting to create an "article" that is just a copy and paste job of this Fandom wikia
- Attempting to upload a professional headshot of a voice actor here and having uploaded a photo of them at Commons which are also both simply lifted straight from that wikia "article" that in turn is clearly lifting them from the person's Instagram account, and claiming both are suitably free of copyright restrictions with zero evidence of this (and the opposite is more than likely)
- Their userpage suggests they're simply WP:NOTHERE but instead only created an account to try and extend "birthday mode" for a month to submit an animation for it.
- Outside this they are now posting about how we aren't neutral because Musk said so or something
They quite simply, seemingly by their own admission, don't know what's going on or what they're doing. So please can they be indeffed before they cause more copyvio problems. Rambling Rambler (talk) 19:11, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
- i promise I'd get into that copyright agreement with the foundation! CristianA.Castillo (talk) 19:24, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
- This makes zero sense, and highlights my point here. Rambling Rambler (talk) 19:44, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
Blocked indefinitely. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:50, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
- I was honestly leaning towards a "they're a troll" explanation, given the baby globe and grokipedia comments. signed, Rosguill talk 19:53, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
- The BFDI draft made me think this was a very young person, not an adult trolling. Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 20:15, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
- I didn't even notice the baby globe was gone until I saw this, but now I miss it - 🚂ThatTrainGuy1945 Peep peep! 20:17, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
- I was honestly leaning towards a "they're a troll" explanation, given the baby globe and grokipedia comments. signed, Rosguill talk 19:53, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
- Hey Cristian, I think it'd be a good idea if you read WP:YOUNG. Feel free to continue editing afterwards, but make sure you take the information seriously first. Tessaract2 (hello) 19:47, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
- Ah, damn. Fair block, to be honest. Tessaract2 (hello) 19:54, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
- This makes zero sense, and highlights my point here. Rambling Rambler (talk) 19:44, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
BLP 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.
Scientelensia has been restoring content to the page Zack Polanski that I think violates the following ruling from WP:BLP, "Contentious material about living (or, in some cases, recently deceased) persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion."
Here are the relevant diffs: one, two, three and four (three relating to hypnotherapy). The claims about Polanski are based on a deprecated source, WP:THESUN. There are other articles that discuss the matter but they are all based on the original and primary source which is The Sun, which is deprecated. This clearly makes the content unreliable or at the very best questionable, therefore violating the above BLP ruling I quoted. I have tried to discuss the matter with Scientelensia here. Helper201 (talk) 18:35, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
- I haven't been the only one 'tussling' with this user (blocked previously for edit warring), and what the user attributes to me is misleading, since I didn't originally add this (only keeping it). Please see 'Zack Polanski: Revision history' and Talk:Zack Polanski#Proposed lead and Talk:Zack Polanski#Content removal, where I try to explain the matter to Helper201. (In reality, Helper201's real quarrel should be with whoever added this content – my (as yet unfounded) suspicion is that Helper201 resents the criticism of the article's subject – and is just taking it out on me.) Rather, @Helper201's conduct can be described as warring repeatedly with multiple editors, as I raised here: User talk:ToBeFree#Hi – concern over Helper201. Scientelensia (talk) 18:37, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
- I would propose @Helper201 be blocked from edit warring on a political page again (cc.
- 21:40, 19 December 2025 ToBeFree talk contribs blocked Helper201 talk contribs from the page Reform UK with an expiration time of 2 weeks(account creation blocked) (Edit warring)). The user's edits are destructive and unhelpful. Scientelensia (talk) 18:39, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
- Essentially, the user believes articles from the Independent, BBC and LBC (etc.) should all be removed because they mention an article from the Sun, which is outside the scope of wikipedia policy. @Helper201 is guilty of misunderstanding, which is not a 'crime' in itself, but failing to learn and making malignant edits is more reprehensible. See the edit diffs and the talk pages (I'm not the only one who has tried to explain to @Helper201). [Also, sorry to add this, but I felt it necessary to add that I removed the Sun source a while ago in an attempt to compromise, though other users agreed with my original standpoint]Scientelensia (talk) 18:41, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
- I was first to engage on talk and create a talk page discussion over this and to come here rather than edit war. I'm not here to try and get you in trouble Scientelensia so please don't take this as a personal attack. I'm taking this here because I think it’s a violation of the BLP policy and should be removed immediately, per the above ruling. And no, I'm, not saying because "they mention The Sun" they shouldn't stand, I'm saying because the basis and original claim originates from The Sun, therefore the content shouldn't be there. Helper201 (talk) 18:45, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
- Ok, but because the BBC uses the Sun, doesn't invalidate the BBC article in Wikipedia policy – i.e. you are trying to go outside the scope of the policy. Admittedly, you're not doing this on purpose, but it still taking up time! Scientelensia (talk) 18:47, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
- I'm glad you're trying to go by Wikipedia policy, but you are in this case misunderstanding it. Scientelensia (talk) 18:48, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
- Ceasefire, please. Give people time to look at the situation. Tessaract2 (hello) 18:49, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
- I'm glad you're trying to go by Wikipedia policy, but you are in this case misunderstanding it. Scientelensia (talk) 18:48, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
- Ok, but because the BBC uses the Sun, doesn't invalidate the BBC article in Wikipedia policy – i.e. you are trying to go outside the scope of the policy. Admittedly, you're not doing this on purpose, but it still taking up time! Scientelensia (talk) 18:47, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
- I was first to engage on talk and create a talk page discussion over this and to come here rather than edit war. I'm not here to try and get you in trouble Scientelensia so please don't take this as a personal attack. I'm taking this here because I think it’s a violation of the BLP policy and should be removed immediately, per the above ruling. And no, I'm, not saying because "they mention The Sun" they shouldn't stand, I'm saying because the basis and original claim originates from The Sun, therefore the content shouldn't be there. Helper201 (talk) 18:45, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
- This appears to mainly be a content dispute, and the possible conduct issues lie within the content. Let's check the sources, see if this passes WP:BLP.
- Sources used:
- - Southwest Londoner, which just says "According to the article" without specifying the source (odd). Not listed at WP:RSP. I wouldn't use this.
- - LBC, which asks Polanski about the The Sun article and gets a new response. Not listed at WP:RSP. I would use this source, seems credible.
- - The Sun. Deprecated at WP:RSP, absolutely not.
- - BBC, which starts with referring to the The Sun article but then goes off with new information. Considered reliable at WP:RSP. I would 100% use this source.
- - This Inkl link is actually an article from The Independent. I can't access it from this page, but WP:RSP says generally reliable, so if it's not completely copying the The Sun article it's fine.
- - Left Foot Forward starts with the The Sun article but once again gets new information. Nothing on WP:RSP. I'd probably use this.
- There's no major BLP breach here.
- As for edit warring, I see one revert on each side. No conduct issues, ANI is the wrong place. Talk it out on the talk page. Use WP:3O or WP:DR if you can't get to a good spot. Tessaract2 (hello) 19:02, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
- Thank you, that sounds sensible. I should add that prior to this discussion I already removed the Sun article. I think the Independent one is fine. Thanks! Scientelensia (talk) 19:06, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
- I would have appreciated a notification about the existence of this noticeboard discussion. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:12, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
- Sorry! Scientelensia (talk) 19:18, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
- apologies ! (not sure if this message already came through) Scientelensia (talk) 19:19, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
- Tessaract2 what about diff two linking the page Zack Polanski breast enlargement controversy which is under discussion for deletion with a clear majority in favour, is that not at least questionable to place such an emphasis on such a page by linking it on its own at the top of a section like this? Also diff four restoring about "other body parts" of which similar edits appear to have been edited back and forth over by multiple editors including Black Kite (here and here are at least two other times). Helper201 (talk) 19:25, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
- Diff 2 would be entirely appropriate if the article wasn't about to get deleted. I think deletion of the article is correct, but if the article were to be kept, that would be a good edit.
- I'm not a fan of the "other body parts" line in Diff 4 myself but that's mainly because it just seems like trivia, and the rest of that edit is fine. Tessaract2 (hello) 19:29, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
- No problem. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:46, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
- Tessaract2 what about diff two linking the page Zack Polanski breast enlargement controversy which is under discussion for deletion with a clear majority in favour, is that not at least questionable to place such an emphasis on such a page by linking it on its own at the top of a section like this? Also diff four restoring about "other body parts" of which similar edits appear to have been edited back and forth over by multiple editors including Black Kite (here and here are at least two other times). Helper201 (talk) 19:25, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
User: ~2026-21982-35
Good morning, ~2026-21982-35 keeps vandalising pages and changing the same persons name when incorrect and being reverted multiple times. Busandtrainfannorthwestgeography (talk) 06:15, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
- User links: ~2026-21982-35 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)Hi! Good evening (well that's what it is for me!)Firstly, when you start a discussion about someone here, as it says in a big highlighted box at the top of this page and in the edit notice, you need to let them know. I have done this for you now.I took a look at this user's contributions and this doesn't seem to be
changing the same persons name when incorrect and being reverted multiple times
- On Vijay Singh Pathik they made a series of edits changing his name in multiple places. Then, they were only reverted once:
- On Dhan Singh Gurjar (a different person) they made two edits changing the name, , , then, after they made both those edits, you reverted each edit individually, ,
- So, they've only been reverted a total of 2 times, both by a different person on a different article. And nobody has sent them any Talk messages or warnings about this, to let them know about our sourcing policies. Therefore, seems really premature for ANI. I don't see how it's a chronic nor urgent issue.However, I'm not too familiar with Indian stuff, but to me it seems this also might be a WP:CASTE issue with the edits they have made to the articles. Perhaps someone more familiar with those issues should check if any of the edits are offensive or otherwise inappropriate concerning that, but still, they've had no warnings or any communication and it's only happened twice, so ANI still seems a bit overkill unless I'm misunderstanding this. MolecularPilot Talk 09:55, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
- Ok thanks for your help. I’m don’t know much either but after looking online seems to be vandalism. Busandtrainfannorthwestgeography (talk) 11:08, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
Deuwberst
Deuwberst (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This Polish user named Deuwberst tried to corrupt and vandalize my edits. Please block this user. Krzys123456 (talk) 12:20, 06 April 2026 (UTC)
- You did not properly notify Deuwberst of this ANI thread. I have now done so. As for the thread itself, I'm not seeing anything other than a content dispute. Since neither of you seem to use edit summaries, it's hard to know what's going on. Do you have any diffs you'd like to highlight?
- The only thing I can find is this, which seems to be an insult according to Google Translate. That doesn't seem to be a pattern, so it probably only necessitates a warning. Tessaract2 (hello) 12:44, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
- WHEN YOU POST TO AN/I DON'T FORGET TO NOTIFY Burma-shave EEng 11:35, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
- It would appear there is some history between these two editors, with both now having come to ANI about the other reverting them. nil nz 12:50, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
- There's also this strange diff that appears to be Krzys removing their own apology to Deuw?? And that's the only communication between the two of them that I can find at a glance. Something needs to happen here. Tessaract2 (hello) 13:02, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
- Looking at Deuwberst's contributions, they've reverted several of Krzys123456's edits without giving a reason in the edit summary beyond what broadly translates to "Are you starting again, you brat/punk?".
- Considering Deuwberst was unblocked following an explicit promise to refrain from personal attacks, this is rather concerning.
- @Krzys123456 This is why you need to provide diffs as evidence and a full explanation of your concerns. You don't use edit summaries and only gave a very broad sentence of what was happening, so we've had to figure out what you mean. Other editors usually don't have the time to dig through your history and try to guess what's going on - as the reporting editor, it's your responsibility to state your case as clearly as possible for others to consider. Blue Sonnet (talk) 15:21, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
- There's also this strange diff that appears to be Krzys removing their own apology to Deuw?? And that's the only communication between the two of them that I can find at a glance. Something needs to happen here. Tessaract2 (hello) 13:02, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
- This user deleted Aion N60 again and I had to restore it again because it is based on Aion Y. Krzys123456 (talk) 15:25, 06 April 2026 (UTC)
- Can you give us more detail? Tessaract2 (hello) 15:52, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
- Since we're apparently not going to get any diffs from Krzys123456, I think it's this one: I think this is about Deuwberst reverting edits without giving a reason. Broadly speaking a content dispute, but concerning in view of the insult. Just to reiterate that I'm guessing because we're not getting a clear explanation or diffs from Krzys123456, possibly due to language difficulties as per EEng. Blue Sonnet (talk) 16:13, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
- Personally if I don't hear anything substantial from Krzys or Deuw, I think a double mainspace block to get them talking might be necessary. This seems to be a somewhat longstanding slow edit war across about half a dozen pages. At the same time, they seem to be contributing in good faith, and I know some users just flat out leave if they get blocked from mainspace... Tessaract2 (hello) 16:37, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
- Since we're apparently not going to get any diffs from Krzys123456, I think it's this one: I think this is about Deuwberst reverting edits without giving a reason. Broadly speaking a content dispute, but concerning in view of the insult. Just to reiterate that I'm guessing because we're not getting a clear explanation or diffs from Krzys123456, possibly due to language difficulties as per EEng. Blue Sonnet (talk) 16:13, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
- Can you give us more detail? Tessaract2 (hello) 15:52, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
- This user deleted Aion N60 again and I had to restore it again because it is based on Aion Y. Krzys123456 (talk) 15:25, 06 April 2026 (UTC)
- I'd like to apologise for allowing myself be provoked, as it was clearly an intention of user "Krzys123456", I should ignore his yet another provocation based on clicking "revert" on random stuff - as you've cited above, he's constantly trying to escalate some abnoxious edit wars in which I don't really want to engage in, but it's unacceptable to revert a contribution without any argument. Really. Sorry guys you need to waste your time on that pointless feud, I'm not even an immersive contributor to the en-wiki as I only edit some stuff from time to time. I thought fixing some tiny details in one article and removing wrongly added mention of car B in the article about unrelated car A won't be controversial whatsoever, but seems like any opportunity is good to start a feud. Sorry for escalating this, I was a little bit petty thinking that if I'll maliciously revert an edit just like this dude does, he'll see how annyoing is that, especially when your edit should never be reverted without an explanation. Next time when this user will be once again provoking me, I'll just report it and ignore him. Because this is the essence of this issue - he's reverting edits without any explanation. And it's wrong. Sorry Deuwberst (talk) 17:35, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
- You're welcome. I'm a Polish user because I enjoy correcting articles on the Polish and English Wikipedia. Krzys123456 (talk) 17:50, 06 April 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks for responding; seems like you're in the same pickle we're in. The best thing you can do if you're reverted without explanation is to ping the other user on the article's talk page and ask them why they reverted. If they don't respond after a while, you should be fine to re-revert. And don't forget to explain your own edits properly as well! Tessaract2 (hello) 18:18, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
I don't use Google Translate, I just correct my own edits. Krzys123456 (talk) 12:47, 06 April 2026 (UTC)
- I have not accused you of using Google Translate. I was using Google Translate myself to translate someone else's edit summary. Tessaract2 (hello) 12:52, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
I didn't make a mistake. Krzys123456 (talk) 12:54, 06 April 2026 (UTC)
- Per the OP's userpage he believes he has a native understanding of English. At the very least, there may be a overconfidence problem on that end. (No opinion on the editor he's complaining about.) EEng 14:57, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
- I sometimes edit pages in other languages, but I expect that if conflict arises, it is MY fault. I think both should get a slap and be advised to stick to minor technical edits in en.wp from now on. Mr.choppers | ✎ 16:18, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
GKNation
- Talk:S. M. Kamrul Hassan (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
- GKNation (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
GKNation is presently edit-warring over a declined XC-edit-request template on the talk page, demanding the photo on the article proper be changed. I'm declining to do it as I'm fairly certain - but cannot prove given prior edits to other articles and age - that they're a MGBD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) sockpuppet given the obsession with changing the image. They've also been effectively trying to spam unprotection requests for the main article (likely to try and force thru their edit), starting at WP:RFPP/D and now at User talk:Daniel Quinlan (the protecting admin; ) and a malformed request at WP:ARE (). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 20:29, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
- As outlined in my comment on their talk page right after their last edit, they are about one disruptive edit away from losing editing privileges. I'm not familiar with the sockmaster, although the link is certainly plausible. signed, Rosguill talk 21:24, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
- MGBD has somewhat of a monomania for S. M. Kamrul Hassan specifically, and the Bangladesh military more generally. His last few sockpuppets have been focused almost solely on getting the image on the article changed to a different one for whatever reason. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 23:36, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
- It's vital that the image be changed. Without that image, Wikipedia readers would have no way of knowing that...a general knows how to salute? :) BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 17:33, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
- One of the images that he offered (which showed him standing against a solid blue background) was actually removed by Black Kite on the grounds it was likely copyvio. The "salute" image still on the talkpage looks like a badly-upscaled image. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 03:13, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
- It's vital that the image be changed. Without that image, Wikipedia readers would have no way of knowing that...a general knows how to salute? :) BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 17:33, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
- MGBD has somewhat of a monomania for S. M. Kamrul Hassan specifically, and the Bangladesh military more generally. His last few sockpuppets have been focused almost solely on getting the image on the article changed to a different one for whatever reason. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 23:36, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
- As an update, it looks like we have a LOUTSOCK taking up GKNation's sword: ~2026-22260-89's first and thus far only edit was to demand the image be changed to a badly-upscaled headshot. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 14:26, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
- Blocked the IP. Holding off on the named account for now per @Rosguill's final warning Star Mississippi 19:04, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
HangingCurve – unsourced additions
In August 2025, I posted the following message at User talk:HangingCurve#More errors:
Please stop introducing inaccuracies and vague filler text that is unsourced to articles. This is the second time this year I have had to post here and the fifth time this year anyone has on this specific issue, and the next egregious introduction of errors will have to be met with greater force to encourage you to stop.
Unfortunately, here we are at the next egregious introduction of errors. I have spent the last seven-plus months scrutinizing every HangingCurve edit that floats past my watchlist in the field of broadcasting. Some of them are fine. Others, not so much. HCurve has, as I have said in the past here at ANI, a track record of adding unsourced material and synthesis to articles
. These additions require remediation or removal because they fail verification.
At KTXS-TV, he added that the station was cutting CBS programming to a bare minimum in 1979. The source reads, (KTXS, Channel 12, had primary affiliation with ABC and a secondary affiliation with CBS, but was showing relatively little CBS programming, he said.
At CHLT-DT, he re-added a detail that had been removed in a rewrite because I could not cite it: Pathonic's schedule diverged enough from that of CFTM that CHLT was picked up on cable in the Montreal area.
. It seems CHLT had been on cable in Montreal simply because it was close by, not because of Pathonic's scheduling of programming.
I have previously dinged him for unsourced additions, incorrect quotes, writing style, and the addition of uncitable conjecture. This is the definition of a chronic and intractable problem and has come to ANI before, in 2017 and 2022. And I am not the only one who has noticed it, nor is broadcasting the only topic area affected. My comment on his talk page was the fifth in 2025, and there was a sixth later that year. It's time to take more serious action. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 20:52, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
- Comment - @Number 57 reported him in 2017, in which no action occured. In 2022, SB reported him, and he stated his intentions to go on a wikibreak. There was only one comment beyond that. Hanging Curve did then talk to SB about the ANI and resolution, which appeared to occur, but evidentally something has gone wrong here again, or something was never right.
- In related news, is there a better way to go back to a specific time period to view edits besides going to 500 edits and clicking "older 500" a billion times? 🚂ThatTrainGuy1945 Peep peep! 21:06, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
- He kind of went back to his old ways @ThatTrainGuy1945 pretty quickly. Looking back at some logs I have, he was making edits I had to revert once more by 2023. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 21:10, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
- Yep, you can go to the history and add
&offset=YYYYMMDDHHMMSSat the end of the url (or, if you don't need that much precision, something like&offset=YYYYMMDD000000works too) Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:16, 9 April 2026 (UTC)- Or just click on "Filter revisions" > "To date:" and enter the date (that field does not allow you to enter the time, however, unlike your method). OutsideNormality (talk) 00:10, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
- The actual limit is 5000, it's just not exposed in the UI so you need to modify the URL, particularly the value of "&limit=" parameter. sapphaline (talk) 22:00, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
- IMO HangingCurve brings nothing to Wikipedia. Their contributions to election articles are largely making unverified claims like 'this was the last free election in Fooland until 1995'. And when they aren't introducing factual errors or unverified claims, their additions are often poorly worded. While not all their edits are negative, almost none are positive, which makes then a net drain on the project IMO. I have warned them repeatedly to stop adding unsourced claims over the years – if you look at this one archive of their talkpage you can see a few requests and a block for false representation of sources (they just added a source to an article without checking it supported the facts). Number 57 21:32, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
- I'm not familiar with the edits for the editor in question in recent years. As I discussed in 2017, though, my experience had been that the editor does make useful edits, albeit some times with awkward prose. However I am concerned about the repeated attempts to insert content not present in sources, without engaging in the discussion threads on the talk page. isaacl (talk) 23:21, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
- I've mainly had to edit from my phone since my desktop is showing its age. I read the KTXS piece saying it showed "relatively little CBS programming" meaning it had pared all but a minimum from its schedule while showing mostly ABC programming. I intended to hit the Internet Archive later for a source on CHLT. However, I’m willing to stay off TV articles for a few months—by then I should have a desktop again.HangingCurveSwing for the fence 22:26, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
- You can't add in uncited content and then go look for sources. 🚂ThatTrainGuy1945 Peep peep! 22:30, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
- I agree. @HangingCurve, if you really want to write something you still need a source for, you could try writing in a word processor (there are word processor apps for phones) so that you're not fighting with tabs and also not disrupting Wikipedia. Then, you can look for sources. Once you have the source, you can then copy-paste the content into Wikipedia and cite it. QwertyForest (talk) 22:56, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
- I appreciate you might have computer trouble and empathize with the difficulties of editing on mobile, but this is not a recent phenomenon. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 22:51, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
- Never mind that there's an obvious solution for those whose difficulties in editing on mobile are producing errors and dropped balls: don't edit on mobile. If that means not editing at all without better equipment, oh well. Ravenswing 00:17, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
- However, Ravenswing, compare User:Cullen328/Smartphone editing, a very useful essay. Pinging User:Cullen328 for info. Bishonen | tålk 08:34, 10 April 2026 (UTC).
- Oh, indeed. I'm not down on using smartphones to edit because I think they're evil or morally objectionable; my issue is entirely ergonomic. I've been typing on full-sized keyboards for the better part of fifty years, and my 66-year-old eyes appreciate 12-pt type and accessibility options on my 22" screen. Expecting me to do meaningful edits on a smartphone would be like asking me to handwrite an essay using sidewalk chalk. Ravenswing 12:01, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
- Ravenswing, you are 66 and I am 74, so I have you beat on the "I'm old" excuse. As for your old eyes, I have a lengthy list of ophthalmological conditions and am almost blind in one eye. Thank goodness for skilled lensmakers and modern medicine. Despite all that, I have done the vast majority of my Wikipedia editing going back 16 plus years on smartphones, including writing Good articles, helping thousands of new editors at the Teahouse and the Help Desk, and using administrators tools many thousands of times. To the specific point, I have created thousands of properly formatted references to reliable sources on my phone. Some people think that I am a rara avis. I would like to point out that billions of people worldwide use smartphones to write coherently (and admittedly often incoherently) on social media platforms, email and various forms of texting. So, the problem is NOT the platform. The problem is a lack of attention to detail, to accuracy, to the importance of creating high quality contributions to this encyclopedia, and to our policies and guidelines. I make errors just like everyone, but I proofread my work, correct my typos and polish my phrasing. That is all a long way of saying that slipshod work cannot be blamed on smartphones. It is solely the responsibility of the offending editor. As for too many tabs, at this moment, I have 27 open on my phone with no problems. My next project will be writing an essay with sidewalk chalk, just to prove that it can be done. It is raining today here in Northern California, so I will have to wait for dry weather. Cullen328 (talk) 17:20, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
- Bishzilla eyes way older than the little Ravenswing's and Cullen328's (ca 60 million years + capable of emitting atomic deathrays) so appreciate screen size of Texas. Bishonen borrow sometimes. She pretty old too! bishzilla ROARR!! pocket 18:44, 10 April 2026 (UTC).
- Can Bishie plz go zap the mean AI server centres so Blue can afford a PC & not be stuck on mobile? Thankies. Blue Sonnet (talk) 18:50, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
- I need RAM too, that'd be amazing if I could get some. Unfortunately, analog clocks aren't used much in this day and age. TheClocksAlwaysTurn (The Clockworks) (contribs) 20:44, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
- Strange that @Bishapod not been seen in a while... 🚂ThatTrainGuy1945 Peep peep! 20:36, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
- Can Bishie plz go zap the mean AI server centres so Blue can afford a PC & not be stuck on mobile? Thankies. Blue Sonnet (talk) 18:50, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
- Bishzilla eyes way older than the little Ravenswing's and Cullen328's (ca 60 million years + capable of emitting atomic deathrays) so appreciate screen size of Texas. Bishonen borrow sometimes. She pretty old too! bishzilla ROARR!! pocket 18:44, 10 April 2026 (UTC).
- Ravenswing, you are 66 and I am 74, so I have you beat on the "I'm old" excuse. As for your old eyes, I have a lengthy list of ophthalmological conditions and am almost blind in one eye. Thank goodness for skilled lensmakers and modern medicine. Despite all that, I have done the vast majority of my Wikipedia editing going back 16 plus years on smartphones, including writing Good articles, helping thousands of new editors at the Teahouse and the Help Desk, and using administrators tools many thousands of times. To the specific point, I have created thousands of properly formatted references to reliable sources on my phone. Some people think that I am a rara avis. I would like to point out that billions of people worldwide use smartphones to write coherently (and admittedly often incoherently) on social media platforms, email and various forms of texting. So, the problem is NOT the platform. The problem is a lack of attention to detail, to accuracy, to the importance of creating high quality contributions to this encyclopedia, and to our policies and guidelines. I make errors just like everyone, but I proofread my work, correct my typos and polish my phrasing. That is all a long way of saying that slipshod work cannot be blamed on smartphones. It is solely the responsibility of the offending editor. As for too many tabs, at this moment, I have 27 open on my phone with no problems. My next project will be writing an essay with sidewalk chalk, just to prove that it can be done. It is raining today here in Northern California, so I will have to wait for dry weather. Cullen328 (talk) 17:20, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
- Oh, indeed. I'm not down on using smartphones to edit because I think they're evil or morally objectionable; my issue is entirely ergonomic. I've been typing on full-sized keyboards for the better part of fifty years, and my 66-year-old eyes appreciate 12-pt type and accessibility options on my 22" screen. Expecting me to do meaningful edits on a smartphone would be like asking me to handwrite an essay using sidewalk chalk. Ravenswing 12:01, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
- However, Ravenswing, compare User:Cullen328/Smartphone editing, a very useful essay. Pinging User:Cullen328 for info. Bishonen | tålk 08:34, 10 April 2026 (UTC).
- Never mind that there's an obvious solution for those whose difficulties in editing on mobile are producing errors and dropped balls: don't edit on mobile. If that means not editing at all without better equipment, oh well. Ravenswing 00:17, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
- You can't add in uncited content and then go look for sources. 🚂ThatTrainGuy1945 Peep peep! 22:30, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
User behaviour at AFC
Just wanted to report a situation with an WP:AFC draft submitter not following the rules. I don't know whether it rises to the level of an editblock yet, though I wanted to get some eyes on it as it may escalate to that in the future.
The situation is that Kinh tế chính trị created Draft:Nghiem Hai Anh with categories on it despite WP:DRAFTNOCAT. After it was removed from the categories, they put it back into the categories again, so I advised them on their talk page not to put drafts into categories — but that was ignored, and the page was put back into categories a third time within minutes. So after removing the page from the categories I accordingly applied partial page protection to prevent the page from being added to categories again, exactly as they had been warned was possible if they didn't stop trying to add the page to categories — following which they created the duplicate Draft:Nghiêm Hải Anh (the only difference being the Vietnamese diacritics), which just got put right back into categories again.
I would obviously prefer not to leave the draft protected any longer than necessary — it's never the ideal situation, but it's necessary sometimes to stop editors who are persistent in not listening to the rules. So could somebody who hasn't already been involved review the situation and figure out the next step? Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 14:41, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
- (Non-admin comment) I noticed that there was no discussion on the draft talk page. If for some reason they aren't seeing on their personal talk page, maybe they might see the draft talk? TheClocksAlwaysTurn (The Clockworks) (contribs) 14:45, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
- They reverted a message I posted on their talk earlier, so they're aware that page exists at least. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:50, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
- So this might be a WP:ICANTHEARYOU problem. TheClocksAlwaysTurn (The Clockworks) (contribs) 14:52, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
- Yes, that is indeed what it looks like. Or did you mean WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:54, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
- Or maybe it might be a WP:THEYCANORCANTHEARYOU situation. TheClocksAlwaysTurn (The Clockworks) (contribs) 15:57, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
- Well, on VI Wikipedia the user engaged in a discussion (objecting to a speedy deletion) on their user talk page, so they definitely know of its existence. If the disruption continues I'd block them from draftspace until they get the message. Frankly, I don't think that page they're editing would be mainspace-eligible anyway. The same page on VI Wikipedia is in the midst of at least its second deletion. While we don't rely on decisions on other wikipedias, this does indicate that the page, even when the author is impelled to establish notability, hasn't met the mark (and the VI version is essentially the same as the EN version). — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:46, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
- Or maybe it might be a WP:THEYCANORCANTHEARYOU situation. TheClocksAlwaysTurn (The Clockworks) (contribs) 15:57, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
- Yes, that is indeed what it looks like. Or did you mean WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:54, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
- So this might be a WP:ICANTHEARYOU problem. TheClocksAlwaysTurn (The Clockworks) (contribs) 14:52, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
- They reverted a message I posted on their talk earlier, so they're aware that page exists at least. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:50, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
- I normally think that we should be patient with editors who put article categories in drafts, because the rule against that is arcane, but editors should follow an arcane rule after they are briefed on it. But this is a case of I didn't hear that because I have vegetables in my ears. I suggest blocking the editor from draft space and article space, so that they will be able to discuss why article categories are not allowed in drafts, and anything else. If and when they understand, they can be unblocked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert McClenon (talk • contribs) 15:44, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
- As a future note, it might be worth wrapping the categories in {{draft categories}} rather than outright removing them, maybe editors like this will be more amenable to that because it doesn't look like you're 'erasing' anything they did? Athanelar (talk) 16:31, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
- As on occasional "victim" of Bearcat's decatting, I concur with Athanelar. Wrap or comment out categories. New users cannot be expected to understand why categories are being removed if all that is given is an edit summary of WP:DRAFTNOCAT and definitely won't get the point from a no-context AWB edit. Sometimes, users write articles with AI, which doesn't know about DRAFTNOCAT, and puts the categories back every time the user refines the AI draft. JayCubby 18:38, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
- I feel like AIs not knowing about DRAFTNOCAT is small potatoes compared to the whole WP:NEWLLM thing. Tessaract2 (hello) 20:57, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
~2026-22228-53 adding dates for unrelased movies
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.
~2026-22228-53 appears to be adding unnecessary released dates to movies, and that user was reported to the WP:AIAV, and it won't even stop
Here are the diffs 1348117764,1348116726 and a lot more in the contributions. ~ŤheŴubṂachine-840≈ 20:13, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
- May be related to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Guilherme Gava Bergami.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 21:15, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
User:Stamati Bulgari, AI sealioning, possible WP:LOUTSOCK
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.
Stamati Bulgari (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
AI use: Has made a swath of obvious AI edits across articles since February 2026; not only is it the usual LLM sluice, at least one spot-checked edit appears to have source-to-text integrity issues. When someone added a tag to one of these articles, House of Dust (architecture), they gave this evasive non-answer that also appears to be AI-generated. After several attempts, they did finally state that they "used AI tools," in compliance with a nonexistent policy: AI tools were used, but only in the ways explicitly permitted by WP:LLMUSE.
(There is no WP:LLMUSE.) I re-added the tag and received another barrage of AI-generated sealioning.
Possible sockpuppetry: A temporary account ~2026-16887-95 came along and blanked that comment about AI on the talk page, with a misleading comment about "cleaning it up." This user's only other edits are to articles related to Stamati's edits. Another TA, ~2026-15891-62, may also be the same user. Gnomingstuff (talk) 21:09, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
- I will respond briefly.
- 1. The policy cited in the report (“WP:LLMUSE”) does not exist. My reference was to the section of WP:AI that governs permitted AI-assisted copyediting. I have already stated clearly that no AI was used to generate article content.
- 2. I repeatedly asked the reporting editor to identify specific sentences they believe were AI‑generated or not supported by sources. No examples were ever provided. Per WP:BURDEN, such claims require diffs.
- 3. Regarding the temporary account: that was me editing while not logged in. There was no intention to deceive, create consensus, or use multiple accounts in discussion. All talk‑page interactions have been made from this account. I am fully willing to undergo CheckUser if needed.
- 4. The report does not identify a single policy‑violating edit, nor any specific content issue. It consists entirely of assertions without diffs or evidence.
- Given the absence of evidence or policy‑based concerns, I request that this report be closed. Stamati Bulgari (talk) 21:39, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
- While I would be keen to see specific diffs, @Gnomingstuff, I will say, @Stamati Bulgari, some of your writing sounds awfully
- LLM-esque. If you are, officially, here, denying LLM-use, can you explain what your admitted LLM/AI use is?
"AI tools were used, but only in the ways explicitly permitted by WP:LLMUSE."
— Stated here.I hate to tell you, but LLMs have a nasty habit of making-up WPs... such as"WP:LLMUSE"
and they also don't Wikilink them properly, so you wind-up submitting raw WPs that don't link to anything... which you are consistently doing. Furthermore, your edit reasons read an awful lot like another user's edit reasons who I have dealt with previously and are indefinitely blocked for LLM-use.However and again, I do support your contention that more diffs for examination should be provided.The temp account... eh. They admitted it here, so. If it keeps happening then it's an issue and they only disclosed it here in order to avoid trouble... but I'm willing to AGF.Back to the LLM-use. I do find many LLM-users guilty of SEALIONING, yes. Perhaps it is the ease of generating unlimited arguments, perhaps it is the nature and character of people that tend to use these tools... I know not. However, I think sealioning needs to be be a bit more than simply engaging in discussion where you disagree. Savvy? I truly hate to use this user as an example again, but my comment here better lays-out what I personally see as SLing. — MWFwiki (talk) 22:07, 10 April 2026 (UTC)- I mean, diffs to prove that they used AI are kind of beside the point here because they have literally said they used AI, but, just looking at Special:Diff/1343113116:
- The "Reception" section is textbook WP:AIATTR
- WP:AIVOCAB -
Early coverage highlighted the project’s material experimentation
(which is also AIATTR),which emphasised its symbolic and material approach
, - The edit summary, as well as their other edit summaries, is the exact same kind of AI-generated edit summary that has been generated here by the thousands
- Once again, they themselves said they used AI. The sealioning is the endless loop of "please provide evidence to me that I did the thing that I have outright said that I did."
- Gnomingstuff (talk) 22:12, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
- Yeah, agreed. But there is a difference between "my browser/computer uses AI, so technically one can argue I'm constantly utilizing AI tools, so technically that's all I was admitting to" and "I am using LLMs to generate the commentary."That said, I agree that this likely what we're seeing, here.You're right, that could be seen as a form mild SLing, I agree. Particularly now, with an official denial, here.Yeah, the edit reasons grabbed my attention, too. Not to mention the language. What do you feel would be appropriate sanctions, here? — MWFwiki (talk) 22:20, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
- I mean it really depends on the level of transparency and willingness to follow guidelines (i.e., not use AI for this stuff) going forward Gnomingstuff (talk) 22:50, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
- Yeah, agreed. But there is a difference between "my browser/computer uses AI, so technically one can argue I'm constantly utilizing AI tools, so technically that's all I was admitting to" and "I am using LLMs to generate the commentary."That said, I agree that this likely what we're seeing, here.You're right, that could be seen as a form mild SLing, I agree. Particularly now, with an official denial, here.Yeah, the edit reasons grabbed my attention, too. Not to mention the language. What do you feel would be appropriate sanctions, here? — MWFwiki (talk) 22:20, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
- I mean, diffs to prove that they used AI are kind of beside the point here because they have literally said they used AI, but, just looking at Special:Diff/1343113116:
- The report identifies that you have
made a swath of obvious AI edits across articles since February 2026
. Some diffs from Gnoming would be appreciated, but as anyone is able to check your contributions easily, it's an acceptable standard of evidence to just say "a lot of their edits". I took a quick peek myself and noticed you appear to have created a brand new article from scratch that had signs of being LLM output, for example. - Your chatbot is still hallucinating our rules: WP:BURDEN relates to citations. Checkusers cannot disclose the relationship between a registered editor and a TA. Checkusers will also not perform a check on someone just because they volunteer for it.
- Please talk to us in your own words. We want to hear what you have to say, not your chatbot. MEN KISSING (she/they) Talk to me, I don't bite! - See my edits 22:10, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
- Well, duh, LLMUSE doesn't exist. We know it doesn't. Why already restate that? 🚂ThatTrainGuy1945 Peep peep! 22:32, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
- Because the AI doesn't realise that it's a quote of something the AI said in the past - it thinks that MWFwiki is stating WP:LLMUSE is a policy they should follow. AI has a terrible memory and forgot what it said in an earlier conversation.
- I also spy rule of three in
There was no intention to deceive, create consensus, or use multiple accounts in discussion
and several other clear AI tells in that response. - Added to the fact that WP:BURDEN is another AI hallucination that doesn't apply here (diffs aren't sources), and I very strongly suspect that they're currently using AI to reply to us. Blue Sonnet (talk) 23:37, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
- I've checked a couple things; the references in this diff don't support the latter sentences, and at Specus Corallii#Materials and construction the source doesn't seem to mention it being
reminiscent of natural coastal caves
or it using calcarenite. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 22:31, 10 April 2026 (UTC)- While diffs would’ve been ideal, at this point their edits have been subject to sufficient scrutiny that diffs is moot. Given also the LLMTALK violation above, support indef per EEng’s principles. Fermiboson (talk) 23:39, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
- This editor couldn't look any more like a WP:DUCK if they went springboard diving into a giant vault of gold coins. I don't think they're being honest with us at all, either. There's already been more than enough time and energy wasted; call the repo man for this slopfarm and if this editor wants to start editing English Wikipedia properly, they can explain that in an unblock request. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 23:40, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
- Best use of DUCK I've ever seen. Usually it's just microphones and megaphones. 🚂ThatTrainGuy1945 Peep peep! 23:43, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
Blocked from content-focused namespaces (mainspace and draftspace). Note that using AI in discussions isn't helpful either, and further use of it may lead to a project-wide block. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:46, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
User:Fatûmal
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.
- Fatûmal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I fear this editor is WP:NOTHERE. Reminds me of some outfit company. — 魔琴 (Zauber Violino) [ talk contribs ] 17:21, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
- (Non-admin comment) What exactly is the problem here? TheClocksAlwaysTurn (The Clockworks) (contribs) 17:27, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
- Agreed, what's the issue? Only 7 edits, and none of them reverted. Unless you can give some more context, I don't see what issue there is at all, let alone one that belongs on ANI. StartOkayStop (talk) 17:39, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
- Agreed with Clocks and SOS; Fatumal has 7 edits. ZV has 733. None of them seem to have ever lined up. ZV brought this to ANI before then welcoming and then warning Fatumal. @魔琴, what do you mean by "some outfit company"? 🚂ThatTrainGuy1945 Peep peep! 18:08, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
- I've checked the diffs, and from what I see, there isn't anything really bad; they just seem to be adding this word map of French words to several word-related articles. At best, this should be a WP:CONTENTDISPUTE, not worthy of ANI. Unless 魔琴 (talk · contribs) explains the actual issue (and the issue is a genuine one of disruption), I suggest a possible WP:BOOMERANG. — Knightoftheswords 18:12, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
- The only edits they have made in the main space are adding or adjusting a file uploaded by themself.
- The file is a screenshot of a website called LiMiEL. They once mentioned it in the caption (Special:Diff/1347474739).
- They edited the article on LiMiEL on fr.wikipedia, fr:Lexique informatisé des mots insolites à étymologie latine.
- They used the translation tool to translate that article into Kara-Kalpak (1), and Tai Nuea (2).
- They have the same tendency across the language projects to add the file or links to articles with the file.
- While LiMiEL states that it is a non-profit, this still looks like WP:SOAP to me.
- Sorry for being unclear. I'm happy to provide more information if I dig out more. — 魔琴 (Zauber Violino) [ talk contribs ] 18:20, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
- I'm in agreement that there's something weird here, especially since the image was uploaded to Commons as "own work". Either there's a COI here or the image is a copyright violation, there's no other options. That being said, you could actually say something about this to the user in question. Tessaract2 (hello) 18:24, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
- I've dropped them a line to hopefully clarify the situation. Tessaract2 (hello) 18:29, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks. I would be more considerate afterwards. — 魔琴 (Zauber Violino) [ talk contribs ] 19:11, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
- They have confirmed that they are the creator of the image. I've left the usual COI template; no opinion on further actions. Tessaract2 (hello) 22:10, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks. I would be more considerate afterwards. — 魔琴 (Zauber Violino) [ talk contribs ] 19:11, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
- We should probably get it sorted out. I do feel like talking to the reported user would've been a good idea to do first, as a misunderstanding wouldn't be good. TheClocksAlwaysTurn (The Clockworks) (contribs) 19:23, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
- I've dropped them a line to hopefully clarify the situation. Tessaract2 (hello) 18:29, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
- I'm in agreement that there's something weird here, especially since the image was uploaded to Commons as "own work". Either there's a COI here or the image is a copyright violation, there's no other options. That being said, you could actually say something about this to the user in question. Tessaract2 (hello) 18:24, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
User:Deletion Delayer
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.
Deletion Delayer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Announcement of man on a mission behaviour contrary to the project's aims, means to foster alleged copyvios: Special:Diff/1347930705/1348106381. Perhaps the reported account also sports a WP:DISRUPTNAME (it may fit the last bullet point of the list: "Usernames that show or imply the intent to vandalize, disrupt, or engage in bad-faith edits[...]"). Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 01:19, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
- Unsurprisingly, that's Fita-cola dos dois lados. I blocked the sock puppet indefinitely and the master temporarily. Special:CentralAuth/Chatíssimo is also the same person. That one doesn't really seem to be used on this project, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:44, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
- It appears they did disclose they were the same person on commons. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 02:06, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
- Just checking in to see if you meant to only block for 31 hours and not indef for User:Fita-cola dos dois lados. Sasquatch t|c 03:04, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
- I think 31 hours is reasonable. This seems like a younger editor misunderstanding both that you shouldn't sock and why you shouldn't sock. Or at least, I can't think of any other good faith reason for putting this on their userpage. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 03:10, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
- Does Wikimedia have their own UPE or ANI for that? I would have loved to nuke them had it been here. Borgenland (talk) 03:13, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
- @Borgenland, there is Commons:Commons:Administrators' noticeboard and related subpages listed at the top (I'm not sure what you mean by UPE?). 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 03:17, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
- Does Wikimedia have their own UPE or ANI for that? I would have loved to nuke them had it been here. Borgenland (talk) 03:13, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
- I think 31 hours is reasonable. This seems like a younger editor misunderstanding both that you shouldn't sock and why you shouldn't sock. Or at least, I can't think of any other good faith reason for putting this on their userpage. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 03:10, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
Reversions of templates, Wikistalking and general hostility
 | 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. |
I reached out to admin @Star Mississippi in anticipation for this, with my concerns outlined. It has now escalated. This is the only way I can bring this to your attention, as there is no where else I can go and it is a serious issue.
The user @Mikewem's conduct seems to be WP:HOSTILE and WP:WIKISTALKING as this user has been following me around on Wikipedia removing NPOV templates I have put up in WP:AGF, in contravention on when to remove said template. This has happened on the Israelite page here where the user has removed the neurality header I put up, with the reasons: "It’s been sufficiently established on Talk that this tag was based on the WP:FRINGE view that Israelites never existed", when this wasn't the case, as I and another unrelated editor have different , but valid reasons for concern, of which no changes to the content have occured, and consensus hasn't been made (WP:WTRMT). Mikewem was also warned for the removal of this template and paid no attention to it. My recent new topic in this talk-page created less than 24 hours ago, was created with my concerns that has not been addressed either or engaged with in WP:GOODFAITH. Comments that the user then left seem to be WP:HOSTILE and threatening ("restore the tag removal or ANI. Which one?) seemingly referring to the AN Golan Heights thread created, and thinking I would acquiesce and cower to the demand. Even when it seems the only reason editors brought me to ANI from Golan Heights was not due to any of my editing going against Wikipedia tenets and rules in place, but what I said in a discussion on talk, which I now know was wrong. This is leading me to believe that editors are not presuming good faith, obstructing my work on Wikipedia, and mobilising against me, with an axe to grind.
This also most recently came about on the page Levant where users added a contested image which I deem in breach of WP:NPOV to the article with reasons mentioned on the talk page , and which was removed due to WP:BRD. It was restored by @Guz13, reverted again by me, and then restored by @Iljhgtn, seemingly in a case of WP:TAGTEAM and WP:GAMINGTHESYSTEM all in a space of 5 hours, with connotations of WP:OWNERSHIP of the content. It also has connotations of WP:WIKISTALKING as these are the same editors that I have engaged with on the Golan Heights article, and one of the editors who brought me to AN in the first place. I then did not revert due to the WP:3RR rule, and added a neutrality template to this dicussion in Good Faith, as I could not go against 4 editors to improve the Wikipedia page and it's content. These editors did not revert that that template, but once again @Mikewem did in contravention of when to remove a NPOV template, addressing none of my concerns. Another editor involved in the article @Agnieszka653 at Golan Heights also found their way to the thread. and left a comment. This all happened in a time space of 12 hours. Consensus wasn't gathered or in place long enough. Nor was consensus gathered from uninvolved editors. Nor was any changes made to both articles.
It's worth noting that none of the users issues with me have to do with a single issue, it's related to geographic locations Golan Heights, Levant, and biblical-history Israelites. It's more importantly worth noting that off-wiki coordination is happening, on the "Palestinian Violence" and other fringe related subthreads on Reddit, with images of content I and other good faith editors made, in an attempt to "mobilise" redditors with an axe to grind. Is it right that that I should sit back, and allow this to happen? I am feeling vulnerable and it is impacting me from editing Wikipedia. It's also important that none of the mentioned editors adhere to WP:BRD with me which is an important optional procedure to resolve content disputes. JJNito197 (talk) 13:21, 4 April 2026 (UTC)
- A user is now feeling the need to remove their posts on Talk:Israelites although the user still has concerns about neutrality. I'm worried this will have a dire effect on scaring away editors on various topics in the future. JJNito197 (talk) 15:46, 4 April 2026 (UTC)
- JJ has explicitly expressed that they are here to WP:RGW concerning their fringe view. They bludgeoned the ever-living heck out of an RfC (36 comments, by my count), said they were dropping it, then immediately went to sealion the exact same point at different pages.
- They have demonstrated that, for whatever reason, they are unable to drop this stick. Mikewem (talk) 15:48, 4 April 2026 (UTC)
- I started editing the Israelite page first before I was aware of the RFC. JJNito197 (talk) 15:55, 4 April 2026 (UTC)
- Oh, I just realized this is AN, not ANI. I’ll let an admin weigh in on if this is the correct venue first. If this is not the correct venue, I would support copypasting this thread to the correct venue. Mikewem (talk) 15:58, 4 April 2026 (UTC)
- JJ is also canvassing. Doug Weller talk 16:43, 4 April 2026 (UTC)
- I saw the notice you posted to my talk and I am aware. To explain myself, I mentioned to him in the Israelite talk page he shoudn't feel the need to remove his posts, and for him to argue his case there; his issue is not related to mine and also a neutrality concern. Of course, I understand now why this can be considered as such though. Thank you. JJNito197 (talk) 17:01, 4 April 2026 (UTC)
I agree with @Mikewem that this user is insistent on pushing an agenda and is WP:NOTHERE. And now canvassing on top of it all? I think at this point JJNito197 should either be Topic Banned from WP:PIA entirely or at the very minimum a page ban from Golan Heights seems to be necessary in order to curb their repeated disruptions and explicit call to ignore community consensus and demand that others "clean up" after them in their wake. Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 17:14, 4 April 2026 (UTC)— Iljhgtn (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sockpuppet of PapaTakaro (talk · contribs).I am not sure what you think @Doug Weller? Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 17:14, 4 April 2026 (UTC)— Iljhgtn (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sockpuppet of PapaTakaro (talk · contribs).- This does belong at ANI and I think some sanction of JJ will be appropriate. Hopefully Star Mississippi will respond soon. Doug Weller talk 17:30, 4 April 2026 (UTC)
- Can someone tell me why if I am following wikipedia procedures and intending to improve wikipedia, I deserve to be sanctioned for it? Please someone tell me what I have done wrong if I am obeying wikipedia procedures strictly, or trying too. I'm trying to bring the attenion of the matter to administrators as it is too broad for any specific inident. I will open an ANI. JJNito197 (talk) 17:40, 4 April 2026 (UTC)
- I have created the ANI. JJNito197 (talk) 17:43, 4 April 2026 (UTC)
- This does belong at ANI and I think some sanction of JJ will be appropriate. Hopefully Star Mississippi will respond soon. Doug Weller talk 17:30, 4 April 2026 (UTC)
- I am not prepared to say that they are comprehensively not here. My preference might be for a list of page bans (including Ashkenazi Jews, Israelites, etc) Mikewem (talk) 17:28, 4 April 2026 (UTC)
I would at least also include Golan Heights if it comes to ANI. @Mikewem will you open the ANI? I am pretty busy today but could find time later on to post it if I get around to it. Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 17:33, 4 April 2026 (UTC)— Iljhgtn (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sockpuppet of PapaTakaro (talk · contribs).
For some context, quite of a lot of the tokens that make up the current revisions of the Israelites, Ashkenazi Jews and the Golan Heights pages are there because socks put them there, and the tokens have survived.
- {"page_id":52949,"page_title":"Israelites","char_percentage_socks":18.20,"token_percentage_socks":16.67}
- {"page_id":150184,"page_title":"Ashkenazi Jews","char_percentage_socks":7.07,"token_percentage_socks":6.68}
- {"page_id":7515865,"page_title":"Golan Heights","char_percentage_socks":6.60,"token_percentage_socks":6.64}
So, it is unsurprising to see multi-party instability and conflict at these pages. Sean.hoyland (talk) 17:45, 4 April 2026 (UTC)
Since I was tagged, all I can say is that I received a notification for talk page activity on Golan Heights and then I looked at JJ's edit history and saw he deleted content from the Levant page so I restored it. Guz13 (talk) 18:16, 4 April 2026 (UTC)
- I may be missing something, but isn't Mikewem still topic banned from PIA? - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 18:26, 4 April 2026 (UTC)
- I don't know, but you can see their edits to pages within scope of the ARBPIA restrictions (in whole or in part) here by clicking the checkboxes. Sean.hoyland (talk) 18:44, 4 April 2026 (UTC)
- If I’ve violated my topic ban, then please provide diffs at AE that show that I’ve edited pia content, and I’ll enthusiastically accept the appropriate sanction. Mikewem (talk) 22:46, 4 April 2026 (UTC)
- I ask only because it seems comparable to this Arbitration motion where edits relating to the history of Judaism & Israel were considered a violation of a PIA topic ban, so I thought it'd be potentially relevant. If admins don't consider your participation at Israelites or Ashkenazi Jews to be a violation of your TBan however, I preemptively apologize for the disruption my comment may cause.
- Also, as I don't want to inadvertently WP:GOAD you into breaking your TBan here, I believe it may be best that this line of conversation be momentarily paused until an admin can clarify the matter. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 01:28, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
- Mikewem - Can you describe why you think it's okay under your topic ban to remove reference with the title "FBI says Michigan synagogue attack was inspired by Hezbollah" in an article with this in the lead? "<snipped> killed in an Israeli airstrike during the 2026 Lebanon war on March 5. The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) <snipped> commander in Hezbollah <snipped> The attack was determined by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to have been a Hezbollah-inspired act of terrorism against the Jewish community.}} ? 05:36, 5 April 2026 (UTC) Nil Einne (talk) 05:36, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
- I see a lot of other edits to Temple Israel synagogue attack which given the content would seem to reasonably come under the Arab-Israeli topic area broadly construed. I'm not the only one to think so as an A-I tag was added to the talk page by User:Shrike several weeks ago and Mikewem has edited the talk page several times since then. Shrike isn't an admin but this doesn't stop them adding the tag if it's appropriate. And if Mikewem felt it wasn't justified, they really should have queried this before continuing to edit the article and talk page. Personally, I don't see any way the entire article doesn't come under the topic area broadly construed given as Shrike said the attacker was apparently motivated by it. 05:58, 5 April 2026 (UTC) Nil Einne (talk) 05:58, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
- @Nil Einne: This was a good catch, thank you. At the time, I just hurriedly clicked the link, did a quick word search for ford, and didn’t pay attention to any other text. I assumed the source in the infobox was pulled from the article. I see now that it wasn’t, and I feel terrible about completely removing it. I’m going to go restore it to the article right now with a sorry note, because it should be there but for my error. Mikewem (talk) 05:58, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
- @Mikewem, given the name of the article, if I was in your position, I'd stay a mile away from it. @Butterscotch Beluga, correctly points out above that Iskandar323 got an indef for the sort of editing you seem to be engaged in, after they were topic banned from PIA. TarnishedPathtalk 06:45, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
- Comment - I note that @Mikewem has already been blocked from editing multiple times and perhaps the time has come for a longer block. I'd like to see Mikewem's response first though. Deb (talk) 18:13, 4 April 2026 (UTC)
- Any evidence of misconduct to provide along with this suggestion? I picked up some blocks when I was a very new editor, do you want to relitigate them here? Cause I have no interest in doing that. Mikewem (talk) 22:53, 4 April 2026 (UTC)
- Are you going to offer something positive in response or are you just in denial? If you want to go down the road of "I've done nothing wrong, everyone is against me," it is not likely to end well. Your most recent block was just three months ago. Deb (talk) 08:15, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
- I’m sorry that I don’t understand what you mean by “something positive”. If you clarify what you’d like me to respond to, I will do my best to engage with your concerns in a constructive manner.
- In my view, if an admitted pov-pusher slaps around some related tags across related pages about a related fringe view and not one single other editor in any of those pages expresses any agreement with the fringe view, then it is an improvement to the project to remove those tags. But obviously reasonable editors can and will reasonably differ in their view of the best way to improve the project.
- Either way, can you please clarify that the quote you’ve presented is not a quote of me? Mikewem (talk) 17:11, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
- @Deb: can you please clarify that the quote you’ve presented is not a quote of me, or otherwise write some text that addresses what your use of quotation marks is meant to be for? Mikewem (talk) 18:26, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
- It's not a quotation, Mikewem, it's the kind of response we often see in this situation and, to me, it summed up your responses so far. I apologise if I seem to have suggested that you ever used those exact words. In these situations, I find it's best to admit that you may have done things you shouldn't have done (like you just did) and come back with ideas on how you can handle things differently so as to avoid this type of conflict. No doubt there are rights and wrongs to this argument, but when it's a matter of opinion, it's best not to concentrate on what the other person may have done wrong, otherwise you can end up with a boomerang. Deb (talk) 06:09, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
- Are you going to offer something positive in response or are you just in denial? If you want to go down the road of "I've done nothing wrong, everyone is against me," it is not likely to end well. Your most recent block was just three months ago. Deb (talk) 08:15, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
- Any evidence of misconduct to provide along with this suggestion? I picked up some blocks when I was a very new editor, do you want to relitigate them here? Cause I have no interest in doing that. Mikewem (talk) 22:53, 4 April 2026 (UTC)
- Editors may also wish to review comments that were made in a prior attempt to start this discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Reversions_of_templates,_Wikistalking_and_general_hostility. signed, Rosguill talk 18:30, 4 April 2026 (UTC)
Comment any action against user:Mikewem here should be considered separately from this ANI. I know that it seems like we are waiting on User:Star Mississippi to respond for now, but I just wanted to ensure that the original AN discussion is addressed here given that it seems to have been somewhat moved along in chunks, first by user:JJNito197 himself (probably should have left it to others). I believe JJNito197 may be WP:NOTHERE and has stated direct disinterest in respecting consensus and conducting themselves in a WP:CIVIL manner now repeatedly across WP:PIA articles, but most especially on Golan Heights at least as far as my interactions with them are concerned. It looks like one of the most problematic lines, which has previously been quoted, but to ensure that it is not lost here as well, user:JJNito197 said in this discussion that, — Iljhgtn (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sockpuppet of PapaTakaro (talk · contribs). "I will continue adding content with AD/BC on this article regardless, and editors that feel it incumbent to change to CE/BCE can clean up after me."
Given this blatant disrespect for other editors as well as Wikipedia policy, on top of the now added warnings around canvassing as user:Doug Weller issued, I think that either a WP:PIA topic ban broadly construed should be applied, or, at minimum, page bans across at least Golan Heights, Levant, Ashkenazi Jews, if not several others from looking at that editor's edit history. Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 02:26, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
- 1. It's worth noting, the consensus @Iljhgtn is talking about is from a 2001 stub article on Golan Heights . Sorry, I wasn't aware of that prior to my revert on Golan Heights , and helpful clarification from @Rsjaffe on the intricacies of MOS:VAR. Anyway, why are you repeating comments made in a separate thread to prove a WP:POINT? There is a post over at WP:AN, and @Rosguill has already explained to me why I was wrong, which I understood fully. But whats to stop other editors from not realising consensus was made prior to contributing? Is it incumbent that one has to use a designated ERA system if it's not something they use or aware of? I wasn't accused of anything else, no edit-warring, no casting aspersions, no disruptive editing, no blanking of templates, no tag-teaming, no ownership of content etc.
- 2. I haven't been banned from editing in WP:PIA articles, not once, and I've been around longer than you and Mikewem put together. This shows how I can operate in the parameters of such topics.
- 3. You are an involved editor. You should perhaps change that to "comment from involved editor".
- 4. Because the changes I suggest are so much right? Like changing the wording of a subheader or removing recently added image back to the status quo. Basically, my proposed changes come to minus or plus a few characters on a subheader. Unless you've seen any other things on my contributions?!
- 5. You are not WP:AGF with your interactions with me, assuming I have ulterior motivations. Most recently here where you call me "obsessed", which makes it hard to work together constructively.
- 6. @Dougweller told me my comment was neutral although it is still technically classified as canvassing. The canvasssing in question was to support a clearly distressed editor on Talk:Israelites, it was "You have valid concerns @DLWyer, and you shouldn't feel the need to remove your posts. We can make our case here against this, and it's better than letting it continue unabated, for the sake of our readership." What about the canvassing that some editors may be involved with on the 'Palestinian Violence' subreddit? who seem to be screenshotting my every move? And the sock-puppets mentioned above?
- 7. I have told you repeatedly to WP:AGF with me. You are trying to find something that isn't there. Go through all my contributions if you must. This is how confident I am about me adhering to WP:NPOV on Wikipedia.
- 8. This seems personal. I don't have anything against you, but maybe you do with me? JJNito197 (talk) 03:30, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
- I am quite worried about the editor DLWyer as you can tell, as he was accused of anti-semitism by a bunch of zealots on fringe subreddit. I felt the need to be there for him, as a human with sympathy. My neutral canvassing did not mean to WP:GAMETHESYSTEM by any metric. If this is sanction worthy, so be it. JJNito197 (talk)
- It's probably too late now, but I'd strongly suggest you stop replying unless asked a direct question and especially stop bringing up random Reddit threads. It's your only slim hope to avoid a block or topic ban IMO. I'd suggest instead of spending all your time coming up with these IMO unhelpful replies, you use your time to carefully re-read what everyone has told you and consider it again. Because it seems clear you're rarely understanding what people are telling you or the concerns editors have with your editing. This was particularly obvious when you raised the issue of BC/BCE here (or maybe it was AN) and didn't seem to understand at all what you were told so then went back to the talk page and were more disruptive and so ended up back here & had to be told off much more directly & severely. Nil Einne (talk) 05:19, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
- I am quite worried about the editor DLWyer as you can tell, as he was accused of anti-semitism by a bunch of zealots on fringe subreddit. I felt the need to be there for him, as a human with sympathy. My neutral canvassing did not mean to WP:GAMETHESYSTEM by any metric. If this is sanction worthy, so be it. JJNito197 (talk)
- I don't see any reason to consider sanction against Mikewem separately. It's not the norm for ANI, in fact it's a fairly strange suggestion. Mikewem was after all the editor this discussion was started about & it's perfectly normal we'll consider sanction against everyone involved which includes the OP of any thread requesting action (aka boomerang) but also action against the editor the thread was started about. Even if the OP did not have enough evidence for action against Mikewem, it's perfectly normal for other participants to provide more evidence and that this might result in action. Nil Einne (talk) 05:14, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
- P.S. If it's felt action is justified against Mikewem under CTOP, especially as a result of their CTOP topic ban then it might be better to just open an ARE thread. But that's just because it's generally simpler to deal with such stuff under ARE not because we cannot deal with discussing possible problems against 2 different editors involved in a dispute in one thread. Nil Einne (talk) 05:38, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
- +1. I don't think an AE thread is needed. The behaviour of both editors can be examined here. TarnishedPathtalk 06:51, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
- P.S. If it's felt action is justified against Mikewem under CTOP, especially as a result of their CTOP topic ban then it might be better to just open an ARE thread. But that's just because it's generally simpler to deal with such stuff under ARE not because we cannot deal with discussing possible problems against 2 different editors involved in a dispute in one thread. Nil Einne (talk) 05:38, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
- Apologies for the delay in responding, I was offline for a few days for the holiday. @JJNito197: did indeed bring this to my attention (thank you, and thanks folks here for the pings), but I haven't had and don't anticipate the on wiki time to look into this. As far as I 'm aware, my only involvement was in Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Golan_Heighs_article_issues wherein I referred the editors to the Talk to hash out the issue of dating in one of the subthreads. I'm not familiar with either JJN nor @Mikewem:'s edits or a history there, unfortunately. Pleas let me know if I'm missing something here. Star Mississippi 23:57, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
- Is a response or sanction being considered here? I had some interaction with JJ on the talk page, all civil, but there is some cause for concern such as the uncollaborative statement "editors...can clean up after me". As well, as what sounds like an insinuation of incompetence against another editor here: accusing them of "conspiracy theories...[and having] a fundemental misunderstanding of the region", which isnt really correct. While on the subject, some of the accusations by JJ here sound a bit like conspiracy theories themselves. Editors sharing opinions on the direction of an article will naturally support the same actions. And if you disagree with editors on one article, its not unusual to have similar disagreement on another article. Its not "gaming the system", stalking, etc. At the very minimum a stern warning appears to be merited, but some sort of restriction may also make sense. This is a bit convoluted and multifaceted.
- As for Mikewem, I havent had any interactions with them I recall, but it seems prudent to be cautious of restrictions already in place. ← Metallurgist (talk) 01:10, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
- Not sure if this is meant as a reply to me or not @Metallurgist but I don't have the bandwidth to look into what's clearly a complex issue and don't anticipate that changing. My sole involvement was closing a related thread with a pointer to a Talk page discussion. Star Mississippi 14:08, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
- JJNito197's contributions at Talk:Ashkenazi Jews were in my opinion disruptive. A poorly reasoned !vote at an RfC is one thing (theirs was not the first) but it spiralled as JJNito doubled down endlessly on what is fundamentally a WP:FRINGE position (Israelites didn't exist). It is worth reproducing one comment at length just so people here can see what was being dealt with both behaviourally and in terms of the POV being pushed:
| “ | I'm sorry, but I have made clear and so have the sources that there is NO GENETIC EVIDENCE that modern day groups descend GENETICALLY from an ancient myth-like people's mentioned only in the Bible. I know this hurts your FEELINGS AND BELIEFS, but in order to edit on wikipedia you have to be completely unattached to preconceived notions and operate in an NPOV manner, especially when no RS confirms what you are saying. You are speaking passionately because it is what you BELIEVE, due to your BELIEF SYSTEM. But it's is not what ACADEMIA AND DNA STUDIES suggest. You are clutching at pearls, and it is obvious to see. Modern day groups do not genetically descend from mythological fairy tale characters, just because a book of myths says so. I don't even think it says so, it talks about spirituality foremostly unattached carnal whims and wishes. Don't piggy back on the Canaanite reality in attempt to separate and exalt yourself from others. | ” |
- This was one of the dozens of contributions to the talk page they've made in the last 3 weeks, repeating the same arguments, ignoring others' arguments, and spreading incivility, personal attacks and aspersions ad nauseam. Now I see they're pushing the same nonsense at Talk:Israelites. If editors are unconvinced that this is WP:FRINGE, I suggest we take this to WP:FRINGEN and ask whether the belief that the Israelites didn't exist historically is a fringe theory in the fields of ancient history and archaeology - I considered opening this discussion myself but didn't see the point when only one person seemed to contest it. Otherwise if we're willing to accept that it is a fringe theory, I suggest JJNito197 get a final warning (if they are able to understand that their bludgeoning, incivility and insistence on pushing a fringe theory are disruptive) or a topic ban if not. Samuelshraga (talk) 11:32, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
- On Mikewem, I'm curious whether this means you've accepted that you breached a topic ban, whether it was a mistake, and whether you think editing at Israelites with a PIA topic ban is ok and/or a good idea? I think the recent Iskandar banning found it simultaneously out of PIA scope but also sufficient reason to indef a T-banned editor if they're editing tendentiously there, which I don't really understand. Personally I think PIA-banned editors shouldn't be at Israelites or similar pages, and I wonder what your intentions are for editing in these kinds of pages going forward? Samuelshraga (talk) 11:37, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
- It’s still unclear to me whether or not I’m allowed to say “topic ban” here, so I hope you understand that I’m not getting into any details at this time (other than to say that for the purposes of my editing, the conflict doesn’t exist). Though I would be happy and willing to address your concerns in detail if given the opportunity to.
- For the record, I would be perfectly happy to have this thread result in my tban being removed. Mikewem (talk) 20:11, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
- Playing devils advocate here. I think it's pretty absurd to not concede that Israelites existed.
- However, I think one can speak separately of Israelites as discussed in the bible, i.e., the 12 tribes desended from Jakob, and talk of these as being mythical. While there is evidence independent of the bible/torah that a people called "Israel" and a kingdom of that name existed, only a few individual tribes are explicitly mentioned in ancient non-biblical records. From that perspective JJ's argument about there being a lack of evidence linking modern day jews and the twelve tribes makes sense. The bible/torah are far from reliable sources. Talking snakes? TarnishedPathtalk 11:42, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
- I absolutely agree that it's pretty absurd. The evidence or lack thereof linking (some) modern Jews and the Israelite tribes was an important part of the RfC, but not for JJ's part of it given the rejection that there ever were 12 tribes or a Kingdom of Israel. JJ's argument, repeated dozens of times, was that these were "fairy-tale characters" and that the idea of descent from them was an insult to the intelligence of the neutral editor.
- I do not believe a single one of JJ's interlocutors invoked the Bible as a source at all, let alone a reliable one. But editors who want articles to say that dinosaur fossils are traps laid by Satan to delude the unfaithful are not meaningfully different from editors who want articles to say Israelites never existed so one cannot be descended from them. The academic consensus is entirely that both were real creatures that existed. The fact that one type of editor constructs their belief to be in accord with the Bible, and the other in order to reject the Bible, is not an important distinction for our purposes.
- If we were discussing the historicity of the Biblical flood, I would be on the other side. There are probably some intermediate cases where it is not WP:FRINGE to posit or reject a Biblical story (say the United Monarchy to judge by the page, though I don't know the source material myself). We're not in the middle here, this is one the clear-cut cases. Samuelshraga (talk) 14:17, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
- I believe what JJ is promoting is not dissimilar to Christ Myth Theory. It also clearly has some sort of political motivation, as almost everything that has to do with "Israel" does these days (I've seen [mostly IP] editors changing articles to replace Israelite with "Canaanite", etc.). Do some groups around today descend from the ancient Israelites? Probably. Do we get to decide whether they do? No, WP:RS do, whether we agree with them or not. That's something JJ does not seem to want to understand.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:46, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
- JJ wrote "I know this hurts your FEELINGS AND BELIEFS". Sound like he is breaking WP:NPA. Guz13 (talk) 20:11, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
- On Mikewem, I'm curious whether this means you've accepted that you breached a topic ban, whether it was a mistake, and whether you think editing at Israelites with a PIA topic ban is ok and/or a good idea? I think the recent Iskandar banning found it simultaneously out of PIA scope but also sufficient reason to indef a T-banned editor if they're editing tendentiously there, which I don't really understand. Personally I think PIA-banned editors shouldn't be at Israelites or similar pages, and I wonder what your intentions are for editing in these kinds of pages going forward? Samuelshraga (talk) 11:37, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
Comment: Involved editor Iljhgtn has been banned as a sockpuppet. JJNito197 (talk) 11:07, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
Personal attacks and disruption at articles
- XYZ 250706 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been constantly attacking users on talk pages , , , , , , , .
They have been disrupting article according to their favour and has been continuously reverting other user' edits, they misrepresented sources at a page then reverted other editors who reverted those edits. , , , . Regarding their sources, they have misrepresented sources that were already cited including those referencing liberalism, while also adding a single unreliable source, as explained here. Then they sent me false edit warring warning at my talk page. Their talk page shows long history of disruption. THEZDRX (User) | (Contact) 03:50, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
- @ZDRX I gave proper sourcing to my edits. https://books.google.co.in/books?id=Hb6ZEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA270&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false This source mentions that INC and BJP have advanced neo-liberalism. But ZDRX is saying that I am misinterpreting the source for my own favour. I didn't land a single personal attacks to ZDRX. XYZ 250706 (talk) 04:06, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
- I think there should be one dispute resolution in this regard. Btw surprisingly ZDRX gave the same notice to one editor who is unrelated to discussion in Talk:Indian National Congress. That editor was landing personal attacks to me for some times. The discussion at Talk:Indian National Congress is being continued with ZDRX. XYZ 250706 (talk) 04:09, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
- User @XYZ 250706 has repeatedly violated the Wikipedia editing guidelines on multiple occasions including editing warring, page reversion, unilateral revision of content on multiple Wikipedia pages including Indian National Congress, 2026 West Bengal Legislative Assembly election, 2021 West Bengal Legislative Assembly election, List of largest political parties. This type of negetive behaviour is really harmful for the Wikipedia environment. I request administrators to look into the history of these pages and take all necessary steps to prevent this type of vandalism for the future. Thank you. Kalpesh Manna 2002 (talk) 05:12, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
- @Kalpesh Manna 2002 You removed some sourced content added by me. You were having edit war in 2026 West Bengal Legislative Assembly election. The case of Indian National Congress is content dispute. The discussion is ongoing. Besides ZDRX gave this notice (which is unrelated to you) to you and this may not be in good faith. XYZ 250706 (talk) 05:24, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
- User @ZDRX gave me notice because you have removed sourced content material added by me on the Indian National Congress page. I didn't removed any content from that paged only added back the content which was removed by you. The page history clearly shows that. Kalpesh Manna 2002 (talk) 05:30, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
- I removed only hidden ideologies. So please don't blame me without any reason. Besides as far I know (I may be wrong also), but that notice can be given only to me. XYZ 250706 (talk) 05:31, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
- User @ZDRX gave me notice because you have removed sourced content material added by me on the Indian National Congress page. I didn't removed any content from that paged only added back the content which was removed by you. The page history clearly shows that. Kalpesh Manna 2002 (talk) 05:30, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
- @Kalpesh Manna 2002 You removed some sourced content added by me. You were having edit war in 2026 West Bengal Legislative Assembly election. The case of Indian National Congress is content dispute. The discussion is ongoing. Besides ZDRX gave this notice (which is unrelated to you) to you and this may not be in good faith. XYZ 250706 (talk) 05:24, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
- I am sorry to write here again. But after having some discussions in Talk:Indian National Congress, it seems that User:ZDRX is randomly arguing without properly knowing whether sources of his version really cite those ideologies or not and it also seems that he sent the notice to the other editor only (I feel who is blaming me here and there for nothing) to win the consensus. XYZ 250706 (talk) 07:31, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
- This accusation isn't good. Notification is sent to every involved party. THEZDRX (User) | (Contact) 07:41, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
- XYZ 250706, you stated:
"Shut up. Don't blatantly blame me. Did you see the sourcing? First learn Wikipedia rules and then teach me."
(addressed to Kalpesh Manna 2002) and shortly thereafter, on the same page, you insisted:"I want very cordial discussions, but these attacking can't be beared."
(Who attacked you?) Both messages are here, on @ZDRX's Userpage. I have little patience for incivility, even less patience for editors being impolite and then immediately playing the victim, and virtually no patience for editor currently under a partial block for DE doing all of the aforementioned things. You are an experienced enough editor that you should be well-aware that conduct such as this is not appropriate. You could be correct in your claims (and I'm not saying you are) and that conduct would still be inappropriate.Including your current partial block (and excluding your self-requested block), you have had as many blocks as you have years on Wikipedia. Sanctions are preventative; what are we to expect in the future if this has been the outcome thus far?As far as the content dispute/edit-warring, frankly, I'm not going to get into that right now, maybe tomorrow, after I've slept and had some caffeine. I will say, you leaving an edit-warring notice is... odd, to say the least. You left this message on ZDRX's page two days after they made a single edit to the page. Prior to this? They hadn't edited the article for 3-weeks. Meanwhile, you've edited the page, what, 15-times in the last month, including what, 5-6 reversions? — MWFwiki (talk) 09:03, 9 April 2026 (UTC)- @MWFwiki Previously Kalpesh Manna landed personal attacks on me for no reason in my talk page : "Why are you trying to get me reported and employing such shameless underhanded tactics to get your point established?" when I requested User:Star Mississippi to look into Kalpesh Manna's edits warring in 2026 West Bengal Legislative Assembly election to add INC candidates bypassing the consensus in the talk page and I wanted to abide by the consensus achieved at that point in the talk page and he blamed me by saying : "This type of unilateral arbitrary judgements are very disruptive in the Wikipedia space. And it do seems like you do want to cherry-pick your prefered parties and alliances to be included in the Wikipedia space". He without even checking the sourcings (tbh later one sentence he wrote in Talk:Indian National Congress about the ideologies is totally wrong), told me : "This user is very un-collaborative and unhinged. This is why most of the edits gets undone by other editors. This user neither seek consensus on any topic not seek discussion to hear other's opinion about anything while projecting unilateral personal views onto everything. Very negetive attitude to have as a person as well as a Wikipedia editor. Shame on you." There are some other instances too.
- I am again saying that ZDRX was probably randomly arguing without properly knowing whether sources of his version really cite those ideologies or not. He is not ready accept my sourcing too. Btw I have asked User:Star Mississippi to prescribe an editor experienced in source analysis and dispute resolution. I didn't land a single personal attack towards ZDRX. XYZ 250706 (talk) 09:25, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
- Your edit history on Indian National Congress, 2021 West Bengal Legislative Assembly election, 2026 West Bengal Legislative Assembly election, List of largest political parties have shown how you generally edit Wikipedia articles and why often they get undone by other editors.
- Reason 1: Unilateral action, no discussion. When you edit a disputed page or controversial section of the page you often leave no edit summary of your edit.
- Reason 2: Content removal. You have removed content from multiple Wikipedia articles without any explanation.
- Reason 3: Source removal. You have removed references and sources from Wikipedia pages with cited content without any discussion or explanation.
- Reason 4: Disinterest in discussion and consensus. Instead of discussion and consensus upon that to resolve conflict you have repeatedly removed content from Wikipedia articles by restoring old versions of those pages. I have personally warned you not to do so as doing so removes many non contested portions of those articles also.
- Reason 5: Imposition of personal preferences. It is often noticed that when you edit politics related articles on the Wikipedia you remove material for specific parties and add content back for other parties. Which is blatant violation of Wikipedia policies and POV.
- Please edit Wikipedia positively and constructively and build consensus through discussion. I request you again.
- Thank you. Happy editing. Kalpesh Manna 2002 (talk) 11:15, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
- Administrators can check history of my talk page and check how Kalpesh Manna have brought unnecessary and unrelated topics to evade healthy discussions regarding a table. I generally give explanation before removing something in the edit summary. Please don't use the word unilateral as you previously used the same term when I was abiding by the consensus of the talk page and you were bypassing that. I edit in Wikipedia with neutral tone only. If you mean why I removed INC candidates for sometimes because the talk page consensus only approved AITC, BJP and LF+ candidates to be added to the candidates list. XYZ 250706 (talk) 12:38, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
- @XYZ 250706 But consensus was different from the one you stated that day. THEZDRX (User) | (Contact) 14:41, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
- Administrators can check history of my talk page and check how Kalpesh Manna have brought unnecessary and unrelated topics to evade healthy discussions regarding a table. I generally give explanation before removing something in the edit summary. Please don't use the word unilateral as you previously used the same term when I was abiding by the consensus of the talk page and you were bypassing that. I edit in Wikipedia with neutral tone only. If you mean why I removed INC candidates for sometimes because the talk page consensus only approved AITC, BJP and LF+ candidates to be added to the candidates list. XYZ 250706 (talk) 12:38, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
- Just noting I see this ping, and there's User_talk:Star_Mississippi#2026_March where I suggested @Robert McClenon before realizing this was also here. I'm not sure why I was pinged as I don't think I have any background here, and unfortunately do not have the time/bandwidth for such a complex discussion. Star Mississippi 14:13, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
- I have been pinged both here and on the talk page of an administrator. As far as I can tell, I have been pinged to ask whether I can mediate an article content dispute. There probably is an article content dispute, because there usually is an article content dispute, but the links that I see are mostly to users. If anyone is ready to identify the article that the dispute is about, they can enter a case request at DRN, and I will wait until the dispute here is resolved and I see who the survivors are. Rule number Zero at DRN is: "Comment on content, not contributors". Rule number 0.1 is "Discuss edits, not editors". I don't see any discussing of content here. If you can figure out what article you are arguing about, and stop the discussion of conduct, there may be an article content dispute. In the meantime, be civil and concise. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:17, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
- XYZ 250706; You were rude and are being rude. I see no attacks "landed" against you. I only see borderline to outright impolite behavior by you. Nearly every message ZDRX linked (by you) is inappropriate. The fact that you cannot own-up to this is concerning. Your behavioral history makes it doubly-concerning. That being said...@ZDRX and @Kalpesh Manna 2002, if @XYZ 250706 accepted fault and genuinely apologized for their behavior, would you be willing to consider the behavioral dispute settled? Then you can all peaceably proceed to DRN, as-suggested above? If they continue their conduct you can always re-file, here. If either of you feel that this is not enough or @XYZ 250706 refuses to apologize, then this is probably for the admins, given the number of concerns and the prior history. I'm hoping we have a chance to settle this. Savvy? — MWFwiki (talk) 23:31, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
- Yes, it would be good if they apologized to everyone they personally attacked. However, the problem also lies in their disruptive edits to articles. If we check their edit history, they appears to be obsessed with Communist parties, editing related pages everywhere and sometimes adding original research., , , , , , , , .
- On an articles, they imposed their opinion by adding and removing parties according to their preference. When other users reverted these changes, they again engaged in edit warring.
- As @Kalpesh Manna 2002 also wrote before "(
User @XYZ 250706 has repeatedly violated the Wikipedia editing guidelines on multiple occasions including editing warring, page reversion, unilateral revision of content on multiple Wikipedia pages including Indian National Congress, 2026 West Bengal Legislative Assembly election, 2021 West Bengal Legislative Assembly election, List of largest political parties. This type of negetive behaviour is really harmful for the Wikipedia environment. I request administrators to look into the history of these pages and take all necessary steps to prevent this type of vandalism for the future. Thank you.
)", this issue should also be addressed. THEZDRX (User) | (Contact) 12:00, 10 April 2026 (UTC)- @ZDRX Sorry. But I tried to revert disruptive edits only though restoring some version of an article. Besides I removed INC candidates only because adding INC candidates was not based on consensus in the talk page. Consensus was at that time only achieved for adding AITC+, BJP and LF+ candidates. CPIML Liberation was added instead of LJP(RV) in the infobox as LJP(RV) wasn't major contender before election and I have proper explanation in one edit summary. The name of alliance is Asom Sonmilito Morcha, but it was written Indian National Congress. I corrected that. CPI(M) who led the third front in 2009 was major contender before the election and it was previously added in the infobox as per Wikipedia rule. One editor probably randomly removed it and I added it. I don't think these are vandalism / disruptive edits / original researches at all. Please don't blame me randomly. User:Kalpesh Manna removed sourced content added by me in list of largest political parties.
- Yes, if I have hurt some editors, I am ready to apologise.
- @MWFwiki Just asking. I didn't properly understand one of your sentences. Do you not think the wordings of User Kalpesh Manna to be regarded as personal attacks or you couldn't find them? XYZ 250706 (talk) 03:44, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
- On the List of largest political parties article page user @XYZ 250706 has removed huge portions of the article by reverting and restoring old versions of that article only to include inflated number of members for the Communist Party of India (Marxist) without any citation. The current citation on that page for that party are added by me after that.
- He has also engaged in edit warring with multiple editors and disruption on the 2021 West Bengal Legislative Assembly election article to include Communist Party of India (Marxist) on the election infobox of that article. Only to be backed out after repeated warnings by multiple editors like @Dhruv edits.
- He has repeatedly removed the candidates of the Indian National Congress who are contesting the 2026 West Bengal Legislative Assembly election article while adding candidates of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) fighting in the same election.
- He has removed ideologies from the infobox of Indian National Congress article which had citations, then engaging in edit warring with multiple editors like @Orientls and @ZDRX on that article.
- He have also reverted edits and removed content from the Left Front (West Bengal) and Left Front-led Alliance without any explanation before being reverted by other editors.
- These are all very partisan and disruptive behaviours aimed at promoting specific ideologies and political parties on Wikipedia and degrading the quality of content on the platform. Kalpesh Manna 2002 (talk) 11:34, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
- I will not mention the insulting and bullying behaviour by @XYZ 250706 again. As it is well proven and established by now. After editing and removing properly sourced content from Wikipedia articles unilaterally without consensus he has engaged in personal attacking and insulting other fellow editors on the article talk pages. When asked for the reasons of his edits, he is abusing them at will to coerce them into submission while at the same time playing victim of personal attacks. Very hurtful and shameful. Kalpesh Manna 2002 (talk) 11:42, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
- @Kalpesh Manna 2002 Sorry. But I added with citation of Anandabazar Patrika in list of largest political parties. @MWFwiki and other editors can check it. You can also check that in 2026 West Bengal Legislative Assembly election, I abided by talk page discussion when User Kalpesh Manna was adding INC candidates, but at that time, consensus was achieved to add AITC+, BJP and LF+ candidates only. In INC article, I just replaced Liberalism with Neo-liberalism and also added with sources and some existing sources mentioned Neo-liberalism also. As there was so much debate, I opined for dispute resolution and @Robert McClenon can do that. I have neither political affiliation nor have membership of any political party. Blaming me like this is indeed personal attack. I didn't remove content without explanation. He is telling things without checking things or facts. I am sorry to say that. XYZ 250706 (talk) 13:46, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
- I can apologise if I have hurt any editor. But I genuinely don't think I have done any disruptive edits. XYZ 250706 (talk) 13:52, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
- User:XYZ 250706 - I will not mediate any content dispute or otherwise engage in content dispute resolution as long as there are conduct issues, and this is a conduct dispute. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:59, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
- I can apologise if I have hurt any editor. But I genuinely don't think I have done any disruptive edits. XYZ 250706 (talk) 13:52, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
- @Kalpesh Manna 2002 Sorry. But I added with citation of Anandabazar Patrika in list of largest political parties. @MWFwiki and other editors can check it. You can also check that in 2026 West Bengal Legislative Assembly election, I abided by talk page discussion when User Kalpesh Manna was adding INC candidates, but at that time, consensus was achieved to add AITC+, BJP and LF+ candidates only. In INC article, I just replaced Liberalism with Neo-liberalism and also added with sources and some existing sources mentioned Neo-liberalism also. As there was so much debate, I opined for dispute resolution and @Robert McClenon can do that. I have neither political affiliation nor have membership of any political party. Blaming me like this is indeed personal attack. I didn't remove content without explanation. He is telling things without checking things or facts. I am sorry to say that. XYZ 250706 (talk) 13:46, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
- @Robert McClenon I unfortunately think this is beyond DRN at this stage. The article is Indian National Congress. The edit warring appears to have stopped but @Kalpesh Manna 2002 @XYZ 250706 @ZDRX please consider this a final warning or I will fully protect the article. Star Mississippi 13:53, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
- I agree that this is beyond DRN, because they went on naming and blaming each other after they were told to "Comment on content, not contributors" and "Discuss edits, not editors". I think that short blocks are in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:50, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
- At-most I'd support a warning for ZDRX and Kalpesh Manna 2002 (and I personally am hard-pressed to support that, although I admit I have not dug-through everything... perhaps you've seen something that would change my mind). I'd prefer a reminder for these two. However, I would support a short-block or similar for XYZ 250706. Courtesy-tagging Star Mississippi. — MWFwiki (talk) 21:52, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
- @Robert McClenon Should the comments on the content be made here? Can you please clarify? Btw I opined the idea for dispute resolution first in the talk page of that article. XYZ 250706 (talk) 03:48, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
- The usual place to discuss article content is on the article talk page, and this is no exception. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:22, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
- Thank you for assurance. Much appreciated. Politically important articles like Indian National Congress are always in danger of vandalism and disruption unfortunately. Kalpesh Manna 2002 (talk) 11:06, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
- I agree that this is beyond DRN, because they went on naming and blaming each other after they were told to "Comment on content, not contributors" and "Discuss edits, not editors". I think that short blocks are in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:50, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
- XYZ 250706; You were rude and are being rude. I see no attacks "landed" against you. I only see borderline to outright impolite behavior by you. Nearly every message ZDRX linked (by you) is inappropriate. The fact that you cannot own-up to this is concerning. Your behavioral history makes it doubly-concerning. That being said...@ZDRX and @Kalpesh Manna 2002, if @XYZ 250706 accepted fault and genuinely apologized for their behavior, would you be willing to consider the behavioral dispute settled? Then you can all peaceably proceed to DRN, as-suggested above? If they continue their conduct you can always re-file, here. If either of you feel that this is not enough or @XYZ 250706 refuses to apologize, then this is probably for the admins, given the number of concerns and the prior history. I'm hoping we have a chance to settle this. Savvy? — MWFwiki (talk) 23:31, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
Blaiwesragpicker apparently running unapproved bot script
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.
Blaiwesragpicker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to be running an unapproved bot script, judging from their recent edits. Along with that, pretty much every edit they have done has broken the article in some way, and they have been warned but have not responded. Normally I would probably give them enough time to respond to the warnings, but this account is actively breaking lots of articles. Mesocyclonic93 (t)(c) 19:21, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
- Should be immediately blocked and have all edits rolled back. Sławomir Biały (talk) 19:26, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
- I agree. They've had an account since 2019 but all of their edits are only in the past 20 minutes. Strange. One of their edits came across my watchlist and it wasn't an obvious improvement. They were just adding a bunch of unnecessary commas. Per MOS:OXFORD, the Oxford comma is not mandated anyway. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 19:29, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
- And a lot of the commas they're adding aren't even Oxford commas. They're just adding commas whenever there is a comma in a sentence and there is a conjunctive phrase following it! Sławomir Biały (talk) 19:31, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
- Agreed. This one needs to be blocked ASAP. - Amigao (talk) 19:34, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
- It stopped ten minutes ago so hopefully it's been turned off. It's been adding commas to quotations, sources, templates - literally anything it can get it's hands on, e.g. this edit. Blue Sonnet (talk) 19:38, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
- rsjaffe & The Bushranger. I've changed the partial block to a full sockpuppet block. See Aaron Levy (talk · contribs · email) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CambridgeBayWeather (talk • contribs) 17:49, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
User:WikiEditor73
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 submitted an AIV report about User:WikiEditor73 but was advised to bring it here as it has been a chronic issue for many years. As you are able to see from their talk page, there has been constant and consistent issues with the user violating guidelines and MOS on the project, including but not limited to WP:NOTBROKEN, WP:RPSOAPS, adding unsourced aliases to infoboxes and more. It's not edits that inherently damage the face of the articles, but it leads to so much cleanup from editors including myself and numerous others that have left messages on their talk page. They just seem to take no notice at all and it has gotten beyond disruptive. – Meena • 10:38, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
- Indeffed. This looks primarily like a failure to discuss things and I can see many unaddressed warnings and blocks on their talk page. In this case, indefinite is not infinite and if they write a convincing unblock request, any other admin is free to unblock without needing to consult me. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:34, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
- Good block. Out of curiosity, I looked at their last 10k edits across all namespaces. Of those, just four were to any talk page anywhere . That's almost worse than having zero; they have shown they can use talk pages, but they just don't want to. Meanwhile in those 10k edits, they've been reverted 426 times. 36 editors have left messages on their talk page since they started their account. In total, they've only ever responded 17 times in the entire history of their account in over 10 years. They've also never posted to any article talk page. Wikipedia:Communication is required applies. @WikiEditor73:, I hope you can explain yourself. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:20, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
User:ClueBot NG is malfunctioning
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.
Updated Ministry of Defence Police Station locations based on their website and the bot detected as vandalism and has reverted it — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-22245-39 (talk) 13:28, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
- There were instructions on what to do about false positives in the talk page message ClueBot NG left you that you blanked. Basically: report it here and make the edit again. • a frantic turtle 🐢 13:31, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
Cam salty03: WP:RGW, WP:UNCIVIL, slow edit-warring
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.
Cam salty03 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User has been slow edit-warring on a page about a group accused of being a pro-paedophile campaign, seeking to include content from a series of inappropriate sources including self-published blogs and assessed to be unreliable sources. Several users have reverted their material under such concerns (including one case of revdel for copyright infringement) but they have repeatedly re-introduced it and then added further and further content.
I, having seen the changes today, also reverted for similar concerns and left an appropriate warning given the circumstances on their user page.
They have since accused me of wanting to improve the image of paedophiles which in my view is well over the line.
Asking they be blocked. Rambling Rambler (talk) 18:52, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
- This one in particular bought them 31 hours off: Special:Diff/1348270061. They appear to usually be a good contributor. If this behavior resumes, may have to p-block or consider topic ban to keep them out of troublesome areas. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:04, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks @Rsjaffe, but before that happened they have doubled down on it, also accusing me of "malicious editing" and making things up about them. and are continuing to engage in accusations on their talk page.
- So can I ask this be made indef and TPA removed. Rambling Rambler (talk) 19:06, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
- Rule #1 of holes violated yet again. Yeah, continuing to attack after being blocked for personal attacks is the road to indef. Now they'll have to convince an admin this won't resume if they want to be unblocked. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:38, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks for that. Rambling Rambler (talk) 19:42, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
- Rule #1 of holes violated yet again. Yeah, continuing to attack after being blocked for personal attacks is the road to indef. Now they'll have to convince an admin this won't resume if they want to be unblocked. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:38, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
My sourced edits to an article are reverted continuously, first with no explanation, then with the argument that sources provided by IP edits cannot be trusted, and without engaging in a discussion I opened in the talk page
I tried to expand multiple times the Luigi Cadorna article using four sources. I made it much better adding details, correcting some mistakes, making it more academic in style etc. Yet, I am reverted continuously by User:Jon698. The first times it happened without the user giving any explanation to his edits (while I did to mine). Then, at his third or fourth revert, he did give one explanation: I was told he couldn't find one specific source I added (out of 4). I went to the talk page to engage in discussion and give him the most precise references of the book (and also of the others; they are in the article as well of course). He did not engage in the talk page and reverted again; this time saying in the edit box that he can't trust an IP to edit and that he still cannot find "most" of the books. Now, two sources are old books, but they have been reprinted (and in any case both are buyable on Amazon, Ebay and similar, I buy regularly from that publisher). The other two are recent, one of which is an online article by an historian, freely available. Please restore my version per WP:Good faith, wp:three-revert rule and wp:Gatekeeping. I am literally just trying to expand the article and make it better, I also have other books/articles that may be useful too, but I am basically prohibited from editing.~2026-22325-89 (talk) 07:03, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
- When you start a discussion here you NEED to notify the other party - I have done so as you haven't.Nigel Ish (talk) 09:42, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
- Do we really NEED to when there's never any consequences to failing to notify the other party?
- Every time someone ignores the big red box the result is the same: someone STERNLY reminds them, does the notifying for them, and then we carry on with the thread anyway ~2026-99390-8 (talk) 18:55, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
- Because the other person has a right to know when they're reported to an administrator noticeboard and the right to defend themselves and put their side of the story forward.
- It's also official Wikipedia procedure, not to mention basic courtesy towards your fellow editor.
- Oops, I nearly forgot that it's also the responsibility of the reporting editor and shouldn't have to be done by someone else - we will, because we know how important it is to do.
- Any questions? Blue Sonnet (talk) 19:25, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
- Yes, question: would you like to reread my comment and see if you may have missed the meaning? ~2026-99390-8 (talk) 19:48, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
- Possibly - I understood that you felt it wasn't necessary for a reporting editor to notify the other party of an ANI report because other people will do it for them? That there weren't any problems caused by not telling the other person that they've been brought up at a noticeboard.
- Or did you mean that there are no consequences for the reporting editor (I guess you mean they won't be punished?)
- Apologies if I've misunderstood. Blue Sonnet (talk) 19:55, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
- In brief, to keep this tangent short: the latter. ~2026-99390-8 (talk) 20:25, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
The former 
The latter - Oh ok - no I don't think you'd get into trouble per se, but I'd be a little concerned if a fellow editor bases their actions on whether or not they'll get into trouble, instead of what's best for the project and their fellow editors.
- Being honest, having someone's primary motivation be based on whether they'd get into trouble rather than whether their actions benefit others/whatever they're working towards is a little alien to me, which is why I didn't think you were asking that at first.
- IMO this would also go against one of the Wikipedia:Five pillars - specifically treating other editors with respect, applying Wikipedia etiquette and treating others the way you would want to be treated (the Golden rule).
- If someone reported me to a noticeboard, I'd damn well want to know about it and be able to defend myself!
- If an editor continued to ignore noticeboard & project instructions, continued to disregard the best interests of other editors and Wikipedia, continued to ignore Wikipedia etiquette etc. then there would eventually be consequences, yes. Blue Sonnet (talk) 20:45, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
- In brief, to keep this tangent short: the latter. ~2026-99390-8 (talk) 20:25, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
- Yes, question: would you like to reread my comment and see if you may have missed the meaning? ~2026-99390-8 (talk) 19:48, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
- Scanning the history of the Luigi Cadorna page, I have the following comments - the citations by the original poster were vague - Initially they didn't give enough detail to identify the book used as a source, and even in the last attempt at adding them, didn't give page numbers - citing a several hundred page book isn't terribly useful. Not withstanding that, sources do not have to be online and out of print sources are allowable. Edits should not be reverted simply because they are made by a TA editor.Nigel Ish (talk) 09:49, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
- Nigel Ish, thank for notifying, I can add the pages. ~2026-22249-29 (talk) 12:37, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
- I would be fine with the edits being restored if you include page numbers. Otherwise it would be completely impossible to verify any of the information. Jon698 (talk) 15:31, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
- User:Jon698, will do. ~2026-22191-18 (talk) 19:56, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
Wierd vandalism at Shimon Peres
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.
Someone has vandalized the page Shimon Peres in an incredibly wierd way that completely blanks the page except the images, I can't even edit to attempt to revert it or view the history. It appears to be some template has been impacted but I have no idea what is going on other than that. Giulio 20:35, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
- (Not an admin) The article looks fine to me @Giuliotf? It hasn't been edited it for 12 days. Could it be a glitch at your end? Are other articles OK? Knitsey (talk) 20:45, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
- All good on mobile view too, which is usually the first version to become borked in some way or another. Blue Sonnet (talk) 20:53, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
- It appears to have been fixed now, but I saw the same thing on mobile, Google Chrome and Microsoft Edge Giulio 20:58, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
- It looks fine to me now, tried two different browsers. Before when scrolling is had some text appear on the top of the page saying something like vandalized by Willy on Wheels
- I had the same issue happen on Haile Selassie on microsoft edge, but it appeared to have fixed itself when I checked on Chrome before I could report it. Giulio 20:56, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
- All good on mobile view too, which is usually the first version to become borked in some way or another. Blue Sonnet (talk) 20:53, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
Correction: it was not local computer gremlins, it was vandalism to the {{Listen voice}} template.
@Giuliotf: In the future, you can check for what causes these sorts of things by looking at the "Related changes" page listed in the sidebar under "Tools". MEN KISSING (she/they) Talk to me, I don't bite! - See my edits 00:02, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
- This was caused by the earlier ANI: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Arbitracion keep on breaking templates. - 🚂ThatTrainGuy1945 Peep peep! 00:13, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
User:Asahiha — systematic replacement of neutral article content with Iranian state narrative
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:Asahiha has made multiple disruptive edits to Abu Musa article, systematically replacing neutral, sourced content with Iranian state-narrative text. The edits include:
- Complete rewrite of the lede to describe Abu Musa as "an Iranian island", removing all mention of the sovereignty dispute
- Removal of the Arabic etymology of the island's name
- Complete replacement of the history section with unsourced Iranian nationalist narrative, including claims rooted in "Elamite, Median, Achaemenid" history and describing 1971 as islands being "returned to Iran"
- Removal of the entire UAE claim section, including the UN Security Council referral, six Arab states supporting UAE's claim, and UAE's ICJ referral attempts
- Removal of Iran's historical claim being "contested by the UAE"
- Addition of an entirely unsourced "Archaeological Findings" section
- Removal of cited content documenting conditions faced by UAE citizens on the island
I have reverted all 5 edits individually. EMT441 (talk) 15:09, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
- I've p-blocked from mainspace. The edits are disruptive regardless of the underlying reason. Star Mississippi 15:47, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
- Without prejudice on whatever is going on here, it should be noted that I believe the above report was AI-generated. Fermiboson (talk) 16:44, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
- I do too. Feel like bullet points might have been removed by hand. OP is also now at AI Cleanup. See here for report opened by @Blue-Sonnet.
- OP's edits also seem to be somewhat slanted possibly. See here.
- But yeah, reeks of AI. 🚂ThatTrainGuy1945 Peep peep! 20:09, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
- Honestly, the amount of (AI-generated) edit summaries that claim to be resolving NPOV/balance/sourcing issues was a bit worrying for a brand-new user who has less than fifty edits, since NPOV & balance aren't easy, but that's been the majority of this new editors focus.
- Combine that with the confirmed use of AI for source & text generation, I felt that AINB seemed like the best bet - thankfully there aren't many edits to review. Blue Sonnet (talk) 20:22, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
- Without prejudice on whatever is going on here, it should be noted that I believe the above report was AI-generated. Fermiboson (talk) 16:44, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
- NOTE: EMT441 has been indeffed by Sohom_Datta. 🚂ThatTrainGuy1945 Peep peep! 20:31, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
- I've independently verified several of @Asahiha's that are problematic in a problematic area so stand by the block. They are of course welcome to file an unblock which will be reviewed. Star Mississippi 20:35, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
- No, I wasn't trying to discredit your block, @SM. I was just noting it. Boomerangs bouncing today. 🚂ThatTrainGuy1945 Peep peep! 20:45, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
- sorry didn't mean to imply that you were @ThatTrainGuy1945, just closing the loop for whoever closes the thread. Star Mississippi 20:56, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
- No, I wasn't trying to discredit your block, @SM. I was just noting it. Boomerangs bouncing today. 🚂ThatTrainGuy1945 Peep peep! 20:45, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
- I've independently verified several of @Asahiha's that are problematic in a problematic area so stand by the block. They are of course welcome to file an unblock which will be reviewed. Star Mississippi 20:35, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
User NoobbTr making terrible edits
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
NoobbTr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) made nonsensical edits to Ring system diff and Rings of Uranus diff and when I went back and checked their other edits I had to revert almost every edit they made. At this diff they changed a defunct company from past to present tense. I don't know whether they are vandalizing or they just don't speak English very well but they are continuing in a similar vein and adding unsourced info diff and changing numerical values diff without refs. Termynaytor (talk) 09:20, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
- Oh dear. The English on NoobbTr's own userpage is also alarmingly riddled with errors ("I is now an experience Wikipedia user"). There they state that they're a native speaker of English (as well as of German, Portuguese, Spanish, French, Japanese ... and many more). I'm concerned about their userpage altogether; as we know, it happens not infrequently that a new user simply copies a more or less unsuitable userpage belonging to an experienced editor. I wonder if that happened here, considering for instance their stated year of birth (2006) together with a claim to have a doctor of philosophy degree and to have visited 37 countries all over the world. Well, I wonder if it's a copied userpage together with additions, because I have never come across an experienced editor laying claim to so many native languages. Anyway, there's no way it can all be true. You did right to take it to ANI, Termynaytor, but I frankly don't know what to do about a case like this, since I don't believe they are vandalizing. They're surely trying to help. But competence is also required, and clearly their English isn't good enough to edit the English Wikipedia. The most worrying thing of all, and perhaps the reason for the examples Termynaytor provides, is that they state they're a member of the Guild of Copy editors. :-( NoobbTr, I beg you to edit the Wikipedia of your actual native language (Vietnamese? French?) instead. You're needed there. Bishonen | tålk 10:08, 11 April 2026 (UTC).
- They also claim to have the WP:Page mover privilege. Which they don't. Narky Blert (talk) 12:31, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
- @Bishonen
I frankly don't know what to do about a case like this, since I don't believe they are vandalizing. They're surely trying to help. But competence is also required, and clearly their English isn't good enough to edit the English Wikipedia.
In such cases a CIR block is the right approach. For lets say 5 years. - And since they speak Vietnamese they are probably Vietnamese. Most people who speak Vietnamese are Vietnamese. Polygnotus (talk) 13:16, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
- It's copied from mine . HurricaneZetaC 15:39, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
- Aha! Thank you very much, HurricaneZeta. I knew there had to be something like that. Bishonen | tålk 18:57, 11 April 2026 (UTC).
- I'd support a CIR block, as reading this reply on their talk page it's very clear they are not proficient in the English language enough to be able to contribute helpfully. Rambling Rambler (talk) 13:28, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
- We don't have to !vote on that or support or oppose it. We just need an admin to do the blocking. Polygnotus (talk) 13:46, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
- We don't have to, but from experience at this point it helps to make such a statement bolded for legibility if admins decide to read the discussion. Rambling Rambler (talk) 13:54, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
- I definitely agree that they need a CIR block - they became a mentor and gave advice like this, so had to be removed from the program. Blue Sonnet (talk) 13:56, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
- I'm in fact able and willing to take care of this, as soon as I hear from them, or as soon as it becomes an obvious case of ANI flu; other admins are too, I'm sure. (I'll be out for the next few hours.) Bishonen | tålk 13:57, 11 April 2026 (UTC).
- In the meantime I've been going through their article edits and so far reverted changes to 19 articles where they had introduced language errors or other less-than-constructive changes (for instance here). Like so often when an eager new editor with a tenuous command of English dives into copyediting, there are occasional improvements mixed with the errors, like here, but so far a large majority of their changes have, sadly, been for the worse. --bonadea contributions talk 14:22, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
- After observing the discuss, since I only know much about British English and some Australian English,I weren’t able to fixes copyedits per needed, and I did not have much time to improve article on Wikipedia while did not know much about it. Some of my edits are terrible as you say, and since for editing, I though of it like a narration of a story, for readers so of that I fixes it just like how a “story” unfold, I do not know much about how to actually does that for an article, and some most of the Time I just try to keep my editing streak up, in cite source I do not know much about it and by that while editing I see some extremely long source, which find them is easy but doing those is not for me, I didn’t mean to vandalize, I try to improve as if it a story which I know wikipedia for. In Overall I do not have much experience on Wikipedia, primary know it for article and reading, I’m try to help stuff out and if by any change I get banned or not from Wikipedia. NoobWasTaken (talk) 15:40, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
- Can I please ask whether English is your first (native) or second language? It might give us an idea of where to go next & how we can help you. Blue Sonnet (talk) 16:10, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
- After observing the discuss, since I only know much about British English and some Australian English,I weren’t able to fixes copyedits per needed, and I did not have much time to improve article on Wikipedia while did not know much about it. Some of my edits are terrible as you say, and since for editing, I though of it like a narration of a story, for readers so of that I fixes it just like how a “story” unfold, I do not know much about how to actually does that for an article, and some most of the Time I just try to keep my editing streak up, in cite source I do not know much about it and by that while editing I see some extremely long source, which find them is easy but doing those is not for me, I didn’t mean to vandalize, I try to improve as if it a story which I know wikipedia for. In Overall I do not have much experience on Wikipedia, primary know it for article and reading, I’m try to help stuff out and if by any change I get banned or not from Wikipedia. NoobWasTaken (talk) 15:40, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
- In the meantime I've been going through their article edits and so far reverted changes to 19 articles where they had introduced language errors or other less-than-constructive changes (for instance here). Like so often when an eager new editor with a tenuous command of English dives into copyediting, there are occasional improvements mixed with the errors, like here, but so far a large majority of their changes have, sadly, been for the worse. --bonadea contributions talk 14:22, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
- I'm in fact able and willing to take care of this, as soon as I hear from them, or as soon as it becomes an obvious case of ANI flu; other admins are too, I'm sure. (I'll be out for the next few hours.) Bishonen | tålk 13:57, 11 April 2026 (UTC).
- I definitely agree that they need a CIR block - they became a mentor and gave advice like this, so had to be removed from the program. Blue Sonnet (talk) 13:56, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
- We don't have to, but from experience at this point it helps to make such a statement bolded for legibility if admins decide to read the discussion. Rambling Rambler (talk) 13:54, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
- I have indefinitely blocked from mainspace. I did not block sitewide as I think they are truly trying to help but would not be opposed if the conduct spreads. They absolutely should not be eligible for a return to mentorship.
- @NoobbTr please also feel free to focus on the Wikipedia project in your native language . They may need the editors. Star Mississippi 15:45, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
- While I agree with the block, would it be worth expunging their user page and asking that they recreate it truthfully given the false representations they appear to have been making on it? Rambling Rambler (talk) 15:53, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
- I don't think we ought to be in the business of humiliating them further in such a way, Rambling Rambler. And there's definitely a greyzone where we simply don't know which claims are true. (E. g. personally, my spidey sense has no belief at all in "Harvard" as their university, but I don't know, do I?) Just leave it. I like Star Mississippi's mainspace block. If they go on to disrupt other spaces, it can be extended. Bishonen | tålk 18:57, 11 April 2026 (UTC).
- @Bishonen I wasn't wanting to suggest "humiliation", it was more the fact it appeared to be copied from other peoples user pages (as has already been partially identified above) and therefore felt it was possibly kind to simply remove it given it gives the appearance of bad faith on their part and just ask that they be more careful with what they claim on a user page for that reason.
- The fact they've since put the "retired" template on their page makes that redundant however. Rambling Rambler (talk) 19:01, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
- I don't think we ought to be in the business of humiliating them further in such a way, Rambling Rambler. And there's definitely a greyzone where we simply don't know which claims are true. (E. g. personally, my spidey sense has no belief at all in "Harvard" as their university, but I don't know, do I?) Just leave it. I like Star Mississippi's mainspace block. If they go on to disrupt other spaces, it can be extended. Bishonen | tålk 18:57, 11 April 2026 (UTC).
- Got the second account, thanks for flagging @Rambling Rambler
- As for their user page, no objections. I'm not interested in going through to determine which userboxes are accurate and which aren't so won't be taking that on. Star Mississippi 15:59, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
- They removed a lot of stuff themselves, so I removed one userbox that was obviously incorrect and might cause confusion/problems. I also edited the secondary user page so it matches the main one, since that incorporates the editors own choices and the one userbox that I removed.
- The rest don't seem like they're hugely problematic so I left them alone. Blue Sonnet (talk) 19:16, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
- While I agree with the block, would it be worth expunging their user page and asking that they recreate it truthfully given the false representations they appear to have been making on it? Rambling Rambler (talk) 15:53, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
- We don't have to !vote on that or support or oppose it. We just need an admin to do the blocking. Polygnotus (talk) 13:46, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
- NoobbTr is editing, and I have just now urged them to engage with the criticisms here. It's interesting, in a worrying way, that they just now removed their claim to have a PhD (presumably because they saw me remark on it above). Bishonen | tålk 15:32, 11 April 2026 (UTC).
- They've also stuck a 'Retired' tag on their user page, for what it's worth. Ravenswing 16:20, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
- @Star Mississippi this user also operates a second account, so that will need a block as well.
- Special:Contributions/NoobbTR2 Rambling Rambler (talk) 15:55, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
Temp account(s) making mass non-constructive edits
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- ~2026-20159-02 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- ~2026-22138-35 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
The ~2026-20159-02 account was already blocked for a week on 3 April () for disruptive edits, particularly for removing or reverting multiple redirects for no apparent reason: e.g. , , , , . Now that they're unblocked, they seem to be quickly resuming similar dispruptions, if not outright vandalism, such as replacing multiple redirects with irrelevant or semi-nonsensical content: , , . (That last example was also a copyvio and has already been rev-deleted.) There have been numerous talk page warnings with no responses.
That same edit ( also looks like a continuation of non-constructive edits by another temp account, ~2026-22138-35. Looking at both of them together, they appear to be participating in some edit-warring at Samo's Empire and at Western Chagatai Khanate (see the recent history). Both temp accounts have also been making unhelpful infobox edits involving overlinking and overuse of the "today" parameter (e.g. at Seljuk Sultanate: , ), though these are not the main issue here. R Prazeres (talk) 23:08, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
User:~2026-21151-95 reported for 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:~2026-21151-95 has been warned 6 times regarding making unconstructive edits and have ignored all warnings thus far. With around 6-7 reverted edits within the past two days. All of their edits thus far have also been reverted all for the same reason, Making unconstructive and some vandalism edits. Especially using some edit descriptions as I quote "I made it all up myself."
Link to user contributions: All edits besides their most recent edit, which was a talk page edit has been reverted by various users for the same reason JLN2026 (talk) 15:05, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
Behavior at Sebastian Stan content dispute
Yesterday I blocked AGreenSunflower (talk · contribs) for edit warring at Sebastian Stan. Within six minutes of that block expiring, they joined the talk page discussion at Talk:Sebastian Stan § Relationship with annabelle wallis CONFIRMED! DISCUSS HERE.
Their comments there have included:
- "You are being extremely rude and disparaging. I won’t get into personal attacks, ego battles and high horses because this whole thing has reached a ridiculous level."
- "Go on and gossip to your heart’s content, but careful don’t fall from your high horse."
- "You can do it more emotionally like tit did when you opened the two discussions in this page two days ago" .
They have twice called another editor's edits 'vandalism': . I believe these may qualify as personal attacks.
I am not taking action due to my interaction with this user yesterday. Though I have only been involved in an administrative capacity, and am thus not "involved" per WP:INVOLVED, I'd appreciate another admin taking a look, in the hope that feedback from a second admin will be received better. I have not warned, as their comments linked above indicate they are aware of our policy against personal attacks, but I would understand if that is found to be the best way forward here. I hope this user can be made to understand that they are welcome to contribute, but that they cannot attack other editors when content disagreements don't go their way. Toadspike [Talk] 16:49, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
- Hello.
- I appreciate the notification about this.
- I have stepped away from that conversation, and I would appreciate if whomever reads this will read the whole thread, because those quotes are taken out of context, they are only replies to things said to me. I have not insulted, harassed or personally attacked anyone. It has not been my intention to do that and if any of my words denote otherwise, it has not been intentional and I apologise. All I’ve done in that thread is participate in a discussion, which I continued when the block lifted because I was mentioned in it.
- The other user involved has edited the actor’s page 14 times within 24h, has opened two discussions about this subject in the actor’s talk page and one on the talk page of the actress they cite, and has mentioned me twice after I said I was done with the subject.
- I am quite shocked by this entry that comes out of nowhere. I feel singled out in a big mess that I have not created.
- At this point I don’t even know what to do, because I’ve said several times that I am done with this, I have dropped the subject, I am not involved anymore. But I keep being dragged back.
- Please just let me be. AGreenSunflower (talk) 17:12, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
- you dropped the subject - so if someone adds Annabelle Wallis to his page with a reliable source, such a People Magazine, you won't revert it anymore? ~2026-21894-09 (talk) 17:16, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
- I am not touching anything involving anyone’s personal life. Clearly, my interpretation of what is relevant information is not the general consensus, so I am done with the subject. AGreenSunflower (talk) 17:21, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
- You opened a DRN entry just to complain about Toadspike and your behaviour really doesn't look like you have "moved on" so much as you're expecting to have the last word on the matter.
- Indefinite page block from both Sebastian Stan and Annabelle Wallis. If they're truly "done" with this I don't see how they'd have a problem with such a move. Rambling Rambler (talk) 17:19, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
- I sent an unblock request and explained why I thought it was unfair. The notification of the block explained that was an action I could take. I was not complaining about the admin, but about the block. I am only responding when I am mentioned and repeating that I am truly done with the subject.
- Take the measures you deem appropriate. AGreenSunflower (talk) 17:29, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
- "You are being extremely rude and disparaging. I won’t get into personal attacks." Did anyone else's irony meter just explode? Narky Blert (talk) 18:08, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
- Yeah, now I have to clean it up off the ceiling. Ravenswing 01:01, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
- "You are being extremely rude and disparaging. I won’t get into personal attacks." Did anyone else's irony meter just explode? Narky Blert (talk) 18:08, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
- you dropped the subject - so if someone adds Annabelle Wallis to his page with a reliable source, such a People Magazine, you won't revert it anymore? ~2026-21894-09 (talk) 17:16, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
- Warning - I gave a third opinion in that thread. I would support a warning, considering they said above that they realize their opinion is not the general consensus and that they're planning to drop the issue. InfernoHues (talk) 19:21, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
- Comment - AGreenSunflower opened a case at DRN about Sebastian Stan. I have now closed that case at their request. I have not reviewed the dispute in detail. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:59, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
- Warnings for both parties, now that AGreenSunflower has told us at least half a dozen times that they wont be engaging any more - we can hope that they wont be engaging any more. However, it should be noted that this language from @Spywalkers was not acceptable either. AGreenSunflower happened to have crossed a bright line with 3RR and caught a very brief ban but both need to learn how to be civil on talk pages. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 07:31, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
- Yikes, I hadn't seen that. I'd support civility warnings for both AGreenSunflower and Spywalkers. Toadspike [Talk] 10:40, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
- I missed that somehow. Agree a warning for both is good. Though a TA (~2026-22563-44) just showed up making the same argument as AGreenSunflower, which is a little suspicious. InfernoHues (talk) 15:18, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
- Perhaps a fully uninvolved editor would like to close the discussions currently on that talk page. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 15:50, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
- I am not involved at all with that comment or that person, I promise you.
- I even appreciate that @DandelionAndBurdock mentioned on the edit they’ve made on the article that he doesn’t talk about his private life, and even though I don’t agree with the addition of that section, it was done with taste. AGreenSunflower (talk) 16:00, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
GlazeGirlMagic6 not here to contribute.
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 only edits by this user are creating a userpage which may have to do with dating but is otherwise incomprehensible, and defending the page at MFD. The page has been nominated for deletion, and the editor's reply includes: it's freedom of speech and not open to your opinion
. This editor appears to be not here to contribute to the encyclopedia. Freedom of the press applies to those who own one. The WMF owns the servers.
- GlazeGirlMagic6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Robert McClenon (talk) 03:22, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
- INDEFfed as Not Here. DE would have worked as well. Thanks for flagging @Robert McClenon Star Mississippi 03:28, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
Gross vandalism by Chchcheckit
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 Chchcheckit has grossly vandalized the mainspace page Far Out (magazine) replacing it with slurs and insults. I have warned the user, but considering the gravity of the vandalism, I don't know if a block could be warranted, and I believe other administrators should be made aware. I have only not reported this at WP:AIV because the user has 40,000 edits (which is surprising for the conduct). I am sure any newer editor would be instantly blocked for this. Skyshiftertalk 18:15, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
- To be fair, they reverted themselves 18 seconds later. This is clearly an issue that they're angry about , but I note they've posted about it at RSN in more measured tones since , so personally (given that, as you say, this is an editor with 40K edits and a clean block log) I'd be happy to keep an eye on it rather than take any action. Black Kite (talk) 18:33, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
- Note: as far as the article goes, it is a resurrection of the article deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Far Out (website) - but it's not eligible for G4 deletion because the new article does actually have some secondary sources, which the first one didn't. Black Kite (talk) 18:37, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
- +1. This is unacceptable behaviour from an experienced user, but I'm willing to cut them some slack given the immediate self-reversion and clean block log. Chchcheckit should keep in mind that doing this again will definitely result in a block, however. —Ingenuity (talk) 18:41, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
- This editor is definitely experienced enough to know way better than this. Though as long as they can reassure that there should not be a repeat of this, I think the warning ought to be sufficient. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 18:39, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
- Not disputing the vandalism charge here. I vandalised the page specifically because it is (to me) the same thing as a previously deleted one / unreliable source from 2025. I thought it was permissable on that basis and wouldn't do it elsewhere, which is still a poor excuse. I know better and shouldn't act in this way. I am not 19 anymore. I have seen what acting like this does to me in visceral form.
- I know when I get tired and frustrated irl, which is increasingly the case as of basically the last six months, I take it out on myself/other people editors/etc and it would be better to direct that energy elsewhere or actually talk it out/not immediately go with the gut reaction, which is 99.9% always bad. tldr sorry: vandalism is vandalism regardless of what you're vandalising.
- (Also: don't trust the edit count, the reason it is so high is because 1. I didn't use a sandbox for the longest time because i was an idiot and 2. had to keep publishing after minor revisions due to having a laptop that contstantly got overwhelmed/crashed unpredictably until i got a new one in late 2023.)
you wonder why the user page says I'm a "wikipedia editor [...] and fucking idiot" yeah?// Chchcheckit (talk) 18:44, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
Disruptive WP:ENGVAR edits from User:BridgeBoy1980
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.
BridgeBoy1980 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
BridgeBoy1980 has been changing the collective pronouns for companies from plural to singular, despite the former being used by most variations of English. BB has been asked on their talk page to stop, take WP:ENGVAR into consideration, and to self-revert their changes on pages not written in American English.
Unfortunately, they've ignored the messages left on their talk, and have continued pushing their changes on articles with {{Use British English}} and similar. nil nz 06:00, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
- This might be done by some sort of AI work as per their user page "I'm 100% human, but I do sometimes use AI to assist in identifying errors. Ok, maybe I'm a cyborg."
- Additionally, messages like "Companies are singular ('it' not 'they') - I will also find you, and I will also kill you" on their user page make me feel as if they are Wikipedia:NOTHERE Realtent (talk) 06:09, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
I left BridgeBoy1980 a warning and will block them if there are any further edits of the same kind. Realtent might be correct in their above comment but I thought this should be tried first. However, if anyone else wants to do a block from article space now, that might be a good idea too. Please let me know if there are further problems. Johnuniq (talk) 06:17, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
- I suspect Realtent may be correct, there's definitely some form of automation being used (possibly AI). They've edited for ~17 hours straight, making these same changes. nil nz 06:23, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
- The user has kept making changes (at least 3 so far), albeit to only American English companies for now, and has not acknowledged any message on here nor their talk page. Not sure if you would consider this a 'problem' as their edits fall within WP:ENGVAR for now, but just to make sure you were aware. Realtent (talk) 06:29, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
- They're still going at Barclays and HSBC which both have the British English tag ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 06:43, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
This looks like an unauthorized bot of some sort. A block from articlespace for bot-like editing until they acknowledge the warnings and/or this AnI thread would be appropriate. MEN KISSING (she/they) Talk to me, I don't bite! - See my edits 07:03, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
- (Kinda new editor question) I second this, but where do we go from here? Ping an admin? Or should we wait for someone to come across this naturally/wait for Johnuniq to do it? Realtent (talk) 07:06, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
- Oh, I missed the part where Johnuniq said they would block if there's further edits of the same kind. Yes, a ping is a good idea (and I've done that just now by mentioning them). MEN KISSING (she/they) Talk to me, I don't bite! - See my edits 07:10, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
- I fully blocked the editor because the inability to pay attention to their user talk lends weight to the suggestion that some automated editing is going on, as well as the lack of clue. @BridgeBoy1980: Weren't you a little surprised that so many articles were obviously wrong and required hundreds of edits to "fix"? Maybe there was a reason they were that way? Johnuniq (talk) 08:09, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
- There’s also that blatant death threat on their user page. Borgenland (talk) 08:34, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
- That part, I feel like it's inbounds as a lighthearted joke and should just be deleted. MEN KISSING (she/they) Talk to me, I don't bite! - See my edits 08:38, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
- I get the film. Unfortunately given how pronouns have become a CTOPS issue here I might as well be cautious. Borgenland (talk) 08:47, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
- They have responded on their talk page. A little vaguely, I think. How do we feel about removing their extended confirmed status? -- the once again admin Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:16, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
- I think that's a good compromise - they either used automation or edited Wikipedia in the same way I play a new game that I've booked a week off work for (17hrs of editing! Then again, I've gamed for 30hrs straight so it could just be hyper-fixation).
- A large number of their edits were disruptive, so it seems fair that they have to earn EC-status back through genuine, well-made edits. It's also a pathway to being unblocked, which is always good.
- If there are further problematic edits then a mainspace block is always an option, but I think we should try leniency first. Blue Sonnet (talk) 10:18, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
- I and hyper-fixation and are old friends. -- the once again admin Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:41, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
- Anyone want to go ahead and unblock? Or should we await a more specific response? My time is limited, so if any admin wishes to proceed with the unblock, that would be great. -- the once again admin Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:45, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
- I'm happy for any admin to do what they think is right but I would hope for a little more insight from BridgeBoy1980. Since the block, they have added three comments to their talk and an unblock request. The comments boil down to Sorry, I didn't realise... and I want to be constructive. A brief attempt at answering my questions (how will future problems be avoided (at their talk), and "Weren't you a little surprised..." above) would be good. There should be a plan for what will happen next time someone posts at their talk. Johnuniq (talk) 11:07, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
- As they have addressed our concerns, I have unblocked. -- the once again admin Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:59, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
- Reply to @Johnuniq. They have given detailed responses per your requests. The discussion is archived now. Blocking because they likely didn't know they had a talk page was, in my view, harsh. Their disruptive edits were not advisable but crucially, not malicious. This tells me everything I need to know. An editor who can admit when they've done wrong is an editor I'd rather have around. (It's a standard I hold myself to.) 11WB (talk) 14:17, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
- Not at all harsh and needed to stop disruption. Good block. Now understands so unblocked. -- the once again admin Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:29, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
- Yes people seem to forget that blocks are preventative. We had an editor who was persistently making bad edits even after others had tried to reach out to them. They may not have been the worst of edits but they were edits which needed to stop. Even if they had really not known about their talk page, the only real way to stop their bad edits was to block them. It's not reasonably possible to block someone only from articles about companies and while technically a bespoke edit filter targeted at the editor and stopping them changing gender pronouns might be possible, it's something too costly to consider. Blocking them was the right and only choice. My only quibble is that a block from main space was IMO sufficient to stop the disruption. But admins are still getting used to partial blocks even if they've been around for a while and a block from main space is such a harsh block especially for an editor like this it only made minimal difference. Technically it would have let them engage here or whatever but the block should have been dealt with on their talk page either way so it's a minor issue. Nil Einne (talk) 15:56, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
- I'm confused here. Who didn't know they had a talk page? I assume we're not talking about BridgeBoy1980 who even before their replies when requesting an unblock made it clear they knew about it but missed the notifications, had used their talk page 2 days ago when replying to an automated message . While 2 days may not be long, it's before this all blew up and was after only about 15 edits from them anyway . As noted above they created a userpage which actually happened before they visited their talk page and it included user boxes although with a slightly weird edit summary but whatever the case not particularly common for someone who doesn't know they had a talk page. Nil Einne (talk) 15:47, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
- Haven't really got anything further to add to this as it is a resolved matter now. I was criticising the block which @Johnuniq stated was for ignoring their talk page, which the editor confirmed not to have seen. The block, which was actually for the previous disruptive ENGVAR edits, which I agree was justified, should have been specified correctly by the blocking admin here, rather than saying it was for something else. This thread is probably best closed now, otherwise editors risk WP:GRAVEDANCING. Thanks. 11WB (talk) 15:59, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
- Not at all harsh and needed to stop disruption. Good block. Now understands so unblocked. -- the once again admin Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:29, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
- Reply to @Johnuniq. They have given detailed responses per your requests. The discussion is archived now. Blocking because they likely didn't know they had a talk page was, in my view, harsh. Their disruptive edits were not advisable but crucially, not malicious. This tells me everything I need to know. An editor who can admit when they've done wrong is an editor I'd rather have around. (It's a standard I hold myself to.) 11WB (talk) 14:17, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
- As they have addressed our concerns, I have unblocked. -- the once again admin Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:59, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
- I'm happy for any admin to do what they think is right but I would hope for a little more insight from BridgeBoy1980. Since the block, they have added three comments to their talk and an unblock request. The comments boil down to Sorry, I didn't realise... and I want to be constructive. A brief attempt at answering my questions (how will future problems be avoided (at their talk), and "Weren't you a little surprised..." above) would be good. There should be a plan for what will happen next time someone posts at their talk. Johnuniq (talk) 11:07, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
- Anyone want to go ahead and unblock? Or should we await a more specific response? My time is limited, so if any admin wishes to proceed with the unblock, that would be great. -- the once again admin Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:45, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
- I and hyper-fixation and are old friends. -- the once again admin Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:41, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
- They have responded on their talk page. A little vaguely, I think. How do we feel about removing their extended confirmed status? -- the once again admin Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:16, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
- I get the film. Unfortunately given how pronouns have become a CTOPS issue here I might as well be cautious. Borgenland (talk) 08:47, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
- That part, I feel like it's inbounds as a lighthearted joke and should just be deleted. MEN KISSING (she/they) Talk to me, I don't bite! - See my edits 08:38, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
- There’s also that blatant death threat on their user page. Borgenland (talk) 08:34, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
- I fully blocked the editor because the inability to pay attention to their user talk lends weight to the suggestion that some automated editing is going on, as well as the lack of clue. @BridgeBoy1980: Weren't you a little surprised that so many articles were obviously wrong and required hundreds of edits to "fix"? Maybe there was a reason they were that way? Johnuniq (talk) 08:09, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
- I'm glad this is resolved and that BB seems to now understand what the problem was. But I just want to clarify that the editor was not unaware of the existence of their talk page. They edited their talk page themselves at 9:18 on 10 April. I gave them their first warning for the pronoun changes two days later at 4:06 on 12 April. They continued to edit, making 133 further pronoun changing edits for four hours after that, stopping only when they were blocked at 8:04. I can accept that they may have not noticed the seven messages added to their talk page during those four hours because of their newness to the platform, but not that they were unaware of the existence of the talk page. CodeTalker (talk) 17:12, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
- Oh, I missed the part where Johnuniq said they would block if there's further edits of the same kind. Yes, a ping is a good idea (and I've done that just now by mentioning them). MEN KISSING (she/they) Talk to me, I don't bite! - See my edits 07:10, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
Something isn't quite right, here. Difficult to explain, but will leave for now & hope there's no more problems with BB's editing or communications. GoodDay (talk) 17:41, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
- Now I can comment here, just to say once again sorry for what happened earlier. I was over-zealous and clearly out of my depth. Maybe I should have dipped my toe in first rather than diving in head first, but I have learned my lesson. Thanks to @11WB for the nudges and advice. I want to be a constructive contributor here and this episode has been a valuable learning session. @GoodDay - could you let me know what you mean re the above? Thank you. BridgeBoy1980 (talk) 18:43, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
- Just wanted to be certain you're taking the concerns brought up, seriously. I'm presuming you have. GoodDay (talk) 18:45, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
- Yes, very much so. Appreciate the feedback. BridgeBoy1980 (talk) 18:47, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
- Just wanted to be certain you're taking the concerns brought up, seriously. I'm presuming you have. GoodDay (talk) 18:45, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
Ujdial
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.
Legal threats and a personal threat to me are on the edit history here. See Walmart. Viva la horde, ~ GoatLordServant(Talk) 11:59, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
- No legal threats so he should be inserted also for PAs. ~2026-22711-48 (talk) 13:01, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
- What do you mean, there's clearly a legal threat there? Blue Sonnet (talk) 13:03, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
- The above TA was me. Mobile autocorrect messed me up. I meant to say, "No legal threats are allowed on Wikipedia, so he should be indeffed, along with PAs." 🚂ThatTrainGuy1945 Peep peep! 14:31, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
- Aha, gotcha! Been there enough myself ^_^ Currently dealing with an LTA who's writing in a certain way & I had a horrible feeling he was back again... Blue Sonnet (talk) 15:02, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
- The above TA was me. Mobile autocorrect messed me up. I meant to say, "No legal threats are allowed on Wikipedia, so he should be indeffed, along with PAs." 🚂ThatTrainGuy1945 Peep peep! 14:31, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
- What do you mean, there's clearly a legal threat there? Blue Sonnet (talk) 13:03, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
- I've blocked for the legal threats but also for the edit warring and attacks; if he does recant any threats and apologise then there'll still be a block for the edit warring behaviour and personal attacks. CoconutOctopus talk 13:03, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
- Note there's even more explicit legal threats here and in this edit summary also. Athanelar (talk) 14:03, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
- Just once, I'd like these legal threats to not be comically incompetent, just on the principle. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:36, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
- Indeed the incomptence in the legal threat is made even funnier with I am a state public prosecutor. My job is to catch liars this obvious lie. Lavalizard101 (talk) 16:07, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
- They work in The court of law too, no less. Everyone knows that's the best court. Blue Sonnet (talk) 16:27, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
- 🚂ThatTrainGuy1945 Peep peep! 16:33, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
- They work in The court of law too, no less. Everyone knows that's the best court. Blue Sonnet (talk) 16:27, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
- Indeed the incomptence in the legal threat is made even funnier with I am a state public prosecutor. My job is to catch liars this obvious lie. Lavalizard101 (talk) 16:07, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
- Just once, I'd like these legal threats to not be comically incompetent, just on the principle. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:36, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
- That's almost certainly User:Vrghs jacob. Just point out those socks to me, and I'll block them. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:12, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
- Fifteen years of this is ridicoulus. What compels a person to do this for that long? 🚂ThatTrainGuy1945 Peep peep! 17:55, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
- That's a deep cut. How is one even supposed to recognize this account is them? Seems like unique behavior this time. Curious. Viva la horde, ~ GoatLordServant(Talk) 18:15, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
- Block his socks a hundred times over the course of 10 years, and maybe his edits will stick out like a sore thumb. It's just pattern recognition. On some forum I read occasionally, there's this guy who starts almost every sentence he writes with "I mean": "I mean, that's true", "I mean, I like it", "I mean, dogs are mammals". It's really annoying. Maybe play some pattern recognition games? Then you'll start seeing this stuff all over the place.
As far as Vrghs jacob, you guys already hit the nail on the head. He's incompetent in amusing ways, is a bit racist, speaks in broken English, edit wars, and makes laughable threats. Walmart is a new topic for him, but everything else clicks into place nicely, and he's on the same IP range as usual. I can block the IP range, but people will probably give me crap over it. If I'm going to get crap over it, I'd prefer have a few annoying sock puppets that I can point to. So, let the personal attacks, edit warring, and threats commence! NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:48, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
- I see! Was just unaware as a 2019 and onward user. The sockpuppet investigation doesn't really have any behavioral info. But thank you! Viva la horde, ~ GoatLordServant(Talk) 00:37, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
- Block his socks a hundred times over the course of 10 years, and maybe his edits will stick out like a sore thumb. It's just pattern recognition. On some forum I read occasionally, there's this guy who starts almost every sentence he writes with "I mean": "I mean, that's true", "I mean, I like it", "I mean, dogs are mammals". It's really annoying. Maybe play some pattern recognition games? Then you'll start seeing this stuff all over the place.
User: ~2026-22611-28
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.
~2026-22611-28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Can you please revoke TPA from this user? They are vandalising their talk page.
Thanks! ozmoozmo@enwiki (talk:contribs) 03:20, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
- Already done by User:C.Fred, while I was writing this report. ozmoozmo@enwiki (talk:contribs) 03:20, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
Temp account(s) with contentious edit summaries, WP:OR edits
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- ~2026-20680-98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- ~2026-15742-82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This temp account (~2026-20680-98) is almost certainly the same person as (or related to) a previous IP editor who was blocked last year while editing the same topics. That editor consistently made unsourced edits and repeatedly used bizarre elaborate edit summaries that were themselves problematic. See that report here.
Even if this user isn't related, their edit summaries on their own indicate obvious disregard for WP:OR, WP:NPOV and other issues, let alone the content of their edits and some edit-warring. This edit summary in particular prompted me to come here sooner than later, but have a look at their list of contributions to see what I mean generally.
I've listed a second recent temp account (~2026-15742-82) because it is almost certainly the same person as well (per the edit history at Ancient Libya), though it is currently inactive. Blocking the current temp account may work for a short while but I assume they will migrate to a new one soon enough, so a better solution might be to semi-protect Ancient Libya, which they are repeatedly targeting, and see if they finally make an account and start learning what Wikipedia is for. R Prazeres (talk) 23:38, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
- I can verify that one prior TA that was used by this user was blocked. It was User:~2025-41340-17. Dafootballguy | Want to talk? 00:23, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
- @Dafootballguy: I don't see any previous blocks. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 01:05, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
- Sorry, I just realized what happened. I have the "strike out blocked user" function on and the expired account gets a line as well. It looked the same and I therefore assumed it was a block not expiration. I apologize. Dafootballguy | Want to talk? 01:08, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
- @Dafootballguy: I don't see any previous blocks. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 01:05, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
- Based on the number of disruptive edits and the number of articles involved across the full set of temporary accounts, a block for disruptive editing along with an extended block of the underlying IP may be the best option. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 01:24, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
- As a TAIP, I can confirm that the two accounts are related to each other, as well as a host of Berber-related POV-pushers:
- Somepinkdude (talk) 01:42, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
- Please don't use CheckUser-specific jargon like "confirm" or "confirmed" when discussing accounts or IP addresses. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:18, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
- Blocked indefinitely. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:49, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
User:MikeFrancisco212: promotional edits and potential COI
MikeFrancisco212 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) a newly active account has edits all promoting a magazine, including two spam pages created themself: USIA REVIEW Magazine and UNITED STATE OF INTERNATIONAL ARTISTS (USIA.CO.UK). In addition, I suspect a possible COI because the username could indicate they're claiming to be Francisco Lacerda, who has been redlinked in both spam articles and been mentioned in many of their edits. StartOkayStop (talk) 11:16, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
- I too am extremely concerned by this behaviour. I don't think that they should be allowed to write about or post links to USIA or Eurostars Cultura. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:19, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
- I've left numerous warnings on their talk page for adding links to USIA Review, up to stage 4. Let's hope this does the trick. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:52, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
- both of his articles are now in draft Spartaz Humbug! 12:52, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
- Their entire history is spamming references to Francisco Lacerda and related magazines. At one point on their talk page, they seemed to be admitting a connection with Lacerda, but then they claim they have nothing to do with the magazaine and just like his work. Frankly, I don't believe that one bit. Communicating with them on their talk page appears to be extremely challenging, since it seems nigh impossible to get substantive answers from them. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:30, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
- Yeah they haven't done one edit that is unrelated to Lacerda yet. Would it be acceptable for me to revert all of the edits where they've managed to sneak in Lacerda's website onto a famous artist's bio? Some of these are high traffic articles like David Hockney and Roy Lichtenstein and don't add much to the article other than to publicise their own website. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:28, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
- I would welcome such reverts. I've reviewed MikeFrancisco212's citations based on USIA Review in articles of five opera singers and of one installation artist, and they are rather fluffy and vacuous and add nothing of substance to those articles. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 15:42, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
- The articles look AI-written too, and the links to the sources frequently don't even match what's in those cited articles.
- For example, for Artur Ruciński:
- The Wikipedia prose:
In a review published by USIA Review, baritone Artur Ruciński’s interpretation of Riccardo in Bellini’s I Puritani is highlighted for its vocal richness, stylistic control, and dramatic authority within the bel canto ensemble. The text emphasizes the “silky tone” of his instrument and his ability to combine elegance with dramatic tension, situating his performance within a star-studded Metropolitan Opera production conducted by Marco Armiliato and featuring Lisette Oropesa, Lawrence Brownlee, and Christian Van Horn.
- The cited article supporting this:
Baritone Artur Ruciński lends Riccardo Forth a dark, well-focused tone
. - Most, if not all, of their edits are like this (which I'm about to go deal with manually). I don't think the editor's being truthful about not having a relationship with this site, but even if they are, they're making AI blocks of text to spam links to a source providing what largely looks like AI drivel.
- This is a Matryoshka doll of poor conduct. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 18:23, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
- And for Christian Van Horn:
- Wikipedia text:
is highlighted for its vocal authority, tonal warmth, and expressive legato within the ensemble. The text emphasizes the depth and resonance of his bass-baritone voice, noting his contribution to the emotional and dramatic balance of the opera, particularly in ensemble passages opposite Lisette Oropesa
- Source:
bass-baritone Christian Van Horn commands vocal authority as Giorgio Valton
. There's no other mention of van Horn. - This is all garbage. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 18:28, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
- I don't know how the AI gets it so wrong every time. I've just checked a few others and they are all off too. I'm afraid this user has left problems on almost every article that they have edited. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 23:14, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
- Just wait (he says dourly). By this time next year, some bright bunny is going to program a LLM to properly mimic Wikipedia-voice. Ravenswing 08:39, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
- I don't know how the AI gets it so wrong every time. I've just checked a few others and they are all off too. I'm afraid this user has left problems on almost every article that they have edited. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 23:14, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
- Yeah they haven't done one edit that is unrelated to Lacerda yet. Would it be acceptable for me to revert all of the edits where they've managed to sneak in Lacerda's website onto a famous artist's bio? Some of these are high traffic articles like David Hockney and Roy Lichtenstein and don't add much to the article other than to publicise their own website. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:28, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
Insult against BLP subject
PeterWikiSK has included on an edit summary a direct insult against a living notable person . The edit summary should be redacted. Is there a better noticeboard for a case like this or is it appropriate here? Super Ψ Dro 13:02, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:AIV is probably quickest & easiest, but since we're at ANI it'll still get dealt with by an admin. Blue Sonnet (talk) 13:17, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
- Rev-deleted, user warned. I see the other editor that vandalised the article (which PeterWikiSK was actually removing) has already been warned. Black Kite (talk) 13:22, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
Yoink 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 2026-23075-21 is not using their tp properly post block. Just spamming unblock me, not even using the template. Please yoink. Starlet! (Need to talk?) (Library) (Sandbox) 15:53, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
- Convenience link: User talk:~2026-23075-21
- Also, it's important to notify editors when you discuss them at ANI. I have done this for you, but it's something you need to do in future. QwertyForest (talk) 16:17, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks. Thought that wasn't necessary for TPA stuff. Good to know If I ever come back to ANI again. Starlet! (Need to talk?) (Library) (Sandbox) 16:26, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
- You can accomplish the exact same thing by simply not reading their talk page. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:09, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
- Agree on not pulling TPA. They are just venting. Chaotic Enbry and I have left instructions to help them request unblock. -- the once again admin Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:10, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
HJ Mitchell blocking people with no reason
| WP:DENY |
|---|
| Filer is a sock. (non-admin closure) SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 15:48, 14 April 2026 (UTC) |
|
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. HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is often blocking people without reason which is not allowed and he also doesn’t tell them why they got blocked whatsoever and doesn’t allow them to email or create an account or edit talk page. For example here, here, here and here. It doesn’t seem like he understands all of Wikipedia’s policies and I think he needs to be reminded to always give a reason for the block as not doing so can be seen as disruptive and other admins may not know why they got blocked. GCSE Geography (talk) 14:42, 14 April 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:Barbarabregoli
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.
- Barbarabregoli (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User is holding themselves out as related to Bhad Bhabie and has made two edits that are various degrees of overt or implied legal threats. I request additional eyes on the situation between WP:NLT and the conflict of interest they hold themselves out as having. —C.Fred (talk) 12:15, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
- Noting that, at a glance, I think WP:DOLT applies here. Tessaract2 (hello) 12:38, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
- It's not as delusional as some legal threats, but the information is plausibly sourced, the alleged mother hasn't done anything to confirm her story or her identity so far, and the disputed information is hardly negative. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:16, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
- (Edit Conflict) Noting that WP:DOLT is an essay, WP:NLT is a policy, Do not post legal threats on Wikipedia. if Barbarabregoli had removed the legal threat or explained it that would be one thing, but they doubled down with "but rest assured this will be corrected and those responsible will be held accountable!" which can be interpreted as a legal threat, or as an actual threat of violence. Barbarabregoli has not provided any sort of RS that the article is wrong. In addition User:C.Fred has spent a lot of effort in trying to explain the process to the individual in question, but the individual seems to not want to Hear it. I am not seeing how this is anything like WP:DOLT, as in that situation there was no effort to inform or instruct, which is not the case here.--VVikingTalkEdits 14:24, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
- For the record, I'm not saying "let's not block them", I'm saying "let's make sure the content argument is listened to". Since CoffeeCrumbs has indicated there's nothing that needs to change, we should be good to just block and move on. Tessaract2 (hello) 14:58, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
- Thank you for the clarification, and yes we should always take into account what was being claimed. I looked at the example (the example is what I focused on when I say that page]] on the WP:DOLT essay and thought, that is nothing like this situation. I appreciate your civil discourse. --VVikingTalkEdits 15:02, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
- For the record, I'm not saying "let's not block them", I'm saying "let's make sure the content argument is listened to". Since CoffeeCrumbs has indicated there's nothing that needs to change, we should be good to just block and move on. Tessaract2 (hello) 14:58, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
- (Edit Conflict) Noting that WP:DOLT is an essay, WP:NLT is a policy, Do not post legal threats on Wikipedia. if Barbarabregoli had removed the legal threat or explained it that would be one thing, but they doubled down with "but rest assured this will be corrected and those responsible will be held accountable!" which can be interpreted as a legal threat, or as an actual threat of violence. Barbarabregoli has not provided any sort of RS that the article is wrong. In addition User:C.Fred has spent a lot of effort in trying to explain the process to the individual in question, but the individual seems to not want to Hear it. I am not seeing how this is anything like WP:DOLT, as in that situation there was no effort to inform or instruct, which is not the case here.--VVikingTalkEdits 14:24, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
- I’m more than happy to turn over my DL and I’ve posted our conversation on my IG and
- TikTok Barbarabregoli (talk) 14:46, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
- Now you’re accusing me of making threats of violence thankfully I’ve screen recorded this entire exchange. Go check out my IG which BTW I’m verified the_barbara_bregoli. Barbarabregoli (talk) 14:56, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
- I can confirm that there are screen recordings of this conversation on that verified Instagram account. We are very likely dealing with the real person here. Barbara, please retract your legal threats; if you do not do so, you will be prevented from communicating on Wikipedia and will not be able to help solve this issue. Tessaract2 (hello) 15:03, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
- So now you’re threatening me for trying to correct an huge error! This is unreal just correct her legal name and we are done it’s that simple! Barbarabregoli (talk) 15:34, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
- Barbara, English Wikipedia has strict rules against legal threats. Until you retract the legal threat, we cannot engage with you further, and in fact are expected to block you from the website. Please retract the threat so that we don't have to block you. Once you've done that, editing suggestions can be considered. Otherwise, you're doing the Wikipedia-equivalent of bursting into a restaurant without shirt or shoes and demanding to see the manager while standing in front of the "no shirt no shoes no service" sign. signed, Rosguill talk 15:37, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
- As you metaphor is pointless no legal action will be taken just correct this erroneous mistake so my daughter and I don’t have to deal with this anymore! Barbarabregoli (talk) 15:44, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
- Reviewing the discussion at your user talk page, it seems like the issue is with information published by Washington Post, SCMP, and People Magazine. You're going to need to request that they issue corrections (even one would be sufficient to get the ball rolling), and then Wikipedia can be updated to reflect their coverage. Until then, there isn't anything for us to do. Instructions for requesting corrections can be found here, here and here. signed, Rosguill talk 15:47, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
- All those publications are relying on your page and that’s where they are getting that mane from anyone who know her knows that is not her name! Barbarabregoli (talk) 15:59, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
- Wikipedia writes what is stated in reliable sources. If the reliable sources are wrong on the issue, we can't post the 'correct' information without a contradictory reliable source for that information.
- You either need to provide a source which states the correct name, or you need to contact the places reporting the wrong name and have them correct it. Athanelar (talk) 16:03, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
- Your page is the reason they are using the incorrect middle name! Barbarabregoli (talk) 16:06, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
- Image I see to you or your mother that is not your name because a publication states something different, now dies that make sense to you? Just remove the Peskowitz and let’s all move on! Barbarabregoli (talk) 16:09, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
- All those publications are relying on your page and that’s where they are getting that mane from anyone who know her knows that is not her name! Barbarabregoli (talk) 15:59, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
- Reviewing the discussion at your user talk page, it seems like the issue is with information published by Washington Post, SCMP, and People Magazine. You're going to need to request that they issue corrections (even one would be sufficient to get the ball rolling), and then Wikipedia can be updated to reflect their coverage. Until then, there isn't anything for us to do. Instructions for requesting corrections can be found here, here and here. signed, Rosguill talk 15:47, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
- As you metaphor is pointless no legal action will be taken just correct this erroneous mistake so my daughter and I don’t have to deal with this anymore! Barbarabregoli (talk) 15:44, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
- Barbara, English Wikipedia has strict rules against legal threats. Until you retract the legal threat, we cannot engage with you further, and in fact are expected to block you from the website. Please retract the threat so that we don't have to block you. Once you've done that, editing suggestions can be considered. Otherwise, you're doing the Wikipedia-equivalent of bursting into a restaurant without shirt or shoes and demanding to see the manager while standing in front of the "no shirt no shoes no service" sign. signed, Rosguill talk 15:37, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
- So now you’re threatening me for trying to correct an huge error! This is unreal just correct her legal name and we are done it’s that simple! Barbarabregoli (talk) 15:34, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
- Do you have any contact or relationship (COI) with the subject of this article? If so, you should not be directly editing it in most cases. 🚂ThatTrainGuy1945 Peep peep! 15:03, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
- I have reached out before to have this issue corrected but Ive been ignored. The fact Wikipedia is using a false name further my daughter it’s affecting her, she just received her first gold plaque as an INDEPENDENT ARTIST and the name on the plaque was incorrect because they relied on Wikipedia this was very upsetting to my daughter. It’s crazy how no one understands this is a very serious issue! Barbarabregoli (talk) 15:23, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
- (Non-admin comment) Ma'am, I can understand that this is an upsetting issue to you. However, legal threats and getting angry won't help this situation at all. The best thing to do is retract any threats, and please try to take a breather. I promise that we have no ill will, but escalating won't do any good. TheClocksAlwaysTurn (The Clockworks) (contribs) 15:30, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
- Then just correct her name and it’s over and done with, how would you feel if this was happening to you better yet how would your mother feel? I have every right so be upset as well as my daughter, it’s crazy how no one will just correct her name and move on! Barbarabregoli (talk) 15:40, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
- You are allowed to be upset. However, we do not report the truth; we report what can be verified by reliable sources. See Wikipedia:Truth, not verifiability. 🚂ThatTrainGuy1945 Peep peep! 15:50, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
- I’m her Mother, I named her, why is it such a problem to just correct this error to her legal name? Barbarabregoli (talk) 15:55, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
- I'm in no way invalidating your feelings, and I'd be upset as well. However, we put information into articles based on reputable/reliable sources. A few sources for example are The Guardian, Associated Press, etc. However, we don't accept sources that expose personal information like driver's licenses or social security cards. If you want to know about what sources we consider reliable, go to this link: Wikipedia:Reliable sources TheClocksAlwaysTurn (The Clockworks) (contribs) 16:01, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
- I think I’m the most RELIABLE source as to what her name is would you not agree? Barbarabregoli (talk) 16:04, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
- That may be right, however, we have our guidelines on what we consider reliable. TheClocksAlwaysTurn (The Clockworks) (contribs) 16:06, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
- Right now? Not at all, since we have no confirmation at this point that you are who you claim to be. We cannot take your identity at face value unless it's been confirmed in private by the WP:VRT that handles these things. See WP:REALNAME for more information. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 16:09, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
- They have already confirmed who I am, why is this such a problem for you? Does this affect you personally because it affects both me and my daughter personally Barbarabregoli (talk) 16:11, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
- It is technically true that in order to confirm your identity you'd need to confirm it with the WP:VRT, and if you plan to edit Wikipedia beyond this incident I highly suggest you do so. If you do not plan on continuing to edit, it's probably best to just step away and let it be now that the name is corrected. Tessaract2 (hello) 16:14, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
- I’m more than happy to confirm my identity wherever needed. Thank you again for your assistance I very much appreciate it. Barbarabregoli (talk) 16:20, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
- It is technically true that in order to confirm your identity you'd need to confirm it with the WP:VRT, and if you plan to edit Wikipedia beyond this incident I highly suggest you do so. If you do not plan on continuing to edit, it's probably best to just step away and let it be now that the name is corrected. Tessaract2 (hello) 16:14, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
- They have already confirmed who I am, why is this such a problem for you? Does this affect you personally because it affects both me and my daughter personally Barbarabregoli (talk) 16:11, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
- I think I’m the most RELIABLE source as to what her name is would you not agree? Barbarabregoli (talk) 16:04, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
- You are allowed to be upset. However, we do not report the truth; we report what can be verified by reliable sources. See Wikipedia:Truth, not verifiability. 🚂ThatTrainGuy1945 Peep peep! 15:50, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
- Then just correct her name and it’s over and done with, how would you feel if this was happening to you better yet how would your mother feel? I have every right so be upset as well as my daughter, it’s crazy how no one will just correct her name and move on! Barbarabregoli (talk) 15:40, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
- (Non-admin comment) Ma'am, I can understand that this is an upsetting issue to you. However, legal threats and getting angry won't help this situation at all. The best thing to do is retract any threats, and please try to take a breather. I promise that we have no ill will, but escalating won't do any good. TheClocksAlwaysTurn (The Clockworks) (contribs) 15:30, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
- I have reached out before to have this issue corrected but Ive been ignored. The fact Wikipedia is using a false name further my daughter it’s affecting her, she just received her first gold plaque as an INDEPENDENT ARTIST and the name on the plaque was incorrect because they relied on Wikipedia this was very upsetting to my daughter. It’s crazy how no one understands this is a very serious issue! Barbarabregoli (talk) 15:23, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
- I can confirm that there are screen recordings of this conversation on that verified Instagram account. We are very likely dealing with the real person here. Barbara, please retract your legal threats; if you do not do so, you will be prevented from communicating on Wikipedia and will not be able to help solve this issue. Tessaract2 (hello) 15:03, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
Hey @ThatTrainGuy1945: and @Rosguill:, do you think it's a good idea to WP:IAR remove her middle name from the article? Sources brought up by Spiderone on Barbararegoli's talk page seem to dispute the currently listed middle name anyway. Tessaract2 (hello) 15:55, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
- My daughter’s name is Danielle Marie Bregoli. This is on her birth certificate and her DL Barbarabregoli (talk) 15:57, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
- I have WP:BOLDly corrected this with the sources that Spiderone brought up that use this name. This should take care of the problem! Tessaract2 (hello) 16:02, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
- Thank you very much Barbarabregoli (talk) 16:04, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
- I have WP:BOLDly corrected this with the sources that Spiderone brought up that use this name. This should take care of the problem! Tessaract2 (hello) 16:02, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
- I think honestly that would be fine; I doubt much is being wasted by just not using it currently. 🚂ThatTrainGuy1945 Peep peep! 15:59, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
User keeps reverting infobox images to low-quality versions they uploaded
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! Shoot for the Stars (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems to have a habit of uploading very low quality images of celebrities to replace reasonably high-quality infobox pictures, and then edit warring to make sure that their version stays on the page. See:
- Talk:Trippie_Redd#Photo
- Eric Trump
- Cardi B
- Talk:Jason Bateman
- Karen Fukuhara
- Barron Trump within the last couple hours
Their favorite technique seems to be to upload a new, low quality image, and then force other people to "start an RFC" if they want to change it back. I am not familiar with every nook and cranny of Wikipedia's consensus policy, but I don't think this is how things work. Whenever this has been raised on talk pages, I don't think a single user has ever agreed with them.
They also make unnecessarily threatening comments to random people who bring up that the pictures are bad ("If you change the photo one more time without a consensus then I will report you for starting an edit war."), and also have a history of extreme incivility/edit warring on other topics (for example Talk:Elliot_Rodger/Archive_1#Images).
I asked about this on Teahouse and was told that ANI was the appropriate place to escalate this. ~2026-16034-49 (talk) 06:13, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
- Yep, this is the right place to address this. @Shoot for the Stars, when changing an infobox image, especially to a frequently edited page with a stable image, you are encouraged to follow the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. More generally, while this specific strategy is optional, it is usually the responsibility of the editor bringing forward a change to show consensus for the change, rather than the responsibility of the editors opposing the change to show an explicit consensus for the stable version. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 07:39, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
- Given that Shoot for the Stars was previously community banned for, amongst other disruption, the use of poor images in articles, is there any reason why the ban shouldn't be reinstated?-- Ponyobons mots 18:35, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
- Link to community unban discussion where their inappropriate image use was addressed.-- Ponyobons mots 18:38, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
- Given that Shoot for the Stars was previously community banned for, amongst other disruption, the use of poor images in articles, is there any reason why the ban shouldn't be reinstated?-- Ponyobons mots 18:35, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
User:DVdm & User:Paradoctor are trolling edits without using the talk page and reverting good faith edits
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This trolling is then extended to attacking the user who attempts to communicate on the page.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paradox&oldid=1348680860 ^ User reverted edit as "not in source" when I explicitly quoted the source material... IN THE EDIT COMMENT. Edit Comment:(It is not "one's expectation" but rather the expectation of the resulted computation or validation. (https://mathworld.wolfram.com/Paradox.html) "A statement which appears self-contradictory or contrary to expectations" one/you is not included. It is not about "personal expectations")
How is it "not in the source"? I Am quoting the source used explicitly.
Instead of opening a talk page and inviting me to talk about it, they revert the edit surreptitiously (as they have done many times so far, without notice and without concern, simply saying "I don't wan't to talk about it, I'm right, and I won't use the talk page"
The two users then proceed to troll and aggressively avoid the Talk page while edit warring and ignoring attempts to use the talk page to communicate. The users then proceed to spam my personal talk page with irrelevancies as if I am not opening talk page topics to discuss with them.
Please help this is a nightmare. Strongwranglers (talk) 21:08, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
- I checked the source:
A statement which appears self-contradictory or contrary to expectations, also known as an antinomy.
Paradoctor (talk) 21:15, 13 April 2026 (UTC)- Why are you responding here instead of the Talk Page for the article?
- Also you are not correct. "A statement which appears self-contradictory or contrary to expectations" one/you is not included. It is not about "personal expectations"
- It is about the result of the calculation. I would have been happy to clarify all of this on the Talk Page, instead of doing so you have not engaged in any way other than to try to arouse my ire and act irascibly in the face of new facts.
- Your "friend" even took to reporting me when he himself has not left ONE talk page comment.
- HOW is an editor expected to engage with good-faith edits on the page when you won't?!Strongwranglers (talk) 21:17, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
Note: almost disturbing harassment going on here and here. - DVdm (talk) 21:45, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
- The Lingonberry Alert is to encourage you to use the talk page. It's very benign. It's a lingonberry. Strongwranglers (talk) 21:59, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
- That lingonberry picture is huge and thus disruptive. Please fix that and do not post huge pictures on other people's talk pages. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:12, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
- oh my bad I normally pick a random one and do the thumb option but it looks like I missed it, I can see why they might have been confused Strongwranglers (talk) 22:18, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
The Lingonberry Alert is to encourage you to use the talk page
aside from the utter absurdity of this suggestion, you have literally never edited Talk:Paradox; you do not have the moral high ground here. You say in your initial post that you "would have been happy to clarify all of this on the talkpage" – you should have done so rather than dragging this dispute to ANI. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 23:06, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
- That lingonberry picture is huge and thus disruptive. Please fix that and do not post huge pictures on other people's talk pages. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:12, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
What the devil is going on here? I'd encourage the board to look at Strong's participation at Talk:List of paradoxes.
Strong, your behavior towards Paradoctor falls unacceptably short of our expectations for civility. Paradoctor in turn has been remarkably patient with you, explaining to you in very simple terms the policies and guidelines that your changes would not be compliant with. MEN KISSING (she/they) Talk to me, I don't bite! - See my edits 22:40, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
- @Strongwranglers I was summoned by the RFC you started on Talk:List of paradoxes - there's nothing at the RFC, you're not conducting yourself appropriately here, and this really is bordering on disruptive editing. I'd suggest strongly that you pull back, disengage, take a break, and maybe stay away from paradoxes on Wikipedia if that helps, unless you're asking for a block. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 23:18, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
- Note: I did check Strongwrangler's page history and they did indeed remove the ANI + ANEW notices from their talk page. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 23:26, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
- Well the page is in total disarray and lists a variety of topics and pages, about half of which are not paradoxes.
- "I'd suggest strongly that you pull back, disengage, take a break, and maybe stay away from paradoxes on Wikipedia if that helps, unless you're asking for a block"
- When has anyone suggested anything BUT this, in clear defiance of WP:BEBOLD?
- I think secretly everyone hates WP:BEBOLD.
- While your suggestion is noted this is because the editors wanted to edit war instead of using the talk pages that I set up.
- I feel this is a classic play that is done to prevent others from editing an article and it's very much "King of the Hill" behavior as far as I can see. Strongwranglers (talk) 01:09, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
- Note: I did check Strongwrangler's page history and they did indeed remove the ANI + ANEW notices from their talk page. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 23:26, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
I have indef blocked the user for continued personal attacks and disruptive editing. They have already been blocked for 1 week for this in the past and had their talk page access revoked. I find comments like this and their conduct here generally unacceptable in regards to building a consensus. Sasquatch t|c 01:16, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
Persistent addition of unsourced content by ~2026-21230-01
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.
~2026-21230-01 (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. Waxworker (talk) 20:04, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
- Blocked temporarily for 60 hours. Rereport if they repeat any problematic behaviour. Yue🌙 (talk) 23:27, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
User:Arbitracion keep on breaking templates
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.
Arbitracion keeps on breaking templates, and I did try to revert it, but I couldn't because it's displaying rendering errors or showing black. I'm think this user should be blocked and hide the broken revisions from this user ~ŤheŴubṂachine-840≈ 17:40, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
- See their earlier edits. This is a WP:LTA. Lynch44 17:45, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
- Indeffed. Toadspike [Talk] 17:48, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
- Also, the revisions and user names must be hidden, which was done by User:Arbitracion with the templates, except for the revision from 17:17, 11 April 2026, because these revisions are causing rendering errors or showing black. ~ŤheŴubṂachine-840≈ 17:52, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
Disruptive source fabrication
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:HejaziTurkiMuslim has been persistently fabricating sources and introducing hoaxes across multiple articles. I have reverted and verified sources in: . Despite a warning the user is still continuing with disruptive editing. Fróis (talk) 11:46, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
- I spot checked Special:diff/1348186639, which has the citation
Hieda, O., The Afghan Conquest of Persia and the Socio-Economic Condition of Khurasan, Journal of Asian and African Studies (1985)
. The 1985 volume for Journal of Asian and African Studies ( ) shows no such article or author. Special:Diff/1348213672 also fails verification, compare to source. I will block them from mainspace and will revert their edits. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 06:19, 12 April 2026 (UTC)- An inflammatory reply in Turkish to the block, using parentheses to pointedly insert disputed or exaggerated tags in infoboxes and similar belligerent behavior with User talk:AvsinKasik, who was blocked for tendentious editing on articles involving Turkey and neighboring countries and threatening to wage ware using sockpuppets a week before the new account was created. I would have filed an SPI had they been openly editing on articles involving Greece. Borgenland (talk) 08:42, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
Neutral Colour
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.
Could someone else(or others) look at User talk:Neutral Colour; I'm done with them, they seem to be focused on attacking me and thinking I am scheming and plotting to keep them from editing, when all I've said is that they should contest their original block on a TA/IP in the proper manner. They say they can't, and while I don't disbelieve them, they should be able to so I don't know what would be preventing it, which I've told them and encouraged them to ask someone else. I've invited them to appeal again to get someone else to hear their views and unblock them without asking me if they see fit, but they declined this chance. 331dot (talk) 12:38, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
- I've asked them, let's see. If they're unable to request via the IP talk page, they can just use the user talk page I reckon, the entire affair seems a bit excessive for no reason. --qedk (t 愛 c) 12:58, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
- @331dot: Blocked TAs can't edit the talk page of their IP address(es) as far as I'm aware. They can't return to their used TAs either. I'm not really sure why they're being made to do this. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 13:14, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
- But is the right pathway forward for them to create an account to appeal their block(which would require evading the block on the IP)? I guess I'm a little confused here(not deliberately scheming and plotting or being deliberately false as claimed). 331dot (talk) 13:19, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
- Yes, because it's impossible for them to edit User talk:77.44.48.159 without "evading" their block. When they did it the other time, their TA's IP address was different (and not blocked until a little bit later.) Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 13:24, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
- Why not direct them to UTRS? 331dot (talk) 13:33, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
- That won't work either if they can't get back to their previous IP addresses. Why this bureaucracy anyway? Why can't we just let them appeal from their account? Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 13:35, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
- You don't need access to the IP address to file a UTRS appeal for that IP address. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:37, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
- Again, that's just unnecessary bureaucracy in my opinion. What difference does it make? Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 13:39, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
- Does it really set a good precedent to, in essence, ask the bank robber to break into another bank to appeal their arrest for breaking into a bank? 331dot (talk) 13:41, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
- Well, they aren't editing articles, they aren't using their account to spam abusive emails, etc. Their first edit was to request an unblock from their talk page. They edited nothing else, and they totally could have gotten away with it if they didn't tell anyone, but now they're being punished for being honest and they're given an impossible task they can't possibly complete. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 13:43, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
- In general, blocked users creating new accounts absolutely should be discouraged. But now that we're here in this specific context, the user in question isn't doing anything nefarious, so I don't see the utility in continuing to throw the book at them. My ultimate point is that the UTRS request they did make shouldn't have been declined out of hand as wrong venue, because it was the right venue. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:46, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
- At this point? No difference. What I'm saying is that, in an ideal world, they make a UTRS appeal that is considered on its merits before all this rigmarole. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:42, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
- Does it really set a good precedent to, in essence, ask the bank robber to break into another bank to appeal their arrest for breaking into a bank? 331dot (talk) 13:41, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
- Again, that's just unnecessary bureaucracy in my opinion. What difference does it make? Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 13:39, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
- You don't need access to the IP address to file a UTRS appeal for that IP address. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:37, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
- UTRS is what I imagine the correct next step for them would be, so it's understandable that they're frustrated about their UTRS appeal being declined by Ohnoitsjamie, who directed them back to the talk page that they can't edit. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:36, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
- That won't work either if they can't get back to their previous IP addresses. Why this bureaucracy anyway? Why can't we just let them appeal from their account? Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 13:35, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
- Why not direct them to UTRS? 331dot (talk) 13:33, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
- Yes, because it's impossible for them to edit User talk:77.44.48.159 without "evading" their block. When they did it the other time, their TA's IP address was different (and not blocked until a little bit later.) Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 13:24, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
- But is the right pathway forward for them to create an account to appeal their block(which would require evading the block on the IP)? I guess I'm a little confused here(not deliberately scheming and plotting or being deliberately false as claimed). 331dot (talk) 13:19, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
- Is there a specific reason why UTRS unblock requests get denied procedural beyond "they can use the talk page"? That's a pretty terrible reason to deny a UTRS unblock request in my eyes. Is there something I'm missing about that? Tessaract2 (hello) 13:52, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
- In general unblock requests should be made on wiki in public view; UTRS is generally for people without talk page access or whose request involves sensitive personal information. 331dot (talk) 13:55, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
- According to the conversation, they did not have talk page access when they made the UTRS request. It might be a technical issue on their end, but that still means they don't have access, so UTRS is the place to go. Tessaract2 (hello) 13:58, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
- I'm fine with them making another UTRS request; when I denied their first UTRS request, I was not aware that they did not have access to their IP talk page (I'm still getting used to some of the nuances of temporary accounts). I will encourage them to do that at their talk page. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:16, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
- The two times I've had to use UTRS, I couldn't post anywhere but anywhere in WP. (There may have been somewhere in meta which I never found.) Narky Blert (talk) 16:48, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
- I'm fine with them making another UTRS request; when I denied their first UTRS request, I was not aware that they did not have access to their IP talk page (I'm still getting used to some of the nuances of temporary accounts). I will encourage them to do that at their talk page. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:16, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
- According to the conversation, they did not have talk page access when they made the UTRS request. It might be a technical issue on their end, but that still means they don't have access, so UTRS is the place to go. Tessaract2 (hello) 13:58, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
- In general unblock requests should be made on wiki in public view; UTRS is generally for people without talk page access or whose request involves sensitive personal information. 331dot (talk) 13:55, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
- They're not doing themselves any favors here; the wikilawyering and demands are getting excessive. 331dot (talk) 12:36, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
- Personally, I don't see any harm when an editor who has not edited from account before and has TA block or an IP block arising from TA or pre-TA IP days making an account and the first thing they do is ask for an unblock from that account. Is it technically evasion? Maybe. OTOH it's a net positive. Most of us would much prefer someone edits from a single account rather than having to deal with TAs, so I feel it's fairly pointless to demand they first need to successfully appeal from the IP/TA first. The only thing I would say is they should make an edit from the IP or TA if possible & mention they made the account just so that we don't need to get a checkuser involved for no reason. I'm fairly sure there have been times when editing from one account has been demanded as an unblock condition from an IP who's editing has come across as socking even when there were no previous account. That said, whatever mistakes were made in handling this editor's request, their behaviour has been worse & IMO it's heading in the direction where we should treat it as a cban with a standard offer their only hope for an unblock i.e. stay away for 6 months. Nil Einne (talk) 14:23, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
- About the bank robber thing, I feel a better analogy is this. Someone visits a bank with different disguises and identities or maybe just one & asks for services. They don't have an account at that bank, they technically don't need one for the services they're using. But they make enough of a nuisance that the bank bans them from ever visiting a branch of dealing with the bank. They eventually decide they want to use the bank, they put in an online application and successful make an account. They don't put any money in to the account or do anything with it except write to customer service from their new account and say, "Hi I am XYZ who has been banned from dealing with your bank. I accept I made mistakes and promise to never do them again. I've made this account with your bank as I'd really like to be your customer, but I haven't done anything with this account yet and won't do so until and unless my ban is lifted. If you're unwilling to life my ban, I accept that and understand you will close this account accordingly. Sorry for wasting your time if this is the case. Sincerely XYZ." Is this the correct way of dealing with the situation? Maybe not but is it a big deal? Probably not idea. Perhaps some banks will say we would have allowed it if you had appealed before creating this account but since you didn't no but I imagine most will just assess the request similar to how they would if it had happened in a different way and the fact that they actually want to be a customer now means their appeal is probably more likely to succeed than if they just wanted to appeal it but wanted to keep doing what they were doing before except for the naughty stuff. Nil Einne (talk) 14:32, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
- I was very clear that they should have sought additional advice and said that some things were beyond my knowledge, but it's apparently very important to them that those that "wronged" them be the ones to take action instead of dispassionate non-involved people. I've even said they could raise grievances about me, given that they seem to feel I have deliberately and maliciously acted against them(even though I haven't). 331dot (talk) 14:38, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
- They do seem to have a vendetta, or that they keep using a blunt object to bludgeon a equine that has expired. TheClocksAlwaysTurn (The Clockworks) (contribs) 14:43, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
- I meant 'or dealing with the bank' and not 'of dealing with the bank' and 'lift my ban' not 'life my ban' and 'Probably not either' instead of 'Probably not idea' Nil Einne (talk) 14:59, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
- Can I ask if they should use URTS or post an appeal from their account Talk page? I think this discussion leans towards URTS but I don't want to mis-advise them & wanted to check. Is there any reason why they can't post an appeal on the Talk page of their account? Blue Sonnet (talk) 15:56, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
- Sorry please ignore this, I see both methods were confirmed as acceptable here. Blue Sonnet (talk) 16:07, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
- Can I ask if they should use URTS or post an appeal from their account Talk page? I think this discussion leans towards URTS but I don't want to mis-advise them & wanted to check. Is there any reason why they can't post an appeal on the Talk page of their account? Blue Sonnet (talk) 15:56, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
- I was very clear that they should have sought additional advice and said that some things were beyond my knowledge, but it's apparently very important to them that those that "wronged" them be the ones to take action instead of dispassionate non-involved people. I've even said they could raise grievances about me, given that they seem to feel I have deliberately and maliciously acted against them(even though I haven't). 331dot (talk) 14:38, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
- About the bank robber thing, I feel a better analogy is this. Someone visits a bank with different disguises and identities or maybe just one & asks for services. They don't have an account at that bank, they technically don't need one for the services they're using. But they make enough of a nuisance that the bank bans them from ever visiting a branch of dealing with the bank. They eventually decide they want to use the bank, they put in an online application and successful make an account. They don't put any money in to the account or do anything with it except write to customer service from their new account and say, "Hi I am XYZ who has been banned from dealing with your bank. I accept I made mistakes and promise to never do them again. I've made this account with your bank as I'd really like to be your customer, but I haven't done anything with this account yet and won't do so until and unless my ban is lifted. If you're unwilling to life my ban, I accept that and understand you will close this account accordingly. Sorry for wasting your time if this is the case. Sincerely XYZ." Is this the correct way of dealing with the situation? Maybe not but is it a big deal? Probably not idea. Perhaps some banks will say we would have allowed it if you had appealed before creating this account but since you didn't no but I imagine most will just assess the request similar to how they would if it had happened in a different way and the fact that they actually want to be a customer now means their appeal is probably more likely to succeed than if they just wanted to appeal it but wanted to keep doing what they were doing before except for the naughty stuff. Nil Einne (talk) 14:32, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
- They've posted another lengthy diatribe, throwing Writ Keeper's comments back in their face; they don't want to kill two birds with one stone anymore, they just want to puruse a vendetta of retribution step by step over every wrong they feel they have suffered. 331dot (talk) 10:11, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
- Their use of the word "abuse" is absolutely offensive to me; I know people who have suffered actual, real abuse in their lives and for NC to equate some mistakes and confusion to "abuse" is beyond the pale to me. 331dot (talk) 10:16, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
- You started by saying you were done interacting with them; perhaps that was a better approach than continuing to engage with someone whose anctions are upsetting you? ~2026-86111-3 (talk) 10:45, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
- I'm not really sure what you're trying to say here. I have ceased interacting with them, though their actions didn't really upset me until they started beating the abuse horse. 331dot (talk) 11:14, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
- I’m saying that it seems like there is plenty of attention to this person/issue and you could fully disengage (unwatch, etc), with no harm to yourself or anyone else. ~2026-86111-3 (talk) 12:28, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
- I'm not really sure what you're trying to say here. I have ceased interacting with them, though their actions didn't really upset me until they started beating the abuse horse. 331dot (talk) 11:14, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
- You started by saying you were done interacting with them; perhaps that was a better approach than continuing to engage with someone whose anctions are upsetting you? ~2026-86111-3 (talk) 10:45, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
- Their use of the word "abuse" is absolutely offensive to me; I know people who have suffered actual, real abuse in their lives and for NC to equate some mistakes and confusion to "abuse" is beyond the pale to me. 331dot (talk) 10:16, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
- I think there's not much else to do here. CoffeeCrumbs has posted a good summary of the current situation on their talk page, and now it's up to them to pick the option they want. Maybe we can leave this thread open a tad bit longer but I feel it has mostly run its course. --qedk (t 愛 c) 12:44, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
- They did not appreciate my bad advice or my subversion of Wikipedia. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:56, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
- Glad someone finally had the guts to stand up to your years of awful sabotage to the project... Rambling Rambler (talk) 15:57, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
- I have to admit I'm relieved someone stood up to my reign of terror! CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 19:14, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
- I'm revoking your Cheezburgr rights.
- BTW Following my posts in their Talk page I want to quickly clarify that, whilst they did have some legitimate concerns over the process and advice, I definitely agree that Neutral Colour did overreact - I do not agree with their characterisation of admins. I've tried a last-ditch attempt on their Talk page to refocus and get them out of the cycle they're in, in order to move things forwards. I'm hoping I was successful and things have cooled down a little, but only time will tell. Blue Sonnet (talk) 19:51, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
- I hope you have more success than I did! CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 06:46, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
- Sadly, the early returns are not...ideal. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 10:54, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
- They've declined to submit another appeal as they want this thread to be considered in lieu of an appeal instead. Here is their latest comment: (diff) Blue Sonnet (talk) 11:12, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
- Could someone ask them to not ping me? 331dot (talk) 12:12, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
- I'll probably leave the to Blue Sonnet or someone else who's been less harsh with them. I think it's clear there's no appetite for an unblock in this thread. So either we let it just die or close it, with Neutral Colour still free to make a new unblock request on their talk page and talk page removal being likely if they continue to fool around on their talk without requesting an or genuinely trying to understand why they were blocked and how to get unblocked. Or it we discuss cbanning them. I think the latter isn't really necessary, anyone seeing the history will know NC needs to make some major changes in their approach before an unblock. Nil Einne (talk) 12:38, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
- Done!
- I've made it clear that I felt the way forward was an appeal, but it's up to them whether they want to follow the advice they've been given.
- I don't think there's much appetite for reviewing the block without an appeal - it's best for a line to be drawn under this situation at ANI, but even if the thread is closed any interested admin would technically still be free to review things if they wanted to. Blue Sonnet (talk) 13:14, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
- Could someone ask them to not ping me? 331dot (talk) 12:12, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
- They've declined to submit another appeal as they want this thread to be considered in lieu of an appeal instead. Here is their latest comment: (diff) Blue Sonnet (talk) 11:12, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
- Sadly, the early returns are not...ideal. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 10:54, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
- I hope you have more success than I did! CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 06:46, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
- I have to admit I'm relieved someone stood up to my reign of terror! CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 19:14, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
- Glad someone finally had the guts to stand up to your years of awful sabotage to the project... Rambling Rambler (talk) 15:57, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
- They did not appreciate my bad advice or my subversion of Wikipedia. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:56, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
- Yup, nothing more to be done here. No need for a community ban, and at this stage, nobody's talking them down from the wall. They appear to have made the choice to not be a part of the English Wikipedia community, and I see no productive reason to dissuade them at this point. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:25, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
Tendentious AI use, lying, and failure to communicate
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.
DianellWrites (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) keeps making AI drafts. I can't give diffs because everything has been deleted as G15, but I remember one of their AI edits included an AI edit summary along the lines of "rewrote in my own words and added sources" which is a straightforward lie since the new content was still AI. Since they've never edited a talk namespace, I can stretch AGF to say they don't know they exist, and therefore I believe a block from main and draft space would be appropriate. lp0 on fire () 21:40, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
- Blocked from mainspace and draftspace. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:05, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
User:~2026-22488-19 and User:~2026-22545-68 for vandalism and possible sockpuppetry
Both users have made edits to Cody Johnson claiming that the singer is dead, and "beaten to death by his wife with a shovel" Both accounts have made the same contributions to the same articles around the same time, so im not sure if this falls under Sockpuppetry since they are both temporary accounts, but I threw it in there for the possibility it does, since it seems to be two seperate accounts.
So far all these accounts edits are purposely vandalism edits:
JLN2026 (talk) 13:30, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
- Without commenting on the merits of this, I would direct your attention to WP:AIV which is the intended place for reporting
active, obvious, and persistent vandals
. GabberFlasted (talk) 14:07, 13 April 2026 (UTC)- -19 was just trying to revert the other accounts edits anyways, and TAIV data puts them roughly 700 miles away from each other, so -19 is definitely unrelated. Mesocyclonic93 (t)(c) 16:00, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
Edits in BLP of Bangladeshi police officers by TA
The articles of Bangladeshi police officers are being edited by some temporary accounts. I am not sure whether these edits are true or just vandalism. I couldn’t verify the changes. I had reverted the edits as there were no source with the info. But now same changes are being made from another temp account.
Tendentious editing on BLP
Article: Shoshana Strook (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User: Jujucabana (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Since Jujucabana started editing this article on 20 March, their insistence on including poorly-sourced controversial content, including WP:SYNTH and misuse of WP:BLPPRIMARY, despite concerns explained on the article talk page (Talk:Shoshana Strook#OR and poor sourcing), has prevented User:Rainsage and me from improving the article toward meeting BLP policy. I'm concerned that Jujucabana is trying to use this article, which involves contentious and sensitive topics (adjacent to WP:CT/A-I), for advocacy for their point of view. I also posted to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Shoshana Strook on 6 April.
Example of pattern of WP:TENDENTIOUS editing (there are lots more, just a sample): repeated restoration of synthesis of connection between Strook and ZAKA with comparison between ZAKA's cofounder and Epstein. Rainsage and I have spent an unfeasible amount of time and effort on trying to get to consensus with Jujucabana on a straightforward interpretation of policy on just one of many problematic aspects of this article, and it hasn't worked:
Extended content |
|---|
|
I'm asking here for a temporary article block for Jujucabana to make the point clear that they need to prioritize content policies above pushing a point of view. Dreamyshade (talk) 05:41, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
- @Dreamyshade and @Rainsage have been removing reputable sources such as WP:TIMESOFISRAEL. In a previous request to delete the article, several wikipedians commented that @Rainsage's request for deletion was politically motivated. Since this is a contentious topic related to child abuse, I request that other people commenting review the article and sources before editing. Particularly, I have made note on the Talk Page of Shoshana Strook that @Rainsage removed something from English-based source Middle East Eye without even reviewing it, just summarily decided that it couldn't have noted criminal enterprise. I then commented that the exact part of the video that it was mentioned. I realized that their edits weren't based on reviewing sources but likely some other motivation that is unclear to me. Juju (talk) 13:37, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
- Also in response on the WP:SYNTH claims about ZAKA, I believe it is WP:SYNTHNOTJUXTAPOSITION, where it says "Given just about any two juxtaposed statements, one can imagine that something might be insinuated by the juxtaposition. Don't. If the juxtaposition really does constitute SYNTH, the insinuation will be obvious to everyone. ... Nothing is insinuated by the mere fact that these sentences are in the same paragraph. The reader would get the same meaning from these sentences if they were in separate paragraphs, or in different parts of the article." Juju (talk) 13:47, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
- This is not an accurate description of our Talk page discussions. See:
@Dreamyshade and @Rainsage have been removing reputable sources such as WP:TIMESOFISRAEL
I removed a Times of Israel source from 2021 stating that an anonymous person compared ZAKA's co-founder to Epstein because the source was unrelated to Shoshana Strook.@Rainsage removed something from English-based source Middle East Eye without even reviewing it, just summarily decided that it couldn't have noted criminal enterprise.
I removed text sourced to Shoshana Strook's Hebrew-language facebook video (that was republished by Middle East Eye ) because it did not say anything about a "wide criminal network in Israel" and because we should rely on what reliable secondary sources say rather than try to analyze what primary sources say. Jujucabana then changed the text of the article to "wide criminal enterprise in Israel", ignored the concerns about misuse of primary sources, and accused me of not reviewing the source. Rainsage (talk) 23:22, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
- Shoshana actually did say "wide criminal network," I pointed to the exact time stamp. You can have juxtaposed facts. I think WP:SYNTHNOTJUXTAPOSITION clearly describes that, this does not mean I'm synthesizing/creating original research. Juju (talk) 23:48, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
Shoshana actually did say "wide criminal network,"
- it doesn't actually matter what she said in this facebook video. per WP:BLPSELFPUB, we cannot use this video as a source for an exceptional claim about third parties. so we should stop arguing over what she said/meant and focus on summarizing what reliable, secondary sources say about her allegations.
You can have juxtaposed facts.
- Per WP:OR "To demonstrate that one is not adding original research, one must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article and directly support the material being presented." Can you cite a reliable, published source that is directly related to Shoshana Strook and mentions that someone compared ZAKA's deceased co-founder to Epstein? Rainsage (talk) 01:01, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
- @Jujucabana I suspect that we're going to keep going in circles without some kind of intervention from an admin or additional input from other editors. What would you suggest as an approach to try to come to consensus? For example, we could ask the admins to close this thread so that one of us can post at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard or Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard. Dreamyshade (talk) 01:56, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
- Instead of summarizing what high quality sources say, the Shoshana Strook article relies too much on primary sources (including an online fundraiser ), low quality sources, unrelated sources, and Synth/OR.
- For example, the first sentence of the Shoshana Strook article states that Strook made allegations of "abuse operating through a wide 'criminal enterprise' in Israel". To source this claim, our article relies on a primary source (Strook's facebook video which was re-published by Middle East Eye), a self-published blog (Tikkun Olam) , and a generally unreliable source (The Canary) . The other 3 references for this sentence are better quality sources. They say that Strook made allegations of abuse against her parents and don't mention a "wide criminal enterprise" . Dreamyshade and I have tried to fix this issue, but Jujucabana has ignored our concerns about the poor sourcing and accused me of not reviewing the sources.
- Dreamyshade and I have tried to fix this issue and others and have tried to discuss the issues with Jujucabana on the Talk page, based on WP:BLPPRIMARY, WP:PRIMARY, WP:BLPSPS, WP:BLPSELFPUB, WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:CIVIL, etc. However, Jujucabana has repeatedly reverted us, accused us of being "politically motivated", and stated they are done participating in the Talk page discussion. Jujucabana has also hypothesized that I "may be part of a "coordinated effort to bury the subject". . It seems they are attempting to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Rainsage (talk) 23:25, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
Question for admins on this page: is this more suitable to take to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution? I don't want to forum shop, but wondering if this thread is not getting a response here because it's the wrong forum. Dreamyshade (talk) 19:43, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
- Not an admin, but you'll need to wait for this to get archived or closed to take it to DR. Sesquilinear (talk) 23:35, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
Potential WP:DUCK at Hollow Knight
- Bobs Ak47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- MG0JP64057 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
In summary, I've recently been reverting the edits of User:Bobs Ak47 from Hollow Knight for his attempted addition of WP:GAMEGUIDE content to Hollow Knight, specifically trying to instruct readers on how to approach one of the game's boss fights. He tried adding this content three times; the third time after I had already pointed him towards GAMEGUIDE. That's not enough to bring ANI to on it's own, new editor adds inappropriate content to an article possibly without knowing it breaks policy, whatever. However, what gets me here is that the account User:MG0JP64057 then reverted my edit saying "I agree wit bob ak47". The interesting part here? This account was registered with a minute of this edit being made, specifically to revert an edit. Already giving signs of being a WP:DUCK to me. I wasn't too sure how to go about reporting this, or if it even warranted a report, but considering that it's almost certainly attempted sockpuppetry, I think ANI is the best venue. λ NegativeMP1 03:14, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
- Yes, that's the same user. I blocked the master temporarily. This is probably a younger editor, so maybe they'll wise up? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:21, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
Revision Deletion request (RD3) at Tata Consultancy Services
Would an admin please RevDel several recent revisions at Tata Consultancy Services under criterion RD3. An IP editor (~2026-15640-53) repeatedly inserted the full names of non-public figures (low-level employees and an HR executive) who have allegedly been accused/arrested in a recent, highly-charged workplace harassment case. This is a severe WP:BLPCRIME violation. The IP also spoofed citation URLs to push a communal narrative. I have reverted the page to a clean version and requested semi-protection at WP:RFPP. Can an admin please hide the IP's edits from 01:29, 15 April 2026 through 11:18, 15 April 2026 to remove the names from the public history? Thank you. Niranjan Ramamurthy (talk) 11:44, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
- Update: The IP is now actively edit-warring to force the BLP violations and spoofed citations back into the article. They just reverted me again at 11:45, 15 April 2026 claiming "unexplained removal," despite my clear edit summaries. Could an admin please intervene, block the IP/protect the page, and RevDel the offending revisions? Thank you. Niranjan Ramamurthy (talk) 11:47, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
- Edits have been revdel'd. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:24, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
- Thank you very much.
- Niranjan Ramamurthy (talk) Niranjan Ramamurthy (talk) 13:27, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
- Edits have been revdel'd. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:24, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
Camilasdandelions, suspected LLM use and source verification issues, failure to communicate
Camilasdandelions (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
See also WP:AINB#Camilasdandelions where there is a more detailed analysis with diffs of a problematic editing pattern. In addition to the examples given in the thread, some additional ones I've found:
- Draft:Upcoming Madonna album's source 2 redirects to an apparently unrelated homepage
- In Golden Hour (Kacey Musgraves album)#Release and promotion, source 48 fails verification to the debut date of Butterflies when the source says it debuted in January rather than March
- In Golden Hour (Kacey Musgraves album)#Composition, source 24 fails verification:
A review from Sputnikmusic also noted themes of emotional duality, describing how the album reflects an awareness of happiness as a fleeting state, as expressed in songs such as "Happy & Sad".
The second part of that sentence is in the source, but I cannot find any implication of emotional duality, unless I am very bad at reading album reviews.
Regardless of how or if AI is used in the process, this is a severe pattern of failed verifications that need addressing. The user has failed to do so on the AINB thread or anywhere else that I can see, and continued editing, hence we're here. Fermiboson (talk) 11:38, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
- All I saw was a deletion discussion of "Funny Business", and since I didn't think it would be much helpful for me to engage in that discussion, I just left no comments on there (that means, I already determined to follow those participants' opinions). However, I didn't even know WP:AINB#Camilasdandelions was opened, so I'm reading it and will leave a comment on there soon. Also, here's my note about your additional considerations:
- 1. Not sure what sources you're talking about; I was cleaning that draft article up recently after not touching it for a long time. Another user already had made a lot of edits in that period, and all I did was just arranging the references (perhaps this error occured during that process, so it would be grateful if you could correct it) and adding new contents from 2026 articles.
- 2. I just wanted to say Musgraves debuted "Butterflies" in live performances, not in digital platforms; I wasn't even talking about the single's release date at all. Actually, its release date is directly noted after that ("
On February 23, 2018, she released two lead singles 'Space Cowboy' and 'Butterflies'
"). - 3. "
A review from Sputnikmusic also noted themes of emotional duality
" I decided to add what is called "summary" in front of the source's content, as what WP:RECEPTION also suggests us to do (even though it is for Critical reception, I saw various featured/good articles using this formula, so I tried to adopt this style in other articles). Camilasdandelions (✉️) 11:54, 15 April 2026 (UTC)- Please see what @Gnomingstuff said. 🚂ThatTrainGuy1945 Peep peep! 12:56, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
- First off, it's a really poor idea for you to continue making edits to Wikipedia pages while three noticeboards are trying to address these problems. If this doesn't stop, I urge an admin to block you from article space while these discussions are ongoing.
- Even if we accept at face value that you're only using LLMs to rephrase your writing, it looks clear from both here and the AI noticeboard that the results are absolutely unacceptable. The source-text mismatch is brutal on a multitude of edits, and whether it's because they were caused by LLMs or caused by you being sloppy in some edits and making things out of whole cloth in others, it's a real mess.
- The only way I personally see a restriction from article space or an indef being unnecessary is you agree to never use an LLM in connection for any purpose on Wikipedia and instead of new edits, you spend your time going back through your old edits. Yes, that sounds like a lot of work because it is, and is the same amount of work that the community would have to do to address these problems and it's not the community that caused them. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 13:50, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
- I was planning to revise old articles I've heavily written. As you noted, I'll be focusing on those articles rather than making new edits. Camilasdandelions (✉️) 14:10, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks for the clarification on this, this lines up with what I had thought. The problem is that summarizing sources with AI tends to result in extrapolating things that the source doesn't mention, and/or overly close paraphrasing of the text, which are the same patterns that are regularly showing up in the edits. The idea of citing sources is that you are supposed to actually read them. Gnomingstuff (talk) 18:01, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
- The only way I personally see a restriction from article space or an indef being unnecessary is you agree to never use an LLM in connection for any purpose on Wikipedia and instead of new edits, you spend your time going back through your old edits. Yes, that sounds like a lot of work because it is, and is the same amount of work that the community would have to do to address these problems and it's not the community that caused them. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 13:50, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
Harassment and Suspected Sockpuppetry: Deakin Macquarie and IP ~2026-23236-22
Involved users:
~2026-23236-22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Deakin Macquarie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I am reporting Deakin Macquarie for a suspected connection to the IP ~2026-23236-22, which was used to post gross personal attacks.
- Deakin Macquarie reverted consensus-backed edits on Retro (film) (referencing Talk:Retro (film)/Archive 2#Box_office_addition). When I attempted to discuss this on the talk page, the user refused to engage with the consensus and instead accused me of disruptive editing and "creating disputes."
- Immediately following this interaction, the IP address mentioned above posted a vulgar, sexually explicit slur in Tamil language on my talk page: "un Vijay Annan oombunaan... Neeyum poyi oombu" (Translation: "Your brother Vijay sucked... You go and suck too").
- Sockpuppetry: I suspect Deakin Macquarie may be a possible sockpuppet of this IP (or vice versa) given the immediate timing of the abuse following our talk page dispute.
Evidence:
- Discussion: Talk:Retro (film)#Unexplained_revert?
- Abuse: User talk:Tonyy Starkk#NEW_DISCUSSION
Please investigate the link between these accounts and take appropriate action regarding the gross incivility and refusal to follow consensus.
Tonyy Starkk (talk) 13:24, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
- You should open a WP:SPI investigation on these two. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 15:50, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
- The temporary account is blocked for harassment. Deakin Macquarie has been socking, at the very least with Twin Fish Walter. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:01, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
Editor launching continual personal attacks, despite 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.
This editor, new to Wikipedia, has been launching a stream of personal attacks towards me. We are in disagreement over a content issue at an article, but I am here regarding the continual personal attacks, despite warnings.
- 31 January 2026: In their very first edit, they refer to a person who removed Bliss from the list as a
"bonehead"
- 12 April 2026: In just their second edit, they refer to me as a
"Jackass"
- In response to this, I make a custom posting on their talk page regarding personal attacks noting the WP:NPA policy and asking them to please not repeat it.
- 12 April 2026: In their third edit, they refer to me as
"cry[ing] about rules"
,"a petty reddit mod"
, and"But people like you who are this petty over facts and rules are akin to basement-dwelling flat-earthers, and you therefore deserve all the ridicule."
- 12 April 2026: Refers to me as
"your "lordship""
and that they are being as"polite as I can be in this situation"
- After this, I place a templated {{uw-civil3}} notice on their talk page.
- 13 April 2026: States that I am not editing in good faith, and says
"the fact that you're petty, whiny and stuck-up, who thinks he's above everyone else"
, I am the"the sheriff of the internet"
, that I have a"history of engaging in petty-editing and subverting articles to fit your narrative"
, I"deserve ridicule"
, I am acting in"bad faith and childish"
, I am"whining"
and goes on to threaten to remove more than 50 images from the article. - 13 April 2026: Says that I am
"not here to discuss, but to antagonize"
Out of their nine 10 edits to date, five six of them have contained personal insults and gross civility violations. Some assistance, please. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 01:56, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
- Geez. Blocked 31 hours. If it keeps up, I think we're looking at an indef. Some people just aren't compatible with a collaborative project. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:31, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
- The most I could get was for them to agree to tone it down a little, but no clear agreement to be civil with Hammersoft. Hopefully this changes after the block expires. Blue Sonnet (talk) 03:39, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
- Yeah, my take is more along the lines of "Acting civil towards all editors, regardless of whether you think they have it coming or not, is non-negotiable." If Amarosnithe can't comply with that (along with some of our other non-negotiable policies they seem to feel are stupid, such as obeying copyright law), they can go straight to indef, do not pass Go, do not collect $200. Ravenswing 08:35, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
- I usually default to a softly-softly approach with stuff like this, but I think this editor might need more of a wake-up call - a few people have commented on the Talk page along those harsher lines and I think that approach might be better than mine in this case.
- Fingers crossed they can do better when the block expires, plenty of people will be watching them closely after this. Blue Sonnet (talk) 08:53, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
- I doubt is reassuring. Borgenland (talk) 14:33, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
- Not great, honestly - I'm presuming this is a younger editor?
- It feels a bit like when someone has been told off and they're stood hunched over looking at the floor, responding in short sentences because they don't know what else to do.
- Or they're not taking it very seriously, I guess time will tell. Blue Sonnet (talk) 15:01, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
- The latter option has proven correct. Borgenland (talk) 06:43, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- Unfortunately yes, they've brought out the nuke - there's a duplicate thread below. Blue Sonnet (talk) 10:28, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- User in question colorfully says to go ahead and issue a block, so someone should oblige. Hellbus (talk) 10:31, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- Unfortunately yes, they've brought out the nuke - there's a duplicate thread below. Blue Sonnet (talk) 10:28, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- The latter option has proven correct. Borgenland (talk) 06:43, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- I doubt is reassuring. Borgenland (talk) 14:33, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
- Yeah, my take is more along the lines of "Acting civil towards all editors, regardless of whether you think they have it coming or not, is non-negotiable." If Amarosnithe can't comply with that (along with some of our other non-negotiable policies they seem to feel are stupid, such as obeying copyright law), they can go straight to indef, do not pass Go, do not collect $200. Ravenswing 08:35, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
- The most I could get was for them to agree to tone it down a little, but no clear agreement to be civil with Hammersoft. Hopefully this changes after the block expires. Blue Sonnet (talk) 03:39, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
Amarosnithe and photography listicle
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.
- Amarosnithe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Since April 12, user Amarosnithe has spent more than 10K bytes arguing and insulting other users over the exclusion of the Bliss photo on the article List of photographs considered the most important and its talk page. Said user is finished with their latest array of insults/"rebuttals" and is content with a ban, to the point where I'm unsure if I'm feeding a troll by doing this report. I'm going ahead with this anyway because I don't believe they would change if they ever do subsequent edits elsewhere. If anything else, they're far from the first user to make shallow complaints or degrading comments on said talk page over entry exclusions, but this was a new low. Carlinal (talk) 05:29, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- For reference Borgenland (talk) 06:16, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- The WP:BATTLEGROUND is strong with this editor. A speed bump did nothing, so it's time to bring out the spike strip. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 08:01, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- This editor needs to be blocked, they don't know how to talk to people who disagree with them and just lash out violently when challenged:
Blue Sonnet (talk) 10:08, 16 April 2026 (UTC)Now that I'm back and posting my rebuttals, I assume I'll get banned for good this time (because "waa I'm being too mean and shit"). But honestly I genuinely don't give a fuck anymore. This article is being managed by spineless cucks who don't know what they're doing or talking about. I now give you feet-sniffing sewer-dwelling low-caste peasants the permission to ban me: Eat my shit, fags.
- Casteism, classism, and homophobia. They are working to justify a ban. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 10:17, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- I think that justification is about 5 miles behind us at this point... just yeet and WP:DENY. Danners430 tweaks made 10:29, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- Hey, thanks for replying on my behalf. That was the most cynical and unsympathetic comment I directly received as a Wikipedian so far, over photos of all things. I hope to god I don't get worse treatments after this. Also want to thank you and @Borgenland for providing exact references...I should do that more, but if this means I'll become an AN/I veteran then I probably shouldn't learn it (lol). Carlinal (talk) 10:53, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- On another note, this should have been merged with the previous discussion on the offending editor’s conduct above, which was has been superseded by this act of bad faith after their lenient AGF suicide pact block. Borgenland (talk) 10:56, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- Casteism, classism, and homophobia. They are working to justify a ban. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 10:17, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- Good grief. There's no reason to hold back any longer on this mook. I call for a community ban on Amarosnithe, the sooner the better. Ravenswing 11:12, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- I support this community ban, for not being HERE, PAs towards those they talk to, and just a general BATTLEGROUND attitude. 🚂ThatTrainGuy1945 Peep peep! 11:23, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- Support PAs, Slurs, Battleground, LakesideMinersCome Talk To Me! 11:45, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- Indefinitely blocked with TPA revoked. They were clear that they expected to be blocked for that talkpage comment - they were correct. Black Kite (talk) 11:53, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- Good block. Thank you, BK. 🚂ThatTrainGuy1945 Peep peep! 12:11, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
User:Hfhtdjf
Hfhtdjf has been involved in moving Rajendra Arlekar to the subject's birth name without discussing the move. I have reverted their move twice per WP:COMMONNAME . They have also been warned several times see User talk:Hfhtdjf for unconstructive edits on Wikipedia, looks like a block is needed here. Rejoy2003(talk) 08:02, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- Have you talked to him on his talk page or the article talk page about why he shouldn't do so? I do note the warnings, but no one seems to have discussed COMMONNAME with him. (They also only joined two months ago, so BITE does apply, I believe.) 🚂ThatTrainGuy1945 Peep peep! 09:59, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- Well I did left my edit summary here . They don't seem to understand. I wanted to give them a warning but the amount of warnings on their talk page seemed concerning to take it to ANI. Rejoy2003(talk) 15:06, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- With newer users, assume that WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU. It's entirely possible they have no idea what an edit summary is or how to go looking for one, so battering them over the head with the info at their talk page is usually the best way to go about it. Athanelar (talk) 16:03, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- Well I did left my edit summary here . They don't seem to understand. I wanted to give them a warning but the amount of warnings on their talk page seemed concerning to take it to ANI. Rejoy2003(talk) 15:06, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
Blackbombchu is WP:NOTHERE
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Blackbombchu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Hi everyone, I never like doing this but I think we've reached an impasse with this editor.
Several editors, including myself, have tried to explain to Blackbombchu that posts such as this Teahouse comment aren't what Wikipedia is for. Our requests are met with similar philosophical questions in response, which are difficult to understand but appear to be an attempt at philosophical discussion, which is well outside the scope of this website. This dates back to 2024, when they were told that this isn't a discussion forum but have returned with the same philosophical questions as before.
They've been blocked at Commons for doing the same thing they are continuing to do here. They've also posted on the Teahouse in response to unrelated questions from other editors.
They unfortunately fon't seem to understand that Wikipedia is not a general discussion forum, with their most recent post being this question asking where they should continue the discussion. It's difficult to explain this to them, as they've confirmed that they don't understand our explanations.
I'm afraid that this editor is not here to build an encyclopedia, with their last productive edit being in 2018. I'm not sure whether it's a compromised account since the language seems somewhat similar to earlier edits, such as their userpage, which was last edited 11 years ago.
It's also possible that they're not asking philosophical questions, but their posts are so hard to decipher that I'm having trouble reading them any other way. Since this has been going on for almost two years and other editors at the Teahouse suggested ANI, this seems the most appropriate place to come for assistance. Blue Sonnet (talk) 00:49, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- I think it's quite possible this is an elaborate troll who responds philosophically in order to vex and confuse people while also appearing "wise" or "deep thinking". I would support a full indef under CIR and the fact that Wikipedia is not a forum. 🚂ThatTrainGuy1945 Peep peep! 01:24, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- Trolling is one possible explanation. LSD is another. EEng 01:27, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds? I thought we Imagined that Yesterday. 🚂ThatTrainGuy1945 Peep peep! 01:28, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- I'm more inclined to see this as a person who doesn't really understand how the internet works, in general. As sympathetic as I am, we can't keep wasting our time with this sort of thing.
- I agree that this is both a WP:CIR and a WP:NOTHERE situation, and I support an indef. I hope they find whatever they're looking for elsewhere. MEN KISSING (she/they) Talk to me, I don't bite! - See my edits 01:48, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- I thought that, but User:Blackbombchu indicates they may have made/used Fandom wikis in the past, one of the links used to look like this.
- The wording on their userpage is rather muddled and confusing, yet their 2016 edits involve AFD nominations, redirects and complex edits like this one.
- They're either a troll or something may have happened to affect their ability to communicate properly - unfortunately we may never know the truth. Blue Sonnet (talk) 03:35, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- Indeed. / Augmented Seventh (talk) 03:19, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- Trolling is one possible explanation. LSD is another. EEng 01:27, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- NOTE: Bbc has not replied here yet, but did reply on their talk page to BS's notification, "I think I've finally sort of learned it." See also this comment on @Hoary's page, but I am still suspicious of their competency. 8 years without productive edits is very long, and some people have been indeffed for a month of non productive edits (or even less). 🚂ThatTrainGuy1945 Peep peep! 01:54, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- I've asked them to explain their understanding of the situation to see whether they will actually stop being disruptive, there's no reply as of yet. Blue Sonnet (talk) 03:12, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- FWIW, I blocked them on Commons today prior to seeing this thread. Same pattern of behavior there - good-faith edits up til a few years ago, then suddenly pops up again with weird rants. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:01, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- I write for a living and I still can't figure out WTF this editor is talking about. I'm not sure the proper course of action, but that's possibly because reading their edits made me seriously concerned someone had slipped me a hallucinogen. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 08:08, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- I've asked them to explain their understanding of the situation to see whether they will actually stop being disruptive, there's no reply as of yet. Blue Sonnet (talk) 03:12, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- Their posts seem to be a bit copy-paste-like. They have 2-3 texts which they seem to copy-paste in different places. On enwiki they altered their lead sentences, seemingly in an attempt to respond to other people's statement, but then followed just the same copy-paste comments with some YouTube link. Nakonana (talk) 09:12, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
I also support an indef block, and am tempted to hit this with a WP:SNOW close as we seem to be unanimous on that so far, or at least, nobody's arguing against it. WaggersTALK 09:14, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- Blue-Sonnet asked him a question. At least give him 24 hours to respond to it, particularly in view of his good behaviour since the question was asked. -- Hoary (talk) 10:21, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- Those who know how to organize it have something to look forward to 1000 years in advance and never give up and want to do their small part of forming a very secure system that looks at what's been getting attacked and guard it and not how we got there. When they're looking to see what's been getting attacked to guard, they will be like Ms. Hardbroom was 5:05 into the video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUkVcd7SbTw. I think I've kind of mostly resolved my problems for now. It was a bit slow. See my last reply on the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Blackbombchu. Blackbombchu (talk) 14:45, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- Please answer Blue-Sonnet's question on your talk page. 🚂ThatTrainGuy1945 Peep peep! 14:48, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- It has already been done. Blackbombchu (talk) 15:07, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- I'm afraid that this response shows that you didn't understand what the problem is, because you've done exactly the same thing again. For reference, this was my question. Blue Sonnet (talk) 15:18, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- I can't make any sense of what you're saying. Blackbombchu (talk) 16:04, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- Since none of us can make any sense of what you're saying, I'm unsurprised. Ravenswing 16:18, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- I can't make any sense of what you're saying. Blackbombchu (talk) 16:04, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- Please answer Blue-Sonnet's question on your talk page. 🚂ThatTrainGuy1945 Peep peep! 14:48, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
They are still making nonsense edits. I think blocking is in order - either due to deliberate disruption or not understanding what Wikipedia is for.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:09, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- Blocked for being disruptive for he past eight years without any beneficial contributions. The last diff identified by @Nigel Ish, directly above, shows that even after knowing about these concerns, @Blackbombchu continued with the same disruptive behavior. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:36, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- The fact that they don't know how to respond to basic questions means this was unfortunately not going to end well. At least we've given them every possible chance before being blocked. Blue Sonnet (talk) 16:40, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- They are active on other sites where they can continue to communicate their thoughts, so the block shouldn't be too much of a hardship for this unusual person. Sean.hoyland (talk) 16:54, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- We've got to keep an eye on other wiki projects because they did this stuff on Commons too. They might move on to the next project to continue. Nakonana (talk) 17:18, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- Yes, I imagine they might continue on other Wikimedia sites since they aren't globally blocked, but to clarify, by sites I meant social media sites. They also did this on commons. Whatever they have to say it is clearly important to them. (Redacted) Sean.hoyland (talk) 17:35, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- We've got to keep an eye on other wiki projects because they did this stuff on Commons too. They might move on to the next project to continue. Nakonana (talk) 17:18, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- They are active on other sites where they can continue to communicate their thoughts, so the block shouldn't be too much of a hardship for this unusual person. Sean.hoyland (talk) 16:54, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- The fact that they don't know how to respond to basic questions means this was unfortunately not going to end well. At least we've given them every possible chance before being blocked. Blue Sonnet (talk) 16:40, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
S1r Gawa1n 2004 suspected LLM use
S1r Gawa1n 2004 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Editor was brought to AINB three days ago for a blatantly generated full article. In the resultant short exchange on their tp, I think they committed not to further use AI and admitted that they have used AI. (This is to be fair rather much to infer out of the minimal amount of communication the user has conducted, but I fail to read it any other way that would be more charitable.) Well, in any case, I believe they have continued to use AI.
- The paragraph on Pope Pius VII fails verification. To be fair, so does the original paragraph, but the source added simply does not support what it says, in particular "emphasising... in the event" is at best blatant SYNTH.
- also fails verification - the certificate in question is an election to FRS in 1821, not President of the RS. The president of the RS in 1821 was Sir Humphry Davy, not the subject of the article.
As the rope has been informally extended and exhausted, I invite the noticeboard to consider what action to take next. Fermiboson (talk) 19:50, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
- Yep, looking at the source that part about the symbolism behind the pope's gesture is blatant SYNTH. Given the previous warning, I don't think it is unreasonable to block from mainspace, and have done so until they can convince us that this will not repeat in the future (e.g. through constructive draftspace activity or edit requests). Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:22, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
- Noting that I've declined S1r Gawa1n 2004's (second) unblock request here, as it appears that it would be more appropriate for them to engage with concerns here, given that they are not blocked from Wikipedia space. signed, Rosguill talk 17:24, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- I'm concerned about the history of their block appeals and agree with Chaotic Enby that they should be submitting edit requests to show they can edit productively without AI before they are unblocked.
- The original was clearly AI-generated, a fact that they originally denied before having second thoughts & deleting that claim.
- They then swapped out specific words instead of writing it again from scratch, leading to confusing word salad.
- I fixed the template for them and recommended they revert their appeal from scratch, then we had some more synonym-swapping in the first appeal template and eventually a second very short appeal.
- They've still not agreed to avoid using AI, and I'm concerned by the amount of trouble they're apparently having when editing without machine assistance. Blue Sonnet (talk) 17:52, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
Perennial sourcing issues
JuanBoss105 (talk · contribs) recently made an unsupported addition to a BLP, and a check of their recent contributions revealed more unsourced additions . Upon going to their talk page to leave a notice I realized this is far from a new problem, they've not only been warned extensively , but have also been blocked twice for making unsourced additions. In a discussion with one of the editors who warned them in November they stated Either let me edits ride or take everything that doesn't have a source down
.
I'm unsure what remedy is necessary, but warnings, discussions, and short blocks have failed to resolve the issue. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 00:48, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
- I agree that some action is needed. That this has been going on for so long looks like a WP:RADAR situation. JuanBoss105 seems to lack WP:COMPETENCE or just straight up keeps playing WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Beside their refusal of getting the point, they are often antagonistic and uncivil when asked to change their behaviour. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 05:17, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
Suspicious Edit History
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 noticed some suspicious activity with this user: Fidjeri (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I noticed that he created the article Project Endgame and linked it under as many articles as possible in "See also" sections. I also noticed that his edit history is very targeted towards Qatar for some reason (And the rest of the Middle East to some extent), and that his talk page is full of people calling him out on some of his edits. I think it might be worth taking a look at his account
Many of these edits are not very relevant and, looking at them, they feel like they might be leaning a bit towards propagand and might oppose Wikipedia:NPOV. Wanted to bring this to the admins' attentions
Ahmed4040amr (talk) 01:44, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
- Dear friend, I may have extended the See also in regards to that article, but i was a younger user then, if it bothers you that much, I can remove some. Unlike your false claim ("his talk page is full of people calling him out ....") there is very little, the mistakes i did are only human. Jumping from that to you accusing me of propaganda is truly insulting. You should be more humble Sir, apologize for this, and remove this topic. Fidjeri (talk) 13:32, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
- As it says at the top of this page, "this page is for urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems." I don't think either of those criteria apply to this report.
- A more appropriate place for this would be the main WP:AN noticeboard but I don't see anything at all worthy of admin action here and I strongly suspect that would be the conclusion if this were raised in the right place. WaggersTALK 15:13, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
Ehehbe and sourcing
Ehehbe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has racked up a plethora of warnings about adding unsourced content, and every response they have made on their talk page has either been hostile or dismissive. Yet they continue, as of today to add more unsourced content. I've basically given up leaving notices on their talk page, since it's pretty obvious at this point that they have no intention of changing their habits. Perhaps someone else can make them aware that their attitude towards providing reliable sources has to change. Danners430 tweaks made 13:14, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
- I wasn't surprised to see that this is yet another drama relating to aviation lists. Providing sources for information added is written in policy at WP:BURDEN. If they have consistently not done that, then there is a problem that needs to be addressed quite fast by the editor in question. 11WB (talk) 19:49, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- They haven't edited since I asked them to please knock it off, but they do sometimes have gaps of a few days between edits so I'm not sure if that's a good sign. Blue Sonnet (talk) 20:50, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
This might be a block evasion S1r Gawa1n 2004
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 ONE EDIT shows that this user, S1r Gawa1n 2004, may evade his block for LLM misuse.
S1r Gawa1n 2004 states in the diff, "Then start from scratch I will," which probably means he is going to start fresh (that means a block evasion), and continue to edit, only on a different account, or a TA (unlikely).
I'm posting this on ANI because this user was blocked for LLM misuse and already had a section that was archived, which is more of an ANI issue then a SPI. If we're able to find a suspected sock, I'll create a thread at SPI.
I'll be assuming that the new account will probably continue a similar style, so that's something to note. Continued use of LLM is possible. See WP:AISIGNS to see what LLM writing looks like.
If anyone has extra info, I'd be happy to here it. Jetwindy-☎️-✈️ 22:57, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- What? That sentence is in reply to the prior post, which includes:
Either way, this isn't a good appeal and needs rewriting by a human from scratch.
Please, don't go chasing after phantoms. Any real evidence of sockpuppetry should be posted at WP:SPI. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:05, 16 April 2026 (UTC) - Yep, I literally told him to rewrite his appeal from scratch, that's all it was. He was quoting me directly. Blue Sonnet (talk) 23:07, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- Oh. Just being cautious there, but alright. Jetwindy-☎️-✈️ 23:13, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- Exactly. What I meant was that I would appeal from scratch, nothing more. S1r Gawa1n 2004 (talk) 23:35, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- Oh. Just being cautious there, but alright. Jetwindy-☎️-✈️ 23:13, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
Blackbombchu is WP:NOTHERE
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Blackbombchu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Hi everyone, I never like doing this but I think we've reached an impasse with this editor.
Several editors, including myself, have tried to explain to Blackbombchu that posts such as this Teahouse comment aren't what Wikipedia is for. Our requests are met with similar philosophical questions in response, which are difficult to understand but appear to be an attempt at philosophical discussion, which is well outside the scope of this website. This dates back to 2024, when they were told that this isn't a discussion forum but have returned with the same philosophical questions as before.
They've been blocked at Commons for doing the same thing they are continuing to do here. They've also posted on the Teahouse in response to unrelated questions from other editors.
They unfortunately fon't seem to understand that Wikipedia is not a general discussion forum, with their most recent post being this question asking where they should continue the discussion. It's difficult to explain this to them, as they've confirmed that they don't understand our explanations.
I'm afraid that this editor is not here to build an encyclopedia, with their last productive edit being in 2018. I'm not sure whether it's a compromised account since the language seems somewhat similar to earlier edits, such as their userpage, which was last edited 11 years ago.
It's also possible that they're not asking philosophical questions, but their posts are so hard to decipher that I'm having trouble reading them any other way. Since this has been going on for almost two years and other editors at the Teahouse suggested ANI, this seems the most appropriate place to come for assistance. Blue Sonnet (talk) 00:49, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- I think it's quite possible this is an elaborate troll who responds philosophically in order to vex and confuse people while also appearing "wise" or "deep thinking". I would support a full indef under CIR and the fact that Wikipedia is not a forum. 🚂ThatTrainGuy1945 Peep peep! 01:24, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- Trolling is one possible explanation. LSD is another. EEng 01:27, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds? I thought we Imagined that Yesterday. 🚂ThatTrainGuy1945 Peep peep! 01:28, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- I'm more inclined to see this as a person who doesn't really understand how the internet works, in general. As sympathetic as I am, we can't keep wasting our time with this sort of thing.
- I agree that this is both a WP:CIR and a WP:NOTHERE situation, and I support an indef. I hope they find whatever they're looking for elsewhere. MEN KISSING (she/they) Talk to me, I don't bite! - See my edits 01:48, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- I thought that, but User:Blackbombchu indicates they may have made/used Fandom wikis in the past, one of the links used to look like this.
- The wording on their userpage is rather muddled and confusing, yet their 2016 edits involve AFD nominations, redirects and complex edits like this one.
- They're either a troll or something may have happened to affect their ability to communicate properly - unfortunately we may never know the truth. Blue Sonnet (talk) 03:35, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- Indeed. / Augmented Seventh (talk) 03:19, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- Trolling is one possible explanation. LSD is another. EEng 01:27, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- NOTE: Bbc has not replied here yet, but did reply on their talk page to BS's notification, "I think I've finally sort of learned it." See also this comment on @Hoary's page, but I am still suspicious of their competency. 8 years without productive edits is very long, and some people have been indeffed for a month of non productive edits (or even less). 🚂ThatTrainGuy1945 Peep peep! 01:54, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- I've asked them to explain their understanding of the situation to see whether they will actually stop being disruptive, there's no reply as of yet. Blue Sonnet (talk) 03:12, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- FWIW, I blocked them on Commons today prior to seeing this thread. Same pattern of behavior there - good-faith edits up til a few years ago, then suddenly pops up again with weird rants. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:01, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- I write for a living and I still can't figure out WTF this editor is talking about. I'm not sure the proper course of action, but that's possibly because reading their edits made me seriously concerned someone had slipped me a hallucinogen. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 08:08, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- I've asked them to explain their understanding of the situation to see whether they will actually stop being disruptive, there's no reply as of yet. Blue Sonnet (talk) 03:12, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- Their posts seem to be a bit copy-paste-like. They have 2-3 texts which they seem to copy-paste in different places. On enwiki they altered their lead sentences, seemingly in an attempt to respond to other people's statement, but then followed just the same copy-paste comments with some YouTube link. Nakonana (talk) 09:12, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
I also support an indef block, and am tempted to hit this with a WP:SNOW close as we seem to be unanimous on that so far, or at least, nobody's arguing against it. WaggersTALK 09:14, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- Blue-Sonnet asked him a question. At least give him 24 hours to respond to it, particularly in view of his good behaviour since the question was asked. -- Hoary (talk) 10:21, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- Those who know how to organize it have something to look forward to 1000 years in advance and never give up and want to do their small part of forming a very secure system that looks at what's been getting attacked and guard it and not how we got there. When they're looking to see what's been getting attacked to guard, they will be like Ms. Hardbroom was 5:05 into the video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUkVcd7SbTw. I think I've kind of mostly resolved my problems for now. It was a bit slow. See my last reply on the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Blackbombchu. Blackbombchu (talk) 14:45, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- Please answer Blue-Sonnet's question on your talk page. 🚂ThatTrainGuy1945 Peep peep! 14:48, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- It has already been done. Blackbombchu (talk) 15:07, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- I'm afraid that this response shows that you didn't understand what the problem is, because you've done exactly the same thing again. For reference, this was my question. Blue Sonnet (talk) 15:18, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- I can't make any sense of what you're saying. Blackbombchu (talk) 16:04, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- Since none of us can make any sense of what you're saying, I'm unsurprised. Ravenswing 16:18, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- I can't make any sense of what you're saying. Blackbombchu (talk) 16:04, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- Please answer Blue-Sonnet's question on your talk page. 🚂ThatTrainGuy1945 Peep peep! 14:48, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
They are still making nonsense edits. I think blocking is in order - either due to deliberate disruption or not understanding what Wikipedia is for.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:09, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- Blocked for being disruptive for he past eight years without any beneficial contributions. The last diff identified by @Nigel Ish, directly above, shows that even after knowing about these concerns, @Blackbombchu continued with the same disruptive behavior. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:36, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- The fact that they don't know how to respond to basic questions means this was unfortunately not going to end well. At least we've given them every possible chance before being blocked. Blue Sonnet (talk) 16:40, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- They are active on other sites where they can continue to communicate their thoughts, so the block shouldn't be too much of a hardship for this unusual person. Sean.hoyland (talk) 16:54, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- We've got to keep an eye on other wiki projects because they did this stuff on Commons too. They might move on to the next project to continue. Nakonana (talk) 17:18, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- Yes, I imagine they might continue on other Wikimedia sites since they aren't globally blocked, but to clarify, by sites I meant social media sites. They also did this on commons. Whatever they have to say it is clearly important to them. (Redacted) Sean.hoyland (talk) 17:35, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- We've got to keep an eye on other wiki projects because they did this stuff on Commons too. They might move on to the next project to continue. Nakonana (talk) 17:18, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- They are active on other sites where they can continue to communicate their thoughts, so the block shouldn't be too much of a hardship for this unusual person. Sean.hoyland (talk) 16:54, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- The fact that they don't know how to respond to basic questions means this was unfortunately not going to end well. At least we've given them every possible chance before being blocked. Blue Sonnet (talk) 16:40, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
S1r Gawa1n 2004 suspected LLM use
S1r Gawa1n 2004 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Editor was brought to AINB three days ago for a blatantly generated full article. In the resultant short exchange on their tp, I think they committed not to further use AI and admitted that they have used AI. (This is to be fair rather much to infer out of the minimal amount of communication the user has conducted, but I fail to read it any other way that would be more charitable.) Well, in any case, I believe they have continued to use AI.
- The paragraph on Pope Pius VII fails verification. To be fair, so does the original paragraph, but the source added simply does not support what it says, in particular "emphasising... in the event" is at best blatant SYNTH.
- also fails verification - the certificate in question is an election to FRS in 1821, not President of the RS. The president of the RS in 1821 was Sir Humphry Davy, not the subject of the article.
As the rope has been informally extended and exhausted, I invite the noticeboard to consider what action to take next. Fermiboson (talk) 19:50, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
- Yep, looking at the source that part about the symbolism behind the pope's gesture is blatant SYNTH. Given the previous warning, I don't think it is unreasonable to block from mainspace, and have done so until they can convince us that this will not repeat in the future (e.g. through constructive draftspace activity or edit requests). Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:22, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
- Noting that I've declined S1r Gawa1n 2004's (second) unblock request here, as it appears that it would be more appropriate for them to engage with concerns here, given that they are not blocked from Wikipedia space. signed, Rosguill talk 17:24, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- I'm concerned about the history of their block appeals and agree with Chaotic Enby that they should be submitting edit requests to show they can edit productively without AI before they are unblocked.
- The original was clearly AI-generated, a fact that they originally denied before having second thoughts & deleting that claim.
- They then swapped out specific words instead of writing it again from scratch, leading to confusing word salad.
- I fixed the template for them and recommended they revert their appeal from scratch, then we had some more synonym-swapping in the first appeal template and eventually a second very short appeal.
- They've still not agreed to avoid using AI, and I'm concerned by the amount of trouble they're apparently having when editing without machine assistance. Blue Sonnet (talk) 17:52, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
Perennial sourcing issues
JuanBoss105 (talk · contribs) recently made an unsupported addition to a BLP, and a check of their recent contributions revealed more unsourced additions . Upon going to their talk page to leave a notice I realized this is far from a new problem, they've not only been warned extensively , but have also been blocked twice for making unsourced additions. In a discussion with one of the editors who warned them in November they stated Either let me edits ride or take everything that doesn't have a source down
.
I'm unsure what remedy is necessary, but warnings, discussions, and short blocks have failed to resolve the issue. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 00:48, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
- I agree that some action is needed. That this has been going on for so long looks like a WP:RADAR situation. JuanBoss105 seems to lack WP:COMPETENCE or just straight up keeps playing WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Beside their refusal of getting the point, they are often antagonistic and uncivil when asked to change their behaviour. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 05:17, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
Suspicious Edit History
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 noticed some suspicious activity with this user: Fidjeri (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I noticed that he created the article Project Endgame and linked it under as many articles as possible in "See also" sections. I also noticed that his edit history is very targeted towards Qatar for some reason (And the rest of the Middle East to some extent), and that his talk page is full of people calling him out on some of his edits. I think it might be worth taking a look at his account
Many of these edits are not very relevant and, looking at them, they feel like they might be leaning a bit towards propagand and might oppose Wikipedia:NPOV. Wanted to bring this to the admins' attentions
Ahmed4040amr (talk) 01:44, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
- Dear friend, I may have extended the See also in regards to that article, but i was a younger user then, if it bothers you that much, I can remove some. Unlike your false claim ("his talk page is full of people calling him out ....") there is very little, the mistakes i did are only human. Jumping from that to you accusing me of propaganda is truly insulting. You should be more humble Sir, apologize for this, and remove this topic. Fidjeri (talk) 13:32, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
- As it says at the top of this page, "this page is for urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems." I don't think either of those criteria apply to this report.
- A more appropriate place for this would be the main WP:AN noticeboard but I don't see anything at all worthy of admin action here and I strongly suspect that would be the conclusion if this were raised in the right place. WaggersTALK 15:13, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
Ehehbe and sourcing
Ehehbe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has racked up a plethora of warnings about adding unsourced content, and every response they have made on their talk page has either been hostile or dismissive. Yet they continue, as of today to add more unsourced content. I've basically given up leaving notices on their talk page, since it's pretty obvious at this point that they have no intention of changing their habits. Perhaps someone else can make them aware that their attitude towards providing reliable sources has to change. Danners430 tweaks made 13:14, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
- I wasn't surprised to see that this is yet another drama relating to aviation lists. Providing sources for information added is written in policy at WP:BURDEN. If they have consistently not done that, then there is a problem that needs to be addressed quite fast by the editor in question. 11WB (talk) 19:49, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- They haven't edited since I asked them to please knock it off, but they do sometimes have gaps of a few days between edits so I'm not sure if that's a good sign. Blue Sonnet (talk) 20:50, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
This might be a block evasion S1r Gawa1n 2004
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 ONE EDIT shows that this user, S1r Gawa1n 2004, may evade his block for LLM misuse.
S1r Gawa1n 2004 states in the diff, "Then start from scratch I will," which probably means he is going to start fresh (that means a block evasion), and continue to edit, only on a different account, or a TA (unlikely).
I'm posting this on ANI because this user was blocked for LLM misuse and already had a section that was archived, which is more of an ANI issue then a SPI. If we're able to find a suspected sock, I'll create a thread at SPI.
I'll be assuming that the new account will probably continue a similar style, so that's something to note. Continued use of LLM is possible. See WP:AISIGNS to see what LLM writing looks like.
If anyone has extra info, I'd be happy to here it. Jetwindy-☎️-✈️ 22:57, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- What? That sentence is in reply to the prior post, which includes:
Either way, this isn't a good appeal and needs rewriting by a human from scratch.
Please, don't go chasing after phantoms. Any real evidence of sockpuppetry should be posted at WP:SPI. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:05, 16 April 2026 (UTC) - Yep, I literally told him to rewrite his appeal from scratch, that's all it was. He was quoting me directly. Blue Sonnet (talk) 23:07, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- Oh. Just being cautious there, but alright. Jetwindy-☎️-✈️ 23:13, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- Exactly. What I meant was that I would appeal from scratch, nothing more. S1r Gawa1n 2004 (talk) 23:35, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- Oh. Just being cautious there, but alright. Jetwindy-☎️-✈️ 23:13, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
Accidentally perma-blocked my own account, kind of.
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 was testing if the auto wikibreak script could safeguard against user error, such as typing 2026 as 3026. It cannot. Please someone fix this. My user is user:Phlogiston Enthusiast. I have set the break to end in the year 9999. ~2026-23615-89 (talk) 20:30, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- If someone needs proof of this I can attempt to provide but I don't know what kind of proof I would have, so hopefully it doesn't come to that. ~2026-23615-89 (talk) 20:33, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- Try disabling JavaScript in your browser, WP:SAFEMODE, or, failing that, WP:IAN may be better placed to help. WindTempos she/they (talk • contribs) 20:37, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- I'll also ask on discord to see if an Interface Admin is available. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:39, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- I cannot get into the account to turn on safe mode and I don't know how to disable js or if this browser even can. ~2026-23621-13 (talk) 20:41, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- You can probably just edit User:Phlogiston_Enthusiast/common.js yourself using this TA. Or disable JavaScript in your browser before logging in. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 20:38, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- I don't know how to do that and my JS page is locked so only I and interface admins can get in. ~2026-23621-13 (talk) 20:40, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- Only interface admins or the user themself can edit the js. Even a regular admin (e.g., me) can't. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:40, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- The big man does not hassss the unblock ~2026-23621-13 (talk) 20:42, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- Yeah, I temporarily forgot that JavaScript pages are locked (for obvious reasons). Disabling JS in the browser should work though. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 20:42, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- I don't know how to do that. ~2026-23621-13 (talk) 20:43, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- --Gurkubondinn (talk) 20:46, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- I don't know how to do that. ~2026-23621-13 (talk) 20:43, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- However, if this is a real emergency I can delete the js page for you. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:44, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- I've copied the rest of the js page, so I can help you recreate it if you want it deleted now. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:45, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- Oh, thanks, Do that then, please and thank you. ~2026-23621-13 (talk) 20:46, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- Unless it looks like the IAs will come then do that, but let me grab a copy first to salvage the rest of it. I'll let you know when it's done. ~2026-23621-13 (talk) 20:46, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- Could you move it? Then it can be fixed and then moved back, might be easier. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 20:47, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- I've copied the rest of the js page, so I can help you recreate it if you want it deleted now. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:45, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- This is also really inconvenient because I almost exclusively use tor for editing and this is making me use a different browser. ~2026-23621-13 (talk) 20:43, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- You can easily disable JavaScript in the tor browser (assuming you are using the tor browser). The Firefox instructions should work (since the tor browser is a fork of Firefox), or try this: https://support.torproject.org/tor-browser/features/plugins/ --Gurkubondinn (talk) 20:50, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- @~2026-23621-13 Looks like you've been freed, Phlog. Happy editing! MEN KISSING (she/they) Talk to me, I don't bite! - See my edits 20:48, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- It's been deleted. Phlog, if you failed to get a copy, I can post on your user talk page the contents. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:49, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- Please and thank you. (Talk) PHLOGISTON ENTHUSIAST 20:50, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- It's been blanked, actually. So no need for that; it can easily be reverted back to a stable version. MEN KISSING (she/they) Talk to me, I don't bite! - See my edits 20:51, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- Thank you very much! I might be really stupid, haha. I'm going to message the devs about this so they are informed about the issue. Obviously, nobody is typing 9999 on accident. But the situation I envision being more likely is something along the lines of trying to type 2026, but your finger slips or some such and you type 2036 or 3026 or 2126 or something, and do not notice the disparity until it is too late. It's very easy not to see a single stray number. (Talk) PHLOGISTON ENTHUSIAST 20:50, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- Take the whale, as you were very silly without fail. TheClocksAlwaysTurn (The Clockworks) (contribs) 20:52, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- We're all stupid from time to time, haha. Part of what makes us human.
- Now be careful that you don't perma-block yourself again by reverting to the wrong version! MEN KISSING (she/they) Talk to me, I don't bite! - See my edits 20:54, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- It's been deleted. Phlog, if you failed to get a copy, I can post on your user talk page the contents. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:49, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- Blanked for now. Sohom (talk) 20:48, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- By the way, having that comment in the js file was helpful, although this one was pretty obvious. The comment ensured that I'd believe you. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:53, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- which comment? (Talk) PHLOGISTON ENTHUSIAST 20:56, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- I think he might have meant the edsum? MetalBreaksAndBends (talk) 21:01, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- Ah. That'll definitely do it. (Talk) PHLOGISTON ENTHUSIAST 21:04, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- You know what they say, "JAVASCRIPT IS THE LANGUAGE OF SIN. REPENT NOW OR FACE ANNIHILATION." Them being a red ball of rage floating in my living room, of course. MetalBreaksAndBends (talk) 21:09, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- Perhaps try giving them a snickers? You aren’t you when you’re hungry TheClocksAlwaysTurn (The Clockworks) (contribs) 21:10, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- This is how it feels to program in 6502. Or maybe just in general? (Talk) PHLOGISTON ENTHUSIAST 21:12, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- Computers do what you tell them to even if that isn't what you actually wanted them to do. They can't read your mind. That is what makes programming hard (or possibly what made programming hard until recently). * Pppery * it has begun... 21:21, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- Oh damn. I guess Wikipedia has something different to focus on now aside from the temu-like watchlist. Jetwindy-☎️-✈️ 22:32, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- You know what they say, "JAVASCRIPT IS THE LANGUAGE OF SIN. REPENT NOW OR FACE ANNIHILATION." Them being a red ball of rage floating in my living room, of course. MetalBreaksAndBends (talk) 21:09, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- Ah. That'll definitely do it. (Talk) PHLOGISTON ENTHUSIAST 21:04, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- I think he might have meant the edsum? MetalBreaksAndBends (talk) 21:01, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- which comment? (Talk) PHLOGISTON ENTHUSIAST 20:56, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John F. Kennedy at the University of New Brunswick
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.
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John F. Kennedy at the University of New Brunswick (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Could we get a pair of fresh, completely uninvolved admin eyes here to see if any action is warranted? (If that action is "discuss at ANI", I'll go through with the whole notification rigamarole.) —Cryptic 00:25, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
- Tinterest (talk · contribs) appears to be bludgeoning the discussion by battlegrounding with every delete vote. Borgenland (talk) 01:27, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
- With AI-generated bullshit no less. Rand Freeman (talk | stalk) 01:28, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
- A related discussion on Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2026 April 14 is raising serious WP:POINTy questions as to offending user’s behavior. Borgenland (talk) 02:12, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
- Alongside similar WP:BLUDGEON behavior and possible LLM usage. Borgenland (talk) 02:20, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
- In addition Tinterest has probably used AI in the past to create talk page messages (see the odd, overly explanatory yet vague phrasing and wording here, here and here). Rand Freeman (talk | stalk) 02:28, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
- Unless I see a very convincing explanation from Tinterest, I'm inclined to block for disruptive editing. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:23, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
- In addition Tinterest has probably used AI in the past to create talk page messages (see the odd, overly explanatory yet vague phrasing and wording here, here and here). Rand Freeman (talk | stalk) 02:28, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
- Alongside similar WP:BLUDGEON behavior and possible LLM usage. Borgenland (talk) 02:20, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
- Everything looks fine to me, this editor is out of line. Dr vulpes (Talk) 04:54, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
- I had written this report and was about to post it, and saw that this thread is the same topic, but maybe these links will help:
- Tinterest (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- John F. Kennedy at the University of New Brunswick (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2026 April 14 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This editor is bludgeoning the Deletion Review by responding to almost every comment. The editor is demanding that the image be restored in order to provide context to prevent the deletion of the article, and apparently wants the article kept in order to use the image in the article. Maybe I don't understand, but this seems like circular reasoning. The first reference in the article returns a 404 error of a type that usually indicates the use of artificial intelligence that isn't as intelligent as it appears to be. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:51, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
- Yeah, that was enough to push me over the edge. Blocked. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:23, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
- And the article G15ed — Preceding unsigned comment added by CambridgeBayWeather (talk • contribs) 04:25, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
Disruptive editing by User:Isah Khan
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.
- Isah Khan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Repetitive disruptions and WP:OR by the user (reverted: ) and (reverted: ) There are some more although not rollbacked yet: . Apparent continuous PoV pushing, would second for indef. Srimant ROSHAN (talk) 07:11, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
- As we speak, the user has not only failed to appear on the ANI report but continues to display his Pov-ish and tendentious editing. Whether by limiting a pan continental entity to Bengal or by pushing [baseless origins] to Bangladesh. I don't think this user can stop being this blatantly unconstructive, are we now surely expecting an indef block? Srimant ROSHAN (talk) 05:48, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
User:Dharshan Karthikeyan
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.
Ever since Dharshan Karthikeyan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has joined Wikipedia, they have repeatedly made disruptive edits to multiple articles, such as repeatedly removing an image from Ethirneechal (TV series) and adding months in the cast section of Ganesh Kartikey . Multiple warnings were issued on their talk page. Despite these warnings, the behaviour has continued with no improvement or attempt at discussion. They are also partially blocked from Ethirneechal (TV series). Media Mender (chat, stalk) 12:32, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
- They are continuing this behavior even after being reported here. Media Mender (chat, stalk) 06:45, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
User:DrJuana
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.
- DrJuana (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This editor has been relentlessly adding slanderous material to multiple BLPs concerning the Epstein Files. I have reverted the edits on BLP grounds, engaged with them on their talk page explaining why it is slanderous, and their response has been to continue to revert. And now they accuse me personally of being part of the conspiracy related to the Epstein scandal.Special:Diff/1348667558/1348679605 Because all communication has now ceased, on bad faith grounds. I need administrative help to solve the immediate problem: there is lack of consensus for adding this contentious material to BLP articles. -- GreenC 20:54, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
- It is not slander if it is FACT! I stated that Gershenfeld was mentioned 966 times in the Epstein files and linked the article where that's stated (I also fact checked). GreenC has a conflict of interest. They were student/classmates and Gershenfeld made contact to request the edit of my fact based edit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Neil_Gershenfeld#Edits_to_Epstein_Section DrJuana (talk) 21:04, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
- I do not know Gershenfeld. You are misreading that talk page. I responded to a user who was a student of Gershenfeld, I am way too old to be his student and anyway my degree is in history. You are desperate to frame me for wrong doing, because you know you will loose on the facts. You are adding slanted material to BLPs. Look if we need to, we will spend the next 30 to 60 days having RfCs that bring in dozens or hundreds of people, and it will be totally out of your or my control what happens. But in the mean time, you need to stop edit warring on BLPs and accept there is no consensus for your edits at this time. That is how BLPs and contentious topics work. You need to read more about it before your behavior gets you blocked. -- GreenC 21:18, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
- Yes, please. I do want someone other than you to review my ONE SENTENCE edit (which included the article). The edit only mentions that Gershenfeld is mentioned 966 times in the Epstein files. I believe this is important information to have. It is not slander if it is a fact. On a separate note, I apologize for misreading the original post's author (you can see in the link that I included how that was an easy mistake to make since you are the last name that appears in that post). DrJuana (talk) 21:25, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
- Congratulations, I'm someone other than GreenC, and I've reviewed the edit. I agree with others that the source is not reliable, but even if it was, you've made no case as to why this is "important information to have." Something being an alleged "fact" (it's not as if you've reviewed the files yourself to make an accurate count, have you?) doesn't make it article-worthy, any more than the article on Gershenfeld references his shoe size, his eye color, his class standing in high school or the brand of wine he prefers. Ravenswing 01:30, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
- Yes, please. I do want someone other than you to review my ONE SENTENCE edit (which included the article). The edit only mentions that Gershenfeld is mentioned 966 times in the Epstein files. I believe this is important information to have. It is not slander if it is a fact. On a separate note, I apologize for misreading the original post's author (you can see in the link that I included how that was an easy mistake to make since you are the last name that appears in that post). DrJuana (talk) 21:25, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
- I do not know Gershenfeld. You are misreading that talk page. I responded to a user who was a student of Gershenfeld, I am way too old to be his student and anyway my degree is in history. You are desperate to frame me for wrong doing, because you know you will loose on the facts. You are adding slanted material to BLPs. Look if we need to, we will spend the next 30 to 60 days having RfCs that bring in dozens or hundreds of people, and it will be totally out of your or my control what happens. But in the mean time, you need to stop edit warring on BLPs and accept there is no consensus for your edits at this time. That is how BLPs and contentious topics work. You need to read more about it before your behavior gets you blocked. -- GreenC 21:18, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
- Neil Gershenfeld is now fully protected due to the edit warring. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 21:37, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
- Links to Epstein are important. I have mentioned a FACT stated on the recent investigative report (that I referenced). Facts are not slander or contentious. GreenC has targeted my edits on various pages but only about Epstein files' mentions. This seems to be personal and specifically designed to obscure links to Epstein. GreenC admits being paid by INTERNET ARCHIVE (founded by Kahle who is in the Epstein Files also) DrJuana (talk) 21:55, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
- I see no evidence that Fancy Comma is an RS. In fact, it appears to be a self-published source. So why are you adding stuff about living persons sources solely to it? You probably should voluntarily desist from editing anything about living persons in articles until you get more experience here
leastlest we're forced to topic ban you. If you feel a change is need, ask on the talk page. Nil Einne (talk) 23:12, 13 April 2026 (UTC) 23:17, 13 April 2026 (UTC)- About your comment here , regardless of whether "facts are not slander" we cannot include anything that does not originate from reliable sources when discussing living persons. This includes anything from self-published sources even from experts. (Although I see no evidence Fancy Comma or the author of that block is a recognised expert anyway.) While one of the reasons is because we don't trust these sources to get it right, even when there's no doubt it's right it's still WP:UNDUE if you cannot find a reliable source talking about. It doesn't matter whether it's "not slander", it's not allowed in articles. Nil Einne (talk) 23:27, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
- This is not a blog by Fancy Comma, LLC. It is a Special Report titled Scientist in the Epstein files. I fact checked all the items that I reported on and the author was correct. Fancy Comma's work has been featured by: Civic Science Media Lab, NPR SciCommers, The Science Writing News Roundup, National Association of Science Writers, Solutions Journalism Network, Quill, etc (https://fancycomma.com/media/). I don't believe anyone can object to their being an RS.
- Contrary to the rules to request protection - this issue was not discussed in the talk page of Neil Gershenfeld https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_Gershenfeld
- If you look at my history, I was trained by Wikipedia on editing living persons' articles. DrJuana (talk) 00:05, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)
GreenC has targeted my edits on various pages but only about Epstein files' mentions. This seems to be personal and specifically designed to obscure links to Epstein.
Or its because GreenC believes its a BLP violation, as he has said many, many times. BLP violations shouldn't stay on Wikipedia and should be removed as soon as possible. Your source is a wordpress self-published site. Per WP:BLPSPS,Never ever use self-published sources (including books, zines, websites, blogs, podcasts, or social network posts) as sources of material about a living person
. I really don't see the basis for claiming GreenC is part of some grand conspiracy. Unless you have actual evidence (that isn't just that GreenC has been paid by the Internet Archive), please stop casting aspersions. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 23:15, 13 April 2026 (UTC)- GreenC incorrectly believes this is a BLP violation. What is the violation? This is not contentious or disputed.
- GreenC himself states that he is paid by Internet Archive in his own Wikipedia user page. This is what is written at the bottom of the page:
- " GreenC, in accordance with the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use, discloses that he has been paid by Internet Archive for his contributions to Wikipedia. This funding is for the ongoing development of WaybackMedic and working with aspects of User:InternetArchiveBot" DrJuana (talk) 00:11, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
- You are violating WP:BLPSPS, which is part of the policy, thus making it a BLP violation. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 00:15, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
- How?! DrJuana (talk) 00:20, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
- 'BLP violation' refers to violating any part of the policy, rather than every single thing disallowed by the policy (which would be difficult to do). 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 00:31, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
- How?! DrJuana (talk) 00:20, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
- You are violating WP:BLPSPS, which is part of the policy, thus making it a BLP violation. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 00:15, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
- Could you provide any link between being paid by the Internet Archive and being an Epstein conspirator? That's a pretty bad aspersion, especially after you've already had to pivot from the "colleague of a colleague" angle. I can't even find the Kahle mention you said. Eyesinthefire (talk) 23:23, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
- This is not an aspersion. GreenC being paid by Internet Archive is posted in his Wikipedia user page. Brewster Kahle, the founder of the Internet Archive, is emailed and referred to as a 'Digerati friend'. DrJuana (talk) 00:18, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
- That is absolutely an aspersion. We are none of us stupid here, we see exactly what you're trying to insinuate and why you're making that insinuation, and it does you no favors to insult our intelligence. Ravenswing 01:26, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
- Not even finding the Kahle mention you're talking about (a couple event pages that he was part of, but ones that included, e.g. Yo-Yo Ma). And the jump from "Brewster Kahle was mentioned [briefly, it sounds like] in some Epstein-related emails" to "an editor paid by the IA to maintain IA tools on Wikipedia has an Epstein COI" is a big 'ol aspersion. Eyesinthefire (talk) 02:04, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
- This is not an aspersion. GreenC being paid by Internet Archive is posted in his Wikipedia user page. Brewster Kahle, the founder of the Internet Archive, is emailed and referred to as a 'Digerati friend'. DrJuana (talk) 00:18, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
- Oh for pity's sake. TENS OF THOUSANDS of people are mentioned in the Epstein files. A citation alone doesn't by definition tar a person indelibly, or any organization/entity with which that person is associated, or any person who associates with said entity. Cut this nonsense out at once, or the next step (at least) will be a call for a one-way interaction ban with GreenC and a topic ban from Epstein-related articles. Ravenswing 23:50, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
- I agree! since a citation alone doesn't by definition tar a person, this should be in no way contentious or slanderous. It is simply stating a fact that many people would like to be aware of. Blocking this type of information is very much the reason why there are so very few (if any) investigations in the USA. In the case of Gershenfeld, there is already a paragraph that explains why he was mentioned so much (966 times). People should have the information (and the choice to investigate further). DrJuana (talk) 00:26, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
- You do realise Ravenswing was addressing you, yes? - The Bushranger One ping only 01:12, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
- What The Bushranger said. You know damn well what you were doing: the equivalent of "Hitler was a Nazi/Hitler was from Austria/Therefore all Austrians were Nazis" illogic. Wikipedia is not a forum for wannabe muckrakers. The Bushranger handed out a good block, and if you keep on with your crusade in defiance of the rules governing BLPs, the next block you get will be a lot longer and more onerous. Ravenswing 01:24, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
- I agree! since a citation alone doesn't by definition tar a person, this should be in no way contentious or slanderous. It is simply stating a fact that many people would like to be aware of. Blocking this type of information is very much the reason why there are so very few (if any) investigations in the USA. In the case of Gershenfeld, there is already a paragraph that explains why he was mentioned so much (966 times). People should have the information (and the choice to investigate further). DrJuana (talk) 00:26, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
- I see no evidence that Fancy Comma is an RS. In fact, it appears to be a self-published source. So why are you adding stuff about living persons sources solely to it? You probably should voluntarily desist from editing anything about living persons in articles until you get more experience here
- Links to Epstein are important. I have mentioned a FACT stated on the recent investigative report (that I referenced). Facts are not slander or contentious. GreenC has targeted my edits on various pages but only about Epstein files' mentions. This seems to be personal and specifically designed to obscure links to Epstein. GreenC admits being paid by INTERNET ARCHIVE (founded by Kahle who is in the Epstein Files also) DrJuana (talk) 21:55, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
- Given the continued use of this SPS to source this content on multiple articles (see ) I have pblocked DrJuana from articlespace for one month due to BLP violations. This is an arbitration enforcement action under WP:CT/BLP. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:39, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
- I would like to appeal. DrJuana (talk) 00:28, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
- You were given instructions on your talk page on how to appeal in the block notice here. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 00:32, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
- The Bushranger, the block log is saying indefinite rather than just for a month. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 01:25, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
- ...dangit, I knew I was gonna do that and did it anyway. Fixed, thanks. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:27, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
- I would like to appeal. DrJuana (talk) 00:28, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
Further discussion
- I think there is another issue here besides just the BLP issues, that being a continued IDHT. See , where DrJuana continues to claim that
The reference used is a reputable source that was arbitrarily discounted
. I'm not really sure a one month block will actually solve the issue. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 04:16, 14 April 2026 (UTC)- 45dogs: There is also what appears to be block evasion with an IP Special:Diff/1348704577/1348720349. Could be coincidence, but the timing and content are ducky. There is generally questionable "Epstein tagging" going on in many BLPs. Most of the BLPs Epstein-tagged that I have seen are Jewish; and the same editors are also Jew-tagging material elsewhere in the same article ("came from a Jewish family..", "category jewish", etc). If that's connected to Juana I don't know, there are other IPs involved. We may need some kind of guideline how to deal with the Epstein material because the Epstein file is 6 million pages and has thousands of notable people in it, most are innocent of anything, merely being in the Epstein files should not be notable for inclusion on Wikipedia. -- GreenC 18:09, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
- GreenC, that TA is almost certainly just an LTA. I don't think its DrJuana. I'm not sure we need a special policy or guideline just for the Epstein files; WP:BLPPRIMARY is the best line of defense against inclusion, and combined with BLPSPS + things like filter 614 (which disallows mentions to the files for most new users) means most cases should be covered. Perhaps another filter to tag mentions of the files on BLPs would be helpful, similar to how 982 tags labeling nationality as Jewish? 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 18:43, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
- 45dogs: I just wrote a quick essay Wikipedia:EPSTEIN as a quick reminder of relevant policy issues and reasons they apply to Epstein. Feel free to expand. -- GreenC 18:49, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
- GreenC, that TA is almost certainly just an LTA. I don't think its DrJuana. I'm not sure we need a special policy or guideline just for the Epstein files; WP:BLPPRIMARY is the best line of defense against inclusion, and combined with BLPSPS + things like filter 614 (which disallows mentions to the files for most new users) means most cases should be covered. Perhaps another filter to tag mentions of the files on BLPs would be helpful, similar to how 982 tags labeling nationality as Jewish? 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 18:43, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
- 45dogs: There is also what appears to be block evasion with an IP Special:Diff/1348704577/1348720349. Could be coincidence, but the timing and content are ducky. There is generally questionable "Epstein tagging" going on in many BLPs. Most of the BLPs Epstein-tagged that I have seen are Jewish; and the same editors are also Jew-tagging material elsewhere in the same article ("came from a Jewish family..", "category jewish", etc). If that's connected to Juana I don't know, there are other IPs involved. We may need some kind of guideline how to deal with the Epstein material because the Epstein file is 6 million pages and has thousands of notable people in it, most are innocent of anything, merely being in the Epstein files should not be notable for inclusion on Wikipedia. -- GreenC 18:09, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Quack, quack. Blocked DrJuana for 72 hours as a normal admin action for blatantly evading their pblock through WP:LOUTSOCKing. If they do it again it'll be indef. Note added after the edit conflict: It's engaging in the exact same behavior (number of times mentioned in the Epstein files) using the exact same source (FancyComma). It could be a Joe job I suppose but the quacking to me is deafening. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:47, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
- As I said above, that TA is almost certainly just an LTA, in this case probably Astrawiki3203. See (also there should be some deleted contributions on an SPI from that TA any admin can see to better confirm this connection). 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 18:53, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
- @The Bushranger: This proves that this is just Astrawiki3203 joe-jobbing. Please unblock DrJuana. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 18:54, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
- ...good grief. Block removed and an apology extended to DrJuana, thanks for catching that. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:59, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Quack, quack. Blocked DrJuana for 72 hours as a normal admin action for blatantly evading their pblock through WP:LOUTSOCKing. If they do it again it'll be indef. Note added after the edit conflict: It's engaging in the exact same behavior (number of times mentioned in the Epstein files) using the exact same source (FancyComma). It could be a Joe job I suppose but the quacking to me is deafening. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:47, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
Poor attitude from new user
~2026-72635-4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been making drastic edits to long time content with vague explantations and has repeatedly shown an unwillingness to compromise and colloborate with other users' suggestions. Some examples can be seen here, here, and here. When other users have asked them to discuss their changes or reconsider many of their edits, this user resorts to just reverting other users' changes, as seen here and here. Looking at their talk page, they have been warned about their behavior multiple times already and yet they continue to persist. I think action should be taken at this point given their unwillingness to change, listen, and work with the Wikipedia community. GigachadGigachad (talk) 15:18, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
- I've interacted with the TA at issue; many of their contributions actually do have merit, but they come in like a wrecking ball and aren't receptive to collaboration. 331dot (talk) 15:28, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
- GigachadGigachad, I wish that you had brought your concerns to me directly on my talk page before taking the rather drastic step of posting them here. If you had done that, I would have tried to resolve any issues you raised. Now, I feel the need to defend my editing against the characterizations you have made.
- You say that I have been "making drastic edits to long time content with vague explantations [sic]". You are correct about the first part, but not the second. Sometimes, longtime content needs drastic edits--especially when the material is not relevant, when no reliable sources are cited, when the cited sources do not support the content, or when the content is flat-out inaccurate. But generally speaking, my edit summaries make the reasons for my edits quite clear.
- You say that I have "repeatedly shown an unwillingness to compromise and colloborate with other users' suggestions" and that "when other users have asked them to discuss their changes or reconsider many of their edits, this user resorts to just reverting other users' changes." Not so. It is true that when I do a lot of work on a page and someone comes along and reverts it all for no reason or for a reason that doesn't make sense to me, I don't appreciate it. But if you look at , you will clearly see that I am willing to work with other editors even in those situations.
- You say that I have been warned about my behavior multiple times and that I "continue to persist". Where are the multiple warnings you refer to?
- I looked back through my editing history and noticed that you and I were going back and forth a bit some weeks ago on the 2018 New York gubernatorial election page. (See here, here, and here. It's interesting that you didn't mention this above. In each instance, I reverted your edits because they were not supported by cited sources. The reasons were stated clearly in my edit summaries. I stand by my edits. It seems to me that you were the one who was unresponsive to input there, not me.
- You also refer to five different Wikipedia pages that supposedly show that I am a problem editor. Those pages are: 2020 United States Senate election in Kentucky, 2010 United States Senate special election in Massachusetts, Martha Coakley, 2020 United States Senate election in Maine, and The Monkees. Respectfully, I don't believe that these pages support your accusations. And I believe I've improved each page. ~2026-72635-4 (talk) 17:25, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
- 331dot, I fully acknowledge that I make WP:BOLD edits and that I'm not known for my patience. But I don't think I'm a wrecking ball because my edits are constructive. You and I had a disagreement at , and I admit that I could have been more collaborative. Can you admit that you could have been less obstructionist? ~2026-72635-4 (talk) 17:31, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
- (non-admin comment) Did you use an LLM to write that? Narky Blert (talk) 17:33, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
- Why do you say that? (Talk) PHLOGISTON ENTHUSIAST 17:44, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
- Not seeing any WP:AISIGNS. TA wrote that on their own. Even used two hyphens instead of an em dash. Viva la horde, ~ GoatLordServant(Talk) 17:47, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
- Narky Blert, I am not sure whether you were being serious, but no, I did not use AI to write my post (or anything else, for that matter). ~2026-72635-4 (talk) 18:37, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
- Fair enough! Narky Blert (talk) 17:17, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
- Narky Blert, I am not sure whether you were being serious, but no, I did not use AI to write my post (or anything else, for that matter). ~2026-72635-4 (talk) 18:37, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
- @Narky Blert, I have some advice here, about you stating that @~2026-72635-4's comment was a use of LLM. As said already, a look at WP:AISIGNS would definetely help out with anyone's (including your) understanding of what is LLM and what is not, almost like WP:WWIN.
- Accusing an editor of "LLM" use can easily swing the tide, turning often you into the considered "bad guy" as you comment a possible LLM. This can almost make the discussion about you Narky, and that wouldn't be the best thing for you, as the focus would go from the TA to you.
- Some AI signs to help you include, comparing sentences to other things, such as: "The sun was as bright as a bar of gold."
- You're not in trouble here, but it's always a good idea to confirm if the user is really using a LLM/AI chatbot to edit and send messages here on Wikipedia. Hopefully this helps. Jetwindy-☎️-✈️ 23:08, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
- I don't feel that I was obstructionist, I wasn't preventing edits for the sake of doing so. I said your edits largely had merit. If you're improving your collaboration, great. That's all that's needed. 331dot (talk) 17:53, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
- We're not trying to be obstructionist here. You made edits that get reverted, and then you go on to restore them, even after other users have reached out to you to slow down. There is a pattern of not being able to take criticism here. You mention your work with others here, but then you end up in the same situation having to negotiate after-the-fact on here. Again, we are not saying you haven't made improvements, but we are saying that Wikipedia requires collboration and compromise even if you, personally, disagree. Conscientiousness is key. GigachadGigachad (talk) 02:10, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- If you want to label me as a difficult editor because I insist that encyclopedic content be supported by reliable sources, then I am guilty as charged. But what about you, GigachadGigachad? Your complaints about my editing are, at the very least, overstated. Then, on 2018 New York gubernatorial election, you kept trying to add text that was footnoted, but the footnoted sources failed verification. I called you on it and you tried to add the same text again. What was that about? And why did you come here instead of approaching me individually first? It's not against the rules for you to do that, but it certainly isn't something I respect. ~2026-72635-4 (talk) 15:21, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- @GigachadGigachad, I think you should calm down on the TA, and focus on keeping a good manner that fits a editor well, in a good way, and follow this up at the dispute resolution noticeboard.
Again, we are not saying you haven't made improvements, but we are saying that Wikipedia requires collboration and compromise even if you, personally, disagree. Conscientiousness is key
is not really assuming good faith, shoving words in a user's face trying to order them to follow Wikipedia guidelines isn't, although a reminder is fine. (That was more of a forceful statement, likely in the attempt of you trying to tell the TA what to do.) Jetwindy-☎️-✈️ 20:19, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- (non-admin comment) Did you use an LLM to write that? Narky Blert (talk) 17:33, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
- 331dot, I fully acknowledge that I make WP:BOLD edits and that I'm not known for my patience. But I don't think I'm a wrecking ball because my edits are constructive. You and I had a disagreement at , and I admit that I could have been more collaborative. Can you admit that you could have been less obstructionist? ~2026-72635-4 (talk) 17:31, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
- Proposing close of conflict with reminders for @GigachadGigachad and @~2026-72635-4
- I propose an ending with Gigachad having a reminder to assume good faith and control theirselves in all situations, even when involved in an edit war, and for the TA, a reminder to not edit war.
- Possible follow-up at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard
- This should go to the dispute resolution page, as it has turned into the interior of an edit conflict. Jetwindy-☎️-✈️ 20:24, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- Fine by me. The eariler dispute was resolved once @~2026-72635-4 made clear what they were doing. I brought this discussion because I wanted the user to make clear what they were doing from the get-go. Other users here have pointed out their wrecking-ball approach and their back-and-forth in edit summaries, instead of on talk pages. I did not want that to continue and that is all I am asking. Thanks. GigachadGigachad (talk) 22:48, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
User:~2026-23744-89 and User:~2026-21640-75 for edit warring and content dispute
Both users are presumably the same person here, are attempting to edit war, over an improper way to spell a word, and at this point throwing insults such as "You are strongly recommended to study the English language before reverting edits based on your current limited understanding." essentially just calling me stupid here. JLN2026 (talk) 14:15, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
- No insults have been made.
- Also, it has been politely explained to the editior why their reverts, and edit comments and 'warnings', are erroneous ann inappropriate.
- To quote the explaination 'The spelling "per cent" is the traditional and preferred form in many formal style guides and dictionaries. The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) lists "per cent" as the primary spelling, noting it is an abbreviation of the Latin per centum. Similarly, The Guardian/Observer style guide explicitly states to use "per cent" as two words and the Cambridge Dictionary recognises it as the standard spelling.The phrase "years his junior" is a standard idiomatic construction in English where "junior" acts as a noun or post-positive adjective to indicate a relative age gap. Both Merriam-Webster and Oxford define "junior" as "someone who is younger than another person." This construction is used frequently in formal journalism and literature (e.g., "she was ten years his junior"). Grammatically, "years" functions as an adverbial objective to quantify the extent of the juniority, identical in structure to saying something is "five miles long" or "two inches tall.'
- — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-23744-89 (talk) 14:19, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
- Agreed. "26 years his junior" is absolutely fine, but "26 years younger than he" is not - the correct way of constructing this would be "26 years younger than him" or "26 years younger than he was". Black Kite (talk) 14:22, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
- I think it was the wrong diff - they're referring to this change of "per cent" Vs "percent". The former is an older British spelling and the latter is American but is very commonly used in the UK too.
- Basically it's a pointless change, especially when it comes to edit warring over it. Blue Sonnet (talk) 14:27, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
- Yes, although the IP is correct about the one I mentioned, which the OP also reverted twice. Black Kite (talk) 14:38, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
- Yep, the other version is just awkward to read. Blue Sonnet (talk) 22:00, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
- Yes, although the IP is correct about the one I mentioned, which the OP also reverted twice. Black Kite (talk) 14:38, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
- for one, that very last sentence was throwing an insult "based on your current limited understanding." Pretty sure I take this as an insult. For starters, just based on grammar and structure of your sentences, that you're from overseas. Your way of spelling is different than hours. At this point there's no right or wrong way. JLN2026 (talk) 14:25, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
- 'Pretty sure I take this as an insult.' You are entitled to take a comment however you wish, whether such is consitent with the intent or not.
- 'you're from overseas.' How can one be 'from overseas' on the WORLD Wide Web? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-23744-89 (talk) 14:32, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
- At this point i’m done replying to you, this is becoming pointless because you’re sitting there and over analyzing what I’m saying here for some reason. Its like talking to a brick wall. JLN2026 (talk) 14:40, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
- Oh, the irony. The 'brick wall' accusation hurled by the very person who has tried to build a fortress around their own mistakes. To claim a lack of progress in discussion, while refusing to move an inch from proven errors, is the height of cognitive dissonance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-23744-89 (talk) 14:54, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
- At this point i’m done replying to you, this is becoming pointless because you’re sitting there and over analyzing what I’m saying here for some reason. Its like talking to a brick wall. JLN2026 (talk) 14:40, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
- "Younger than he" isn't technically incorrect, but it's also a rather archaic usage. Modern usage would usually call for him, not he, as the pronoun. There's a famous one-liner that is actually directly on point; if anyone remember the episode of The Simpsons in which Homer had a barbershop quartet, there was a reference to a song written about Mr. T and Homer awkwardly responded with "I pity the fool who doesn't like...he."
- This is really just a minor grammar dispute that both of you should keep from escalating. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:37, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
- I can remain silent no longer.
Younger than he
is not only "technically correct", it's just plain the only correct formulation (vsyounger than him
), is not at all archaic, and is the only acceptable for in formal writing (such as our articles).younger than him
is unobjectionable as a colloquialism (the theory being, it is said, that than functions as a preposition), but it has no place in articles at all, ever. EEng 18:09, 17 April 2026 (UTC)- I will bow out of this one because in my opinion, nothing gets me acting like a jerk like grammar fight! lol CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 18:12, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
- I can remain silent no longer.
- The edits I made to the articles were minor and intended solely to improve the standard of the language. Another editor reverted them on baseless grounds, such as erroneously claiming that 'per cent' is incorrect. Furthermore, and most egregiously, they posted inappropriate warnings on talk pages despite being in error themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-23744-89 (talk) 14:43, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
- We're here focusing on behavior not content. I believe both of you should make more of an effort to reach an agreement on the language. ANI is supposed to be a last resort thing. To be blunt, both of you are small-scale edit-warring. JLN was too aggressive at reversions once there was clearly a dispute, and your language was far too sharp for a minor dispute like this. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:19, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
- Posting a message here was by JLN, and was as inappropriate as their reverts, edit summaries and warning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-23744-89 (talk) 15:22, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
- Agreeing with you here. At this point, I no longer care for this. I don't think we're going to come to an agreement here, but I'm moving forward to edit another day. IP user is just going to repeat themselves over and over again regarding inappropriate use of warnings and reverts and such.
- Although one of those warning is 100% not inappropriate, asking them to utilize the edit summary to explain the removal and changing of content to avoid confusing is not inappropriate. This is the last of my take on anything, I'm moving on. JLN2026 (talk) 15:29, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
- Evasion and subterfuge continues, now compounded by a further succession of groundless allegations. It would be most prudent for the editor to concede that they have been repeatedly in error, and henceforth endeavour to achieve more exacting standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-23744-89 (talk) 15:40, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
- No, it would be "most prudent" for you to drop the damn stick and move on. We can see right here that you don't yourself have clean hands, and no one's going to grovel for you. Ravenswing 17:02, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
- Please explain when I have insinuated, let alone asked, for anyone to grovel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-23744-89 (talk) 17:30, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
- "You called it "most prudent" for JLN2026 to "concede that they have been repeatedly in error, and henceforth endeavour to achieve more exacting standards." That sounds pretty like groveling to me. And Ravenswing is write. Drop the stick, don't dig the hole deeper, and walk away. There's plenty of Wikipedia for everyone. 🚂ThatTrainGuy1945 Peep peep! 17:40, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
- Well, that's one interpretation of the intent of my comment. An erroneous one, but one nonetheless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-23744-89 (talk) 17:58, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
- Ok, so we've confirmed that everyone's broadly correct & this is a bit of a mountain out of a molehill. Can everyone please agree to move on before things escalate?
- Whether we each prefer one version or another, there are millions of articles out there with bigger issues that need fixing.
- Changing from one correct version to another correct version (e.g. "percent" to "per cent" and back again) isn't really improving articles -unless you're specifically working towards getting a specific article to GA status, perhaps - and just fills up watchlists.
- There are more egregious errors out there that you both could do a lot more good with; the Wikipedia:Typo Team have bespoke searches for things like weasel & promotional wording - things that really do need fixing wherever possible and that truly improve Wikipedia.
- If that's your preferred type of editing, perhaps you could explore this further? Blue Sonnet (talk) 22:12, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
- Well, that's one interpretation of the intent of my comment. An erroneous one, but one nonetheless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-23744-89 (talk) 17:58, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
- "You called it "most prudent" for JLN2026 to "concede that they have been repeatedly in error, and henceforth endeavour to achieve more exacting standards." That sounds pretty like groveling to me. And Ravenswing is write. Drop the stick, don't dig the hole deeper, and walk away. There's plenty of Wikipedia for everyone. 🚂ThatTrainGuy1945 Peep peep! 17:40, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
- Please explain when I have insinuated, let alone asked, for anyone to grovel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-23744-89 (talk) 17:30, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
- No, it would be "most prudent" for you to drop the damn stick and move on. We can see right here that you don't yourself have clean hands, and no one's going to grovel for you. Ravenswing 17:02, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
- Evasion and subterfuge continues, now compounded by a further succession of groundless allegations. It would be most prudent for the editor to concede that they have been repeatedly in error, and henceforth endeavour to achieve more exacting standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-23744-89 (talk) 15:40, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
- We're here focusing on behavior not content. I believe both of you should make more of an effort to reach an agreement on the language. ANI is supposed to be a last resort thing. To be blunt, both of you are small-scale edit-warring. JLN was too aggressive at reversions once there was clearly a dispute, and your language was far too sharp for a minor dispute like this. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:19, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
- Agreed. "26 years his junior" is absolutely fine, but "26 years younger than he" is not - the correct way of constructing this would be "26 years younger than him" or "26 years younger than he was". Black Kite (talk) 14:22, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
Miss Universe India and its 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.
Due to the general sanctions for the beauty pageants, the following article pages will be indefinitely semi-protected:
- Miss Universe India (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Miss Universe India 2024 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Miss Universe India 2025 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Since 2024, Miss Universe India is a beauty pageant best known for the beauty pageant titleholders. Miss Universe India has nothing to with American actress Holly Hunter. ~2026-23768-83 (talk) 23:25, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
- Why are you posting this at ANI? This page is for resolving chronic behavioural disputes between editors. Blue Sonnet (talk) 00:23, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
Action Required Urgently- Elected official 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.
Dear Administrators I come with you today with an urgent request. I recently wrote and article about an Elected official In PA Juan Tafolla
The article us independent sources like the Daily Local (Wikipedia Page), Chester County Press, Vista Today and many other sources. The Article was first rejected and I was given the option to put in a dispute board which, I was given the option to move it to main space. Where a misunderstanding seem to happened. The article was nominated for deletion by a user only two people have commented it for the deletion which is due tomorrow. I was then banned by someone until I was able to come to a consensus on that I will not due edit on the articles Which prevents me from evening participating in the deletion board. I ask for you to undo this please, I have learned my lesson and could have handled the situation better.
The main reason I am seeking your help today is that I received information that the person who I wrote the article about who was grateful to be on Wikipedia is concerned that when you open his Page there is a domination for deletion with people questioning his nobility. Which according to them it has caused some people to question in Person.
My only intention was to write this article about a historic moment in my state where this person became the youngest current elected official in PA, USA and has a career built out with reliable sources cover him.
I feel bad for Mr. Tafolla receiving backlash for an article I wrote that has nominated for deletions.
I ask of you administrator to please intervein in this matter with one
1. Allowing the page to remain up and remove the Nomination and allow me and other editors to add more to Mr. Tafolla page as more creditable sources come out I have counted 25 articles on Google that could further contribute to the article from more independent sources.
2. Move the page back into my sandbox so I can edit and work with others to improve the article. This would require the Topic ban to be lifted.
I feel guilty in writing this article and it being nominated for deletion by someone and it causing some concern and drama to Mr. Tafolla who has no connection to this.
Thank you for your time and consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheEditorPA1776 (talk • contribs) 00:36, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
- Aren’t you topic banned from the article Juan Tafolla, broadly construed? This post would be a breach of that ban. • a frantic turtle 🐢 00:54, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
- If I recall correctly, I can dispute the ban in "the near future" which is what I am asking technically. TheEditorPA1776 (talk) 00:55, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
- Where were you told you could appeal so quickly? 331dot (talk) 00:58, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
- "This would be a WP:Topic Ban which you could then appeal at some point in the future." TheEditorPA1776 (talk) 01:10, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
- Where were you told you could appeal so quickly? 331dot (talk) 00:58, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
- If I recall correctly, I can dispute the ban in "the near future" which is what I am asking technically. TheEditorPA1776 (talk) 00:55, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
- Hi! A week ago, you were conditionally unblocked by @Star Mississippi with a topic ban on Juan Tafolla:
If you are willing not to edit about Tafolla at all (no article, no deletion discussion, no asking editors about the article outside of this discussion here) I'd be willing to unblock you now.
(emphasis mine)Beyond the fact that administrators aren't allowed to stop deletion discussions against consensus, you should not be requesting other users to edit the article or its deletion discussion to circumvent your own topic ban. While you can appeal the topic ban, this request does not have the elements of an appeal, as it appears instead to be trying to "escalate" the dispute through appeals to authority, which is not how consensus discussions work on Wikipedia.If you wish to appeal your topic ban, you should show a track record of positive contributions to other articles, as well as the ability to disengage from the disputes that led to your block to begin with. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 00:57, 18 April 2026 (UTC)- Thank you for the reply, I have disengaged with any disputes with anyone regarding the article, since my banned it seems I've made peace with the person who banned my account and nominated it. No bad intention here with asking Admin to see if they can help with the process of the article. I was ultimately asking for a topic ban to be removed and the article moved into my space, so If granted can work on the comments brought forth by fellow editors and go through the whole process with civility and no back and forth and patients to when the time is right to repost the article. due to not wanting to loose the work i did. TheEditorPA1776 (talk) 01:04, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
- You were only unblocked a few days ago, you'll need to show a prolonged history of productive editing on other areas (usually suggested as a minimum of six months & a few hundred edits) before appealing.
- When notability is questioned on Wikipedia, we're only talking about our definition of notable and not the general understanding of the term - it's regrettable that people are talking to them in person about it (also a bit weird if only two people commented on it) but this is a Wikipedia-only notability definition and process.
- I hope you understand why this can't be moved into your sandbox for you to work on - you cannot touch the subject at all and need to act as if the article/subject doesn't exist whilst editing Wikipedia. Deleted articles can be undeleted by admins if/when it's warranted. If he's Wikipedia notable, another independent editor is free to create another article if they want.
- Whatever happens will need to happen without you, hopefully Mr Tafolla will understand. He is of course free to contact Wikipedia separately, if he has any concerns about the article/deletion. Blue Sonnet (talk) 01:27, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
- Thank you, who can they reach out to. So we can finally drop this. TheEditorPA1776 (talk) 01:30, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
- Well, it would depend on his concern; the article has been deleted and he wouldn't be able to insist that we write a new article, for example. That would have to happen naturally by the community, should an independent editor feel he is Wikipedia-notable.
- He (or an employee) could write a draft via the Wikipedia:AFC process and make it clear that it's written by a COI/paid editor. That's honestly really hard to do, so it isn't recommended.
- Most importantly he should definitely watch out for scammers who say they can write/protect/recreate an article for pay, that's happening a lot right now. Read WP:SCAM & try to make sure he sees it too.
- Otherwise, if he has any privacy or legal concerns he can email info-en-q@wikimedia.org for assistance. Blue Sonnet (talk) 01:42, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
- Thank you, who can they reach out to. So we can finally drop this. TheEditorPA1776 (talk) 01:30, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
- If you ever should have your topic ban removed, you can request a WP:REFUND. The process that was followed was correct; the article was nominated for deletion by an editor in good standing, and then closed by another editor in good standing as Delete after evaluating consensus and policies/guidelines. Any editor in good standing may file a request at WP:DELETIONREVIEW (not you, as you are not an editor in good standing on this topic).
- While you are allowed to request removal of the topic ban, it would be highly unusual for a topic ban to removed after a week without some kind of error in process. Especially considering no edits on other topics were made, and you violated that topic ban with both your post here and at WP:AARV. If you'd like to revisit the Tafolla article some day, your best is to spend six months or a year making constructive edits on unrelated topics, and then requesting a review. But for now, for all intents and purposes, you should consider Tafolla as not even existing on Wikipedia. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 01:32, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
- Thank you for the reply, I have disengaged with any disputes with anyone regarding the article, since my banned it seems I've made peace with the person who banned my account and nominated it. No bad intention here with asking Admin to see if they can help with the process of the article. I was ultimately asking for a topic ban to be removed and the article moved into my space, so If granted can work on the comments brought forth by fellow editors and go through the whole process with civility and no back and forth and patients to when the time is right to repost the article. due to not wanting to loose the work i did. TheEditorPA1776 (talk) 01:04, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
User Publicusername1234 - LLM and
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.
Persistant WP:LLMDISRUPT and POV violations.
Publicusername1234 appears to be using LLM for interaction with others and in editing. @Diannaa: wrote to Publicusername1234 , Your comment appears to have been written by a chatbot. If you have something to say, please write your own comment.
, while addressing Publicusername1234's reverting without discussion to include copyright-violating content.
At Talk:January 2025 Gaza war ceasefire, Publicusername1234 engaged in LLMDISRUPT, removed by @QuicoleJR: and @Theleekycauldron: .
More recently, is involved in edit-warring at *Annalena Baerbock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), ignoring a request by @Nillurcheier: to discuss the content. - Hipal (talk) 17:12, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
- I've simply indeffed them, there's too much wrong here, especially on BLPs. They can explain themselves via an unblock request. Black Kite (talk) 17:32, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
Egregious WP:NOTHERE
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Dew-ch_bagGGGgy_EYEZ_2847 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has left an incredibly disruptive message on User talk:I emit foul odors (That user can be addressed later). I came across their message while on patrolling recent changes. Courtesy link to the message: TheClocksAlwaysTurn (The Clockworks) (contribs) 14:09, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- ummm.... what the (mind my french) frick is that talk page shane (talk to me if you want!) 14:11, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- Believe me, I didn't expect it either. TheClocksAlwaysTurn (The Clockworks) (contribs) 14:13, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- Both of these users look like AIV material. Swift blocks for both would be uncontroversial, and I have a leaning that a checkuser check would turn up curious results. Viva la horde, ~ GoatLordServant(Talk) 14:14, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- All 3 are probably connected to each other to cause chaos shane (talk to me if you want!) 14:16, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- Yeah that third one is also questionable. Nakonana (talk) 14:42, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- Concur. Leroy McGillicuddy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has similar edit filter log hits. rsjaffe, there is another. Viva la horde, ~ GoatLordServant(Talk) 14:44, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- One AN/I leads to a barrel of blocks! TheClocksAlwaysTurn (The Clockworks) (contribs) 14:46, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- You two beat me to it! 🚂ThatTrainGuy1945 Peep peep! 14:46, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- Concur. Leroy McGillicuddy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has similar edit filter log hits. rsjaffe, there is another. Viva la horde, ~ GoatLordServant(Talk) 14:44, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- Yeah that third one is also questionable. Nakonana (talk) 14:42, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- While usually rope would be best, most likely they'd hang themself as soon as they're given even the most small amount. TheClocksAlwaysTurn (The Clockworks) (contribs) 14:17, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- All 3 are probably connected to each other to cause chaos shane (talk to me if you want!) 14:16, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- Ignoring the username issues for the purpose of this discussion, “odors” has offensive edit summaries and seems to be playing with Wikipedia, and their template knowledge implies this ain’t their first rodeo here. Blocked.
- “bag” had some useful edits in the past, but anyone who could write what they did on odors’ page isn’t welcome here. Blocked — rsjaffe 🗣️ 14:35, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- I actually had no choice but to screenshot this absolute cinema of a message. Holyyyy. (Talk) PHLOGISTON ENTHUSIAST 14:39, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- @Phlogiston Enthusiast:, I sent a similar message to shane, but it is best you heed the advice of WP:DFTT. Viva la horde, ~ GoatLordServant(Talk) 14:41, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- Odors' user page needs to be blanked, as it has two middle finger emojis and the flag of Israel. TheClocksAlwaysTurn (The Clockworks) (contribs) 14:59, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks Train, I'll be leaving a cookie for you :) TheClocksAlwaysTurn (The Clockworks) (contribs) 15:05, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- I actually had no choice but to screenshot this absolute cinema of a message. Holyyyy. (Talk) PHLOGISTON ENTHUSIAST 14:39, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- Leroy McGillicuddy, the third user on that completely insane fracas, also left this comment on the Tanganyika (1961-1964) page. I cannot tell if they are related in any way, as they edited in 2025 before returning today. Their edit here followed one by Iefm. 🚂ThatTrainGuy1945 Peep peep! 14:43, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- The three accounts are obviously coordinated over the past 24 hours, whether as meat puppetry or sock puppetry. Besides odors' userpage, all three in a short span of time edited Hans Küng. Bizarrely enough, those edits look generally beneficial, though I'm not familiar with the subject. @Leroy McGillicuddy has not engaged in as severe behavioral transgressions as the other two and has never been warned.
- My impression is that we're dealing with 3 young friends who are messing with us and with each other. I'm going to issue a 31-hour personal attack block for McGillicuddy. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:37, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- My god, it's full of socks! Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Leroy McGillicuddy — rsjaffe 🗣️ 03:36, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
- Found some more socks dropping by asilvering's user page. Sasquatch t|c 08:38, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
- Hot damn, I never expected my first AN/I report to end up with a whole washing machine full of socks! TheClocksAlwaysTurn (The Clockworks) (contribs) 12:13, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
- Well, when we get two accounts, than discover a third that coordinated randomly to one user talk page, it's bound to turn up with more. And that is quite a sockfarm. Called it! Viva la horde, ~ GoatLordServant(Talk) 12:19, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
- I checked out the SPI, and I’m surprised some of them didn’t get flagged for UAA TheClocksAlwaysTurn (The Clockworks) (contribs) 12:26, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
- Well, when we get two accounts, than discover a third that coordinated randomly to one user talk page, it's bound to turn up with more. And that is quite a sockfarm. Called it! Viva la horde, ~ GoatLordServant(Talk) 12:19, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
- My god, it's full of socks! Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Leroy McGillicuddy — rsjaffe 🗣️ 03:36, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
Endemic COVID-19 protection dispute
Worstbull (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (reporting)
ToBeFree (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Roxy the dog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Endemic COVID-19 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Endemic COVID-19 is currently protected on a version whose opening sentence, "COVID-19 is an endemic disease according to most experts", was introduced by banned sockpuppet User:Ben639457 in December 2025 (diff). The cited source does not support the "most experts" claim, and is not WP:MEDRS-compliant. A multi-week talk page discussion in February 2026 produced a neutral consensus version (oldid=1340359392) by User:WhatamIdoing, which was stable for three weeks.
In March 2026, a second sock (User:~2026-15730-88) disrupted this version. Admin User:Ponyo restored it via WP:BANREVERT. User:Roxy the dog then repeatedly reverted back to the sock's version (diff diff diff; the last revert was after the ANEW report was filed), without engaging in the talk page discussion beyond a personal attack ("Bullshine. On stilts." diff). I acknowledge my later reverts on 15 March went beyond pure BANREVERT by adding sourced WHO/CDC material (diff).
Admin User:ToBeFree protected the page on Roxy's preferred version. I placed an {{edit fully-protected}} request per WP:Protection policy, identifying the stable pre-edit-war version. ToBeFree reverted this request (diff), later acknowledging this was an error: "sorry, I had overlooked the part of the protection policy that suggested the addition of the {{edit fully-protected}} template." I attempted resolution on ToBeFree's talk page (diff) and Ponyo's talk page (diff) without success.
Requesting:
- Reversion to the consensus version (oldid=1340359392) per WP:Protection policy: "Editors convinced that [...] protection has rewarded edit warring or disruption by establishing a contentious revision, may identify a stable version prior to the edit war and request reversion to that version."
- An uninvolved administrator to handle further actions, as ToBeFree has acknowledged procedural errors in this matter.
- Review of User:Roxy the dog's conduct (edit warring without discussion, continuing after ANEW filing).
Full documentation of prior resolution attempts and detailed timeline: see this earlier version.
Worstbull (talk) 07:46, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
- (Involved comment). This might require a TBAN as WP:boomerang. Many elements of the report are false or omit major fact:
- The combativeness (e.g. ) and borderline bludgeoning by Worstbull has made it more difficult to find compromises on the article talk page. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:27, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
- The bludgeoning is perhaps more visible at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Endemic COVID-19 where W posted 18 times. The misrepresentation of sources (e.g. and ) is more worrying and not compatable with editing in a contentious topic. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 09:52, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
- WP:ASPERSIONS This thread is about the article leed and behavior of banned socks, and the state of the article their actions left behind, not about me. The AfD you present as "proof" was created by myself, and lasted over several weeks, of course I responded to questions and participated in the discussion. There is no misrepresentation of sources. I've presented a list of definitions for the term "endemic" here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Endemic_COVID-19#Definitions_of_'endemic' - the majority of them support the claim "geographically limited area". The term "native" stems from the original meaning of the term "endemic" itself (native in the people) and is still used in definitions today. Also I want to make it very clear, that apart from the one mentioned revert, I have never touched any article in this topic, unlike Femke themself (example explained here), I only participated in the discussion. Worstbull (talk) 13:39, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
- The bludgeoning is perhaps more visible at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Endemic COVID-19 where W posted 18 times. The misrepresentation of sources (e.g. and ) is more worrying and not compatable with editing in a contentious topic. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 09:52, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
- I don't see how any version can be said to be stable given the edit history here. Also regardless of Roxy's unfortunate non participant in the discussion, I do not see anything close to consensus in this discussion Talk:Endemic COVID-19#On main framing which also hasn't been touched for several weeks. Unfortunately until and unless consensus is achieved, every version is going to be the wrong version. Why don't you work on establishing a consensus version with editors willing to discuss and once you've done so, ask for unprotection and/or change to this consensus version? If Roxy refuses to take part in this discussion establishing consensus and then comes back and reverts to their version, there's a reasonable chance they may be blocked or banned, but I just don't see it at this time when their preferred version seems to be just as wrong as your preferred version because there's simply no consensus. Nil Einne (talk) 08:30, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
- Thank you. The consensus version I am referring to (oldid=1340359392) was the result of a multi-week discussion in the "Unscientific" and "On main framing" sections of the talk page, established by User:WhatamIdoing on 24 February 2026. It was stable for three weeks before being disrupted. I am happy to continue working toward consensus on the talk page. Worstbull (talk) 08:34, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
- No there's no sign that's ever been stable, it can't be when it was changed so fast. And the discussion no matter how long, involved too few participants that there can be said to be a clear consensus when more editors joined who oppose it (which seems to be more than Roxy). I'd note now that we've established it was only ECP protected for most of the time, that the vast majority of editors could have reverted to that version if they felt it was clearly the stable version or had clear consensus. I'm guessing they didn't because they know it doesn't. But also I'll repeat my main point. Why on earth are you spending all this time trying to get some to revert to that version rather than doing what you should be doing which is establishing a clear consensus for some version? You're making the mistake which unfortunately a lot of editors make of thinking the way to "win" a dispute is by forcing your version into the article until no one reverts you. It's not. Wikipedia is not Fortnite. No editor should "win" a dispute by being the last person to revert and that includes Roxy but it also includes you. The proper en Wikipedia policy backed solution is to work together and establish some consensus on what our articles should say and not give a damn about what it says in the interim while you establish this consensus. (With some narrow exceptions for cases where it's severe enough e.g. BLP.) The much more important thing is the long term version which is what needs to be worked on now, and not some short term fight over what the article says while you're working on it. If you're not willing to spend the time to establish a consensus tough cookies. And again if Roxy doesn't take part tough for them. If you establish a proper consensus, any continued reverts from Roxy against a consensus discussion they didn't take part in just means they'll be blocked. Nil Einne (talk) 07:26, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
- The problem with "establishing a consensus" is that the sources don't exist. We get a lot of news sources ("Paul Politician said it's endemic now!") from one side and passing mentions in primary scholarly sources ("the ongoing pandemic") from the other side, but no solid sources that directly address how to tell whether COVID is endemic vs still pandemic vs seasonally epidemic and which one it is at this particular point in time. Students of infectious disease will recall that Influenza is all three of these states at different time, and it's reasonable to expect COVID will be all three, too. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:19, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
- RE: ‘forcing your version into the article’ – There is a misunderstanding here, and you are accusing me of things that are not true.
- I have never changed anything in the article myself (with the one exception that, in the course of the reverts, I once added WHO and CDC citations to better substantiate the old version).
- I have never tried to ‘force anything into the article’; so far, I have participated exclusively and exhaustively in the discussion on the talk page, unlike all the other participants, who did repeated changes, often without participating in the discussion, even when asked to.
- I would like to clarify once again that the current, non-WP:MEDRS-compliant sourced version of the leed/intro section of the article originates from two banned sockpuppets. It was introduced by one banned sockpuppet in December 2025, and then reverted back by another banned sockpuppet following BANREVERT.
- The current version does _not_ originate from a legitimate editor. Worstbull (talk) 10:05, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
- I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that. For example, Wikipedia:Who Wrote That? says that the first sentence was written by four different editors: It's true that one was blocking for WP:SOCK violations, and there have been problems with occasional socking in that article for a while. The thing to do now is to find an agreement about what we're going to have on the page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:44, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
- So what? Can you also explain why the lead sourcing should comply with MEDRS? - Walter Who mentioned Pearl Harbour? Ego 18:50, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
- No there's no sign that's ever been stable, it can't be when it was changed so fast. And the discussion no matter how long, involved too few participants that there can be said to be a clear consensus when more editors joined who oppose it (which seems to be more than Roxy). I'd note now that we've established it was only ECP protected for most of the time, that the vast majority of editors could have reverted to that version if they felt it was clearly the stable version or had clear consensus. I'm guessing they didn't because they know it doesn't. But also I'll repeat my main point. Why on earth are you spending all this time trying to get some to revert to that version rather than doing what you should be doing which is establishing a clear consensus for some version? You're making the mistake which unfortunately a lot of editors make of thinking the way to "win" a dispute is by forcing your version into the article until no one reverts you. It's not. Wikipedia is not Fortnite. No editor should "win" a dispute by being the last person to revert and that includes Roxy but it also includes you. The proper en Wikipedia policy backed solution is to work together and establish some consensus on what our articles should say and not give a damn about what it says in the interim while you establish this consensus. (With some narrow exceptions for cases where it's severe enough e.g. BLP.) The much more important thing is the long term version which is what needs to be worked on now, and not some short term fight over what the article says while you're working on it. If you're not willing to spend the time to establish a consensus tough cookies. And again if Roxy doesn't take part tough for them. If you establish a proper consensus, any continued reverts from Roxy against a consensus discussion they didn't take part in just means they'll be blocked. Nil Einne (talk) 07:26, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
- Thank you. The consensus version I am referring to (oldid=1340359392) was the result of a multi-week discussion in the "Unscientific" and "On main framing" sections of the talk page, established by User:WhatamIdoing on 24 February 2026. It was stable for three weeks before being disrupted. I am happy to continue working toward consensus on the talk page. Worstbull (talk) 08:34, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
- If it wasn't for extended-confirmed protection, Worstbull would probably still be restoring their preferred revision. Being unable to do so yet still extremely unhappy about not having gotten what they wanted, they're now here.
This is one big {{edit extended-protected}} request made on the wrong page. It would probably be declined like the previous {{edit fully-protected}}, which in hindsight should just have been declined normally by anyone (instead of removed by me) pointing to the lack of consensus. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:09, 11 April 2026 (UTC)- I don't have much to say about the behavioral issues, but here's a little background on the science, for anyone who doesn't understand why the article is "obviously" wrong:
- "Pandemic" does not mean disruptive, and "endemic" does not mean life as usual. For example, I suspect that many ANI regulars will be surprised to learn that they have been living through a cholera pandemic for the last 65 years. It's possible for COVID-19 to "be" a pandemic and also for that pandemic to have very little effect on most people. This has been a particular problem for COVID-19 because news sources tend to quote political appointees and others who are using the terms loosely, and even in a peer-reviewed medical article, a passing mention may not be intended to be a declaration of meeting certain technical criteria but as a vague handwave towards "since things aren't as complicated as they used to be".
- There are long-standing disagreements among experts about whether a seasonal disease pattern (e.g., for influenza) is a True™ endemic disease (vs an epidemic disease). Consequently, even if experts magically had all the data lined up in front of them, there are plausible/fairly likely scenarios in which some of them would say "See? I told you it was endemic, because the caseload is a relatively stable 4% per year overall" and others would look at the same data and say "Nonsense, it's obviously a seasonal epidemic, because you can easily see that the variation in prevalence from the lowest month to the highest month within a year is significantly more than two standard deviations!" Wikipedia has no role in settling this long-term dispute among experts; instead, we should say that different definitions exist, and educate readers that it's possible for COVID-19 to be endemic by one definition and not by another.
- The transition from pandemic to endemic (or anything else) is only visible in hindsight. This means that it will "be" endemic before we can "prove" it's endemic (assuming it's ever truly endemic). Experts have been talking about this particular transition likely requiring several years, which means that there is a significant chance that the Wikipedia article will not match reality for a couple more years, no matter what the article says. Our job is to follow the WP:MEDRS-quality sources, rather than to match reality/any editor's beliefs about reality.
- Should anyone be granted three magic wishes from a genie, please consider putting "high-quality sources about COVID-19" somewhere on your list. I'd particularly like one that clearly outlines the definitions and equations they're using before getting to the yes/no/maybe question. In between now and that happy day, expect this article to be a constant source of disputes by editors who "just know" that the POV they see in their filter bubble is the One True™ View. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:43, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
- Two standard deviations? Are you 95% sure of that? Narky Blert (talk) 18:17, 11 April 2026 (UTC)?
- Please feel free to deposit favorite stats geek jokes here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:55, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
- Just wish for a genie that'll give you infinite wishes and then you can have everything! A perfect Wikipedia... 🚂ThatTrainGuy1945 Peep peep! 14:00, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
- Two standard deviations? Are you 95% sure of that? Narky Blert (talk) 18:17, 11 April 2026 (UTC)?
- I don't have much to say about the behavioral issues, but here's a little background on the science, for anyone who doesn't understand why the article is "obviously" wrong:
- Hello, could an uninvolved admin please have a look at this?
- Since I've got attacked again here by them, I want to also highlight that User:Femke's behavior in this matter is also noteworthy. In the middle of the discussion, even after stating themselves that they couldn't find any WP:MEDRS conform sources for their claims (pandemic is over, COVID is endemic) they pushed exactly that statement into the main COVID-19 article (plus in other sections of the article). And they launched a massive attack against me based largely on false and fabricated claims, without following the required procedures. Just like above. For example with "warnings" based on fabricated claims on my talk page (which they later admitted), and even more drastically elsewhere: For example, an hour after my own edit war report on the same matter, Femke filed a second one against me (while the reported editor continued the edit war), using fake diffs as evidence, and did not follow the procedures (notification to the reported user). The admin involved (same one, ToBeFree) looked over it when notified. That's why I think it's so important to have an uninvolved admin step in, please. And maybe look into a potential topic ban for Femke, please.
- And once again I want to highlight, that I haven't touched any of the articles in this topic at all, not once. I only tried to enforce the BANREVERT which is absolutely allowed and even encouraged by the rules (admittedly at one revert I added WHO/CDC backed statements/quotes to strengthen the original argument). So the claim that I am trying to "force" my version into the article by admin ToBeFree and NilEinne above are not true. I just heavily participated in the discussion. Worstbull (talk) 08:41, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- Uninvolved admin here. Worstbull, someone discussing you bludgeoning a discussion is not an attack in the meaning of WP:NPA. Changing text using references you don't think meet MEDRS is not anything admins need to take action on. Look up WP:DR and keep on calmly discussing the best wording using the best available sources. Your approach looks like WP:BATTLEGROUND to me and I don't think you'll benefit from keeping this thread open. If you genuinely want a topic ban for Femke, you need to make your case much more convincingly than them reporting you for edit warring. Fences&Windows 19:51, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- Fences and windows Thank you, I want to note that this is not the main issue of this thread, that I am hoping for a decision for. I found it noteworthy to show that particular user's message in context, since they were very fast to reply not on the actual issue but with attacks on my person and style. They did this before, often in a manipulative way. For example, accusing me of "bludgeoning" because I replied 18 times on a certain page, while failing to mention that the page in question was an AfD page that **I created**, whose discussion lasted several weeks. And where, of course, I responded to questions and comments. I absolutely agree, that I should gather more evidence, but I also am certain that this needs to be treated in a different thread, after this one has been concluded. Their message below is another example - it's not true that they "just replaced one source with another", no they actually completely changed the content, which is obvious from the diff I shared. I don't think that this is a constructive way of handling sensitive topics, when there is a massive lack of transparency and truthfulness. In the meaning of the word "bludgeoning" as "attacks", I consider their own behavior against me a form of "bludgeoning", because they are always there when I take part in a discussion, and immediately drive away from the main topic and try to focus the discussion on my behavior instead. I don't sense any form of willingness to work together constructively to resolve the issues in the articles. I think the correct term here is WP:ASPERSIONS. I am not at war here, all I'm trying to do is to bring this from a discussion about preferences and feelings to a level of discussing actual epidemiological reality. I have contributed to the debate by presenting a massive amount of thoroughly researched sources on the question of "pandemic or not" and on the definition of "endemic." I’ve invested countless hours in research and discussed the results on the talk page, while others simply push their preferred version into the articles using non-compliant sources, time and time again. This shouldn’t be a discussion about *my* behavior, honestly—I think I deserve some respect. Regarding the content: reality is, that experts disagree, and the article should reflect that especially in the lead, not "somewhere in the article". Until we all agree on that, there will be a continuous conflict, with no end in sight. WhatamIdoing explained this already further above. I've proposed a new leed that reflects that reality. --Worstbull (talk) 12:51, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
- In re This shouldn’t be a discussion about *my* behavior, honestly—I think I deserve some respect.: This is WP:ANI; this is the place to discuss editors' behavior. If you don't want your behavior discussed, then you should not have posted here. See WP:BOOMERANG; there is no "immunity" for you just because you came here to complain about someone else. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:03, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
- How about: 'transparency and truthfulness deserves some respect'. My thread here is primarily not about some editor's behavior. It's about the current state of the article, which needs urgent attention, because in its current state - caused by two socks - the lead, especially the first line(s), is spreading harmful misinformation, even though the rest of the article - as you have laid out - corrects some - not all - of it. The 'offenders' have long been banned. Worstbull (talk) 22:45, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
- This is ANI; this is not the place to address problems with an article's contents. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:21, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
- It is when it was caused by a disruption. This isn't a content dispute; it's about sockpuppet reverts, edit warring without discussion, and a procedural error in applying page protection. Worstbull (talk) 23:27, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
- No it's not. We only deal with user behaviour here and let the content be sorted as it should be on the talk page by editors who are allowed to participate in discussion over and when it's clear from the discussion that it's appropriate, by editors editing the article when they can. And yes when we are dealing with user behaviour we deal with the behaviour of everyone involved in the dispute including the starter of any thread. Nil Einne (talk) 23:29, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
- It is when it was caused by a disruption. This isn't a content dispute; it's about sockpuppet reverts, edit warring without discussion, and a procedural error in applying page protection. Worstbull (talk) 23:27, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
- This is ANI; this is not the place to address problems with an article's contents. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:21, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
- How about: 'transparency and truthfulness deserves some respect'. My thread here is primarily not about some editor's behavior. It's about the current state of the article, which needs urgent attention, because in its current state - caused by two socks - the lead, especially the first line(s), is spreading harmful misinformation, even though the rest of the article - as you have laid out - corrects some - not all - of it. The 'offenders' have long been banned. Worstbull (talk) 22:45, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
- In re This shouldn’t be a discussion about *my* behavior, honestly—I think I deserve some respect.: This is WP:ANI; this is the place to discuss editors' behavior. If you don't want your behavior discussed, then you should not have posted here. See WP:BOOMERANG; there is no "immunity" for you just because you came here to complain about someone else. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:03, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
- I agree - a personal attack focuses on you as an individual person, not the actions you take.
- Editors are free to say that someone is editing poorly or acting unreasonably, for example, but they can't say that a person is an idiot, stupid, call them names etc.
- The focus should always be on what an editor is doing, not who the editor is. Blue Sonnet (talk) 22:04, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- A small response (on holiday): I did replace a 2024 non-MEDRS source with two 2025 non-MEDRS sources, because there did not seem to be any MEDRS sources available after exhaustive search. Not sure what these fake diffs refer to (perhaps my prior warning for battleground behaviour instead of specifically for edit warring?), but I did notify W about the 3RR report, as the link in the report shows. I'm always open to compromise. The discussion is still quite repetitive, but is now slowly moving in a more productive direction. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 07:47, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
- WP:ASPERSIONS is also a form of attack. Worstbull (talk) 13:42, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
Avoid claiming that someone is casting aspersions just because they have a different opinion, have exaggerated a situation, or have overreacted to an everyday event (e.g., if they call your edit "vandalism").
Blue Sonnet (talk) 14:16, 17 April 2026 (UTC)- Maybe we need a page for Wikipedia:I felt this slightly reduced my social status or Wikipedia:I experienced some feelings of rejection. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:08, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
- I was wondering whether to reply before Worstbull replied to F&W but decided to leave it since it didn't that much. I actually somewhat disagree with most others here in that I think bludgeoning accusations can be personal attacks just like accusations of vandalism. However since bludgeoning is much more open to interpretation and is something an editor can do without intending to cause harm, it's a much more difficult for it to be so. But still if someone accuses someone else of bludgeoning and there's nothing remotely like it and perhaps the accuser even refuses to show any diffs this is IMO a personal attack. If it only happens once probably nothing will happen other than a warning. But if an editor keeps making such accusations, or worse if they keep saying someone is bludgeoning and the community has already said, yeah no they're not then it might be severe enough for sanction. Definitely not here hough since there is enough from Worstbull that it was a fair accusations to make. To be clear, I don't mean I agree, I don't really know whether it quite crosses the level. But regardless there's enough there that it's not a personal attack. And it also only happened here. So it's not something to deal with. Nil Einne (talk) 23:35, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
- Maybe we need a page for Wikipedia:I felt this slightly reduced my social status or Wikipedia:I experienced some feelings of rejection. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:08, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
- Fences and windows Thank you, I want to note that this is not the main issue of this thread, that I am hoping for a decision for. I found it noteworthy to show that particular user's message in context, since they were very fast to reply not on the actual issue but with attacks on my person and style. They did this before, often in a manipulative way. For example, accusing me of "bludgeoning" because I replied 18 times on a certain page, while failing to mention that the page in question was an AfD page that **I created**, whose discussion lasted several weeks. And where, of course, I responded to questions and comments. I absolutely agree, that I should gather more evidence, but I also am certain that this needs to be treated in a different thread, after this one has been concluded. Their message below is another example - it's not true that they "just replaced one source with another", no they actually completely changed the content, which is obvious from the diff I shared. I don't think that this is a constructive way of handling sensitive topics, when there is a massive lack of transparency and truthfulness. In the meaning of the word "bludgeoning" as "attacks", I consider their own behavior against me a form of "bludgeoning", because they are always there when I take part in a discussion, and immediately drive away from the main topic and try to focus the discussion on my behavior instead. I don't sense any form of willingness to work together constructively to resolve the issues in the articles. I think the correct term here is WP:ASPERSIONS. I am not at war here, all I'm trying to do is to bring this from a discussion about preferences and feelings to a level of discussing actual epidemiological reality. I have contributed to the debate by presenting a massive amount of thoroughly researched sources on the question of "pandemic or not" and on the definition of "endemic." I’ve invested countless hours in research and discussed the results on the talk page, while others simply push their preferred version into the articles using non-compliant sources, time and time again. This shouldn’t be a discussion about *my* behavior, honestly—I think I deserve some respect. Regarding the content: reality is, that experts disagree, and the article should reflect that especially in the lead, not "somewhere in the article". Until we all agree on that, there will be a continuous conflict, with no end in sight. WhatamIdoing explained this already further above. I've proposed a new leed that reflects that reality. --Worstbull (talk) 12:51, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
- Uninvolved admin here. Worstbull, someone discussing you bludgeoning a discussion is not an attack in the meaning of WP:NPA. Changing text using references you don't think meet MEDRS is not anything admins need to take action on. Look up WP:DR and keep on calmly discussing the best wording using the best available sources. Your approach looks like WP:BATTLEGROUND to me and I don't think you'll benefit from keeping this thread open. If you genuinely want a topic ban for Femke, you need to make your case much more convincingly than them reporting you for edit warring. Fences&Windows 19:51, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
Suspected off-site canvassing and COI editing by M.Ghobrial.Cockerill
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.
M.Ghobrial.Cockerill (suspected of being a sockpuppet of James Bertrand 8 operating throwaway accounts involved in COI editing in National Iranian American Council) disclosed himself 1 2 to be running a Twitter account in support of the National Iranian American Council, which has been making calls to external audience to target the article 3 (by appealing to conspiracy theories).
His calls were followed by a stream of anon-driven disruptive editing in the article 4. Despite his denial of connections to the group, his editing history shows that he appears to be a single-purpose account whose sole goal of participation is to portray the group in a far more positive light 5 6 7 8 than what is encouraged by Wikipedia policies. HamburgHamburger (talk) 16:46, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
- You've not notified the other editor, this is a requirement as per the notice when you left this report.
- This is your first ever edit, it's unusual to see a brand new user at ANI and you haven't mentioned that the SPI in question was closed due to a complete lack of evidence - you must have seen this since you linked to it. I must please ask whether you yourself may have any other accounts? Note that I'm not commenting on the merits of this report since it's rather serious, just this one aspect. Blue Sonnet (talk) 18:41, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
- Pinging @The Bushranger: as they admin protected the article just so they are aware. S0091 (talk) 19:25, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
- As the Bush correctly noted, that entire page is full of socks, disputed neutrality, and reverts and re-reverts. I assume this is simply the spillover (from what side, I will not remark on). 🚂ThatTrainGuy1945 Peep peep! 00:12, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- i don't see an explicit call to external audiences to target the wikipedia article in the twitter thread. is simply posting criticism of wikipedia articles on twitter considered off-wiki canvassing?
- if you keep going back through the edit history, you'll see that the article has been edit warred by temporary accounts and IP addresses for months before his twitter thread
- i don't think the diffs show that he is trying "to portray the group in a far more positive light than what is encouraged by Wikipedia policies." other editors have also made similar critiques of the content, sources, and neutrality of the article. the article is in fact tagged as "neutrality disputed" Rainsage (talk) 19:39, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
- Hey, I never canvassed anyone to edit this page. I simply exposed the outrageous biases and violations of policy on the NIAC page. I edit in my own name for purposes of transparency. I am not a sock puppet and no evidence was provide for these ridiculous charges. M.Ghobrial.Cockerill (talk) 23:56, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
- @HamburgHamburger The SPI you linked was closed five days before your post because, in the words of the handling administrator, "no evidence has been provided". Your comment here is an aspersion and, unless you have actual evidence of sockpuppetry, I strongly recommend striking it. Toadspike [Talk] 01:30, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
Calrification regarding blocked editors and RfCs
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.
EasternShah (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Q: Are comments made by editors blocked during the course of an active RfC (or other formal discussions) considered for determining consensus? Is it fine to strike them in all cases?
Context: Regarding this edit (by ActivelyDisinterested). I had originally struck the comments for the user being banned recently in toto for ARBPIA vios. The comments were for an RfC in another contentious topic space (WP:CT/SA). Was it correct/incorrect to strike these and/or should they be marked in some form? Gotitbro (talk) 20:10, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
- Also pinging blocking admin: @CoconutOctopus:. Gotitbro (talk) 20:11, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
- Said user was not blocked when he made the comment, nor is he blocked for socking; I see no reason the comment should be struck. CoconutOctopus talk 20:12, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
- Agreed. If an editor had editing priviledges at the time, then their comment deserves to be considered along with all others. Whether the comments have merit, or the closing admin considers them convincing etc is up to them, but they should be considered on the same level as any other comment. They should not be struck. Canterbury Tail talk 21:00, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
- Would it have been appropriate to strike the comments I they had a WP:CT/SA topic ban? E.g. if they had been blocked for evading a topic ban that included the subject of the RFC? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:33, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
- Yes - G5 applies to contributions made in breach of a topic ban as well. The above comment that Gotitbro removed is covered by a different CTOP - it is entirely unrelated and should not have been struck. CoconutOctopus talk 21:35, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks for clarifying. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:36, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
- Yes - G5 applies to contributions made in breach of a topic ban as well. The above comment that Gotitbro removed is covered by a different CTOP - it is entirely unrelated and should not have been struck. CoconutOctopus talk 21:35, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
- Said user was not blocked when he made the comment, nor is he blocked for socking; I see no reason the comment should be struck. CoconutOctopus talk 20:12, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
- Ultimately, consensus is determined based on the strength of the various arguments presented in relation to Wikipedia's PAGs, standards and norms. If the blocked user presents a good argument, then the closer should consider it; if they don't, then they shouldn't. Block status is sort of irrelevant. Athanelar (talk) 16:09, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
User:Jupune making Legal Threats(ish?)
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.
see here
You are in danger showing a strong bias that should be illegal.
feels legal threatish to me. LakesideMinersCome Talk To Me! 21:19, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- Jupune, who is editing for the Houston Saengerbund, is upset by the draft's rejections. (I only commented on malformed citations, and did not mention anything about the actual content). They have accused Wikipedia of refusing to "support ethnic culture minorities as the Houston Saengerbund represents." Finally, they point to Opera in the Heights' Lambert Hall (which is poorly sourced to be honest). I will say that the references they use are somewhat COI and not proving of notability. @Jupune, you are welcome to reply here or strike the comment, although I do not see it that much as a legal threat as LM does. 🚂ThatTrainGuy1945 Peep peep! 21:46, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- Hench the ish LakesideMinersCome Talk To Me! 23:04, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- A comment that something 'should be illegal' reads very much like an acceptance that it actually isn't: which means that this can't really be interpreted as a legal threat, as I see it. If someone wishes to live in a world where 'bias' (defined by whom?) is actually against the law, that's down to them, but as of now, that isn't the case. And accordingly we are fully entitled to be 'biased' against content not meeting our policy requirements, just like any other website. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:04, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- User:Roxy the dog has a good bit on that on their user page. 🚂ThatTrainGuy1945 Peep peep! 22:08, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- I'm fairly sure that user:Guy Macon was the originator of that list. It's been around a long time. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:14, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- See WP:GOODBIAS. In particular, note that User:Guy Macon/Yes. We are biased.#Recommended usage specifically says "cut and paste the entire thing (copy from the edit page so the links don't get lost) without attribution (it is CC0, so no attribution is required)" Everything I write is CC0, not CC BY-SA 4.0, so you never have to give me credit or attribution. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:44, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- I'm fairly sure that user:Guy Macon was the originator of that list. It's been around a long time. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:14, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- User:Roxy the dog has a good bit on that on their user page. 🚂ThatTrainGuy1945 Peep peep! 22:08, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- I don't know what they are saying.
- Also, check ref 3, it's published by the Saengerbund. Note that too. Jetwindy-☎️-✈️ 22:34, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
Talk page abuse blocked user User:Iloveelrenoef6
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.
LTA vandal
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.
~2026-23851-26 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · Edit filter search · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · blacklist hits · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Google · StopForumSpam) – Adds «Norwegian Stew» in random articles or articles that @Znuddel or I have recently edited and/or reverts a recent edit from one of us. We are both no-Wiki sysops, and this kid targets us here, where we cannot interfere. He is known to change IP adresses and even use proxy to evade blocking and continue the vandalism.
Same person as recently seen:
- 19th February: Special:Contributions/~2026-11153-76
- 5th April: Special:Contributions/~2026-21058-73
- 6th April: Special:Contributions/~2026-21283-34
- 6th April: Special:Contributions/~2026-21195-75
- 13th April: Special:Contributions/~2026-22891-77
- 18th April: Special:Contributions/~2026-24030-68
If you look at these user's activity and talk page, you will understand that a total block, including revoke TPA, is necessary.
This has been ongoing since 2024. I made a request for WP:LTA listing, but since it back then was a cross wiki issue, my suggestion was not taken into account. Over the last months he has exclusively vandalised here at en-Wiki, so maybe an LTA would be appropriate now? That way, patrollers and admins will know what they’re dealing with, and can act swiftly. My request from October-November 2024 was moved to m:User:1000mm/Reports/CheeseSupport. 1000mm (talk) 15:04, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
- User was blocked, then changed user ID / IP and continues: ~2026-24030-68 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · Edit filter search · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · blacklist hits · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Google · StopForumSpam) 1000mm (talk) 15:32, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
- @1000mm: We tend not to create new WP:LTA listings unless there is an overwhelming need to, per WP:DENY. The TAs you've listed have all now been blocked. For now, continue reporting them to WP:AIV. Thanks! Aydoh8[what have I done now?] 15:53, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
User:Raskuly
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.
Raskuly is reverting my attempts of trying to remove his harassment talk page comment towards me. I refuse to answer his question but he's attempting to try and force me to. See proof at: Talk:2026_Kyiv_shooting — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fawvelli (talk • contribs) 23:38, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
User:45dogs
Confirmed to a bunch of LTA vandals. If more show up, report to WP:SPI. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:24, 19 April 2026 (UTC)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.
WP:HOUNDING me. See Marcella Evaristi Fawvelli (talk) 02:35, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
- Not a ANI issue. Closing ANI thread immediately. —KuyaMoHirowo (talk • contribs) 02:38, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
- Hounding? Based on two edits? This doesn't pass the sniff test as presented. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v MUSHROOM 02:38, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
- And while we're at it, this edit is plain unacceptable. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v MUSHROOM 02:40, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
- I wouldn't be so quick to close this just yet. There's something more worrying going on here, in that they've accused two separate users of harassing them based off of what seems to be the bare minimum of contact. Fawvelli, would you care to explain why you're so quick to accuse both Raskuly and 45dogs of harassment based off of more-or-less incidental contact with you? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v MUSHROOM 02:53, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
- See also this ridiculous CoI templating regarding an article on a series of wars that ended in 1779. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:56, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
- See also also the reversion of a question being asked which led them to start AN/I thread above:
- @Fawvelli, you understand (and have seen and blanked multiple notices to this effect ) that deletion of other people's edits on talk pages is broadly seen as disruptive to discussion, correct? Eyesinthefire (talk) 03:14, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
- See also this ridiculous CoI templating regarding an article on a series of wars that ended in 1779. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:56, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
- What did 45dogs even do? shane (talk to me if you want!) 03:07, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
- Reverted their CSD tagging of Marcella Evaristi as invalid, got a talk page comment of theirs reverted by Fawvelli who invoked a creative application of WP:Deny recognition, and edit-warred over a COI tag on Vida the Vet (Fawvelli was looking to add it sans consensus). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v MUSHROOM 03:12, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
- Edit warring at Vida the Vet was definitely not my finest work. I shouldn't have reverted post opening the talk page section, though I was hoping this revert would encourage Fawvelli to actually discuss instead of just re-adding the tag. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 03:18, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
- Their reverting off your earnest request on the talk page with that edit summary is pretty revealing. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v MUSHROOM 03:20, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
- Edit warring at Vida the Vet was definitely not my finest work. I shouldn't have reverted post opening the talk page section, though I was hoping this revert would encourage Fawvelli to actually discuss instead of just re-adding the tag. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 03:18, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
- Reverted their CSD tagging of Marcella Evaristi as invalid, got a talk page comment of theirs reverted by Fawvelli who invoked a creative application of WP:Deny recognition, and edit-warred over a COI tag on Vida the Vet (Fawvelli was looking to add it sans consensus). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v MUSHROOM 03:12, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
- And it looks like a Checkuser's just blocked Fawvelli as a sockpuppet. (Of whom, I dare not speculate.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v MUSHROOM 03:22, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
Persistently disruptive edits by RojasDawson
RojasDawson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Since joining, RojasDawson has persistently made disruptive and unsourced edits to multiple articles, especially those related to Pokémon. Here are a few examples:
- They added an unsourced claim. Even after being warned, they added it again. They later replied on their talk page that they had forgotten to add a source.
- On Pokémon (TV series), they changed one sentence from "Ash Ketchum is the main protagonist of the series for the first twenty-five seasons" to "Ash Ketchum is the main protagonist of the anime series for the first twenty-five seasons". However, this edit was reverted by another user with a valid reason. They then repeatedly re-added the same content at least four times .
Their talk page contains multiple warnings, but their behaviour has continued without improvement. Media Mender (chat, stalk) 08:08, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
Persistent trivial changes by at least four temporary accounts
I hate to have to report this, but this person is being persistent about making trivial changes that have been contested. Their edits have been reverted and they've been notified on their talk pages, but they haven't shown any effort to discuss before making the same sort of changes again, they just keep slowly edit warring.
The straw that broke the camel's back is revision 1349701900 today on Montreal. Its only fault is WP:AINTBROKE (or WP:NOTBROKEN), but I already specifically notified them about NOTBROKEN and AINTBROKE before and warned them about making this type of edit on Montreal (once for each account). In addition to changing from "Saint Lawrence" to "St. Lawrence" unnecessarily, previous edits include adding Toronto to the lead, which I contested as undue weight.
All edits on Montreal:
- Special:diff/1349701900 - 14:51, 18 April
- Special:diff/1349681625 - 12:37, 18 April
- Special:diff/1346945244 - 20:03, 3 April
- Special:diff/1346038545 - 15:59, 29 March - This one's fine, but the edit summary is rude
- Special:diff/1346019098 - 13:29, 29 March
- Special:diff/1345010001 - 20:26, 23 March
- Special:diff/1341851651 - 12:45, 5 March
- Special:diff/1339204168 - 13:15, 19 February
- Special:diff/1326738160 - 16:00, 10 December - This one's fine
- Special:diff/1326358012 - 14:59, 8 December - This one wasn't explicitly reverted
- Special:diff/1325591659 - 23:52, 3 December - This one's reasonable. It breaks WP:NOTBROKEN and WP:GEOLINK, but no big deal.
- Special:diff/1325591017 - 23:46, 3 December - This one wasn't explicitly reverted
Here are some more examples:
- Minneapolis: edited > reverted > redid
- Toronto: edited > reverted > redid
- Neigh: edited > reverted by me > redid
- City of Brussels - I don't quite follow what's happening, but they've been going back and forth with User:Jason Lagos, who has warned them a few times (example April 7)
Note that they often make helpful changes at the same time as redoing undone changes, and they usually don't use an edit summary (even though I asked them to break up large edits and use edit summaries).
I have temp account IP viewer permission and I've seen up to 8 associated temporary accounts, but it's not clear how affiliated they are.
Thanks — W.andrea (talk) 17:38, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks for raising this issue, W.andrea! I can confirm that most of that IP user's edits involve changing or removing measuring codes for no obvious reason (see here and here), as well as adding unnecessary links and superfluous details to articles (see here and here). While these are not huge problems per se, they clearly show no sign of cooperating or stopping their disruptive editing, even displaying signs of defiance (see here), despite countless warnings from multiple users, including myself. Jason Lagos (talk) 18:15, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
- Well, to be clear, it's up for debate whether certain changes have "no obvious reason" or are "unnecessary" or "superfluous". The real problem is that this person just keeps redoing those changes after being told to stop and discuss ("no sign of cooperating or stopping", as you said). — W.andrea (talk) 18:37, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
- I've protected Montreal and am prepared to do similar for other affected pages. Deb (talk) 19:07, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
- I do not think it is really up for debate that most of their changes are unnecessary or disruptive. They repeatedly contravene WP:NOTBROKEN, MOS:GEOLINK and MOS:BADEMPHASIS (see here), in addition to not properly following Template:Convert. They have been warned over fifteen times across multiple temporary accounts, so these repeated offences are just another nail in their coffin, in my opinion. Jason Lagos (talk) 19:08, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
- @W.andrea and Deb: IP has been at it again in the last few hours, wrongly adding links and modifying measurements (1 2 3) and edit warring (4 5). And, as expected, there is still no response from them, either on their userpage or on this noticeboard. Protecting a single article is simply not enough. If this does not warrant a block, I do not know what does... Jason Lagos (talk) 07:30, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
- Well, to be clear, it's up for debate whether certain changes have "no obvious reason" or are "unnecessary" or "superfluous". The real problem is that this person just keeps redoing those changes after being told to stop and discuss ("no sign of cooperating or stopping", as you said). — W.andrea (talk) 18:37, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
Jordan the Namco Gamer adding copyrighted content
Jordan the Namco Gamer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This user keeps on adding copyrighted contont in fact, earlier I've moved the page Sonic 3 - Angel Island Revisited over to draft becaue it had no sources, but when I came back to check on the draft after i've moved the draft, the article and the draft were going to be deleted due to copyright violations. In fact, the article Sonic 3 - Angel Island Revisited was deleted a few times here that user was uploading files with false information about the source and copyright status in the past. I think this user has to learn a lesson ~ŤheŴubṂachine-840≈ 00:11, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
- He's created the same article three times now. I tagged the original article as A7, which was then deleted. It appears it was then recreated, you draftified it, and it's again been recreated, this time as a clear copyvio. StartOkayStop (talk) 00:34, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
- G12 was declined by @Whpq as the source was under a Creative Commons license. In my opinion that means there's no reason for a block now, though I am seriously concerned that they've not responded to most of their talk page warnings. Unless they understand that copying sources is not okay, they're bound to get into real trouble eventually. Toadspike [Talk] 01:51, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
- Unattributed copying of compatibly licensed material is still a form of copyright violation. I've given them a warning to let them know they must provide attribution. If they do it again, then we can decide what further action is needed. -- Whpq (talk) 01:54, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
- FYI, I've redirected their article yet again, though it was more in the grounds of failing the GNG and it being a pretty sloppy Wikipedia article more than anything. Sergecross73 msg me 14:04, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
- Unattributed copying of compatibly licensed material is still a form of copyright violation. I've given them a warning to let them know they must provide attribution. If they do it again, then we can decide what further action is needed. -- Whpq (talk) 01:54, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
- G12 was declined by @Whpq as the source was under a Creative Commons license. In my opinion that means there's no reason for a block now, though I am seriously concerned that they've not responded to most of their talk page warnings. Unless they understand that copying sources is not okay, they're bound to get into real trouble eventually. Toadspike [Talk] 01:51, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
New user NadejdaJoleva8794 is continuing their unsourced additions
NadejdaJoleva8794 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is making unsourced additions to Eurasian sparrowhawk in much the same way as was done by three successive TAs:
- ~2026-24024-12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- ~2026-23229-40 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- ~2026-23885-16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
They have been given more than enough warnings to merit a block. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:36, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
- I have pblocked them from the article and semi-protected it for a month. Black Kite (talk) 14:09, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
Suspected inappropriate use of temp. IP, GAMING, HOUNDING
Hello all, I want to report what I consider to be an inappropriate use of temporary IP/accounts. I'm writing here for advice, and if admins deem it necessary for further action.
I suspect this User Lanceloth345 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to be behind the majority of the IP edits that I will present below.
- I proposed Lori Hoxha for deletion here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lori_Hoxha. Among those that voted and commented are two IPs. This ~2026-23725-17 voted . This ~2026-23828-21 commented .
- (Lanceloth is the creator of the page. He has contested the NONreliability of teksteshqip.com (defended it) )
- In the Talk:Lori Hoxha initially there is opposition from an IP ~2026-21329-72 Diff - April 6. The same IP then goes to complain about me on the TeaHouse Archived Full discusion, saying: "this user is kind of conflictual with agressive tendence also at other wikis/metas specially at sq wiki.". He was complaining about me calling teksteshqip.com un-reliable. I subsequently opened this discussion on the Reliabe Sources noticeboard. The main account now presents the same non arguments.
- The article Kristi Lamaj, Deletion proposal my be was created by User:NickFratelo, subsequently edited by a temp IP, and then moved to mainspace by Lanceloth345 action history.
- He has done several edits complaining to other editors/admins in the sq.wiki (Albanian Wiki) about my edits on en.wiki. Diff 1, Diff 2, Diff 3. Diff3 is him complaining on sq.wiki about me proposing Kristi Lamaj for deletion due to lack of notability.
- If you check his new page creation history there are several other examples of this behavior, creating pages throught IP then moving to mainspace with main account: 1 example. My complaint here does not concern the articles notability or not, do with them what you think appropriate.
- Other IP edits, to reinforce argument on pattern of behavior and WP:HOUNDING is this where an IP edits anarticle I just created on en.wiki. The same article exists on sq.wiki was created by an IP and few hours latter approved by Lanceloth345 .
- Even more IP edits immediately after I create an article
- On this other article I created another IP again mentions sq.wiki , saying: "page is in discussion at sq wiki for deletion, almost all pages autthor created are subject of deletion"
- The reason why I suspect this is sockpuppetry is that, after this comment of mine on Disc.Del.LoriHoxha, I havent seen him of any other IP edits following me aroung.
- Lanceoth verbally abusing me saying: "Hallucinated/agressive edits by unregistered user"
My complaints are:
(1). Malicious WP:GAMING through the use of IP edits.
(2). Malicious WP:HOUNDING because not only are my cross wiki activities being tracked and badmouthed on en.wiki and sw.wiki, but the author/s behind these IP edits is clearly personally tracking, targeting and editing my activity.
(3). This activity breaks the Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry#Inappropriate_uses_of_alternative_accounts, specifically using IP sockpuppetry, in order to avoid scrutiny, editing while logged out to mislead, contribute to the same page or discussion with multiple accounts etc. I think a Checkuser is warranted, but will not insist on it.
Finally, I wellcome and I politely ask to express your thoughs for other possible actions, non actions, and also advice on my behavior. Thank you!--G. L. Talk 13:26, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
- I am sorry that you take place here continuing to take this as "personal attack" made by me, as per Ip adressing , WP:Gaming or WP:Hounding you are wrong. It is your beahaviour first started with sq wiki admins and editors not me, i invite sq wiki admins below : @Leutrim.P , @Fallbackintoreality @Klein Muçi to partecipate as involved editors giving opinion. I have edit,created and lastly reviewed a lot af articles with good faith and good desire to contribute at Wikipedia specially at Albanian-related topics and i will always be open forst in consensus, discussion or opinion ( that is not searched by you first). Thank you for your time. Lanceloth345 (talk) 14:56, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
- Hello! I don't have much context regarding the specific issues being discussed here, so I'll keep this brief and limited to general background.
- From my experience on the Albanian Wikipedia (sqwiki), the user GLOBALIST LIBERTARIAN has been involved in a number of recurring disagreements with active contributors. I've tried to advise them on their general approach in the past, including noting that many of their edits focus on politically related topics, which can sometimes raise tensions and, at times, come close to WP:PUSH. These issues have come up on more than one occasion. For those willing to go down the Albanian rabbit hole of links, this thread may serve as a starting point: link; I'm willing to provide extra context if needed.
- This is about as much as I can reasonably add. - Klein Muçi (talk) 02:46, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
- You should know better not to partecipate here WP:VOTESTACKING, because you are intentionally derailing the discussion away from his alleged temp IP abuse & suspected sockpuppetry, with attacks about my intentions, again giving credence to WP:HOUNDING. Also, you have nothing to say about such edit summaries coming from Lanceloth345, saying "Hallucinated/agressive edits by unregistered user"? G. L. Talk 06:10, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
- As reiterated in sq.wiki, Lanceloth seems to think you're unregistered because you don't have a profile page. You chose not to have a profile page, otherwise you're registered. Anyway I've been monitoring the situation very closely with the IP edits, which have followed G.L. a lot over the past few days. They reek of VPN activity and we may need the attention of a check user for this. Fallbackintoreality (t • c) 14:57, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
- You should know better not to partecipate here WP:VOTESTACKING, because you are intentionally derailing the discussion away from his alleged temp IP abuse & suspected sockpuppetry, with attacks about my intentions, again giving credence to WP:HOUNDING. Also, you have nothing to say about such edit summaries coming from Lanceloth345, saying "Hallucinated/agressive edits by unregistered user"? G. L. Talk 06:10, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
Reporting user ~2026-23742-93 for vandalism
Removing source unnecessarily calling it unreliable though WP: ICTF does not mark it as unreliable
1.https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mrunal_Thakur&diff=prev&oldid=1349455032
Reverting with no cause
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Do_Deewane_Seher_Mein&diff=prev&oldid=1349455348
reverting with no cause
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mrunal_Thakur&diff=prev&oldid=1349456133
reverting with no cause
~2026-23103-07 (talk) 12:28, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
- Reason is very simple: removal of critics reviews those were negative to film and criticising Mrunal Thakur'# character in films. ~2026-23742-93 (talk) 12:31, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
- All those negative reviews exist on the page as citations. They were not removed.
- Text of negative reviews go to movie page and not actor page.
- User ~2026-23742-93 only wants text of negative reviews in the actor page.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mrunal_Thakur&diff=prev&oldid=1349456133 ~2026-23103-07 (talk) 13:04, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
- All reasons for removals were provided in talk page. ~2026-23742-93 (talk) 12:46, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
- No, they were not.
- nof for this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Do_Deewane_Seher_Mein&diff=prev&oldid=1349455348
- and whole set of 4-5 changes were reverted for one possible debatable change instead of discussing one possible debatable change.
- ~2026-23103-07 (talk) 13:11, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
- No, they were not.
- Another instance. this one with false reasons and text:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mrunal_Thakur&diff=1349463368&oldid=1349462487 ~2026-23103-07 (talk) 13:05, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
- Critics summary is provided. I am not removing positive reviews. Just like that stop removing negative reviews. Reasons for all edits were provided in talk page. ~2026-23742-93 (talk) 13:06, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
- Stop removing critics reviews https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mrunal_Thakur&diff=prev&oldid=1349464603 ~2026-23742-93 (talk) 13:12, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
- As I have explained repeatedly
- Text of positive reviews of movies do not exist on actor page.
- neither do text of negative reviews.
- only summary of critics reviews exist.
- both positive and negative reviews text go to movie wiki pages. Only summary on actor pages. This has summary (mixed) and citations to both positive and negative reviews. Review review citations have been untouched.
- adding negative reviews text of movies in actor page again and again is vandalism.
- If we keep on adding positive/negative reviews of movies in actor, it becomes very very long.
- Those go to the movie wiki pages.
- ~2026-23103-07 (talk) 13:13, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
- According to whom "Text of positive reviews of movies do not exist on actor page.
- neither do text of negative reviews.
- only summary of critics reviews exist.
- both positive and negative reviews text go to movie wiki pages. Only summary on actor pages. This has summary (mixed) and citations to both positive and negative reviews. Review review citations have been untouched.
- adding negative reviews text of movies in actor page again and again is vandalism.
- If we keep on adding positive/negative reviews of movies in actor, it becomes very very long.
- Those go to the movie wiki pages."? ~2026-23742-93 (talk) 13:15, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
- As I have explained repeatedly
- Text of positive reviews of movies do not exist on actor page.
- neither do text of negative reviews.
- only summary of critics reviews exist.
- both positive and negative reviews text go to movie wiki pages. Only summary on actor pages. This has summary (mixed) and citations to both positive and negative reviews. Review review citations have been untouched.
- adding negative reviews text of movies in actor page again and again is vandalism.
- If we keep on adding positive/negative reviews of movies in actor, it becomes very very long.
- Those go to the movie wiki pages. ~2026-23103-07 (talk) 13:13, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
- "unnecessarily calling it unreliable though WP: ICTF does not mark it as unreliable" Who said they are unreliable sources? ~2026-23742-93 (talk) 13:14, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
- Stop removing critics reviews https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mrunal_Thakur&diff=prev&oldid=1349464603 ~2026-23742-93 (talk) 13:12, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
- Critics summary is provided. I am not removing positive reviews. Just like that stop removing negative reviews. Reasons for all edits were provided in talk page. ~2026-23742-93 (talk) 13:06, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
- What is going on here? @~2026-23103-07 and @~2026-23742-93, please calmly and succently tell us what is going on in full sentences without sniping at each other. 🚂ThatTrainGuy1945 Peep peep! 13:23, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
- Simply removing critics reviews with sources since they crticize that Mrunal Thakur actress and her films. ~2026-23742-93 (talk) 13:24, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
- I'm not either of these people, but I have been peripherally involved, in that I made an edit before this devolved into an edit war. Essentially this is a content dispute over whether a paragraph in the article Mrunal Thakur should include quotations from some reviews of one of Thakur's movies or not. I warned both editors about edit warring a short while ago, but both have made more reverts since. AntiDionysius (talk) 13:27, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
- This is what actually happening there at that article, Simply removing critics reviews with sources since they crticize that Mrunal Thakur actress and her films ~2026-23742-93 (talk) 13:28, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
- Actually, my mistake, the dispute seems to include some other articles as well. But the edit warring is chiefly happening at Mrunal Thakur. AntiDionysius (talk) 13:32, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
- Hi,
- User @~2026-23742-93 as been reverting changes without reason or with incorrect reasons.
- He has been removing reliable sources from pages.
- 2 He has been adding full text of movie reviews in actor page. (specifically negative ones only)
- Those reviews already exist on the movie page and are untouched there.
- In actor page, only summary of movie reviews should exist along with citations to both positive and negative reviews.
- I removed the text of reviews from actor page and kept the citations. he is falsely calling that as removing negative reviews. ~2026-23103-07 (talk) 13:28, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
- which was reliable sources I removed? Those sources with twitter references are reliable sources according to you? ~2026-23742-93 (talk) 13:29, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
- You removed critics reviews of performances also.
- You are just blanket undoing all changes instead of pointing out one thing you have problem with and discussing. ~2026-23103-07 (talk) 13:35, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
- Hi admins, any action on ~2026-23742-93 for vandalism and possible sockpuppetry? ~2026-23103-07 (talk) 14:28, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
- Is this sockpuppetry? TAIP viewer tells me that ~2026-23742-93 is blocked from editing a laundry list of pages for "block evasion", especially Indian movies and Bollywood-related articles. I also notice that edits such as this were caught by an LTA filter. Somepinkdude (talk) 13:31, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
- Quite possible that it is a sockpuppet.
- I think this ~2026-23809-58 may also be a sockpuppet of ~2026-23809-58 ~2026-23103-07 (talk) 13:33, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
- Sock puppet of itself? (
peanut gallery comment) LithyLithium (talk) 13:35, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
- sorry, I meant ~2026-23809-58 might be a suckpuppet of ~2026-23742-93 ~2026-23103-07 (talk) 13:36, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
- Both TAs have been using the same IP address according to TAIP, as well as the behavioral comparison. Somepinkdude (talk) 13:40, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
- sorry, I meant ~2026-23809-58 might be a suckpuppet of ~2026-23742-93 ~2026-23103-07 (talk) 13:36, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
- Sock puppet of itself? (
- which was reliable sources I removed? Those sources with twitter references are reliable sources according to you? ~2026-23742-93 (talk) 13:29, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
- I have protected both Mrunal Thakur and Do Deewane Seher Mein. Dr vulpes (Talk) 20:56, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks. I request you to change it to semi-protected and have it for a week or two.
- 6 months of extended-confirmed-protected may be a bit excessive IMO. Just my opinion. ~2026-23103-07 (talk) 16:30, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
- @Dr vulpes.
- Please consider my request as mentioned above. ~2026-23103-07 (talk) 16:32, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
- You may request a change of protection over at WP:RFPP but at this time I will not remove change it. Looking at the Mrunal Thakur article we have a BLP article with over ~115,000 views over the last 30 days. Since July 2024 there have been about 200 or so reverts, 44 in the last 90 days, 28 in the last 30 days, 26 in the last week. Article is high traffic and showing a pattern of escalating editing disputes. Dr vulpes (Talk) 16:52, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
- Ok, thank you. I have requested the reduction in protection level (not removal)
- Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Decrease#Dacoit: A Love Story
- Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Decrease#Mrunal Thakur ~2026-23103-07 (talk) 19:18, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
- You may request a change of protection over at WP:RFPP but at this time I will not remove change it. Looking at the Mrunal Thakur article we have a BLP article with over ~115,000 views over the last 30 days. Since July 2024 there have been about 200 or so reverts, 44 in the last 90 days, 28 in the last 30 days, 26 in the last week. Article is high traffic and showing a pattern of escalating editing disputes. Dr vulpes (Talk) 16:52, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
User:Angelita Linares disruptively editing, ignoring all feedback
- Angelita Linares (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User has a mix of productive and disruptive edits, but the problem is they keep making disruptive edits and ignoring all feedback given in response. See their talk page for evidence of some of the feedback and ignored warnings. I propose a block until they begin recognizing and responding to feedback. Tagging users who've dealt with this user before: @Paper9oll: @Orangesclub: @45dogs: @MeetHoneyBee: @D.18th: @Bloomingbyungchan: grapesurgeon (talk) 14:02, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
- Agree that a block is warranted until they show a clear understanding of the relevant guidelines and policies. Other editors have already tried to explain the issues, but that has not changed their conduct. They continue to disregard concerns over minor edits and keep removing large amounts of content without explanation while marking those changes as minor. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 17:05, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
Yet more juvenile vandalism by Coddlebean
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.
Coddlebean (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · Edit filter search · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · blacklist hits · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Google · StopForumSpam) has been on ANI previously due to juvenile vandalism such as this and it did not seem to dissuade the user from even more outright juvenile vandalism like this a few days ago. In general, there does not seem to be much of a desire by this user to WP:ENGAGE on talk as this pattern of WP:NOTHERE behavior seems to continue. What are the next steps here? - Amigao (talk) 16:59, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
- I have indefinitely blocked Coddlebean for utterly unacceptable BLP related vandalism and trolling. Cullen328 (talk) 17:25, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
user:~2026-24104-02
Same harraser as user:~2026-11570-94, user:~2026-89502-2, etc. sapphaline (talk) 08:58, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
- @Arcticocean: may I ask you for renewal of my temporary account IP viewer right? It's clear that they're not going to stop any time soon. sapphaline (talk) 09:00, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
- And you probably should also renew my talk page protection. sapphaline (talk) 09:11, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
- Also user:~2026-24084-49. Can some admin please stop this obvious trolling and global block evasion? sapphaline (talk) 10:08, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
- Blocked both. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 10:19, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
Request
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 look at the page history and say me: does it legal to make some decisions like one UwSC did (User with Sufficent Contribution means)? I intentionally don't write her name to avoid her scripts. ~2026-24084-49 (talk) 10:04, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
- Hi! Which page or user are you talking about? You are required to clearly inform whichever user that you are reporting to ANI through a talk page message. Additionally, your talk page state that
I accidentally log off previous account.
Do you mean another temporary account of yours, or a permanent account? Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 10:09, 19 April 2026 (UTC)- @Chaotic Enby: see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#user:~2026-24104-02. sapphaline (talk) 10:14, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
- About this page; temporary account, and about Sapphaline. ~2026-24084-49 (talk) 10:15, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
- Well that was an easy block to make. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 10:19, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
Editor gamed for ECP
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.
Pa-Chee-No gamed the system by making entirely unnecessary edits to achieve ECP right. Check these edits: Orientls (talk) 01:27, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
Massive disruptive editing
TheArameanOfMidyat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User has repeatedly, despite multiple warnings, blanked and removed content from Israelite–Aramean War. When that page was ultimately protected by User:Daniel Case, they have now shifted their focus to Abgar V (diff) where they have once again blanked massively sourced content to replace it with unsourced dubious material. When warned about that action they responded here saying that page didn’t have a single source
. The page, in fact, had (and now has again after I reverted their blanking) 35 sources that this user removed.
Their ramblings on their own talk page indicate no intention of following wikipedia policies and need to be blocked from the article space (at least) unless and until they can follow policy. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 23:03, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
- I do follow them and also you aren’t able to read it seems if you actually checked the sources. Wikipedia Admins this person is relentlessly reporting me for no reason claiming it under “policy”. TheArameanOfMidyat (talk) 23:10, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
- Courtesy ping to Prothe1st & Untamed1910 who have also reverted this users edits multiple times... Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 23:13, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
- Having seen this situation in passing I'd like to note two things:
- TheArameanofMidyat appears to be using LLM in their talk page replies . This use also appears undisclosed and warrants further investigation.
- The disruption has taken place on articles within the topic area of WP:GS/ACAS. Previous off-Wiki evidence implicates TheArameanofMidyat as being connected to a larger group that has contentiously acted in this topic area on English Wikipedia . I would advise that this evidence be revisited by either CheckUser or Arbcom. PresentlySuraye3 (talk) 23:11, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
- And they've reverted to their version of Abgar V once again using a temp account . PresentlySuraye3 (talk) 23:16, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
- Everytime a check my emails to respond it automatically logs me out. The process to log in is laggy. So I mention myself and clearly speak as @TheArameanOfMidyat TheArameanOfMidyat (talk) 23:30, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
- I am not a part of a larger group, I am fully independent. I may speak hostile because of mass reports from may who don’t seem to read the article edits. TheArameanOfMidyat (talk) 23:33, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
- People who may* TheArameanOfMidyat (talk) 23:33, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
I am not a part of a larger group, I am fully independent.
Even without the off-Wiki evidence already sent, the patterns of editing I have seen in this topic area in the last two weeks to a year would make it very hard for me not to think there isn't some kind of collaboration happening here.- @Zackmann08 and @Blue-Sonnet, please note the concerns of meatpuppetry I mentioned above. PresentlySuraye3 (talk) 23:39, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
- Makes no sense.. TheArameanOfMidyat (talk) 23:41, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
- Apparently I hadn't sent the specific evidence involved to the Arbcom email, so I have now sent it for consideration. PresentlySuraye3 (talk) 23:48, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
- There is no evidence, I have clearly stated the sources I used. If you have a problem I have sent the sources many times. The root problem is that people think I didn’t use sources or cited them, you are going into a different problem. TheArameanOfMidyat (talk) 23:51, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
- People who may* TheArameanOfMidyat (talk) 23:33, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
@TheArameanOfMidyat In this edit you wrote that you "Expanded article with proper sourcing: added scholarly references
".
Your edit didn't expand the article, nor did you add a single reference.
Can you please explain what happened? Blue Sonnet (talk) 23:23, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
- I did, here are the sources I listed in references:
- • Cureton, W. Ancient Syriac Documents. 1864
- • Desreumaux, A. Histoire du roi Abgar et de Jésus. 1993
- • Drijvers, H. J. W. “The Abgar Legend.” 1991
- • Eusebius of Caesarea. Ecclesiastical History
- • Guscin, Mark. The Image of Edessa. 2009
- • Howard, George. The Teaching of Addai. 1981
- • Jacob of Serugh. Homilies
- • Millar, Fergus. The Roman Near East. 1993
- • Moses of Chorene. History of Armenia
- • Ramelli, Ilaria L. E. (2009, 2020 works)
- • Segal, J. B. Edessa, The Blessed City. 1970
- • Tacitus. Annals TheArameanOfMidyat (talk) 23:26, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
- @Blue-Sonnet: this is now the 2nd article that they have been edit warring on with repeated reversions. They have also been WP:LOUTSOCKing on both articles, which they were already warned about by User:MCE89 in Special:Diff/1349841431. At what point is enough, enough? I am all for WP:AGF and am also all for giving people another chance, but the user here continues to just argue and revert, over and over again with no attempt to acknowledge they are in the wrong. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 23:32, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
- It is enough when you quit stalking my edits. You don’t seem to read the edits nor do you care. I clearly stated my sources yet you say I haven’t used a single one. Now I have a question for you, when are you actually gonna read the edits before reporting/reverting? TheArameanOfMidyat (talk) 23:36, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
- Your attitude speaks for itself. You claim to be adding sources yet you cannot provide a single diff in which that has actually occurred. You may well be USING sources, but you are not citing them in your edits. You continue to be overtly hostile and rude so you cannot be surprised we are here. I'm done engaging with you. If any other editor desires my input, please ping me. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 23:42, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
- I said it 10 times. Yes I have cited them in the references category. And my hostility doesn’t have with the matter to do. I speak to people as they speak to me. But I did cite every source I used in references. These were the sources:
- • Cureton, W. Ancient Syriac Documents. 1864
- • Desreumaux, A. Histoire du roi Abgar et de Jésus. 1993
- • Drijvers, H. J. W. “The Abgar Legend.” 1991
- • Eusebius of Caesarea. Ecclesiastical History
- • Guscin, Mark. The Image of Edessa. 2009
- • Howard, George. The Teaching of Addai. 1981
- • Jacob of Serugh. Homilies
- • Millar, Fergus. The Roman Near East. 1993
- • Moses of Chorene. History of Armenia
- • Ramelli, Ilaria L. E. (2009, 2020 works)
- • Segal, J. B. Edessa, The Blessed City. 1970
- • Tacitus. Annals TheArameanOfMidyat (talk) 23:45, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
- Observation. User added the sources to the References section of the article but did not use footnotes. This renders it between difficult and impossible to determine which source(s) support which statements. —C.Fred (talk) 23:56, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
- Thank you for notifying me about the problem I haven’t got an answer to until now. Could you help me? TheArameanOfMidyat (talk) 23:57, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
- @TheArameanOfMidyat I do not have the time to sink into a rewrite of the scope you have attempted. Arguably, since I'm involved on the administrative side of things, I really shouldn't edit article content. My suggestion is that you proceed in smaller chunks: propose more specific changes that are smaller in scope and cite the sources that support the change. You'll also need to do this via discussion at the talk page rather than editing the article itself. —C.Fred (talk) 00:00, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
- @TheArameanOfMidyat, WP:REFB is a great guide for how to cite sources. Make sure you include as much information as possible - page numbers, ISBNs if available, and so on. Your goal is for a reader to be able to read a statement, look at the citation, and then immediately find exactly where that information came from so they can verify it for themselves. Meadowlark (talk) 00:10, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
- Thank you for notifying me about the problem I haven’t got an answer to until now. Could you help me? TheArameanOfMidyat (talk) 23:57, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
- You can't mention an entire book for a single claim and expect the reader to read the entire thing to verify what you've written - that's why inline citations with page numbers are required. We have virtually no way to verify your editing.
- I'm also concerned by you reinstating your edits whilst logged out and a discussion is underway - please don't do that.
- You can find more information by reading Wikipedia:Citing sources.
- It honestly shouldn't have needed ANI for you to ask for help on this or realise there was a problem with your editing - Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle is the preferred process. Blue Sonnet (talk) 00:02, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
- First of all I didn’t start the ANI, that was @Zackmann08, also nobody told me what was wrong with my sources. They just said I didn’t use them at all. TheArameanOfMidyat (talk) 00:05, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
- You were given a link to a page explaining citations yesterday, it's the blue link. Blue Sonnet (talk) 00:08, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
- Look I’ve been trying to fix the same page 5times. My core problem is that the page is intellectually wrong and only adheres to Roman sources. TheArameanOfMidyat (talk) 00:10, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
- Which can be a problem because they use generalized terms like Arab which is a very variable term. Arab only means desert bedouin and can be associated with modern Arab groups which Abgar wasn’t a part of according to any real sources. TheArameanOfMidyat (talk) 00:13, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
- Look I’ve been trying to fix the same page 5times. My core problem is that the page is intellectually wrong and only adheres to Roman sources. TheArameanOfMidyat (talk) 00:10, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
- You were given a link to a page explaining citations yesterday, it's the blue link. Blue Sonnet (talk) 00:08, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
- Page numbers are not required. If they are, please cite the policy (with a direct quotation) that requires them. Katzrockso (talk) 00:09, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
- Every single example on the Wikipedia:Citing sources page has a page number so I presumed that was the case - apologies for any confusion. If there's a page number then it should ideally be provided for the sake of other editors and the reader, but is not compulsory. Blue Sonnet (talk) 00:21, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
- First of all I didn’t start the ANI, that was @Zackmann08, also nobody told me what was wrong with my sources. They just said I didn’t use them at all. TheArameanOfMidyat (talk) 00:05, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
- Observation. User added the sources to the References section of the article but did not use footnotes. This renders it between difficult and impossible to determine which source(s) support which statements. —C.Fred (talk) 23:56, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
- Your attitude speaks for itself. You claim to be adding sources yet you cannot provide a single diff in which that has actually occurred. You may well be USING sources, but you are not citing them in your edits. You continue to be overtly hostile and rude so you cannot be surprised we are here. I'm done engaging with you. If any other editor desires my input, please ping me. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 23:42, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
- I totally get that, I just wanted to talk to them first to try to figure out what's a misunderstanding and can be resolved by talking, vs. what needs admin attention (e.g. meatpuppetry would probably need admin input, but perhaps we can resolve the sourcing issues by giving some advice?).
- I realise everyone's pretty annoyed by this, so I feel that it's important that we get a clear picture of what's happening before making a decision. Blue Sonnet (talk) 00:13, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
- It is enough when you quit stalking my edits. You don’t seem to read the edits nor do you care. I clearly stated my sources yet you say I haven’t used a single one. Now I have a question for you, when are you actually gonna read the edits before reporting/reverting? TheArameanOfMidyat (talk) 23:36, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
User: Pinkyquecha
Pinkyquecha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · Edit filter search · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · blacklist hits · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Google · StopForumSpam) appears to follow a repeated pattern of posting 2-4 sentence formulaic summaries of recent news items, which look very much LLM-generated. We have seen this pattern quite recently with Alanzhnag (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · Edit filter search · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · blacklist hits · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Google · StopForumSpam) and it would be good to get another set of eyes on this user's edits. - Amigao (talk) 00:53, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
- Why do you think it's LLM-generated? I don't expect an LLM to misspell Israel. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:47, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
- These edits appear to fail WP:AISIGNS pretty okay. The citations look okay, too. Viva la horde, ~ GoatLordServant(Talk) 12:34, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
- Its not LLM- generated anymore and i will improve the summary patterns. Alanzhnag (talk) 07:15, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
Repeated disruptive edits from ~2026-17118-96
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 @~2026-17118-96 has been making repeated disruptive edits to the Daredevil Born Again Season 2 article. @Marco camino 10 and I have left warnings on his talk page and been reverting his edits. Despite this, he still persisted via adding the SAME information AGAIN and keeps insisting on adding the info. He is also VERY insistent on people accepting his edits and said, "I go through great lenghts to find info like this so it should be appreciated." I recommend that admins BAN this temporary user IMMEDIATELY. Marco can back me up on this. NarutoSan6000 (talk) 22:51, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- looks like a content dispute with 2 editors warring EvergreenFir (talk) 22:56, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- Not a content dispute. Marco can help back me up on this. I have given the user sufficient warning. NarutoSan6000 (talk) 22:57, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- A block will solve this quickly, this happens often and most people know how this goes. Jetwindy-☎️-✈️ 22:59, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- That would be nice. Thanks. NarutoSan6000 (talk) 23:00, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- Just following up, can someone please block the temporary user please? NarutoSan6000 (talk) 02:35, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
- A block will solve this quickly, this happens often and most people know how this goes. Jetwindy-☎️-✈️ 22:59, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- It's not a dispute; I was the first to tell the user that the information found and the reference are fine, but that heshould summarize that large amount of text to include only the most relevant and necessary information to recount the event. This text, besides being excessively long, contains irrelevant information that can be omitted to avoid making it tedious to read. And I'm not even the only user who has objected to the amount of information he adds and the way he responds when he's asked to summarize. Marco camino 10 (talk) 06:22, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
- Not a content dispute. Marco can help back me up on this. I have given the user sufficient warning. NarutoSan6000 (talk) 22:57, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- They are adding sourced, relevant, well-written information. You say it should be summarised, but instead of doing that you revert and make out the TA is disruptive. NarutoSan6000, you need to learn some dispute resolution. Fences&Windows 22:21, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
- Marco can back me up on this. I gave the user sufficient warning and they keep insisting that I accept them NarutoSan6000 (talk) 00:11, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
- That's a content dispute. See WP:DR. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:14, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
- Update: Marco has added the summarized information to the article to resolve the issue. I think this discussion can be closed at this point as the dispute has been resolved. NarutoSan6000 (talk) 00:31, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
- That's a content dispute. See WP:DR. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:14, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
- Marco can back me up on this. I gave the user sufficient warning and they keep insisting that I accept them NarutoSan6000 (talk) 00:11, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
User:AbigailCav68's page
Hi
There are some issues about AbigailCav68's user's page. There are an internal link to Jews (which is an internal link to Julian Veglia) and which put a certain percent to them. --Panam2014 (talk) 14:03, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
- I've removed the infobox from their userpage and warned them, as Jew-tagging is not welcome here. In the future, please inform contributors you are reporting here on their user talk page, using {{ANI-notice}}. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 15:37, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
- Is this a case of Jew-tagging, as we define it? My understanding is that is the practice of labeling a person who is Jewish as being Jewish where the accurate labeling can have either a positive or a negative intent. This looks like a fictional candidate losing a fictional 2033 election against the current President of Chile. And also both candidates in the fictional election use the picture of the current president. And for some reason the fictional person’s name redirects to Jews as a collective group. Mikewem (talk) 16:43, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
- Hiya.
- It was the first word that would link to a real page that I could think of
- The real life guy isn't Jewish just to clarify.
- Sorry. AbigailCav68 (talk) 16:52, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
- AbigailCav68 is Julian Veglia the correct name of the real life guy? Could you give more context about who this person is? Is he a Chilean politician?
- And CE, it does seem like Abigail’s explanation does not match up with my understanding of how we define Jew-tagging. Mikewem (talk) 17:10, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
- it was an in-joke with a friend. Julian Veglia is the brother of someone I know. He was raised Christian afaik.
- This wasn't me trying to do anything listed on the Jew tagging page, I have been watching alot of Jewish content recently, it's probably why I thought of that word.
- I'm sorry. AbigailCav68 (talk) 17:40, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
- Could you explain how Viktor Orban wound up in your edit to the infobox of Rumen Radev? Mikewem (talk) 18:05, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
- I did a shitty copy paste when I was tired AbigailCav68 (talk) 20:09, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
- Could you explain how Viktor Orban wound up in your edit to the infobox of Rumen Radev? Mikewem (talk) 18:05, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
- Is this a case of Jew-tagging, as we define it? My understanding is that is the practice of labeling a person who is Jewish as being Jewish where the accurate labeling can have either a positive or a negative intent. This looks like a fictional candidate losing a fictional 2033 election against the current President of Chile. And also both candidates in the fictional election use the picture of the current president. And for some reason the fictional person’s name redirects to Jews as a collective group. Mikewem (talk) 16:43, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
User DigitalSpace: doxing, personal attacks, and real-life threats in Ruwiki
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 user:
Their comments should be excluded from assessments of consensus. |
User @DigitalSpace has been engaged in an edit war in here, here and here. After he reverted an edit for the third time, providing an uncivil edit summary in Russian, I issued a notify for edit warring on his talk page in here.
Upon reviewing his contribution history, I found a similar pattern of conflict @Kepler-1229b in here. When I informed DigitalSpace that WP operates on the WP:CON, he responded with doxing and violations of WP:NPA, he called me a "provocateur," accused me of WP:SOCK, and launched further personal attacks.
I pointed out that he is currently under a topic ban in the RuWiki. Although he accused me of lying, the RU-Wiki administrator has confirmed the existence of this restriction here. Furthermore, DigitalSpace was indefinitely blocked in the Ru-Wiki today for making real-life threats
Additionally, today @Sapphaline requested here that he cease the edit warring. In response, he targeted her with personal attacks, claiming she was acting on my behalf and questioning whether she held a "personal grudge" against him.
Such behavior creates a toxic and unhealthy atmosphere for the project. I request that administrators take appropriate action to prevent further disruption.
ZHUWANDI (talk) 12:37, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
- If you haven't already, id advise contacting the WP:Oversight team about the doxing. LakesideMinersCome Talk To Me! 12:44, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
- @LakesideMiners thanks for the advice, but I don't know how to do this process ZHUWANDI (talk) 12:48, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
- Genuine question: Is saying that someone is of ethnicity X considered doxxing? Nakonana (talk) 12:52, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
- @Nakonana @LakesideMiners
- User:ZHUWANDI is a provocateur and is lying about me. Please read this discussion thread.
- He slanders me and will continue to do so. I ask you to fact-check everything he writes about me.
- - I exposed him and forced him to admit to creating multiple separate accounts in Wikipedia language sections (each with a unique username, unique design, and each time with new languages he speaks).
- - He engages in POV-pushing; he attempts to belittle, covertly insult, and distort information about the peoples of the Lezgin language group (including the Rutuls). For example, he created an article on Lezgin subethnic groups in several Wikipedia language sections at once. His article was immediately removed from the Russian Wikipedia. There are no Lezgin sub-ethnic groups. There are separate nations speaking languages of the Lezgin language group.
- - For constant POV-pushing, he has a topic ban from the Russian Wikipedia and is not allowed to edit articles concerning the Rutul people.
- He starts edit wars (, , )
- "Furthermore, for instance, u have a topic ban on Caucasus-related subjects in the Russian Wikipedia"
- This is a lie. I have a topic ban on Russian Wikipedia only for editing articles on Rutulian topics (and this topic ban arose due to his constant provocations over the past year). He has exactly the same topic ban (his account Махачкъала=User:Heinrich Quincke) (blocked by administrator @Materialscientist)
- Furthermore, DigitalSpace was indefinitely blocked in the Ru-Wiki today for making real-life threats
- This is not entirely true. He was inciting interethnic conflicts on Russian Wikipedia. Here's the full quote of my words - "За такие дела тебе придётся отвечать". Translation: "You will have to answer for such things.". As you can see, there are no overt threats here. I simply warned him that inciting interethnic conflicts could have consequences. Unfortunately, the Wikipedia administrator made a mistake, and I'm currently disputing his decision.
- "In response, he targeted her with personal attacks, claiming she was acting on my behalf and questioning whether she held a "personal grudge" against him. "
- Lies. I only asked her if she harbored any personal animosity toward me. After all, she (an ordinary user) came after me from the Russian Wikipedia, reverted my edit, and stopped answering my questions. DigitalSpace (talk) 13:53, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
- WP:OUTING says that
Posting another editor's personal information is unacceptable, unless that person has voluntarily posted their own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia.
So, yes, publicly claiming that an editor is a particular ethnicity when they have not said so themselves is arguably an OUTING violation. I wouldn't call it 'doxing' in the usual sense, but it probably is against Wikipedia rules. Athanelar (talk) 13:58, 13 April 2026 (UTC)- @Athanelar I agree with you. Also, please note that he's adding a foreign nationality to his personal page and acting in their name. It's like a false flag operation. DigitalSpace (talk) 14:03, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
- If you have offwiki evidence that this person is somehow lying about their ethnicity in order to cause problems on Wikipedia, you need to supply that information privately, not announce their supposed real ethnicity on their talk page. Athanelar (talk) 14:06, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
- I understand. Actually, I didn't know it was prohibited. DigitalSpace (talk) 14:13, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
- Best way to deal with this sort of thing is to ask yourself "what would happen if I'm wrong" (even if you're absolutely 100% certain that you're right).
- You wouldn't believe how useful this thought process is in general, as well as at Wikipedia! Blue Sonnet (talk) 15:11, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
- Thank you for Your valuable advice. DigitalSpace (talk) 15:32, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
- I understand. Actually, I didn't know it was prohibited. DigitalSpace (talk) 14:13, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
- If you have offwiki evidence that this person is somehow lying about their ethnicity in order to cause problems on Wikipedia, you need to supply that information privately, not announce their supposed real ethnicity on their talk page. Athanelar (talk) 14:06, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
- @Athanelar I agree with you. Also, please note that he's adding a foreign nationality to his personal page and acting in their name. It's like a false flag operation. DigitalSpace (talk) 14:03, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
- On the one hand we possibly have someone misrepresenting who they are in an attempt to get to their preferred outcome and on the other hand we possibly have someone harassing another user. One or both of ZHUWANDI and DigitalSpace need to be blocked, but from what i'm reading i can't figure out who and don't know that i have the time to get to a good answer. I hope someone else does have the time and knowledge to figure out what's going on here, rather than a half-baked or "fast" response. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:44, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
- @Barkeep49, thank you for your attention to this matter. While I accept your judgment, I must clarify my situation. I created a separate account solely for my protection, as DigitalSpace has a history of harrassing me based on ethnicity (Turkophobia and Lezginophobia) and has repeatedly targeted me in the RuWiki.
- Crucially, he has previously demanded my personal phone number and recently made real-life threats, stating I would "pay" for my actions outside the project. My goal was never to deceive the community, but to separate my identity from his harassment and focus strictly on encyclopedic work. I use different accounts for different language editions to protect my privacy and have never used them simultaneously in the same project to manipulate consensus. I only wish to contribute without fear of personal threats. ZHUWANDI (talk) 18:06, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
- @Barkeep49, @Drmies, just look at his edit history here — @DigitalSpace using edit warring to get his way... What should be done about this??? ZHUWANDI (talk) 18:16, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
- I would recommend not pinging people several times in under 10 minutes. Cheers, 🚂ThatTrainGuy1945 Peep peep! 18:37, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
- ZHUWANDI, "this" has no clear referent. I see two people edit warring. You made a bunch of unexplained or barely explained changes. DigitalSpace reverts with barely an explanation; what was there on the talk page was unclear (to me) and that discussion, which should have been about sourcing and content, almost immediately became a tit-for-tat of personal comments and attacks. If you are so right in that discussion, you could have explained on the talk page why that is so. Instead, you're asking a couple admins who have little or no content knowledge to just intuit something.If there is evidence of actual real-life threats, I'm really sorry, but that's not something we should handle in this forum; you should gather your evidence and follow the advice in WP:DWH. Drmies (talk) 18:39, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
- @Barkeep49 A discussion was previously conducted over at DigitalSpace's talkpage which I was involved in. An SPI investigation has also been opened for ZHUWANDI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ZHUWANDI. These may be useful in determining the correct course of action. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 21:17, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
- Colleague, I do not deny using a separate account on the RuWiki, I have already admitted to this. To my knowledge, this does not violate any policies... However, I do not use that account from the RuWiki here on the EnWiki, and I do not know @Kyurinsky. I was blocked today on the RuWiki for sockpuppetry, even though I don't use this account there it has zero contributions. As for DigitalSpace, his was blocked today for real-life threat. But, how is any of this related to the edit warring and attacks happening here on the English Wikipedia? ZHUWANDI (talk) 21:45, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
- @ZHUWANDI Perhaps there were simultaneous discussions over on ruwiki. You might want to consult some admins there if you have questions. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 21:47, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
- Yesterday, ZHUWANDI's three accounts ZHUWANDI, Махачкъала , Lekéville (which is directly related to User:ZHUWANDI, he admitted it himself) were blocked indefinitely on Russian Wikipedia for sockpuppeting. DigitalSpace (talk) 06:30, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
- Colleague, I do not deny using a separate account on the RuWiki, I have already admitted to this. To my knowledge, this does not violate any policies... However, I do not use that account from the RuWiki here on the EnWiki, and I do not know @Kyurinsky. I was blocked today on the RuWiki for sockpuppetry, even though I don't use this account there it has zero contributions. As for DigitalSpace, his was blocked today for real-life threat. But, how is any of this related to the edit warring and attacks happening here on the English Wikipedia? ZHUWANDI (talk) 21:45, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
- Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ZHUWANDI and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DigitalSpace for some additional context. Jack Frost (talk) 14:14, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
- Noting that both SPI reports have been closed without action. The comment from a RuWiki administrator on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ZHUWANDI may also provide some helpful context. Jack Frost (talk) 00:08, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- Honestly? The SPI battleground ought to be the final straw: INDEF both for now and sort it out if and when the two of them decide to act like adults should. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 16:42, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
- Frankly I don't think that will ever happen, judging by the initial talkpage discussion. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 17:24, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
- @CoffeeCrumbs, what would you do if you were threatened with off-wiki actions? and asking for ur personal number as anonym from IP 185.3.33.80 using obscenities. Not to mention that he set the flag of radical Islamist extremists, led by Akhmed Akhmadov, as the official Rutul flag in the main article about the Rutul people. Also, his calls for murde all "shaitans" from his blocked accounts on the Ru Wiki. I understand you’re trying to be neutral, and I apprec that, but please evaluate everything on its merits ZHUWANDI (talk) 17:30, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
- It'd be a lot more helpful if you linked to all the relevant permalinks instead of just a few. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 17:34, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
- Well, what exactly r u interested in? ZHUWANDI (talk) 17:45, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
- Specifically,
asking for ur personal number as anonym from IP 185.3.33.80 using obscenities
andhe set the flag of radical Islamist extremists, led by Akhmed Akhmadov, as the official Rutul flag in the main article about the Rutul people
. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 17:47, 14 April 2026 (UTC)- Okay, this is the link to that anonym, here find ip 185.3.33.80. I can't send that diff because the admin deleted the text due to inappropriate content (but I assume u, as admins, can see it). The second to last post there is related to the "Махачкъала" account. I last used this profile on March 16, 2025, and haven't used it since. To stop him from tracking me, I opened a new profile, Lekéville, on April 6, 2026. It’s important to note that he is the only person I've had a conflict with during this entire time I'm sure he wrote it.
- Regarding the flag, is it located here, or is it enough to just visit the 'Rutuls'. This website is just an ordinary forum like FB. This flag isn't recognized as the Rutul flag anywhere, it has nothing to do with the Rutuls at al, u can check this yourself. In Wikipedia, this flag is listed as the flag of independent Dagestan. ZHUWANDI (talk) 18:14, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
- I happened to come across this, back in 2022, DigitalSpice was already deleting mentions of Lezgins. I told u that he is extremely biased against Lezgins, Azerbaijanis, Kumyks, and others. Later, he added inflated population figures for Rutuls—first 120,000, then 170,000. These sources were discussed on the RuWiki and deemed unreliable. In reality, the Rutul population has decreased, totaling about 34,259 in all of Russia (and even this number is doubled because people living in cities are counted both in the city and in their home village). According to the official census, only 10,075 people actually know the Rutul language. Why am I saying all this? Just so u understand, this is such a small ethnic group or tribe that it’s simply unrealistic for several Wikipedians with the same radical views, who also happen to know English to emerge from among them ZHUWANDI (talk) 18:39, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
- Apparently this has spread to AfD. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lezgic peoples. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 19:03, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
- I didn't say only you acted poorly. You both have. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 19:51, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
- Specifically,
- Well, what exactly r u interested in? ZHUWANDI (talk) 17:45, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
- It'd be a lot more helpful if you linked to all the relevant permalinks instead of just a few. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 17:34, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
- Comment: This entire discussion seems to be an overblown content dispute, and instead for calmly discussing everything, Zhuwandi and DigitalSpice have resorted to attacking each other, opening sockpuppet investigations towards each other, and nominating pages for deletion. I would support an indef for both of them or a strongly worded warning that tells both of them that they have both reached the end of their ropes.
- 🚂ThatTrainGuy1945 Peep peep! 19:11, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
- To be honest, I have no faith in the two of them that they will ever change towards each other. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 19:12, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
- Support indef for them both. I have been with the dispute since it started. From what I can see, these two editors are seemingly incapable of reconciling with each other. A warning will be essentially useless as the two fling personal attacks at each other and at others, open up SPI investigations, and even nominating articles for deletion. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 19:16, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
Support two-way IBAN - If disruption continues for either editor once they've been separated, we can consider further sanctions. Right now it's hard to tell with all the bickering.Blue Sonnet (talk) 02:37, 15 April 2026 (UTC)- Amended to Support
two-way IBAN with additionalTBAN on theNorthCaucus region for both parties, broadly construed. Like any bans this could be reviewed in the future, following a significant period of productive editing other subjects & gives them a chance to avoid a full indef. Indef is my second preference, but I think we should try the a lesser sanction first, to give them a chance to edit productively - if they cannot, blocks are cheap (as they say). See below for discussion) Blue Sonnet (talk) 05:02, 15 April 2026 (UTC)- I also support an IBAN as a second option if not indef'd. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 03:32, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
- I did consider indef myself, but I'm not familiar enough with the topics & didn't want to overstep.
- Plus it's always good to use the minimum possible sanction - especially for the first offence.
- I'm keeping track of the discussion, so if any further evidence of (on-wiki) disruption is presented that warrants indef, I'll definitely reconsider. A lot has happened elsewhere that's been brought over here & clouded events.
- For now, I'm hoping that time away from each other might give them a chance to "reset" and focus on productive editing; it'll also hopefully function as a warning of sorts & result in better behaviour from both parties going forwards.
- This is such a mess of SPI's and off-(en)wiki allegations, that I'm just not certain of anything beyond the very obvious fact that they clearly don't get on with each other. Blue Sonnet (talk) 04:25, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
- I'd prefer indef simply because of the content side of the dispute. If these two editors are not at least tbanned, they might continue to edit affected articles. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 04:28, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
- TBAN might be a good idea, actually - what topic would you recommend? Blue Sonnet (talk) 04:39, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
- A tban could also work. Their editing is mainly restricted to the North Caucasus region, partucularly ethnic groups speaking Lezgic languages. It copuld also be more appropriate than an indef, but I have no opinion on which is better. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 04:41, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
- That seems fair, I've changed my decision to include this option. Blue Sonnet (talk) 05:02, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
- A tban could also work. Their editing is mainly restricted to the North Caucasus region, partucularly ethnic groups speaking Lezgic languages. It copuld also be more appropriate than an indef, but I have no opinion on which is better. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 04:41, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
- TBAN might be a good idea, actually - what topic would you recommend? Blue Sonnet (talk) 04:39, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
- I'd prefer indef simply because of the content side of the dispute. If these two editors are not at least tbanned, they might continue to edit affected articles. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 04:28, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
- I also support an IBAN as a second option if not indef'd. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 03:32, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
- Indef both. It seems like both editors are net negatives. TarnishedPathtalk 04:48, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
- Alternatively TBAN both and IBAN from each other. TarnishedPathtalk 05:11, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
- This user is constantly spewing lies and slander against me. I ask other users to demand proof of his accusations.
- "Just so u understand, this is such a small ethnic group or tribe"
- He insulted my nation and called it "tribe". Can't you see what he's doing? DigitalSpace (talk) 05:42, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
- "asking for ur personal number as anonym from IP 185.3.33.80 using obscenities"
- Lie! Let him provide evidence for his words!
- "he set the flag of radical Islamist extremists, led by Akhmed Akhmadov, as the official Rutul flag in the main article about the Rutul people"
- Lie! The Flag of Free Dagestan (original description: Флаг "Свободного Дагестана" ) (Created in 2022) created 10 years before the creation of the Rutulian flag Created in 2013 (or even earlier). Flag of Free Dagestan has noticeable differences (the placement of the crescent, the shade of green, etc.) You must understand that this user's goal is to slander me so that he can continue his activities, for which he was permanently blocked from Russian Wikipedia the day before yesterday. DigitalSpace (talk) 05:50, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
- "he set the flag of radical Islamist extremists"
- And this is also another lie! The flag of Free Dagestan is not recognized as extremist. But in any case, these are two separate flags.
- Dear administrators, please be critical of his accusations against me. This user is currently blocked for the actions I'm writing about on this page and other pages. In response to his provocations In Russian Wikipedia, I wrote that his actions would have consequences. One of the administrators considered this a threat and blocked me. But even the administrator who blocked me wrote that this user was constantly engaging in provocations against me, and that's what led to my blocking. See here. (Translation into English: "Apparently, I believe Makhachkala/Lekéville deliberately provoked DigitalSpace, including in other language sections (see the contribution from the virtual ZHUWANDI in the English Wikipedia), and it was his actions that started the chain of events that led to the latter's permanent blocking.") DigitalSpace (talk) 06:10, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
"asking for ur personal number as anonym from IP 185.3.33.80 using obscenities"
This appears to have been revdel'd on ruwiki.You must understand that this user's goal is to slander me so that he can continue his activities, for which he was permanently blocked from Russian Wikipedia the day before yesterday.
As were you. Do not attempt to invalidate the slander you have also perpetrated against ZHUWANDI. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 06:02, 15 April 2026 (UTC)- What kind of slander exactly? Show me where exactly I wrote the slander? DigitalSpace (talk) 06:15, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
- User "Kepler-1229b", please behave conscientiously. DigitalSpace (talk) 07:20, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
- @DigitalSpace I realise it's very tempting to respond to most of the posts here - it's a natural human instinct - but the longer a thread gets, the less likely it is to receive proper attention from a variety of editors. That could lower the chance of a fair and thorough assessment, or move the focus onto this thread rather than the events that led up to it.
- Since we're all volunteers & doing this in our spare time, not everyone will have enough of that time to look through a lengthy thread.
- Please trust that others will see through any false statements or unfair allegations, these are usually challenged quickly whenever they appear and are obvious to experienced editors & admins.
- There's an essay titled "Don't bludgeon the process", hopefully this might help you to understand why it's something we try to avoid.
- To be clear, I'm not saying that you are bludgeoning this thread, I just want to help you avoid running into any further issues whilst this discussion is open.
- Try to avoid further comments unless someone directly asks you a question or pings you, this will help make sure you keep within a reasonable limit. Blue Sonnet (talk) 08:48, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
- @Blue-Sonnet Thank you for your reply. I completely agree with you. I just don't understand why this user, who's been engaging in sockpuppetry and violates numerous other rules, hasn't been permanently blocked yet. DigitalSpace (talk) 09:19, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
- I am attempting to behave conscientiously. The slander you wrote is plastered across this page and all others involved in the dispute. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 14:05, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
- User "Kepler-1229b", please behave conscientiously. DigitalSpace (talk) 07:20, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
- What kind of slander exactly? Show me where exactly I wrote the slander? DigitalSpace (talk) 06:15, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
- User "ZHUWANDI" (through his earlier accounts) also constantly engaged in POV-pushing of articles related to the Kumyks. (For reference: the Kumyk tribe arrived in the Caucasus around the 13th century , as a people enslaved by the Mongols. The Mongols left, but some Turkic tribes remained in the Caucasus). DigitalSpace (talk) 08:40, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
Administrator note: A recent sockpuppet investigation concluded with ZHUWANDI (talk · contribs) being indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet of the previously blocked account Heinrich Quincke (talk · contribs). — Newslinger talk 09:45, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
- Well, after all that, I am calling for a t-ban on both from the Caucasus region broadly interpreted the master account of Heinrich Quincke (in order to prevent this from happenening again if they appeal successfully) and DigitalSpace. That way, they can still contribute helpfully without butting heads on this again and again and again. 🚂ThatTrainGuy1945 Peep peep! 12:44, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
- I've amended my earlier vote (again) in view of the SPI results. I doubt they'll get unblocked without following the Standard offer anyway, so that'll give DigitalSpace some breathing room and hopefully an opportunity to work undisturbed on other subjects for a while - they can also appeal in six months or so, if they wish. Blue Sonnet (talk) 14:02, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
- Well, after all that, I am calling for a t-ban on both from the Caucasus region broadly interpreted the master account of Heinrich Quincke (in order to prevent this from happenening again if they appeal successfully) and DigitalSpace. That way, they can still contribute helpfully without butting heads on this again and again and again. 🚂ThatTrainGuy1945 Peep peep! 12:44, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
- Support topic ban for DigitalSpace as they have a long history of battleground behavior and blocks on ruwiki, and I'm not convinced this is going to change on enwiki. sapphaline (talk) 17:44, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
- +1 it cannot be excluded that this is a case of POV-pushing and counter-POV-pushing. Nakonana (talk) 17:51, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
- That is precisely what this situation is. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 18:14, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
- +1 it cannot be excluded that this is a case of POV-pushing and counter-POV-pushing. Nakonana (talk) 17:51, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
- COMMENT: This has something to do with this mess.
- Kingsmasher678 (talk) 04:24, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
- That link doesn't lead anywhere, perhaps it was a deleted edit? You'll need to post a diff, if one is still available. Blue Sonnet (talk) 20:17, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
- It was closed and archived. 20:44, 19 April 2026 (UTC) 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 20:44, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
- sapphaline (talk) 22:43, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
- This is a different customer. sapphaline (talk) 22:34, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
- That link doesn't lead anywhere, perhaps it was a deleted edit? You'll need to post a diff, if one is still available. Blue Sonnet (talk) 20:17, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
Danners430 - A persistive history regarding disruptive editing and possible policy abuse
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:Danners430 has demonstrated a pattern of repeatedly removing large amounts of content across multiple airport-related articles, typically citing “poor” or “unsourced” material as justification. While addressing sourcing issues is perfectly valid per WP:V, these edits are often broad and indiscriminate, removing otherwise useful, verifiable, or improvable information rather than attempting to fix or tag it (see WP:PRESERVE and WP:IMPROVE).
These removals are frequently made without prior discussion and, in some cases, continue despite reverts or objections, indicating a failure to follow the WP:BRD cycle and to seek WP:CONSENSUS. The scale and repetition of these edits across multiple pages raises concerns under WP:DISRUPT.
Additionally, the user’s conduct on talk pages and in edit summaries has at times been coercive or authoritative in tone, raising potential issues under WP:CIVIL and contributing to a WP:BATTLEGROUND-type editing environment.
I wouldn’t go as far as to assume WP:GAMING, but it should be seriously considered given the pattern of this users edits. Of course, we can not assume bad faith.
The theme seems to be clearing route information on airport pages. I invite you to check out the users edits history, there is very little in the way of constructive edits.
I’ve supplied 5 diffs of examples where the user clears information that can easily be verified under preserve and improve. Many more examples - this is just a couple from the last week.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ford_Airport_(Iron_Mountain)&diff=prev&oldid=1349035833
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sriwijaya_Air&diff=prev&oldid=1348606788
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gimhae_International_Airport&diff=prev&oldid=1349433511 Dokateoo (talk) 18:13, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
- Pinging @Diogo sfreitas, as I know that this user has also has multiple run ins with Danners430. Dokateoo (talk) 18:16, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
- I have to laugh a little… you list these diffs with the comment
can easily be verified under preserve and improve
- and yet the very first diff is removal of content not because of any sort of sourcing issue, but because of something entirely unrelated, as stated in the edit summary… nothing whatsoever to do with sourcing. - Second diff - removal of unsourced content well within the bounds of WP:V, including content tagged as such for over two years.
- Third diff - an editor adding a mass of unsourced content.
- Fourth diff - removing unsourced content and tagging further unsourced content.
- Fifth diff - removing unreliable sources per WP:AEROROUTES and removing unsourced content.
- All of the above is perfectly within policy - indeed the unsourced content should never have been added in the first place. Consensus is not required to remove unsourced content, and consensus was established many months ago to retire Aeroroutes as a source.
- As for your other aspersions, feel free to post diffs anytime. Danners430 tweaks made 18:20, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
- I'd just suggest that anyone opens the first of those links, reads it, and then guesses which way this report is going to go. What do we think? You'd be correct!
- But anyway, the second, third and fourth one are, correctly of course, removing completely unsourced information and I presume the fifth one is as well though it's somewhat complex. Do we just close this or do we warn the OP for making meritless ANI posts? Black Kite (talk) 18:24, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
- Aye apologies, I tend to make large edits instead of lots of small ones - so I’m often doing multiple things… removing unsourced, removing unreliable sources, tagging unsourced, removing non-notable incidents, date formatting and ref naming are the usual suspects Danners430 tweaks made 18:28, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
- Or we can act like reasonable adults and consider the users edit history.. you’ve supposedly moderated this site for 20 years! Dokateoo (talk) 18:29, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
- We absolutely can. What in the edit history is problematic in that it breaches policy?
- Again, I’ll remind you that removal of unsourced content is actually in accordance with WP:V, not against it. Danners430 tweaks made 18:35, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
- I think someone should tally up the ratio of destructive vs. constructive edits from yourself. Again not a personal attack here so don’t report this but how do you find this fun? Spending all day scanning for poorly sourced content and then harassing other users on their talk pages? Seems like every time I pop on here, you’re harassing my edits. Dokateoo (talk) 18:39, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
- Well, if you believe that "destructive" edits are removing unsourced information from articles then you're completely wrong. I would have thought that someone who's been editing here 5 years would understand the concept of sourcing information by now. Meanwhile, in the last few weeks you've got yourself blocked from Manchester Airport for edit-warring against multiple other editors. Who is causing the problem here? Black Kite (talk) 18:42, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
- I don’t spend every living moment on Wikipedia.
- While addressing sourcing issues is perfectly valid per WP:V, these edits are often broad and indiscriminate, removing otherwise useful, verifiable, or improvable information rather than attempting to fix or tag it (see WP:PRESERVEand WP:IMPROVE). Dokateoo (talk) 18:45, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
- What, like "how to rent a car in Albania"? . Seriously. Black Kite (talk) 18:48, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
- That’s a subjective matter. But the user simply razes it without giving the original editor a chance to argue their case. And it is informative, in my opinion… less of the curt tone please. Dokateoo (talk) 19:00, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
- Whether or not to include "How to rent a car" is not a subjective matter, it falls firmly under WP:NOT. (Wikipedia is not a travel guide) Editors can remove unsourced content:
Facts or claims without an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports them may be removed. They should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source.
(WP:V) If you can't provide a policy-based argument and evidence showing that Danners430's edits are disruptive, you're wasting everybody's time. msk 19:13, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
- Whether or not to include "How to rent a car" is not a subjective matter, it falls firmly under WP:NOT. (Wikipedia is not a travel guide) Editors can remove unsourced content:
- That’s a subjective matter. But the user simply razes it without giving the original editor a chance to argue their case. And it is informative, in my opinion… less of the curt tone please. Dokateoo (talk) 19:00, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
- I happily tag content when I remove unreliable sources and in paragraphs of text. I don’t do this for airport route lists because, quite simply, it’s been disputed before and I can’t be bothered arguing the toss over whether something should be tagged or removed - I just remove it. When someone adds fresh content without a source though, then I simply remove it - I reserve CN tags for content which has been on a page for some time and needs improving, not for someone who can’t be bothered to follow policy (not pointing at you here because you are adding sources in your edits) Danners430 tweaks made 18:48, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
- What, like "how to rent a car in Albania"? . Seriously. Black Kite (talk) 18:48, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
- The burden of proof lies with you in this situation. Can you
tally up the ratio of destructive vs. constructive edits
? We are not obligated to do your work. msk 18:45, 20 April 2026 (UTC) - Providing reliable sources is one of the fundamental principles of Wikipedia. My main activity is recent changes (or in my case watchlist) patrolling - I keep an eye on pages on my watchlist for edits which have issues. The vast majority are from editors who simply didn’t know about the requirement to provide reliable sources - indeed many of my reversions are restored with reliable sources attached.
- As for the first diff… that’s a different issue altogether - that’s a consensus on what Wikipedia isn’t… namely it’s not a travel guide, so people don’t need to know about the provision of taxi ranks at airports for example, beyond perhaps a single sentence mention. Danners430 tweaks made 18:46, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
- Well, if you believe that "destructive" edits are removing unsourced information from articles then you're completely wrong. I would have thought that someone who's been editing here 5 years would understand the concept of sourcing information by now. Meanwhile, in the last few weeks you've got yourself blocked from Manchester Airport for edit-warring against multiple other editors. Who is causing the problem here? Black Kite (talk) 18:42, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
- I think someone should tally up the ratio of destructive vs. constructive edits from yourself. Again not a personal attack here so don’t report this but how do you find this fun? Spending all day scanning for poorly sourced content and then harassing other users on their talk pages? Seems like every time I pop on here, you’re harassing my edits. Dokateoo (talk) 18:39, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
- This thread was a regrettable blot on the otherwise unblemished history of airport editing. Sad. EEng 23:35, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
Asdfghjkl12qwertyuiop - subtle spamming continuing after two final 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.
- Asdfghjkl12qwertyuiop (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This user has had the following final warnings:
In spite of this, they have continued to write promotional content. See case in point Draft:Keystone Granite OH, which is clearly LLM spam. A quick review of this users 24 edits since January 2026 shows that 23 of them have been unambiguously promotional. The only one that isn't is this one. I am also concerned that they don't seem to be willing to discuss their behaviour, and their general conduct is very WP:IDHT. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:25, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
Requests of personal information
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 has gone on several talk pages, most notably Donald Trump's talk, and another user's talk, asking other people the same message over and over again. I agree with you, where are you from?
And the user repeats this, eventually leaving articlespace talk, and then going to Mandruss's talk page and asks the same question to other users who commented on the talk on topics regarding Donald Trump. I think Anny wells should end up with an indef for this, because this is awfully weird and may be found as a privacy threat to others.
All edits have been reverted, although Anny wells has not been warned even once, with the newest post being an ANI notice, sent my me regarding this post I have made. Jetwindy-☎️-✈️ 22:58, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
- Blocked as WP:NOTHERE. Special:Diff/1350214848 is especially unsettling. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:09, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
- I hope this is common sense for anyone reading this, but don't go around giving your personal information to excessively friendly new users with female names. And if one of them emails you, don't reply. It's a scam. For what it's worth, I haven't seen any of these accounts with male names yet, but it's probably just a matter of time. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:18, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
Continuous unsourced edits by Yggdrasil.34
Yggdrassil.34 (talk · contribs) has a history of adding unsourced content to articles, and has been warned about this several times, including two final warnings. They haven't responded to a single message on their talk page, while communication is required. Pinging HorrorLover555, JSFarman, Magnolia677, who issued warnings before. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 09:07, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
- They seem to have some understanding of referencing (i.e. ), but perhaps not an understanding of how userpages work, or that they exist. Chetsford (talk) 06:31, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
- When I CTRL+F 'reverted', I see 114 results. Out of 682 edits currently, that is roughly 1/6th of their total edits that are being reverted. Besides communication, WP:COMPETENCE is also required. They might have good intention, but they do not seem to be willing to change their editing. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 06:44, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
- When I had previously warned Yggdrasil, it was because they had added unsourced information to the article, Cradle of Filth, in which they had added touring musicians into the current lineup of band members, whereas there were no sources provided in the body of the article that stated that they were officially members, but that they were filling in for the remainder of the South American tour. They haven't responded to my warning either, so there is a refusal to communicate present. HorrorLover555 (talk) 03:07, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
- When I CTRL+F 'reverted', I see 114 results. Out of 682 edits currently, that is roughly 1/6th of their total edits that are being reverted. Besides communication, WP:COMPETENCE is also required. They might have good intention, but they do not seem to be willing to change their editing. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 06:44, 20 April 2026 (UTC)