Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1222

The user ~2026-20262-76 appears to be making changes to many templates (1675 edits) which may be in violation of MOS:CONTRAST and the recommended minimum of 4.5:1 (e.g., see here for a contrast of 2.41:1 and here for a contrast of 2.38:1). They had previously been given a level 4 warning here for similar edits and a level 2 warning here for unsourced changes. Therefore, I went to WP:AIV for possible long-term abuse. Upon being informed that this was a non-obvious case of vandalism, I asked the user to consider the contrast guidelines here (there is an unfortunate delay due to unrelated circumstances). Twenty minutes after I informed them of the issues, they made a series of edits to Angola-related templates (from here to here). These edits are in violation of MOS:CONTRAST with a contrast of 3.78:1. Therefore, I would like to request that a user with the right to use semi-automated tools use the contrast checking functionality to go through the edits and revert those in violation. For the sake of full disclosure, I would like to note that the user may be associated with the IPs here and here. Unstirredshading23 (talk) 14:57, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

Since I wrote this, there have been some additional edits (e.g., this edit has a contrast of 2.35:1). Unstirredshading23 (talk) 15:03, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

I've indefinitely blocked them, and undone some of their edits. There's a ton of damage to repair. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:08, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

Please close the thread as the user has been blocked and this thread is now irrelevant. Unstirredshading23 (talk) 15:09, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

No, it's not. There's a crap ton of damage this editor has done that needs to be undone. Someone with better tools than I have for auto reversions needs to go through and mass undo everything they've done related to color contrast. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:10, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't read your reply (ANI doesn't show the "show new comments" option) and was going to strike my reply. I had written my previous reply under the impression that a recent change patroller had blocked the user without reading this thread. Unstirredshading23 (talk) 15:14, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

No worries. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:23, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Given the potentially wide impacts of fucking things up with templates, is it prudent that we allow temporary accounts to edit them at all? TarnishedPath^talk 01:32, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Not in my view, no. Toadspike [Talk] 02:01, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Do we think this would be worth an RfC? This seems like a pretty good change to pursue. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 03:24, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Maybe. Has it been discussed before? TarnishedPath^talk 04:46, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

There are many navboxes/sidebars where temporary accounts make up most of the edits, so I'd oppose a blanket ban. sapphaline (talk) 07:51, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Does someone here know if we should keep the border colors? they look bad to me, but IDK. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 03:39, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

As for the cricket navboxes we are working on standardizing squadbox colors with auto formatting. Vestrian24Bio 16:31, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

While no one has done auto reversion as far as I am aware, I do want to point out that there might be more temp accounts involved. The blocked account made this edit, which was the exact same edit made around two months ago by another temp account (~2026-74589-0) before they got reverted. --Super Goku V (talk) 02:38, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

@Materialscientist: Related to the above a bit, was this edit intended to be reverted? Your edit summary the following day implies so, but a different edit was reverted. --Super Goku V (talk) 02:56, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Should a mass revert of all their edits in the template namespace be done? If so, I would recommend an admin do it with User:Tamzin/scripts/massRollbackWithBotMode.js in order to bypass the limit imposed on reverting by rollbackers. Though a rollbacker could do such a thing with something like User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/massRollback.js, just slower. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 03:21, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

@45dogs: I don't think it actually makes a difference for rate limits. There is a difference between admins and (most) non-admins mass-rollbacking, but that comes from the fact that admins are exempt from all rate-limits, and that's true whether or not they use bot mode. The difference with using bot mode is that both the reverts and the original edits get excluded from RecentChanges and watchlists under default settings, which is why I forked WK's script to add that functionality. (I haven't looked closely at whether this is or isn't a good use case for it, just saw my name while scrolling through the 'board.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 15:14, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

I think I misremembered what was said at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive376#Mass Edit Revert. Thanks for the correction. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 18:26, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

They are on adjacent IPs, and there are some other TAs on that small range who have been making color changes. DMacks (talk) 03:30, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

I think this edit is the same thing. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Canada_squad_2017_CONCACAF_Gold_Cup&oldid=1298807285 Kingsmasher678 (talk) 03:33, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Also, a good number of these arn't bad edits. We will need to do it by hand I think. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 04:05, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

That is going to be a pain, but it is what it is I guess. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:19, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

If there is consensus here to mass revert, then one could be done anyways. I think a mass revert would be good. Its simply not worth editor time to sift through this. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 13:54, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

I think it might be actually. What this editor is doing isn't random. They are changing the colors to match the hex values of the countries flags as far as I can tell, and a good number of these infoboxs seemed not to meet MOS:Color anyway. I spot checked a good number two days ago, and at least 40 odd percent were positive changes. Mark me down as an OPPOSE to mass revert, unless the scale become much larger than currently known.

Kingsmasher678 (talk) 14:03, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

If you are willing to look through all the changes, then you are free to do so. It seems like are some 600 or so template edits that are the current revision on ~2026-20262-76's and related TA's contributions page. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 14:09, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Current revision isn't even the problem. Many of the IPs are making the same edits that others have, so a mass revert that only does current revisions would only work if we find every single account. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 14:30, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

That would be correct unless more edits have been reverted. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:09, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

comment - the editing patterns here look to me like an unapproved bot. I've looked but not found much information: do we have safeguards to flag unapproved bot editing, especially in a namespace like Template? Eyesinthefire (talk) 03:17, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Guys this has been going on for a while now by multiple accounts, even before temporary accounts was a thing. Here are just some examples:

• Special:Contributions/103.205.69.11
• Special:Contributions/103.205.69.88
• Special:Contributions/103.60.175.214
• Special:Contributions/~2025-34848-32
• Special:Contributions/~2026-74589-0
• Special:Contributions/~2026-13407-60
• Special:Contributions/~2026-18415-93

And the list goes on.... Vestrian24Bio 16:20, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

• Special:Contributions/103.20.55.44
• Special:Contributions/103.242.102.11
• Special:Contributions/2A0E:3700:200F:2D00:5DDD:F10D:266F:3641
• Special:Contributions/202.134.14.154
• Special:Contributions/59.152.2.25
• Special:Contributions/103.205.69.13
• Special:Contributions/59.152.7.9
• Special:Contributions/103.205.69.210
• Special:Contributions/~2025-43878-76

Vestrian24Bio 16:29, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

This is concerning. Have these accounts been warmed for this? Kingsmasher678 (talk) 00:14, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

I've reverted one of their edits given this is possibly a violation of color contrast guidelines on Wikipedia Galaxybeing (talk) 04:39, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

You need to check and be sure. There are tools availble for this at Kingsmasher678 (talk) 13:50, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Color Kingsmasher678 (talk) 13:51, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

• Special:Contributions/~2026-14437-79 is another one. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 14:10, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

  TAIPV gives this list of TAs related to ~2026-20262-76:

  ~2026-20262-76

  ~2026-20791-08

  ~2026-20787-48

  ~2026-19130-82

  ~2026-19012-66

  ~2026-18895-19

  ~2026-18774-73

  ~2026-20657-24

  ~2026-20528-36

  ~2026-20341-71

  45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 14:16, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

  I am creating a page in my user space to keep track of this. When a IP or TA accounts edits are cleaned, please update the page to mark as done. Feel free to reformat, or move to WP space if preferred. Page is User:Kingsmasher678/Contrast Cleanup Kingsmasher678 (talk) 14:45, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

  Oh whoops. Will do. --Super Goku V (talk) 08:09, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

  103.67.156.253 is the same. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 15:07, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

  Couple more to go through:

  Special:Contributions/103.205.69.88

  Special:Contributions/103.205.69.220

  Special:Contributions/103.205.69.216

  Special:Contributions/103.205.69.219

  Special:Contributions/103.60.175.214

  --Super Goku V (talk) 09:16, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

  Whoever this is, it seems like they just mass target football templates. Probably need to go through Category:Europe association football templates by country and sub-categories like Category:UEFA Women's Championship squad navigational boxes by competition, Category:Africa Cup of Nations squad navigational boxes by nation, Category:FIFA Women's World Cup squad navigational boxes by nation to clean this all up. --Super Goku V (talk) 22:40, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

  Also, cricket and basketball Kingsmasher678 (talk) 23:49, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

  +Special:Contributions/~2026-22060-14

  (As an aside, ~2026-20262-76 is now down to 265 current template edits, which is down from 600+ last Monday.) --Super Goku V (talk) 10:57, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

  FYI ~2026-22057-27 links to that TA. Blue Sonnet (talk) 01:34, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

  So that is another one then. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:50, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

  Have you got ~2026-22060-14? Sorry to pile on but I can't see it on the list! Blue-Sonnet 22:49, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

  This one is one of the ones we are looking for, feel free to revert. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 00:19, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

  Oopsie, it's right above! Luckily it's been done - I'll see if there are any stragglers & revert any I find. Blue-Sonnet 02:11, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

  For review: 103.60.175.15, 45.120.113.2, and ~2026-33795-9. (Hopefully we are reaching some sort of end to this.) --Super Goku V (talk) 10:50, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

  All different than the IP of what we are looking at, and they have no lurking TPAs. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 00:18, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

  Gotcha, then I will strike my comment to prevent accidental reverting. Thank you for checking as they had made color adjustments in a few edits prior to some of ~2026-20262-76's edits, but were apparently just unlucky. --Super Goku V (talk) 08:05, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Okay. All, but seven of ~2026-20262-76's current Template edits have been reverted with those seven not being color edits. There are some article edits that were only to mess with colors, though, so there are still some reverts left, but the template ones that kicked off this discussion are resolved. (@Kingsmasher678: Do you know of anyone else doing reverts or is it possibly just us?) --Super Goku V (talk) 10:50, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

A couple others have jumped in from time to time. I will dedicate some time to the other accounts ronight Kingsmasher678 (talk) 14:51, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

@Super Goku V I am switching to a revert all strategy in template space FYI. Simply too much to do other wise, you were correct about that. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 21:29, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Ah, gotcha. I just wasn't sure if it was just us and if it was better to move this discussion elsewhere. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:08, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

LTA Discussion

• Is it worth considering a LTA designation for this groups of accounts? It goes back at least 2 years and there seems to be at minimum 10-15 accounts involved. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 14:15, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

My understanding is that we tend not to create LTA pages anymore, due to Wikipedia:Beans and Wikipedia:Deny recognition. Blue Sonnet (talk) 16:22, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Given the amount of accounts involved; shouldn't this be under SPI..? Vestrian24Bio 10:20, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Potentially. It is definitely a good chuck of users so far discovered. (34) --Super Goku V (talk) 23:12, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

I requested a CCI for User:Ramblersen and User:Ramblersen2 in May 2024, which was eventually only opened in May 2025: Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Ramblersen. As the copyvios come via translations, they largely remained undetected. Checking a new creation by them from today, Frederik Thuresen, I see that they are still creating similar copyright violations though.

Source (translated automatically in Chrome):

• "[...]when the militia was reorganized in 1664 he became city colonel directly under the king. In 1663 and 1664 he participated in the organization of the city fire department, and when this brought him into conflict with the city council, he received the king's support. Finally, in 1672 he was a member of the commission that was to set reasonable prices for meat, bread and beer."

Article

• "When the militia was reorganized in 1664 he became city colonel directly under the king. In 1663 and 1664 he also participated in the organization of the city's fire corps, When this brought him into conflict with the city council, he received the king's support. Finally, in 1672 he was a member of a commission that was to set reasonable prices for meat, bread and beer."

Source:

• " In 1660, he helped apply for the convening of the Estates' Meeting"

Article:

• "In 1660, he helped apply for the convening of the Assembly of the Estates' Meeting."

Source:

• "[...]handed over to the royal courtier the bourgeois proposal for the incorporation of the hereditary government. [...] the king showed him his grace by giving him his picture in diamonds with a gold chain and later gave him a carriage. Moreover, the king not only made use of him in the municipal council, but T. was also appointed assessor in the military college. "

Article:

• "[...]handed over to the rigshofmester' Joachim Gersdorff the bourgeois proposal for the incorporation of the hereditary government. [...] the king showed him his grace by giving him his picture in diamonds with a gold chain. He was also presented with a carriage by the king. Thuresen was also appointed assessor in the Krigskollegiet."

Other recent articles seem to have the same issues: Niels Gersdorff, from earlier this month.

Source:

• "The case was initiated by a complaint from a procurator in Helsingør who believed himself to have been wronged by G. and consequently brought an action for damages. The Supreme Court recognized the validity of the complaint, but G. addressed the king directly, claiming that the issue was outside the Supreme Court's jurisdiction as it was an administrative matter. Despite a very urgent warning from Justitiarius Didrik Sechmann , the king followed his favorite view of the case and declared the verdict invalid."

Article:

• "The case was triggered by a complaint from a lawyer in Helsingør who believed he had been wronged by Gersdorff and consequently filed a claim for damages. The Supreme Court recognized the validity of the complaint, but Gersdorff addressed the king directly, claiming that the issue was outside the Supreme Court's jurisdiction as it was an administrative matter. Against the explicit advice of Chief Justice, Didrik Sechmann, the king followed Gersdorff's view of the case and declared the verdict invalid."

It's not much use that older copyvios will eventually be removed if we allow new ones to be added by the same editor... Fram (talk) 15:04, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Reply: It's not that I can't see that I uploaded the Frederik Thuresen article a bit prematurely. I should obviously have reworked the "public offices" section further. But when you are down to picking out a short sentence such as "In 1660, he helped apply for the convening of the Estates' Meeting", ignoring what comes after it, It feel as if you are very determined to make the problem appear bigger than it is. But still, it's not that I don't see that I should have deleted or rewritten a couple of the other sentences further. As for the Niels Gersdorf example, it's a bit difficult to mention an episode like that without staying pretty close to the source when further information couldnn't be found elsewhere. The episode is mentioned in a number of sources with almost the same wording but I was for instance not able to find the name of the lawyer or what the problem was. I would therefore have thought it was enough to rewrite it to the extent that I did and provice the source. As for the investigation you requested, I never heard more about it (no warnings or other comments on my talk page and I couldn't see that any articles had been deleted). I have therefore assumed that there wasn't a general problem with the quality of my contributions.Ramblersen2 (talk) 17:33, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

@Fram, @Ramblersen2, when the CCI was opened I said, "Non-admins, if you find copyright issues after May 2024, please inform an admin." Unfortunately, I don't think there's anything to do outside of blocking Ramblersen. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 16:20, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Pinging @MER-C; The CCI will need more edits, which may need his non-public surveyor. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 16:23, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Populated. MER-C 18:21, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

• Sunfeast (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Regarding Sunfeast that lacks significant independent coverage and continuous efforts primarily from two editors showing an impression of WP:COI.

The topic was redirected to ITC Limited for the same reason by User:Praxidicae for the same reason, later the redirect was removed by author and added the content back. However, the redirect was restored by user:quinntropy. Again the redirect has been removed by creator now and put the content back.

I want to point out this incident here before any action. AlphaCore talk 10:52, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Pinging: @Praxidicae @Quinntropy AlphaCore talk 10:53, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

AlphaCore, When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. It's not clear if you have tried to discuss this with the editor in question (Blazeboy124 (talk · contribs)) since your only interaction with them was asking what their relation was to another editor. -- Reconrabbit 13:39, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

I want to point out this incident here before any action. I'm not quite sure what you mean by this? ANI is for chronic behavioural issues, where other methods have been tried and failed (e.g. talking to the other person, COI noticeboard).

On looking at their Talk page I'm not seeing anyone who's just tried to explain things to them beyond boilerplate template warnings & your single comment from early March - they've also not edited for nearly a week and no-one has broached COI with them.

That said, I suspect they're continuing to use AI after admitting to it and being asked to stop.

The level of English used in my first diff is very different to their Talk page comments Blue-Sonnet 05:36, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

I was going through these archives to find sus behavior and I found this. And so the buck stops (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and DesmondMoines (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are possibly part of UPE sock farm. They used DesmondMoines to AfD and once the article was reviewed by @SunloungerFrog:, User:And so the buck stops closed it even though DesmondMoines is not blocked and it is perfectly fine for any one to start an AfD. The article was originally started by another SPA LegenProst (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I'd recommend to check and possibly block these accounts for socking and reopen the AfD. Thank you. ~2026-23925-52 (talk) 07:50, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

Just to note, I have un-marked Rillet as reviewed, so it will be back in the NPP queue again. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 10:28, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

It certainly seems premature and presumptuous for Buck to close the AfD as speedykeep on such spurious grounds as vaguely accusing the nominator of "bad faith," but it wouldn't seem to indicate that they're part of a sock network; what would be the benefit in creating the AfD in the first place?

Buck's other activity also seems to be in largely unrelated topics, which makes it unlikely (but not impossible) for them to be a SPA/UPE.

the Rillet article itself does seem to be the sort of all-too-common corporate article dross based on total WP:CORPTRIV but I'm too lazy to do the WP:BEFORE for an AfD nomination right now. Athanelar (talk) 19:44, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

I've nominated the article for AfD. msk 22:42, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

The plot thickens. In the last couple days, And so the buck stops (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has closed or relisted several AfDs. I'm sorry, but an editor with fewer than 700 edits just does not have the experience to be closing AfDs. Ravenswing 23:23, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

• Ok, LegenProst returned after a long period of inactivity to request deletion under G7. This was clearly a bad faith use of G7 because the AfD had a clear consensus to delete, and they tagged it as G7, so they can recreate it once this scruitny is over. I noticed similar behavior from Slicak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diapason (company). I think the two accounts are likely connected.
• MSK, Athanelar, Ravenswing Regarding this Speedy Keep tactic, I think it is becoming common. Most blatant example is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Front App, Inc., one UPE created the article, other AfDed it, Significa liberdade reviewed it, and then it was withdrawn (UPEs were playing among themselves) - this need to be brought back to AfD again. Also, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MrMed, where a newbie !voted keep citing WP:CORPTRIV or WP:NEWSORGINDIA but Zuck28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to speedy keep it. ~2026-24493-37 (talk) 16:47, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

  I just want to note that MrMed was originally reviewed by Umakant Bhalerao (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who was blocked by @Extraordinary Writ: for UPE. Probably, there is a deeper connection here. ~2026-24493-37 (talk) 16:52, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

  You're accusing me of being a UPE based on a singular AfD? You're free to check every one of my 500 or so edits and see if there is any promo. Calling that the "most blatant example" is very baseless and rude. Dragging up something over a month old to ANI, with the article in question already having been deleted is just frivolous. Had you left a message on my talk page pointing out my mistake I probably would have nominated the article for deletion again. Are you also accusing User:Significa liberdade of being in a sock farm too? No comment on the others named here though. Please actually check what people are doing before grouping them together. SecretSpectre (talk) 05:25, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

I've opened an AfD for Front App, inc. and withdrawn it because I believed I was mistaken. I've nominated over a dozen articles for deletion and I make mistakes sometimes. The AfD I closed was my own, which was perfectly within the criteria for speedy keep. Now that I have more experience I probably would have continued the deletion since the sources given by the author was WP:CORPTRIV. In any case what I've done is different from what the other mentioned editors did because they were going around accusing people of bad faith which I didn't. SecretSpectre (talk) 23:25, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

SailorChibiMoon797 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I have warned SailorChibiMoon797 several times about making unsourced edits to articles, especially changing retired actors and actress to not retired incorrectly (1) and inactive to active incorrectly (12) or both (12). Several times this has been correct, like in this edit where they correctly noticed there was no source for Patricia Ja Lee's retirement. However, oftentimes in these same edits they have said that inactive actors were active, like in this edit where an actress that has not acted in ten years was marked as active. This is likely because they seem to think that not being retired is the same thing as being active. While I notified them that it is not (at least as far as I know), they continued to do it. Most simply, though, they just add run-of-the-mill unsourced content (1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 and more). They have been blocked before for this same purpose, with the admin (Ad Orientem) saying I don't know if your editing is deliberately disruptive or if this is a serious case of WP:CIR. For the moment I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt. But you need to tighten up your editing because I think you are currently heading for an indefinite block.. They had received a total of three warnings before their block, and have since gotten 10 more, not including my own. I do still maintain that they are editing in good faith, but they do not seem to be changing their behavior despite numerous warnings. 𝓕𝓵𝓸𝓫𝓵𝓲𝓷 (Talk to me! · My contribs) 15:17, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Pinging @SailorChibiMoon797 per policy and notifying on talkpage 𝓕𝓵𝓸𝓫𝓵𝓲𝓷 (Talk to me! · My contribs) 15:28, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

 Indefinitely blocked from article space. There is a wall of messages and warning on their talk page going back ten years with only a single response from them in that entire time frame. I agree that this is probably not bad faith editing. But it is disruptive and other editors are being forced to clean up after them. This has gone on for too long and the more or less total lack of communication is simply not acceptable. If/when they acknowledge these issues and discuss remedies, I am prepared to lift the block. I also would have no objection to any other admin doing so under those circumstances. But until then, this needs to stop. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:00, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello! I noticed while patrolling that a new account (~2026-26479-60 (talk · contribs)) was displaying the exact same behavior on the article for The Beat with Ari Melber as an account previously banned for block evasion (~2026-78099-3 (talk · contribs) and ~2026-59043-7 (talk · contribs)). I'm not sure how exactly to format these diffs in this message, so I'll make them a short list.

*most recent
*second most recent
*oldest

Thank you. ⚠︎ ArkadenBoden ⚠︎ (talk) 17:24, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

TAIV shows the first two accounts share an IP, but the last TA is too old so I can't retrieve the data.

@ArkadenBoden, you can report future suspected sockpuppetry to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. Admins have specific tools to investigate socks and you don't need to notify the suspected account. Blue-Sonnet 18:01, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Whoops... I'll keep that in mind! I'd forgotten that a sockpuppet generally refers to an account created to be used abusively while hiding one's identity in general, instead of just an account that is used to rally fake support for the puppetmaster/that there wasn't just one type of sock. Apologies.

Much love, rock on!

⚠︎ ArkadenBoden ⚠︎ (talk) 18:06, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

No probs! They're were a few others but they'll be inactive so I've just reverted their edits myself - an admin can deal with the blocking side of things. Blue-Sonnet 18:12, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Elizea Guadalupe López Sánchez (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Not contributing in English, repeatedly moving Infighting in the Sinaloa Cartel to Spanish title and adding Spanish-language text. Has been notified twice that this is English Wikipedia. Wracking ^talk! 19:05, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

 Done, although you did not notify them about this discussion... GiantSnowman 19:10, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman, I hit an edit conflict due to Materialscientist's message, so mine didn't post. It took me a minute as I was putting together a Spanish translation. Is it better to notify the user before posting to ANI? Wracking ^talk! 19:12, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Potato, potato. I usually post then notify. GiantSnowman 19:15, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Lechtkaeaeia has made over 700 newcomer task copyedits since joining wikipedia last month and effectively gamed their way into editing contentious topic articles that are under ECR restriction, for example their recent edit corresponds to an extended confirmed restricted area, namely Indian military history, of which they have been alerted too, the alert also explicitly prohibits gaming ECR. THEZDRX _{(User) | (Contact)} 12:32, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

• I've just had to revert this seriously POV edit of theirs on an ECP article. I'm going to look at the alleged gaming now and I will pull EC if the OP's claims are correct. Black Kite (talk) 12:40, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

• Yeah, this is a borderline one. They've carried on making gnoming edits after reaching ECP (that was reached nearly a month ago) and they haven't really - until the edit I pointed out above - caused a problem with POV as far as I can see. Thoughts from others? Black Kite (talk) 12:46, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

  @Black Kite@ZDRX Hello, I just have been following the new editor home page links, as it guided me along and a few other subjects I like. Have I made a mistake? Lechtkaeaeia (talk) 14:50, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

  Were you doing this for the specific purpose of obtaining the ability to edit in restricted topic areas? 331dot (talk) 14:55, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

  @331dot I was just editing as per my home page options like I said, and I dont think I was purposefully doing this or that to edit in controversial articles. I was trying to edit the pages that I thought I can edit productively and since it enriches my curiosity as well. Lechtkaeaeia (talk) 11:03, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

  Looking at the some of their recent edits on non CTOP articles, they are good edits, and match the edit summary given. But the two highlighted edits on Sanyal and the Godhra train burning are lacking and concerning.

  For Sanyal, the edit summary is that they have now added secondary sources to support text that they had previously added but was reverted. Unfortunately the text they added which seems to be a review of some of Sanyal's books were cited to the books themselves, while the secondary references which are reviews of the books were added to the end of the section after unrelated text. While not the worst on it's own, and is much just a new-editor error, it being on Sanyal's article is a problem due to his works being heterodox and how he relates to Hindutva politics in India, as the reviews used were from Indian outlets that align with Sanyal politically.

  For the Godhra train burning, again the issue may come down to just being too new an editor to see that such a BOLD edit, is not a great idea in the CTOP. The sourcing provided for the changes is good, so it shows a recognition of what is needed to support the changes, even if I disagree with changing the line of the contested origin of the fire to just parrot the courts.

  Overall, unless others provide more such edits that raise eyebrows, I would suggest a reminder on CTOP and a bit of coaching for future editing. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 15:22, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

  I've had a double check of the sources added to the Sanyal article based on comment from Toddy1. And unfortunately, I agree with Vanamonde93 that the articles do not support the text as added. I would still like to think that Lechtkaeaeia can be guided to correcting some of the editing behaviour, but if others are also raising concerns of LLM generation in these areas, then it may not be such an easy correction. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 18:36, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Other than by using common sense, it's never been clear to me how editors know that the article they are editing is covered by CT/SA related ECR i.e. Indian military history or caste-related topics in South Asia. It seems more difficult to see what is covered by ECR for CT/SA than it is for the Arab-Israeli conflict CT. Use of the contentious topics/talk notice template seems quite sparse, so talk pages don't get placed in Category:Wikipedia pages subject to the extended confirmed restriction. Sean.hoyland (talk) 15:38, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Is there a formalised process as to when to add the CTOP notice? If not, it may be an idea to just go through all that relate to the topics caste or IMH, and get them all tagged as soon as possible. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 15:50, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

If CT/SA is anything like the Arab-Israeli conflict CT in terms of talk page templating, the answer to the formalized process question is definitely not. And going through all that relates to the topics is easier said than done. The length of paths traversing the category graph that cross the boundary exiting a CT vary a lot and can be quite short e.g. 3 steps from Category:Caste system in India already takes you to Shania Twain. So, the boundaries of CTs seem to be quite wiggly. I think for the Arab-Israeli conflict CT what happened in practice was that the low hanging fruit, obvious stuff, was templated maybe en masse, and gaps have been filled in over the years. It's still an ongoing process. Sean.hoyland (talk) 04:43, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, the thought was to hit the obvious targets, such as any articles that involve Indian military units, or any that are about south Asian social groups, the "low hanging fruit" to say. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 09:27, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Anyway I've now flagged Sanyal and the Godhra train burning as articles withing the IPA CTOP. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 09:34, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Another problem with Lechtkaeaeia's edits is that he/she is using AI to generate them - for example: the text added in this edit was 72% AI-generated. Vanamonde93 reverted it on the grounds that it needs secondary sources that support it. So Lechtkaeaeia added it again with some book reviews as secondary sources, but when Vanamonde93 checked they found that the sources did not support the content.-- Toddy1 (talk) 17:18, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

• The lack of coherent response from the editor is concerning. I think this editor needs to cease all mainspace editing and find a mentor. Lechtkaeaeia You must take this thread seriously. Failure to address the concerns here may force people to support an indef block on you. Shankargb (talk) 02:18, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

  @Shankargb @Cdjp1 A mentor could be useful, and how to get one? Lechtkaeaeia (talk) 11:41, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

@Toddy1 I recently installed grammarly and was using it, it is helpful to me since English is not my first language. If this is not allowed here, I can stop. Lechtkaeaeia (talk) 11:38, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Grammarly is only helpful if your English is good enough to judge whether the suggestions Grammarly makes are correct or not. A lot of Grammarly's suggestions are actually wrong. And that's apart from the fact that Grammarly now has an AI function that should never be used in Wikipedia at all. --bonadea contributions talk 12:18, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

I recommend Plain Words: A Guide to the Use of English by Ernest Gowers (you can get it from internet bookshops) - it does not matter which edition. If you write yourself, you will learn from doing it, and other editors can correct errors. Sometimes they will ask you what you meant. But often they will check your citations to check they understood you correctly.

Using Grammarly means that your sentences look like AI-generated text, because Grammarly is writing them, not you. Please stop using it. The one thing Grammarly is useful for (on Wikipedia) is detecting AI-generated text.

When you make edits to Wikipedia, base them on what reliable sources say (i.e find sources 1st, write 2nd, not the other way round like now). Do not write what you think is true - like it must have been a muslim mob burning the train (see below) - text on Wikipedia needs to be clearly supported by citations - so if the source does not mention that the criminals were muslim, your text should not either, even though you believe that they must have been.-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:37, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

@Toddy1@Bonadea ⁨I will immediately stop using Grammarly and will be much more careful in checking my citations before making any changes. Can I please be paired with a mentor too? Lechtkaeaeia (talk) 13:02, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

@Lechtkaeaeia, when you go to Special:Homepage, does it list a mentor? CMD (talk) 15:06, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I see a mentor! I will try to reach out to them and work with them from now on. Lechtkaeaeia (talk) 15:25, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Lechtkaeaeia clearly is not basing his/her edits on stuff he/she cites. Though he/she has a good knowledge of stuff to mention in an edit summary to make it look good. In this edit on 27 April 2026 to Godhra train burning (a contentious article), Lechtkaeaeia changed "According to one narrative, the train was attacked by a mob" to "The train was attacked by a muslim mob". Part of Lechtkaeaeia's edit summary said "WP:WEASEL phrase "According to one narrative" removed because the facts about the mob have been established legally by the court." Lechtkaeaeia's edit provided a citation to The Hindu to support that it was a muslim mob. This is an archive link to the cited article; it has no mention of muslims or mobs.-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:25, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

While this may not have been intentional GAMEing, I think that the concerns related to the edit identified here are enough cause to pull XC (or apply a topic ban) pending community review. If someone feels motivated to mentor them, more power to you, but I'm skeptical that it will be a worthwhile use of community time, and ultimately maintaining one's own sufficient competence to edit is each editors' responsibility. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:22, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Their edits outside of alleged gaming are also problematic, take for example:

• This edit promoting Ayurveda, a pseudoscientific form of medicine sourced to opinion pieces and journal on the alternative medicine itself while stating that they are using WP:MEDRS, which has since been reverted by Guy Macon, another instance on traditional chinese medicine .
• Used misleading edit summary to remove sourced content on R. C. Majumdar.
• Pasting AI generated content directly into the article, as highlighted by below THEZDRX _{(User) | (Contact)} 14:52, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

  I agree that those edits are problematic. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 22:29, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Suggested course of action: (1) Remove "extended confirmed" status, since they gamed it. Restore it in 3 months time if they have been making good edits, that (a) are supported by the sources they cite, (b) do not use AI such as Grammarly to produce the content [minor grammar errors are acceptable], and (c) have edit summaries that are relevant to to the edits in question [misleading edit summaries are unacceptable]. (2) Do not apply a South Asia topic ban - it is too wide-ranging, and unnecessary if he/she is making an effort to make good edits. (3) This assumes that they work with a mentor.-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:29, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

This all strikes me as rookie errors and some overeagerness. They seem apologetic and willing to learn. Not sure what else we need to do here. Even some of the edits like on ayurveda and tcm arent promoting them, just noting government initiatives that promote these systems. The sources may not great, but that is again rookie mistakes. Its not always easy to tell that something is an opinion piece if you arent familiar with what to look for. Even Ive messed that up more than once, and had to fix it. Lecht, Id say these are sensitive areas, so perhaps lay off a little longer. Find things you hhave a deep interest in that arent controversial and go in depth there. No shortage of things to do. Isnt there a destubathon going on? I used to destub when I started. You can also just search for stubs by topic. And definitely AI is a nono, for the reasons stated. Since you arent a native English speaker, perhaps you can find sources in your native language that are needed on certain articles that are not controversial.← Metallurgist (talk) 22:38, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

• Lechtkaeaeia has now added a huge AI generated text to Cime di Lemma and most of content is not supported by the cited source. This is when he was told to find a mentor and avoid mainspace. I think an indefinite block is totally warranted. THEZDRX _{(User) | (Contact)} 13:55, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

  No. I have not used AI to make this edit. I was following Metallurgists suggestion about destubbing articles. I saw in the banner of Cime di Lemma that I can use google translate and other tools to help translate and check facts and that is all I did, but I wont use that anymore too, I am sorry, I am learning. Lechtkaeaeia (talk) 17:29, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

  Hi @Lechtkaeaeia, it seems like you're jumping into the deep end a little with editing. Have you tried something simpler? We all learn at different rates and that's ok. The Wikipedia:Typo Team has lots of tasks that don't need AI for & can help you to learn how to edit Wikipedia slowly.

  You can start with simple spelling errors & take a few minutes to read through each article so you can see what different ones look like.

  After a while, you could then move onto simple word changes, like swapping a non-neutral word/phrase for a more neutral one - the Typo Team will have a list and instructions to help you. You can then build up to more complex tasks from there.

  Before you do any of that, I think you might find it useful to do the Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Adventure & get the basics down - what do you think? Blue-Sonnet 17:48, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

  Thank you so much! I have pinged my mentor and I will check out these links as well. Lechtkaeaeia (talk) 18:04, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

  Lechtkaeaeia has already done loads of "swapping a non-neutral word/phrase for a more neutral one" - I do not know why people imagine that it is a good task for new editors; they are the ones least qualified to do it - it is better that he/she tries to build articles or contribute to articles, because that addresses Lechtkaeaeia's learning need: how to write sentences based on what sources say.-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:30, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

  You're right that would be a lot more helpful, I was focusing on building up from smaller tasks to more complex ones slowly, but there's not much point if that's the bulk of what they've already been doing for so long.

  I presumed that most of the earlier edits were made with AI & thought it might be helpful if they tried to do it themselves, but interpreting sources is a very important skill to have here. Blue-Sonnet 22:10, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

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

An editor from the PRC (whose IP-block exempted), did misusing for changing the infoboxes and discussions. These latest edits caused by WP:EDITWAR, WP:UNCIVIL, and MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE etc. Here are the evidence:

• Hugo Weaving (2 May 2026, latest edit war)
• Talk:Milla Jovovich (29 April 2026, "knock it off" as incivility violation)
• Millie Bobby Brown (27 April 2026, violates incivility again)

Absolutiva 06:08, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I find your accusations kinda ridiculous and am not sure why you are dragging me here nine months after unsuccessfully filing an enforcement request against me. Since when is "knock it off" an uncivil term (see , , etc)?? Since when do I edit-war over Weaving's citizenship in the infobox?? Thedarkknightli (talk) 06:57, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

None of this is edit warring, nor is "knock it off" an incivility violation. wound theology◈ 07:00, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Pinging @Clintville: Absolutiva 07:11, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Even in nationality in lede does:

• Special:Diff/1347475055
• Special:Diff/1347882086
• Special:Diff/1348280068
• Special:Diff/1348378791
• Special:Diff/1351483433
• Special:Diff/1352113449

Absolutiva 07:18, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Well, I was reverting edits made by @Dealer07's socks (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dealer07#13 April 2026, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dealer07#12 April 2026, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dealer07#10 April 2026, etc), and WP:3RRNO clearly states that it's perfectly fine to revert "actions performed by banned users in violation of a ban, and sockpuppets or meatpuppets of banned or blocked users" more than thrice "on a single page within a 24-hour period", no? Thanks, Thedarkknightli (talk) 07:56, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

@FinnSoThin: can you please explain this edit without explanation per edit summary? Absolutiva 08:28, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

This is not the place for content disputes. wound theology◈ 10:37, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

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

An editor from the PRC (whose IP-block exempted), did misusing for changing the infoboxes and discussions. These latest edits caused by WP:EDITWAR, WP:UNCIVIL, and MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE etc. Here are the evidence:

• Hugo Weaving (2 May 2026, latest edit war)
• Talk:Milla Jovovich (29 April 2026, "knock it off" as incivility violation)
• Millie Bobby Brown (27 April 2026, violates incivility again)

Absolutiva 06:08, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I find your accusations kinda ridiculous and am not sure why you are dragging me here nine months after unsuccessfully filing an enforcement request against me. Since when is "knock it off" an uncivil term (see , , etc)?? Since when do I edit-war over Weaving's citizenship in the infobox?? Thedarkknightli (talk) 06:57, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

None of this is edit warring, nor is "knock it off" an incivility violation. wound theology◈ 07:00, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Pinging @Clintville: Absolutiva 07:11, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Even in nationality in lede does:

• Special:Diff/1347475055
• Special:Diff/1347882086
• Special:Diff/1348280068
• Special:Diff/1348378791
• Special:Diff/1351483433
• Special:Diff/1352113449

Absolutiva 07:18, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Well, I was reverting edits made by @Dealer07's socks (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dealer07#13 April 2026, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dealer07#12 April 2026, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dealer07#10 April 2026, etc), and WP:3RRNO clearly states that it's perfectly fine to revert "actions performed by banned users in violation of a ban, and sockpuppets or meatpuppets of banned or blocked users" more than thrice "on a single page within a 24-hour period", no? Thanks, Thedarkknightli (talk) 07:56, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

@FinnSoThin: can you please explain this edit without explanation per edit summary? Absolutiva 08:28, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

This is not the place for content disputes. wound theology◈ 10:37, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

I have got to the end of my tether about the editing behaviour of @Brentonrkaring:. This editor is reverting or replacing WP:GOODFAITH edits by me and other on articles such as 2026–27 AFC Champions League Two where they believe that a certain team has qualified and a certain team has not. Their edits and reverts do not contain edit summaries. Their edits and reverts generally do not provide references. Every attempt at engaging via their talk page results in blanking of the talk page, zero engagement, and sometimes a trigger to creating an additional edit pushing their point of view at one or two articles, where their views do not align with my own (nor those of @Sydneyfc4me:). My view is that this is approaching WP:VANDALISM, and the view of User:Sydneyfc4me as potentially being WP:SNEAKY. Trying to have a discussion about this at Talk:2026–27 AFC Champions League Two, and User:Brentonrkaring thinks it is OK to revert/remove a whole section, in the same fashion as they engage in WP:BLANKING on their talk page (the only place they are entitled to do so). I am requesting some Time-out on editing privileges as a reasonable outcome for someone who generally does not engage with the rest of the community when their edits are in dispute. Matilda ^talk 09:28, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Considering their response was to blank this thread and general refusal to communicate, I would be inclined to say they're WP:NOTHERE at this point. • Quinn (talk • it/its) 15:25, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

This has been a chronic issue with the user. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1158#Brentonrkaring ignoring pleas to stop controversial edits, and subsequent block. Main way they interact is to delete things addressed to them. Prior block for same issue. Indeffed. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 15:50, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

• Weyland Hengest (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Weyland Hengest has repeatedly engaged in promotional editing relating to the subject of Draft:Wayne Martin Mellinger, which was deleted G13 a few years ago. These edits include spamming unrelated talk pages and creating a promotional (and possibly AI) sandbox. Despite several talk page warnings, they have continued to show they are not here to build an encyclopedia. Somepinkdude (talk) 21:13, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

PremJi87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I originally asked about this on The Bushranger's talk page here. This editor appears to have permission gamed into gaining autoconfirmed, and then has created Smruti Ranjan Nayak. I believe they have permission gamed because they appear to be editing too quickly for typing regularly; they created User:PremJi87/sandbox in the span of just 4 minutes, which seems to indicate they were copy and pasting the content from elsewhere. Assuming that is the case, it is strange why they segmented their contributions rather than copy and pasting the whole article. They also may be an undisclosed paid editor, given that many of the sources appear to also be undisclosed paid articles. For instance , and all appear to be the exact same promotional article, word for word copied. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 02:40, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

That's weird - this is a single edit, yet it's both curly and straight quotes - this is further proof that the text is copied from elsewhere, yet added in multiple separate edits for one of the aforementioned reasons. Blue-Sonnet 06:16, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

An edit filter for adding both curly and straight quotes at once would certainly catch a lot of weird happenstances. Not sure if it's common enough to make a filter for, but definitely something to consider in the future if we see this happening again (I remember already seeing it a few times myself). On the other hand, there's certainly some risk of false positives (e.g. adding an automated citation that preserves curly quote formatting in the title), so not that straightforward either. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 07:13, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Many websites have filters for edits that are made in quick succession, but a lot of processes are automated so I'd imagine that wouldn't be feasible here. Blue-Sonnet 10:06, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

I sometimes copy paste quotes from articles which are sources and those articles often use curly quotes. Most of the time I remember to replace them with straight quotes, but not always. I don't think I'm all that unusual. I think you'd end up with a lot of false positives with the suggested edit filter. TarnishedPath^talk 06:18, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

• AIand (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)