Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1225

Recently, Orkhano (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been behaving in a suspicious manner. Between 2008 and 2018 (example edit from 2018), @Orkhano has exclusively used terse edit summaries, usually in a foreign language of some kind, and most of the mainspace edits have been very small changes.

Around this time, @Orkhano went inactive. Eight years later, the same account returned to the English Wikipedia with this edit, written in fluent English with an edit summary in once-again fluent English (Create article on the Baku Flames festival, cited to independent sources. COI disclosed on user page.). A couple days later, @Orkhano began making apparently-LLM-generated edits like this contested deletion notice, this deletion review, and this conflict-of-interest notice.

Would someone with CheckUser privileges please check and make sure that @Orkhano's account isn't compromised? GrinningIodize (talk) 16:15, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

In progress. --Yamla (talk) 16:28, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

No signs of compromise. I can't rule it out, of course, but I don't think this is a compromised account. I suspect instead they are simply focused on editing about their festival, as per their WP:COI declaration on User:Orkhano. --Yamla (talk) 16:32, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Good; thanks for the check @Yamla! GrinningIodize (talk) 16:35, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

The change in English proficiency/terseness is probably just due to LLM usage; a problem in itself. That edit summary 100% sounds LLM to me. Athanelar (talk) 19:05, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

I concur. Also per google translate, the 2018 edit summaries were in Turkish. We might want to point them over to trwiki if they aren't competent in English. Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 23:42, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Agreed, this is just someone who discovered LLMs before coming back to enwiki. The checkuser findings don't surprise me and I don't think that this is a compromised anccount, but I can understand where that idea came from. Either the user needs to be convinced to stop using LLMs or gently steered to trwiki. Their 2018 edits seem to have been a net positive on the project. --gurkubondinn 00:29, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Duly reached out, I'll keep an eye on things to see if/when we get a response. Blue-Sonnet In solidarity 03:03, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Good news is that they responded, bad news is they likely responded with AI. They've agreed to stop editing & I've directed them to Turkish Wikipedia. Blue-Sonnet In solidarity 14:52, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Well, as long as they're not compromised and their mainspace disruptions have ended, I suppose the problem is pretty-much solved; would someone please close this discussion as such? GrinningIodize (talk) 14:58, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Jamesedmondsmith7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Almost the entire brief editing history of this new contributor (only signed up today) appears to me to fall firmly into Wikipedia:Competence is required territory. I suspect they are well-meaning, but they appear neither to understand the purpose of Wikipedia or the requirements for content, nor to be capable of communicating in any manner approaching the necessary level of comprehensibility. A few examples:

An edit to the template at the top of Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources, adding text regarding something that appears to be an attempt to supply a source for some unexplained edit. The text added did nothing useful in that regard, and instead messed up the template.

An attempt to ask an entirely off-topic question regarding the UK space program on Talk:Henry, Prince of Wales

An essentially incomprehensible post to what appears to be a random contributor's talk page. .

Nonsense posted to Talk:Darwin's fox, apparently under the misapprehension that a word can only have one meaning.

Jamesedmondsmith7 has now moved on to editing articles, making a complete mess of our articles on Slash_(punctuation) and Backslash. There was also an entirely inappropriate edit (one I'd have dismissed as vandalism without the context) to an article made by a TA very shortly before Jamesedmondsmith7 signed up which I'm almost certain was by them, since it appears to relate to the edit at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources, and gives the same name: I tried to encourage Jamesedmondsmith7 to cease their disruption, but since they are now disrupting articles and not just talk space, and appear unlikely to be worth further effort given their clear lack of understanding, I suggest that they are indef blocked per WP:CIR before they can do more damage. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:08, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Jamesedmondsmith7 has now posted a misplaced response at Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard. I'll leave it for others to decide whether an apparent inability to see that they are posting in the wrong place is further evidence of the problem. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:32, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

More talk page gibberish. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:34, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

I've gone through some of their edits to try and understand what's going on. They do not comprehend the contents of the articles. For example, this about Darwin's Fox is thinking that the Spanish name for the fox (zorro chilote) is instead a reference to the book on Zorro. This on Firestone station of the LA Metro Line confuses it with the non-existent city of Firestone, California. And it goes on, along with incomprehensible stuff referring to some document the user has. Indeffed for disruptive editing. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 00:23, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Oh, it gets better. Now he's claiming to be racially profiled, apparently presuming that we're psychic enough to know that he was black well before he said that he was. Ravenswing 00:49, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

I suspect that the communication issues here are being exacerbated by the use of speech-to-text, based on their claim of being profiled on the basis of their being Jewish complaining of being called a "kite" instead of the actual slur, and would also explain the persistent use of "backsplash" in place of "backslash" and the tendency of their comments to only have punctuation at the very end. ~2026-32341-29 (talk) 01:02, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

I doubt speech to text is being used: see Special:Diff/1356961233, which would be well-nigh impossible with STT. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 01:57, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

There have been several references to past comments and being blocked "before", which might explain things... Blue-Sonnet In solidarity 01:05, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

• Daniel G Rego (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

See Wikipedia:AI noticeboard#User:Daniel G Rego. Continued infractions after warning, denies wrongdoing despite leaving an LLM response in the content. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:29, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

To save reader's time, the most damning evidence - an AI's response to a prompt that was left in the original edit - has still not been explained by Daniel G Rego despite this being the first post in the thread.

Instead, we had a non-specific denial thanking Fermiboson ...for the flagging, and thanks for creating the bot to check for suspicious edit summaries.

This wasn't an edit summary and no bot was mentioned - no mention of that specific edit at all. It reads like he is using AI/LLM but feels that's ok because he's checking the output - as usual with AI-use, we never get an explicit confirmation or denial of use.

A previous concern was also not-quite-denied at the bottom of the page here, but I note that he does admit to using some sort of "bot".

These only tell us that Daniel checks his edits prior to submission and "takes responsibility" for the work - which is interesting since his phrasing is very similar to the old guidance for AI-generated editing prior to WP:NEWLLM coming into force. There is no clarity on the original source of the work.

I'm also confused by this comment, which almost reads as though he is using AI/LLM and is confirming a list of checks performed on the output?

He quotes the current guidelines on AI-use, then writes: Therefore, after the work is performed, using assistance such as: I need a final pass, line by line of my revision to this article against the latest English Wikipedia guidance, including... then gives a really long list of different policies and guidelines - switching from "I" to "you" in several places throughout the post.

Then later, another inference that AI/LLM is being used: Therefore, the article’s content, sourcing, organization, and final wording are my full responsibility.

It's all very vague and inconsistent, we're not getting a straight answer from Daniel and that's concerning. Blue-Sonnet In solidarity 02:17, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm also confused by this comment

I think that is a prompt for a chatbot, which would also explain the switching between indicative first person and second person imperative moods. --gurkubondinn 10:39, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Blatant LLM + blatant lying ought to be equal a block until at least the actual human discusses this here. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 12:25, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Twicebefore (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) The user has been making offensive, harassing, and profane all-caps attacks toward me and other editors in this AfD and on his Talk page found here. In the comments found there, he's admitted to paid editing, yet he has no COI statement on his profile. He also implied he's been blocked from Wikipedia before as well. His page Morris Monye should fall under Speedy Delete for criteria G4, G5, and G11. Thank you. -- HungryHighway🛣️ 10:19, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

The homophobic comments here and here warrant a block on their own imho. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:36, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Blocked for those comments alone. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:22, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Also, page deleted. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:29, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. Any editor that takes issue with the fact that we have articles on LGBTQ subjects is better off not editing here. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:04, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

TankForeverFan (talk · contribs) has been warned and blocked for blanking/vandalizing in the past. They do not appear to have learned from this experience, as they have just now blanked Pretty Bitch Music, replacing it with the text This shit ain't coming out before then removing the discography section of Saweetie . I'm not sure what remedy is needed, but a past final warning and block have proved insufficient. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 04:11, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

They claimed they were hacked. I’ve blocked them as a compromised account and left instructions on how to reclaim access. A checkuser might be able to verify that it was compromised (or may not be able to, depending upon the timeline for the “hacking”). — rsjaffe 🗣️ 04:34, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Checkuser not needed yet, though. Not enough information to determine anything pending response to a Blue-Sonnet information request. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 05:21, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

They now acknowledge that they lied about being hacked. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 05:23, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

They've also written two AI-generated appeals, denied they're AI and started using rather offensive emojis (I'm surprised they work on here). I've told them to rewrite their appeal and knock it off, but I don't think they have the maturity to work here right now. Blue-Sonnet In solidarity 14:40, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Needs TPA revoke as TankForeverFan is doing improper use of the user talk page while blocked. ~ŤheŴubṂachine-840≈ ● ✒️ 14:48, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Well, it doesn't matter now, as the user is now locked ~ŤheŴubṂachine-840≈ ● ✒️ 14:54, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

The lock is because of the possible compromised account, but I don't think they've got any prospect of being unblocked anyway. They need to wait at least a few years before returning to Wikipedia. Blue-Sonnet In solidarity 15:12, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Yup, I thought there might have been at least a miniscule chance that this editor could be turned around, but there's clearly none right now. I doubt they're even in high school yet. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:58, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Yep I thought that too - we were nearly there (until we weren't). Blue-Sonnet In solidarity 15:14, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Orwell and I (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Sultan Abdul sultan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The page Orwell and I was redirected to Zulfikar Ghose as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orwell and I. A couple days later, Sultan Abdul sultan restored the article, which I reverted. This lead to a discussion on my talk page, at User talk:45dogs/Archive 1#Don't redirect Orwell and I. I assumed with my last comment they would understand what the proper procedure to dispute the result was, but they have now restored the page a third time. I do not wish to extensively edit war, so could an admin please consider partially blocking them from the page? Thanks, 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 21:13, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

I now understand. Feel free to revert it. I just saw your last comment on talk page. I have to follow proper procedure as you mentioned. Thanks for your cooperating. Sultan Abdul sultan (talk) 21:39, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

That's good, but I have an other concern. Sultan Abdul sultan, are you using LLMs/AI in your editing on Wikipedia? The wording used here is a dead ringer for a LLM-generated request. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:44, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

No, not at all. Sultan Abdul sultan (talk) 21:49, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

But I am worried that beginner readers of the topic will face ambiguity. Since this essay has now been included in the curriculum of many South Asian Universities as a major essay in studying English literature, it needs to be clearer for them. Sultan Abdul sultan (talk) 22:32, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Making 'things clearer' for university students is the university's responsibility. Wikipedia isn't a platform for rectifying the failures of others. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:37, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

As Andy said, universities are responsible for teaching their students, Wikipedia is not. The whole point of a university is to teach - if their students need to come to Wikipedia to fill in gaps in their knowledge, then the university has no business calling itself a university.

The bottom line is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that anyone can read.

We don't prioritise articles because the subject is taught at university, they are all treated equally according to our policies and guidelines. Blue-Sonnet In solidarity 02:58, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

if their students need to come to Wikipedia to fill in gaps in their knowledge, then the university has no business calling itself a university seems insupportable on all levels to me; maybe there’s a valid point here not being literally conveyed by the sentence? ~2026-28259-76 (talk) 11:46, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

If there is a valid point, rather than a mere assertion as Sultan Abdul sultan has given us, it needs to be explained. What exactly are South Asian university students missing that they need to get from Wikipedia, rather than their university? The deleted article is nothing but a summary of the essay. I would hope that if the essay was a significant part of their studies, they would be expected to read the essay itself. Why do they need a summary at all? AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:01, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Yeah I agree but there’s no reason to be hyperbolic about that. ~2026-28259-76 (talk) 12:41, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't see it as hyperbolic if their current argument is that Wikipedia should base its work on what university's teach and that we're somehow responsible for the education of their students - university is expensive for a reason, because it goes far above and beyond anything that an online encyclopedia can (or should) do.

I stand by the point that a university who's students need to come to an online encyclopedia to gain a complete understanding of a subject they're currently being taught is not a good university. This isn't meant a slight against university education, it's validation of it.

I'll also point out that my comment was written after they reiterated the same argument several hours after Andy's response above.Blue-Sonnet In solidarity 12:54, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

What is "hyperbolic" about a clear statement that making life easy for some university's students is not Wikipedia's remit? I would much rather see clear statements than wishy-washy ones massaged and couched in ambiguities to spare hypothetical feelings. Ravenswing 00:56, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

The temp user ~2026-31930-73, has consistently added unreliable sources. (, , , ) I've already warned them four times on their talk page. (, , ) Most of the sources added are either WP:CIRCULAR violations, or they link to homepages that don't provide the relevant information added to the page. The edits don't appear to be malicious but they ignored the multiple warnings of improperly citing and added more improper citations to the page East Champaran district, the titles of the citations are also deceitful as they added a citation to the Google Maps homepage but titled it "Mehsi Location and Connectivity Data". Streetr4 (talk) 20:52, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

I can see many linked TA's who've edited the same articles and appear to be the same editor behaviourally, the accounts with prior warnings are:

• Special:Contributions/~2026-29580-51
• Special:Contributions/~2026-31935-85

TA-51 is the oldest, so it looks like this is unfortunately a long-standing issue - I can't see any engagement on Talk pages or with other editors either. Blue-Sonnet In solidarity 02:21, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Considering that they were given level 4 warnings on two accounts, I think at least a temporary block should be given. Streetr4 (talk) 11:23, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Handled. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 21:02, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

	This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I am the creator of Kob Fardod, currently under AfD and a contested CSD G15 speedy deletion request. User:Gurkubondinn cited undefined references as a deletion ground. I corrected those references twice. Both times Gurkubondinn reverted my corrections within minutes, restoring the broken references. User:Jumpytoo then filed a CSD G15 tag citing the broken references that Gurkubondinn had restored. This sequence — citing a problem, having it corrected, reverting the correction, then using the restored problem as grounds for speedy deletion — is not good faith editing under WP:GOODFAITH. I have contested the speedy deletion on the talk page with full reasoning. I am requesting administrator review of this editing pattern before the speedy deletion is actioned. The article contains verifiable citations to Burgett, Charles L. Gazetteer of Somalia (US Board on Geographic Names, 1982) — a US federal government geographic authority. XKeyse (talk) 19:21, 31 May 2026 (UTC) Additional concern: I am also raising a concern about possible canvassing. The timeline is as follows: 14:14 — User:Gurkubondinn files AfD nomination 14:38 — User:Shellwood appears and adds Somalia delsort tag — 24 minutes later 14:53 — Gurkubondinn and Shellwood exchange pleasantries about delsort categories 17:01 — User:Jumpytoo appears and files CSD G15 speedy deletion tag — a third editor joining within three hours of the original nomination Three editors from the same topic area appearing in rapid succession on a new article by a new editor, each escalating the deletion machinery one step further, warrants administrator scrutiny under WP:CANVASS and WP:TAGTEAM. None of the three has offered a single source disputing the article's geographic claims.

Both times Gurkubondinn reverted my corrections within minutes, restoring the broken references. Please provide the link to these edits, 'cos they certainly aren't showing up in the edit history for me. Morwen (talk) 19:32, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

@Morwen You are correct. After reviewing the edit history I cannot confirm Gurkubondinn personally reverted my corrections. I withdraw that specific claim.

The issue here should be simple — providing correct cited information about Kob Fardod, a historical village that was the cradle of the Somali Dervish movement. I provided well researched citations with solid references spanning history and geography, from well known Italian and British sources who both documented the village, further substantiated by Sadler's 1899 dispatch as British representative during the rise of the Dervish movement. More sources are available if disputed.

There is no dispute on substance. My interest is to inform and to dispel ambiguity about where Kob Fardod was located between 1891 and 1901. Gurkubondinn's interest is puzzling by contrast — he had no involvement with this topic before my article. Two stubs sat untouched for years adding nothing about the whereabouts of this community. When a properly sourced article was created his response was not to correct or improve it but to remove it entirely.

It is a waste of time arguing deletion with someone who contributed nothing to the article and finds its existence bothersome. If Wikipedia is better served by deletions than by fixing and improving articles then so be it.

The Burgett Gazetteer of Somalia (US Board on Geographic Names, 1982) places Qoob Fardood at 8°58′N 46°18′E. That citation has not been disputed by anyone in this discussion. XKeyse (talk) 20:30, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

The incoherent mess currently being discussed at AfD makes no mention whatsoever of it being 'the cradle of the Somali Dervish movement'. Instead it consists entirely of statements concerning its location, with almost nothing to indicate what exactly is being discussed. A collection of sources concerning the location of something-or-other is desperately poor grounds to build notability around. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:05, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

XKeyse, please don't use an AI/LLM to file ANI reports. Please speak with your own words. Thanks, 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 19:49, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Additional evidence of pattern behavior: On 31 May 2026 alone,

User:Gurkubondinn targeted three separate Somalia-related articles: Haji Sudi (restored to pre-LLM version at 13:23), Kob Fardod (AI tag at 14:10, AfD nomination at 14:14), and Wilson Hasda (AfD nomination at 15:08). All three actions occurred within two hours using identical AI-generation accusations. This pattern of targeting multiple articles by the same editor in rapid succession warrants administrator scrutiny under WP:SPA and WP:TAGTEAM. XKeyse (talk) 19:53, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

@XKeyse, please provide diffs for your accusations. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 19:58, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Can a WP:BOOMERANG done here please? This editors contributions since 21:05, 16 May 2026 have all been AI slop. Examples: The Coordinate Confirmation The article reproduces Swayne's 1891 reconnaissance coordinates including at , G15 level user communication in , and the LLM comments here & at AfD. Jumpytoo Talk 20:01, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Tempblocked for LLM use. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 20:57, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm now aware of this thread, and will do my best to respond to any questions directed at me but will otherwise stay out of the discussion. I'll also refrain from making any edits to articles that the filer is involved with while this ANI is ongoing. --gurkubondinn 21:10, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

he flagged me for vandalism but i only translated [CLM] page in italian — Preceding unsigned comment added by AALoverM1 (talk • contribs) 19:19, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

This isn't the Italian Wikipedia though. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:57, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

@AALoverM1, please do translations into Italian on the Italian Wikipedia, not here. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 20:58, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

In the past couple of days, Editor @Zefr has reacted to my edit on the Flavan-3-ol page (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Flavan-3-ol&oldid=1356414063) by first initiating a Sock Puppet Investigation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Ggux) within hours of the edit and, after this had been closed, with a notice on the Conflict of Interest noticeboard (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&section=24#User_Ggck2,_flavan-3-ol_article,_and_funding_by_Mars,_Inc.).

Without any discussion, @Zefr has decided that I must no longer edit specific articles and that I must provide a COI box. @Zefr bases this decision on the behaviour of @Ggux whom they believe to be identical with me due to the fact of similar research interests and that my account opened after @Ggux left Wikipedia (this was the main reason to raise the Sock Puppet Investigation).

Background: My edit introduced a mentioning of a large clinical trial that - in my opinion, but also the opinion of the majority of the flavanol research community - is important and noteworthy due to its scale; not many nutrition studies are conducted with more than 20,000 participants. The statement was neutral ("a study happened") and included a link to a Wikipedia page that already mentioned the study (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_Health_Initiative#COcoa_Supplement_and_Multivitamin_Outcomes_Study_(COSMOS)).

@Zefr removed the statement as "unencyclopedic" and initiated the sock puppet investigation. I appreciate that one can have different opinions about including the study and started a WP:3O, especially as there are precedents for both - inclusion and not inclusion, on Wikipedia. So far, only @Zefr commented with a note of the Conflict of Interest noticeboard.

The disagreement - as far as I can see - is, that I believe that as researcher with interest in flavanols, I am a Subject Matter Expert as per the Wikipedia Conflict of Interest policy and am permitted to edit. @Zefr alleges that because I have received research funding from Mars, I fall directly or indirectly category of financial conflicts of interest. The accusation made on the Conflict of Interest noticeboard:

"It seems natural to wonder if Ggck2 is looking for the favor of further Mars funding by giving the Mars-sponsored COSMOS study publicity on Wikipedia."

I appreciate that @Zefr intends to prevent Wikipedia to be used for misleading claims, and that it is important to do so. I am also happy to follow all relevant rules and decisions to ensure the integrity of the relevant articles. However, I believe that @Zefr is biased in their assessment of my edits and my intentions, and would welcome a third party arbitration. Ggck2 (talk) 21:42, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

It seems to me regardless of whether you Ggux, you clearly have a COI and should refrain from editing those articles directly. Nil Einne (talk) 02:27, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked Ggck2 for disruptive editing, specifically conflict of interest editing without proper disclosure. Any unblock should be contingent on a full and frank COI disclosure on the editor's userpage, an honest explanation of any connection with User: Ggux, and pageblocks from all articles where a COI exists. Subject matter experts can edit only if they fully comply with restrictions on conflict of interest editing. Cullen328 (talk) 03:18, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

@Ggck2 and @Ggux are most definitely the same person, based on the ORCID provided here. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 03:50, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

I think we know well who Ggck2 is since they've provided their full name etc. The questions is whether we know who Ggux is. Unlike with the current Ggck2, Ggux never seems to have revealed an IRL identity unless I've missed something. From what I see they have very similar interests and the account creation times also makes it seem very likely, personally enough for me. Even the SPI basically seemed to conclude something like 'they're probably the same person but since there's no simple violation it's not something for SPI'. Still I don't think there's a smoking gun unless there's something I missed. Nil Einne (talk) 04:01, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Such issues can be discussed thoroughly in an unblock request, if the editor chooses to appeal. Cullen328 (talk) 04:06, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Sheila1988 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Despite all these warnings, Sheila continues to make no attempt to check their work and continues to break pages by inserting bad code. Their most recent error (here) once agin inserted code that a simple use of WP:PREVIEW would have caught right away. I understand there are those who disagree that these minor typos are problematic but they make it harder to keep pages working and catch vandalism when users continously and with no attempt to correct their mistakes populate error categories. Sheila has been warned 5 times and has made no attempt to improve. At this point I think admin intervention is needed. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:32, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

I think this is somewhat excessive. The Black Pirate error I noticed immediately and fixed the next minute. The jour de fete error was putting in 'editor' instead of 'editing'. I am using the split-screen feature at the moment to check pages as I edit. Sheila1988 (talk) 22:43, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Apologies, I'm confused - how does a split screen allow you to preview your edit before submission? Can you explain your current editing process a little more, so we can make sure you won't run into any further issues going forwards? Blue-Sonnet In solidarity 04:23, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

I think Sheila is referring to the split screen mode of Source Editor, in which you see the code on the left, and the preview of the page on the right. There's a screenshot of it at commons:File:How to edit a page Edit box - 2025 with preview and syntax highlight (cropped).png. - In solidarity, MolecularPilot (talk) 04:25, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

I use the split screen mode, and I can confirm it is sufficient to verify edits and preview before saving. I think if Shelia can commit to using this consistently in future to double-check the wiki code before pressing save, then no further intervention is required at this time. - In solidarity, MolecularPilot (talk) 04:33, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

As the reporting party, I am more than happy to see this resolved with a commitment from Shelia as MolecularPilot suggests above. But I would like that to be stated by an admin (which again, I am not) so that if there are further issues this warning has come from an admin. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 04:36, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

That's interesting, I've learned something new today - thanks both! Blue-Sonnet In solidarity 12:36, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Hey, this individual copied almost my entire draft of Draft:Shabang_(song) and inserted it into Shabang_(song). You can see that in an edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shabang_%28song%29&diff=1356912175&oldid=1355530815 where user User:~2026-32172-23 directly copy and pasted my content with minimal paraphrases.

For example: (My Draft):

The music video for "Shabang" was released alongside 18 music videos for the album on May 15, 2026.Mazaratti, Johnny (May 15, 2026). "ICEMAN: Drake Floods YouTube with 14 New Music Videos". HipHopCanada. Retrieved 26 May 2026. The video is on a large controlled explosion and shortly features Drake's silhouette; the explosives' footage was a majority of the runtime.

The explosion was filmed on the evening of April 16, 2026, at Downsview Park in North York, Toronto.Spurr, Ben (April 23, 2026). "Drake music video's shock-and-awe explosion rattles residents, leads to Toronto councillor's motion". Toronto Star. Retrieved 26 May 2026. The production was permitted by the City of Toronto under the name "Project Bot", a Special Effects (SPFX) permit was issued; Toronto Fire Services and Toronto Police Service were involved in advance of the shoot."City confirms explosion at Downsview Park was part of Drake video shoot". CTV News. April 17, 2026. Retrieved May 23, 2026.Dev, Prisha (April 17, 2026). "Explosion during film shoot at Downsview Park rattles Toronto residents". Global News. Retrieved 26 May 2026. Downsview Park had posted a notice on both its website and social media, warning the planned pyrotechnic effects taking place during the week of April 13, advising that residents may notice loud noises, flashes of light, and smoke in the area.^[1]

You can see how the references are the exact same, how the content is the exact same in the same format as I wrote it, but they just switched around a few sentences with other ones and some words; as if they used a paraphraser tool.

I wouldn't care for this, although, not being given any notice and my draft submission still being up when I independently learned about this really infuriates me, as they're practically taking my research and writing as their credit.

TL;DR?

This edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shabang_%28song%29&diff=1356912175&oldid=1355530815 shows where individual User:~2026-32172-23 copied almost my entire Draft:Shabang_(song)#Music_video section which at the time was submitted using AfC-submit-wizard. No credit, no heads-up, just fully stole my research.

Please, do something about this. Cheromaniii (talk) 03:20, 2 June 2026 (UTC)Cheromaniii

Hi @Cheromaniii, the notice at the top of the page and when posting explains that you must notify the other party when reporting - I've done this for you. Blue-Sonnet In solidarity 03:48, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Forgot, sorry. Thank you @Blue-Sonnet Cheromaniii (talk) 03:52, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

No problem! I hope it's ok that I've minimised your evidence so it doesn't take up as much room, it's all still visible if you click on the banner. Blue-Sonnet In solidarity 04:10, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Much appreciated, thanks @Blue-Sonnet ! Cheromaniii (talk) 04:11, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

The instructions at ANI also say to discuss issues with editors before starting a thread here. I have left a message on the TA's talk page regarding providing proper attribution before copying content to another page. Anyone can copy within Wikipedia so long as they follow attribution rules. Please see WP:OWN. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:13, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

I've also merged the draft history into the article. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:20, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Valid, although, he did take that information from an unapproved draft waiting to be accepted/declined, then he put it into a redirect page without permission (to my knowledge) taking away the redirect page and fully bypassing the draft system.

Is that allowed? Cheromaniii (talk) 04:20, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes. There is no rule against copying content from draftspace into mainspace. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:22, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for clearing it all up.

Cheromaniii (talk) 04:24, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

User: Rosemeyer2022 (talk · contribs)

User Rosemeyer2022 is violating Wikipedia:Reliable sources, Wikipedia:Don't bludgeon the process, is Wikipedia:Edit warring, is violating Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and making disruptive edits.

Rosemeyer has been trying to remove well-sourced information at the article for the Racial Equality Proposal during the Treaty of Versaillies, which was an effort by Japan to propose racial equality. Academics point out that Japan's proposal was hypocritical, and Rosemeyer is suspected of trying to remove this information in 2025 given that this IP makes the exact same edit they made in the past.

Rosemeyer has made multiple attempts to remove this well-sourced information and have engaged in edit warring, such as in April 2026 which was reverted by User:Peaceray. They reverted my attempt to restore the content in May 17, 2026, as well as reverting another editor who also tried to restore the content. They are near the edge of the Three revert rule with their most recent reverts.

Beyond the edit warring, I tried to talk to them on the talk page, warning them (they had been warned before by other users) Not to mention, they have made reverts and claimed it was compromise attempts before even letting me reply.

There is unfortunately a serious POV pushing and violations of NPOV as well as lack of reliable sources. I explained in detail that they had removed well-sourced information, which they claimed "contains propaganda from Japanese soldiers who were brainwashed in prisoner-of-war camps in China...whose contradictory testimonies have been pointed out by historical societies as fabricated), and lacks historical basis." Their views unfortunately seriously indicate far-right, ultra-nationalist bias. They doubled down and said the source "contains clear fabrications by the Chinese government...In recent years, China and Russia have been engaging in a recognition war in Japan..."

Their most recent edits say things like very conspiratorial statements as well as claiming that English-speaking academic institutes are under the influence of China: "Many of the documents you cite are laundered versions of information disseminated by the Chinese government or experts under its influence, using secondary citations in academic papers... American universities are simply reprinting it without any historical criticism, and it should be noted that no academic verification has been conducted." This info is from the Chinese Government (specifically Xinhua, a state news agency, which got the source from Jillin Province) and which I am somewhat skeptical of, but it was verified by Santa Clara University of San Jose, California. They essentially are making very serious POV statements.

As for sourcing, they said: "Various counterarguments have been made from Japan, but have you actually read them?...first carefully read the counterarguments in Japanese and reconsider your own claims." Now, I am open to engaging in dialogue but you can see through the entire discussion they've never once provided an actual source despite me requesting it multiple times now. Their newest reply, does not even address my points, nor provide sources, and they just say that Wikipedia admin should decide this.

This is a significant reason why I am filing the ANI, as it is impossible to have a discussion with Rosemeyer when they POV push and refuse to cite sources, they repeatedly accuse China of spreading propaganda, China of brainwashing POWs to spread propaganda, China/Russia fueling division in Japan, China is influencing American institutions/academics, essentially bludgeoning the point by saying that the sources are all influenced by China. Now personally, I do not identify as a fan of the Chinese government + I dislike nationalism; their bias is so significant that I really can't engage in dialogue when almost every discussion post the user makes to try to refute my points is about the modern Chinese government's infilitration of American academica on a topic about Japanese racism towards non-Japanese people in the 1910s.

I will be a bit busy tomorrow but will be free to reply to any questions admin has within 24 hours of 304 UTC, 19 May.

Sunnyediting99 (talk) 03:04, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

You should consider editing this to between 1/2 and 1/4 of its current length. ~2026-28259-76 (talk) 13:47, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Cutting 3/4ths might be too much, but i will take your recommendation and cut this down a lil bit, appreciate the advice. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 01:07, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

It appears to me that Rosemeyer is pushing a specific POV in violation of NPOV, and is using fringe or incorrect reasons for some of the edits. The following recounts all of their article edits, as over the past 4 years they have 27 edits. I am listing this here as I am not an expert in these areas, so without corroboration that these are fringe/POV edits, I won't be taking administrative action myself.

Japanese carpentry

Special:Diff/1214623337/1214641591 Remove mentions of Chinese influence

Special:Diff/1329504198/1330723643 Remove mentions of Chinese influence

Special:Diff/1334354614/1335758262 Reduce importance of Chinese influence

Manila Cathedral

Special:Diff/1329502622 Changed so that US, not Japanese, responsible for destruction

Special:Diff/1329619675 Changed so that US, not Japanese, responsible for destruction

Racial Equality Proposal

Edit warred to remove mention of Japanese hypocrisy (e.g., Special:Diff/1351616339)

Ben Bruce Blakeney

Special:Diff/1328284271/1351761556 Inserted statement that record of discussion of potential war crimes by US against Japan was partially suppressed during the Tokyo war crimes trials.

Biological warfare

Special:Diff/1354579762 Picture removed. Edit summary "A photograph taken on January 7, 1940, of an employee of the Health Bureau of the Manchukuo Ministry of Health conducting plague "epidemic prevention" activities in Nong'an County, Jilin Province in November 1940, was mistakenly used and has been removed." Picture is of Unit 731 victim.

Japanese war crimes

Removed same picture as above (twice): Special:Diff/1354601990 Special:Diff/1354834116

— rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:08, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks @Rsjaffe for your input, I had not examined their older edits which you have pointed out as I was focused on their newer ones, but after looking over it I agree with you that Rosemeyer is definitely pushing a POV and violating NPOV by using fringe reaosns (with no citations to back it up either) in even their earlier edits.

The biggest takeaway and evidence that these are POV edits is that they've never once really inserted new information from academics (even POV pushers often try to weasel by using new sources) but here they keep repeatedly removing information, and deleting well-cited information. Also NOTE: I left them an ANI notice on their page, and they were recently active but they are not replying on this ANI and have kept to their talk page. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 01:12, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

User is still making very POV/biased statements in their talk page, now they're saying "...a firm response is necessary against acts of history fabrication by entire nations, like in China, and Japan is also undergoing a generational shift" which is an incredibly incendiary statement. Beyond that they say arguing with other editors is "a waste of time" and they say they plan to request Wikipedia admin take action...even though they had the opportunity to talk here for days now.

Requesting admin assistance with this user. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 03:02, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Since I can post here as well, I will raise my concerns again. Regarding this photo album and its caption, published in the 1940s and owned by the Jilin Provincial Archives, please provide any physical evidence or verification papers that prove it is incorrect. I have requested this many times, but I have not received a single response. I do not wish to quote it because it lacks neutrality, but even in this Chinese media article

http://dangshi.people.com.cn/n/2014/0113/c138900-24103649-14.html

It is clearly stated that the photo was taken during epidemic prevention activities. The article also mentions Unit 731, but please note that this is unrelated to the photo's caption. It is against Wikipedia rules to assign a file name to a photograph and caption whose source is clearly known, without providing any evidence of relevance. Furthermore, despite repeatedly pointing this out and requesting primary sources, you have not responded at all, and instead, you have reverted the article based on a Chinese media article and blocked the IP address, which I believe goes against the spirit of Wiki, which respects consensus building through discussion. Wiki is not a scrapbook of web pages. The correct procedure is to verify and discuss any new sources presented and update any errors in the article. I would appreciate hearing the opinions of many people, as well as any counterarguments to the primary sources.Thank you. Rosemeyer2022 (talk) 22:37, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Rosemeyer, you haven't really addressed almost any of the points being raised here. I can put it in short, concise points all the issues right now.

1) You have not addressed your complete lack of sources, whether they are Japanese, English, secondary or primary, on the Racial Equality Proposal article (especially your claims that China is influencing the sources present in the article), and why you are trying to delete historian Bryan Riggs work off when you havent provided citations or sources suggesting any form of bias from him (as well as why you have been deleting well-cited information off that.)

2) You have not addressed administrator Rsjaffe's very concise and well-done research on the history of your edits, they said in this very discussion that you on four other pages since 2024 focused on removing content that either suggests Chinese influence on ancient Japanese culture or on Japanese war crimes. Rsjaffe themselves said you are pushing a "specific POV in violation of NPOV, and is using fringe or incorrect reasons for some of the edits.

3) Your most recent response is the first time you have given us an actual source on anything, which you could and should have been doing since when the discussion first started. I already provided the Santa Clara University source. Also your own source labels the article "Evidence of Japanese Crimes During the Invasion of China Resurfaces: Forced Recruitment of Comfort Women and Laborers; Germ Warfare" and puts that same photo as "This is a reproduced photograph of personnel from the Health Care Department of the Manchukuo Ministry of National Health participating in a plague "epidemic prevention" activity in Nong'an County, Jilin Province in November 1940 (taken on January 7)." with " " for epidemic prevention which suggests it is criticizing the actual nature of it versus what it was.

Please do not accuse me on "failing to respond", I gave you an ANI notice on May 19. Did you not notice the notification and link you were given because I posted it on your talk page? And its very hypocritical of you to claim I am not providing sources when I have provided and defended multiple sources, such as "Language Conflict and Language Rights: The Ainu, Ryūkyūans, and Koreans in Japan." by Stanley Dubinsky (University of South Carolina) and William D. Davies (University of Iowa) by two American scholars based in the US. Another source, the "Introduction: Race and Empire in Meiji Japan" is written by Israeli scholar Ayelet Zohar as well as Bryan Riggs (even if I am not a fan of his work) as well as Santa Clara University. I provided/defended these sources whilst you only now have introduced a single source. Not to mention, Wikipedia prefers secondary sources per its policy. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 00:35, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Sunnyediting99, I have answered your questions many times. Please do not make me repeat the same things over and over. Nevertheless, I also do not want to stoop to the level of someone who refuses to engage in discussion, I will answer the issues you have raised once again.

1. The Racial Equality Proposal Article

First of all, I apologize for initially editing the article regarding the Racial Equality Proposal without providing a solid explanation. However, during the discussion you subsequently proposed, I offered you a correction draft that kept the well-founded citations intact. You rejected it, completely reverted the article, and reported my edits to an admin. If you have no intention of even discussing the matter, please say so from the beginning.

There is no need for me to explain Bryan Rigg's work. It is modestly criticized in the English Wikipedia article and its Talk page, but please refer to the Japanese Wikipedia for details. The citations and sources suggesting bias that you are looking for—including various sources from historians and journalists criticizing its preposterous content—are all there. If you have any doubts about those sources, please discuss them there.

2. Administrator Rsjaffe's Remarks

Regarding the point made by Admin Rsjaffe, my past edits have been made by providing sources for each respective article. I have corrected clearly incorrect information written on a private individual's blog, to the official information from the Japanese government. Furthermore, I have tracked down the English literature that serves as the source for content written on the Japanese Wikipedia, cited it, and reflected it in the English Wikipedia.

I do not understand Admin Rsjaffe's true intentions in characterizing this as pushing a specific point of view, but I respect their decision stating, "So without corroboration that these are fringe/POV edits, I won't be taking administrative action myself." This is because presenting more reliable sources, exhausting discussion, and reaching a consensus aligns with Wikipedia's fundamental principles. It is a far more reasonable approach than that of someone who refuses to listen to explanations from the start and is fixated solely on maintaining the article's status quo.

3. Citations from Chinese Media and Other Sources

It is exactly as I expected, and truly makes me laugh, that you pointed out the article states, "Evidence of Japanese Crimes During the Invasion of China Resurfaces: Forced Recruitment of Comfort Women and Laborers; Germ Warfare" in response to a Chinese media article I only cited after explicitly stating I did not want to because it lacks neutrality.

Fabricated Content: From the perspective of someone who can read Japanese, Chinese propaganda is nothing but preposterous fabrication. Try pointing out the captions of the other photos in that article as well. I can clearly prove that they are completely different from the actual text of the documents shown in the photos. They are simply lining up plausible-looking photos for a domestic Chinese audience that cannot understand Japanese, writing sensationalist articles that are entirely irrelevant and baseless. That is why I have told you many times that citations from Chinese media cannot be trusted.

Epidemic Prevention: You wrote, "for epidemic prevention which suggests it is criticizing the actual nature of it versus what it was." but that is nothing more than your personal impression. Therefore, to avoid increasing the number of victims of Chinese propaganda like yourself, I do not want to cite Chinese media.

Ignored Edit Proposals: Regarding the citations of Stanley Dubinsky, William D. Davies, and Ayelet Zohar, I actually proposed an edit to you that left them intact. You did not respond to this at all and instead reverted everything—including the citation of Bryan Rigg, whom even you claim not to be a fan of. Correct?

Santa Clara University Photo: Furthermore, regarding the photo sourced from Santa Clara University: you claimed this is a secondary source and previously argued that Wikipedia's policy prioritizes secondary sources. I will repeat my answer to that once more. A secondary source that Wikipedia considers reliable is one written by scholars, published by an academic publisher, and carefully scrutinized for quality control. The Santa Clara University page you cite lacks any scholarly verification or annotation whatsoever; it merely reprints captions from Chinese media with the caveat, "According to Xinhua Press"

I completely fail to understand why you all obsess over a file name with clearly incorrect content citing a Chinese media article, going so far as to IP-block me and block my article editing on Wikimedia. To me, it simply looks like an act that damages Wikipedia's credibility. I have seen many times how people who blindly believe that caption make a fuss on social media based on this photo, only to run away when confronted with the actual primary sources. It is truly pitiable to watch you remain completely unaware that you are a victim of Chinese propaganda.

Historical recognition is a delicate issue in any country, and while I believe complete agreement will never be reached, but I still think we should maintain respect for one another. Unilaterally labeling your opponent and demanding the exact same explanations over and over is not respectable behavior. I look forward to a meaningful discussion that involves consideration for the other party.

Finally, thank you very much for taking the time to read this message.

Let us both strive to deepen our knowledge and cultivate the intellectual refinement necessary to find common ground. Rosemeyer2022 (talk) 12:18, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

This is getting incredibly repetitive, you have not really answered any of my points except the second one. Again, you are repeating the same things PRECISELY because you are not answering anything.

1) Give me a source, an academic source, from any author, Japanese, American, Korean, Russian, British, any academic source. You cannot genuinely tell me to look at Bryan Riggs Wikipedia page or Japanese Wikipedia, those are not acceptable answers. If you cannot actually find a single source and instead just direct me to wikipedia pages or Japanese wikipedia that is not a proper way to present citations. It is not my responsibility to find those sources that you are presenting your argument for, you have to actually cite them here, like you have for the Unit 731 photo.

2) Rsjaffe responded already so I will let them deal with your response, but admin is clearly not convinced by your arguments especially in light of how much content you deleted just to make Japan look good. As multiple editors pointed out, your editing strongly suggests you have a pro-Japan bias, specifically the revisionist type.

3) I see Rsjaffe and others are already talking about the Santa Clara stuff/sourcing so I don't want to make it redundant, but they clearly agree with my position that you are just abusing primary sources by uncritically accepting Japanese narratives while dismissing secondary sources from American institutes. Also, where have I IP-blocked you? Can you please tell me where in the talk page or here on the Admin noticeboard where I IP-blocked you (or asked admin to block you)? You are making claims that don't make any sense at all.

Also, you are now making personal attacks towards me which violates Wikipedia policy, here you have twice now personally attacked, you have said I am a "victim of Chinese propaganda" even though I am not pro-China/pro-PRC and now you say I am an "opponent." Sunnyediting99 (talk) 22:12, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

First of all, can we please stop discussing this on this forum? I think we're causing a lot of trouble for those around us.

What kind of proof are you asking for regarding Bryan Riggs? His book isn't a peer-reviewed academic paper or anything like that, so there's no academic literature to prove that its contents aren't reliable. Similarly, there are no papers to prove that its contents are reliable. There are criticisms and reviews of the book, but those are topics for discussion in the Bryan Riggs article.

I'm not blaming you for the IP block. I was simply stating the fact that I've been blocked on Wikimedia Commons and raising concerns about how I'm being treated. I apologize if calling you a "victim of Chinese propaganda" offended you. However, your statement that my edits are "historical revisionist" also feels like an insult to me. Revisionists don't even engage in discussion; they act on the premise that the other party is unilaterally wrong. I always seek discussion and want to acknowledge and correct my own mistakes. I believe that unilaterally deciding on the other person's "principles" and proceeding with the discussion based on that premise is completely unconstructive. Also, I'm not a native English speaker, so I don't know the exact meaning of "opponent" in English-speaking countries, but I'm using it in the sense of a debate partner.

To reiterate, you were the one who first raised the issue of my editing on the admin forum. However, the discussion has devolved into a mere exchange of arguments about individual articles, causing considerable inconvenience. You claim to want to "exclude" me from discussions about Japanese history, but if that's your purpose for making this discussion public, then I don't want to cause any more trouble for everyone, so I'd like to quietly return to editing my articles. Rosemeyer2022 (talk) 02:00, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

This is the appropriate forum as admin can track our conversation, and if the Topic Ban passes you won't be allowed to edit Japan-topic articles anyhow.

You say his stuff isn't peer reviewed, or that his stuff isn't reliable. That would easily meant certain historians or journalists would have had to have written about him, particularly negatively on this topic. We have numerous cases of this, like how I said that Kobori Keiichiro is a far-right revisionist. Here's an example:

Example: I stand by the claim that your edits are POV pushing, especially since other editors have already pointed that out to. Here's a perfect comparsion, you have cited far-right historians like Kobori Keiichiro, which multiple sources say he's a revisionist or affiliated with revisionists or he says revisionist things. Georgetown University flat out says the society he's with is "pseudo-scholary." I made a point, I defended it with sources and quotes from reputable sources like his own words, DW (German news outlet secondary source), Georgetown University (secondary source, American academic institution). Nowhere did I just say things or tell editors to look at wikipedia pages, I give concise, targeted links so that you can easily click them and you know where I got this information from. Its indisputable that what you cite is from the far-right.

Contrast that with your claim, you said I am a "victim of Chinese propaganda" when I have shown time and again that I am not a fan of the Chinese government and don't hold great views of it. I outright asked other editors if a source like the Chinese media article should even be included as I said I was uncomfortable using a Chinese government source. I would have been open to discussing removing it, but you refused to respect me throughout this entire process. You offered compromises without letting me even accept or reject them.

I find it hard to believe the "opponent" mistranslation when let me quote EXACTLY the words you said to describe me: "Therefore, to avoid increasing the number of victims of Chinese propaganda like yourself, I do not want to cite Chinese media...It is truly pitiable to watch you remain completely unaware that you are a victim of Chinese propaganda." Translation issues can happen yes, but anyone can see that you had to have deliberately written that in Japanese to convey such spiteful comments.

As for the exclusion, I was not the one who even proposed it. I am merely agreeing to the proposal after multiple other editors decided your behavior towards me and others was so disrespectful (and because you showed significant POV pushing and bias in your edits). that they collectively started to agree upon it hours before I even edited today. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 02:33, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Regarding Brian Riggs, Professor Shiro Takahashi of Reitaku University and education scholar Shiro Takahashi have criticized the content, and journalist Toshihiro Yamada interviewed him and raised questions about the content. (I apologize that it is a paid article. Brian Riggs denies receiving funding from the Chinese government, but he admitted that he received assistance from a Chinese woman in organizing historical materials, and that her friend was the chief record keeper handling public documents in Nanjing. The article suggests that the writing style is intended to create buzz and increase sales.)

For recent Japanese perceptions of the Tokyo Trials, please read this article by Asahi Shimbun reporter Makino, for example. It's short. Incidentally, for recent actions by the Chinese government, you might find the Asahi Shimbun article by Dr. Dylan Plung of the University of Washington, who is also mentioned in that article above, the Jiji Press article, and the paper from the National Institute for Defense Studies of the Japanese Ministry of Defense helpful. You will understand why Japanese people are nervous about information from Chinese media such as Xinhua News Agency, including the photograph in question.

I offered a compromise precisely because I respected your opinion. However, as a result, my editing has been completely ignored. Is this the result of you showing me respect? The language barrier is truly frustrating. You unilaterally declared me a revisionist, shut down the discussion, and reported me as a user making disruptive edits on the administrator bulletin board.

I believe I have carefully responded to the many points raised by people here, but the discussion proceeded with a predetermined conclusion from the start, and I've even been subjected to a TBAN. Some people on Wikimedia have shown understanding for my explanation, but they are powerless against the authority of the administrators. In any case, I will continue to deepen my knowledge, correct what needs correcting, admit my mistakes, and strive for agreement and respect for historical understanding not only on Wikipedia but on various stages as well.

I'm getting tired, so that's all from me. Good night. Rosemeyer2022 (talk) 04:53, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

I call your edits showing revisionist intent precisely because you keep citing revisionists.

You cited Professor Shiro Takahasi about Bryan Riggs, well I looked him up. The Japan Forward (the English wing of the Sankei Shimbum a right wing-far right newspaper) notes his presence/writes about him multiple times and shows he is affiliated with far-right groups. That same person you cite, is highly reviewed by the far right "Society for the Dissemination of Historical Fact" that I talked about. While I am not supportive of Bryan Riggs work, it is clear there is a collective, coordinated effort by far-right Japanese scholars to try to discredit him as the articles clearly indicate.

These other sources are all mostly just talking about Chinese efforts to discredit Japanese sovereignty and identity, which I personally (though I try to not let that affect my editing as editing should be objective and neutral) am against as I do believe that Chinese state actions towards Japan are malicious and that Japanese people have a right to self-determination as do all people. However, it is equally malicious to just support Japanese nationalism and war crime denials.

No, Rosemeyer you offered a compromise and didn't even let me comment on it before making it. That played a huge role in why I filed this ANI (which I must remind you, is the correct protocol for dealing with this as our conversations were going nowhere). And please stop accusing me of "not showing you respect' when you said: "Therefore, to avoid increasing the number of victims of Chinese propaganda like yourself, I do not want to cite Chinese media...It is truly pitiable to watch you remain completely unaware that you are a victim of Chinese propaganda." Given that I have not called u anything negative (for example I could be saying "Rosemeyer is a victim of Japanese nationalist ideology" but I have not)

Not to mention, other users like AndyTheGrump already said your edits show far-right/revisionist bias. There was no "predetermined conclusion" because you could shown me and other editors respect. Seeing as how you called admins on Wiki commons "vandals" its pretty clear why the proposal to TBAN you off Japanese history on English Wikipedia is getting traction. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 13:24, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

The diffs on the racial equality proposal and the edit warring over the image are particularly alarming even notwithstanding the claims that academic sources are somehow Chinese propaganda. Unfortunately it's all too common for people to claim, on Wikipedia, that even a tangential connection to China is enough to question reliability. I think we need to start treating these POV assertions seriously, especially when they become obviously disruptive such as in the case above. Simonm223 (talk) 12:33, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. In reality, the confusion is arising precisely because no academic sources have been presented at all. If the act of presenting more reliable sources continues to be labeled as "disruptive behavior" moving forward, the number of people who question the reliability of Chinese media will only increase. Please seriously consider the fact that the very act of refusing discussion and labeling the opponent's proposals as "POV" solely to push one's own narrative is, in itself, a POV assertion. Rosemeyer2022 (talk) 12:59, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

I have literally never edited the same articles as you and you're calling me an opponent? I am literally an uninvolved third party. A locus of the disruption here is WP:BATTLEGROUND. Rosemeyer2022 is a very new editor though so I think a time-limited topic ban narrowly tailored on 20th century Japanese history is probably a reasonable remedy. That way they can learn a bit about appropriate comportment in other areas with minimal interference with their options to edit. Simonm223 (talk) 13:06, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

I did not call you an opponent. I was simply explaining the situation I currently find myself in. However, even as a third party, if you show no respect for freedom of speech and propose further blocks under the guise that my demeanor is "inappropriate," then you are the one turning Wikipedia into a battleground. I ask that you respond to rational questions with rationality. Sincerely. Rosemeyer2022 (talk) 13:27, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Free speech. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:31, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Also, for the record, I proposed no blocks. About the only action that could arise out of this board milder than a narrowly-targeted and time-limited topic ban would be a formal warning. Simonm223 (talk) 13:50, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

My apologies. It's probably a problem with my English reading comprehension. I misread your suggestion as "reasonable remedy," so I mistakenly thought it was a remedy for me. I couldn't think of any reason why I needed a remedy. Rosemeyer2022 (talk) 14:04, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

It is a remedy that would be assigned to you. Actions taken at this board are non-punitive and are designed to prevent further disruption. The evidence provided by @Rsjaffe is quite clear that disruption has occurred. My remedy is designed to curtail that with minimal impact. Simonm223 (talk) 14:07, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

I haven't received any explanation of the evidence from @Rsjaffe, and it was someone else who claimed I was causing confusion. I have absolutely no intention of causing confusion, and if my edits are clearly wrong, I will correct them immediately. That's what the Talk function is for. In any case, I don't believe I will be blocked without being allowed to discuss anything at all. Rosemeyer2022 (talk) 14:40, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Which LLM-based software (translation tool, grammar checker, etc.) are you using to communicate here? --JBL (talk) 18:28, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

You asked what my true intentions were in posting my concerns. I believe my posting expressed those, but to be clear, I'll explain more here. My posting was an invitation to others to examine the evidence and provide me and other administrators with better background on the nature and quality of the edits. Administrators try to avoid deciding content disputes. However, this is a concern about pushing fringe or biased information, in which case the content dispute is important for making the decision. I avoided making conclusions as I did not have access to enough sources to confirm my concerns: thus I simply objectively recounted your edits. However, I did make one conclusion: that the picture of the "plague victim" was indeed a unit 731 victim, as I could readily find multiple reliable sources about that image. Indeed, you misread the source you quote as that source clearly labels the image as a unit 731 victim, and just includes the Japanese justification of the image, which you improperly assumed was the correct description: the quotes around "plague victim" indeed emphasize that the Japanese description wsa deceptive. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:30, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

@Rsjaffe, I wanted to follow up here with you. Thank you for verifying the image is true, that it unfortunately is a real human being and that the image is not doctored.

I am tagging @AndyTheGrump specifically for this next section because I wanted to tell you that you were correct in saying that Rosemeyer has a Japanese revisionist view of history and that Rsjaffe's concerns on their edits is spot on.

Following up on your comment on Rosemeyer's edits on "Ben Bruce Blakeney." I dug into this to see who Rosemeyer cited. The source they used has a far-right/revisionist bias, they cited here Kobori Keiichiro, who is an author/member for the "Society for the Dissemination of Historical Fact."

DW, a German news outlet, and other outlets, call this Society a far-right/Japanese revisionist org saying it "promotes a narrative of Japan's actions during World War II that denies the atrocities that Japan committed."

You can also see here in this interview transcript that Rosemeyer's source/author Kobori Keiichiro straight up says the British/Americans conspired to wage war against Japan. Rosemeyer's author says the Huanggutun incident (for those unfamiliar, this was an attempt by the Japanese Empire to destabilize China) was actually a "secret Soviet operation" and you can check out all the other revisionist publications this society works on in their English website.]] Sunnyediting99 (talk) 22:29, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

The fact that the interpreter stopped midway through Blakeney's statement at the Tokyo Trials is corroborated by the "Transcripts of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East," published 1946-1948 by the International Military Tribunal for the Far East and held by the National Diet Library of Japan. Although the record is in Japanese, I believe it can be read using AI. There are also videos of Blakeney's statements on YouTube, so please compare them to this for verification. Dr. Keiichiro Kobori is an emeritus professor at the University of Tokyo and, naturally, has published books based on thorough historical criticism and verification. If we do not consider this a reliable source, there will be almost no sources that can be cited on Wikipedia. I also agree with TBAN, so please continue the discussion in the Talk section of the relevant article. I do not want to cause trouble on the Admin Bulletin Board. Rosemeyer2022 (talk) 01:08, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

You are going into the territory of original research in Wikipedia which is frowned upon. Regardless of what happened with the interpreter, we cannot trust the source you are providing (Keiichiro Kobori) precisely because we have proof that their usage of facts are biased.

Also that completely ignores the point Im making, the basis of the source (Keiichiro Kobori) is far-right. We have proof of this, a German news outlet describes the society he works for as far-right. His own writings are entirely revisionist, "Dr" Keiichiro Kobori is claiming the British and Americans provoked Japan into WWII, they claim the Soviets did something the Japanese clearly did, I can go on and on about the sheer revisionism.

Also I believe you might be misinterpreting what a TBAN is, essentially the proposal would mean you are barred from editing or discussing on all and any Japanese history on this website and on all relevant articles (the duration of which is yet to be determined). This noticeboard on your specific case will close out. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 01:18, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Let me reiterate, can we stop arguing here? Let's discuss this on lawyer Blakeney's page.

I haven't conducted any independent research; I've simply presented alternative sources. I leave it up to you to interpret them as you see fit.

You are free to call Dr. Kobori a revisionist. However, it is also true that many experts acknowledge his research and support his claims. Ignoring that fact and lumping them all together as revisionists is a typical POV (point of view) statement.

Is TBAN a measure to block all editing related to Japanese history on the English Wikipedia? If that is implemented, it will cause a major stir among Wikipedia Japan editors, including Japanese administrators. I think it will no longer be a discussion between us here. Please make your decision carefully. Rosemeyer2022 (talk) 02:17, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

The proposed TBAN concerns you only. I see no reason whatsoever why administrators of the Japanese Wikipedia would wish to engage in an entirely inappropriate attempt to interfere. The projects are autonomous. Neither has any control over the other, per core WMF policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:24, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

I understand that, of course. However, please also understand that many Japanese Wiki editors are working hard to reconcile articles across different countries. Wikipedia is not a platform for asserting differences in national perceptions. Wikipedia is dedicated to expanding access to the sum of human knowledge. Wikipedia is not censored, but it does not provide a platform for all forms of human expression. I respect those words. Rosemeyer2022 (talk) 03:12, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

@Rsjaffe, thank you for your comment. I certainly respect your objective review of my editing, and I will try my best to understand the conclusions you have reached. You mentioned that you were able to easily find multiple reliable sources for the photograph in question, but if all of those sources ultimately trace back to articles published by the Jilin Provincial Archives and Xinhua News Agency, then they cannot be considered academically verified and clearly proven sources from a multifaceted perspective, including from Japan. Furthermore, I am not stating Japan's claims. I am simply faithfully translating the title and caption of the photograph as they appear on the cover of the album, which is the source. Anyone who can read Japanese cannot make a mistake in this description. Xinhua News Agency is claiming that Japan's explanation is deceptive, but I could not find any sources in which Japanese public organizations or researchers are explaining "this photograph." Therefore, I don't even know what the Chinese media is claiming is deceptive. I repeat, but could you please logically explain the justification for adopting claims made by Chinese media that have not been adequately verified or researched, and for using sources that merely reprint them, as reliable sources and drawing conclusions based on them? Rosemeyer2022 (talk) 00:27, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

This is quite a presumption: "could you please logically explain the justification for adopting claims made by Chinese media that have not been adequately verified or researched, and for using sources that merely reprint them, as reliable sources and drawing conclusions based on them?

Why are you presuming they're Chinese media/based on Chinese media, when rsjaffe hasn't told you which sources he was looking at? You said that you've looked at Japanese sources, but that doesn't mean that every other source in existence is Chinese by default. You also don't know if they are primary or secondary sources.

Similarly, Japanese sources aren't necessarily any more reliable than those of other countries - if the concern is that Japan might not be a reliable source for something, then it's probably not a good idea to focus solely on Japanese sources - sources from independent/uninvolved countries may be preferable in that case.

All we know is that rsjaffe found other reliable sources, you can't make presumptions about their reliability without knowing what they are first. Blue-Sonnet 00:56, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Then, I would like to ask @rsjaffe to provide the source of the information, but this is not something that should be continued on this forum, so I would like to discuss it in the relevant Wikimedia Commons photo article. However, I am currently IP and editing blocked on Commons, and I do not even have the right to ask questions. My request to be unblocked was also denied, so there is nothing I can do. Please guide me to where I should continue the discussion. Rosemeyer2022 (talk) 01:17, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

You are blocked from Commons because you tried to change the photo of the Unit 731 victim to be about epidemic prevention.Your conversation about that photo on Commons has run its course, and your excessive pushing on that issue resulted in the block there. There is really no more that needs to be discussed about it. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 02:19, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. When I edited the caption for this photo, the Talk was not closed, and the post requesting the source of the photo was still there, so I provided the newly discovered source and asked for the file name to be changed. I don't see the basis for the claim that the discussion is settled. In any case, I am blocked, so there is nothing I can do, and I will refrain from replying any further. Thank you for your advice. Rosemeyer2022 (talk) 02:43, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. As stated in that link, Wikipedia is dedicated to expanding access to the sum of human knowledge, and this is achieved through discussions from multiple perspectives. Therefore, the term POV should not be used lightly. We should all be careful not to reject opinions different from our own and to silence others. Rosemeyer2022 (talk) 13:56, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are not a platform for expressing our own opinions. As for 'multiple perspectives', it seems evident from the links provided by rsjaffe near the top of this thread that your actual editing practice has been to attempt to impose one (that of Japanese revisionist historiography), while removing sourced content which might support other perspectives on questionable grounds. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:09, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia's rules, which require citing sources to support the basis of such citations, center the editing process on compiling and publishing reliable verifications and research from others, rather than expressing one's own opinions. I have always strived to edit with reliable sources, rather than expressing my own principles or opinions, and sources serve as proof of this. However, if even this rule-following behavior is considered imposing one's will, then no one will be able to edit Wikipedia. If the sources I cited are incorrect, I would appreciate it if you could provide more reliable sources. Even if anyone speculate on my editing "tendencies," all I can say is that I corrected the error because it was stated that way in reliable sources. Rosemeyer2022 (talk) 14:30, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Your edits to the articles on Japanese carpentry and on Manila Cathedral suggest otherwise, since they involved removal of what appears to be legitimately-sourced content. This isn't about correcting a single 'error'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:36, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Why is correcting incorrect information about Japanese carpentry techniques a problem? Regarding carpentry techniques, what you consider legitimately-sourced content is a personal blog, and its history was off by several centuries, so I simply corrected it based on a source from the Japan Tourism Agency. I didn't remove descriptions about Chinese influence, so I don't see the problem. I also corrected the description of Manila Cathedral, using Aluit, Alphonso J. (1994). By sword and fire: The Destruction of Manila in World War II. as the source, but even though I'm quoting the same book, the description of US naval bombardment in that book has been removed, and descriptions of Japanese war crimes have been added. Doesn't this constitute editing based on POV? I don't understand the criteria at all. Rosemeyer2022 (talk) 14:58, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

In this edit (linked above) you removed content concerning Chinese influence on Japanese carpentry, which cited two sources. The first source isn't a blog, and it quotes a Japanese carpenter who explicitly supports the Chinese influence claim: At the end of the 12th century, fine woodworking skills and knowledge were brought into Japan from China. Even if the second source is a blog (it is offline), the first one supports the material you removed. As for the source you cited in the same edit, it isn't from the Japan Tourist Agency , and says absolutely nothing about Chinese influence. As such, it cannot possibly be used to justify the removal of the content.

As for Manila Cathedral, I think it has been well established that initially the Japanese set the building on fire. Certainly, it was further damaged during the subsequent US shelling, but your initial edit failed to mention Japanese actions at all. . Your later edit seems to have been a half-hearted attempt to correct this, but it is anything but clear. It shouldn't take a revert, and a request for a source, to get even this response.

In summary, I'd have to suggest that "editing based on POV" looks like a fair description of your own actions. In both cases, in support of a POV very much adjacent to a Japanese revisionist/nationalist perspective, even though on very different topics. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:17, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Do we think a TBAN from Japan and/or Japanese history would be a good solution? I was about to propose this and wanted your thoughts. Blue-Sonnet 16:47, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't think we should have a TBAN as broad as "Japan". My original sense was 20th century Japanese history but, considering the carpentry edits perhaps "Japanese History" would be an appropriate ban without being too broad or too narrow. Simonm223 (talk) 18:31, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Japanese history does seem fair in this case, agreed. Blue-Sonnet 20:07, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Just to chime in here, Rosemeyer's claims here are not true at all. There were very legitimate sources (beyond what AndyTheGrump pointed out). Rosemeyer said "what you consider legitimately-sourced content is a personal blog" but thats outright false.

Here, they deleted this source published by Web.Japan.Org, which is operated by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan.

The Japanese MoFA says in the opening sentence on Japanese architecture: Historically, architecture in Japan was influenced by Chinese architecture, although the differences between the two are many. This is a very balanced and correct answer, and is well-sourced (I know its a government source, but I highly doubt the Japanese MOFA has an incentive to push a pro-Chinese bias). Sunnyediting99 (talk) 22:18, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump, as basic general knowledge, do you know when the World Heritage site Horyu-ji Temple was founded? Or, when was Ise Shrine, a representative example of Japanese shrine architecture, founded, and do you understand its architectural style and how it differs from Chinese architecture? The first source you mentioned is an interview with a young Japanese carpenter, but 12th-century Japan was the late Heian period. It seems this carpenter is referring to the popularity of Song dynasty architecture in Japan, but even before that, Japan had already developed a unique architectural style called "Wayō," which evolved from Chinese architecture. Furthermore, Japanese architecture continued its unique evolution after the 12th century, and its structure and specifications differ significantly from Chinese architecture. Japan adopted the superior techniques and styles of Chinese architecture around the 7th century, but due to differences in climate and other environmental factors such as earthquakes, it evolved uniquely, such as Japanese-castle and Chashitsu , leading to its modern form. On the other hand, ancient Japanese architecture, predating Chinese influence, has also been passed down to the present day through shrine architecture and other forms. It's unlikely this young carpenter lacks such basic knowledge, so it's probably a misunderstanding on the part of the interviewer.

Regarding the Manila Cathedral article, I intended to maintain fairness by including both Japanese arson and US artillery fire based on reliable sources, but I don't understand why only the US portion was deleted. Arson alone wouldn't cause such a massive stone structure to collapse. However, how is it justified to unilaterally delete only the US portion without any discussion? Furthermore, what is the necessity of adding descriptions of Japanese war crimes to the Manila Cathedral article?

In both articles, I have tried to respect the content while editing based on more reliable sources to avoid making one-sided claims. Of course, I correct clearly incorrect sources, like in the young carpenter article, and I am open to discussion if an explanation is needed as to why they are incorrect. Again, please do not misuse the term "POV." If you believe someone else's editing is POV, ask for an explanation and engage in discussion. That's the rule of Wikipedia. Rosemeyer2022 (talk) 23:54, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

It is a simple demonstrable fact that this edit of yours removed all mention of Chinese influence from the article on Japanese carpentry. It is a simple demonstrable fact that this edit of yours removed all mention of Japanese arson from the article on Manila Cathedral. Your continue denial of obvious facts can only lead me to conclude that a topic ban is appropriate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:17, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Shall we discuss this topic in the article in question?

I admit that I once removed the description of Chinese influence during the editing process, but I have since edited the article to include Chinese influence based on reliable sources, haven't I? The same applies to the description of Manila Cathedral. I always strive to edit based on sources. If there are errors in the current article, please point them out, provide the sources, and then edit it. Also, don't you have any opinions on the details of Japanese architectural history that I explained to you at length and in detail? I can't respond if you only criticize my past editing history. Please give your opinion on the current content of the article in the Talk section of that article. Rosemeyer2022 (talk) 02:28, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Hey yall, i may be late to this but i saw that my edit to Manila Cathedral was mentioned.

I tried to include, in a concise way, information about both the US shelling and the Japanese attack on it (arson), but still rosemeyer claims i entirely removed the mention of US shelling (entirely false, just read the paragraph i modified, it was previously using pretty bad grammar and ommiting important information).

I dont want to get too involved in this but just thought id justify my edit, if someone wants to review it to make sure its correct feel free to do so btw.

MySalsa22 (talk) 22:42, 25 May 2026 (UTC)